Free School Meals for 5-7 years old - A brave move or just another bribe? [Merged Thread]

[Berty23]

I tend to think most will access the FSM, however I can assure you whether a parent apply's or not, the school will know if a pupil is having a school lunch or not, so apart from that parents angst, the child accesses the school meal which is what the issue is here.

Here is the research
http://rebeccaallen.co.uk/2010/06/11/free-school-meals/

 

[Westdene Seagull]

All those bases are adequately covered.

What bases ? You might want to actually read what people post !

 

[BigGully]

Here is the research
http://rebeccaallen.co.uk/2010/06/11/free-school-meals/

Whether a parent feels some stigma to claim FSM is neither here nor there.

Any responsible parent irrespective of their circumstance will/should cater to ensure their children are fed either by their own means or through the FSM benefit when available.

I have had a similar experience when many years ago I had to claim some benefits, uncomfortable perhaps but needs must and I bit the bullet, it would be a no Brainer if there was a genuine risk of my children not accessing lunch, although the school monitors this anyway.

So to bring those already willing and able to pay into the free school meal spectrum, just to placate a few delicate souls isnt a strong enough argument for me.

 

[BigGully]

Where on earth have I said there is poverty in the context of children's hunger ? What I said was I agree with taxpayers money being used to feed all the children in the age bracket a decent lunch REGARDLESS of family circumstances.

This argument of assisting the well off is a red herring - if it were such an issue why do we provide many other services, funded by the taxpayer, to wealthy people without means testing ?

My second point was specifically at the idiotic statement of "if you can't afford children then don't have them" because virtually nobody can predict their financial circumstances 16/18 years forward.

Those bases that effect any family circumstance, you give me an example where there is genuine need re: FSM where there isnt already adequate access.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Those bases that effect any family circumstance, you give me an example where there is genuine need re: FSM where there isnt already adequate access.

Good grief - reading the effing posts !!!!!!!!!!!

I believe that giving those children a good lunch at school with all the benefits it brings, paid for by the tax payer, is a good thing regardless of wealth, need, background, gender, race or religion. YOU'RE the one that keeps bringing up the "need" being a necessary component.

 

[BigGully]

Good grief - reading the effing posts !!!!!!!!!!!

I believe that giving those children a good lunch at school with all the benefits it brings, paid for by the tax payer, is a good thing regardless of wealth, need, background, gender, race or religion. YOU'RE the one that keeps bringing up the "need" being a necessary component.

Your the one that is struggling and quite unable to bring an example where this isnt already being delivered, so why you think it is somehow a good idea to use taxpayers money to deliver a service that is already ensuring full access anyway is silly.

I will offer an example: My wifes colleague a head of year who is married to a barrister, have two children children with the 4-7 age bracket, why do you think it is prudent that these should get their school meals paid for by you ? Lets talk footballers, perhaps even Brighton players on £10K + a week, they to will now access this 'free' service, FSM should go to those that NEED it, yes NEED it.

If you want to spend tax payers money at least have some substance behind it when divying it out, why wouldnt need be the critical factor ?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

My ex-wife is a teacher and has seen horrendous examples of packed lunches. I have been to my kids private school and seen equally horrendous examples of packed lunches.

So those "bases" as you keep calling them are not covered. At my children's school the "need" is not based on poverty but more on parents stupidity or laziness.

If wealthy parents decide to send their children to state school then I have no issue with my tax ensuring their children get a decent meal at least once a day. And yes, that even includes footballers children ( although at least three BHA players send their children to the same school as mine and so wouldn't be covered ).

FSM and abuse processes do not cover the children who's parents send them to school with a chocolate sandwich, crisps, fizzy drink and sweet bar - and there are many !

 

[Simster]

Your the one that is struggling and quite unable to bring an example where this isnt already being delivered, so why you think it is somehow a good idea to use taxpayers money to deliver a service that is already ensuring full access anyway is silly.

I will offer an example: My wifes colleague a head of year who is married to a barrister, have two children children with the 4-7 age bracket, why do you think it is prudent that these should get their school meals paid for by you ? Lets talk footballers, perhaps even Brighton players on £10K + a week, they to will now access this 'free' service, FSM should go to those that NEED it, yes NEED it.

If you want to spend tax payers money at least have some substance behind it when divying it out, why wouldnt need be the critical factor ?

I make Westdene right and you wrong. The problem here is that people's definition of NEED varies. Some people will send their kids into school with a packet of crisps and a cold sausage instead of applying for free school meals, primarily because there is still a stigma attached to free school meals. By offering it to every child, they are assured of not going hungry. Secondly, the level of learning has been known to rise when a child is well fed. The second point is quite important. You could argue that a meal during school time was part of the curriculum, and nobody is shouting that middle class kids pay for their own school books just because they have the means, so why should school meals be any different.


As an aside BigGully, whenever it comes to political discussion you often seem to assume people understand the point you are trying to make despite the fact you haven't bothered to explain it. You do it all the time, and consequently your points come across as facile and about as relevant as the blandest political truism you could care to make.

 

[beorhthelm]

Research shows that many kids who could get FSM don't because their parents don't apply or hate the stigma. Universal means this issue goes away.

some basic implementation of smart cards or even a non tech version could do away with that problem. its daft to even suggest we need to feed every single child to hide those in benefits.

I make Westdene right and you wrong. The problem here is that people's definition of NEED varies. Some people will send their kids into school with a packet of crisps and a cold sausage instead of applying for free school meals, primarily because there is still a stigma attached to free school meals.

im struggling with this picture. parents wanting to avoid stigma of fee meal send their kids in with a poor lunch instead? who is this cohort that fear the stigma of free school meal in a society where everyone seems to take what they can from benefits? is this stigma real, percieved or mitigated already (ie some due make a cut elsewhere to provide/pay for a good meal).

 

[Nibble]

Serve the little ****ers sausage, beans and chips and get them doing PE three times a week in the playground and playing sports after school. Seems to have worked for every ****ing generation since the 30's.

 

[CheeseRolls]

some basic implementation of smart cards or even a non tech version could do away with that problem. its daft to even suggest we need to feed every single child to hide those in benefits.

Five year olds with smart cards ? This is the age group, with gloves on string passing through their coats so that they don't lose them.

 

[beorhthelm]

Five year olds with smart cards ? This is the age group, with gloves on string passing through their coats so that they don't lose them.

indeed, i considered this afterwards, silly idea. then equally the kids arent going up with their lunch money are they, it'll be given straight to the school (right? or are primary school kids being given change to give to the dinner lady, in which case... back to smart cards). so where is the stigma for the kids? the only place for it is the parents, and who would know other than the head teacher and burser? it feels like an argument invented from a bygone age, or something conjured out of statistics that overlooks other problems in the related demographic.

 

[BigGully]

I make Westdene right and you wrong. The problem here is that people's definition of NEED varies. Some people will send their kids into school with a packet of crisps and a cold sausage instead of applying for free school meals, primarily because there is still a stigma attached to free school meals. By offering it to every child, they are assured of not going hungry. Secondly, the level of learning has been known to rise when a child is well fed. The second point is quite important. You could argue that a meal during school time was part of the curriculum, and nobody is shouting that middle class kids pay for their own school books just because they have the means, so why should school meals be any different.


As an aside BigGully, whenever it comes to political discussion you often seem to assume people understand the point you are trying to make despite the fact you haven't bothered to explain it. You do it all the time, and consequently your points come across as facile and about as relevant as the blandest political truism you could care to make.

Simster, you seem to be making a mistake that you are somehow relevant to me.

If you would like to highlight a point I havent made clear then do so, if not then dont.

I have read your post a few times, its all a bit well ..... ODD, but I suspect that lends itself to your personality.

 

[chimneys]

The problem here is that people's definition of NEED varies. Some people will send their kids into school with a packet of crisps and a cold sausage instead of applying for free school meals, primarily because there is still a stigma attached to free school meals. By offering it to every child, they are assured of not going hungry. Secondly, the level of learning has been known to rise when a child is well fed. The second point is quite important.

Were this being carried through the entire school system then your points may stack up. But what is going to happen to these kids when they get to Year 3 at the age of 7? Undoubtedly back to the cold sausage/crisps.

And lets look beyond the headlines and onto reality! Its quite an assumption to make that the kids will eat what is put in front of them. If you are used to a varied diet, including vegetables, then not a problem, but a lot of these kids only know processed food/snacks etc and have already developed a complete dislike of nutritional stuff including anything green.

And Fridays are typically in most schools battered fish or fishfingers/chips/beans. No problem if part of a balanced diet throughout entire week. But no good if rest of week (meat/potato at Monday-Thursday lunches aside) they are having a poor diet!

