School Recess and Group Classroom Behavior

Abstract

This study examines the amount of recess that children 8 to 9 years of age receive in the United States and compares the group classroom behavior of children receiving daily recess with that of children not receiving daily recess.
This is a secondary analysis of a public-use data set, the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999, third-grade data set. Children were categorized into 2 levels of recess exposure, that is, none/minimal break (<1 break of 15 minutes/day) or some recess. Some recess was further categorized into 5 levels on the basis of frequency and duration of recess. Child, parent, school, and classroom characteristics of those with and without recess were compared. The group classroom behavior was assessed by using the teacher's rating of class behavior.
Complete data were available for 10301 to 11624 children 8 to 9 years of age. There were equal numbers of boys and girls (boys: 50.3%). Children exposed to none/minimal break (30%) were much more likely to be black, to be from families with lower incomes and lower levels of education, to live in large cities, to be from the Northeast or South, and to attend public school, compared with those with recess. Teacher's rating of classroom behavior scores were better for children with some recess than for those with none/minimal break. This finding was maintained in multivariate regression analysis. However, among children receiving daily recess, the teacher's rating of class behavior scores did not differ significantly according to the level of exposure.
These results indicated that, among 8- to 9-year-old children, having > or =1 daily recess period of >15 minutes in length was associated with better teacher's rating of class behavior scores. This study suggests that schoolchildren in this age group should be provided with daily recess.

Full text

DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-2825
2009;123;431-436 Pediatrics
Romina M. Barros, Ellen J. Silver and Ruth E. K. Stein
School Recess and Group Classroom Behavior
http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/123/2/431
located on the World Wide Web at:
The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is
rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0031-4005. Online ISSN: 1098-4275.
Grove Village, Illinois, 60007. Copyright © 2009 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All
and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point Boulevard, Elk
publication, it has been published continuously since 1948. PEDIATRICS is owned, published,
PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly
by guest on April 29, 2009 www.pediatrics.orgDownloaded from

ARTICLE
School Recess and Group Classroom Behavior
Romina M. Barros, MD, Ellen J. Silver, PhD, Ruth E. K. Stein, MD
Department of Pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Children’s Hospital at Montefiore and Rose F. Kennedy Center, Bronx, New York
The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
What’s Known on This Subject
Three small studies have suggested that students without recess may have difficulty
concentrating on specific tasks in the classroom, are restless, and may be easily
distracted.
What This Study Adds
Our study examined the relationship between school recess and group classroom be-
havior in a nationally representative sample. This study showed that a break during the
school day was associated with better TRCB scores.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES. This study examines the amount of recess that children 8 to 9 years of age
receive in the United States and compares the group classroom behavior of children
receiving daily recess with that of children not receiving daily recess.
METHODS. This is a secondary analysis of a public-use data set, the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998 –1999, third-grade data set. Children
were categorized into 2 levels of recess exposure, that is, none/minimal break (⬍1
break of 15 minutes/day) or some recess. Some recess was further categorized into 5
levels on the basis of frequency and duration of recess. Child, parent, school, and
classroom characteristics of those with and without recess were compared. The group
classroom behavior was assessed by using the teacher’s rating of class behavior.
RESULTS. Complete data were available for 10 301 to 11 624 children 8 to 9 years of
age. There were equal numbers of boys and girls (boys: 50.3%). Children exposed to
none/minimal break (30%) were much more likely to be black, to be from families
with lower incomes and lower levels of education, to live in large cities, to be from
the Northeast or South, and to attend public school, compared with those with
recess. Teacher’s rating of classroom behavior scores were better for children with
some recess than for those with none/minimal break. This finding was maintained in
multivariate regression analysis. However, among children receiving daily recess, the
teacher’s rating of class behavior scores did not differ significantly according to the
level of exposure.
