AIBU to think half an hour is not long enough for a school lunch break?

Have not RTFT
but the shortest lunch Break DH came across was 20 mins for 1000 pupils
its called - give them least amount of free time during the day and get them out - to reduce discipline problems
its a cop out to deal with stuff that the I'll bet its an academy SLT do not want to

We have 15 lunch time controllers as our lunch break spreads over 1.5 hours. They are wonderful people who chat to the kids and ensure they clear up their mess. Teachers have always done duties - it's part of the job ! I do 2 half hour ones every fortnight and I enjoy my chats with the kids.

Hard for working parents if they keep shortening the school day.

And the cost cutting is having zero midday supervisors.

Definitely cost cutting. If they have 2 x 30 minute breaks they can avoid calling it "lunch" and then put teachers on duty.

I've experienced this and it's truly shit. I actually had 25 mins and then 5 mins movement. If you had to talk to a student and go to the loo as well then you could forget your lunch.

Had a little giggle about my crap school !! Which gets 87% A*-C at GCSE last year and is in too 2% of country for Value Added. We have happy kids and happy parents and are one of the top schools in the Country at various sports. Our lunch breaks have been the same length for over 40 years so no change made as one has not been needed. For the OP I'd say please don't worry. School will make sure the kids eat and go to the loo as teaching hungry bursting students is no fun.

My ds originally went to a secondary school that had a shorter day (2.30 finish) and short break and lunch (15 mins and half hour). They fit this in by having 5 minute tutor times at beginning and end of day.
There was many factors but this was 1 why my ds struggled there and couldn't manage their system. There wasn't down time and they didn't get information because tutor wasn't long enough to give it.

He now goes to a school that's a 50 minutes longer day. Ironically he's less tired and more settled. They have 20 min break and 45 minute lunch, the timing of both mean eating in either and/or both is fine. They also have longer tutor periods and a tutor 'hour' once a week too that means ds feels fully informed of what's going on rather than chasing his tail the whole time.

The reality of the 30 minute lunch was counting in leaving lesson and getting to next there was about 20 minutes where as you say everyone is trying to find somewhere to eat or get to/ into the canteen.

My children's school have just done the opposite and extended the lunchtime by an extra 20 mins. All groups consulted agreed (80% of teaching staff, which I was pleased about as didn't want it forced on them) - more time to eat lunch and more time to actually relax and socialise a bit. They introduced 2 lunch sittings so everyone actually had a chance to eat, and lots of lunchtime clubs. They did also finish very early - 2.55 - so now it's 3.15pm.
My children complained at first (mainly because of the later finish) but actually now agree it's a much nicer day, without constantly feeling rushed.

I am a Primary teacher, and I know lots of primaries that really shortened the lunchtime because behaviour was so bad. I imagine there are many secondary schools which are similar.

@user1497480444

Is that you michael gove

Honestly, schools are not factories and children are not there to be crammed. They're people.

Shorter lunch breaks are not being introduced to improve their education. Far from it. So your posts are a nonsense because they're supportive of the flimsy excuses being made.

Ours have a 30 minute break at 11am and a 40 minute break at 1pm. School hours are 9am-3pm.

I think high school have a 30 minute break at 10:20am and a 40 minute break at 12:40pm. School hours are 8:30am-3:30pm.

Sports and PE all take place outside of school hours now. That goes for both primary and high school. The exception is the ski season (around 2 months in total), as snow sports are a part of the school curriculum and half of each Wednesday is spent on the mountains.

This works well, seemingly. Haven't heard of any instances of bullying from either DS.

I think if the school gave reasons for this as "reduces bullying" and "stops kids getting beaten up by kids from rival schools" I'd be looking for somewhere else to send them to school. What a crap attitude.

A school of children that can't be allowed to have even a potential 10 minutes spare time in case they bully each other and have to have their finish time changed because they are fighting with another school has a behaviour problem in my book. It might well be because they are short of the resources they need, but it's hardly an endorsement is it? I don't remember any punch ups when I was at school, and I've only heard of one or two at my children's school (not in the UK, different pressures, but the same hormones), fights are not really a normal part of school life are they?

It's not poor behaviour management - it's good ! We have NO problems at break times 😁. I'm sure all MN kids always behave impeccably but unfortunately not all kids do - in my day we had an hour for a lunch and there were regularly punch ups so it's nothing new. Hormones are horrible things and some kids will search for a row in an empty room. And as they finish at 3pm they have lots of time to socialise after school. Now I am going home as term has finally finished & I'm late for the pub. I go to my 6 week holiday where I will do no work 😂😂😂😂😂😂.

Why has behaviour management got to such a poor place that schools feel if they don't manage every minute of children's times they will be up to no good? My teenagers don't gobble their food unless they really have to, and they don't get into trouble if they are allowed 10 minutes free time. They also don't fight with other schools (no uniforms here which probably helps reduce tribalism). They get 50 minutes for lunch and are allowed off site. 30 minutes when 20 minutes are expected for queuing and to include using the toilet, getting out of one class and getting ready for another basically means no lunch for many children.

At my old school the lunch break was only 25 mins

I have to admit as well as a lunchtime supervisor it's very true all the bother happens in the last 15 min of the 45 min break

I'm a lunchtime supervisor in a 900 ish pupil school and when there's a full squad in the bell goes at 12.15 the year 11&10 go down straight away then it's a rota for the order of 7 to 9 but it never takes less than 20 min to get them all through it can take up to 30 min on chip Fri, have to admit though half the problem is the children themselves we have a sandwich/pasta queue and a proper meal queue where you could get a curry, proper dinner etc but the kids won't entertain the second queue as the food options are too adventurous for the vast majority of them, but having them all gravitate to the sandwich queue slows everything down

That really doesn't sound fair on them, when do they get time to relax and socialise? Lunch time was always an hour when I was in school, didn't know of any school that had a shorter lunch break.

That said, I live abroad now and I'm pretty sure lunch time isn't more than 30 minutes here, possibly even just 20 minutes, but the important difference is that lunch time is staggered so you don't get the whole school rushing it at once, there's no options at lunch anyway so no worrying about being left with the worst option, and most importantly, they have 15 minute breaks after every lesson for relaxing and socialising and blowing off steam which is essential for learning.

But teenagers do just shove their lunch down, however long you give them. They'd rather chat/play football/ get up to mischief/ argue/fight/throw fidget spinners at each other's heads. Shorter breaks mean they have less time to let the hormones take over. And school finishes at 3 so they've plenty of time for clubs and fun. Being on duty at break in Secondary School can sometimes require the skills of a Premiership Referee and a Sergeant Major.

I think learning to eat well - to take time to eat well and enjoy some social 'downtime' - IS (or should be) part of their education. As a country we have a massive problem with snacking and poor dietary habits, and the resulting obesity and eating disorders. If children have to simply shove their lunches down as quickly as they can then that does nothing to encourage a healthy attitude to eating.

Schools in other countries manage to give their children a good meal at lunch time, and enough time to eat without bolting. Why can't we do it here?

DDS school didn't take payments the parents were billed at the start of the term. The queues lunch served between 12.30 and 1.30. Staggered every 10 minutes per year. 30minutes only for lunch. Problem was as you went up the school it became a choice between queuing for the toilet or queuing for lunch

Ours use fingers to pay so it's v quick. We get 1700 kids through in 3 half hour sittings.

DS school have a shorter day with two 20 minute breaks.

I think it's good, less time for bullying and trouble-making. They have all the clubs after school.

There was however concern over having enough time to eat dinner, so they've made one break 15 minutes and increased the other to 30. I think one lesson was already 5 minutes longer than the others so they've just cut it back to the same as the others.

I think 30 minutes is fine, and it really does mean there is less time for the kids to get into trouble.

It's been like it since the 80s by the way, so not a consequence of cutting budgets, just following a more German model where they start at 8 and finish around 1.30, ds' school starts at 8.30 and finishes at 2.30.