Free school lunches for infants - what do you think?

[KateSMumsnet]

Starting this month, in accordance with plans announced last year, all pupils in English primary schools up to the end of Year 2 will be eligible to receive free school meals.

How do you feel about the changes? Is it money well-spent, or could the funds be put to better, more targeted use? Has your school had to make any changes such as building new rooms or using classrooms? Are you glad to have lunches taken care of, or would you prefer to make your child's lunch? Have you seen the new menus, and are you happy with them? Will any of you be opting out?

We'd love to hear what you think - do let us know below. And keep your eyes peeled for a guest post on the nutritional value of school meals, coming later this week.

p.s For those of you still making a pack-up every morning, try out this recipe for the perfect lunch box bars (you can still make them even if your DC are at Uni, we won't tell)

Might have been a better idea ( well, no idea could have been worse) to provide FSM to all children in a school where there is already a very high percentage of FSM, say 70%) because there would already be a better infrastructure in place. Might have then encouraged rich people to send their DC there for the free meals, thus creating a wider social mix, more pushy parents etc.

It's a ridiculous idea and one that is typical of a Nanny State that doesn't think that parents are capable of providing healthy, nutritious meals for their children. Our local school now has no TAs so they can afford to pay for the lunches.

I suspect I will find out what ds thinks of it the minute he comes out of school. he will not be happy that he is sent with a packed lunch. AT ALL. i found the menu last night and have now read it properly. I am not impressed.

It's a great idea. Stops the stigma attached to FSM children, and as long as the children who would qualify are still recognised, the school will still get the pupil premium. Stops all the lunchbox policing that's been going on. It's a win win.

So great they are only doing it for 3 years - and the 3 years where the stigma of FSM is less likely to be a problem.

Who even knows which children get FSM? I'm a parent governor and I don't know their names.

My dc have no idea who has fsm,why would they everybody pays online.

I'd like to know, after a op mentioned that lunch started at 11:20 and finished at 2:30 for the last sitting, just how pe is meant to be fitted in sufficiently with the hall in use for so long. Or doesn't pe or the fact the whole day has to be restructured as a result matter?

Whether you, the other school children or anyone else knows who has FSM the evidence shows that raising the qualification level for FSM does not improve academic outcomes while providing universal FSMs does. The expected reason for that is stigma, since the negative impact of stigma attached to non-universal benefits is well documented. Stigmas can be as much about the recipients knowing and the process of applying as other people knowing, though other people knowing, such as their teachers, may also have significant impact on expectations, which directly impacts on outcomes. It might not be stigma, but that would be the expected reason for the outcomes that have been documented so far.

Money spent in the wrong place. So my son is in a class of 38 children (really, he is) but his little sister can get a free dinner. No.

Just a couple of points boom boom -

If it is so beneficial then how comes they are only doing it for 3 years?

Is it really going to be beneficial if like people have posted schools are having to cut support staff to fund the change? Or charge children higher up in the school more for their dinners?

Many primary schools struggle for space. This measure is meaning extended lunch for a lot of schools therefore means the hall is out of action - what happens to things like pe?

I discovered recently that when I was a child, I was entitled to FSM, but my parents did not apply as they thought I would be stigmatised. I was furious, as I never saw or heard of any stigma at school, and I would have definitely been in favour of claiming.
Regarding who knows - the teachers need to know as in official observations they need to demonstrate progress by PP children as well as SEN, EAL etc (and need to identify them on the on the seating plane for the observer).
Also, in a few school I have been in, when the term finishes at lunchtime, most children leave before lunch, except FSM who stay for the lunch...

I think this is money that could be better spent elsewhere. Those children that need a meal already qualify for free school meals and there is concern in schools where they rely heavily on the pupil premium funding due to the large numbers of children that qualify that parents will not fill out the necessary forms as they will not see the direct benefit to their child in the same way that they did when it was linked to the receipt of free school meals. Also for many schools although the government will be paying for the meals the necessary upgrades to kitchens, expansion of dining spaces and or provision of additional staff to facilitate staggered lunch times are having to come out of schools own budgets meaning that other projects to benefit the children are at risk.

Sirzy I hope it's because they are evaluating the national roll out and will extend funding if the results meet expectations. I expect it's actually because this is political football that is a case of the Lib Dems using up their politcal capital and they only have enough to get a 3 year commitment.

I can't speak to individual school's decisions about how they spend their money. It is certainly a big concern that funding appears to be inadequate, though most of the teachers I know are in senior schools and they have similar tales of losing staff - despite not having to instigate universal FSM. However, £600 million to improve academic attainment by 2 month a child is very good value and would still be good value if schools were finding an extra £100 million from their own budgets. Adding in TAs doesn't give that much value for money on the basic academic achievement measure.

On the space issue - a new idea brought in quickly is bound to have some teething problems. The implementation of this policy has lots of problems, it seems mainly caused by it being a political football. That is unfortunate, but possibly typical of a coallition government in a democracy structured like ours. I think it's rather outrageous that schools don't have enough room for all students to eat lunch, I don't think eating sandwhiches at desks or outside is good anyway. And what if meals became so good (as many people want to see the money used to achieve) and uptake skyrockets anyway (but obviously amoung the more well off as less well off families still wouldn't be able to afford them)? Would that be a terrible policy because schools can't cope with the demand?

Sorry for all the typos etc. Can't seem to proof read on this screen.

The money isn't just coming from tas jobs though the money is coming from all areas of the funding so will quickly stop any benefit this process may or may not have.

Schools simply can't cope and they haven't been given the time or support to allow them to cope.

It is not providing help to the students who need it. Infact it is taking away from students who need it. It's nothing but a "look at us aren't we great" tool which does nothing to tackle the actual issues.

I have not read the thread but I think the threshold for those qualifying should have been raised rather than given to all.

However I am immensely grateful as its given us a years grace now, to save up for the following years payments we will have to make.

sirzy I was just using the TAs as an example. Whether the additional funding the schools will need to find will "quickly stop any benefits" will be dependent on how much the schools have to fund and where they choose to take that money from. I was indicating that £600 million of TAs do not provide 2 months academic progression pre student, so if schools choose to take £100 million out of their TA budgets they would still be well ahead. I thought the underfunding was less significant than that.

It most certainly isn't a "look at us" tool. It is a researched scheme whose pilot has been shown to provide significant benefits in practice to those who most need it. More so than most other uses of £600 million in education.

But the fact schools are having to divert much stretched funds to provide meals for children who don't need them is wrong on so many levels. Even worse is that when those children move up a year in school not only do they suffer because of the way funds have been diverted but their parents suddenly have to find money to funds dinners again.

A look at me thing is exactly what it is. I bet within the next 5 years it has been scrapped.

I agree the way its been rolled out is very poor, but that doesn't make the policy a poor one.

If it delivers the same results as the trial then the government may well not want to scrap it. It might well be expanded. It would be much more expensive to maintain a two month increase in academic performance per child in any other known way. Might not stop a non-coalition Conservative government though. It was a Labour idea in the first place and the Lib Dems are behind it.

Huge waste of money. Its not a meal its a lunch and not a very filling one at that.

My son starts school on Monday. His school is trying out this free meals thing. I think it's a waste of money to be honest.

i would prefer funds to have been spent on giving my children a good education so they could leave school with strong qualifications. I also don't understand the fixation people have with having a hot meal - nutritious yes - but they are in heated buildings and too much cooking actually kills vitamins.

as it is, i've had to pay extra tuition because the teaching is so poor. if i was being psynical i would say this is an easy and quick way for a politician to show they are doing something and try and win votes - rather than consentrating on real educational problems that are harder to fix

I was going to come on here and say the meals at my y2 dd's school don't sound too bad - today was down as roast beef and potatoes with veg, followed by fruit sorbet. She has just come home and told me she was given pizza, burnt chips, and ice cream. Hardly balanced, or nutritious!

I have a feeling she'll be back on packed lunches soon...

The whole thing is a joke, a great vanity project for Clegg, it's not the school's fault. Another ill thought out policy.

It's a quick fix for child poverty. The gov can say "children may not be fed at home but at least they all get a hot meal at school".

Perhaps they could try and increase minimum wage to ensure everyone gets a hot meal at home too.