To think that funding free breakfast clubs is wrong-headed?

Did suite start at work really though. Some of he first kids who would've grown up with the advantages of sure start are parents now. So they should have grown up with thparents who were " taught* the parenting skills so wete able to pass them on. . If that was the case he surely wouldn't need to be sure start again

From what I remember IN REALITY ( my youngest grew up in sure start times) was that the opportunities and facilities were rarely used but the parents it's was intended " for. I live in a fairly affluent town yet the next town has not pockets of deprivation. My son went to the sure start nursery.in the next town. Many of the classes etc were attended by the parents in the better off areas. The ones who would've gained more from the things offered didn't attend. They were still hanging around the shopping centers etc

I’d love it if it did reach the children most in need, but I expect that those children will be the ones whose parents can’t/won’t get them in early for school to have breakfast, or even who don’t see the message from the school that there’s now this great thing available to them.

I’m not assuming stupidity or laziness on the part of the parents, but overwork and stress, and perhaps language barriers. (No doubt there are stupid or lazy parents too.)

So those children will continue turning up at the usual time / late, having not eaten, and the staff will continue doing what they always do, handing them some toast or a banana from their desk drawer.

As part of my job I try to get parents signed up to Healthy Start for 0-4s, which is as damn near to free money as a programme can be. It’s like pushing water uphill.

@TheWayTheLightFalls I agree that the problems are much deeper. We shouldn’t need food banks, but here we are.

I think breakfast at school would at least reach the children most in need and help the schools in terms of attendance and classroom management. In the grand scheme of things it’s doable and won’t take decades to sort out, like poor housing.

I think the problem has been identified (children’s outcomes / attainment harmed through poverty) but the solution proposed is a nonsense. What’s actually needed imo - return of Sure Start (yes, even when some mc people use it), more funding for early years intervention, bigger budgets for schools, higher minimum wage, better job security, better quality housing and housing protections. And so on. But pigs might fly. So here’s four loaves of white bread / a few kg of porridge and off you go, we’ll pretend we’ve addressed the issue.

I run a food bank, for context.

Maybe at your school. At mine it was only spellings, time tables and reading until Y4 but from Y5 onwards we had proper homework .

I posted a reply to a similar post a year or two ago…
Our children should be cared for, fed and educated. I don’t understand that after paying for buildings, maintenance, electricity, text books, labs, gyms, exercise books, computers, smart boards and staff, the government balks at tacking on 2 healthy meals for all children.
No one will convince me that this country cannot afford it.

When i was at primary in the early 80s there was no such thing as homework, That didnt start till high school

You don’t get it do you? There is so much more to school than formal teaching and homework club. Let them be, play, socialise, eat…they are children, not junior captains of industry.

I think whether the majority or not massively depends on the school and area. If you're in a nicer affluent area, got into your first choice of school that may be true.

There was a study done, that said 30% of kids don't get breakfast, 20% worry about not having enough food at home and 16% above KS1 were also skipping lunch or getting not enough when free school meals ended and parents couldn't afford school meals or much of a packed lunch.

https://www.magicbreakfast.com/what-we-do/media-centre/fact-file/ researched some of this.

There will be neglected children too where they may not class as being in poverty but due to parental neglect or substance abuse etc their breakfast needs are overlooked.

you sound soooo out of touch! It’s about having access to the childcare aswell at that time so parents can be at work for a certain time. A lot of children don’t even eat the food they provide

Sorry wrong person tagged.

@ThistleTits , 1/2 hour of teaching costs more than £18!

Have you even attempted to read the comments from other people's pov?
What kind of nasty person would keep a child hungry and in turn missing learning? A pathetic, selfish one, that kind.

The food supply contracts for a school breakfast charity I briefly volunteered with were with ultra processed food makers.

White sliced Chorley wood processed bread, low fruit jam and cheap margarine... The cynic in me feels these schemes are just a way to award public money to big food manufacturers, who are struggling, as those of us who still have the means are avoiding buying their crap.

Not UK but our DD’s school had breakfast club. They cannot discriminate as to who can participate or not, thus every student has the opportunity to eat it.

frustratingly that is abused. Our DD’s friend and brother were eating it because mum told them to get their own breakfast together of a morning and they wouldn’t, wasn’t about lack of money or food in the house. They just didn’t like her rules (and were old enough to be able to get their own breakfast together).

It's thought to be free cereal from Kellogg, the budget is 60p per child and this needs to cover milk, all staffing costs, heating, washing up etc. ie £18 for 30 dc for 30 mins.

Reading some of these responses would leave you to believe maybe we should just require parents who are struggling to abdicate responsibility for their children and send them to state funded boarding facilities. Children will be fed and supervised by teachers full time, parents will be free to work for minimum wage morning, noon, and night…win win for all?

Parents need and deserve support so that they can properly look after their children at home, and children deserve the opportunity to be raised and spend most of their time with the parents who love them. Adequate benefits, proper support for adult and child mental health, sure start centres, a functional health visitors service, etc. will help to support this, not ever increasing time in school or state funded childcare.

I think its a good thing. Well fed kids will learn better, it'll help development

Have you seen the free school dinners in schools that don't/can't add to the government funding? They are appalling. The children going to these clubs will not be "well fed". They will be fed small portions of cheap crap.

Its in part a policy designed so that parents, particularly those in receipt of benefits, can't justify having to work fewer hours (or wfh) on the basis that wraparound care is not available/too expensive.

In reality better off parents are waking up to the reality that stressed parents juggling full time work + commutes, & anxious children fed cheap low quality food in long hours of childcare each day, is a massive contributor to the mental health crisis.

They will say no. They will afford to go part time, or pay more for childcare, as educated, in demand workers can fight more successfully to work from home some of the time.

So all it does is government a way to require parents who claim benefits, to seek more hours of work once children are school aged.

Havent seen the dads mentioned much if at all in this thread

I think its a good thing. Well fed kids will learn better, it'll help development and we can't speculate what happens behind closed doors anything that ensures kids get what they need is good in my book

If it is, then that's actually a good use of the money. I think one of the biggest issues for mums is the cost of childcare. If this means a mum can drop off and get to work, then that's brilliant.

Have you even read the same thread which is pages in?!

What type of person wouldn't think this is a good idea?