to have mixed feelings about this school's actions

[brizzledrizzle]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-46877217

The school have some parents who have not been paying for their children's school lunches to the extent that the school are owed £1000. They have now said that children may be given toast or a bread roll for lunch if their parents owe over £10. It's only affecting pupils in year 3-6 as the others get a universal free school meal.

I'm in two minds about it, parents need to take responsibility for paying for their children (or applying for free school meals if eligible) but the school have a responsibility to the children to educate them and if they've had a couple of slices of toast then are they going to be able to concentrate properly in the afternoons if they are hungry?
If they are from poor families then the school lunch might be their only decent meal so it's going to affect their nutrition if their parents can't/won't provide a nutritious meal. Maybe the school need to do more to raise awareness of applying for free school meals?
I can't make my mind up really if they are right or wrong to do this.

Money is tight. We switched to packed lunches last year from (admittedly very poor) school dinners. My children get a sandwich at a cost of what? 20/30p depending on filling - in fact it's probably much less than this. A piece of fruit is about the same. I bake cookies or cake each week but last week bought them cupcakes which I think were 12 for £1. They are currently having a frube (yogurt tube) as they were on offer for 9 for £1 but I won't buy if not. They get a savoury snack like popcorn (which you could make yourself if money is really tight for pennies), currently mine are having mini cheaders. I got tubs after Christmas in the sales and a tub does 13 bags of 12 crackers - I wish I had bought more than 2 tubs now, will pick up more this week if I see them. But you can get value crisps for about 10p a pack. Then they just have water provided by the school as a drink.

I do vary the above up depending on what we have in. They will often have left over past with sauce for example. I purchased some mini thermos to send home made soup etc except then don't keep food warm. Dd is happy with barley warm soup or beans though so she will often have this. A handful or two of frozen veg with a spoon of stack powder costs next to nothing but makes a lot of soup. I make a batch then freeze small bags of it for dd.

I have two DC's and I spend no more than £10 a week maximum on school dinners but often it is much less than this. There really is no excuse not to send your children to school with nothing.

It is not the schools responsibility to feed your children it is a parents and only a parents responsibility.

I would be interested what you would do if an ACTUAL hungry child was stood in front of you? A child that you knew had not eaten breakfast and had no lunch? Because that's the reality.

Parents absolutely do have the responsibility to feed and care for their children - unfortunately in the real world we know this doesn't happen for every child. And many times ss are not involved enough.
On many occasions I have fed a child toast,fruit,yogurt,milk.

Even found a winter coat for a child who came to school only in a jumper when it was snowing.
That's the depressing reality. A school shouldn't have to feed a child but sadly they do.

I have a RL friend who, through no fault of her own, had to have her younger 2 DC on FSMs. The school they went to actively segregated the FSM children from the others, so EVERYONE knew.
It wasn't a case of the parent's pride, it was for the sake of the children themselves that FSM weren't always applied for - what an awful way that school behaved, to poverty-shame the children for something over which they had no control.

Hopefully that's all been dealt with no (was a few years ago) and nothing like that happens again - but if it still does then no, I don't think it's "selfish" of parents to put their "pride" before feeding their children, not in those circumstances anyway.

Schools in this day and age should be much better at sorting out things so that FSM children aren’t instantly obvious. It’s very easy to do, it just takes thought and organisation. And a leadership team that gives a shot.

If I was the school I would be very clear that if a debt built up such that food would be stopped that I would be contacting social services. This is neglect. Parents sending their kids in expecting someone else to feed them.

If you have not got enough money to feed your kids you need to be taking responsibility for that and contacting external agencies.

I think you’d be surprised at how many of the parents in debt to the school actually can afford to pay, but don’t because they don’t see why they should. Also a lot would have been able to pay a small debt of £10 at the time, but now can’t afford to pay of £1000.

I think the school is being smart to lower the level of debt people can get into.

It isn’t the school’s responsibility to feed the children. Too many people seem to think that the child is totally the school’s responsibility once they step through the gate, and get offended that they have to feed them in school and help them learn out of school.

My DS has packed lunch - I spend less than £5 a week on his lunches at Aldi and I'm not particularly budget conscious. Small loaf, cheese, yoghurt, crisps and a couple of carrots.

I get that food poverty is a real problem - if someone is referred to a food bank for example, does this cover school meals too? Is there any temporary provision between FSM and having to pay that can be accessed?

I moved to UK as an adult so I haven't gone through the school system. I personally think that in state schools the lunch should be free for all students. In the years that the Education is mandatory and kids have long days, they should be properly fed with healthy nutritious food. I know it's expensive but ok think it is possible with some rearrangements. I'm biased due to growing up in the socialist Scandinavia.

Parents have an obligation and responsibility to feed and provide for their children.

Sadly, in the last few years, responsibilities have been forgotten and an emphasis on rights has been what counts. See MN.

Parents who do not provide lunches for their children should be reported to social services. Making sure your child has food is a fundamental need.

I don't think it's "selfish" of parents to put their "pride" before feeding their children, not in those circumstances anyway.

It is always selfish to refuse FSM if the alternative is literally sending your child to school with no food. How can you put anything including potential bullying or gossip before providing the most basic necessities for your own child?

I don't think it's selfish either. I think it's neglect.

I think they school are right too. They don't get a budget to feed children so the money comes from elsewhere so the children of parents who do pay miss out on things. How is that fair.

School should inform SS when a parent fails to feed a child as it's neglect. There's no excuse for it whatsoever. You would work extra or cut back rather than not feed a child. It's inexcusable imo.

I think schools are much better at not identifying FSM children that’s historically was the case. I’ve worked in and visited many schools and I think that efforts are made to make not at all obvious who has FSM. But, just as children and parents are aware who is on the ‘top’ table and who isn’t, it gets around.

I think that there would have to be a whole lot more than not providing lunch, for social services to become involved. I’d agree that it could certainly be a red flag for more serious issues, but I don’t think it would be enough to trigger action.

There will be some parents, for whom non payment is an oversight, some for whom it’s because they have no money to pay and some who choose deliberately not to. They’re the ones who should be concentrated on. I’d bet that most schools know who can’t and who won’t pay and this is perhaps a way to shame those who won’t. Toast or bread is better than nothing surely.

about a Government policy that creates poverty amongst parent

No, the parents create their own situation. The government has no say in it.

I get peoples circumstances can change but the reality is many don't plan for the costs of children or dont do their utmost to support them when things do change. It's far easier to blame it on the government than admit they made poor choices and are continuing to do so.

Feeding a chid is a basic. With child benefit there is never a reason to not feed a child even if a parent isnt providing themselves.

I’m with Midnite I used to keep the makings of sandwiches in my cupboard to feed hungry children in my class, along with spare kagools, new underwear, sanitary products and numerous other items that parents should have provided. I paid for them, or resourced them, because my school couldn’t afford to.
Schools are unable to fund many of the educational needs of their children, let alone the added social care stuff. So no, schools shouldn’t have to do this. They try to fill the void because no one else does, but it’s not their responsibility. Perhaps theparents should run a fund to support the needy children in their own school, the ones they see every day and don’t know or feel any responsibility for.