Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My knowledge of the US high school system is limited to what I've read over the years here on C-D, but it appears that many US high schools don't have a recess/break during the day other than 20-30 minutes for lunch. Perhaps that is part of the pee problem?
Australian high schools (which start at age 12 - no middle schools) generally have a 15-20 minute break around 11am, plus at least 40 minutes for lunch, around 1pm give or take. So, basically, they have plenty of opportunity to use the bathroom about every two hours.
Would a mid-morning break and an extra few minutes for lunch help to resolve the issue of kids leaving class to pee? Seems to me it would certainly make it easier for teachers to say no.
My experience has been that schools have a five minute passing period between lunch and about half an hour for lunch. That's it. The students are expected to be automatons at desks all day for the rest of the day. Two of my schools (same district) had five minutes between classes, but between second and third periods was a longer eight minute break. That was when some students went to the restroom and most students got new books out of their lockers. Having a couple short breaks make complete sense, but it won't happen.
The problem in America, as far as I can tell, is that students are expected to be supervised at a level that does not exist universally. Do schools in Australia have problems with students having sex, taking drugs, or gambling during those times? How big of a problem is fighting when students have free time?
Our school doesn't even allow teachers to leave their students at lunch. I'm bending the rules by going to the restroom and heating up my lunch after I seat my students at the table. We are supposed to allow 22 minutes, but I try to allow each student to finish eating. Then we take a brief break when we get back to the room. (We don't have a designated lunch period. We break during class when we are called to the cafeteria. It's not normal for the US.) We used to stop to use the restroom as a group, but that took too long, and the restroom we used was nasty too much of the time. So instead, I send students one by one. until the class is over. In the last block of the day, there are many students who claim that they were not allowed to use the restroom after lunch. I think that's bogus--both teachers denying restroom usage and students lying about it.
It's been 20 years since I had a child in high school, but I'm sure schools in Australia do have problems with students having sex and taking drugs etc. However, it's not such a major problem that it's raised often in the main media. You hear of incidences of course, but they seem relatively rare. And of course, it would be extremely rare for a kid to have a gun, given our tight gun laws.
High schools here don't usually have cafeterias though they may have a tuckshop where students can buy sandwiches, drinks, and whathaveyou. They generally eat lunch outside in the playground (which might not be a playground as such - could be a grassy area, a quadrangle, or a shady area under some trees - depends on the school's location and facilities). There will be a teacher or two 'on playground duty' but in the case of high school kids, the level of supervision would be relatively low. Kids aren't usually allowed off campus during the school day (though this is not always the case with Year 12 students).
One aspect of schooling that appears to be different between the US and Australia is the size of high schools. A school with 1500 students (Years 7-12) here would be considered very large. Average enrollment would be around 800-900. Probably easier to manage students in a smaller school, where kids wandering the hallways during lesson times would be much more visible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psr13
My experience has been that schools have a five minute passing period between lunch and about half an hour for lunch. That's it. The students are expected to be automatons at desks all day for the rest of the day. Two of my schools (same district) had five minutes between classes, but between second and third periods was a longer eight minute break. That was when some students went to the restroom and most students got new books out of their lockers. Having a couple short breaks make complete sense, but it won't happen.
It's interesting you say it won't happen psr. I believe you of course, but I don't understand why not. It's not like US high school education results are ahead of other western countries. Australian results are nothing to write home about either but we generally score somewhat better than the US (a bit behind New Zealand and Canada).
Given the interruptions to learning caused by kids leaving the class to pee, it makes sense to me to cut 25 minutes a day off the total instruction time, add in a 15 minute mid-morning break and an extra 10 minutes at lunchtime and tighten the rules on bathroom passes. The pay-off would be fewer interruptions in class which would have to be a good thing, no?
Unfortunately I don't currently know any teachers in Australia to ask if they allow bathroom visits during class-time. Perhaps someone reading this knows?
