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

Given that they think a large number of children living in poverty aren't currently entitled to free school meals and the massive benefits in learning seen when these are provided it has to be done. Unfortunately the cost of more adequately assessing family wealth will always outweigh the cost of the free meals for those that could afford it.

Exactly wheresmy

This is more of a sticking plaster than any sort of real solution to problems.

It's not even done for the kids benefit. It's fine to make them feel that they are doing something to help.

If they cared so much then why will one kid get fed and the other kid from same family goes without. Good for the kid who gets fed but bloody torturous for his brother to sit and watch.

And what for. So they can take it away again, how's that kid going to feel knowing that today he gets fed in six weeks he won't.

Done (not fine)

Perhaps if they hadn't bloody cut everything the kids wouldn't need school to feed them in the first place.

I am amazed that here on mumsnet a lot of people cannot see that the benefit in this is not for those whose children have delicious balanced packed lunches (and a variety of food at home). It is for those children who don't

Oh, I absolutely can see this. I just don't think a chuck-a-policy is the way forward., and I would find a way to donate ds's fsm to someone who actually does need it in the higher years. It would be more useful for older children, I think, if it has to come in at all. And extending the current scheme rather than a blanket give-to-everyone-regardless would be even better.

As for fat and calories, there are many, many ways of getting those into a child without resorting to cakes and mud pies. Proteins and whole grains are much more sustaining and filling than refined carbs and sugars (I know this from experience, having been on a diet that cut these out - and had a lot more energy for it). Egg, cheese, yoghurt, avocado, nuts, fruit... all full-fat, high energy and long acting. That's what my high-energy dd eats and what she would not get enough of on school meals.

Having worked in schools I just don't see how it can work on a practical level. If you suddenly have double the number of children eating a cooked meal it will mean the school needing a bigger kitchen, more staff (unless it's the bussed in meal variety) and twice as much time to serve it all up.

And increased home work /school hours to allow for the extra time needed for all the kids to queue, eat and play.

If they are (reasonably) healthy, this is a great idea. Not only does it remove the stigma of FSM as others here have pointed out, it also gives children a warm meal for lunch which I think is so much better than a packed cold one. Especially in the colder months.

Do they come with a portion of salad or greens?

Great idea but needs to be high quality tasty food too.
We should also provide free breakfasts - porridge and fruit.
This would benefit learning which would improve the class environment for all. It would help working parents and parents struggling financially. And it would help the hungry children whose parents do not fed them properly.

It'll be like the free education for 3-4 yr olds (which costs childcare providers loads).

The Government will give the schools something ridiculously low, say 10p per child per meal, make a big announcement that they have funded meals for all the children and then the school will have to suck up the cost somehow and the caterers will have to buy cheap food and serve smaller portions.

Sadly I missed out on a good idea( kids at snr school.) however as a busy tired staff nurse, I would rather have free breakfasts than lunch as 'twas always madness trying to get the kids ready for school, never mind breakfast!

I'm all for universal entitlement to things but this plan where the free meals ends when children hit juniors will just destabilise family finances by landing families with extra costs when their kids hit junior school and will be of minimal help.

I agree that if they are concerned about children getting enough to eat and the right food that they need to stop eroding living standards, benefits and wages which are forcing families to rely on food banks and they also need to standardise school lunch provision. There are massive differences in the quality of lunches, ours are stodgy, grim and made offsite and kept warm, they make me feel a little bit sick and I wonder how many nutrients are even in them after being carted around the LA having been kept warm and made from bulk ingredients which are unlikely to be the freshest.

The trouble with packed lunches is all this convenience food people are being encouraged to buy by the supermarkets and food production companies the govt have been hiring as advisors and I'm sick of my children who do have a healthy lunch - sandwich on brown homemade seeded bread, low fat yoghurt and a piece of fruit and/or veg, coming home with crisp/snack pack packets they have been given by other children.

There is a problem but this won't fix it and I agree with wheresmy.

This really concerns me. It's another example of the nanny state.

The meals served at the school my children go to are fine but they are not what I would consider particularly healthy, they are certainly no more healthy than the packed lunch they have every day.

