Free school meals for all primary school children...good or bad idea?

First topic message reminder :

Will it be a vote catcher for Corbyn and the labour party, or is just another last ditch attempt to get labour voters back?

"Anti- poverty campaigners today hailed Labour ’s flagship pledge to fund free primary school meals for all children with a new tax on private school fees.
The Child Poverty Action Group said Labour had made a “compelling” argument to stop kids going hungry and remove the “stigma” of free school meals for the poorest children.
Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn unveiled the £700million policy today and said it would be fully funded by slapping a 20% VAT charge on private school fees .
“This is a welcome move which we have long campaigned for,” said Alison Garnham, head of the Child Poverty Action Group.

Critics pointed out that the poorest kids already qualify for free school meals, and so Mr Corbyn’s plan was actually a hand-out for richer parents whose kids attend state schools"





http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-strikes-school-winner-10174672

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You keep to my points for a change, and stop telling people to stop discussing the subject - which is the Labour proposal. If you want to change the subject, start another thread.

Nope, you want to discuss about Corbyn find someone

If you don't want to discuss Corbyn, you find someone else to talk to. I'm happy to not address you at all in this thread.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Nope, you want to discuss about Corbyn find someone

If you don't want to discuss Corbyn, you find someone else to talk to. I'm happy to not address you at all in this thread.

Its you replying to my posts..

So why are you replying to me then?

Doh

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If you don't want to discuss Corbyn, you find someone else to talk to. I'm happy to not address you at all in this thread.

Its you replying to my posts..

So why are you replying to me then?

Doh

I mean from now on. If I want to discuss Corbyn I will, but I won't be addressing you so you needn't bother to reply to any of my posts.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Its you replying to my posts..

So why are you replying to me then?

Doh

I mean from now on. If I want to discuss Corbyn I will, but I won't be addressing you so you needn't bother to reply to any of my posts.

And you are still replying lol

Doh

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:Lots of red herrings have been brought into this thread.

This is about primary school children.

Corbyn has pledged to introduce free school meals for all children at state schools till they leave, which is usually aged 11.

They already get meals paid for by the tax payer till aged 7.

This will put an extra £700 million on the cost of free school dinners which will be funded by fee paying parents, ie parents who send their own children to private schools.

I think a hot meal is preferable to a cold packed lunch for young kids, especially in wintertime.
No one has said anywhere that any child should go without a hot meal.
Parents on certain benefits are entitled to claim for free school lunches for their children.
All other parents can pay for their childs meal, thus ensuring they remain healthy and well fed, which after all, is the parents responsibility.

The average price charged for a school dinner is around £2 per day, cheaper than a cup of coffee in most high street café bars.

What red herrings?

I have and others have argued for all school children to have free school meals

As seen, you and others have failed badly at countering our views.

You are just rehashing previous arguments you have made Syl

As seen all parents would be paying for the free school means through their contribution in taxes, for the 100th time.

So my points still stand

@Tommy, my name is Thorin, not dodge, that is abuse.

Learn some civility and you have just regurgitated your same points without answering any of mine.

That is you done I guess

@Rags

I think most people would be fine if they knew the tax rise was to help education and the NHS only.

What does it say though when people bemoan paying what they can easily afford, within the higher bracket, that they moan.

Red herrings like school uniforms, hot meals v cold packed lunches, not wanting to see kids eat healthily and flourish, and the best one....this thread having nothing to do with Labour or Corbyn.

Your views have been countered Thor, and if I repeat myself its because I keep answering the same points that you keep repeating.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Lots of red herrings have been brought into this thread.

This is about primary school children.

Corbyn has pledged to introduce free school meals for all children at state schools till they leave, which is usually aged 11.

They already get meals paid for by the tax payer till aged 7.

This will put an extra £700 million on the cost of free school dinners which will be funded by fee paying parents, ie parents who send their own children to private schools.

I think a hot meal is preferable to a cold packed lunch for young kids, especially in wintertime.
No one has said anywhere that any child should go without a hot meal.
Parents on certain benefits are entitled to claim for free school lunches for their children.
All other parents can pay for their childs meal, thus ensuring they remain healthy and well fed, which after all, is the parents responsibility.

The average price charged for a school dinner is around £2 per day, cheaper than a cup of coffee in most high street café bars.

I think it's preferable too, but there's no evidence that eating hot food is more healthy or better for you than eating cold food - or is there?

I don't know that there is any evidence that hot food is healthier, its certainly more comforting in the winter to eat something hot rather than cold.
There is no reason though if a child prefers a packed lunch why they cant have hot drinks or soups in their lunch baskets.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

What red herrings?

I have and others have argued for all school children to have free school meals

As seen, you and others have failed badly at countering our views.

You are just rehashing previous arguments you have made Syl

As seen all parents would be paying for the free school means through their contribution in taxes, for the 100th time.

So my points still stand

@Tommy, my name is Thorin, not dodge, that is abuse.

Learn some civility and you have just regurgitated your same points without answering any of mine.

That is you done I guess

@Rags

I think most people would be fine if they knew the tax rise was to help education and the NHS only.

What does it say though when people bemoan paying what they can easily afford, within the higher bracket, that they moan.

Red herrings like school uniforms, hot meals v cold packed lunches, not wanting to see kids eat healthily and flourish, and the best one....this thread having nothing to do with Labour or Corbyn.

Your views have been countered Thor, and if I repeat myself its because I keep answering the same points that you keep repeating.

lol It was you that brought up school uniforms and even worse tried to argue off this. When I provided you with a simple solution on that.

Get rid of them

I never even brought up hot meals verses cold pack lunches
So you might want to take yourself to task on the uniforms



Read back, throughout I have countered your points with many of mine left unanswered.

Its there for all to read and see.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Red herrings like school uniforms, hot meals v cold packed lunches, not wanting to see kids eat healthily and flourish, and the best one....this thread having nothing to do with Labour or Corbyn.

Your views have been countered Thor, and if I repeat myself its because I keep answering the same points that you keep repeating.

lol It was you that brought up school uniforms and even worse tried to argue off this. When I provided you with a simple solution on that.

Get rid of them

I never even brought up hot meals verses cold pack lunches
So you might want to take yourself to task on the uniforms



Read back, throughout I have countered your points with many of mine left unanswered.

Its there for all to read and see.

Thor, read my posts carefully please.
When I said lots of red herrings had been brought in, I never suggested I was innocent.

Seriously, I can only answer the same questions so many times, and its obvious you have your views and I don't agree with them. The whole idea has just been put out by Corbyn to try and catch back Labour voters who have left in droves.
It wont work and it'll never happen.
Its been a lively debate though.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

lol It was you that brought up school uniforms and even worse tried to argue off this. When I provided you with a simple solution on that.

Get rid of them

I never even brought up hot meals verses cold pack lunches
So you might want to take yourself to task on the uniforms



Read back, throughout I have countered your points with many of mine left unanswered.

Its there for all to read and see.

Thor, read my posts carefully please.
When I said lots of red herrings had been brought in, I never suggested I was innocent.

Seriously, I can only answer the same questions so many times, and its obvious you have your views and I don't agree with them. The whole idea has just been put out by Corbyn to try and catch back Labour voters who have left in droves.
It wont work and it'll never happen.
Its been a lively debate though.

Same questions? Ha ha ha ha, you are having a bubble bath, with that porky.

Its you and others regurgitating the same tired failed arguments.

Who cares about Corbyn, the argument expanded to my views and others on school children having free meals. Which you and others gladly engaged upon said views.

You cant after been out reasoned, then invoke red herrings.

Its yet again a poor excuse lol

Some people might scrimp and save in order to send their child to a private school. Why should they have to pay for other children to eat?

Well I'm not going to read back Thor (too long and too repetitious)) but yesterday you implied that people who didn't agree with all children having free school meals were less bothered about their well being.
That's wrong on every level.

No one has said school children should not have a hot healthy meal at lunchtime, that's not the issue but that's where all the confusion seems to have arisen.....and not on my part either.

Raggamuffin wrote:Some people might scrimp and save in order to send their child to a private school. Why should they have to pay for other children to eat?

Exactly......some people who send their kids to private school may have less income that some who send theirs to state schools....its a ridiculous idea.

Syl wrote:Well I'm not going to read back Thor (too long and too repetitious)) but yesterday you implied that people who didn't agree with all children having free school meals were less bothered about their well being.
That's wrong on every level.

No one has said school children should not have a hot healthy meal at lunchtime, that's not the issue but that's where all the confusion seems to have arisen.....and not on my part either.

You did when you invoked a very poor argument on uniforms that they cause a greater divide without them.
To me people are not caring for children by arguing against this.
I mean as a I said to Rags, some children have their food and money for food at school stolen.
This ensures, no child goes without, when they have less to carry to school or the need to bring money to school for food. Those not even given enough to provide a healthy diet for the child. Where they are not even given a balanced diet by their parents.

So would this not over night ensure all school children are healthily fed at school?
Like I say, if the state provided free school meals as they do with schooling. Then it helps the children eat healthily whilst in the care at school and that they never go without.

How can anyone argue against that?

Laughed at Rags latest questions which is based around Corbyns idea

Can't parents pay online these days?

Raggamuffin wrote:Can't parents pay online these days?

Does that mean they will all pay online?

And to answer your question, no idea

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:Well I'm not going to read back Thor (too long and too repetitious)) but yesterday you implied that people who didn't agree with all children having free school meals were less bothered about their well being.
That's wrong on every level.

No one has said school children should not have a hot healthy meal at lunchtime, that's not the issue but that's where all the confusion seems to have arisen.....and not on my part either.

You did when you invoked a very poor argument on uniforms that they cause a greater divide without them.
To me people are not caring for children by arguing against this.
I mean as a I said to Rags, some children have their food and money for food at school stolen.
This ensures, no child goes without, when they have less to carry to school or the need to bring money to school for food. Those not even given enough to provide a healthy diet for the child. Where they are not even given a balanced diet by their parents.

So would this not over night ensure all school children are healthily fed at school?
Like I say, if the state provided free school meals as they do with schooling. Then it helps the children eat healthily whilst in the care at school and that they never go without.

How can anyone argue against that?

Laughed at Rags latest questions which is based around Corbyns idea

You implied people  were not bothered about a childs well being well before uniforms were brought into the debate.

Your arguments against school uniforms  are wrong, they do create divide... but that's a different subject.

Hold on here...are you saying one reason against children paying for school lunches is that they may have their money or packed lunch stolen?
So we pander to thieves by not letting kids carry money or food about instead of dealing with the issue??

The parents who fail to provide a nutritious lunch should not be humoured by the school providing one for the child.
What happens in the school holidays, when the child is ill, when he reaches senior school?

IF a parent is not providing a healthy alternative to a school lunch that issue should be addressed....not ignored.

I know you are thinking of a childs best interest Thor....but in fact your are papering round the real issues here.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You did when you invoked a very poor argument on uniforms that they cause a greater divide without them.
To me people are not caring for children by arguing against this.
I mean as a I said to Rags, some children have their food and money for food at school stolen.
This ensures, no child goes without, when they have less to carry to school or the need to bring money to school for food. Those not even given enough to provide a healthy diet for the child. Where they are not even given a balanced diet by their parents.

So would this not over night ensure all school children are healthily fed at school?
Like I say, if the state provided free school meals as they do with schooling. Then it helps the children eat healthily whilst in the care at school and that they never go without.

How can anyone argue against that?

Laughed at Rags latest questions which is based around Corbyns idea

You implied people  were not bothered about a childs well being well before uniforms were brought into the debate.

Your arguments against school uniforms  are wrong, they do create divide... but that's a different subject.

Hold on here...are you saying one reason against children paying for school lunches is that they may have their money or packed lunch stolen?
So we pander to thieves by not letting kids carry money or food about instead of dealing with the issue??

The parents who fail to provide a nutritious lunch should not be humoured by the school providing one for the child.
What happens in the school holidays, when the child is ill, when he reaches senior school?

IF a parent is not providing a healthy alternative to a school lunch that issue should be addressed....not ignored.

I know you are thinking of a childs best interest Thor....but in fact your are papering round the real issues here.

1) So uniforms stop a greater divide to you, which is sheer gibberish, being as many schools work fine without uniforms and have no massive divide as you claim. As I also said you think children are equal. No they are not, not in looks, ability, religion, race, gender, disabilities etc. You cannot hide any of this, as you seem to want to do by having a school have them all dress in similar clothes, yet still different types. Your look to have equality for children in uniforms, which you cannot, when other schools dress different. This argument has been made, so read back. All children are different, and its about treating them equally. All the uniform tries to do is regiment them to wear something the school wants to show itself off about compared to other schools.

2) How is that pandering to thieves?
Can you ensure you can eradicate all theft within society?
We know these crimes happen and sadly some cannot be prevented.
So if its known that children are not going to need to carry food or money for lunch. Is that not thwarting thieves attacking them. As they have become a less valuable target for thieves?

3) Real dumb the point on school holidays. Its the parents responsibility, as they are now not in school. This is about when kids are at school. I fail to see how you cannot comprehend, that whilst at school. That no children will go without and will always have a healthy meal. So what happens, when he is ill, he gets checked out, if needed to by a doctor. I thought that was obvious.

4) It has been addressed, but some parents clearly continue to fail their children, with failing to provide a healthy balanced diet. Again you are being reliant of humans, when they have flaws. Where as a system, that is run to ensure all kids will get their daily healthy meal, is then going to provide to all children.

5) Sorry Syl, its you as seen above failing to understand, that we still have crime, that we still have parents who fail to bring balanced meals, those that cannot afford balanced meals for their children, that this is achievable, that all children will benefit and that most of all it has far more positives than negatives.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:Lots of red herrings have been brought into this thread.

This is about primary school children.

Corbyn has pledged to introduce free school meals for all children at state schools till they leave, which is usually aged 11.

They already get meals paid for by the tax payer till aged 7.

This will put an extra £700 million on the cost of free school dinners which will be funded by fee paying parents, ie parents who send their own children to private schools.

I think a hot meal is preferable to a cold packed lunch for young kids, especially in wintertime.
No one has said anywhere that any child should go without a hot meal.
Parents on certain benefits are entitled to claim for free school lunches for their children.
All other parents can pay for their childs meal, thus ensuring they remain healthy and well fed, which after all, is the parents responsibility.

The average price charged for a school dinner is around £2 per day, cheaper than a cup of coffee in most high street café bars.

What red herrings?

I have and others have argued for all school children to have free school meals

As seen, you and others have failed badly at countering our views.

You are just rehashing previous arguments you have made Syl

As seen all parents would be paying for the free school means through their contribution in taxes, for the 100th time.

So my points still stand

@Tommy, my name is Thorin, not dodge, that is abuse.

Learn some civility and you have just regurgitated your same points without answering any of mine.

That is you done I guess

@Rags

I think most people would be fine if they knew the tax rise was to help education and the NHS only.

What does it say though when people bemoan paying what they can easily afford, within the higher bracket, that they moan.

I called you 'Didge'... and you didn't address any of the points I made...!

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:





Some state school kids are lucky enough to have parents who have a nice car and are driven to and from school... Maybe taxpayers should pay for every parent to have a nice car to drive their kids to and from school... as that would be 'equality' and 'inclusive'...!!!???

So you want to make cars free for parents

But how is that inclusive and equality?

Remember its all school kids having free school meals, paid by all tax payers, the richer paying more or an already costly system, schooling. Thus its the kids benefiting free school meals, not parents benefiting. Parents would pay the cost through taxes, some more than others.

It's you banging on about 'equality' and 'inclusiveness'...


Some kids have parents with nice car and get chauffeured to and from school... while others don't and have to get the bus/walk...


Should all parents get tax payer funded cars to drive their kids to/from school so all are equal that way and it's inclusive of all of them...!?


And back to school dinners... it wouldn't be all kids getting them as some parents want their kids to eat a packed lunch of their preferred choice of what they think is better for kids... and others have their kids back home for lunch to eat a healthy home cooked meal there...

Then you say it is to be paid for by all taxpayers... but it won't be parents who benefit from it, when it is only PARENTS who WOULD get to see any cost savings as they go from paying dinner money to not paying dinner money... all other taxpayers who don't have kids would be paying more in taxes just for parents to have the benefit of a few extra quid in their pockets each week!!!


But then you say it would only be parents paying for it through extra taxes...!!!


Come on Didge...!!!


Make your mind up!!!


We already have a system where kids get meals at school that are free for them... and whereby it is parents who pay for them... and all the ones who are poor and don't have to pay, are already really getting it paid for by the parents who are better off and who do pay, as they are already paying a bit more in cost of what they are getting in their kids dinners so the extra bit of money actually goes towards paying for the free dinners that the poorer parents kids get!!!



The system where parents pay... and the better off parents pay a slightly higher price to fund the dinners of the poorer already exists!!!


It's what happens now with the current system of school dinners!!!

Thorin... could you answer my points...?

And tell us if 'Thorin' is pronounced with a 'th' sound... or an 'f' sound...?

I think the free meals is a good idea and see no issue with it being paid for with a levy on Private schools.

Private schools are a pox on the Community, they reduce the effectiveness of public education by reducing the 'economies of scale' that can be implemented to reduce the 'cost per student'. Additionally they often take the wealthy parents out of the systems these are the ones most like to pay additional contribution to the school. And even if that means that school in good area have better computers (for example) if the good area school can get enough donations to upgrade every 2 years their old machines can be repurposed in poorer schools and a 2 year old computer is still a valuable learning tool.

Other factors are that Private schools tend to reject 'high cost' children a.k.a those with learning difficulties or 'different backgrounds' (down here the prime example is Aboriginals not sure who it is in the UK) this also increase the 'cost per student' in the public system.

Another reason to remove Private and religious schools (both are legally the same down here) is that it gives all children a solid grounding in the ideals of secularism and broader community ideals.


Also on the uniform or no uniform debate we have trialed and tested this down here, Uniforms achieve better educational outcomes. debate has ended down here because the results were so conclusive.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you want to make cars free for parents

But how is that inclusive and equality?

Remember its all school kids having free school meals, paid by all tax payers, the richer paying more or an already costly system, schooling. Thus its the kids benefiting free school meals, not parents benefiting. Parents would pay the cost through taxes, some more than others.

It's you banging on about 'equality' and 'inclusiveness'...


Some kids have parents with nice car and get chauffeured to and from school... while others don't and have to get the bus/walk...


Should all parents get tax payer funded cars to drive their kids to/from school so all are equal that way and it's inclusive of all of them...!?


And back to school dinners... it wouldn't be all kids getting them as some parents want their kids to eat a packed lunch of their preferred choice of what they think is better for kids... and others have their kids back home for lunch to eat a healthy home cooked meal there...

Then you say it is to be paid for by all taxpayers... but it won't be parents who benefit from it, when it is only PARENTS who WOULD get to see any cost savings as they go from paying dinner money to not paying dinner money... all other taxpayers who don't have kids would be paying more in taxes just for parents to have the benefit of a few extra quid in their pockets each week!!!


But then you say it would only be parents paying for it through extra taxes...!!!


Come on Didge...!!!


Make your mind up!!!


We already have a system where kids get meals at school that are free for them... and whereby it is parents who pay for them... and all the ones who are poor and don't have to pay, are already really getting it paid for by the parents who are better off and who do pay, as they are already paying a bit more in cost of what they are getting in their kids dinners so the extra bit of money actually goes towards paying for the free dinners that the poorer parents kids get!!!



The system where parents pay... and the better off parents pay a slightly higher price to fund the dinners of the poorer already exists!!!


It's what happens now with the current system of school dinners!!!

Here is my answers again that left you completely stumped

1) So you could offer nothing to show it was equality and inclusive

2) No, as the majority of parents, kids are grown up and do not need their children to be either walked to school and driven. As their kids are now adults. Some parents do not even raise their children. Some parents have sadly lost their children. Some parents cannot drive and some are not even allowed to drive. So your view to give free cars to parents is as seen absurd. Now all children need to eat and eat healthily. When this is about having Free school meals for all kids. Unless of course you want child labour and for them to pay taxes?
No?

Anyway, most parents should walk their children to school, if its within a 2 mile radius from their house for the excercize.

3) Back home for lunch? You are telling me kids are allowed home at lunch. I doubt they are unless in the sixth form. As to pack lunches, when this is about cooked healthy meals and you are telling me they will prefer packed lunches based on health? Seriously?
Never heard such a weak argument.

4) How are they making savings when the cost  is spread through taxes? You see if tax goes up, of which it should for the NHS and schooling. Then its the children that benefit with Free school meals. The parents are paying the tax and costs as they have always done. 

5) So that is how they will be paying it and those more so in the higher bracket, but the fact remains you cannot work out something simple. Its the state paying for the schooling of children, as it would be for their free meals. Hence its not the parents benefiting, but the children. Costs are attributed to children with their schooling, medical health already and again not their parents, because these are in most cases future tax payers. Hence its the child that benefits from free health care and education. In fact only one group would not benefit from this Tommy. One group that unlike those British born, who have free education here. Those foreign born immigrants. Who come here to work, who would pay into the tax system and not have a free education here.

See how they end up contributing more to the system, than those born here?

So the only reason you are against free school meals which benefit children paid for by the state, is because you do not want to see children have the best chances with the future. In other words you are selfish, even though you yourself benefited from a free education and health care. 

There a a cycle in life on costs. That at some point, all these adults, will get to an age where they need help and care far more often. Who is the future doctors, nurses, cares etc?

These children and why they all must start with the same benefits in life. As they would here at schools. It is to these children, who are future tax payers and who are essential for this country as a system to run.
The better prepared you make children for adult life. The better all round for everyone.

@ Veya
Interesting points and on having inclusive schools

As to academic achievements for uniforms.

Most studies show there is nothing that correlates improvements.

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/education/school-uniforms-research-student-achievement-behavior

Be interested to see the ones from the Aussie debates, but to me they deny individuality within pupils and are solely for the benefit of the image of the school.

So we had some schools change to no uniform and it saw a drop in attendance and increase in truancy and what was termed 'greater distraction', which in plain terms is girls in short skirts distracting boys and fashion envy for girls.

I don't think making the school look good was the issue these are Poorer Public schools from poorer areas, the standards uniform is merely a polo shirt with the school logo and grey pants or skirt.
I tend to agree that excessive uniforms like blazers and ties are a bit of a wank on behalf of the schools trying to create an 'image'.

I cant find the studies (I no longer work for the NSW Department of Education)
But the policies are here
https://education.nsw.gov.au/policy-library/policies/school-uniform-policy

And here is an article about recent updates

Trousers for girls. Swim shorts for boys. Unisex shirts. And hoodies now often for both sexes.
School uniforms are finally being updated, with a number of schools across Australia listening to the views of students and their parents, and redesigning their uniforms to suit kids' changing needs.
And the drivers of this modernisation vary wildly: From young people increasingly dealing with their own gender issues to body shapes that have altered dramatically through the generations, from cultural concerns all the way to global warming disrupting weather patterns.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nothing-uniform-about-school-uniforms-now-20170302-gup7l1.html

Also Many Schools in Western Sydney have a headscarf available (not compulsory but if you do wear a head scarf it is supposed to the uniform one)

I agree with a uniform, a more casual one like Veya said some schools in Australia have adopted (adapted to suit our weather) is good...better than all the formal attire of blazers and ties, more practical too.
Not only does a uniform put all kids on the same level, it promotes a sense of togetherness.
A school should be proud of itself, anything that encourages people to work together to improve itself is good.

I think polo shirts are great as a school uniform. They're comfortable - as long as they're fairly loose - and they look fine. They're easy to wash as well, and probably don't need ironing.

Yes they are good, fairly cheap and they last ages as well.
Back in the day the blouses/shirts needed loads or ironing, I have to say I did like my school uniform though. Maroon and pale blue, no blazer or hat thankfully ....only the posh schools had them in my day.

veya_victaous wrote:So we had some schools change to no uniform and it saw a drop in attendance and increase in truancy and what was termed 'greater distraction', which in plain terms is girls in short skirts distracting boys and fashion envy for girls.

I don't think making the school look good was the issue these are Poorer Public schools from poorer areas, the standards uniform is merely a polo shirt with the school logo and grey pants or skirt.
I tend to agree that excessive uniforms like blazers and ties are a bit of a wank on behalf of the schools trying to create an 'image'.

I cant find the studies (I no longer work for the NSW Department of Education)
But the policies are here
https://education.nsw.gov.au/policy-library/policies/school-uniform-policy

And here is an article about recent updates

Trousers for girls. Swim shorts for boys. Unisex shirts. And hoodies now often for both sexes.
School uniforms are finally being updated, with a number of schools across Australia listening to the views of students and their parents, and redesigning their uniforms to suit kids' changing needs.
And the drivers of this modernisation vary wildly: From young people increasingly dealing with their own gender issues to body shapes that have altered dramatically through the generations, from cultural concerns all the way to global warming disrupting weather patterns.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nothing-uniform-about-school-uniforms-now-20170302-gup7l1.html

Ah but there is a glaring difference here than that of the UK.
Those uniforms are based around casual clothes, and not something born from elitism, the blazer and tie. The above is comfortable to wear and doubt many kids would have issue wearing something comfy and casual.

Again though Veya, this at least looks to make the uniform as comfortable as possible, more than any image, of which UK schools look to take silly pride in with. As I say, this is a better approach you have presented, but still see no difference on academic levels.

So its good to that Aussies are moving with the times. Its a shame the Uk is still living way in the past in regards to uniforms, a relic of bygone years with the suit format.

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



It's you banging on about 'equality' and 'inclusiveness'...


Some kids have parents with nice car and get chauffeured to and from school... while others don't and have to get the bus/walk...


Should all parents get tax payer funded cars to drive their kids to/from school so all are equal that way and it's inclusive of all of them...!?


And back to school dinners... it wouldn't be all kids getting them as some parents want their kids to eat a packed lunch of their preferred choice of what they think is better for kids... and others have their kids back home for lunch to eat a healthy home cooked meal there...

Then you say it is to be paid for by all taxpayers... but it won't be parents who benefit from it, when it is only PARENTS who WOULD get to see any cost savings as they go from paying dinner money to not paying dinner money... all other taxpayers who don't have kids would be paying more in taxes just for parents to have the benefit of a few extra quid in their pockets each week!!!


But then you say it would only be parents paying for it through extra taxes...!!!


Come on Didge...!!!


Make your mind up!!!


We already have a system where kids get meals at school that are free for them... and whereby it is parents who pay for them... and all the ones who are poor and don't have to pay, are already really getting it paid for by the parents who are better off and who do pay, as they are already paying a bit more in cost of what they are getting in their kids dinners so the extra bit of money actually goes towards paying for the free dinners that the poorer parents kids get!!!



The system where parents pay... and the better off parents pay a slightly higher price to fund the dinners of the poorer already exists!!!


It's what happens now with the current system of school dinners!!!

Here is my answers again that left you completely stumped

1) So you could offer nothing to show it was equality and inclusive

2) No, as the majority of parents, kids are grown up and do not need their children to be either walked to school and driven. As their kids are now adults. Some parents do not even raise their children. Some parents have sadly lost their children. Some parents cannot drive and some are not even allowed to drive. So your view to give free cars to parents is as seen absurd. Now all children need to eat and eat healthily. When this is about having Free school meals for all kids. Unless of course you want child labour and for them to pay taxes?
No?

Anyway, most parents should walk their children to school, if its within a 2 mile radius from their house for the excercize.

3) Back home for lunch? You are telling me kids are allowed home at lunch. I doubt they are unless in the sixth form. As to pack lunches, when this is about cooked healthy meals and you are telling me they will prefer packed lunches based on health? Seriously?
Never heard such a weak argument.

4) How are they making savings when the cost  is spread through taxes? You see if tax goes up, of which it should for the NHS and schooling. Then its the children that benefit with Free school meals. The parents are paying the tax and costs as they have always done. 

5) So that is how they will be paying it and those more so in the higher bracket, but the fact remains you cannot work out something simple. Its the state paying for the schooling of children, as it would be for their free meals. Hence its not the parents benefiting, but the children. Costs are attributed to children with their schooling, medical health already and again not their parents, because these are in most cases future tax payers. Hence its the child that benefits from free health care and education. In fact only one group would not benefit from this Tommy. One group that unlike those British born, who have free education here. Those foreign born immigrants. Who come here to work, who would pay into the tax system and not have a free education here.

See how they end up contributing more to the system, than those born here?

So the only reason you are against free school meals which benefit children paid for by the state, is because you do not want to see children have the best chances with the future. In other words you are selfish, even though you yourself benefited from a free education and health care. 

There a a cycle in life on costs. That at some point, all these adults, will get to an age where they need help and care far more often. Who is the future doctors, nurses, cares etc?

These children and why they all must start with the same benefits in life. As they would here at schools. It is to these children, who are future tax payers and who are essential for this country as a system to run.
The better prepared you make children for adult life. The better all round for everyone.

A load of rambling nonsense there mostly... especially the big I highlighted in (1)... then the bit about kids going home for lunch... what are you talking about...!!!,??

Schools are not prisons!!!

Loads of younger kids (infants/junior school age) get picked up at lunch time to have food at home... many of the juniors would even walk home themselves!!!


From the age of about 8, I used to walk round to my grandads at lunch time for some proper home cooked grub and a few hands of cards (whist/rummy/cribbage)... we would use old penny's as betting chips!!!


And at my secondary school, hardly anyone ever ate the school canteen food!!! Most would nip up the local shops or cafes or go home for dinner... or even just go round to a mates for a while...!

So again Tommy provides more excuses for why he cannot answer my rebuttal of his childish reasoning.

Kids are not allowed out of the school premises, unless generally in the sixth form. You would be hard pressed to find many schools that did allow, because again the school has the responsibility of the care of children. Where anyway your point is moot, because this provides a healthy meal to all children. If then parents want to lose out on this free meal, by taking them home for lunch, after paying this through their taxes, more fool them really.

So Tommy, must still be clearly 8 (intelligence wise), if he thinks schools allow 8 year old's to walk home on their own for lunch.





So again the point is on that no child goes without a meal at school and that all of them will be receiving a balanced healthy meal.

Which this point goes over Tommy's head

That is him done on this debate I guess

I think children used to walk home by themselves, but they're probably not allowed to any more.

What are you talking about!!!???

Kids can't leave school at lunchtimes...!!!???

Raggamuffin wrote:I think children used to walk home by themselves, but they're probably not allowed to any more.

Hence the absurdity of his point.

Anyway, this has been done to death.



Have a good evening Rags

Tommy Monk wrote:
What are you talking about!!!???

Kids can't leave school at lunchtimes...!!!???

Far more appropriate

By the way, I don't think we had "school runs" in my day. I used to walk to infant school, and I got a bus to primary school - a normal bus, not a school bus. I don't remember anyone being dropped off by their parents. Of course, we had a much better bus service in those days. I can't remember if I left school at lunch time, or if we were allowed to. I also have no recollection of school dinners.

One minute Didge is saying kids are adult enough to walk/travel to school and back by themselves... then he says that they aren't adult enough to walk/travel home at lunchtime by themselves...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:One minute Didge is saying kids are adult enough to walk/travel to school and back by themselves... then he says that they aren't adult enough to walk/travel home at lunchtime by themselves...!?

Mainly as it was a moot point, though it made me laugh at your attempt to reason this off yourself.

Where anyway your point is moot, because this provides a healthy meal to all children. If then parents want to lose out on this free meal, by taking them home for lunch, after paying this through their taxes, more fool them really.

Raggamuffin wrote:By the way, I don't think we had "school runs" in my day. I used to walk to infant school, and I got a bus to primary school  - a normal bus, not a school bus. I don't remember anyone being dropped off by their parents. Of course, we had a much better bus service in those days. I can't remember if I left school at lunch time, or if we were allowed to. I also have no recollection of school dinners.

I used to take my sister to school at age 8, but then times change Rags
It was 3 miles the school. Annoying as I was taken out of the one local, in order to take my sister back and forth from this other school.

We were never allowed out of the premises at lunchtime even then, because during school hours, the school was responsible for all students.

lol, you did remind of school dinners back then ha ha ha

They were very poor back then Rags



Anyway, have to go, so see ya one and all.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:By the way, I don't think we had "school runs" in my day. I used to walk to infant school, and I got a bus to primary school  - a normal bus, not a school bus. I don't remember anyone being dropped off by their parents. Of course, we had a much better bus service in those days. I can't remember if I left school at lunch time, or if we were allowed to. I also have no recollection of school dinners.

I used to take my sister to school at age 8, but then times change Rags
It was 3 miles the school. Annoying as I was taken out of the one local, in order to take my sister back and forth from this other school.

We were never allowed out of the premises at lunchtime even then, because during school hours, the school was responsible for all students.

There would have been plenty of kids who were going home for dinner Didge... and that still happens now!!!