The reason schools do this is so that parents can monitor exactly what their children are eating. It's common for young children to pretend they've eaten their lunch when they haven't.
It may be common but upsetting a child and reducing them to tears just for wanting to put their rubbish in the bin is not acceptable imo whether its common practice or not.
There isn't a stigma any more. My daughter got free meals at primary school and nobody knew.
that's not the case in all schools and certainly not in out county where I have stated previously that they get different coloured vouchers to hand in whether paid or unpaid, which is an unfair system and should not be allowed
that's not the case in all schools and certainly not in out county where I have stated previously that they get different coloured vouchers to hand in whether paid or unpaid, which is an unfair system and should not be allowed
Oh, wow, really? That's disgraceful. At my daughter's school, they just use a card that is either topped up by the parents, or by the school if they are entitled to have them free.
Oh, wow, really? That's disgraceful. At my daughter's school, they just use a card that is either topped up by the parents, or by the school if they are entitled to have them free.
yep I am sure its done so they can easily add up how many free meals compared to paid meals daily or weekly but I do think it is unfair on the children, not so much for bullying from the kids but also the stigma from some parents as to who their child can play with
My sister works as a teaching assistant dealing with children with behavioural problems.
One of the reasons that some of those children are so disruptive is that they are hungry. For whatever reason the parents often send them to school with no breakfast and the staff have to find some food for them. Not all the parents are on the breadline and many put their cigarette and alcohol needs ahead of feeding their children properly. That is the real world (one parent even told their child not to admit that he hadn't had any breakfast!!!).
I support any initiative that helps children to have proper nutrition whether or not their parents can't afford to feed them properly or who simply choose not to.
It may be common but upsetting a child and reducing them to tears just for wanting to put their rubbish in the bin is not acceptable imo whether its common practice or not.
but should this reduce a child to tears? It's not really such a terrible thing. Part of the sending children to school is learning to socialise with larger groups and deal with rules.
How the situation was handled may need looking at but it might also reflect that a child reduced to tears over this when all the others were presumably not may need some help adjusting to the idea of different sets of rules for different places. i.e. home and school. All part of their education and growing up.
I think it is a good idea. Just because someone is earning a decent wage doesn't mean they are willing to spend it on their kids. Wealthy people can be abusive too.At least if they get some food at school they won't completely starve.
The cost of 5 meals is far less than a week's family allowance which is paid 52 weeks a year.
Not totally wrong, only slightly wrong, Child Benefit for a single child works out at just under £20 a week, a week's worth of school meals is just under £10 a week.
You take your common sense elsewhere. It has no place here. Dam hippies :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
You quoted me before I could delete the erroneous '1' that got in there! Its only £30 odd bn!
I was also going to use the Daniel Pelka argument too, not sure if its been used on the thread anywhere but surely if it saves just one child from having to steal others food or scavenging in bins for food, surely its worth it! I'm sure there are far more cases like his out there. If this had been in place, he would have got at least one good meal a day!
I've dived in here without reading the rest of the thread and I don't know if anyone else has raised the subject of Daniel Pelka and the fact that, had a school meal been available to the little soul, he may not have died of starvation.
I have a healthy enough private pension thank you very much, and pay a significant amount of income tax, therefore I have every right to express my views. If you don't like it, that's fine, but respect that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Where has anyone said that you do not have a right to express your view?
What about the kids whose parents can't afford it and do need this handout? WHy should they suffer just because some are wealthy?
If they can't afford it then they most likely already qualify for free school meals.
And, if I believed for one second that the Government was doing this for any other reason than they know they're rapidly losing votes in the "middle class female" (Mumsnet) demographic because of the changes they're making to Child Benefit, the Universal Tax Credit etc, I'd be in complete support of it.
The fact it's come out at the same time as the Lib-Dem leader announced he'd "happily work with Ed Milliband" and when the Conservatives are due to announce a tax break for married couples, I'm amazed that anyone is falling for the obvious electioneering.
I've dived in here without reading the rest of the thread and I don't know if anyone else has raised the subject of Daniel Pelka and the fact that, had a school meal been available to the little soul, he may not have died of starvation.
If they can't afford it then they most likely already qualify for free school meals.
Not always so, I think the threshold is something like £16,500 pa, anything over and you don't qualify! Depending on where you live and looking at the current rate of inflation against the stagnation of wages, it is reasonable that someone earning just above the threshold is still unable to afford it!
Not always so, I think the threshold is something like £16,500 pa, anything over and you don't qualify! Depending on where you live and looking at the current rate of inflation against the cost of living, it is reasonable that someone earning just above the threshold is still unable to afford it!
I get Jobseeker's Allowance and I can afford to pay for my son's school meals so, if I can find it from £112 a week I'm damn sure someone on slightly more than £16k a year can.
We qualify for free school meals but have only just now been sent the paperwork to claim for them (alongside a Council Tax reduction and a school uniform allowance) and we've been paying for our son's meals since he started school in September 2012.
I get Jobseeker's Allowance and I can afford to pay for my son's school meals so, if I can find it from £112 a week I'm damn sure someone on slightly more than £16k a year can.
We qualify for free school meals but have only just now been sent the paperwork to claim for them (alongside a Council Tax reduction and a school uniform allowance) and we've been paying for our son's meals since he started school in September 2012.
