The buzzword of preschool and primary school education in many countries over the past 20 years has been "accountability." Advocates suggest -- rightfully, I think -- that scarce tax dollars should be spent only on programs that "work."
But one of the less noticed effects of the movement for greater accountability has been that children's opportunities for free time and opportunities to interact with their peers, especially at recess, has been eliminated or diminished in many school systems in the US, Canada, and Great Britain.
accountability
Politicians and school superintendents view "accountability" as a way to prove that they are "tough on education" and are striving to improve academic performance. Indeed, it seems like common sense that reducing recess time would have a positive effect on achievement -- a position endorsed by educational leaders like Benjamin Canada, a former superintendent of schools in Atlanta, Georgia. But there is no empirical or theoretical evidence to support this claim.
On the contrary, whereas many educators recognize the centrality of teaching skills and maximizing efficient use of classroom time, they also advocate breaks between periods of intense work to allow children to relax and interact with peers. They also hope that children will return to their classrooms after their breaks and work with renewed interest.
There can be common ground between these two positions, particularly with respect to primary schools. While accepting the need for accountability, our best theory and empirical evidence must be used to guide practice. To do otherwise is to squander the trust and resources of children, families, taxpayers, and educators.
Indeed, far too many of the policies being recommended for primary schools have no scientific basis. I am not aware of any data supporting the idea that eliminating recess maximizes children's attention to classroom tasks. In fact, experimental data supports the argument that what goes on during recess periods is "educational" in the traditional sense. Specifically, children are more attentive to classroom tasks after recess than before recess. Attention to classroom tasks, such as reading, is related to more general indicators of cognitive performance, such as reading achievement, so it is an important indicator of the effects of break time.
work smarter,
not harder
Anecdotal evidence from East Asia also suggests that children's attention to classroom work is maximized when instructional periods are relatively short and followed by breaks. In most East Asian primary schools, for example, children are given a 10-minute break every 40 minutes or so. When children come back from these breaks, they seem more attentive and ready to work than before. American experimental evidence that my colleagues and I gathered also supports these claims.
To illustrate the role of recess on attention, consider the findings of a series of experiments conducted in a public elementary school, in which we manipulated recess timing, or the time children spent doing seatwork before recess. On randomly assigned days, the children went out to recess at 10am or at 10:30am. Before and after the break, children's attention to classroom tasks was coded. In three of the four experiments, we also controlled the tasks on which children worked before and after recess.
In all the experiments, the children were more attentive after the recess than before, and they were less attentive when the break came later. Furthermore, in many cases, gender moderated the effects of recess. First, in reading assignments, the children were more attentive to same-gender, relative to other-gender, books. Second, boys' attention was especially sensitive to recess timing: boys were more likely than girls to be inattentive when recess came later.
put to the test
In one of our experiments, the recess period was held indoors rather than outdoors. We chose this venue first, because the effects of indoor recess on children's attention would provide insight into the role of a relatively sedentary break period on subsequent attention. If children's attention were greater after the indoor break than before, the role of physical activity per se would be minimal.
Second, as a policy matter, educators sometimes use indoor recess as an alternative to outdoor breaks. The results from this experiment replicated the findings from the outdoor recess results: the children were more attentive after recess than before.
In conclusion, these experiments support the idea that providing breaks over the course of instruction facilitates children's attention to classroom tasks. The fact that these results were obtained using well-controlled field experiments and replication across a number of studies instills confidence in the findings. Educational policymakers should therefore use these findings to guide policy. If they do not, concerned citizens should demand that educators provide a justification for the policy that they do impose on schoolchildren.
School officials and politicians often extol Asian educational practices, but they should also consider Asian recess practices in the context of an extended school day and academic year. Extending the length of the school day and the academic year -- a key priority of "accountability" advocates -- might positively affect children's achievement while simultaneously providing parents with badly needed additional childcare. But requiring that children spend more time in school will not boost cognitive performance and social competence unless we also increase the time children spend outside the classroom.
Anthony Pellegrini is professor of educational psychology at the University of Minnesota and author of The Role of Recess in Children's Development and Education.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS