Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Free school meals

424 replies

mutznutz · 11/01/2011 11:43

I was just thinking. With so many Government and Council cutbacks, isn't it about time they stopped providing free school meals that cost untold millions of pounds to provide?

I mean we're already given child benefit to help with the cost of our children. Also, as long as you're feeding your child properly at home, what's wrong with providing a fairly inexpensive packed lunch if you can't afford to buy them a hot one? (not that they are particularly 'hot' nowdays)

Plus, if parents cant afford to feed their children when they go to school...how do they manage at weekends and during the 13wks holidays they get per year?

Then there are the parents who earn just above the threshold and cannot afford school meals...their kids would have a packed lunch so why not everyone?

OP posts:
Strawbezza · 12/01/2011 19:00

Haven?t read the whole thread so apologise if my comments have already been made.

I?d like to see free school meals for all children. Is that the system they have in France? Nutritious meals, teaching table manners, introducing new foods etc, what?s not to like?

Maybe cut child benefit to help fund it. Problem with child benefit is that the child gets no say in how it?s spent.

I?m also reminded of the tragic case of Khyra Ishaq, the little girl who starved to death in Birmingham. When she and her siblings were still at school (the mother removed them from school a few months before Khyra?s death), they were all on FSM. The teachers and dinner-ladies could see they were all hungry, and used to deliberately give them larger portions and seconds. Without FSM they would have been hungry all day.

sarah293 · 12/01/2011 19:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

sarah293 · 12/01/2011 19:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Gotabookaboutit · 12/01/2011 19:06

Transference is not an answer Riven. you have son many valid points but are also very good at ignoring facts you don't like.

sarah293 · 12/01/2011 19:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ShippingForecast · 12/01/2011 19:11

Getabookaboutit - that does make sense about universal free (or at least subsidised) school meals.

At our school there seem to be three groups of children, those who have:

  1. Free school dinners
  2. Paid-for school dinners (well off parents)
  3. Packed lunches (those who can't afford or refuse to pay the price of school dinners)

I'm sure a lot of category 3 would much prefer for their children to have school dinners if they were affordable. And it does make sense for the environment and local jobs etc.

sarah293 · 12/01/2011 19:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

CoffeeGoneColdAgain · 12/01/2011 19:28

GooseFat, its not that I want to deprive them of a trip, it should be made fair so that those who are on low income should also pay the same price as those on benefits. One price paid by everyone.

Gotabookaboutit · 12/01/2011 19:29

Transference as in transfering the blame/anger every time to anyone who makes any money ( well it feels like that) rather than admitting there are people who claim benefits when they could be working and that this reduces the pot for more needy people.

The bankers etc may be over paid etc - its very debatable and not the simplistic model you are citing which is what funnily enough has been spouted by the media you blame for so much,but they do create wealth and employment and they are working for the money

HappyMummyOfOne · 12/01/2011 19:44

Not read the whole thread but would agree with the OP. To qualify for free meals it usually means the parent/s are not working therefore will be getting max tax credits and CB. They should then chose hot meals or sandwiches like all other parents do. Unfair to provide food plus full benefits when lots of working parents have no choice but to send their children with a packed lunch as meals are too expensive.

FSM usually means those parents expect to not pay or pay bare min for trips or clubs etc - this shows children that they dont have to work for the nice things in life which is not the way to go.

pascoe28 · 12/01/2011 19:45

Baroque - no-one should put up with "abuse" (although we could debate the true meaning of that word forever - some on here consider a less than genuine smile from a man abuse!) but neither should they give up at the first hurdle.

Divorce has been made easier - perhaps for understandable reasons - but the effect on children is more often negative than positive.

I highlight marriage as my "example relationship" because unmarried couplings are a virtual dead-cert towards breakdown, re-coupling, more children and so on.

toeragsnotriches · 12/01/2011 19:52

Everyone benefits from fsms at lunchtime. Better food = better work after eating it.

gorionine · 12/01/2011 20:01

"3. Packed lunches (those who can't afford or refuse to pay the price of school dinners)

I'm sure a lot of category 3 would much prefer for their children to have school dinners if they were affordable. And it does make sense for the environment and local jobs etc."

I am in category 3 and most parents in that category I talk with , chose lunch boxes for the fact we have more controle over what our dcs eat. Very little to do with price.

ninah · 12/01/2011 20:13

what a mean spirited thread

ninah · 12/01/2011 20:18

FSM does not mean both parents aren't working. FSM is based on household income. Some jobs are poorly paid. Some families have one parent. Obviously not in your backyard happymum.

usualsuspect · 12/01/2011 20:20

Its a fucking awful thread ...much like the other one in active convos at the minute

pascoe28 · 12/01/2011 20:39

It's outrageous that some people have decided enough is enough and that the free rides have to come to an end.

Disgusting!

usualsuspect · 12/01/2011 20:41

It's outrageous that some people would deny a child a free school dinner ...but thats MN for you

Remotew · 12/01/2011 20:55

Ninah, wave. But afaik in my area you cannot get FSM on a low income, at least I never qualified for them.

Although it would be great if everyone got them or more families qualified this will never happen, not with these lot, so why deny them to the few that are able to access a hot meal and, at least this resource, and the trips benefit the children directly.

monkeyflippers · 12/01/2011 21:12

I just don't have the time to read all this as I am way too important and busy.

But . . . don't be so stingy and mean. As someone who was a poor kid myself I could have really done with free school meals (but wasn't quite poor enough to get them).

Who knows what sort of families these kids come from and what sort of situation they are in. I am sure loads are fine and happy and loved and provided for no matter what. But what about the ones who aren't. That might be the only meal they get all day.

Stingy f*ckers.

ShippingForecast · 12/01/2011 21:44

gorionine - yes fair point, some parents will find packed lunches better as at least they know that their children will eat/prefer what's in them.

I'm currently wavering between that and thinking that school meals would be a good chance for DD to eat new things under peer pressure (she's picky, and the menu at school is actually very good and healthy). But the price difference is putting me off.

ShippingForecast · 12/01/2011 22:00

I suppose what I'm saying is that at the moment, it seems like the parents who are paying full whack for school meals are in fact subsidising the service. Which is fine if they can afford it, but the 'working poor' will really struggle to.

I just can't believe that a young primary school child can eat £2 worth of food at a sitting, even taking into account staff wages etc. If I made a two course cooked meal at home for 6 people, there is no way that my 4 year old would eat £2 worth of food.

So whilst I'd argue strongly for FSM to stay, it seems to make sense to make the 'paid for' meals cheaper so that a) more people can afford them and b) the economy of scale brings the price down anyway.

uppie · 12/01/2011 22:29

I live in Wales. Before you all move here, can I just point out that there is no breakfast club at my local primary.
I have 3 dcs under 19 and my water bill is not capped at £156. Its more than double that! Not sure where this information has come from?

DurhamDurham · 12/01/2011 22:39

ShippingForecast I think you have just said very well what lots of posters were trying to get across. What you wrote is exactly how I feel. I'm just not as clever as you Grin

Maylee · 12/01/2011 22:44

Even though I'm a single parent, who works full time and doesnt claim any benefits (and will lose CB under the new proposals)I would strongly oppose any move to cease free school meals to children from poorer families.

It breaks my heart to think that some children go without a single decent meal in a day and making sure that those children who really need it (and who otherwise might go hungry) is to me, worth subsidising those families who may not genuinely need it.

I agree that the threshold isn't always fair though - and that needs reforming.