Should school meals be free for everyone?

[GusB]

This was being discussed in the thread about Margaret Thatcher, but it's a side issue and one that's still relevant today,

Making it (milk) free for everyone removes the process of deciding who should receive it - it's not always clear cut.. You also reduce the stigma for those who are in receipt of free milk.

Should we make school meals free for everyone too as we wouldn’t want anyone to have stigma?

I actually believe that we should have free school meals for everyone.

I remember being at primary school and the secretary coming in on a Monday reading the register and when your name was called you either said ‘ticket’ or you handed over a few pounds in a special sealed envelope. No stigma from what I recall.

Were you one of the kids who had to shout "ticket", or did you hand over the envelope? If it's the latter case, then you wouldn't have felt the stigma.

I don't remember it being a thing either when I was at secondary school in the 70s. From memory I don't think we even knew who got free school meals.

In my primary school it was quite subtle. Most parents whose kids had school dinners pre-paid at the beginning of the week and every kid was issued with a paper ticket before heading to the canteen at lunchtime. I went home at lunchtime, but on the odd occasion I'd have to have my meal at school if there was going to be nobody at home, and there was an opportunity to buy a ticket from the teacher in the morning. I don't recall if there was anyone who was on free school meals at the time, but the lunchtime experience was cashless and the same for everyone. Presumably the teachers would have a list of those who wouldn't be bringing money in.

At secondary school, the experience was very different. Those on free meals had to queue to collect a ticket from the office prior to heading to the canteen and having to queue again; inevitably, they'd always end up at the end of the canteen queue and food choices were often limited by the time they got to the counter. Then there was the embarrassment of being told that the dinner ticket doesn't cover this and that, both on the part of the student and the staff at the till. I wasn't in receipt of free meals, but a few of my friends were and I would wait with them; it all seemed so horribly unfair that they were constantly having to put up with second choices.

So yes, I'd argue that free meals should be universal. Kids don't function properly when they're hungry and the very least we can do is put them on an equal footing.

 

[stuartl]

Nothing is 'free'. Where would the money to pay for this come from ?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I actually believe that we should have free school meals for everyone.

Even for non-schoolchildren?

 

[SteveM70]

Nothing is 'free'. Where would the money to pay for this come from ?

If the cost of administering a partial free school meals scheme is more than 30p per meal, just give the job to Lee Anderson when he loses his seat at the next election, and there'd be a net saving

 

[Jamiescott1]

If the budget is so low that the food is instant soups and processed foods because there's no budget to train and employ decent chefs then no.

 

[GB]

No

 

[azOOOOOma]

Nothing is 'free'. Where would the money to pay for this come from ?

Oh apparently we just tax the rich and they’ll pay for all these lovely freebies.

This was being discussed in the thread about Margaret Thatcher, but it's a side issue and one that's still relevant today,




I actually believe that we should have free school meals for everyone.


Were you one of the kids who had to shout "ticket", or did you hand over the envelope? If it's the latter case, then you wouldn't have felt the stigma.


In my primary school it was quite subtle. Most parents whose kids had school dinners pre-paid at the beginning of the week and every kid was issued with a paper ticket before heading to the canteen at lunchtime. I went home at lunchtime, but on the odd occasion I'd have to have my meal at school if there was going to be nobody at home, and there was an opportunity to buy a ticket from the teacher in the morning. I don't recall if there was anyone who was on free school meals at the time, but the lunchtime experience was cashless and the same for everyone. Presumably the teachers would have a list of those who wouldn't be bringing money in.

At secondary school, the experience was very different. Those on free meals had to queue to collect a ticket from the office prior to heading to the canteen and having to queue again; inevitably, they'd always end up at the end of the canteen queue and food choices were often limited by the time they got to the counter. Then there was the embarrassment of being told that the dinner ticket doesn't cover this and that, both on the part of the student and the staff at the till. I wasn't in receipt of free meals, but a few of my friends were and I would wait with them; it all seemed so horribly unfair that they were constantly having to put up with second choices.

So yes, I'd argue that free meals should be universal. Kids don't function properly when they're hungry and the very least we can do is put them on an equal footing.

No I didn’t get anything free. Ever. But was brought up in a council house. I don’t recall any stigma or any discussion on the matter. I recall at secondary school regularly not having money to buy anything or having to limit myself to a biscuit and juice. The

I think the kids these days get credit put onto a card or app that they spend. I don’t see how there could be a stigma as only the card owner would know the balance or ‘credit’ for the free school meal.

 

[Darandio]

Nothing is 'free'. Where would the money to pay for this come from ?

I bet you were one of those screaming at the television in disgust or swarming social media every time Marcus Rashford tried to get children fed during the pandemic. When something can be done to give children a headstart in life we should absolutely do so and not hide behind how much it costs.

I imagine the discussion in the thread will deviate to how bad the parents are and it's all their fault the kids aren't getting fed before or during school. But that's a completely different argument for another thread.

 

[Gloster]

Yes, most definitely. The system may have come about in order to counteract poverty preventing parents from giving their children a healthy meal, but it has come full circle. After being a relatively well-off country with a reasonable share for all, we are back to children not getting a decent meal because of poverty. For some it is because their parents have to work all hours, or are ill, or incompetent or family splits, but frankly it is because some are too busy p*ssing it up against the wall or bingeing on Netflix. The network of families and social services has disappeared and there is nobody to help the parents who want help or stop the ones who should be stopped. A child that doesn’t get properly fed is a child who is probably going to be a loser for life: and the rest of us are also losers.

Yes, it would cost a bit, but probably not much more than Baroness Mone’s PPE, but would pay off in the long run. Fewer social problems, fewer little scrotes causing trouble, a healthier population being less of a drain on the NHS, and so on. It is also the right thing to do morally.

This is another, possibly unintended, consequence of Thatcher and her -ism. The attitude that each individual should look after themselves and it was not the state‘s responsibility to help: this may have been taken even further than she intended by others.

Written by someone who was entirely privately educated.

 

[MasterSpenny]

No

Do you have a reason for this?

I personally think that they should be free, but they should not be free at the same time. In my school, we have a full restaurant building which is open at break and lunch time, and there is a lot of demand for the food there. Everyone ordering food has to pay with their thumb, and the price is cheap. My theory is that the money is sent off to the company. So I think that school meals should cost a small fee so that the company that runs it can earn money.

However, in my primary school, from memory school dinners were free and there was no idea of paying with a thumb. I don’t think it’s as helpful for the company running the restaurant. This is because if that money was to be used for the services, not having to pay a small fee isn’t helpful, as the theory I have is that the money gets sent to the company. If they were free, it wouldn’t be helpful for the company.

 

[HullRailMan]

Not at all, aside from the issue that nothing is ‘free’ so this will be another drain on an already stretched budget.

Children are the responsibility of the parents, not the state. The state should only be involved where parents are defective, not by default for everyone. I’m really not a fan of the current trend for people divorcing themselves from their own responsibilities.

Oh, and for the record, I had a short period of free school meals when my parents divorced and money was tight. Queuing up for the token was never fun, but it helped me learn the value of things and not to take anything for granted.

 

[Mogster]

No service provided by the government is “free” someone always has to pay, even if it’s not the individual receiving the service, although I’d say everyone pays tax in some form. “Free healthcare”, it’s not “Free”… I feel the very concept of something being “free” leads to wide scale abuse as with the overuse of GP and A&E services.

Anyway… when universal “free” school meals are suggested it’s often stated that most schools would requite significant additional support to provide food for all pupils. Larger dinner halls, kitchens, more staff, as well as the basic cost of the food. I’m not sure it would be good use of public money.

 

[GusB]

Nothing is 'free'. Where would the money to pay for this come from ?

Oh apparently we just tax the rich and they’ll pay for all these lovely freebies.

Well, yes, to put it simply. Or rather, stop trying to cut taxes for the wealthiest in society who can afford to pay a bit more. There's always money to be found if the political will is there. There's also money to be saved in the long term because healthier kids will be more likely to become healthy adults an less likely to be a burden on the health service in later life.

I don't think of it as "freebies"; think more in terms of an investment.

No I didn’t get anything free. Ever. But was brought up in a council house. I don’t recall any stigma or any discussion on the matter. I recall at secondary school regularly not having money to buy anything or having to limit myself to a biscuit and juice.

