As long as their parents aren't spending their benefits on smoking and drinking. I know very well of one family who is on full benefits, spends 420 a month on cigarettes. Drinks a good few bottles of wine a week and boasts how she has an abundance of food vouchers. I'm all for giving to the genuinely needy but not to people who just take the **. I don't smoke but wouldn't be able to afford 420 a month even if I did.
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Free school meals for 500,000 more children
(58 Posts)This is for England: but in Wales (and London) all primary school children can access free meals.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson told the BBC ministers were "working as quickly as we can" on next year's plans to extend free school meals”.
She said the changes to free school meals would save parents £500 a year and "lift 100,000 children out of poverty".
"We know if children are arriving at school ready to learn that makes a massive difference to their outcomes", she said. "If you're hungry, it's really hard to concentrate."
The Department for Education has set aside £1bn to fund the change up to 2029.”.
“The government has also pledged £13m to a dozen food charities across England to "fight food poverty" and said there will be a review of standards so that school meals are healthy”
(All eyes of course on announcements as regards the two child benefit cap)
The criteria? “That can include receiving Universal Credit but, until the changes are implemented next September, parents also must have a household income of less than £7,400 a year, after tax.”
There have been difficulties with parents enrolling children, and automatic enrolment is under discussion.
“Kate Anstey, head of education policy at the Child Poverty Action Group, said the extension would cover "all children in poverty and those at risk of poverty", with the current criteria only accounting for around two-thirds of those children.
The increase in free school meals and direction and the pledge £13m to a dozen food charities - more small steps win the right direction. I wish more could be done but there are so many competing needs in so many sectors.
...and after the free meals have been handed out the teachers and assistants can toilet train the children before thinking about about educating them for an hour or two before their hard-working parents pick them up.
Oh dear, I hated milk as a child even tho I knew it was Good For Me. But a great solution benefitting all.
Whitewavemark2
growstuff
Yes, they were limited Maizie, but the allowance was enough for them to buy a two course meal. If they had gone over budget, they would have been short on other days.
Given the reason that they are having free meals in the first place that seems a bit daft. Surely the children amongst whom we would undoubtedly find signs of malnutrition, should be allowed food until they are satiated?
Free milk seems a good idea too!!!
I'm more familiar with secondary school meals - partly because I used to eat them myself. The "set meal" was usually nutritious and generous enough to fill up a teenager.
There has to be a limit or they'd just end up buying stuff and throwing it away. I don't have a problem with a daily limit.
Stiff, this would be targetted at the children.
Maremia
Stiff, this would be targetted at the children.
Exactly! This is one way of addressing the arguments people have about giving parents child benefits which they spend on themselves. The benefit goes directly to the children.
What there is NOT to like about feeding hungry children is beyond me. Whatever the causes of a child going hungry, just remember one thing - it is never the fault of the child.
A new child started at the school where I worked and asked for a free school meal. She was told that she simply had to ask for a meal, not a 'free' meal, and she said that at her previous school the free meal children had to line up separately. Appalling. There was no need for anybody but the office staff to know who was having free meals. For some this was their only hot meal of the day, and having seen the poor packed lunches that some children had, it makes sense to give all primary children a decent meal. Breakfast clubs too - a hungry child is listless and can't work or learn. I would pay more tax to fund this - they are the future of this nation.
Saving £500 a year is just over £13 a week (38 week school year). If there are 2 children £26 that's quite a chunk for low earners who just miss out on benefits.
Then imo the parents should be given less benefits. Imo money that is provided to be for the children should be spent on the children, not in the beauty salon or the pub! Someone I know who worked in a school said the kids with the new phones and 'in' trainers etc all seemed to be the kids whose parents claimed benefits and didn't work.
Stiff
Then imo the parents should be given less benefits. Imo money that is provided to be for the children should be spent on the children, not in the beauty salon or the pub! Someone I know who worked in a school said the kids with the new phones and 'in' trainers etc all seemed to be the kids whose parents claimed benefits and didn't work.
I've worked in many schools. I have no idea what kind of trainers the pupils wore because they weren't allowed in school. Mobile phones weren't allowed either, but some pupils did use them before and after school. I obviously didn't work in the same school your friend worked in Stiff because it wasn't the pupils whose parents received benefits who had the most expensive phones. Strangely enough (as I wrote, it obviously wasn't the same school) the pupils from the most well-off families had the most stylish bags and shoes. They could also afford to go on the most expensive school trips and their parents had the most expensive cars.
Stiff
Then imo the parents should be given less benefits. Imo money that is provided to be for the children should be spent on the children, not in the beauty salon or the pub! Someone I know who worked in a school said the kids with the new phones and 'in' trainers etc all seemed to be the kids whose parents claimed benefits and didn't work.
That's precisely why it's been decided to give poorer children free school meals - their parents can't pay for their beauty salon treatments with free food!
