Breakfast and lunch for a year

[AlizarinRed]

So the SNP are promising that all school children will get breakfast and lunch for a year for free if they get lots of seats in the next election.
Is it because I haven't read the detail that I think this is not a great reflection on the SNP main party in the country that children need fed daily despite them being in power since 2007.
I have also read half of Shuggy Bain, the booker prize winner, and after much of the world have read the book, then read the headline that our children need fed by the state they will think Scotland is a bit of a third world disaster? I've only read half of Shuggy Bain because it is so dispiriting and miserable, think Trainspotting or Angela's Ashes but worse, that I can't face the rest.
What am I missing here? Are the SNP our saviours?

The Tory have promised the same some time ago However, it has to be said, the idea that children need to be fed by the state on a permanent basis does make you wonder. I wonder what Douglas Ross's reasoning is.
Where/when do the hand-outs end? When does parental responsibility begin?

Anyway, it would be from 2022 (so, no joy for us), for 365 days a year and last "forever", not just for a year.

I suspect they are too under the influence of Twitter etc. which the majority of the population aren't even on. Then pushed further by the newspapers.
I'll have to write to my Tory msp now too (sent a rant to regional snp one last night).

Shuggy would have had enough to eat if his mother hadn't been an alcoholic and his dad a piece of shit.
They would have been poor, but there would have been food.

I remember a conference I attended a couple of years back where the main speech was about poverty, they mentioned in the opening ways to get out of poverty ; infrastructure, jobs etc but the whole speech and session was about benefits. This cemented my belief the SNP, don't care about getting people out of poverty and more importantly keeping them out rather keeping people dependent upon them and in their place

How are they affording this? They are just trying to win votes / another referendum...

Have you read it @Possums4evr - it's maybe because im old and the 80s doesn't seem that long ago but it's shocked me. Good job the author lives abroad.

Logistically how are they planning to give each child breakfast? Unless they're also planning to provide free childcare for each child from 8am / 8.30am? Unless they plan to cut into lesson time and give them breakfast at 9am?

Utter, utter waste of money. Same as the free school meals for P1 to P3 was.

At our primary school of over 400 pupils there are

I'm not convinced that giving ALL children free meals irrespective of income is a good idea either (although since the Tories proposed it a couple of months ago and it seems to be the cause de jour it will probably happen regardless of who 'wins' in May). Firstly it does seem to be a complete waste of money in middle class areas, but instinctively I'm more concerned about the slow creep away from individual parent responsibility towards children being raised by the state. Individual families in poverty is one thing (and absolutely should be helped) but it now seems like across society as a whole parents aren't even expected to do something as basic as take responsibility for feeding their children.

The purpose of free breakfast and lunch is being missed.

It's to ensure that ALL children regardless of background (whether poor or abusive) are fed and receiving good nutrition so they are better able to focus in school. It improves their learning ability and levels the playing field.

People can have enough money (indeed be wealthy) and make poor choices and not prioritise food being neglectful or just down right abusive and deliberately not feed their DC adequately. There are also a huge number of parents that are clueless about nutrition and don't provide their DC with a good diet.

It's about protection children and hopefully reducing the long term costly impact of poor diets in childhood.

One of the main causes of child poverty in places like Edinburgh is housing costs, not food costs. I'm not against it although Id prefer it was targeted to areas in need and only if parents want it, but it's more gesturing and not tackling the harder, more impactful, issues.

I hate the thought of any child being hungry but also fear it may result in lots of waste both food and cash. Also worry my slightly child who eats as soon as she wakes will now be having an extra breakfast she doesn’t need. Not even getting on to how on earth they plan to pay for it...

It's mostly about centralising state control - why not give that money to councils and let them decide what would best alleviate poverty in their council?

And also Twitter likes obviously.

The advantages of catering for all the children is economies of scale - the meals per head become cheaper. Parents could be asked to donate to the school fund the costs of meals/a contribution.

Means tested school meals doesn't help the DC where parents do not prioritise feeding children well, those where food is deliberately withheld, those that are not provided with good nutrition in the home.

I agree it feels like being a nanny state but no one has DC thinking it's fine they will get free food at school for half a year!!