You wouldn't recall any stigma if you weren't the one getting free meals! Also, if you were struggling to afford anything but a biscuit and juice, then you're exactly the target for universal free school meals. With something that's means tested there will always be borderline cases where those just above the threshold miss out. This can be avoided entirely by making it available across the board.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Free school meals for everyone would penalise those kids who (for whatever reason) bring their own sandwiches. In particular kids with specific dietary requirements be they for cultural or health reasons.

 

[hst43102]

Yes, absolutely. I understand the funding arguments and the individual responsibility argument, but with the amount of money the government wastes on giving their mates contracts and completely unnecessary spending across the board, this would be a cost effective way to increase health, education and productivity of the country as a whole.

 

[RT4038]

Free school meals for everyone would penalise those kids who (for whatever reason) bring their own sandwiches. In particular kids with specific dietary requirements be they for cultural or health reasons.

There would be an entitlement for them to be considered special and catered for, at a much higher unit price per meal, ballooning the total cost.

Yes, absolutely. I understand the funding arguments and the individual responsibility argument, but with the amount of money the government wastes on giving their mates contracts and completely unnecessary spending across the board, this would be a cost effective way to increase health, education and productivity of the country as a whole.

And quite how would free school meal meals contribute to reducing/eliminating 'the amount of money government wastes on giving their mates contracts and completely unnecessary spending across the board'. Some would say it will merely increase it further......

 

[AM9]

Free school meals for everyone would penalise those kids who (for whatever reason) bring their own sandwiches. In particular kids with specific dietary requirements be they for cultural or health reasons.

Why would that penalise those children who are provided with a lunch by their parents?

 

[hst43102]

And quite how would free school meal meals contribute to reducing/eliminating 'the amount of money government wastes on giving their mates contracts and completely unnecessary spending across the board'. Some would say it will merely merely increase it......

It definitely wouldn't decrease spending, but would be a relatively small increase in total spending, and the benefits gained from this increase would faw outweigh any benefits gained from most other spending of this amount. If done properly there is no reason free school meals should cost more than a couple of billion a year.

 

[stuartl]

Why would that penalise those children who are provided with a lunch by their parents?

Because it would still be costing those parents to provide them ?

 

[jon0844]

Not at all, aside from the issue that nothing is ‘free’ so this will be another drain on an already stretched budget.

Children are the responsibility of the parents, not the state. The state should only be involved where parents are defective, not by default for everyone. I’m really not a fan of the current trend for people divorcing themselves from their own responsibilities.

Oh, and for the record, I had a short period of free school meals when my parents divorced and money was tight. Queuing up for the token was never fun, but it helped me learn the value of things and not to take anything for granted.

Why did you accept the token? Surely you should have stuck to your beliefs and not eaten, and had a go at your parents.

"Children are the responsibility of the parents, not the state."

Okay for you, but not anyone else?

 

[hst43102]

Because it would still be costing those parents to provide them ?

In which case free school meals makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to their situation?

 

[RT4038]

If done properly there is no reason free school meals should cost more than a couple of billion a year.

Bearing in mind your comment 'with the amount of money the government wastes on giving their mates contracts and completely unnecessary spending across the board', what makes you think this would be done properly?

I think the cost would soon balloon way over a couple of billion, as an entitlement would grow for all sorts of special dietary needs. What about during school holidays (or will these kids whose parents fail to provide for just starve then? ) It is just another tax everybody and pay for a catch all service for a particular group - loads of food wasted because of modern day fads; precisely the sort of nanny state thing that Margaret Thatcher stood against. Rather have means tested benefits for those genuinely in need, with robust systems in place discouraging benefits as a lifestyle choice.

Next thing will be free school clothes, free school mobiles....

In which case free school meals makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to their situation?

Aside from their increased taxes, presumably?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why would that penalise those children who are provided with a lunch by their parents?

Because the parents would be funding it directly rather than being given the "free" (at the point of use) meals provided by the school.

If something is free for everyone, it's a subsidy to the wealthy.

There would be an entitlement for them to be considered special and catered for, at a much higher unit price per meal, ballooning the total cost.

That's pointless- their parents cater to them out of choice, so why make special accommodations that won't be taken up?

Free school meals are provided for children from lower income households. If all children are entitled to them, them some will be getting a freebie they don't need.

 

[Darandio]

If all children are entitled to them, them some will be getting a freebie they don't need.

We're talking about feeding children for gods sake.

