to think a £7500 income cap on free school meals is a deathwish?

[thirdhill]

I'm so shocked to see the Children's Society analysis reported in most papers today about proposals to introduce a £7500 income cap on free school meals.

My initial reaction is this is sheer vindictiveness, taking away a meal from kids in dire need. Will the money spent on a daily lunch for a few children save our economy? Or perhaps we can be relied on to not care anymore? Or is there a wider picture nobody is reporting? My understanding is that the present income cap is £16k, which already seems a challenge for a family of say four.

Sarah Teather, the Minister, is a lib dem MP but this must tar both parties for many and seems an absolute deal breaker for mobile voters. Straw that broke the camel's back, death wish, etc.

Curious if anyone knows any more to this.

TIA

Yes--feel the need to quote again "StealthPolarBear Thu 19-Apr-12 20:26:13
I don't care about the parents of these children, much. I don't care if they are lazy, feckless, poor planners, I don't care if they're drug dealers. I don't want to be part of a society that punishes their children for this. They will already be subject to massive educational and health inequality, let's withold food from them as well"

I used to work in school in an area that was very deprived, most children got no breakfast and some no tea either- FSM was the only meal of the day. The Parents loved their children but were unable to care for them in the way we care for our children. The staff got together and all of us put £5 a month into a kitty to buy bread and squash to give the children free for breakfast, Behaviour improved, results improved, attendance improved, the children's health improved. Some of these children arrived at school filthy, in the same unwashed clothes for weeks at a time, KS1 staff would often change the children for PE and put a load of clothes into the school washer, they would go home in clean clothes. This is a stupid, stupid idea, it will cost the country so mush more in the long term. If the government want's to improve standards it should give every child a free lunch, and breakfast at school. And yes I would pay more tax to pay for this, effectively I already have.

does your post has just made me well up.

we live in a pretty poor area, in ds' class only 4 familys have a worker, but its not that bad, ok so maybe a few walk through the gate eating skittles but most are clean, happy and fed in some shape or form.

We are currently in reciept of fsm as dp has been signed off work pending an operation, (he's self employed so no ssp) and the fsm make a huge difference to our weekly budget (we were also asked to claim by the school as it adds to their budget) and also since ds started having them he's doing better, has more energy and isnt 'starving' the minute he leaves school (he did have a good lunch from home, sandwich, salad, fruit, yogurt and a treat) but something about the hot meal makes a difference to him.

I'm no longer suprised by the latest cuts, its a sad scary state of affairs.

exactly doesitcome

But presumably teachers will still be responsible for the PSHE education of any malnourished children in their classroom, and will probably have a whole raft of healthy eating tips to fight the obesity epidemic. Just not actual food.

a packed lunch might be healthier, but it's not hot and I think it's good that children sit down to a proper meal together. Some local schools encourage kids to have school meals at least in the winter months. Horrible to think poor kids will not be able to join others and have a decent hot meal.
For those of you who say, don't have kids if you can't afford to feed them should look at how little control we have over our lives when govt tax policies continually force up the basic cost of living, when transport is so expensive, basic utilities so expensive etc etc.

What a fucking feeding frenzy.

300 plus posts on the basis of what?

Something made up by the Children's Society to get a cheap headline?

Where the fuck did they get this number of £7500 from?

I thought charities weren't supposed to be political.

Seems that it's ok to stir up hundreds of 'fucking bastard Tory' posts, on the basis of .... absolutely nothing.

I am fed up with all the lies being put out by vested interests about government policy.

Here's what I could find, rather than shit-stirring lies:
www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/ssac-rev-of-pass-bens.pdf

'The provision of free school meals to all recipients of Universal Credit
would almost treble the numbers currently eligible. Although the
Government is sympathetic to the arguments for extending eligibility to
free school meals, this is simply unaffordable in the current economic
climate. In England, the Department for Education is, therefore, likely to
propose defining eligibility in relation to a fixed income threshold
assessed within Universal Credit and will be consulting on new
eligibility criteria later this year. The focus of the consultation will be on
setting criteria which can be put in place for the change to Universal
Credit from October 2013. '

This is current eligibility:

Registered pupils whose parents/guardians
are in receipt of:
 Income Support
 Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance
 Income-related Employment and Support Allowance
 Child Tax Credit (providing they are not entitled to receive Working Tax Credit and have an annual income (as assessed by HMRC) that does not
exceed £16,190)
 Support under part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
 the Guarantee element of State Pension Credit

It's apparent that there will be changes to eligiblity, but the numbers eligible will remain the same. The intent is to make it fairer.

