Abstract
While we continue to see a growing push for the restoration and codification of recess in elementary schools, policy does not necessarily equal practice. Georgia recently passed legislation requiring at least 20 minutes of recess per day for students in PK-5. The purpose of this research study was to survey elementary school educators to reveal the temporal (i.e., duration, frequency, and cancellation practices) and descriptive (i.e., type, equipment, place) characteristics of recess in Georgia’s public elementary schools. The results of this study, which can be summed up statistically and descriptively as less recess overall, and less free play specifically, as well as reduced access to safe play spaces since the onset of the pandemic, yield important policy implications for Georgia’s school children. These implications relate to persistent disparities in immediate and long-term positive outcomes for children across multiple domains including academic, social-emotional, and behavioral.
Introduction
School recess is defined as a regularly scheduled period of physical activity or play during the school day (Centers for Disease Control Prevention [CDC], 2022). Play is a specialized form of learning; it teaches communication and psychomotor skills that are vital to childhood social, emotional, and cognitive development. The US Department of Health and Human Services recommends children and adolescents have at least 60 minutes of daily physical activity to support lifelong health and well-being (US Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2008; USDHHS, 2018) and specifically recognize recess and free play as active spaces for aerobic and bone-strengthening activities to meet young children’s needs for daily physical activity. National agencies for children’s health and wellbeing also encourage daily recess and physical education to support children’s holistic development (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics Council on School Health et al., 2023; CDC, 2008, 2022) and have published school guidance documents with evidence-based strategies for recess and a planning guide for implementation (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and SHAPE America—Society of Health and Physical Educators, 2017).
Despite these efforts by national public health agencies to underscore the value of school recess in childhood development, there remains an urgent need to investigate young children’s daily access to school recess at both state and local levels. Persistent declining trends in children’s access to school recess reveal a widening gulf between recommendations from early childhood development experts and the routine practices of those responsible for children’s daily recess activities. Additionally, while experts recommended not eliminating recess as schools returned to more normal operations post-pandemic (Clevenger & Pfeiffer, 2020; McNamara, 2021), educators wrestled with how to safely return to school in ways that likely affected recess practices. Educators were faced with maintaining social distancing and other contagion prevention measures (Howie & Perryman, 2023), the impacts of COVID-related learning loss amplifying learning poverty (i.e., children unable to read with comprehension by 10 years old; Moscoviz & Evans, 2022), and the exacerbation of already existing disparities. Throughout this paper, we refer to being “post”-pandemic, but we acknowledge we were not truly beyond COVID. For ease of reading, however, we refer to this liminal period as post-COVID to delineate that part of our study data from pre-pandemic data.
Since the late 1990s, recess—along with other non-tested subjects such as art or music—has increasingly become an expendable period of the school day rather than an academic necessity. Many school leaders began to shorten or cancel daily recess to increase instructional time on academic subjects assessed in school accountability programs (London, 2019). This practice was codified into policy by the mid-2000s when up to 40% of school districts formally reduced or eliminated school recess (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2010). Even in schools with an official recess policy in place, educators often withhold recess as punishment for other academic or disciplinary reasons. There is scant evidence to track the loss of daily recess for individual infractions, but a 2018 study found that nearly 86% of elementary school teachers reported taking away recess time as punishment (International Play Equipment Manufacturers Association [IPEMA], 2018). Racial and economic inequities surface when recess is used as a punitive tool for managing student behavior. Students of Color are denied recess more often than their White counterparts (Jarrett, 2003, 2019), and low-income children tend to have less recess than higher-income schoolchildren (Slater et al., 2012). Whether due to academic or disciplinary infractions, recess has diminished in both elementary school practice and district policy. Existing research in academic and public policy journals has well documented the decline in school recess in past decades (e.g., Evenson et al., 2009; Lassiter & Campbell, 2019; Lee et al., 2007; Pellegrini, 2005; Ramstetter et al., 2010; Thalken et al., 2021; Thompson & London, 2023) despite the evidence of positive impacts of recess on learning and academic outcomes (e.g., Bidzan-Bluma & Lipowska, 2018; Egger et al., 2019; Lassiter & Campbell, 2019) and recommendations from national experts on early childhood education (American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP], 2013; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and SHAPE America—Society of Health and Physical Educators, 2017; USDHHS, 2018). A growing public campaign for school recess now promotes legislative state action to protect recess accessibility at the district or school level. Recess advocates have won recent victories in Florida (2017), Arizona (2018), New Jersey (2019), and Georgia (2022) to require all elementary schools to provide daily recess to students under state law.
The Historical Foundations of School Recess in America
School recess, as a policy or practice, dates back to one-room schoolhouses in the early 20th century. It emerged during the confluence of the Progressive Era and Child Study movements in America, when a rise in public schools (and school recess) was used as a socializing force for working-class families (Pellegrini, 2005). Play during recess was seen as both an integral part of childhood development and a break from school work, similar to adult breaks from factory work (Pellegrini, 2005; Rainwater, 1922). Progressive educators saw recess as an extension of the school curriculum where students learned social skills such as cooperation, patience, and teamwork (Apps-Bodily, 2013; Bostic, 2004; Pellegrini, 2005). As school systems grew larger and more bureaucratic in the 1950s, recess became formalized in elementary schools as both standard policy and conventional practice. This was the heyday of school recess; following World War II, large investments in public education led to massive construction of new school buildings outfitted with the latest technology and, of course, impressive playgrounds. School officials established an infrastructure for unstructured play using swing sets, see-saws, and slides. State-of-the-art elementary schools—and playground equipment—were valued by school and community leaders as a mark of prestige (Bostic, 2004; Pellegrini, 2005). During the 1980s and 90s, elementary students regularly experienced 60 to 90 min of recess per day (French, 2014).
This status changed as the school accountability movement gained traction in the late 1990s. Facing punitive measures for poor student performance in meeting state curriculum standards as assessed by high-stakes tests, elementary school leaders increasingly shifted away from earlier progressive ideals on school recess. Recess became more widely viewed as an optional part of the school day, leading many school leaders to expand the instructional time spent on tested subjects and general test preparation skills. In 1989, about 96% of surveyed elementary school principals reported regularly scheduled recess (Jarrett, 2019; Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005). By 2006, 57% of surveyed school systems reportedly had recess (Lee et al., 2007), and in a 2011 survey, only 40% of school systems claimed to have an explicit recess policy (Burriss & Burriss, 2011). The most current national survey estimates about 20% of school districts require elementary school recess as a policy mandate (French, 2014).
School leaders often justify the decline in school recess by scheduling additional physical education (PE) classes to the school curriculum. PE does support children’s mental and physical health aligned with state curriculum standards, but it does not replace the developmental benefits of the engaged, unstructured, and active play found in recess. In their policy statement on recess, the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on School Health et al. (2013) explicitly states that recess “is unique from, and a complement to, physical education—not a substitute for it” (p. 183) or vice versa. In Strategies for Recess in Schools (2017), the guidance document for schools jointly developed by the CDC and SHAPE America, the authors pointedly state that recess “periods should not be a replacement for physical education classes” (p. 2). In this very first guidance statement to schools, the CDC and SHAPE recommend “prohibiting the replacement of physical education with recess or using recess to meet time requirements for physical education policies” (p. 3).
The Georgia Record on School Recess
Replacing school recess with PE is exactly what one of Georgia’s largest school districts, Atlanta Public Schools, did in the late 1990s when it enacted a policy to remove the recess period entirely. The Atlanta superintendent famously made headlines for eliminating recess in favor of physical education (Jarrett, 2019). Touting the need for higher test performance, Superintendent Benjamin Canada argued it was a waste of time “having kids hanging on the monkey bars” when students could be learning skills for academic proficiency (Johnson, 1998, sec. A para. 11). At that time, elementary schools were beginning to have recess less frequently, and most middle and high schools had already eliminated recess. There was no statewide mandate for school recess and no statewide tracker to determine patterns of recess accessibility, frequency, or equity. In 2000, Georgia lawmakers passed legislation reducing even PE for middle and high schools, making it optional for students to enroll, and for elementary schools, the state required just 90 hours of health and PE, any combination of the two, each year (French, 2014). At this point, it remained common for elementary schools in Georgia to be similar to other states, which typically offered between 10 and 30 minutes of recess, though some had no recess at all. Almost 20 years after Georgia lawmakers reduced PE instructional requirements, the Georgia House of Representatives began what was to become an extended process to require a half-hour daily recess for elementary schools. While these efforts were eventually successful, the journey to this point is part of the Georgia context and is discussed in greater detail below.
The COVID Conundrum
The historic 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has had lasting effects on school recess policy and practices. After school closures peaked in early 2020, nearly 93% of schoolchildren in the US were engaged in some form of distance learning (McElrath, 2020). School districts redirected millions of dollars toward establishing a technological infrastructure to support online instruction. Technological expenditures ranged from building stronger broadband networks to supplying personal laptop computers to students and staff to buying web-based curriculum packages. When schools reopened in the Fall (i.e., August-September) of 2020, about 71% of P-12 students attended virtual or hybrid classes (Burbio, 2020). There were generally three types of learning modalities: in-person, virtual, or a hybrid method consisting of both. Even for those attending in-person classes, digital instruction became a dominant instructional practice to maintain social distancing (Hess, 2022; Kelly, 2022; Nieves, 2021). The effect on school recess was immediate; playgrounds and activity centers fell silent under strict guidelines for social distancing.
Georgia’s K-12 public school reopening plan mirrored other states around the country offering various instructional designs by sanctioning multiple modalities of instructional formats. Larger, urban school districts like Gwinnett and Fulton counties (two of the largest counties in the state that, with other large suburban districts, help make up the larger Atlanta Metro area) favored virtual or hybrid instruction to mitigate infection among their sizable student populations. Smaller, rural school districts generally opted for face-to-face instruction in part due to lower rates of home internet and computer access. Common to all schools—regardless of instructional format or location—were social distancing protocols and enhanced digital instruction. These measures restricted play as an essential part of young children’s physical and social development, yet these dual COVID-19 effects are now firmly rooted in daily school operations in Georgia and persist with troubling repercussions for the state’s youngest learners.
The Present Study
Before the COVID-19 outbreak, school recess had been at the forefront of legislative policymaking in Georgia. A Georgia House bill (HB83, 2019) mandated a scheduled recess time averaging 30 minutes per day in kindergarten through fifth grade. It required local school districts to “ensure that recess is a safe experience for students, that recess is scheduled so that it provides a break during academic learning and that recess is not withheld for disciplinary or academic reasons” (HB83, 2019, lines 21–23). The bill garnered large bipartisan support in the state House of Representatives (160-11) and state Senate (48-4) but was ultimately vetoed by Georgia’s governor (Georgia General Assembly, 2020). The governor voiced his support for school boards to maintain local control over day-to-day school operations (Rand, 2019). Rather than instituting a universal, state-wide policy for school recess, he left the decision to school building administrators. He remarked the legislation would “impose unreasonable burdens on educational leaders without meaningful justification” (Rand, 2019, paras. 4–5). Since Governor Kemp’s veto of HB83, legislators were able to pass GA HB1283 in 2022, although when we began this study, this had not yet happened. For context, the new legislation amends existing Quality Basic Education Act language to state:
Beginning in the 2022-2023 school year, each elementary school shall schedule recess for all students in kindergarten and grades one through five every school day; provided, however, that recess shall not be required on any school day on which a student has had physical education or structured activity time or if reasonable circumstances impede such recess, such as inclement weather when no indoor space is available, assemblies or field trips exceeding their scheduled duration, conflicts occurring at the scheduled recess time over which the classroom teacher has no control, or emergencies, disasters, or acts of God. (GA HB 2022, §1a)
The law goes on to state that students should receive an average of 30-minute per day of unstructured recess that is not withheld for disciplinary or academic reasons, but §1b seems to contradict this. It states the local school board shall establish written policies regarding how to implement the law that include, but are not limited to, who determines the duration, frequency, and location of recess, whether the removal of recess can be used as a consequence or punishment, and how to ensure the break supports academic learning. We will discuss this further in the Discussion section at the end of the paper.
