FSM second course (the good, the bad and the ugly)

After all the adulation for my first blog (a couple of favourites and a few retweets) and given Free school meals are back in the news,  I feel obliged to pen a follow up on the same subject, the difficult second blog.

It appears there is now an extra £150 million to help schools get their kitchens and dining rooms in order, to meet Nick Cleggs high profile announcement offering every infant in England a hot free school lunch from next September.


If only it were that simple!

Now I could repeat the points from my previous blog, reiterate that without spending huge amounts on infrastructure, the policy is simply not achievable, but you may as well just read it again.  Needless to say, I don’t think £150 million will cut the mustard, especially when you consider one new school hall & kitchen can cost upwards of £500,000. My suspicion is that this is just a speculative figure agreed with the treasury rather than a realistic estimate of actual costs needed to implement the policy.

On this basis I would like to concentrate on some of the other issues surrounding this impending fiasco.

Firstly I think it is worth noting that the word “Hot” seems to have disappeared from ministers vocabulary. In September, Cleggs office announced  “The government will fund schools in England to provide every child in reception, year 1 and year 2 with a hot, nutritious meal at lunch time”  The latest press release dispenses with “hot” and “lunch” preferring “a healthy meal in the middle of the day” which in practice will mean an apple and a cheap sandwich eaten in class. This rowing back is something to watch out for as the whole justification for the policy is based on a hot lunch. If “hot” goes, so does the policy justification.

Secondly I wonder what imperative will be placed on schools to actually apply the policy. This opens up a whole raft of questions around enforcement; what happens to schools who don’t provide hot meals? How will this be checked? How will it be regulated? Who is going to regulate? What are the consequences? Will you punish LAs or schools? Will schools who miss out on necessary funding be exempt? What happens to any regulations when all the funding runs out after the election? Clearly this is yet another major aspect that the office of the DPM haven’t thought through (Add in the inevitable shambles around distributing the money, finding supplies ect.) But this will lead to perhaps the most politically sensitive question, which should arise in September when someone audits the numbers receiving FSM, will responsibility for the success or failure of this policy fall on Michael Goves DfE?

Thirdly is the unseemly row over which budget the FSM funding will come from.  I have little time for the public name calling going on between Gove and Clegg. but what should not be missed, is that money from the schools maintenance budget is being used to fund this policy. The benefit of the mudslinging is that it opened up a window on the DfE, it appears they deliberately underspent on essential repairs  so they could divert £157m into building free schools.  Neither party comes out of this well, both seem happy to condemn some children to learn in “falling down” schools, just so their own expensive politically motivated policy can receive funding.

The final thing, and this annoys me, this really annoys me, is that before launching the flagship policy no one considered the need for new infrastructure. I find it hard to contain my contempt for ministers who couldn’t even think to check if schools had the cooking facilities needed. What on earth does it tell us about the competence of Clegg, Laws and all their staff?  Are they really so out of touch with the real world, can they really know so little about schools, David Laws is a minister in the DfE for goodness sake. It’s not often I agree with Micheal Gove but he is right to suggest it was political showmanship designed to win Clegg votes at the election (and Gove is a man who knows all about political showboating).

I am sure people will lose sight of this especially with the sad news of Mandela and the blur of politics surrounding the autumn statement, but it is hard to overstate the level of sheer incompetence and unadulterated ministerial ineptitude, it is truly breathtaking. The Deputy Prime Minister in effect admitting that EVERYONE involved in developing his keynote policy lacked even a basic grasp oh the fact  it would need new infrastructure, that no one in the DPM office had the brains to ask about capital costs? Could it get any worse?
So there we have it, lots of outstanding questions over rolling back the initial promise, over ministerial competence and over the sums promised I still stick by my initial prediction of sandwiches, partly because I know the timescales are too short and £150 million is just a wistful guess at the costs, but mainly because I know the ministers concerned are still clueless.

5 thoughts on “FSM second course (the good, the bad and the ugly)

  1. Pingback: 365 days in my shoes Day 346 | high heels and high notes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s