But I'm not convinced. And I did a quick online search. I'm not alone. It seems to be a concern of many parents. The sad thing is that shorter lunches are tied up to the fact that schools are required to keep their students in classrooms working on their lessons for a certain number of hours. For the sake of academics and keeping costs in check, lunch breaks are the first on the chopping block.
In the Eagle Tribune, written two years ago:
A recent national study found children need at least 30 minutes to eat and digest to ensure proper nutrition. Four out of five local communities provide lunch periods of 25 minutes or less. Methuen, Andover and Lawrence provide students only 15 minutes.
...
The simple conclusion to the study was if kids have less time to eat, more food and valuable nutrients go into the trash than into their bellies. She also said a 30-minute lunch gives children more time to absorb an adequate amount of calories and nutrients. Those children, she said, receive significantly higher amounts of vitamin A and calcium.
In the Boston Globe, written at around the same time, legislators are advocating that 30-minutes lunch breaks be mandated.
''Our children's physical and emotional needs are coming second to MCAS scores in our state right now," said state Representative Joyce A. Spiliotis, a Peabody Democrat. ''If children aren't eating and don't get enough physical exercise, then they're not going to get back to class and pay attention. They're going to be lackadaisical and lethargic."
...
Parents say that an extra five to 10 minutes might not seem like much, but can make a difference.
''That would be wonderful to know they actually have time to get through line, sit down, and eat," said Ann Mitsopoulos of Peabody, a parent of three. ''We're trying to tell the kids not to eat 90 miles an hour, to chew and digest their food. And then we put them in school, tell them to hurry up and eat and get back to class."
Amen. Now, what do we do about it?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment