Footnote 174:
8 Edward VII., c. 63 (December 21, 1908). A Bill was introduced by the
Government in 1907, but was withdrawn. (_Hansard_, March 20, 1907,
Vol. 171, pp. 880-883.) For an account of the provision made in
Scotland see Appendix II.
The Provision of Meals Act marks an important point in the history of
school feeding. The experiments of forty years had amply demonstrated
the impossibility of dealing with the evils of underfeeding through
voluntary agencies alone. Parliament was indeed still convinced that
voluntary organisations were the best bodies to supply the necessary
food. The proposal that the duty of providing meals should be cast
entirely upon Local Education Authorities, relying only on public funds,
had indeed, as the Select Committee of the House of Commons declared,
not been "seriously suggested." Such a course would obviously result in
the extinction of all voluntary societies, a result "from every point of
view ... much to be deplored."[175] Only where voluntary subscriptions
failed might the Local Authority provide the necessary funds. Even in
this case there was no compulsion on the authority to take any action
whatsoever. Still, with all these limitations, the Act involved the
assumption, however partial and incomplete, by the State of the function
of securing to its children, by one means or another, the necessary
minimum, not only of education, but also of food.
Footnote 175:
Report of Select Committee on the Education (Provision of Meals) Bills
(England and Scotland), 1906, p. vi.
CHAPTER II
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) ACT
We propose in this chapter to describe the manner in which the Local
Education Authorities are administering the Act of 1906. We shall see
that the adoption of the Act has been by no means universal and that in
many towns provision is still made by voluntary agencies. Where the Act
has been put in force we shall find the greatest diversity of practice
in such matters as the selection of the children, the dietary provided
and the manner in which the meals are served. One Local Authority will
construe its duties under the Act in the narrowest sense, cutting down
the number of children to be fed to the minimum, and serving the meals
with the least possible expense. Another authority will look on the
school meal as a valuable means for improving the physique of its
scholars; it will endeavour to secure that all children who are underfed
shall be given school meals; the dietary will be carefully planned,
while, in the matter of the service of the meals, the aim will be to
make these in every way educational. We shall see that meals are as a
rule given only during term-time, holiday feeding out of rates being
held to be illegal, while many authorities limit their operations to the
winter months. Most authorities have confined their provision almost
entirely to necessitous children, the plan of providing meals as a
matter of convenience for children of parents who are at work all day or
are otherwise prevented from preparing a midday meal, and who would be
able and willing to pay for school dinners, finding but little favour.
We shall describe the arrangements made in the Special Schools for
defective children, where a dinner is provided either for all children
attending the school or for all those who care to stay, and in the Day
Industrial Schools, where the provision of three meals a day for all is
the rule. We shall discuss the extent to which the provision of meals by
the Local Education Authority overlaps the relief given by the Poor Law
Guardians. Finally we shall touch upon the question of underfeeding in
the rural districts, where the problem is little less urgent than in the
towns.
(a)--The Adoption of the Act.
The Provision of Meals Act came into force on December 21, 1906. As we
have seen, it was merely permissive and its adoption was, therefore,
only gradual.[176] Many Local Education Authorities contented themselves
with making arrangements with voluntary agencies, the Education
Committee continuing the already common practice of providing
accommodation and apparatus, and the voluntary society providing as
hitherto funds for the food. Thus, at Hull, the Education Authority
co-operated with the Hull School Children's Help Society, which had been
founded in 1885 for the provision of free meals. This arrangement was
continued till 1908, when the Society's funds were exhausted and
recourse was had to the rates.[177] At Scarborough, the Amicable
Society, which had been founded in 1729 "for clothing and educating the
children of the poor of Scarborough," arranged with the Education
Authority that the provision of meals should be organised through a
Joint Committee of the two bodies.[178] At Liverpool, where the
provision of meals had been undertaken since the early part of 1906,
before the Act was passed, by a voluntary committee consisting of
members of the Education Committee, the Central Relief Society, the
Guardians and others, this system was continued for some years. In spite
of strenuous opposition in 1908 from the Labour party and the local
Fabian Society, who complained that the numbers fed were far below the
number in need of food, and that no proper attempt was made to ascertain
the extent of the need, a special committee appointed by the Education
Committee to investigate the whole question reported that the existing
voluntary system was adequate. It was not till November, 1909, that the
Education Committee resolved that, "after full consideration of the
circumstances and after having regard to the fact that it has been
necessary to call upon the general public on two occasions during each
year for subscriptions to the funds, the Committee cannot but conclude
that the time has now come when the provisions of the Education
(Provision of Meals) Act, 1906, should be put into force, and,
therefore, _though with great reluctance_," they recommended that
application be made to the Board of Education for power to levy a
rate.[179]
Footnote 176:
Aston Manor was the first town to apply for authority to levy a rate.
Bradford, Manchester, and other towns soon followed. During the year
ended March 31, 1908, 40 authorities were authorised to levy a rate.
During the two following years the number was increased to 85 and 96
respectively. (Report on the Working of the Education (Provision of
Meals) Act up to March 31, 1909, p. 8; Report of the Board of
Education for 1908-9, p. 123; ditto for 1909-10, p. 62.)
Footnote 177:
Appendix to Minutes of the Hull Education Committee, October 22, 1909.
Footnote 178:
Report of the Scarborough Amicable Society for 1910, pp. 5, 8.
Footnote 179:
"Feeding the Children," by H. Beswick, in the _Clarion_, October 11,
1912.
Leicester, perhaps, furnishes the most notable example of the survival
of the voluntary principle. In 1906, when the Provision of Meals Bill
was before Parliament, the Town Council appears to have been in favour
of it. After the Act was passed, however, the Leicester branch of the
Charity Organisation Society opposed its adoption. At a conference
between representatives of the Charity Organisation Society and the
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a scheme was
formulated for administering the Act from voluntary funds. The scheme
was accepted by the Town Council, and the formation of the Children's
Aid Association was the result.[180] This body consists chiefly of
members of the Charity Organisation Society and of the National Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, with a small minority
representing the Education Committee. In spite of considerable
opposition from the Labour party, who demand that the Act shall be put
into force, meals are still provided by this Association out of
voluntary funds.[181]
Footnote 180:
First Annual Report of the Leicester Children's Aid Association,
1907-8, p. 3.
Footnote 181:
For a description of the methods adopted, see post, pp. 96-7. A
somewhat similar system is in force at Chesterfield, where the
arrangements for feeding are made by the Civic Guild, the expense
being borne out of their funds. The Education Committee is represented
on the General Council and Executive Committee of the Guild in a
general sense, not in connection with feeding alone. Cases of children
requiring food are reported by the Attendance Officers, and are fed at
once by the Guild, investigation being made afterwards. If help is
found necessary the whole family is adequately relieved. Arrangements
are usually made for the children to be fed at eating-houses. The
number of children so dealt with is very small.
This delay on the part of the Local Authorities in towns where, it was
asserted, it was notorious that children suffered from want of
food,[182] led to an attempt to make the School Medical Officer
responsible for determining whether or not it was necessary to put the
Act in force. In December, 1908, a Bill was introduced by the Labour
party with the object of providing that, when requested by the Education
Committee, by a majority of the managers, or by the head teachers, the
Local Authority should provide for the medical inspection of the
children for the purpose of determining whether they were suffering from
insufficient or improper food; if the medical inspector reported that
the children were so suffering, the Local Authority should be obliged to
provide food. The Bill was not proceeded with, and the same fate befell
four similar Bills introduced within the next five years.[183]
Footnote 182:
_Hansard_, April 23, 1909, 5th Series, Vol. 3, p. 1797.
Footnote 183:
Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill, December 8, 1908; February
19, 1909; April 14, 1910; February 19, 1912; April 15, 1913.
In 1911-1912, out of 322 Local Education Authorities in England and
Wales, 131 were returned as making some provision for the feeding of
school children (_i.e._ 13 counties, including London, 57 County
Boroughs, 35 Boroughs and 26 Urban Districts).[184] Of these 95 were
spending rates on the provision of food; 19 were spending rates on
administrative charges only (accommodation, apparatus, etc.), the cost
of food being borne by voluntary funds; whilst in the remaining 17
areas[185] the cost of both food and administration was met by voluntary
contributions.
Footnote 184:
Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, pp. 320-322, 329.
Footnote 185:
The most important of these are Leicester, Sunderland, and Barnsley.
The steady decrease in the amount derived from voluntary contributions,
and the increase in rates are shown by the following table :--[186]
Rates £ Voluntary Miscellaneous sources Total.
Contribution £ (contributions from
parents, Poor Law
Guardians, etc.) £
For the year 67,524 17,831 335 85,690
1908-9
For the year 125,372 9,813 906 136,091
1909-10
For the year 140,875 7,537 1,370 149,782
1910-11
For the year 151,763 3,064 2,292 157,127
1911-12
Footnote 186:
See Report on the Working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act up
to March 31, 1909, p. 30, and (for London) p. 24; ditto for the year
ended March 31, 1910, p. 20; Report of the Chief Medical Officer of
the Board of Education for 1910, p. 309; ditto for 1911, p. 332. The
voluntary contributions are understated in the figures for 1908-9, and
possibly throughout. The returns for 1908-9, for instance, do not
include Liverpool, where the whole cost was defrayed by voluntary
contributions, and no financial details were supplied to the Board.
The discrepancy in the total for 1911-12 is due to the fact that the
figures in the several columns are not given exactly, but to the
nearest £.
The total number of children fed is given in the returns for 1911 as
124,685.[187] This, however, does not include a few counties and towns
which did not return the number fed during the year. In most of these
areas the number fed is very small, but at Barnsley the number attending
daily was about 2,917, and in London the highest number fed in any one
week during the year was 44,983. If we take these figures as
representing roughly between two-fifths and one half of the total number
of children who were fed at some time or other during the year, we get a
total of about 230,000,[188] out of a total school population of
5,357,567.[189]
Footnote 187:
Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, pp. 322-24, 330.
Footnote 188:
This does not include children fed at Day Industrial Schools, Open Air
Schools or, with one or two exceptions, Special Schools for Mentally
or Physically Defective Children.
Footnote 189:
This number represents the average attendance at the ordinary
Elementary Schools, not the total number on the rolls. (Statistics of
Public Education in England and Wales, 1911-12, Part I., pp. 27, 333.)
In most towns where the Act has been adopted the amount spent on food is
well within the limit of the halfpenny rate. In 1911-12, only Bradford
and Stoke-on-Trent exceeded the limit, the latter (by an inconsiderable
sum) owing to the coal strike. At Bradford the rate has almost from the
first been annually exceeded by a considerable amount.[190] This excess
is due partly to the numbers fed (a large proportion of the children
receiving breakfasts as well as dinners), partly to the fact that the
meals are continued throughout the holidays. The Local Government Board
Auditor has regularly surcharged the excess expenditure, but the Finance
Committee defrays it out of the Corporation trading profits, which are
not subject to the Local Government Board audit.
Footnote 190:
In 1908-9, by £1,645; in 1909-10, by £2,370; in 1910-11, by £1,163,
and in 1911-12, by £374. (Report on the Working of the Education
(Provision of Meals) Act up to March 31, 1909, p. 26; Report of the
Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for 1910, p. 304;
ditto for 1911, p. 317.)
The limitation of the rate has in some towns undoubtedly restricted
operations. In 1909, for instance, the Workington Education Committee
were reluctantly obliged, owing to the exhaustion of the funds raised by
the halfpenny rate, to stop the meals at a time of great distress.[191]
At East Ham, the product of a halfpenny rate not being sufficient for a
whole year, meals can only be given during the winter months.[192]
Footnote 191:
_Hansard_, April 23, 1909, 5th Series, Vol. 3, pp. 1862-1863. A
similar complaint was received from Hartlepool. (_Ibid._)
Footnote 192:
See Minutes of Kingston-on-Hull Provision of Meals Sub-Committee,
March 24, 1911, Appendix, p. 16. The abortive Bills introduced in 1908
and the following years by Labour members contained a clause that the
limitation of the rate should be abolished.
We may note that the power of the Local Education Authorities to provide
food for necessitous children is not limited to their powers under the
Provision of Meals Act. By the Education Act of 1902 grants may be given
for the maintenance of children at Secondary Schools. At Bradford, at
any rate, in quite a number of cases this grant is earmarked for
providing school meals.[193] More important is the power to provide
three meals daily for all children attending Day Industrial Schools.
These children are drawn very largely from the class to whom free meals
would have to be given if they were attending the ordinary elementary
schools.[194] Again, necessitous children who are physically or mentally
defective can receive meals at the Special Schools, and the cost of the
food (and other expenses) can be charged to the Special Schools account.
Thus, at Liverpool, dinner is provided for all defective children, this
provision having been undertaken deliberately as part of the school
curriculum long before the Provision of Meals Act was passed. The class
of physically defective children for whom Special Schools can be
provided include not only cripples, but all children who are certified
by a doctor to be "by reason of ... physical defect ... incapable of
receiving proper benefit from the instruction in the ordinary public
elementary schools."[195] This wide definition enables the School
Medical Officer to send to the Open Air Schools, which several Local
Authorities have established, and at which one or more meals a day are
provided, not only children suffering from definite diseases, but also
those who are underfed, anæmic and generally debilitated, to whom the
fresh air, healthy life and regular, wholesome meals prove an
inestimable boon.
Footnote 193:
"School Feeding," by Wm. Leach, in the _Crusade_, November, 1911 (Vol.
2, p. 192).
Footnote 194:
For a fuller account of the arrangements made for providing food at
the Day Industrial Schools and the Special Schools see post, pp.
117-122.
Footnote 195:
Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899 (62
and 63 Vict., c. 32, sec. 1 (1)).
(b)--Canteen Committees, their constitution and functions.
The arrangements for carrying out the Provision of Meals Act are usually
in the hands of a Committee called variously the School Canteen
Committee, the Children's Care Committee, the Underfed Children's Meals
Committee, or, as at Leicester, the Children's Aid Association. The
constitution of this Committee varies in different towns. Sometimes it
is composed entirely of members of the Education Committee.[196]
Sometimes outside bodies, such as Boards of Guardians and voluntary
agencies, are represented upon it. Thus at Crewe the Children's Care
Committee consists of representatives of the Local Education Authority,
teachers, Guardians and various voluntary societies.[197] At Leicester
the members of the Education Committee are in the minority, the
Children's Aid Association being composed chiefly of members of the
Charity Organisation Society and the National Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children. Elsewhere the Committee may be composed
entirely, or almost entirely, of voluntary workers. Thus at Leeds, where
all the members are women, all, except the Chairman and Vice-chairman,
who are members of the Education Committee, are voluntary workers; two
Inspectors attend the meetings and carry recommendations to the
Education Committee, but they do not vote. At Bury St. Edmunds, where
the Committee is also composed of women members, the only representative
of the Education Committee is the official who holds the post of Borough
Treasurer and Secretary to the Education Committee. At Bournemouth the
schools are grouped under four District Care Committees, composed of
voluntary workers nominated by the School Managers, and of
representatives of the head teachers, the School Attendance Officers
being _ex officio_ members. These District Care Committees are
controlled by a Central Care Committee, composed partly of members of
the Education Committee, and partly of co-opted members. The School
Medical Officer here, as in some other towns, is an _ex officio_
member.[198]
Footnote 196:
As at Birkenhead, Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Stoke,
West Ham.
Footnote 197:
Report of School Medical Officer for Crewe, 1911, p. 23.
Footnote 198:
Report of the School Medical Officer for Bournemouth for 1911, pp.
5-7.
The functions of the Canteen Committee also vary in different towns.
Sometimes, as at Bradford, all the arrangements for the management of
the centres and the decision as to which children shall be fed are in
the hands of the Committee. At Leeds the Committee has no executive
power, its functions being limited to making recommendations to the
Education Committee as to the management of the dining centres. At Bury
St. Edmunds each member of the Committee is responsible for one school,
making arrangements with caterers for the feeding of the children and
visiting the homes. This visiting of the homes is rarely, if ever,
undertaken by members of the Canteen Committee, unless it is composed of
voluntary workers.
(c)--The Selection of the Children.
In the selection of the children who are to receive school meals two
methods may be adopted. The selection may be based either on the
physical condition of the child or on the economic circumstances of the
family. The majority of the children selected will, of course, be the
same whichever method is adopted, since the child will generally be
found to be under-nourished if the family income is inadequate, and vice
versa; but there are some children who, although the family income is
comparatively good, are yet, for some cause or other, underfed, and
these will be excluded if the "poverty test" is the only criterion used.
From the first the Board of Education has urged that the "physical test"
should be used as well as the "poverty test." The administration of the
Provision of Meals Act should be carried on in the closest co-operation
with the School Medical Service.[199] The School Medical Officer should
approve the dietary, he should supervise the quality, quantity, cooking
and service of the food and should inspect the feeding centres.[200] In
the selection of the children he should take an important part. Not only
should he recommend for school meals all cases of bad or insufficient
nutrition observed in the course of medical inspection. "The end to be
aimed at," writes Sir George Newman, "is that all children admitted to
the meals should be medically examined by the School Medical Officer
either before, or as soon as possible after, admission."[201] That is to
say, the Provision of Meals Act should not be considered primarily as a
measure for the relief of distress; "the physical and mental well-being
of [the] children ... should be regarded as the principal object to be
kept in view."[202]
Footnote 199:
"When a system of medical inspection of school children such as
already exists under several Local Education Authorities has been
established, the School Canteen Committee, so far as its operations
are concerned with underfed, ill-nourished or destitute children,
should work in intimate connection with the school medical officer."
(Circular issued by the Board of Education, January 1, 1907, in Report
on the Working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act up to March
31, 1909, p. 44.) "It is obviously desirable that any arrangements
made by a Local Education Authority under the Education (Provision of
Meals) Act, 1906 ... should be co-ordinated, as far as possible, with
the arrangements for medical inspection under the Act of 1907." (Board
of Education, Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools in
England, 1908, p. ii.) The general supervision of the administration
of the Act was placed in the hands of the Board's Medical Department.
Footnote 200:
Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1910, p. 254.
Footnote 201:
_Ibid._ for 1911, p. 276. This course is strongly urged by the School
Medical Officer for Portsmouth. "_All_ children, however selected,
either by the physical or poverty test, _should be examined by the
School Medical Officer_. This in many areas would involve a good deal
of extra work on many medical men who find their time already fully
occupied. Yet if any work is worth doing it is worth doing well, and
here it is that the value of the School Medical Officer comes in, by
culling and recording facts relating to the personal condition of the
child, as well as the home conditions and surroundings of his or her
life." ("The Importance of a Well-advised and Comprehensive Scheme in
the Selection of Children ... under the Education (Provision of Meals)
Act," by Victor J. Blake, in _Rearing an Imperial Race_, edited by C.
E. Hecht, 1913, pp. 22-23.)
Footnote 202:
Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, p. 275.
Very few authorities have made any attempt to select the children
primarily or even to any great extent on the "physical test." In
Brighton the plan has perhaps been tried with more thoroughness than in
any other town. When, in 1907, the Education Committee undertook the
provision of meals in association with the Voluntary Canteen Committee,
it was resolved that "the term 'underfed' ... should be held to apply
distinctively to those scholars who, by reason of more or less
continuous antecedent underfeeding, are physically below a certain
specified standard of size and weight. These cases, which must of course
be the first consideration of any feeding scheme, can only be
scientifically detected by a detailed system of medical weighing and
examination, and when so detected should be dealt with in accordance
with medical advice."[203] Accordingly all the children for whom an
application for free meals is made are weighed and measured, and the
Canteen Committee, when deciding whether any particular child shall be
fed or not, has before it this report as to the child's physical
condition. Whether the meals are supplied free depends on the economic
circumstances of the family. If the child needs meals on medical grounds
but the income is adequate, a circular is sent to the parent warning him
of the child's condition. Sometimes the parent will be willing for meals
to be supplied on payment of the cost. If the parent refuses to pay,
meals are not granted, but the name of the child is placed on a special
list for observation.[204] Roughly about fifty per cent. of the children
are fed solely on economic grounds and fifty per cent. on medical
grounds.[205]
Footnote 203:
Brighton Education Committee, Report of Canteen Joint Branch
Sub-Committee, July 17, 1907. There were, of course, also the cases of
"necessitous" children who did not appear on medical grounds to be
suffering from malnutrition, but who, from the economic circumstances
of the parents, were unable to obtain sufficient food. Children to
whom the provision of a mid-day meal would be a convenience, and whose
parents were able and willing to pay the cost, should also be provided
for. (_Ibid._)
Footnote 204:
We have not been able to ascertain exactly what happens to these
children on the "watching" list. In 1910 the School Medical Officer
reports that they "are examined at intervals by the school doctor, and
their progress is noted, the [Canteen] Committee taking such action as
is recommended. Enquiries are also carried out by the school nurse,
under the supervision of the school doctor, as to the nature of the
meals given at home in these cases." (Report on the Medical Inspection
of School Children in Brighton for 1910, p. 134.) These home visits by
the school nurse are no longer paid.
Footnote 205:
In 1911, out of 1,050 children who received free meals, 54 were not
examined, 550 were recommended by the school doctor on medical
grounds, 446 were fed solely on economic grounds. (_Ibid._ for 1911,
p. 119.) In 1912, out of 1,070 children fed, 69 were not examined, 422
were recommended on medical and 579 on economic grounds. (_Ibid._ for
1912, p. 122.)
At Heston and Isleworth, the Canteen Sub-Committee decided in 1911 to
obtain from the School Medical Officer a report on the state of each
child before determining whether it required school meals.[206] At
Lancaster also all children who are recommended for free meals are seen
by the School Medical Officer.[207]
Footnote 206:
Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, p. 277.
Footnote 207:
Report of School Medical Officer for Lancaster for 1911, p. 26.
But these cases are exceptional. In 1909 "the number of Local Education
Authorities who left the final selection in the hands of the School
Medical Officer, or acted exclusively upon his recommendation or
required every application to be endorsed by him," was, so far as the
information of the Board of Education extended, less than a dozen.[208]
In 1911 Sir George Newman writes, "it is true that in the majority of
cases the School Medical Officer takes some part ... in the work
connected with the provision of meals, but the number of cases in which
he exercises all the functions ... appropriately devolving upon him are
very few indeed."[209] In the great majority of towns, though the School
Medical Officer may recommend for school meals children whom he finds
suffering from malnutrition in the course of medical inspection, the
greater number of children are selected on the "poverty test."
Footnote 208:
Report on the Working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, up to
March 31, 1909, pp. 12-13.
Footnote 209:
Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, p. 273.
As a rule the primary selection is made by the teachers, either on their
own initiative or on receiving requests from the parents. The School
Nurse, the Attendance Officer or perhaps a member of the local Guild of
Help may also recommend cases.
Sometimes a personal application by the parent at the Education Offices
or before the Canteen Committee is insisted on. Thus at Manchester the
parents have to make application either at the Education Offices or at
any of the district centres, of which there are twenty-four, situated in
different parts of the town, and open at convenient hours. The teachers
can advise children, whom they consider to be in need of food, to tell
their parents to apply, but they take no further part in the selection
of the children. At West Ham also the parents have to apply at the
Public Hall or Education Office. The section of the Act dealing with
repayment is read to the applicant, who then decides whether or not he
wishes his children to be fed.[210] On the parent's signing a form (by
which he agrees to repay the cost of meals when he gets into work[211]),
tickets are issued for a week, pending enquiry. The parent is expected
to send a note to the head teacher each day to say that he or she still
wishes the child to be fed.[212] This personal application has to be
renewed every month. The teachers are allowed to give urgency tickets
for three meals, but if the parents fail to apply the meals have to be
discontinued. At Erith "no breakfasts are supplied till the parents have
registered at the Distress Committee (if eligible), or have made
personal application there, or at the Education Office."[213] At
Leicester, again, the parent has to make personal application at the
office of the Canteen Committee, and this application has to be renewed
every month. At Birmingham, except in special cases, the parent has to
attend the meeting of the Committee; if he fails to appear, after being
given a second chance, the child, who has meanwhile been temporarily
receiving the meals, is removed from the feeding list.[214]
Footnote 210:
Report of West Ham Education Committee for the year ending March 31,
1910, p. 51. This is the procedure now in force.
Footnote 211:
See post, p. 110.
Footnote 212:
We were informed by the head teacher of an infants' department that
she did not insist on a note being sent more than two or three times a
week.
Footnote 213:
Report of Erith Education Committee for the three years ending March
31, 1911.
Footnote 214:
_The Public Feeding of Elementary School Children_, by Phyllis D.
Winder, 1913, p. 27.
The primary selection of the children having been made, by whatever
method, enquiry is then made into the home circumstances of the family.
The object of this enquiry is or should be twofold: to ascertain the
resources of the family, so as to determine whether the parents are able
to provide adequate food for the child or not, and to find out whether
help is needed in any other direction, and by friendly advice to improve
the conditions of the home. We shall discuss later the great advantages
to be obtained from the employment of voluntary workers for the purpose
of these friendly home visits, as distinct from the duty of making
enquiries.[215] Here it is sufficient to note that very few Education
Authorities have made use of their services at all.[216] The most
notable example is, of course, furnished by the London Care Committees.
A somewhat similar system has been adopted at Bournemouth. Here, as we
have seen, the schools have been divided into four groups, and a Care
Committee appointed for each. The members investigate the circumstances
of children who are alleged to be in want of food and report to their
Committee, which thereupon decides whether or not the children shall
receive free meals. At Liverpool a tentative effort has been made in the
same direction. Care Committees, managed by the different settlements,
have for some years been attached to some half-dozen schools, but their
position is rather indefinite. The enquiries are made by the School
Attendance Officers, but the Education Committee asks the Care Committee
for reports on special cases. At one school the Care Committee appears
to visit all the cases. A wider scheme for the establishment of a system
of Care Committees is at the present time (1913) under consideration. At
Brighton also, where Care Committees have been appointed, mainly for the
purpose of finding employment and generally supervising the children
when they leave school, a Care visitor is sometimes asked to supplement
the enquiries of the School Attendance Officers in doubtful cases where
further investigation is needed. At Leicester the enquiries are made by
a paid investigator appointed by the Children's Aid Association,
subsequent friendly visits being paid by voluntary workers.[217] In most
towns, however, the work of enquiry is undertaken solely by the School
Attendance Officers.[218]
Footnote 215:
See post, pp. 145 _et seq._
Footnote 216:
Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1910, pp. 107-8; ditto for 1911, pp. 104-5. In several of the few
towns where Care Committees have been appointed, they take no part in
the work of feeding the children, their functions being confined to
the "following up" of medical cases and perhaps the finding of
employment for the children when they leave school.
Footnote 217:
At Southend-on-Sea enquiry is made by the Civic Guild into many of the
cases. (Report of the School Medical Officer for Southend-on-Sea for
1911, p. 54.) At Bradford the Canteen Committee communicates to the
Guild of Help the names of all the new cases which are put on the
feeding list. The members of the Guild thereupon visit any cases in
which other help besides the meals is needed.
Footnote 218:
As at Birkenhead, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Salford, Sheffield,
Stoke, etc. At Birkenhead an attendance officer has been specially
appointed for this purpose. At Bradford a special constable has been
told off to make enquiries in difficult cases.
The thoroughness of the investigation varies considerably in different
towns. The parent's statements as to the amount of wages earned are in
some cases checked by enquiries from the employers. At Birmingham the
wages are always thus verified where the worker is employed by one firm
regularly. At Bradford the wages are verified except when the applicants
are working on their own account, for instance hawking, when it is
clearly impossible. Generally enquiry is made from the employer as to
the wages of the head of the house only, but at Leeds and at Leicester
the wages of all earning members of the family are verified. At
Leicester in doubtful cases enquiries may be made from the employer as
often as once a week. In other towns, as at Stoke and York, where the
current rates of wages are well known, wages are only verified when
there is any doubt as to the parent's statement. At Bootle little
attempt is made to verify the information given by the parents. Here the
enquiries are made--so far as they can be said to be made at all--by the
teachers. The help of the Attendance Officer can be asked in difficult
cases, but this appears to be seldom done. The teachers naturally have
no time to visit the homes, and the enquiry generally resolves itself
into a form being given to the child for its parent to fill up. The
parents are asked to state the rent, the number in the family and the
total weekly income, taking the average for four weeks. When one
considers the difficulty normally experienced in filling up forms
correctly, one can readily imagine that the information thus obtained is
practically valueless. Where the answers are unintelligible--an
occurrence by no means rare to judge from the few specimens of case
papers which we have seen--the information may be supplemented by
questioning the children.
Often urgency tickets can be issued by the teachers, pending enquiries,
as at Bradford, Birmingham, Bootle and Liverpool. At Birkenhead the
teacher can only report the need for meals, but the enquiries only take
two or three days. At Leeds we were told that a week or ten days
generally elapses between the time of application and the child's being
placed on the list, with the result that in some cases the most urgent
need is passed. It is true that the head teachers can secure a child's
being placed immediately on the list by writing specially to the
Education Office, but to do this every time would involve a considerable
expenditure on postage, which is not refunded.
When investigation has been made into the home circumstances, the
decision as to whether or no the child shall be fed is made generally by
the Canteen Committee or by a small sub-committee of this Committee, or
perhaps by the Chairman.[219] Sometimes the responsibility rests with
the Secretary of the Education Committee or some other official, as at
Acton and Leeds. At Bournemouth the cases are decided by the District
Care Committees, which are composed of voluntary workers and teachers.
At Bootle the decision appears to rest entirely in the teachers' hands.
Footnote 219:
Thus, at Birkenhead, where the Canteen Committee meets very seldom,
the cases are decided by the Chairman.
The decision is based on a consideration of the family income. Many
authorities have adopted a scale. At Birmingham meals are granted if the
income per head, after rent is deducted, does not exceed 2s. 9d. in
winter or 2s. 6d. in summer.[220] In Bootle the income limit, in summer
and winter alike, is 3s. 6d. for an adult and 2s. 6d. for each child
under 14.[221] When we consider, however, the slipshod method of enquiry
pursued at Bootle, we cannot attach much importance to the existence on
paper of this scale. At Bradford dinners are given if the income does
not exceed 3s. per head; if the income is less than 2s., breakfasts also
are given. This scale is taken only as a rough criterion of the needs of
the family. Special circumstances are taken into account, such as the
size of the family, sickness, old debts, etc. And where the
circumstances of the family are slightly above the point at which free
meals may be given, the parents are often allowed to receive them on
paying 1/2d. or 1d. towards the cost. At Leeds, on the other hand, the
scale, which is a low one (2s. in winter and 1s. 6d. in summer) is, we
are informed, rigidly observed. No regard is paid to the circumstances
of the family. As a rule, directly the family income rises above the
limit, the child's dinners are stopped, no matter how much debt has to
be paid off. A delicate child who needed feeding or an underfed
neglected child would not be fed if the income was above the limit. At
Liverpool the scale is 2s. per head; at Stoke it is 2s. 6d.; at Brighton
it is 3s. per adult, two children being reckoned as one adult. In all
these towns the limit is not a hard and fast one, regard being paid to
any special circumstances. At Manchester a sliding scale has been
adopted. If there are five or more in the family the limit is 2s. 6d.
per head, if there are only three or four 2s. 9d. is allowed, while if
there are only one or two 3s. is allowed.[222] At Salford the limit is
10s. per week for two persons, and 2s. extra for each additional member
of the family, rent not being deducted. In other towns, as at
Birkenhead, Bournemouth, Leicester and West Ham, there is no fixed
scale, each case being decided on its merits.
Footnote 220:
_The Public Feeding of Elementary School Children_, by Phyllis D.
Winder, 1913, p. 26.
Footnote 221:
Report of Bootle School Canteen Committee, 1911-12, p. 3.
Footnote 222:
Report of the Manchester Education Committee, 1910-11, p. 221.
As a rule the cases are revised about once a month. Sometimes chronic
cases will be continued for two or three months at a time, as at
Liverpool. At York the cases are revised only twice a year. At the
beginning of the winter the head teachers send in lists of children whom
they consider to be necessitous. These children (if the Cases Selection
Sub-Committee decide to feed them) remain on the feeding list till the
following April, when the head teachers are asked to send in a list of
children who they consider need not receive meals during the summer. The
Attendance Officers visit again and the cases are revised by the
Committee. This method is said to be satisfactory as, though officially
the cases are revised so seldom, practically the circumstances are
known, since the Attendance Officers regularly visit the homes in the
course of their ordinary work and the Chairman of the Canteen Committee
knows many of the children intimately. At Bootle, where, as we have
seen, the decision as to which children shall be fed is practically in
the hands of the teachers, there seems to be no system of revising the
cases, and the tendency is for a child who is once put on the feeding
list to remain on it till the meals are discontinued in the summer,
unless the parents voluntarily withdraw the child on an improvement in
the home circumstances.
Without discussing here the question whether it is possible to devise
any system of selection which can be satisfactory, we may note some of
the disadvantages of the methods at present in use. In the first place,
since the selection is made in the main through the teachers, it
necessarily follows that the numbers fed in any particular school depend
very largely on the attitude taken by the head teachers. As a general
rule the teachers are keenly interested in the physical welfare of their
children, and anxious to do everything in their power which may promote
it; but some teachers are opposed to the provision of meals, feeling
that too much is done for the children; others, again, consider their
schools "superior," and do not like their children to go to free meals.
Constantly one finds an astonishing disproportion between the numbers
fed at two adjacent schools, drawing their children from the same
locality. It is true that the character of two schools, within a stone's
throw of each other, may vary in a curious way, one attracting a more
prosperous class of children--perhaps because of the personality of the
teacher, better buildings, or some other cause--but this would not
account for all the difference. At Bootle, for instance, it was
reported, "there is apparently an absence of uniformity in assessing the
needs of the children; for in the six schools of the poorest
neighbourhoods it is found that of the number on the rolls the
percentage of scheduled children varies from 6 per cent. to 34 per
cent., and that in two schools of almost identical character, in one
case 10 per cent. of the children are returned as needing daily
breakfasts, and in the other 34 per cent."[223] Where the teachers are
anxious to place all apparently underfed children on the feeding list,
pressure is not infrequently exercised by the Education Authority to
induce them to keep down the numbers.
Footnote 223:
Report of the Bootle School Canteen Committee for 1910-11, p. 22. At
Birkenhead, and probably in other towns, the percentage of children
fed in the Church of England schools is very much higher than in the
Council schools, whilst the Roman Catholic schools feed a larger
number still than the Church schools. This is doubtless due partly to
the character of the buildings, the non-provided schools being
generally very much inferior, and the better-off children being
consequently attracted to the Council schools; partly, of course, also
to the fact that the Roman Catholic population is chiefly Irish and
very poor.
