Lunch is the one time that students are allowed to take a break from being constantly bombarded with stressful workloads. Most students experience six to seven hour days full of tests, notes and boredom that can slowly drive them insane. Lunch is meant to be their thirty minutes to recover and relax in the middle of the day, but this year, students have lost a piece of this break, which was short enough to begin with.
Lunch times at Bowling Green High School, in previous years, granted students thirty minute breaks on normal schedules and twenty five minutes on WIN days. This year, changes were made in order to give the lunch staff more time to prepare between each lunch, which also means students lose up to five minutes of lunch each day and have to spend that time in class instead. This loss of time may not sound like a big deal to some people, but students have a right to be upset with these changes when they don’t seem to benefit the lunch staff or students enough to be necessary.
The breaks are meant to give the lunch staff and janitors time to get food ready and wash tables in preparation for the next lunch period. However, students with second and third lunch have already started to notice that tables are still not clean by the time they arrive for lunch, and the food doesn’t seem to be served any faster than it was in previous years.
The lack of improvement doesn’t mean the lunch staff and custodians have been inefficient, and it certainly doesn’t mean they’ve been wasting the extra time given. But it does seem to suggest that this preparation time between lunch periods is a waste of student’s time. WIN schedules prove how these changes aren’t needed. There are no breaks between lunches on WIN days, but each lunch period still functions the same as it does with the breaks.
Many teachers seem to have mixed opinions about the impact of the changes as well.
Cristen Olson, a chemistry teacher at the school, said during a lunch interview, “I’m not finished with my lunch yet, and the bells already rung, so I can understand how students might not have enough time.”
Many teachers have also commented that the new bells are distracting in their fourth period classes.
However, when asked if the changes were fair to students, Olson said “What’s fair? It’s just going to have to be an adjustment of getting in and sitting down and eating.”
The lunch staff also have their thoughts about the changes. They argue that the time they get makes their jobs less stressful.
Robin Lawrence, a lunch server at the school, said, “It’s a relief to have that little bit of extra time to replenish.”
When asked about previous years, she said “It was definitely rushed for us in previous years”.
Lawrence also said that no one on the lunch staff asked for the changes, but they are all thankful that they were made.
Even with this information from lunch staff, it’s still difficult to justify these changes since the lunch staff already had time to get food prepared for the next lunch period on the old lunch schedules.
Sophomore Cristian Arevalo said, “They can just start preparing after all the students are fed in one lunch.”
Most students would agree, since last year students were only trying to get through the line for the first ten to fifteen minutes of lunch, which leaves the line mostly empty for the majority of each lunch period. This time could have been used to prepare instead of taking lunch time away from students.
Arevalo later went on to voice his personal feelings about the changes, stating, “The changes just aren’t fair. We aren’t in a hurry to finish eating or anything, but it really takes away from our social time.”.
All of these changes and sacrifices were meant to benefit everyone, but it’s difficult to see how students have benefited. They are losing time from an already short lunch period just to possibly receive small benefits that will mostly go unnoticed. Staff members who benefit from these changes may think all the new changes are fair, but the schoolwide outrage about the changes should at least be one sign that the new schedule shouldn’t stick.
By Hemi Bell
Lunch times at Bowling Green High School, in previous years, granted students thirty minute breaks on normal schedules and twenty five minutes on WIN days. This year, changes were made in order to give the lunch staff more time to prepare between each lunch, which also means students lose up to five minutes of lunch each day and have to spend that time in class instead. This loss of time may not sound like a big deal to some people, but students have a right to be upset with these changes when they don’t seem to benefit the lunch staff or students enough to be necessary.
The breaks are meant to give the lunch staff and janitors time to get food ready and wash tables in preparation for the next lunch period. However, students with second and third lunch have already started to notice that tables are still not clean by the time they arrive for lunch, and the food doesn’t seem to be served any faster than it was in previous years.
The lack of improvement doesn’t mean the lunch staff and custodians have been inefficient, and it certainly doesn’t mean they’ve been wasting the extra time given. But it does seem to suggest that this preparation time between lunch periods is a waste of student’s time. WIN schedules prove how these changes aren’t needed. There are no breaks between lunches on WIN days, but each lunch period still functions the same as it does with the breaks.
Many teachers seem to have mixed opinions about the impact of the changes as well.
Cristen Olson, a chemistry teacher at the school, said during a lunch interview, “I’m not finished with my lunch yet, and the bells already rung, so I can understand how students might not have enough time.”
Many teachers have also commented that the new bells are distracting in their fourth period classes.
However, when asked if the changes were fair to students, Olson said “What’s fair? It’s just going to have to be an adjustment of getting in and sitting down and eating.”
The lunch staff also have their thoughts about the changes. They argue that the time they get makes their jobs less stressful.
Robin Lawrence, a lunch server at the school, said, “It’s a relief to have that little bit of extra time to replenish.”
When asked about previous years, she said “It was definitely rushed for us in previous years”.
Lawrence also said that no one on the lunch staff asked for the changes, but they are all thankful that they were made.
Even with this information from lunch staff, it’s still difficult to justify these changes since the lunch staff already had time to get food prepared for the next lunch period on the old lunch schedules.
Sophomore Cristian Arevalo said, “They can just start preparing after all the students are fed in one lunch.”
Most students would agree, since last year students were only trying to get through the line for the first ten to fifteen minutes of lunch, which leaves the line mostly empty for the majority of each lunch period. This time could have been used to prepare instead of taking lunch time away from students.
Arevalo later went on to voice his personal feelings about the changes, stating, “The changes just aren’t fair. We aren’t in a hurry to finish eating or anything, but it really takes away from our social time.”.
All of these changes and sacrifices were meant to benefit everyone, but it’s difficult to see how students have benefited. They are losing time from an already short lunch period just to possibly receive small benefits that will mostly go unnoticed. Staff members who benefit from these changes may think all the new changes are fair, but the schoolwide outrage about the changes should at least be one sign that the new schedule shouldn’t stick.
By Hemi Bell