Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II .docx

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II
SAMPLE TOUCHSTONE AND SCORING
Nyeri Robison
Sophia Pathways
Comp II
December 4, 2019
Who’s Hooked on Stanley Fish?: An Interpretation of Reader-
Response Theory
In 1980, literary scholar Stanley Fish published his famous
book Is There a Text in this Class?
Most widely-read from this text is the self-titled thirteenth
chapter, which is seen as one of the primary
texts that sparked what is known as ‘reader-response theory.’
This theory, some might know, is the
belief that all readers can and do make their own meanings of
texts, whether those be novels, stories,
poems, plays, films, or even text-messages shared between
friends. Such reader-made meanings or

‘responses’ are often separated and completely different from
the intent of the text’s author; instead,
they are mostly shaped by our communities – schools and
classrooms, churches and religious groups,
businesses and neighborhoods, families and friends, to list just
a few examples– which offer and teach
us different strategies to interpret texts and construct meanings.
In other words, there are no fixed,
objective, pre-determined textual meanings; rather we invent
meanings as we encounter texts wearing
the lenses of our own histories, personal experiences, sets of
knowledge, and worldviews. This rather
postmodern philosophy, however, is one that I want to challenge
in part, since I believe it can work
ironically to reinforce dominant power-structures and the status
quo in our society.
To understand the possible critiques of Stanley Fish’s theories,
however, one must first
understand what he argues. In “Is There a Text in This Class?”
Fish works to calm the fears of other
Comment [SL1]: Hi Nyeri! I’m looking forward to reading
your essay today!
Comment [SL2]: It’d be a good idea to introduce who
Stanley Fish is and why this article was written in the first
place.

Comment [SL3]: This is a good summary of the theory
presented. It would be good to lead off with what the article
touched on first, then go into more detail about the theory
that is presented.
Comment [SL4]: Great thesis statement!
literary scholars who think we need objective meanings in texts,
standardized methods of interpreting
these meanings, and prescribed ways of teaching students those
methods. They believe that these
strategies are required to prevent a fragmentation and eventual
breakdown of meaning into an infinite,
disorienting cloud of unique and isolated subjective
interpretations. For example, in the case of Hamlet,
what would happen if we strayed so far from Shakespeare’s
intent for the play and interpreted it as
being about space aliens taking the forms of royalty in the
Danish court? What if the reader (the
Subject) got too far from the text (the Object)? It is this fears
that Fish tries to dismiss by proving the

whole problem is a matter of false perception. In his view, the
Object and the Subject are not a binary
but rather intertwined.
Fish accomplishes this mostly by arguing that all meaning is
situational and contextual and is,
in fact, created by individuals situated in specific times, places,
and institutions with highly evolve,
implied systems of meaning-making. For instance, people in the
United States see a car on the road and
assume that it should drive on the right side; in the United
Kingdom, however, they assume the
opposite. Hence Fish tries to prove that “the opposition between
objectivity and subjectivity is a false
one because neither exists in the pure form that would give the
opposition its point... Rather, we have
readers whose consciousnesses are constituted by a set of
conventional notions which when put into
operation constitute in turn a conventional, and conventionally
seen, object” (332). Fish provides other
lengthy anecdotes of situations that have arisen within his
interpretive communities, and he uses these
situations as evidence to contend that all meanings within text
hinge upon and are created by context;
in other words, meaning does not exist in a vacuum. He notes

that “to be in [a situation] is to 'see' with
the eyes of its interests, its goals, its understood practices,
values, and norms, and so to be conferring
significance by seeing, not after it” (334) and that “to be in a
situation is to see [words] as already
meaningful” (313). Therefore, the threat of the subjective
fragmentation of meaning is not eliminated
Comment [SL5]: Yes! Good summary. I almost like your
organization better than my initial comment!
Comment [SL6]: Great summation of the paragraph. I like
how you make it into a more digestible example.
Comment [SL7]: I like how you further explain it this in
more easily digestible terms.
by arguing the merits of subjective, individual readings but by
blasting apart the false Subject/Object
binary.
Every interpretive community, then, must necessarily makes
meaning of its own accord through
the situations and systems in which they find themselves. The

implications of Fish's work transfer
outside purely literary circles, however. One can see his
argument – that meaning cannot be defined
within a vacuum – as pointing criticism toward the
contemporary trend in educational standardized
testing which necessitates students to make the “correct” or
“objective” inference in question-scenarios
that are mainly detached from a predefined context, situation, or
culture. It also has ideological
implications in calling for the deconstruction of other binaries –
perhaps of gender, race, sexual
orientation, etc. – and leading all individuals to live more
examined lives within our political and social
communities.
Of course, I believe in the beauty of open interpretations. After
all, how else would we ever
break free from meanings that are handed down through
generations and find new possible ways of
being, believing, and behaving? Nevertheless, this is where I
want to raise some critiques of Fish’s
theories. Ironically enough, I think this subjective freedom can
also shoots itself in the foot. First of all,
to form one’s own individual interpretation can be liberating; it
can also be dangerous, solipsistic, and

nihilist. This is where Fish points us toward communities of
interpretation, noting that meaning-making
is always at least a partially-collective act. Communities and
cultures are comprised of many, and it is
the many that one encounters other perspectives, not just one’s
own. Second, some interpretive
communities have more authority, prestige, or power than
others, and we must also examine how social
institutions in areas of education, medicine, religion, and
government might use their interpretations to
sustain the status quo. Resistant and oppositional readings of
the messages we receive from on high
should also be heard. After all, aren’t these part of the values
embedded in the mission of true
Comment [SL8]: Great use of the article to back up your
explanation!
Comment [SL9]: Good! You’re explaining your take on it
and why!
Comment [SL10]: Shoot*
Comment [SL11]: Good point. I can see why you think this
way.

democracies? Therefore, I believe that we should let Fish off
the hook when it comes to giving the
people—and readers-- the power, but we must be mindful that
he comes from a position of privilege
when he so blatantly ignores how certain people will still
always try to control what and how we read.
Reference
Fish, Stanley. 1980. “Is There a Text in the Class?” from Is
There a Text in this Class? Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Comment [SL12]: I love your concluding sentence. You’ve
explained yourself in a way that is both entertaining and
thoughtful.
Reflection Questions:
1. What ideas originally came to mind when you first read
through the article? Did your

initial response to the article change after reading it for a
second time?
At first, I just read for content. I wanted to get a feel for the
article and what the author was
trying to say. Then, I read it a second time to really think about
how I interpret the
information, and what my thoughts on that information were.
It’s easy to read a scholarly
article like this and just settle with the idea that what the author
is saying is true. It is better
to do some critical thinking while doing so, instead of turning
on auto-pilot.
2. How does paying attention to the way you respond to a
source help you formulate
your stance on a topic?
It really helped me understand the way that I think. I also got a
chance to ask myself why I
think the way I do about the topic I’m reading about. It helps
me grow as a writer, and it
helps me create a comprehensive list of reasons why I’ve taken
that particular stance on the
topic.

Source Response Essay Rubric and Feedback
Rubric
Category
Feedback Score
(acceptable, needs
improvement etc.)
Source
Summary
You do a really nice job summarizing the article
and giving examples to help the reader
understand what it’s about. You could maybe
spend a little less energy on the summary, but it
was very thorough work.
13/15
Source
Response
There are some great ideas here! You have
added your stance to the article and what the
author is trying to get through to the learner. You
also explain why you think and react to the article
the way you do, citing examples from the text. I
would have liked to see more in terms of your
response, and less in terms of the summary.
12/15

Organization While I initially thought your organization could
use a bit more work in terms of the summary and
the response, the way you have framed your
argument works within your essay.
5/5
Style Your word choices are consistently effective. You
do a good job of avoiding redundancy and
imprecise language.
5/5
Conventions You adhere well to all of the APA formatting
requirements and your use of English
conventions is consistent throughout the
touchstone. There are minimal word errors. Well
done.
4/5
Reflection You answer all of the questions thoroughly,
providing insights, observations, and examples in
your responses. You consistently exceed the
length guidelines for your responses.
5/5
Overall Score and Feedback: 44/50
Very nice job! Your summary of this article is very thorough.
Although there could
have been more to your response to the article, you’ve done a
good job phrasing
your response in a way that is easily digestible.

Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for
Children at Risk
Volume 6
Issue 2 Nutrition and Food Insecurity
Article 7
2015
Sugar In School Breakfasts: A School District's
Perspective
Jennifer G. Lengyel MS, RDN, LD
Houston Independent School District, [email protected]
Nan Cramer RDN, LD
Amanda Oceguera MS, RDN, LD
Lana Pigao MA
Houston Independent School District, Nutrition Services
Department
Follow this and additional works at:
http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk
The Journal of Applied Research on Children is brought to you
for free and
open access by CHILDREN AT RISK at [email protected] Texas
Medical Center. It has a "cc by-nc-nd" Creative Commons
license"
(Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives) For more
information,

please contact [email protected]
Recommended Citation
Lengyel, Jennifer G. MS, RDN, LD; Cramer, Nan RDN, LD;
Oceguera, Amanda MS, RDN, LD; Pigao, Lana MA; and
Houston
Independent School District, Nutrition Services Department
(2015) "Sugar In School Breakfasts: A School District's
Perspective,"
Children at Risk: Vol. 6: Iss. 2, Article 7.
Available at:
http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol6/iss2/7
http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk?utm_sourc
e=digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu%2Fchildrenatrisk%2Fvol6%2
Fiss2%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPage
s
s
http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol6?utm_
source=digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu%2Fchildrenatrisk%2Fv
ol6%2Fiss2%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCov
erPages
http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol6/iss2?u
tm_source=digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu%2Fchildrenatrisk%
2Fvol6%2Fiss2%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDF
CoverPages
?utm_source=digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu%2Fchildrenatrisk
%2Fvol6%2Fiss2%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PD
FCoverPages

s
?utm_source=digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu%2Fchildrenatrisk
%2Fvol6%2Fiss2%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PD
FCoverPages
http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk
http://childrenatrisk.org/
http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/
http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
mailto:[email protected]
Introduction
For Houston Independent School District (ISD) Nutrition
Services,
managing the school food operations of the seventh largest
school district
in the nation can be a great challenge and opportunity. It takes
the
collaboration of more than 14 departments and 2,400 employees
to serve
280,000 meals every day across Houston, one of the largest
metropolitan
areas in the nation. To be able to create a menu that balances
nutrition
with student acceptability is an incredible feat. We are
consistently trying
to provide meals that students will consume while enjoying the
health
benefits.
A recent series of emails and phone calls from parents
concerned
about the sugar content of Houston ISD’s school breakfasts
revealed that

a new issue had risen to the surface. Some parents were
counting the
grams of sugar in our breakfast menus and reported that they
believed
there was too much sugar to be healthy for children. This
prompted us to
look closely at the sugar content of our breakfast items and the
source of
the sugar.
Houston ISD, along with all school districts participating in the
National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, follows a
strict set
of regulations set forth by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)
under the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of 2010.
This Act put in
place a new set of nutrition standards and meal patterns for
school
breakfast and lunch in response to the growing epidemic of
childhood
obesity in the U.S. The nutrition standards limit calories,
saturated fat,
and sodium, and ban artificial trans-fat in school meals (see
Table 1).
HHFKA also made a significant change to the breakfast meal
pattern by
increasing the fruit minimum from a half cup to one cup and
having no
requirement for the protein rich meat/meat alternate food group.
Additionally, although we have consciously decided not to place
specific
sweet items on our breakfast menu, the sugar content of our
breakfasts is
being scrutinized. Ironically, the federal standards do not
address the

sugar content in school breakfasts. Whether this is an
oversight or the
authors of the law intentionally did not limit sugar, the result is
the same:
breakfast meals that are higher in sugar because of the
requirement of
one cup of fruit, 1 cup of milk (both which have natural sugar).
Furthermore, restrictions on fat and the lack of requirement for
protein
foods result in carbohydrates, including natural sugar, as the
main source
of calories. Herein, we would like to provide the perspective of
a school
food service organization concerning sugar in breakfast, and
present the
1
Lengyel et al.: Sugar In School Breakfasts: A School District's
Perspective
Published by [email protected] Texas Medical Center, 2015
challenges and efforts made to provide students with healthy,
well-
balanced school breakfasts.
National school lunch program and the school breakfast
program
background and history
In an effort to describe our viewpoint about the sugar content of
our
breakfast menus, it is important to provide the reader with the

context of
the school meal programs history and purpose. School meal
nutrition
standards, which were initially put in place to assure adequate
nutrition for
an underfed population of children, have been adapted through
the years
to meet the current standards that aim to address an overfed, yet
undernourished, population of children.
In the early part of the 20th century, individual cities and states
had
enacted various versions of a school lunch program to improve
nutrition
and feed needy children. Due to a limit in state and local funds,
the federal
government stepped in, and in 1946, the 79th legislature enacted
the
National School Lunch Act. The purpose of the Act was “to
safeguard the
health and well-being of the Nation’s children and…assist the
States, in
providing an adequate expansion of nonprofit school lunch
programs.”1
Lunches served by schools participating in the school lunch
program were
required to meet minimum nutritional requirements prescribed
by the
Secretary [of Agriculture] on the basis of tested nutritional
research."1 The
aim of these meal patterns was to provide school-aged children
with one-
third of their daily nutrient requirements. As dietary
recommendations
evolved with the expansion of nutrition research, various
changes were

made to the school lunch meal requirements during the
subsequent 63
years leading up to the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act in 2010.
The School Breakfast Program began in 1966 as a pilot-grant
program to provide assistance serving breakfast to nutritionally
needy
children. By 1975, the program was permanently authorized by
congress.
The breakfast meal pattern was designed to provide one-quarter
of the
daily nutrient requirements of school-aged children.
Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 and USDA Breakfast
Meal
Pattern
The current Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA) nutrition
standards
are based on the 2010 U.S. Dietary Guidelines and
recommendations
made by the Institute of Medicine. The guidelines recommend a
balance
of calories and physical activity, increased intake of fruits and
vegetables,
2
Children at Risk, Vol. 6 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 7
whole grains, low fat and fat-free dairy, and a reduction in

