As research is published today evaluating the Mayor of London’s universal primary free school meal (FSM) policy, the debate around universalism and school food is likely to resurface - if it ever went away.
Most people support giving some children lunches. But the challenge comes around whether the government should fund school meals for every child.
I would argue it should - and that we need to reconsider how we view food within the school day.
All children in England between the ages of 5 and 16 are entitled to a free place at a state-funded school, paid for through taxes.
The vast majority of families send their children to state schools, which provide children with an education and support their development through teaching, classrooms, learning materials and more.
This is a universal service, like the NHS, and is generally seen as a way to give all children an education on which they can build a life.
Lunchtime is an outlier
However, when we talk about providing universal FSM within this school system, the response is sometimes that this would mean giving something for free to people who are already able to afford it.
But that’s what we do with books or desks or any other resource that is a pre-requisite for children’s wellbeing and development in school. The lunch hour is the only part of the school day that is means-tested - treated as an outlier rather than a fundamental part of school.
Hospital patients receive three meals a day funded by the government as part of our universal healthcare system, regardless of their income. So why not children in schools?
The effects of the London policy
The evaluation of the Mayor of London’s policy shows its positive effects are directly felt by children and parents.
Around one in three parents (35 per cent) say their child is enjoying school more and 31 per cent report improvements to their child’s mental health as a result of universal free school meals.
In addition, children say universal provision means they try new foods and energy levels are higher for afternoon lessons. That raises the bar for every child.
We know that when school meals are free for all, take-up among families who were eligible but did not claim free lunches before they were universal increases. In London data shows a rise in take-up among this group from 88 per cent to 94 per cent.
Reducing tensions between home and school
The policy has also helped strengthen school communities. It saves families across the income spectrum precious time in the mornings (51 per cent of parents surveyed reported this) because they no longer need to make packed lunches or manage dinner money.
This supports a smoother start to the school day and reduces tensions around dinner money debt between home and school. This is important because means-testing also causes problems for schools, which allocate precious staff time to administration.
Child Poverty Action Group research from earlier this month found that dinner money debt is increasing overall and 82 per cent of schools said monitoring and following up on debt is consuming school resources. Meanwhile, 73 per cent said it puts a strain on relationships with parents.
Under a universal FSM system, this wouldn’t happen.
The best start in life
Children are often overlooked in policymaking. The government has committed to giving children the “best start in life” - and this should include a universal approach to school food.
When children eat the same foods as their friends, paid for in the same way and in the same space, this fosters belonging at school, fuels kids and brings lunchtime in line with the rest of school life.
The government should have that vision in its sights as part of its commitment to children.
Kate Anstey is head of education policy at Child Poverty Action Group
For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter
