Free school meals

[heatseeker14]

Why do KS1 kids get free school meals? I think it is such a waste of public money. I can't understand why it is still being pushed? I understand that some parents struggle, I get that, but why open it up to everyone else?! Our school doesn't have a functioning kitchen, the best they can churn out is tinned hot dogs, so they buy in meals from a catering company. This must cost a fortune & it makes me mad. Why should tax payers fund school meals, it is up to parents to provide for their kids. Set a good example and cook decent food it is not that difficult!!

Free school lunches aren't ending from September, they are just going back to the old system where only children from households below a certain income level will be entitled to the free lunch.

I agree with this. I wonder how much it's costing to provide free lunches to children from wealthy families?

Those who don't supply lunch = social services

Yeah, good luck with that . I work in a school. The thresholds for ss involvement are so insanely high and it's a nightmare actually trying to get hold of anyone. A child in my school who is very obviously neglected took 6 separate referrals for SS to investigate. They finally assessed the family, determined that yes there was clear evidence of neglect and allocated a social worker but she has cancelled the last three meetings and hasn't seen the family for 8 weeks. Meanwhile, I have a drawer in my office full of food, drinks, sanitary towels, etc paid for out of my own pocket, for kids whose parents are unable or unwilling to provide for them. So do many of my colleagues.

The free breakfast completely misses the point since the children who really need it are more likely to live in a chaotic home environment or be classified as Young Carers leading to issues with lateness in the morning. When I think about the neediest kids in my school, none of them are actually in on time in the mornings. So the idea that their parents are going to galvanise themselves to get them into school for 8am so they can take advantage of the offer of a 7p breakfast is just ridiculous.

@sedona A lot less than it costs to subsidise meals, alchocol and jollies for already well paid MP's.

Alcohol

The idea of FSM only going to those families that need them isn't wrong.

But there is a staggering level of ignorance of the issues surrounding poverty and other social problems on this thread.

I find it amazing that you are all up in arms about 4-6 year olds getting lunch not that The House Of Commons has heavily subsidised food and drink (including alcohol) plus claims for meals expenses. We live in a warped country, we really do

Shows how easily people are manipulated really doesn't it. People were thrilled about it and if it's shit like that.

This is England ffs not some third world country. There is no way in 2017 in England that people should he in such a situation that the best their kid gets is some slop served at school waiting in line behind some rich kid to get it.

Kids are little nore than a diversionary tactic to hide the stuff you are talking about

The you can go to Aldi argument is nonsense. Not everyone has Aldi within reach. Some of us do not have access to a car and bus fares are expensive.

Others, who rent, have small poor quality fridges with little freezer space. Which can be a real barrier to cooking freshly cooked meals cheaply.

It only takes little imagination to realise that other families have challenges that are different to your own.

I agree with op - I can afford it and think it's crazy every child gets a free meal. Even more crazy is they are often not healthy! Yesterday my son had macroni cheese and a biscuit. White white pasta and white flour biscuit. Not a veggie or fruit in sight. And I double checked whether he just choose this only - healthy sides was not an option.

Regardless of what you think of universal free school meals for this age group, stopping it now is shortsighted and in many cases won't save much money. Many schools had to enter contracts with caterers in order to provide the meals, and they will have to pay to leave the contract early. Some schools have built kitchens. At a time of education cuts, they will still have to pay for the kitchens, and will have to buy out the contracts.

I don't have much time for George Osborne or Theresa May, but their hatred of each other has made for interesting reading in the London Evening Standard. Osborne printed a letter from Gove sent to headteachers (many of whom must have suspected this would not last), assuring them that this was a long-term policy and they should enter into these contracts with confidence...

I agree completely with the OP. Giving every child in KS1 is like giving every OAP (including millionaires) the winter fuel payment. It is indeed a total waste of public money. Last month my Y2 class went out on a school trip and only 3 of the 30 I teach wanted a packed lunch provided by the school. All the other children bought their own from home, so it's pretty clear that the majority of my class can quite obviously afford to provide a lunch.

And as for the people trying to derail this thread with baking anecdotes- just hide the thread if you find it annoying, or go and find womething else to do with your time.

Social services hardly have time to deal with serious cases let alone parents forgetting to send a packed lunch.

How will my children be accessing the free breakfast? There's a 3 year waiting list for breakfast club at our school.

Will we be entitled to 1065 breakfasts by the time we get in?

For those saying the meals are not healthy, these days many of the meals are disguised to appeal more to the children. For example, the chocolate cake is made with beetroot and low fat everything is used etc.

I also think it's a waste of money. Lots of R-Yr2 kids getting free dinners whose parents can afford perfectly well to feed them. I'd much rather the financial threshold for fsm was upped so more of the kids who actually need that meal can access it and across all the school years.

Low fat and sweetnerd isn't healthy for a child though.

They need the fat to fill them up.

But why should only the families of rich kids get the privelidge of a hot meal at lunchtime and the poor kids have to sit on a different table with their sandwich and cheap crisps? Can't you see how divisive that is?
Also, and it is something I keep coming back to, why are people angry about "their" tax money being spent on the health and wellbeing of children and their lunches, but it seems it's OK for an MO earning 70k+ to claim for his breakfast expenses?!

*MP not MO

Free school meals should not be for all children but I do agree there is a need.
It should be lovely linked to benefits and any parents on job seekers, child tax credits or universal credits should be able to claim free dinners for their children.

They were a huge waste of money. Schools could have used that amount on something far better like extra teachers etc.

The sooner they go the better, enough feckless parents opt of of providing for children without extra encouragement.

The national average for uptake of FSM is about 19%.

My school is 47%

We have a huge percentage of children whose parents do not qualify for FSM because they DONT receive benefits. They DONT apply for them.

Our uptake for UFSMs is something like 95% of KS1. These kids are fed their only hot meal of the day, and fed well with healthy balanced and tasty meals. Our kitchen staff are miracle workers.

In KS2 the meal take up is pitiful, lots of children have packed lunches, lots have none at all. We have teachers keeping classroom fruit bowls topped up from their own purses and our miracle working kitchen staff managed to wrangle a hot, decent snack mid morning for only 20p - take up of that is huge. Behaviour recovery gets hammered in the afternoons by KS2 pupils - we can SEE the affect of kids getting 'hangry' and it costs a damn sight more than £2.20 to deal with them every day.

This isn't a race to the bottom. Yes, there are families out there that don't 'need' these meals. Those families could easily opt out or opt to pay - it's their choice not to. But there are more children that DO need the meals, lets try caring FOR them instead of ABOUT the better off.

• lovely No idea why that in my post

www.change.org/p/theresa-may-save-free-school-lunches

Surely free school meals should be for the very poor (ie the existing up to £17K threshold).

Child benefit provides a subsidy to help feed the families of the "working poor" - i.e. those with no-one earning more than £60k in the family (sliding scale from £50k).

Families with an earner of over £60k and not providing their child with adequate food absolutely need to be reported to SS and dealt with for neglect.

Not a fan of universal school meals here. Help should be directed to those who need it, not freebies for the wealthy.

I think in general people don't have an issue with children getting free school meals, when they qualify for them though whatever benefit they get. It's the totally free school meals that everyone else gets (think from age four to seven)? that isn't needed. The majority of families can afford to pay for a school lunch. There is no need to pay for this for them. It slightly annoys me that when my kids were little, we paid for everything, school meals, childcare the lot and now people in the same category as me, good earners, get this for free and we are paying for it in our taxes.
As for teachers providing fruit at school out of their own pocket, kids are hungry all the time...its a fact of life...perhaps if school allowed parents to give them a more substantial snack, they wouldn't be so hungry.
I don't doubt that there are kids out there who need free lunches, but there are an awful lot who don't. I also don't doubt that a lot of parents provide a rubbish packed lunch...but that doesn't mean everyone else has to pay for them to get fed. If that parent can afford to feed her child, then that is what she should be doing. Often it's ignorance about diet and food, not a lack of money.