Or is 30 minutes too short for school lunch?

[flossydog]

I live next to a school, and it has a 30 minute lunch break. I went to three secondary schools growing up, and checking their timetables, they now have a 35, 40, and 45 minute lunch break respectively. I suspect some of them have shortened the break in the 20 odd years since I left.

AIBU or is 30 minutes too short to eat your lunch, go to the loo, and socialise?

(I often take an hour out for lunch at work as an adult, but it's not as if I'm on the clock.)

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.

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.

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

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

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.

One hour too long
30 too short for staff especially

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.

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

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.

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?

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 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!

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.

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.

Behaviour policies don't eliminate bad behaviour, they just apply sanctions when it happens. Hopefully they reduce it to an extent. In any case, behaviour policies rely on staff being present to witness the behaviour and apply the consequences, but at lunch time it's impossible to supervise all students all the time.

Our secondary school has two 35 minute lunch breaks. The kids seem to sometimes eat during break 1 and sometimes during break 2. The first is roughly 11:30-12:00 and 2nd is 1:30-2. I think it’s plenty of time for teenagers who are only in school 8:45 to 3. Different for 5 year olds, of course.

My ADHD son made the choice not to bother eating at lunchtime due to short lunch breaks. There was no way he was queuing up to get hot food as that meant missing being outside with mates and burning off energy. If he wasn’t in detention that is. He’d grab a fruit pot or hash browns at break and that’d be that. Not good for the afternoon sessions.
The view of the school was giving them too much free time resulted in increased behaviour incidents or incidents of bullying. Keep it short. Keep them in lessons. Keep them contained. Keep them compliant.

Our local secondary has a 30 minute lunch break. Talking to the kids at open day they said the queues for lunch are massive with 1800 kids all queuing at the same time, and they spend their break queuing and then having a quick walk round the block before back to class. In theory there are clubs but as they only run for about 10 minutes then it is a bit of a joke.

I found it very sad actually. It doesn’t feel like a way to build friendships or to allow any enrichment. And then presumably many kids are more disruptive in the afternoon as they haven’t had a proper break, just stood in a queue, wolfed some food, toilet and back to class again. I understand why schools do it but I think it is really sad that we have built a society and education system where children have to be treated like prisoners.

Could short lunch breaks be part of the reason a huge percentage of children struggle to cope in school and are getting diagnosed with ASD and ADHD?

I'm not saying the kids don't have the conditions but something must have changed between the 90s and now for such a huge percentage of kids to have special educational needs 40% was a figure I heard on the radio last week

My daughters school is 30 mins lunch break. Each year has a different time so there is less chance of poor behaviour and bullying. It works really well and my daughter enjoys not waiting ages in a queue for food and it being less busy. She is autistic though so I do appreciate that she's less likely to enjoy so much time socialising, where as it's quite important to other pre teens/teens.

IMO it's long enough. I left school a long time ago but went to 3 different secondary schools. They all had 35/40 minute lunch breaks and we had plenty of time to socialise.

We had over an hour at a normal state secondary school. 30mins is way too short.

Pupils in schools here have Friday pm off - secondary finishes at 12, primary at 1230. It has led to some tinkering with the timetables (secondary starts at 0840 and has a 30 minutes lunch break). It's been that way for more than 30 years, so I think that means it works.

The reason originally was to give staff decent non-contact time for development and training, so that some of it can be compulsory and not done in spare time.

My child's school gave them 1 hour, split into 2 halves. 30 mins in canteen and 30 mins free time in playground etc. That way all the kids get food and they all get to run around or do as they please. They also get a 30 min break

I think it's too short. I can't see how children would have the time to queue, eat and go to the toilet. My middle DC left secondary school two years ago and they had just cut lunch from an hour to 45 minutes. They weren't allowed to leave the grounds though.
We used to get an hour (also not allowed off the grounds) and I don't remember any fights or anything. Obviously it was a long time ago though.