Time for Recess

Recess rules. Kickball, soccer, monkeybars: whatever, any break from the classroom is a welcome break for many kids. It was for me, and it is for my two oldest boys, one of whom can't wait for the daily soccer game.

Recess, or at least the time when recess takes place in the school day, could lead to healthier and happier students, some experts believe. A recent article on The New York Times' Well blog suggests that holding recess before lunch rather than after lunch leads to calmer and better-nourished children at school. Administrators suggest that students eat more and there is less food waste when recess is held first because children are not rushing to go outside.

“Kids are calmer after they’ve had recess first,” said Janet Sinkewicz, principal of Sharon Elementary School in Robbinsville, N.J., which made the change last fall. “They feel like they have more time to eat and they don’t have to rush.”

Intuitively, this makes sense. My oldest son often leaves much of his food uneaten because he does not want to miss out on the fun outside, so he rushes through lunch. (Of course, he also likes to "socialize" at lunch, and he has a tendency to dawdle.)

Logistically, though, I wonder how many schools can handle such a change, and the blog post mentions several problems, such as handling the switch in colder climates. At my sons' elementary school, half of the classes already have recess before lunch, and I will be interested to see how my oldest reacts to the change.

Colbert's Word on Education

Stephen Colbert and a fifth-grader give their take on Obama's education reforms. It's pretty hilarious.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Learning Is Fundamental
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

More Education

Michael Smerconish wrote an interesting piece in The Philadelphia Inquirer about President Obama's desire for longer school days and years. Other than the image of the Rev. Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich working together - following those two guys would make for the ultimate reality show - Smerconish echoed the thoughts of many of you to Old Wahoo's earlier post on the possibility of a longer school year.

Though he sees merit in some of the idea behind a longer school day, Smerconish points out that his 13-year-old son already has plenty on his plate at school - on the bus by 7, beginning school at 8, cross-country meet in the afternoon and home at 4:45 p.m. That's almost a 10-hour day.

While Smerconish admits that not all children in America are afforded the same opportunities as his son, he suggests that there are different problems that face American education - ones that won't be solved merely by lengthening the school day and year. Efficiency and after-school pursuits (i.e. too much TV and video games) are bigger issues.

"We probably don't use our time in school as efficiently as some countries, so we're not as focused strictly on academic matters. We do a lot of other things in schools that other countries don't do," (the Brooking Institute's Tom) Loveless told me. Foreign overachievers, meanwhile, also dedicate more time outside the classroom to what Loveless called "academic pursuits."

Do We Need a Longer School Year?

Apparently, President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan think so. Obama and Duncan believe a longer school year as well as a longer school day would benefit children in the United States and make the education system more competitive with other countries.

"Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here," Duncan told the AP. "I want to just level the playing field."

My first reaction was to dismiss this out of hand. I don't want to curtail my kids' summer vacation, and I have a feeling this is going to be the overwhelming view.

That said, there are some intriguing aspects of the program, and the benefits to less advantaged children would be significant. In addition, experts believe even a 10-minute per day increase in math class would provide big gains.

Still, the costs would be huge, and with the ongoing health-care debate, I can only imagine the education debate would also prove heated with more emotion-based arguments (such as my initial reaction) than actual reflection and thought.

What do you think? Can a longer school year and day help? What will be the effects for families, from the low-income to the well-to-do?

I'm interested to know what you think.

We don't need no education

Old Wahoo read this opinion piece in The New York Times today, and while I agree that the emphasis on testing needs to be changed, I think the education system needs to be overhauled more than the author suggests. There's too much emphasis on tests, which only will teach our children how to take tests, and while there actually is a little good in that (i.e. completing the mundane tasks they'll find in the real world, from doing taxes to filling out paperwork at work), we aren't really teaching our children this way. 

The No. 1 goal of education should be engaging children by igniting their imagination, curiosities and passions. If they are interested at school, then children will be more likely to want to learn. I'm afraid that if they are trained to take tests, not only will they lack for knowledge in geography, geology, etc., they also will lose any interest in school. We need to spend more money for more teachers and resources. With more teachers, class room sizes will be smaller, enabling teachers to engage each student more effectively. 

Of course, this is no magic bullet, and any improvements by going this route will be hard to evaluate. Unfortunately, that means more standardized tests, and I'm afraid an enlarging of the United States' education gap.