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 they’re a brilliant idea. It means fewer kids will be late, they’re all fed and ready to learn, and parents are more likely to be able to get to work for 9am.

That was the initial plan - free breakfasts and 1/3 of a teacher per school.

Unfortunately they haven't ring-fenced any money they make. And the chances are that the policy will actually lose money.

The government are funding 4 KCs to fight the case against the legislation through the courts. The number of private schools closing is at an all time high. The number of private school pupils transferring to state (or opting for state instead of private at key entry points) is likely to be heading for the kind of numbers that means the policy will cost rather than make money.

And that's before you add in the cost of more EHCP applications and the cost of more SEN kids in state.

At 63p per pupil per day a lot of schools have already pulled out of the scheme as it's unaffordable.

My DC’s breakfast club is £6.50 per day, 7.30 - 8.45am. Perhaps they are making a huge profit, but 63p or whatever the gov funding is seems way off the mark. Another badly thought out initiative!

Id lift the two child cap THIS is what THEY would do if it was about the kids!!!!!!!!!!

I think it’s more about getting more parents back into work than giving children free meals…

I believe it was determined that it would be more cost-effective to just roll it out as an overall policy than to do individual means testing. I think it also has been determined to have helped school attendance and social cohesion, and the eliminating the stigma around poverty/fsm ultimately creates more a more productive society with more social mobility.

I was involved with school governance at the time it was rolled out, and I think the analyses were very heavily leaning towards it ultimately being cost effective (iirc PwC did one).

It was a mayoral decision, so people have the right to elect or decline to elect someone based around their policy positions.

Has your school been offered a trial? It's 78p per child for PPG compared to 60p for non PPG. Does your school have the space and staff who would want to start work earlier? The only other funding is £1000 for the summer term.

Should those parents be prosecuted alongside all those other parents who take their kids out of school to go on holiday in term time because it’s cheaper? Or is that not the same thing in your world?

I don't buy the let's give it everyone to get rid of the stigma arguement tbh. Even when I was at school I had free meals and no one knew because you paid by finger print.
Now I have children in primary school and you order it online I believe this is the case in most schools. There is no way anyone knows who has free meals and who paid.

It's a very good way to spend money imo. Kids who are hungry can't learn and might disrupt things for others. If it's available to all there is no stigma attached, which kids are very aware of. It's an investment in the future of our country.

Exactly, why would child free people pay for other people’s kids to go to nursery, what sort of parents are you that you don’t provide that for your own kids? Talk about freeloaders.

I think it's great but what kind of food will be on offer? Surely providing for less children and spending a bit more would be a better option.

Threads like this make me hang my head in shame at the selfishness of people in this country.

One school I trained in 20-ish years ago used to do something similar, we had a (voluntary) staff rota for taking in a loaf of bread and manning the toasters. Genuinely, I’m thrilled for some of you that you’ve never seen how happy a child can be to get a piece of toast and jam in the morning when they get to school. How they hug the radiators when they get in because they don’t have a coat. It doesn’t fix everything, but it eases their life for a few moments.

What the fuck is actually broken in some of you that you cannot understand this?

I think a lot of people would just see the breakfast club as free childcare before school. Yes - it might help some workers but families should take responsibility for themselves and not keep expecting everybody else to pay.

And 63p per child is £18.90 for 30. For 30 minutes that sounds helpful given that some schools are already funding these themselves.

Primary schools often know which children it is that are likely to come to school hungry. They are fed discretely already with many teachers having a box of cereal hidden in their classroom for such children.

I don't see how exactly it will work and what the exact details will be about who is able to attend. Some of the most vulnerable families have many issues, meaning they don't always get to school on time, so having to turn up even earlier is not going to help them. Additionally there are SEN children with 1:1 requirements that I don't know how schools will be able to staff if they wanted to attend, or whether there will be the ability to say no to these families (whether this would be seen as discrimination).

I still think staff and space could be potential issues in general. I believe it's only 30 mins they need to run for, so who will want a job of potentially 2.5 hours a day unless it's existing staff members who are currently being cut from many schools due to lack of funds. So basically unless there are going to be volunteers, I don't see that being successful either.

*a week (2.5 hours a week).

Presuming thats one minimum wage worker supervising those 20 children, it leaves 20p for actual food.

It’s shocking isn’t it? They are prepared to see children go hungry in order to punish them for being born into poverty or for having feckless parents, absolutely charming people.

But that’s not poverty that’s bad parenting.

How do you think that fewer will be late? If they struggle to get there for 9 (for whatever reason) how is 8.30 going to make it any easier?

Did you benefit from free nursery care? If you did, why can’t you just take responsibility for your own children and not keep expecting everybody else to pay? That’s correct isn’t it?

I answered this above.

Have you ever seen a primary school in a deprived area? It is essential, not a luxury.
Guess people like you don't drive your range rover through those peasanty hoods though.

Fair play to you for funding your children's entire education & healthcare.