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

Schools were never designed to replace responsible parenting, yet this is what they are ever increasing turning into.

Source?
First hand evidence / experience?

The type of person who (a) expects parents to act responsibly, and/or (b) those who feel the same achievement benefits could be achieved more efficiently by other means.

kimbers - Member
Im just trying to figure out what kind of person begurdges their taxes being spent on feeding children

I don't think anyone begrudges paying taxes that go towards feeding kids whose parents can't afford to do so properly themselves.
I think the issue is that there are parents out there who can afford to pay for their kids meals, but won't have to as it will be covered by this 'blanket school meals' thing.
And the question seems to be why should other tax payers pay for the school meals of those kids; not the kids whose parents can't afford it? Personally, I would rather that parents who can afford to pay for their kids meals did so, and that money went to helping the kids who need the help/assistance even more (school uniforms, extra tuition, books, etc?)

I like the 'won't someone thing of the children' style of your post though..... 😉

Schools were never designed to replace responsible parenting, yet this is what they are ever increasing turning into.

Some people seem to have never heard of the phrase[i] in loco parentis[/i].

And the question seems to be why should other tax payers pay for the school meals of those kids; not the kids whose parents can't afford it? Personally, I would rather that parents who can afford to pay for their kids meals did so, and that money went to helping the kids who need the help/assistance even more (school uniforms, extra tuition, books, etc?)

I imagine that as with the winter fuel allowance, the cost of means testing negates any saving.

What if it was proved cheaper to provide the meals across the board rather than a system of means testing? What would the consensus be then? Would we still want means testing to ensure that none of our precious tax revenues weren't spent mistakenly on some undeserving child purely as a point of principle?

Don't forget this is only aimed at Reception / Y1 / Y2. Not all children.

If it was demonstrated that it was cheaper to provide free meals for everyone rather than just those on low incomes (in total not on a per child basis) then I would welcome that. I am not aware of any such evidence though.

That however is not the question that was asked though was it.

My taxes pay for all sorts of school related costs, I don't mind paying a bit more to ensure kids get a good meal. I wonder if given the shite some people eat maybe if the kids understand a bit more about eating healthily they'll be more likely to want to eat well later in life?

Well it's certainly quite noticeable that my son comes home from school talking and asking about healthy food since it's being taught and discussed at school.

gonefishin - Member
If it was demonstrated that it was cheaper to provide free meals for everyone rather than just those on low incomes (in total not on a per child basis) then I would welcome that. I am not aware of any such evidence though.

but it was demonstrated in one of the studies above (and most other studies on similar programes) that you get a higher uptake for the poorer kids if theres a blanket programe that covers everyone rather than just targeting those in need

Universal free school meals is cheaper to administer than opt-out/means tested/by application.

joemarshall - Member
So we should punish children because their parents don't make them a healthy lunch, or feed them properly at home?

+1, walk down any street anywhere in the world and you'll see ****less parents. The kids don't have any choice.

5thElefant - Member
It's far harder to accept that some people don't think they should be responsible for feeding their own children.

What do you suggest as a cheaper way of making sure these children are fed? Plus see above.

dirtycrewdom - Member
What tax break? I'm married but my taxes have remained the same as before.

🙄

If only there were a quick and easy way of differentiating between the deserving and the undeserving poor?

It'd make all this kind of thing so much easier

Coyote - Member
What if it was proved cheaper to provide the meals across the board rather than a system of means testing? What would the consensus be then? Would we still want means testing to ensure that none of our precious tax revenues weren't spent mistakenly on some undeserving child purely as a point of principle?

Yeah. as grum says perhaps it is because administering a system to define who needs help and who doesn't might be prohibitively expensive in relation to the amount of 'benefit' dished out. And of course in that case it makes sense to apply it in a 'blanket' manner.

Coyote - your posts seem to be very snipey towards those who are questioning this.
I can't recall seeing one post that says any of the children are 'underserving' of a proper meal. Rather, that for those whose parents can afford it, the meal should perhaps come from the parent, rather than the state? There has been no mention of whether a certain child is more deserving than another of a proper meal.
I, for one took a while to actually comment on this as there seems to be a few people getting quite high & mighty, even agrgessive about the whole thing.

Don't forget this is only aimed at Reception / Y1 / Y2. Not all children.

but it was demonstrated in one of the studies above (and most other studies on similar programes) that you get a higher uptake for the poorer kids if theres a blanket programe that covers everyone rather than just targeting those in need

That's not proof that it is cheaper, that's just a higher uptake. Not even close to the same thing. Besides what I've suggested is a blanket program, make the meals compulsary. It isn't that different to what has been suggested it just involves the parents who don't qualify for free meals having to pay for it. I can't see how that is unreasonable.

What do you suggest as a cheaper way of making sure these children are fed? Plus see above.

What exactly is wrong with my suggestion?

And the question seems to be why should other tax payers pay for the school meals of those kids; not the kids whose parents can't afford it? Personally, I would rather that parents who can afford to pay for their kids meals did so, and that money went to helping the kids who need the help/assistance even more (school uniforms, extra tuition, books, etc?)

There is an economic argument to say that those parents that can afford it already pay more tax than those that can't so are, in effect, subsidising themselves. The number of children that would benefit is tiny compared to the number of taxpayers in the UK so the relative cost to you as an individual is pretty insignificant.

Also, in many cases, it's not just about he food. I was amazed by how many kids in our school rarely sat down and ate as a family at home. On occasion, the school invites parents into have lunch with their kid(s) i.e. a Fathers Day lunch. it's on days such as this that some kids have school meals that don't normally and at the last couple I attended it was incredible to see how many didn't (couldn't?) use a knife & fork properly - even in Key Stage 2. Watching the teachers engaging both parents & kids in conversation was really nice to see and the littl'uns in particular seemed to really take to it.

Binners. There is, eugenics.

I do think its more imprtnant to spen MY taxes on weapons and underwriting 'free market' capitalism though

Oh and potholes

I pay just over a £10er p/w for my lil un to have school-meals at first school, yet people are claiming £15 p/w.

Are they not charged at the same rate nationally?

It was me that said £15. Partly through rounding up to make my argument sound better and partly because mine only has school dinners once in a while so I'm not 100% certain what it costs... I thought it was between £2.50 and £3...

You're right, apart from the links between it and:

Heart Disease
Colorectal cancer
Ovarian Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Reduced bone density

Nope. In fact:
1. Several studies show that switching to unsaturated fat [u]increases[/u] the risk of cardiovascular disease. [u]There is no significant link between saturated fat and heart disease.[/u]
2. More recent studies contradict earlier findings: [u]there is no link between saturated fat intake and colon cancer. [/u]
3. Ovarian cancer risk only increases for diets very high in saturated fat.
4. More recent studies contradict earlier findings: [u]there is no link between saturated fat intake and prostate cancer.[/u]
5. Studies are conflicting - some show a link, others show the opposite. [u]There is no consensus that saturated fats reduce bone density.[/u]

gonefishin - Member

What exactly is wrong with my suggestion?

Sorry didn't read it.

There is a third option of making the meals compulsory with the costs borne by the parents, excepting those who qualify for free meals.

Costs a whole lot more to administer than a blanket scheme. You'll get parents refusing to pay because they can do packed lunch cheaper - what would you do in that instance? Sanction them? Just gets into more levels of complexity.

What else do parents want?

It's not about what parents want, it's what some children need.

For the taxpayer to pick up the tab for breakfast too? What about evening meals, weekends, holidays? A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Easy there Worzel Gummage.

Can I give my nipper a packed lunch and turn up for the free hot meal myself ?
Anyone know ?

Are they not charged at the same rate nationally?

No, it varies. £1.90 / day in Bury.

Costs a whole lot more to administer than a blanket scheme

Incremental admin costs won't significantly increase over what they are right now.

You'll get parents refusing to pay because they can do packed lunch cheaper - what would you do in that instance?

As I understand it schools have a responsibility right now to enusre that all children have a meal and that currently this is bourne by the school so the situation you describe isn't significantly different to that. At a guess I'd say that the school would charge at a slightly higher rate to cover the cost of those parents. This will no doubt be deemed unfair and "punishing responsible parents" but I don't see it as any less fair than those of us who don't have kids paying to feed kids whose parents can afford to do it themselves.

It's not about what parents want, it's what some children need.

I have no problem with providing for what some children need. I think I've made that quite clear. A freebee for parents who can provide for their kids is something that I object to.

Easy there Worzel Gummage.

The point I was making was that there has to be a line drawn somewhere between what is and isn't reasonable for the state to provide by using an absurd exageration. I wasn't being serious.

gonefishin - Member

"Costs a whole lot more to administer than a blanket scheme"

Incremental admin costs won't significantly increase over what ther are right now.

Can I see your costings please?

The line has been drawn, it's not all kids.

FWIW I don't have kids, I'm just nice.

For the taxpayer to pick up the tab for breakfast too?

There has been talk in certain places of exactly this happening.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20936420 ]BBC Education link[/url]

Lifer, at present schools operate a system of some kids paying for meals and other kids getting them free. Adding more kids to the ones who pay for them won't significantly increase the admin costs as the biggest cost of administration will be in the setting up of the system. Adding more people to it won't add significantly more costs. I could just as easily ask for the costs that demonstrate how the free system is cheaper overall.

I fail to see how I'm not being "nice".

Nope. In fact:
1. Several studies show that switching to unsaturated fat increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. There is no significant link between saturated fat and heart disease.
2. More recent studies contradict earlier findings: there is no link between saturated fat intake and colon cancer.
3. Ovarian cancer risk only increases for diets very high in saturated fat.
4. More recent studies contradict earlier findings: there is no link between saturated fat intake and prostate cancer.
5. Studies are conflicting - some show a link, others show the opposite. There is no consensus that saturated fats reduce bone density.

I see, as you underlined it, it must be true!!!

http://www.cancernetwork.com/prostate-cancer/content/article/10165/2146661

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/surprising-findings-on-omega-3-fats-trans-fats-and-prostate-cancer-risk-201105052552

More recent studies contradict earlier findings

As they often do, and internet authority figures fail to keep up 🙂

If you're going to push research based facts, you need to do your own metastudy.

Does it really matter that we will all be paying for it - whether we have children or not or regardless of parents means...? Isn't this as others have said more about securing more nourished and successful children by very straightforward means...?

Several people seem to thinking about this in very narrow and reductionist terms. Taxation isn't about paying for services you use, it is about contributing to the overheads of governing and maintaining society. I have paid 40% tax for well over a decade, but it doesn't really mean I am subsidising those paying less tax. It means I have been lucky enough to earn more so can contribute larger amounts (in purely monetary terms) to society. Would you expect to pay more for using services - as well as expecting not to bear the costs of services you don't utilise?

Yes, well said.

People forget that taxation is not a subscription for services. It's taxation, a completely different thing.

Interesting thread. Who would have thought that a policy which will ensure that every 5, 6, and 7 year old child, will be given a hot, balanced, and nutritional meal, every school day, if their parents so wish, irrespective of ability to pay, could prove to be so controversial ?

Even the most right-wing Tory government in living memory accepts that it is a socially responsible and worthwhile policy which should be publicly funded.

I would have thought therefore that it was something which everyone could agree with.

But not so, as eight pages of heated debate clearly testifies.

And STW bans direct links to the Daily Mail !!!

Indeed Ernie. Caring about the nutrition of young children? That's appears to be tantamount to communism if it involves 'their' taxes.

Its utterly depressing to see how many people seem to embrace Thatchers view of 'society'. The benchmark for any policy seems to begin and end with 'what's in it for me?'

To be fair most of the eight pages could only loosely be attributed to the original thread .... The rest is the usual singletrack guff spouted by the usual protagonists

I ****ing hate petty little tossers who get all miserly about [i]their[/i] taxes..

Grow up you small minded sexually inadequate boredom mongers

every 5, 6, and 7 year old child, will be given a hot, balanced, and nutritional meal, every school day,

Its a good policy IMHO - been trialled in Blackpool with positive effects in kids behaviour and learning

there's still 2 debates/arguments going on here isn't there? The 'why do I have to pay for someone else's dinner' bollx and the other guy prattling on about the nutritional values of shit food compared to trail mix.

Are all the big STW threads like this nowadays?

<wanders off again>

I propose free school meals for all and compulsory cross country running through rough council estates that are populated by chick and spadge and other associated 1970`s type bullies wearing birmingham bags and sporting air rifles.
Covering of school books with woodchip wallpaper must also be re-introduced.

Covering of school books with woodchip wallpaper must also be re-introduced.

I won't sleep tonight now you've reminded me about that.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest, I'm a public sector worker so I don't pay any taxes. I learnt that off here.

Can someone explain the sausage problem again, I got lost.

Basically ... If you decide to give your kids bangers and mash for lunch, even if you refer to gravy as a jus, then you're as guilty of child abuse as Jimmy Saville, and the next knock on your door is likely to be social services.

Or the alternative interpretation, the guy thinks sausages are not particularly good for you so doesn't want his kids to eat them.

Junkyard - lazarus

Its a good policy IMHO

The vital characteristic of this policy is its universal application, without there is no policy. One of the arguments central to this policy is that it instantly and very effectively removes all stigma associated with a child receiving free schools meals, significantly increasing the uptake on school meals (plus removing a source of embarrassment for a child) I heard a Tory minister, of all people, make this very point this morning on the TV.

So it comes as some surprise JK that you like this policy, as you have in the recent past very strongly opposed my support for the universal application of benefits, arguing that assistance should only be directed at those in need. When I pointed that one of the advantages of universal benefits was that it removed any stigma associated with receiving them you accused me of getting close to demonising "benefit scroungers".

Junkyard - lazarus

I dont see why there is a stigma to benefits ...why do you think there is ? You seem to be getting close to demonising "benefit scroungers" there

Cannot be arsed arguing about universal benefits but help should be there for those who need it rather than for all* IMHO...many disagree.

* you end up giving money to folk who just dont need it which is worse than incurring "admin" costs
Posted 4 months ago

I would have expected you to have argued that free school meals should only be available to "those who need it", considering how more than once you've critised me for supporting the universal characteristic of benefits. You appear to have changed your mind, which is excellent news.

Can someone explain the sausage problem again, I got lost.

Apparently they contain bits of animals.

EDIT : Sorry "leftovers" of animals.

thankfully he doesn't appear to be to be one for sweeping generalisations, and achingly simplistic interpretations though. Nuance? Who needs it? All the same? innit?

That's all?

Amazing that you take it so personally! You don't have to do anything that other people do. Don't be a sheep. Or do you work for the Society of protection of sausage makers?