Purpose of the Study
In this new, post-COVID-19 school context, “meaningful justification” for a statewide school recess policy in elementary schools is now critical. A large and well-established body of research literature supports the positive impacts of free play and physical activity on learning and children’s academic, social-emotional, behavioral, and physical outcomes (e.g., Amin et al., 2017; Bidzan-Bluma & Lipowska, 2018; Blom et al., 2011; Brussoni et al., 2012; Digennaro, 2021; Egger et al., 2019; James-Burdumy et al., 2013; Massey et al., 2017; Mullender-Wijnsma et al., 2015; Murray et al., 2013; Ramstetter et al., 2010; Reeves et al., 2016). Yet mounting anecdotal reports from elementary schools suggest limited unstructured, free play occurs during school recess if any scheduled recess occurs at all. Enhanced digital instruction further complicates the school experience for young learners when physical movement and social interactions are reduced for much of the school day. Even though Georgia successfully passed GA HB1283 in 2022 requiring schools to provide elementary students with at least 20 minutes of recess per day, anecdotal evidence—as well as existing research (e.g., Lounsbery et al., 2013; Turner et al., 2013)—suggests policy may not equal practice. Present circumstances reveal the need for a statewide research study on elementary school recess to determine the rate and quality of recess in Georgia.
The purpose of this research study was to survey elementary school educators to reveal the temporal (i.e., duration, frequency, and cancelation practices) and descriptive (i.e., type, equipment, place) characteristics of recess in Georgia’s public elementary schools. The aim was to gather an overall assessment of school recess and identify critical themes that may emerge across economically, racially, and linguistically diverse local school systems. The results of this study yield important policy implications for Georgia’s school children that serve to inform school recess policy at both the local and state levels. The research questions that undergird this study include:
What were the temporal and descriptive characteristics of elementary recess during the legislative process to enact Georgia’s school recess law, GA HB83 2019 (i.e., 2019–2020)?
What, if any, changes have there been in elementary recess practices in Georgia between 2019–2020 (pre-COVID) and 2021–22 (post-COVID) as reported by elementary educators?
Specifically, this study examined statewide patterns of recess frequency, duration, cancelation practices, recess type, and recess location to determine the status of recess in Georgia’s elementary schools. We also explored any changes in recess practices as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of pandemic-related delays to launching our survey, the data obtained from this study also happens to reveal the status of recess in Georgia schools as the current recess law, GA HB1283 2022, was passed but had not yet been implemented. Results illustrate some differences between recess policy and practice and suggest implications for students’ learning and behavioral outcomes.
Method
This study employed an anonymous, SurveyMonkey survey for Georgia elementary teachers and administrators and a mixed methods design. Aggregate quantitative data from the survey was analyzed with covariates (e.g., location, school size, district type), although we found no differential results, perhaps due to sample size limitations or survey design issues. The open-ended comments in the survey were analyzed and coded which were then organized into overarching themes. In the following sections, we explain how we determined our minimum sample size, our recruiting methods, our participants, and our measures.
Determining the Sample Size
We used Tchebysheff’s theorem for a 5-point Likert item survey to determine population variance and ensure we had a sufficient sample size (Dillman et al., 2014). We were able to estimate the number of elementary teachers using publicly available school and employee data from the Georgia Department of Education (Georgia Department of Education [GADOE], 2021) and concluded the approximate population of public elementary educators in Georgia (N ≅ 53,966). We used an 80% [confidence interval], which is often accepted when conducting exploratory research (Sauro & Lewis, 2016), to enable greater flexibility with our sample size. With a bound of ±0.20, we determined the appropriate minimum sample size was 99.82 elementary educators.
Recruiting
To recruit participants, we intentionally used snowball sampling to garner survey input from as many Georgia educators as possible across the state beginning with a relatively small number of known-to-us contacts. We relied upon our educational connections, social media, and other social and professional networks to help expand our potential pool of participants by sharing study information in our networks and communities to increase sampling momentum (Parker et al., 2019). Recruiting and data collection were delayed for one academic year to 2021-2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent crisis learning modes and reopening modes educators in Georgia, and around the world, were experiencing. When we were finally able to launch the survey in September 2021, despite the snowball approach, we were still not seeing the volume of participation we had hoped for. We expanded our recruiting attempts to reach our desired saturation threshold, or a minimum of 200 participants, to ensure we exceeded the minimum participation requirements we had established.
Each of the authors served as the primary point of contact for state and local education agencies like Regional Educational Service Agencies (RESAs), the Georgia Association of Educators, and the Professional Association of Georgia Educators. We worked closely with our respective representatives to explain the purpose of the study and seek their support in promoting participation among their members and constituents. Laying this initial groundwork was helpful to be able to move forward rapidly when we were finally able to launch the survey, and once we did formally launch the survey, four reminder emails were sent to each agency contact to help facilitate their role in our recruiting process (Dillman et al., 2014).
We elected not to submit Institutional Review Board (IRB) applications to each of the 194 Georgia school districts as that process would have been inordinately cumbersome and time-consuming for this minimal-risk study. Upon receiving university IRB approval, we reached out to the GADOE to access a publicly available list of principal email addresses. After filtering out middle and high schools, we were left with 1,390 elementary principal email addresses. The first author emailed each of the principals on September 1, 2021, with a description of the study, the inclusion criteria, IRB and informed consent information, and a request to forward or share the survey information with appropriate colleagues and faculty. Additionally, each of the authors promoted the study with colleagues, as well as current and former College of Education students, with the request that they participate and share the information widely. This was done via word of mouth during faculty meetings, posting signs with QR codes and recruiting information in our buildings, and sharing information with our practicing educator students via our respective learning management systems.
As mentioned previously, we were concerned with the lack of participation, and we began to use social media heavily to expand our participant pool. Each of the authors took a subdivided list of approximately 55 Georgia school districts and searched district websites for social media handles. We did the same for every College of Education in Georgia as well as statewide professional agencies and groups such as the State Charter Schools Commission of Georgia, Georgia Elementary Principals, and the Georgia Cyber Academy Counseling Department. Throughout the fall months of 2021, we tweeted and posted at least five times each to tag districts and related groups in recruiting posts and ask viewers to share among their networks. We also held a raffle for people who submitted proof of sharing the study information and randomly drew a winner of a $25 gift card. We kept the survey open until December 31, 2021, to allow more time to reach our minimum threshold of 200 participants, and due to these extensive recruiting efforts, we were successful.
