Free School Meals.

[OkToBeTakei]

More than two years ago I begged the Government to make school dinners compulsory for all and to ban packed lunches. Since 2008, I've been urging politicians to make cookery compulsory in primary schools and to involve children in the preparation and serving of food as a way of teaching them social skills. There has been a television series and a huge campaign by Jamie Oliver, as well as a review of school dinners conducted by Henry Dimbleby and co.

As we've seen with Mary Portas's stuttering campaign to revive our ailing high streets, politicians just love initiating a big "review" (like they did with hospital food) into a headline-grabbing area of public concern, and then, when the work is done (usually by high-profile advisers for nothing) and well-researched proposals are made, they shove the document into a Whitehall filing cabinet marked "pending" and claim poverty.

Last week, school dinners hit the headlines again when Nick Clegg announced at the Lib Dem conference that, from September 2015, every child in the country under eight, regardless of family income, would receive a free hot school lunch, at a cost of around £600m. Critics say that the £400 a year which each family will save per child should be limited to the poorest – why help middle-class and wealthy families when child benefit is being cut? One Tory complained that this was a "deal done on the back of a fag packet" as it emerged that Lib Dems had objected to free school meals proposed by councils in several of their MPs' constituencies (Southwark, Islington and Hull).

Apparently, in the wheeling and dealing that always takes place before party conferences, the Tories and Lib Dems agreed that if David Cameron got his marriage tax allowance (which Lib Dems oppose and will cost the Treasury around £500m), they could announce free school meals. (Meanwhile, Ed Miliband has just announced he will "ban" the "bedroom tax" the minute he arrives in Downing Street – another shameless bit of headline-grabbing designed to chime with his arrival at conference.)

Tax allowances for married couples and free school meals are no-brainers. What's scandalous is that they are being actioned only because of some macho cabal in a Whitehall back room, to secure flattering news coverage for parties that have lost their way and are failing to connect with the public. Who is going to train the staff, equip the kitchens, find the larger dining rooms and police this operation, all within 11 months? And why should kids stop needing a hot meal when they turn eight?

In the areas where free meals have been piloted, pupils have been, on average, two months ahead in their work. Results from this summer's national tests, meanwhile, have shown a drop in the reading levels of 11-year-olds, and that a quarter would not pass Michael Gove's new tests in spelling and grammar. Surely, nutrition is a key factor in achieving literacy through improved concentration.

It's disgusting our kids' well-being is in the hands of horse-trading nonentities who (as Damian McBride's memoirs show only too clearly) will promise anything to stay in power.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 31745.html

An opinion piece.

Not sure how I feel about this, although I've always been a packed lunch Mum except Fridays which is Fish and Chip day :lol: A big thing since chips are generally not served in schools now.

I tend to agree with her though that 8 seems to be a cut off with no reasoning.

[brokenminded]

What is with her all or nothing attitude. Ban packed lunches and force every child eat school dinners? I agree with her that 8 is an odd cut off. There will be children aged 8 in anything from primary 3 to primary 5 depending on the time of year and how early kids started school. Why not have a free school meal available to any primary aged child who wants it, but still allow packed lunches. What about special dietary requirements is every child going to be specifically catered to, I highly doubt it. If a child doesn't like what they are given, will they go hungry, will they be forced to eat something they don't want. Packed lunches are perfectly fine and can be healthy, they can also be hot, a thermos of soup is a healthy hot lunch. Some children will always have unique requirements and a parent providing a specific lunch will be necessary. It can't be all or nothing in my opinion.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Thats not fair.

I think if it wasnt for packed lunches, my 5 year old sister would starve. She was on free school meals when she started (as it was free for a month for every kid who had just started), but after a few days of her refusing to eat anything, we sent her with packed lunches and now she eats. She is an incredibly fussy eater who we cant get to eat anything outside of the five meals she will eat-most of which arent healthy enough to be given every day at school, other than sandwiches.

I pack their lunches now, and I give them healthy stuff-a cheese sandwich, piece of fruit (bananas this week, with raisins for the kid who will only eat one fruit), yoghurt and a cookie, with a drink of blackcurrant juice. Thats pretty much what every other parent seems to give their kid as well.

[OkToBeTakei]

I think her stance on the packed lunch thing is because she thinks they are either full of crap or due to the hauled over school dinners that kids would get better nutrition via the state. I'm not sure of either to be honest although according to my child there is some bad crap in her friend's boxes. Bless..she may think X is so cool with her cheese bloody string or Dairylea Lunchable. It will be a cold day in hell when I feed that expensive crap to my kid.

For those who that may be the only hot or really just meal of the day it is good. Still do not get the 8 thing.

Also packlunch snobbery...I swear that is a thing :lol:

I actually have a friend on FB who posts what she gives her kids. Da eva livin' fuckerry :lol:

[Ariel]

I think every student in public schools (regardless of economic status) should get free lunch...optional of course.

[Maggie Mae]

Trading bits of my packed lunch was so awesome when I was a kid. I normally wasn't that hungry so sometimes I'd trade half my sandwich for deserts or chips or fruit roll ups, because I didn't get that stuff from my mom/grandma. Sad that schools want to ban packed lunches, we didn't have a cafeteria so everyone got home made lunch.

[tropaka]

hmmm, I think the option of a hot lunch should be there, also with the option of packed lunch. The rules at my daughter's schools are so strict now - no sharing of food, soy butter sandwiches must be labelled as such and absolutely no baked goods on birthdays etc.

[mockingbird]

Yeah, I think making a free hot lunch available to everyone is a great idea, but I don't see why you would need to (or agree with) ban packed lunches.

My elementary school didn't have a cafeteria so we had take-out basically. Monday was Arby's, Wednesday was pizza from a family pizza place whose kids went to the school, and one day was Chipotle once they came to the area. During Lent (Catholic school) we got PB&J on Friday. I don't remember the others because I think those were the only ones I bought. I think it was pretty cheap as the school got a group rate, but not the healthiest either. I still can't eat Arby's sandwiches after having them once a week for so long, lol (I did stop ordering some of the meals on and off because I got tired of them, but I was most loyal to Arby's haha).

At public school with a cafeteria, I bought hot lunch at most once a week once the novelty of having a cafeteria wore off. It just depended on what was on the menu. We had microwaves too so people would bring leftovers to heat up.

[Rita]

One of the reasons behind making the free lunch non-optional is for planning. Students wouldn't be able to skip the days that they don't like the food, and the staff would have essentially the same amount of lunches to prepare every week.

Another might be to prevent a distinct class line to develop - it would be even more obvious which families have the most money. (Class differences are one of the social skills you learn to deal with in school, but lunch seems a minor aspect of class differences.)

Ooh, if every student was offered the same lunch, research based on the relationship between food and education would make studies on students simpler.

[JesusFightClub]

OKToBe, you don't need to worry, as education (in some aspects) is devolved. This is one of the aspects, so no-one's going to make Mini-OK eat school dinners any time soon.

Having said that, I am always intrigued to see how many mainstream political parties swipe ideas off the (very small) Party I belonged to. ;)

[brokenminded]

One of the reasons behind making the free lunch non-optional is for planning. Students wouldn't be able to skip the days that they don't like the food, and the staff would have essentially the same amount of lunches to prepare every week.

Another might be to prevent a distinct class line to develop - it would be even more obvious which families have the most money. (Class differences are one of the social skills you learn to deal with in school, but lunch seems a minor aspect of class differences.)

Ooh, if every student was offered the same lunch, research based on the relationship between food and education would make studies on students simpler.

Primary school aged children imo don't skip school, maybe in very extreme circumstances a small number of p6 or p7 children might.

Lunch is always several options, some hot, some cold, meat, meat free and other things, so the amount of food needed to be prepared is hard to guess anyway.

As far as I know the current situation is still the kids who pay use cash and the others take a ticket. I think that, yes, if they all were free no one would be singled out. I was entitled to free school meals, but we lived in an area where that was the minority, so my mum choose to pay for my lunches to save me from bullying.

One of the issues is that every child can't eat the same lunch, allergies, disabilities and other factors prevent a one size all meal for every child.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Free meals, if they were reasonably nutritious, can be an efficient way to ensure that kids get proper nutrition and can stay focused at school.

The ban on packed lunches, though, is problematic.

I've occasionally sent my kids to camps or daycares that didn't allow outside food, but they were private, they served a specific religious community and they were always allergy aware and nut/peanut-free. I'm having trouble picturing how a ban could work for an entire country. Let's discuss a few of the kids I know:

My kids - only eat kosher food, son won't touch cheese, oldest daughter won't touch a vegetable

niece - deathly allergic to peanuts

nephew - on an autism diet which bans dairy, wheat/gluten, eggs, garlic and citric acid

friend's daughter - actually has an allergy to uncooked fruits and veggies

neighbor - no tomatoes or melon

classmate - no fish or soy

You get the idea - at some point, it simply isn't possible to accommodate all dietary restrictions, esp. if a child requires food that has never been in contact with a banned food.

I also think that there needs to be an emphasis on actually teaching people how to make healthy food, because at some point, feeding yourself is a life skill.

[Conuly]

Another might be to prevent a distinct class line to develop - it would be even more obvious which families have the most money. (Class differences are one of the social skills you learn to deal with in school, but lunch seems a minor aspect of class differences.)

This is something that does happen in some schools that have a la carte offerings. The kids with money eat chips or candy or whatever it is for lunch, the kids without have to choose between being branded as Poor Kids on Free Lunch and going hungry. Some go hungry.

Presumably, were such a rule enacted, there would be the ability to opt-out for kids with severe dietary restrictions. It shouldn't be too hard to make every meal kosher, though, or to only serve vegetarian lunches.

[Ariel]

hmmm, I think the option of a hot lunch should be there, also with the option of packed lunch. The rules at my daughter's schools are so strict now - no sharing of food, soy butter sandwiches must be labelled as such and absolutely no baked goods on birthdays etc.

That makes me sad. I remember being so excited on my birthday when I got to bring cupcakes to class!

[Anny Nym]

My eldest´kindergarten is a public one, so we have a pretty strict rule of:

1. "no prepacked or processed food, no sweets/candy/snack beverage/fizzy drinks/plastic bottles"

2. For hot lunch, the kindergardeners cook anyway and you have to say beforhand how often your child wants eat hot lunch, the paying is handled with the administration which is an own district office. Parents who have a low income will have to pay less than the normal daily price or even nothing.

With this 2 rules, children from poor or instabile households have a) always nutritional meals and b) not even the kindergardener (theoretically) knows who are "the poor parents" as they got the lunch bills paid by the district administration.

I do not always like everything about our education system, but this time they did quite well, I have to say.

[Conuly]

That makes me sad. I remember being so excited on my birthday when I got to bring cupcakes to class!

If you have a class of 25, and four have birthdays in the summer, that is 21 days of cupcakes. Add in a party for Halloween, Thanksgiving, Winter Break, Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's day, spring break, and the end of school and we are now up to 28 days with cupcakes. That is assuming the school doesn't have other holidays that get cupcakes, like the 100th day of school, a celebration for bringing in a certain number of box tops, Dr. Seuss's birthday, "publishing parties", parties for good behavior....

Even if we just have those 27 parties, out of a year with 36 weeks of school they have having a party three weeks out of four.

Which doesn't seem like so much until you have a kid who can't eat dairy, or non-kosher food, or food dyes (and when they trigger migraines or asthma attacks, that's something they cannot have), or wheat, or eggs, or...! That's a lot of weeks where that child is excluded from the celebration. Teachers ought to inform you when there is going to be a party, but in my experience they rarely do.

Schools are pretty good at dealing with nuts. That's one reason some schools only allow pre-packaged foods. But they can't realistically keep people from never wanting to eat food with any potential allergen.

And while yes, maybe those kids could just develop a thicker skin, it seems callous, especially in the younger grades, to suggest they shouldn't be upset at 25+ weeks of not being allowed to share the same experience their classmates get to enjoy. Why not do some other celebration that isn't focused around food?

Edit: not to mention, if I had planned one week to go get ice cream as a treat, but one of the kid had two class parties that week and the other had one, I might feel like my choice is to add to the cumulative junk meter or else cancel the plans I had made. At a certain point, the kids have had enough dessert! And sometimes, just sometimes, I want to have the fun of sharing dessert with them.

[2xx1xy1JD]

If you have a class of 25, and four have birthdays in the summer, that is 21 days of cupcakes. Add in a party for Halloween, Thanksgiving, Winter Break, Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's day, spring break, and the end of school and we are now up to 28 days with cupcakes. That is assuming the school doesn't have other holidays that get cupcakes, like the 100th day of school, a celebration for bringing in a certain number of box tops, Dr. Seuss's birthday, "publishing parties", parties for good behavior....

Even if we just have those 27 parties, out of a year with 36 weeks of school they have having a party three weeks out of four.

Which doesn't seem like so much until you have a kid who can't eat dairy, or non-kosher food, or food dyes (and when they trigger migraines or asthma attacks, that's something they cannot have), or wheat, or eggs, or...! That's a lot of weeks where that child is excluded from the celebration. Teachers ought to inform you when there is going to be a party, but in my experience they rarely do.

Schools are pretty good at dealing with nuts. That's one reason some schools only allow pre-packaged foods. But they can't realistically keep people from never wanting to eat food with any potential allergen.

And while yes, maybe those kids could just develop a thicker skin, it seems callous, especially in the younger grades, to suggest they shouldn't be upset at 25+ weeks of not being allowed to share the same experience their classmates get to enjoy. Why not do some other celebration that isn't focused around food?

Edit: not to mention, if I had planned one week to go get ice cream as a treat, but one of the kid had two class parties that week and the other had one, I might feel like my choice is to add to the cumulative junk meter or else cancel the plans I had made. At a certain point, the kids have had enough dessert! And sometimes, just sometimes, I want to have the fun of sharing dessert with them.

My kids' school used to simply require baked goods to come from a commercial, kosher-certified, totally nut-free bakery, but they've since decided to ban the birthday cupcake tradition altogether.

I'm not sorry to see it go.

I know, there is lots of talk about how we can't be extreme, and how treats are fine on special occasions. The problem we were having was that the special occasions add up, and it becomes a regular thing. At one point, my kids were getting cupcakes at school, candies from the youth program at the synagogue, treats from their paternal grandparents, birthday parties, food crafts at the after-school program....and then skipping regular food, going crazy on sugar, and even puking on a regular basis from sugar overdose.

[Khan]

I agree with so many others. There are so many kids with special dietary requirements that making meals for a whole school of them every day will be a huge challenge. Just let me keep packing my lovingly handmade meals for my family members with food issues. Age 8 seems quite odd for a cut off. I wonder what inspired that?

[julie paradox]

On the free/paying issue: my older son's school has a cashless system for the kids which involves a dinky little gadget that recognises their fingerprint (and yes, they give an alternative for the days they've cut themselves). Each child has their own account that the parent can pay into online (or by sending a cheque to school, I believe) or that can be topped up in school with cash. Kids on free school meals get credited with a set amount, supposedly enough to buy a decent meal each day.

We were told that we could use it to pay for other things as well, but in two years I've never been asked to do so.

The primary school caterers have a system whereby the child chooses in advance which meal they will have (in four-week blocks) and gets given a coloured band to hand over. I think they instituted that when the free-for-all trial started. Incidentally, this is the first time I've heard the suggestion of banning packed lunches: that wasn't part of the trial.

My child's packed lunch, though lacking in variety, is pretty healthy. However, as a governor I hear the school viewpoint and apparently there are significant numbers of pupils whose midday meal consists of two packets of crisps, three chocolate bars/biscuits and a sugary drink.

My husband's primary school - Essex in the early 70s - didn't allow packed lunches. Apparently it was only after all the kids came home complaining about the quality (it was INSTANT mash! whether this was due to rampant inflation, potato blight or yet another bread strike causing huge potato demand I'm not sure) that they grudgingly allowed a few tables set aside for Samwiges.

