More than 12 years ago, the Catalan institutes transformed their timetable model, by adopting in a generalized way the continuous day, between 8 and 15 hours. A measure in which the interests of the Administration, which could release efforts and spaces dedicated to the school canteen, and the claims of the teaching staff, who could thus be freed from teaching activity in the afternoons, were combined. With everythingthe adoption of the continuous day was justified with pedagogical reasons, wielding the studies that indicated that school performance was higher in the early hours of the morning and fell clearly after lunch. Other equally consistent aspects, which were not taken into account at the time or which have become evident over the years, were ignored. And they are not few: an irrational meal schedule (with up to three micro-breakfasts before arriving at the institute and in two hours of recess, or none of them, plus a lunch at an extremely late hour), more difficulties organizing family time and increase of inequalities between families with more resources, who can equip their kids with after-school activities, and those who can’t and find themselves with oblivious tweens and teens off the radar of both family and school during the middle of the day.
Although the adoption of the continuous school day in September as a complement to the early start of school next year has made us think that the extension of this model could also be on the horizon to infant and primary education, the intention is rather the opposite. Propose in secondary schools that adopt the institute-school model that they establish the primary school schedule, with a break between 12 and 2 p.m. at home or the center that allows a “healthy” organization of meal times. And also to facilitate the school canteen offer, a service that with the social emergency of the last two years has been reaffirmed as an element of equity.
Against the appeal that the school “is not a daycare” It should be considered that the time spent in the school environment, be it strictly academic, coexistence or extracurricular activity, has a direct benefit on the performance and well-being of students. With so many open fronts with the teaching staff, the Department of Education will hardly go beyond what has been pointed out so far. But they should be the arguments that have as their axis food health, school performance and socialization of students those that govern this debate (and not as a screen so that other interests are the ones that are really on the table).