To think that funding free breakfast clubs is wrong-headed?

[WaahWaahWinston]

Government is to fund free breakfast clubs for all primary school children. This doesn't strike me as the best use of money for schools; I imagine there are better things to spend money on that would be of greater educational benefit to children.

It may help a tiny proportion of families but breakfast is probably the easiest and cheapest meal for families to provide to children. (I doubt breakfast clubs will be providing full English or other cooked breakfasts of the sort that one could argue families are hard-pushed to provide.)

So I don't see the compelling need. Why spend money on this of all things, when there must be other improvements that could be funded which would improve education specifically?

You will need at least 2 people even if it was for 1 child.

Charities are not neutral arbiters of the truth. By their own measure they are saying the poverty line is below 60% median income. So the bottom 40% of households. No wonder they work up the children in poverty figure to one third of all children.

Some children do live in poverty. Not one should. Not one should go to school hungry. I can still believe that and not believe the 30% figure.

^^This is what I'd be afraid of. The children I know of who were delivered to school without breakfast tended to be from chaotic homes and were regularly late to school. No way they'd be taken to school an hour early for a piece of toast.

Not all women want to be SAHMs or unemployed. The lack of inadequate wraparound care is why many women are forced in to universal credit as any wages they make would go on childcare and there wouldn’t be enough for living. Women are allowed to have ambition and kids, let’s stop making them feel bad about either.

the breakfast clubs are ‘at least 30mins’ but in reality could be longer, making it easier to secure a job that works with your childcare. Not every employer can bend over backwards to accommodate unrealistic hours for 10s of women

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. More saying that politicians haven’t suddenly developed a heart and want to feed hungry children. This is more about getting parents back into work (and thus reducing the benefits bill / increasing taxes). If they truly cared about hungry children, they’d pay an actually decent amount rather than 70p

If they're drug addicts in appalling conditions, I can't see them getting up to get their child to breakfast club at 8am.

The solution is not solving the problem.

I've just looked at the early adopters trial list. All the ones in my city are in the richest area of the city. Not a single one in the most poverty stricken areas.

Feeding hungry kids are they?

Except head teachers!

Are you suggesting the school is making a profit off the 60p funding per pupil?

How is that what you read? I’m saying it’s clearly not the governments plan to be feeding hungry children. It’s part of a much bigger agenda.

I don't know what the answer is but it is heartbreaking to hear from some of you TAs and teachers that so many children are arriving at school without anything to eat.
Perhaps those of us who are not on the breadline should consider suggesting likeminded parents from their school rota purchasing breakfast items for those children to help support school funds ? Or even voluntary donations to pay for staff to facilitate it? I agree to an extent that feeding ALL children seems expensive and impossible to find, HOWEVER I know personally children who's parents have reasonable money - due to wages and UC top up and also receive help from neighbours and extended family's to ensure food is available to children as they worry etc but the parent somehow manages to have professional highlights, nails done regularly and lashes and new clothes yet plead poverty and children are constantly hungry and unkempt- I don't think they would be necessarily get Pupil premium so do they slip the net otherwise ?but those children need support and food too - in this case not due to lack of money in the house but more the selfish way money is spent in the household. Since moving I see this more and more - often adding cigarettes or alcohol too. Thank you all of you superstars that slip a hungry child a meal/ wash their clothes etc.. we should all do more to help. This topic has given me a lot to think about how I can help locally.

I've worked in a free-at-the-point-of-use breakfast club for 15 years (in Wales, where it has LONG been a thing ) alongside being a TA, and I see the difference that it makes every day. YABU!

That doesn’t answer my question.

What do you think their “vested interest” is?

Scotland have been doing this for years. I'm assuming it's been evidenced to be beneficial.

I don't think charities publishing data that supports their mission, or charities carefully selecting data that supports their mission is anything new, is it?

My DC goes to breakfast club 3 mornings per week. It costs £5 per session. I can’t understand how it’s going to work if the school are getting 60p per child. Where will they get the staff? Is the standard going to drop? It’s a bit worrying really.

All schools should have breakfast/ afterschool club but they shouldn’t be free, at least not for everyone.

No objection in principle, but I don't know if the logistics will work.

Exactly this. And in a lot of schools they have a staggered lunch because not everyone can get into the hall/canteen at the same time. How are they going to provide food for each child within 30 minutes? Where are the kids going to eat it?

I’m entirely in favour of kids having a good breakfast and trying to counteract poverty. But I’m not sure that giving parents like me the last half-hour of breakfast club “free” is going to achieve that.

The scheme is so poorly thought-out it's laughable.

It's all well and good saying the 60-odd pence are more than enough to feed a child, but the Maths definitely isn't math-ing, even with the money for the start-up taken into account.

Because it's not just the cost of a piece of toast or a bowl of porridge or cereal.

• It's the energy cost of running the toaster, hob or the fridge to store milk. It's the energy cost of running the kettle a few hundred times.
• It's the cost of gas to heat the hall, to run the lights and the extra water for the increased loo and handwashing trips.
• It's the staffing cost for opening the place early (because you cannot just rock up with the kids - half an hour early means at least 45mins early for staff), including caretakers, cleaners and the actual staff running this
• It's the cost of replacing items once they inevitably break.
• It's the cost of staff time to either go shopping for food or to take in deliveries.
• It's the cost of PAT testing the equipment annually.
• The cost of food hygiene training if you use LSAs, teaching staff or others who do not normally handle food.
• It's the cost of staff time to clear up after the kids have finished - and there is always a mess after food times.
• It's the increased wear and tear on floors, furniture and crockery.

And the logistics of who will run this have not been discussed.

• The added time for caretakers.
• The added time for cleaners.
• The need for a fully-trained first-aider who will be legally required to be on site.
• The added time for either teachers (good luck mandating that when directed time is already pushed by so many other obligations), LSAs or midday supervisors - all of whom would have to be paid.
• The need for reception staff to allow students in early while ensuring that students are safeguarded on site from anyone else who'd enter.
• The added time for SLT, one of whom would need to be there in case of behaviour emergencies.
• The added time for staff who search certain students for prohibited items (drugs, weapons) - we have some only allowed in after all students are in lessons, but with the scheme being universal, we can hadly exclude them from it as it's those students especially who are very deprived.

All of that does not just cost 60-odd pence. And that's why schools with someone who does the costing properly have pulled out.

And if you want to go even further with unintended consequences:

• It's the loss of earnings for childminders and other childcare staff - even half an hour a day will be huge when spread over a year, so be prepared for those places to become even more scarce.
• It's the change of schedules to public transport companies, who'd be expected to either run earlier or more often to accommodate children who either go to breakfast club or don't.

@mids2019 I echo your post

I agree entirely. My point was that some parents would take advantage even though they didn't need it. Someone on here mentioned that their school's club was staffed by volunteering teachers. Why should a teacher give up their time to enable someone else to leave their kids and go off to (maybe better paid) work? Focus the funding and resources on those children who really need it.

Because some needy kids may benefit from it

Wild idea. Much better to whip up hate a la Daily Mail

Yes but Scotland have a competent government who quite like helping their people.

Wow you have a lot of time on your hands.

You do have a point about extra costs but some of your points are so OTT.

Wear and tear of flooring? You do realise that schools already have breakfast clubs they're just not funded?

Transport companies changing their timetables costing them more money? Stop it.

Honestly, as a teacher who has worked in many different schools in many different areas…just do it by the percentage of children on free school meals. I’ve worked in schools with 2% (definitely don’t need breakfast clubs) up to more than 50%. We used to buy toast and cereal for the children in these schools with our own money, and wash their clothes. These are the schools that need the money. Providing a crappy 60p breakfast is pointless in some schools - I wouldn’t want my child eating the shite 60p will buy.