It's been 20 years since I had a child in high school, but I'm sure schools in Australia do have problems with students having sex and taking drugs etc. However, it's not such a major problem that it's raised often in the main media. You hear of incidences of course, but they seem relatively rare. And of course, it would be extremely rare for a kid to have a gun, given our tight gun laws.
High schools here don't usually have cafeterias though they may have a tuckshop where students can buy sandwiches, drinks, and whathaveyou. They generally eat lunch outside in the playground (which might not be a playground as such - could be a grassy area, a quadrangle, or a shady area under some trees - depends on the school's location and facilities). There will be a teacher or two 'on playground duty' but in the case of high school kids, the level of supervision would be relatively low. Kids aren't usually allowed off campus during the school day (though this is not always the case with Year 12 students).
One aspect of schooling that appears to be different between the US and Australia is the size of high schools. A school with 1500 students (Years 7-12) here would be considered very large. Average enrollment would be around 800-900. Probably easier to manage students in a smaller school, where kids wandering the hallways during lesson times would be much more visible.
It's interesting you say it won't happen psr. I believe you of course, but I don't understand why not. It's not like US high school education results are ahead of other western countries. Australian results are nothing to write home about either but we generally score somewhat better than the US (a bit behind New Zealand and Canada).
Given the interruptions to learning caused by kids leaving the class to pee, it makes sense to me to cut 25 minutes a day off the total instruction time, add in a 15 minute mid-morning break and an extra 10 minutes at lunchtime and tighten the rules on bathroom passes. The pay-off would be fewer interruptions in class which would have to be a good thing, no?
Unfortunately I don't currently know any teachers in Australia to ask if they allow bathroom visits during class-time. Perhaps someone reading this knows?
Many schools appear to giving shorter and shorter breaks and lunches, which is why I don't think it'll become common here.
Our high schools out here do have cafeterias, but no one ever eats in them. It's different in other parts of the country that get snow, though.
I'm glad that works for you in your classroom, in your school. I think the difference here is that to me having limited time between classes and keeping during class bathroom time limited does make sense - it isn't a matter of "we just have to do it that way." It is all about keeping behavior problems to a minimum and class time focused. I have come to that conclusion from what I have seen and experienced myself as to what works in my classroom, not because I am unwilling to give consideration to other viewpoints.
For individual teachers "because my principal said so" is a very valid reason to enforce such rules, to do otherwise is to risk their jobs. It is not about a powertrip but survival, and I think that accusation aimed at teachers from a fellow educator is what raised my hackles so much. Those who work in education ought to understand there is a difference between trying to maintain control and being on a powertrip.
Like I said, if that works for you, I am glad you have arrived at that solution. It doesn't mean it would work in all, or even most, classrooms or schools.
And I've got you tell you, on a personal level I would love 15 minutes between classes. The kids aren't the only ones who are rushed to take care of business that needs to be done between classes in a limited time period. But, at least at the middle schools where I have worked, idle time is an invitation for trouble.
It's not about what would work for me. It's about what is best for kids everywhere. It's certainly not about a break for TEACHERS, although that could improve teaching quality as well.
Sometimes to do something better would be more difficult, at least in the beginning -- but over the long run, it is worth it. The question is not if it will be difficult, a better question is if the difficulty of implementation will be worth it to create a better foundation for schooling.
If we're looking at academic benefit, more time in between classes would almost surely increase learning quality. When students are physically healthy and mentally refreshed, they will be more focused when it does come classtime.
For those teachers who simply repeat "but the students will abuse it" -- those teachers are both (1) living in fear (2) generally unwilling to examine, and potentially change their own practice so that students experience a better classroom (and thus will not want to run to the bathroom whenever they can). My continuing advice to those teachers is to start thinking of the bigger picture, rather than using one isolated example to "prove" that a whole shift in structure "won't work" (which is truly a ridiculous kind of argument, since it is not a fact but a fearful and narrow opinion presented as fact, creating a strong barrier to change).
