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

[LordTrash]

Hello, really interested to hear all opinions on this, but especially those of teachers.

My dc school did a 'consultation' last month on whether to cut the school day by 10 mins by shortening the lunch break from 40 to 30.

I thought it was a bad move, and said so, giving a number of reasons. The school has now announced the 'following consultation' the day will be shortened as proposed, but they give no details of that consultation or how the decision was arrived at, so I wonder if the whole exercise was just flimflam to make parents think they were being listened to.

Word on the street is that they want to cut the lunch hour so older kids aren't getting involved in home time clashes with kids at a neighbouring (about 25 mins walk away) school.

So, is this done at your school? If so, how has it worked? I can't see how my dc - who do school council/production meetings etc at lunchtimes - can possibly find time to eat and unwind between sessions in such a short time.

I strongly feel that the majority of children require a longer lunch break. The obsession with bullying, which does affect a minority, should not impinge on what the majority need. The school should also deal with it! Not harm all the other children. This is such a lazy and unacceptable ttitude. The idea that huge rafts of children cannot face a longer lunch break is just ridiculous. In fact, one of the best ways for a child to avoid bullying is going to a club or activity. Meeting friends with similar interests. It protects them.

Going to lunch time clubs is seen as uncool.

you are getting confused about what school is for. It is there for education. Shortening lunch break means more money for actual education, and less education time wasted planning for/ dealing with lunch time issues.

Finishing before rival schools also means your children avoid trouble more easily, as trouble will be outside the other school's gates, not yours. Appreciate this only moves the problem w=else where, but for the OP it is a good situation.

Your children need to eat faster.

We used to have 1 hour 25 mins for lunch. I agree about the toilet issues for girls.

Crikey, user - I'm not sure you know very much about education! Children are not empty vessels to be stuffed full of some kind of vague product called "actual education": just as workers don't work harder or better if you take away their breaks.

And people wonder why productivity levels in this country are crashing through the floor...! People are not robots. To learn or work well they need to eat well, refresh themselves, regroup and have space to think, be respected.

This all seems to be going in the exact opposite direction to the trend in primary schools, which at last is recognising the importance of good eating and nutrition, forming relationships, having a healthy balanced lifestyle, exploring play and creative learning beyond the rigid boundaries of the curriculum, learning in nature and forest school, etc.

Our secondary school students, however, are currently arriving at university worn out, highly stressed with a massive rise over the last five years in mental health issues, anxiety, eating problems, self-identity problems and self-harming. I'm amazed at the difference compared to previous age cohorts. And they aren't doing any better in academic terms; worse, if anything. No wonder they are all so messed up if people think school is only about cramming as much "education" into them as possible rather than allowing them to eat a decent lunch and have a few minutes off the unrelenting factory grind.

traininthedistance, the failure of current university students to cope is down to the lack of education and training in independence, not hving too much of it!

And the days when we could afford the luxury of shelling out for long lunches is long gone.

My secondary school did this when I was there 25 years ago and still do. Two 20 min breaks at around 10 and around 12 and finish at 2.15pm.

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.

Yeah, people kindly suggesting my dc 'just eat quicker' have clearly missed the point about the 20 minute queues.

As long as clubs are kept and nobody is haring around in a stressed-out rush, I can tolerate the shorter break. I have a lot of sympathy for the head, who is facing some desperate financial decisions. I do think the school needs to think seriously about adopting either the staggered approach some have suggested, or ditching their antiquated 'cash at the checkout' payment system.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

At my old school the lunch break was only 25 mins

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.

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 😂😂😂😂😂😂.

Well, I've discussed the issue with the head, who would love to introduce a cashless system in the dining room...but can't afford it, unsurprisingly.

She assures me she's kept a close eye on the toilet queue situation and thinks 30 mins is doable - but if it doesn't work out, she's open to extending it again. Reasonable enough, I think.

Watch this space...

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?

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.

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.

@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.

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.