CONCLUSIONS. These results indicated that, among 8- to 9-year-old children, having ⱖ1 daily recess period of ⬎15
minutes in length was associated with better teacher’s rating of class behavior scores. This study suggests that
schoolchildren in this age group should be provided with daily recess. Pediatrics 2009;123:431–436
PLAY IS WIDELY recognized as an important aspect of child development.1–3 During free play, children increase their
imagination and creativity, organize their own games, develop their own rules, learn problem-solving skills, and
practice leadership.2,3 A report from the American Academy of Pediatrics states that free unstructured play is healthy
and is essential for helping children reach important social, emotional, and cognitive developmental milestones, as
well as helping them manage stress and become resilient.1
Children need free play at home and at school.1The time assigned for free play at school is known as recess. Recess
is defined as a break during the school day that allows children the time for active free play.3,4 A key component of
recess is that it is unstructured and undirected.3On the basis of the literature and as stated by the National Association
for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), school recess should be provided at least once daily, for ⱖ20 minutes.5,6
Recess provides children with discretionary time and opportunities to engage in physical activity.7–9 Inactivity is a
major risk factor for childhood health problems.5,7 Active children usually grow up to be active adults.3The most
obvious characteristic of recess is that it constitutes a break from the day’s routine.10 By allowing a mental change and
release of energy, recess may have other benefits for classroom behavior; students may be more attentive to academic
tasks and less fidgety in the classroom afterward.7,11
Three studies that focused directly on the effects of recess on children’s school performance found that, in general,
students were better able to focus attention on the teacher and on assigned tasks after recess.12–14 In the first study,
23 fourth-graders were observed for 14 weeks, and their attentiveness and fidgetiness before and after recess were
documented. Children became more fidgety and less attentive when recess was delayed.12 The second study showed
that students were less attentive before recess than after recess and were more inattentive when recess was delayed
www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/
peds.2007-2825
doi:10.1542/peds.2007-2825
Key Words
school recess, child behavior, physical
activity, play
Abbreviations
ECLS-K—Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998 –1999
TRCB—teacher’s rating of classroom
behavior
NASPE—National Association for Sport
and Physical Education
Accepted for publication May 22, 2008
Address correspondence to Romina M. Barros,
MD, 1165 Morris Park Ave, Bronx, NY 10461.
E-mail: romina㛭barros@hotmail.com
PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005;
Online, 1098-4275). Copyright © 2009 by the
American Academy of Pediatrics
PEDIATRICS Volume 123, Number 2, February 2009 431
by guest on April 29, 2009 www.pediatrics.orgDownloaded from

longer.13 In the third study, which was conducted in a
school that did not have recess, 2 fourth-grade classes
were given recess on a random schedule, with attentive-
ness and fidgetiness being documented before and after
recess. The majority of students were more attentive and
less fidgety after recess.14 These results should be inter-
preted with caution, however, because they are based on
limited sample sizes at individual schools. Furthermore,
in the 2 studies by Pellegrini et al,12,13 the children ex-
pected to have recess, and anticipation might have con-
tributed to inattentiveness and fidgeting when recess
was delayed.
In the United States, the ways in which recess is
defined and implemented vary tremendously,15 and the
data available are somewhat confusing. According to an
unpublished survey conducted by the American Associ-
ation for the Child’s Right to Play and cited in many
articles, ⬃40% of public schools have eliminated or are
planning to eliminate ⱖ1 recess period from the school
day.16–19 However, a report based on a survey conducted
by the National Center for Education Statistics stated
that 83% to 88% of children in public elementary
schools have recess.20 In that study, the number of recess
sessions per day and the duration of the recess periods
varied greatly. Furthermore, children were reported to
have recess even when the school provided recess only
once per week or the recess period lasted ⬍15 minutes.
In conclusion, little is known about how many children
have recess and how much time is assigned to this ac-
tivity in the United States. Therefore, this study exam-
ined the amount of recess that children 8 to 9 years of
age receive in the United States and compared the group
classroom behavior of children of the same age receiving
daily recess or not receiving recess. We hypothesized
that children who received recess would behave better
in the classroom as a group, compared with those who
did not receive recess.
METHODS
Data Set
Data for these analyses came from the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998 –1999
(ECLS-K), third-grade data set, a nationally representa-
tive sample.21 The ECLS-K is sponsored by the US De-
partment of Education.21
The ECLS-K is an ongoing study that focuses on chil-
dren’s longitudinal experiences from kindergarten
through middle school.21 It is a multisource multimethod
study that includes interviews with parents, collection of
data from principals and teachers and from student
record abstracts, and direct assessments of children.21
The children in the ECLS-K are from both public and
private schools and from diverse socioeconomic and ra-
cial/ethnic backgrounds.21 Children and their families,
teachers, and schools provide information on the chil-
dren’s home, school, and classroom environments and
classroom curriculum.21 The ECLS-K third-grade data
collection used computer-assisted interviewing for par-
ent interviews and child assessments.21 Self-adminis-
tered questionnaires were used to collect information
from teachers and school administrators.21
Sample
The third-grade data set contains information on 15 305
children 8 to 9 years of age. The third-grade data were
collected in the spring of the 2001–2002 school year,
when ⬃89% of the children interviewed were in third
grade, 9% were in second grade, and ⬍1% were in
fourth grade or higher. Third-graders who repeated sec-
ond or third grade, recent immigrants, and children who
did not have the chance to be in the sample in kinder-
garten or first grade were not included.