You have no idea what other people circumstances are, it isn't one size fits all. You're damn sure you can afford it no doubt!
Being fed a meal at school wasn't, sad as it may be, going to stop him from suffering.
But it would have given him at least one good meal a day and reduced the suffering he went through! What price do you put on that? How can you doubt that?
Not totally wrong, only slightly wrong, Child Benefit for a single child works out at just under £20 a week, a week's worth of school meals is just under £10 a week.
Also don't forget that you get child benefit for (I think) 18 years. You'll only get free school meals for 2 years. There's no comparison, really.
Comments
Slightly off topic, but my son came home from school one day to report that they were given a choice of pudding that day.
'Did you sweetheart?' I asked, 'What was the choice?'
'Well,' replied my son 'We could either have an apple, or we didn't have to have one!' :cool:
Or close the tax loopholes that are costing us £30b per year! But lets not upset the big bucks voters eh!
You take your common sense elsewhere. It has no place here. Dam hippies :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
It may be common but upsetting a child and reducing them to tears just for wanting to put their rubbish in the bin is not acceptable imo whether its common practice or not.
that's not the case in all schools and certainly not in out county where I have stated previously that they get different coloured vouchers to hand in whether paid or unpaid, which is an unfair system and should not be allowed
Oh, wow, really? That's disgraceful. At my daughter's school, they just use a card that is either topped up by the parents, or by the school if they are entitled to have them free.
yep I am sure its done so they can easily add up how many free meals compared to paid meals daily or weekly but I do think it is unfair on the children, not so much for bullying from the kids but also the stigma from some parents as to who their child can play with
One of the reasons that some of those children are so disruptive is that they are hungry. For whatever reason the parents often send them to school with no breakfast and the staff have to find some food for them. Not all the parents are on the breadline and many put their cigarette and alcohol needs ahead of feeding their children properly. That is the real world (one parent even told their child not to admit that he hadn't had any breakfast!!!).
I support any initiative that helps children to have proper nutrition whether or not their parents can't afford to feed them properly or who simply choose not to.
but should this reduce a child to tears? It's not really such a terrible thing. Part of the sending children to school is learning to socialise with larger groups and deal with rules.
How the situation was handled may need looking at but it might also reflect that a child reduced to tears over this when all the others were presumably not may need some help adjusting to the idea of different sets of rules for different places. i.e. home and school. All part of their education and growing up.
My proposition is better educated population leads to more high paying jobs being available to be filled. (other things being equal)
Note - not endorsing the idea of everyone going to Uni etc. More that a higher base level of attainment would be benificial to the overall economy.
Sounds about right. When my youngest started, it kind of went like this
Day 1: What did you have for your dinner?
A: Spaghetti Hoops
Day 2: What did you have for your dinner?
A: Spaghetti Hoops
Day 3: What did you have for your dinner?
A: Spaghetti Hoops
Day 4: What did you have for your dinner?
A: Spaghetti Hoops
Day 5: What did you have for your dinner?
A: Spaghetti Hoops
etc etc - until I told him he had to have something else.
Not totally wrong, only slightly wrong, Child Benefit for a single child works out at just under £20 a week, a week's worth of school meals is just under £10 a week.
Whats worse is £600m of public money will only buy £400m of meals buy the time a private company makes £200m of profit.
You quoted me before I could delete the erroneous '1' that got in there! Its only £30 odd bn!
I was also going to use the Daniel Pelka argument too, not sure if its been used on the thread anywhere but surely if it saves just one child from having to steal others food or scavenging in bins for food, surely its worth it! I'm sure there are far more cases like his out there. If this had been in place, he would have got at least one good meal a day!
Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all.
So if the parents cant afford it, their child must simply, what, starve like a dog?!?!? :eek:
I've seen a few idiotic statements but this really is a cut above, well done!
So eager to clasp the victim role, eh?
If they can't afford it then they most likely already qualify for free school meals.
And, if I believed for one second that the Government was doing this for any other reason than they know they're rapidly losing votes in the "middle class female" (Mumsnet) demographic because of the changes they're making to Child Benefit, the Universal Tax Credit etc, I'd be in complete support of it.
The fact it's come out at the same time as the Lib-Dem leader announced he'd "happily work with Ed Milliband" and when the Conservatives are due to announce a tax break for married couples, I'm amazed that anyone is falling for the obvious electioneering.
He didn't die of starvation.
Not always so, I think the threshold is something like £16,500 pa, anything over and you don't qualify! Depending on where you live and looking at the current rate of inflation against the stagnation of wages, it is reasonable that someone earning just above the threshold is still unable to afford it!
No but starvation added to his inhuman suffering!
I get Jobseeker's Allowance and I can afford to pay for my son's school meals so, if I can find it from £112 a week I'm damn sure someone on slightly more than £16k a year can.
We qualify for free school meals but have only just now been sent the paperwork to claim for them (alongside a Council Tax reduction and a school uniform allowance) and we've been paying for our son's meals since he started school in September 2012.
Being fed a meal at school wasn't, sad as it may be, going to stop him from suffering.
You have no idea what other people circumstances are, it isn't one size fits all. You're damn sure you can afford it no doubt!
But it would have given him at least one good meal a day and reduced the suffering he went through! What price do you put on that? How can you doubt that?
Also don't forget that you get child benefit for (I think) 18 years. You'll only get free school meals for 2 years. There's no comparison, really.