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

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?

Or do you work for the Society of protection of sausage makers?

I don't. But I found your very personal attack on the beloved British banger quite shameful.

Well I'm guessing that some of that stuff up there^was directed at me. Quite why though is beyond me as what I proposed would achieve the same nutritional benefit, maintain the benefit for those who need it. Oh and if ther happens to be £600million knocking around the education budget, perhaps it could be used for other things that would benefit those in need rather than a bunch of people who don't need it?. Quite amusing being accused of having daily mail esque politics though.

As for the stigma argument all si can say is that you lot must live in some pretty affluent areas. I remember being thought of as odd because I was one of the few in my class that paid for a school meal.

Another assumption, British banger? There are others you know. Racist.

I'm sorry are you now back-tracking and claiming that your children are allowed to eat British sausages ?

Can you get British sausages in Denver..?

Sausages do have their place in education, as this picture shows us.
[img] [/img]

Blackpool are giving free breakfast to everyone , every morning .

Met one of the guy who put it in place and the difference is amazing .
Kids are on time , so they dont disturb classes .
more attentive .
more kids attend schools .

No, sausages in general. They're all bad, British ones probably the worst though as they're unhealthy AND bland.

troll

yunki - Member
Can you get British sausages in Denver..?

POSTED 3 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

Corn dogs

As for the stigma argument all si can say is that you lot must live in some pretty affluent areas.

The stigma associated with free school meals is a very well documented fact.

I know this despite living in a right posh area because I read posh newspapers :

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/sep/23/free-school-meals-stigma ]Thousands of pupils shamed out of free school meals[/url]

Coyote - your posts seem to be very snipey towards those who are questioning this

Sorry, not my intention. I just get a little wound up by narrow minded morons who make statements along the lines of "I don't have children, why should my taxes pay for..."

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

Yes, it is. That's because I didn't feel the need to select individual papers to support an existing position.

The short answer is that your assertions are contradicted by the evidence.

No, sausages in general. They're all bad, British ones probably the worst though as they're unhealthy AND bland.

Now you're definitely trolling.

[img] [/img]

If I could choose where my taxes went I'd put them towards educating petty minded ignorant tossers about compassion.

I admit the last bit was tongue and cheek, but Sausages are not a healthy food.

By the way, the whole distraction on what is healthy and what's not, just wanted to confirm that I have no issue with tax money being spent on what to me seems like a good idea. My only concern would be if school dinners became compulsory for all and choice was taken away.

If I could choose where my taxes went I'd put them towards educating petty minded ignorant tossers about compassion.

If we could just teach everyone that borrowing money our grandchildren can't afford isn't compassionate.

I'm all for this as and long as the revolting semolina and god awful gooseberries and lumpy custard I had to endure as a kid is on the menu.That'll learn 'em.

the daily fail headline yesterday was 'free school meals for everyone- but how can we pay for it in austerity britain'

5thelephant you are paul dacre and I claim my free celebrity cellulite bonus magazine

And MP's should be compelled to eat at nearby schools rather than the House Of Commons restaurant.

No idea who paul dacre is but I can answer his question. Through borrowing. All new expenditure is funded through yet more borrowing.

How can this be a good thing?

Its a good thing if the money spent benefits children, improves their health, quality of education and ultimately gives us a more competitive future workforce

by your reasoning we should just stop spending on anything until the debt has gone away

It's like an investment. We invest in growing the state, and it grows so that we pay off our debts, whilst at the same time borrowing more. It's just a rolling debt, and it's nothing like as alarming as it sounds.

Government borrowing is not like domestic borrowing, so you can't apply the same logic. It would indeed be insane for a household to do this.

5thElefant - Its a question of where you cut though isn't it. The current government say we can no longer afford benefits for disabled people, along with other significant parts of the welfare state, libraries, lunches for schoolkids etc etc.....

Yet at the same time they're happy to find hundreds of billions of pounds for aircraft carriers with no planes, a train-line/money pit to Birmingham, and a totally pointless and unnecessary nuclear deterrent

That represents a pretty ****ed up set of priorities if you ask me

Or tighten up on other drains on the countries fragile budget.

Listening to Radio 4 yesterday morning, they were talking about the cost to the NHS and Police of Binge drinking and violence linked to Alcohol - £21billion a year!

Yet the government is doing NOTHING to tackle this problem.

What the increased spending does is set those children up for a bleak future.

And yes, we should be reducing spending until firstly we stop running up even more debt, and then reduce the debt levels so we have some control over our lives.

Yet at the same time they're happy to find hundreds of billions of pounds for aircraft carriers with no planes, a train-line/money pit to Birmingham, and a totally pointless and unnecessary nuclear deterrent

What the increased spending does is set those children up for a bleak future.

I dunno.. NOT borrowing could also set them up for a bleak future.

I dunno.. NOT borrowing could also set them up for a bleak future.

I'm pretty sure all the people calling for more borrowing actually behave very responsibly with their "own" finances.

I'm happy to pay more in tax to fund this (rather than borrowing more), mind you I support a 'high tax-high spend' economy so what do I know?

I'm happy to pay more in tax to fund this (rather than borrowing more), mind you I support a 'high tax-high spend' economy so what do I know?

Debt...... its not all bad c-cards or loans none of those, do spend a lot of time in my overdraft tho
and my mortgage is eye watering when you think about it, but its a long term thing and I see it as an investment for the future as well as a place to live.

we should be reducing spending until firstly we stop running up even more debt, and then reduce the debt levels so we have some control over our lives.

I think we all agree that ultimately we should have zero borrowing and we need to get to serviceable levels

however anyone with a mortgage has a serious debt way in excess of their annual earnings that they will one day pay off - its just the same for the country except we never need to pay it off.

Too much debt you cannot service is the bad thing
It aslo depends if you borrow to invest
I dont think crippling the economy and high unemployment due to severe cuts is the panacea you seem to think it is.
We could borrow like say a company borrows to get a more efficient machine that will make them more money in the long run or we could borrow because we want the latest super fantastic big shinny train set and nuclear weapons

Since when is it the governments or schools responsibiltiy to feed kids. That is a parents job. The School has an obligation to make healthy food available for kids, but not to feed them for free. I think some parents get off too easily for not looking after their kids properly and neglecting them. Packing them off to shool without a breakfast or lunch is the core problem here and if it falls to government or schools to ensure they are fed properly then the parents should pay.

Its a sad fact that some parents really can't be bothered to look after their kids properly. Sending them off to school with nothing but a pasty and a bag of crisps may seem a minor issue, but it is harming their kids health and setting them off on a path that will ultimatley cause them harm. I don't know what else qualifies as neglect better than that.

Do you max your credit cards out just in case?

As above, government debt does not work like domestic debt.

Imagine for example I had the chance of a really lucrative job that was going to pay me tons of money, but it was in Scotland. Assuming no family ties etc, would it make sense for me to borrow money to get a new house and move up there?

Yes, it would.

Yeah, and in the case of a clear return you'd borrow money. This is a good example of no clear return. It's just politics. Bribing in you with money borrowed on your behalf.

This is a good example of no clear return.

How many children have you got? Have seen the difference between the behaviour of a well nourished child against one fed poor or no food?

Serious questions, not "snipey".

Its a sad fact that some parents really can't be bothered to look after their kids properly. Sending them off to school with nothing but a pasty and a bag of crisps may seem a minor issue, but it is harming their kids health and setting them off on a path that will ultimatley cause them harm. I don't know what else qualifies as neglect better than that.

Its not the kids fault though, is it? They didn't asked to be born into that, did they? And I'd question your assumption that anyone who can't supply their kids with decent lunches everyday is automatically ****less. Maybe they're just genuinely poor? Though I know the booming disapproval of the Daily Mail won't countenance this.

So what do you intend to do instead? Take them all into care? I think that may cost a bit more than the price of their lunches.

No it isn't an ideal world. But if these kids get a proper meal when they didn't before, and can concentrate better in class, and be less disruptive, and get a better education, surely this is better for everyone?

Yeah, and in the case of a clear return you'd borrow money. This is a good example of no clear return.

Well your understanding of the detail and nuance of economic policy and forecasting has me completley convinced. Who needs an economics degree eh? 🙂

Have seen the difference between the behaviour of a well nourished child against one fed poor or no food?

The pilot study concluded there was no noticeable change in behaviour of the kids before and during the study.

So while I agree food can have a big impact of childrens behaviour, the odd hot meal at school doesn't (as concluded by the very report used for the basis of implement the policy).

dragon you are talking bobbins

The universal pilot had a significant positive impact on attainment for primary school
pupils at Key Stages 1 and 2, with pupils in the pilot areas making between four and
eight weeks’ more progress than similar pupils in comparison areas.

Behaviour not attainment, they are different things, from the report conclusions:

There were no positive impacts on parents’ perceptions of their child’s behaviour under
either of the pilot approaches, but the evaluation did not include quantitative assessments
of classroom behaviour.

There's no such thing as society remember

Noooooooo!!!

The pilot study concluded there was no noticeable change in behaviour of the kids before and during the study.

OK dragon, I'll tell my wife and numerous friends who are teachers of quite a few years standing that what they have experienced first hand is bollocks cause some random off the internet said so.

There were no positive impacts on parents’ perceptions of their child’s behaviour

Well if that is not scientific proof then i dont know what is 😕

the evaluation did not include quantitative assessments

Behaviour not attainment, they are different things

If parents are genuinely poor then they've got the issue at home as well as school. So again - its not the government or the schools responsibiltiy. Also its cheaper to feed kids healthy food than unhealthy food. Pasties are more expensive than salads and sandwhiches. The problem is that some parents can't be bothered to make their kids a half decent sandwich and teach them about the beneifits of healthy eating - which whould be difficult and a tad hypocritical to do whilst chompoing on a donor kebab, or burying their face into their KFC bargain bucket.

The problem is that some parents are just bad parents and in those cases they need to be assisted by the proper channels - deal with the cause, not the symptom. Palming off these difficult issues onto schools is not the answer - they've got a difficult enough job as it is. And its not only poor families. I've seen it with my own eyes with middle class families where the parents don't seem to make time for their kids and pack them off to school with a bag of crisps for their breakfast and a pasty for their lunch.

It's not palming the issue off, it's making sure that kids get at least 5 proper meals a week in the easiest way possible.

So wobbliscot, your solution is? If we could have the accompanying costs for comparison too.

OK dragon, I'll tell my wife and numerous friends who are teachers of quite a few years standing that what they have experienced first hand is bollocks cause some random off the internet said so.

I quoted directly from the pilot study, dunno why you are so angry?

Junkyard has mad some valid points about the studies limitations, without writing abuse, maybe you could try to do so also.

Has anyone blamed Thatcher for the poor diet of today's yoof yet?
Interesting read [url= http://www.educationengland.org.uk/articles/22food.html ]here[/url]