[Closed] No such thing as a free school lunch...

Wouldn't let my kids eat free school lunches. Guaranteed to be some nasty processed food which is not very good for them.

Bloody hell. 🙄

Ok, what about tax breaks for childless couples?
No need to spend on education or health.

And another one drifts in.

OK. Tax breaks for childless couples so you don't pay into education or health. No problem with that as long at the childless couples signing up for the tax breaks also agree that when they become old and infirm they just get tossed into a lime pit. After all you didn't pay to educate the doctors and nurses...

It's got nothing to do with who can afford what, it's about what's good for children. In three pilot areas where free meals were available to all children in that age range, the result was that they were on average two months ahead of where they would otherwise have been.

If the scheme helps children achieve higher standards of education and also helps to maintain healthy lifestyles, including helping to nip in the bud some childhood obesity issues, then it might well be self-financing.

Is that, like, an actual guarantee or just you hypothesizing?

Guarantee

Have you actually seen what school meals can be like these days?

Yes, processed, packaged, mass produced crap.

Do you have any reason to think that having them funded for the first three years of education will mean they will reduce in quality?

Tongue in your cheek there?

It's a personal choice, but for far far far less money i can give my kids fresh, unprocessed food every day.

The same result could be achieved by making school meals compulsary though with those parents who can afford them paying for them. Bear in mind that any cost increase for the parents who currently do not buy a school meal would be at least partially offset by them not paying for their current lunch.

Don't parents on benefits/low income already get free school meals for their kids?

Wouldn't let my kids eat free school lunches. Guaranteed to be some nasty processed food which is not very good for them.

The quality of school food is far more rigourously regulated than anything you'd buy in a supermarket.

My point is that yet again money will be taken out of so many peoples pockets to fund this ridiculous idea giving us all less bottom line cash at the end of each month.
This is hidden by that pratt Clegg force feeding a scared kid grapes on the news saying they are saving everybody money.
For childless couples that really is not an easy pill to swallow.

The quality of school food is far more rigourously regulated than anything you'd buy in a supermarket.

Really? Proof?

Don't parents on benefits/low income already get free school meals for their kids?

Not necessarily.

But on benefits they do.
If you're out of work definitely.
My cousin's 5 kids do.

If you lot without kids can do things like swan off to the pictures of an evening, actually ride your bikes at the weekend, go on holiday outside a hideously priced 6 week window, have a lie in on a Sunday if you fancy, and enjoy a disposable income, then surely a few school meals isn't too much to begrudge us

You bastards!!!!

😀

I'll happily buy your kids a happy meal every day. Why? Because I can afford it... 8)

Good point though about having the 'luxury' of being able to take holidays outside school break times. Our trip abroad soon will be considerably cheaper than in peak season, plus we're getting a massive discount for not bringing house-wrecking children with us. We can happily get sloshed on cheap local wine each night, or go to a local restaurant without having to leave our young children unattended in a hotel room from where they can be abducted.

I think this plan is an excellent idea. I'm happy to see my taxes go towards paying for it. To put the cost of the plan into perspective; how much is the planned Trident missile replacement scheme going to cost us? Something from which none of us will ever benefit. And that's just one of many things our taxes are wasted on, which are of no benefit to us as a society.

Can't believe that anyone would think that feeding children is a waste of money.

If you can't afford to feed your children you shouldn't [b]of[/b] had them.

Shouldn't [i][u]have[/u][/i] had them.

I would elaborate on just how stupid such a statement is, but I fear it would be a waste of intellectual effort.

My point is that yet again money will be taken out of so many peoples pockets to fund this ridiculous idea giving us all less bottom line cash at the end of each month.

The whole scheme is costed at £600 million a year. In the grand scheme of things, thats eff all. And will actually achieve quite a lot. I think its exactly what we should be spending taxpayers money on. Something that benefits society. I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that you share Thatchers verdict on that particular word?

Ultimately, the cost is probably half what the government will give some London consultants for privatising the Royal Mail. Or what the MOD lost down the back of the sofa last month

For childless couples that really is not an easy pill to swallow.

I don't know why you keep going on about childless couples, this scheme will only affect children of the age of 5, 6, and 7. Couples with children above the age of 7 will not benefit anymore than childless couples.

Take that into account when speaking on behalf of all childless couples in England.

This is electioneering at its worst, the Lib Dems trying to buy Middle Class votes.

To be fair to the Lib Dems, this isn't electioneering at its worst, this is evidence based policy being actually quite good.

The story behind it is:

The (previous) government, commissioned pilot schemes, where they trialled universal free school dinners.

The result of the pilot schemes was that kids did better at school. And that the effect was greatest amongst poor kids, even those who would previously have had access to free school meals, so it possibly can help reduce inequalities between poorer and richer kids which is nice too.

You can read all about it here (search for the executive summary)

They say that as an educational intervention, it offers better value for money than some directly educational things like the 'every child a reader' program.

Essentially, the underlying aim is the same as if they'd said "we'll spend x amount of money on buying some books for every school", it's just that because it is a free lunch, people get up in arms about it.

Don't parents on benefits/low income already get free school meals for their kids?

Yes, 400,000 is quoted in the Guardian at present. Free meals will increase that to 1.9 million.

"If you can't afford to feed your children you shouldn't of had them."

Hopefully well fed pupils will concentrate and learn the difference between of & have. Have a gold star for use of apostrophes though.

For everyone on here saying "school meals are crap, my child gets a good lunch from me" I see a kid who buys a monster energy drink & a jumbo bag of crisps on the way to school.

The whole scheme is costed at £600 million a year. In the grand scheme of things, thats eff all

Stop spending money you don't have. It's not a hard concept to grasp even if it's other peoples money (that you don't have) that you're spending.

If kids who's parents are on benefits/out of work/low income get free meals already but there is a section of kids who's parents struggle for genuine reasons why not just relax the free school meal criteria rather than include everyone? Or would that cost more to implement ? Bit like what they did for child allowance you have to opt in if you meet the criteria.

ernie_lynch - Member
It's got nothing to do with who can afford what, it's about what's good for children. In three pilot areas where free meals were available to all children in that age range, the result was that they were on average two months ahead of where they would otherwise have been.

If the scheme helps children achieve higher standards of education and also helps to maintain healthy lifestyles, including helping to nip in the bud some childhood obesity issues, then it might well be self-financing.

You're looking ahead and thinking of the long term implications. That's not the done thing ernie, you should know that by now!

I see a kid who buys a monster energy drink & a jumbo bag of crisps on the way to school

That's because the school meals are so bad.

🙄

I can't think of anything I'd rather see the government spend money on. Kids going without is a f***ing scandal so it's about time the problem was dealt with.

Really? Proof?

If I could, I would post copies of the inspection reports on the canteen in the school at which I'm a governor. It is even asked of parents & pupils in the regular surveys undertaken regarding the school.

Both internal and external catering is monitored regularly with minimum standards which are similar to those previously proposed by the FSA to the supermarkets which were summarily rejected.

Edit: [url= https://www.gov.uk/school-meals-healthy-eating-standards# ]Food Standards in Schools[/url]

even if it's other peoples money

it's not your money.

Only read some of the comments in the first page ...

How about those people who work but without a family i.e. single working person.

Does that mean they too have to contribute to something they do not have/use? Is there a possibility to opt-out?

🙄

That's why we're broke

We're not broke ffs 😀 Only a couple of weeks ago as the 5th wealthiest nation on Earth we were thinking of sending cruise missiles to Syria at a million quid a throw.

And if money [b][i]is[/b][/i] in short supply, then we should spend it wisely. What better thing to spend money on than children and their health and education ?

BTW 30% of children between the ages of 2 and 15 are obese, the total cost of obesity to NHS is £5 billion a year, helping to tackle this problem makes sound financial sense.

I see another stealth tax coming?

ernie_lynch - Member

That's why we're broke

We're not broke ffs Only a couple of weeks ago as the 5 wealthiest nation on Earth we were thinking of spending cruise missiles to Syria at a million quid a throw.

Yes, we could be 5th wealthiest but we also rank 3rd in the world with external debts.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt ]External debts from good old Wiki ... [/url]

But on benefits they do.
If you're out of work definitely.
My cousin's 5 kids do.

I was on job seeker's allowance for 6 months. My children [b]didn't[/b] get free school meals. I can't speak for your cousin, their children or their circumstances however I can assure you that all people on benefits do [b][u]not[/u][/b] get free school meals. I speak from first hand experience, not anecdotal nonsense read in the press.

That's why we're broke. £600M is actually a lot when you don't get enough money in to pay for your current outgoings.

Stop spending money you don't have. It's not a hard concept to grasp even if it's other peoples money (that you don't have) that you're spending.

The thing is that we live in a democracy. And political parties put forward what they think they should be spending our money on.

So the Lib Dems have come out and said that they will spend £600 million on providing school meals for all children under 7.

This week they have also said they'd slash the obscene amounts of money being spanked on a completely pointless nuclear detterent

I can hazard a guess from your general tone which party your cross goes next to. In fact, I suspect you may actually be George Osbourne. Are you? But I digress. What I'm saying is that looking at these policies, this sounds more appealing than anything I've heard from either of the other lot. I very much doubt that will change much over the next couple of weeks

Won't somebody please [b]not[/b] think of the children

If kids who's parents are on benefits/out of work/low income get free meals already but there is a section of kids who's parents struggle for genuine reasons why not just relax the free school meal criteria rather than include everyone? Or would that cost more to implement ? Bit like what they did for child allowance you have to opt in if you meet the criteria.

