Free school meals for all infant children

[Scarletbanner]

What do you think? I think it's a great idea.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24132416

cuppa

But please tell me that you can see that in MANY cases it will in fact also ensure many kids have a WORSE diet.

Because:

The kids can't eat the food- allergies, ASD, it tastes shite etc

Menus can be highly processed

Many kitchens can't cook food so it's brought in- mush anyone?

There will be merely dregs left for those higher up the school.

Study basically proved a good lunch equals better performance. No shit Sherlock - now of course all schools serve a good lunch

And tbh all those kids eating biscuits and left over mcDs for lunch , even the school slop will be better ergo a positive result.

I would prefer to see more children qualifying for fsm and then more money put into the quality of food.

Our primary changed provider to avoid tiny, cardboard, oven baked horrors but the new meals though better are still Uninspiring. My children take pack lunches.

When we lived in France the meals were ordinary food-fish, veg, soup, salad etc. they were excellent. I don't know how they were funded but they were popular and miles away from our hideous reformed meat and fish with optional veg efforts.

I just can't see how anything about this is good. Whilst the overall sum is huge when you break it down it will be basic funding which will mean very basic cheap food. The meals will almost certainly be full of fat, sugar, gm foodstuffs, preservatives, colours and additives.

Unless you are giving children a healthy meal of good quality protein, well prepared and cooked vegetables and good carbs there won't be any advantage, they are simply being filled up with food devoid of nutrition. Many overweight children are actually starving because they are not getting adequate nutrition. Eating this type of food has shown to be bad for behaviour and learning.

That aside we seem to be on a slippery slope of pre-school and schools taking responsibility and control away from parents. This is not a good thing. If people are struggling to feed their children or they can't be bothered to put a decent packed lunch together then more needs to be done to change this within the family environment. First it was breakfast, now its lunch, I wonder how long it will be before children are staying at school all day and being given their dinner/tea too.

Clumsy that doesn't make sense if are getting a school dinner free for one child then you can use the money you save in not making two pack lunches to buy a dinner for your older child.
If you are saying that your dc packed lunch costs less than half the price of a school dinner I would be interested to know what it contains.

Not possible in my kids' school - there is no kitchen, only a small hall and no possibility of extending the site as it is built on green belt land. So the only way this would be possible there is if meals were prepared elsewhere and bussed in - seems very expensive.

Apart from the logistics, I'm broadly in favour of all primary kids being given free dinners, provided they are nutritious and tasty and preferably hot, as it would ensure kids get at least one good meal a day (lots of dcs' friends seem to live off jam sandwiches and crisps for packed lunches despite middle class parents), help learning, allow kids to develop good table manners eg eating with cutlery, sitting down at table, introduce them to broader range of food etc.

BUT the policy is flawed as
a) only for younger kids - arguable older kids need it more
b) unaffordable - if the whole lie about austerity is to be believed.
c) feasibility not thought through as to how this will actually work in practice eg my first paragraph, kids with allergies, staffing and building costs etc.
d) suspect the food will be cheap, unhealthy and nasty anyway - as of course not being fed to Osborne or Clegg's children, who needless to say, will not be at state schools.

I think it is a great idea but should not just be for the younger kids. I also think there should be greater transparency of what ingredients are going into the meals, just to make sure that they are healthy.

I agree that families that can afford it should pay for the school meals and those that cant should be the ones to benefit from this service.

THERE IS NO MARRIED PERSONS TAX ALLOWANCE.

It was phased out years ago apart from very elderly married couples born (or married?) before a certain date that would make any recipients of the tax allowance probably in their 70s now at least.

Just wanted to get that off my chest.

I think this idea is crap. My younger son just went into KS2. We have sent them both with Packed lunches for years, even though the meals are fabulous (£1.90 per day) at our school, because for us school dins would be nearly £20 per week and I do very basic packed lunch for much less and we also always have a made-from-scratch meal every night so they are not missing out nutritionally by not having a hot meal at lunchtimes.

I agree with other posters who say the threshold should be raised. For example I dont' think you automatically get FSM if you are in receipt of working tax credit (as opposed to the child tax credit part). Now as only low earners get WTC, they could raise the FSM threshold to include those families.

and/or subsidise the school meals more so that they cost say £1 per day, with FSM available to people on benefits and WTC, but so that the cost is easier for other families to put their children on school dinners.

For this to be across the board including the most well off families, well words fail me. Or maybe the govt thinks that the better off families all have their children at private schools....

breadandbutterfly sums up my feelings extremely well.

Whilst in theory this might apeal, the reality of school food ime is appalling. At my DDs primary they serve what is effectively a sandwich 2 days a week anyhow - dressed up as a 'wrap' on the menu. On the days when some attempt at cooking is made, the token 'vegetables' come in the form of baked beans and sweetcorn more often than not.