Measures
Recess Data
The teachers’ questionnaire contained 3 questions about
recess, with fixed responses. The teachers were asked
about the number of days per week children have recess,
how many times per day children have recess, and the
amount of time the children spend in recess, in 15-
minute intervals. Information on the number of days per
week of scheduled recess and the length and number of
recess periods per day was used to create a new variable
to categorize children into 2 levels, that is, none/mini-
mal break versus some recess.None/minimal break was
defined as no break during the school day, a break ⬍5
days per week, or a break 5 days per week but only once
per day for ⬍15 minutes. Children reported to have
some recess were categorized into different levels of
exposure. Information about the time assigned to lunch
also was obtained from the teachers’ questionnaire and
was included in this categorization. Some recess was
categorized into 5 levels, which are shown in Table 1.
Physical Education Data
Another point of interest was assessing how much phys-
ical activity children with no recess were having. Data on
the frequency with which children participated in phys-
ical education were gathered from the teachers’ ques-
tionnaire and classified into 4 groups, that is, never/less
than once per week, once or twice per week, 3 or 4 times
per week, or daily.
TABLE 1 Proportions of Children Receiving Different Amounts of
Recess
Frequency Daily Recess
Periods
Duration,
min
Proportion,
%
None/minimal break None or
⬍5 d/wk
Once ⬍15 30
Some recess 70
Little recess Daily Twice or more 1–15 5
More recess Daily Twice or more 16–30 18
A lot of recess Daily Twice or more ⬎30 20
Minimal recess/lunch Daily Once 16–30 26
Recess/lunch of ⬎30
min
Daily Once ⬎30 1
432 BARROS et al by guest on April 29, 2009 www.pediatrics.orgDownloaded from

Demographic Characteristics
The children’s and parents’ characteristics were obtained
from the parents’ questionnaire. The children’s charac-
teristics included in the study were gender and ethnicity.
Ethnicity was classified as white non-Hispanic, black,
Hispanic, or other/mixed. The parents’ characteristics
included annual household income and parental educa-
tion. The annual household income was categorized by
the ECLS-K. For this study, parental education was clas-
sified as less than high school, high school degree or
equivalent, some college, bachelor’s degree or equiva-
lent, or graduate education.
School Characteristics
The school characteristics were obtained from the school
administrators’ questionnaire and included location, re-
gion, and type of school (private versus public). School
location was classified as large/medium-sized city, large/
medium-sized town, or small town/rural.
Classroom Characteristics
The classroom characteristics were obtained from the
teachers’ questionnaire and included number of stu-
dents in the classroom, classroom academic level, pro-
portion of boys in the class, proportion of students eli-
gible for free lunch, and proportion of minorities in the
class. The number of students in the classroom was
classified as 10 to 20 students or ⱕ21 students. Class-
room academic level was measured by using the propor-
tions of children in the classroom above grade level in
reading and math, obtained from the teachers’ question-
naire.
Group Classroom Behavior
The main outcome of the study was group classroom
behavior, which was assessed by using the teacher’s
rating of classroom behavior (TRCB), also obtained from
the teachers’ questionnaire. The teachers were asked to
rate the behavior in their class by using a rating scale of
1 to 5: 1, misbehaves very frequently and is almost
always difficult to handle; 2, misbehaves frequently and
is often difficult to handle; 3, misbehaves occasionally; 4,
behaves well; 5, behaves exceptionally well.
