Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Among the replies above there are several which have shown that, if there were free school meals for all, there are many complications that would arise and the project is unlikely to be as inexpensive as some suggest.
It's possible to think of many things that might be free (clothing, water, fuel, travel) and to claim that someone may be "held back" if they have to be paid for. But resources aren't infinite, and decisions have to be made about how best to spend them.
If more more was available for education, there are several other things that should have a higher priority than free meals for all.
Among the replies above there are several which have shown that, if there were free school meals for all, there are many complications that would arise and the project is unlikely to be as inexpensive as some suggest.
My son has a payment system and pays with his fingerprint. Seems to work pretty well, but I am sure there's a not insignificant cost in having the equipment in the school, managing the payments, the admin and back-end stuff etc.
No doubt the company providing this service to the local authority is doing well out of it.
Im not against free meals or milk for those who need it. I don’t think we should be subsidising the rich with a defacto tax cut for them by feeding their kids for free…
i can't remember if we had tickets or not. All I do know is that everybody who wanted a hot meal had exactly the same choice and nobody was expected to wait at the end of the queue. 70s inner London.
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.
Given there are about 10.6m children at school and the average cost to produce a school meal is somewhere around £2.75, for 180 days a year the cost comes out at about £5.3bn. And given the Marcus Rashford arguments - if you going to provide free school meals what about school holidays?
I realise from further postings from yourself that you were likely being sarcastic, but for all that would actually use this as a stick to beat children with indirectly, how does £14.99 a month or so pay for a month's worth of school meals?
a) it costs less per pupil if uptake is universal - and food/nutritional standards can be imposed, dramatically improving some kids' diets
b) it removes any stigma from those currently getting means-tested free meals
c) there is lots of hidden poverty / parents who can't admit they need it so currently the kids lose out
d) educational achievement goes up (research shows)
e) it gets rid of all the costs of administering a means-tested system
f) it will almost certainly turn out to be a very cheap high-return investment if you look at the educational achievement (and reduced penal system costs) of the kids in 20 years tiime.
So I would also extend it to breakfast clubs too. It's just one of the things where the costs of not doing it will far outweigh the costs now.
"Austerity" and balancing the books are complete frauds, and the politicians pushing it know it but are too scared of the right-wing media to admit it.
How many of those who believe universal free school meals are a bad idea do (or will when they’re old enough) accept the universal winter fuel payments even though they’re well off enough to manage without?
How many of those who believe universal free school meals are a bad idea do (or will when they’re old enough) accept the universal winter fuel payments even though they’re well off enough to manage without?
I taught in a pit village secondary school in the 80s and 90s. About a third of the kids got free dinners and got a ticket, the rest paid cash. I can honestly say that there was absolutely no stigma, bullying etc. It did surprise me.
I think free meals for secondary students might cause logistical problems, but I think it should be universal in primary. The benefits of good food, socialising with one’s peers and staff would be fantastic.
I would just point out to those who, put simply, suggest that we should take responsibility for our lives and not expect state handouts paid for by taxpayers, that the people who would suffer most in this situation, would be the children, who are perhaps just a bit young to take responsibility for their nutrition if their parents can’t or won’t do so. But, hey, that saves me a few pounds off my tax bill.
Free meals are also an investment: better nourished children are likely to do better at school and become a more productive member of society as they grow up. But British short-termism means that something that will pay off many times over in ten or twenty years is not going to happen. (Another legacy of Thatcher: she, possibly unintentionally, brought about the obsession with short-term gain over long-term planning.)
My son has a payment system and pays with his fingerprint. Seems to work pretty well, but I am sure there's a not insignificant cost in having the equipment in the school, managing the payments, the admin and back-end stuff etc.
No doubt the company providing this service to the local authority is doing well out of it.
In my final six months of high school, my school introduced a system with payment cards, in part to reduce the stigma that was allegedly created by the kids on free school meals having to use a ticket system. I say "allegedly" because I had several friends who were on free meals but not once did I ever hear another kid taking the Mick out of the ones who had the tickets. Given how cruel the "law of the schoolyard" can be, this is quite a surprise. Perhaps the abuse was more subtle, but more likely it was because anyone who did take the Mick would soon encounter a bigger kid on free meals who would issue a "straightener".
Supposedly another advantage of this system was that kids who weren't on free dinners didn't have to carry cash with them... apart from when they needed to credit their payment cards... or catch a bus home... or do anything after school that needed paying for. To this day I'm convinced that the "stigma" like many stigmas was predominantly in the heads of the teachers and school authorities, not the kids themselves.
But it's not "for free", it's paid for out of taxes. And they would pay a bigger proportion of the cost by way of being a higher-rate taxpayer.
The only people being subsidised would be those who pay little or no tax - who are also the least likely to be able to provide their children with adequate nutrition.
Not directly no. But you were asking about educational outcomes, no? And free primary meals is part of a system that produces better outcomes by giving everyone as equal a start as possible.
Not directly no. But you were asking about educational outcomes, no? And free primary meals is part of a system that produces better outcomes by giving everyone as equal a start as possible.
Part of that system, but free primary school meals may or may not have make much difference in producing better outcomes. I don't think that is a given.
Part of that system, but free primary school meals may or may not have make much difference in producing better outcomes. I don't think that is a given.
Part of that system, but free primary school meals may or may not have make much difference in producing better outcomes. I don't think that is a given.
I taught in a pit village secondary school in the 80s and 90s. About a third of the kids got free dinners and got a ticket, the rest paid cash. I can honestly say that there was absolutely no stigma, bullying etc. It did surprise me.
I think free meals for secondary students might cause logistical problems, but I think it should be universal in primary. The benefits of good food, socialising with one’s peers and staff would be fantastic.
I'm glad you said that. I was teaching in a secondary school in 1974, at the time of the 3-day week. Some children then qualified for free meals because of the reduction in their parents' income. I asked some of them if they felt the situation caused them any difficulty. It was obvious that the idea hadn't even occurred to them.
In my final six months of high school, my school introduced a system with payment cards, in part to reduce the stigma that was allegedly created by the kids on free school meals having to use a ticket system. I say "allegedly" because I had several friends who were on free meals but not once did I ever hear another kid taking the Mick out of the ones who had the tickets. Given how cruel the "law of the schoolyard" can be, this is quite a surprise. Perhaps the abuse was more subtle, but more likely it was because anyone who did take the Mick would soon encounter a bigger kid on free meals who would issue a "straightener".
Supposedly another advantage of this system was that kids who weren't on free dinners didn't have to carry cash with them... apart from when they needed to credit their payment cards... or catch a bus home... or do anything after school that needed paying for. To this day I'm convinced that the "stigma" like many stigmas was predominantly in the heads of the teachers and school authorities, not the kids themselves.
And therefore we should be able to discuss the merits or otherwise of this suggestion, and hold views for or against it, without clouding the issue with stories about "stigma".
Back in the 1970s there were reports of some schools which did things such as announcing that seconds were available but only for those who had paid, and not for those on free meals. You can deal with that sort of thing by means of instructions to local authorities and schools (and these days to academy trusts as well). You don't need to spend money on free meals for all.
Given there are about 10.6m children at school and the average cost to produce a school meal is somewhere around £2.75, for 180 days a year the cost comes out at about £5.3bn
Given there are about 10.6m children at school and the average cost to produce a school meal is somewhere around £2.75, for 180 days a year the cost comes out at about £5.3bn. And given the Marcus Rashford arguments - if you going to provide free school meals what about school holidays?
I don't think the meals will cost anywhere near £2.75 each - most meals I make for myself cost me less than £2.50 and that's without the economies of scale that will be involved - not to mention that children will be eating significantly smaller portions. Furthermore £5.3bn is absolutely tiny in terms of government spending and the benefits would likely contribute more than that to the economy within a generation.
Edit : sorry, just realised @najaB made the same point
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.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
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.
Back in the 1970s there were reports of some schools which did things such as announcing that seconds were available but only for those who had paid, and not for those on free meals....
...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...
Not all children have parents who are as responsible as they should be, but not to the level that you may deem as being "defective" (or, at least, not to the level that they would be taken into care, which is a pretty high bar).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
My son has a payment system and pays with his fingerprint. Seems to work pretty well, but I am sure there's a not insignificant cost in having the equipment in the school, managing the payments, the admin and back-end stuff etc.
Yes, such costs can mount up, but they do provide a very efficient operation; many schools have halved the duration of lunch break as a result.
Also, the thumb system may (depending on the school) be used for other applications, for example printing, loaning books, access control etc, so the expense of maintaining such as system can have other benefits, beyond catering. For example, take print systems: when I was at school, you pressed "print" and your work was immediately printed, however these days schools can save wastage by requiring kids to authenticate with their thumbs, before releasing the jobs. Not only does this save wasted printouts, but it allows for further savings through the use of fewer, but more economic, printers.
There could be different companies involved; the company providing the food is probably not going to be the same as the company providing the back-office systems (they may be subcontracted by the catering company or may be procured directly by the school). Yes, some companies probably are doing reasonably well out of it, however any company that got too greedy would soon find themselves losing out to another company.
Im not against free meals or milk for those who need it. I don’t think we should be subsidising the rich with a defacto tax cut for them by feeding their kids for free…
By that logic you could argue that we do of course already subsidise the rich by educating their children for free (unless they send their children to private schools). So I guess the question is, do you consider school meals to be like books and lessons and toilets and PE equipment, which are provided free, or more like clothes and extra-curricular activities, which parents have to pay for?
To my mind, it does make sense to provide school lunches free for everyone. As others have pointed out, it ensures that almost all children eat healthily, it saves the admin of working out who should and shouldn't pay, and the lunches occur at a time when almost all children are on school premises as part of the normal school day, so arguably are being looked after by the school. And it gives busy parents one thing less that they have to worry about organising.
For something like this, I can't see that many people would object to a small rise in taxes to pay for it (and next to everything else the Government pays for, the cost will be tiny). But I think the people here who are pointing out the dangers of 'mission creep' where we endlessly demand that more and more things should be free do have a point: We do need to be clear that there are special reasons for school meals to be free for all kids: It's not a license for people to start demanding that all sorts of other things should be free too.
We do need to be clear that there are special reasons for school meals to be free for all kids: It's not a license for people to start demanding that all sorts of other things should be free too.
For something like this, I can't see that many people would object to a small rise in taxes to pay for it (and next to everything else the Government pays for, the cost will be tiny). But I think the people here who are pointing out the dangers of 'mission creep' where we endlessly demand that more and more things should be free do have a point: We do need to be clear that there are special reasons for school meals to be free for all kids: It's not a license for people to start demanding that all sorts of other things should be free too.
I have no problem paying more taxes for things that will have an obvious benefit to society as a whole. It's when taxes rise and the public services appear to be decreasing in value and quality that I would start getting concerned about the amount of spending on "free" things.
I would just point out to those who, put simply, suggest that we should take responsibility for our lives and not expect state handouts paid for by taxpayers, that the people who would suffer most in this situation, would be the children, who are perhaps just a bit young to take responsibility for their nutrition if their parents can’t or won’t do so. But, hey, that saves me a few pounds off my tax bill.
Exactly this. It disgusts me that so many people who contribute to this thread are happy enough to throw kids under the bus because (apparently) their parents aren't contributing much. The cycle will never end otherwise.
Free meals are also an investment: better nourished children are likely to do better at school and become a more productive member of society as they grow up. But British short-termism means that something that will pay off many times over in ten or twenty years is not going to happen. (Another legacy of Thatcher: she, possibly unintentionally, brought about the obsession with short-term gain over long-term planning.)
Not really to do with school meals, bit "branded" school uniforms and clothing seems to be a thing now.
When I went to school there were rules on the colours of clothing worn and the school supplied a badge that could be sewn on the blazer but that was it.
From news reports I've seen it now appears that schools require specific clothing which has the school logo on it. The cost of purchase being far more than with the old rules.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
