As long as it is available to ALL CHILDREN, that's fine by me.
It is a sad fact that there are a not unsignificant number of parents that are incapable of providing a proper version of this meal in the morning. At least this way some may get a decent meal.
My daughter is studying A-Levels at Weymouth College and they are given an opportunity of a free breakfast in the morning, and that college has 4,500 full and part time 16+ students. They argue that they get more out of their students if they get a proper breakfast and are prepared to put their money where their mouth is.
It's funny how one of my friends is skint and worse off under Labour and yet now suddenly pronounces how well off she is, can afford to pay for her childrens dinners and this should not have been passed.
It's funny how one of my friends is skint and worse off under Labour and yet now suddenly pronounces how well off she is, can afford to pay for her childrens dinners and this should not have been passed.
Does she also go on lots of foreign holidays? :rolleyes::D
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.
hopefully your sister makes the necessary referrals to SSD citing neglect?
The mother qualified for free school meals but didn't take it up, why? How on Earth is it possible that his starvation and his death are unconnected! Had this new policy been in position, then the mother not have had to have requested it, he would have simply got a meal at school rather than stealing food out of desperation, he would not have starved which was part of the abuse!
I think you're going to have to do a lot of convincing to suggest that he would have suffered just as much if this policy had been in place! He would have had a meal, he would not have been so hungry therefore the suffering would have been less!
If you read the details of the case, the mother specifically requested that the boy not be fed due to his 'eating problems' and her made up medical condition for him (which was believed by school and the paediatrician)
so free school meals did not, and would not, have reduced the amount of starvation he suffered because just like many parents have to do, she will have claimed that due to medical need he will either eat at home, or take a packed lunch.
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!
Well there are charities that take in dogs that people can't afford. There must be a few for children. What with all these parents who can't afford lunch for their children causing a national crisis.
But also tackling the cause of this problem I think we can lend from pet care again. What with more children being born everyday that the parents won't be able to buy lunch for it must be time to get a national spaying champagne going. Perhaps encourage people to get their children from licensed breeders who do the necessary background checks to make sure they only supply to people who can afford a childs lunch.
My main objection as other people have said, why does it stop at the age of 7?
No idea it seems strange went to parent teacher night tonight and they announced from next year all children will get free school meals she didn't say until they are seven though. By the time they start my son will only be eligible for two months anyhow
Parents can easily be in the position where they could afford to raise their children initially without any additional help, but it only takes a change in circumstances e.g. redundancy for things to get very difficult.
I don't begrudge contributing towards this at all
No, that's not right at all. Anyone who is hard up, struggling or in poverty is a lazy, irresponsible deadbeat and will never have held down a job.
When I was at school I don't remember there being any stigma over free school meals or paying. May just have been the effects of a country primary school and convent grammar school though. That and I had packed lunches.
One thing I noticed though when doing my PGCE was that in one of my placement schools the children on "packed lunches" didn't bring any food to school, it just meant they had a cold meal instead of a hot one, I wonder if they were more likely to get a hot meal in the evening than pupils who had one at lunchtime.
My main objection as other people have said, why does it stop at the age of 7?
Apparently the money being allocated to this is the equivalent to what is being spent on the married couples tax break.
Personally, I think it's a great idea. Ensuring that all of the kids in a school get at least one decent meal a day isn't just good for those kids from very poor families, but will help with the general running of the school. If results and behaviour improves, all children and staff win. It's the kind of investment all of society can benefit from.
I'd be happy to see the scheme extended to older children too, and if people without kids resent paying for it, then they can simply reduce the earnings at which parents stop getting child benefit to make up for it. Spending the money directly in schools on meals is a much more efficient way of helping out parents.
When I was at school I don't remember there being any stigma over free school meals or paying. May just have been the effects of a country primary school and convent grammar school though. That and I had packed lunches.
One thing I noticed though when doing my PGCE was that in one of my placement schools the children on "packed lunches" didn't bring any food to school, it just meant they had a cold meal instead of a hot one, I wonder if they were more likely to get a hot meal in the evening than pupils who had one at lunchtime.
Its not just countryside schools. I moved around when I was younger and all together I went to 1 infant school, 1 Junior school, 2 primary schools & 2 secondary schools. 4 of the schools I went to were in London, 1 near Brighton and 1 in Middlesex and their was no stigma at any of them about how school meals were funded. Personally I thing this its just another straw man argument to give benefits to people who don't need them while justifying taking them away from those who do.
so free school meals did not, and would not, have reduced the amount of starvation he suffered because just like many parents have to do, she will have claimed that due to medical need he will either eat at home, or take a packed lunch.
You'd be right, he was sent with a packed lunch which, according to staff, contained the "bare minimum expected".
Well there are charities that take in dogs that people can't afford. There must be a few for children. What with all these parents who can't afford lunch for their children causing a national crisis.
But also tackling the cause of this problem I think we can lend from pet care again. What with more children being born everyday that the parents won't be able to buy lunch for it must be time to get a national spaying champagne going. Perhaps encourage people to get their children from licensed breeders who do the necessary background checks to make sure they only supply to people who can afford a childs lunch.
Comments
It is a sad fact that there are a not unsignificant number of parents that are incapable of providing a proper version of this meal in the morning. At least this way some may get a decent meal.
My daughter is studying A-Levels at Weymouth College and they are given an opportunity of a free breakfast in the morning, and that college has 4,500 full and part time 16+ students. They argue that they get more out of their students if they get a proper breakfast and are prepared to put their money where their mouth is.
hopefully your sister makes the necessary referrals to SSD citing neglect?
If you read the details of the case, the mother specifically requested that the boy not be fed due to his 'eating problems' and her made up medical condition for him (which was believed by school and the paediatrician)
so free school meals did not, and would not, have reduced the amount of starvation he suffered because just like many parents have to do, she will have claimed that due to medical need he will either eat at home, or take a packed lunch.
Well there are charities that take in dogs that people can't afford. There must be a few for children. What with all these parents who can't afford lunch for their children causing a national crisis.
But also tackling the cause of this problem I think we can lend from pet care again. What with more children being born everyday that the parents won't be able to buy lunch for it must be time to get a national spaying champagne going. Perhaps encourage people to get their children from licensed breeders who do the necessary background checks to make sure they only supply to people who can afford a childs lunch.
I'd not say lots but funny how political decisions can make such a change in some peoples purses
No idea it seems strange went to parent teacher night tonight and they announced from next year all children will get free school meals she didn't say until they are seven though. By the time they start my son will only be eligible for two months anyhow
Indeed. Can't see you getting an argument from anyone on that one.
Those damned hoops are so addictive.
Me too, but after 2015 we won't have to, school dinners will cost each pupil £9,000 a year.
I think I'm missing a joke here, but that's like twenty-five quid a day, including weekends and holidays.
No, that's not right at all. Anyone who is hard up, struggling or in poverty is a lazy, irresponsible deadbeat and will never have held down a job.
The benefits of a university education eh?
If giving them breakfast means they learn better English (rather than "if they have ate") I'm all for it!
More O level maths, really.
One thing I noticed though when doing my PGCE was that in one of my placement schools the children on "packed lunches" didn't bring any food to school, it just meant they had a cold meal instead of a hot one, I wonder if they were more likely to get a hot meal in the evening than pupils who had one at lunchtime.
Personally, I think it's a great idea. Ensuring that all of the kids in a school get at least one decent meal a day isn't just good for those kids from very poor families, but will help with the general running of the school. If results and behaviour improves, all children and staff win. It's the kind of investment all of society can benefit from.
I'd be happy to see the scheme extended to older children too, and if people without kids resent paying for it, then they can simply reduce the earnings at which parents stop getting child benefit to make up for it. Spending the money directly in schools on meals is a much more efficient way of helping out parents.
Its not just countryside schools. I moved around when I was younger and all together I went to 1 infant school, 1 Junior school, 2 primary schools & 2 secondary schools. 4 of the schools I went to were in London, 1 near Brighton and 1 in Middlesex and their was no stigma at any of them about how school meals were funded. Personally I thing this its just another straw man argument to give benefits to people who don't need them while justifying taking them away from those who do.
You'd be right, he was sent with a packed lunch which, according to staff, contained the "bare minimum expected".
I have no idea, it doesn't go into any more detail than that, but yes I suspect it was probably nothing more than just a sandwich.
spaying champagne?
a national spraying champagne campaign ?
i don't know - what can you mean