Data Analysis
Frequency analyses were used to assess the proportions
of children exposed to none/minimal break versus some
recess and the proportions of children with some recess
in each level of exposure to recess. Frequency analysis
also was used to assess the amount of physical education
provided in the school to children who were exposed to
none/minimal break. The child, parent, and school char-
acteristics of children exposed to none/minimal break
were compared with those of children exposed to some
recess by using cross-tabulation and
␹
2
analyses. TRCB
scores were compared for children with and without
recess by using an independent ttest. Because the chil-
dren’s characteristics and school and classroom charac-
teristics might be related to differences in classroom
behavior, these factors were entered with recess expo-
sure into a multivariate regression analysis with TRCB
scores as the dependent variable. The characteristics
used as control variables were proportion of boys in the
class, proportion of students eligible for free lunch, pro-
portion of students above grade in math, proportion of
students above grade in reading, number of students in
the class, parental education, school location, school re-
gion, and school type. Finally, the relationship between
TRCB scores and the 5 levels of exposure to recess was
examined first by using analysis of variance and then by
using multivariate linear regression analysis to adjust for
child, parental, and school characteristics as potential
confounders, as outlined above. All analyses were per-
formed by using SPSS (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL).
RESULTS
Depending on the variables analyzed, complete data var-
ied from 10 301 to 11 624 children between the ages of
8 and 9 years. There were equal numbers of boys and
girls. There was no significant difference in background
characteristics between children who were included in
the study and those who were not included because of
missing data.
The distribution of exposure to different levels of
recess is shown in Table 1. Among children between the
ages of 8 and 9 years, 30% were not exposed to recess at
all or had a ⬍15-minute daily break. Moreover, among
those children, almost 65% had physical education in
school twice per week or less (Fig 1).
Table 2 compares the demographic, parental, and
school characteristics of the children who had none/
minimal break and those who received some recess. As
shown, children without recess were significantly more
likely to be black or Hispanic (
␹
3
2
⫽824.2), to live in a
large or medium-sized city (
␹
2
2
⫽271.03), to live in the
South (
␹
3
2
⫽1884.13), and to attend public school (
␹
1
2
⫽
278.53) (all P⬍.001). They also came from families
with lower income (
␹
12
2
⫽288.02) and less parental
education (
␹
4
2
⫽161.36). In comparison, only 29% of
children who received some recess lived in families with
annual incomes of less than $40 000 (P⬍.001). The
parents of children who had none/minimal recess were
significantly less likely to have a college education or
higher (35% vs 42%; P⬍.001). No differences were
noted according to gender or class size.
Table 3 shows the results of the bivariate analysis
using an independent ttest to compare the TRCB score
9
55
16 20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
None 1–2/wk 3–4/w k Daily
FIGURE 1
Amounts of physical education among children with none/minimal break.
PEDIATRICS Volume 123, Number 2, February 2009 433
by guest on April 29, 2009 www.pediatrics.orgDownloaded from

means of the 2 groups. As shown, the TRCB scores were
better for children in the some recess group than those in
none/minimal break group. The same results were ob-
served in multivariate regression analysis after adjust-
ment for potential confounders (Table 4). Analysis of
variance demonstrated a relationship between TRCB
scores and the 5 levels of exposure to recess (F
5,11 523
⫽
17.55) (Table 5). Posthoc analyses showed that the
groups with each level of recess were significantly dif-
ferent from the none/minimal break group but no sig-
nificant differences were observed among the groups
with different levels of exposure to recess (data available
on request). These results did not change in the multi-
variate regression analysis.
DISCUSSION
A study conducted by the Institute for Social Research at
the University of Michigan showed that, since the late
1970s, children have lost 12 hours/week in free time,
including a 25% decrease in play and a 50% decrease
in unstructured outdoor activities.22 Presently, many
schoolchildren are given less free time and fewer phys-
ical outlets at school, because many school districts re-
TABLE 3 Bivariate Comparison of TRCB Scores for Children With
None/Minimal Break Versus Some Recess
NTRCB Score, Mean ⴞSD
None/minimal break 3369 3.44 ⫾0.900
Some recess
a
8160 3.60 ⫾0.854
a
P⬍.001.
