Reduced lunch hour? A flawed idea

Mrs Sandy is at her wits’ end; she has tried everything she knows but the problem is not going away. She approaches her principal, hoping that together they may be able to find a solution. However, what he proposes leaves her confused.

Social media has been abuzz since the president of the National Primary School Principals’ Association recommended the reduction in lunch time as a solution to addressing violence and indiscipline in schools.

There is a general sentiment that this is a knee-jerk reaction without any basis in research.

While we can all agree that violence/ indiscipline in school is a scourge not only on the education landscape but also on the nation, emotive, poorly thought-out “quick fixes” are not the solution. This is a complex phenomenon that requires a multi-pronged approach in which we not only address symptoms without attempting to understand the underlying cause, but also seek to get to the root of the matter with the aim of eliminating it all together.

The first flaw in this suggestion is that reduction in the lunch hour cannot be arbitrarily changed without negotiation. This is not simply a case of allocating 30 minutes for lunch.

Hours of work is a negotiated term and condition of service, and so while children’s lunch hour may be reduced, principals cannot force teachers to give up 30 minutes of their lunch hour without engaging the association in discussion.

This being the case, the plan immediately falls through because it’s impossible for principals to supervise all children, giving rise to conditions that may be further conducive to the very acts they are attempting to avoid.

As stated earlier, school violence/ indiscipline is a complex issue, a fact that is easily verifiable by a number of research investigations into the issue (and it must be noted that none of these studies point to reduction in lunch time as a plausible solution).

A recurring theme in these reports however is succinctly captured in a report by the Center for Disease Control which concludes, “No one factor in isolation causes school violence, so stopping school violence involves using multiple prevention strategies that address many individual, relationship, community, and societal factors that influence the likelihood of violence.

The aim should be to reduce risk factors and promote protective factors at these multiple levels of influence.” The foregoing description points to the fact that expediency will not suffice in addressing this problem.

We need sustainable, consistent action that targets the heart of the problem and commits to respond every time the problem shifts, changes shape and escalates.

In other words, violence and indiscipline in school requires layered interventions that target the individual, relationships, the community and the wider society for what is witnessed in schools in symptomatic of a wider problem.

As with any other problem that interferes with students’ ability to derive benefits from education, preventing violence/indiscipline in schools needs interventions that are individual and systemic in their focus.

To do anything else is to inadvertently contribute to the continued downward spiral that characterises the school experience of many of our nation’s youth. In our next edition of TTUTA on Tuesdays, we will take a closer look at the layered approach that is needed to begin to address this problem in a holistic and meaningful way.