A simple 30-minute change to the school timetable has exploded into a national debate, with the government insisting it is “modern reform,” while teachers’ unions threaten strikes, parents question the science, and education experts warn of stress, sleep loss and chaos in extracurricular life.
The Ministry of Education’s latest reform plan has triggered widespread backlash after announcing that from 2026, school hours for Grade 5 students will be extended by half an hour, ending at 2.00 pm instead of 1.30 pm. The ministry says the change is part of the new curriculum model in which each school day will consist of seven 50-minute periods instead of eight 40-minute periods. The shift begins with Grade 5 in 2026 and will be expanded to higher grades in the years that follow.
The proposal, however, has quickly become one of the most contested education decisions in recent years. Teachers’ unions accuse the ministry of imposing an untested system without research, consultation or trial implementation. The General Secretary of the Ceylon Teachers’ Union, Joseph Stalin, demanded that the government reveal the scientific basis for the decision, warning that a one-day strike will take place after the December vacation if the reform is not withdrawn. Other teachers’ unions, including the All-Ceylon United Teachers’ Union, have also vowed collective or individual action if the plan goes ahead.
Several teachers say the reform is being forced onto the system like a “top-down experiment” without listening to those who work in classrooms. Others argue that if their mandatory working hours are being increased, they should receive special allowance or overtime pay, noting that most teachers already remain beyond dismissal time for unpaid duties such as paperwork, exam preparation, club supervision and athletics training. One teacher from Matale said she is not against an extended timetable, but “if it becomes law, it should also become paid.”
Education experts have also questioned the logic of extending the school day instead of restructuring teaching strategy. Former Education Service Commission Chairperson Padmini Ranaweera said research worldwide shows that children can sustain focused learning for only 6 hours a day. Sri Lanka already matched that standard with 8 periods of 40 minutes, she said, calling the new 50-minute model “unscientific, stressful and incompatible with young learners’ attention span.” She also warned that copying another country’s education structure without conducting local studies is “irresponsible policymaking.”
The Deputy Minister of Education, Madura Seneviratne, defended the change by saying the new curriculum cannot be delivered inside the old timetable and that 40-minute periods are no longer sufficient for the new “activity-based learning model.” He added that teachers’ feedback will be collected through training workshops, although critics argue that “informing” teachers is not the same as “consulting” them.
Opposition is also rising from parents. Many say the problem is not the length of school, but the time at which it begins. Parents argue that a 7.30 am start forces thousands of children to wake up before dawn, travel long distances in traffic and arrive tired. One teacher said the reform would have been more acceptable if school simply started at 8.00 am instead. Global research supports her view: the American Psychological Association and multiple pediatric associations warn that early-morning school schedules reduce sleep, weaken immunity, and harm memory and psychological health. In several U.S. states, the recommended start time is 8.30 am.
There are also concerns from the sports and extracurricular sector. A cricket coach from Panadura said that losing even 30 minutes of afternoon time will worsen the already shrinking training schedules for athletics, music, scouts, cadets and clubs. “There are 40 boys wanting to train, and only two hours of daylight. Now we will lose another half hour. This affects not just sports but personality development,” he said.
Meanwhile, the deeper question at the heart of the debate is whether “more hours” equal “better learning.” Studies cited by Sri Lankan educationists show that student outcomes rise not from length of time spent in classrooms, but from teaching quality, classroom environment and teacher workload balance. Many teachers point out that Sri Lanka still lacks adequate desks, toilets, internet access, classroom ventilation and teacher-student ratios, making longer hours feel like a cosmetic change that does not solve real problems.
As the clock ticks toward 2026, the proposed half-hour extension has now become a symbolic battleground — between a ministry that wants to show reform, and frontline educators who demand evidence instead of orders. With unions preparing strike action, parents questioning sleep loss, and experts calling the plan “non-scientific,” the government may soon face a bigger lesson than the one it planned to teach.