Participants
Participants must have worked at eligible schools to participate in the survey meaning the school must include at least one PK-5 grade, but not necessarily all, and could include higher grades. For example, a primary school would not necessarily include third to fifth grades, and a K-8 school would also include middle school grades. A total of 221 elementary teachers (active Georgia elementary teachers teaching PK-5) and 37 elementary administrators (active Georgia elementary principals or their administrative designees) completed the survey (total sample n = 258 respondents). More eligible people reviewed the survey without completing it (42 teachers and 6 principals). We required a minimum sample of 178 respondents to be able to analyze survey results with greater than 85% confidence, which we exceeded, but we were unable to meet the ±90% threshold of 397 participants.
Most participants (83.8%) reported they were in their thirties (27.8%), forties (32.5%), or fifties (23.5%), and the majority reported they identified as female (84.7%). The two largest self-reported racial/ethnic identities were White (50.2%) and African American or Black (42.7%), although there was at least one response in every category except Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Participants mostly held bachelor’s (27.1%), master’s (33.3%), and specialist (28.6%) degrees, but 8.2% held doctoral degrees. Respondents reported they were largely classroom-based teachers (58.4%), principals (11.8%), resource or support teachers (11.0%), and “other” (9.4%). Participants’ length of educational career was fairly evenly distributed from <5 years (18.0%) to 25 to 29 years (11.8%) with fewer people reporting educational careers spanning 30 to 34 years (5.9%) or greater (1.6%). Most people reported having been in their current role for <5 (48.6%) or 10 years (25.1%). Fifty-five Georgia school districts across the state were represented in this sample that was inclusive of city (55.3%), suburb (22%), town (7.1%), and rural (15.6%) geographic locale designations (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2021). Reported student population sizes ranged from fewer than 250 students (6.7%) to 1,500 students or more (1.2%) with most falling between 250 and 749 students (76.9%). Correspondingly, most reported faculty sizes were between 25 and 74 teachers (81.9%).
The Georgia Elementary Recess Surveys
Two versions of the survey were administered: a teacher version and an administrator version. Each version consisted of 37 questions (see Table 1; also available upon reasonable request). Teachers answered questions about their own classroom or grade level or based on the grade level(s) they worked with most often while administrators answered questions about their school overall and recess practices by each grade level. Together, teacher and administrator perceptions provide an overall educator stance on the state of recess in Georgia elementary schools both pre- and post-COVID and before the enactment of recess law in 2022–23.
Teacher and Administrator Recess Survey Blueprint.
T = Teachers and includes elementary classroom teachers, resource or support teachers, teacher leaders, paraprofessionals, and “other”; A = Administrators and includes elementary principals, assistant principals, deans, teacher leaders designated to respond, and “other.”
Results
A series of exact sign tests were conducted to determine any potential changes in elementary recess practices in Georgia between the 2019–20 (pre-COVID) and 2021–22 (post-COVID) school years as reported by elementary educators. Sign tests are nonparametric alternatives to paired-samples t-tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests, have no distributional assumptions, and can be used with ordinal dependent variables. Even though the survey was administered at a single point in time, respondents were asked to provide data (i.e., ordinal responses to Likert-style survey questions) on recess practices during both the 2019–20 (pre-COVID) and 2021–22 (post-COVID) years. Respondents who were unable to answer for both years did not have matched pairs of data and were thus removed from individual analyses (i.e., the sample size is slightly different for each analysis). Table 2 shows the frequencies for the four dependent variables for both academic years. The dependent variables of interest were elementary recess frequency, typical daily recess duration, frequency of recess cancelation, and recess type. “We currently do not have recess” was an option added to the survey before launch and unique to the 2021–22 recess survey questions to address changes in recess practice that were directly the result of contagion-mitigating social-distancing or pandemic-related academic intervention efforts. In the reporting below, we describe the results in terms of “COVID impact,” but it is important to note that while COVID is a likely contributor to change in reported elementary recess practices, it may not be the only factor, and using this assumptive phrasing is intended to make the results more readable.
Georgia Elementary Recess Pre- and “Post”-COVID Response Frequencies.
Recess Frequency
Participants (n = 231) reported whether recess was typically scheduled daily, weekly, infrequently, or not at all for both academic years. Most (n = 175) reported no changes in recess frequency (i.e., a neutral COVID impact), 40 reported decreased recess frequency (i.e., a negative COVID impact), and 16 reported increased recess frequency (i.e., a positive COVID impact). Twenty-five people reported they did not currently have recess, and six participants described their current recess situation as “Other.” For example, one administrator reported, “K-5 students still receive two recess sessions per day,” and teachers shared recess was “typically daily” but occasionally “needed to be restructured” (i.e., due to inclement weather) or that they “don’t have recess, but PE [is] once a week.” One teacher reported they do twice weekly recess, while the remaining teacher shared:
We don’t have a set recess schedule. We are permitted to take students outside for a break at any time. We avoid using shared equipment because of covid [sic]. Prior to covid [sic], we had playground time and team activities like kickball, relays, etc.
COVID and other potential stressors seem to have elicited a statistically significant mean decrease in recess frequency post-COVID in 2021–22 compared to before the pandemic in 2019–20, z = −3.074, p = .002, even though most respondents reported elementary children received recess daily at both intervals (n = 174, 67.4% and n = 162, 62.8% respectively).
Recess Duration
Participants reported whether recess was typically scheduled ≥21 min, 15 to 20 minutes, 10–14 minutes, ≤9 minutes per day, or not at all for both academic years. Of the 238 Georgia elementary educators who responded to these questions, 170 reported no changes in recess duration (i.e., a neutral COVID impact), 46 reported decreased recess duration (i.e., a negative COVID impact), and 22 reported increased recess duration (i.e., a positive COVID impact). Twenty-two participants selected “We currently do not have recess.” There has been a statistically significant mean decrease in recess duration post-COVID in 2021–22 compared to before the pandemic in 2019–20, z = −2.789, p = .005, even though most respondents reported elementary children receive 15 to 20 minutes per day at both intervals (n = 80, 31.0% at pre- and n = 78, 30.2% at post).
