Is doing away with recess dumbing down our children?

A Rhode Island school district is doing away with recess this year. The district is taking away the 10-15 minutes before or after lunch during which students were formerly allowed time for free play.

Reports claim that the East Providence Elementary School will teach its teachers to recognize the need for stress-release and will facilitate in-class breaks, but will this in-class downtime replace the benefits of recess? Regardless, should school districts have the ability to remove children’s opportunity to play?

As an early childhood educator, I emphatically disagree with any district cutting recess. Not only do children need breaks (adults need them too – are you reading this post from work?), but children learn best through play. As the famous Fred Rogers of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood said, “Play gives children a chance to practice what they are learning.” With this in mind, I would advocate for the introduction of in-class breaks in addition to recess. In short, taking away recess (and other opportunities for free play) will lead to the dumbing down of our nation's children.

In addition to simply needing time to play, recess allows children to make much-needed social connections with their peers. Though students need be respectful of all children in their classrooms, true friendships develop during lunch breaks, recess, and after-school activities. Encouraging our children to develop social skills is critical to their success later in life; taking away recess limits children’s ability to develop those skills.

The world is becoming a scary place, where recess is being removed, politicians are considering abolishing summer vacation in favor of year-round school, and children are pushed into structured activity at every turn. When are kids allowed to be kids? If all of their time is scheduled and regimented, when will children invent their own games, write their own songs, and draw in the dirt? When will they build tree forts, hold tea parties for their dolls, and host impromptu talent shows with their friends? Scheduling every moment of a child’s day takes away the very meaning of what it means to be a child.

TIME Magazine's article The Case Against Summer Vacation outlines an argument for year-round school that emphasizes the "summer slide" -- the notion that children "slide backward" after not learning all summer. While the summer slide is a real phenomenon for many children, the solution isn't to have kids in school all year, but rather to offer opportunities to kids in the summer. Making camp and summer programs affordable and accessible to all children would prevent a loss of knowledge, while engaging children in things in which they are truly interested. It would also allow children to play -- a vitally important part of the learning process that is more and more often being pushed aside in favor of longer school days and more "academics." The same goes for recess; allowing children to make their own choices will ultimately enrich them further than teacher-mandated classroom breaks.

Ultimately, we need to let kids be kids, while also providing them solid opportunities for learning, growth, and development. Enriching the school day by making it more interesting (incorporating the arts, for example) will teach children valuable skills without overwhelming them. It's worth repeating that allowing children to learn through play is not only sensible, but absolutely necessary. Without the opportunity to play our children will, in fact, be less independent and creative than if they were simply given the opportunity to explore the world through play.

No recess? No, thank you.

Dust yourself off and try again...

Not surprisingly, I fell off the health-kick wagon.

In a nutshell, I went through some seriously stressful things at work and at home and decided that I had bigger things to worry about than getting my butt out of bed early every morning. That, coupled with the fact that this was one of the hottest summers I can remember, didn't do much for my new exercise kick. I'm sorry to say that I schlumped around for much of the summer. I didn't just give up on being healthy over the summer, I gave up a lot of things (like writing for Inner Thoughts & Outbursts... sorry about that), and am just now starting to get in the groove of things again.

Some of the other healthy habits stuck, though. I'm hardly drinking any soda (only at the occasional weekend party) and I only have a glass of wine on the weekends (and not many weekends at that). I've also been able to give up table salt on most everything (except eggs... I love salty eggs). Last weekend I even went on a mini-vacation and spent the weekend riding a hydrobike, swimming laps before breakfast, and biking.

I'm also learning (perhaps confirming is more accurate) that I don't like feeling like I have to do something. Maybe my morning walks felt like torture because they were an obligation. I've been trying to do other things instead, like walk whenever I need to run errands, take the stairs whenever there's an option to do so, and other similar things. I'm trying to make exercise more fun and purposeful than just dragging by butt around town in the morning.

I even bought a bicycle.

Yes, folks, a bicycle. I haven't owned a bicycle since the sixth grade. Up until last summer when I spent the weekend at a mountain resort, I hadn't even ridden a bicycle in years. So, I went out and bought a bike. It's pretty snazzy. I even bought a basket for it. (That's a shot of the bike, at right.)

So far, I'm not a very good cyclist. I'm slow and out of shape, and small boys fly past me on BMX bikes that leave me in the dust. That being said, riding a bike is immensely more fun than aimlessly wandering to nowhere, and even though I feel out of shape while I ride my bike, I feel like I'm getting in shape while I ride it. I haven't been riding on a schedule or anything, but now that the weather is cooler I'm taking the bike out more often and hoping to ride all through the fall.

So, recap: I want to get back on track with my HEALTH plan. It's time to restart the process of being Healthy in my Eating, Actions, Language, Thoughts, and Heart. I'm thinking of this post as the next step toward healthy Language and Thoughts. I've always thought that it's okay to fall off the wagon, so long as you back on it again.

Supreme Court rules life in prison is cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles

The juvenile justice system reached a major turning point this week when the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing non-violent juvenile offenders to life in prison constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment.

At the end of 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to review issue of juvenile life imprisonment by looking at two cases. For the first case, a jury in 1989 found 13-year-old Joe Sullivan guilty of sexual battery. About a decade and a half later, 17-year-old Terrence Graham was convicted of committing armed burglary and violating his probation. Though both boys were too young to vote, buy cigarettes, or enlist in the military, they were not too young to be sentenced to life without parole (LWOP). Both boys were convicted of non-homicidal offenses and both were sentenced to LWOP. The juvenile justice world has been waiting anxiously since these cases made the docket, as a ruling that overturns life sentences for juveniles affects approximately 2,600 currently incarcerated inmates nationwide, and will impact future sentencing.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the majority opinion (which included support from the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Psychological Association), which was in favor of banning LWOP for juvenile offenders. Support for the ban generally falls into three categories:

1. Kristin Henning, co-director of Juvenile Justice Clinic and law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, cites research that states that juveniles brains are not fully developed, causing children to act impulsively. The research also states that children are likely to outgrow the impulse for criminal behavior, though juveniles sentenced to LWOP are not given that chance.
2. The United States is possibly the only country that currently sentences juveniles to LWOP. While the U.S. currently has about 2,6000 juveniles serving life without parole, Henning claims that no other countries have children serving such sentences; other sources cite no more than 12 foreign juveniles are in prison serving LWOP.
3. In 2005, the Supreme Court reviewed Roper v. Simmons, and declared the juvenile death penalty unconstitutional. Proponents of overturning LWOP in juvenile cases cite the 2005 ruling combined with a national consensus against juvenile life without parole in their arguments.

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed, as Justice Kennedy cited the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, which "does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a non-homicide crime."

I agree with the majority opinion in this case, though I am disappointed that the ruling does not include the seven states (including Massachusetts) that allow LWOP in homicide cases. Though homicide is a horrific offense, I think that juveniles convicted of any crime should have the opportunity for parole. A juvenile incarcerated at the age of 15 and living the average male's lifespan, for example, has more than 60 years to spend in prison. A juvenile sentence that long is ridiculous regardless of the offense.

The bottom line is that the U.S. was virtually alone in its practice of sentencing juveniles to LWOP. With any luck, the practice will be completely overturned in my lifetime. At the very least, nearly 3,000 inmates incarcerated as juveniles will now have the opportunity to be paroled. It is my firm belief that with the appropriate resources, juvenile offenders can be rehabilitated to successfully reintegrate into society. This ruling is a victory for all those juvenile justice workers maneuvering to secure rights for juvenile offenders. May there be many more victories in the future.

Does posted nutritional information lead to smarter food choices?

Slashfood (one of my favorite blogs) ran an article this week that claims Burgerville (a fast-food chain in the Pacific Northwest) has started printing calorie counts on its receipts, along with suggestions on how to make your next meal healthier.

Some of the article's commenters were thrilled with the idea, hoping that other restaurants would soon start doing the same thing. I, however, think its ridiculous. What good is it knowing the fat and calorie counts of your order, after it's paid for? What restaurants should really start doing is putting nutritional information right on the menu or the ordering board; then, people can make informed choices about what they eat before they buy.

In 2008, New York passed a mandate requiring that nutritional information be provided on menus. When I traveled to the city last year for a vacation, I got to see the effects of this legislation first hand. Every restaurant I entered -- from Sbarro to the Olive Garden -- had nutritional information prominently featured. I found the information incredibly helpful in choosing what to eat. Since I found a number of things I'd like to eat in each restaurant, having calorie and fat counts readily available made it easy to narrow down my decision.

When I ate at the Olive Garden, for instance, I was trying to decide between the Shrimp and Asparagus Risotto or the Chicken Parmigiana, which both sounded wonderful. When I glanced at the nutritional information, however, I quickly learned that the risotto was one of the healthier dishes on the menu, while the chicken parmigiana would have cost me over 1,000 calories and 49 grams of fat. I ordered the risotto (which was still delightfully decadent) and saved myself over 400 calories. Without the nutritional information, I would have perhaps mentally flipped a coin in my head, rather than making the best nutritional choice, and when I have two otherwise equal options, why shouldn't the healthier dish win?

It seems that the people of New York are making the same kinds of choices. A study by the New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene recently illustrated that since 2008's nutritional mandate was put into place, "people purchased lower calorie meals at 9 of 13 fast-food restaurant and coffee chains that were included in the study." While I (and many other patrons at these restaurants) know that fast-food isn't good for a person, it's nice to know that people have the option to choose a healthier meal when they're eating in New York. When I'm on the go (or on vacation) and have to eat out, I'd like to have information about what I'm about to consume before I commit to buying it. Otherwise faulty logic can sabotage a person's attempt to eat right. (Fish is healthier than hamburger, so the Filet-o-Fish must be a better choice than a Cheeseburger at McDonald's, right? Wrong. You'll go through an extra 80 calories and 6 grams of fat with the fish sandwich. Blame the breading and the deep fryer.)

While some areas have followed New York's lead when it comes to nutritional information, most have not. If seeing posted calorie and fat counts leads a consumer to purchase one slice of pizza instead of two, or the risotto instead of the chicken parm, the mandate will have been worth it. Restaurants don't have to worry that people will stop eating out. People will continue to eat at restaurants and there will always be someone willing to down a colossal cheeseburger (or two) or an enormous bucket of fried chicken. The rest of us would just like the ability to make smarter choices when we're out, even if that just means eating the thin-crust spinach pizza instead of the deep-dish pepperoni.

Beauty and the beach

Someone famous (the Internet attributes everyone from Albert Einstein to Benjamin Franklin, so who knows?) once said, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

I think about my daily life and its routine. I wake up, get ready, drive to work, work all day, drive home, get ready for the next day, go to bed, and do everything over again the next day and the one after that and the one after that. Occasionally my evenings are peppered with classes or dinners with friends, and on the weekends I like to the theatre or a sporting event. But for the most part, my life is predictable.

So as I wait (as I believe many young people do) for "the next big thing" to happen in my life, I shouldn't be surprised that something new and exciting is unlikely to happen to me by doing the same things over and over.

This week I'm on vacation. On this trip, as with any other I've taken, I find myself torn between relaxing and exploring. Catching up on sleep and packing as much into a day as possible. So while I relished the idea of a lazy morning, I was more interested in the unexpected. It was time for different results.

Though I like to think of myself as a morning person, those mornings rarely begin before seven. Today, however, I woke up at five o'clock and dressed by the light of the fireplace in my hotel room. I enjoyed a quick breakfast there as well, then grabbed my camera and headed out into the still-dark morning.

Now, I'm no sunbather, but I've always loved the ocean. I love the sound the waves make as they rumble along and crash into the surf and the rocks. I love the smell of the salt water, the briny air, and coconut-scented sunblock. I love sticking my toes in the cold surf, finding bits of sea glass, and searching for shells. So I chose this vacation spot to try to sneak in some time with the beach before the summer crowds hit.

When I reached the waterfront this morning, it was completely deserted. Not a single soul was walking or running along the beach, and the birds weren't yet awake. I breathed in the salty fresh ocean air and smiled. It felt incredibly indulgent to have the beach to myself and I took the time to drink in my surroundings. Here was the ocean, stretched before me (and only me): a deep dark line and a slightly lighter blue one, split across the horizon by a tiny strip of pinkish orange.

I took a hundred photos of that sunrise. As dawn broke brighter across the sky, joggers and dog walkers started to speckle the path along the beach. Most of them looked like they were engrossed in their own routines; I suspect I was the only tourist among them. And I wondered if they were appreciative of the beauty of the ocean and the sunrise, or if this was merely their own version of the same thing over and over again. If I spent each morning greeting the sun on the beach, would I feel as though I have achieved my "next big thing"? Or would that, too, become a piece of my day to day routine, easy overlooked and under-appreciated?

I like to think that not only can I do different things for different results, but I can do the same things differently. I'd like to appreciate the little things in my life that seem monotonous, but really do bring me a lot of joy. I love waking up to the sun streaming in my window each morning, and I'm forever grateful to see the Boston skyline each morning as I drive into work. I'm lucky enough to have colleagues with whom I get along, and a family that loves me. So while I try new things and pack in new experiences, I'm also going to make a new experience out of the routine. It's my hope that just by looking at things differently I'll be able to produce a few new results. That way, I don't have to wait for the next big thing to happen to me -- I can go looking for it.

Photos by Danielle E. Brown.