Although having two lunch periods may seem like an adequate solution to the issues regarding capacity and safety, was it the best arrangement for Parks students? Instead of benefiting our school, this situation indeed worsens it.

First of all, two lunch periods divide the student body. Splitting our school into halves makes it more difficult to collaborate and engage with each other is an added factor. Collaborative learning is an efficacious benefactor for physical schools because it enhances critical thinking, promotes active participation, and improves communication skills. This present scenario takes away an advantageous quality of our in-person school.

Not only does this situation belittle beneficial learning techniques, but it also complicates the basic concept of socializing with friends. When transitioning from elementary school to junior high, many students’ only safety net is knowing that they will have their friends with them for at least one period – lunch. Not knowing whether it is still possible to sustain past friendships makes this whole new school situation even more challenging. In addition, the two lunch group situation limits students’ access to valuable resources. Now, most clubs are only available to students depending on their lunch group meaning many are not even allowed to interact with people who share a similar interest.

Furthermore, having two lunch groups complicates the schedule. Off-beat days are not extremely uncommon. Examples of this layout could include i-Ready testing, Lunch on the Lawn, and state testing. Two lunches complicate everything to a much further level. Now, since students’ lunches must be replaced by students of a different group’s class period, creating a schedule that meets all the standards becomes a tricky task. The schedule is already exhausting to keep up with and frankly, adding in modified schedules makes everything that much more complicated.

Lastly, students with Lunch B struggle to gain a proper understanding of their curriculum before it’s their time to go out to eat. The reason is that the students must wait for a whole period and stay focused while they hear the rest of the campus scrambling through the hallways to go out for their 35-minute break. This means that students of Lunch B have to have lunch at a later time, impacting their concentration, focus, and cognitive abilities.  

To conclude, having two lunches needs to come to an end. As proven, it creates more problems than it solves. Even so, if we reintroduced the idea of one lunch, we could try to solve the original problems without creating more complex ones. We can create more clubs and alter seating arrangements to deal with the issues of size and space. As for the safety issue, maybe two lunches was not the correct variable that hindered the number of fights. Perhaps this problem was resolved on its own, especially considering that this issue’s prominence significantly increased right after students got off of online learning. We should reconsider the original plan, give it a second chance, and learn the bravery of admitting that one has made a mistake. All in all, having two lunches has proved to be an unsuccess, and should eventually be changed back to a united one.