There is even one day when they are offered 'nachos' as a main meal - yep. They actually serve crisps as a main meal, with added cheese and gunk just to enhance the calorie count??!!!

I only pay for the school meal when it is something sensible like the roast dinner day. Even then chips occasionally creep in. (No objection to chips every once in a while, but with a roast is pushing it).

If this policy goes ahead then they need to pay more than lip-service to controlling the quality and content of what is provided.

I think that they must get rid of those horrible 'prison' trays. They need to serve one course first, on proper plates, clear away and then have pudding. It would really put me off to be all served together.

exoticfruits - I can't go into an are where something like pizza or lasagna etc has been cooked or is being served, the smell alone makes me violently ill and any tiny cross contamination would put me in hospital. Do you really think it would be right for an entire school's worth of pupils to be unable to have anything with cheese on because of someone like me? Never serving anything with cheese on it would be the only way to keep someone like me safe!

While I have every sympathy I don't see how you would cope at the moment. You get the same smell whether you cater for 40% of the school or 100%, and the majority of schools that I have been a supply teacher in have the cooked meals and the packed lunches in the same hall. Depending on the size of the school you can often smell what is for lunch in the classroom. They are going to have to have a vegetarian option so cheese is often on the menu.

It is a lovely idea to have everyone sitting down together with a healthy, well cooked, locally sourced meal but I can't see it happening.
They need all schools to have their own kitchen and staff.
They need to make sure it is as good, or better, than you would get at home.
It would help if staff could join them but teachers simply don't have time to sit and take time for lunch.
They need a big hall.
They need to cater for allergies.

Very few schools could manage all that.
I hope that the 'powers that be' are actually looking at MN for reactions to the announcement.

As I said on another thread, I think it is a stupid idea and ill thought out.

But flippertigibbet it's been stated that the lib dems getting the FSM for all infants is in exchange for them not blocking the conservatives putting through a new married person's tax allowance...so it may well be back before the election.

I don't know if this point has been made already - but what if you have two children one over 7 and one under - parents will feel pressured to pay for the older one.

Next year I'll be in this position. I could still send the youngest in with packed lunch but I can see take up in this area of a free meal being quiet large - lots of working poor or struggling and wouldn't want her left out.

If I could get the older two DC to understand - They have asked for dinners in past but we've been unable to afford long term - it still leaves the issue of the evening meal and how to account for one having had a cooked meal at dinner and other two not.

the food at dd's school is actually pretty good, but I would not take them up on this partly because

1. we don't need fsm. Ok, we're not especially well off but I can still stretch to packed lunches that are certainly healthier than school meals (would probably not pay the £10.25 per week for lunches but might in an emergency, although we can only do a week at a time). I agree that the limits should be raised so more children qualify though, definitely.

1. dd wouldn't eat them anyway. At least with packed lunch I can send her with stuff that is healthy and that she will eat. She really struggles when she has not eaten enough, but is rather stubborn....

1. we do cooked meals in the evening, and I don't really want her eating the same sort of thing twice.

I appreciate that not all packed lunches are healthy, and certainly that not all families can afford them and/or cooked meal in the evening - which is why the current system should be extended rather than a blanket provision covering everyone. I would hope that there would be an opt-out (this sounds suspiciously linked to the thing a few weeks ago about a potential ban on packed lunches....).

exoticfruits - I had packed lunches at (private) primary (and ate in a separate room with a none cheese eating friend), my meals were separately prepared at boarding school and again I had special permission to eat in a separate room with a friend. Now I can see a top notch fee paying school being able to accommodate allergies and having sufficient staff to do so safely, I'm less convinced that a typical state primary would have the space, staff (with training) and duplicate kit required to cater safely for multiple allergies.

Its a great idea, that i would welcome, although DD is in juniors now. We are on a low and variable income but not entitled to free school dinners, sometimes we really struggle.

BUT There is talk of school dinners being compulsory - NO THANKYOU! My DD doesn't like the roast dinners on a wednesday (she loves my roasts ) so she takes pack lunch. You cannot force a child into school dinners if they don't want it.

I'd rather they make a real effort to raise the 4 out 10 children who are in poverty and don't qualify for FSM's out of poverty to be honest.

That means that 4/10 or 40% of children in poverty are from working families who earn enough to not qualify for certain benefits.

Why the fuck are families working to stay in poverty? Or why doesn't work pay anymore? How in 2013 in a developed country do we have kids living in poverty when their parent/s work?

Its shameful. The cost of living goes up and up and up and up whilst income for many has reduced or at best remained static. People can't afford to put their heating on over winter whilst power companies make millions in profit. People can't afford to pay their rent and end up homeless or living in squalor whilst landlords claim £100's in HB or rent and pay peanuts on their mortgages as rates are so low?