TABLE 4 Multivariate Comparison of TRCB Scores for Children
With None/Minimal Break Versus Some Recess
Standardized
␤
(95%
Confidence Interval)
P
Some recess 0.042 (0.032–0.129) .001
Proportion of boys in
class
⫺0.154 (⫺1.689 to ⫺1.263) ⬍.001
Proportion of students
eligible for free
lunch
⫺0.097 (⫺0.364 to ⫺0.174) ⬍.001
Proportion of students
above grade in
math
0.108 (0.370–0.681) ⬍.001
Proportion of students
above grade in
reading
0.045 (0.059–0.361) .006
No. of students in class ⫺0.062 (⫺0.018 to ⫺0.008) ⬍.001
Proportion of
minorities in class
⫺0.091 (⫺0.070 to ⫺0.034) ⬍.001
Parental education 0.031 (0.004–0.040) .017
Midwest ⫺0.057 (⫺0.164 to ⫺0.049) ⬍.001
South ⫺0.039 (⫺0.131 to ⫺0.015) .014
West 0.025 (⫺0.011 to 0.123) .103
Large suburb 0.021 (⫺0.010 to 0.084) .121
Small town/rural ⫺0.076 (⫺0.205 to ⫺0.096) ⬍.001
Private school ⫺0.041 (⫺0.141 to ⫺0.034) .001
TABLE 2 Comparison of Demographic, Parental, and School
Characteristics of Children With None/Minimal Break
Versus Some Recess
Characteristics Nn(%)
None/Minimal
Break
Some
Recess
Ethnicity
a
11 612
White non-Hispanic 7093 1647 (48.1) 5446 (66.5)
Black 1380 814 (23.8) 566 (6.9)
Hispanic 1808 688 (20.1) 1120 (13.7)
Other/mixed 1331 276 (8.1) 1055 (12.9)
Gender 11 624
Male 5866 1712 (49.9) 4154 (50.7)
Female 5758 1717 (50.1) 4041 (49.3)
Parental education
a
10 301
Less than high school 710 300 (10.3) 410 (5.5)
High school or equivalent 2610 858 (29.5) 1752 (23.7)
Some college 2949 836 (28.7) 2113 (28.6)
Bachelor’s degree or equivalent 2144 519 (17.8) 1625 (22)
Graduate education 1888 398 (13.7) 1490 (20.2)
Parental income
a
10 301
Lees than $5000 221 105 (3.6) 116 (1.6)
$5000-$10 000 288 126 (4.3) 162 (2.2)
$10 001–$15 000 487 196 (6.7) 291 (3.9)
$15 001–20 000 569 226 (7.8) 343 (4.6)
$20 001–25 000 615 229 (7.9) 386 (5.2)
$25 001–30 000 690 233 (8) 457 (6.2)
$30 001–35 000 540 161 (5.5) 379 (5.1)
$35 001–40 000 738 217 (7.5) 521 (7.1)
$40 001–50 000 1155 304 (10.4) 851 (11.5)
$50 001–75 000 2036 511 (17.6) 1525 (20.6)
$75 001–100 000 1471 320 (11) 1151 (15.6)
$100 001–200 000 1149 220 (7.6) 929 (12.6)
More than $200 001 342 63 (2.2) 279 (3.8)
School location
a
11 418
Large/middle-sized city 4057 1498 (44.5) 2559 (31.8)
Large/middle-sized town 4505 1338 (39.7) 3167 (39.3)
Small town/rural 2856 531 (15.8) 2325 (28.9)
School region
a
11 624
Northeast 2167 641 (18.7) 1526 (18.6)
Midwest 3255 450 (13.1) 2805 (34.2)
South 3818 2069 (60.3) 1749 (21.3)
West 2384 269 (7.8) 2115 (25.8)
School type
a
11 619
Public 9199 3048 (88.9) 6151 (75.1)
Private 2420 381 (11.1) 2039 (24.9)
Class size 11 552
10–20 students 5462 1582 (46.5) 3880 (47.6)
ⱖ21 students 6090 1820 (53.5) 4270 (52.4)
a
P⬍.001.
TABLE 5 Bivariate Comparison of TRCB Scores According to Level
of Exposure to Recess
Level of Exposure NTRCB Score, Mean ⴞSD
(95% Confidence
Interval)
None/minimal break 3369 3.44 ⫾0.900(3.41–3.47)
Little recess
a
595 3.62 ⫾0.811(3.55–3.68)
More recess
a
2132 3.57 ⫾0.900(3.53–3.60)
A lot of recess
a
2299 3.61 ⫾0.829(3.58–3.64)
Minimal recess/lunch
a
3027 3.60 ⫾0.845(3.57–3.63)
Recess/lunch of ⬎30 min
a
107 3.74 ⫾0.925(3.56–3.92)
a
P⬍.001 for none/minimal break versus all other groups.
