I absolutely agree that it is a travesty that these things are defined as extras and then cut from budgets, forcing teachers to do things that they are not contractually obliged to do. But the solution is not to play into the discourse of government cost-cutting and accept that they *are* extras. After all, by this definition virtually anything in public education can be considered as an 'extra'. This is certainly what you see in some American states where there is a barely-disguised all-out attack on public education as a concept.

The problem you mention with parents, I think, is that many of the parents who are most uppity about funding issues are those who have money and time - urban, well-to-do parents who will go all-out to fund a new computer lab or some such thing. These parents don't mind shelling out for music instruction, lunch supervision, etc., because it is a small inconvenience. But for the parents who can't afford that, or who live in rural areas and can't arrange supervision, these things are more basic than the standard government discourse currently allows. You see the difference quite clearly in a rural environment. My dad was the principal at three different rural schools, up to and including parts of the Harris era, and there was simply no way that lunch supervision or free bussing could be cut: all the parents were agreed that these were essentials.

To put things in a different light: elsewhere you recently talked about your discomfort at your students being in a home environment where their mothers are living with criminals. Are you similarly uncomfortable with your students (and their friends) spending lunchtime there?