Why Labour’s breakfast club policy is concerning

If you stop anyone in the street and ask: “Do you think having free breakfast clubs in schools is a good idea?” The answer will almost certainly be “yes”.

The benefits seem obvious. For parents, an earlier drop-off supports getting to work and with breakfast provided another stress is taken care of - and could be a real lifeline for some.

Meanwhile for schools, getting children in and fed can support a smoother start to the day and better learning. It can, in some targeted cases, support attendance, too.

Schools know this already. Some surveys have revealed over 85 per cent of primary schools across the country already have breakfast clubs in one form or another.

Breakfast clubs by demand

At Greenwood Academies Trust (GAT), 24 of our 26 primary academies have a breakfast club, while the other two have no parental demand for one.

In GAT, our clubs vary by school and local demand. Charges are about £2/£2.50 a session but of course, many identified families are supported with those costs using our general budgets or the pupil premium grant.

This broadly covers food, resources and staffing by teaching assistants. It doesn’t, however, cover utilities, training or leadership supervision and absence cover. Until this year, many of our schools ran these clubs at no charge but budget pressures mean this is now not possible.

Yet we will still run them - and clearly many more do, too. Why then, if we are so clearly in favour of breakfast clubs overall, am I so concerned about Labour’s policy for all schools to provide breakfast clubs?

• How to build an effective breakfast club: what the research says
• Why the free school meals system is broken - and how to fix it
• Schools can’t tackle pupil poverty on their own

There is a world of difference between having choice and control over this provision and placing a duty on all primary schools to provide it in a specified format that includes all pupils being able to access it, free of charge and “funding” it at a rate that doesn’t even cover food costs.

Some voices in the sector are rightly identifying the substantial logistical challenges that this will give schools - space, staffing, training, cleaning, safeguarding, allergen management, resource provision, food procurement, to name a few.

Indeed, the Early Adopter guidance (the initiative that precedes the expected national rollout) runs to 17 pages and lists over 22 other pieces of guidance that leaders should be aware of.

But I also have broader concerns...

1. Purpose and value for money

If 85 per cent of schools already provide this, why are we moving to a model whereby the state starts covering the cost?

This is a significant national investment with no real clarity about purpose - is this about getting to work? Improving nutrition? Improving learning? Attendance?

Because, notwithstanding it sounds like a great idea and I can see why it became a manifesto commitment, it is not a great strategy to achieve any of those outcomes.

2. Conflating roles and responsibilities

Schools are not childcare providers. Our core purpose is to provide high-quality education.

Mandating childcare subtly changes the national perspective of what a primary school should be for, and in effect just increases our opening hours, thereby increasing workload on leaders.

It is generally accepted that schools are becoming the fourth emergency service, picking up the under-resourced responsibilities from health, social care and police. Requiring childcare and the provision of breakfast is another example of this going too far.

3. Budgets

60p per pupil per session will not cover running costs. And let’s not forget this now becomes a duty, so will force primary schools, those least able to withstand budget pressures at a time of decreasing pupil numbers, to have to run this provision, increasing costs and either reducing resources available for teaching or increasing deficit budgets.

4. The childcare market

The proposed model risks running a railroad across all current provision. While it allows for private provider delivery, the proposed funding levels are not operable and no local provider could compete against free school-based provision.

Unintended consequences

I understand a desire for equity, and I am not, in principle, against the idea of increasing breakfast club provision. However, the imposition of a permanent additional duty, not fully funded, will have, what I am sure are unintended, consequences.

Though I hope the sector can work with the government to tweak the current proposals and still achieve their laudable ambitions. We need to be developing self-sustaining models that complement and add value to education provision rather than potentially detracting from it.

Annette Montague is chief education officer at Greenwood Academies Trust

For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter