New Britain herald., 1924-02-01
COMMUNICATED
Does Not Favor School Lunch Room

Does Not Favor School Lunch Room. Editor New Britain Herald: I have had submitted to me to vote upon circular sent out by Stanley II. Holmes, superintendent of school, dated January 2S, in reference to the question of providing lunch room at cost of $5,000 at the Senior High school.
 I wonder just how many of the families throughout the city who send their children to school realize what this means. Tn addition to the added l expense in taxation to the taxpayers, it has the following objections: lit reduces the actual study or session period exactly 35 minutes. l don't think that the city of New Brit ain can afford to have the pupils in the high school lose S5 minutes each 1 day-the pupils don't get any too much education as it is today. 2-The children taking their lunch at the school will not get the proper food. We all know that children as a whole like sweet things and it will mean that they will indulge in more pies, cakes and ice cream than they will in substantial foods such as they would get at home.
 3-Under this luncheon plan the children will be forced to buy warm luncheon at the school at an addi- tional expense to the parents of from Is cents to 30 cents day Git is very doubtful if suitable food could be provided for 15 cents, therefore, for the child to have proper nourishment we will figure on 30 cents day. now then, the school term I believe is 40 weeks so that this charge of 30 cents day would mean an added ex- pense to the parent of $60.o0 a year for each pupil (which expense l don't believe any of us want to bear) or else eat cold luncheon brought from home which is very bad for the di- gestive organs and a troublesome task for the mothers.
 4-Under the proposed plan the noon period for lunch will be from II a. m. to 12 noon. l assume that this hour is suggested so as to force the pupil to take lunch at the school in- asmuch as the factory hour for lunch Is froms12 to 1 o'clock. The parents who wish their children to come home will be compelled to get lunch for the children between II and 12 a. m. and get another lunch for the head of the family between 12 noon and 1 p. m., which is going to cause q lot of incon- venience to the housewife.
 5-The school committee have ad- yanced no good reason why this should be necessary. Their statement reads that the principal reason being urged in favor of luncheon service is to permit the school day to be closed one hour earlier than under tho present schedule" This appears to be unnecessary. They don't state in their circular that the proposed schedule will make the school day 35 minutes shorter.
 The present morning session closes at 11:40 a. m. and opens at 1:o5 D. m. If there is to be any change whatso- evor the change should be made to conform with the factory hours for luncheon.
 l don't see as there would be any great objection to fitting up a lunch con service at the high school pro- viding the lunch hour conformed with the factory hours and it was left op- tional with the parents whether the children should take lunch at the school or go home. This is a matter that I believe every parent should take an interest in and give full ex- pression of their opinion.
 A PARENT.