“Time is an illusion.  Lunchtime, doubly so.” ~Douglas Adams

As the bell rings at 11:27 signaling the end of period 5/6, I’m always in a rush to get to 7th period- lunch. Not just because I’m anxious to eat the leftover pizza I packed, but also because I have lunch with a few good friends I don’t have classes with. However, there’s a bit of a tradeoff.

Depending on the day, I come from either chemistry on the third floor or gym, and when I actually get to lunch from those classes, it’s already about 11:30. The bell for period 8/9 is at 11:57, and I essentially have to pack up a few minutes before then to make sure I can get upstairs on time. So, I really only have twenty five minutes to eat my lunch and socialize, which brings me to my point.

We can all agree that eight periods of classes every day can get pretty tiring — and having lunch in the middle of the day is a nice break. At NASH, we get a half hour for lunch — but this includes the time you need to get to the cafeteria and go to your next class. I’m lucky enough to at least get 25 minutes out of this half hour because I don’t usually buy my lunch, but what about people that do? One of my friends is lucky to get to our table by 11:40 or so, leaving her with only fifteen minutes at the most to eat and talk to her friends. We’re a pretty talkative group, so none of us actually find time to finish our lunches and our conversation at the same time.

According to the state of Pennsylvania, lunch periods are not counted towards the required amount of instructional time in schools — 990 hours over 180 days. Given this fact, it would make sense to have our lunch periods be shorter than an actual class period. I still think half an hour is a good amount of time — but that time shouldn’t include transitions between classes or the time spent waiting in the lunch line. This is where the bell schedule could come into conflict.

NAI has the same number of periods in a day, and somehow a 40 minute lunch is part of that schedule. Their classes were only two minutes shorter before the implementation of a new schedule change a few weeks ago (which added a minute to each period and reduced the time between classes from five to four minutes).They also don’t have the combined periods that we do (like 5/6 or 8/9).

Why don’t we just follow the same schedule? We’d get more time for lunch, and it would make the transition to NASH a little bit easier for incoming juniors.

I asked Dr. Kreider about the feasibility of longer lunches. Surprisingly, he suggested that, before the schedule change, “with the number of [snow] days that we had off, my guess would be that [NAI] may have been tight on that 990-hour requirement.”

In regard to how NASH’s bell schedule differs, Dr. Kreider explained that every extra minute we have per class compared to NAI would add up to about 180 minutes at the end of the year — the equivalent of an extra three hours of in-class time per class. I would assume that this extra class time would serve to benefit juniors and seniors at NASH, who generally take more advanced classes than freshmen and sophomores at NAI, but sadly at the cost of our lunch period.

When considering these factors, it may be wishful thinking to ask for a longer lunch period and still meet the state requirements. However, Dr. Kreider did mention that “if we were ever to find research that says a 40 minute lunch period is better for kids, we’d be willing to make that decision. Every decision has a pro and con, and it comes down to what you value more.”

It’s certainly the case that there will be tradeoffs with any decision such as this. But is it that damaging to shorten NASH classes by one minute in exchange for an extra three minutes for each lunch period?  Or if the administration is unwilling to shorten classes at all, how about the homeroom period, which is 16 minutes compared to NAI’s 10-minute homeroom? 

As it stands, the NASH schedule leaves students with no choice but to wolf down their meals before the bell propels them to their next class.