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.)

My Y7 DC has an hour. They have cooked lunch and usually go out and play rugby/hockey/football afterwards
independent school

It’s standard in the workplace so I see nothing wrong with it

It’s not the workplace and kids aren’t adults.

I find it interesting that people are saying that an hour is long enough to buy lunch and attend a club... but somehow 35 minutes isn't long enough to eat. How long are the clubs?

(They are all after school at DDs school... lasting up to 2hrs. Sports especially need an hour minimum!)

Staggering lunch to avoid massive crowds and get everyone through in time, and minimising unsupervised time and therefore potential for behavioural incidences is the reason. I think it's a great shame as it doesn't allow students to relax, socialise and recharge. My school had 1hr20 which was enough time to eat, attend a special interest club or hang out with your friends. I loved lunchtimes; great memories.

You can't compare schools to workplaces. The numbers of kids. Ques for food. Ques for toilets (often locked outside break times). Limited time to go elsewhere for food.
Then consider and lunch clubs thats schools might run.

There is a huge increase in numbers of kids being diagnosed with anxiety, and depression.

Its easy to blame phones and social media, but what else has changed?
Removing freedoms, reducing social times, dictating kids must wear blazers regardless of personal comforts too hot, too cold, reducing kids freedom to choose the local shops rather than the school canteen?

When I was at school we had 1 hour for lunch. I did a couple of extra curricular activities, which took place in the second half hour of lunch, and I remember that on days when I had a club I had to eat pretty quickly to finish my lunch within in the first half hour. Simply walking to the dinner hall, queuing up and then eating your lunch could easily take a full 30 minutes if you were in a classroom at the opposite end of the school and then ended up at the back of the queue. I think children need a bit of time to wind down and socialise, and not JUST eat at lunchtime. When I was at school, after eating, some people played football, some went to the library and sat reading, some played on the computers, and most just sat around chatting, but it’s all important. Perhaps a whole hour isn’t necessary, but I think at least 45 minutes.

I don’t think an hour is long enough to eat and attend a club. At my DD’s school they get an hour and 15 mins. If they are at longer club they pre order a lunch and can pick it up early with no queue, leaving time to go to the club. For a shorter club they eat first (they can get an early lunch pass if needed). Sports clubs tend to be after school as they are 1-2 hours. Lunchtime clubs are things like Science club, debating, drama, crafts, chess etc so they’re not as long.

At my school, sports clubs were after school, but other clubs (like music ensembles, art, chess, computer club etc) were during lunch, and I found half an hour was plenty for the groups I was in. It’s not just clubs though, unstructured chill-out time is REALLY important.

Where I teach, the children get 40 minutes and I think it’s too short. The little ones need a proper play. Though, the day does finish at 3!

When I was at school we got 80 minutes. At primary 30 minutes were spent eating and 50 playing. At secondary we had clubs and music lessons to occupy. School did go until 4pm though!

Yes I agree… 35 mins may be just enough time to queue, eat and pee but there’s no real time to chill/socialise/decompress before going back into lessons.

Oh yeah. I remember at that age the queues being massive. Then to even leave the classroom on time was hard, walk to the lunch hall. Then I have to go to the toilet as well as I will be trapped for another 2 hours after that.

I think it’s fine if all they’ve got to do is eat and chat/play football etc. But it doesn’t sound long enough once you factor in queueing at the canteen. Some kids must get their food very near the end of the break.

The queues were massive when I was at school. But... that was 1500 children trying to have lunch at one time, from one place.

Now, DDs have 2 year groups (400) with 3 outlets, with one year group joining the queue straight away, the other joining 10 minutes in and its apparently very efficient. Not needing cash apparently helps a lot!

So its how well a school manages the queues really.

I’m 51. Back when I went to secondary School (late 80s) we started at 8.20, had two 20 minute breaks during the day and school finished at 2:20pm. It’s not a new thing.

its partly about behaviour management and making sure the kids are occupied so they don’t start causing trouble.

The shorter lunch period has led to the earlier finishes which is what the government have been complaining about over the last few years and insisting the school day should be 32.5 hours (which sometimes it wasn't with a shorter lunch/earlier finish).

There is also a cost. How much do schools save by 30min less heating and lightning a day?

My daughter’s primary school had to change their time last year because they weren’t open enough. I didn’t even have a clue there were set hours.

Every school I’ve ever worked in has one hour lunch for children and half an hour for staff

Why less time for staff? I’ve never ever known this. Staff aren’t supposed to do duty apart from morning break by the way.

didn’t even have a clue there were set hours.

There weren't. There still aren't really-it's still not been made mandatory, I don't think, but it was DUE to be, so lots of schools changed ready for it.

It seems to be if s school is doing well, they can keep the shorter hours. If its struggling they had to extend.

Its a bit strange... why not have minimum contact lesson time?

Yes, 30 minutes is much too short, in my opinion.

I used to work in school admin and had my lunches in the school dining room. I was shocked by how little time the pupils and teachers had to eat their lunches. It was a particularly short time on match days when the teams were playing away matches. The sports teachers and the school teams had barely 10 "minutes to wolf down a lunch, before rushing out to the school minibuses to travel to the match venue. I remember thinking they would all get terrible indigestion.

When I was at school, in the 1960s and 1970s, we used to have a long lunch break of about 1.5 hours. That allowed time to eat a meal and then go outside to play or socialise afterwards.

If large numbers of children are allowed to get bored thy get into trouble. Far better to keep things moving and keep them busy.

Some of them don’t have time to queue for food, eat it and also queue for the toilet. They have to choose between eating and peeing. How is that healthy?