To ask why do people not working claiming FSM get this for free?

[Sprinkledusting]

I’ve just discovered if you claim FSM and even if you’re not working, you can send your child to morning/after school club for free. And not just in our school either.
There are also sports clubs and holiday clubs during school holidays that state they are free for those who claim FSM. To claim free school meals your income has to be so low that you’re not working full time or not working at all, which of the people I know, most are not.
But those who are working have to pay for breakfast club/holiday clubs.

Can someone explain to me the logic behind this? As I simply don’t understand it.

That's not how funding works

Out of interest, what income did you declare in order to be granted a mortgage? How much deposit did you put up? What were your expenses in moving? What are the repayments like?

I can pretty much guarantee that whatever it was, you had more income than I had, were able to save, so it was significantly greater than your living expenses and it was more secure than any job I was able to get.

The problem is that once someone qualifies they then stay on FSM for years regardless of income which is an absolute joke. It makes me really cross as the money could go to those in need. If someone qualifies for fSM in realtime under the current criteria I’ve no issue with holiday club/ food vouchers as they are on a really low income. The problem is the legacy claimants and possibly the fact that maintenance payments aren’t taken into account so many get it and aren’t on low income. Universal credit was meant to encompass everything so I’ve not idea why they can’t just pay people food vouchers through that and instead have to operate an expensive extra scheme

To make sure vulnerable children are seen regularly, and fed regularly.

Yep this is absolutely true according to a Mum I spoke to. She’s called to tell them they don’t need it (they only needed it whilst Husband wasn’t in work for a short period of time) and the kids are on it for their school life apparently.

Another family could be seriously struggling but just above the threshold for help, so it really is a completely ridiculous system. Surely it should be checked yearly for any changes to income and adjusted accordingly?

And I have never claimed benefits. So by your logic I should be jealous of you and start threads about the unfairness of it all.

They also get to go on residential without paying, so they don't miss out

Well I think you will find the number on FSM with need far outweighs the few who may not qualify according to criteria.

If a child has ever been on FSM then in my last school they fell under the pupil premium category. Some no longer qualified for FSM under the local authority checks.

easier to teach kids who aren’t hungry

This has been shown to be incredibly impactful for chn living in poverty/deprivation. Socio economics pretty much define our lives - if you are born in poverty you are statistically likely to suffer poor health, education outcomes, etc etc. This intervention has had significant impact in addressing these outcomes.

Or do you think these children should suffer because they were born poor?

When I first graduated from university in 2005 I got my first NHS band 5 job full time.
my 3 kids got free school meals for a couple of years, they did while I was at university too.

Circumstances obviously have changed. My husband bought a house when he had a good paying job. He was made unemployed less than a year later and has been able to get a well paid job since. Just because they have a house doesn't mean they are rolling in it now.

This is also a good point- the kids get seen if they turn up for the holiday clubs, so it plays a safeguarding role.

Statistically kids on fsm are at greater risk of harm/violence, so it a) keeps them off the street getting lured into bad situations, and b) keeps them out of violent homes and means there are chances for professionals to see if there are any issues with them.

Exactly this!

"Wah wah, I want free wraparound care, I want free school meals. I basically want my kids to be as disadvantaged as possible, just so I can get free stuff!"

All recipients of FSM are not working? They are all children, surely?

Not being flippant but you are seeing this as a 'gift' for the parents. It's not, it's for the children.

No, because getting that repeated "checking" right every time would be expensive in itself and worse still because some children will fall through the safety net because their parents wont keep on doing the paperwork every year or wont be able to do it correctly. Just because one Mum doesn't need it any more, there aren't very many Mums in that position of never needing it again.

Maybe more children should be included and maybe the gateway should be UC not FSM.

Am I being a bit stupid, are those earning under £7.5k not being topped up by UC/WTC? How are they different financially? Also I wonder when the stats for poorer outcomes statistics were first and last looked at.

In my opinion, anything that supports vulnerable children, and gives them every opportunity to break free of the cycle of poverty and low aspirations, has to be a good thing.
The idea of the clubs is to have the children in a safe, predictable, controlled environment, and to support their access into school.

As I've said IRL many times before, it's not the childs fault they're poor and/or have morons for parents.

I was going to say the same

Because UC is designed so that the more you earn, the more UC you get pound for pound. So those working less hours, are worse off.

Do you mind me asking - are your HAF clubs more than 4 hours long? Ours are here so not really suitable for working parents.

Don't think like that!
Your house, however shabby and old {depending on where it is in UK of course} should be going up in value over time, and your mortgage payments will be reducing.

Renting really is a mugs game {unless the rent is paid by the taxpayer}

But yes, I understand how you are financially worse off by being above the threshold.

That's one hell of a sweeping statement right there...

So for example, I get UC and in December I got a bonus so I brought home £2200 in my monthly pay packet after tax and pension. I got £170 in UC on top of that. If I was unemployed, I'd just get £1400 in UC. So I'm better off working.

His is all part of safeguarding vulnerable and disadvantaged children. It means they have someone keeping an eye out for them, they get fed and feel part of something.

Most of these children will come from homes that can hinder children’s learning due to situations that have happened. Eg emotional abuse, physical abuse domestic violence, bereavement, substance abuse.

please don’t feel Jealous as this help could support a needy child. Growing up i was one of these children as one of my parents committed suicide in our home and the other parent was doing heir best to support the house, their children and keep a job to keep a roof over our heads while grieving their spouse. THis help would have made a huge difference to our lives enabling my other parent to earn more money .

so please do not judge other people or feel jealous, concentrate on your own family.

What do you mean by 'take advantage of that.' Do you mean they claim what they are entitled to including being Pupil premium money into the school?