Tis all very, very wrong.

I am not even slightly convinced Andro-most wouldn't.
However, it would be a problem even if there were only 10% take up of cooked meals or if it was all packed lunches because I would imagine that over 50% might have cheese in them. Many primary schools are far too small to have a room that could be smell free.

I have one child DS who is in year 2 and one DD who is in nursery, so she will benefit next year but we won't be taking up the offer. My son hated the school lunches and always ended up eating two crackers, a little cheese and two carrot batons. I can give him all that plus more variety and more food in a packed lunch. He has a hot meal every evening at home.

I don't quite understand the whole process of removing child benefit for some to then give free school meals to everyone? This will not change how I vote that's for sure.

You cannot force a child into school dinners if they don't want it.

You are not as old as me! They did-unfortunately I remember it well.
I agree it would be impossible these days as people are used to packed lunches.

I hope that those making policy are reading-it appears to me to be a great idea bound to certain failure-therefore the money could be used more beneficially elsewhere.

On the face of it, it looks wonderful. With one child already in school (who won't benefit from this) and another due to start school in 2015 (who will benefit), what's not to like...

However, 4/10 families live in poverty, despite not being entitled to FSM. Under this proposal, a single mum earning around £12k, and therefore be entitled to WTC, will not be entitled FSM for her junior aged child(ren). BUT, a wealthy family on £100'sK per year can get 3 years FSM for their infant aged children?!

Utterly, utterly bonkers - this proposal is highly unfair and ill thought out. If there is to be an increase on FSM provision it MUST go to those families who need it. Surely, with the roll-out of universal credit let's not go there shall we it will be easier to ascertain which families are in poverty or close to the poverty line, therefore the Govt. could target those families for an increase on FSM provision...

Well said, Kaekae - it is the irrationality of this policy that really infururiates me.

If we are tooooo poor to give all parents child benefit, soooo poor that we have to introduce the bedroom tax, send people who are disabled/dying back to work to save a few bob, etc, then logically, we cannot poooosibly afford to give free school meals to all the children of the rich.

If, conversely, we can afford 600 million easily (no-one has said where the money is being taken from, as far as I'm aware), then we can also reverse all of those policies.

Let's spell it out clearly.

It is a pre-election BRIBE aimed at women esp mothers who the coalition are well aware are really effed off with their policies. Indeed, given yesterday's news that Mumsnet mums don't like the coalition, this policy is probably aimed fairly and squarely at US.

Well guess what, little coalition minion reading this thread to report back to your masters - Mumsnet readers ARE NOT THAT STUPID and don't think much of it.

If you want to go the whole hog, go after the big tax evaders, get the money back off the bankers, restore the welfare state to its former glory, lower the cost of housing by ending Help To Buy/QE, etc I'll be right behind you.

But don't think that one teensy weensy illogical and ill-thought-through bribe is going to make the slightest difference to my voting intentions. The Coalitions policies overall are violently anti-women and anti-family. This does not change that.

I am gutted I am missing out on this as my children will be too old. It would have saved me a fortune.

I think it's a stupid idea. They should just raise the FSM cutoff to include less well off families too if they want to make sure all kids get a meal at school.

My biggest bug bear is that school meals aren't that healthy. So even if a child who has a substandard packed lunch gets a school meal from next year, who's to say that the school meal is any better and hence they are better fed?

If the school meals are healthy, yes it is a very good thing. But serving kids processed crap with unhealthy amounts of refined cards is not that different from an unhealthy packed lunch....unless of course the packed lunch contained just a packet of crisps and a chocolate bar.

If there was also a move to make school lunches healthier, then it is a vote winner for me.

My DS who started at reception eats school meals. But I'm thinking of sending in packed lunches from next month because, the meals sound too processed, they get white bread on the side (which DS LOVES) and also sponge and custard every single day. Too much carbs. I bet the protein and veg portions are tiny as well.

But from next year if this free school meals for all does work out, then my worry is that if I opt to send in DS (and DD next year too) with a packed lunch, they would be one of the very few children taking in a packed lunch and they would feel a bit "err why am I the only one eating a packed lunch when all my friends are eating school dinner"....so I dunno.

I agree that school meals in my opinion, and my kids are now 12 and 14, often have a 'healthier option' or the child could just as easily choose a chip butty !! I don't think this is ''healthy'' at all. I have had to pay when mine wanted school meals in the winter months and then swapped to sandwiches in the warmer summer months. Honestly, if children are brought up to have a wide range of tastes when young, so are not fussy and only eat junk food, then a child who has a healthy breakfast and a ''proper'' balanced dinner with their parents at home later on is the ideal. Half the time it's parents that need educating .