Raise threshold for Free School Meals - children in poverty going hungry

[noblegiraffe]

The cost of everything is rising, but the threshold for qualifying for free school meals has been frozen since 2018.

In 2018, if your household income after tax (but before benefits) was below £7400, your children qualified for free school meals.

In 2022, it is still £7400. If inflation had been taken into account, the threshold would be around £8575. £8575 would buy you as much now as £7400 would have bought you 4 years ago (and that isn't taking into account things like energy that have gone up in price by far more than inflation).

This means that approximately 110,000 children are missing out on free school meals that they would have qualified for if the threshold had risen with the cost of living.

I find it mad that the threshold is that low, tbh. If a household income is low enough to qualify for benefits, surely one of the priorities of the benefits system should be to ensure that the children in that household are getting at least one reasonable meal a day?

There is a campaign group that wants all families on Universal Credit to qualify for free school meals www.theguardian.com/education/2022/oct/12/want-to-boost-growth-expand-free-school-meals

But if that's a step too far, surely we could at least keep eligibility at 2018 levels and not say that households need to be even poorer than then to qualify?

www.theguardian.com/education/2022/nov/10/children-not-eligible-for-free-school-meals-going-hungry-say-teachers

I’d agree the level of earnings should be raised. When you qualify for free school meals you also get uniform grants and pupil premium extra funding for school. So many families qualify for UCthat it might be worth considering detangling these benefits. So if you earn less than x you get everything but earn more and you can get free meals till Y.

As a single parent I do get UC on top of my full time wage. My take home pay packet would be over £3k a month before I got no UC, not everyone who gets Uc is on the breadline,
tbf. There are cut offs for extra help already. I think it’s under £1100 for free dental treatment. Under £1250 for warm home help. These may be Scottish schemes.

It’s a very tricky issue.There is no such thing as a free meal. There are two options: either the parent pays for their own child’s food, or other people do, through tax.

I don’t want any child to go hungry, in the UK (or outside it). Perhaps the solution is indeed raising taxes and people who have good jobs paying for the meals of low/no income families. But where does it stop? Should they also be given clothes bought by taxpayers at school? Given food to take home so they can eat in the evening? Should well-paid people pay for all expenses of low-paid families? In that case why just in the UK? Should we fund meals for all children everywhere? What about families who stopped with one or two children because they can’t afford to fund more, should they fund familes who have chosen to have 5-6 children that they can’t afford to feed? Should infertile women who can’t afford fertility treatment for themselves pay to feed the children of others who didn’t need medical treatment?

I was more comfortable with the situation where schools were about education, and benefits for people who can’t afford to feed/house their families was a separate issue dealt with separately by a different department.

As to thresholds at which people qualify for help - you’re right that they have gone down in real terms and costs have risen, but the country’s wealth has massively fallen in real times too (thanks Brexit/covid/Putin) so either what the country spends on benefits must go down, or taxes must go up.

Tricky ☹️

There are two options: either the parent pays for their own child’s food, or other people do, through tax.

The third option, which is the one the UK is currently taking, is that children go hungry. That's what is happening while people fanny around wondering about slippery slopes and hypothetical scenarios where the government pays for everyone's food.

Can the UK afford to pay for a dinner a day for kids in poverty? I struggle to believe that the country is in that big a crisis that the answer is 'no'.

I agree the thresholds are too low, but it isn't just a direct funding issue. While most primary schools are probably able to cater for most of their children to have a hot meal if they want one the provision of hot food at secondary schools is dire - there isn't enough space for all the children to sit down to eat. The queues are so long they may not be able to get hot food if they want it, and most schools have expanded so much in recent years there isn't necessarily any space to expand any more. The food offered is generally poor quality take away snack food thats quicker to hand out and can be eaten standing up. Increasing the threshold for FSM would require huge investment in school kitchens and buildings or the children that need it wouldn't be able to access it anyway.

Personally though, yes, I would go for the pay more tax and feed the kids properly option, but thats clearly not a majority view.

Don't get me started on school funding.

But I would have though that schools would be able to squeeze in the 110,000 children who would have qualified at 2018 threshold levels. And take-away snack food is better than no food!

That could be a start.

My eldest just started in year 7, a parent was complaining their child had repeatedly gone without lunch despite being eligible for FSM as the queue for food was so long. So some schools can't feed all their FSM kids already. When I worked as a teacher the school did an investigation into why so few kids who qualified for FSM were actually collecting their food. I had to ask the kids who qualified in my tutor group and the answer was the same from all of them, they didn't want to spend their entire lunch break queuing for food. It made them stand out, and being teens they would rather go hungry. Its more complicated than just paying a bit more in tax, the system has to work or the kids won't get the food. And yes, I guess some food is better that none but I do think schools need more investment both at secondary and primary to cover the cost of 'free' meals they are already supposed to provide.

Yes, I definitely agree secondary schools need to be funded so that there is sufficient kitchen capacity and seating capacity for children to sit and eat.

But the threshold needs to be raised regardless of that or otherwise we're looking at 'might not be able to access a free school meal due to logistics' versus 'definitely not able to access a free school meal due to not qualifying'.

Data should be collected about FSM take-up. But aside from that, the point about it also bringing in PP money for the school and other help such as funding for school trips/equipment is very important.

I’m not sure if I’m correct in saying this but doesn’t FSM= Pupil Premium grant? Is there actually any distinction between the two?

