Content uploaded by Ed Baines
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ed Baines on Mar 31, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
21
This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article:
Baines, E. & Blatchford, P. (2023). The decline in breaktimes and lunchtimes in primary and
secondary schools in England: Results from three national surveys spanning 25 years, British
Education Research Journal,
which has been accepted for publication will be published in final form at [Link to final article using
the DOI]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and
Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.
The decline in breaktimes and lunchtimes in primary and secondary schools
in England: Results from three national surveys spanning 25 years.
Ed Baines1 and Peter Blatchford1
1 UCL Institute of Education, London
Corresponding author: Ed Baines (e.baines@ucl.ac.uk)
Address for Correspondence:
Psychology and Human Development,
UCL Institute of Education,
25 Woburn Square,
London WC1H 0AA
Conflicts of interest:
None
Funding information
All three surveys were funded by the Nuffield Foundation.
22
The decline in breaktimes and lunchtimes in primary and secondary schools
in England: Results from three national surveys spanning 25 years.
Abstract
Breaktimes are a ubiquitous in English schools. Research suggests they have social value for children
but school staff often have a range of concerns about breaktimes and tend to undervalue them.
However, there is little understanding about these times, not least because data are not collected
about their organisation and characteristics. This paper brings together data from 3 national surveys
undertaken in 1995, 2006 and 2017 of primary and secondary schools to provide an understanding of
the nature, organisation and staff attitudes towards breaktimes and how they have changed over 25
years. At each survey point, completed questionnaires were received from representative random
samples of over 1000 primary and secondary schools. Results showed marked reductions in the
average total amount of time for breaks, the virtual abolition of afternoon breaks and a decline in time
available for lunch-time breaks. Reasons for reductions were largely for behavioural reasons and to
increase time for learning. Results also show variations in the length of breaktimes across school types
and in relation to socioeconomic disadvantage, and changes to the amount of supervision provided
by schools. Attitudes towards breaks varied across primary and secondary phases and the withholding
of breaks was used by schools to address poor pupil behaviour and disengagement. Schools continued
to have concerns about the management of behaviour during breaktimes even when breaks had
already been shortened. It is suggested that staff undervalue the potential contribution that
breaktimes afford the development and wellbeing of children and young people in school.
Key words: Breaktime; recess; playtime; primary school; secondary school
23
Introduction
Although comparisons between countries are difficult, it seems that many school systems have some
kind of break in the school day (Beresin, 2016). In this paper we use the term ‘breaktimes’ for these
periods, though in UK primary schools the term ‘playtime’ is sometimes used, and in other countries
the preferred term is ‘recess’. In the UK there is usually a morning break and a longer lunchtime break,
with some schools having an afternoon break as well. As we shall see, breaktimes in the UK take up a
sizeable proportion of the school day, and yet information about this time is lacking.
School breaktimes are often taken for granted by adults – they are an habitual, relatively
unimportant pause in a busy day. When they are considered by school staff, it is often in the context
of the problems that can arise, for example bullying, squabbles between friends, health and safety
risks that can occur on the playground and these result in management decisions about controlling
behaviour (See Blatchford, 1998; Gill, 2007). This view also means that the activities and events that
take place during breaks are not perceived as having much value. The time may be seen as expendable
in favour of other ‘worthy’ activities, such as more time spent learning, for introducing interventions,
or as a time for broadening the curriculum through the use of more adult led enrichment activities.
Breaktimes can, however, be viewed more positively. We know that pupils value breaktimes
for the opportunities they provide to meet friends and play, and they enjoy breaktimes more than any
other part of the school day (Blatchford, 1998). Some have argued that breaktimes are important
contexts for children’s development, wellbeing and school engagement (Baines & Blatchford, 2011;
Blatchford et al., 2003; Pellegrini et al., 2002; Prisk & Cusworth, 2018; Ramstetter et al., 2010). It is
during these times that pupils get to meet friends and socialise and engage in activities that are
meaningful for them in a safe setting relatively free of adult control (Blatchford, 1998). There are few
other settings where children are afforded a level of autonomy to make their own decisions about the
activities they engage in, the roles they adopt and the people that they interact with. From a research
point of view, the study of breaktime behaviour provides an important window into a child’s social
and emotional development (Pellegrini & Blatchford, 2002).
Whether one adopts a positive or negative view of breaktimes, what is clear is they are a little
understood part of the school day. Virtually no information on the nature, organisation and
supervision of school breaks is collected at a national or international level. Even the OECD, which
provides extensive statistics on many aspects of education, provides little information on breaktimes,
(OECD, 2016). In the UK, there are no national policies and few expectations about what these times
may involve, either from the government or from Ofsted, the national body responsible for inspecting
school education. Although, as part of employment law in England, full time school staff are entitled
to have a break, there is no formal or legal requirement for schools to provide breaktimes for children.
Just about the only systematic and representative data available on breaktimes in schools,
and as far as we know anywhere in the world, comes from two national surveys of English schools,
undertaken in 1995 (with information on changes to breaktimes since 1990) and 2006 funded by the
Nuffield Foundation (Blatchford & Baines, 2006; Blatchford & Sumpner, 1998). The two national
surveys showed that between the early 1990s and 2005 there had been changes to the number of
breaks, their length, organisation and supervision. Most notably, findings indicated that the time
available for breaks had been eroded. School staff often justified this reduction in terms of efforts to
control bullying as well as creating more time for coverage of the school curriculum (Blatchford &
Baines, 2006). By contrast, this research also showed that for pupils, breaktimes are some of the most
valued times and experiences they have in school (Blatchford, 1998; Blatchford et al., 2003; Blatchford
& Baines, 2006).
The two earlier surveys are unique and significant in providing a comprehensive
understanding of a little understood part of the school day in primary and secondary schools.
However, since the second national survey in 2006, there have been substantial changes to the
structure of schools, education and curriculum. There is increased national and international pressure
on schools to improve academic standards and in England many school leaders now have greater
control about the nature and length of the school day (DFE, 2011). These changes are accompanied
24
by marked changes in children’s social lives outside of school which may have led to a decline in
children’s independence of movement, play outside and a corresponding increase in on-line
opportunities for informal peer interaction and in-home entertainment (Baines & Blatchford, 2012;
Gray, 2011; Play England, 2012; Shaw et al., 2013; Singer et al., 2009). Breaktimes can also be viewed
in the context of concerns about school food provision, obesity, lack of physical activity and the
narrowness of the curriculum. Breaks are often seen as times when more can be done to address these
issues through more adult organised ‘enrichment’ activities (see Batty & Wintour, 2013; Bertram et al.,
2017; Briggs & Simons, 2014; MacIntyre, 2021; Public Health England, 2020), thus potentially taking
away from the autonomous, self-directed and informal nature of breaks.
Given these changes, and the lack of officially gathered systematic information on breaktimes,
we felt it was timely to undertake a further follow-up national survey, and an important opportunity to
map trends in this little understood part of school life over the past 25 years. There were three main
areas of interest.
The first area to consider is the nature, organisation and supervision of breaktimes as well as
associated staff views on the role of these times. Our previous surveys show that most schools have 2-3
breaks in the school day, usually a short break of between 15-20 minutes in the morning, a period at
around midday for children to have their lunch and spend some time on the playground and in a few
schools a short period in the afternoon toward the end of the school day. However there has been
interest in alternative scheduling of breaks (NUT, 2015) and some schools may adopt markedly different
approaches to breaktimes based on a shortened or continental school day or even schedule a short
break every hour, as is practiced in some other countries (Beresin, 2016).
In terms of the organisation and supervision of breaktimes, these may have changed, given the
changing nature of teaching and support staff in school (Blatchford et al., 2009). Concerns about the
narrowing of the curriculum, especially in primary education (Pollard, 2012), and an increased interest
in the provision of extra-curricular adult-structured activities to enrich pupils’ experiences in school
(Chanfreau et al., 2015; Margo et al., 2006) may have altered the activities and nature of supervision on
school playgrounds.
As in previous surveys, we were keen to ascertain staff views on the value or contribution of
breaktimes and the challenges they present. These may have changed in the light of shifting
management of schools (Walford, 2014), approaches to mealtimes (SFT, 2009), and recent thinking in
relation to play, bullying, behaviour and obesity (DFE, 2016; APPG on a fit and healthy childhood,
2015a, 2015b). In previous surveys we found that schools often identify poor behaviour and
management of breaks as presenting particular challenges and that secondary schools in particular
take a more functional view of breaks as times for eating and physical activity. In the light of anecdotal
reports and the absence of research data, we were also interested in occasions when children may
miss breaktimes and possible reasons for this.
A second main area of interest was whether the demographics of the schools involved
influenced the characteristics of breaktimes. The academy and free schools programme which has led
to greater autonomy in the way that schools in England are run and funded (Walford, 2014) may have
implications for the duration and nature of breaktimes. With increased autonomy over the school day
(DFE, 2011), it is likely that schools with different characteristics and in different socio-economic or
geographical contexts may organise their school day and breaktimes in different ways (e.g., to reduce
travel at peak times). Research in the US has found that schools in more deprived neighbourhoods
have less recess time than schools in wealthier locations (Barros et al., 2009; Ramstetter et al., 2010).
It may also be the case that where urban pollution levels are high, schools allow less time for breaks
than in more rural areas with cleaner air. Our previous surveys have found that the youngest children
in school receive more time for breaks in the school day than older children.
The third and final area of interest is in the way breaktimes may have changed over time. The
three surveys of breaktimes in primary and secondary schools in England undertaken in 1995, 2006 and
2017 offered a significant opportunity to identify changes over a period of 22 years.
25
Methods
Design
Each study involved a large-scale national survey of primary and secondary schools in England, case
studies of schools with varying breaktime arrangements in place and, for the 2005 and 2017 studies, a
survey of pupils’ views on school breaks and social life in and outside of school. Only selected results
from the national surveys of schools are presented here (see Baines & Blatchford (2019) for information
about case studies and pupil surveys).
The school breaktime survey
The school breaktime questionnaire was devised for the 1995 survey on the basis of extended pilot work
(see Blatchford & Sumpner, 1998). At each subsequent survey point in 2005 and 2017, questions were
reviewed and feedback sought from school staff to ensure that questions remained relevant. In order to
allow comparisons over time, the questions and response options for core questions (e.g., on the length
of breaktimes) remained the same at each time point. It was necessary, however, to make a few
adjustments to capture recent changes to schools and the school system. Questions were largely in
closed categorical response format, but several questions allowed for multiple categorical responses or
sought open ended answers. A number of questions sought further information to enable the
contextualisation of the information about breaktimes, for example information about the number of
pupils on the school roll, the length of the school day, school composition etc. There was also a question
about the nature of changes to breaktimes in the past 5 years as well as an open ended follow up
question that asked the reasons for changes. Additionally, there was a retrospective question in the
1995 survey which provided information on the nature of breaks in 1990 and changes since then. This
enabled the surveys cover the periods of 1995-2017 and in terms of changes to breaktimes 1990-2017
so over a period of approximately 25 years.
Sample selection, procedure and response rate
To get a comprehensive account, a large sample of schools was sought. For the 2005 and 2017 surveys,
a publicly available national database of schools was used to identify and select random samples of
schools. Based on an annual school census organised by the Department for Education, this data base
provides the name of the school leader, school contact details along with demographic information
about the school (e.g., size, number of boys and girls on roll, age range accepted, gender composition
of the school etc.). For information on the sample of schools approached for the 1995 survey and
characteristics of those that responded, see Blatchford and Sumpner (1998).
At each time point a random sample of primary and secondary state funded (and in 1995 and
2017 only, independent) schools were selected and a letter and a paper copy of the questionnaire and
a return postage paid envelope was sent to the school leader. Surveys were sent to 2,550, 4,097 and
4,301 schools for the 1995, 2006 and 2017 surveys respectively. For the 2005 and 2017 surveys, there
was the option to complete and return the survey electronically. In the event, most responding schools
returned questionnaires by post. Reminders were sent to schools that had not returned questionnaires
within a month of being sent the first survey. Due to evidence of declining response rates in other studies
undertaken during this period, larger numbers of schools were approached for the 2005 and 2017
surveys. Response rates declined over the three surveys from over 60% of contacted schools returning
questionnaires in 1995 to approximately 26% in 2017 (see Table 1).
**************Insert Table 1 about here *************
The samples of schools that responded were compared to schools that did not respond and
to the wider population of schools in the database. The responding samples were found to be largely
representative of the overall population of schools at the time and to schools that did not respond, in
26
relation to most measures (e.g., school type, proportion of pupils receiving free school meals,
geographic location, school pupil gender and Ofsted status – see Baines & Blatchford (2019) for further
information).
Analysis
Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses provide a detailed examination of the main topic areas
surveyed and in relation to phase of education (primary and secondary school) and across school types
(e.g. non-LA maintained, LA maintained schools and independent schools). Data and findings relating to
independent schools (which made up 5% of the total samples in 2017 and 1995) are reported
separately to enable comparisons with the 2006 survey which did not survey independent schools.
Given the categorical nature of the survey data, analyses largely involve cross-tabulations, multiple
response analyses and chi-square analyses. Correlation and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to
compare continuous data (such as the length of breaks) across explanatory variables (e.g., school type,
% of pupil in receipt of a free school meal). Where needed, post-hoc Bonferroni follow up tests were
used to understand the differences between levels of explanatory variables and effect sizes (partial eta
squared) are reported. Data from open ended questions were analysed thematically in a way consistent
with the process outlined by Braun and Clark (2006).
A second layer of analysis involved comparing trends over time across the 3 surveys. As the
surveys were undertaken with different random samples of schools they were treated as independent
samples. Analyses are largely descriptive except in relation to continuous data, where ANOVAs with
Bonferroni tests were used to test for differences between surveys. Additionally, for some questions,
comparisons could be made with estimates of arrangements in 1990 as the 1995 survey included
questions relative to the number and length of breaks and changes since 1990. These analyses overall
provide insights into changes and adjustments in school and playground life over 10 – 25 years.
Results
Results are first reported in relation to data collected in 2017 and then subsequently within each
section in relation to changes since 2006 and 1995.
***************Insert Table 2 here
Number and duration of school breaktimes
Findings show that in 2017 all schools reported 2 or 3 breaks in the school day (see Table 2), with the
majority having a break in the morning and at lunchtime. Some maintained schools also reported a
third break which took place in the afternoon. Just over half of primary schools (54%) reported having
an afternoon break at KS1, but only 15% offered this at KS2 and virtually no state secondary schools
(1%) reported offering an afternoon break.
The total daily duration of breaktimes decreased with pupil age. For the 2017 survey, at KS1
total breaktime length was on average 85 minutes, at KS2 it was 76 minutes and at KS3 and KS4, 63
minutes (see Table 3). These figures include time spent eating a midday meal since English schools
tend not to separate meal-time from the total time available for the lunch break. ANOVA tests show
that the total duration of breaktimes varied by School type for each Key Stage (All p values <.05 and
effect sizes ranged from .025 - .46). Independent schools had longer breaks than state schools, with
total durations of approximately 90 minutes per day at all Key Stages. Within state funded education,
academies and free schools tended to have less total amount of time for breaks at KS1 than LA
maintained schools (average of 82 mins vs 86 mins) but there were no differences found between
them at later Key Stages.
A categorical analysis of the duration of breaktimes provides further insights (Table 2). This
showed that in 2017 most state primary schools report morning breaks at KS1 and KS2 of 15 minutes
27
with a small proportion reporting 20 minutes. Lunch breaks of about an hour (55-64 mins) were most
common. More schools reported lunchtime breaks of longer than an hour at KS1 than at KS2. By
contrast, more schools reported shorter breaks of up to 55 minutes at KS2 than KS1.
The presence of afternoon breaks varied across Key Stages, as we have seen (Table 2). About
85% of schools reported not having an afternoon break at KS2 whereas nearly half of schools (46%)
reported that KS1 pupils had them. When present, afternoon breaks were most often 15 minutes.
At secondary level, patterns were very similar across KS3 and 4. Most schools reported
morning breaks of 20 minutes, with just over a fifth reporting morning breaks of 15 minutes and 14%
of schools reporting morning breaks of 25 minutes or more. Nearly a quarter of secondary schools
allowed 35 minutes or less for lunch break (including time to eat lunch) and a quarter had lunches of
between 36 and 45 minutes. This means that more than half of secondary schools had lunch breaks
of 45 minutes or less. Approximately 16% of secondary schools reported lunch breaks of around an
hour. Afternoon breaks effectively do not exist in state-funded secondary schools with nearly all
schools (99%) reporting not having them.
In 2017, independent schools were significantly more likely to report longer morning and
lunch breaks (Table 3) than state funded primary and secondary schools. ANOVAs relating to the
mean duration of morning and lunch breaks by school type at each Key Stage were all statistically
significant (p<.05) with effect sizes ranging from .01 to .30. Only 10% of independent secondary
schools had lunchbreaks of 45 minutes or less and nearly 80% had breaks of 55 minutes or more,
with over a third of these reporting lunch breaks of more than an hour. Independent secondary
schools were also more likely than state funded schools to report that students had an afternoon
break with around 35-40% of reporting this. There are indications that afternoon breaks in
independent schools are more structured. In many cases during lunch breaks or during afternoon
breaks, pupils were offered an array of informally arranged enrichment activities. These findings can
only be tentative since the numbers of participating independent schools and response rates were
lower than maintained schools. There was also variability across independent schools as indicated by
the higher standard deviations (Table 3).
Duration of breaks in relation to other school characteristics
Partial correlations show that at KS1 and 2, when controlling for the length of the school day, the total
duration of breaktime in State schools is negatively correlated with the percentage of pupils within
the school who receive Free School Meals (FSM). Partial correlations were -.24 (p<.01) and -.27 (p<.01)
for KS1 and KS2 respectively. This was not found at secondary school levels (-.06 and -.12 at KS3 and
4 respectively). This indicates that primary schools with a greater level of socio-economic
disadvantage (higher % of FSM is a proxy measure of socio-economic disadvantage – see Taylor, 2017)
had less total time for breaks, even when the overall length of the school day was controlled for. When
taken together with the longer total amount of time for breaks in independent secondary schools,
there are indications of a marked connection between school SES demographic and time in school for
breaks.
Differences in the total amount of breaktime were also evident between schools in urban and
rural locations with slight differences evident at KS1 and KS2 but not at secondary school level with
rural schools having on average slightly more total break time (see Baines & Blatchford 2019, for more
information).
Change in total duration of break times between 1995 and 2017
There were marked changes between 1995 and 2017 in the total amount of time allocated to breaks
(Table 3). State funded schools experienced a marked decline in breaktime length over time at KS1,
F(2, 3156)=136.3, p<.001,
2=.08. At KS1, average total time for breaks was 94 minutes in 1995, 91
28
minutes in 2006 and 85 minutes in 2017. Across the 20-year period, this amounts to an overall average
decline of 9 minutes per day or a total of 45 minutes less breaktime per week.
At KS2 there was a similar decline, but the largest reduction took place between 1995 and
2006 where total time for break reduced from 83 minutes per day to 77 minutes per day, F(2,
2964)=143.83, p<.001,
2=.09. In 2017, KS2 pupils had an average of 75 minutes per day – this is 8
minutes per day less than in 1995, equivalent to approximately 40 minutes on average less per week
1
.
The most substantial reduction in the total length of breaktime is evident in state-funded
secondary schools, F(2, 625)=53.8, p<.001,
2=.15. In 1995 students had 74 minutes of breaktime in
the day. This reduced to 69 minutes in 2006 and in 2017 it was 63 minutes. This is a reduction of 11
minutes per day since 1995 and equivalent to a reduction of 55 minutes per week, nearly a whole
day’s worth of break time per week. ANOVAs indicated that the differences in total amounts of
breaktime in State schools at the different survey points are statistically significant (all p values <.001
and effect sizes ranged from .08 - .15). Analyses for each key stage also indicated Time (1995 vs 2017)
by School type (State vs Independent) interactions for each Key Stage – with the length of breaktimes
in independent schools remaining largely unchanged whilst State-funded schools saw a reduction in
the lengths of total break time between 1995 and 2017 (all p values <.01; effect sizes ranged from .002
- .026).
***************Insert Table 3 here.
A categorical analysis of changes over time in the duration of breaktimes is shown in Table 2,
where the data for 2017, already examined, are presented alongside results from the 1995 and 2006
surveys. At KS1 and KS2 morning breaks have remained constant with the majority of schools reporting
15 minutes for morning break. However, at KS3 and KS4 morning breaktimes have been extended
from 15 minutes up to 20 minutes and in a few cases longer.
The most substantive changes have been made to lunch breaks and afternoon breaks where
at all Key Stages there is a clear trend for shorter lunch breaks and a decline in the number of schools
offering afternoon breaks. Taking into account the data that relate to 1990 (reported in 1995), 90% of
primary schools indicated that KS1 pupils had an afternoon break. This had declined to approximately
70% in 1995 and remained stable between 1995 and 2006 but then there was a further reduction to
54% in 2017. At KS2 there was a substantial decline between 1990 and 1995 from 85% to 42%, a
further decline to 26% in 2006 and in 2017 only 15% of schools reported having an afternoon break at
KS2. Amongst secondary schools, while there was a considerable elimination of afternoon breaks
between 1990 and 1995 from 41% to 13%, this has been eroded further to 4% in 2006 and then to 1%
in 2017. These are fairly stark changes over this period of 27 years.
A range of reasons were given in response to the open-ended question in 2017 about the
reasons for changes to breaktimes. A popular explanation for the shortening or abolition of breaks
was to create more curriculum/teaching time (30%). The management of problematic behaviour was
another main reason given for the shortening of breaks (14%), typically the lunch time break, with
some schools suggesting that the reduced time lessened opportunities for poor behaviour, whilst
others suggested it enabled better concentration after lunch. In 6% of cases the abolition or
shortening of breaks was to enable structured opportunities for physical exercise, such as the ‘daily
mile’ or more PE. A few schools reported reducing breaktimes to enable a shorter school day (6%) and
1
Analyses also show that as a proportion of the school day for the 2006 and 2017 studies, total breaktime has
also reduced indicating that these differences are not due to less total time spent in school (see Baines &
Blatchford, 2019).
29
others staggered lunchtimes in order to manage the change to the universal provision of free school
meals for children at KS1 (7%).
***************Insert Table 4 here.
Supervision at breaktime
At primary level in 2017, descriptive statistics show that support staff were the main supervisors at
break and lunch times overall (see Table 4). Teaching staff in maintained schools were more likely to
supervise during morning and afternoon breaks and support staff were more likely to supervise at
lunchtimes.
Findings were different at secondary level with supervisors more likely to be teaching staff
than support staff for both morning and lunch breaks. There was a slight increase in numbers of
support staff supervising (and a corresponding decrease in teachers supervising) at lunch breaks.
In relation to the patterns across the different surveys (Table 4), there has been a marked
change since 1995 in the mean numbers of staff supervising at breaktime in both primary and
secondary schools. At primary level, the numbers of support staff that supervise has increased and by
2017 they are the main adults involved in supervision. At secondary level, the average numbers of
supervisors that are teachers has nearly doubled compared to 2006 figures and they were far more
likely to supervise break and lunchtimes than support staff.
Although the numbers of staff supervising at breaktimes has increased this might be due to
an increase in student numbers within school. It is therefore important to consider the student-staff
supervisor ratios . Our findings show marked changes with far fewer pupils to supervisors in 2017 than
was the case in 2006 and 1995. At primary level this is particularly evident at morning breaktime and
less so at lunchtimes where ratios are generally consistent. At secondary level, the average numbers
of staff supervising and the overall ratios of students to staff have changed markedly since 2006 and
1995 with the ratios of students to staff also substantially lower than in 2006 and 1995.
The 2017 survey provided insights into the nature of supervision, whether this involves adults
keeping an eye on children while playing or taking a more active and deliberate role in the organisation
of play activities. Results showed that in just over half of primary schools (53%), staff supervise at a
distance (i.e. this means they tend to keep an eye on children without directly interacting with them)
and allow pupils the freedom to undertake activities of their own choosing. However, in over a quarter
of primary schools (28%), activities are organised informally by adults and in 15% of schools, staff are
required by the school to organise activities and games for pupils to choose to participate in, if they
wish. Only eight schools (2%) organised what might be described as ‘structured breaktimes’ where
staff set up activities that children must choose from the options available. At secondary level,
‘supervision at a distance’ was the most dominant form of supervision (91%), while in a few schools,
staff either voluntarily (7%, n=6) or were ‘required’ (2%, n=2) to organise clubs/ activities for students
to participate in at lunchtime.
Children missing break times
A question new to the 2017 breaktime survey asked about times when children might miss out on
breaktimes. The question was very specific in that we were referring to those times when children
miss a FULL breaktime or lunchtime, rather than just the first few minutes, as it implies a deliberate
decision to do so. There can be a range of reasons for children missing breaktimes including
30
attendance of competitions, optional classes (e.g., to learn a musical instrument), as well as for
disciplinary reasons or to finish off work.
Findings show that 64% of primary schools indicated that there are times when pupils miss a
full break/ lunch time. Many primary schools said that withholding breaks was part of their formal
behaviour policy. Primary schools indicated that children might miss a break due to poor behaviour in
class (49%) or during breaktime (45%) and in over a fifth of primary schools (23%) this was to catch up
with their class/home-work. Extending this to all schools (including those that did not withhold
breaks), shows that 58% of primary schools withhold breaks for behavioural reasons.
More than half of secondary schools (57%) indicated that students might miss a full break or
lunch time. Again, the majority of secondary schools reported that this was due to poor behaviour in
class (51%), at break time (41%) or to finish off class/home-work (30%). Extending this to all schools
that answered this question shows that 53% of secondary schools withheld breaks for behavioural
reasons.
***************Insert Table 5 here.
The value of breaktimes
Staff in primary schools in 2017 felt that the main value of breaktimes (Table 5) was the opportunity
it provided for: the release of energy/ physical exercise (86%), socialising with peers (84%), and getting
fresh air (54%). This was followed by opportunities to eat and drink (25%) and extra-curricular
activities (10%). Independent schools, more than state funded schools, emphasised the opportunity
that breaks offer for free and undirected recreation (63% vs 43%).
These values contrasted with secondary schools where the emphasis was on the value of
breaks in terms of more functional needs: as important times for students to eat and drink (71%), for
energy release and exercise (57%), and time to socialise (57%). Only 24% saw breaks as important for
enrichment activities or for undirected free recreation (22%).
***************Insert Table 6 here.
Challenges of breaktimes
The majority of primary schools in 2017 (64%) indicated that there were concerns and challenges with
regard to breaktimes (Table 6) with the poor social behaviour of a few pupils who have difficulties
socialising (64%), followed by overcrowding in the dinner hall and outside (25%), and the quality of
supervision (23%) the main concerns identified.
Secondary schools were more likely than primary schools to identify the presence of
challenges (73%) at breaktimes. However, this varied by school type with only 40% of independent
schools indicating the existence of challenges and 80% of state funded schools indicating that there
were challenges, (χ2(1)=23.71, p<.001,
Cv =.35). Main challenges identified by secondary schools
were: the problematic behaviour of a few individuals (64%), followed by overcrowding of the dining
hall and outside (53%), and the quality of supervision (31%).
In relation to previous surveys, the poor behaviour of certain students remains the main
concern for primary and secondary schools over the past 30 years. Concerns about poor behaviour
due to the lack of physical activity has declined over time as has concerns about the problems of the
school site.
***************Insert Table 7 here.
31
Behaviour at breaktime
The 2017 survey also asked more directly whether there had been any changes to children’s behaviour
at breaktimes in the last 5 years (Table 7). The response options given were ‘Improved’, ‘Not changed’,
‘Declined’ or ‘Unsure’. The majority of primary school staff respondents in 2017 (49%) felt that
behaviour had improved, with only 9% indicating that it had declined. At secondary level, 46% of
schools reported that behaviour had not changed and a third said they felt it had improved. The main
trend since 1995 and 2006 is that both primary and secondary school staff are less likely to report that
behaviour has declined in the past five years, but rather that behaviour has improved. Nevertheless,
behaviour remains the area of biggest concern for staff.
To consider whether the changes to the duration of breaktimes in 2017, reported earlier,
were connected to reports of changes in children’s behaviour in the last 5 years, we analysed these
data further. Findings showed that schools that had made changes to breaktimes were no more
likely to report improvements or a decline in behaviour than schools that had not made changes to
their breaktimes (p=.70).
Discussion
This research set out to collect current information on the nature of school break and lunch times in
primary and secondary schools and staff views on these times. It also sought to provide a long-term
analysis of trends by comparing findings with those from previous breaktime surveys undertaken in
1995 and 2006. Analyses over the three time points provides a long-term view of the nature of, and
changes to, breaktimes in schools over a 25-year period. To our knowledge there is no other research
that provides systematic data on breaktimes either nationally or internationally. The study was
rigorous in its approach to data collection, being based on data systematically collected via random
samples of over a thousand schools in England covering the primary and secondary phases of
education. Findings show that there have been marked changes over this period. We argue that these
have important implications for pupil’s social-emotional development and wellbeing and significant
implications for educational policy.
A main finding from the 2017 survey is that break and lunch times continue to be universally
experienced in primary and secondary schools in England. There were no instances of schools that did
not allow at least some time for pupils to have a break. Nearly all schools had at least 2 breaks in the
school day – usually morning and lunch breaks - and a few had 3 breaks. However, our results are clear
in showing a decline over time in the number and length of breaktimes in schools. In the second survey
in 2006 we found that there had been a reduction in the lengths of breaks since the first survey in
1995. An important finding from the 2017 survey was that this trend has continued: primary pupils in
2017 experienced 40-45 mins less breaktime per week than in 1995 and secondary pupils experienced
over an hour (65 mins) less breaktime per week.
The areas where breaks have been eroded are twofold. Firstly, the afternoon break has been
virtually eradicated: fewer primary schools offer these to KS1 and KS2 pupils compared to schools in
1995 and 2006. Secondly, there has been a shortening of the lunchbreak. At KS2, in 1995, 30% of
schools offered pupils a lunchtime of more than an hour. This is now 6% of primary schools. At
secondary level, in 1995, one in ten schools had lunch breaks of less than 45 mins, in 2017 this is now
half of secondary schools and nearly a quarter of secondary schools have very short lunch breaks of
up to 35 mins. There is then, good evidence of an historical trend over the past 30 years for a decline
in the duration of breaktimes in schools.
The principal reasons given by school staff for shortening breaks are to provide more time for
teaching and learning and to assist with the management of behaviour. The view is presented that
either the time could be better used for covering the demands of the curriculum, and that if children
have too much time on their hands, their behaviour deteriorates. These are similar themes to those
32
identified in the 1995 survey (where many schools were concerned about bullying and providing more
time for learning), but this has been used to justify further cuts to the length of breaktimes.
