Strange school letter

brians_daughter

My eldest sons school have recently spent a small fortune on getting new equipment installed (pre-pay biometric scanning system) to try to take away any social stygma attached to FSM and ensure those children entitled to emals are having them. Maybe the school is looking into such a possibility and looking to guage the entitlement to FSM children vs to those that actually utilise them in prder to see if its worth doing?

FSM is (or was) one of the ways that they assess children on or below the poverty line from an educational and statistical POV. It may be something to do with this? Or aquiring the correct numbers to ensure the correct funding is in place? What if all the parents who were entitled to school meals suddenly decided they wanted them? Maybe its to ensure correct provision would be accessable should such a situation arise?

clearingout

schools receive a 'bonus' (for want of a better word) for every child who is eligible - schools in deprived areas with a high percentage of people on free school meals are therefore getting more money in this way to do whatever they want with. £488 isn't much but if there are 100 kids in the school eligible, but only 3 are claiming, the school are missing out on a hefty payment which would be of benefit to every child, regardless of their financial situation. Why would you object to that?

I was eligible for free school meals for a couple of years but my children wanted packed lunches so we never claimed. This payment is new this year and I would claim now on this basis - we go to an 'outstanding' school in a very middle class area (now an 'academy', in fact) but extra money in the pot is extra money in the pot.

POPPYOSCAR

elvis86 wrote: »

If I understand the OP correctly, the school are encouraging all qualifying parents to register their kids for free meals, even if they intend to send their children with a packed lunch every day, as the school receives a payment of £488 a year for each child registered, regardless of whether they actually have the lunches?

IMO I'm in agreement with the OP, that seems like a very inefficient way for the system to be run. Surely schools should claim for each free school meal served and be reimbursed accordingly (though obviously this would be open to the same kind of abuse and would need to be regulated somehow).

Regardless of what the school may spend the money on where the lunches aren't taken, if the money was intended for one thing I don't think it's right that the school can decide to spend it on another.

And whilst I appreciate that the money will benefit everyone in the school, why should a school with a high number of kids on free school meals be raking in thousands of pounds more per year to spend on things other than providing free dinners, than a school where most kids don't qualify? The children of taxpayers who work and earn enough to not qualify don't deserve to be short-changed like that.

I'd be tempted to send the letter into a newspaper. I know that others have said that this is common practice, but if the letter is so blatant as to suggest that parents should register just so the school gets the money, I think that would interest a lot of taxpayers..

Why?

As far as I understand it, this is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.The allowance is not to cover the cost of the meals, it is designed to assist in the education of children from the poorer families from what I have read up about it and as another poster has pointed out.

sarahk100574

It is a sad fact that in schools with a significant number of children from the very poorest of families that there are associated additional costs to the school. These costs range from funding a higher % of the costs of school trips where take up is very low due to cost; to providing additional learning mentors/one-to-one time as these schools typically have a higher numer of children with these extra needs.

To teach in a middle class primary school is a very different job than to teach in a primary school in a very poor/run down/high unemployment area. The children are very different in so many ways, and I have known of teachers whose job is more social worker than teacher at times. It is also a sad but true fact that children arrive at the same age, but in poorer areas a higher number of the children have a lot to catch up on in order to even begin an education... I've met 4 year olds who do not know the names of colours correctly. (Basic colours....blue, red, green etc.)

It is a sad indictment of society, but that is how it is and that is why successive governments have provided extra funding to the schools in the most deprived areas. To offer a more level playing
field to those children, when they need it most.:beer:

POPPYOSCAR

I am actually more concerned about the teachers being on strike next week when my daughter is due to be taking GCSEs.

sarahk100574

elvis86 wrote: »

The children of taxpayers who work and earn enough to not qualify don't deserve to be short-changed like that.

I'd be tempted to send the letter into a newspaper. I know that others have said that this is common practice, but if the letter is so blatant as to suggest that parents should register just so the school gets the money, I think that would interest a lot of taxpayers..

Elvis - the children of tax payers WOULD be getting short changed if the school DID NOT claim every penny it is entitled to from the LEA.

Public finances are a very complex beast.... especially within education. The point of service and therfore cost is spread over something like 20, 000 institutions in England, never mind all the related bodies and associations. There is an chartered accounting qualification purely for public finances.

It may seem absurd that schools have to apply for some of their share of the budgets in this way, but it is entirely above board, legitimate & legal! I'm sure any journalist worth his/her salt would do some research and realise that the letter from the OP's school is a total non-story!

Janepig

The headmaster of DD/DS's school was encouraging this about a year ago, no mention of it being for extra money, more because the school would move up on the weighted score card (I believe it's called in Wales, we don't get league tables). It's a high performing school, but doesn't have a particularly high number of FSM claimants.

Jx

peachyprice

elvis86 wrote: »

The children of taxpayers who work and earn enough to not qualify don't deserve to be short-changed like that.

Do you think it's better that the children whose parents earn enough to not qualify are 'short-changed' when the school doesn't have enough money to buy books, pencils, PE equipment etc because they have had to use a percentage of their budget subsidising poorer children whose parents were bullied into not claiming FSD by tax payers berating them?

elvis86

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

As far as I understand it, this is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.The allowance is not to cover the cost of the meals, it is designed to assist in the education of children from the poorer families from what I have read up about it and as another poster has pointed out.

sarahk100574 wrote: »

Elvis - the children of tax payers WOULD be getting short changed if the school DID NOT claim every penny it is entitled to from the LEA.

I interpreted the OP to mean that schools were invited to claim £488 per qualifying child specifically to fund a free school meal each day. On this basis it would seem like an inefficient system IMO, and would seem wrong for schools to claim the money with no intention of spending it on dinners.

If this isn't the case, and the funding is actually allocated to generally help the school support children from low income families, then I take back what I said.

elvis86

peachyprice wrote: »

Do you think it's better that the children whose parents earn enough to not qualify are 'short-changed' when the school doesn't have enough money to buy books, pencils, PE equipment etc because they have had to use a percentage of their budget subsidising poorer children whose parents were bullied into not claiming FSD by tax payers berating them?

Show me where I said that parents who qualify shouldn't apply for their children to have free meals? That wasn't the debate.

Incidentally, I don't think things like free school meals are a particularly good thing, partly for the reason you cited.

IMO people on low incomes/benefits should be given enough to support their families, and then they should be expected to pay for council tax/school meals/precriptions etc like everyone else. Removing stigma, encouraging people to take responsibility and budget, and making it clearer how much people actually receive in benefits, rather than confusing things with accumulating multiple benefits and allowances.

And before anyone queries what happens when a child attends school with no lunch and no money; if a person can't be trusted to budget and make provisions for their child's lunch at school, that rings alarm bells for me and doesn't convince me that free dinners are the way forward, more that social services should intervene.