Dinner money arrears

[Snowsquonk]

Hello dear Mumsnetters

I am chair of governors of a primary school where we have a problem with people not paying for school dinners - a culture has been created in which most parents pay, those who can't afford are encouraged to apply for free school meals, but a small number of parents just take the mickey.

The trouble is, we say a child cannot have any more school dinners until arrears are paid off or an agreement for paying off the arrears is reached - but some parents then still send the child in without a packed lunch.

SO - what happens at your school - we are considering a policy where if a parent has not paid for a meal in advance, the child does not get one but this is primary and I don't think it's good for children to have nothing - how would you feel if your child was given a basic meal - eg, bread and butter and a piece of fruit instead of the full hot meal option - if you'd not booked and paid for the meal in advance.

What happens at your school?

Cheers!

We have this a lot. We never, ever do not provide lunch though. In many cases that lunch is the only food they get all day.

We do list it in the CP book and we do share that info with SS. Though only in one case, after non payment for most of the year, have SS visited.

One parent got so annoyed they switched to packed lunch and started sending the child in with nothing more than 2 slices of plain bread. That was it. Nothing else. Unfortunately, some parents really are tossers and it has fuck all to do with poverty. just remebering that.

Children can be very cruel...if they see a child eating bread and butter when they are tucking into pizza and chips it would be awful for the child in question and, after all, its not the childs fault.

Dont know what the answeris, sorry, but I would never not feed a child.

Please, please don't go the way of not feeding the child.

I know, myredcardigan. I am not a weepy waily "I'm crying here" poster, but I can't help thinking of a poor little hungry mite at lunchtime, feeling so sad and powerless and punished for something that they have no control at all over. Can you imagine how that child will feel? sitting with a bit of bread. Maybe tears rolling down their little cheeks? Feeling - well, humiliated. and hungry. and oh god, I need to go and piss about on some pointless bumsex thread because I'm going to turn into one of those weepy posters who declare themselves sobbing at the pc.

Sadly, I know only too well how the poor child will feel. Back in the day it took weeks to process FSM applications and I'd go in each day wondering if it was a bread and water day or if it had all been sorted and I could have dinner.

i would consider the legalities here, as teachers duties are to act in loco parentis in ensuring the welfare needs of the child are met, so not sure how with holding food would sit with that?

could you make it that parents who are not upto date by 1 calendar month are called and instructed to bring a lunch or make payment other wise the will need to collect child for lunch period and return them after.

coul

£136 is a shocking amount of arrears. At our school the meals service is provided by the LA so they chase the arrears. Who provides your meals?

You need to give 7 days notive for repayment of the debt (or an agreement to pay a certain amount weekly so that it doesn't climb further).

If there is no contact from the parent send the child to the office at the end of the day and direct the parent there so that they can advise in no uncertain terms that it's sandwiches tomorrow or the child goes home for lunch.

If it's really bad then someone needs to speak with the parent at drop off in the morning check they have sandwiches and if not send them home (and then send the EWO round to hassle about non-attendance). If they continue to send in the child with no lunch knowing one isn't ordered in school then that's an issue of neglect. Spell this out to the parents.

It's a bloody dreadful state of affairs.

The school provides the meals - and employs the cook, kitchen staff etc so we don't want to go down the road of switching to packed lunches only as we'd have to lay staff off. And for some children, it will be the only hot meal they get.

I like the "child to the office at the end of the day" approach too

Lots of ideas - thanks so much

what guidanc ehave you had from the LEA about this?

I know this happened a bit a DS's primary many years ago. Head never let on to the children concerned & they were always given a lunch just like all the other children. No child should know who pays and who has FSMs either. He took the money out of the school fund / PTA although I think it was more a case of covering people who were waiting for FSMs or in genuinely difficult circumstances. We used to donate good school uniform so he could make sure it went to children who needed it. He also used to make sure no child ever missed out on school trips, treats, parties because their parents couldn't afford it - I even think he used to manage to get donations to pay for school holidays (modest priced camp barn affairs) and instrument tuition

I'm shocked at the schools that give milk & biscuit, cereal, bread etc. what are they thinking of - we are not living in Victorian England. Maybe this would be a good way to spend the Pupil Premium.

