I'm not 100% sure where the OP is going with this. We're talking about an elective film program at a school. That suggests that the students are electing to shoot film.
Perhaps many are electing it simply out of curiosity while only some are already dedicated to shooting film. Those that are already dedicated have probably already figured out that their gear needs to work.
Those that are just dipping their toes in the water don't yet have any point of reference. Why would they?
I have to assume that the course curriculum would want to stress the differences between digital and film photography.
Wouldn't the content of the curriculum also want to stress the importance of keeping one's equipment functional? In fact, wouldn't that be equally important in an all-digital program?
It seems to me that the OP is lamenting the students' disinterest in maintaining their own equipment. These are values that need to be addressed in the classroom.
If the students don't know any better, how will they understand the importance of maintenance? They've grown up in a disposable society. They don't yet understand the idea of longevity.
If film photography is being offered as a course, part of that course should involve the importance of being self-sufficient and keeping one's gear in order.
Perhaps the course description (which, I assume, also lists required materials) should recommend that any camera used in the course should get a CLA. Many textbooks cost more than $125.
Just my opinion, of course!