The points that I, the first speaker, will discuss from a perspective regarding: •That the school day would be severally changed
•Decrees the quality and quantity of learning.
On to my first point:
The school day revolves around the seven periods and one morning tea brake system. This ensures that each period has the same time so there can be the same chance to learn for each subject. If morning tea and lunchtimes were lengthened, this system would be obliterated. The reason for this is that, as outlined on pg. 158 of the diary, each group of schooling (5-8 9-12) have their own lunchbreak, meaning that, if lunch was increased 20 minuets that school would either have to deduct time from each of the lessons or increase the school day. Neither is a good option as boys surely don’t want to spend more hours at school. A study in Canada at a university in Toronto showed that work efficiency can decrease if the day is broken up into uneven segments that differ on a large scale. It would not be possible to do this if we increase lunch break. This is even stronger evidence that if morning tea and lunch where increased, there would be a huge DECREASE in learning. On to my second point,
What’s the point of school if we don’t actually spend time in the classroom? The University of New South Wales recommends that secondary schools have about 50 minute’s period to obtain optimal learning. In our current structure, we bearley get that, due to interruptions, traversing between classes and existing lunch and morning tea breaks. This shows that if morning tea and lunch where increased, there would be a huge DECREASE in learning.