The argument against recess
Introduction
Schools are starting to see recess as a waste of time while some have already done away with it. Recess has been in existence for a very long time. For adults, they always see it as a break from serious work such as reading, arithmetic, and writing while children see it as their favorite time to play with their friends or watch television. The debate has been in existence in the United States of America and the United Kingdom since the early 1980s. The attacks concerning recess continue even today and there is a lack of more research hence it is essential to look at new arguments for and against recess and to remember what the evidence shows or does not show. Recess is good because both children and adults will be considered to be safe to participate in activities for their good.
The argument against recess
Breaks from school or work have existed for a long time in these institutions. The justification for breaks in both institutions is the same since, after a reasonable amount of work and learning, one needs a break so that they can be productive. When a person rests and resumes work or learning again, the person is considered safe and this explains why many nations have laws that guide the time length of the truckers and pilots can fly or drive without a break (Bjorklund et al., 2002). The benefit of breaks seems to be a simple task but it is powerful and has not prohibited a group that is comprised of school administrators, from minimizing the recess period or removing it completely from the school day. In addition, most politicians see recess as a waste of time to show that they mean business in making academic institutions more effective (Cronbach, 1971). During recess particularly field recess, most kids are bullied and not only in the field but also they get bullied on hallways, cafeteria, and other places with no or little supervision of adults. The aggression base rate on the field is really low particularly the actions observed in preschool and primary fields and is less than 2% of the total.
Furthermore, due to the fact that aggression rates are low in many countries does not indicate that there are no incidences of damage to children. Aggression behavior can be acute even when its rates are considered to be low (Blatchford and Clare, 1998). And where there is acute aggression, individuals get hurt. However, the supervision of adults during the recession moments for instance at the cafeteria or hallways has a potential impact on dampening aggression.
Arguments in favor of recess
For many years, we have known that kids learn better and quickly when they gear their efforts to a task shared rather than concentrated or when they do tasks during the breaks. These breaks help children to understand how to do various tasks such as mastering a different language and or facts associated with mathematics (Bjorklund and Katherine, 1990). Breaks have positive impacts of distributed practice on the attention of children to school tasks. In addition, young children cannot process information the way adults do, therefore, breaks are needed to enhance their ability to master things from simple to complex. This shows why it is essential for young children might require a significant change in activity before they experience a release from interference (Bjorklund and Brandi,1992). Young children experience difficulty in comprehending extra information given to them and as a result, their working memories are always scattered with irrelevant data. Research indicates that as they grow older, they are capable of inhibiting meaningful tasks and skills that could help them in the future.
In conclusion, some people do not value recess since they presume it to be a waste of time which could be more spent effectively and it will also help children and adults retain more meaningful information. There is no approach or observational evidence to support this claim but the benefit is that recess is essential and is good that is supported by theory and research. In as much as there are benefits of resources, there are also negative impacts that affect children and adults such as bullying.
References
Bjorklund, David F., and Brandi L. Green. 1992. The adaptive nature of cognitive immaturity. American Psychologist 47:46–54.
Bjorklund, David F., and Katherine K. Harnishfeger. 1990. The resources construct in cognitive development: Diverse sources of evidence and a theory of inefficient inhibition. Developmental Review 10:48–71.
Bjorklund, David F., and Anthony D. Pellegrini. 2002. The origins of human nature: Evolutionary developmental psychology.
Blatchford, Peter, and Clare Sumpner. 1998. What do we know about breaktime? Results from a national survey of breaktime and lunchtime in primary and secondary schools. British Educational Research Journal 24:79–94.
Cronbach, Lee J. 1971. Test validation. In Educational measurement, ed. Robert L. Thorndike, 443–507.