OP - we have a problem with this at my school too. Upwards of of £18o owed by a couple of families. We now have strict policy: over two weeks of arrears then no mael provided: we phone home and a packed luncj must be brought in til arrears cleared. we offer apyment plan etc but if no money forthcoming then we hand it over to Legal at County Council who will chase the debt. Meantime packed lunches still have to be brought in. (Can't do sending home - would be an illegal exclusion I think). If no packed lunch sent and no one on child's contact list will answer their phone (it happens!) then child given school packed lunch (cheese/ham rolls, fruit, milk to drink) and Education Welfarew contacted: they will usually see the parent v quick and say not providing food is verging on neglect etc.

Obv this is only for children who don't get FSM - when the situation wouldn't arise.

Sdaly this situation does come up from time to time and it ususally symptomatic of much bigger concerns about the family, so parallel to the dinner money stuff will also be multi agency meetings, SS contact, school nurse involvement etc.

Advice to school here is clear though - if you let people run up debt you are acting like an irresponsible lender, so you do have to stop.

Also here schools pay for all meals and the parents' money refunds the school so the school budget will be left with a shortfall - this impacts on all the children.

In my school debt left unchecked would far outstrip the £1500 I have to spend on books this year

sorry so bad spelling, toddler on lap.

I can't add much except to say (in response to the suggestion that the school must provide a meal for any child who would otherwise go hungry) that if they do, they have to charge for it, because schools are not allowed to give a meal for free to any child who does not qualify for FSM. They have no discretion about it. That's why some schools have these problems with parents racking up huge debts.

Going over to packed lunch only would (I think) be a disaster. There are some children like mine who just don't like cold food and lots of parents who don't have the time or the inclination to make the lunches. As has been said, for some children, a school lunch is the only hot and balanced meal they get.

All our children receive FSM ComeIntoTheGardenMaud as do all children in my LA but if this was not the case I would pay for the meal myself rather than see any child go hungry while in my care.

God, yes, so would I.

I think most school staff would pay for a meal for a child that wouldn't otherwise eat but this isn't just one meal is it? It's £136 of meals.

but spread over months

Exactly, that's the dilemma. Nobody wants to see children go hungry but if staff are paying for children's lunches that gives the 'won't pays' no incentive ever to pay, or pay back what they owe. The 'can't pays' I think are a different case - there after all a lot of people only just above the threshold for FSMs.

None of the solutions suggested here sound ideal - the suggestion of calling in social services really alarms me - but the bread-and-water option is (in my view) by far the worst.

Actually the route we took was the "neglect" one and although people are wary of SS involvement they can and do offer support to those who need a helping hand.

At the school where I was a Governor, we would take all steps to recover the money however at the end of the year if there were still unpaid bills, we would reconcile these via the PTA account (this was an agreement between all Governors on Finance Committee and the PTA Committee).

It is not the childrens fault and to penalise them is just wrong.

I would be extremely angry if the PTA were subsidising kids lunches at my school. Any shortfall must be met by the school or LEA. This should come out of the school's budget. The PTA funds are to be spent on extras which the school cant afford, not to allow a small group of parents act irresponsibly and get away with negligence. Call SS if parents do pay as it is neglecting a child to not provide food.

What makes you think a school could afford it out of their budget, cookcleanerchaufferetc? Our LEA chases debts, but not all of them do.

I am not saying the school can afford it. I am just saying that is is an issue for the school to deal with, not something the PTA should fund. PTA funds should be for items like extra craft material, laptops, sports equipment etc. The cake sales, photo sales, school fair etc should not be used for paying lunches for irresponsible parents. It should be used for the good of the school. the school and lea must make the decision of how to sort out the problem.

Feenie - do you think the PTA should fund kids lunches then?

I think it's a good compromise, actually - and if the school's budget was used to pay for it instead, then the PTA may have to fund books and more necessary equipment, rather than extras. If LEAs won't help, it's a real problem for a school, especially smaller ones. Obviously these issues are reported to SS, but often doesn't make any real difference to the issue at hand.

We often give extra fruit to children who we know haven't had any breakfast because they are neglected, usually by using fruit left over from the free fruit scheme - when children are absent there is usually a surplus. The children are known to SS, and those children receive twice as much fruit as anyone else, but who cares? At least they are fed. We also bid for money to run breakfast clubs for these children. But as a parent I wouldn't have a problem with my bun sale money feeding hungry children, no - it's another, different, 'extra'. I happen to think that making sure all children are fed is for the good of the school.

I don't think school funds or PTA should have to be used to pay for school dinners but if the alternative is a hungry child then there is no question that I would support feeding a child.

I agree with Feenie that it is in the school's interests to ensure children aren't hungry. Purely from an educational perspective hungry children don't learn