AIBU to think there is a stigma attached to taking up Free School Meals?

[cingolimama]

Would really value MNers experience here. DH and I have had a pretty disastrous year financially (redundancy for DH, drying up of contracts for me). However we are both working hell for leather to turn this around. In the meantime we're eligible for FSM, which frankly would be a big help. I also know that it helps the school gain a Pupil Premium.

But I'm a bit nervous about this. I don't want my daughter to be "targeted for help" as I believe anyone benefiting from FSM is (but perhaps I'm being idiotic - DD could surely use a booster in maths dept.) I also don't want any social stigma attached to this. It's a mixed school socially, but the majority is very middle class. Has anyone had any negative experience of taking this up? Or AIBU and it will all be fine?

sheridand it is an issue and one that has been cited as a barrier to re employment for those who have been existing on benefits.

Once you are back to work you lose various bits of support and don't necessarily have the income to fall back on if you are on a low wage.

People I know in that position tend to send in packed lunches as school meals for 2+ children per week can be expensive.

I think school meals should be free for all.

Even 2 packed lunched works out extortionately on our budget, that's why it would be so helpful to have FSM! If we could send them in with flasks and leftovers, it would be great, but they're not allowed them! So the packed lunch becomes quite spenny, unless you use the cheapest of the cheap bread and ham etc.I really wanted to be able to send them in with chicken drumsticks and so on, as these are often leftover from husbands catering self-employment, but they are not allowed. I do use Lidl and Aldi, but nonetheless, buying two packed lunches all week is a sizeable portion of our income, one that, if they were entitled, we'd be able to put to say, shoes! (Cue flood of people who make a nutritious packed lunch for a penny)

premium faqs.pdf
Link very useful for those doubting the link. There's no reason for people to be offended by the link made - surely it's not rocket science that you can have exceptions to a group?

I think school meals should be made available to all kids. We have hit a massive financial blip and I am dreading the packed lunch spend after the summer. And school dinners aren't affordable. 2.50 per child ( 4 children)

Me too, Nerfmother. Once i've made 2 rounds of sandwiches, put in two yoghurts, grapes, tangerines, crisps, cucumber, hummus, cheese and cereal/ seeds, it works out very expensive! But I simply can't do a fiver a day. I don't know how we will mange tbh, it turns out that working for years and years entitles you to sod all, when it comes down to it.

Cue flood of people who make a nutritious packed lunch for a penny

Ok...I won't!

I do think the DfE and d of h should team up and fund meals: the obesity crisis, current recession, food banks - all of this would indicate a hidden poor. Otoh, it would mean a rethinking of the indicators for the pupil premium.

Might start a petition

sheridand I think your packed lunches are quite large, do they get time to eat all that?

That reads like a picnic!

I don't understand why the pp can't just be given to schools according to academic performance levels?

Wheresmycaffeinedrip - the child will still have supportive parents, but might face all sorts of new problems - studying while cold and hungry, having to move house, possibly with a long walk to school in worn-out shoes, a stressful atmosphere at home.

And in schools with a lot of pupils living in poverty, there are also likely to be problems with low aspirations/expectations, substandard housing, and families who are living in poverty because of other serious problems within the family.

Sheridand, they sureky need nearly that much food for lunch. As an adult i wouldnt eat all that in one mel. They want to eat and go out to play as quickly as possible.

Unless they stopped CB then theres no way we could afford FSM for all. Many wouldnt want them any way as prefer to make their own childs lunches and some are fussy and primary doesnt always offer much choice.

Whilst WTC may exclude FSM its still an extra payment that those over the threashold dont get, still means eligible for CB and usually those on WRC qualify for HB and reduced council tax so are not left with no help.

"I received FSM and so did two of my friends. We all got good GCSE and A level results, got places at good universities and got decent degrees."

Stevie Wonder's doing alright. Why are we wasting money on providing help for blind people? It's offensive to those that go on to become major recording stars.

Oops meant surely they dont need that much for lunch, flaming ipad typing!

Unless they stopped CB then theres no way we could afford FSM for all

Yes we could.

Those that want to continue with packed lunches could easily do so, being available for free for all does not mean they would be compulsory.

I guess as a parent I would just find it a bit offensive that suddenly everyone was all over my child. If they noticed she needed extra support I would expect that to be given regardless of our home circumstances. And as long as she didnt need the support I'd rather it went to someone who did. One would hope that it would be noticed without a tick in a box.

What I mean is that a child should get the support if they need it , it shouldn't take something bad happening to the family to get the support.

Exactly.

Amberleaf, how would they be financed? Small primaries already have to subsidise to have hot meals for those that want them and the government are making cuts to current benefits so are very unlikely to introduce a new one.

Why should they be free for all anyway? Surely providing children with food is a basic parenting job. If parents cant or wont then SS should step in. If there was spare money it would be better spent on more teachers or hospital care not basics that a parent should be doing automatically anyway.

They would be financed from the education/schools budget, which should IMO be made bigger not be cut.

Surely providing children with food is a basic parenting job

Yes, but when our children are at school the school is acting 'in loco parentis' which translates as 'in the place of a parent' which is why schools provide lunch facilities [its part of that duty]

If parents cant or wont then SS should step in

Can't and won't are two very different things.

"Curlew - "Children eligible for FSM are as a cohort less likely to achieve their potential than children who aren't. That is a incontrovertible fact- all you have to do is look at the "narrowing the gap" section of your school's stats to see that. This isn't casting aspersions at your particular individual child- it doesn't say that applies to every child. Your child might be smashing through his targets and achieving like nobody's business. T most won't be. And putting provisions in place for children who are identified as a group as needing extra support is just practical common sense, surely."

And here is the reason why people get annoyed sweeping generalisations, as if there may only be one or two excpetions that prove the rule and in the main their is a link. Nonsense."

I don't understand. What's the problem with what I posted?

Schools do provide lunch already, it shouldnt be free to all. By your theory then they should provide the uniform, break time snack, prescriptions etc.

Its not rocket science to understand that having a child costs money, the more children the more it costs. You can then hardly moan about having to feed them or state its somebody elses responsibility. Yes circumstances can change which is where FSM steps in but many people limit their income by working hours, having a SAHP etc so why should more of their costs be met when they will already be getting a lot of state money anyway.

I'd love school budgets to be bigger so that they can replace items, take on more staff, have decent uptodate equipment, more hands on learning etc but it should never cover feeding children. Thats a parenting basic and they already get help from CB to assist with costs. Schools are there to educate and teachers there to teach, they are not acting parents in any shape or form.

Being on FSM doesn't make us all over your child. It just means that if there is an issue with your child underachieving then there is money available to help. So for example PP money employs an English and a Maths intervention teacher in our school. Some of the children that benefit from these teachers being employed are not on FSM, but without the PP money the teachers would not be there. PP money can also be used to lower the cost of school trips and we also used it to pay for re-sits for FSM children whereas others had to pay if they wanted to re-sit an exam paper. PP money is used by one local school to provide pupils on FSM with a free PE kit.

There is an argument to be had about the PP - I'd rather it was distributed in other ways, but this is what you get with Lib Dems. However, if your child is not underachieving they aren't going to be forced to have extra-tuition, and if they are not on FSM they aren't left to fend for themselves.

Breaktime fruit IS provided in KS1, and so is milk; the latter being partly paid for by European subsidy.

Schools are there to educate. Agreed. To allow children to achieve their potential.

Children from poor/disadvantaged groups as a cohort are less likely to achieve their potential than other children. Which is why more support is provided for that group. I just don't see why that's controversial!