Free school meals for 500,000 more children

No I am not being kind either I loathe 'be kind'.

I'm not saying 'all children should have nourishing free school lunches' to look good, it's because it's something I firmly believe in.

Children are our future and they need to be nurtured.

I remember a Children's Commissioner who asked children what they liked about school holidays. One boy said he didn't like school holidays. When she asked why, he said it was because he didn't get a dinner at all in the holidays.

On an online newspaper a couple of years ago the subject of free school meals came up. There were hundreds of comments against free meals for children. People saying why should their tax pay for someone else's children. No tax money should be spent on others children etc. I thought it was very sad that so many didn't care if little children went hungry. I did comment and got so many red negative arrows. Most people now really don't care for others only for themselves. But quite a lot will put 'Be kind' on FB to look good.

No they were telling people and finding it hilarious actually.

Cossy

Good, progress towards being a “real” Labour government.

I'm not sure I'd want everyone's version of a "real" Labour government but the are certainly moving forward and so far they don't seem to be moving to the extremes.

I always hope the gossipy blame game doesn't come into these discussions, but I see it's popped up again.

Scarcity is not just a word: it's a mindset. It connects many of the diverse problems we face in life, from why the overweight can't stop eating, to why insomniacs can't sleep and the lonely find it hard to make friends. Folk wisdom tells us not to go grocery shopping on an empty stomach - because you'll buy the wrong food, and too much of it. Now, the latest research in psychology and economics show that when we don't have enough, not only do we make the wrong choices, our brains also change. We have less mind to devote to the rest of our lives, or, in other words, we lack mental 'bandwidth'. (Scarcity BT Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir)

Much as I feel everyone should be responsible for the well being and funding of their own family, having worked closely with parents and children for many years, school meals were a lot more than just a 'free dinner'. Children were encouraged in good habits - washing hands, choosing food, , thanking the kitchen staff who served, sitting down together and talking to classmates, using a knife and fork ( a surprising number used only spoons, or fingers) learning what a balanced meal was, and clearing their plates. The school was fortunate to have excellent food, and the whole exercise was positive and healthy for young children.

The average pack of 20 cigarettes costs £14.00. £9.00 of that is tax. So if someone is spending £420 on cigarettes they are paying over £260 in tax back to the Treasury.

More than half the price of an £8 bottle of wine goes back to the Treasury in VAT and excise duty.

I’m not advocating smoking or excess drinking but the Exchequer raises 8 billion a year in tobacco duty and another 13 billion in alcohol duty.

I think we can spare some of that to feed children, don’t you?

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)

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?

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.

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.

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!

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.