Lunch hour boosts a child’s health

NPSPA said the move would mean a shortened school day, allowing teachers to get home earlier, students to take part in extra curricular activities, and that it would help reduce indiscipline and injuries at school.

However, paediatrician Dr David Bratt told Sunday Newsday even adults need a break after sitting and concentrating for several hours. He said the break was not only to fuel the body, but also to relax the mind and burn off energy so that children could focus better.

He said not being able to run around, use up some of their energy, and burn off some calories has repercussions on the children’s future as well as for the country. “That (shortening the lunch break) has repercussions as far as obesity is concerned.

The probability is that if they do that, obesity would get worse and more obesity means more non-communicable diseases as adults - more diabetes, more high blood pressure, more heart attacks, more strokes. And already we know the government is spending $6 billion annually to take care of non-communicable diseases. This is pro-obesity.

There is no other way of putting it.” Bratt added that children needed to play as it made them happier and healthier in the long run.

He said it was how they learned to deal with life, to handle other people, solve problems, stand up for themselves, cooperate, and learned to take falls. “This is just as important as learning their ABCs. The education system has to be holistic, not only learning academics but they have to learn how to behave in society. You’re not going to learn that in the classroom.” Noting that one of NPSPA’s reasons for suggesting that the lunch break be reduced, was to lessen occupancies of bullying and violence, Bratt said bullying had always been a fact of life. In fact, he said “a certain amount of bullying is good” but stressed that there were teachers, family members, and others to help the victim deal with the problem.

“If you have a child who is being bullied you deal with it in the school. You do not have to deal with it at a national level by cutting down the amount of time children have out of the classroom.

They want to punish the children to try to solve a problem which is the responsibility as a teacher or as a principal to solve?” he asked.

Paediatrician Dr Beni Balkaran agreed that in general, more physical activity in children should be promoted. Therefore, he said, rather than reducing their lunch time by half hour, dedicated times for physical activity should be set.

In addition, he said the longer a person takes to eat, the healthier it was for them. However, he admitted that if a child wolfed down their food in ten minutes, no amount of extra time would make them slow down.

When it came to the rationale of less time equals less violence, Balkaran said it was “common sense” that reducing the lunch hour would not reduce incidences of bullying and violence and here was no evidence to support that view.

“There has to be a better reason for reducing the length of their lunch time. Children’s attention spans are not very long so they need a break between the morning and afternoon sessions,” he said.

Clinical psychologist, Lena Jogie, went so far as to call the move “counterproductive.” She recalled a study in Finland where the number of breaks the students received throughout the day was increased. It was found that the children’s attention span increased, there was less fidgeting, and they were able to focus and learn more.

“I do assessments and one of the things we request for some kids is that they get longer breaks, or short breaks in between their schoolwork. When they take a break from the work that could be difficult for them, they are able to come back and focus on the work. So I would say if they want to reduce the time for lunch, they should actually increase the number of breaks.” With respect to indiscipline and violence, she suggested that the breaks have structured activities instead of allowing the children to just run around. However, she said unstructured, free play was more beneficial for children as it had physical benefits and improved their social skills.

In addition, she said if school were to finish half-an-hour earlier, there was no guarantee the children would engage in extra- curricular activities at all. Instead they may just return home to an unhealthy environment.

“If the children have issues at home, you basically are telling the children to go home earlier to that situation. For the children to engage in extra curricular activities, the school would have to organise these activities and encourage the students to participate.”