If they change the threshold for FSM then won’t the government get a bill for the whole amount of PP funding for each child (rather than just the cost of dinners)?

Could that be a reason (politically) for not changing the rules?

I do agree that change is needed, though.

FSM= Pupil Premium grant? Is there actually any distinction between the two?

Yes, you can be a pupil premium pupil and not get free school meals.

One of the things that makes you eligible for pupil premium is having received FSM at any point in the last 6 years.

Could that be a reason (politically) for not changing the rules?

I think the 'political' reason for not changing the rules is that this government doesn't give a shit about kids going hungry. Remember that they repeatedly decided during covid not to fund FSM during the school holidays and had to repeatedly back down when shamed by Marcus Rashford?

The current Ed Sec Gillian Keegan personally voted against extending FSM vouchers to cover the school holidays during the pandemic.

Can we also make sure that the funding given to schools covers the cost of the meals provided, at the moment we are subsidising every meal provided because the £2.34 we receive doesn't cover the actual cost.

I’d support a greatened extended provision of FSM - along with free breakfast clubs, food parcels in school holidays, and after school clubs - above any increase in benefits and honestly I think it’s a better use of public money. It ensures that children actually get fed and parents can’t just divert money into their own pockets and leave their children to go hungry. I admit I struggle with the idea that a good parent wouldn’t ensure they kept a fiver aside each week, regardless of how tight money was, to make sure they could give their children something as cheap and basic as a sandwich and a banana for lunch every day. There might be on off occasions where an unexpected big bill messes up family finances completely, but consistent inability to prioritise your children can only be neglect.

I completely agree. It’s outrageous.

interesting… but can you be FSM but not PP?

I agree that no child should go hungry but we really need to start looking at all benefits and how they translate into the equivalent pre-tax and pre-NI incomes. There’s a real risk that work won’t pay when all benefits including FSM are taken into account. I would widen FSM however.

In England, all KS1 pupils get free school meals (universal free school meals), so it's important for any KS1 parents who would qualify for FSM because of low income still apply for FSM in order to get the school the PP funding for their child.

I agree with this. My parents spent their benefits on themselves and I would have welcomed provision, like this, in increasing eligibility for FSMs above increasing benefits for parents as it seems self responsibility is too much to ask

I think the question of raising taxes is an interesting one, the logical solution would be for ecommerce taxes to be updated so that they pay taxes fairly, but as this is often a global effort will have to wait for progress on that. People who would be affected by tax raises on income wouldn't just be the super rich (most of who can afford people to do all sorts of fancy accounting for them anyway), but lower and middle earners too who are struggling.

Every child should have a nutritionally balanced meal at lunchtime. In my day, school meals had to be balanced. They weren't always very appetizing, but the nutritional content was correct for the time.

It probably wouldn't stand up to scrutiny today, as there was always a sweet pudding - jam roly poly, an ice cream wafer, sponge pudding and custard etc.

If teens are going without food, then the dinner time must be made longer. As most schools finish by four o'clock, an extra 15 minutes could be added to the day to facilitate this.

I agree that the threshold for free meals needs to be raised to reflect current incomes. It's the taxpayer who picks up the tab but a hot meal at lunchtime should take priority.

Also free breakfasts, and free meals during the holidays for children who need them. Schools are there to educate, and hungry children can't learn properly.

I admit I struggle with the idea that a good parent wouldn’t ensure they kept a fiver aside each week, regardless of how tight money was, to make sure they could give their children something as cheap and basic as a sandwich and a banana for lunch every day.

I don't think sandwiches and bananas are particularly cheap anymore anyway, but certainly my teen DS would be starving if that was all he had in his lunchbox all day, particularly if it was a PE day.

I would happily be taxed accordingly for kids to get breakfast too. Never made much sense to me that more of the school day is before lunch so hungry kids can't concentrate for most of the day. If primary schools opened at 8 for breakfast, more people would find it easier to work in a 9am start role and pay more taxes. The children would have a better chance at higher grades and higher paid jobs, so pay more future taxes. I am sure someone will tell me I am being overly optimistic there, but I would prefer to live in that world than one where hungry kids can't learn.

I don't think everyone on UC should get FSM as some people actually have really high incomes but still get Uc because of childcare costs or high rents. The threshold absolutely should be raised though. Having had teenagers myself I absolutely hate to think of rapidly growing teenagers going hungry.

Our school has a free breakfast club, our council gives £15 per child a month if they're on FSM and free holiday clubs including a free lunch in Summer/Christmas/Easter holidays if they get FSM. There's definitely children that don't qualify that could really benefit from these provisions.

What I meant to put across was that many families with a mortgage instead of p[aying rent may not qualify for UC but could still be really struggling and need help, particularly with mortgages rising. How on earth do you capture these struggling families when they likely don't qualify for UC as UC doesn't give help towards a mortgage?

I believe that there is a set date on which you have to be claiming fsm (October) in order for school to claim pupil premium. If you move schools or come off free meals the school will keep the funds.

If you come off FSM you're eligible for the funds anyway under Ever 6.

Schools are responsible for educating. Parents are responsible for feeding their children.

School lunches went badly wrong with the introduction of plastic cutlery and polystyrene.

If parents can't afford to feed their children, it needs to be addressed through the benefit system so every family can afford to pay for their child's meal.

Teachers are educators not social workers.