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.

If you have a mortgage presumably you own your home, the money you pay into your mortgage now is securing your future and affording future stability. Even if your disposable income is less right now in the long-term you are going to be better off than those families who are on low incomes and so will your kids who will likely get an inheritance from it. If being on benefits is really a better life you could sell your home and move into rented accommodation where you can have the housing paid, but presumably you would t want to do that because you recognise that actually being a homeowner is a privileged position compared to renting when it comes to the future, even if it makes life a little harder right now.

@WithACatLikeTread please quote me where I 'made out' that the op was well off. You won't be able to, because I didn't. I really don't care if you don't enjoy owning your house. You own a property. You are lucky and it is a privilege many, including the majority of the children the OP is jealous of, cannot ever be able to afford.

We are long-term renters; despite both working ft we simply can't afford to buy. Would I describe us as "poor?" No.

Most of us recognise the privilege of owning but get annoyed that we are told we are well off as is often said on here. You can struggle to pay that mortgage. It also sounds like OP is struggling with bills and buying her child food. I can see why she might be a little envious.

Are you being sarcastic? UC is very low.

Okay you didn't say that but you said she was less poor than you. It sounds like she isn't though if she is struggling to pay for food etc.

How is that then on such low incomes? And why are schools finding that such children are often going hungry at home? Genuine question. Do you think the parents are so shortsighted / stupid etc. that they spend the money on toys instead of food?

@WithACatLikeTread What on earth are you on about? I didn't say the OP was 'less poor' than me. You're making things up again.

Those who own a home/have a mortgage were once upon a time earning more money. Circumstances change, hence having to be on benefits. Those without a mortgage get their rent paid. Home owners don't get their mortgage paid. At best, you can claim interest which has to be paid back when circumstances change again.

The government have really done a number on people if we are all fighting like rats in a sack because we resent vulnerable and deprived children from having free access to breakfast etc

I hate these threads.
I am not on any benefits and my husband and me are doing ok. Our 12 yr old has friends who have FSM. I could not ever look one of those kids in the eye and tell them they are not worthy of the help they receive. The kids know they are poor they dont ever need it hammering home. They know life is unfair and tough cos they live it every day, Have some compassion for people who are less fortunate please.

£75k and claiming free school meals? Disgusting.

Sometimes the people who nearly qualify for a benefit are worse off than the people who only just qualify. It's awful and unfair for those affected but there has to be a cut off somewhere.

We were homeless for 7 months last year. We didn't qualify for fsm because dh worked so we were getting working tax credit. My DS2 was in year 10 and struggling to have a quiet space to do his homework. My DS3 was struggling with his behaviour at school because he was trying so hard to be well behaved and not bother anyone at home and then trying to be good at school too. He has ADHD and needs time and space to scream and run around sometimes which he wasn't getting.

To qualify for FSM you have to be extremely poor. Those children, even in the most loving of homes will be struggling with things like homelessness, hunger, overcrowding, parents being disabled or carers and the list goes on. These things can make it harder for children and affect their education.

Simple.

Imagine you are pregnant now. But something goes wrong when you are in labour so your child is born with cerebral palsy.

Your child struggles to feed and will not hit the 'normal' milestones.

You don't have much choice but for you or your partner to give up work to care for your child.

Your home will need to be adapted as your child grows, they will need specialist equipment so even if that is provided to you free you are going to be doing a lot of paperwork.

Your child may have multiple hospital appointments, not always at your local hospital for physio, treatment, assessments for equipment.

The stress of all this takes its toll on your relationship and you are now a single parent.

If you were to find yourself in this situation OP don't you think your older children would benefit from breakfast club and afterschool club?

This is not uncommon scenario and is one of many scenarios why children of parents who are not working need access to those clubs.

I never knew about this so learning something. Hmm the point made about keeping children away from unstable homes. Shouldn't that be addressed more so?
I came from a low income family lived on an estate and all my mates lived there to. as my parents worked we didn't get any help although minimum wage. But my mates who's parents chose not to work, yes chose, were giving everything for free. But they still ended up making poor life decisions all of them. All female, all knocked up at the age of 13-16 all repeated the cycle of their parents. So all these freebies never helped my school mates on my estate. Just showed them they could live with freebies from the government. One in fact told me that was her plan when she was 13 she ended up having 4 kids by 18 and giving the house she wanted. 4 different dads and had everything for free.

So as much as this sounds lovely, in practice not seen it work at all.

My nephew has CP and the outcome mentioned never happened for them. It can but not common at all. Obvs Mum is part of CP groups and all the parents work some p/t and some f/t. And becuase of this they don't get much help it all. Most certainly not from school.

Every child doesn't need it.

I agree

Why should people on low incomes subsidise the wealthy?

🤦🏻‍♀️ this never happens. Low earns take out more than they contribute. That’s how it rightfully works so your above sentence makes no sense.

@Sprinkledusting Housing benefit makes a MASSIVE difference to being on benefits.
{I have never received Housing Benefit}
I do know of families with mortgages who are much worse off because they have to pay household insurances for the mortgage as well.

BUT.... remember, your house will hopefully increase in value, and you will be far better off eventually than renting and getting that paid.

It is difficult for people in your situation {been there!}

No the school get 'pupil premium' which is more funding.

If you have ever had FSM you get PP for the rest of your time at school. The school can use that money for set purposes. So it could be your child receiving extra tuition paid for by PP.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium/pupil-premium#:~:text=Pupil%20premium%20can%20be%20used,also%20benefit%20non%2Ddisadvantaged%20pupils.

What outcome do you want if you don't want kids who need extra help to receive it?

Statistically our poorest children are least likely to thrive in school, to go on to higher education or have a career. They are most likely to be in the benefit system themselves as adults, more likely to have health issues and have a lower life expectancy than average. Their parents are also more likely to have health issues .

The current two year funding and the school clubs/haf program are all about levelling up. Giving them opportunities to help them thrive, to nurture them and to try to lessen the gap.

You may feel cheated because you can't afford to treat your kids but (I assume) you are role modelling what a stable home situation looks like, you are able to work and provide for your children and they are thriving?

Not all of our poorest children will struggle academically/in life and not all of our affluent children will thrive but as said above it's about recognising the most vulnerable groups and looking at how to support them. Also you never know what is happening behind closed doors. It's easy to assume others are having a charmed life but that may not be the case.

Also parks, lots of museums, on line trails are free. Plenty of ways to entertain kids for next to nothing.

This.

It's not about saying FSM automatically equals a bad home life on an individual level. However on a population scale FSM are a really good way of predicting deprivation and associated outcomes and in policy terms it's a way of identifying interventions to improve some of those outcomes.

OP, we earn too much to qualify for child benefit for my 2 children. But we have a mortgage, huge council tax bills, childcare costs, etc etc and get no help whatsoever. Even on very healthy salaries we struggle and get no help. We have to cut our cloth and say no - my kids miss out on things wealthier families can afford. Should I be jealous of your benefits?

No one is saying this. It's a population level way of improving outcomes because many kids with unstable, unloving homes are in receipt of FSMs. It's not a policy designed to upset or stigmatise, it has real tangible, proven benefits to kids who need it.

Its a safety net for children in unstable homes. Its designed to help children whose home situation is such that they are better off in a nursery than in their home environment. It's to try and stop the cycle of extreme poverty from continuing. Intergenerational unemployment and poverty exist in the UK. Its to give these children a chance and it might not even be much of a one for many of them. Not every child who gets it will be in such an extreme situation, unfortunately far too many will be. You might not have the money for holiday clubs, but I expect your DS doesn't come from a home that fits this criteria and that he's got a lot more chances in life then most of the kids that qualify for this scheme.