Free school meals and the role of class prejudice

When an image of some mouldy bananas, a loaf of bread, and some meagre offerings of
beans and cheese began circulating Twitter this January outcries were heard from
disbelieving parents that this was the standard of lunches being provided to feed
disadvantaged children during Lockdown. End Child Food Poverty campaigner Marcus
Rashford drew attention to the image, declaring it was “just not good enough”. Despite
tireless campaigning and frequent Government U-Turns, Boris Johnson’s promise that no
child will go hungry this winter appears to be falling short. The fact these sub-standard
parcels were allowed to be distributed highlights innate class prejudice in this country, a
prejudice felt most acutely by children in the form of an empty stomach.
The company responsible for the berated food parcel, The Compass Group subsidiary
Chartwells, provides educational catering for both primary and secondary schools as well as
having a separate branch responsible for Independent School catering and hospitality.
Blame was quick to be imposed onto the catering company. Some on twitter drew
comparisons to the lavish images of Independent school catering they provide, a stark
reminder of the luxury so few children have access to. In a revealing form of irony, their
website claims to provide every student the same opportunity for nutritious, fun, and tasty
meals. It seems that in the case of disadvantaged students from low-income families, this
statement does not ring true.
Rashford’s End Child Food Poverty campaign has since joined forces with high profile chefs
and actor/activist Dame Emma Thompson alongside over 40 charities and educational
leaders in a letter to The Prime Minister and Gavin Williams, Secretary of State for
Education. They call for a comprehensive review of the Free School Meal Policy to ensure
long term solutions are found to support the most disadvantaged children. This includes
expanding eligibility for free school meals.
A debate emerges over whether the best course of action is to provide food parcels directly
to children or for vouchers to be made available to parents to shop for the food themselves.
The Department for Education “strongly encourage” food parcels, defending the ability to
maintain school food standards as well as the safeguarding benefits of regular contact with
children. However, arguments that providing vouchers can be a more dignified option for
parents, allowing them the luxury of choice and to cater lunches to their child’s individual
tastes have emerged. Does the preference for food parcels speak to a deeply ingrained
stigma over the ability of disadvantaged parents to provide for their children?
The debate is reminiscent of controversy surrounding comments made by Conservative MPs
after the governments refusal to extend Free School Meal provision into October Half Term.
John Penrose received backlash after blaming “chaotic parents” while Ben Bradley
compared Free School Meal vouchers to “direct cash to a crack den and a brothel”.
Encouragingly, action has been taken. Chartwells have apologised and stated plans to
refund those who received inadequate parcels as well as providing breakfast free of charge.
The government has now surrendered its “food parcel first policy”, offering schools the

choice of issuing vouchers to parents. The national supermarket voucher scheme Rashford
successfully campaigned for in June was also re-opened on the 18 th of January.
Since free school meal campaigning encouraged a government U-turn in June, the issue has
become political. Ensuring children don’t go hungry during the extensive and ongoing
impact of the pandemic is no simple task. However, it is a task made more difficult if class
prejudice governs responses. Both the catering companies providing food parcels and the
government must reflect on how blinkered perceptions of low-income families can impact
the services they provide and the policy that is formed. Only then can one ensure children
are not suffering as a result.