saturated fats,
trans fats, sodium, cholesterol and sugar.2 In addressing sugar
in the
diet, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend the reduction of
added sugar
and sugar sweetened beverages without quantifying a
recommended
amount of total sugar per day. The guidelines point out that a
reduction of
added sugars would lower calories without compromising the
nutritional
quality of the diet. The HHFKA breakfast and lunch nutrition
standards
generally follow the U.S. Dietary Guidelines but fail to address
added
sugar in foods. Table 1 outlines the USDA meal pattern and
nutrition
guidelines for school breakfast.3
The USDA has strived to improve student health and reduce
childhood obesity through HHFKA in 2010; however, there have
been
numerous challenges in implementing those changes. For
example, the
recent enforcement of the additional breakfast requirements and
how it
affects the sugar content in school breakfasts. The current
breakfast meal
pattern requires a minimum of one full cup of fruit, one full cup
of milk, and
one ounce whole grain offered each day. In addition, there must
be a
minimum of four items available for students to select, and
three must be
chosen, at least one of which is a fruit or vegetable, in order for
the cost of

that meal to be reimbursed by the federal government. The
breakfast
items are cumulatively analyzed on a daily and weekly basis to
also
ensure that the menu is meeting calorie requirements, saturated
fat, and
sodium restrictions (see Table 1). Of note, there are no
requirements for
meat or meat alternates in the USDA breakfast meal pattern,
meaning that
fruit, milk, and grains that provide calories mainly through
carbohydrates,
are the predominate foods at school breakfast. These regulations
can
greatly affect the breakfast menus, and in regards to the sugar
content,
can make it challenging for a school district to minimize added
sugar due
to calorie minimums, the inability to distinguish added vs.
natural sugar,
budget constraints, availability and variety of breakfast items,
and many
other factors described herein.
3
Perspective

Table 1 Summary of Current USDA Breakfast Meal Pattern
Requirements
Houston ISD Nutrition Services Breakfast Program and
Challenges in
Minimizing Sugar Content
Feeding a population of students, 80% of which are from
economically
disadvantaged homes, is a significant responsibility. Many of
our students
receive the majority of their nutrient intake from school meals.
Students
may receive up to three meals and a snack each day at school.
The
Houston ISD menus are developed through a collaboration of
dietitians,
chefs, cost analyst, operations, and production teams.
Breakfast is especially important in providing nutrition and
improving academic performance, according to research cited
by the Food
Research and Action Center.4 In an effort to improve access to
breakfast
at Houston ISD, in 2009 we began implementation of a program
called
First Class Breakfast that offers free breakfast to all students at
all of our
schools. Currently, we serve more than 118,000 students each
morning.
Serving breakfast in the classroom ensures students have the
opportunity
to eat breakfast if they did not eat at home. Often parents and

school
buses drop off students just before the bell rings, making it
impossible for
students to eat a traditional school breakfast in the cafeteria. In
addition,
most of the cafeterias are not designed to accommodate service
to the
entire student body in a single breakfast period. Serving
breakfast in the
classroom also removes the stigma that school breakfast is
exclusively for
economically disadvantaged students. Regardless of the
roadblocks, we
Components
Amount
Per Week
Amount per
day
Amount
Per Week
Amount
per day
Amount
Per Week

Amount
per day
Fruit 5 cups 1 cup 5 cups 1 cup 5 cups 1 cup
Grains (ounce eq) 7oz 1oz 8 oz 1oz 9oz 1oz
Meat/Meat Alt.* 0 0 0 0 0 0
Milk 5 cups 1 cup 5 cups 1 cup 5 cups 1 cup
Calories (min-max)
Sodium (maximum)**
Saturated Fat (% of
calories)
Trans Fat Nutrition label or manuf acturer specif ications must
indicate zero grams of trans f at per serving
<10% <10% <10%
USDA Breakfast Meal Pattern
* 1oz meat/meat alternate can count toward 1oz grain once daily
mimimum grain requirement is met.
K - 5 6-8 9-12
350-500 kcal 400-550 450-650
540mg 600mg 570mg

** 2014/2015 school year sodium levels. Sodium maximums
will have further reductions in 2017/2018
school year and again in 2022/2023 school year.
4
make every effort to provide one of the most important “school
supplies”
children need to be successful in school and beyond.
Table 2 Sample HISD Breakfast Menu
There are two different methods of breakfast service in Houston
ISD schools in accordance with USDA regulations: straight
serve and offer
vs. serve. With the straight serve method, students must take
all foods on
the menu. With the offer vs. serve method, students are only
required to
take three food items, one of which must be a ½ cup of fruit.
This means
that they do not need to take both fruits offered, nor are they
required to
take the milk. Adding up all of the grams of sugar on our entire
breakfast
menu does not give the correct amount of sugar that students
would

consume in most cases because the students might not select all
of the
items offered. An example would be if the menu offered
pancakes, cereal
bar, banana, apple juice and milk. A student could select the
pancakes,
banana and milk only. Or he/she could choose the cereal bar,
banana
and apple juice, etc. Offer vs. serve method helps to reduce
waste in the
Week 1
Monday
Oatmeal Bar
18g sugar, 270 calories
Dried Cranberrries
Fruit Juice Blend
Milk
Average sugar: 53 grams
Average Calories: 482
Week 2

Monday
Texas Cinnamon Toast
Apple Slices
Fruit Juice Blend
Milk
Average sugar: 50.2 grams
Current Straight Serve Menus (K-5)
FridayThursdayWednesdayTuesday
Apple,
15.5g sugar, 77 calories
Milk
Milk

Milk
Multigrain Oat Cereal
Oatmeal Bar
Milk
Fruit Juice Blend
Apple,
Fruit Juice Blend
Blueberry Waf f les
7g sugar calories
Apple Muf f in

Chicken Biscuit
Peach Cup
Raspberry Yogurt
Banana
Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Chicken Biscuit
8g sugar , 285 calories
Frosted Corn Cereal (Red. Sugar)
Maple Pancakes
Beef Kolache
Milk

Milk
Milk
Milk
Dried Cranberries
Oatmeal Bar
Banana
Raisins
Fruit Juice Blend
Apple

Fruit Juice Blend
Fruit Juice Blend
14g sugar, K 60 calories
5
Perspective
Average Sugar: 44.77 grams
Average Sugar: 43.09 grams
Current Offer Vs. Serve Menu
Week 1 Week 2
breakfast programs by allowing students the option to select
what food
they want to eat.

The grams of sugar and calories in the offer vs. serve menu
reflect
the averages of the foods the students actually choose. As
apparent from
Table 3, the straight serve menu contains more sugar and
calories than
the offer vs. serve menu since students are taking all the menu
items. It is
important to note that for both methods of service the total
average
calories and grams of sugar are based on what the students
received for
breakfast, not what they actually consumed. Only a series of
tray waste
studies would allow us to determine actual sugar intake among
our
students.
Table 3 Calorie and Sugar Weekly Averages for Breakfast
As mentioned
previously, the USDA
breakfast meal pattern
requires fruit, milk, and
whole grain to be offered
at each breakfast; all are sources of carbohydrates. Federal
regulations
for the school breakfast program set a range of minimum and
maximum
number of calories allowed for a Kindergarten-5th grade
breakfast at 350-
500 calories. The Institute of Medicine recommends 45% of
calories
come from carbohydrate. In that case, the breakfast would have

about 56
grams of carbohydrate. Unfortunately, the federal guidelines
for breakfast
result in a breakfast meal that has a higher percentage of
calories coming
from carbohydrate and potentially in the form of sugar.
It is important to mention that the other sources of calories in a
meal are protein and fat, but according to the HHFKA Nutrition
Standards,
there is no requirement for protein in school breakfast and many
of the
breakfast items offered are required to be low in fat, such as the
milk.
However, schools may substitute meat/meat alternatives for
grain
components after the minimum daily grains requirement is met.
Due to
the lack in requirement for meat/meat alternate items and the
typical
higher cost of these items, meat/meat alternates are not offered
daily. If
offered, they are usually categorized as a grain component in
order to
meet the breakfast meal pattern daily minimums. This results in
school
breakfast menus that are missing a considerate amount of
protein and
calories from protein (4 kcal/g) and potentially contain higher
amounts of
carbohydrates and sugars.
6

Cumulatively, carbohydrate sources can contribute to the sugar
content at breakfast, however, it is important to note the two
different
types of sugar: natural and added. According to the Dietary
Guidelines for
Americans, natural sugars are those found in whole foods like
fluid milk
and milk products (lactose) and fruit (fructose); sugars that are
added to
foods for preservation, processing, or palatability purposes are
called
“added sugars.” In one school breakfast meal, an average of
37g of total
sugar is attributed to natural sugars found in milk and fruit
alone. Based
on the current information available and data from Table 3, we
can
estimate 6-16 g of sugar in our menus is derived from added
sugar.
However, currently the accuracy of the estimated total grams of
added
sugar cannot be verified due to a lack in label differentiation
between the
two types of sugar.
Image 1. FDA Proposed Label
One of the significant
challenges in controlling the
sugar content at breakfast is the
ability to analyze the amount of

total added sugar in a menu and
in individual breakfast items. The
U.S. Dietary Guidelines
recommend that a person
consume no more than 10% of
calories from added sugar.
However, most nutrition fact
labels for foods do not distinguish
natural vs. added sugar; it
appears only as “sugar” that
includes both added and naturally
occurring. Currently, the FDA is
proposing a new label to solve
this issue by requiring
manufacturers to list the amount
of sugar added during the production process and therefore
differentiate
the two types of sugar (see Image 1)5. In the interim, a lack of
nutrition
facts label information makes it difficult to distinguish natural
from added
sugars, and therefore a challenge to reduce total added sugar in
school
breakfast, despite Houston ISD Nutrition Services’ efforts (see
Table 2 for
menu example).
7
Perspective

The USDA School Breakfast Program requirements changed in
2014, increasing fruit servings to a full cup for breakfast. Due
to this
requirement change we have added juice since many fruits such
as a
whole banana, equals only half a cup of fruit; instead of giving
students
two bananas we offer one banana and ½ a cup of juice to meet
the
requirement. Each half-cup of fruit adds 10 to 15 grams of sugar
to the
breakfast meal. We offer dried fruit one to two times a week on
high
school menus for variety and due to high acceptability, adding
22-24
grams in mostly added sugar.
When serving more than 118,000 breakfasts per day with a less
than one-dollar budget per breakfast, providing nutritious
student accepted
items while meeting federal requirements can be arduous. The
additional
fruit offering results in an additional cost that then takes away
from the
amount that can be spent on higher quality or more expensive
breakfast
items. For example, on average most fresh fruit items cost
$0.20 for ½
cup, then because 1 cup of fruit must be offered at breakfast,
fruit alone
can contribute to 50% or more of the total food cost for the
entire breakfast
meal. Often, lower cost fruit juice is served to meet the fruit
requirement,
maintain cost constraints, and provide variety to the fruit

offerings.
In addition, fruit accessibility and diversity has been a
challenge.
With the increase in required daily fruit offerings at breakfast in
combination with years of drought and environmental issues,
many school
districts, especially large districts including Houston ISD, have
experienced numerous produce shortages and resulted in a lack
of
selection. We prefer to serve fresh fruit, however we are
limited on the
variety of whole fruit on the breakfast menu due to our limited
budget and
narrowed vendor availability. While we do sometimes get fruits
from the
USDA Foods Commodity program to assist with the cost, we
only have
them available on a limited basis. In addition, principals have
requested
that certain fruits, such as whole oranges, not be served in the
classrooms
for breakfast because they are messy, further limiting the
variety of fruit.
In many cases, there have been whole fruits that were planned
to be
served on the breakfast menu but due to crop shortages,
inclement
weather patterns or price fluctuations, those fruits had to be
replaced with
canned, dried or juice alternatives. These alternatives can be
more easily
available or affordable, but at the same time less nutrient dense
and/or
contain more added sugar for food preservation purposes,
functional

attributes, and palatability. These barriers combined restrict
accessibility
and increase budgetary constraints, which unfortunately makes
fresh fruit
a limited commodity.
8
Houston ISD Nutrition Services’ Efforts to Reduce Sugar
Content in
Breakfast
With 80% of the Houston ISD population being economically
disadvantaged, it is important to us that students consume the
food in
school in order to get key nutrients they may not be getting
outside of
school. Albeit at times, there can be many challenges to
creating healthy
school breakfast meals, Houston ISD Nutrition Services is
aware of
elevated sugar content and has been making efforts to reduce
sugar
levels in school breakfasts. Chocolate milk is not offered at
breakfast;
only skim or low-fat milk is available. Also, we do not offer
breakfast
sweet rolls or pastries with icing or excessive added sugar,

including
pastry tarts, cinnamon rolls, donuts, honey buns, etc. We serve
whole-
grain rich versions of grain items that are lower in sugar, such
as reduced-
sugar breakfast cereals. Many of the breakfast products that we
purchase
are actually lower in fat, sodium, and sugar and higher in fiber
and
complex carbohydrates than their commercial equivalent. We
are required
to serve whole grains, low fat proteins, low sodium and we
strive to serve
low sugar products. For example, the Cinnamon Toast Crunch
cereal we
serve at Houston ISD is whole grain and lower in sugar than the
regular
version sold in a grocery store. However, our students are
familiar with
this product so the consumption rate is high. These efforts aid
in balancing
food flavors with student acceptance so that students are
consuming the
breakfast items because “it’s not nutrition if they don’t eat it”
according to
Registered Dietitian, Dayle Hayes.
Furthermore, Houston ISD Nutrition Services is continually
meeting
with manufacturers to discuss removing unnecessary additives
from their
ingredients and improve their products. Many of the
manufacturers have
responded by eliminating additives such as Mono Sodium
Glutamate. We
will continue to collaborate with manufacturers and push for

reformulation
of products to reduce added sugar levels in breakfast items.
Additionally, Houston ISD Nutrition Services makes efforts to
control the ingredients in school food by producing in-house,
semi-
homemade items in our state-of-the-art centralized food
production facility.
Our research and development chefs and production team create
items
such as whole-grain-rich beef kolaches, sweet potato spice and
apple
muffins, and chicken biscuits. With scratch made production
items, we
can include whole grain, complex carbohydrates and techniques
such as
using vegetables like sweet potatoes or whole fruits like apples
and
blueberries, to add flavor and nutrition to our recipes instead of
added
sugar.
9
Perspective
We recognize that whole fruit has more nutritional benefits and
fiber
than fruit juice and less added sugar than dried fruit so when
possible,
fresh fruit appears on the breakfast menus. Houston ISD

Nutrition
Services has made great strides to build relationships with
produce
vendors and implement processes to aid in procuring more
whole fruits
and increasing the variety of options offered. We have also
begun to
participate in programs such as Harvest of the Month and Farm-
to-School
in which there is a focus on local and seasonal purchasing and
nutrition
education of fruits and vegetables. These programs have
allowed us to
increase locally sourced produce, educate students and
encourage
consumption of fresh fruits. In addition to these efforts,
Nutrition Services
will be reducing the number of days that juice is offered and
dried
cranberries will be removed from the elementary menu to
further reduce
sugar content.
As mentioned previously, there is no USDA requirement for
protein,
meat or meat alternates. Nutrition Services has committed to
increasing
the meat and meat alternates to replace grain products when
possible by
adding items to the menu such as cheese toast, sausage biscuit,
breakfast taco, breakfast egg sandwich, etc. This will aid in
achieving
adequate calories and protein without adding carbohydrates or
added
sugar.

In an effort to reduce food waste, most of our schools serve
breakfast using the “offer vs. serve” method. Since this type of
service
does not require students to take all items, it helps to reduce
overall food
waste. Also, throughout the school year, we have conducted
informal
plate waste studies and taste tests to verify that items are not
only healthy
but also accepted and consumed by students. We plan to
continue these
techniques and are currently in the process of formulating a
more
standardized procedure that will further aid in our ability to
create and
menu different breakfast items with less added sugar while
reducing food
waste.
School food service is not just about putting food on a tray.
Houston ISD Nutrition Services recognizes the importance of
serving
school meals to students and the opportunities that lie in
shaping their
eating behaviors and life-long health. School food is a conduit
for nutrition
education and is the reason we make every effort to incorporate
nutrition
messaging into the school cafeteria and beyond. Our nutrition
education
and community outreach dietitians work with our culinary team
to reach
out to students and communities to educate on why we serve
nutritious
foods.

10
Conclusion
School nutrition programs follow the strict guidelines set forth
by the
USDA and within that framework of the meal pattern and the
nutrition
guidelines is a limit to how much the sugar content at breakfast
can be
decreased. In the solutions outlined above, we strive to reduce
added
sugars while operating a program within our budgetary
constraints and
with menu items that the students will consume. Our breakfasts
provide
nutrition for growing bodies and fuel for the minds of our
students so that
they can achieve their academic potential and therefore require
special
consideration and attention.
If the public and parents desire more reduction in the sugar
content
of breakfast, seeking policy changes at the federal level would
be
required. These changes could be to require meat/meat
alternates,

reduction in fruit requirement, and an increase in funding to
include more
protein items and higher quality products. Parents can impact
the nutrition
standards by providing feedback during USDA public comment
periods for
the School Breakfast Program and voicing opinions to local,
state, and
federal policy makers. Changes in the Nutrition Facts Labels to
distinguish added sugars would also aid in our selection of food
items with
less added sugar for our menus. New labeling could also drive
the food
industry to reformulate items with less added sugar and develop
new
savory products with higher protein, adequate calories, and
lower sugar
content. We will continue to listen to our communities
concerns and to
seek solutions in order to serve students the most nutritious
breakfast
meals.
11
Perspective

References:
1. Public Law 79-396; Stat. 231 Congress, June 4, 1946.
2. 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Office of Disease Prevention and
Health
Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office
of the
Secretary, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
website. http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2010/ . Published
December 2010. Updated December 7, 2015. Accessed October
1, 2015.
3. Nutrition Standards for School Meals: New Meal Patterns and
Dietary Specifications. USDA Food and Nutrition Service
website.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/nutrition-standards-
school-
meals . Published January 2012. Updated August 11, 2015.
Accessed October 5, 2015.
4. School Meals and School Wellness Publications: Breakfast

for
Learning Brief. Food Research and Action Center website.
http://frac.org/wp-
content/uploads/2009/09/breakfastforlearning.pdf
Published Spring 2014. Accessed October 5, 2015.
5. Proposed Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label. U.S. Food
and Drug
Administration website.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocume
nts
RegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm
Updated October 23, 2015. Accessed October 2, 2015.
12
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2010/
school-meals
school-meals
http://frac.org/wp-
content/uploads/2009/09/breakfastforlearning.pdf

ntsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm
ntsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htmJou
rnal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for
Children at Risk2015Sugar In School Breakfasts: A School
District's PerspectiveJennifer G. Lengyel MS, RDN, LDNan
Cramer RDN, LDAmanda Oceguera MS, RDN, LDLana Pigao
MAHouston Independent School District, Nutrition Services
DepartmentRecommended Citationtmp.1451577005.pdf.FU36c
© 2008 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
The Recess Debate
A Disjuncture between Educational Policy
and Scientific Research
•
Anthony D. Pellegrini
Some devalue recess because they assume it to be a waste of
time. There is no theory
or empirical evidence to support this point of view. There is,
however, abundant
and clear evidence that recess has beneficial effects on
children’s social competence
and academic performance. The author tells how his interest in
standardized tests
led him to years of recess study, compares recess survey
findings in the United
States to those in the United Kingdom, and summarizes the
benefits of recess for
school performance.

Recess has been part of the school day for as long as we can
remem-
ber. Typically, most people have considered what children do
during recess
as merely “playful.” Adults usually regard it as a break from the
serious work
of the day—reading, writing, and arithmetic—while kids often
say, perhaps
only half-jokingly, that it is their favorite time. Because what
goes on at recess
does not appear serious, some claim it interferes with the
“educational” mis-
sion of schools. This perception has led many districts to
question the need
for recess.
Since I explored this trend in considerable detail three years
ago in Recess:
Its Role in Education and Development, recess has remained
under attack in
both the United States and the United Kingdom. The debate
over recess began
around the same time (the early 1980s) in both countries and
revolves around
similar issues in both places. The onslaughts against recess
persist today, even
in the face of significant research supporting its educational
value, a lack of
research supporting a contrary view, and a rising awareness of
the importance
of play in general. Thus, it is useful to look anew at the
arguments for and
against recess and to be reminded of what the evidence does and
does not
show.
AMJP 01_2 text.indd 181 9/8/08 4:07:23 PM

182 A m E R I C A N J O u R N A L O F P L A Y • F a l
l 2 0 0 8
The Argument against Recess
Breaks during the school day, like breaks from work on the
factory assembly
lines, have existed for nearly as long as each of those
institutions has existed.
Indeed, the rationale for breaks in both is very similar: after a
reasonable amount
of work, you need a break, if for no other reason than it may
help you to be
more productive. If you have never worked on an assembly line
or do not
remember your primary school days, perhaps you can remember
driving on a
long trip. You probably recall that the longer you drove the less
attentive (and
less safe) you became. If you pulled over for a rest or a break,
you were more
attentive (and safer) after you started again. This explains why
many states
have laws governing the length of time truckers and airline
pilots can drive or
fly without a break.
This rather simple but powerful and widely understood benefit
of breaks
has not deterred a group, generally comprised of school
administrators, from
reducing recess time or eliminating recess all together from the
school day. The
reasons these “no nonsense” school superintendents and

principals, as well as
many politicians, most often give are twofold. First, they claim
that recess is a
waste of valuable time that could be more profitably used for
instruction. Sec-
ond, they claim that during recess kids get bullied and that on
the playground
they learn aggression.
Politicians and school administrators often use the first
argument—recess
is a waste of instructional time—to demonstrate that they “mean
business” in
making schools more effective. A number of years ago, then
Atlanta Public
Schools superintendent Benjamin Canada and I discussed the
role of recess in
schools on the Good Morning America TV show. I was touted as
the “expert” on
recess, whereas Canada had made national news for proudly
eliminating recess
in Atlanta schools and replacing it with physical education. He
claimed that
by eliminating recess from the whole school system he had
raised achievement
scores. Recess, he said, was a waste of time, and kids did not
learn by “hanging on
monkey bars.” They could just as easily “blow off steam” in
physical education
while at the same time learning useful skills. When pressed by
both me and the
TV host for evidence of how achievement had gone up as a
result of eliminating
recess, Canada did not provide supporting data, and to my
knowledge no one
has ever presented data to uphold such a claim.
The evidence is exactly the opposite of Canada’s claims. As I

shall summa-
rize below, in numerous controlled experiments children’s
attention to school
AMJP 01_2 text.indd 182 9/8/08 4:07:24 PM
tasks decreased the longer they were deprived of a break and,
correspondingly,
children were significantly more attentive after recess than
before. It is very
much like taking a break on a long highway trip.
Contrary to popular belief, physical education classes do not
provide such
a benefit. In 2001, the Council on Physical Education for
Children, a national
organization of physical education teachers, denounced the idea
of replacing
recess with physical education, although the council had a
vested interested
in promoting physical education. As the council members would
surely agree,
physical education—like other instructional disciplines—
rightfully imposes
rigorous demands on children and adolescents so as to stretch
their skills.
Therefore, it seems clear, the demands of a physical education
class do not
constitute a break.
The second argument—that during recess, especially
playground recess,
kids get bullied—also has flaws. It is true that kids get bullied
on playgrounds,
but they get bullied in cafeterias, too, and in hallways, in
bathrooms, in locker

rooms, just about anywhere with little or no adult supervision.
Even so, the
base rate of aggression on playgrounds is incredibly low.
Specifically, of all the
behaviors observed on preschool and primary school
playgrounds in many
countries, physical and verbal aggression account for less than 2
percent of the
total (Pellegrini 1995; Smith and Connolly 1980).
The fact that rates of aggression are low at recess does not
mean there are
no incidents that damage kids. Aggressive behavior can be
intense even when
its rates of occurrence are low, and where there is intense
aggression, people get
hurt. However, adult supervision of recess periods, like adult
supervision of the
cafeteria and the hallways between classes, has a potent effect
on dampening
aggression (Pellegrini 2002).
Contrary to the negative-behavior argument, recess remains one
of the only
times during the school day when children have time and
opportunities to interact
with their peers on their own terms. Through interaction at
recess, children learn
social skills, such as how to cooperate and compromise and how
to inhibit ag-
gression. Eliminating or reducing recess destroys these learning
opportunities.
Why Study Recess? One Researcher’s Journey
Before examining the research in favor of recess, I should note
how I came
to it. As an academic psychologist, I should be concerned with

the ways in
T h e R e c e s s D e b a t e 183
AMJP 01_2 text.indd 183 9/8/08 4:07:24 PM
l 2 0 0 8
which children learn and develop in school. Studying recess and
how children
become socially competent seems a more legitimate venue for
an educational
psychologist. However, having investigated the role of
children’s play in their
social and cognitive development for many years, especially
play fighting (Pel-
legrini and Smith 1998; Pellegrini 2002, 2003) and the games of
boys and girls
on school playgrounds (Pellegrini et al. 2002), the study of
recess seemed a
logical extension.
My interest in school recess was really piqued by the debate
over the role
of recess in Georgia in the early 1990s (well before Benjamin
Canada’s claims
on Good Morning America) and the simultaneous use of
standardized tests
as the sole criterion for the promotion of children from
kindergarten to first
grade. As part of this—in my view, very questionable—venture,
there was talk
of eliminating recess so kids could spend more time on the
“important skills”

necessary to pass the tests. The argument went like this: test
scores are declining,
and so given the limited number of hours in the school day, it
makes sense to
eliminate or minimize a practice that is trivial at best and, in
any case, antitheti-
cal to more serious educational enterprise.
My first reaction to the testing question was disbelief. We have
known for
decades that kindergarteners are unreliable test takers (Messick
1983). Kids tend
not to perform consistently across time. For example, they could
score in the
99th percentile on Tuesday, but if they retook the very same test
on Wednesday,
they could score in the 65th percentile. If they took it a third
time on Thursday,
they could score in the 99th percentile again. The different
scores could be
due to something as simple as a swing in motivation related to a
change in the
testing environment. (I observed this particular example in my
own daughter’s
experience.)
Because children are unreliable test takers, it is important for
educators to
use a number of different assessment strategies. Tests can and
should be used,
but in conjunction with other measures, such as attendance,
grades, teacher
evaluations, and observations of behavioral competence. When
all of these
things are aggregated, we get a more valid picture (Cronbach
1971).
When the testing question arose in Georgia, I had been
studying rough and

tumble play on the school playground during recess for several
years. As part
of this research I had access to test scores from kindergarten
through at least
first grade. I knew that what kids did on the playground
required pretty high
levels of social cognitive competence, and I knew that kids were
motivated to
implement those skills on the playground because they enjoyed
interacting with
AMJP 01_2 text.indd 184 9/8/08 4:07:24 PM
their peers. So I wondered if what kindergarten children did on
the playground
could be a valid predictor of their first-grade achievement, as
measured by a
standardized test. That is, does kindergarten playground
behavior predict first-
grade test scores, even after we control statistically for
academic achievement
in kindergarten? In essence, I wanted to know if there was
predictive academic
value in what kindergarteners did at recess, beyond that
information provided
in their kindergarten academic achievement, as measured by a
standardized
test score. How much did recess activities tell us, beyond test
scores, about how
well kindergarteners would do in first grade?
My hypothesis was that the recess behavior would tell us a
great deal. After
all, when kids are on the playground they are typically
interacting with their

peers, and to do so takes some pretty sophisticated skills. For
example, to play
cooperatively with their peers, children have to be able and
willing to see things
from the perspectives of their peers, use compromise to resolve
conflicts, follow
the rules of play and games, and use language to negotiate all of
this. Indeed, we
know that the types of language kids use to negotiate conflicts
and compromise
are very similar to the language of school instruction (Heath
1983) and the
language of literacy (Pellegrini and Galda 1982).
Further, when kids manipulate and build with playground
materials and
when they play games—such as tag—with their peers, they are
motivated to
marshal their social cognitive resources. Children generally like
to interact
with their peers at recess, so they try their best to initiate and
sustain play.
For instance, one may have to compromise (share a toy or a
turn) in order to
continue to play with one’s best friend. One typically does this
because one is
motivated to do so, perhaps more so than to perform on an
achievement test.
Tests, at least for most young kids, are not very motivating.
These kindergarten behavioral measures that I developed and
adminis-
tered did indeed predict first-grade achievement, beyond the
kindergarten test
scores. That is, these playground behaviors were correlated with
first-grade test
scores, even after kindergarten test scores were statistically
controlled. This

reinforces the notion that multiple measures should be used in
“high-stakes”
assessments.
In an effort to change policy in the state of Georgia, my friend
and colleague
Carl Glickman and I wrote articles for such publications as the
Atlanta Journal
Constitution and Principal to publicize our finding to the
general public and
educators of young children. Afterward, testing policies
changed in Georgia, but
efforts to minimize or eliminate recess continued to grow, both
in the United
AMJP 01_2 text.indd 185 9/8/08 4:07:24 PM
l 2 0 0 8
States and the United Kingdom, where I was also conducting
research. Policy
makers, teachers, parents, newspapers, and radio and television
stations in both
countries began contacting me and asking about recess.
The Reduction of Recess in the united States
and the united Kingdom
An important barometer of prevailing perceptions of the
importance of recess
is the way in which recess time has eroded across the last
fifteen years. One of

the first surveys of recess in the United States was conducted in
1989 by the
National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP),
which kindly
sent me their findings. The survey went to school
superintendents in all fifty
states and the District of Columbia. Responses were received
from forty-seven
states and showed that recess existed, in some form, in 90
percent of all school
districts. Generally, individual schools (87 percent of those
reporting) set re-
cess policy. Consequently, there was significant variation both
within school
districts and within states. Ninety-six percent of the schools
with recess had it
once or twice per day. In 75 percent of the schools with recess,
it lasted fifteen
to twenty minutes. The survey did not report what form that
recess took or
whether organized physical education was counted as recess.
Indeed, about
one-half of the districts with recess had “structured” times.
Regarding recess supervision, the survey indicated that
teachers assumed
responsibility in 50 percent of the cases and teachers’ aides in
36 percent. Among
the aides, 86 percent had no formal training for supervision.
This is not a trivial
finding. A well-trained supervisor can both support the positive
social interac-
tions of children and guard against aggression and bullying.
Ten years later, the U.S. Department of Education surveyed
recess in kin-
dergarten. According to a summary provided to the author by
Ithel Jones, As-

sociate Professor of Early Childhood Education at Florida State
University, 71
percent of surveyed kindergartens reported having a daily recess
period; 14.6
percent had recess three to four times per week; 6.7 percent had
recess one to
two times per week; and 7.7 percent had no recess. Regarding
the duration of
recess, 27 percent had thirty minutes; 67 percent had sixteen to
thirty minutes;
and 6 percent had less than fifteen minutes. Children attending
private kinder-
gartens were twice as likely to have recess as children attending
public schools:
48.3 percent vs. 22.2 percent.
AMJP 01_2 text.indd 186 9/8/08 4:07:24 PM
While a direct comparison with the 1989 survey is not possible,
there are
some interesting points to consider. Most interesting is that in
kindergarten only
70 percent of the children had daily recess. If there is one grade
where we would
assume that all children would have recess daily, it would be
kindergarten.
In the late 1990s, British psychologist Peter Blatchford and
colleagues (Blatch-
ford and Sumpner 1998) conducted a national survey of recess
(called “break
time” in England) in primary and secondary schools across the
United Kingdom.
Their 60 percent return rate produced a sample of 6 percent of
all English schools.

Importantly, recess in the United Kingdom is uniform compared
to recess in the
United States. In the United Kingdom, schools have a morning,
lunch, and after-
noon break. The Blatchford survey showed that while students
across all grades
had breaks, the duration decreased with age. Children in infant
school (five to
seven years of age) had ninety-three minutes; children in junior
school (seven to
eleven years of age) had eighty-three minutes; and children in
secondary school
(eleven to sixteen years of age) had seventy-seven minutes.
Clearly, English chil-
dren had much more recess than their American counterparts,
and the duration
of the periods seemed more sensitive to the maturity of the
students.
There is, however, a movement against recess in the United
Kingdom as
well. The issues propelling this movement are very similar to
those in the United
States and have been very evident in the media. There, too,
pressure has resulted
in a reduction in break time. Within the five-year period from
1990–1991 to
1995–1996, 38 percent and 35 percent, respectively, of junior
and secondary
schools reduced the lunch break. Among infant schools, 26
percent reduced
the lunch break and 12 percent eliminated the afternoon break.
Twenty-seven
percent of the junior schools and 14 percent of the secondary
schools eliminated
the afternoon break.
One would think that such drastic change should be directed by

empirical
support, but, no, on the contrary, research supports keeping
recess in schools.
Benefits of Recess for School Performance
There are two main arguments for the continued presence of
recess in pri-
mary schools. The first is evidence of how learning benefits
from “distributed
practice” (like the example of taking a break during highway
driving noted
earlier), which recess affords. The second concerns the
development of cogni-
tive efficiency and how recess may especially facilitate learning
in younger and
AMJP 01_2 text.indd 187 9/8/08 4:07:25 PM
l 2 0 0 8
cognitively immature children. Both of these arguments propose
that benefits
associated with recess are immediate, that is, they occur almost
simultaneously
with the recess behaviors themselves.
Massed vs. distributed practice
We have known for many years (e.g., Ebinghaus 1885; James
1901) that children
learn better and more quickly when their efforts toward a task

are distributed
rather than concentrated or when they are given breaks during
tasks (Hunter
1929). As psychologist Frank Dempster pointed out (1988), the
positive effects
of distributed effort have been seen specifically in the ways
children learn how
to conduct numerous school-like tasks, such as mastering
native- and foreign-
language vocabularies, text materials, and math facts.
Laboratory studies have
yielded reliable and robust findings, documenting the efficacy
of task spacing
on learning. Indeed, the theory has been supported by research
with humans
across the life span and with a variety of other animals.
Classroom studies have been less frequent, and generally the
results less
supportive of the theory. Factors associated with the nature of a
task (e.g., simple
vs. complex) seem to influence the effects of distributed
practice on classroom
learning. However, when the nature of the criterion variable is
changed from
material learned to attention to the task at hand, the results of
the classroom
research match those of the laboratory. Spacing of tasks may
make them less
boring and correspondingly facilitate attention. Attention to a
task, in turn,
may be important to subsequent learning (Dempster 1988).
Given the positive effects of distributed practice on children’s
attention to
school tasks, it seems puzzling that it has not been more readily
used in class-
rooms. One possibility, as suggested by Dempster (1988), is

that the complicated
contingencies of running a school may not readily accommodate
the added
complexities of a distributed practice regimen. The solution to
this conundrum
is simple—use a well-established school institution, recess.
Recess provides a
break between school tasks, thus distributing practice.
Developmental differences in cognitive efficiency
Psychologist David F. Bjorklund and I have suggested
previously (Pellegrini
and Bjorklund 1997), based on Bjorklund’s theory of “cognitive
immaturity”
(Bjorklund and Green 1992), that the facilitative effects of
breaks between peri-
ods of intense work should be greater for younger than for older
children. From
our position, young children do not process most information as
effectively
AMJP 01_2 text.indd 188 9/8/08 4:07:25 PM
as older children. The immaturity of their nervous systems and
their lack of
experiences render them unable to perform higher-level
cognitive tasks with the
same efficiency as older children and adults, and this directly
influences their
educability. As a result, young children are especially
susceptible to the effects
of interference and should experience the greatest gains from
breaks between
focused intellectual activities, which recess provides.

Evidence in support of this hypothesis can be found in the
literature on
memory and cognitive inhibition. Research using a wide range
of tasks has
shown that children are increasingly able, as they get older, to
inhibit task-ir-
relevant thoughts and to resist interference from task-irrelevant
stimuli, and
that such skills contribute significantly to overall cognitive
functioning (e.g.,
Bjorklund and Harnishfeger 1990). Inhibition abilities have
been proposed to
play a significant role in attention, permitting children to focus
on task-relevant
information and not to be distracted by task-irrelevant,
peripheral information.
Such abilities have also been proposed to be of central
importance to functional
working-memory capacity. Young children have a difficult time
keeping extra-
neous information from entering short-term store. As a result,
their working
memories are often cluttered with irrelevant information,
leaving less mental
space for task-relevant information or for the execution of
cognitive strategies
(Bjorklund and Harnishfeger 1990).
From this perspective, there may be a general increase in
interference when
children perform a series of highly focused tasks, regardless of
the nature of
those tasks. Although one would predict that changing from one
type of focused
activity to another would yield some cognitive benefit, children
(especially
young children) may experience a continued buildup of

interference with re-
peated performance of even different highly focused tasks, and
thus experi-
ence greater benefit from a drastic change in activity, such as is
afforded by
recess. This is consistent with the evidence that younger
children may require
a greater change in activity or stimulus materials before they
experience a re-
lease from interference (e.g., Pellegrini and Bjorklund 1996).
This should make
school learning particularly difficult for young elementary
school children, and
opportunities to engage in non-focused, nonintellectual
activities should af-
ford them the needed respite to re-energize their nervous
systems so that they
can continue to learn in school. Consistent with this reasoning,
recess periods
across the school day should minimize cognitive interference.
Importantly,
instructional regimens, such as physical education, would not
serve the same
purpose.
AMJP 01_2 text.indd 189 9/8/08 4:07:25 PM
l 2 0 0 8
Conclusion

Some devalue recess because they assume it to be—as they
assume play in
young children to be—a waste of time, time that could be
otherwise more ef-
ficiently spent. There is no theory or empirical evidence to
support this point
of view. The counter-argument, that recess is good, is backed by
a large body
of theory and empirical research. Those who advocate the
elimination of recess
should present sound theoretical and empirical support for their
arguments
or give them up and recognize the abundant and clear evidence
that recess
has beneficial effects on children’s social competence and
academic perfor-
mance.
References
Bjorklund, David F. 1978. Negative transfer in children’s recall
of categorized materials.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 26:299–307.
———. 2004, first published 1989. Children’s thinking:
Developmental function and
individual differences. 4th ed.
Bjorklund, David F., and Brandi L. Green. 1992. The adaptive
nature of cognitive im-
maturity. American Psychologist 47:46–54.
Bjorklund, David F., and Katherine K. Harnishfeger. 1990. The
resources construct
in cognitive development: Diverse sources of evidence and a
theory of inefficient

inhibition. Developmental Review 10:48–71.
Bjorklund, David F., and Anthony D. Pellegrini. 2002. The
origins of human nature:
Evolutionary developmental psychology.
Blatchford, Peter, and Clare Sumpner. 1998. What do we know
about breaktime? Re-
sults from a national survey of breaktime and lunchtime in
primary and secondary
schools. British Educational Research Journal 24:79–94.
Cronbach, Lee J. 1971. Test validation. In Educational
measurement, ed. Robert L.
Thorndike, 443–507.
Dempster, Frank N. 1988. The spacing effect. American
Psychologist 43:627–34.
Ebbinghaus, Hermann. 1964, first published 1885. Memory: A
contribution to experi-
mental psychology.
Heath, Shirley. 1983. Ways with words: Language, life, and
work in communities and
classrooms.
Hunter, Walter S. 1929. Learning II: Experimental studies of
learning. In The founda-
tions of experimental psychology, ed. Carl Murchison, 564–627.
James, William. 1901. Talks to teachers on psychology, and to
students on some of life’s
ideals.
AMJP 01_2 text.indd 190 9/8/08 4:07:25 PM

Messick, Sam. 1983. Assessment of children. In Handbook of
child psychology. Vol. 1,
History, theory, and methods, ed. William Kessen, 477–526.
Pellegrini, Anthony D. 1990. Elementary school children’s
playground behavior: Im-
plications for children’s social-cognitive development.
Children’s Environments
Quarterly 7:8–16.
———. 1991. Outdoor recess: Is it really necessary? Principal
70:40.
———. 1992. Kindergarten children’s social-cognitive status as
a predictor of first-grade
success. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 7:565–77.
———. 1995. School recess and playground behavior:
Educational and developmental
roles.
———. 2002. Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment
during the transition to
middle school. Educational Psychologist 37:151–63.
———. 2003. Perceptions and functions of play and real
fighting in early adolescence.
Child Development 74:1522–33.
———. 2005. Recess: Its role in education and development.
Pellegrini, Anthony D., and David F. Bjorklund. 1996. The
place of recess in school:
Issues in the role of recess in children’s education and

development: An introduc-
tion to the theme of the Special Issue. Journal of Research in
Childhood Education
11:5–13.
———. 1997. The role of recess in children’s cognitive
performance. Educational Psy-
chologist 32:35–40.
Pellegrini, Anthony D., and Lee Galda. 1982. The effects of
thematic-fantasy play train-
ing on the development of children’s story comprehension.
American Educational
Research Journal 19:443–52.
Pellegrini, Anthony D., Kentaro Kato, Peter Blatchford, and Ed
Baines. 2002. A short-
term longitudinal study of children’s playground games across
the first year of
school: Implications for social competence and adjustment to
school. American
Educational Research Journal 39:991–1015.
Pellegrini, Anthony D., and Peter K. Smith. 1998. Physical
activity play: The nature and
function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Development
69:577–98.
Smith, Peter K., and Kevin Connolly. 1980. The ecology of
preschool behavior.
AMJP 01_2 text.indd 191 9/8/08 4:07:26 PM

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II .docx

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II .docx

Similar to Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II .docx (7)

More from rosemariebrayshaw

More from rosemariebrayshaw (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Sophia Pathways for College Credit – English Composition II .docx