Rushed Lessons, Rushed Learning? Reflections on Class Length in Irish Secondary Schools

September 25, 2025

Returning to Ireland after years of teaching and leading abroad, one structural detail of Irish secondary schooling has shocked me more than any other: the brevity of lessons. Most schools still operate on 40-minute class periods, which — once you subtract roll call, materials out, and the lack of formal movement time — often leaves barely 35 minutes of genuine learning.

​From International Leadership to Irish Classrooms
In Canada, where I began my teaching career, the average period was closer to 70–75 minutes. Later, as a school leader in international contexts shaped by the International Baccalaureate (IB), I came to appreciate how timetable structures are not neutral. They encode values. A school that allocates 75 minutes to teachers is signalling a commitment to depth, reflection, collaboration, and sustained inquiry.
I recall lengthy leadership meetings in IB schools where we debated scheduling as a pedagogical approach. Should we double-block humanities to allow extended discussion? Should science run in longer stretches for practical work? The central question was always: what length of lesson makes meaningful learning possible? Rarely was the assumption that short, fragmented bursts could deliver deep engagement.
Placed against that background, the Irish timetable feels jarringly old-fashioned.

Policy Aims vs. Classroom Reality
And yet, what Irish policy documents promise sounds thoroughly modern. The Junior Cycle Framework (2015) emphasises active learning, student voice, and the development of eight Key Skills. The Leaving Certificate is defended in terms of critical literacy, democratic citizenship, and preparation for lifelong learning. On paper, the vision is progressive.
But policy rhetoric collides with classroom reality. What can be meaningfully achieved in 35 minutes? Teachers know the pressure: a brisk starter, a hurried core activity, a homework scribbled in haste. Students feel the rush too, especially those with additional learning needs or who are still developing their English skills. Depth gives way to coverage; curiosity to compliance. The result could be potentially a pedagogy of box-ticking rather than learning.

Research Evidence from Europe
Research in Europe confirms these concerns. A study of an Extended School Time project in lower secondary education found that when students had an eight-hour contact day, their curiosity, creativity, and sense of belonging improved — results that are impossible to replicate in 35-minute slices (eu-jer.com). The OECD also reminds us that how instructional time is structured — not just how much of it there is — directly affects student alertness, fatigue, and learning capacity (oecd.org).
Meanwhile, recent research shows that longer classes help narrow learning gaps between students of different abilities by giving teachers the time to provide personalised, step-by-step instruction (researchgate.net). In short, more extended periods not only benefit average learners but also actively support those who need it the most.

The Strain on Teachers
Teachers are squeezed too. With limited planning time, it becomes almost impossible to design differentiated or student-specific lessons. Studies across Europe and the US show that many secondary teachers receive less than 50 minutes of planning per day, and often just a token slot for collaborative work. In such conditions, it is little wonder that Irish classrooms fall back on textbooks and uniform pacing: when the system leaves no room to prepare anything else, both teachers and students are undersold.

The Burden on School Leaders and AdministratorsIt is essential to say that much of this is not the fault of teachers or school leaders. In fact, support administrators and senior management are often the ones left to translate broad government visions into daily reality. A policy framework written in the luxury of Dublin’s fair city can look elegant on paper: a neat set of outcomes, key skills, and aspirational rhetoric.
But the local contexts of Irish schools differ dramatically. Rural schools face challenges of transport, staffing, and mixed-ability classes. Urban schools balance large enrolments, complex student needs, and space limitations. Administrators must adapt the Department’s template to make it workable, often with limited resources and under intense pressure for accountability.
The result is that policy intentions and classroom practice diverge sharply. Where Dublin policymakers envision student-centred inquiry, school leaders may struggle to ensure timetable coverage, subject allocation, and sufficient teachers for supervision. Structural constraints — like the 40-minute class period and the three-month summer break — persist not because leaders believe in them, but because these are the tools they are given.
Who Benefits from Short Lessons?
The uncomfortable truth is that short periods are administratively convenient. They make timetables symmetrical. They allow every subject to maintain its scheduled time slot. They preserve a neat rhythm to the day and echo tradition.
But do they serve learners? Or teachers? They serve the system. What students learn instead is to switch rapidly, to accept fragmentation, and to tolerate a surface-level engagement. For the most vulnerable learners, this structure is especially unforgiving.

Beyond the Classroom: Summer and the Leaving Cert
The contradictions run deeper. Irish schools also retain a three-month summer break, one of the longest in Europe. The OECD and EU have repeatedly noted that extended holidays can lead to learning loss, particularly for disadvantaged students. Yet the system persists, partly because the tertiary sector drives the rhythm of secondary schooling. The Leaving Certificate exam dominates the year. Everything else — from lesson length to holiday structure — is bent around preparing for this single, high-stakes gateway to university.
In this sense, short lessons and long holidays are symptoms of the same underlying condition: a system designed not around the learner, but around the administrative convenience of progression to higher education.

The Need for Courageous Change
Some schools have already started experimenting with hour-long lessons, often prompted by Junior Cycle reforms or post-COVID rethinks. This is not just a cosmetic change. It represents a significant shift in aligning structures with values. Longer lessons create the space for inquiry, feedback, differentiation, and reflection — the very qualities the system claims to prize. This progress should give us hope for a more effective and engaging educational system.
Having led schools internationally, I know that these changes are not only possible but also necessary. They require courage, collective vision, and a willingness to move beyond tradition for its own sake. Without them, Irish education risks taking a progressive game while structurally ensuring rushed superficiality. The need for systemic change is urgent and cannot be ignored.

Until the contradiction is resolved, too many of us remain caught in a daily pattern that is not one of teaching and learning, but rather one of teaching and rushing. This is not just a problem for the system, but it directly affects each one of us, our students, and the quality of education we provide.

Looking Ahead
This reflection on class length and structural inertia is part of a larger unease. Another paradox has struck me since my return: Irish reform documents happily borrow the language of the International Baccalaureate — inquiry, reflection, and global citizenship — yet the system itself makes it a battle for internationally experienced teachers to have their years abroad properly recognised. That uneasy dance between borrowed gloss and withheld recognition deserves its own exploration. I will return to that theme in a future post.

日本語要約アイルランドの中等教育に戻ってきた筆者は、授業時間の短さに衝撃を受けた。多くの学校では依然として 40分授業が一般的で、実際には出席確認や準備時間を差し引くと 35分程度しか学習に充てられない。これは学習の深まりを妨げ、教師には教材を使い回す以外の余裕がなく、特に学習支援が必要な生徒や英語を追加言語として学ぶ生徒にとって不利である。
一方で、**ジュニア・サイクル（2015）**やリービング・サートの政策文書は、探究的学習や批判的思考、創造性を強調している。しかし、現実の授業構造はその理想と矛盾している。研究によれば、より長い授業時間は生徒の学習成果を高め、能力差の縮小にも寄与する。教師にとっても、短時間授業と限られた準備時間は負担となり、個別化された指導を難しくしている。
さらに、アイルランドの学校は 3か月の夏休みを維持しており、これは欧州でも最長級である。これは学習の遅れを助長する可能性が高く、背後には大学進学制度、とりわけリービング・サート試験が教育全体のリズムを支配しているという現実がある。
結論として、アイルランドの教育は「学びを深める」と標榜しながら、実際には「急ぎの授業」によって生徒・教師・保護者を過小評価している。より長い授業時間や柔軟な時間割構造への転換が求められている。
次回は、アイルランドの教育改革が 国際バカロレア（IB） の言語や理念を取り入れながら、国外で培った教育経験を十分に認めないという矛盾について論じる予定である。