As students strolled into the cafeteria for lunch on the first day, they were unsure how a drastic schedule change would effect them. 25 minutes and scores of half-eaten lunches later, they had a much clearer picture.

Due to state mandates, the 2007-08 class times were forced to increase from 48 to 52 minutes, while lunch was reduced from 48 to 25 minutes. What had once been a full-period complete with a mid-bell during lunch was divided into three-segment sections (A, B, and C), with only 1/3 of that time to eat and be in the cafeterias.

The change was issued to our schools by the DPI (Department of Public Instruction), which sets up the instructional minutes needed during the school year. To meet the requirements, it was essential that our schedule be shifted to adjust that.

According to East Principal Cassandra Schug, there was a misinterpretation of how the second half of lunch was spent. While the administration had always considered the second half of the lunch schedule to be instructional minutes (time students spend with teachers), the DPI said it was not. Therefore the school needed to come up with a solution, Schug said, which ended up being a change in the schedule to meet the amount of minutes required.

Student reaction and attitude toward the change has been predictably passionate, to say the least.

Many students are frustrated with the lack of time to eat. “You pretty much have to inhale your food, have no time for communication, and on top of that, have no time whatsoever for working on homework assignments,” said West sophomore Kaylee Rossman

In addition, students such as East junior Chevelle Memmel have busy schedules, and the change subtracted time to squeeze in help from teachers. “Last year, I spent part of my lunch in photography and in the math lab getting help, so not having that time this year is a change that didn’t help me much, especially with all my sports and my schedule before and after school,” complained Memmel.

Not all students, however, are playing to the negatives of the change. “I like it because it’s a lot shorter, and I feel like it’s a better use of time. Last year, it felt long, and almost like you had too much time on your hands,” explained East sophomore Kim Dabel. East junior Nick Makowski agreed. “Besides the shortness of lunch, I really like it. I don’t really like my 5th hour, so it makes it a little bit easier to take a break from it and just go to lunch for a while,” he said.

Whether students love or hate this new schedule change, the administration insists that their hands were tied in the matter. According to Schug, some change had to occur, and there were only three logical choices to make: One, start the day earlier; two, end the day later; or three, decrease the lunch time.

Schug explained that the cost of altering the start/end schedule and changing busing was too much money to even consider. Thus, the only viable option was to tinker with lunch.

She also added that though there seems to be a lot more control and discipline in the lunch rooms compared to previous years, she feels that it’s been a big negative in that there’s just not enough time for kids to go and get help when needed, or to work on their assignments.

“It’s unfortunate that this change had to occur in the first place,” said Schug. “ I wish there was something else we could do.”

According to Schug, the school is trying their best to make the change as beneficial as possible for the students. For example, the math lab is now open from 6:45 before school to 3:15 after school so kids can have more time for help.

East Vice-principal Mr. Stewart said this was the first schedule change since the early ‘80’s, when the mod system gave way to the 8 period day. Stewart sees no real backlash. “I’ve heard only a few complaints when the school year first began, but so far, no students or parents have really complained about it,” he said.

Results of a survey taken of 400 students on September 28 show the majority of students are not happy with this lunch change, though there are some noticeable class disparities.

For example, the survey showed that the freshman and the seniors were not largely affected by the change. Many freshmen cited lack of experience as the their indifference. “It really doesn’t bother me because I’m a freshman, so I’m not sure how it was last year,” said West freshman Katie Wilde.

Many seniors polled had a “been there, done that” response, citing their departure in a year. “Honestly, I don’t think that it’s that bad, or what some people have made it out to be; it’s really not much of a problem,” said East senior Lovely Arcelo.

Sophomores and juniors had the most difficulty accepting the change. “I don’t like how I don’t have time to do homework or go into classes after midbell to catch up,” said East junior Michelle Zacher.

Many teachers were not without opinion. East physical education teacher Mark Purtell said, “I think that high school kids need a recess, just like middle school and grade school students. In fact, I need a recess and a nap time.” Ed Rueter, an East Economics teacher who is new this year added, “No, I don’t like it. It’s pretty short. It’d be nice to maybe have another 5-10 minutes at least.”

Many teachers complained about the loss of individual student contact time. Eric Beltmann, East American Literature teacher, said that it’s reduced his planning time. “We’re getting used to it, but the question is, at what cost?” he said. He also feels some kids may be quite a bit more stressed, due to having much less time to spend on studies and homework.

While the policy cannot be altered for the remainder of the school year, Schug said the school board will reevaluate the change in the near future. West Bend School District Superintendent Pat Herdrich also promised to revisit the change. “The High School leaders will be getting feedback by the end of the first quarter,” she said. “We will then examine whether this solution is the best one.”