 

[Gloster]

It may be true in one way that free school meals for all is a subsidy for the ‘wealthy’, but to give them to all that need them, but only those that need them, would be so horrendously difficult and expensive that it is going to be easier to just give them to all. Otherwise, some who do really need them will be missed. Remember, the really rich send their children to private schools and so they do not like free school meal…for others.

 

[RT4038]

That's pointless- their parents cater to them out of choice, so why make special accommodations that won't be taken up?

If free school meals were an entitlement for all, it would be long before that entitlement would be translated into a meal that they can eat. Why should the parent cater for them at all if it is an entitlement? (Some may do so because of the fad of the child, but there are plenty of medical, allergies, religious and cultural reasons etc that would be mean the entitlement would have to specially provided by the State, and you can be sure a proportion of parents will milk this to the full).

It may be true in one way that free school meals for all is a subsidy for the ‘wealthy’, but to give them to all that need them, but only those that need them, would be so horrendously difficult and expensive that it is going to be easier to just give them to all. Remember, the really rich send their children to private schools and so they do not like free school meal…for others.

But there aren't many really rich, and they can afford good accountants and lawyers to ensure they pay no more tax than absolutely necessary. So the burden will fall on middle class ordinary people.

We're talking about feeding children for gods sake.

Which is traditionally the responsibility of parents.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

We're talking about feeding children for gods sake.

Way to get emotional about things... the limited resources for things like free school meals should be reserved for those who really need it. In extreme cases the school lunch can be the only decent meal a child gets, so those children from poorer households should be the priority.

If free school meals were an entitlement for all, it would be long before that entitlement would be translated into a meal that they can eat. Why should the parent cater for them at all if it is an entitlement? (Some may do so because of the fad of the child, but there are plenty of medical, allergies, religious and cultural reasons etc that would be mean the entitlement would have to specially provided by the State, and you can be sure a proportion of parents will milk this to the full).

It's less of an issue now, as the treatment regimes have massively improved over the intervening three decades... but when I was at school I took my own lunch because I needed to have a specific amount of carbohydrates due to diabetes. We initially attempted to use the dinners provided by the school, but the food on offer from one day to the next could vary wildly in terms of what the 'staple' was- and this could have a drastic effect on how well controlled my blood sugar levels were. The body processes chips differently to mash, and both differently to rice or bread.
I wasn't in receipt of free school meals, but if my family had needed that facility the inconsistency of provision would have been a problem. I suppose one way this could be handled would be for the free meals entitlement for eligible children be paid as an addition to child benefit, for those children for whom the provided meals would be unsuitable.

 

[hst43102]

If something is free for everyone, it's a subsidy to the wealthy.

How is this the case? Higher earners pay more tax, and are more likely to use private schools so will be unaffected anyway...

 

[najaB]

I actually believe that we should have free school meals for everyone.

Part of my education was in Barbados where school meals are free for all primary school students. This was initially introduced in the 1930s as a portion of milk and two biscuits daily in the morning, and expanded to a hot meal at lunchtime in the 1960s.

Kids don't function properly when they're hungry and the very least we can do is put them on an equal footing.

This, exactly. No child should underperform because they are hungry. I mentioned the system in Barbados because there was a massive increase in academic performance comparing before and after school meals were introduced.

And to those who are arguing about the cost, the cost per meal goes down as the volume increases, so it would actually be cheaper for parents to feed their child through taxes than making them a meal.

And what is the cost of missing out on the next Newton, Berners-Lee or Rutherford because they were hungry?

 

[Trackman]

In my primary school it was quite subtle. Most parents whose kids had school dinners pre-paid at the beginning of the week and every kid was issued with a paper ticket before heading to the canteen at lunchtime. I went home at lunchtime, but on the odd occasion I'd have to have my meal at school if there was going to be nobody at home, and there was an opportunity to buy a ticket from the teacher in the morning. I don't recall if there was anyone who was on free school meals at the time, but the lunchtime experience was cashless and the same for everyone. Presumably the teachers would have a list of those who wouldn't be bringing money in.

When I was at primary school, 50 years ago, school meals were free to everyone.
Secondary school was different, you had to pay, but it was subsidised. Full lunch was 10p, if you just wanted soup and a 'burger' it was 7p (called mini and maxi). Also they had the 'dinner ticket' system as you mentioned, which there was a black market for as it they were handed out to children with parents on benefits.