1. Eligible families have to claim, but I worked with an LEA, and it was common knowledge that even if there was help to get over language/knowledge barriers, the child would refuse to take the form to school because they did not like school food, or did not want to be seen by their peers to have this. Now that most schools have a card system where free cards are the same as pre-paid, only the office knows who is who.
2. I visited schools and I was seldom impressed by what was on offer, and indeed some schools had taken their kitchens out in favour of sandwiches.
Margaret Thatcher got rid of that years ago. When our children were young we were very hard up but we always fed them, breakfast, lunch and dinner during the school holidays. Breakfast, packed lunch and dinner during school term. For me, it is parents' duty to feed ther children.
Of course it is, but the hard fact is that some parents simply don't - for whatever reasons. That, as I said earlier in this thread, isn't the fault of the child. I can't see why anyone would rather see children go hungry - not to mention the fact that repeated studies have shown that children learn much better when they're not going hungry.
If free school meals were given to every primary school child, regardless of parents income or circumstances, why is that any different to giving WFP to every pensioner, regardless of income?
To me, it’s the same argument. My own children didn’t need free meals, as we were able and willing to provide a decent packed lunch and then a cooked meal when they came home, but if they had been entitled to them, we would have taken advantage of it. The same with WFP. We can manage without it, thankfully, but would have been pleased to have still been entitled to it.
growstuff
Stiff
Then imo the parents should be given less benefits. Imo money that is provided to be for the children should be spent on the children, not in the beauty salon or the pub! Someone I know who worked in a school said the kids with the new phones and 'in' trainers etc all seemed to be the kids whose parents claimed benefits and didn't work.
That's precisely why it's been decided to give poorer children free school meals - their parents can't pay for their beauty salon treatments with free food!
Sadly this does happen whether parents are on benefits or not - some just don't put their children first. One mother was showing off her £60 tattoo in the office foyer, but couldn't afford £2.50 for her child to go the panto. Another parent, who was clearly earning a good salary - decent house, newish car - also couldn't afford to pay for swimming lessons. In both cases the school fund provided so that the children didn't miss out, and they were both fully aware that this would happen. Another told the Head a sob story and he discreetly arranged payment for her child to go on the year 6 five day school trip - at which point she was heard telling other parents in the playground to 'go in and say you can't afford it and the school will pay. ' There are unpleasant unprincipled scroungers in every walk of life, but as others have said, it is not the fault of the children and they are the ones who suffer.
Why should there be free school meals for all? If the family can afford it they should pay. That money has to come from somewhere. By giving free school meals for all you're depriving a good cause of assistance from the government
Daisycuddles
Why should there be free school meals for all? If the family can afford it they should pay. That money has to come from somewhere. By giving free school meals for all you're depriving a good cause of assistance from the government
Has anybody in the government advocated free school meals for all?
Stiff
As long as their parents aren't spending their benefits on smoking and drinking. I know very well of one family who is on full benefits, spends 420 a month on cigarettes. Drinks a good few bottles of wine a week and boasts how she has an abundance of food vouchers. I'm all for giving to the genuinely needy but not to people who just take the **. I don't smoke but wouldn't be able to afford 420 a month even if I did.
Here go with the “stigma” of parents on benefits who (allegedly) put their own needs before that of their children.
Someone always seems to know someone!
ViceVersa
Of course it is, but the hard fact is that some parents simply don't - for whatever reasons. That, as I said earlier in this thread, isn't the fault of the child. I can't see why anyone would rather see children go hungry - not to mention the fact that repeated studies have shown that children learn much better when they're not going hungry.
Well said! It’s not always about the actual cost of meals, some parents are just not great parents, forget to shop, are too busy working to remember to do the packed lunch and a myriad of other reasons.
As everyone else keeps saying, it’s not the children’s fault.
As everyone keeps saying, it’s not the children’s fault
No, it’s not, it’s the parents fault if they ‘forget to shop’, or are ‘too busy working to remember to do the packed lunch’.
Too many excuses for their irresponsibility and inadequate parenting.
Cossy
Stiff
As long as their parents aren't spending their benefits on smoking and drinking. I know very well of one family who is on full benefits, spends 420 a month on cigarettes. Drinks a good few bottles of wine a week and boasts how she has an abundance of food vouchers. I'm all for giving to the genuinely needy but not to people who just take the **. I don't smoke but wouldn't be able to afford 420 a month even if I did.
Here go with the “stigma” of parents on benefits who (allegedly) put their own needs before that of their children.
Someone always seems to know someone!
It always amazes me that people seem to know exactly how much others spend on cigarettes (or whatever). Do they ask them?
Calendargirl
^As everyone keeps saying, it’s not the children’s fault^
No, it’s not, it’s the parents fault if they ‘forget to shop’, or are ‘too busy working to remember to do the packed lunch’.
Too many excuses for their irresponsibility and inadequate parenting.
Do you think the children should pay the price for their parents' inadequacies? (if that's what's happening)
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »