Universal Free School meals

The Irish state took a model that the British were phasing out cos they knew it didn't work, and enthusiastically implemented it.

No surprise that it didn't work.

State models that remove the focus from individual families rarely do. That includes factory-style feeding programs.

Typo, should have read focus.

And yes, family support workers. Because school meals for everyone is going to cost a fortune anyway.

TUSLA should then investigate to see if the child is being neglected. They do this by meeting with the child and its parent/s. If there are more signs of neglect, they may be forced to take action. That is up to them.

So you want TUSLA to investigate approximately 1 in 8 families/couples/parents in the country?

Have you ever had experience with TUSLA? They are notoriously bad at their job. Also to do the above would require hiring thousands more people, which would cost much more than some free school meals.

Say Tusla find out half of these parents are just 'bad' parents… then what? Take the kids off them I am guessing ala Mother and Baby homes?

It seems to me people want to go back to the 1950's with their puritan conservative views on how families and people run their lives.

Babies and Children were taken off parents under to guidance of child poverty and neglect as well, that was the reason we locked up so many people. How did that work out in the end?

Also, you are wrong about the interpretation of reporting a child who is hungry to Tusla.

State models that remove the focus from individual families rarely do. That includes factory-style feeding programs.

You are all over the shop.

What 'model' do your propose instead?

You do realise Tusla is a state organisation? They are not fit for purpose, yet some propose to give it more to do and more powers?

Your last bit is also wrong. There is a mountain of evidence to support that school meals work. The links have been posted, but ignored. You are entitled to your puritan opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

I dont know why you believe a sandwich for lunch isnt proper food. Do you think for example a basic chicken curry with no veg and a few random pieces of chicken or some other low quality school lunch is superior to a chicken sandwich on brown bread, salad, cheese and some fruit packed in a lunch box. - thats crazy.

A high proportion of the Irish population will have a healthy sandwich for lunch today ( including myself) - nothing wrong with it at all.

School lunchs are a great idea in deprived areas but there is no need whatsoever for every primary school to have the same. In my own childrens school I dont think it is necessary as there are no families that are in poverty - no child turns up to school having no breakfast or no lunch in their bag. Im not even sure whether my kids would even like the meals provided even if it was introduced. I would rather see the money spent elsewhere in education. My friend teaches in a school where it has been introduced and she said there is huge waste - alot of kids are not eating the meals.

I always saw schools as places where kids go to receive an education

Not places where hungry children go to get food...

The dysfunction for me isnt the school providing the meals out of necessity, its the fact there is a group of studrnts turning up at schools hungry/not fed

Thats dysfunction in my book, regardless of what country it occurs in

Your point that it happens in other advanced westetn democracies may mean they arent as advanced as we think....theres something going wrong with the way we organise our societies/distribution of wealth/resources if schools have to feed kids not because they are providing a service but because they may be the main source of nutrition (never mind anything else) in a certain cohort of students lives...

Tbh I think if thats primarily the case education will out of necessity take a back seat and the school is esentially a soup kitchen...

The "advancements" arent evident across all parts of society etc

As to what to do about it, well its no short term fix thats for sure, in the immediate term, provide the meals, in the long term look to reduce the need to provide meals out of necessity because so many hungry undernourished kids are showing up at school...

Maybe a certain cohort of parents should have to take responsibility for their kids to some degree?

Maybe both parents shouldnt have to work fulltime just to provide a semi d and feck all else for their family?....maybe if money went to provide more work flexiblity for parents during their kids childhood so they could be more present in their kids lives....some people just dont have that luxury...and its not about them being willing to make sacrifices...if they both dont work the show which is already teetering on the brink loses its wheels entirely..

Maybe the small cohort of wasters lifetime social welfareites that see it as a lifestyle choice shouldnt be incentivised and some moves towards winding that down over 20/30 years could be made? If that money isnt going to provide food and is ending up in the bookies or the pub maybe that should be disincentivised/discouraged etc

I dont know all the solutions and perhaps the above would be disastrous but I stand by my point if large amounts of kids are showing up hungry to school theres something dysfunctional about that society ...no matter how advanced it is.

I genuinely don't understand the massive issue with this.

My dad was a principal in the 1980s/1990s in a primary school in a disadvantaged area. He helped set up a breakfast club for kids because kids work better (I don't just mean academically but also play etc) when they have a full belly. The breakfast club was basic - cereal & toast was offered but it meant that all kids had an equal opportunity. A lot of the kids coming there wouldn't have bad parents by any stretch but they had parents who were struggling financially or maybe didn't understand the connection between food & behaviour etc.

As for the current school lunches, I know people whose kids are in schools where its been in operation for a while & they think it's great. 1 in particular has been running for over a year now. The parents are asked to pay a subsidy of about €10 a week to get a better choice etc (this was voted on by the BOM). There's hot options that are really good as well as some salads/sandwiches. The kids eat in their classrooms like they would have done if they had a packed lunch. They pick a week in advance. The school has dictated to a level the menu so things like burgers, chicken goujons and the like are only available on a Friday. All allergens are catered for as it's an outside company delivering so they have the proper segregated kitchens & allergy meals are delivered in separate boxes.

My son's school isn't part of it at the moment but I have no problem with some of my tax money going to ensure that every child in this country has a proper meal in the middle of the day. I mean, seriously how can that even be a question?! We can all spout on about how kids going hungry at school is wrong and something should be done to the parents blah blah blah but why should the children continue to suffer when they don't have to? To prove a point? To make their parents learn something? In the history of the world, when has that been ok? Feed the kids, sort the other problems separately. You don't have to stop one to solve another. And school location doesn't always indicate that there are disadvantaged kids there. My primary school was in a "posh" location but kids came from other places that were decidedly less so.

A few things.

a) Are we saying that they are incapable or unable, as they are different things

b) It is not a situation I would be happy with so mitigation attempts like a hot meal at school is a good outcome.

c) Ill repeat, what is your end game here? Take away kids from their parents? That is a lot of kids for the state to look after and the outcome for children in state care is often and usually way way worse.

Kids are in a school for six hours a day.

That's 25%.

Even if you think about their waking hours it's a maximum 50%. And that's if you assume they are getting adequate sleep - which they won't be.

Exactly...its one way…perhaps not much of a solution on its own..it could just be a sticking plaster...but youll notice I did say perhaps it should be done but perhaps the state should mitigate in other ways too and maybe just maybe there are drawbacks to this in that it masks more serious issues etc etc

Have school meals been a rip roaring success in these developed countries you speak of? are less children showing up at the point of entry hungry because their parents cant or wont feed them? Are the meals being provided nutritionally balanced or tendered out to the lowest bidder? Are more kids now receiving worse nutrition because the school is tasked with providing their food with a totally inadequate budget (and given the govts inability to manage a piss up in a brewery here that wouldnt be an outcome beyond the realms of posdibility) Is it possible there may be other measures or a suite of actions that would have better outcomes could be considered. Is someone allowed voice an opinion without yourself taking them on like a govt press/pr spokesperson.

Tbh you are the one on a bit of a rant, im stating my opinion calmly. You seem determined to aggressively shut down anyone with the temerity to voice another opinion .....on a discussion forum no less.

turned out just fine, im not so sure about that!

you ll find many with all sorts of psychological issues, some engaging in all sorts of dysfunctional behaviors from excessive alcohol consumption, drug use, gambling etc etc etc, some showing signs of narcissistic behaviors etc etc

just fine, i dont think so….

And tbh to use an analogy I still think theres an element of treating the symptoms and not doing anything to work towards addressing causes....its not like Im necessarily against the symptoms being treated as I made clear throughout (despite some jumping the gun and assuming rather than fully reading what I posted) however there are reasons so many students turn up hungry to school that should be tackled too imho

That is fine, but the sentiments and opinions echoed here by some clearly state that and allude to the fact that kids should be taken off their parents who don't or can't feed them in the mornings.

That is much more damaging and harmful to children in the long run.

Am I happy about it? No.

But I dont want to turn back the clock 80 years and reopen the industrial schools either, which is what you are suggesting we should do. The latter is more harmful to children.

Jaysus

It's ignoring/hiding all the other problems that kids who need free meals have, while spending truckloads of resources on kids who don't need free meals.

Hugely wasteful and enabling neglect at the same time.

That's without even thinking about the social benefits of having families eat together, and the cultural issues of institutional feeding: how does a parent know that their kid is only eating vegan / halal / pork-free / beef-free / whatever food?

People seem determined to say that I'm advocating industrial schools. I'm not. I'm advocating family resource centres, neighbourhood programmes, in-home family support workers, extended family support workers - and foster parents as a last resort. Anything which gives support and autonomy to individual families - not large institutions.

You're arguing different points but neglecting the major point

Frees school meals provide children a hot meal

They won't be eating a meal with their family in the middle of the day because they're in school

Some of the things people come up with are just off the wall ridiculous.

You had mentioned That's without even thinking about the social benefits of having families eat together

This aspect wouldn't be removed as the free school meals is a lunchtime thing. They get a hot meal in school at lunch, doesn't mean they don't have dinner in the evening with their families.

One one hand you give out about this being a waste of money and is an enabler, but then advocate massive increases in the budget to offer all the extra services you mention, which will cost a lot more and will probably just do the same thing anyway, that is offer a hungry child a hot meal.

You think two hot meals a day causes obesity?

So you think if a child has a hot meal in school at 12:30 (primary lunch time) all they need for the rest of the day roughly 7/8 hours is a light supper? Can you define what a "light supper" even would be? Those kids would be absolutely starving if you're not providing them with a dinner after school.

It's an Irish mentality to think a ham and cheese sandwich is enough and a good "healthy lunch" not realising that the bread is mostly sugar, the ham is plastic and with the cheese and butter or mayonnaise the calories are usually roughly equal to a proper nutritious hot meal with is far more satiant.

Certain individuals on this thread over dipping into the well of farce to try and justify not giving a kid food at school.

Are they just cranky members of the against everything brigade or is there something else at play here?

The same kids who will be paying for their pensions and health service when they need free meals?

No, I would rather teach parents to parent, and so act to break the intergenerational welfare cycle.