Earlier I had written about people touting longer school days for increased student scores. When looked at by research however, the actual source of the improvement was a coincidental aspect of the length of the school day. It was quality of instruction and time on task .

In today’s Washington Post Jay Mathews raises the idea of getting rid of cafeteria lunches so that kids could better use their lunch time for clubs and other activities including extra help. Do we need lunch periods, or even cafeterias?

Unfortunately he uses a “when I was in high school...” as one of his arguments and I have no tolerance for that. He goes on to describe the benefits of small groups munching a sandwich while they talk as a great use of time in a school.

He also lists the negatives of cafeteria lunches including catty behavior, loss of time waiting in line, and ostracism of certain kids.

I guess he thinks, though he doesn’t address it, that 80% of the school that nows goes to the cafeteria will find cozy little nooks where they can get together with like minded students to work on projects, either academic related or community service related.

That’s just my point. The only reason the the small group gatherings work is because 80% of the kids are gathered in a large singe hall-the cafeteria. It opens up the opportunity to the other 20% to gather as small groups to have club meetings and extra help sessions with an agreeable teacher.

I always remember a friend telling me he found the school newspaper’s offices the best place in his high school because it was an escape from the din of the school.

My experience with high schools is that a time for lunch is built into a student's schedule but there's no attendance taken. Kids can choose.
What Mathews misses and what I started this entry with is that it’s not always the issue that you focus on that makes something work but a concomitant factor which allows it to happen. If you remove the latter, then the principle idea no longer works.