(ETA) Eight years old covers children in years 3 and 4 (your school year depends on whether you were born on 31 August or 1 September. No exceptions). I would hazard a guess that "eight years old" is not the actual cut-off point but reporting shorthand. The quoted article says "under eight" so I suspect they actually mean "all children in Key Stage 1 (except for Scotland which does it differently which is why we're not being more specific)", Key Stage 1 being Years 1 and 2 by the end of which they'll all be seven.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Instead of banning packed lunches out of nutritional concerns, why not bring in healthy lunch rules/guidelines? Along with the zillion other rules for school lunches (ie. meatless kosher peanut-free), we also get reminders about the need to pack at least one healthy snack, and to pack litter-less lunches at least once per week. My son's teacher this year insists that the kids bring a fruit or veggie snack.

[Conuly]

Instead of banning packed lunches out of nutritional concerns, why not bring in healthy lunch rules/guidelines?

And whose job is it to check all the lunches to make sure they are appropriate? What else could they be doing with that time? What do they do if the lunch is inadequate? It seems to me this causes even more logistical difficulties than having the lunch company* send in meals designed for the kids with various dietary restrictions.

* in the US, at least, very few schools prepare meals on site. Instead, they're all provided by an outside company. And that does make the logistical issues smaller, because instead of preparing just one nut-free or vegan or kosher meal they prepare several of them for the various schools they serve and just include the right number in each shipment.

[lilith]

Instead of banning packed lunches out of nutritional concerns, why not bring in healthy lunch rules/guidelines? Along with the zillion other rules for school lunches (ie. meatless kosher peanut-free), we also get reminders about the need to pack at least one healthy snack, and to pack litter-less lunches at least once per week. My son's teacher this year insists that the kids bring a fruit or veggie snack.

My kids have healthy lunchbox guidelines - to tell you the truth, I find them intrusive. The teachers have no idea of a child's overall nutrition, and it's incredibly patronising to imply that parents don't know how to feed their own kids and need the school to tell them how to.

I'm fine with going nut free, I'm fine with a compulsory fruit break, and it's reasonable to require the kids to bring a water bottle.

Beyond that, it should be up to the parent. While I usually pack healthy and homemade foods I want to be able to throw in a chocolate frog for a treat sometimes, or send packaged snacks if I'm in a hurry or have run out of homemade baked goods or hummus to go with their vegie sticks.

Lunchbox guidelines really don't make much difference for kids who are eating badly at home - their parents may comply with the rules, but the family will still eat the way it always has at home. I don't like to see kids loaded up on sugar, food additives and processed food, but while it may be within the school's mandate to teach nutrition it is going far beyond their purpose to police it.

And after all the lunchbox rules and random inspections, the teachers will give out lollies as rewards.

[Anny Nym]

My kids have healthy lunchbox guidelines - to tell you the truth, I find them intrusive. The teachers have no idea of a child's overall nutrition, and it's incredibly patronising to imply that parents don't know how to feed their own kids and need the school to tell them how to.

I'm fine with going nut free, I'm fine with a compulsory fruit break, and it's reasonable to require the kids to bring a water bottle.

Beyond that, it should be up to the parent. While I usually pack healthy and homemade foods I want to be able to throw in a chocolate frog for a treat sometimes, or send packaged snacks if I'm in a hurry or have run out of homemade baked goods or hummus to go with their vegie sticks.

Lunchbox guidelines really don't make much difference for kids who are eating badly at home - their parents may comply with the rules, but the family will still eat the way it always has at home. I don't like to see kids loaded up on sugar, food additives and processed food, but while it may be within the school's mandate to teach nutrition it is going far beyond their purpose to police it.

And after all the lunchbox rules and random inspections, the teachers will give out lollies as rewards.

Why do you think teachers have no idea of a child´s overall nutrition?

I think, rules about a pupil´s lunch are quite important to give some parents a "gentle push". A child is not the property of the parents and has the right to be feed with wholesome and nutritional food to fuel body & mind and therefor making the best of the day. Especially prepacked/processed food and snack beverages contradict heavily with this.

And I think we are all to some extend aware of the rising in overweight children and child diabetes.. also a small step could help prevention, in my opinion.

You are right, the parents may not change their bad eating habits at home, but with rules and guidelines, we can assure this children will at least get one real meal a day.

[lilith]

Why do you think teachers have no idea of a child´s overall nutrition?

I think, rules about a pupil´s lunch are quite important to give some parents a "gentle push". A child is not the property of the parents and has the right to be feed with wholesome and nutritional food to fuel body & mind and therefor making the best of the day. Especially prepacked/processed food and snack beverages contradict heavily with this.

And I think we are all to some extend aware of the rising in overweight children and child diabetes.. also a small step could help prevention, in my opinion.

You are right, the parents may not change their bad eating habits at home, but with rules and guidelines, we can assure this children will at least get one real meal a day.

Because it is the role of schools to educate children - it is the role of parents to make decisions about how they and their children apply that education.

There has been a pronounced trend in recent years for government, through public schools and other departments, to enforce an ideal of how children should be raised. As the ideals enforced tend to be those of the middle class of the dominant cultural group (who are the people who tend to write policy and studies), for the most part it doesn't directly affect me or other members of the dominant group - as I mentioned, I use pack a lunch that meets the guidelines anyway, and would wether those guidelines were there or not. The people who it does effect are those who are lacking a voice in policy formation and who are the least capable of asserting and defending their culture,

Every child and every family should have a knowledge of nutrition. I assume that the vast majority of parents want to do the best they can for their children. Not every parent has the funds and/or the time or the skills to pack meat and salad wraps, vegetable fingers and healthy dip, home baked non packaged snacks and at least two servings of fruit.

Children who are already being raised in a family that doesn't fit the middle class ideal are already pushing uphill to achieve in a school system based around and assuming knowledge of that culture and its (often unspoken) norms and values. Telling them and their parents that something as basic as their diet isn't good enough and doesn't fit won't be helpful, especially when the lessons in nutrition often won't be replicated at home.

[Anny Nym]

Because it is the role of schools to educate children - it is the role of parents to make decisions about how they and their children apply that education.

Indeed teachers are not "2nd parents", but it is not a job as assembly-line work (when the day is over and you did your quota, it´s done).

They DO HAVE a certain responsibility for their pupils and a close meshed network between parents and teachers is quite important. A teacher should not only have pedagogical sensibility but should also guide children to some extent (in cooperation with the parents). So if a teacher notices, lil Kathie only has toast with Nutella, a packed cake or a bag of chips for lunch, it´s not okay if her parents think "none of you friggin´business!" might be an allowed or even appropiate answer to give to a questioning teacher.

There has been a pronounced trend in recent years for government, through public schools and other departments, to enforce an ideal of how children should be raised. As the ideals enforced tend to be those of the middle class of the dominant cultural group (who are the people who tend to write policy and studies), for the most part it doesn't directly affect me or other members of the dominant group - as I mentioned, I use pack a lunch that meets the guidelines anyway, and would wether those guidelines were there or not. The people who it does effect are those who are lacking a voice in policy formation and who are the least capable of asserting and defending their culture,

Oh gosh, no no sorry- I did NOT want to give the impression, there should be only national-traditional food allowed! :penguin-no: certainly not!

I think cultural identity goes hand-in-hand with food anthropology and a child should be able to express his or her cultural background through traditional food. In our Kindergarten, we try to balance meal plans always ina way to meet both: bringing the "taste of the world" to the kiddies and to be "neutral" too so no child feels singled out because he or she couldn´t eat something because of a food taboo. Works just dandy! :-)

Every child and every family should have a knowledge of nutrition. I assume that the vast majority of parents want to do the best they can for their children. Not every parent has the funds and/or the time or the skills to pack meat and salad wraps, vegetable fingers and healthy dip, home baked non packaged snacks and at least two servings of fruit.

Why to be so fancy ? :-)

I know wraps are chic right now and home baked goods or dips are tha bomb, but there´s actually no reason to force oneself going fully-blown Bree van der Kamp :wink-kitty:

I think some good and simple school lunch does the trick too. Everyone can spread butter on bread and slice a tomato - and the vast majority does it anyway. And, sorry, but prepacked food is always more expensive than "staple" food, so noooot really sure if the funds argument applies here?

Children who are already being raised in a family that doesn't fit the middle class ideal are already pushing uphill to achieve in a school system based around and assuming knowledge of that culture and its (often unspoken) norms and values. Telling them and their parents that something as basic as their diet isn't good enough and doesn't fit won't be helpful, especially when the lessons in nutrition often won't be replicated at home.

If no-one speaks to them, the children will have to pay the price later on.