As for teachers who are "doing it because their principal said so," of course that is a strong reason (though not necessarily a "good" one) to enforce strict, prescribed bathroom policies. Obviously you don't want to lose your job. Yet you can still examine different ways of thinking and always try to implement new ways of thinking and doing things, for whenever the opportunity arises. I am not "allowed" to run a classroom "exactly" as I would like, but I still can make certain changes and question certain things that don't make a lot of sense. I can change things at my own level as well as start a conversation with people about whether things make more or less sense.
It's not about what would work for me. It's about what is best for kids everywhere. It's certainly not about a break for TEACHERS, although that could improve teaching quality as well.
Sometimes to do something better would be more difficult, at least in the beginning -- but over the long run, it is worth it. The question is not if it will be difficult, a better question is if the difficulty of implementation will be worth it to create a better foundation for schooling.
If we're looking at academic benefit, more time in between classes would almost surely increase learning quality. When students are physically healthy and mentally refreshed, they will be more focused when it does come classtime.
For those teachers who simply repeat "but the students will abuse it" -- those teachers are both (1) living in fear (2) generally unwilling to examine, and potentially change their own practice so that students experience a better classroom (and thus will not want to run to the bathroom whenever they can). My continuing advice to those teachers is to start thinking of the bigger picture, rather than using one isolated example to "prove" that a whole shift in structure "won't work" (which is truly a ridiculous kind of argument, since it is not a fact but a fearful and narrow opinion presented as fact, creating a strong barrier to change).
As for teachers who are "doing it because their principal said so," of course that is a strong reason (though not necessarily a "good" one) to enforce strict, prescribed bathroom policies. Obviously you don't want to lose your job. Yet you can still examine different ways of thinking and always try to implement new ways of thinking and doing things, for whenever the opportunity arises. I am not "allowed" to run a classroom "exactly" as I would like, but I still can make certain changes and question certain things that don't make a lot of sense. I can change things at my own level as well as start a conversation with people about whether things make more or less sense.
We do NOT agree that more time between classes would be academically beneficial. The most difficult time to get kids on task in middle school is the class right after lunch. Unless I had the GT class right after lunch that period generally ran between 1/2 to a whole class behind in material each week compared to the other sections of the same class. I knew it after some years and adjusted for it, but reality was those kids got less of an education in my subject. The other teachers at my school concurred for their classes. Any elementary teacher I have heard discuss the topic has said the most difficult time to teach new material is right after recess or lunch - and they needed about a minute for minute settling period before they could.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
We do NOT agree that more time between classes would be academically beneficial. The most difficult time to get kids on task in middle school is the class right after lunch. Unless I had the GT class right after lunch that period generally ran between 1/2 to a whole class behind in material each week compared to the other sections of the same class. I knew it after some years and adjusted for it, but reality was those kids got less of an education in my subject. The other teachers at my school concurred for their classes. Any elementary teacher I have heard discuss the topic has said the most difficult time to teach new material is right after recess or lunch - and they needed about a minute for minute settling period before they could.
Partly though this is because the kids eat lunch either before recess or don't have any recess. The research shows that if you let the kids have an active recess time before lunch, they can focus better in class after lunch.
Let’s begin with a few of the benefits of Recess before Lunch:
Improved cafeteria behavior.
Calmer more relax students in the cafeteria.
Students retuning to classroom calmer and ready to learn.
Drink more milk.
Students throw away less food.
Students eat more.
Fewer discipline problems.
Fewer visits to the school nurse.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 12-07-2014 at 10:56 AM..
Reason: Hit the wrong button - no edit
Partly though this is because the kids eat lunch either before recess or don't have any recess. The research shows that if you let the kids have an active recess time before lunch, they can focus better in class after lunch.
At the elementary level, it may be they settle down better if they have recess before lunch BUT it always takes more time to transition into a subject after a break of any kind than when they are already academically engaged. That is just reality. And the longer the break, the longer the transition.
I am a huge fan of recess in elementary school and think one of the greatest disservices ivory tower dwellers and politicians did in the last 10-20 years was get rid of it to put in more academics. Young children learn through self-directed play, and they learn crucial skills which indirectly contribute to academics. That is different than middle school or high school students having 15 minutes between each class to hang around shooting the breeze.
Also, some of the research methodology used at the provided site is suspect and the scope is limited.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
At the elementary level, it may be they settle down better if they have recess before lunch BUT it always takes more time to transition into a subject after a break of any kind than when they are already academically engaged. That is just reality. And the longer the break, the longer the transition.
I am a huge fan of recess in elementary school and think one of the greatest disservices ivory tower dwellers and politicians did in the last 10-20 years was get rid of it to put in more academics. Young children learn through self-directed play, and they learn crucial skills which indirectly contribute to academics. That is different than middle school or high school students having 15 minutes between each class to hang around shooting the breeze.
Also, some of the research methodology used at the provided site is suspect and the scope is limited.
Middle school should have recess and they did when I was in those grades (6th grade was still in elementary and we had a recess/lunch in jr high too). In fact, my kids in the late 70s and 80s could be outside at lunch weather permitting even in high school, though they were less likely to run around playing games.
Middle school should have recess and they did when I was in those grades (6th grade was still in elementary and we had a recess/lunch in jr high too). In fact, my kids in the late 70s and 80s could be outside at lunch weather permitting even in high school, though they were less likely to run around playing games.
We didn't have recess in junior high when I went, and we certainly didn't in high high school. Traditionally, they haven't. Although, we did have a longer lunch and everyone had PE everyday, so that could be assumed to be a reasonable substitute. When I lived on a military base we walked home for lunch and ate at home - we had an hour lunch there.
But it is doubtful recess at the middle school will happen anywhere these days because of:
Legal liability. Schools are not going to willingly do something that makes themselves vulnerable to any legal action.
Supervision issues. With budget cuts, paraprofessionals are often cut from the staff, not added. Volunteers woukd be difficult to find for a recess duty, it is hard enough to get people to do their bus duty.
The physical structures may not exist. In rough neighborhoods keeping such places uncontaminated of broken glass, condemns, and syringes is much more difficult than you can imagine.
Strangers can access a playground easily at far too many schools, even if they have one, and sexual predators could be a concern.
But this is the big one: Bullying tends to thrive in an unstructured environment. Bullying usually takes place outside of the classroom in hallways, locker rooms, playgrounds, buses, and bathrooms. Less unstructured and/or closely supervised time allows for less bullying time.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
We didn't have recess in junior high when I went, and we certainly didn't in high high school. Traditionally, they haven't. Although, we did have a longer lunch and everyone had PE everyday, so that could be assumed to be a reasonable substitute. When I lived on a military base we walked home for lunch and ate at home - we had an hour lunch there.
Yes, the bolded would certainly be a reasonable substitute.
But it is doubtful recess at the middle school will happen anywhere these days because of:
Legal liability. Schools are not going to willingly do something that makes themselves vulnerable to any legal action. Don't US schools have liability insurance?
Supervision issues. With budget cuts, paraprofessionals are often cut from the staff, not added. Volunteers woukd be difficult to find for a recess duty, it is hard enough to get people to do their bus duty. As a parent, I feel that a little 'time out' to run around or sit about (or go to the bathroom!) is just as important to children as learning, so - for me - budgeting for supervision would be just as important as budgeting for teachers. Here in Australia I think teachers are rostered for playground duty.
The physical structures may not exist. In rough neighborhoods keeping such places uncontaminated of broken glass, condemns, and syringes is much more difficult than you can imagine. I guess there are some areas here where we have the same issues, but the kids still get recess! Ditto in other western countries where kids have recess.
Strangers can access a playground easily at far too many schools, even if they have one, and sexual predators could be a concern. We (and other countries offering recess) seem to be able to control/manage that aspect too.
But this is the big one: Bullying tends to thrive in an unstructured environment. Bullying usually takes place outside of the classroom in hallways, locker rooms, playgrounds, buses, and bathrooms. Less unstructured and/or closely supervised time allows for less bullying time. I'd be surprised if the bullying problem in Australia is any greater than it is in the US.
My comments in blue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
