Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be offended by a teaching assistant saying this:

94 replies

StripyPenguin · 18/01/2014 21:14

That children who get free school meals would be going hungry if they didn't get a free school meal because their parents wouldn't be able to afford to feed them? Not a specific child, just children who have free school meals in general?

OP posts:
Bedsheets4knickers · 18/01/2014 21:16

I think in this current climate in a lot of cases she may be right.

BohemianGirl · 18/01/2014 21:17

That is the general idea of FSM, to ensure children do not go hungry and have one adequate warm meal a day.

Unless you put the TA comment into a different context she is parroting what FSM is designed for.

MuttonCadet · 18/01/2014 21:17

Why else would they be getting a free school meal?

BehindLockNumberNine · 18/01/2014 21:17

I think it is a generalised statement, a bit of a sweeping one, but in some cases this may indeed be the case, sadly.

CunfuddledAlways · 18/01/2014 21:18

we just dont qualify for free school meals - we earnt £3 too much in the last year, it can be a struggle to get a decent packed lunch, we certainly can't afford school dinners at £12 a week!

Original poster
StripyPenguin · 18/01/2014 21:18

So do I but many parents on very low incomes manage to feed their children, they go without themselves. I just didn't like her sweeping statement.

OP posts:
PistolAnnies · 18/01/2014 21:19

Oh my LORD Blush YANBU ... I would be FUMING !!!!

wimblehorse · 18/01/2014 21:19

Some children would be going hungry without FSM. Others wouldn't be getting nutritious food. Others would but something else would have to give - heating, parents' food etc. Others would be managing to balance their expenditure.
Sounds like she was generalizing, but there is some truth behind it. What was the context? Was she meaning to offend?

PistolAnnies · 18/01/2014 21:19

Mutton, err maybe because they're entitled to it ?!?

mrbobthecat · 18/01/2014 21:20

Why are you offended? Sadly, many parents are struggling to feed their children and the FSM are a lifesaver for those families. Granted, not every family but did she say every single child?

Bedsheets4knickers · 18/01/2014 21:20

Parents going without themselves isn't the answer either. (Food wise)

Vatta · 18/01/2014 21:20

I think she's probably right tbh - I didn't always get lunch growing up, when things were tight we couldn't afford it.

Why were you offended by it, I'm not sure I understand?

FortyDoorsToNowhere · 18/01/2014 21:21

It is true for many parent.

lilyaldrin · 18/01/2014 21:21

Why would you be offended? The whole point of FSM is so that children from very low income families get a meal - if there was no need, why do you think the scheme exists Confused

Coldlightofday · 18/01/2014 21:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Vatta · 18/01/2014 21:22

Sorry, read your update now. So it was the generalisation you didn't like? I think generalising that way is a lazy way of speaking, but I wouldn't take offence at that.

WorraLiberty · 18/01/2014 21:23

Weird thing to get offended about.

Original poster
StripyPenguin · 18/01/2014 21:25

Yes, it was the generalisation, she was talking about free school meals children as not being fed without the support, not achieving without the extra money (sorry, not meaning to drip feed, forgot to put that in) and so on. Plenty of children I know on free school meals (not mine, we don't get them) are well fed and doing well at school.

OP posts:
MelanieRavenswood · 18/01/2014 21:25

It would be a very poor way to explain FSM to a child or a class - is that what you mean?

BehindLockNumberNine · 18/01/2014 21:27

I really really don't understand why you are offended? Yes, it is commendable that some parents go without. But if the child can have FSM then the parents can have a meal themselves and remain healthier / stronger / in a better position to care for the children.

thecatfromjapan · 18/01/2014 21:27

I think you have possibly taken her comment the wrong way. I think the general idea of FSM is that the threshold is set at the point where it would cast a family into serious hardship if they were to have to pay for those meals during the school day.

Obviously, there is a little lee-way here and there - after all, there are no FSM on Saturday and Sunday. So people obviously get by.

Still. I'd be sad to see them go.

That said, isn't there some scheme whereby FSM are going to be rolled out for all children of a certain age? I have to admit, I think that is a great idea.

lilyaldrin · 18/01/2014 21:27

Surely you understand the purpose of FSM and pupil premium StripyPenguin? I wouldn't have thought when discussing it with another adult that the TA should have to quantify that "not everyone who qualifies actually needs the help".

Original poster
StripyPenguin · 18/01/2014 21:29

I don't have a problem with the system (free school meals etc are great, we need to have them) just with her generalisation.

OP posts:
LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 18/01/2014 21:29

To whom did she say it, StripyPenguin. To the teacher, to an adult, to a child?

She isn't wrong; it is the case for many, many families now. I realise that it smarts but it really is a fact and it doesn't detract that some parents go without to provide food for their children, but it's still the case that FSM play an integral support role now.

zizzo · 18/01/2014 21:29

School staff have to be very careful about how they phrase things, especially sensitive topics such as parental income and FSM.

I think she was very tactless in how she explained that. Hopefully she was asked about it in the first place and didn't just make a random outburst!