Yet another £600 million down the drain

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If you think parents are going to deliberately not feed their infant children breakfast because they know someone else well give them lunch then I would politely suggest your reference points for the world at variance with the facts.

You clearly didn't listen to Question Time last night when a school teacher made the same point. Said it ought to be free breakfast, not lunch.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If you're this worried about the nanny state then turn down your free bus pass, your winter fuel allowance and the part of your state pension that exceeds what was taken from you in national insurance. If you're on any kind of nhs prescription then I hope it's not expensive because I know you won't want other people to pay for you.

I openly state that bus passes/fuel allowance for people like me is wrong. But one individual sending it back is hardly going to change government policy - any more than one University Lecturer going on strike to protest about tuition fees....

michaels

CLAPTON wrote: »

I haven't read the original documents but it was reported that
-there was a 20% improvement in 'results'
- the kids who already had free school meals also showed a similar improvement

my conclusion is that whatever caused the effect it clearly wasn't the food, as if it were there should be no change in the kids already receiving free school meals (or paid for school meals )


their conclusion was that this 'proved' their case even more because before the stigmata of receiving free school meals held them back.


well maybe

but as I said I haven't seen the 'original' research

But perhaps it goes back to my earlier post, if those who currently are not eating well and are thus disruptive and antisocial are better fed and better behaved then all the other pupils can benefit from more teacher time that is no longer monopolised by controlling the behaviour of those on sugar rushes?

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You clearly didn't listen to Question Time last night when a school teacher made the same point. Said it ought to be free breakfast, not lunch.

But may be the kids with the chaotic lifestyles (and worst diets) are least likely to have parents who would bring them into scholl 30 minutes early just because there is a free breakfast on offer?

ruggedtoast

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You clearly didn't listen to Question Time last night when a school teacher made the same point. Said it ought to be free breakfast, not lunch.



I openly state that bus passes/fuel allowance for people like me is wrong. But one individual sending it back is hardly going to change government policy - any more than one University Lecturer going on strike to protest about tuition fees....

I didnt realise listening to Question Time was pre-requisite for discussing this issue. I dont personally know a single parent who would not bother to feed their children at one meal time because they knew they would get food at another.

There are certainly bad parents who dont bother to feed their children breakfast (and not always poor ones), and studies have shown free breakfasts have a significant effect on behaviour and attainment throughout the entire day, rather than just the afternoon if they get a lunch, so the teacher is probably right.

Kennyboy66

CLAPTON wrote: »

nearly all experiments in schools (new reading schemes, increasing school hours, reducing school hours, extra physical exercise, less physical exercise, free school meal, after school clubs, breakfast clubs) all lead to 'significant' improvements in results.

It does make one wonder what methodology was used to measure 'improvement' and by whom.

Its fairly established that even the act of measuring / studying something will lead to at least small improvements.

To test this at home, record your gas or electricity meter every week and keep a running record. Even if you make no conscious effort to reduce consumption, in most cases you will reduce energy use by 3 - 5%.

Kennyboy66

CLAPTON wrote: »

their conclusion was that this 'proved' their case even more because before the stigmata of receiving free school meals held them back.

Surely even Thatcher wouldn't have made those marks on the hands of kids who received free school meals.

CLAPTON

michaels wrote: »

But perhaps it goes back to my earlier post, if those who currently are not eating well and are thus disruptive and antisocial are better fed and better behaved then all the other pupils can benefit from more teacher time that is no longer monopolised by controlling the behaviour of those on sugar rushes?




But may be the kids with the chaotic lifestyles (and worst diets) are least likely to have parents who would bring them into scholl 30 minutes early just because there is a free breakfast on offer?

Yes, that may be the case although one wouldn't expect the same 20% increase across the board.

But it mainly comes back to what constitutes 20% improvement and how it was measured and did the effect last.

Certainly if the 20% refers to academic excellence than 20% brainer people must very cheap at the price ...
indeed we could fund that by sacking some school teachers .. I wonder if the research result might have been different if that were the quid pro quo.

CLAPTON

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Its fairly established that even the act of measuring / studying something will lead to at least small improvements.

To test this at home, record your gas or electricity meter every week and keep a running record. Even if you make no conscious effort to reduce consumption, in most cases you will reduce energy use by 3 - 5%.

yes very much my feeling too however the elect/gas effect seems to trail off after a while

(and I've reviewed whether I really felt stigmata was entirely appropriate .. thank you)

sabretoothtigger

Thatcher thatcher milk snatcher

Funny that Clegg is doing the opposite of the iron lady, they had to wait till she died to do it

The breakfast point is dead on, it is the most important meal. I used to skip lunch and eat after school

Niv

CLAPTON wrote: »

I haven't read the original documents but it was reported that
-there was a 20% improvement in 'results'
- the kids who already had free school meals also showed a similar improvement

my conclusion is that whatever caused the effect it clearly wasn't the food, as if it were there should be no change in the kids already receiving free school meals (or paid for school meals )


their conclusion was that this 'proved' their case even more because before the stigma of receiving free school meals held them back.


well maybe

but as I said I haven't seen the 'original' research

The 20% figure is based on a comparison with another school not the same kids. i.e. school A has free meals for all, school B has free school meals for some (the current system) with paid meals for those that choose and packed lunches for the rest / no food (seems to be the general perception that kids are not eating). So the results from school A and B were compared adn the results at school A wer +20%, so the conclusion was that the only difference between the schools was free meals for all therefore that was responsible for the improvement.

In reality it is not 1 school compared to 1 school it is a group of schools compared with a group of schools but I hope you get what I mena.

Niv

kabayiri

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Thatcher thatcher milk snatcher

Funny that Clegg is doing the opposite of the iron lady, they had to wait till she died to do it

The breakfast point is dead on, it is the most important meal. I used to skip lunch and eat after school

Free breakfast has many appeals.

It is an encouragement to turn up on time.

It will help those people who are trying to get children to school as well as themselves into the workplace for a 9am start.

It compensates for poorly educated households where there is no cereal in, because the kids have eaten it for their evening meal ! A friend is a teacher in an inner city school. It's amazing how often this takes place.