When an application by the parent is obligatory, there is cause for very
grave doubt whether the provision of meals reaches all for whom it is
intended. Miss Winder has shown that, at Birmingham, out of 22,753
children for whom applications were received during the three years
1909-11, 4,700 were not fed because the parent failed to appear before
the Committee. She investigated the circumstances of twenty-eight of
these families and came to the conclusion that, "although the small
number of families investigated cannot justify an absolutely positive
assertion, I think it may fairly be concluded that, on the whole, they
are representative of most of the families whose applications are not
granted, and that the home circumstances of these families are much the
same as those of the families whose applications have been
granted."[224] This is the impression gained from enquiries at other
towns. At West Ham it is clear that there are children who need the
meals, but do not get them because their parents will not apply. The
number of "missed" cases does not appear to be large, for the Act is
administered in a sympathetic spirit, the Superintendent of Visitors
impressing on the Attendance Officers that they should bring to his
notice any case where the children appear to be suffering from lack of
food. But there are cases where the parents, though they will take the
urgency tickets for three meals which the teachers can give them, will
take no further action. At one school the headmaster pointed out two
boys who looked obviously in need of food and attention generally, but
whose father, though out of work, would not apply. In another case he
had used his discretion and kept two boys on the list for a month in
spite of their parents' failure to renew their application, but he felt
obliged at last to take them off though he considered that they still
needed the meals. In such cases the Attendance Officers are supposed to
visit the homes to find out the cause of the children's underfed
condition, and to urge the parents, if necessary, to make application
for school meals, but this course does not seem to be by any means
always pursued.
Footnote 224:
_The Public Feeding of Elementary School Children_, by Phyllis D.
Winder, 1913, pp. 27, 29, 59, 62.
At Leicester again, nothing appears to be done in those cases where the
child needs food but the parent refuses to apply. And such cases appear
to be frequent. We were told by the vicar of a very poor parish that
numbers of the parents would not make the necessary application. This
evidence seems to be borne out by a comparison of the numbers of cases
helped by the Distress Committee and the Canteen Committee. In 1910, for
instance, it was found that on September 30, 607 married men and
widowers, having 1,145 children wholly, and 214 partly, dependent upon
them, were registered at the Labour Bureau as unemployed.[225] These
numbers were, of course, not a complete index of the unemployment in the
town. But, turning to the report of the Canteen Committee, we find that
on the same date only 105 children were being helped.[226] The great
discrepancy between these figures seems to point to the fact that the
Canteen Committee had not discovered all the cases of children who were
suffering from want of food.
Footnote 225:
_Leicester Pioneer_, October 29, 1910.
Footnote 226:
Quarterly Report of the Leicester Children's Aid Association, July 1
to September 30, 1910.
The failure of the parents to apply may in some cases be due to laziness
and disregard for their children's welfare. Or it may be that they are
too sensitive to ask for help. Or again it may be difficult or
impossible for them to attend at the time named. The hour is usually
fixed so as to be that most convenient for the parents, but it is
impossible, of course, to fix a time which will suit all. At Birmingham
cases have even occurred "where the father has been obliged to pay tram
fares in order to arrive in time to prove his inability to feed his
children"![227]
Footnote 227:
_The Public Feeding of Elementary School Children_, by Phyllis D.
Winder, 1913, p. 29.
But even if the parent is not obliged to appear in person, but may send
an application by note or verbal message to the teacher, there are still
"missed" cases. It is notorious that many parents are too proud to let
their need be known; in such cases, as teachers have frequently told us,
it may be a considerable time before it is discovered that the child is
suffering from want of food; and when the discovery is made there is
frequently difficulty in inducing the parents to send the child, or in
inducing the child itself to go, to the school meals. There still seems
to exist, in certain districts at any rate, an idea that the provision
of meals is Poor Law Relief, and parents consequently shrink from
applying. Moreover, it is not generally recognised that the provision of
school meals is by no means universally known to the parents. The School
Medical Officer for Leicester reports that "in certain cases it was a
matter for regret that the families had not received help earlier by
personally applying for assistance. Ignorance of the existence of the
Canteen Committee was given as the reason for non-application."[228] And
we have ourselves been told in other towns of cases where the children
were suffering from want of food, but were not receiving school meals
because the parents were unaware that they could be obtained.
Footnote 228:
Report of the School Medical Officer for Leicester for 1912, p. 36.
The enquiries into the home circumstances undoubtedly exercise a
deterrent influence--to what extent depends on the manner of the
particular individual who makes the enquiries--both with the more
independent parent who resents the investigator's visit, and with the
criminal and semi-criminal parent whose record does not bear close
investigation. Thus the headmaster of a school in one of the worst
districts of Liverpool told us that numbers of the boys were in need of
food but the parents would not submit to the necessary enquiries and
consequently meals were not granted. At Leicester, the searching
enquiries made by the Canteen Committee, which, it must be remembered,
is practically a department of the Charity Organisation Society, coupled
with the insistence on an application by the parent in person, result,
as we have seen, in numbers of underfed children remaining underfed.
Where the Education Authority has adopted a scale of income on which to
base the decision as to which children shall be fed, this scale is
frequently below, and in some cases very considerably below, the minimum
amount which has been shown to be necessary for expenditure on
food.[229] Where the scale is rigidly adhered to, two classes of
children are excluded altogether, those who are underfed through the
neglect of their parents to provide for them though able to do so, and
those cases where the family income may be sufficient to meet normal
calls but where, owing to illness or the delicacy of the children or
other special circumstances, extra nourishment is required.
Footnote 229:
See note on page 205, _infra_.
To sum up, we find as between town and town, and even as between school
and school in the same town, a great want of uniformity in selecting the
children to be fed. Where the Education Authority has determined that
all its underfed children shall be provided for, the child's need being
the paramount consideration, undiscovered cases of underfeeding are
reduced to a minimum. Where, on the contrary, enquiries are carried out
in a deterrent manner, or the parent is made to apply in person for the
meals, or the selection is based on a rigid application of a scale,
there is reason to fear that considerable numbers of children are, and
remain, "unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the
education provided for them."
(d)--The Preparation and Service of the Meals.
(i) The Time of the Meal.
There are considerable differences of opinion as to what kind of meal
should be given. Many Local Authorities prefer breakfast. It is argued
that when no breakfast is forthcoming at home the interval between the
meal the previous evening and the midday dinner is too long, and that it
is cruel to expect the child to attend morning school, when the heaviest
work of the day is done, without a meal, especially in the cold winter
months. By midday the parents, especially in districts where there is
much casual labour, may have earned enough to provide some sort of a
meal. But the arguments in favour of breakfast--as the sole meal
provided--are largely based not so much on the child's physical needs as
on the moral effect produced both on the child and the parent. The
provision of breakfast furnishes a test of need. The meal is not so
popular as dinner, and will only attract those who are really
hungry.[230] Co-operation on the part of the mother is demanded, since
she must get up early to see the children are dressed in time. Moreover,
the provision of breakfast does not act as an inducement to the mother
to go out to work, as it is feared the provision of dinner may.
Footnote 230:
Thus it was found at a school in Bethnal Green that, "in spite of the
supervision of a most efficient Care Committee," the change from a
porridge breakfast to a meat pie dinner doubled the number of children
attending. ("The Feeding of Necessitous Children. A Symposium. I.,
Experience in S. W. Bethnal Green," by A. W. Chute, in _Oxford House
Magazine_, January, 1909, p. 37.)
The arguments seem to us overwhelmingly in favour of dinner. The
provision of a midday meal may possibly encourage mothers to go out to
work, though it is exceedingly difficult to trace such a result to any
great extent. But on the other hand there are numbers of cases already
where the mothers are forced, by stress of circumstances, to be the
breadwinners and are obliged to leave home all day, or, if they come
home for the dinner hour, have no time to prepare a proper meal. The
children will either get a piece of bread, or will be given coppers to
buy their own dinner; in either case the meal will be equally
unsatisfactory. Possibly the children will go dinnerless altogether, and
the afternoon's lessons will then be a serious tax on their brains. The
attendance at breakfasts is always less than at dinner.[231] The
breakfast acts, that is to say, as a successful "test." But this means
that many children, either because their mothers are too lazy to get
them dressed early, or because they are too lazy themselves, miss the
meals, _though they are admittedly in need of them_.
Footnote 231:
At West Ham, for instance, where all the children on the feeding list
receive both breakfast and dinner, the number of breakfasts given
during the year 1911-12 was 247,233, and the number of dinners
273,894; the attendance at breakfast was thus only ninety per cent. of
the attendance at dinner. (Report of the West Ham Education Committee
for the year ended March 31, 1912, pp. 175-77.)
We do not wish to under-estimate the importance of the moral aspect of
the question. It is essential that co-operation on the part of the
mother should be demanded. But the child's need must be the first
consideration. The laziness of the children, be it noted, is frequently
not entirely their own fault; the drowsiness in the morning may be due
to the fact that they have slept all night in a crowded room and stuffy
atmosphere. Till the deep-rooted objection to open windows at night can
be overcome, this will continue to be the case. For this reason too, the
children will often have little appetite for breakfast.
Physiologically, again, dinner appears to be the better meal since it
contains a greater quantity of the elements which are lacking in the
ordinary home dietary of the child. Thus in the feeding experiment at
Bradford in 1907,[232] the porridge breakfast, the most satisfactory
kind of breakfast that can be supplied from the food value point of
view, contained a proteid value of 19 grammes, and a fat value of 20
grammes. The dinners contained, on an average, 29 grammes of proteid and
18 grammes of fat. Thus the combined proteid and fat value of the
breakfasts and dinners was respectively 39 and 47 grammes.[233]
Moreover, the gain in point of cheapness to be derived from provision on
a large scale is much greater relatively in the case of dinners than in
the case of breakfasts.
Footnote 232:
See post, pp. 184-6.
Footnote 233:
Bradford Education Committee, Report on a Course of Meals given to
Necessitous Children from April to July, 1907, p. 7.
About 27 per cent. of the Local Authorities give breakfasts only, and
about 45 per cent. dinners only, the remainder giving both meals.[234]
In the last-named case, dinners may be given in some schools and
breakfasts in others, as at Southampton and York. At Bradford dinner is
given to all the children on the feeding list, the most necessitous
receiving breakfast as well.[235] At West Ham all the children receive
both meals. At Bootle, where till a few years ago only breakfasts were
given, it was found that this provision was inadequate to meet the needs
of many necessitous children.[236] The expense and the practical
difficulties in the way of providing a proper dinner led the Education
Committee to adopt a simpler method, namely, that of increasing the
quantity of food supplied for breakfasts, any overplus being given at
midday at the discretion of the teachers as an extra meal to children
who would otherwise go dinnerless.[237]
Footnote 234:
Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, pp. 322-324.
Footnote 235:
Roughly about half the children fed receive both meals (Bradford
Education Committee, Return as to the Working of the Education
(Provision of Meals) Act, for the year ended March 31, 1913.)
Footnote 236:
Enquiries made by the head teachers showed that in the aggregate 295
children received no mid-day meal or an insufficient meal. Since,
presumably, these enquiries were made by the method of questioning the
children, no particular value can be attached to the actual figures;
the school attendance officers enquired into fifty-four of the cases
taken at random and found that all but two showed undoubted poverty in
the home. (Report of Bootle School Canteen Committee, 1910-11, pp.
10-11.)
Footnote 237:
_Ibid._, p. 11. This is the plan still pursued (see post, pp. 86-87).
(ii) The Dietary.
Taking into consideration the fact that with a large number of
elementary school children bread and tea form the chief elements in the
home diet, it is of the greatest importance that the school meal should
be planned so as to contain a good proportion of the ingredients which
are lacking at home.
Whatever views may be held as to the amount of proteid food that is
necessary for adults, it is not disputed that in the case of children
the more expensive forms are necessary because the growth of the body
depends entirely upon the proteids. "It is impossible," declares the
School Medical Officer of the London County Council, "to cut down
proteids to the same extent in children as in adults without serious
results.... To set out, therefore, to relieve underfeeding by a single
meal a day, it is necessary to concentrate attention upon proteids and
fats ... and, therefore, a dinner for necessitous children must be
necessarily more costly than for those properly fed in institutions or
in their own homes. The want of clothing, which often accompanies
underfeeding, also necessitates more expensive feeding in relief, the
loss of bodily heat to be made up being greater than in the case of the
child in an industrial school or workhouse, who is warmly clad, and who,
moreover, spends much time in a properly heated playroom or
dormitory."[238]
Footnote 238:
London County Council, Report of the Medical Officer (Education) to
Sub-Committee on Underfed Children, 1909. See also "School Feeding,"
by Dr. John Lambert, in _Medical Examination of Schools and Scholars_,
edited by T. N. Kelynack, M.D., 1910, pp. 240-242.