434 BARROS et al by guest on April 29, 2009 www.pediatrics.orgDownloaded from

sponded to the No Child Left Behind Act of 200123 by
reducing time committed to recess, the creative arts, and
even physical education in an effort to focus on reading
and mathematics.16,19,22,24–27
The present study illustrates that this trend especially
affects children who come from disadvantaged back-
grounds. Children who did not receive scheduled recess
at school were more likely to be from lower-income
families and from black and Hispanic ethnic groups. This
raises concern, in light of evidence that many children
from disadvantaged backgrounds are not free to roam
their neighborhoods or even their own yards unless they
are accompanied by adults.28 For many of these children,
recess periods may be the only opportunity for them to
practice their social skills with other children.10,29
Childhood health problems caused by inactivity or
underactivity represent a growing problem in the United
States.7Since the 1970s, the prevalence of obesity
among children has more than doubled for children 2 to
5 years of age and adolescents 12 to 19 years of age and
has more than tripled for children 6 to 11 years of
age.30,31 Children spend a large majority of their day in
school, during which recess and physical education pro-
vide the opportunity for physical activity.6,32,33 The
NASPE guidelines suggest that children between the
ages of 5 and 12 years should have ⱖ60 minutes of
physical activity per day, and periods of ⱖ2 hours of
inactivity are discouraged.6These data illustrate that,
among the 30% of children who had none/minimal
break, almost two thirds had minimal physical activity in
school. The results of this study suggest that many chil-
dren between the ages of 8 and 9 years may not meet the
NASPE recommendations and are at risk for becoming
overweight.
Moreover, recess may be an important element of
classroom management and behavior guidance.11 Find-
ings in this study suggest that recess may have a benefit
for overall group classroom behavior. Studies by Pelle-
grini et al12,13 and Jarrett et al14 concluded that students
were less attentive and worked less efficiently when
confined to their classrooms in continuous instructional
time. Those findings support the importance of recess for
student attentiveness in the classroom. A change in ac-
ademic instruction or class topic does not offer a mental
change or a physical release.1,34 Even a formal, struc-
tured, physical education class may not offer the same
benefit as recess.5,15,35
Evidence from Asian schools suggests that children’s
attention to class work is maximized when structured
time is relatively short and is followed by breaks.15,36 In
most Asian elementary schools, students are given a
10-minute break after every 40 to 50 minutes of instruc-
tional time, depending on the grade.15,36 In this study,
however, the overall group classroom behavior ratings
did not differ significantly according to the frequency of
or the time assigned for recess, which suggests that
group classroom behavior is better among those pro-
vided with even 1 daily recess of ⬎15 minutes in length.
Failure to demonstrate any differences among recess
groups may be partly a reflection of some of the limita-
tions of this study. First, data were obtained from a data
set in which no definition of recess was provided in the
teachers’ questionnaires, which allowed teachers to ap-
ply different definitions. In this study, adequate recess
was defined on the basis of the literature, which suggests
that recess should be provided for ⱖ20 minutes.5In this
data set, the length of recess was recorded in periods of
15 minutes; therefore, we selected ⬎15 minutes as being
closest to the recommended minimal period. Second,
information about lunchtime and recess was overlap-
ping in some response categories. Therefore, conclusions
could not be drawn regarding the adequacy of these
children’s recess time. Another limitation was that the
analysis was performed according to the number of chil-
dren, because the data did not provide the information
necessary to cluster the number of classrooms. Further-
more, because children’s classroom behavior was used to
assess the effect of recess on group classroom behavior
and not individual classroom behavior, it is not possible
to exclude potential bias from the teacher’s feelings
about recess. Teachers whose classes had recess might
feel differently about the behavior of the students in
their classrooms, because they also might benefit from
this break. In addition, because the data analyzed in this
study were only for children between the ages of 8 and
9 years, the findings cannot be generalized to other age
groups.
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed that a break during the school day of
ⱖ15 minutes was associated with better TRCB scores. In
addition, the available research suggests that recess may
play an important role in the learning, social develop-
ment, and health of children in elementary school.10
However, more research is needed to explore the appro-
priate balance between structured time and recess/phys-
ical activity for healthy child development and to assess
the effect of no-recess policies on students’ behavior and
academic achievements.
