Or is 30 minutes too short for school lunch?

Yes it's to reduce behaviour issues. Lots of kids can't manage an hour unsupervised without causing trouble. I teach in a girls' grammar school and we still have an hour for lunch. We have absolutely loads of lunch time clubs and activities, which wouldn't be possible with a 30 minute lunch break.

Saying behaviour is poor or dangerous as a reason for short lunch breaks is rather admitting that their behaviour policy and management does not work.

I worked in a school where lunch was 30 mins. Any longer and behaviour started to get dangerous. Now I’m in a school with 50 mins-it’s much better!

Sound like it's pretty standard for seniors now!
My kids are in primary. They have 2 sittings one plays for 30 mins whilst the others eat and then they swap

I think it is too short. I wonder if part of the reason is to do with finishing time, so children who walk home do so in daylight in December and January?

I agree with this, it's to limit poor behaviour & time to leave the school grounds etc & was apparently very successful when our local senior school did this a few years ago.

It’s one of the things that I don’t like about my kids school - lunches are staggered - reception starts at 1145 so the kids are absolutely starving by home time

eldest on packed lunches regularly comes home with half the lunchbox uneaten as there “wasn’t time” especially being one of the eldest of the lower years overrun their time slots

My daughter’s school have 30 minutes staggered lunch breaks due to the amount of children. If her lesson before lunch is at the other side of school, and it’s a big school, she’s at the back of the queue meaning sometimes she only has 5 minutes to eat, go to the toilet and get to her next lesson. It’s not enough time at all.

One hour too long
30 too short for staff especially

Dc's school got 25 minutes for around 2k pupils. They did also get a morning break of 20 minutes where most of the food outlets were open too.
The morning break was definitely too early for lunch, but the lunch time one was late (starting at 1.35pm). They only had one lesson after lunch.

I have to be honest and say I was very sceptical, however all three of my dc, with different personalities and needs, liked it and said it didn't feel rushed to get what they needed to do.

I work in state secondary, j supervise at lunchtime, an hour. It's good to get a longer break.

My DC secondary school still has an hour for lunch, that seems to be in the minority though.

Yanbu. It's too short.

My office lunch is 30 mins, but I can eat a sandwich and snacks at my desk and go to the toilet whenever I want. The 30 mins is purely time for a walk amd fresh air. School kids can't eat at their desk or go to the loo in lessons.

Normally it’s two 30 minute breaks. It’s to stop students leaving site, help lunch queues and fit in detention time(cause heaven bid you keep a kid after school). All very normal now.

I work in a high school, we get 35 mins. It's not long enough but I'm used to it now and I like finishing at 3.10 (I can leave at 3.30).
Without phones, the pupils don't know what to do. So many of them just fight and cause trouble.

I said that literally 25 years ago when my secondary decided reduce lunchtime. I believe the teachers had to have a lesson off either side to keep the unions happy. It was 100% about behaviour. Which was rather sad because as a rural community most kids couldn't access after school activities so the lunch clubs were all they had. I have no idea how they got everyone through the canteen, I wouldn't have eaten the food. We also had to wait till 1:15 for this 35 minute break.

I work in a secondary school and we only have a 25 min lunch. There is a 25min break too. It's not long enough for staff or students, especially as the bell goes 5 mins before the end, effectively reducing it to 20 mins.

I take that point but why insist kids, particularly secondary age, stay on site then, let them go home for lunch. Insist they stay but can't supervise due to lack of staff is utterly nuts.
Probably a third left the premises when I was there, campus was open, no locked gates. Sure some will have gone up the shops, behind the chippy, for a fag, From what DGS says they go in the loos instead and vape instead of off premises.

Elsewhere on the continent but my kids have 3 courses plus a salad so they are in the dining hall for close to an hour. Then for the other hour they play, often organised games of basketball are available if they want to join, or there are chess clubs and other things. You can also pick them up and have lunch at home if you want.

This thread has dredged up the memoriess of the daily hour finding somewhere quiet to hide from the bullies.

Loads of primary school where I like have only 45 minutes for lunch. It’s to save money and also because lunchtimes are where the most incidents happen.

We all know that free time shouldn’t be boring and the dc should be able to manage but unfortunately that doesn’t always seem to be the case. People started doing things like putting DVDs players in the backs of their cars in case their kids got bored, or they had to talk to them. Now the kids can’t thinkk of ways to amuse themselves.

Would have been an issue at my school as most extra-curricular clubs ran at lunchtime due to the majority of children having to get the school bus home.

Similar here.

In the 1970s my (state) school had a lunch break of about 1 hour and 15 minutes I think, certainly over an hour. Plenty of time to eat your lunch ( a "proper" cooked lunch!) and do an activity. Lots of clubs and sports ran at lunch time, eg choir and other music practise and house matches.

We were in a rural area with lots of pupils having to travel in on school buses so after school extra-curricular activities were tricky.

Also our school day didn't end until 4pm, presumably to compensate for longer lunch times. I see most children these days on their way home soon after 3pm.

Mostly we were not allowed off of school premises at lunch time but pupils who lived within walking distance sometimes even went home for lunch and if you had a dentist or doctor appointment and could present a note from your parents to confirm this then you were allowed to leave for that.

I think some schools have also done it to shorten the day overall for staff which allows them to do more of their admin/paperwork from home. There's an amount of taught hours that have to be delivered and shortening lunch allows staff to finish teaching earlier.

Our local secondary finishes at 2.50pm. There are teachers who shoot off and collect their own kids from primary schools that tend to finish later (3.15 or even 3.30). My brother in law teaches and his school rejigged all the timetable to try and give staff more flexibility, including some wfh. There's a retention issue in teaching because for the money it pays its become a less enticing career prospect now that so many jobs offer some wfh, so I understand schools trying to give staff a better deal on hours since they can't pay them better.

I think it’s a bit short for those not bringing packed lunches, by the time they queue for canteen etc, although my kids don’t seem bothered. When I was at school it just about enough time to eat lunch and go for a smoke socialise.