Few Local Authorities have so planned their dietary as to contain this
excess of proteid and fat over starchy food. "Judged by this standard,"
declared Dr. Kerr in 1908, and the same statement holds good to-day,
"most diets supplied by public funds are probably wanting in value for
the children, however useful they might be as a single meal for a normal
individual."[239]
Footnote 239:
Report of the Education Committee of the London County Council,
submitting report of the Medical Officer (Education) for the
twenty-one months ending December 31, 1908, p. 17.
It would naturally be expected that the School Medical Officer would be
consulted about the dietary as a matter of course,[240] but this is by
no means invariably the case. At Birkenhead, for instance, the School
Medical Officer has no voice in the planning of the menu. At
Stoke-on-Trent the School Medical Officer reports in 1911 that, "with
the exception of the Fenton district, the medical staff does not appear
to have even been consulted on the matter of dietary."[241]
Footnote 240:
"The determination of the dietary of the children generally, and of
individual children whose health or age renders it desirable that
special arrangements should be made in their case" is, as the Chief
Medical Officer of the Board of Education points out, a matter "on
which the School Medical Officer is particularly competent to form an
opinion, and on which, therefore, his opinion should be sought by the
Authority." (Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of
Education for 1911, p. 275.)
Footnote 241:
Annual Report of the School Medical Officer for Stoke-on-Trent for
1911, p. 56.
Where the meals are given at restaurants, the dietary is almost
invariably unsatisfactory, adequate inspection being impossible.[242]
Footnote 242:
See the descriptions of Stoke and Liverpool, post, pp. 89, 90-91.
The most elaborate dietary is probably that adopted by the Bradford
Education Committee. In 1907, after the Education Committee had adopted
the Provision of Meals Act, but before arrangements had been made to
feed the children out of the rates, an experiment was made in feeding
forty children for fourteen weeks. The dietary was carefully planned so
that, while containing the requisite amount of proteid and fat, it
should not be beyond the purse of the ordinary parent in normal
times.[243] This dietary is still in force, a few alterations having
been made which experience showed to be advisable. The menu is varied,
according to the season, winter, summer, and spring or autumn. The same
meal is not repeated for four weeks.[244] At Portsmouth again, where the
dietary is drawn up by the Medical Officer of Health and the School
Medical Officer, a different meal is given every day for three
weeks.[245] In most towns, however, the same menu is continued week
after week, with some slight variation in the summer. The same meal is
given on the same day in the week so that the children learn to know
what meal to expect, and in consequence the attendance is often
considerably smaller on days when the dish is unpopular. Sometimes the
food will vary very little even from day to day. Though served under
various names, soup, stew or hash, it is really almost precisely the
same. Some authorities supply only one course, others two. In some towns
a child is allowed to have as much as it wants, in reason; in other
towns only one helping is allowed as a rule, though, if there happens to
be any food over, this may be distributed among the children.[246]
Footnote 243:
See Bradford Education Committee, Report on a Course of Meals given to
Necessitous Children from April to July, 1907, p. 7.
Footnote 244:
For Bradford and some other typical menus see Appendix I.]
Footnote 245:
"The Importance of a Well-Advised and Comprehensive Scheme in the
Selection of Children ... under the Education (Provision of Meals)
Act," by Victor J. Blake, in _Rearing an Imperial Race_, edited by C.
E. Hecht, 1913, p. 24.
Footnote 246:
At one centre that we visited, the second helping consisted only of
what was left by some of the children on their plates! Those who
wanted more were asked to hold up their hands, and the food was then
handed to them, the recipients being apparently selected at random,
since there was not enough for all.
Occasionally special provision is made for the infants. Thus, at York,
milk and bread is given in the middle of the morning to infants who are
on the feeding list, it having been found that they could not digest the
ordinary dinners. But as a rule, though in well managed centres the
infants are placed together at special tables, so that they can be
better supervised and taught how to eat, there is no separate dietary
for them.
Where only breakfasts are provided there is, of course, less room for
variation. Generally cocoa or coffee is given, with bread and butter,
margarine, dripping, jam or syrup. At Bootle pea soup is given one day a
week. In several towns porridge is provided, either alternately with the
cocoa or coffee breakfast, or every day. At Sheffield, where a cocoa
breakfast used to be given, porridge was substituted at one school as an
experiment; it was found that the boys who were fed on porridge
increased in weight at double the rate of the boys who received only the
cocoa breakfast; as a result porridge breakfasts were substituted in all
the schools.[247]
Footnote 247:
Report of Chief School Medical Officer for Sheffield, for the year
1910, pp. 26, 27. See post, p. 190.
(iii) Preparation and Distribution of the Meals.
In a few cases the Local Education Authority has equipped a kitchen for
the preparation of the food, and makes arrangements for distributing it
to the various centres. At Bradford all the meals, with the exception of
those for schools in outlying districts where arrangements are made with
local caterers, are cooked at a central kitchen and distributed in
special heat-retaining boxes to the different dining centres by motor
vans. Manchester, Birkenhead and other towns also have their own central
kitchen. Sometimes, as at West Ham, a kitchen is attached to each of the
centres; or occasionally a cookery centre is utilised for the
preparation of the meals. Sometimes, as at Leeds and Portsmouth,[248]
the Local Education Authority provides the kitchen and a caterer
prepares the food. Frequently, however, all the arrangements for the
preparation and the distribution of the meals are in the hands of
caterers.
Footnote 248:
"The Importance of a Well-Advised and Comprehensive Scheme in the
Selection of Children ... under the Education (Provision of Meals)
Act," by Victor J. Blake, in _Rearing an Imperial Race_, edited by C.
E. Hecht, 1913, p. 25.
(iv) The Service of the Meals.
From the first great stress was laid by the Board of Education upon the
educational aspect of the meals. "The methods employed in the provision
of meals should be not merely such as will secure an improvement in the
physical condition of the children, but such as will have a directly
educational effect upon them in respect of manners and conduct."[249]
"The school dinner may ... be made to serve as a valuable object-lesson
and used to reinforce the practical instruction in hygiene, cookery and
domestic economy."[250]
Footnote 249:
Board of Education, Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools
in England, 1908, p. ii.
Footnote 250:
Report on the Working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act up to
March 31, 1909, prefatory note by L. A. Selby-Bigge, p. 6.
In many cases this advice was totally disregarded. The second report on
the working of the Act contains many examples of the utter lack of
discipline prevailing in some centres. In one case "no attempt to teach
orderly eating was made; there was a certain amount of actual disorderly
conduct, throwing bits of food at each other and so forth." In another
case where the meals were served in a small outhouse in the playground,
the "table was a low locker.... On this a newspaper was spread, and
there was hardly room for more than six children to sit round it. Other
children sat on low benches where they could, holding their bowls on
their knees ... about fifty partake of the dinner, but there is not room
for more than twelve at a time, and then it is a scramble.... The food
(Irish stew and bread) was good but everything else was as bad as could
be." At another centre, we read, "the dinner is eaten in a perfect
pandemonium of noise. Nine charwomen of a rather low type attend to
about 470 children."[251]
Footnote 251:
Report on the Working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act for
the year ended March 31, 1910, pp. 8, 9.
It is encouraging to note that there has since been, generally speaking,
an improvement in the service of the meals. But "there are still areas
in which the educational possibilities of the meals have not been
realised, or, if realised, have not received the attention which they
deserve"[252]--a statement which we can amply corroborate.
Footnote 252:
Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, pp. 278, 279.
The different methods in vogue may be classified roughly under four
heads, according to the place in which the meal is served, _i.e._ (_a_)
in the school, (_b_) in eating-houses, (_c_) in "centres," or (_d_) in
the home.
(_a_) The ideal place for the meal is the school when a room is
specially set apart as a dining-room. The meal should be attended only
by the children from that particular school and should be served under
proper supervision. The tables should be nicely laid, regard being paid
to the æsthetic side of the meal, and table manners should be taught.
The children should themselves lay the tables and wait on one another.
We have found these ideal arrangements in some of the Special Schools
for Defective Children and in Open Air Schools,[253] but it is very rare
to find such provision made for the "necessitous" children in the
ordinary elementary schools. Many authorities, indeed, adopt the plan of
serving the meals in the schools, but too frequently class-rooms are
utilised. The objections to this course are obvious. Adequate
ventilation after a meal is often impossible, and the smell of food
pervades the atmosphere. It is frequently necessary to hurry over the
meal so that the room may be prepared in time for school. The food is
often served on the desks, an uncomfortable arrangement and one which
renders it very difficult to teach the children to eat nicely.
Footnote 253:
We describe two or three of these schools later. (See post, pp.
121-2.)
The worst example of this utilisation of the school premises that we
have seen is that of Bootle. Here the arrangements made for supplying
the meals show a deplorable lack of appreciation, on the part of the
Education Authority, of the benefits which may be derived from the
Provision of Meals Act. The breakfasts are served sometimes in
class-rooms, sometimes in the cloak-rooms or the cellars! When we
visited Bootle (in April, 1913) the breakfasts had been stopped for the
summer, but we were shown one or two of these cellars. We were told that
they are made as inviting as possible--the walls are whitewashed,
sawdust is sprinkled on the floors, a table is placed for the children
to sit down to--but when all is done that can be done they remain
entirely unsuitable places for the purpose. The only point that is urged
in their favour is that the children enjoy the warmth from the heating
apparatus. In the cloak-rooms there is not always room for a table, and
the children sometimes have to sit along the walls, holding their mugs
of cocoa or their basins of soup on their knees. When the class-rooms
are utilised the food has to be placed on the desks; nothing in the
nature of table-cloths is provided, and the state of the desks after the
children, the infants especially, have eaten soup or bread and syrup,
can be well imagined. Often the breakfasts arrive late, and the children
have consequently to be hurried over the meal so that the class-rooms
may be got ready for school.[254] It must not be assumed that nothing in
the way of table manners is attempted; clean hands, for instance, can be
insisted on (though even this is difficult in some schools where there
is an insufficient supply of water), and at one school we were told that
the infants had learnt to eat without spilling their food; but it is
obvious that very little can be done. The method of serving the midday
meal is even less "educational." We have seen that the Education
Committee refused to make arrangements for the provision of a suitable
dinner, and decided instead that the teachers should distribute at
midday to the most necessitous children any surplus left over from
breakfast. The dinner thus consists usually of merely a piece of bread,
with perhaps some cocoa, if any remains from the morning meal. The bread
is given to the children to take away, and they eat it on their way
home. What renders the failure of the Education Authority to pay any
regard to the educational aspect of the meal more disastrous is that it
is the teachers who supervise the meals. Many of them bitterly resent
the way in which the meals are served; as one pointed out to us, the
girls are taught in the school how to set a table, but the practical
example which the teachers are forced to show will have much more weight
than any theoretical teaching. A year ago the head teachers presented a
memorial to the Education Committee, urging that the schools should no
longer be used. As "a temporary expedient," runs the communication, they
"have loyally endeavoured to work this imperfect system, but they now
feel that the time has arrived for the adoption of a scheme on a more
satisfactory and permanent basis.... The serving of meals in
cloak-rooms, cellars or basements, and other unsuitable places, calls
for immediate remedy. In some cases the children receive their meals
whilst sitting upon the floor; in all, the bread is of necessity placed
upon the dirty desks. In others, there is no adequate supply of hot
water and towels for use in cleansing the utensils. Under such
conditions there can be no training in habits of decency or
cleanliness.... When the meals are served in class-rooms, the desks and
floors are rendered unfit for immediate school use, and a smell of food
permeates the atmosphere. To combat this state of affairs as far as
possible, the teachers have, in many cases, to wash the desks and brush
the floors. In other cases, the children are hurried over their meals in
order that the necessary preparations for lessons may be made."[255] To
this the Education Committee replied that, while they agreed "that an
ideal system of feeding the children would be by properly equipped
centres quite apart from the school premises, the cost of such would be
prohibitory, and that quite possibly the pressing of such a change would
jeopardise the continuance of the exercise of the powers given by the
Provision of Meals Act, now so beneficially and economically
administered." The committee hoped "that the teachers will recognise the
Authority's financial difficulties in the way of the introduction of a
more desirable system, and, pending the arrival of the long-expected
parliamentary aid for this and other ameliorative work devolving upon
local education authorities, will continue their valuable co-operation
in meeting the needs of their hungry scholars by the existing practical
if not perfect system."[256] The teachers had apparently been
considering the advisability of withdrawing their services altogether,
but this threat of a possible cessation of the meals induced them to
continue their assistance.
