to think that breakfast clubs shouldn't be free?

[Undercovamutha]

I have just found our that our local school's breakfast club is free of charge. Apparently this is due to an initiative that is designed to ensure that children (especially those from low income families) eat healthily at breakfast time, and learn that breakfast is an extremely important meal.

I totally agree with this BUT my DD is not from a low income family (although we are by no means wealthy), and the reason we will need the breakfast club is due to work/school start times being difficult to manage. When I was asking the school about how the breakfast club works, they admitted that ALL the parents who send their children to the club do so for the same reason as I will be. Therefore, it is not doing what the funding is there for.

Now I DO NOT want the breakfast club to close as it is essential to me and many others, but surely it should be acknowledged why it is actually in existance - which is not to ensure low income kids eat well, but to ensure that working parents can drop their kids off at 8!

Whilst I haven't exactly got pots of money to spare, I certainly wouldn't mind at the very least paying the cost of the breakfast.

""Fwiw I work for budget supermarket and people buy cereals and lots of bread, poor people. They buy milk aswell with their healthy start vouchers usually. Why are their children not getting breakfast?""

Maybe there are people poor enough not to be able to buy even budget cerals? maybe some people can oly buy enough cereals/bread to give breakfast to their DCs every other day, who knows? Bottom line is some children, through no fault of their own I imagine, do not get breakfast in their house in the morning and I think it is really fantastic that they can get it somewhere else.

You have a good point tethersend but, like you said, that's a bigger debate about where public monies are going and how effectively they're being used.

FioFio, because they run out of food, their was a very well put documentary about 6 months ago about families in dire living conditions in the UK.

One families little child had no bed, he slept on the floor for about 2 years until they could get a home improvement loan, to pay for a bed and paint for his bedroom! then this gets taken off his lone mothers benefit, who had MH problems.

Education and budgeting also plays a massive part in it.

Gosh so much angst and anger over some kids getting a bowl of cereal/glass of juice.

As someone said upthread I can only assume that administering any sort of means testing would cost more than just feeding all comers.

We'd regularly not get breakfast because the bloody milkman was late
Having said that, nobody died as a result.

Don't you know OP "no such thing as a free lunch" you are paying for it, you pay in your taxes.

I think this money could be much better spent providing free lunch for all than breakfast. The truly feckless who dont give kids breakfast couldn't get out of bed in time to get them to school early. Give everybody a free lunch you loss all the admin costs and have all the kids on site. Just so long as they dont feed them crap.

I am genuinely quite scared for some people who've had children over the past 10 years if Labour don't win the next election and who ever comes to power requires them to actually feed, clothe, wash and provide for their own kids.
The shock may kill them.

I cant see why it would cost more in admin to means test it, easily checked once a year like free school meals. The money could then be used for something far more worthwhile.

I dont believe we have true child poverty in this country, those that dont work can have their rent paid by HB, no/little council tax bill and then a benefit (IS/JSA), CTC and CB. There is no excuse not to be able to afford to provide children with food.

Guess you know better than the Child Poverty Action Group, Barnardos and the Rowntree trust then, Happymum. How silly of them to do all that research into child poverty when they could just have asked you!

"I dont believe we have true child poverty in this country"

That's because you've never seen it, Happy.

I've never seen Africa, but I don't dispute its existence.

Who is going to print the forms, chase the forms, check the forms are correctly filled in, check that the information is accurate, confirm that the info given on the forms is true etc?

Admin costs money.

We have kids who don't get fed at home, and no breakfast club. As such, teachers end up bringing in food from their own homes to give the most unfortunate breakfast on the sly. I would far rather there was a breakfast club so YABU, there are some geuinely deprived families around.

"I am genuinely quite scared for some people who've had children over the past 10 years if Labour don't win the next election and who ever comes to power requires them to actually feed, clothe, wash and provide for their own kids."

