A discussion on the radio this week centred on lunches for children at schools. How healthy are they? How easily can the children leave school and eat at the local chip shop? Then someone said that the teachers often did not not superintend the lunches in school. Or, if they did, they then were entitled to take a long break. It sounds unlikely but I thought a two-hour break was mentioned.
What a contrast there is between this idea and what I have seen at two private schools - one in Britain and one in America. Most notable was the private school in New York State where, I think, all the teachers had lunch with the children and, even better, each teacher went to a separate round dining table so that he or she would talk with the children on that table. It must surely be the case that this is a civilising practice for the children. They are more likely to learn the boundaries of good behaviour and more likely to have sensible and even, occasionally, educational discussions.
When I visited this school last year, I sat on one of these round tables with the headmaster on my left and children on my right. Doubtless it was no accident that the child I was placed next to was extraordinarily bright. He told me his favourite subject was history and he preferred European to American history because it was longer and richer. He must have been about 13 or 14, I think. Of course, the school did not make him as clever as he was but it certainly enabled him to thrive.
The other school, in Britain, was Hampton Court House in South London where the teachers ate with the children. This was entirely informal, I think, and children could avoid being with teachers if they wanted to. But I got the impression that they were perfectly happy having lunch with teachers and, again, this must surely be a civilising influence. Children can learn about history and science in class. But at lunch, any subject can be discussed and the child can have the benefit of the perspective of an educated adult.
The private boarding school that I attended had no teachers present at meals and it was pretty shambolic. I guess that many private schools would benefit from having the teachers present at meals. I would not be surprised if among the government-run schools there is more of a rule that teachers cannot be obliged to go to lunch with students. I would also guess it was pressed for by the teachers' union. I would welcome any information on this.
If that indeed is the case, it would be an example of teacher union power being used to the detriment of the interests of the children.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Behaviour & Crime • Education
Comments (2)
TrackBack (5)
Comments
They used to do that at my (state) primary school in the early 70s. We sat on tables of ten and food was delivered to tables and dished up by the kids. About half the tables were joined by a teacher, who had their own lunch served at a hatch. Tables with teachers on were more popular because you got 10% more lunch.
Posted by: marksany at March 30, 2009 10:17 AM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2009/03/teachers_having.php on line 302
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Invalid arguments passed in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2009/03/teachers_having.php on line 302
The following information was sent to me by a reader of this website for which many thanks. I have not repeated his name in case he wishes to remain anonymous. The city referred to is New York:
In your recent post you ask for more information on Teachers demanding not to lunch with students, particularly from Unions. This is something that Albert Shanker campaigned for. This biography (http://www.teachermagazine.org/tm/articles/1996/02/01/05shank.h07.html) mentions it:
"In 1960, the guild merged with a rival organization, and the United Federation of Teachers was born. With 4,500 members, it still represented only a small fraction of the city's schoolteachers. Nonetheless, the union's leadership was determined to win collective-bargaining rights for teachers, and it was willing to go on strike to get what it wanted. The union presented six demands to the board of education; collective bargaining topped the list, followed by a $1,000 promotional increment, a substantial pay raise, duty-free lunch periods, 10 days a year of sick leave for full-time substitutes, and the deduction of union dues from paychecks. When the demands weren't met, the UFT called a one-day strike for May 16, which just happened to be "Teacher Recognition Day.''"
I originally heard about Al Shanker and lunching in this debate:
http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx?SBy=lecture&Sfor=42ef440c-8be1-4de3-a9c7-0c2f8960dd03
I don't have time to look up the time stamp for you, but in it is mentioned Shanker's campaign for the right of teachers to lunch apart from students.
Posted by: James Bartholomew at March 27, 2009 02:24 PM