Growing up and going through the school system, it was expected that all children could stay at the schools to eat--free of charge. In my community, this has now become a program that parents must pay for. For my children, I pay $200 per year--per child to have my children supervised over the lunch hour. (No lunch included--they must bring their own)
Recently, on the news, I saw a group of parents in the Maritimes complaining because this might become the case in their hometown. I myself, do believe that it is fair for parents to pay or else make arrangement to pick up their children and take them home for lunch. Teachers and school staff should not have to give up their lunch hours to monitor children. And $200 per school year is quite reasonable considering what you would have to pay someone else to watch your child for an hour every weekday.
Are paid lunch programs the norm now, or are there still Elementary schools providing this service free of charge?
2007-10-12
14:13:39
·
25 answers
·
asked by
hotmel_007
1
in
Pregnancy & Parenting
➔ Grade-Schooler
I am not talking about parents having to pay for their children's lunches. I am talking about parents having to pay for their child to be supervised during the lunch hour. Our children bring their lunches from home, but we pay to have a lunch monitor watch them.
2007-10-12
16:07:12 ·
update #1
Canadian?
Here in the US, we always have paid for our lunches. I was in school during the 70s. If your family was considered "low income", those families received a discount on lunches. Another option was to take your own food to school, which a lot of people did.
Sorry, didn't read the whole question.
Our teachers ate their lunch at the same time as we did. That was in elementary school. Above grade 6, I think you don't require supervision.
2007-10-12 14:17:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think that that is horrible. Where do you live?
My children have been in several different elementary schools (4) due to military moves...we have NEVER had to pay for supervision in the lunch room. Sure if we were told we had to, we would, but do I think it is terrible!
My heart bleeds for the single parent of 4 children. $800 bucks could be much better spent elsewhere...
**********
it seems like some people did not read the question so they do not understand that you are not talking about the actual lunch but a payment for someone to watch over them while they are eating the lunch!
2007-10-12 14:20:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by kissmymiddlefinger 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I have never heard of a free lunch program for everyone. I think that parents should either send the child's lunch or pay for the school lunches. (They would feed them if not in school.) However, there shouldn't be an additional fee for children that don't eat the school lunches. The school has the responsibility to take care of and supervise the students while there are at school. Adding an additional fee for lunch hour would indicate that they don't feel it is additional to their responsibility.
2007-10-12 14:23:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Truth is elusive 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I noticed alot of people didn't really read the question. I have never had to pay for my child to get supervised, thank God. I would think that parents would be willing to supervise these lunch hours. I know most people work but you can't tell me out of the entire school there are not a few parents who could be teacher's aide's. That's what our outside aides are at my son's school, parents.......
2007-10-12 14:39:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Kookie M 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Frankly, I have never heard of this, paying for someone to monitor kids during lunch hour; although while researching this question, I find that it is common in some places to have paid lunchroom monitors, specifically in Canada. Is that where you're from?
If the parents are willing to come and get their children at lunch, perhaps they could volunteer that time instead as monitors, thus saving everybody money.
2007-10-12 14:23:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I agree with you. If their lunch hour is a time in which they can leave school grounds and go home for lunch, then allowing them to stay in the building requires paid supervision. It's equivalent to a "before school" and "after school" program. Assuming your school year is 180 days, it's costing just a little over a dollar a day to know your child is safe during that hour.
2007-10-12 16:44:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by elizabeth_ashley44 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Interesting that most people didn't read or didn't understand your question . I've never heard of paying for lunch room supervision. My sons school has a few paid people who watch the kids during lunch and at recess. It is part of the school budget.
2007-10-12 14:24:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by kelsey 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
As a teacher myself I feel that is totally rediculous. In my state the lunch duty is a position that is bid on and offers a little extra pay to those specific teachers. It is within the school budget to pay that, most certainly not the parents responsibility.
2007-10-13 03:16:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by stillsanemomof4 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I always paid for my kids' lunches although there are lunch subsidy programs for lower income children, which I think is fair. But otherwise I would never expect the schools to cover my kids' meals. That seems a bit entitled to me. I'd rather see the money go towards supplies for the teachers that directly effect instruction. But are you referring to a school system in the US?
2007-10-12 14:19:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by phovisi 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
That's weird to me. In my school we have lunch aides who are salaried and their money comes from the state just like teachers. It is understandable that if your community didn't have enough money to pay for aides that you would have to do it. No one would want their children unsupervised for 30 minutes of lunch just because the school had no way to pay for the extra staff. I'd be willing to pay it if I had to.
2007-10-12 14:19:10
·
answer #10
·
answered by just some chick 6
·
2⤊
0⤋