Can only be a good thing though surely. At the moment the state allows people to have children with no thought as to how they will support them. We need to turn the benefit system back to being a welfare state for those who need short term help between jobs or those with disabilities rather than it being a lifestyle choice for those who choose not to work.

All these gimmicks Labour have done could have funded far better things that would have actually made a far bigger impact.

If parents choose to spend all their money on fags and booze, should we punish the children again by removing state-funded meals in order to teach said parents a lesson?

"There is no excuse not to be able to afford to provide children with food"

Doesn't mean they get that food though does it. Loads of parents are crap and just dont manage it.

Plus some parents are in dire straits with money. You just have to have a few big credit card bills and lose your job. Doing everything you can and spending every penny you have so you dont have to lose your house.

Ah tethersend but which came first the chicken or the egg.
If it's made bloody clear that having a child doesn't generate state support would those poor mites be born in the first place ?
We couldn't have afford two children in Australia but can afford 4 here.

Trust me, there are PLENTY of awful parents out there, and I for one think it is a bloody good thing that there are some systems in place to try to pick up the pieces. Of course not all will agree, but the children aren't the guilty parties here, do we leave them to starve or worse to prove a point to the parents?

Until working at my current school I would have had far harsher views than this believe me, my upbring and family's beliefs are not conducive to my perceived liberalism!

"If it's made bloody clear that having a child doesn't generate state support would those poor mites be born in the first place ?"

Yes. They would. Short of a mass sterilisation programme which even the Nazis stopped short of, they would.

Can you risk children being born and there be no state support? This was one of the reasons the welfare state came about in the first place, Milly.

(Here's your g&t from the last thread, BTW )

Ouch Edam. The way they work out "poverty" is not a true indication though as they use an average wage which is affected by high earners etc so not a true indication. Whilst we have a generous benefit system, no child should be in poverty as they have a house provided and money for food and heat.

Its also down to individuals to take responsibility rather than rely on the state. Many people could work yet choose not too. Many people have children even though they know that they will expect the state to support them.

MilliMollyMoo is right, take away the automatic right to state support and the birth rate would drop significantly.

Unfortunately am pregnant so will have to swap for a gingerbeer but cheers.

Poverty exists - believe me because I witness it on an all too regular basis.

Breakfast clubs can be a lifesaver for both the haves and have nots. The child whose parent is poor or not organized enough to buy milk to go with the cereal ([blush that's me on occasion btw)gets a good start to the day.

My son generally eats breakfast at home and the £2 I pay goes to the childcare he receives from 8am meaning I can start work at 8.30am. Sometimes though he will NOT eat breakfast and then I am so grateful the option to have it at school is there.

I guess the aim is to ensure that all children have breakfast. If making it free for all means that more children have breakfast than if it was only free for those on low incomes then that is an appropriate use of the money.

Maybe some on low incomes don't take it up unless it is free to all for reasons of pride or reasons of fecklessness.

I think in issues of public policy I think 'Does it work?' and 'Do we want to do it?' are more appropriate questions than 'Is it fair?' which is a somewhat unhelpful concept.

Its not just for working aprents

I'd adore our school opening one so I caould have help getting SN ds's ready int he mornings and to their various assignations

But we're low income

breakfast clubs exist for many reasons arnd are utilised by people whoa re well off, studentb aprents, low paid parents, people with complex famillies, those with parental health issues (used to refer people in my alst job) and tbh I'd prefer a system that allowed people to pay as they were able.

Absolutely feed your own kids but equally it would be quite nice to have somewhere safe to elave the boys so I could get ds4 to school (another one) safely or manage autistic ds3, or even encourage ds1 (AS, earing disorder) to eat when he won't at home despite all efforts. I'd have loved somewhere to drop them when I was a student instead of always having to be late.

Black and white rearely wroks, grey usually is the answer.

"MilliMollyMoo is right, take away the automatic right to state support and the birth rate would drop significantly."

What happens to babies born to parents who cannot afford to provide for them in this brave new world?