A recent report from the American Academy of Pe-
diatrics stated that every child deserves the opportunity
to develop to his or her unique potential and that child
advocates must consider all factors that interfere with
optimal development and should press for circumstances
that allow each child to gain the full advantages associ-
ated with play.1Pediatricians have a unique and impor-
tant opportunity to promote free play as an essential part
of childhood, emphasizing that play is necessary for
healthy development and optimal brain development.1
Pediatricians who serve as advisors in their communities
can advocate free play in school and in after-school
programs and can advise parents to learn about recess
and physical activity provided by the school before they
select a school program for their child.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We express profound gratitude to Drs Maris Rosenberg,
Blanche Benenson, and Howard Demb for invaluable sup-
port, encouragement, and useful suggestions throughout
this study.
PEDIATRICS Volume 123, Number 2, February 2009 435
by guest on April 29, 2009 www.pediatrics.orgDownloaded from

REFERENCES
1. Ginsburg KR; American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on
Communications and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of
Child and Family Health. The importance of play in promoting
healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-
child bonds. Pediatrics. 2007;119(1):182–191
2. Bergen D. Play as a Medium for Learning and Development: A Hand-
book of Theory and Practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; 1998
3. Waite-Stupainsky S, Findlay M. The fourth R: recess and its
link to learning. Educ Forum. 2001;66(1):16 –24
4. Pellegrini AD, Smith PK. School recess: implications for edu-
cation and development. Rev Educ Res. 1993;63(1):51– 67
5. National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Recess in
Elementary Schools: A Position Paper of the Council on Physical
Education for Children and the National Association for Sports and
Physical Education. Reston, VA: National Association for Sport
and Physical Education; 2001
6. National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Physical
Activity for Children: A Statement of Guidelines for Children Ages
5–12. 2nd ed. Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and
Physical Education; 2004
7. National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State
Departments of Education. Recess and the Importance of Play: A
Position Statement on Young Children and Recess. Urbana, IL: Na-
tional Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State De-
partments of Education; 2002
8. Hernandez Y. Recess’ provides cognitive, social and psychomotor
opportunities for growth. IDRA Newsl. 2001;April: www.idra.org/
IDRA_Newsletter/April_2001_Self_Renewing_Schools_Early_
Childhood/. Accessed February 17, 2005
9. Clements RL, ed. Elementary School Recess: Selected Readings,
Games, and Activities for Teachers and Parents. Boston, MA: Amer-
ican Press; 2000
10. Jarrett OS. Recess in elementary school: what does the research
say? ERIC Digest. 2003-2. Available at: www.ericdigests.org/
recess.html. Accessed January 18, 2005
11. Bogden JF, Vega-Matos CA. Fit, Healthy, and Ready to Learn: A
School Health Policy Guide, Part I: Physical Activity, Healthy Eating,
and Tobacco-Use Prevention. Alexandria, VA: National Associa-
tion of State Boards of Education; 2000
12. Pellegrini AD, Davis P. Relations between children’s play-
ground and classroom behavior. Br J Educ Psychol. 1993;63(1):
88 –95
13. Pellegrini AD, Huberty PD, Jones I. The effects of recess timing
on children’s playground and classroom behaviors. Am Educ
Res J. 1995;32(4):845– 864
14. Jarrett OS, Maxwell DM, Dickerson C, et al. The impact of
recess on classroom behavior: group effects and individual
differences. J Educ Res. 1998;92(2):121–126
15. Pellegrini AD, Bohn CM. The role of recess in children’s cog-
nitive performance and school adjustment. Educ Res. 2005;
34(1):13–19
16. Klein G. Recess in jeopardy? Media General News Service. Wash-
ington Dateline. March 21, 2006. Available at: http://washdateline.
magnetwork.com/index.cfm?SiteID⫽wsh&PackageID⫽46&
fuseaction⫽article.main&ArticleID⫽8086&GroupID⫽214. Accessed
December 15, 2007
17. Recess is “in recess” as schools cut child’s play. Educ Rep.
2001;189 Available at: www.eagleforum.org/educate/2001/
oct01/recess.shtml. Accessed April 17, 2006
18. MacPherson K. Development experts say children suffer due to
lack of unstructured fun. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. October 1 2002;
Available at www.postgazette.com/lifestyle/20021001childsplay
1001fnp3.asp. Accessed April 17, 2006
19. Bland K. Schools pressured to cut recess: instructional needs
mean less time for kids to play. Arizona Republic. May 12 2005;
Available at: www.azcentral.com/families/education/articles/
0512recess12.html. Accessed September 5, 2006
20. National Center for Education Statistics. Calories In, Calories Out:
Food and Exercise in Public Elementary Schools, 2005. Washington,
DC: US Department of Education; 2006. NCES 2006 –057. Avail-
able at: www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006057.pdf. Accessed June
14, 2006
21. National Center for Education Statistics. Early Childhood Longi-
tudinal Study Kindergarten Third Grade Public-Use Data File and
Electronic Code Book: User’s Manual for the ECLS-K Third Grade
Public-Use Data Set. Washington, DC: National Center for Edu-
cation Statistics; 2004
22. Juster TF, Stafford F, Ono H. Major Changes Have Taken Place in
How Children and Teens Spend Their Time: Child Development Supple-
ment. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan; 2004. Available at: www.umich.edu/news/
index.heml?Releases/2004/Nov04/r11704a. Accessed May 7,
2007
23. Department of Education. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:
Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Department of Education;
2002. Available at: www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/
execsumm.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2005
24. Dillon S. Schools cut back subjects to push reading and math. New
York Times. March 26, 2006; Available at: www.nytimes.com/
2006/03/26/education/26child.html. Accessed July 20, 2007
25. National PTA. Recess is at risk, 2006. Available at:
www.pta.org/ne_press_release_detail_1142028998890.html.
Accessed July 20, 2007
26. Kirn W, Cole W. Whatever happened to play? Time. April 22,
2001; www.time.com/time/nation/article/0.8599.10726.
400.html. Accessed April 13, 2006
27. Ohanian S. What Happened to Recess and Why Are Our Children
Struggling in Kindergarten? New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2002
28. White R, Stoecklin V. Children’s outdoor play and learning
environments: returning to nature. Kansas City, MO: White
Hutchinson Leisure and Learning Group. Available at:
www.whitehutchinson.com/cgibin/printer.cgi?p⫽/children/
articles/outdoor.shtml. Accessed July 20, 2007
29. Clements R, Jarrett O. Elementary school recess: then and
now. Streamlined Semin. 2000;18(4):1– 4
30. Center for Health and Health Care in Schools. Childhood Overweight:
What the Research Tells Us. Washington, DC: George Washington
University; 2005. Available at: www.healthinschools.org/
News%20Room/Fact%20Sheets/ChildhoodObesity.aspx. Accessed
May 7, 2007
31. Ogden CL, Flegal KM, Carroll MD, et al. Prevalence and trends
in overweight among US children and adolescents,
1999 –2000. JAMA. 2002;288(14):1728 –1732
32. Sidelar R. Recess: Is It Needed in the 21st Century? Champaign, IL:
Clearinghouse on Early Education and Parenting; 2004. Avail-
able at: http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/poptopics/recess.html.
Accessed January 18, 2005
33. Dale D, Corbin CB, Dale KS. Restricting opportunities to be
active during school time: do children compensate by increas-
ing physical activity levels after school? Res Q Exerc Sport. 2000;
71(3):240 –248
34. Toppino TC, Kasserman JE, Mracek WA. The effect of spacing
repetitions on the recognition memory of young children and
adults. J Exp Child Psychol. 1991;51(1):123–138
35. Jarret O, Maxwell D. Physical education and recess: are both
necessary? Available at: www.southfayette.org/⬃bohn/
recess.html. Accessed January 18, 2005
36. Stevenson HW. Learning from Asian schools. A review and
commentary by Paul MacFarlane, written in November 1999.
Sci Am. 1992; Available at: www.tdl.com/⬃schafer/Asian.htm.
Accessed October 31, 2007
436 BARROS et al by guest on April 29, 2009 www.pediatrics.orgDownloaded from

DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-2825
2009;123;431-436 Pediatrics
Romina M. Barros, Ellen J. Silver and Ruth E. K. Stein
School Recess and Group Classroom Behavior
& Services
Updated Information http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/123/2/431
including high-resolution figures, can be found at:
References
http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/123/2/431#BIBL
at:
This article cites 11 articles, 3 of which you can access for free
Subspecialty Collections
http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/collection/office_practice
Office Practice
following collection(s):
This article, along with others on similar topics, appears in the
Permissions & Licensing
http://www.pediatrics.org/misc/Permissions.shtml
tables) or in its entirety can be found online at:
Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures,
Reprints http://www.pediatrics.org/misc/reprints.shtml
Information about ordering reprints can be found online:
by guest on April 29, 2009 www.pediatrics.orgDownloaded from