If a week is a long time in politics, then 40 years in education is several lifetimes. I have seen many changes in this time. 

When I started teaching in 1978, there was a morning interval, an afternoon interval and at least an hour-long lunch break.

I never really understood the logic of the drive in the 1980s for a shorter day, removing afternoon break and cutting lunchtime to 50 or even 40 minutes. I know it will be defended by colleagues citing a lack of resources for supervision and potential for hijinks, but the system lost out with this shortening of the day.

Lunchtime, in particular, was beneficial to many young people and staff. It was time for extensive extracurricular activities, programmes of supported study and so on. These things still happen in schools, but they are either crammed into the shorter time or are add-ons outside school hours, requiring transport and additional costs. I worry about which pupils might have been disadvantaged by this move: the poorest, those who depend on school transport and - especially - those who are in rural and semi-rural areas.

The teaching day is now packed full of demands made on our education system, our schools and our teachers. One recent report listed 217 things that non-educationalists think that “schools should teach”. My whole career has seen political interference and a growing demand that schools fix all society’s ills and issues.

Is it any wonder that the lack of breaks and increasingly full teaching day lead to reports of a majority of teachers claiming to have mental health issues? 

The staffroom is the collateral damage. Is there a correlation between their lack of use and the increase in stress and poorer health and wellbeing among our teachers? 

Staffrooms are a very important feature of a school: a safe place to let off steam, to build community and find support. I mourn their loss. 

Isabelle Boyd is a former secondary headteacher in Scotland, who recently retired as assistant chief executive at North Lanarkshire Council