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)

I think at the end of the day at least their is a policy with the intention of helping. And as for class rooms falling apart..I remember when the Tory's got in and cancelled contracts t fix up the schools..

Helping who though? I don't think it gives the help needed in the right place

peppla schools received a provisional funding alloction, but actual funding will be based on the number of meals taken. They will need to submit records through the year.

I checked with our bursar and we have funding for all pupils taking meals no cost to the school budget.

I'm not impressed so far. DD got the wrong lunch yesterday, and what's on offer is a total stodgy carb fest with few fruit or veg actually chosen or eaten as far as I can tell.

Mostly it annoys me that nothing at all has been done to ensure parents of children who would have received fsm anyway are applying for fsm in order for the school to receive their pupil premium.

Absolutely nothing has been done to distinguish the two types of fsm or to ensure parents at our school who perhaps have esl or poor literacy and are on a low income that the fsm forms are not just about the meal but about additional help and funding for their child.

Boom - others have replied re: your 'evidence' (yes, I read it at the time of the pilot, & was initially rather sold on it), but I think you should additionally google the Hawthorne effect.

‘It's one of the very few educational policies that actually narrows the achievement gap - maybe that's the real reason there is so much antipathy towards it here.’

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Are you actually suggesting that the fact that most posts on MN have been unimpressed by the provision, is generated by a secret wish on the part of those posters to limit the attainment of less advantaged children?

That’s an astonishing thing to say.

I think this is a terrible policy and a complete waste of money. If parents couldn't afford a meal for their kids then they claimed a FSM. Why change things. Friends with large salaries have dcs getting FSMs....madness. Not to mention the fact that they won't be eaten in many cases.

raven I mean that this policy isn't, at least on the face of it, much use to parents who feed their children well. That isn't a secret wish to see the attainment of less well off families limited, rather an expectation that good policies will help one's self.

And it isn't my evidence. It's the evidence of a pilot compiled by academics and researchers.

Week 2 of school dinners and today at our school there was the incident of the missing packed lunch box belonging to year 2 child.

Turns out a year 1 child who is having school dinners is not at all impressed so helped themselves to a packed lunch box. They found it preferable.

Mutiny is happening amongst those little children....

OK - fair enough.

But wasn't that your justification - that we were all going to benefit? That this was going to raise average attainment - not simply that of the very small proportion of children who a) would eat better with a FSM than a packed lunch & b) weren't already entitled to one?

Do google the Hawthorne effect.

We've had the reverse pancake flipper a number of untouched lunch boxes because children have decided they wanted school dinners

We also have the child who for all of last week was having a packed lunch and a school dinner before anyone sussed what was happening. Apparently they love school puds.

1 pilot with limitations and scepticism from those who took part in it.

raven I think we do all benefit. Averages rise with a concentration of increase at the lower end. But that doesn't mean others dont' benefit too.

I know the hawthorne effect. But if you put all positive pilot results down to the hawthorne effect you wouldn't be able to go ahead with any national roll outs would you? And one aspect of the study which suggests the hawthorne effect (if it exists - it isn't particularly well supported by evidence itself) is not the driver of the positive results is the lack of positive result in Wolverhampton. If it were just the hawthorne effect you would expect similar positive results there.

All social research is limited. Too many variables. No way to have identical groups for control. Many ethical issues with designing a study where people don't modify their behaviour in response to the study itself. None of it is perfect. I do get that. But the results are positive, so the next step is to roll it out nationally and evaluate that. Obviously they need to monitor the national roll out to ensure it does deliver expected benefits.

My son started back yesterday and for two days running he has had a 'bread and butter' sandwich and a pudding FFS . Tomorrow he has his usual packed lunch - I think I can manage something more nutritious than that!

From a 'whole populace' POV, as others have said, the evidence just isn't impressive enough to justify the cost, IMO. I've read it carefully & don't find it convincing.

A key concern for me - as someone who has frequent recourse to our Pupil Premium budget to boost children's attainment - is the negative effect this will inevitably have on identifying those children who are entitled to that support, & being able to claim it as a school.

On a more micro, selfish level: my dd2 was eating healthy, appetising lunches & now she's eating a right load of crap. Luckily for me, I can afford to pull the plug on this ghastly, cynical experiment any time I like & stick her back on packed lunches, but I'm appalled by the wastefulness & the diversion of money from more useful targets.

Anyway - the policy is in place - it's getting the roll out you think it deserves! Only time will tell which of us is right & what effect it has on overall children's attainment & health.

(Can't see it saving Clegg, mind you...)

How do you envision it having a negative effect on identifying and claiming for pupil premium?

Because parents have to phone up the lea themselves to register for it. If there isn't anything in it for them (as they will see it) not all will bother.

We have already had 3 letters from school asking people to apply for it so I am guessing they are struggling to get people to do it.

No they don't the school office can do it ... they only need to fill in a form as they did before.

Not in our area we have to phone up. Either way though people aren't going to go to the effort unless they think there is something in it for them and not everyone will realise the benefit to the school/their child. Or they will stick it on the 'must do' list and never get round to it.

It is causing issues for schools.

Our wonderful secretary phoned round and parents responded

We've only had emails trying to get people to sign up for fsm/pp but I don't think it's explained very clearly. We tend to have a few students who have literally just arrived in the country with parents whose English isn't 100% yet, as well as traveller children who stereotypically might have parents who struggle with literacy.

I can easily see families slipping through the cracks.

Bear in mind that PP funding lasts for 6 years, too.

So a family that were eligible for FSM in infants - but didn't claim because of universal FSM - & whose circumstances have changed enough to put them over the threshold in year 2, will then presumably miss out on PP for the entire junior stage.

Personally, I think that extra funding might've been more use to the school than having the infant offspring of its more affluent parents fed by the taxpayer.

But again, we won't see the effects of its loss for some time.