Michaela community school in Wembley was widely criticised last week for placing children in “isolation” because their parents were late with lunch payments. The lunches are compulsory, with parents being charged £75 upfront for each six-week period. Fall even a week behind, and you may be warned that your child faces “lunch isolation”, where “they will receive a sandwich and a piece of fruit only”. That’s not counting the side order of segregation and humiliation. The child will spend the whole 60 minutes away from their friends, and “only when the entire outstanding amount is paid in full will they be allowed into ‘family lunch’ with their classmates”.
“A sandwich is fine – at least the child is being fed,” you might think. But a sandwich is not “fine”. The School Food Plan, by Leon founders Henry Dimbleby and John Vincent, states that only 1% of packed lunches, which typically comprise a sandwich and snacks, meet the nutritional requirements for school meals. It is easier to get nutrients into a hot meal.
After the story broke, Michaela’s headteacher, Katharine Birbalsingh, insisted she was not punishing children for being poor: the sanction didn’t apply to pupils receiving free school meals (more than one in five of those at the school) or whose families had money problems. The problem was the small number of families who were “playing the system”, “trying to get other poor families to pay for their child’s food” and “betraying their children”.
We have heard these accusations before. Back in 2013, Lord Freud claimed that food bank users were simply abusing a free facility, thus demonstrating his lack of understanding of the obstacles between a hungry mother and a food bank parcel. A willingness to seek help, for example. Swallowed pride. A referral from a doctor or social worker. Perhaps the bus fare to the nearest centre, with children in tow.
Conservative voices have repeated, again and again, the lie that children go hungry because of feckless parents. Even Jamie Oliver got in on the act in a misjudged claim that parents spent their money on “chips and cheese” and “massive fucking TVs” instead of feeding their children properly.
Birbalsingh states that there are only “three families in the whole of the school” whose children are in lunch isolation. She may have meant this as mitigation, but what business does not have a few hundred pounds in reserve for anomalies and emergencies? What responsible institution prioritises £2.50 a day over the wellbeing of young people? Sod it, I’ll settle the outstanding £225 myself, if it means the children can rejoin their peers and have a decent meal, and go into their afternoon lessons nourished, confident and ready to learn. I’d want to do it face to face, so I can meet Birbalsingh and see what can be done to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
It’s definitely not the case that every child living in poverty is eligible for free school lunches. The welfare safety net is so patchy that in dozens of boroughs across London and the south-east, almost two-thirds of poor families do not meet the criteria. Many families teeter on the edges, not qualifying for the little support on offer, unwilling to seek it for fear of drawing attention to a household barely holding the pieces together, or hit by unexpected bills. Imagine your freezer breaking down with no insurance to replace it. Imagine a larger-than-usual phone bill from calling the job centre or benefits agencies. Imagine being asked for £75 upfront when your weekly food shop is around a tenner, knowing your child will be humiliated if you do not comply.
Around one-third of jobs in Wembley are low paid – either minimum wage or slightly above. The average rent is 75% of average earnings. Almost one in five households are overcrowded.
Children going hungry is not a new problem. One former primary school teacher got in touch with me last week to say they had found a 10-year-old boy stealing sweets from the classroom desk a few years beforehand. When asked why, he said that neither he nor his eight-year-old sister had eaten for three days. The teacher took them to the canteen and insisted they were given a free meal.
Last year, nearly one-third of parents on a low income skipped at least one meal to feed their children. Food bank use is still rising, with an average of three opening every week up and down the country. Demand increases in the holidays, as parents who relied on school to provide hot, nutritious lunches for their child now need to provide another five meals a week. According to the Trussell Trust, more than one in three emergency food parcels go to children.
Schools don’t have to make things worse. A primary school teacher in Norfolk emailed me to say: “We would never see a child punished for not having lunch money. Some of our children are hungry when they turn up to school, so we find them some food, normally fruit and toast. We keep milk in stock for children who were receiving it free in key stage 1 [years one and two] and who have moved into key stage 2 [years three to six] without an improvement to their family circumstances.”
Nikki, whose children go to Crookfur primary school in Scotland, said that in the case of missed or late payments for school meals: “Our school continues to feed the child as normal. They understand that it is not the fault of the child.”
St Helena School in Colchester, Essex, is an academy school for children aged 11 to 16. When I visited earlier this year, the headteacher, Zoe King, explained that all pupils, regardless of family circumstances, receive free school meals. These are paid for by renting out school facilities in the holidays. There is no “top table” for staff; instead teachers sit with pupils, and everyone eats together. Sounds a world away from being shut away to chew on a sandwich, doesn’t it?
The contrast between the two schools is clearly summed by the front pages of their websites. Michaela’s proudly proclaims: “Boris Johnson Loves Michaela!” St Helena’s? “We want each child to be happy.”
