Some of those who had problems with the bill pointed out that the children would not have access to school lunches or breakfasts on the day when school is not in session.
That argument did not faze Mrs. Davis in the slightest. She wrote in her weekly report:
Most of the opposition in the debate on this bill sounded like we were discussing a state-run orphanage. Some legislators were concerned that the school children would not get anything to eat if they were not at school. This kind of reasoning bothers me because it presumes that our public schools are little more than glorified day care centers. The purpose of public education must always be education. The parents are the ones who are supposed to be feeding the children. Additionally, I have never heard of a child starving to death because he didn’t attend public school over the three-month recess.
Perhaps not, but for many of these kids, school meals are the only decent meals they get during the day. This simply makes it three days a week rather than two that these kids have problems.
Perhaps Mrs. Davis should be thinking about ways to make sure these kids have decent meals during the summer months instead of treating the subject in such a cavalier fashion.
No comments:
Post a Comment