Footnote 254:
At Birmingham we note the same defect. "The children are quiet and
well-behaved; but all the time is taken in serving the food, and there
is no opportunity to teach individual children to eat slowly. The
tendency, especially with the cocoa breakfast, is to gulp down the
drink, eat part of the bread and jam, and carry the rest away." (_The
Public Feeding of Elementary School Children_, by Phyllis D. Winder,
1913, p. 42.)
Footnote 255:
Report of Bootle School Canteen Committee, 1911-12, p. 10.
Footnote 256:
_Ibid._, p. 11.
(_b_) A second method is the service of the meals at local restaurants.
This plan is strongly discouraged by the Chief Medical Officer of the
Board of Education, since it is impossible to secure adequate
supervision of the meals or proper control of the dietary; "the meals
are consequently of little, if any, value from an educational or even
nutritional point of view."[257] Any authority adopting this system is,
in fact, animated solely by the desire to get the children fed with the
least possible trouble.
Footnote 257:
Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, p. 272.
Unfortunately the plan is still in favour with a considerable number of
local authorities,[258] even in some of the large towns.
Footnote 258:
In many towns where meals are usually served at centres, local
restaurants are utilised in outlying districts where the number of
children is too small to allow of a centre being established.
Thus at Stoke-on-Trent the children for whom free meals are granted are
sent to eating-houses.[259] These houses are often, if not always, small
bakers' shops, not general restaurants. They are usually situated at an
easy distance from the school. The numbers attending each are small,
amounting to not more than twenty or so. At the one we visited[260] the
conditions seemed to be as good as could be expected under the
circumstances; the caterer was a motherly old woman who took an evident
interest in the children, and the food was hot and palatable. The
disadvantages inherent in the system, the impossibility of supervision
and the lack of control over the dietary, are, however, observable here
as elsewhere. Probably in few cases would the children get an
insufficiency of food. The difficulty lies rather in securing good
quality and the proper kind of meal. Thus it was found that one caterer
had substituted, for the regulation fish pie, bread and jam, because the
children preferred it. "I have inspected several of these
[eating-houses]," reports the School Medical Officer, "and although I
found one instance in which the children were treated on exactly the
same lines as the contractor's own children, in fact sat at the same
table, and were regarded quite as members of the family; in most
instances the surroundings, the manner of serving and the dietary left
much to be desired.... I would strongly urge the advisability of getting
the catering in all instances into our own hands. I do not think that
the full benefit of the Act can be secured in any other way; it is
doubtful, as things are, whether the intention of the Act, as a remedy
for malnutrition, can be carried out at all."[261]
Footnote 259:
At one school, the children have the meal in the school, the food
being sent in by a caterer, the head-mistress preferring that
arrangement.
Footnote 260:
In April, 1913.
Footnote 261:
Annual Report of the School Medical Officer for Stoke-on-Trent, 1912,
p. 23.
At Acton the meals are given at a dingy eating-house which is intended
primarily to serve the needs of the women working at the laundries in
the district.[262] There is only one room, so that the children have to
have their meals with the other customers, and the hour at which the
children come in, between twelve and one, is, of course, the busy hour
for the restaurant. At one time a rota of ladies attended voluntarily to
supervise the meals, but this plan has been given up; the School
Attendance Officers now take it in turn to be present. The children come
and go as they please and there is no attempt to teach table manners.
Footnote 262:
This eating-house is situated in the poorest part of Acton, where the
great majority of the children who are on the dinner-list live. In a
few cases, where the children live in other districts, arrangements
are made for them to obtain food at the cookery centres; this food
they take home with them. This plan, we were told, is only adopted in
cases where the mother can be trusted to see that the dinners are
really eaten by the children for whom they are intended.
At Liverpool, till quite recently, the same system was in force. The
children received coupons at the school, which they presented at various
cocoa rooms in the city.[263] The objections to this system were many.
The number of cocoa rooms, at which coupons were accepted, was limited,
and in some cases the nearest cocoa room was situated too far from the
school for the children to be sent there.[264] Though some managers
refused to supply unsuitable food, others gave whatever the children
asked for--frequently buns, jam puffs, or iced cakes.[265] Often the
children would take the food home to be shared among the other members
of the family.[266] At some cocoa rooms the children were served in the
general room, and were brought into contact with adult customers "of a
class not choice in language or manners." There was little or no
supervision--only occasional visits by the teachers--and consequently no
attempt "to influence the children in the direction of cleanliness and
orderliness at meals."[267] In spite of these revelations the system was
continued for several years, being only finally given up in August,
1912. The meals are now served in centres. The food is at present
supplied by caterers, but the Education Committee are considering the
advisability of providing their own kitchen.
Footnote 263:
Some were sent to the depôts of the Food and Betterment Association.
Footnote 264:
Interim Report of the Special Committee appointed to investigate the
Insufficient or Improper Feeding of School Children, Liverpool City
Council Proceedings, 1907-8, Vol. II., pp. 5, 15.
Footnote 265:
_Ibid._, pp. 11, 12, 19.
Footnote 266:
_Ibid._, pp. 17, 22, 23, 24. In one case where five coupons were given
daily to five members of a family, it was found that the children took
the coupons home every day, and at the end of the week these coupons
were presented and value obtained. (_Ibid._, p. 21.)
Footnote 267:
MS. Memorandum on the Feeding of School Children, by the Liverpool
Fabian Society, 1908.
(_c_) The plan most usually adopted, and the one recommended by the
Board of Education, is the system of serving the meals at centres
attended by children from three or four neighbouring schools. For this
purpose some room belonging to the Corporation may be utilised, perhaps
a room attached to the Police Station, as often at Manchester, or a room
in some disused school; frequently the hall of a club or mission is
hired. The arrangements are often of a makeshift character, the room
being ill-adapted for the purpose and the surroundings dark and dreary.
Moreover, the assembling of large numbers of children from different
schools renders the work of supervision more difficult and detracts
considerably from the educational value of the meal.
The actual conditions vary widely from town to town, and even from
centre to centre in the same town. The best results are perhaps to be
seen at Bradford,[268] the town in which most attention has been paid to
the subject. Here the teachers supervise the meal, two or three being
present generally, one to apportion the food and the others to supervise
the table manners of the children. They are assisted by boy and girl
monitors. These are selected generally from the elder children on the
dinner list.[269] On arrival, about ten minutes before the meal, each
monitor puts on one of the blue overalls provided for them, sets the
table for which he or she is responsible and hands round the food. The
position of monitor is a much coveted one. The system provides a
valuable training for the children in doing things for themselves, and
in looking after one another. The results are most marked. In every
centre we visited the children were quiet and orderly, and in some cases
the behaviour was excellent. At one centre we were particularly struck
by the table manners of the boys, their consideration for one another,
and the quick and quiet way in which they collected all the plates and
spoons and packed them in the boxes for return to the cooking depot of
their own accord, without any instructions from the teacher in charge.
The results vary, of course, in different centres. For instance, with
regard to clean hands and faces, some teachers are very strict, each
child having to hold up his hands for inspection as he enters the
dining-room. In others only periodical inspection is made, and we
noticed several dirty hands, notably in the case of some of the boys who
were assisting to hand round the food. Infants are placed at separate
tables so that they can receive special attention. Each child is
expected to eat the first course, or at any rate to try to eat it,
before being given the second. When the child does not like the food, it
is given a small helping at first and coaxed to eat it. Over and over
again we were told that at first the children would hardly touch the
food, being accustomed to the home dietary of bread and tea and pickles;
but by the patient endeavours of the teachers this difficulty was
overcome and the children have learnt to appreciate nourishing food. The
importance of the æsthetic side of the meal is fully appreciated. Table
cloths are provided and often flowers. The meal, indeed, "from start to
finish is educational."[270]
Footnote 268:
The centres at Bradford, Leeds, West Ham and Birkenhead were all
visited in the spring of 1913 and the descriptions refer to that date.
Footnote 269:
In the secondary schools, the poorer children are allowed to act as
monitors, being given in return a 3d. dinner free.
Footnote 270:
Report of School Medical Officer for Bradford, 1909, pp. 100-1. At
Nottingham the conditions are very similar to those at Bradford, the
Education Committee having, in fact, modelled their policy on that of
Bradford.
At Leeds it struck us that the chief aim was merely to feed the
children, the educational side receiving only secondary consideration.
As most of the centres are not large enough to accommodate all the
children at once (at any rate in winter time), two "sittings-down" are
necessary, and the meal is hurried through so as to allow the second
relay to come in as soon as possible. The children begin their meal as
soon as they enter, without waiting till the others have come in so that
all may begin together in an orderly manner. Grace is said halfway
through the meal. As soon as a child has finished the first course (of
which it is allowed to have a second helping, if desired), it is given a
piece of cake or bun which it eats outside in the street. The
supervision is undertaken by the teachers, but only for a day or two at
a time. This constant change of supervisors makes the teaching of table
manners more difficult. One of the regulations runs that "the supervisor
should see that no child is admitted who has not clean hands and
face,"[271] but to judge from the very dirty state of some of the hands
and faces we saw, this rule seems to be ignored, at any rate at some of
the centres. No special provision is made for the infants; they have the
same food and are placed at the same tables with the bigger children; in
some cases the tables are so high that they have to kneel on the forms
in order to reach their food, and the spoons provided are so large that
it is difficult for them to eat without spilling it.[272] The condition
of the rooms after the children have finished their dinner is anything
but desirable, soup being spilled on the table and pieces dropped on the
floor. Especially was this noticeable at one centre where the meal was
served on desks. These desks were covered with dirty and ragged
linoleum, and the whole surroundings were inexpressibly dreary, the
litter of food on the floor at the end of the meal adding to the general
squalor.
Footnote 271:
Leeds Education Committee, Rules for the Management of Dining Centres.
Footnote 272:
Complaints on both these points had, we were told, been made to the
Education Committee, but, on the score of expense, nothing had been
done.
At West Ham some attempt is made to render the meal educational.[273]
Monitors and monitresses are appointed from among the elder children to
assist in waiting on the others. Table cloths are provided, and in some
cases flowers are placed on the tables. But here again the meal is
spoilt by the sense of rush. Since at each centre there may be twice or
even perhaps three times as many children as can be accommodated at
once, each child is given its dinner as soon as it comes in, and is
dispatched as soon as it has finished. "Table manners, personal
appearance, good behaviour, and punctuality," are indeed, as the
Superintendent of the Centres remarks, "not overlooked; but in these
respects, the results are not as satisfactory as one could desire. The
unusually large numbers of children attending the centres, and the
limited time in which to serve the meals to enable the children to
return in time for school, make it a difficult task to give the
necessary individual attention."[274] At one time school managers and
members of the Children's Care Committee took it in turn to attend the
different centres and supervise the children, but this plan has been
given up, and the supervision is now done solely by the women who
prepare the meals.
Footnote 273:
The meals are served at the schools in some room which is no longer
needed for teaching purposes; in some cases, we believe, in a room
which was specially built as a dining-room. We have included this
example in the third class rather than in the first, since in each
case the school serves as a centre for children from neighbouring
schools.
