Structured School Breaks or Free Time

This is a very interesting issue which comes up for debate in educational circles from time to time, but rarely with any real clarity or resolution.

The choice as described in this well-articulated article from the New York Times is between free, unstructure break times when students are essentially left to ‘do their own thing’ vs organised, structured breaktime activities where all children are expected to participate, but in a ‘fun’ way.

New York Times Article

My own personal feeling is that it is not as simple as just an ‘either-or’. I believe that there are children who struggle to achieve the levels of harmony, co-operation, creativity etc. easily on their own to fill the time. As a result, it can become a dangerous time for such children, involving themselves in risk-taking behaviours and other inappropriate or at least unproductive ways of passing the time. On the other hand, i agree that for a lot of children the break from structure is a welcome relaxation that can enable them to be more ready for learning afterwards.

i believe that choice should be there. There should be enough ‘patrolling’ so that there are adults moving about, available to the children should they require their intervention, to ensure that behaviour stays within acceptable bounds and children and property are safe. There can be some optional lightly organised activities provided for those children who want them. i believe you would find some children who opt for them regularly, some who never do and some who drift in and out according to mood and state of peer relations on that day.

The element of choice and opting in would be crucial. I have even seen a very nice pilot where a group of volunteer older students provided these activities for younger ones. This left some teachers to have their own breaks while a small number of others were around to interact informally with children who had chosen not to join in and to see that nothing untoward is happening.

i would be interested to hear others’ views on this.

3 Responses

  1. In UK I worked very closely with a school in a so called “rough area”. Break time generally meant a lot of trouble for kids who were perceived to be “different”. Till the time the school employed a play assistant. Initially I was a little skeptical about structuring children’s only break. However, my first meeting with this play assistant dispelled any reservations I harbored. I noticed the way she went around engaging children in play – teaching girls more than 10 ways to play with the skipping rope, starting energetic ball games with the boys and much more. And the best was we did not see any kids hiding in the corners of the playground avoiding bullies any more. She had them all so busy having fun that there was no time for bullying! One day I remember I entered school near play time and I saw the teachers out with the students playing hop scotch!! The energy in the play ground was definitely infectious.

  2. Our world is not standardized, life’s playing field is never level. Break -time is meant to break the monotony of structured learning and time not organize it. Yes, the monitor shall ensure there is no bullying, there is all-round participation, that kids are not violent, there is less danger to self and others etc. But does that prepare our kids for the real world outside?

    One’s decsions, acts and reactions, both small and momentous are subjective. We can only influence but never dictate. All parents wish that their children do not commit the same mistakes that they as children did, and learnt to avoid, but in actuality does that happen?

    Choices and options sound good as then the kid exercises his free-will and is not pushed into acceptance.

  3. Someone has passed on to me an article on this subject that i felt was so good, i would reproduce it here complete:

    Playtime Is Over
    Medford, Mass.
    RECESS is no longer child’s play. Schools around the country, concerned about bullying and arguments over the use of the equipment, are increasingly hiring “recess coaches” to oversee students’ free time. Playworks, a nonprofit training company that has placed coaches at 170 schools from Boston to Los Angeles, is now expanding thanks to an $18 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
    Critics have suggested that such coaching is yet another example of the over-scheduling and over-programming of our children. And, as someone whose scholarly work has consistently reinforced the idea that young people need unstructured imagination time, I’d probably have been opposed to recess coaches in the past. But childhood has changed so radically in recent years that I think the trend makes sense, at least at some schools and with some students.
    Children today are growing up in a world vastly different from the one their parents knew. As the writer Richard Louv has persuasively chronicled, our young people are more aware of threats to the global environment than they are of the natural world in their own backyards.
    A Nielsen study last year found that children aged 6 to 11 spent more than 28 hours a week using computers, cellphones, televisions and other electronic devices. A University of Michigan study found that from 1979 to 1999, children on the whole lost 12 hours of free time a week, including eight hours of unstructured play and outdoor activities. One can only assume that the figure has increased over the last decade, as many schools have eliminated recess in favor of more time for academics.
    One consequence of these changes is the disappearance of what child-development experts call “the culture of childhood.” This culture, which is to be found all over the world, was best documented in its English-language form by the British folklorists Peter and Iona Opie in the 1950s. They cataloged the songs, riddles, jibes and incantations (“step on a crack, break your mother’s back”) that were passed on by oral tradition. Games like marbles, hopscotch and hide and seek date back hundreds of years. The children of each generation adapted these games to their own circumstances.
    Yet this culture has disappeared almost overnight, and not just in America. For example, in the 1970s a Japanese photographer, Keiki Haginoya, undertook what was to be a lifelong project to compile a photo documentary of children’s play on the streets of Tokyo. He gave up the project in 1996, noting that the spontaneous play and laughter that once filled the city’s streets, alleys and vacant lots had utterly vanished.
    For children in past eras, participating in the culture of childhood was a socializing process. They learned to settle their own quarrels, to make and break their own rules, and to respect the rights of others. They learned that friends could be mean as well as kind, and that life was not always fair.
    Now that most children no longer participate in this free-form experience — play dates arranged by parents are no substitute — their peer socialization has suffered. One tangible result of this lack of socialization is the increase in bullying, teasing and discrimination that we see in all too many of our schools.
    Bullying has always been with us, but it did not become prevalent enough to catch the attention of researchers until the 1970s, just as TV and then computers were moving childhood indoors. It is now recognized as a serious problem in all the advanced countries. The National Education Association estimates that in the United States, 160,000 children miss school every day because they fear attacks or intimidation by other students. Massachusetts is considering anti-bullying legislation.
    While correlation is not necessarily causation, it seems clear that there is a link among the rise of television and computer games, the decline in peer-to-peer socialization and the increase of bullying in our schools. I am not a Luddite — I think that the way in which computers have made our students much more aware of the everyday lives of children in other countries is wonderful, and that they will revolutionize education as the new, tech-savvy generation of teachers moves into the schools. But we should also recognize what is being lost.
    We have to adapt to childhood as it is today, not as we knew it or would like it to be. The question isn’t whether recess coaches are good or bad — they seem to be with us to stay — but whether they help students form the age-old bonds of childhood. To the extent that the coaches focus on play, give children freedom of choice about what they want to do, and stay out of the way as much as possible, they are likely a good influence.
    In any case, recess coaching is a vastly better solution than eliminating recess in favor of more academics. Not only does recess aid personal development, but studies have found that children who are most physically fit tend to score highest on tests of reading, math and science.
    Friedrich Fröbel, the inventor of kindergarten, said that children need to “learn the language of things” before they learn the language of words. Today we might paraphrase that axiom to say that children need to learn the real social world before they learn the virtual one.
    David Elkind is a professor emeritus of child development at Tufts University.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: