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?

I think whether the majority or not massively depends on the school and area. If you're in a nicer affluent area, got into your first choice of school that may be true.

There was a study done, that said 30% of kids don't get breakfast, 20% worry about not having enough food at home and 16% above KS1 were also skipping lunch or getting not enough when free school meals ended and parents couldn't afford school meals or much of a packed lunch.

https://www.magicbreakfast.com/what-we-do/media-centre/fact-file/ researched some of this.

There will be neglected children too where they may not class as being in poverty but due to parental neglect or substance abuse etc their breakfast needs are overlooked.

You don’t get it do you? There is so much more to school than formal teaching and homework club. Let them be, play, socialise, eat…they are children, not junior captains of industry.

When i was at primary in the early 80s there was no such thing as homework, That didnt start till high school

I posted a reply to a similar post a year or two ago…
Our children should be cared for, fed and educated. I don’t understand that after paying for buildings, maintenance, electricity, text books, labs, gyms, exercise books, computers, smart boards and staff, the government balks at tacking on 2 healthy meals for all children.
No one will convince me that this country cannot afford it.

Maybe at your school. At mine it was only spellings, time tables and reading until Y4 but from Y5 onwards we had proper homework .

I think the problem has been identified (children’s outcomes / attainment harmed through poverty) but the solution proposed is a nonsense. What’s actually needed imo - return of Sure Start (yes, even when some mc people use it), more funding for early years intervention, bigger budgets for schools, higher minimum wage, better job security, better quality housing and housing protections. And so on. But pigs might fly. So here’s four loaves of white bread / a few kg of porridge and off you go, we’ll pretend we’ve addressed the issue.

I run a food bank, for context.

@TheWayTheLightFalls I agree that the problems are much deeper. We shouldn’t need food banks, but here we are.

I think breakfast at school would at least reach the children most in need and help the schools in terms of attendance and classroom management. In the grand scheme of things it’s doable and won’t take decades to sort out, like poor housing.

I’d love it if it did reach the children most in need, but I expect that those children will be the ones whose parents can’t/won’t get them in early for school to have breakfast, or even who don’t see the message from the school that there’s now this great thing available to them.

I’m not assuming stupidity or laziness on the part of the parents, but overwork and stress, and perhaps language barriers. (No doubt there are stupid or lazy parents too.)

So those children will continue turning up at the usual time / late, having not eaten, and the staff will continue doing what they always do, handing them some toast or a banana from their desk drawer.

As part of my job I try to get parents signed up to Healthy Start for 0-4s, which is as damn near to free money as a programme can be. It’s like pushing water uphill.

Did suite start at work really though. Some of he first kids who would've grown up with the advantages of sure start are parents now. So they should have grown up with thparents who were " taught* the parenting skills so wete able to pass them on. . If that was the case he surely wouldn't need to be sure start again

From what I remember IN REALITY ( my youngest grew up in sure start times) was that the opportunities and facilities were rarely used but the parents it's was intended " for. I live in a fairly affluent town yet the next town has not pockets of deprivation. My son went to the sure start nursery.in the next town. Many of the classes etc were attended by the parents in the better off areas. The ones who would've gained more from the things offered didn't attend. They were still hanging around the shopping centers etc

At 6th form they obviously just didn't bother making their breakfast. Likely sod all to do with poverty. None of mine as teens had breakfast before school. Not sure to poverty or no food in the house merely they preferred to eat at 10am break time.

I also cannot eat as soon as I get out of bed of a morning

Many of them didn't either bring lunch or buy lunch either.

My daughter isn't in one of the trial areas and at the moment is paying quite a lot for Breakfast Club so that she can leave for work earlier. I used to take them for breakfast at our house but they prefer to spend more time in bed and have her drop them by car on her way to work at 7.45. They had cereal, eggs and toast with me and I think that they'd be better off here than just having cereal and toast.
I don't know how the breakfasts will be paid for if they are all free, though of course not everyone will get their children to school before 8 a.m. as @TheWayTheLightFalls says.

6th formers are old enough to deal with that themselves

I think you might have missed the point here, if I start work at 9am dropping my child off at 8.45 won't work as like most people if u have at least a 30mins commute. 8.15 I might stand a chance.

Whilst starting work at 9.30am might sound OK, alot of workplaces aren't set up for it.

I think you've missed my point too!

There are two reasons for this, many, MANY children come to school hungry. There are differing reasons for this, but whatever the reasons, children are hungry.

The other major factor is that if a child is brought in for breakfast, they are now in school. This is not about education, but about safeguarding vulnerable children and I think it’s a brilliant idea.

I’m not against it, I’m not against feeding children but I don’t understand why it isn’t being structured in the same way free school meals have been funded for years.

My son attends the breakfast club at his school. It starts at 8, is run by the school (ie not sub-contracted to a private company) and costs a fiver - which I bet is a hell of a lot more than the government will give schools to run this scheme. I can afford to pay it and I don’t think people who can afford to pay for it should get it for free.

What do you think that they are actually honest about?

Some of these mumsnetters really don't have a damn clue about the level of poverty & despair so many are living with. I was going to say it's depressing but sickening is a better word.

I am so with you on this one.

Children going to school without coats. Holes in their shoes with wet feet in winter. No food.

Whatever you think of the parents / why this is, FEED them at school. It's wrong.

I support the idea. I was not given breakfast as a child before school. I believe it impacted my education.

I think it is be necessary but we are missing ourselves if we think this is exclusively about poverty. Poor parenting and fecklessness contribute to a situation where parents do not feel it is their responsibility to place a cheap important nutrition in front of their children. In effect fsm and breakfast clubs equate to food vouchers that have to be imposed because of poor financial decision making of parents.

No one pretends a life on benefits is easy and benefits need to be set at a level that is financially viable and also allows incentive to work. However the benefits system is not cruel enough to have parents not being able to feed their children in a basic manner. This is the decision parents are making.

Schools are forced out of a sense of human compassion to support such schemes but at one level such schemes act as enabler of a culture where parents feel that the state acts as a substitute parent providing the vast majority of a child's needs. The reluctance of successive governments to rem the the 2 child benefit cap shows we don't want to promote child baring as cost free and ultimately the responsibility of the state.

Maybe we need to look at the ultimate causes of breakfast clubs, absent fathers who don't provide for children, opportunities for work for single mothers, basic culinary skills in the household, basic budgeting etc.

We need to feed hungry children but we shouldn't be disingenuous about causes and allow parents to take responsibility .

But what people here are saying is that not the breakfast club wouldn't be needed for people like this, but the money could be better targeted.

So on the basic level, you have £100 for children in the school.
Is it better to give 100 children a breakfast for £1 in order to give the 5 children who are the position you describe breakfast?
Or would it be better to give those 5 children in the position you describe breakfast and new shoes/coat for £20?

I'd say the latter.

And having been involved in new schemes set up to help the people who are struggling, what happens more often than not, the 100 children that come to make use of the scheme do not include those 5 children. Why? Because the parents are embarrassed (yes, even free open for anyone. I've had many conversations with parents who won't make use of something similar because "if my ex/mil/ss/sister/neighbour sees me they'll know I can't afford it and then my dc will be taken away"), disorganised (so don't get up in time), ill (so unable to get up in time) etc.

The point of breakfast for all is that there is no distinction and therefore no shame.

When I was little we had free milk at break time (which I hated but drank) and my kids had free fruit, all during the school day. Maybe moving ‘breakfast’ to break time would help?

What sort of shitty parent would literally let their child go hungry because they were embarrassed?

In Germany things like childcare are charged on the parents ability to pay. So every child goes but the amount you pay varies depending on your means. No shame and not as ruinous expensive as free for everyone.