According to the American Association for the Child's Right to Play (and, yes, it seems we do need such an organization), approximately 40 percent of the elementary schools in the U.S. have eliminated recess from the children's day. The primary reason, of course, is the need to focus on academics. With all of the standards to be met and tests to be taken, there simply isn't time for something as "frivolous" as recess.
It might be a reasonable argument if (a) standards and tests were all that mattered in a child's education, (b) children consisted of heads only, and (c) the research didn't confirm that children can't afford not to have recess.
Here, then, are seven contradictions to the belief that recess is frivolous:
- Everyone benefits from a break. As far back as 1885 and 1901, the research is quite clear on this: Both children and adults learn better and more quickly when their efforts are distributed (breaks are included) than when concentrated (work is conducted in longer periods). More recently, the novelty-arousal theory has suggested that people function better when they have a change of pace. Because young children don't process most information as effectively as older children (due to the immaturity of their nervous systems and their lack of experience), they can especially benefit from breaks.
Recently, in my role as a children's physical activity consultant, I had the opportunity to address this issue on NAESP Radio, the radio program for the National Association of Elementary School Principals. Principals and others unfamiliar with the research on recess and physical activity can learn more about it in this 11-minute segment.
In 1929, writing in The Aims of Education, Alfred North Whitehead stated: "I lay it down as an educational axiom that in teaching you will come to grief as soon as you forget that your pupils have bodies." It seems no one was paying attention. Perhaps they'll pay attention now.