Latest news with #freeSchoolMeals
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on child poverty: free school meals are a help, but not a panacea
It was Ellen Wilkinson, education minister in the Attlee government, who announced in 1946 that free school dinners would be introduced, along with free school milk, at the same time as child benefit. No doubt Rachel Reeves, who has a picture of Wilkinson on the wall of her office, is aware of this – and also that the Treasury subsequently decided the policy was unaffordable. The meals were subsidised instead. Despite these initial charges, and later price rises, poorer children did gain, and keep, an entitlement to free school meals. The announcement last week that this is being extended in England to all those whose parents or carers claim universal credit – rather than restricted to families with incomes lower than £7,400 – should be welcomed by all objectors to child poverty. Being assured of a hot lunch in the middle of the school day makes pupils' lives better. Children cannot be expected to learn when they do not have enough to eat. This might sound obvious, but is easily forgotten. Scotland and Northern Ireland already have more generous rules in place. Ministers clearly hope that this will be a popular policy, as they prepare for this week's spending review and the reaction to it. Hunger in schools is disturbingly widespread and the enthusiastic reception to Marcus Rashford's campaign on school food showed that this is a cause the public warms to. Long before last year's election, breakfast clubs were a flagship Labour policy. Now they are part of Bridget Phillipson's schools bill. But as with breakfast clubs, which some schools have said that they cannot deliver on the budget provided, good intentions must not mask inadequate finances. Already, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has challenged the government's claim that 100,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. It said this can only be expected over the long term. And some children already entitled to free meals do not receive them – prompting calls for auto-enrolment. Another challenge concerns food quality, which has been eroded by a series of below-inflation funding increases. Free lunches are already offered to all pupils up to the age of seven. But a recently announced 3p rise in the subsidy towards these (from £2.58 to £2.61 per meal), was rightly criticised for forcing school leaders to either reduce their lunch offer, or make cuts elsewhere. The average actual cost of a school lunch is £3.16. Twenty years after the Channel 4 television series Jamie's School Dinners turned kitchens' reliance on junk food into a national issue, it is depressing that resources remain so meagre. Childhood obesity and poor dental health are serious problems, particularly in poorer parts of the country where treatment is harder to access. Ms Phillipson and her colleagues should be more ambitious about quality as well as quantity. Improvements could contribute to children's overall wellbeing, as well as nutrition. Meals are social events, not just refuelling stops. But step back from the table and the bigger picture comes into view. Child poverty, of which poor diets are a symptom, cannot be tackled by schools alone. Reducing it means raising family incomes through the benefits system – as well as trying to boost wage growth. Earlier this year, some Labour MPs warned that school food risked becoming a sop. That danger has not gone away. The latest announcement on free lunches is good news so long as it does not distract from efforts to remove the two-child benefit cap, or weaken the wider campaign against child poverty.
BBC News
4 days ago
- General
- BBC News
Bradford headteacher welcomes free school meal announcement
A headteacher has welcomed government plans to extend the free school meals scheme to include more September 2026 all children in families receiving Universal Credit credit will be eligible regardless of their income, in a move expected to benefit more than 500,000 government said the changes to free school meals would save parents £500 a year and "lift 100,000 children out of poverty".Joanna Baxendale, headteacher at Green Lane Primary School in Bradford, said: "Without free school meals, our children simply will not be able to access the curriculum, they won't be able to learn the maximum capacity, they wouldn't be able to reach their full potential." She added: "Our children come from a very deprived area and a high percentage of our children access free school meals."We already supplement that with free breakfasts and things like that, because we recognise many of our children don't start the day with a breakfast, so they're already not ready to learn. "We all know if you've got an empty tummy, you can't concentrate. "As an adult you know that." Sue Duffy, Bradford Council's executive member for children and families, said the change to the policy was a "fantastic outcome" for children and families in the also encouraged families to check if they are eligible for the scheme so as not to miss out."Free school meals offer multiple benefits to children's health, well-being, and education, as well as positive economic impacts for families," she said."A nutritious lunch can improve children's concentration, learning, and overall academic performance, while saving families around £500 per child each year." Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
Daily Mail
5 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: So noble was the minister's school-meal pulpiteering, you'd think it was the abolition of slavery
During elections it is illegal for politicians to buy votes by handing out free food. That is called 'treating' the electors. But there is nothing to stop MPs doing similar outside election periods. Yesterday an education minister, Stephen Morgan, told the Commons that the Government would be giving away more school meals. This would 'break the unfair link between background and success'. It would also, as Labour MPs keenly noted, mean thousands of constituents' children would be receiving free nosebag. 'Vote Labour because we gave your little Jimmy free bowls of mince in the school canteen and you could spend the savings instead on lottery tickets and cans of Carlsberg.' Mr Morgan became so gripped by the nobility of the moment, he could have been hailing the abolition of slavery or the relief of Mafeking. Oh, purplest of passages. 'This is a Government who put children first. What we do for our children, we do for our country.' Free school lunches would restore to youngsters their 'birthright' of 'a loving home where no child lacks food or warmth'. My family home was beautifully loving but I have to say that my bedroom was a little parky in winter. Maybe I am due some counselling. Mr Morgan, who has the inky hairdo and lopsided insistence of an Epsom spiv, was soon pulpiteering against the Tories. They had not given away enough free food to the nation's Tiny Tims. He was disgusted by their wickedness. 'They robbed some 4.5million children of opportunity and hope, of life chances and of possibilities,' he cried. 'They failed to deliver for the next generation the ordinary hope that tomorrow will be better than today.' St Luke himself could not have laid claim to such virtue. On it went, great paragraphs about 'striving' and 'nourishment' and 'a moral mission with the child poverty strategy'. Achieving! Thriving! 'Today, we say enough is enough. Today, we begin to turn the tide.' Good grief, he was turning into Canute. 'Today, the fightback kicks up a gear!' Labour backbenchers ululated like bare-breasted Masai goatherds. Many of them named the precise number of children in their seats who would be receiving this free food. The numbers were big: most more than 5,000. Recently the Government provided free breakfasts to certain children in some schools. All we now need is for free suppers to be laid on, too, and canny parents will not have to spend a groat on feeding their offspring during term-time. And maybe in the holidays, too. Claire Young (Lib Dem, Thornbury & Yate) wanted the Government to end 'holiday hunger'. Vegan snorkers for all. Into every Eden a little rain must fall. Shockat Adam (Ind, Leicester S) was worried that these free lunches would consist of 'processed food like Turkey Twizzlers, which have been shown to reduce life expectancy'. Sonia Kumar (Lab, Dudley) slightly let the side down by noting that, despite Mr Morgan's artful depiction of the Dickensian kingdom of waifs that was left by the last government, modern Britain in fact has a problem with children being too fat. In some of the Labour contributions, delivered with simpering smiles and a la-di-dah manner, was there possibly a touch of the Lady Mucks? You could sense them patting their constituents on the backs and saying 'enjoy your gruel, rough mechanicals, you've deserved it'. The scented Lola McEvoy (Lab, Darlington), very much one of life's Club Class occupants, mentioned one of her constituents – 'a lovely mother who recently went back to work as a school dinner support worker'. Did she mean a dinner lady? Neil O'Brien, for the Conservatives, argued that the voters who will be receiving this largesse were the very people who would be paying for it, having been hit hardest by Rachel Reeves' national insurance increase. Not that any future Tory government (if there ever is such a thing) could easily remove these free lunches. Imagine the screams of 'starvation' and 'fascist' if they tried it.
The Sun
5 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
Why are hard working parents paying for school meals for kids of lazy feckless scroungers who can't be bothered to work?
