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

@GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples Children having breakfast in school is grim in my opinion, it isn't the same as lunch.
I remember lots of nice morning pre-school breakfast conversations with my children

The vast majority of parents are rushing to drop the kids off to school before heading to work. Very few people have the luxury of leisurely conversations at the breakfast table during the week.
You sound incredibly out of touch.

It doesn’t take many brain cells to figure out there are almost 13 years from falling pregnant to your child leaving primary school. It’s almost as if a lot can change in that time.

I think at face value the scheme has merit.

However aren't we in some way having to compensate for poor parenting? Aren't many of those children that need the breakfasts being wilfully deprived of essential nutrients by neglectful parents?

Ultimately this may be a necessity but if it is a necessity we should also be supporting intervention for families that have other priorities than feeding their children. It seems another example of schools picking up the pieces of the failure of society.

I work in one of the most wealthy towns in the country and we keep shoes and food.

I think you're a bit naive op. My late sister used to work at a school in Batley and some of the kids arrived at school without shoes...they kept a box of plimsols for those children. It's not about not being able to afford a banana - it's about parents who are drug addicts and living in appalling conditions. I think they did have a free breakfast club but my sister would have probably organised that and got funding from somewhere because that's what she was like.

@ARingtoit 🤷‍♀️ okay. Just not fully understanding the joke I guess.

It isn’t a small percentage of the families in the areas they’re targeting and realistically those that take it up are those who need it.

The children who would benefit most won't be there, most teachers know this!

140 calories of whole milk is about 250ml. So on top of the 4p per day for the oats that's 35p for the milk.

Yes, I have. Thank you for your curiousity.

How does your opinion help the children who are already here?

Life can change a lot in 5 years, no one is immune from hard times.

My partner works in a primary school and he said all the staff are panicking because they don't have the cover to do it. My personal opinion is that if u can't afford to send your kid to school having had breakfast then you shouldn't of had them!

@GreenApplesRedApplesYellowApples yes, exactly. Families need to be properly supported to provide for their children, especially very young children. Sitting for more hours in overcrowded, underfunded schools with limited adult attention or input is not going to solve this problem. Struggling families need to be supported to look after their children at home. Shipping children out of the homes and away from their parents for ever increasing hours because parents don’t have the resources to look after them properly is not a solution to this problem.

This thread is a proper mumsnet classic already. Surely ensuring ALL children can start the day with breakfast is not controversial....
For the posters talking about nutritious bags of cheap oats and quality time at breakfast - that is true and a nice idea on one level. The trouble is not every family home is like that. Many children live in households where myriad factors may converge to rule out porridge and a sit down with a parent who has the time and other resources to chat in the morning.

As a society we devalue both families and children as we don't prioritise the basics like good food for all children in school. They do in other European countries. Those children are better fed, can enjoy meal times with their peers and can learn better. The government rolling this out is good, constant lack of funding for all childcare and education is short sighted and shows a lack of insight into how important this area is.

Some feel that.

Some feel differently.

Only one is being given the option. Previous benefit policies used to acknowledge the role of the already overly burdened parent and the psychosocial needs of the children. The phenomenon of 'latch key children' was seen as undesirable and unhealthy.

Current policy is predominantly capitalist and materialist derived, where the child is mostly perceived as a deterrent to work to be gotten out of the way, and the mother is seen as no more preferrable than any other carer or caring facility.

For some children this is a perhaps non-conducive cycle. They get up and eat breakfast at school, they have lunch at school, then they have after school club, or go home to an empty house where they see their parent for a tiny amount of hours in the day. Now if you're MC, you can ameliorate that to a degree by incorporating lots of quality experiences and you may have higher skills that allow for more workplace flexibility. But if you're working class, you may be already more stressed, have less workplace flexibility and cannot compensate as well. This can result in problems in children overly connected to school friends and not the home, who get into trouble, or whom are simply not receiving enough parental engagement. But really it can affect all children.

There has long been a debate and research that reducing school hours and varying start times (for teens for example) would benefit children immensely and boost their engagement with learning. All this research has been thrust aside and we're going the other way.

I’m the safeguarding and pastoral lead in an inner city school - there is absolutely poverty, including food poverty in our cities.

You might not “see” it as a classroom cover teacher. That doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

Poverty brings with it a host of other social issues, including parental MH struggles; increased risk of trauma; increased risk of DV; increased risk of generational school avoidance; poor access to things like cheaper energy all of which can lead to more chaotic home situations. The mum who gave Coke and crisps? Perhaps some of the things I’ve listed apply.

What we really need is Surestart back, but in the meantime, free breakfast clubs provide not just food, but a daily check in with some of our most vulnerable children.

I would feel far worse about our reliance on late club if DC were doing homework. Homework isn't really beneficial for most primary aged children - play is. I love that they use the time drawing their own imaginary things, playing with friends etc.

@ARingtoit have you actually read the thread? No one is saying they don’t want the money to go to help children who need it, just that the way this programme is being implemented does not seem to be the most effective use of (very limited) funding.

That’s in the plans from what I’ve seen

The smug solipsism of this post is breathtaking

Agreed! I don’t even have kids but I don’t mind pay higher tax to safeguard children’s well-being in this way. Not all kids have parents that even get up to get their kids up on time and out to school - never mind prepare breakfast for them! The fact the government are doing this must show a need for it. Can’t believe the suspicious mentality of some of the comments. Don’t assume just because you’re able to supply ‘cheap’ food like bananans/breakfast bars that every parent does.

Not everyone wants to be unemployed, and there are some who feel being unemployed sets a poor example to children.

Fait enough I'm in my twenties. Its been almost a decade since I left school and the whole time I was at secondary school I used my fingerprint to get lunch same as the other children whos parents paid.
Now I order my kids lunch online there's no way any of the other kids know mine gets free school meals. Never on a school trip have my kids been given a school packed lunch though maybe only certain schools do that?

I just don't see how there can be bullying or stigma over it these past twenty years

Im 52 this year. And dont have children so learning how much things have changed in schools