Breakfast and Lunch – Don’t Leave Secondary Schools Behind

Much noise has rightly been made about the free Breakfast Club programme being rolled out across primary schools in England. The ‘30-minute sessions before school where children get a free breakfast so they to start every day ready to learn’ (sic), have had plenty of positives touted about them; with the benefits listed by the Government including children not needing to be hungry at the start of the school day, as well as providing social time and activities for the kids.

Invoking evidence of improved performance in ‘reading, writing and maths’ for students who take part in similar schemes that already exist might appeal to those for whom less hungry children is not in-itself a sufficient return on investment. As might the claim that:

‘For parents, free breakfast clubs mean help with childcare at the start of the school day – at no extra costs. It means those parents can drop their children off half an hour earlier – helping parents get into work, giving them up to 95 additional hours back to juggle busy mornings, and saving working families up to £450 a year.’

As consequences go, these would be welcome outcomes but they aren’t necessary. The fact that children are going to school hungry is itself sufficient cause for intervention. Parents should be able and willing to feed their children, but for reasons like the societal sin that is poverty, this isn’t always the case.

We can of course work to end poverty. Abolishing the two child benefit cap is a strong step in that direction, but until we reach those particular uplands action is needed now if we are to stop classrooms from being filled with empty stomachs.

I support this policy, but I am also on record as saying that ‘I don’t want to risk seeing secondary schools being a secondary thought’. In that moment I was talking about literacy, but here the same sentiment applies; because all child hunger is repugnant, and you don’t cease to be a child just because you’re done with your SATs. 

As it stands, as positive and promising as they are, the scope of these clubs falls short of the moral imperative to ensure that children don’t start the school day hungry. How has the line for intervention been drawn here, before kids even reach the age of 12. Do we really suppose that the child who goes to school hungry at the end of year 6, won’t go to school hungry at the start of year 7? 

Extending the scheme would obviously have cost implications. England has 3,452 secondary schools, and I wouldn’t suppose the costs of such an expansion would be low. But what reasonable choice is there when we are talking about the hunger of a child? If the problem is that the hunger of a 12 year old doesn’t strike us the same as the hunger of an 11 year old then we really must address the conscience of our nation. And if it is an issue of cost or fiscal means, then all I will say is that if there is an equation that determines that a primary school child shouldn’t be hungry but secondary school child can be, then I don’t want to see it.

Why stop there though? Some say that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, but it need not be the only one and I don’t doubt the challenge that affording school lunches can be for some families.

Free school meals do exist for those living in certain specific circumstances, although it is far from universal. There are admittedly some aspects of a holistic approach in England, with universal free school meals applying to children attending state funded schools in Reception, year 1 and year 2. In some London Councils there is extended provision that reaches all primary school children, with Tower Hamlets deserving special note for having being the first Council to offer free school meals to all primary and secondary school students, while varying policies can be found in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. 

The Free School Meals for All campaign, run by the National Education Union (NEU), seeks to universalise this provision; but here again we see the same distinction made between primaries and secondaries. 

Listed in the campaign’s frequently asked questions the answer given as to why only primary schools are included is that ‘families with younger children face higher levels of poverty’. It also states that ‘The Government should do more to help all children but extending Free School Meals from infants to juniors is a good starting point.’

If support must be triaged then the groups with higher poverty levels would be reasonable candidates. The truth remains though that there are children and families who would benefit from a universalisation across all age groups. The child poverty rate in 2023/2024 for 11-15 year olds was 31%. That’s 1% above 5-10 year olds and 1% below 0-4 year olds, while the figure reported for those aged 16-19 sits at 27%.

This is to say nothing of the fact that those not facing financial hardship would surely feel the difference from a universal provision. It would be more money left in pockets to pay off debts, save or spend. So whilst the NEU’s efforts are laudable, and whilst they are right that provision for all primary children ‘is a good start’, we must not lose sight of the fact it is only a start. Afterall, when education is the statutory service that many children come into contact with most, do we not have a duty to make sure that they aren’t hungry when they are there?

Image: Flickr/ No 10 Downing Street (Lauren Hurley)

Licence.

No image changes made.