I had never supported Universal Free School Meals. Then I looked at the evidence.
A (brief) look at the research which changed my mind. From July 2023.
There are, according to the most recent figures, 705,874 pupils in Scottish schools. Should they all have an entitlement to a free school meal?
It is a question which is being more frequently asked in recent months. Driven by excellent campaigns such as Food 4 Thought from the STUC, and given more attention by the Cost of Living crisis, and the Government delaying its promise to expand entitlement access in Primary Schools.
It is a question to which my answer was ‘no’ - until recently. I am now convinced of the merits - and the need - for universal free school meal entitlement.
The majority of people across the UK agree with the policy. And broadly, I also thought it would be a ‘nice’ thing to have. However, I never saw it as a priority for spending when weighed up against the desperate need for funding in other parts of schools. My argument, naively, basically came down to four points:
(1) We have a reasonable entitlement for Free School Meals. (2) We could just extend it to disadvantaged young people who are missed out. (3) There isn’t full uptake anyway. (4) Paying for the meals of young people whose families can afford to pay does not make for a priority anti-poverty measure.
I now believe I was wrong on each point, and that the benefits of the policy are so much wider than just being an anti-poverty measure.
1. ‘We have a reasonable entitlement for Free School Meals’
In Scotland, we have Universal Free School Meals (UFSM) in the ‘junior years’ of Primary School and thereafter we have entitlement based on eligibility related to social security entitlement. This eligibility is however much narrower than other understandings of ‘low income’.
Entitlement to Free School Meals exists based on receipt of: Income Support, Job Seekers Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance, Seeking Asylum, Universal Credit (where earned income is less that £726), Child Tax Credit and income less than £18,725, or Child and Working Tax Credit and an income up to £8,717.
This ‘strict’ eligibility is similar to that in England, which the National Food Strategy has recommended expanding, concluding that under the eligibility ‘you have to be extremely poor to qualify’, that many of those suffering disadvantage miss out and that it means young people ‘are going hungry’.
2. ‘We could just extend it to disadvantaged young people who are missed out’
This is undoubtedly the case. This number is also larger than I had previously thought. Due to the restrictive nature of this entitlement, significant proportions of young people who are in poverty miss out.
The Child Poverty Action Group has projected that 17% of children in poverty do not meet the eligibility criteria. Given that - shamefully - a quarter of children in this country are in poverty, this means that 25,000 young people are falling through the gap.
It is also important to note this is a low estimate as it assumes the Government will see through its now delayed commitment to expand UFSM access to all in primary schools. If the Government see this commitment through in primary schools, it would cost an additional £90 million to extend UFSM to all secondary school pupils.
Though, the Cost of Living crisis has changed this complexion somewhat. Citizen’s Advice Scotland analysis estimates that over one million people in Scotland have cut back on food shopping due to rising costs. Last month, nearly three-quarters of respondents in a YouGov poll for the Scottish Government agreeing they are ‘worried’ about the crisis. There are many more examples which highlight that security around basics is having a wide societal effect.
3. ‘There isn’t full take up anyway’
This is true. The Children’s Commissioner notes that - particularly in Secondary schools - ‘there is evidence of declining uptake of free school meals, with children choosing to leave school at lunchtime’. Linked to this, they say, is barriers around awareness, stigma and quality/choice.
However, Universal Free School Meals can change that.
A NHS Health Scotland evaluation of the implementation of UFSM in P1-3 found that uptake increased as a result, as knowledge of entitlement - and attitudes and perceptions - changed. There were also the financial benefits to families which increased participation.
4. Paying for the meals of young people whose families can afford to pay does not make for a priority anti-poverty measure’
I was never particularly convinced extending meals to pupils not in poverty would reduce child poverty. Linked is a great Fraser of Allander paper which explores this argument. I think the evidence above demonstrates the financial need and support required, but the policy can be so much more than that anyway.
We should view Universal Free School Meals as an investment in our young people, their learning, and Scotland’s future health.
In the P1-3 evaluation every interviewed participant recognised that school meals were often healthier than alternatives and that there was a nutritional benefit, but only if there is a sustained uptake. Interesting recent research from Vermont showed benefits of free school meals related to increased readiness to learn, better academic performance, improved behaviour, and an ‘improved social climate’ at school.
In their wonderful new book ‘Ravenous’, Henry Dimbleby and Jemima Lewis set out how culture like Japan integrate education on food culture, nutrition and health into their provision of Free School Meals, providing some inspiration of what the possibilities of the policy is beyond the plate.
UFSM could also allow for greater investment in nutritional value. Currently, providing paid-for primary school meals cost councils money. In Aberdeen City, meals cost pupils £2.20 to purchase, but costs the council £3.07 to provide (my own Freedom of Information Request data). Adequate investment in Free School Meals, where there is near universal uptake should mean there is more resources available to invest in the provision itself. If structured correctly there is greater opportunity to support local producers further and support local economies.
That is not to say there are not challenges. Financing and facilities are two clear barriers. We can however - in part - view it as preventative spend - with positive impacts on health, attainment and culture.
I wasn’t convinced before, I am now. Hopefully you may be too.