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)

I think people are giving their attitudes away through language here, and it isn't pleasant.

giving their attitudes away

Well I have been pretty clear that I hold Tory ideology as faulty...and that their ideas are based on mythology/superstition.....

Absolutely universal FSM has the biggest 'bang for your buck'.

Some of the suggestions - safeguarding interventions for people who don't feed their DC breakfast for example - would be massively, hugely expensive.

There are many ways the government spends money could be improved I agree. With regard to universal free school meals I believe this is not a good use of funding as it is not means tested and that is not a good way to redistribute income. However, I also believe that those who have free school were previously provide for in infant school and still are to the age of 16.this group are also subject to the pupil premium which is in effect several years after the free school meal should a family cease to qualify, family allowance is allocated as are other benefits. I agree that this does not provide access to vast amounts of income but it is a safety net.

"Does anyone have a good 'extra progress per pound spent' comparative study?

Good lord....you are suggesting we actually think?"

Quote from DS (on another occasion, but relevant here) "Mum, are you arguing with facts and data again? You know that's against the rules!"

Free school meals are not about wealth distribution, IME. We should look at them, and evaluate them, as an education intervention, designed to produce measurable improvement in progress for all children.

Studies to date show that they achieve this - though I would love to see more up to date data based on the national roll out, and comparable 'progress per £' compared with other possible uses of the same money.

Absolutely universal FSM has the biggest 'bang for your buck'.

Not according to the IFS it isn't.

Puzzledandpissedoff I work with some of these families as a childminder. The children who need taxi services are all deserving cases.
I'd take your LEA contact with a pinch of salt if I were you: how do the children get ready for school, for example, if the parents "can't be bothered to get up"? Are you saying the taxi driver comes in and gets them ready, ensures they've had their breakfasts etc.?
Do you realise the tight timescales on which these taxi drivers work?

Tanith in our area we have family support workers who go in and make sure the children are up and ready to be taken to school. It is supposed to be for a short period of time to turn families around, but some take more turning than others.

The children who need taxi services are all deserving cases

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I can't agree; very definitely some are "deserving cases" but certainly not all - and it's the rocketing number of children being taxied to school round here which lead me to wonder whether this has been seen as an opportunity by some parents

I was going to explain about the child support workers, but see username has beaten me to it ... to be honest, if you know enough about this to declare so vehemently what all these cases are, I'm surprised you weren't aware of that

You "wonder"?

I asked you how you knew the reason they had a taxi was because they "couldn't be bothered to get up and get their children ready".
You've answered my question. You don't actually know: you're simply basing your assertion on your own speculation prompted by your friend's unprofessional gossip.

[[https://v1.educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/TeachingandLearningToolkit(July_12).pdf Sutton
Trust collates educational research and simplifies the findings down into cost, impact and months of progress.]]

I am not aware that there is research on there about universal FSM on attainment but there is this study from the pilot programmes of universal FSM .

I am super tired this morning with brain fog but I think the report is saying that universal FSM does boost progress and does so more than some very targeted educational programmes and possibly for less cost per "unit of progress".

However if I am reading it right it is saying that the original Jamie Oliver better school meals campaign was more cost effective .

It does say that it is difficult to make comparisons and to identify exactly is causing an improvement. There were two studies - one looking at universal FSM and one looking at extending provision to more families on low wages. The universal scheme was said to create 4-8 weeks of progress. The study also finds that only the universal scheme as opposed to the extended scheme prompted improvements in diet and health but I don't think the impact was huge. The report also tentatively suggests that a universal rather than extended scheme has more educational impact on the poorest children.

But they are doing breakfasts instead......
Free school meals should be means tested. In the past, subsidised trips go to FSM kids. FSM have only been provided to those in receipt of family tax credits. Now This was wrong as anyone in receipt of working family tax credit got nothing even if they earned low wages, they were penalised. No assistance for meals or trips because you got off your bum and worked. If FSM were means tested, they would be provided to those that need it most...benefits or very low wage.

I know that they are doing breakfasts instead, somebody below asked if there was any research into the area.

I am not sure how I feel about free school meals for all infants. The evidence seems to suggest that a universal scheme has more impact than an extended one. I was interested to see that the research suggested that the universal scheme helps the poorest as the right wing press are saying that such a scheme favours well off families rather than the least well off - if I am reading it right.

It is important that we legislate on the basis of evidence rather than gut feeling or a desire not to spend money on the undeserving poor - however this is a difficult area to gather research on.

But the money being saved is going directly to schools and teachers. Those who are struggling to pay for meals will be protected. Money for schools has to come from somewhere. Prioritising teaching, that gets my vote!

I think no meals at school should be free (be that breakfast or lunch) unless there is a real need for it. There must be hundreds of thousands of primary school kids having a free meal with parents who can easily afford to pay, such a waste of tax payers money.