Recess Cancelation Frequency
To determine the changes in elementary recess cancelation frequency between 2019–20 (pre-COVID) and 2021–22 (post-COVID), 232 participants reported whether recess was canceled never, rarely, occasionally, or frequently for both academic years. Values were reverse coded with “Never” given the highest numeric value and “Frequently” given the lowest. Participants had the option of selecting “We currently do not have recess” or “Other” for the 2021–22 academic year. Most (n = 122) reported no changes in recess cancelation frequency (i.e., a neutral COVID impact), 86 reported an increase in recess cancelations (i.e., a negative COVID impact), and 24 reported a decrease in cancelations (i.e., a positive COVID impact). Again, 26 reported not currently having recess in 2021–22, and 48 respondents selected “Other” for this same academic year. The 13 open-ended responses described canceling recess due to inclement weather or extreme temperatures (n = 9), as a behavioral consequence (n = 1), or simply reiterated their earlier comments (e.g., having PE once per week, having recess twice per week). In keeping with the prior results illustrated above, the pandemic and related stressors seem to have elicited a statistically significant mean increase in recess cancelations post-COVID in 2021–22 compared to before the pandemic in 2019–20, z = −5.816, p < .001, even though most respondents reported rarely or never canceling recess during both 2019–20 (n = 160, 62.1%) and 2021–22 (n = 119, 46.2%).
Recess Type
To determine the changes in elementary recess types between 2019–20 (pre-COVID) and 2021–22 (post-COVID), participants reported whether recess was typically free-play, structured, or a combination for both academic years. Participants had the option of selecting “We currently do not have recess” or “Other” for the 2021–22 academic year. Of the 235 respondents, 183 reported no changes in recess type (i.e., a neutral COVID impact), 38 reported decreased free play (i.e., a negative COVID impact), and 14 reported increased free play (i.e., a positive COVID impact). Several respondents shared “We currently do not have recess” (n = 24), six respondents selected “Other” for 2021–22, and many commented in the open-response space, especially administrators. Since the COVID pandemic initial emergency shift to distance or remote learning, there has been a statistically significant mean decrease in free play at recess in favor of structured play, combination play, or an outright lack of recess altogether post-COVID in 2021–22 compared to before the pandemic in 2019–20, z = −3.190, p < .001. Most respondents reported predominantly free-play recess during each of the academic years 2019–20 and 2021–22 (n = 183, 70.9% and n = 169, 65.5% respectively).
Open-Ended Response Themes
Social distancing played a major role in the decisions and behaviors participants described. A teacher shared, “I try to do games like kickball where students can still play and socially distance in an open field,” and another shared:
Each class has a separate area of the playground to play on. Some of these areas are nothing more than a grassy area. Students are not allowed to interact with students from other classes, due to limited resources and playground equipment our students are often only getting a break outside without anything to really play with or play on [sic].
Seven principals shared similar concerns about contact tracing and social distancing indicating students “free play in zones so we can better contact trace,” can “bring their own equipment. . . (balls, etc.),” and they follow “COVID protocols’’ to “keep our classes from mixing on the playground.” One shared,
Recess is daily and is free play. The only change we made was to offer multiple sites on the campus for recess. We have two actual playgrounds (bigger with equipment and smaller with smaller equipment) and then a large field and a smaller area so that classes can spread out each day.
And another said, “Students go outside and play. In the event of inclement weather, they have indoor recess which may include games, writing on the board, visiting with each other, a video, etc. Indoor recess is typically more structured.” Some comments, like the one below, indicated free play was not as free as it perhaps once was due to COVID-related changes in practice.
Free play - classes do not intermingle like they did prior to COVID. Classes rotate through our play areas. Three days a week they are in areas with play equipment. One day a week they are in a play area that has painted activities on a concrete pad. One day a week they are in the field area.
One administrator’s response spoke to their rationale for maintaining recess, explaining it was used as a “time out to reflect on morning learning as well as [for] fellowship with classmates and play on playground equipment.”
When describing where recess typically happens at schools, the open-ended responses further expanded on the themes introduced above when participants discussed “zones’’ and play locations, although one teacher respondent said they “do not observe students using the playground or field frequently.” One teacher wrote, “We have no playground equipment for our school. We play on the road behind our school where our buses load. Sometimes we can’t play because the milk man [sic] comes to deliver and blocks our road.” Another teacher shared, “We have it assigned to stations including the parking lots and basketball court as specific class locations assigned by leadership.”
While there have been statistically significant negative changes in elementary recess practices in Georgia since the COVID pandemic began, it is positive that the majority of respondents still indicate recess is offered daily (51.4%) for 15 minutes or greater (62.8%) and is rarely (28.6%) or never (17.3%) canceled. Most respondents also reported they strongly agreed recess was important for students’ development cognitively (71.0%), physically (75.3%), socially and emotionally (74.1%), and behaviorally (60.0%), and that it is an important use of students’ time (67.1%). Only a small number of participants, however, shared that they strongly agreed they had the resources necessary for recess advocacy (4.3%) or that parents and families believe recess is a priority (20.4%), while most strongly disagreed teachers receive professional development related to recess (62.7%), although most agreed or strongly agreed they had school-level recess support (59.3%).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was originally to gather a statewide understanding of existing recess practices by analyzing the temporal and descriptive characteristics of elementary recess to help the legislative process to enact Georgia’s school recess law (Quality Basic Education Act & GA HB83, 2019 /GA HB 1283, 2022). After our research was delayed by a global pandemic, we pivoted to be able to examine the temporality and characteristics of elementary recess before and after the COVID-19 pandemic in the state of Georgia. Even though Georgia’s recess law has since become effective (i.e., beginning in the 2022–23 academic year) and the state is no longer debating whether there should be a recess policy, the results of this study have some important implications for children and educational policy if we truly wish to protect children’s rights to unstructured, free-play recess opportunities in elementary schools as a matter of practice. Despite the value most participants attributed to play in the survey (which aligns with existing research like Martin et al., 2018), the results of this study can be summed by stating Georgia’s elementary schoolchildren are receiving less recess overall, less free play specifically, and reduced access to safe play spaces post-pandemic than they were pre-pandemic. These findings align with decades-old and emerging research on the value of recess and free play for children’s healthy development and outcomes.
Reductions in Recess Broadly and Free Play Specifically
Multiple factors—shorter recess durations, more infrequent recess sessions, and increased cancelations—all contribute to what has been a statistically significant negative trend in recess practices in Georgia. These patterns of practice are in many ways understandable as educators grapple with both the pre-existing inequalities we were already facing in education and society, and also the new and disproportionate inequities ushered in by the COVID-19 pandemic and all it laid bare. The educational inequalities the pandemic left in its wake have been particularly harmful to our vulnerable and underserved student populations and have only been stacked upon other systemic sociocultural, political, and infrastructure-related challenges (Allee-Herndon et al., 2021), and the push to “catch children up” ensures that the students who were already experiencing recess deprivation continue to do so (Allee et al., 2024). Children who were already considered to be vulnerable or at-risk find those threats compounded as recess is removed to focus on academic interventions, test preparation, and other “schoolified” things despite extensive evidence recess is a worthwhile use of school time to improve a variety of student outcomes including physical (Murray et al., 2013; Tran et al., 201), social-emotional (Massey et al., 2021; Murray et al., 2013; Pellegrini, 2008), behavioral (Massey et al., 2021; Murray et al., 2013), and cognitive and academic (Henry, 2018; Murray et al., 2013; Stapp & Karr, 2018).