In our view these reductions are concerning and suggest that breaktimes are taken for granted
by school staff, and reflect a lack of recognition of the important contribution of these times for
children and young people. Breaks may be one of the first areas to be eroded when new interventions,
more curriculum time or meetings are introduced. A main problem is that this results in children
missing out on time for socialising with peers and friends, play and physical activity and a break from
the pressures of the curriculum. These reduced opportunities may have implications for children’s
wellbeing, enjoyment and engagement with school (Baines & Blatchford, 2011). Breaktimes are
important sites for peer interactions and the development of friendship (Blatchford et al., 2003;
Pellegrini et al., 2002), which can offer valuable experiences for children to enjoy school and feel a
sense of belonging to school (Baines & Blatchford, 2011; McNamara et al., 2018), for developing social
relational and communication skills. School breaktime are not just important for children but also
adolescents as they provide valuable opportunities to socialise and connect with peers and friends, to
explore their interests, identities and moral and social values (Blatchford, 1998; Orben, Tomova &
Blakemore, 2020).
Contrary to the views of some school staff, there is a developing evidence base for the value
of breaks for improving behaviour generally (Barros et al., 2009) and in class after breaks (Jarrett et
al., 1998), for enabling children to concentrate more when learning in class (Pellegrini et al., 1995;
Rhea & Rivchun, 2018), and it is likely that the social-interaction skills provide important benefits when
children engage in collaborative work in the classroom (Baines et al., 2009; Kutnick & Blatchford,
2012). The relationships and associated skills children develop provide a basis for future relationships
(Bagwell & Schmidt, 2013)
The changes to breaktimes also have a wider importance in relation to children’s social lives
more generally. Recent evidence shows that young people are less likely to meet in-person with
friends and peers outside of school (Baines & Blatchford, 2019; Twenge et al., 2019), that there is a
decline in outdoor play with peers (Gill, 2007; Grey, 2011; Singer et al., 2009) as well as reduced
independence and freedom outside of the home (Play England, 2012; Shaw et al., 2013). By contrast
young people are increasingly more likely to socialise outside of school in online environments through
social media or gaming platforms (Anderson & Jiang, 2018; Twenge et al., 2019, 2020). There are some
suggestions that this might be connected to increased reports among young people of feelings of
detachment from friends and of loneliness (Baines & Blatchford, 2019; BBC, 2018; Children’s Society,
2015; 2019; Ibbetson, 2021; Loades et al., 2020; Siva, 2020). School breaktimes have an important role
as a universal and safe opportunity that is relatively free of adult control for children and young people
to socialise face-to-face with peers, to develop relationships, and to plan self-chosen activities in
collaboration with peers. We suggest that schools should consider developing their own school policy
on breaktimes and/or consider them as part of policies relating to the social, emotional development
and wellbeing of children.
Another reason given for shortening the length of breaks was to enable more physical exercise.
This aim is understandable in the light of health concerns and the reluctance that some children have
for engaging in physical activity, but we argue that it is likely to be counterproductive to replace a part
of the day that children value with more structured PE lessons. Research suggests that the physical
activity during breaks can provide up to 40% of a child’s daily exercise requirement and that this can
be increased through careful playground design (Ridgers et al., 2006) and can assist with reducing
rates of obesity in childhood (Hyndman, 2017). It seems unnecessary and potentially counter-
productive to repurpose this time for prescribed adult-led physical activity and to replace a time when
children already choose to be physically active with a time when they are required to engage in
physical activity.
33
Study findings also showed that the total amount of time available for breaks varied by the
socioeconomic demography of the schools. Schools with children from more privileged backgrounds
were likely to have more total time for breaks. This applied to both primary and secondary schools,
though in different ways. Maintained primary schools with lower proportions of children in receipt of
free school meals tended to have more total breaktime than those with a higher percentage of pupils
in receipt of FSM. Furthermore, students attending independent secondary schools had on average
more total breaktime than students in state-funded secondary schools. It was noticeable that the
figures for the total amount of break in independent secondary schools are largely unchanged since
1995. These findings are surprising, though reflect similar trends in the US (Barros et al., 2009;
Ramstetter et al., 2010). Children in state funded schools and especially those with high levels of pupils
in receipt of FSM may be missing out in terms of the development of informal ‘soft skills’ not
developed in classroom settings. On the other hand, and as some school leaders might argue, children
in more deprived contexts may benefit from more time in the classroom. This should be an issue
examined by future research.
Another set of results related to the levels and ratios of supervision of breaktimes over time.
There has in the UK and other countries been a phenomenal increase in the use of para-professionals
in schools (see Blatchford et al., 2012). Although predominantly utilised to support in class (Blatchford
et al., 2009; Blatchford et al., 2012), there has also been a trend for the greater use of support staff
for supervision at breaktimes. Interestingly, the numbers of teachers supervising breaks has not
declined over the same period. This means that the ratios of staff to students have reduced such that
there are now fewer pupils per supervisor than in previous surveys. It is difficult to understand what
may have led to these changes. Has it come from ongoing concerns about the need to deal with
behaviour and bullying in school effectively? Schools have reported at all three survey points that
these are the main challenges at breaktime. Alternatively, is it to do with a cultural need that seeks to
protect and to actively monitor/ guide young people’s activities for them (Margo et al., 2006). We can
only draw tentative interpretations here, but our findings suggest that concerns about behaviour and
safety might be the impetus for increased staff supervision. There was little evidence of an altered
approach to supervision from oversight at a distance to a more proactive approach involving the
introduction of structured adult-led activities, though there is increased interest in more structured
approaches (Burgess, 2016). It is also surprising that despite concerns about managing behaviour at
breaktimes and the general unpreparedness of para-professionals, little formal supervisor training is
arranged, with schools often choosing informal approaches (see Baines & Blatchford, 2019 for further
information). This begs the question, if staff were better prepared and trained to manage issues of
concern, whether there would be a need for so many supervisors and/ or a need to shorten the
duration of breaktimes.
Our findings also highlight the practice, in most schools surveyed, of withholding a full
breaktime for some students as a consequence for misbehaviour and/or for non-completion of work.
It was surprising that about a half of schools reported this practice and many mentioned that this was
part of their school behaviour policy, following Government guidance with regard to the management
of behaviour (DFE, 2016).
These results are troubling. It is understandable that schools feel the need to have behaviour
policies and to have practices to manage pupils when they are poorly behaved. The problem, however,
is that it is likely that those children who have behaviour and/ or social difficulties, or who are struggling
at school, will be repeatedly prevented from having a break because of the behavioural sanctions. It is
also likely that these are the young people that may benefit the most from greater social contact with a
range of peers, and physical activity (Carriedo & Cecchini, 2022; Pellegrini & Horvat, 1995) and they are
unlikely to become better behaved by being excluded from such contact. Those with repeated experience
of missing breaks may find that their relationships with peers suffer. There are questions about whether
34
this practice is effective, appropriate, or whether it is counter-productive in the long run? Some research
evidence suggests that the approach is unproductive with little positive effect on academic performance
and a negative effect on student-teacher relations (Golding, 2021; Payne, 2015). In the absence of clear
policies or legislation about student entitlements to breaks, some children may have few or even no
breaks in a school day (see Golding, 2021). We also query whether it contravenes article 31 of the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK is a signatory, in terms of children’s right to
relax, play and engage in other recreational activities (see Ramstetter et al., 2022). A policy statement
from the American Academy of Pediatrics (2013; reaffirmed in 2016), makes the case that breaks should
not be withheld for punitive or academic reasons. Schools should carefully re-consider the practice of
withholding breaks as a consequence for poor behaviour and consider alternative approaches to
managing children that are disruptive.
In terms of school staff views of the value of breaks in 2017, what stands out when comparing
primary and secondary schools is the more functional view of breaks at secondary level, as times for
meeting physical needs such as for eating, drinking and energy release. Less priority is given to the
social opportunities it provides or the opportunities to undertake self-chosen activities that might
enrich children’s social and academic experiences. It may be that with the focus on getting students
fed in as an efficient way as possible (Dimbleby & Vincent, 2013), there has been less thought about
the important value that lunch times afford for students in terms of their social, emotional
development and wellbeing (Baines & MacIntyre, 2019; MacIntyre, 2021). But we know that students
principally value this time for the opportunity it provides them to engage in social interaction with
friends and peers (Baines & Blatchford, 2006, 2019).
It is perhaps unsurprising that independent schools were less likely than mainstream schools to
report the presence of challenges during breaktimes. It was also positive to find a decline since 2006
in the percentage of maintained schools that identified challenges at breaktime. Of those reporting
challenges, the poor behaviour of certain students has remained the main concern. Also of concern,
was overcrowding in the dinner hall and outside, and the quality of supervision at breaktime (also
main areas of challenge in 2006). These concerns again speak to the problem of the length of
lunchtime at secondary level. The poor behaviour of some pupils might be connected to frustrations
associated with dining spaces (Baines & MacIntyre, 2019; MacIntyre, 2021; Pike, 2008). These
challenges may be easily resolved by extending lunchtimes to ensure that they are more positive social
times where students can benefit from the time and opportunities for self-chosen activities.
Although schools highlighted poor behaviour as the biggest concern during breaks, most
schools felt that behaviour had improved within the past 5 years, and there was an increase since
2006 in this positive outlook. This was not a result of reductions made by schools to the length of
breaktimes or to their increased supervision. Schools that had reduced the amount of breaktime were
no more likely to say that behaviour had improved or declined than schools that had not changed
breaks in the past 5 years. Furthermore, primary and secondary schools that reported changes to
breaktimes in the past 5 years were also more likely to report that there are challenges at breaktimes
compared to schools that had not made changes. This may suggest that challenges may have come as
a result of changes to breaks. Either way, there is a need for further research to understand the
connections between the nature and length of breaks and the challenges that can arise during these
times.
There are limitations associated with this research that need to be considered. Findings were
based on 3 cross-sectional surveys and not a longitudinal study more sensitive to changes over time.
While surveys were representative at the time point, there were slight differences between the
different samples. It is also possible that schools without breaks, with short breaks or where senior
staff did not value breaks may have been less likely to participate in the research, indicating that in
general a more positive picture of the status quo in relation to breaktimes may have been presented.
35
Another limitation was the relatively poor response rate from independent schools, particularly at
primary school level. The findings and interpretations based on these data, need to be treated
tentatively.
To conclude, our findings show that in the past 25 years or more schools have shortened break
and lunchtimes, they have increased the number of supervisors on playgrounds and there is
widespread practice of withholding of breaks as a consequence for student poor behaviour and non-
completion of work. Nevertheless, schools still regard breaktimes as presenting challenges and despite
perceptions in the improvement of the behaviour of children, these do not seem to be connected to
the reduced time for breaks. These changes will have important implications for children’s opportunity
to socialise with peers, and to develop important social skills and valuing of school. It is essential to
acknowledge the differences between schools in different socio-economic circumstances and
between state and independent sectors. Is breaktime increasingly a privilege for those in wealthier
circumstances? In our view we need more research on the contribution of breaktimes to children’s
social lives, their wellbeing, and the effect of breaktimes on learning in the classroom and to the
development of social and ‘soft’ skills. Schools could do more to consider how breaktimes can be
utilised to help children develop skills and to explore self-chosen interests and activities.
36
References
American Academy of Pediatrics: Council on School Health (2013). Policy statement on the
crucial role of recess in school, Pediatrics. 131(1), 183-188. Retrieved from:
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/131/1/183/30893/The-Crucial-Role-of-
Recess-in-School
Anderson, M. & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens’ social media habits and experiences (2018). Pew
Research Center. Retrieved from:
www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/11/28/teenssocial-media-habits-and-
experiences
APPG on a Fit and Healthy Childhood Reports on ‘Play’ (2015a) available from:
https://royalpa.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/play-a-report-by-the-all-party-
parlimentary-group-on-fit-and-healthy-childhood_oct27.pdf
APPG on a Fit and Healthy Childhood (2015b). ‘Food in schools’ available from:
https://royalpa.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/play-a-report-by-the-all-party-
parlimentary-group-on-fit-and-healthy-childhood_oct27.pdf
Bagwell, C. L., & Schmidt, M. E. (2013). Friendships in childhood and adolescence. Guilford
Press.
Baines, E. & Blatchford, P. (2011). Playground games and activities in school and their role in
development. In A. D. Pellegrini (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Development of
Play. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195393002.013.0020
Baines, E. & Blatchford, P. (2012). Children’s independent mobility and travel to school:
Tracking changes between 1971, 1990 and 2006. Retrieved from
http://www.breaktime.org.uk/Publications/Travel%20to%20School-
ResearchBrief1.pdf
Baines, E., & Blatchford, P. (2019). School break and lunchtimes and young people’s social
life: A follow-up national study in 2017 - Final report to the Nuffield Foundation.
Retrieved from
http://www.breaktime.org.uk/Publications/Baines%2042402%20BreaktimeSurvey%20
-%20Main%20public%20report%20(May19)-Final.pdf
Baines, E. & MacIntyre, H. (2019). Children’s social experiences with peers during school
mealtimes. Educational Review, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1680534
Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C. & Blatchford, P. (2009). Improving pupil group work interaction
and dialogue in primary classrooms: results from a year-long intervention study.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 95-117.
Barros, R. M., Silver, E. J., & Stein, R. E. (2009). School recess and group classroom behavior.
Pediatrics, 123(2), 431-436.
Batty, D., & WintourP., (2013). Packed lunches:pupils face ban in new school food plans. The
Guardian, Fri 22nd July. Retrieved from:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jul/12/school-meals-ban-packed-
lunches
37
BBC. (2018). 16-24 year olds are the loneliest age group according to new BBC Radio 4
survey. https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2018/loneliest-age-group-
radio-4 [Accessed 22 October 2021].
Beresin, A. (2016). Playing with time: Towards a global survey of recess practices,
International Journal of Play, 5(2), 159-165. doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2016.1203920
Bertram, C., Day, L., MacLeod, S., Campbell-Jack, D., & Jeyarajah, A. (2017). Extended
Activity Provision in Secondary Schools. Department for Education. Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach
ment_data/file/635002/Extended_Activity_Provision_in_Secondary_Schools.pdf
Blatchford, P. (1998) Social Life in Schools: Pupils’ Experiences of Breaktime and Recess from
7 to 16 years, London: Falmer Press.
Blatchford, P., & Baines, E. (2006). A follow up national survey of breaktimes in primary and
secondary schools (Report to Nuffield Foundation Ref: EDV/00399/G). Retrieved from
http://www.breaktime.org.uk/Publications/NuffieldBreakTimeReport-WEBVersion.pdf
Blatchford, P., Baines, E. & Pellegrini, A. (2003). The social context of school playground
games: sex and ethnic differences, and changes over time after entry to junior school,
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21: 481-505.
Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Martin, C., Russell, A., & Webster R., (2009).
Deployment and impact of support staff in schools : characteristics, working
conditions and job satisfaction of support staff in schools (strand 1, waves 1-3 in 2004,
2006 and 2008). Research report to the DCSF. Retrieved from:
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/11058/1/DCSF-RR154.pdf
Blatchford, P., Pellegrini, A., & Baines, E., (2016). The child at school: Interactions with peers
and teachers (2nd Edition). London: Routledge.
Blatchford, P., Russell, A., & Webster, R. (2012). Reassessing the Impact of Teaching Assistants:
How Research Challenges Practice and Policy. London: Routledge.
Blatchford, P., & Sumpner, C. (1996). Changes to Breaktime in Primary and Secondary Schools.
Final Report to Nuffield Foundation.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in
psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Briggs, A. & Simons, J., (2014). Only a Matter of Time? A framework for the most effective
way to lengthen the school day in England, London: Policy Exchange.
https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/only-a-matter-of-
time.pdf
Burgess, L. (2016). ‘What’s Better For Primary Pupils – Structured Breaktimes Or Free Play?’
Teachwire, 11th August. Retrieved from: http://www.teachwire.net/news/whats-
better-for-primary-pupils-structured-breaktimes-or-free-play
Carriedo, A., & Cecchini, J. A. (2022). A Longitudinal Examination of Withholding All or Part
of School Recess on Children’s Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior: Evidence
from a Natural Experiment. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1-10.
38
Chanfreau, J., Tanner, E., Callanan M., et al. (2015). Out of school activities: understanding
who does what. Research briefing on Nuffield Foundation research on ‘out of school
activities and the education gap’.
DFE, (2011). Schools given freedom from Bureaucratic rules to have control over school day.
Press release on 12th September 2011 retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/schools-given-freedom-from-bureaucratic-
rules-to-have-control-over-school-day
DFE, (2016). Behaviour and Discipline in schools: Advice for headteachers and school staff.
Crown Copyright. Retrieved from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach
ment_data/file/488034/Behaviour_and_Discipline_in_Schools_-
_A_guide_for_headteachers_and_School_Staff.pdf
Dimbleby, H., & Vincent, J. (2013). The School Food Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolfoodplan.com/wpcontent/
Gill, T. (2007). No fear: Growing up in a risk averse society. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Golding, K. (2021). A study investigating the prevalence, practice and perspectives of the use
of internal exclusion in mainstream secondary schools (Doctoral dissertation, UCL
(University College London)). Retrieved from:
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10133691/
Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and
adolescents. American Journal of Play, 3(4), 443-463.
Hyndman, B. (2017). Contemporary school playground strategies for healthy students.
Springer Nature, Singapore. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811047374
Ibbetson, C. (2021). Young Britons are the most lonely.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relationships/articles-reports/2019/10/03/young-britons-
are-most-lonely
Jarrett, O. S., Maxwell, D. M., Dickerson, C., Hoge, P., Davies, G., & Yetley, A. (1998). Impact
of recess on classroom behavior: Group effects and individual differences. The Journal
of Educational Research, 92(2), 121-126.
Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., with Baines, E., & Tolmie, A. (2013). Effective group work in
primary school classrooms: the SPRinG approach. London: Springer.
Loades, M. E., Chatburn, E., Higson-Sweeney, N., Reynolds, S., Shafran, R., Brigden, A.,
Linney, C., McManus, M., Borwick, C., & Crawley, E. (2020). Rapid systematic review:
the impact of social isolation and loneliness on the mental health of children and
adolescents in the context of COVID-19. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 59(11), 1218-1239.
MacIntyre, H. (2021). Understanding school mealtimes as contexts for children's peer
relations and adjustment to school. UCL Doctoral (PhD) thesis
Margo , J. & Dixon , M. with Pearce , N. & Reed , H. ( 2006 ). Freedom’s orphans: Raising
youth in a changing world. London : Institute for Public Policy Research .
39
McNamara, L., Lodewyk, K., & Franklin, N., (2018). Recess: A Study of Belongingness, Affect,
and Victimization on the Playground, Children & Schools, Volume 40, Issue 2, April
2018, Pages 114–121, https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdy006
NUT (2015). Call for statutory entitlement to appropriate break and lunch times. NUT
Annual Conference, Harrogate, April 2015.
OECD (2016). Education at a Glance 2016: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris
http://dx.doi.org/10.187/eag-2016-en
Orben, A., Tomova, L., & Blakemore, S. J. (2020). The effects of social deprivation on
adolescent development and mental health. The Lancet Child & Adolescent
health, 4(8), 634–640.
Payne, R. (2015). Using rewards and sanctions in the classroom: pupils’ perceptions of their
own responses to current behaviour management strategies. Educational Review,
67(4), 483-504.
Pellegrini, A., & Blatchford, P. (2002). Time for a break: the developmental and educational
significance of breaktime in school. The Psychologist, 15, 2, 60-62
Pellegrini, A. D., & Horvat, M. (1995). A developmental contextualist critique of attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder. Educational Researcher, 24(1), 13-19.
Pellegrini, A. Huberty, P., & Jones, I. (1995). The effects of recess timing on children’s
playground and classroom behaviours. American Educational Research Journal, 32,
845 - 864
Pellegrini, A., Kato, K., Blatchford, P. & Baines, E. (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:
991-1016.
Pike, J. (2008). Foucault, space and primary school dining rooms. Children’s Geographies,
6(4), 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733280802338114
Play England, (2012). Fear of strangers and traffic stop children playing outdoors. Retrieved
August 5th, 2012 from www.ncb.org.uk/news/fear-of-strangers-and-traffic-stop-
children-playing-outdoors.
Pollard, A. (2012, Nov. 20). Narrowness and imbalance in National Curriculum design. IoE
London Blog, 20th November. Retrieved from:
https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/2012/11/20/narrowness-and-imbalance-in-national-
curriculum-design/
Prisk, C. & Cusworth, H. (2018). From Muddy hands and dirty faces… to higher grades and
happy places: Outdoor learning and play at schools around the world. Published by
Outdoor Classroom Day, Retrieved from https://outdoorclassroomday.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/Muddy-hands-report-full.pdf
Rhea, D. J., & Rivchun, A. P. (2018, February). The LiiNK Project®: Effects of Multiple
Recesses and Character Curriculum on Classroom Behaviors and Listening Skills in
Grades K–2 Children. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 3, p. 9). Frontiers.
40
Ramstetter, C., Baines, E., Brickman, C. W., Hyndman, B., Jarrett, O., London, R., Massey, W.,
& McNamara, L. (2022). Recess in the 21st Century Post-COVID World. Journal of
School Health. Retrieved from
https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/en/publications/recess-in-the-21st-century-post-
covid-world
Ramstetter, C. L., Murray, R., & Garner, A. (2010). The crucial role of recess in schools.
Journal of School Health, 80(11), 517-526.
Ridgers, N.D., Stratton, G. & Fairclough, S.J. (2006). Physical activity levels of children during
school playtime. Sports Medicine, 36, 359-371.
School Food Trust. (2009). A fresh look at the school meal experience second edition.
Retrieved from
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100210190918/http://schoolfoodtrust.o
rg.uk/UploadDocs/Library/Documents/sft_fresh_look_meal_experience2nd_edition.p
df
Shaw, B., Watson, B., Frauendienst, B., Redecker, A., Jones, T., Hillman, M. (2013). Children's
independent mobility: a comparative study in England and Germany (1971-2010),
Policy Studies Institute, London. Retrieved from
https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/8z178/children-s-independent-
mobility-a-comparative-study-in-england-and-germany-1971-2010
Singer, D. G., Singer, J. L., D'Agnostino, H., & DeLong, R. (2009). Children's Pastimes and Play
in Sixteen Nations: Is Free-Play Declining?. American Journal of Play, 1(3), 283-312.
Siva, N. (2020). Loneliness in children and young people in the UK. The Lancet Child &
Adolescent Health, 4(8), 567-568.
