When Scheduling Meets Reality: A Closer Look at the DMPTC Claims in Somerset County

The Delmarva Parent Teacher Coalition (DMPTC) recently published an article  supporting Somerset County Board of Education Chairman Matt Lankford’s proposal to shift the school day toward shorter class periods, roughly 45 minutes, combined with regular outdoor breaks. The proposal is being viewed as a research-based solution to declining academic outcomes and framed in direct contrast to Superintendent Bromwell’s position on maintaining longer instructional blocks.

There is no question that the article draws on real research. Studies on attention, movement, and cognitive fatigue have shown that students benefit from periodic breaks and physical activity. That is not in debate any longer.  The jury is back on that one.  Where the discussion becomes less clear is in how those findings are used to draw conclusions about how an entire school day should be structured.

Research in support of breaks and movement tends to focus on attention and behavior, especially in younger students. For example, a 2023 systematic review on classroom-based physical activity breaks found consistent improvements in attention, on-task behavior, and some aspects of executive function.  Educators call it purposeful movement and administrators have long been looking for it in their classroom observations.

Guidance from the CDC  also supports the inclusion of recess and physical activity, noting improvements in concentration and classroom behavior.

These are important findings, but they are, unfortunately, often used to propose and create policy beyond what the research supports. Improvements in attention do not automatically translate into higher academic performance, particularly when the structure of the instructional time that follows is not considered. A 2024 review examining recess and academic outcomes found that while behavioral improvements were consistent, direct impacts on test scores were mixed and often indirect:

The distinction between attention and achievement is important, especially when policy recommendations begin to reshape how much instructional time is available.

The claims regarding class length deserve a closer look. The DMPTC article suggests that longer class periods lead to declining outcomes. This conclusion does not align with the larger body of recent research available. Research on class length and scheduling does not support the type of certainty being presented. More recent research and multi-study analyses have reached similar conclusions, showing that academic outcomes are mixed and depend heavily on instructional quality, subject area, and implementation. In some cases, longer class periods are associated with improved outcomes, while in others they are neutral or less effective, but there is no clear research base supporting the idea that shorter class periods consistently produce better results. It is not wrong to say breaks and/or recess help student attention, but to simply state longer classes equals less academic achievement and shorter classes will improve achievement is overstating what research says about scheduling itself. The research, overall, has shown inconsistent academic gains, with results depending heavily on instructional design rather than the length of the class period:

Here are several reviews of research and literature regarding block scheduling.

• What is the effect of block scheduling on academic achievement? A systematic review (EPPI Center)
• The Effects of Block Scheduling and Traditional Scheduling on High School Student Achievement ; (Lesley Mizhquiri Dartmouth College, 2019)
• Effects of Block vs. Traditional Scheduling on High School Science Success—Lessons from Biology Classes; (Labak &Peric)
• Research Brief Highs School Schedules (Education Partnerships, Inc.)
• Around the Block: Evaluating School Schedules (University of Connecticut; 2023)

At the federal level, research supported through the U.S. Department of Education has continued to emphasize the importance of instructional time. Yes, Trump’s DOE. Even with recent efforts to shift more authority back to states, the underlying findings have remained consistent. More time engaged in meaningful instruction is associated with stronger outcomes when that time is used effectively.  There are multiple analyses reinforcing that relationship.

• What does the research say (U.S. DOE–funded synthesis of research)
• The Effects of Instruction Time on Student Outcomes ((funded through federal research networks)
• Time in School: A Conceptual Framework (Annenberg Institute / federally aligned research ecosystem)

This research has not changed with Trump. If anything, the policy direction under President Trump has moved toward reducing federal control while leaving states responsible for how they use that time, not reducing its importance.

When the conversation shifts from research to implementation, the gaps in the proposal become more apparent. As someone who worked as a scheduler in a secondary school, I can say that the structure of a school day is not something that can be adjusted without significant consequences. I always likened it to a game of whack-a-mole. You add something here, then something goes over there.  You take something there then something pops up here.

The number of instructional minutes is fixed. State requirements define minimum instructional time. Many organizational considerations, such as transportation schedules, restrict when schools can start and end. Course sequences must align across grade levels and graduation requirements. Some schools like the interdisciplinary team concept and some like grade level teams. Some like traveling section in the middle school and some avoid them like the plague.  The number of inclusion students and sections also has major impact on the school schedule.

Introducing 10 to 15 minute outdoor breaks between classes across a full day would significantly reduce usable instructional time due to transitions alone. Supervision becomes an immediate issue, particularly on larger campuses. Movement across buildings increases delays and inconsistencies. At the secondary level, repeated unstructured breaks create predictable challenges with students returning on time and remaining engaged for the rest of the schedule.  How many students will return from these breaks at high schools?  This type of structure would be monumentally disruptive and practically impossible to implement.

There has also been discussion tied to this proposal about building in time at the start of the day for students to reset before instruction begins. The article states: ‘Schools can start with 15–20+ minute daily recess (elementary) or equivalent movement opportunities, plus short active classroom breaks.”

The idea may sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it raises obvious questions about structure, supervision, and expectations. A system that begins the day with an unstructured period relies heavily on student compliance in environments where arrival times are already staggered and supervision is limited.

A simpler way to put it is this: Beginning the school day with a break assumes a level of structure during unstructured time that most schools do not currently have. How many students will just start coming in later because there is no value in the first 15-20 minutes.  I say with certainty that if a school day begins with a 15–20-minute daily recess (even in elementary) it will be absolute pandemonium.  This has to be one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.

There is also the question that is rarely addressed directly. If more breaks are added, what is being removed? Instructional time does not expand. Any addition comes at the expense of something else, whether that is core instruction, intervention time, electives, or support services. The DMPTC article presents a model for adding elements to the school day without identifying what would be reduced to make it possible. If there are 7 periods to the day (tradition 7 period day model) one would at least need to assume that there would be 5 spots for such breaks. At 10 minutes each, that’s a whole class period. At 15 minutes, that’s almost 2 class periods. It is just not practical.

The debate taking place in Somerset County reflects more than a scheduling preference. It reflects a pattern where research is used to support a specific outcome without fully addressing the limitations of that research or the realities of implementation. The studies being cited have value, but they do not provide a clear mandate for restructuring the school day in the way being proposed.

Movement, breaks, and thoughtful pacing of instruction all have their place. Those ideas can be incorporated within the existing day without creating the kind of disruption that comes from redesigning the entire schedule around them. Schools operate within a set of constraints that are not easily changed, and any recommendation that does not account for those constraints is unlikely to function as intended once it is put into practice. Somerset County should know as well as anyone that the state has the final say.

Again, the idea of purposeful movement, breaks and other unstructured activities can create some positive outcomes as shown in the research.  But the DMPTC is suggesting that longer classes equal less academic achievement and shorter classes equal more academic achievement. This is simply wrong and not supported by research.  It is disingenuous to use research in absolute terms and tell this to parents and community members.

The first paragraph of the article states “Somerset County Board of Education Chairman Matt Lankford brought to light yet another major educational topic that explains why schools across the State of Maryland fail: student time spent in classrooms.”

While time spent in classroom has an impact on some outcomes in education, it does not explain why schools across the State of Maryland fail.  When it comes to research in many areas within k-12  education, the jury is back.  There is no question that breaks and purposeful movement are a plus. No one can doubt that. There is no consensus, however, on the effect of the length of classes. The jury is still out on that one.  Unfortunately,  studies and reviews can be easily be cherry picked to support most policies.

The conversation in Somerset County would be more productive if it focused less on absolutes and more on how to integrate these ideas within systems that already exist.