Footnote 274:
Report of the West Ham Education Committee for the year ended March
31, 1912, p. 52.
Birkenhead affords a striking example of the varying conditions
prevailing in different centres in the same town. In one case a
dining-room has been specially built at the school, this dining-room
serving as a centre for several other schools. No table cloths are used,
but the tables are of white wood, well scrubbed; plants are sometimes
provided, and the whole surroundings are bright and cheerful. The
children were unfortunately allowed to come in as they liked, but in
other respects the discipline seemed good. Table manners were inculcated
and clean hands insisted on. Food had to be finished at table and might
not be taken away. At another centre the conditions were entirely
different. The meals were served in a corridor at the public baths. Two
long narrow tables were placed against each wall, with forms on one
side; on the other side, owing to the narrowness of the corridor, there
was no room for seats, so that some of the children had to stand. The
children entered and left as they liked, and were allowed to take away
food with them. Little effort was made to teach table manners, indeed it
would have been impossible to do much in this respect owing to the
unsuitable character of the premises. It would perhaps be unfair to
dwell too much on the conditions prevailing in this centre, since the
use of these premises was admittedly a temporary expedient (though we
understood they had been used for some time), but the conditions at a
third centre were not very much better. The hall was large, it is true,
and there was plenty of room for the children, but the surroundings were
very dreary. The tables, which were not covered with tablecloths, were
dark and dingy. Here again the children were allowed to straggle in as
they pleased, some as much as half an hour or forty minutes late. They
left as soon as they had finished, frequently carrying away food with
them unchecked. Little attention was paid to table manners and much of
the food was wasted.
(_d_) The three methods which we have described all present one feature
in common. The children, whether fed at the schools, at eating-houses or
at centres, all share with their schoolfellows in a common meal. There
remains one other method, the supply of food to the family for
consumption at home. This is the method adopted at Leicester and, so far
as we know, in this town only. As we have already pointed out, no rate
is levied at Leicester, voluntary funds being declared to be sufficient.
These funds are administered by the Children's Aid Association, a body
composed largely of members of the Charity Organisation Society and
imbued with its spirit. The Association proceeds on the theory that the
provision of meals is simply a form of relief; this being so, the relief
should be adequate, and the family as a whole should be dealt with. The
food is accordingly distributed in the homes,[275] sufficient being
supplied for all the family, not only for those attending school, and it
is given every day, including Sundays, throughout the year. Milk being
the chief article absent from the dietary of the poor, the food chosen
is bread and milk. This is delivered by the ordinary baker and milkman
so that the neighbours should not know that the family is receiving
relief (though as a matter of fact the "bread and milk" families appear
to be well known).
Footnote 275:
Where the home conditions are extremely bad, provision is made for
children to be fed at eating-houses, but such cases are very rare. At
the time of our visit, in July, 1913, there was not one such case.
Certain advantages have undoubtedly accrued from this system. The
parents have learnt the value of milk, and the children have been taught
to take it. At first there was often much difficulty in this latter
respect, but by constant visitation the children's prejudice has been
broken down, and they now relish the food.[276] On the other hand, under
this method of distributing the food in the homes the advantages to be
derived from a common meal are totally ignored. No provision is made to
meet the case where the mother goes out to work all day, and where the
provision of a midday meal at school would be of great value. Moreover,
though frequent visits are paid to the homes at breakfast-time to see
that the children are actually getting the food intended for them, it is
impossible to ensure this in all cases.
Footnote 276:
Second Quarterly Report of the Children's Aid Association, November,
1907, to February, 1908, p. 3.
We have classified the different methods under the above four headings
according to the place where the meal is served, but, as will have been
seen by the examples given, the educational value of the meal is
determined even more by the character of the supervision than by the
nature of the surroundings.
The supervision is frequently undertaken by the teachers. In 1909, the
Board of Education reports that the "assistance of teachers has been the
rule rather than the exception."[277] This service is always rendered
voluntarily, though occasionally, as at Bradford, the teachers receive
some small remuneration.[278] The amount of service given varies widely
in different towns. At Bradford the same teacher will attend the centre
daily for months. In other towns his or her turn may come quite
infrequently, and may only amount to two or three days' service at a
time.[279] Sometimes School Managers, members of the Canteen Committee
or voluntary workers take it in turn to assist in the supervision, but
their attendance is generally spasmodic. At Portsmouth the centres are
entirely in charge of ladies who give their services voluntarily.[280]
As a rule, however, paid superintendents are appointed, too often women
of the caretaker type. In some towns the School Attendance Officer
attends to collect the tickets and helps to maintain order.
Footnote 277:
Report on the Working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act up to
March 31, 1909, p. 17.
Footnote 278:
The head teachers receive 5s. a week for supervising dinners, and 2s.
6d. for breakfasts; the assistant teachers 4s. and 2s. respectively.
At Derby also the teachers are paid. (Report of the School Medical
Officer for Derby, 1911, p. 61.) This payment is very exceptional.
Footnote 279:
At Leeds, for instance, the teacher will perhaps be called on for a
day or two every two months. At Liverpool a teacher is supposed to
attend once a fortnight, but often no teacher at all is present. At
Bootle the turn may be one day a week or a fortnight, or perhaps a
week at a time; here the teachers, we were informed, voluntarily give
their services "under protest," a fact which, when one considers the
conditions under which they are asked to serve the meals, is not
surprising.
Footnote 280:
"The Importance of a Well-Advised and Comprehensive Scheme in the
Selection of Children ... under the Education (Provision of Meals)
Act," by Victor J. Blake, in _Rearing an Imperial Race_, edited by C.
E. Hecht, 1913, p. 24.
The question how far the teachers should be asked to give their services
is a vexed one. On the one hand, where the teacher attends
regularly--and regular attendance is essential if the full benefit from
the meals is to be derived--this extra work involves a great strain.
Especially when the midday interval is only from 12 to 1.30, as in many
provincial towns, the time for rest is seriously curtailed. At Leeds "a
reasonable time is allowed the teachers in charge for their own midday
meal," and they are allowed to arrive late at afternoon school in
consequence of this,[281] but we were told that this permission is not
in practice taken advantage of, as their late arrival would dislocate
the work. Moreover, although the service is supposed to be always
entirely voluntary on the part of the teachers, there is always the
danger that they may feel under a moral obligation to offer their
services. In some cases, the burden seems to fall unduly on a few, only
a small minority offering to assist in the supervision, the others
taking no share.
Footnote 281:
Leeds Education Committee, Rules for the Management of Dinner Centres.
At Bradford it is noticeable that it is as a general rule the men
teachers who supervise the meals; women teachers assist, but the
responsibility for the management of the whole centre seems to involve
too great a strain upon them.
On the other hand, "it is unquestionable that where the teachers are
willing to undertake the work, they are, generally speaking, the most
competent supervisors. The reason for this is not far to seek. The
children, being accustomed to obey the commands of their teachers, are
more ready to behave in an orderly and disciplined manner when under
their supervision than when a stranger is in charge. Moreover, the
teachers' acquaintance with the idiosyncrasies of individual children
enables them to keep an eye on those children who are specially in need
of food or who need persuasion to make them eat the wholesome food
provided."[282] Again, the fact that the teachers are present connects
the meal in the child's mind with the school, and so tends to make it
more a part of the school curriculum, a lesson in table manners. Without
the teacher, Miss McMillan points out, "the whole venture will fail
miserably on the educational side." But it is a mistake to ask the
teachers to serve the food and wait on the children. Their function
should be "to preside and to be the head, and as far as possible the
soul, of the daily gathering,"[283] just as at dinner in a secondary
school.
Footnote 282:
Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, p. 280.
Footnote 283:
_London's Children: How to Feed Them and How not to Feed Them_, by
Margaret McMillan and A. Cobden-Sanderson, 1909, p. 11. We have met
with this ideal arrangement only at one school--a small "special"
school for feeble-minded children at Bradford (see post, pp. 121-2.).
To sum up now the main characteristics of the present methods of serving
the meals, it will be seen that, generally speaking, the conditions are
very far from satisfactory. Even where the Local Education Authority
draws up elaborate regulations for the management of the dining-centres,
these regulations are frequently disregarded in practice by the
supervisors. Too often the object is to get the meal over as quickly as
possible, and inadequate attention is paid to the inculcation of table
manners and the little amenities of a civilised meal. To expedite the
service the food is frequently placed on the table before the children
come in, and it is nearly cold before they eat it. Sometimes the second
course is served and placed in front of the child before it has finished
the first course. The food is almost invariably such as can be eaten
with a spoon and fork, and the children are thus not taught the use of a
knife.[284] Sometimes only a spoon is provided and the help of fingers
is almost unavoidable. We have as a rule found the supply of utensils
fairly adequate, though where water is given it is not always the case
for each child to have a separate mug.[285] It is rare to find any
attempt at table decoration, and table-cloths are by no means universal.
It may be objected that table cloths are expensive and, if the tables
are kept thoroughly clean, unnecessary, but to keep the tables well
scrubbed costs as much as to provide table cloths and the necessity of
keeping the cloth clean is a useful lesson to the child. Sometimes the
food, if of the bread and jam nature, is placed on the table without
plates. In very few cases has the system of utilising the services of
the elder children been adopted with any thoroughness, and the valuable
opportunity of training thus offered is lost.
Footnote 284:
Knives were used at Bradford for a time, but were given up, as it was
found that the children hurt themselves. Their use demands, of course,
much supervision, but they might be given to the elder children at any
rate.
Footnote 285:
At Birmingham "in one school the same mugs [for cocoa] were used twice
over for different children without being washed. The supply of
utensils at several of the schools was too small for the numbers fed."
(_The Public Feeding of Elementary School Children_, by Phyllis D.
Winder, 1913, p. 43.)
(e)--The Provision of Meals during the Holidays.
At the time the Act of 1906 was passed, it appears to have been
generally taken for granted that it empowered Local Education
Authorities to provide meals during holidays as well as during school
time.[286] The circular issued by the Board of Education, asking the
Local Authorities for information as to the way in which the Act had
been administered, contained a question as to the number of children who
were fed during the school holidays, thus assuming that the meals would
be continued; nowhere was it pointed out that the cost of the meals so
provided could not be borne by the rates.[287] Moreover, during the next
two or three years, the accounts of several Local Authorities, who
continued the meals during the holidays, were certified by the Local
Government Board Auditors.[288] About 1909, however, the question was
raised whether Local Authorities could legally spend the rates on
providing meals when the children were not actually in school. The Local
Government Board, on being appealed to by the Newcastle-on-Tyne
Education Authority, replied that they could not concur in any
interpretation of the Act which would empower the authority to incur
expenditure when the closing of the schools precluded the children's
attendance.[289] In August, 1909, the cost of feeding children during
the previous Christmas holidays was disallowed by the Auditor in the
accounts of the West Ham Authority. The Local Government Board, on
appeal, confirmed the disallowance, though they remitted the
surcharge.[290]
Footnote 286:
See preamble to the Education (Provision of Meals) Act Amendment Bill,
July 20, 1910. "This Bill introduces no new principle, but simply
extends the Act to render permissible the continued operation of the
Act during the holidays, a point which, when the original Act was
passing through Parliament, it was generally thought was covered."
Footnote 287:
Report on the Working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, up to
March 31, 1909, p. 48.
Footnote 288:
_Hansard_, July 12, 1910, 5th Series, Vol. 19, pp. 189-190. In 1910,
out of the twenty-five or so Local Authorities who continued the meals
during the holidays, about one-fifth paid for them out of the rates.
(Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1910, p. 255.)
Footnote 289:
_Ibid._, p. 254.
Footnote 290:
_Ibid._, pp. 254-5; Report of West Ham Education Committee for the
year ended March 31, 1910, pp. 45-6.
Since this date, in the great majority of towns where meals are
continued during the holidays,[291] the cost is met by voluntary funds.
Sometimes the Local Education Authority will issue a special appeal for
funds. Or the arrangements may be undertaken by some voluntary society
or by philanthropic individuals. Where no provision is made officially,
the teachers sometimes make arrangements privately for the most
necessitous children to be fed at shops. At Leeds it has become the
custom for the Lord Mayor to provide out of his own purse meals during
the Christmas holidays (the meals being discontinued during the other
holidays); the cost of this provision may amount to as much as £500.
Footnote 291:
The first report which was issued on the Working of the Provision of
Meals Act gave the number of authorities who continued the meals
during the school holidays--at that date 3 out of the 7 counties, and
32 out of the 105 county boroughs, boroughs and urban districts, who
were making some provision under the Act (Report on the Working of the
Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906, up to March 31, 1909, pp.
34-38). No figures are now available.
In one or two towns the charge has been met year after year out of
public funds. At Bradford, for example, the meals have from the first
been continued during school holidays.[292] The expenditure has been
surcharged regularly by the Local Government Board Auditor, but, as we
have said, it has been met out of a grant voted by the Finance Committee
from the trading profits of the Corporation. The Labour Councillors
maintain that when the Act was passed holiday feeding was considered
legal and the ratepayers generally seem to uphold them in this claim, in
spite of occasional protests.[293] At Nottingham the same plan is
pursued.[294] At Portsmouth a grant is made to the Mayor on the tacit
understanding that he will use it for the provision of meals during the
holidays. At West Ham, after the Local Government Board auditor had, in
1909, disallowed the charge for holiday feeding, the cost was for a year
or two borne by voluntary funds.[295] It became, however, increasingly
difficult to raise the necessary subscriptions, and during 1911 £494 was
charged to the rates, the voluntary subscriptions only amounting to
£74.[296] During the following year recourse was again had to the rates.
The Local Government Board Auditor surcharged the expenditure, but the
Board, on appeal, remitted the surcharge, though confirming the
Auditor's decision.[297] At Acton meals have been supplied regularly on
Saturdays[298] and during the school holidays for the past few years
without any question having been raised.
Footnote 292:
Report of Bradford Education Committee for the year ended March 31,
1908.
Footnote 293:
See letter from Bradford Ratepayers Association, in Bradford City
Council Proceedings, August 10, 1909.
Footnote 294:
In London, during the Christmas holidays, 1911-12, meals were provided
out of a sum placed at the disposal of the Chairman of the Council by
the General Purposes Committee, from the balance of the account in
connection with the erection and management of the Coronation
Procession stands. (Minutes of the London County Council, February 13,
1912, p. 2791.)
Footnote 295:
Report of the West Ham Education Committee for the year ended March
31, 1910, p. 46; _Ibid._ for the year ended March 31, 1911, p. 39.
Footnote 296:
_Ibid._ for the year ended March 31, 1912, pp. 50-1.
Footnote 297:
The _East Ham Echo_, August 22, 1913.
Footnote 298:
At Brighton meals were provided on Saturdays by the Local Education
Authority out of the rates till January, 1909, when it was declared to
be _ultra vires_. (Report on the Medical Inspection of School Children
in Brighton for 1908, p. 99.)
The question of the legality of the provision of meals during the
holidays out of the rates is, indeed, an open one. The London County
Council took counsel's opinion on the point in 1909 and again in 1910,
each time receiving the reply that holiday feeding was illegal,[299] but
the question has never been settled by a case in the courts. On special
occasions the Local Government Board have relaxed their prohibition.
Thus, in 1911, Mr. John Burns stated in Parliament that though the Board
would not sanction in advance any expenditure incurred in providing
meals during the week the schools were closed on account of the
Coronation festivities, they would be prepared to consider each case on
its merits, and decide whether any surcharge that might be made should
be remitted or upheld.[300] And in the spring of 1912, during the
widespread distress caused by the coal strike, the Board sanctioned the
provision of meals during the Easter holidays.
Footnote 299:
Minutes of the London County Council, February 2, 1909, p. 121;
Minutes of the Education Committee, November 23, 1910, p. 991.
Footnote 300:
_Hansard_, March 27, 1911, 5th Series, Vol. 23, pp. 1074-5.
On several occasions Bills have been brought in by the Labour party to
legalise the provision of meals during the holidays, the latest being in
April, 1913.[301] So far these efforts have met with no success, though
the Prime Minister declared in 1912 that the Government was favourable
to the principle,[302] but it has now been promised that the forthcoming
Education Bill shall contain a clause enabling Local Authorities to
provide meals on Sundays and during holidays.[303]
Footnote 301:
See Education (Administrative Provisions) Bills, April 14, 1910 (No.
128), February 19, 1912 (No. 18), April 15, 1913 (No. 101), which all
contained a clause for provision of school meals during the holidays;
Education (Provision of Meals) Act Amendment Bills, July 20, 1910 (No.
265); April 19, 1911 (No. 181); March 13, 1912 (No. 82); April 16,
1913 (No. 109).
Footnote 302:
_Hansard_, March 28, 1912, 5th Series, Vol. 36, p. 598.
Footnote 303:
_Hansard_, July 22, 1913, Vol. 55, pp. 1910-11.
There seems indeed to be a general consensus of opinion in favour of
holiday feeding. The experiments made by Dr. Crowley at Bradford in
1907, and by the Medical Officer of Health at Northampton in 1909, which
we shall describe later,[304] not to mention the testimony offered by
numbers of teachers as to the deterioration of the children physically
during the holidays, prove conclusively the need for the continuation of
the meals, if the children are not to lose much of the benefit which
they have derived during term time.
Footnote 304:
See post, pp. 184-7.
In passing we may note that not only do many Local Authorities--how
many we are unable to ascertain, but the number must be
considerable--discontinue the meals during the holidays, but they stop
them entirely during the summer months.[305] In some towns, where
employment is good during the summer, there may be little need for
school meals, but in large towns, such as Bootle and Salford, which
contain a large population who rely on casual labour, it is obvious
that the cessation of the meals during the summer must cause
considerable hardship.
Footnote 305:
This may be through lack of funds, as at East Ham (see ante, p. 56),
but is not always due to this cause.
(f)--The Provision for Paying Children and Recovery of the Cost.
When the Provision of Meals Act was passed it was assumed that a
considerable proportion of the cost of the meals would be borne by the
parents. It was confidently expected that large numbers of parents would
be willing to avail themselves of the provision of a midday meal at
school for their children and would gladly pay for it.[306] The circular
issued by the Board of Education to the Local Authorities pointed out
that the Act aimed at securing that suitable meals should be available
"just as much for those whose parents are in a position to pay as for
those to whom food must be given free of cost."[307] "There will
generally be no difficulty in providing, where it is so desired, a
school dinner at a fixed price in the middle of the day, attended by
children for whom, by reason of distance from the school or because the
mother's absence makes a home meal difficult, the parent prefers to take
advantage of an arrangement similar to that now in operation in most
secondary day schools."[308] Moreover, little difficulty was anticipated
in extracting payment from those parents who could afford to pay but
neglected to do so. These expectations have not been fulfilled. In the
year 1908-9 the sums received from the parents, either contributed
voluntarily by them or recovered after prosecution or threat of
prosecution, amounted to only £295, or .44 per cent. of the total
receipts.[309] In 1911-12 the amount so received had increased but was
still only 1 per cent.[310]
Footnote 306:
See, for instance, _Hansard_, December 6, 1906, 4th Series, Vol. 166,
p. 1283; December 7, 1906, pp. 1340, 1344. See also _ibid._, July 9,
1903, Vol. 125, p. 196, and April 20, 1904, Vol. 133, p. 788.
Footnote 307:
Report on Working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act up to
March 31, 1909, p. 41.
Footnote 308:
_Ibid._, p. 42.
Footnote 309:
_Ibid._, p. 33.
Footnote 310:
The amount was £1,570 out of a total of £157,127. (Report of the Chief
Medical Officer of the Board of Education for 1911, p. 332.)
The smallness of the sums voluntarily contributed by the parents is
largely due to the action of the Local Authorities. In the great
majority of towns in England[311] no serious attempt has been made to
establish "school restaurants"; the Local Education Authority, owing
perhaps to lack of accommodation, perhaps to the difficulty of providing
for a fluctuating number of children (a difficulty felt especially where
the meals are supplied through a caterer), perhaps to the feeling that
the provision of school meals as a matter of convenience would encourage
the mothers to go out to work, has limited the provision to necessitous
children. In 1911-12, out of 118 towns (apart from London) in which
provision was made for underfed children, in only twenty-two were any of
the meals paid for wholly by the parents. The number of children so paid
for was in most cases negligible, the total amounting to only a few
hundreds. And these figures include meals paid for under compulsion
(though without prosecution) as well as meals voluntarily paid for as a
matter of convenience.[312]
Footnote 311:
For provision made for paying children in Scottish towns, see Appendix
II., pp. 242, 245, 246.
Footnote 312:
Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, pp. 325-7, 331. In eleven other towns the parents in some cases
paid part of the cost.
But even where the system of voluntary payment has been tried, it has
been a failure. At Bradford, where a large proportion of married women
work in the mills, it was felt that many parents would take advantage of
a system by which they could obtain a midday meal for their children at
cost price.[313] The Education Committee accordingly sent round a
circular to the head teachers asking them to announce to their scholars
that a good dinner could be obtained for 2d.[314] The response was
disappointing. Comparatively few of the mothers took advantage of the
offer, and the result, though the number of paying children[315] seems
to be larger than in any other provincial town,[316] can only be
described as a failure. This may be partly attributed to the cost. Where
there are several children a payment of 2d. per head may be more than
the parent can afford. But the main cause of failure is undoubtedly the
dislike of the independent type of parent who can afford to pay to
sending his children to meals the majority of which are being given
free. In fact any system which seeks to combine free and paying meals,
the free meals being the chief element, is fore-doomed to failure.[317]
Footnote 313:
"The needs would be met of a host of children who never got a decent
meal." (Councillor North, Bradford City Council Proceedings, February
26, 1907, p. 233.)
Footnote 314:
Extracts from the Annual Reports of the Bradford Education Committee
for the four years ended March 31, 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910, pp. 14,
16. The charge is now 2-1/2d.
Footnote 315:
The numbers given in the Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the
Board of Education for 1911 (p. 325) are 182, but some of these were
paid for by the Guardians. No record, we were told, is kept of the
individual children who pay, but the amount received in 1912-13 from
parents who voluntarily paid the whole cost was £169 19s. 8d. Thus
only some 16,320 meals were wholly paid for, out of a total of
782,979. (Bradford Education Committee, Return as to the Working of
the Provision of Meals Act for the year ending March 31, 1913.)
Footnote 316:
At Finchley as many as two-thirds of the meals are paid for, but the
charge is very low, only 1/2d. per meal. We were informed that the
price would not cover the cost of food if it were not for the fact
that the meat used in connection with the dinners was provided as a
voluntary gift.
Footnote 317:
This was the opinion of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical
Inspection and Feeding in 1905. (See ante, p. 37.) "If no distinction
is made between the paying children and the non-paying children,"
declared one witness, "I feel sure that the Birmingham artisan would
not send his children. He would not let them go to receive a meal in
regard to which it was not known whether it was given free or not."
(Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and
Feeding, 1905, Vol. II., Q. 1246, evidence of Mr. George Hookham.) See
also the evidence given by Mr. F. Wilkinson, the Director of Education
for Bolton. (_Ibid._, Qs. 3115-3119.)
In the Special Schools for mentally or physically defective children,
where the dinner is provided more as a part of the school curriculum
than as a "charity" meal, there is not, as we shall see, much difficulty
in inducing the parents to pay for the meals.[318] In rural districts
also, where the children are in many cases unable to go home at midday,
the system of paying dinners has more chance of success.[319]
Footnote 318:
See post, p. 120.
Footnote 319:
See post, pp. 123-5.