Should school meals be free for everyone?

[hst43102]

But that won't happen. How difficult is it to feed your own child? You have to feed yourself so does it really cause that much stress?
Chances are feeding them at home makes life easier as you know what they're eating. A child may not make best choices at school and some will skip lunch altogether.
I'm afraid I don't think your idea here would work in reality even if the principle is sound.

You haven't explained how it won't "work in reality" at all. I'm not a parent myself but it is already a struggle (albeit minor) to make packed lunches for myself, so I alternate between packing a lunch and buying from a shop on weekdays. Obviously option 2 is removed for children. I couldn't imagine having to pack lunches for multiple children five days a week is very fun, and it leads to many children receiving meals which are less than appropriate - if they get any at all. How much could productivity in schools be improved if every child had a nutritious, warm meal for lunch - at a very small cost to the taxpayer?

 

[najaB]

I wonder how many that actually applies to?

Much more common I think is neglect and laziness; a teacher at a primary school, who is also a parent, was telling me that they now have to brush kids teeth in school because some parents wont do it.

You also see bad choices for example kids not eating healthy food and the parents smoking or giving them (money for) sweets instead.

Oh, I'm in no doubt at all that there are bad parents. How much of that is lack of care, and how much is simple lack of preparation to be a parent is another unanswered question.

That said, the issue of working poor is a real one. You can find the government's official stats here (Households below average income report), but in a nutshell as many as 1 in 3 children live in households that are class as poor, no doubt a consequence of the increasing number of jobs that pay under the living wage.

Unfortunately there are no easy answers to any of this however I do welcome studies to see what the impact of various initiatives is. I suspect the results will be vastly different in different areas.

Undoubtedly so.

 

[yorkie]

How much could productivity in schools be improved if every child had a nutritious, warm meal for lunch - at a very small cost to the taxpayer?

That's a good question which can be answered by studying the effects of the trials which are taking place.

Whether or not a warm meal should be offered for free is an interesting debate, which requires research to be undertaken before we can know if it's worthwhile or not, however the reality is that not all of them would take it.

Break and lunch times are shorter than they were years ago and some kids want to maximise their time doing activities they enjoy with their friends. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be offered, but you can't just say 'every' child would take it.

Also, I don't know what the cost would be, but either you would take the money from another budget or the government would further increase borrowing. You certainly can't take it from existing school budgets.

 

[E27007]

That's a good question which can be answered by studying the effects of the trials which are taking place.

Whether or not a warm meal should be offered for free is an interesting debate, which requires research to be undertaken before we can know if it's worthwhile or not, however the reality is that not all of them would take it.

I thought trials for free meals had taken place, and the trials at schools showed economically-deprived "nuisance" pupils could be brought around from their disruptive behaviour in school, simply by serving a free breakfast and lunch, hungry pupils were disruptive, their hunger the cause of their unsatisfactory behaviour.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That said, the issue of working poor is a real one. You can find the government's official stats here (Households below average income report), but in a nutshell as many as 1 in 3 children live in households that are class as poor, no doubt a consequence of the increasing number of jobs that pay under the living wage.

Without doubting that there are a lot of people in financial difficulties, it's worth pointing out that those stats define people as being 'poor' (roughly) by whether their income is substantially below the median income. Despite all the use of the word 'poor', that's not really a measure of poverty - particularly since the very definition of median requires that exactly 50% of the population have an income below the median. A true measure of poverty would presumably assess whether people can afford necessities of life.

 

[najaB]

Despite all the use of the word 'poor', that's not really a measure of poverty - particularly since the very definition of median requires that exactly 50% of the population have an income below the median. A true measure of poverty would presumably assess whether people can afford necessities of life.

Those figures do exist (see here for an example), but I didn't quote them since they come from charities dedicated to dealing with poverty and so would likely be dismissed as 'biased' by some contributors to this thread, who seem to be committed to the notion that in-work poverty doesn't exist in the UK, and that if anyone in work can't feed their children, the solution is to delay buying a new car.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Even if there are parents who could just about afford it, putting a bit of extra money in their pockets might result in them spending the money saved on days out - more money for the local economies they spend it in.

I agree with you about the desirability of free school meals for all kids, but I don't think the particular logic there holds - because any money people save from not having to pay for meals will presumably be lost to the additional taxes required to pay for the meals, so the net financial impact will be close to zero. Of course, if school meals lead to better behaviour and more productive adults in a few years' time, there will be secondary economic benefits.

So many people have to work multiple part-time jobs in order to keep a roof over their heads that they may not have the time to come home and cook a proper meal for their kids. This isn't a failure of the parents; it's a failure of the system that permits allows employers to pay a pittance while expecting their employees to be fully-flexible regarding hours worked, while not actually guaranteeing any hours!

The minimum wage is about to rise to £11.44 an hour. It hardly seems fair to describe that as a 'pittance' or to put the blame on employers - many of whom, particularly small businesses and many shops etc., are themselves struggling to stay afloat. The real problem here is that the UK's infrastructure/output/etc. appears inadequate to provide the standard of living that we seem to have convinced ourselves that we all deserve. That's a problem we need to solve, but not something we should be scapegoating employers for.

 

[najaB]

The real problem here is that the UK's infrastructure/output/etc. appears inadequate to provide the standard of living that we seem to have convinced ourselves that we all deserve.

That's not really fair. It seems reasonable to expect that, given a reasonable effort, you should be able to achieve a standard of living that's at least as good as that enjoyed by your parents - which for a lot of people simply isn't the case.

 

[RT4038]

the notion that in-work poverty doesn't exist in the UK, and that if anyone in work can't feed their children, the solution is to delay buying a new car.

To which there will be some people to whom this will apply. And there is the nub - a huge variation in individual circumstances, which without intrusion in people's lives cannot easily be quantified.

That's not really fair. It seems reasonable to expect that, given a reasonable effort, you should be able to achieve a standard of living that's at least as good as that enjoyed by your parents - which for a lot of people simply isn't the case.

Not at all - your parents may have been enjoying a standard of living that is unsustainable. [not necessarily your parents as individuals; it may be as a generation (because they have had a windfall, been borrowing, or liquidating historic assets for instance)]. Quite aside that your parents effort might have been greater than yours, no matter how reasonable you see yours as.
I expect that, if I have put in much more than a reasonable effort, I have a much higher standard of living than those who only put in a reasonable effort, and even more than those who have put in an insufficiency of effort. Our definitions of reasonable will differ of course, as will the measurement of effort, and the values placed on those.

 

[Gloster]

I do accept that many parents are poor parents who don’t even make a serious effort to feed their offspring (that was what I meant by my up the wall comment in post #7), but how many of them have become life’s losers because they never had a decent meal as a child? It is even worse now because all those years of cuts to social services and education mean they get even less help than their parents did.

There is a tendance amongst the right (and I am not making any accusations or casting any aspersions against any poster on this thread) to take the attitude that if one person is getting something that they don’t deserve at others’ expense, then the whole system must be made even more restrictive to prevent them getting whatever it is. Even if this means that those who any normal person thinks should deserve it loses out. My opinion is simply that no system can be perfect and an example like this is so important that you should be prepared to have quite a few ‘undeserving’ recipients to ensure that all ‘deserving‘ ones get the chance.

There is also a moral dimension, in that a country should be judged on how it treats its weakest citizens, but I accept that this cuts no ice with some and it is only cost and the effect on tax-rates that matters. (The same disclaimer as in the previous paragraph applies.) Anyway, as I have said, I think it would pay off financially in the long- and medium-term by savings in other areas and a more productive population.

 

[najaB]

Not at all - your parents may have been enjoying a standard of living that is unsustainable. [not necessarily your parents as individuals; it may be as a generation (because they have had a windfall, been borrowing, or liquidating historic assets for instance)]. Quite aside that your parents effort might have been greater than yours, no matter how reasonable you see yours as.
I expect that, if I have put in much more than a reasonable effort, I have a much higher standard of living than those who only put in a reasonable effort, and even more than those who have put in an insufficiency of effort. Our definitions of reasonable will differ of course, as will the measurement of effort, and the values placed on those.

Which just speaks to the brokenness of our economy, more than to the actions of any individual: if I have to work harder than my parents, to achieve less something is wrong.

 

[RT4038]

Which just speaks to the brokenness of our economy, more than to the actions of any individual: if I have to work harder than my parents, to achieve less something is wrong.

or perhaps your view of what constitutes work and how hard it is? Plus, have you yet got to the age of your parents, so how do you know whether you will have achieved less than them? Is your life/work/achievements that closely in parallel?

 

[gazthomas]

I'm 50 years old and would appreciate the option of a free term time meal if offered

 

[Richard Scott]

You haven't explained how it won't "work in reality" at all. I'm not a parent myself but it is already a struggle (albeit minor) to make packed lunches for myself, so I alternate between packing a lunch and buying from a shop on weekdays. Obviously option 2 is removed for children. I couldn't imagine having to pack lunches for multiple children five days a week is very fun, and it leads to many children receiving meals which are less than appropriate - if they get any at all. How much could productivity in schools be improved if every child had a nutritious, warm meal for lunch - at a very small cost to the taxpayer?

I work with those it's aimed at so know how they behave and believe me there will be a not inconsiderable number who will just skip lunch so they won't eat said lunch and food wastage will be considerable.
Productivity in schools will be improved by ensuring all attend when they should and behave properly not by providing a warm lunch. If you want to spend tax payers money on food for school children then breakfast would be a better option.
The other issue this is just one of many ideas that are a small cost to the taxpayer all adding up to a considerable cost.

 

[JonasB]

If anyone is interested, here is a study about the effects free school lunches had in Sweden: https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/89/2/876/6273674#337426056

"Our results show that the school lunch program generated substantial long-term benefits, where pupils exposed to the program during their entire primary school period have 3% higher lifetime income. The effect was greater for pupils that were exposed at earlier ages and for pupils from poor households, suggesting that the program reduced socioeconomic inequalities in adulthood. Exposure to the program also had substantial effects on educational attainment and health, which can explain a large part of the effect of the program on lifetime income."

 

[najaB]

Plus, have you yet got to the age of your parents, so how do you know whether you will have achieved less than them? Is your life/work/achievements that closely in parallel?

You do realise that I am not speaking to my own personal situation, but rather rhetorically?

 

[Eyersey468]

Which is an excellent argument for making it universal, no?

As I said earlier in the thread I do think primary school children should get a proper meal provided regardless of the means of their parents, though there is a danger of mission creep and people expecting more and more to be provided

 

[gswindale]

I work with those it's aimed at so know how they behave and believe me there will be a not inconsiderable number who will just skip lunch so they won't eat said lunch and food wastage will be considerable.
Productivity in schools will be improved by ensuring all attend when they should and behave properly not by providing a warm lunch. If you want to spend tax payers money on food for school children then breakfast would be a better option.
The other issue this is just one of many ideas that are a small cost to the taxpayer all adding up to a considerable cost.

Really?

I cannot believe that breakfast would be a better option - how would a school fit that in without making lunch & hometime later? From personal experience, it is hard enough getting a 4 year old into school by 08:40 so to expect to wake him up, get dressed and do the walk any earlier without having had anything to eat is just ridiculous.

Furthermore, from experience , getting a decent meal down our 4 year old at the right time does tend to ensure better behaviour - generally at the age range we're talking about, behavioural issues come from being either tired or hungry

I'm also confused as to what you mean by "productivity in school"? They should be a place for learning, not producing. The best teachers we had when I was at school were those who made things fun & interesting and were not overly concerned about garbage such as Ofsted ratings or exam results. Getting hung up on those things means that you're not spending the time trying to bring out the best of your students

 

[najaB]

I cannot believe that breakfast would be a better option - how would a school fit that in without making lunch & hometime later?

What we had in school might be a way to go: early breaktime was milk and a biscuit/cake and lunchtime was a hot meal.

 

[Richard Scott]

Really?

I cannot believe that breakfast would be a better option - how would a school fit that in without making lunch & hometime later? From personal experience, it is hard enough getting a 4 year old into school by 08:40 so to expect to wake him up, get dressed and do the walk any earlier without having had anything to eat is just ridiculous.

Furthermore, from experience , getting a decent meal down our 4 year old at the right time does tend to ensure better behaviour - generally at the age range we're talking about, behavioural issues come from being either tired or hungry

I'm also confused as to what you mean by "productivity in school"? They should be a place for learning, not producing. The best teachers we had when I was at school were those who made things fun & interesting and were not overly concerned about garbage such as Ofsted ratings or exam results. Getting hung up on those things means that you're not spending the time trying to bring out the best of your students

It would work better at secondary due to bus arrival times.
Yes, school is about learning it was a previous poster who used the term productivity which I, rightly or wrongly, assumed was referring to learning.
Best teachers still try to be best teachers but reality is you're dealing with pupils who won't do what's asked and feel they have the right to do as they please irrespective of what others want. Try going into a school for the day and see what teachers really are dealing with day in and day out, you may want to rewrite your post then. Teachers do want to get best out of pupils but there are far too many barriers at the moment.

 

[E27007]

Does anyone have a figure for tax relief parents receive against fees for the fee-charging "Charities", the educational establishments known as "Public Schools" (such an oxymoron), similarly, how much tax-relief do the schools receive due to their status as a charity?

 

[PTR 444]

Even taking the poverty argument out of it, removing the requirement for parents to prepare meals for their children will increase productivity and decrease stress - the long term benefits to the country would be huge. It's only a bad concept to those who can't see past the next election cycle.

But that won't happen. How difficult is it to feed your own child? You have to feed yourself so does it really cause that much stress?

In my experience, preparing a meal for two or more people actually doesn’t take very much additional effort compared to making one just for yourself. It’s just a case of buying higher volumes of ingredients and more setting up/washing up. I appreciate though that this can push the cost up quite considerably depending on the meal being prepared.

As for the parents who would no longer need to cook for their children, surely many would opt to eat out or get takeaway which can’t be exactly nutritious for them.

 

[najaB]

Best teachers still try to be best teachers but reality is you're dealing with pupils who won't do what's asked and feel they have the right to do as they please irrespective of what others want. Try going into a school for the day and see what teachers really are dealing with day in and day out, you may want to rewrite your post then.

Yes, there are more disruptive children these days than there were in days gone past - or perhaps there are the same number, being more disruptive - but from speaking with a couple of teacher friends they say that the vast majority of their students still want to be there and still want to learn.

 

[JamesT]

Does anyone have a figure for tax relief parents receive against fees for the fee-charging "Charities", the educational establishments known as "Public Schools" (such an oxymoron), similarly, how much tax-relief do the schools receive due to their status as a charity?

Parents: 0, schools fees aren't tax-deductible.

Tax, private school fees and state school spending | Institute for Fiscal Studies

This report compares private school fees and state school spending. It also examines Labour’s proposals to remove tax exemptions from private schools.

ifs.org.uk

We estimate that removing tax exemptions from private schools would raise about £1.6 billion a year in extra tax revenue. This results from an effective VAT rate of 15% after allowing for input deductions, likely VAT on boarding fees and exemptions for specialist provision. It also includes extra revenues from business rates.

 

[SteveP29]

My secondary school had blazers (brought in with our year group in 91). I seem to recall that the only items you had to buy from the "school uniform shop" was the tie and a badge to be sewn onto the blazer, so jumpers, shirts, trousers etc could be bought at BhS or M&S. I can't remember specifics about PE other than it was a red rugby shirt and black shorts for outside and white everything for indoors (unless your parents washed it all together and you ended up with a pink indoor kit!)

The two Secondary schools I went to back in the dim and distant 80's had the same policy.

1st one (I attended until Easter of year 2)
Black blazer
Grey or white shirt
Reversible PE top (Maroon one side and maroon with a central sky blue hoop on the other, which also doubled as the sports team kit, so if you were selected for football, rugby etc, that was what you wore)
White sports shorts
White football socks

2nd one (attended from Easter in year 2 onwards)
Black blazer
Sky blue or white shirt
No PE kit policy, wear anything, t shirt, shorts, jogging bottoms

Both schools made you buy the tie and the badge for the pocket of the blazer

 

[Richard Scott]

Yes, there are more disruptive children these days than there were in days gone past - or perhaps there are the same number, being more disruptive - but from speaking with a couple of teacher friends they say that the vast majority of their students still want to be there and still want to learn.

Most do want to learn but the disruptive minority are having more of an influence, unfortunately.

 

[johnnychips]

I am very fortunate to teach in an SEN college with a relaxed tutor time at the start of the day. Toast and jam are always available, and it is surprising what a difference it can make to some students’ demeanour.

 

[SteveP29]

or perhaps your view of what constitutes work and how hard it is? Plus, have you yet got to the age of your parents, so how do you know whether you will have achieved less than them? Is your life/work/achievements that closely in parallel?

My Grandparents were council renters.
My parents bought their first house when they married (aged 25 and 19)
Their first car 4 years later.
I'm now 51 and STILL waiting to get onto the housing ladder, paying an ever increasing amount of rent monthly to keep a roof over my head, the only way I will, is when my parents die and, being an only child, the house will pass to me)
Driving? Ha, don't make me laugh, once bills are paid, I have about £80 left, there's no way I could afford to run a car on that.
I'm sure mine is not an isolated story, so I'm sorry, but whether I have reached my parents age or not, I KNOW I've not achieved as much as them, I don't need to get to their ages to have that confirmed.

 

[RT4038]

My Grandparents were council renters.
My parents bought their first house when they married (aged 25 and 19)
Their first car 4 years later.
I'm now 51 and STILL waiting to get onto the housing ladder, paying an ever increasing amount of rent monthly to keep a roof over my head, the only way I will, is when my parents die and, being an only child, the house will pass to me)
Driving? Ha, don't make me laugh, once bills are paid, I have about £80 left, there's no way I could afford to run a car on that.
I'm sure mine is not an isolated story, so I'm sorry, but whether I have reached my parents age or not, I KNOW I've not achieved as much as them, I don't need to get to their ages to have that confirmed.

So presumably your life is not directly comparable to your parents' lives (there are so many variables and there is no need to be going into details). To be sure yours will not be an isolated story - I know plenty of people who have not achieved as much as their parents - and also the reasons behind that, which are as much ( if not more) to do with them, and their choices, rather than the Government. There is no guarantee (or requirement on the part of Government) that children will achieve as much as their parents, nor should there be.
But we are straying away from the subject of free school meals......

 

[dgl]

I do think all children should get a free school meal and I bet if we simply moved away from the academy model for schools and back to government ownership/running we would save more than enough for free school meals, sorting the funding issue. Naturally there would also be savings to be had in the removal of the administration required for the current free school meals program