At the moment I also know what my children have eaten every day as I can see what is returned in the lunchbox.

I am not vegetarian but I am very fussy about the quality of the meat we eat at home. There have been problems in the past with companies sourcing cheap meat and actually serving up meat meant for animal food in hospitals and schools. I don't want my children eating that rubbish.

We will end up paying for this through taxation etc. It's ridiculous to think that this is a 'free' meal. I'm very unhappy about it. The next step will be obligatory school meals that we pay a nominal fee for.

Im shocked by comments that state shouldn't be worrying about what children eat. There's lots of evidence that many children go to school hungry.my son goes to the best school in our town which happens to serve an area of high deprivation. Few of the families are feckless Un employed. Many are hard working and poorly paid. This will make a huge difference to their children's health and ability to concentrate.

Dizzy - I agree, but then they are the children that should be being helped by raising the fsm threshold or providing free breakfasts, not by a cover-all fag packet rent-a-policy. This is not the way to reach those families.

Yes, damn that nanny state for wanting all small children to have a hot meal at least once a day.

And frankly when this goes ahead, they could forget about the puddings (usually composed exclusively of cheap carbs anyway) and plough that money back into the main meal. Quality is definitely going to be an issue.

I think the point is that it is a poorly thought out, ill-judged policy that demonises those parents that can (and do provide) where they don't actually need to, for the sake of the minority that could be easily helped by a policy that wouldn't cost £600million and make those people who have recently lost things like CB because govt had to save money feel rather bitter and -once again - squeezed.

Retropear "I'll wager the schools in the study had extra staff helping choices and sitting with reluctant veg eaters and how long would that last in the real world?"

That didn't happen in our school (we're in a pilot area, not a million miles from the school Jeremy vine featured on his show, the other day, so a similar local demographic). DS1 tried the dinners for a while, when they were free. We chose from a printed menu each month and he struggled to find something he could eat, each day, often ending up choosing sandwiches, unless they had mayonnaise in. He frequently threw most of his food away because he didn't like it - and that was with the 1:1 support via his SEN statement to hand. There was no making him eat it. Other kids just had the normal staff about, so even less special encouragement.

benandgerry - there's 3-600 calories in a typical sandwich, depending on the bread and the contents. It's a complete misconception that a cooked meal contains more calories. It's just warm, not magically more calorific.

This policy is ridiculous. The quality of the good will inevitably end up terrible, there will be a catering company's king a big profit (think 4GS on security sector) and it will cost a fortune.

Lots of people don't need the government to feed their children lunch, the money would be better spent perhaps lowering the threshold for entitlement for FSM and improving the quality so that the children who really need it actually get a decent meal. Also the children who's patents pay would also benefit through better quality food too.

If the quality is awful the people who can afford it will start making packed lunches and the poorer children will be left eating cheap crap basically.

The idea is a nice one but as usual with government policies, I suspect the catering will be outsourced, the money creamed off as profit and the children suffering as a result.

I think people are confusing, saying that it's a stupid idea, with assuming no one cares or thinks that it won't help the children that need helping.

That's not what we are saying. Of course those children should receive the help (and food) they need BUT feeding them for three years is like putting a plaster on a broken leg. Doesn't deal with the real issues and puts off the inevitable dealing with the situation.

No one is saying we shouldn't help, we are saying that it's an impossible task which is going to let down every single child. The complete opposite of the declared intent.

It will- discriminate against the older siblings who don't qualify.

It will- take bloody hours to feed all the kids

Quality will inevitable deteriorate as government reduce the funding or schools expand and take more children.

The apparent "healthy" meal will become a cheap inedible pile of slop. Even in smaller schools where the meals are better than most.

Will the children benefit then from this like of shite that is what becomes of even the best school dinners.

Companies go bust. That will leave all the children with nothing til new suppers are found. That happened at dds school so believe me when I list it as a possibility.

Many many children will in fact end up worse off!!!

And this bonding thing is crap. Kids talk to each other they don't need to be eating the sane bloody thing to interact. They spend all day with each other. If they aren't friends now then lunch isn't going to change that.

Picking up bad habits is much more likely.

Totally agree, Caffeine (like the user name, btw...!)