While it may feel counterintuitive to many to allow children to play during recess daily at school, this investment in their holistic development would pay dividends that simply providing academic interventions alone cannot do. Increasingly declining free play has been linked with terms like educational poverty, which is associated with other forms of poverty like economic poverty, contextual poverty (a scarcity of educational opportunities, structures, or services), and pedagogic poverty (a scarcity of educator efficacy), and a poverty of individual capabilities (referring to an individual’s incomplete development; Digennaro, 2021). The reduction in recess (or the disproportionate deprivation of recess for “at-risk” children) broadly, and the reduction in free play specifically, exacerbates educational poverty for our most vulnerable student populations. Declining free play has also been associated with increasing levels of unfavorable childhood outcomes across domains and disciplinary fields of study (e.g., Brussoni et al., 2012; Gray, 2011; Singer et al., 2009).
Reduced Access to Safe Play Spaces
One of the findings that came out of the open responses was the lack of safe or appropriate play spaces for many children, even if they are allowed time to play. Respondents shared having play time in parking lots, on a road, on concrete pads, etc., and some reported the lack of play equipment and structures. This doesn’t simply put children at risk for skinned knees on concrete or overheating without a shade structure, however. Emerging multi- and interdisciplinary research highlights that the spaces within which children develop, which include the social, built, natural, and systemic environments, have profound effects on children’s health outcomes across multiple domains by affecting their developing brains and other biological systems (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child [NSCDC], 2023). We know that the “qualities of the conditions in which people live are not evenly or randomly distributed. They are shaped by and deeply rooted in public policies and social history.” (NSCDC, 2023, p. 1). Among the many neighborhood indicators of child opportunity, third-grade academic proficiency, school poverty, teacher experience, access to green space, and even ozone concentrations and extreme heat exposure due to increased amounts of concrete-built spaces in urban areas and climate change are all factors combined into an economic resource index. (For more detailed information, we encourage you to visit the Child Opportunity Index 2.0.) “Black and Hispanic children across the US are more than seven and five times more likely, respectively, to live in ‘very low opportunity’ neighborhoods compared to white children” (NSCDC, 2023, p. 5), and this can be seen in deteriorating places for children to play.
While this survey did not assess the existence or extent of strict social distancing protocols at elementary schools in our “return to normal” schooling, it is reasonable to assume they have at least diminished, and that children can once again play with each other. The ability to reap all the potential benefits of recess and free play, however, is predicated on children having safe and healthy places to play. It may not occur to us to connect a global climate crisis and an abundance of concrete in a student’s world to environmental toxins, recess access, and short- and long-term healthy development outcomes, but this is precisely what the emerging interdisciplinary research suggests. It bears repeating that these issues disproportionately affect vulnerable children (e.g., Black and Brown children, children attending high-poverty or urban schools, economically disadvantaged children, and children whose families lack citizenship, English proficiency, food and housing security, and who are met with other systemic barriers to opportunity). To put it another way, the children more likely to be deprived of recess are also more likely to have inferior play spaces but could potentially benefit more from these opportunities to help close persistent and predictable educational gaps.
Revisiting the Substitution of PE for Recess and Free Play
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and SHAPE America—Society of Health and Physical Educators (2017) define recess as, “a regularly scheduled period in the school day for physical activity and play. . .[where] students are encouraged to be physically active and engaged with their peers in activities of their choice, at all grade levels, kindergarten through 12th grade” (para. 1). PE is not a substitute for recess (AAP, 2013; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and SHAPE America—Society of Health and Physical Educators, 2017; Ramstetter et al., 2010), but should complement recess, yet some respondents indicated this substitution was happening in their schools. Well-maintained and safe playground equipment and well-trained adults supervising free play are also critical for optimal recess (Ramstetter et al., 2010), but some respondents reported unsafe, unsecured, and undesirable play spaces were their only options for recess. As educators and educational policymakers, it is essential that we understand children from a developmental framework and that we create educational environments that encourage children to develop to their fullest potential (NSCDC, 2023; Turner et al., 2013).
In Georgia, there has been a trend toward replacing recess with physical education since the late 1990s. Our findings show this trend has increased post-COVID, likely because of social distancing efforts and pandemic-related learning loss justifying the beliefs that recess is not an important element of a school day in and of itself. Multiple participants reported both losing recess in part or entirely post-COVID while also stating they had PE instead as if this compensates for the loss of recess or, now, does not violate the state law enshrining recess as a daily elementary practice. If safe and appealing play space is at a premium, though, it can pose a logistical challenge to school-based leaders to determine how to have both PE and recess with free-play options, which reaffirms the extent to which our spaces influence children’s experiences.
Implications for Children’s Multi-Domain Outcomes
We deliberately made any identifying question optional, thus we are unable to discern the economic levels of the individual schools and communities the participants were thinking about as they responded to the survey. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to consider how our findings align with prior research. Vulnerable children are and have been consistently more likely to lose out on recess because they are more likely to be the subject of intensive academic interventions (Murray et al., 2013; Ramstetter et al., 2010) or to lose recess as a consequence of behavior management (Turner et al., 2013). Children who are enrolled in lower-income and urban schools are less likely to receive adequate time or sufficient resources for recess (London, 2019; Thompson & London, 2023). Recess would provide children, who many feel can least afford to spend school-day time at recess, opportunities to enhance their cognitive and academic (Henry, 2018; Murray et al., 2013; Stapp & Karr, 2018), behavioral (Massey et al., 2021; Murray et al., 2013), social-emotional (Massey et al., 2021; Murray et al., 2013; Pellegrini, 2008), and physical development (Murray et al., 2013; Tran et al., 2013).