Cos they tried that in their pilot studies and it didn't work.

You can read the report on it here (search for the executive summary)

<

We're not broke ffs Only a couple of weeks ago as the 5th wealthiest nation on Earth we were thinking of sending cruise missiles to Syria at a million quid a throw.

Need to get rid of them, past their use by date, bit like free school meals, just with less mould.

That's because the school meals are so bad.

And the last time you ate one was?

A point that was raised on the recent "how much are your school dinners" thread is that there is already a growing number of families that send their kids to school with no lunch nor any money as they know the school are compelled to feed the kids. This practice is already costing schools/tax payers a fair amount and it doesn't show any signs of slowing.

Can't the parents starve instead in order to feed the children?

Put it this way fasting is good for the parents ... adult should eat less after all they have stopped growing and [u][b]the only growing adult do is side ways[/b][/u].

Try it and see the difference.

I blame the parents for eating the children's share of food ... nom nom nom ...
[b]
Parents please eat less and think of the children.[/b]

If parents find it difficult then they are really eating way too much ...

😆

Ernie, the problem is the pilot study showed no increase in better eating or health benefits, bar a reduction in eating crisps and fruit.

- Despite the changes in lunchtime food consumption, the universal pilot had few significant impacts on the reported overall consumption of different types of food

- The extended entitlement pilot had little impact on children’s diet and eating habits.

The quality of school food is far more rigourously regulated than anything you'd buy in a supermarket.

Really? Proof?

Are you seriously asking?

In Scotland (where I live), this is regulated by the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) Scotland Act of 2007 with further regulations introduced in 2008.

Local authorities take this seriously - I was at my kids' school yesterday for a special P1 kids-and-parents lunch in the school cafeteria and got to see how this works close-up. We eat a very healthy diet in our house, but this is only possible because we have the advantages of adequate income, time, knowledge and an interest in food, which not everyone has.

There were a few aspects of the school lunch offering I saw yesterday that I'd perhaps change, but on the whole I thought it struck a good balance in providing nutritious, filling food that young children would want to eat. The kitchen staff came across as very engaged in what they were doing, and very clear on what the aims of the school meal are.

Now aside from hygiene standards and public health regulations on product recall, where exactly are the regulations governing food that can and can't be sold in supermarkets?

Ernie, the problem is the pilot study showed no increase in better eating or health benefits

That's not what the mayor in one of the piloted areas claimed.

EDIT From the head teacher of a piloted school :

[i]“We have moved from a position where staff spent valuable teaching time checking that pupils were given a healthy packed lunch to a position where we can be confident that almost all our pupils eat a balanced, healthy and varied lunch every school day. We are no longer looking in packed lunch boxes to only see two pieces of dry bread which was one of our most worrying observations.

“As a result our pupils are more focused and attentive in the afternoons and have a heightened awareness of the importance of making healthy choices both in what they eat and how they spend their time and exercise. Behaviour has improved and most pupils now return to afternoon classes well fed, calmer and ready to learn.”
[/i]

Each to their own. That's not proof, but I wouldn't be exposing my children to food prepared in schools.

That sounds very open-minded of you. And not at all like an ill thought through sweeping generalisation.

While asking for evidence (and getting it) from others, you seem quite happy to be basing your own opinions on something that you read in the Daily Mail, about a TV program that Jamie Oliver did a few years back. Have you actually used the word Turkey Twizzlers yet? Or are you saving that for your next post? 🙄

That's not proof, but I wouldn't be exposing my children to food prepared in schools.

Did you even bother looking at the stuff linked on the previous page?

There is an unfortunate attitude in this country that school meals are tyhe same now as they were in the 1970s & 80s.

Ahhh the old Daily Mail quote (round of applause for the dreggs of debating prowess).

There was no evidence provided, just an opinion.

Having seen and tasted school meals recently, I won't be letting my kids eat them. If you want to, you do so. Your choice. Don't take it personally.

Each to their own. That's not proof, but I wouldn't be exposing my children to food prepared in schools.

No worries, stick to making entirely uninformed remarks instead.

Just keep paying the tax.

If the mayor said that then he's not read the pilot study report and/or lying.

Read the report and make up your own mind, but the evidence for it seems flakey at best. Some minor improvements in attainment by the kids, but no evidence this was as a result of the dinners. No health benefits noted, no reported improvement in behaviour of the kids etc.

No worries, stick to making entirely uninformed remarks instead.

Having kids in school, seeing the menus, and tasting the food, its not uninformed.

Tax doesn't concern me.