My eldest unusually doesn't like battered fish/fishfingers/nuggets/sausages or the other standard crap schools/restaurants put on for them. She's well beyond Year 2 but are the schools going to put on nutritional alternatives to the Brake Brother staples? If not, many parents will still give their kids pack lunches to ensure they do get decent nutrition. And at the other extreme lets not forget, even with FSM, there will be plenty still bringing in the cold sausage/crisps as that's what Johnny whinges for.

And where are these catering facilities magically appearing from? School meals on wheels no doubt! Brake Brothers shares must be rocketing!

Ill thought through, headline grabbing tosh!

 

[chimneys]

Five year olds with smart cards ? This is the age group, with gloves on string passing through their coats so that they don't lose them.

Do keep up! Secondary schools in our area use thumb scanners. You cant lose those!

 

[Guy Fawkes]

It is a very simplistic argument to say the state should not fund school meals for parents who can afford it. What about school at all? Should the state pay for that for rich people? What about the NHS? Why should that be universal? Those who are in hospital long term get free food - why shouldn't they pay?

If spending this money contributes to a better society with healthier kids and better performance in school which leads to a more productive society then a relatively small investment is okay isn't it?

Research shows that many kids who could get FSM don't because their parents don't apply or hate the stigma. Universal means this issue goes away.

Ps. I don't really agree with it but I can see the thinking.

Doing this to help get kids to be healthier, Are these the same schools that cut PE lessons from the timetable?
Surely more exercise would help improve health than hot meals, a lot of these kids will be eating healthily already thanks to their parents.

Maybe an issue here which could have greater benefit is to tax unhealthy food higher and reduce the cost of healthy food in shops, thus encouraging people to buy better, more nutritious foods rather than cheap food that are just empty calories.

Quite why politicians think that they alone are able to provide healthy food for parents who can't otherwise be trusted to provide them themselves is quite beyond me? If there are problem areas, target them rather than just a one size fits all policy.

 

[The Large One]

im struggling with this picture. parents wanting to avoid stigma of fee meal send their kids in with a poor lunch instead? who is this cohort that fear the stigma of free school meal in a society where everyone seems to take what they can from benefits? is this stigma real, percieved or mitigated already (ie some due make a cut elsewhere to provide/pay for a good meal).

The stigma is real enough - look at the newspapers on a daily basis reporting stories of people in hardship as 'scroungers' and 'fruadsters'. Genuine people who are struggling have unfairly had that lumped onto their conscience.

 

[Simster]

Simster, you seem to be making a mistake that you are somehow relevant to me.

No I'm not. I don't really care what you think of me - I'm just telling you that your posts frequently amount to nonsensical smug bluster because you think you're more elequant than you are.

If you would like to highlight a point I havent made clear then do so, if not then dont.

Sure. The bit where you said "All those bases are adequately covered" and the waffle in your posts either side of this.

I have read your post a few times, its all a bit well ..... ODD, but I suspect that lends itself to your personality.

I'm "ODD"? Priceless coming from you.

 

[BigGully]

The stigma is real enough - look at the newspapers on a daily basis reporting stories of people in hardship as 'scroungers' and 'fruadsters'. Genuine people who are struggling have unfairly had that lumped onto their conscience.

There is less stigma than ever, but no doubt some does exists, are you saying that this 'initiative' is to deal with this stigma ??

Ultimately the aim is to make sure that everyone accesses at the very least a nutritional school lunch, this is overwhelmingly happening, even if a few are paying from their own pockets when they might claim FSM.

It doesnt follow that those that feel some stigma which might deter them from claiming means their children do not have a school lunch.

There isnt an underclass of ferrell children lurking in the freezing playground eating their evil crisps and kit kit bars whilst the brighter more affluent children enjoy the spoils of a hot school dinner, schools do not work that way.

Its the one time in the day when the children are monitored 100% they know who has what, no one goes without, no-one.

If it has been brought to the attention that some children are having poor lunch boxes they would be challenged/helped/supported, thats how modern schools function.

The cupboards are full of nutritious breakfast bars, accounts full of pupil premium money, offices full of family welfare officers that cater for those most vulnerable of children.

 

[Simster]

what is going to happen to these kids when they get to Year 3 at the age of 7? Undoubtedly back to the cold sausage/crisps. ....
Ill thought through, headline grabbing tosh!

I think that's fair comment, chimneys, but just because this policy is not being seen through until the end of primary school, doesn't mean we shouldn't start somewhere. And when there is a debate to be had with re-instating child support or even increasing it, perhaps the extension of free school meals to the end of year 6 will be drawn into the discussion? I'd certainly rather phase out child benefit completely and replace it with comprehensive cover of free school meals for all primary school kids.