When children play, it enables them to learn and practice interpersonal skills (Massey et al., 2017), as well as express their thoughts and feelings (Landreth, 2012). Play is the language through which children communicate (Landreth, 2012). Previous research has indicated that recess, in particular when educators are actively involved in planning and implementing it (Massey et al., 2017; Murray et al., 2013; Ramstetter et al., 2010), can benefit children’s academic behaviors, physical, mental, and social-emotional development (Taylor & Boyer, 2020). Yet despite this knowledge, many schools across our nation, and the state of Georgia, do not provide adequate time daily for students to participate in recess or do not provide quality recess opportunities to enhance the well-being of students (Massey et al., 2021; Murray et al., 2013).
Academic Success
The findings of this study have implications for the academic success of elementary school students. Over the past few decades, much of the focus in K-12 education has been on student achievement and accountability. As such, there is often a concern that recess may take away from instructional time, especially in urban schools and schools that have a high number of students who receive free or reduced lunch (e.g., IPEMA, 2018; Jarrett, 2003, 2019; London, 2019). However, the positive impact that recess has on student academic success is often overlooked. Students spend a significant amount of their day in the classroom, and much like adults who work without taking a break, it can be difficult to sustain attention for long periods, particularly if children are young, experience executive dysfunction, have difficulty self-regulating, or otherwise struggle to “fit” at school. It is essential that there are opportunities for breaks and that students’ developmental needs are taken into consideration for learning to take place, particularly if adversity and threats have already compromised children’s developing executive functioning (Allee et al., 2023). The CDC (2010) examined data across eight research studies and found evidence to support that recess is positively correlated with “indicators of cognitive skills, attitudes, and academic behaviors” (p. 6). Participation in recess has been linked to an increase in on-task behaviors (Stapp & Karr, 2018), sustained attention (Brez & Sheets, 2017; Jarrett et al., 1998), and improved reading performance (Henry, 2018). Additionally, London and Castrechini (2011) conducted a longitudinal study of students in fourth to seventh grade as well as from sixth to ninth grade in the state of California and found evidence to support that physical fitness is linked to more favorable academic outcomes. Executive function is strongly associated with and predictive of students’ academic capacity and approaches to learning, and these critical prefrontal cortex skills are also enhanced with play and physical movement (Allee et al., 2024). When students participate in recess, they have an opportunity to be physically active which can improve academic success, which is precisely why recess should not be the privilege of students who are doing well enough but should be used to support more vulnerable, struggling learners, too.
Physical Development
In addition to the benefits of recess on student academic achievement, recess can have an impact on children’s physical development. A decrease in the time and duration for recess and an increase in cancelations means that children have less time to participate in activities that allow them to be physically active. Recess provides opportunities for physical movement which has been shown to increase learning, improve academic outcomes, increase student focus and attention, and improve prosocial behaviors to reduce disciplinary and attendance concerns (Allee et al., 2024). When students participate in physical activity it can have a positive impact on their physical well-being. For example, participation in recess can reduce childhood obesity (Chin & Ludwig, 2014) which can in the long run play a role in the overall health outcomes of students. In addition, we know that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), childhood trauma, too much sedentary behavior, and the quality of our physical environments can have epigenetic and developmental outcomes lasting long into adulthood (e.g., Allee & Kaczmarczyk, 2023; NSCDC, 2023). Unfortunately, the children who are most commonly deprived of recess also tend to engage in more sedentary behaviors at home and school than their peers, further justifying the need for regular recess (Allee et al., 2024). Cardiac, diabetic, autoimmune, mental health, and substance addiction illnesses are well-documented as a result of chronic toxic stress or ACEs (Allee & Kaczmarczk, 2023), and this directly relates to the emerging interdisciplinary understanding of the impact of space and place can have on children’s outcomes (NSCDC, 2023). The findings of this study also have direct implications on the overall physical well-being of children, but these ripple out to have meaningful effects on multi-domain outcomes.
Social-Emotional Development and Mental Health
Furthermore, the findings of this study have implications for the social-emotional development and mental health of children. Although some may argue that PE classes provide an opportunity for movement and play and, as such, recess is not necessary, one primary way that recess differs is that it allows opportunities to engage in unstructured play activities that can be beneficial to students’ social development (Pellegrini, 2008). During a typical school day, students are often provided with limited opportunities to socialize with one another outside of classroom group activities and lunchtime. Classroom group activities are often focused on academics and during lunch, students usually have limited time to interact with one another. Recess provides an opportunity for children to socialize with one another. Through recess, students learn how to communicate with others, how to build linguistic and cultural capital, how to make choices and negotiate, how to play cooperatively, how to create and follow rules, and what behaviors may or may not be socially acceptable.
In December of 2021, the US Surgeon General issued an advisory on youth mental health. Before the pandemic, there was an increase in mental health challenges in children and adolescents such as a rise in diagnosed depression and suicidal ideation (US Surgeon General’s Office, 2021). Since the pandemic, a growing number of children have been faced with issues such as the loss of loved ones, family financial challenges, and a lack of support systems that have traditionally been in place to support children and their families or communities. As such, children have been more likely to have symptoms of depression and anxiety since the pandemic (US Surgeon General’s Office, 2021). The issues that we have been facing at the national and global levels have had a deleterious effect on the social-emotional well-being and mental health of children. Recess allows students an opportunity to cope with daily challenges that they may be experiencing. This is of particular importance with many of the challenges that children have been facing since the COVID-19 pandemic. When children play, they can work through many of the emotions that they are feeling, almost as an extension of a therapeutic play-based approach. Once again, this evidence shows the power of recess and free play to develop critical social-emotional, mental health, and linguistic skills (e.g., Allee-Herndon et al., 2022) which is particularly salient for—and often withheld from—children who are already disadvantaged and who could potentially benefit even more from recess access than their more-advantaged peers by engaging in regular play precisely because of their “gaps.”
Implications for Practice or Policy
The majority of respondents reported a belief in the value and importance of recess to provide benefits across multiple domains of childhood outcomes. However, this study revealed statistically significant reductions in recess frequency and duration, increases in cancelations, and reductions in free play which can be harmful to children’s development. We posit one reason for this may be an increase in high-stakes testing pressures placed on districts and schools to eliminate recess in favor of test preparation. A global meta-synthesis of 29 empirical studies on learning loss indicated that most models overestimated the degree of learning loss observed, but learning loss disproportionately affected economically disadvantaged students boosting existing inequality (Moscoviz & Evans, 2022). Nationally, however, more evenly distributed rates of learning loss within districts or communities regardless of income or race were observed, but the impacts were more profound in communities that experienced higher COVID-related death rates or lower voting rates (i.e., a marker of institutional trust) where the community impact was greater (Harvard Graduate School of Education [HGSE], 2023). For more information on the types and extent of the disproportional educational effects of COVID, we encourage readers to visit the HGSE website for additional data and tools.
We also speculate that perhaps the playgrounds and play spaces that had been previously viewed as a community asset and sign of the importance of investing in children’s education (Bostic, 2004; Pellegrini, 2005) may have already been deteriorating or in need of refurbishment before the pandemic. With the increased hyper-standardized and hyper-assessed climate in elementary schools over past decades, districts and schools likely prioritized spending on other things besides playground equipment upkeep or replacement. This was perhaps amplified or exacerbated when districts had to spend enormous amounts of money to equip students and teachers with digital resources to accommodate the crisis shift to remote learning because of the pandemic, but which also hasn’t been eliminated since the return to “normalcy” (Coronavirus Aid, 2020). Schools only have so much money to go around, and perhaps providing safe and engaging play spaces and equipment cannot be justified if school and district leaders struggle to find value in using schoolday time for recess in the first place. This may be at least part of why some survey responses harken back to the old trope, “We don’t have recess, but we do have PE” discussed earlier (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and SHAPE America—Society of Health and Physical Educators, 2017; Ramstetter et al., 2010).
Having the recess legislation fully in place at this point should bode well for the quality and quantity of recess and free play Georgia’s elementary children receive each school day, but our findings beg the question of how much policy is impacting practice. As we know from prior legislation with good intentions but lackluster outcomes, without providing extra funding for equipment and safe play spaces, without changing the hearts and minds of key leaders about the value of recess, and without any measures to monitor the implementation of a ≥20-minute daily recess period, legislation can be ignored in favor of other priorities (e.g., Turner et al., 2013). How do we move from legislating to doing? Children are losing recess at the local level which further supports the need for stronger state and district policy protecting children’s access to recess (e.g., Jarrett, 2019).
As the adage goes, “What gets measured gets done.” To strengthen the existing policy, we recommend the legislature provide the resources necessary to secure high-quality safe spaces—and time—to play. These may include providing financial resources to support implementation innovations such as paying for paraprofessional salaries to help monitor recess or other creative ways to remove barriers and incentivize recess. It would also be particularly critical to help subsidize recess expenses in areas where typically underserved children will have more access will have more access to play spaces (e.g., on the school grounds or establishing partnerships with neighborhood parks) as this is an equity issue well-established in the literature (e.g., NSCDC, 2023). As we know from our participants, many people believe in the inherent value of recess for children’s healthy development (e.g., Massey et al., 2021; Murray et al., 2013), but we also know there are many competing demands educators must try to simultaneously meet (e.g., Tran et al., 2013; Turner et al., 2013).
In addition to providing additional resources, however, it would be important to also plan for and/or require some sort of recess policy implementation oversight (Turner et al., 2013). This would perhaps ensure compliance, but not necessarily acceptance. Providing support for professional learning on the importance of recess across childhood outcome domains may help to change hearts and minds at the decision-making or buy-in levels that could otherwise impede a full, successful implementation of the recess policy. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the state legislature, Department of Education, and other decision-makers and relevant collaborators would be wise to consider ways to remove barriers to recess that go beyond attitudes and beliefs or access to financial and other resources. By this, we mean that conversations must be had about what competing expectations can be shifted to make room for embracing the idea that free play and recess truly have sufficient value that we can trust enough to “risk” taking our collective thumbs off the scales of other priorities to “catch children up” and “close learning-loss gaps.”
Limitations and Future Research
These recommendations, of course, are based on the study results and our collective years of experience. Our findings may be skewed by the perceptions of the participants who chose to respond especially as one drawback to snowball sampling is that it may lead to sample bias and over-represent smaller networks of the larger population. Perhaps we had a more limited response than we anticipated due to the myriad stressors educators were managing at the time (2021–22) considering the challenges in P-12 education seem to have increased, or at least persisted, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (cf. Brookings, 2023). Some districts appeared uncomfortable with their faculty participating and asked us not to contact them further which could, again, be due to the innumerable pressures schools and districts are feeling to meet all the demands required of them and to maintain a fragile public image in our current socio-political environment (cf. Brookings, 2022). Another limitation of this study is that it was only able to capture recess practices in one state. Research on different states’ recess practices could help determine the impact of legislation on recess practices.
On the other hand, we were able, albeit accidentally, to explore recess practices before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This is useful information to take into account as recess practices were significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In hindsight, however, we regret not including “We currently do not have recess” as an option for both time points for each of the dependent variables of interest as the decline in recess access for children is well-documented, even before the pandemic, and we would have been very interested to see how many participants would have also reported they did not have recess pre-COVID in 2019–20. A second strength of this recess study is that we were, again accidentally to a certain extent, able to explore recess practices in Georgia before the state mandate for elementary school recess. This can provide future insight into how policy can or has impacted recess practices.
There is a need for larger and more robust studies to truly uncover patterns of recess and play practices which necessitates an investment in future research to further explore this topic and the efficacy of the enacted recess legislation, and we encourage researchers in other states to build on our survey methods and findings in collaboration or independently. Future studies should explore the impact of the Georgia recess mandate to examine differences in daily school practices. Additionally, with more states enacting or considering recess legislation (e.g., California, Florida, Missouri, New Jersey; Jarrett, 2019; Walker, 2024), research should examine recess practices in other states that have enacted recess mandates to determine the efficacy of such policies. Collectively, studies like this could help guide the state and national recess policy discourse.
Conclusion
Georgia is the 10th state to enact a recess law protecting children’s access to recess and free play. We support legislative efforts across the country to protect children’s freedom to play. High-quality daily recess can help children to manage stress, build social and language skills, get stronger, have fun, and learn which can have resulting impacts on their academic achievement, physical well-being, social-emotional development, and mental health. Our findings suggest that despite the well-established research on the benefits of recess, many schools across our nation have limited time, space, equipment, or “permission” for students to participate in high-quality recess activities. Educators and educational policymakers must advocate for all students to participate in high-quality recess activities so that the needs of students are met.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
