Malvern daily record., 1917-11-02
SUPT. PRATT FAVORS
 COMPULSORY LUNCH
TO THE FRIENDS AND PATRONS
 OF MALVERN SCHOOLS.

We have been asked to give any ar
 gument which we have in favor of our
 present compulsory lunch ruling. We
 are glad to do so, but let us say at the
 beginning that we are staunch sup
 porters of President Wilson and MT. Hoover in their efforts for food con- iservatiOn. In order to support them it I1s not necessary to strike out the a. Iforesaid ruling, because if proper e. economy is practiced in the home there is no need for waste of food on the
 school grounds. Speaking from per
 sonal standpoint I fail to find that my lunch, prepared at home and carried to school, costs more than midday Imeal eaten at home This is not
 true possibly, relative to lunches pur- lehased down town.
 Pupils and students do not need heavy lunch to make them efficient.
 In fact many of our colleges require the students to eat light lunches and
 heavy dinners. This is especially true with respect to athletes, many of whom take no lunch, claiming thereby greater efficiency, both mentally and physically. Everyone knows the dull, drowsy and even lazy feeling caused l by very hearty meal The best lunch for a pupil is just that amount that will nourish him.
 l Some make the assertion that on bad, cold rainy days the children are ] forced to eat their lunches out doors. They have been mis-informed. On the contrary many times the pupils have been kept indoors during the noon hour because of the inclement weather These friends are seldom, if ever, vis- itors of our school. They believe all 1 they hear to be true. Let them come out to see for themselves. The facts in the case are that the children are much better cared for under the pres ent system than if let out in the slush, rain and snow to go home for hot lunch. Think of turning out 68O or more pupils on such a day. Some i have means of transportation; many have not. Which causes greater ex- posture?
 It has been said that Malvern, due to the nature of the occupation of it's people, is vastly different from other towns of it's size with respect to ir- { regularity of her lunch hours. Any one can see the evil effects of this. It means tardy pupils to go home at noon have many unnecessary tardies and in case of this kind the number would be greatly increased.
 Bad weather would also greatly in- crease the number of tardies. For comparison examine the following:
 The report of the Malvern schools for Sept. 1915-16 shows .73 tardies. Dec, 145; Jan. aa7; Sept 1916-17 shows 91 tardies; Dec. 200; March 236. This is self explanatory, but let us call your attention to the bad winter months-especially Jan. 1916. What would this be if pupils had two chances to be tardy where they now have one? Do you realize how much time IS lost in grade containing 40 pupils when just one is tardy? Take the small estimate of one minute lost by putting away hat, lunch and get ting seated. That pupil may not have lost much time himself but the school has lost 40 minutes, length of time equal to one of our class periods. What does this mean to your school lof 750 pupils if only one pupil in each grade is tardy each day? I suspect you have not taken time to figure just what your school is costing you. A very conservative estimate shows 60 or 65 dollars per day. This means in a school of eight periods that you are paying in actual cash $1207 per school hour, or 20 cents per minute. Sup
 pose we have 200 extra tardies per month as result of the proposed change? The community loses $40
 as result. This is very low esti-
 mate. It is complete loss. If it lwere true that our food cannot be con-
 served without eating at home, this
 loss offsets the gam made thereby.
 This is not saving If you should save food and waste human energy would
 there be any gain? I do not think