Taylor, C. (2017). The reliability of free school meal eligibility as a measure of socio-
economic disadvantage: evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study in Wales. British
Journal of Educational Studies 66(1), 29-51. doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2017.1330464)
Twenge, J. M., Haidt, J., Joiner, T. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2020). Underestimating digital
media harm. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(4), 346–348.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0839-4
Twenge, J. M., Spitzberg, B. H., & Campbell, W. K. (2019). Less in-person social interaction
with peers among U.S. adolescents in the 21st century and links to loneliness. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(6), 1892–1913.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519836170
Walford, G. (2014). Academies, free schools and social justice, Research Papers in Education,
29:3, 263-267, DOI: 10.1080/02671522.2014.885725
41
Table 1. The number of schools that were sent and returned surveys and the percentage response
rate
Survey and
school phase
Sent
Returned
Response (%)
1995 survey
Primary
2,075
1,245
61
Secondary
475
289
61
2006 survey
Primary
3,419
1,336
39
Secondary
678
230
34
2017 survey
Primary
3,510
933
27
Secondary
791
199
25
Note. Figures for 1995 and 2017 surveys include independent schools and for 2006 include schools
in Wales
42
Table 2. Differences in the duration of breaks in state funded schools by Key Stage and over time
(in 1995, 2005 and 2017)
KS1
KS2
KS3+4
1995*
2006
2017*
1995*
2006
2017*
1995*
2006
2017*
AM
No Break
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10 mins
3%
1%
1%
4%
2%
1%
2%
1%
0%
15 mins
79%
83%
82%
81%
84%
81%
49%
40%
22%
20 mins
16%
15%
15%
13%
14%
16%
46%
53%
64%
25+ mins
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
2%
3%
6%
14%
Lunch
Up to 35 mins
2%
1%
0%
2%
1%
0%
5%
9%
24%
36 to 44 mins
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
6%
13%
28%
45-54 mins
2%
4%
6%
7%
17%
19%
21%
34%
30%
55-64 mins
35%
51%
72%
59%
69%
75%
52%
39%
17%
65-74 mins
16%
15%
10%
15%
8%
4%
15%
5%
1%
75+ mins
44%
29%
12%
17%
4%
2%
1%
0%
0%
PM
No break
30%
30%
46%
58%
74%
85%
88%
96%
99%
5 mins
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
1%
10 mins
17%
21%
15%
13%
11%
6%
3%
2%
0%
15 mins
51%
46%
37%
27%
14%
9%
5%
1%
0%
20 mins
2%
3%
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
25+ mins
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
5%
0%
1%
* Percentages exclude independent schools (in 1995 and 2017) to ensure fair comparison with 2006
study. Independent school data are presented separately as Means and Standard Deviations in Table
3. Dark grey highlight indicates reduction over time. Light grey highlight indicates increase over time
43
Table 3. Average time for breaks (in mins) over the school day and average total break time in
1995, 2006 and 2017 in relation to school type (state funded vs independent).
KS1
KS2
KS3+4
1995*
2006
2017*
1995*
2006
2017*
1995*
2006
2017*
AM Break
State schools
Mean
15.9a
15.9
15.9a
15.6a
15.7
15.9a
17.5a
18.2
19.8a
SD
4.4
2.5
2.4
3.8
2.3
2.4
3.3
3.3
3.6
Indep. Schools
Mean
22.5b
-
21.6b
24.4b
-
20.6b
21.5b
-
22.2b
SD
5.5
-
6.0
7.2
-
5.7
4.6
-
4.7
Lunch Break
State schools
Mean
68.2a
65.1
61.6a
61.5a
58.2
57.6a
55.4a
50.1
43.9a
SD
11.5
9.4
7.2
10.6
7.2
6.2
10.0
10.1
9.2
Indep. Schools
Mean
56.1b
-
66.6b
52.3b
-
63.3b
62.5b
-
59.2b
SD
23.1
-
15.2
20.5
-
13.3
18.6
-
9.4
PM Break
State schools
Mean+
14.1
13.7
13.6
13.6
12.9
12.9
11.2
10.6
16.3
SD
4.8
2.8
2.7
4.6
3.1
2.9
5.3
3.9
13.6
Indep. Schools
Mean+
19.0
-
15.0
24.6
-
22.5
16.1
-
29.1
SD
4.6
-
0
15.0
-
10.6
8.2
-
23.9
Total Break
State schools
Mean
94.2a
90.6
84.9a
83.1a
77.3
75.5a
74.2a
68.8
63.4a
SD
13.6
11.1
10.5
11.8
9.4
8.1
10.9
10.4
9.2
Indep. Schools
Mean
87.3b
-
90.8b
86.1a
-
86.4b
90.0b
-
91.6b
SD
25.8
-
17.6
23.5
-
16.4
15.6
-
19.9
Overall Total
Mean
94.1
90.6
85.0
83.2
77.3
75.7
76.6
68.8
68.4
SD
13.9
11.1
10.7
12.3
9.4
8.5
13.00
10.4
15.9
Notes:
*ANOVAs within each survey period (1995, 2017) compare breaktime duration (not PM break) by
school type (State vs Independent). Differing subscripts show significant differences across school
type p<.05.
+ Calculations exclude schools without an afternoon break.
44
Table 4. Mean number of staff supervisors and ratio of supervisors to pupils relative to school roll (AM and lunch break only) in State funded primary and
secondary schools
Primary school
Secondary school
1995
2006
2017
1995
2006
2017
Mean
Ratio
Mean
Ratio
Mean
Ratio
Mean
Ratio
Mean
Ratio
Mean
Ratio
Morning break
Teaching staff
2.1
122
1.9
116
2.5
109
8.7
104
7.0
111
13.8
78
Support staff
1.1
156
1.6
119
3.0
92
0.5
337
1.2
354
2.6
242
Total ratio
86
67
52
97
92
54
Lunch break
Teaching staff
1.1
179
0.7
177
1.0
177
4.8
231
5.9
234
10.5
135
Support staff
5.9
38
6.2
35
7.8
32
4.8
186
5.4
216
5.1
209
Total ratio
33
33
29
91
99
57
45
Table 5. The value of breaktimes at primary and secondary levels and over time
Primary
Secondary
1995
2006
2017
1995
2006
2017
Pupils can eat and drink
-
19%
25%
-
68%
71%
Pupils can relax after time in classroom
68%
30%
31%
83%
37%
37%
Pupils can get fresh air
46%
29%
54%
30%
21%
43%
Pupils can engage in clubs /extra-curricular activities
6%
3%
10%
36%
15%
24%
Pupils can have time for free undirected recreation
32%
39%
44%
22%
15%
22%
Pupils can release energy / get physical exercise*
57%*
85%
86%
55%*
58%
57%
Pupils can socialise with friends /peers
58%
83%
83%
69%
60%
57%
To give teachers a break
-
9%
6%
-
22%
14%
Other
1%
1%
2%
4%
1%
0%
N=
1268
1329
879
289
228
162
Note: This was a multiple response question. Percentages and totals are of total respondents and
thus total % will exceed 100. *For the 1995 survey this was 2 separate questions.
46
Table 6. Concerns and challenges with regard to break times
Primary
Secondary
1995
2006
2017
1995
2006
2017
No
-
15%
36%
-
8%
27%
Yes
-
85%
64%
-
92%
73%
N=
1265
1316
925
289
227
198
Poor behaviour of a small number of students who
have difficulties in socialising
73%
70%
64%
63%
74%
64%
Poor behaviour due to lack of physical activity
12%
4%
1%
17%
9%
8%
Overcrowding in the dinner hall or outside
20%
17%
25%
50%
50%
53%
Problems concerning the quality of supervision
19%
22%
23%
28%
36%
31%
Poor behaviour due to students being disruptive
29%
11%
8%
16%
16%
16%
Problems of the school site / grounds
24%
20%
18%
33%
30%
21%
Team sports (like football) dominate the playground
space
27%
43%
23%
5%
6%
12%
Problems concerning the provision of activities and /
or equipment
20%
18%
18%
7%
15%
10%
Health and safety of the activities students want to
engage in
-
-
5%
-
-
3%
Other
4%
5%
10%
9%
8%
13%
Note: This was a multiple response question. Percentages and totals are of total respondents and thus total %
will exceed 100. The second part of this table presents data that is a subset of the first, i.e. the proportions of
those responding ‘yes there were challenges’
47
Table 7. School’s experience of any changes to the behaviour of pupils at breaktime or lunchtime in
the past 5 years (i.e. since 1990, 2001, 2012).
Primary
Secondary
1995
2006
2017
1995
2006
2017
Improved
42%
43%
49%
28%
26%
34%
Not changed
37%
41%
35%
47%
40%
46%
Declined
21%
17%
9%
25%
34%
15%
Unsure
-
-
7%
-
-
6%
N=
1240
1298
871
284
224
162
