If it's publicly funded, the next government to come along with a mandate, real or imagined, to cut costs in education, ends up cutting out the lunchroom supervision and then teachers end up doing it.
The whole point of the lunch fee is so that parents have a cheap option for their kids: they can send them to school for the entire day, but they would have to pay a small sum in order for that to happen.
(You realize I'm playing at least a little of the devil's advocate game here, right? I don't have a philosophical objection to school fees, but neither am I attached to the idea. I know exactly what happens when items that governments see as "extras" get cut from budgets. It's been a part of my reality for my entire teaching career. I spend an hour a week, more or less, supervising kids during non-instructional, non-entry/exit times, about half of whom live close enough to walk and have babysitting arranged, or a parent at home, for after and before school. The parents don't seem to value it, and there's a part of me that really wishes they would.)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-06-17 01:31 pm (UTC)The whole point of the lunch fee is so that parents have a cheap option for their kids: they can send them to school for the entire day, but they would have to pay a small sum in order for that to happen.
(You realize I'm playing at least a little of the devil's advocate game here, right? I don't have a philosophical objection to school fees, but neither am I attached to the idea. I know exactly what happens when items that governments see as "extras" get cut from budgets. It's been a part of my reality for my entire teaching career. I spend an hour a week, more or less, supervising kids during non-instructional, non-entry/exit times, about half of whom live close enough to walk and have babysitting arranged, or a parent at home, for after and before school. The parents don't seem to value it, and there's a part of me that really wishes they would.)