Here's a more balanced appraisal: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17770152

"I thought charities werent suppossed to be political"

They dont seem to have a fucking problem with being political when it comes to participating in workfare!

There are some harsh people on here. Where I live in Oregon, you have to earn less than $29000 (just under 20000 quid) if you are a family of four to qualify for free school meals. Our local school district also provides a free lunch throughout the summer at some of the various parks. Kids get a main course, piece of fruit, milk or juice and carrots or something like that, for free. Paid for out of our property taxes. The school district does cut days out of the year because they can't afford them, but they don't let the kids go hungry.

There are plenty of people here who would say you shouldn't have children if you can't afford to give birth to them. The hospital charged over $10000 last year for a normal birth without pain relief. An epidural would have cost me another $8000. It would be interesting to find out how many of those people saying 'you should feed your own kids' would be able to pay out that kind of money to give birth in the first place.

Perhaps, like they do here, they should get the likes of Goldman Sachs and Vodafone to sponsor free school meals? Might go some way to repair their image.

Actually charities are allowed to "undertake political activity in support of their charitable aims".

The change in the law about this was precisely because charities were perpetually picking up the pieces without being able to tackle the source of the problem. Eg they could pay for prosthetics for landmine victims, but not campaign for the international banning of landmines.

I read that article a little differently, Poulay.

"The coalition government's answer back in summer 2010 was what it described as "a simpler and fairer system that bases entitlement on an income or earnings threshold". But it quickly transpired that manufacturing simplicity and fairness was easier said than done."

I read this as saying the Conservatives have had 2 years to think up a better solution (as per their manifesto) and, according to that Department of Education system post here, still don't really know what they are doing. No wonder the Children's Society is getting fed up with them.

very interesting point that people earning 41k are outraged at losing their child benefit which goes into the pot for general expenses in this every penny counts scenario but people who earn 8k and losing their child's entitlement to a hot meal are unreasonable and feckless.

i don't agree with cuts to child benefit because they disproportionately effect one income households and particularly single parents with huge childcare bills however, logically speaking, if every penny counts so we all must suffer wouldn't it be more logical and fair to take child benefit away from households who earn over 40k between them (so lots of household in which two adults are capable of working and do) than to take meals from the children of households who earn £7501?

i wouldn't like to see either of these things happen but surely if we are to really believe this money is so desperately needed it can't be avoided it would be logical to take it from the households better able to afford it?

so why not? because those at the bottom have less of a voice, because there is public support for punishing those who can be slandered as feckless and irresponsible and because this bloody government really thinks they've turned the tide so far into selfish, vindictiveness towards the poor that they'll get away with it and maybe even get a round of applause from their more established voters.

when poor people can no longer even be allowed to have children what stake do you think they will have left in society? because poor people won't disappear no matter how much you punish them. it is a fact that you'll never see a 100% employed society. you'll never see 100% of people capable of supporting themselves. yes there is illness and disability (and we're even trying to deny this to some extent now) but there is also the sad fact that society advances and hurtles along and not everyone keeps up.

there are some who aren't able to keep up now who would have been ok thirty years ago when manual labour jobs with little requirement for literacy or communication skills were prolific for example. a lot of people have gotten left behind in the speed of change. our only way of remedying that and trying to avoid an absolute break down between those who can and those who can't is to educate their children, feed them if needed so we can educate them, support them, make sure they have good services and are given extra help in school where needed to close that gap a bit. saying oh why should we support people's kids or feed them or give them extra help just guarantees another generation coming through with the same obstacles to work and lack of stake in society.

it is all so short sighted.

there were tons of kids when i was teaching who it was very clear were going to really struggle in the world of work. either because of their literacy and numeracy skills, their communication and social skills or their lack of natural ability to learn and pick up systems quickly and ably. they were going out into a job market where it was all about literacy and communication, confidence and ability to pick up systems be they IT, phones and databases, etc in this town.

there is very little manual labour work here, very little in the way of retail jobs as everything has been closing down and moving out of town for years here and routes like hairdressing have turned into college courses that are beyond the scope of some. there is very little work for people who have low literacy skills, are not confident communicators who can deal with people of all walks of life, who don't have good IT skills or a good head for numbers and accuracy.

there are a lot more reasons for the 'can't' group than just ill health. simply squeezing benefits won't change these factors. better education, more support and help in school for those who are failing, better post 16 training schemes etc may make a difference. a more diverse labour market would be fab but i can't see it any time soon.

realise no one is probably reading this but there are people out there being told to 'get a job' who've never even had a computer at home, who don't have basic literacy skills and who are totally out of their depth in dealing with customers on telephones. the basic jobs used to be manual and about the ability to turn up and work hard for long shifts. the basic jobs now require computer and communication skills, the ability to deal calmly and articulately with customers on the telephone etc. things have changed and we haven't kept up with giving people the skills they need to access jobs. and if people are unable to access society then what do you think happens to them?

thinking about it taking away emt is going to make this situation even worse as they won't be able to do anything post16.

They're taking away EMA but raising the school leaving age to 18.

I saw this morning that they are closing the Remploy factories which are sheltered employment for disabled people, in favour of getting them into mainstream employment. I thought that there were very few vacancies out there so this seems like just taking away their job.

Just thinking this morning that it could be a significant disincentive to returning to work for many single parents (usually mothers) too. Doing a low paid job whilst raising young children is challenging enough already. Take away the very helpful benefit of free school meals for the children in those households and some on that border-line may find that the challenges of working are not worth the benefits as they seek to do what's best mainly for their children, but also for themselves (because that's human nature and we all do this all the time - it's been an important survival strategy for humans throughout our history and evolution - opportunists like bears - it's why most of us are omnivores too )

"the basic jobs used to be manual and about the ability to turn up and work hard for long shifts."

And this change has happened since many of us left primary school. Suddenly, in a generation, it is not possible to put food on the table purely through hard physical labour.

It would be a cheap shot to say that this change started with Thatcher, as clearly other things have influenced the decline of heavy industry/manufacturing in this country. However, the philosophical idea that the only thing standing between any individual and a white collar job is gumption does seem to be Conservative. I think that is why they are struggling so much with the nuts and bolts of the welfare system.

On the other hand, we don't appear to have a Labour party at the moment.

Having read a bit more of the thread I now want to see FSM for every child to level the playing field.

I'm a bit of a feeder so my DC's never go without a decent breakfast but there are the odd few I see who possibly do. A good breakfast and meal inside every child would probably do the world of good for behaviour, concentration and energy levels.

I used to work in school in an area that was very deprived, most children got no breakfast and some no tea either- FSM was the only meal of the day. The Parents loved their children but were unable to care for them in the way we care for our children. The staff got together and all of us put £5 a month into a kitty to buy bread and squash to give the children free for breakfast, Behaviour improved, results improved, attendance improved, the children's health improved. Some of these children arrived at school filthy, in the same unwashed clothes for weeks at a time, KS1 staff would often change the children for PE and put a load of clothes into the school washer, they would go home in clean clothes.

I'm not sure that someone who is unable to feed and wash their own child should be looking after them in the first place. What do you mean by "love"? If I love someone I'm not going to stand by and watch as they go hungry when it is within my means to go out and buy a loaf of bread and drink each week for breakfast. Are families really so poor they can't afford that? Ditto washing powder.

i was also thinking about how up in arms people get about the idea of homes with low income being provided with a reconditioned laptop that would have been thrown away. again mad short term thinking and lack of awareness of the job market out there and how many kids are not getting basic IT skills and computer confidence in a world where realistically there's nothing you can do without that and a whole load of society/life goes on online.

samandi what would you do then - put them all in care?

*Our only choice is to pay for a meal over which we have no control or to send them with an assortment of cold food.

I can feed all of the 3 dcs I have at home for the price of one school meal.*

So do that. What is with cold food?

Nothing is wrong with cold food but we are discussing children for whom the only hot meal of the day is a FSM

its starting to look like we want to stop poor people having children