Tories going to axe free school meals

[cannotbelievethistoday]

So I have 2 children in private school.

Labour want to put VAT on private school fees, and extend free school meals to all primary children.

Tories are going to remove infant free school meals.

Bloody hell. And still people will vote Tory.

(My 2 kids are in private school - I totally agree with labour on this one)

My post wasn't catty. It could have been, quite easily. Make your mind up, you were poking about PA posts a moment ago.

I didn't realise that was your post as well! Having read back, I see you were brought up leading a privileged lifestyle, then fell on hard times, so have re-evaluated. I do agree that it can happen to anyone. I just don't think that universal FSM is the way to go with limited resources.

I wouldn't call it hard times. I became very ill. But I was voting Labour or Green long before that, I've been NC with my father for 15 years, the rest of my family coming up to 5. I simply do not want people like that in my life, they contribute nothing, and are not something I wish my DDs to aspire to. It's not a class chip, it's an intesnse distaste for those who mock the less fortunate, those who have no conscious desire to help others, or at the very least see that there is only good to come out of everyone having the very basics of a decent life. People in 2017 should not be using food banks to feed their children. There are nurses on the ward I go on who use foodbanks ffs, it's not a myth. These are incredibly hardworking women who have studied and followed a vocation. It's wrong.

I guess I just don't understand why things like this have to be all or nothing.

I guess I'm just weird because of course I would like more than I have but I am also grateful for every day that passes where I am able to feed and clothe my children and keep a roof over their heads. I don't begrudge people who need help, getting that help.

And I always tell my kids that they are lucky to be able to do without special considerations and that if someone else does then so be it they should get it without everyone else having to have it too.

And people are talking about shame and stigma well shame should be felt. Not by the people in the shitty circumstances but in the way that this is how we treat people in need. That instead of providing help to get them back up to where they need to be we try and hide the fact there's a problem by giving the same thing to everyone else.

Why can't things be done on a more individual basis.

Why àre people's hands so tied that they can't address people individually for shitty behaviour or poor parenting. Why do people take advantage of the fact no one can say anything and ruin it for every one else. And why again is blanket policies the answer instead of stopping the person or people responsible.

It must he so awful to struggle so badly and know that the help is only going to come in a diluted form because it has to be applied to X amount of people regardless of need.

Can people not stick to the issues? 

Indeed, hence the calling out of certain posters who just take the opportunity to have a big old boast.

"I just don't think that universal FSM is the way to go with limited resources."

I think that is probably true. However, FSM is probably needed for rather higher incomes than the present threshold suggests, and having to apply is a big barrier top some of those in greatest need. the administration of an 'application' system vs the simplicity of universal benefit (as well as the economies of scale in catering) may also need to be taken into account.

Also, if as studies suggest there is a significant learning gain after the provision of hot meals for all, it may actually be a decently cost-effective way of improving standards relative to others....

Posters are saying 'it should be means tested' - but whether that means that the meals reach those in great need does depend on where in the means testing you draw the cutoff. I don't think anyone would object to e.g. no FSM to those with family incomes of £45,000+, but support might vary for e.g. a £10,000; £16,000; £25,000 etc cutoff.

It's vile, no two ways about it. Lots of families don't qualify for free school lunches, the level is low. The administration costs to process who qualifies and who doesn't is not insignificant. Is there a matey contractor on the sidelines waiting to pick up this new bit of process contract? Call me cynical but I can see no benefit to our society in this. Ensuring that every child regardless of their social economic status has a nutritionally balanced lunch can only be good. If all children have this, they can concentrate more, learn more, why do we not want our whole society to have a chance to grow. In the long run it will benefit the wealth of the whole country. The social economics of this country are being undermined to a point where it won't be sustainable. So not definitely not be unreasonable.

Cynically, everyone's child benefits from a class in which every other child has eaten decently at lunchtime - as i said upthread, the impact on behaviour in the afternoons, and therefore on learning, can be very significant.

Given the way we calculate poverty in the U.K there will always be a percentage of it. It's relative though not absolute.

I think the food bank and working people using it is a red herring though. You only have to work the odd hour to be classed as working so it means nothing.

Plenty of people, by choice, don't work or do little claiming they can't or won't as childcare is more than they want to pay etc. Likewise plenty live in areas they can't afford, have numerous children, want a SAHP etc.

We should be focussing on health and education not allowing people to opt out of their financial responsibilities. Universal FSM simply allowed people to pay even less for children they chose to have. The money could have benefitted schools in so many better ways.

But they would also benefit from extra staff or new books or trips.

All of which schools are struggling to or unable to provide as a result of cuts.

There's never going to be money for everything which is why it seems such a waste to spend it on those who don't really need it rather than addressing how to get these people to step up their game and feed their children properly.

I don't belive FSM should be a priority for all infants. FSM are means tested past 7, people may complain about paying, for those who say they can't afford this it could be argued its a question of prioritising their spending.

There is no way that people who need the help will get fsm.
The cut off is always to low or dependant on receiving certain benefits.
It should be for anybody who receives under the cut off, not just those on benefit with the same income.
It should be for families earning under the min wage full time job.

No, there isn't enough money. There could be, but we chose to bail out the banks, instead of following Iceland's lead. And school trips and new books don't fill stomachs that haven't eaten, which sounds positively Victorian but is sadly the truth for too many children.

It would be interesting to see the 'progress per £' of staff, new books and trips compared with FSM.

The study linked to earlier said that children made, on average, c. half a term's extra progress over 2 years as a result of universal free school lunches, and this applied to all children, not just those who would anyway have been on FSM. It would be interesting to see a similar progress metric for the alternative ways of spending that money on those children.

Banks just being an example, one of many. Different priorities.

Apparently it is just the free school meals for al infants, means tested FSM will still exist. And then free breakfast made available at schools for all primary children instead I think. Then free school lunch for all primary from labour.

TBH I think the free food for all thing (on both sides) is a gimmicky sound bite. Many parents don't want the free meals regardless of it being breakfast or lunch.

More funding, backed up by genuine money from a more likely source, for schools would have a greater impact. TBH Id rather see the funding that pays for the free infant such for all side tracked into funding for other things in schools which would have a greater impact on teaching and learning. But that doesn't sound so good for the bill boards and headlines.

Looking at these posts it's clear the kind of people labour voters are - kneejerk reactionists who want to find fault in everything Tory.

I am a labour voter and said that I could see why FSM might not make sense. My husband is a labour voter and thought the same. I suspect there are equal numbers of voters in both sides that always find fault in the opposition

I'm not voting for either Lab or Con (no idea who I will vote for though)

To be honest I don't know which way I will be voting either this time. I only have a choice between the main 3 parties

When my two were in primary I'd have much preferred the free breakfast option than free lunch tbh.

I used to have to use before school clubs anyway & the ones that provided breakfast were a godsend.

(I moved 3 times whilst they were pre-school/primary, so had experience of breakfast provided vs no breakfast).

I am fully behind this proposal - it helps working parents as well as those who aren't/can't work, and also is a good way for all the kids at primary to start their school day together, whilst getting rid of the more expensive & unnecessary universal lunch for just the infants.

Ensuring that every child regardless of their social economic status has a nutritionally balanced lunch can only be good. If all children have this, they can concentrate more, learn more, why do we not want our whole society to have a chance to grow. In the long run it will benefit the wealth of the whole country.

That's a highly simplistic view. If a free lunch was all that was needed to ensure children became responsible tax payers then all parties would be signing up. A healthy meal is a drop in the ocean compared to a child's role model, parental views and morals etc.

It'll still be available though.

Just not free irrespective of family income.

Essentially, this is reverting back to the system of the Blair/Brown years (possibly going back further than that?)

I just don't know whether the threshold has moved appropriately with the times, if that makes sense? So it could be the same policy, but if the cut-off is much lower than it once was, very many fewer people in need will get the benefit of FSM. It does all depend on the thresholds.

Hate to burst people's bubble but breakfast is more about enabling parents to work.

Our school has a breakfast club (childcare) it raises a bit of funds for the school this new policy will mean they lose that funding stream.