JosephC said "Cans2 has a point in being upset about this. I don't know of any other province with such a silly system.
The basic premise here is that the children who cost the system the most (those that are bused) may remain at school for lunch, for free. Those that cost the system the least (school division does not have to pay for busing) are required to go home or to pay for the privilege of remaining at school.
I understand that it has been this way for a long time, but that doesn't make it logical and it doesn't make it good policy. It's a ridiculous concept that presents a significant burden to some parents and not others. It's also unfair. "It has always been this way" is not an excuse for bad policy.
I'd also expect a better written letter from anyone involved in children's education. Good grief. "
It actually makes perfect sense.
A child who's bused lives too far away to go home for lunch. Ergo, they must stay for lunch. Because the school division cannot provide a school within 1.6 km of their home, they bus them and provide them with lunch supervision. They ensures accessibility.
A child who lives within 1.6 km of the school is capable of going home for lunch because they are walking distance.
It's not the school division's responsibility nor problem that parents work. School is supposed to be education, not child care. Child care (for a fee) is provided as a courtesy, but not a requirement. The only requirement is that schools is physically accessible, which this policy fulfills.