BACK in my school days, we knew the difference between parents and teachers. Their jobs were clearly delineated: Teachers taught and parents parented. 4 4 These days, it's hard to tell which is which. Whether it's toilet training four-year-olds, instructing youngsters on how to clean their teeth, how to hold a knife and fork or even feeding our kids breakfast, there's no end to the tasks that used to be the role of parents but are now almost part of the school curriculum. Is it any wonder that our teachers barely have time to actually TEACH any more when schools have become a one- stop shop for everything wrong in society? The latest addition to the jobs handed over to schools is to pay for kids' lunches. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has announced that 500,000 more children will be getting free school meals. Not really 'free' Currently, parents must have an income under £7,400 for their children to qualify for free lunches, with more than two million kids — about a quarter of all school pupils — claiming those meals. From September 2026 all families who are in receipt of Universal Credit will be eligible, which will include children whose parents have a joint income of over £40,000 a year, which is hardly what most think of as living on the poverty line. Of course, the lunches aren't actually free. Someone has to pay for the £1billion cost over three years and that someone is largely other working parents through their taxes. Schools — or, rather, taxpayers — already provide free lunches to all pupils aged four to seven, while it's up to the age of 11 for all primary school pupils in London, even if their parents are millionaires. And the Government is rolling out free breakfast clubs at primary schools later this year. The campaigners cheering this aren't finished, either. They want free school meals for ALL children up to the age of 18. But why stop there? Why just free breakfast and lunch? Why not dinner as well? And what about food at weekends? Hey, why don't we just keep the kids at school the whole time and then parents won't have to pay rent for extra bedrooms for the kids. Why doesn't the state provide clothes and shoes for children too? If we carry on like this, in a few decades the Government will simply take all babies straight from the womb to raise in state-run homes, with the roles of Mum and Dad surplus to requirements. I exaggerate of course, but this is the trajectory we are on. As every year goes by, less and less is expected from parents, while more and more is done by the nanny state. No one wants to see any child go hungry and we should absolutely step in when a family falls on hard times. But by offering free lunches to so many more pupils, aren't we at risk of tackling the wrong end of the problem? Providing free school meals for kids who aren't getting fed at home is treating the symptom, not the actual disease. And for that we need to diagnose WHY they are going hungry. 4 Yes, some parents struggle with their finances and can't afford to pay the £2.65 average cost of a school canteen lunch, but there are also plenty of parents who can afford it yet choose not to. We've made it far too easy for lazy, feckless parents to lounge around on benefits or to work part-time, expecting taxpayers to fund their lives and pay for their children. Meanwhile, far too many kids are left in chaotic homes where negligent adults would rather spend their welfare cheques on booze, fags and scratch cards than on a healthy meal for their child. And why should hard-working parents who are also struggling to pay their own bills and feed their own kids be expected to pick up the slack? Many might well feel, as the old saying goes, if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. Damages the family Are we really to believe that there are half a million children in this country who don't get fed properly and need a free meal at school? Judging by the podgy kids I see on the streets these days, I'd say the problem is more about too MUCH food than too little. The solution to child poverty isn't another free handout from the state. The solution is ensuring that their parents go out to work and — quite literally — put food on the table for their kids. Of course schools need to step in when a family is failing and children are not getting fed. But when the nanny state takes over such basic roles from so many millions of parents, it has more than just a financial cost. It also damages the institution of the family and the importance of parental responsibility. There is, I'm afraid, no such thing as a free lunch. A BOAT BLITZ IS UNBELIEVABLE 4 ANOTHER day, another news story about how politicians are going to 'stop the boats', 'smash the gangs' or 'secure our borders' (delete as appropriate). The Government's latest wheeze is Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's plan to bring in new laws to restrict the use of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to a private and family life – to make it easier to deport failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals. The Tories, meanwhile, are reviewing leaving the ECHR altogether and reviving a Rwanda-style scheme. Oh, and even the French now say they might start intercepting migrant dinghies in French waters before they head across the Channel. While it's encouraging to hear that gendarmes in Calais might be willing to briefly come back from their three-hour lunch and put down their Gitanes cigarettes long enough to apprehend a few illegal migrants, all these announcements suffer from exactly the same problem. No one believes a single word they say any more. IS it June again already? Or should I call these 30 days by their new official name, 'Pride month'? Like Groundhog Day, Pride month seems to come around quicker every year. And it's just as predictable. Every woke company and public sector organisation adorns their buildings and social media with rainbow flags to signal their support. It's at workplaces, at schools and even when you go shopping for groceries. Whether it's Tesco or Waitrose, you can't escape the flags and the incessant woke lecturing. The sad thing is that Pride is no longer about a joyful celebration of being gay or bisexual after centuries of being shamed. It's become a corporate virtue- signalling contest under the divisive 'Progress Pride' flag pushing trans ideology that tramples on women's rights, while telling straight white men to 'park their privilege'. That's nothing to be proud of. I'm all in favour of getting Kylie Minogue on stage and enjoying a fun parade but please spare us the political posturing at the supermarket.
The Independent
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Keir Starmer grilled by schoolchildren on Messi v Ronaldo debate
Prime Minister Keir Starmer was grilled by schoolchildren during a visit on Thursday - with many keen to know his verdict on the Messi v Ronaldo debate. He visited a school in Essex as he declared the free school meal expansion as a 'down payment' on child poverty and was 'determined' to drive down child poverty and identify its root causes. As the Prime Minister sat with schoolchildren, one child asked him who his favourite footballer was. Mr Starmer, a keen Arsenal fan, said: 'My favourite player at the moment is Saka'. Another child asked who he thought was better: Messi or Ronaldo. After some hesitation, Mr Starmer replied: 'I'm going to go with Messi.'
