AIBU to think free school dinners is a waste of money

[Iwannalaylikethisforever]

Our primary school newsletter announces from September 2014 all reception children and years 1&2 will be getting free school meals. Everyone else pays usual £2 per day.
Although the government is calling for a ban on packed lunches, our school is not enforcing it.
I think free school lunches for those who need it is brilliant. I loved my free school lunches as a child.
But, so many parents are angry about it and insisting their child is too fussy to eat whats on offer at school, surely it's just a waste of tax payers money. Further more I think it's unreasonable to assume after year 2 parents and children won't benefit from trying to introduce children to a broader array of foods than they get elsewhere.

Yes it's not compulsory so why the ridiculous comments about ruined health? Your dd doesn't have school dinners anymore - if there are problems you speak up.

Roll not role!

No I can see that but if it is compulsory in your school, what then?

And what use is consuming anyway. Do you really think there's going to be a huge choice of suppliers who can do it for the funds available?? Of course not.

I'm obvoiisly the only one who saw this post from a headtaeacher:

"We will be introducing a packed lunch ban over the next 4 years. As classes leave KS1, we'll be telling them they must continue on school dinners... if you saw some of the crap in their packed lunches you'd understand why!"

COMPLAINING

Really really is it going to be compulsory?

How?

Surely you could just say your child had allergies they can't cater for and send a pack up anyway?

I'm pleased ds is now long past this age (and at a school outside govt interference except for external exams).

Well it won't be in mine due to lack of space but I get what you mean by a generic 'your'

Then I guess the parents will have to kick up a fuss and badger the governors/get the local press involved etc.

I don't think the compulsory schools will ban packed lunches, they'll just provide them instead of allowing parents to do it.

Worra, it could very easily be compulsory in all the schools in our county, I suspect. We're one of the FSM pilot sites so the take up was huge.

Just a bullshit political gimmick, surely they are not suggesting that the original criteria is wrong?! Because if the criteria stands up to scrutiny then surely it can be applied across the board, in all year groups. They should use the money, from parents who can afford it, to pay for improving the disgusting slop that they serve up. Bleugghhh

If it's made compulsory then that will be a decision that is taken by individual schools, not the government.

Some schools might choose to make it compulsory, and it will be up to them individually to explain their reasoning.

Well time will tell Stealth but I've spoken to many people in the LA who just don't believe it's workable in so many schools.

At best it might be a decision for governors to make.

But, but...

I'm genuinely astounded that any educational establishment could forcibly feed your child what they deem to be healthy.

The school's job is to educate, not feed.

Proper crazy. I mean, actually bonkers.

HedgeHogGroup does your school intend to pay for all of those ks2 meals too?

Mintyy how are you getting free school meals now? They aren't free til September?

I hadn't given thought to whether or not parents could accept or decline the fsm. I didn't know about the fs packed lunch either. Some of lunches scenarios mentioned sound horrible. Unless I'm being naive I think our school meals are ok, and encourages parents to eat a sm with their child at school lunch time on selected dates. But they have fish and chips every Friday, and cakes after most meals. Not a healthy eating menu that claims a healthy eating school status.
I read somewhere that some schools were compiling data of what each lunch box contained over a set amount of time and that helped to decide that packed lunches were so bad in terms of nutrition that a school meal would be preferential. However from the fairly wide selection of sm I've seen, (as peripatetic lsa) I would not feed my dc sm in a lot if cases. Not just because the food looked disgusting but it's presentation generally. All chucked on at the same time in plastic moulded divided trays. Sponge cake and custard going cold whilst eating the main meal.
I hope this isn't a massive amount of food and money wasted because of poor quality and time constraints of preparing it all, not to mention the extra staff needed to do so.

If the fsm are made compulsory, I wonder what they will do about people with medical problems. You can have an intolerance or allergy to anything, and there is no way the average catering company can guarantee to be free from everything each child has an issue with. Also diagnosis can take months, or even years. What would those children do for meals? They can't be forced to eat something that might make them ill!

Nerfmother - they are in my local authority and have been for at least a year (London borough of Southwark).

Its a voting gimmick and one schools can ill afford. Nobody bar the parent should pay the cost of feeding a child, if they cant or wont then SS should step in.

Let schools spend their budget on more important things.

I don't see it as a waste of money. I live in one of the pilot areas and take up was good. Unfortunately, both of my boys have ASD and lots of food issues. We've tried and failed at school dinners with DS1 and won't even go there with DS2, as there's only 1 or days a week when he would eat a full meal from the menu options (and it wouldn't be anywhere near balanced and, given the size of portions, definitely wouldn't be enough). I would object strongly if any attempts were made to ban them from having their packed lunch (and DS1 would probably refuse school, completely).

And agreeing with Vikinglady - since our last attempt at school dinners, DS1 has been diagnosed with abdominal migraines, with cheese and chocolate and possibly acidic foods as triggers. He doesn't actually like meat much, so with the typical cheesy veggie option out, there's even less that he'd have than previously.

YANBU.

The money should be used for deficit reduction. Failing that, for income tax/corporation tax cuts.

This is an idiotic Lib Dem policy which Cameron idiotically went along with.

HelpTheSnailsAreComingToGetMe I strongly support the crackdown on universal benefits; it reduces middle class and particularly chattering class buy-in into the welfare state, which in turn, means politicians can go further in cutting the welfare state.

Help it's not theoretical. Universal benefits are better at reaching those who need them most because they reach everyone. There's no theoretical about it.

But nor is the welfare state a bottomless pit.

Money spent on X means there is not money for Y. It really is as simple as that.

If you think there is nothing more important than every child having a meal then you will be behind this, which sounds well and good in theory but the majority of parents, including those on a low income, are more than capable of feeding their children. I think there is far too much middle class hand-wringing on here at times. I recently lost my single person discount on council tax which trust me makes a big difference to my income, but you know, as long as well-fed, loved and cared for children get a hot dinner ...