We couldn't afford the to pay for school lunches when mine were young as a healthy packed lunch was cheaper! Cheaper lunches or donating 80% of what it cost then I would have done gladly.

People can have enough money (indeed be wealthy) and make poor choices and not prioritise food being neglectful or just down right abusive and deliberately not feed their DC adequately.

And there are processes already in place to deal with parents who are neglecting their children or not providing adequate food.

State approved meals for all children is not the way to tackle the issue of parents who can't bother to feed kids, or can't afford to. It's ALL about removing responsibility from parents and handing it over to the government.

Hugely intrusive and named person all over again. Target support to those who need it and areas which would benefit from it. Leave the rest of us alone, thanks.

Whilst I have no desire to see children unfed, the problem should be dealt with at source by dealing with the reasons that some families are not feeding their children.

Is it okay to leave them in a situation where parents think it's OK not to feed them? I think we can guarantee that a household where children aren't being fed is not fine in every other regard.

And once again it seeks to interfere in the lives of ordinary households where children do get fed and spends money where it doesn't need spent.

It's like putting a sticking plaster over a broken leg.

I think that there are affluent societies who choose to standardise school meals and these are provided for all children, but I don't think that's done to mask the poverty, poor social services support etc that this proposal does. And what happens after a year? Is there going to be a miracle during that year that means all children are going to be in optimal home situations at the end of that?

I said this on another thread about FSM. The breakfast club I was involved in, set up primarily for child care from 8am but open to all, was run completely free but the children who really needed a decent feed before school, they never came. Never.

They're too reliant at primary school age for their parents to get them up & out the house.

Actually. Free breakfasts might work if served at morning break.

On another thread someone complained her DC was eating a jam roll provided by the school every morning on top of her breakfast because she didn't want to be left out. A jam roll is not nutritious !
And what if you live out of town - I felt that Marcus Rashford was totally London centric - if you live in the sticks are the gov putting on a bus to get you to and from your breakfast and lunch during the holidays?

I can def see needy and any other families not getting the child to school if they have better things to do on any day - so much food risks being wasted.

It's to ensure that ALL children regardless of background (whether poor or abusive) are fed and receiving good nutrition so they are better able to focus in school. It improves their learning ability and levels the playing field.

So they should properly fund programmes like Homestart so more families (poor or abusive) get the help and support they need, properly fund social work so they can do effective early intervention work, address the causes of poverty and abuse, properly fund mental health services, invest in fully trains informed practice.

But I guess that doesn’t look good on a headline or make for a snappy twitter post. And would cost considerably more.

I don’t need the government deciding what they consider to be appropriate nutrition for my children, and I don’t need them to feed my kids.

trauma informed practice

Lizziemqueen :

Good point to highlight. Not sure how this should be tackled but agree this is a sticking plaster for a deeper problem - and a vote winner .
Def a parental issue . A friend of mine brought up in real poverty ( slept under coats when it was really cold as not enough bedding) said for all that , they always had proper home cooked meals.
Also worry about our childhood obesity problem .

People can have enough money (indeed be wealthy) and make poor choices and not prioritise food being neglectful or just down right abusive and deliberately not feed their DC adequately. There are also a huge number of parents that are clueless about nutrition and don't provide their DC with a good diet.
And others who are bone idle.

Also just recalled when my children were at private school in an affluent area of Scotland there was a breakfast club - 30 pc of children on scholarships - but only a very few of those children were at breakfast club . It did have to be paid for. Majority of children attending were from homes who could afford breakfast . So it’s clearly something other than finance . Maybe too many parents have children in daycare from such an early age they aren’t used to doing breakfast . Agree totally with all above comments on social services etc @jellycat above

I was brought up in similar coats on bed style poverty. I can't say that I never experienced hunger but that was probably down to my own fussiness than lack of something to eat. If there was no cereal, then there was porridge or toast. Both my parents worked so we either were given breakfast by mum before she left, by dad when he got in after night shift or helped ourselves. We couldn't afford school meals so would come home and my dad would get up to give us something or we made our own.

I do feel very sorry for kids who come from chaotic or unsupported homes but free breakfasts and lunches for everyone is not the solution to that.