Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for

1910, p. 26.

Footnote 457:

_Ibid._, p. 1.

It is impossible to give any figures as to the extent of this defect,

since nutrition is not a condition which can be measured by any definite

standards. The weight of the child is, of course, a most important

matter to be noted, but there are other points--"the ratio of stature to

weight; the general appearance, carriage and 'substance' of the child;

the firmness of the tissues; the presence of subcutaneous fat; the

development of the muscular system; the condition of the skin and

redness of the mucous membranes; the expression of listlessness or

alertness, apathy or keenness; the condition of the various systems of

the body; and, speaking generally, the relative balance and

co-ordination of the functions and powers of digestion, absorption and

assimilation of food."[458] Each observer adopts a different standard of

what constitutes good nutrition, and hence the statistics given in the

reports of the School Medical Officers cannot be used for comparative

purposes. According to the latest figures, as quoted by the President of

the Board of Education, 10 per cent. of the elementary school children

of England and Wales suffer from defective nutrition.[459] Many of the

School Medical Officers, however, have obviously adopted a low standard

and Mr. Arthur Greenwood, who has made a careful enquiry into this

subject, is of opinion that, "taking the country as a whole, not merely

10 per cent., but probably a number approaching 20 per cent., show

perceptible signs of malnutrition."[460]

Footnote 458:

_Ibid._, p. 26.

Footnote 459:

_Hansard_, April 10, 1913, Vol. 51, p. 1381; _The Health and Physique

of School Children_, by Arthur Greenwood, 1913, p. 48.

Footnote 460:

_Ibid._, p. 50.

Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that the degeneration is

progressive. In an enquiry conducted by Dr. Arkle at Liverpool, 2,111

children from three elementary schools were compared, as to height and

weight, with 366 children from secondary schools. The results (see

accompanying table) showed that at practically every age the heights and

weights of the children varied directly with the class from which they

were drawn, and the deficit increased out of proportion to the rate of

growth. "These figures," he points out, "are rendered all the more

striking when one considers that one is talking of children and not of

full-grown men. A difference of a stone in the weight of two men may not

be a very great matter, but when the investigation shows such a

discrepancy between two groups of boys of eleven, it means that one of

the groups is deficient to the extent of one-fifth of the whole body

weight, and the decadence is so progressive that the deficiency has by

fourteen years of age almost reached a quarter of the whole body

weight."[461]

Footnote 461:

"The Medical Examination of School Children," by Dr. A. S. Arkle, a

paper read at the North of England Education Conference, January, 1907

(reprinted in _School Government Chronicle_, Supplement, January 12,

1907, pp. 77, 89). As we have already said, the nutrition cannot be

determined solely by weight. "In fact," as a School Medical Officer

points out, "an ill-nourished child may be above the average weight,

or, on the other hand, a healthy child may be much under the average

and yet not be ill-nourished." (Report of the School Medical Officer

for Leeds for 1910, p. 27.) But when dealing with large numbers of

children, the average weight furnishes a reliable index of nutrition.

This malnutrition is to be attributed to many causes besides actual lack

of food. Improper food and hurried methods of eating account for much

malnutrition. So much has been written on the subject of the wrong

feeding of children that it seems unnecessary to labour this point. One

can, indeed, hardly open a report of a School Medical Officer without

finding this evil deplored. In the poorest homes there are frequently no

fixed meal times; the children are given "a piece" when they are hungry,

and this is often eaten in the street or on the doorstep. Bread and tea

figure largely in the dietary. Supper is frequently the principal meal

of the day, with resulting indigestion for the children.

Employment out of school hours and want of sleep are again important

factors. Indeed, in the eyes of some School Medical Officers,

malnutrition is due more to want of sleep than to lack of food. The

children are almost invariably kept up till late at night, it being a

rare exception to find a child being sent to bed at anything approaching

a reasonable hour.

A still more potent cause, perhaps, is to be found in bad housing

conditions. Striking testimony as to the relation between the physique

of school children and housing was adduced by Dr. Leslie Mackenzie and

Captain Foster, as a result of an enquiry into the condition of 72,857

school children in Glasgow. "If we take all the children of ages from 5

to 18," they report, "we find that the average weight of the one-roomed

boy is 52·6 lbs.; of the two-roomed, 56·1 lbs.; of the three-roomed,

60·6 lbs.; of the four-roomed and over, 64·3 lbs. The respective heights

are 46·6 inches; 48·1 inches; 50·0 inches and 51·3 inches. For girls the

corresponding figures are:--Weights, 51·5 lbs.; 54·8 lbs.; 59·4 lbs.;

65·5 lbs. The heights are 46·3 inches; 47·8 inches; 49·6 inches; 57·6

inches."[462]

Footnote 462:

Report by Dr. Leslie Mackenzie and Captain A. Foster, on the Physical

Condition of Children attending the Public Schools of the School Board

of Glasgow, 1907, p. v.

At East Ham also the nutrition of the children was found to vary in

accordance with the number of rooms:--[463]

Number of Rooms. Number of Percentage with

Children Nutritional

Examined. Defects.

Children from 2 and 3-roomed 255 17·2

houses

4-roomed houses 486 16·7

5-roomed houses 657 13·2

6-roomed houses 1,486 13·5

Number of Persons per Room.

Less than one 877 9·2

One 576 15·4

Between one and two 1,379 15·2

Two and more 181 17·7

Footnote 463:

Report of the School Medical Officer for East Ham for 1911, p. 56.

The interpretation of these tables, as the School Medical Officer points

out, must be guarded. But, he continues, "I think it is safe to assume

that nutrition ... suffered the more confined the individual."[464]

Footnote 464:

_Ibid._, p. 57.

Actual physical defects, such as decayed teeth,[465] adenoids or

enlarged tonsils, or definite diseases, such as phthisis, may account

for malnutrition in many cases. Want of cleanliness again may be a

cause.[466]

Footnote 465:

The School Medical Officer for Cumberland found that whilst, at the

age of 3 to 4, 28·4 per cent. of the boys and 38·7 per cent. of the

girls were classified as good, "the percentages diminish gradually

till at the age of 7 to 8 they are only 12·8 and 15·9, but from 20·4

and 29·7 at the age of 12 to 13 they gradually rise to 36·0 and 34·6

at the age of 14 to 15. Probably in most cases the condition of the

teeth is responsible for this falling off in condition. In the early

years of life, before the teeth begin to go bad, the nutrition is

good, but gradually gets worse as time goes on and more teeth decay,

but nutrition again improves after the eruption of the permanent

teeth, which, of course, are in the majority of cases sound for some

little time." (Report of the School Medical Officer for Cumberland for

1911, p. 20.)

Footnote 466:

"The cleanliness of the houses and especially of the bedrooms ... has

an important bearing on nutrition." (Report of the School Medical

Officer for Congleton for 1911, p. 4.) A School Medical Officer in

London told us that if a child improved in the point of cleanliness

there was a marked improvement also in nutrition.

The precise effect to be attributed to each cause is difficult to

estimate. Often, of course, two or more factors will be present,

concurrently and interdependently. In an enquiry made in 1910 by Dr.

Chate, into the condition of 570 children (307 boys and 263 girls) in a

rural or semi-rural district of Middlesex who were suffering from

malnutrition, it was found that poverty was the principal cause in 29·5

per cent. of the cases among the boys, and 26·1 per cent. among the

girls. Adenoids, worms, rickets, carious teeth and oral sepsis accounted

for 32·7 per cent. among the boys, and 33·3 per cent. among the girls.

Improper diet was the main cause in 2·3 per cent. of the cases. In 69

cases malnutrition was due to some disease such as tuberculosis, chronic

bronchitis, etc., while in 13 cases it was attributed to overcrowding,

and in 10 cases to overwork with insufficient sleep.[467] In the

following year a similar enquiry was made by Dr. Tate in a suburban

residential area of the same county. Out of 167 cases, defective

nutrition was found to be due to poverty and neglect in 23·3 per cent.;

to rickets, adenoids, worms or digestive disorder in 28·5 per cent.; to

lung affection in 5·4 per cent.; in 7·2 per cent. malnutrition "appeared

to be associated with some previous or present condition of ill-health,

to account for which no organic mischief could be found at the time of

inspection"; while in 33 instances no obvious cause could be

assigned.[468]

Footnote 467:

Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for

1910, pp. 29-30.

Footnote 468:

_Ibid._, for 1911, p. 30.

At Bootle the School Medical Officer reports that out of 289 cases of

sub-normal nutrition, the cause is to be sought in 78 per cent. in some

definite disease or physical defect (including disturbances of digestion

due to improper feeding); in 17 per cent. there are no definite signs of

organic disease; while in 5 per cent. malnutrition is due to

neglect.[469]

Footnote 469:

Report of the School Medical Officer for Bootle for 1912, p. 17.

At Wolverhampton Dr. Badger reports that, out of 131 cases, malnutrition

is due to the influence or reaction of disease, convalescence from

recent disease, or defective heredity in 64; to pampering in 4; to

excessive growth in 1; to overwork and insufficient sleep in 11; to

ignorance and poverty in 25; while in 26 cases there was strong evidence

of neglect, dirt or drink.[470] In his opinion, an opinion based upon a

comparison of the clothing and footgear of the malnourished and normal

children, "the malnutrition of the scholars examined was not primarily

due to poverty."[471] This, as Sir George Newman points out, "may well

have been the case, but the fact that the examinations were 'routine' in

character, when the children are apt to be specially dressed and boots

even borrowed for the occasion, makes this particular item, unless

subjected to further analysis, of little or no value as a criterion in

forming a judgment as to the relation of poverty to the

malnutrition."[472]

Footnote 470:

Report of the School Medical Officer for Wolverhampton for 1911, p.

28.

Footnote 471:

_Ibid._, p. 32.

Footnote 472:

Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for

1911, p. 25.

Other School Medical Officers are of the same opinion as Dr. Badger. At

Congleton the School Medical Officer visited the homes of a considerable

number of children whose nutrition was defective, with a view to

ascertaining the cause of their condition. He found that "actual poverty

of the parents and inability to provide food was comparatively rare,

that neglect was common, and unsuitable food probably the most frequent

cause."[473] At Hornsey in the majority of cases "some definite ailment

was apparent to explain, at least partially, the condition. There were

very few instances in which it could be certainly stated that

insufficiency of food was the sole cause."[474] At Manchester "the vast

majority" of children whose nutrition was medium "and many of those who

were poorly nourished were not in this condition through want of

food.... Each year's work adds to the evidence that poverty is not

responsible for more than about 50 per cent. of the cases."[475] On the

other hand, the School Medical Officer for Kidderminster reports, "I

find that the better condition of trade and employment in the town was

reflected in the improved nutrition of the children.... This also tends

to show that the majority of cases of defective nutrition arise, not

from carelessness and inattention on the part of the parents, but from

inability on their part to provide the children with sufficient

nourishment owing to want of means."[476]

Footnote 473:

Report of the School Medical Officer for Congleton for 1911, p. 4.

Footnote 474:

Report of the School Medical Officer for Hornsey for 1911, p. 14.

Footnote 475:

Report of the School Medical Officer for 1911, in Report of the

Manchester Education Committee, 1910-11, p. 242.

Footnote 476:

Report of the School Medical Officer for Kidderminster for 1911, p. 2.

It is indeed impossible to say how much malnutrition is due to poverty.

Though the immediate cause may be disease, overwork, or overcrowding,

these evils are themselves largely the result of insufficient means.

The relation between the malnutrition of the children and the amount of

the family income is strikingly illustrated by the results of an enquiry

recently made into the diet of the labouring classes in Glasgow. A

careful study was made of the family diet of certain selected families

during a week, or in some cases a fortnight, and the energy value of

each diet expressed in terms of the requirements of a man per day, a

woman or a boy of 14 to 16 being reckoned as equivalent to ·8 of a man,

a girl of 14 to 16 as ·7, and children of 10 to 13, 6 to 9, 2 to 5, and

under 2 respectively as ·6, ·5, ·4, ·3. "If a family diet expressed in

this way gives a yield of energy of less than 3,500 calories per man per

day, it is insufficient for active work, and if less than 3,000

calories, it is quite inadequate for the proper maintenance of growth

and of normal activity."[477]

Footnote 477:

Report upon a Study of the Diet of the Labouring Classes in the City

of Glasgow carried out during 1911-12, by Dorothy E. Lindsay, B.Sc.,

1913, pp. 5-6.

"Taking the average intake of energy and of protein in the various

groups [comprising 52 families], the results are as follows:--

Energy. Protein.

Group A. [Income regular, average 39s.] 3,184 113·8

(excluding LIX. abnormal)

Group B. [Income regular, lodgers kept, 3,316 111·7

average 43s.]

Group C. [Income regular, between 27s. & 3,467 118

31s.]

Group D. [ " " " 20s. & 3,456 117·7

25s.]

Group E. [ " " under 20s.] 2,690 97·8

Group F. [Income irregular, over 20s.] 2,994 108

(excluding XLIV. abnormal) 2,784 101·4

Group G. [Income irregular, under 20s.] 2,797 96·6

Group H. [ " " father 3,155 103·9

drinks]

or, excluding XXVII. abnormal 2,921 95·6

"These figures show conclusively that, while the labouring classes with

a regular income of over 20s. a week generally manage to secure a diet

approaching the proper standard for active life, _those with a smaller

income and those with an irregular income entirely fail to get a supply

of food sufficient for the proper development and growth of the body or

for the maintenance of a capacity for active work_."[478] "An

interesting point in connection with these studies is the influence of

the diet on the physical condition of the children." The weights of a

number of children which were obtained "show very markedly the

relationship between the physique and the food. _When the weight is much

below the average for that age, almost without exception the diet is

inadequate._"[479]

Footnote 478:

_Ibid._, p. 27. The numbers in each group are so small that the

average does not furnish a reliable index, but that the conclusion

drawn from the figures is warranted is shown by the fact that of the

27 families in the first four groups (excluding one case where the

circumstances are abnormal), 8 have a dietary yielding over 3,500

calories of energy and only 6 fall below the minimum of 3,000, while

of the 22 families in the remaining groups (excluding two abnormal

cases), only one has a dietary yielding over 3,500 calories, while no

less than 16 fall below the minimum. (_Ibid._, pp. 12-23.) Here, of

course, again we have the question of wrong feeding. In many cases the

income could have been laid out to better advantage. "Where one family

gets nearly their minimum adequate diet on an expenditure of 5·1 pence

per man per diem ... others on an expenditure of nearly 9d. fail to

secure it." (_Ibid._, p. 29.)

Footnote 479:

_Ibid._, p. 30.

Dr. Larkins, late assistant School Medical Officer for Surrey, also came

to the conclusion "that a steady wage of 20s. a week is required to

produce and properly maintain average strong well-nourished children;

that below this figure, the danger zone is reached." This conclusion was

based on an enquiry he made into the wages of the parents of all

children aged 13 that he examined during a considerable period.[480] The

results are seen in the following table:--

Footnote 480:

The actual number of children examined is not stated.

Average Average Weight General Condition of Average number of

Weekly in lbs. of the children children in family.

Wages. children aged (Percent Very Good / (Total, Under 14,

between 13 and Average / Poor) Over 14)

14.

Over 25s. 99·6 50 / 46 / 4 5·5 3·4 2·1

20s. to 84·1 15 / 73 / 11 5·7 2·8 2·9

25s.

18s. to 77·0 / 56 / 44 6·3 3·8 2·5

20s.

16s. to 72·6 / 42·5 / 57·5 6·6 4·2 2·4

18s.

14s. to 74·3 / 22 / 78 7·6 2·9 4·7

16s.

12s. to 70·8 / 20 / 80 3·6 2·2 1·4

14s.

The wages are the total weekly income out of which everything has to be

paid, including rent, which varies from 4s. to 7s. 6d. ("The Influence

of Wages on the Child's Nutrition," by F. E. Larkins, M.D. Edin.,

D.P.H., late Assistant School Medical Officer for Surrey, in _The

Medical Officer_, December 17, 1910, p. 347.)

The effect of education is, as was recognised thirty years ago, to

intensify the evil of malnutrition. "To educate underfed children," says

Dr. Leslie Mackenzie, "is to promote deterioration of physique by

exhausting the nervous system. Education of the underfed is a positive

evil."[481] "Defective nutrition," says the School Medical Officer for

Blackburn, "to a far greater extent than any other single cause, and

probably more than all other causes combined, renders children incapable

of education. In a growing child the demands of muscle and bone must be

satisfied before those of nervous tissue, and consequently when there is

deficiency, or what comes to the same thing, unsuitability of food or

inability to assimilate it, the nervous system is the first to suffer,

the brain is starved and anæmic, and the extra strain involved in school

work can have only a harmful, and in some cases a disastrous

result."[482] "There is probably no disease of children," says another

School Medical Officer, "which needs combating more than bad

nutrition.... It is quite impossible for any child thus affected to

compete mentally with normal children of similar age; in fact, mental

defect is frequently found in association with malnutrition."[483]

Footnote 481:

_The Medical Inspection of School Children_, by Dr. W. Leslie

Mackenzie, assisted by Dr. E. Matthew, 1904, p. 196.

Footnote 482:

Report of the School Medical Officer for Blackburn for 1911, p. 190.

Footnote 483:

Report of the School Medical Officer for Leeds for 1912, p. 30.

This relation of mental capacity to nutrition was exemplified in the

figures quoted by Dr. Ralph Crowley at the Education Conference in 1907.

He examined 1,840 children in elementary schools at Bradford, and

classified them according to their nutrition and intelligence.

Of the children of exceptional intelligence, 62·7 per cent. were of good

nutrition, 35·6 per cent. were below normal, and 1·7 per cent. were of

poor or very poor nutrition. Of the children who were exceptionally

dull, only 24·9 per cent. were of good nutrition, 39·5 were below

normal, and no less than 35·6 poor or very poor.[484]

Footnote 484:

"The Physical Conditions of School Children," by Dr. Ralph H. Crowley,

North of England Education Conference, January, 1907 (reprinted in the

_School Government Chronicle_, Supplement, January 12, 1907, pp.

80-81).

In an enquiry made at Manchester by the School Medical Officer a few

years ago, it was found on examining 146 poorly nourished and 163

markedly badly nourished children, that 56·1 per cent. of the former

were below par in mental capacity, and 4·8 per cent. were classed as

bad; of the latter 63·2 per cent. were below normal, and 12·9 per cent.

bad.

But the most remarkable results are recorded by Dr. Arkle, of Liverpool,

in the enquiry to which we have already referred. He asked the teachers

to give evidence as to the intelligence of the 2,111 elementary school

children whom he examined. "The teachers in 'A' and 'B' both return

about 60 per cent. of the children as normal in intelligence, but

whereas the former returns 25 per cent. as above and 15 per cent. below

normal, the latter only returns 5 per cent. above and 35 per cent. as

below the normal. But it is in the return from the poorest school that

we get the most curious result. In 'C' the master only feels justified

in calling 22 per cent. of the boys normal, while he puts 33 per cent.

above and 45 per cent. below normal." These figures, "it seems to me,"

writes Dr. Arkle, "can only be explained on one hypothesis. I believe,

and my personal notes tend to confirm this view, that almost all the

abnormal intelligences in the poorest school are due to the one

factor--starvation.... Over and over again I noted such cases of

children without an ounce of superfluous flesh upon them, with skins

harsh and rough, a rapid pulse and nerves ever on the strain, and yet

with the expression of the most lively intelligence. But it is the eager

intelligence of the hunting animal.... I fear it is from this class that

the ranks of pilferers and sneak thieves come, and their cleverness is

not of any real intellectual value. On the other hand, with children of

a more lymphatic temperament, starvation seems to produce creatures more

like automata.... If I told one of these children to open its mouth, it

would take no notice till the request became a command, which had to be

accompanied by a slight shake to draw the child's attention. Then the

mouth would be slowly opened widely, but no effort would be made to

close it again until the child was told to do so.... I believe both

these types of children are suffering from what I would call starvation

of the nervous system, in one case causing irritation and in the other

torpor. And, further, these cases are always associated with the

clearest signs of bodily starvation, stunted growth, emaciation, rough

and cold skin and the mouth full of viscid saliva due to hunger."[485]

Footnote 485:

"The Medical Examination of School Children," by Dr. A. S. Arkle, in

_School Government Chronicle_, Supplement, January 12, 1907, p. 78.

Somewhat similar results were observed by Dr. Badger, the School Medical

Officer for Wolverhampton. In comparing 1,299 normal children of

thirteen years of age with 100 mal-nourished children, he found that,

while of the normal scholars 16·6 per cent. were of good intelligence,

68 per cent. of average intelligence and 15·5 per cent. dull, among the

mal-nourished children the percentages were respectively 16, 59 and

25.[486] This "record in respect of intelligence," points out Sir George

Newman, "shows, what has been noted by other observers, that though the

proportion of children considered as 'dull' by the teachers is

considerably larger among mal-nourished children than among children

generally, nevertheless there are children who suffer serious defects in

nutrition whose mental powers are well above the average. It is

naturally quick and keen children such as these who require care in

order that their physical health may not be further injured by excessive

mental application."[487]

Footnote 486:

Report of the School Medical Officer for Wolverhampton for 1911, p.

24. (Quoted in Report of Chief Medical Officer of the Board of

Education for 1911, p. 24.)

Footnote 487:

Report of Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for 1911, p.

24.

CHAPTER V

THE EFFECT OF SCHOOL MEALS ON THE CHILDREN

Since the causes of malnutrition are so many and diverse it is obvious

that this defect cannot be remedied or prevented solely by the provision

of school meals. But that the provision of wholesome food at regular

hours has a marked effect in the improvement of the physique of the

children, there is abundant evidence.

Unfortunately, though the periodic weighing of children who are

receiving school meals, in order to ascertain the effect produced, has

been strongly advocated by the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of

Education,[488] this advice has rarely been acted upon. It is true that

a few--a very few--Education Authorities profess to have a system of

weighing children who are receiving meals, before they are put on, and

after they are taken off, the feeding-list, but for the most part this

weighing is only done spasmodically, and the records are not accessible.

Footnote 488:

Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for

1911, p. 286.

Several such enquiries have, however, been made in the past, the best

known being that made by Dr. Ralph Crowley at Bradford in 1907.[489] The

results of this experiment have been often quoted, but they are so

important that they will bear repetition. Forty children were selected

from two of the poorest schools in the city, the children being mainly

those who appeared to be most in need of food, though a few were

included primarily on the ground of their particularly poor home

circumstances.[490] To these children from April 17 to July 24 two meals

a day were given--breakfast, consisting of oatmeal porridge with milk

and treacle followed by bread and margarine or dripping, with hot or

cold milk to drink; and a dinner comprising in rotation one of seventeen

different menus specially drawn up so as to contain the amounts of fat

and proteid necessary for a child's nourishment.[491] Every effort was

made to render the meals of as much educational value as possible, and

special attention was given to such matters as the provision of

table-cloths and flowers and the inculcation of good manners.

Footnote 489:

Bradford Education Committee, Report on a Course of Meals given to

necessitous children from April to July, 1907.

Footnote 490:

_Ibid._, p. 3.

Footnote 491:

_Ibid._, pp. 4, 5.

The children experimented on were weighed three times during the five

weeks preceding the starting of the meals, and every week while they

were receiving them. For the purpose of making comparative observations

69 children were selected who were being fed at home, and who in other

respects were as comparable as possible with those who were receiving

the breakfasts and dinners. These "control children" were also weighed

weekly. During the four weeks, March 12 to April 9, before the feeding

began, the forty children gained on an average ·17 kilos, and during the

week previous to feeding ·008 kilos. At the end of the first week of

feeding the average increase was found to be ·58 kilos (1 lb. 4

oz.).[492] During the next week, there was a slight loss of ·001 kilos,

followed by a gain during the next two weeks of ·15 and ·13 kilos

respectively. During the ensuing eleven days, the Whitsuntide holiday,

no meals were given. At the end of this period it was found that the

"control children" who, during the three weeks preceding the holiday,

had lost ·003 kilos on the average, had during these eleven days gained

an average of ·23 kilos; in the case, however, of the children fed at

school, not only had the lack of food neutralised the benefits of fresh

air and exercise, but they had actually lost an average of ·48 kilos, a

loss which it took them nearly a fortnight to make up, after the meals

had been started again. During the eleven days after the holiday the

"control children" only gained ·02 kilos. A group of "control children"

from another school similarly gained ·21 kilos during the holiday, and

only ·04 kilos during the subsequent fortnight. The same result was

observed during the five weeks' summer holiday; the "control children"

gained on an average ·37 kilos (_i.e._, at the rate of ·074 kilos per

week), while the children fed at school lost ·46 kilos.[493] The

accompanying chart illustrates the rate of increase of the two groups of

children. Apart from the increase in weight, the improvement in the

general appearance and carriage of the children who received the meals

"was more or less apparent in all, and very obvious in some of the

children, who visibly filled out and brightened up."[494] The reverse

process was equally apparent after the summer holidays.

Footnote 492:

"The average gain per year of children of this class and size," Dr.

Crowley points out, "is not more than two kilos (4 lbs. 6 oz.) for the

whole year." (_Ibid._, p. 9.)

Footnote 493:

_Ibid._, pp. 9-11. As Dr. Crowley points out, several points have to

be considered in interpreting the effect on weight. "The increase in

the weight of children normally varies greatly at different seasons of

the year," and "at any given season fluctuates much, sometimes,

comparatively, even from week to week. The proportional increase in

weight varies with the age of the child, or rather with the weight to

which the child has already attained." (_Ibid._, p. 8.)

Footnote 494:

_Ibid._, p. 8.

[Illustration: Chart illustrating the average gain or loss in

weight--during the intervals shown--of the children who were fed at

Bradford. The broken line shows the average increase in weight--during

the same time--of the "Control Children."]

At Northampton, in 1909, a similar experiment was conducted under the

supervision of the Medical Officer of Health. Forty-four children were

given breakfast and dinner for fourteen weeks, and weighed weekly,

together with forty children of the same social class who were not

receiving meals. At the beginning of the experiment the average weight

of the fed children was 1·71 kilos less than that of the "controls"; in

the second week their average gain was much greater, and by the end of

the fourteenth week the difference in weight was reduced to 1·02 kilos.

During the Easter holidays of ten days in which no meals were given, the

children who had previously been fed lost in weight while the "controls"

gained.[495]

Footnote 495:

Report on the Working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act up to

March 31, 1909, pp. 14-15.

Another interesting experiment was conducted by Dr. Haden Guest in a

poor school in Lambeth in the early part of 1908.[496] A large number of

children were selected--244--but the attendance of many of these was

irregular and continuous records were obtained in the case of only 89

children. From January 24 to April 11 a midday meal was given six days a

week. The meal consisted of two courses, a normal portion of which was

calculated to be sufficient to supply the amounts of proteids,

carbohydrates, fats and salts, physiologically necessary for children.

The same meal was never given twice in succession, a variation of six

menus being repeated over twelve consecutive days. The room in which the

meals were served was bright and airy, the surroundings having, in Dr.

Guest's estimation, an important physiological bearing on good

digestion. All the children in the school were weighed before and after

the experiment and again in the first week of July, the children who

were receiving dinners being also weighed regularly during the

experiment. Taking first the case of the elder children, we read that

the results "showed a very decided and positive improvement both from

the general standpoint and from that of increase in weight, the fed

children increasing at a more rapid rate than the other children in the

school with whom they were compared."[497] "Starting a good deal below

the normal of their own school mates, they tended, under the influence

of one good meal a day, rapidly to approach that normal." And again,

"the increase in the healthy appearance of the children and in their

general alertness was marked. Children with sores, small abscesses,

colds and blepharitis recovered from these ailments.... The amount of

absence from school due to illness was considerably less during the

course of the experiment." This testimony was fully borne out by the

headmaster. "The effect of the feeding of the children," he declared,

"is a marked improvement judging from the general appearance of the

boys, who are almost all brighter. The improvement is particularly

noticeable in their play. They are more vigorous and enter more heartily

into the rougher games of boys and bear the knocks without coming to the

teacher to complain. They certainly enjoy their play more and show less

fatigue. There are few lads shivering against the walls with hands in

pockets, sloping shoulders and pale faces. In school, the effect during

the first few weeks was drowsiness. This was succeeded by improved tone

and greater independence of character, and generally a greater

individuality. The difference in mental condition is not so marked, and

is certainly more difficult to measure. There is less fatigue in

lessons, and the lads are capable of more continuous exertion." The

teachers' reports on the girls were of the same character, though not so

decided in tone, except on one point--that those who were fed were "more

troublesome," that is to say, more full of spirits, a factor which

appeared also in their play. Turning to the effect of the meals on the

infants a most disquieting state of affairs was disclosed. It was found

that, while the weight of the infants who were fed was less than that of

the other infants of their own school, "the difference was much less

than in the case of the bigger children, the increase in weight in each

case correspondingly slow, and the amount by which both groups fell

below the normal greater." During the first week there was a remarkable

fall in weight among the infants who received meals, ascribable partly

to the fact that they did not receive the necessary attention which was

afterwards given them, partly to the fact that they were unfamiliar with

good nourishing food (a factor operating in the case of the elder

children also, though to a far less degree[498]); largely, however, it

was due to their being "actually unable to digest and assimilate this

food." This slow progress on the part of the infants Dr. Guest

attributed to improper feeding at home. In most Lambeth homes the

younger children received the same diet (the staple articles being tea

and bread and butter) as the older ones, but whereas the latter could

manage on this diet, and, with a good midday meal in addition, even

flourish, the former could not thrive. Dr. Guest therefore advocated

that necessitous infants should be fed at least twice a day, on a diet

different from that given to the elder children, and that more

individual care should be devoted to each child, since in most cases

they required coaxing before they would eat the wholesome food provided.

Footnote 496:

MS. Report on Lambeth School Children Feeding Experiment, by Dr. L.

Haden Guest, 1908.

Footnote 497:

We have, unfortunately, not been able to obtain a copy of the figures

on which Dr. Haden Guest's report is based.

Footnote 498:

In the case of the boys, their weights, during this week, only

increased a little; those of the girls remained stationary.

On the cessation of the meals we find the same result ensuing as we have

already noticed at Bradford and Northampton. For when, in July, 1908,

three months after the meals had been discontinued, all the children

were again weighed and measured, it was found that there was a general

decline in weight; the decline was so general that it was obviously due

partly to a diminution in clothing, but "the necessitous children, who

after the conclusion of the experiment were only fed spasmodically, show

a greater decrease than the other children, pointing to either a

stationary weight during the twelve weeks from April to July or a loss

of weight."

Interesting figures as to the effects of different dietaries were

obtained at Sheffield in 1910. Before this date the meals provided for

necessitous children had taken the form of cocoa breakfasts. As an

experiment at one school some of the boys were given porridge for

several weeks. Their weights were compared with those of a group of

other boys who were receiving cocoa breakfasts at school, and also with

a group of boys who were being fed at home. The two groups of boys who

were fed at school were drawn from equally poor districts, those who

were fed at home being somewhat better off. It was found that the boys

who were receiving cocoa breakfasts only gained on an average ·0451

kilos or 1·58 oz. per week; the boys who were being fed at home gained

·0594 kilos (2·09 oz.); while the boys who were receiving porridge

breakfasts gained as much as ·0942 kilos (3·317 oz.). As a result of

this proof of the superiority of porridge diet, porridge breakfasts were

substituted for cocoa breakfasts in all the schools.[499]

Footnote 499:

Report of Chief School Medical Officer for Sheffield for 1910, pp.

26-27. We may quote here striking results observed in the improved

physique of the children at a special school for cripple children in

London consequent on an improved dietary. A two-course dinner of meat,

potatoes and pudding had been previously given, but in the summer of

1901 it was decided to provide a more liberal and varied dietary,

_e.g._, more hot meat, eggs, milk, cream, vegetables and fruit. The

results were soon apparent. "Partially paralysed children," writes

Mrs. Humphry Ward a few months after the change, "have been recovering

strength in hands and limbs with greater rapidity than before. A child

who, last year, often could not walk at all from rickets and extreme

delicacy and seemed to be fading away, and who in May was still

languid and feeble, is now racing about in the garden on his crutches;

a boy who last year could only crawl on his hands and feet is now

rapidly and steadily learning to walk, and so on.... Hardly any child

now wants to lie down during school time, whereas applications to lie

down used to be common, and the children both learn and remember

better." (Letter from Mrs. Humphry Ward, _The Times_, September 26,

1901.)

At Brighton it has for the last few years been the practice to weigh

before and after the course of meals the children who have been

recommended for feeding on medical grounds. At the end of the last

session, 1912-13, 269 children who had received meals for nine weeks or

more were thus re-examined. It was found that 133 of these, or 50 per

cent., no longer needed meals on medical grounds, that is, they had been

brought over the average weight for a given height.[500]

Footnote 500:

Brighton Education Committee, Report on the re-examination of children

receiving free meals during the winter session, 1912-13.

Where only milk or codliver oil is given a remarkable improvement is

often effected. Indeed, several teachers told us that in their opinion

the provision of milk was more beneficial than either breakfasts or

dinners. At a Bethnal Green school, during the winter of 1909-10, it was

found that out of 57 boys and 109 girls examined at the medical

inspection, 24 of the boys and 61 of the girls were underfed. These

children were given a tea-spoonful of codliver oil in a cupful of warm

milk every day during the morning interval. At the end of the year the

nutrition was re-assessed, with the following results:--[501]

Footnote 501:

Annual Report of London County Council for 1910, Vol. III., p. 130.

Good. Average. Bad.

57 boys Before 4 19 34

After 26 28 3

109 girls Before 3 49 57

After 42 61 6

The results of these experiments are sufficient in themselves to

establish conclusively the benefit to be derived from regular feeding

even when no other factor in the child's environment is changed. "No

doubt," says Dr. Haden Guest, "irregular and late hours, disturbed

sleep, overcrowding, improper clothing and employment of children after

and before school hours, do each and all exercise a very detrimental

effect on the children of poor parents. But that the greatest influence

for evil is exerted by improper and insufficient food is a matter over

which it appears impossible to have great controversy."[502]

Footnote 502:

MS. Report by Dr. L. Haden Guest on Lambeth School Children Feeding

Experiment, 1908.

And these results are corroborated by abundant testimony from School

Medical Officers, teachers, Care Committee workers and others, of the

benefit derived by the children where the Provision of Meals Act has

been put in force. "The children derived an enormous amount of benefit"

from the meals.[503] "The physical appearance of the children speaks in

pronounced terms" of the value of feeding.[504] "Those who have any

practical experience ... are all agreed that such meals [free

breakfasts] are of the greatest value, not only from a humanitarian

point of view but also as a necessary adjunct for successful

education."[505] "There is continuous evidence of the immense benefit

conferred upon the children by the administration of this Act--both from

the inspection of the scholars at the dining-centres and from the

reports of the teachers."[506] These are a few typical opinions culled

from reports of School Medical Officers. At Manchester "the operation of

the provision of free meals acts very largely ... not so much in the way

of improving the physical condition of children already emaciated and

debilitated, but of preventing their ever reaching that condition by

stepping in when the home income fails. It is certain that since the

organisation of the supply of free meals at centres covering practically

all parts of the city where they are required, _the number of underfed

children_--_i.e._, the number showing signs of underfeeding--_has

decreased markedly_. It is also certain that the type of child at the

feeding centres is gradually improving--_i.e._, there are fewer children

found in the centres with signs of the result of bad nourishment, and

there are fewer such children in the schools."[507] At Bradford, where

the Local Education Authority has systematically endeavoured to effect

an improvement in the condition of the children both by the school

medical service and the provision of meals, there has been in the last

few years a very marked improvement in nutrition and "a fairly regular

increase in weight amongst Bradford children as a whole. They are

approaching nearer each year to the national average."[508]

Footnote 503:

Report of School Medical Officer for Macclesfield for 1911, p. 18.

Footnote 504:

_Ibid._ for Workington for 1911, p. viii.

Footnote 505:

_Ibid._ for Hastings for 1911, p. 14.

Footnote 506:

Report of School Medical Officer for Newcastle-on-Tyne for 1910, p.

49.

Footnote 507:

Report of School Medical Officer for Manchester for 1911, pp. 256-7.

In the following year he reports that out of over four hundred

children attending eight feeding centres, only ten cases of markedly

bad nourishment were recorded. (_Ibid._ for 1912, p. 31.)

Footnote 508:

_The Health and Physique of School Children_, by Arthur Greenwood,

1913, pp. 65, 66. "It may perhaps be urged," he continues, "that this

progress is purely accidental; but a close examination of a large

number of school medical officers' reports does not show any general

increase during the few years for which records are available. There

are variations from year to year, of course, but no apparent regular

improvement, except in isolated instances, of which Bradford is one."

(_Ibid._, p. 65.)

The witness of the teachers is no less favourable. In London, for

instance, the Education Committee in 1910 made enquiries among the head

teachers of some of the schools where a considerable number of meals

were provided; the majority of the teachers were enthusiastic as to the

benefit derived. "Physical progress is most marked," said one

headmistress. "The disappearance of chronic headaches, sores on faces,

gatherings on fingers, pains in chest ... point to a more 'fit'

condition, which the children can only express for me by saying that

they 'feel better now,' for they 'are not hungry all the afternoons

now.'"[509] And a headmaster writes, "The change in the children after a

month's provision of suitable and nourishing diet for breakfast and

dinner has been distinctly beneficial. They have been more inclined to

take part in the school sports, into which they have entered with

considerable zest. Their appearance, too, has greatly improved. Their

eyes have become brighter, their cheeks rounded. If, for any reason,

such as temporary absence, they have lost the advantage of regular

feeding, they have almost immediately shown signs of deterioration. When

the period [of feeding] has been prolonged to three or six months, their

health has permanently improved, and their capacity for work and play

has still further developed."[510] "The children on the necessitous

register," says another headmaster, "now fully participate in these

activities [games and sports] and supply rather above their

proportionate number of prominent performers; this is equally true of

swimming. It is indisputable that in the past lack of nourishment, where

it did not entirely exclude, greatly limited the part taken by many

children in this the most attractive side of school life."[511]

Footnote 509:

Annual Report of the London County Council for 1910, Chapter XLI., p.

8.

Footnote 510:

_Ibid._, pp. 8, 9.

Footnote 511:

_Ibid._, p. 9.

We have ourselves questioned numbers of teachers, both in London and the

provinces, on this point. Here and there are found, it is true, teachers

who declare that no improvement is to be observed, perhaps because,

being with the children day by day they do not notice any change. But

the verdict as to the beneficial results of school meals is almost

unanimous. At Bradford we were told that it used to be not uncommon for

a child to faint in school from want of food; such an occurrence is now

unknown. Often children who are dull and listless are found, after a

course of regular meals, to become full of life and spirits. It is

indeed frequently remarked that the children become "naughtier" after

the meals, a sign, of course, of increased vitality.

We find that, as a result of the regular feeding, the resisting power of

the children is increased and they are less susceptible to the

contraction of infectious and other diseases.[512] The attendance at

school is thus improved. At a school in the Potteries, the headmaster

informed us that during the coal strike in 1912, when three meals a day

were given in the schools, there was far less non-attendance than usual

through biliousness, headaches or other minor ailments.[513] At

Liverpool we were told that there has been a considerable improvement in

the regularity of the children's attendance, as a result of the

dinners.[514] Non-attendance may be due, of course, not only to illness,

but also to lack of food. When the parents have nothing to give the

children for breakfast they will encourage them to sleep through the

morning. The headmaster of a very poor school in Liverpool told us that

some years ago, before the Education Committee had undertaken the

provision of meals, the attendance was very bad. He raised a voluntary

fund and provided breakfasts himself. As a result the attendance

improved to such an extent that the increased grant amounted to £74,

which more than covered the cost of the food (£63).

Footnote 512:

Report of School Medical Officer for Bootle for 1912, p. 56; _Ibid._

for Worcester for 1911, p. 14.

Footnote 513:

As we have seen, this result was noticed during the feeding experiment

at Lambeth (see ante, p. 188.)

Footnote 514:

At Bootle, on the other hand, where "it was anticipated that the

movement would have a beneficial effect upon the regularity of the

attendance ... there is no evidence to show that such has been the

case, and it is very doubtful whether the attendance has been

appreciably affected." (Report of the Bootle School Canteen Committee

for 1910-11, p. 8.)

It would be interesting to compare the nutrition of the children in the

Day Industrial Schools, where three meals a day are given. Since the

children in these schools, who, it must be remembered, are drawn very

largely from the poorest and most neglected class, return home in the

evening, the only condition altered is the supply of food. We have,

unfortunately, not been able to obtain any statistics as to the weights

of these children, but we have received ample evidence from teachers and

others as to the very marked physical improvement which is to be

observed after they have been in the schools but a very short time. At

Liverpool some time ago it was found that the children attending the Day

Industrial Schools suffered much from sores and gatherings. On the diet

being altered very considerably, these ailments entirely disappeared,

and the children, we were told, are now in perfect health. At Leeds the

School Medical Officer found that, while of 11,763 children from the

ordinary elementary schools, 5·6 per cent. were of sub-normal nutrition,

the percentage in the same condition among the Day Industrial School

children (of whom 91 were examined) was only 1·1.[515]

Footnote 515:

Report of School Medical Officer for Leeds for 1910, p. 41. The

chairman of the Leeds Education Committee, in giving evidence before

the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, stated, "the supply of three

good meals a day has been of great benefit to the children in

attendance, who compare favourably with the children attending the

ordinary public elementary schools.... They take a good position in

school competitions for swimming, etc., and are particularly smart in

school drills and exercises." (Report of the Royal Commission on the

Poor Laws, 1909, Vol. IV. of Evidence, Appendix LXXXII. (12).)

Let us turn now to the effect of the meals on the mental capabilities of

the children. This effect is, from the nature of the case, less easy to

assess, and the evidence is not so unanimous as on the question of the

physical effect. A minority of teachers assert that no improvement is to

be observed. At Hull, for instance, out of 165 head-teachers who were

asked for their opinions on this point, 76 declared that there had been

a considerable or distinct improvement, 53 that there had been a slight

improvement, and 36 that there was no visible difference.[516] At

Bradford, 134 teachers were of opinion that there had been a

considerable or distinct improvement, 35 that the improvement had been

slight, 35 that no visible difference was to be noticed.[517] "I cannot

say," said the headmaster of a London school, "that the improvement in

mentality has been in any way commensurate with the physical

improvement."[518] On the other hand, a headmistress declared, "there is

undoubted improvement physically and educationally in the necessitous

children supplied with meals at this school. But I confess the fact only

came home to me vividly at our last terminal examination, when I found

three of them headed the class in Standard III. (including all

subjects)."[519] Another wrote, "the girls receiving regular meals have

become more alert, less apathetic, and consequently far more ready to

respond to the teachers' efforts to gain their undivided attention. The

interest thus aroused has led the girls to look upon all branches of

their work with more favour than heretofore. The taste for knowledge

once established, homework has followed with the inevitable results

produced by voluntary effort rather than compulsory work."[520] In North

Kensington the "children who are supplied with milk at school or who are

given breakfast and dinner respond at once to the better feeding, and

show distinct improvement in their class work."[521] At Darlington it

was reported that, "generally speaking, the replies [from the teachers]

were very definite to the effect that the provision of dinners had

assisted the educational progress of the children."[522] And a striking

illustration of the benefit derived from a regular course of feeding is

given us by a medical member of an Education Committee who writes, "I

find the condition of the children much improved by feeding. Some

children who, eighteen months ago, were considered half-witted are now

monitors and monitresses, taking an intelligent interest in their work."

Footnote 516:

Hull Education Committee, Appendix to Minutes of the Provision of

Meals Sub-Committee, October 20, 1911.

Footnote 517:

Report of Bradford Education Committee for the 16 months ended July

31, 1912, p. 10.

Footnote 518:

Annual Report of the London County Council for 1910, Chapter XLI., p.

9.

Footnote 519:

_Ibid._

Footnote 520:

_Ibid._

Footnote 521:

Annual Report of the London County Council for 1910, Vol. III., p.

129.

Footnote 522:

Report of Darlington Education Committee, 1908-10, p. xii.

We have already noticed the improvement in attendance consequent on the

provision of meals. This, of course, assists in the educational

progress, not only of those children who before attended irregularly,

but of the whole class, since the others are no longer kept back by the

irregular attenders.

Too much importance cannot be attached to the training of the children

in habits of self-control and thoughtfulness for one another. For this

training the common meal furnishes an excellent opportunity. As we have

seen, far too little attention is paid to this aspect of the question.

It is true that, even where the meal is served in a somewhat

rough-and-ready fashion, leaving, in the eyes of the educationalist,

much to be desired, we have generally been informed that there has been

an improvement in manners. At first the children, many of whom,

probably, had rarely sat down to a meal before, would throw the food at

each other or on the floor, and the scene was often a pandemonium. Some

sort of order has been evolved out of this chaos. But how far this falls

short of what might be effected is seen when one compares the great

majority of feeding-centres all over England, not necessarily the worst,

with a small minority, such as some of the Bradford centres, or one or

two London centres, where the meal is truly educational. It is

interesting to hear that, when recently a party of children were sent to

the Cinderella Holiday Home from one of the Bradford schools and the

supervisor was particularly requested to notice those who had been

receiving meals, it was found that they alone knew how to behave at

table, and that the others learnt from them.

In another direction the school meal may have an educational result of

the highest importance. Children in all ranks of life are notoriously

conservative in the matter of food and shy of venturing on unknown

dishes, but with the poorest class of children it is not only

"faddiness" which has to be contended with; the unaccustomed food,

however wholesome for the normal child, actually does not agree with

these chronically underfed children. As was pointed out at the time of

the passing of the Provision of Meals Act, "one great merit of this Act

... will be the teaching and training of a child in the matter of taste.

At present it is a well known physiological fact that the slum stomach

cannot accommodate itself in a moment to good, wholesome food. The child

has been accustomed to tea and jam and pickles, and to food that is

often more tasty than nourishing. It will now eat under public and

_medical superintendence_ and gradually a pure and simple taste will be

cultivated."[523] That this prophecy is in process of being fulfilled

may, we think, with justice be claimed. There still exists a certain

amount of difficulty in inducing the children to take food to which they

are unaccustomed, but that this difficulty can be surmounted by the

exercise of tact and attention to individual needs has been practically

demonstrated again and again. Over and over again we have been told the

same tale, "at first the children would not eat this or that dish, but

now they have learned to like it." Especially is this the case with

porridge. At first, wherever this was given, it was found that many

refused to eat it, but this antipathy was gradually overcome, and the

children finally ate it with relish.[524] It is amusing to find that at

St. George's-in-the-East, where a porridge breakfast was devised as a

test of need, it being thought that no child would come who was not

really hungry, the children now like the porridge so much that this diet

no longer furnishes a test. Where the children do not learn to eat what

is provided, it always turns out, on further enquiry, that the

supervisors have failed, either because of the large numbers whom they

have to look after or, perhaps, through lack of enthusiasm, to devote

that careful and detailed attention to the children without which it is

quite impossible to bring about any change.

Footnote 523:

_Child Life and Labour_, by Margaret Alden, M.D., 1908, p. 108.

Footnote 524:

Thus, to quote one of many instances, at Bradford, when porridge

breakfasts were given in the experiment of 1907, it was found that the

first morning thirteen refused to eat it; the next morning only two

refused, and after that all ate and enjoyed it. (Bradford Education

Committee, Report on a Course of Meals given to Necessitous Children

from April to July, 1907, p. 4.)

Moreover, it is encouraging to notice that this education of the

children in the matter of taste is not without its effect on the home

diet. This was observed as long ago as 1895. In giving evidence before

the Committee of the London School Board, Mrs. Burgwin declared that, as

a result of the porridge breakfasts given to the school children, there

was "an increasing demand upon the local shop-keepers by the poor

families themselves."[525] "At first," said Miss Honnor Morten, "the

children did not care for porridge, but the result of the breakfasts has

been that many now persuade their parents to make it for them."[526]

"The children," says Lady Meyer, who has started penny dinners in

connection with the Health Centre at Newport, "act as missionaries to

their mothers, comparing the meals at the Health Centre with those at

their homes, much to the disparagement of the latter, which quickly

brought the more intelligent mothers to the centre to 'see how it was

done.'"[527]

Footnote 525:

Report of the Special Committee of the London School Board on Underfed

Children, 1895, Appendix I., p. 7.

Footnote 526:

Report of the General Purposes Committee of the London School Board on

Underfed Children, 1899, Appendix I., p. 12.

Footnote 527:

_A Health Centre and Dental Clinic in a Rural District, Newport,

Essex_, 1911, p. 6.

As far as the children are concerned, indeed, whether we consider the

improvement in physique, mental capacity or manners, there is no doubt

that the provision of school meals has proved of the greatest benefit.

CHAPTER VI

THE EFFECT ON THE PARENTS

The evidence which has been presented in the preceding chapter as to the

benefits resulting from the feeding of school children would have

evoked, fifty, or even twenty years ago, a simple and decisive retort.

Granted, it would have been argued, that the health and educational

capacity of the children is deteriorated by lack of nourishment, that

irreparable and preventible damage is inflicted, and that the provision

of meals by a public authority averts this evil for many and mitigates

it for all; yet no plea of immediate expediency can stand against the

ultimate loss involved in any public assumption of the cost of providing

maintenance for children. If a local authority supplies part, even a

small part, of their food, parental responsibility is, _pro tanto_,

diminished, with results disastrous not only to the character of the

parents but to the prospects of the children themselves. For if parents

receive assistance in one direction from a public authority, they will

soon clamour to receive assistance in other directions as well. In order

to qualify for it, they will neglect their children, who will thus

benefit in one way only to be victimized in others. The children

themselves, having been fed from public funds, will be trained in habits

of dependence, and, when they grow up, will insist on still further

provision being made for their children in their turn. Thus one tiny

breach in the walls of the family will insensibly be widened till it

admits a flood in which domestic affections and the integrity of the

home, "relations dear, and all the charities of father, son, and

brother" are submerged.

If such anticipations seem exaggerated, they have nevertheless played an

important part in determining the policy pursued in England towards more

than one question, and lie behind many of the criticisms which are

passed on certain recent forms of social intervention. The idea that

relief given to the child must be regarded as relief given to the

parent, and that, if given at all, it must be accompanied by severe

restrictions, was enunciated emphatically in the Poor Law Report of

1834--indeed that famous document scarcely mentions children except in

so far as the treatment of adults is influenced by these appendages--and

has since become a settled part of Poor Law policy. The fear that

parental responsibility might be weakened was a criticism brought

against the Education Act of 1870, against the abolition of school fees

in 1894, and against the provision of medical treatment for school

children under the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act of 1907.

Naturally, therefore, the public provision of meals for school children

has not escaped the criticism that it would weaken the bond between

parent and child and ultimately result in "the breaking up of the home."

"To remove the spur to exertion and self-restraint," reported a special

committee of the Charity Organisation Society in 1887, "which the

spectacle of his children's hunger must be to any man in whom the

feelings of natural kindness are not altogether dead, is to assume a

very grave responsibility, and perhaps to take away the last chance of

re-establishing the character and fortunes of the breadwinner, and, with

him, the fortunes of the whole household. It is true, no doubt, that

there are parents who are past redemption by influences of this kind,

but the majority of the committee are of opinion that it is better in

the interests of the community to allow, in such cases, the sins of the

parents to be visited on the children than to impair the principle of

the solidarity of the family and run the risk of permanently

demoralising large numbers of the population by the offer of free meals

to their children."[528]

Footnote 528:

"Charity and Food," report of a Special Committee of the Charity

Organisation Society, 1887, p. 16. For later expressions of the same

line of criticism, see, for instance, "The Relief of School Children,"

by M. Clutton and E. Neville (C.O.S. Occasional Paper), March, 1901,

pp. 4, 6; "Underfed School Children," by Arthur Clay (C.O.S.

Occasional Paper), May, 1905, p. 3; "The Feeding of School Children,"

by Miss McKnight, in _Charity Organisation Review_, July, 1906, p. 37;

"A New Poor Law for Children," by Rev. H. Iselin, in _Charity

Organisation Review_, March, 1909, p. 170.

Now it is obvious that an economic policy which was determined primarily

by a consideration for the "solidarity of the family" would lead to

far-reaching measures of industrial reorganisation. If the ideal is a

society in which "the bread-winner" is by his "exertion and

self-restraint" to guarantee "the fortunes of his whole household," the

immediate object of attack must be those industrial evils which

effectually prevent him from doing so at present, and of which the

principal are low wages, casual labour, recurrent periods of

unemployment and bad housing. That a crusade conducted in the interests

of the family against these regular features of modern industry is

entirely desirable need not be questioned. But in its absence it is

obvious that, so far from allowing "the sins of the parents to be

visited on the children," what we are really doing is to allow the sins

of the employer to be visited on the employed or the sins of the

community to be visited upon future generations of unborn children, and

it seems almost frivolous to ascribe the results of this constant and

vicarious sacrifice to the measures which, like the provision of school

meals, are directed merely to the partial mitigation of some of its

worst effects. The truth is, to put the matter bluntly, that what breaks

up the family is not the presence of food but its absence, and that, if

the public conscience is unperturbed by the spectacle of numerous homes

in which economic circumstances have deprived the parents of the means

of providing meals for their children themselves, its sudden

sensitiveness at the thought of meals being provided by some external

authority would be ludicrous if it did not lead to such tragic

consequences. The reader who reflects on the thousands of dock-labourers

in London, Liverpool and Glasgow who, through no fault of their own, can

obtain only three days' work a week, or on the 25 to 30 per cent. of the

working-class population of Reading who have been shown by Professor

Bowley to be receiving a total family income below the low standard

fixed by Mr. Rowntree,[529] and to be receiving it, in 49 per cent. of

the cases, because they are "in regular work but at low wages,"[530]

will scarcely argue that the mere provision of meals, however

injudicious he may regard it, is likely to contribute seriously to the

weakening of family relationships which have been already strained or

broken by industrial anarchy or industrial tyranny. _Sublata causa

tollitur effectus._ But does any one seriously believe that a cessation

of school meals would restore the desired "solidarity of the family" to

the casual or sweated labourer?

Footnote 529:

"Working-Class Households in Reading," by Professor A. L. Bowley, in

_The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society_, June, 1913, p. 686.

The minimum standard for food was computed by Mr. Rowntree, in 1901,

as 3s. for an adult, and 2s. 3d. for a child. This standard has been

raised by Professor Bowley to 3s. 6d. and 2s. 7d. respectively, since

prices in Reading in 1912 were about sixteen per cent. higher than at

York in 1901. The diet on which Mr. Rowntree based his computations

was mainly vegetarian, and his minimum standard assumed a knowledge of

food values and perfectly scientific expenditure. (_Ibid._, p. 684.)

Taking a slightly different standard, Professor Bowley computes that

"_more than half the working-class children of Reading, during some

part of their first fourteen years, live in households where the

standard of life in question is not attained_." (_Ibid._, p. 692.)

Footnote 530:

_Ibid._, p. 693.

If the suggestion that the provision of meals is a _principal_ cause

undermining parental responsibility is fantastic, is the suggestion that

it must necessarily exercise _some_ influence in that direction better

founded? We shall deal later with such facts as can be used to throw

light on this question. But we may point out here that the idea

underlying it usually derives part of its cogency in the minds of many

of its supporters less from any concrete evidence than from an implicit

assumption that there is a "natural" division of duties between public

authorities and the individual citizen, and that any redistribution of

them between these two parties, which removes one function from the

latter to the former, must necessarily result in the undermining of

character, the weakening of the incentive to self-maintenance, the decay

of parental responsibility, in short, in all the phenomena of the

process known as "pauperisation." Now we need scarcely point out that,

stated in this crude form, the theory that every assumption of fresh

responsibilities by public authorities results in the undermining of

character has no foundation in the experience of mankind. It is, of

course, quite true that any sudden removal from an individual of duties

which he has hitherto been accustomed to discharge may result in

weakening the springs of effort. It is also quite true that any sudden

addition to his responsibilities may result in crushing them, and that,

as far as the more poorly paid ranks of labour are concerned, energies

are far more often worn out in a hopeless struggle than sapped by an

insidious ease. But by themselves these facts prove nothing as to the

_manner_ in which burdens, duties, responsibilities, should be

distributed between the community and its individual members. What

experience shows is that there is no "natural" allocation of functions,

but that there has been throughout history at once a constant addition

to, and a constant re-arrangement of them, and that the former process

is quite compatible with the latter. Nor is there any ground for the

idea that the extension of the activities of public bodies must

necessarily result in accelerating the approach of the state of economic

and moral inertia described by those who anticipate it as "Pauperism."

If that were the case, all civilised communities would, indeed, have

been hastening to destruction from a time "whereof the memory of man

runneth not to the contrary." For our fathers had no elementary

education, our grandfathers no municipal water, and few lamp-posts;

while our great-grandfathers enjoyed the independence derived from the

possession of relatively few roads, and those of a character

sufficiently bad to offer the most powerful incentives to the energy and

self-reliance of the pedestrian. On this theory the citizen of

Manchester would be more pauperised than the citizen of London; both

would be seriously pauperised compared with the peasant of Connemara;

while the wretched inhabitants of German municipalities would be

wallowing in a perfect quagmire of perpetual pauperism. Why indeed

should one stop here? There have been periods in history in which not

only these functions, but the organisation of justice and the equipment

of military forces have been left to the bracing activities of private

individuals; and an enquiry into the decline and fall of individual

independence would, if logically pursued, lead us into dim regions of

history far anterior to the Norman Conquest. The origins of modern

pauperism, like the origins of modern liberty, are to be sought among

"the primeval forests of Germany!"

While, however, there is no foundation for the doctrine that every

extension of public provision results in a slackening of energy on the

part of the individual, it is, none the less, possible that this may be

the result of the particular kind of provision which consists in the

supplying of meals to school children. In the event of that being proved

to be the case, it is by no means easy to say what policy should be

pursued. Public authorities, it may be argued, should cease to provide

school meals. To this answer, which is at first sight plausible, there

are two objections which are together almost insuperable. The first is

that Education Authorities are under a legal obligation to provide

education for the children in their charge and to carry out medical

inspection with a view to discovering their ailments; while they may, if

they think fit, provide medical treatment for them. They owe it to their

constituents to spend their money in the most effective and economical

manner. Education given to children who are suffering from want of

nourishment not only is ineffective, but may be positively deleterious.

When the extent of malnutrition is known, is it reasonable to expect the

Authorities deliberately to shut their eyes to the fact that so far from

benefiting the children who suffer from it they may be positively

aggravating their misfortunes? If it be replied, _ruat coelum fiat

justitia_, let the children suffer in order to improve the moral

character of their parents, an Education Committee may not unfairly

retort that it is elected primarily to attend to the welfare of the

children, and that the wisdom of elevating parents, who _ex hypothesi_

are demoralised, at the cost of the rising generation is, at any rate,

too problematical to justify it in neglecting its own special duties.

Moreover, even assuming that public bodies were willing to apply to the

education of children the principles recommended in 1834 for the

treatment of "improvidence and vice," there is no reason to suppose that

they would succeed in averting the "pauperisation" which is dreaded. No

fact is more clearly established by the history of all kinds of relief

administration since 1834 than that the effect of refusing to make

public provision for persons in distress is merely to lead to the

provision of assistance in a rather more haphazard, uncoordinated and

indiscriminate manner by private agencies. A purely negative policy is

systematically "blacklegged" by private philanthropists. Rightly or

wrongly the plain man finds his stomach turned by the full gospel of

deterrence; with the result that, while the English Poor Law is

nominally deterrent, enormous sums are spent every year in private

charity in London alone; that in 1886 the Local Government Board

recommended local authorities to provide relief for certain classes of

workers apart from the Poor Law, on the ground that the Poor Law, for

whose administration the Local Government Board is responsible, is

necessarily degrading; and that, finally, a special Act had to be passed

in 1905 creating authorities to administer assistance for unemployed

workmen whom public opinion would no longer allow to be left to the

tender mercies of a deterrent policy of Poor Relief. That the same

result would follow with even greater certainty were public bodies to

decline to provide for necessitous school children is obvious, inasmuch

as to the foolish sentimentality of the ordinary person the sufferings

of childhood make a special appeal. Indeed it has followed already. In

the days when Education Authorities had no power to spend public money

on the provision of meals for school children, what happened was that

the provision of meals was begun by private persons, and in the towns

which have not put the Act of 1906 into force such private provision

obtains at the present day. Such extra-legal intervention has all the

disadvantages ascribed to the public provision of meals, for one can

scarcely accept the extravagant contention that while soup supplied by

an Education Authority pauperises, soup tickets supplied by a

philanthropic society do not. And it has few of its advantages. For

private philanthropy tends to be more irregular and arbitrary in its

administration than most public authorities. Since it cannot cover the

whole area of distress, its selection of children to be fed is more

capricious; since its funds are raised by appeals _ad misericordiam_

they often fail when they are needed most; and when, as often happens,

more than one agency enters the field, the result is overlapping and

duplication. Nor will it seem a minor evil to those who care for the

civic spirit that even the best-intentioned charity can never escape

from the taint of patronage, can never be anything but a sop with which

the rich relieve their consciences by ministering to the poor.

The statement that the feeding of school children weakens parental

responsibility presumably means that the provision of meals at school

induces parents to neglect to provide meals themselves. When one turns

from these general considerations to examine how far this result has

actually occurred, one is faced with the task of sifting a few grains of

fact from a multitude of impressions. The first and most essential

preliminary to the formation of any reasonable judgment is to determine

the circumstances of those families one or more of whose members are

receiving meals at school; and in order to throw some light on this

point we give, in the following table, such particulars from six areas

as are available:--[531]

Footnote 531:

The figures for Birmingham are taken from _The Public Feeding of

Elementary School Children_, by Phyllis D. Winder, 1913, pp. 47-55;

those for St. George's-in-the-East, from "The Story of a Children's

Care Committee," by Rev. H. Iselin, in _Economic Review_, January,

1912, p. 47; those for Stoke, Bradford, St. Pancras and Bermondsey

from case papers that we have analysed. These figures must not be

taken as more than a somewhat rough indication of the state of

affairs, for it is not always easy to determine precisely into which

category a particular case should be put. Probably the proportion of

casually employed is somewhat understated; of the twenty-six, for

instance, who are classed as unemployed at Birmingham, roughly

one-third belonged to the class of permanent casuals, but were totally

unemployed at the date of the enquiry. (_The Public Feeding of

Elementary School Children_, p. 48.)

Causes of Stoke. Bradford. Birmingham. School School in

distress in St. Bermondsey

Pancras.

Unemployment 16 11 26 9 13

Casual 3 26 54 8 18

employment

Short time 5 3 8 -- --

Regular work -- 16 6 1 2

but low wages

Illness or 15 19 47 5 9

disablement of

father

Widows 16 41 40 10 9

Desertion or 3 32 19 2 2

absence of

father

It will be seen that the four largest classes of families consist of

those in which the father is casually employed, is disabled by illness

or accident, is dead or is unemployed. If one adds to these 605 families

the 41 in which the father is paid low wages or is working short time,

there is a total of 646 out of 718 families in which distress is due

either to industrial causes or to a misfortune. Since men do not usually

contract illness or die in order that their children may be fed at

school, there is no question of the responsibility of the father being

weakened in the 285 cases in which death or ill-health was the cause

which led to the provision of school meals.

It is often argued, however, that the public provision of assistance is

itself one cause of the distress which it is designed to relieve,

because it must necessarily exercise a deteriorating influence over

industrial conditions. The knowledge that his children will be fed is

likely, it is said, to lead a man to relax the demands which he makes on

his employer. The knowledge that he need not offer a subsistence wage

for a family leads the employer to offer worse terms to his employees,

more irregular employment or lower rates of wages, with the result that

the ratepayer relieves the employer of part of his wage bill. Cut off

all public assistance, and "economic conditions will adjust themselves

to the change." Now it is perfectly true that the need which prompts the

provision of school meals does normally arise from bad industrial

conditions, and that to allow those conditions to continue while merely

mitigating their effects is an offence against morality and an outrage

on commonsense. Whether school meals are desirable or not for their own

sake, it is the right of the worker that industry should be organised in

such a way that he should be able to provide for his children in the

manner which he thinks best, and that he should not be compelled (as he

often is at present) to choose between seeing them fed at school and

seeing them half-starved at home. But the theory which we have stated

goes much further than this. It holds that public provision is a _cause_

of bad industrial conditions, and that the mere abolition of public

provision would _in itself_ result in those conditions being improved.

It is obvious that, as far as certain economic evils are concerned, this

doctrine does not hold good. Many children are underfed because their

parents are suffering from sickness or accident incurred in the course

of their employment. Clearly an employer will not be induced to render

his processes safe merely by the fact that his employees' children will

suffer if they are unsafe. Many children are underfed because their

parents are casually employed or altogether unemployed. Equally clearly

there is no reason whatever to suppose that casual labour would cease

because of their starvation; for if that were the case it would have

ceased long ago. Nor again does the more specious doctrine that the

wages of men are lowered by the provision of food for their children

rest upon a securer foundation. In the nature of things it can neither

be verified nor disproved by an appeal to facts; for the controversy is

not concerning facts but concerning their interpretation. If we point

out that in Bradford, when the Education (Provision of Meals) Act was

first adopted in 1907, the majority of children fed were children of

woolcombers, dyers' labourers, carters and builders' labourers, and that

since 1907 the first three classes of workers have all received advances

of wages, it may, of course, be answered that the advance would have

been still greater if the children had not been fed.[532] In reality,

however, the more this theory that the feeding of school children acts

as a subsidy to wages is examined, the weaker does it appear.

Historically it is traceable to the popular rendering of Ricardo

introduced by Senior into the Poor Law Report of 1834, and it still

contains marks of its origin. It assumes, in the first place, that wages

are never above "subsistence level." For, clearly, if they are above it,

there is no reason why they should be lowered if the cost of keeping a

family is somewhat reduced. It assumes, in the second place, that they

are never below the subsistence level of a family; for clearly, if they

are, that in itself proves that the absence of public provision has not

been able to maintain them. It assumes, in the third place, that the

ability of workers to resist a reduction or to insist on an advance

depends not upon the profitableness of the industry, nor upon the

strength of their organisation, but solely upon their necessities. Of

these assumptions the first two are untrue, and the last is not only

untrue, but the exact opposite of the truth. In reality, as every trade

unionist knows, the necessities of the non-wage earning members of a

family do not keep wages up; they keep them down. A man who knows that a

stoppage of work will plunge his family in starvation has little

resisting power, and acquiesces in oppression to which he would

otherwise refuse to submit. It is the strikers' wives and children who

really break many strikes, and if the pressure of immediate necessity is

removed the worker is not less likely, he is more likely, to hold out

for better terms.

Footnote 532:

We may note that there are very few cases where the fathers of the

children who are receiving school meals are, at the time, in regular

work. (See table on page 211.) Many authorities refuse to consider

such cases, while, where they are not necessarily barred, they amount

as a rule, so far as we have found, except at Bradford, to a very

small proportion of the total number of cases dealt with. In London a

few committees have several such cases on their feeding-lists--a

member of one committee, indeed, informed us that the fact that a man

had a large family and low wages was, till recently, taken as a reason

for granting meals to his children--but the great majority of

committees either refuse to feed such children at all, or only do so

in infrequent and exceptional circumstances. One or two instances were

quoted to us where, as it was alleged, the provision of meals for the

children had induced the father to acquiesce in the acceptance of a

low wage without demanding an increase or seeking more remunerative

employment. Thus we were told of a man who was formerly in charge of

two furnaces at a wage of 24s. a week; one furnace was shut down, and

he was offered the charge of the remaining one at 15s. This he

accepted and the Care Committee had been feeding his children for a

whole year. In another case, a man who was out of work, and was having

all his children fed at school, took a job at 15s. a week, a wage

which, it was asserted, he would not otherwise have agreed to. But in

such instances, infrequent and isolated as they are in any case, it is

often found on analysis that the father, through some physical or

mental infirmity, is incapable of performing a man's work, and unable,

therefore, to earn more wages.

Nor is there much more substance in the theory that the provision of

meals by a public authority weakens family life by "undermining parental

responsibility." We are not, of course, concerned to deny that in the

working classes as well as in the propertied classes there are a certain

number of persons who are anxious "to get something for nothing." Cases,

no doubt, do arise in which a parent who knows that the needs of his

children will partially be met by the food supplied by an Education

Authority may for that reason contemplate their fate when abandoned by

him with less apprehension. At most, however, such cases constitute only

10 per cent. of those on the table, and the wisdom of withholding

assistance from the remaining 90 per cent. merely in order to bring

pressure upon this small fraction of all the families concerned is, to

put the matter at the lowest, highly questionable. Moreover, even

assuming that children who are neglected by their parents should be made

to suffer in order to teach the latter a moral lesson, what probability

is there that the lesson will be appreciated? In those families where a

father is contemplating the desertion of his home, family relationships

must obviously be weak and unstable. Is it seriously suggested that the

mere fact that a public body is known to provide meals for children in

attendance at school is sufficient to tilt the scale; that a man who is

willing, _ex hypothesi_, to contemplate relinquishing his wife and

younger children to the Poor Law will be deterred from leaving them

merely by anxiety as to how the children of school age will obtain their

midday meal; and that, when his apprehensions upon this point are

removed, he will hasten to avail himself of his freedom in order to

abandon them to much more serious evils than the loss of one meal per

day? Such a suggestion carries its refutation on its face. When family

life has been so disintegrated that a man is contemplating the desertion

of his wife and children, he is not likely either to be encouraged to do

so by the mere fact that meals for school children are provided by a

public body, or deterred from doing so by the fact that they are not.

And a similar answer may be made to those who argue that "the result of

feeding children at school is merely to encourage their parents to spend

more upon drink." No one, of course, would deny that, if a man has

already formed the habit of indulging his tastes without regard to the

consequences, an increase in his means will enable him to spend more

upon such indulgence. But that is a very different thing from accepting

the implication that every accession in the income of a class merely

leads it to fresh extravagance. The evidence, indeed, points in the

opposite direction. During the last forty years there has been a great

extension of public provision and a rise in money wages. Yet it is a

matter of common knowledge that the consumption of alcoholic liquor per

head of population has diminished and is still diminishing.

In reality, however, the idea that any large number of parents misuse

the public provision of meals appears to be quite without any solid

foundation, and to be a hasty generalisation from exceptional cases,

which, because they are exceptional, are recorded by charitable persons

with pious horror, and are given an undeserved and misleading notoriety.

Almost all the actual evidence available points in the opposite

direction. Again and again has it been stated to us that parents

withdraw their children from the school meals as soon as an improvement

in their circumstances enables them to provide food at home.[533]

Indeed, it is often said that they withdraw them before they can

properly afford to do so, and before the Canteen Committee thinks it

wise for the school meals to be stopped, while many refrain from

applying for meals until they are driven to do so by actual necessity.

The truth is that behind the talk on parental responsibility which finds

favour in certain sections of society--especially those where it is

customary for parents to pay for their children to be fed at school

during 30 to 40 weeks of the year--there is a considerable amount not

only of ignorance but of hypocrisy. These critics are apt entirely to

overlook the fact that during the last hundred years parental

responsibilities, so far from being diminished, have been multiplied by

the State. Middle-class parliaments have insisted that working-class

parents should send their children to school, should dispense with the

help of their earnings, should provide them with food, clothing and

medical aid. More important, they forget that to insist on

"responsibility" is meaningless unless the means of discharging it are

available; for one cannot blame a man for failing to do what he wishes

to do, but which he is prevented from doing by _force majeure_. Now this

is precisely the position of the majority of such parents as are aided

by school meals. _They_ did not fix the wages of adult men at 18s. a

week; _they_ did not ordain that employment at the ports of London and

Liverpool and Glasgow, and in a score of other trades, should be a

gamble. _They_ did not decree that those who direct industry should at

intervals of five to seven years find it convenient to curtail

production and turn their employees on to the streets. They are born

into a world where this is the established social order, an order which,

as individuals, they are impotent to alter. If some of them occasionally

give up a struggle which must often seem hopeless, at whose door does

the blood of these men and their children lie? If it is desired that

every man should regularly provide the whole maintenance of his family,

then industry must be organised in such a way as to make it possible.

Till that is done, to blame working people for acquiescing in

circumstances which they did not create and which they detest is not

only cruel but absurd. When every competent worker is secured regular

employment and a living wage, it may be desirable that forms of public

provision which exist at present should cease--though, even so, it is

possible that the educational value of school meals will lead to their

being continued. Till that happy condition is brought about they must be

not only continued, but extended and improved.

Footnote 533:

At Bradford a few years ago an enquiry was made with the object of

discovering how far parents were obtaining the meals under false

pretences. Two criteria were taken, firstly, whether the parents'

statements as to the income earned were corroborated by their

employers; secondly, how far the parents voluntarily withdrew their

children from the school meals when their circumstances improved. As a

result of this enquiry it appeared that not more than 2-1/2 per cent.

were unduly taking advantage of the meals. In many cases, where the

parents' statements as to income did not tally with the employers'

statements, it was found that the parents, in giving their average

earnings, had overstated instead of understating them.

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSIONS

The provision of meals for school children is, as we have pointed out,

merely an attempt to mitigate some of the evil effects of industrial

disorganisation. The principal end at which Society should aim is the

removal of the causes, low wages, casual employment, recurrent periods

of unemployment, and bad housing, which make them necessary. But

meanwhile, as long as economic conditions remain as they are, some

provision must be made for the present generation of school children.

And the provision of school meals is not merely a question of relief, it

is also a preventive measure. "Every step ... in the direction of making

and keeping the children healthy is a step towards diminishing the

prevalence and lightening the burden of disease for the adult, and a

relatively small rise in the standard of child health may represent a

proportionately large gain in the physical health, capacity, and energy

of the people as a whole."[534]

Footnote 534:

Report of Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for 1910, p.

1.

Granted, therefore, that the school meal is, for the present at any

rate, a necessity, the question remains, for what children shall this

meal be provided. We have described the methods of selection at

present in force. We have seen that, though a few children are given

school meals because they are found by the School Doctor to be

ill-nourished, the great majority are selected by the teachers on the

ground of poverty, a method which involves an enquiry into the

parents' circumstances. We have shown some of the disadvantages

inherent in this method of selection. The enquiries deter parents from

applying. It is impossible for the teachers to discover all cases of

underfed children. If the child is told by its parents to say that it

has plenty to eat at home, how is the teacher to know that it is

underfed? It is difficult, and in many cases quite impossible, to

ascertain the amount of income coming in. Even if this could always be

accurately ascertained, it would be difficult to discriminate with

justice since other circumstances vary so widely. The enquiry is

demoralising for the parents, putting a premium on deception and

creating a sense of injustice. So unsatisfactory, indeed, has this

system of investigation into income proved to be that there is a

general consensus of opinion among adherents of the most opposing

schools of thought that it must be given up. "As a Guardian of the

poor and a member of the Charity Organisation Society, and in many

other ways," says the late Canon Barnett, "I have come to see that no

enquiry is adequate. I would not trust myself to enquire into any

one's condition and be just. Enquiry is never satisfactory and is

always irritating.... _I believe it is enquiry and investigation and

suspicion which undermine parental responsibility._"[535] Even so firm

a supporter of Charity Organisation Society principles as the Rev.

Henry Iselin would, we gather, prefer to the present inadequate system

of investigation the provision of a meal for all children who like to

come, without enquiry, though he would, of course, make the conditions

of the meal in some way deterrent.[536] In discussing what is the best

method to be adopted we must, therefore, rule out any plan which

involves an enquiry into the family income.

Footnote 535:

Report of Select Committee on Education (Provision of Meals) Bills

(England and Scotland), 1906, Qs. 2290, 2312. (The italics are mine.)

Footnote 536:

See post, p. 222.

(i) We may consider first the proposal that the selection should be made

by the School Doctor, school meals being ordered for all children whom

he finds to be suffering from mal-nutrition. This method, which is

strongly recommended by the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of

Education, has been adopted in a few towns, but only to a very limited

extent and always in subordination to the system of selection based on

the "poverty test." The selection by the "physical test" would obviate

all the disadvantages arising from the demoralising enquiry into the

parents' circumstances. On the other hand, the practical difficulties

would be very great. At present a child is normally examined by the

doctor only two or three times during the whole of its school career.

Under the system proposed frequent examinations would be necessary,

which would entail an enormous increase in the school medical staff.

But, however frequent the examinations, the discovery of all underfed

children would not be assured. It is not always possible for the doctor

to determine the cause of malnutrition in any particular case; hence

many children would be included who get plenty of food at home, but yet,

from some other cause, do not thrive. More important, numbers of

children would be excluded who fail to get sufficient food but who yet

appear healthy. As a School Medical Officer points out, "temporary lack

of food does not stamp the child in such a way that it is possible to

detect past privations by ordinary inspection."[537] The underfeeding

might be prolonged for a considerable time before its effects were

apparent. But it is essential that underfeeding should be discovered

before the child shows definite signs of malnutrition, since the object

to be aimed at is to prevent its ever getting into this state. The

physical test, therefore, forms too narrow a basis to be satisfactorily

employed, at any rate as the sole test, in the selection of children to

be provided for.

Footnote 537:

Report of School Medical Officer for Leicester for 1912, p. 34.

(ii) We will consider next the plan to which we have already alluded,

the provision of meals, free and without enquiry, for all children who

like to come, it being understood that the meals are intended only for

"necessitous" children, _i.e._, those children who through poverty are

unable to obtain an adequate supply of food at home. Those who aim at

making this provision in some way deterrent suggest a breakfast of

porridge, the time of the meal and the nature of the food providing a

test of need. "As the man inside the workhouse must not have better, but

a decidedly worse, treatment than the man outside, so if the food be

nourishing but not too palatable it may chance that only the truly

necessitous may apply."[538] Children who can obtain food at home will

prefer to do so. But it is found in practice that it is not only the

children who can get sufficient food at home who are deterred by such a

device, but that the "truly necessitous" also refuse to come. Such a

system, in fact, defeats its own ends. It is futile to provide meals for

all underfed children and at the same time to make that provision so

deterrent that those for whom it is intended decline to avail themselves

of it. Even if there is no intention of making the provision deterrent,

the idea that the meals are meant only for necessitous children will, in

fact, make it so; many parents will prefer to feed their children at

home on a totally inadequate diet rather than disclose their poverty by

sending them to the school meals. The "poverty test" in fact, in

whatever form it may be applied, will exclude numbers of children whom

it is desirable to provide for.

Footnote 538:

"A New Poor Law for Children," by Rev. Henry Iselin, in _Charity

Organisation Review_, March, 1909, p. 170.

(iii) The two methods that we have described would each leave a large

class of children without provision. The first would fail to discover

numbers of children who are underfed, but who do not show obvious signs

of malnutrition. The second would not touch those cases where the

children cannot get sufficient food at home, but where the parents are

too proud to accept school meals for them. A combination of the two

methods would remove both these objections. The provision of meals, free

and without enquiry, for all necessitous children, would secure the

feeding of the majority of those who are underfed, while the School

Doctor would generally discover those cases where the parents try to

conceal the fact that they cannot give their children sufficient food at

home. For these children the doctor would, of course, order school

meals. This method would not obviate the necessity of a great increase

in the school medical service. Moreover, by any of the methods

discussed, provision would be made only for underfed children. There

would remain the hosts who are unsuitably fed; the worst of these cases

would, of course, be discovered by the doctor, but only the worst cases.

And, again, no provision would be made for the children whose mothers

are at work all day and consequently unable to provide a midday meal,

and for whom the school dinner would be a great convenience, for which

the parents would, in many cases, be willing to pay.

(iv) There remains the only logical conclusion, the provision of a meal

for all school children, as part of the school curriculum. Such a

provision need not necessarily be compulsory, though it should be so in

all cases where the School Doctor recommends it. From every point of

view, the psychological, the medical and the educational, the advantages

to be gained from such a course would be enormous. General provision for

all would do away with all pauperising discrimination between the

necessitous and the non-necessitous. On the medical side it would be

difficult to over-estimate the benefits to be secured. On this point the

Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education has recently pronounced

in no measured terms. "From a purely scientific point of view," he

declared, "if there was one thing he was allowed to do for the six

million children, if he wanted to rear an imperial race, it would be to

feed them.... The great, urgent, pressing need was nutrition. With that

they could get better brains and a better race."[539] The beneficial

results already observed in the case of children who have received a

regular course of school meals would be extended to all. Then, again,

the common meal would serve as an opportunity for the exercise of many

little acts of consideration for one another. The teachers would be

brought into more intimate relations with the children, for they get to

know the children better at meal time than in any other way. The school

meal would serve as an object lesson; taken in conjunction with the

teaching of housewifery and cookery in the schools, it would speedily

raise the standard in the homes. There would be another advantage.

Adequate rest after the meal could be insisted on, followed by healthy

play in the open air in the playground instead of in stuffy rooms and

backyards. In the rural districts, as we have already shown, it is

imperative that dinner should be provided for all who want to stay.

Numbers of children are unable to return home, and it is almost

impossible for the parents to provide suitable cold food for them to

take with them; even when they can go home to dinner they frequently

have a long walk, with the consequence that the meal must be eaten

hastily and the children hurry back to school immediately afterwards.

Footnote 539:

Report of Proceedings of University Extension Oxford Summer Meeting,

1913, p. 17.

If general provision is made, ought the parents to be required to pay or

should the meal be free to all? The first plan has much to recommend it

and has been advocated in many quarters. At the recent conference at the

Guildhall on School Feeding, for instance, there appeared to be a

general agreement in favour of this course. The experience of the

Special Schools for Defective Children, and some of the rural schools,

where a midday meal or hot cocoa is provided, shows that numbers of

parents are able to pay, and there does not appear to be much difficulty

in collecting the payment.[540] And in the ordinary elementary schools,

where little provision is made for paying cases, it would appear that

there does exist a certain demand for such provision.[541] On the other

hand, it must be admitted that it is a question whether any large number

of parents would voluntarily pay for their children's meals when it was

known that provision was made for all and that other children were

receiving the meal free. The payment would have to be left to the

parent's conscience, for any attempt to try to decide in which cases

payment should be insisted on and in which it should be remitted would

introduce again the evils of the present system, with its demoralising

enquiry into the parents' circumstances--though in a somewhat mitigated

form, since no distinction would be made between the paying and the

non-paying children, and the latter would not be marked off as a

separate class as at present. Another difficulty, though a minor one,

would arise in the fixing of the price to be charged. In the more

prosperous districts the dinner might be self-supporting, but in the

poorest localities it would hardly be possible to charge an amount

sufficient to cover the cost of the food.

Footnote 540:

See ante, pp. 120, 123-5, 155-6.

Footnote 541:

In the ordinary elementary schools in some of the Scottish towns,

large numbers of children pay for the dinners. (See Appendix II., pp.

242, 245, 246.)

The provision of a free meal for all would obviate these difficulties.

It will be objected at once that such a plan will undermine parental

responsibility, but, as we have shown in the previous chapter, communal

provision of other services has not had this result. And against this

lightening of parental burdens must be set the continual increase of

duties which are being placed upon them. A more serious objection lies

in the expense. Taking the cost of a school dinner at 2-1/4d. per

head,[542] the provision of one meal a day for five days a week during

term time for all the six million school children in England, Wales and

Scotland would cost about £12,500,000. This is, of course, an outside

estimate, for it would probably be found that a considerable number of

parents would prefer to have their children at home to dinner rather

than send them to the school meal; and the provision might be confined

to schools in poor districts. To the actual cost of supplying the meals

there must be added the initial outlay incurred in providing

dining-rooms and appliances.[543] On the other hand, there would be a

great saving of time and energy which is now consumed in making

enquiries. And the provision of school meals would tend to diminish the

amount which will otherwise have to be spent in the near future on

medical treatment. Food, as Sir George Newman has pointed out, is of

more importance than drugs and surgical treatment, and if regular meals

were provided there would be much less need for school clinics.[544] The

expenditure on the provision of school meals would, indeed, be

nationally a most profitable investment; it would be amply justified by

the improved physique of the rising generation and by the consequent

increase in their efficiency. It would be far more productive, in fact,

than much of the money which is now spent on education, than the outlay,

for instance, on the erection of huge school buildings, an outlay the

necessity of which is becoming more and more questionable in the light

of the proved superiority of open-air education.

Footnote 542:

The cost depends, of course, on the kind of food provided. At

Bradford, where a two-course dinner is given, the total cost per meal,

for administrative charges (the upkeep of the Cooking Depot, the rent

of the dining-rooms, the wages of the staff, payment for supervision,

the carriage of the food, sinking fund, etc.), amounted in 1912-13 to

1·2d., and for food to 1·26d., making a total of 2·46d. About

one-third of the meals supplied were breakfasts, which are usually

rather cheaper than dinners, so that the cost per dinner would be

slightly more. (Bradford Education Committee, Return as to the Working

of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act for the year ending March

31, 1913). At Edinburgh, where a one-course dinner is given, the cost

is ·9d. for food and 1d. for administrative charges. (Report of the

Edinburgh School Board for 1912-13, p. 35.)

Footnote 543:

We must add one other item of expenditure, which will be necessary

whatever course be adopted with regard to the provision of meals,

namely, the appointment of salaried organisers for each group of

schools, to supervise the work of medical treatment, after-care, and

all other activities directed to the physical well-being of the child.

Footnote 544:

Report of Proceedings of University Extension Oxford Summer Meeting,

1913, p. 17.

Unfortunately the general provision of a school dinner will not be a

complete solution of the problem. There will remain the children for

whom one meal a day will not be sufficient, while the discontinuance of

the meals during the holidays will cause them serious suffering.

Experience has amply shown the necessity of the meals being continued

during the holidays and power must be given to the Local Education

Authorities to make this provision when it is required. They must also

be allowed to provide an additional meal for those children for whom

dinner alone is not sufficient. Any proposal to limit the provision to

one meal could not, indeed, be seriously entertained, for numbers of

Local Authorities are already supplying this extra food and would resist

any curtailment of their powers in this respect. But when we come to

consider for what children this additional provision shall be made, we

are face to face with all the old difficulties of selection. Obviously

it cannot be made for all. Perhaps the best method would be to provide

for all children who liked to come, whilst attendance should be

obligatory on those for whom the School Doctor ordered extra

nourishment. Such a prospect would be viewed with alarm by many, but the

numbers to be provided for would probably not be excessive, if it was

understood that this extra provision was intended only for necessitous

or delicate children. It is found that the attendance drops off

considerably during the holidays, and that it is always less for a

breakfast than for a dinner; it requires more exertion to come in time

for breakfast, while the fare provided is not so popular. Probably the

danger would be rather on the side of too few children being provided

for than too many.

No plan that can be proposed is free from disadvantages. And this brings

us back to the point at which we started in this chapter. From the

nature of the case, no attempt to deal with effects only, while causes

remain untouched, can be wholly satisfactory. Provision must be made for

the present generation of school children; their necessities must be

relieved and future inefficiency due to underfeeding in childhood must

be prevented. But at the same time, and above all, a determined attack

must be made on the evils which lie at the root of the children's

malnutrition. Industrial conditions must be so organised that it is

possible for every man himself to provide for his children at least the

requisite minimum of food, clothing and other necessaries.

_Summary of Conclusions_

1. That, so long as economic conditions remain as they are, the

provision of school meals is a necessity.

2. That no method of selection of the children who are to receive the

meals can be satisfactory, and that all attempts at picking and choosing

should, therefore, be abandoned. The meal should be provided for all

children who like to come, without any enquiry into their parents'

circumstances. Attendance should be compulsory if recommended by the

School Medical Officer.

3. That the meal should be regarded as part of the school curriculum and

should be educational. It should be served, as far as practicable, on

the school premises, in rooms which are not used as class-rooms; the

plan of sending the children to eating-houses or to large centres should

be discontinued. Some of the teachers should be present to supervise the

children, who should be taught to set the tables and to wait on one

another. The meal should be served as attractively as possible.

4. The dietary should be drawn up in consultation with the School

Medical Officer, with a view to the physiological requirements of the

children, special attention being paid to the infants.

5. The preparation of the food should not be entrusted to caterers, but

should be undertaken by the Local Education Authority.

6. The meals should be continued throughout the school year, and, if

necessary, during the holidays.

APPENDIX I

EXAMPLES OF MENUS

(1) Bradford

SPRING DIETARY, 1913

Dinners to be repeated every four weeks

1st week:

Monday. Brown vegetable soup. Rice pudding.

Tuesday. Cottage pie; green peas. Stewed fruit.

Wednesday. Potato and onion soup. Plum cake (Cocoanut cake alternate

months).

Thursday. Meat and potato hash; beans. Rice pudding.

Friday. Fish and potato pie; parsley sauce; peas. Ground rice.

2nd week:

Monday. Potato and onion soup. Rice pudding.

Tuesday. Shepherd's pie. Stewed fruit.

Wednesday. Yorkshire pudding; gravy; peas. Sago pudding.

Thursday. Scotch barley broth. Currant pastry.

Friday. Fish and potato pie; parsley sauce; peas. Rice and sultanas.

3rd week:

Monday. Brown vegetable soup. Rice pudding.

Tuesday. Meat and potato hash; beans. Stewed fruit.

Wednesday. Potato and onion soup. Ginger pudding and sweet sauce.

Thursday. Stewed beef and gravy; mashed potatoes. Baked jam roll.

Friday. Fish and potato pie; parsley sauce; peas. Semolina pudding.

4th week:

Monday. Potato and onion soup. Wholemeal cake.

Tuesday. Hashed beef and savoury balls. Rice pudding.

Wednesday. Yorkshire cheese pudding; peas and gravy. Stewed fruit.

Thursday. Shepherd's pie; green peas. Sago pudding.

Friday. Fish and potato pie; parsley sauce. Rice and sultanas.

(2) Leeds

WINTER DIETARY

Repeated week after week.

Monday. Pea soup; brown and white bread. Parkin.

Tuesday. Shepherd's pie; brown and white bread. Buns or cake.

Wednesday (except during Advent and Lent)--Irish stew; brown and white

bread. Parkin.

Wednesday (during Advent and Lent)--Lentil and tomato soup (alternately

with fish pie); brown and white bread. Parkin.

Thursday. Crust pie; brown or white bread. Buns or cake.

Friday. Lentil and tomato soup (alternately with fish pie); brown and

white bread. Parkin.

(Some other kind of cake or bun is now sometimes substituted for

parkin.)

SUMMER DIETARY

Monday. Rice pudding; stewed fruit. Currant cake.

Tuesday. Shepherd's pie; brown and white bread. Seed cake.

Wednesday. Crust pie; brown and white bread. Currant cake.

Thursday. Potted meat sandwiches. Rice pudding.

Friday. Lentil and tomato soup; white and brown bread. Buns.

(3) West Ham.

WINTER DIETARY.

Monday. Irish stew. Brown bread and jam.

Tuesday. Lentil soup. Baked currant pudding.

Wednesday. Roast mutton; potatoes; haricot beans; bread.

Thursday. Mince. Suet pudding; jam or stewed fruit.

Friday. Soup. Rice with jam or treacle.

(During summer lighter food is substituted.)

(4) Acton.

Monday. Soup and bread. Currant roll.

Tuesday. Stewed meat; cabbage; potatoes.

Wednesday. Soup and bread. Plain suet pudding with syrup.

Thursday. Irish stew and potatoes. Plain pudding.

Friday. Soup and bread. Rice pudding.

Saturday. Stewed meat and two vegetables.

This menu is theoretically repeated week after week throughout the year,

but in practice it is not always strictly adhered to.

(5) London.

_Dinners which may be supplied by the Alexandra Trust._ (_See Minutes of

the L.C.C., Dec. 17, 18, 1912._)

WINTER MENU.

1. Haricot bean soup; bread. Treacle pudding.

2. Fish and potato pie; bread. Baked raisin pudding.

3. Pea soup; bread baked in dripping. Fig pudding.

4. Stewed beef or mutton; dumplings; steamed potatoes; bread.

5. Beef stewed with peas; dumplings; potatoes; bread.

6. Mutton stewed with haricot beans; steamed potatoes; bread. Suet

pudding.

7. Meat and potato pie; bread.

8. Meat pudding.

9. Toad-in-the-hole; potatoes; bread.

10. Rice pudding; two slices of bread and butter.

SUMMER MENU.

1. Rice pudding; two slices of bread and butter.

2. Toad-in-the-hole; potatoes; bread.

3. Meat pies; potatoes; bread.

4. Meat pudding; potatoes; bread.

5. Cold meat pie; fruit roll.

6. Meat sandwich; piece of cake.

7. (For Infants) Hot milk and bread; fruit roll.

DINNERS FOR INFANTS

1 Liquid part of winter dinner menus, Nos. 4, 5, 6.

2 Rice, tapioca, macaroni or barley pudding, with two slices of sultana

bread and butter.

3 Stew--very fine mince.

4 Baked custard, with bread and butter.

5 Savory custard, with bread and butter.

(6) Grassington (Yorkshire)

SAMPLE MENUS[545]

Footnote 545:

There appears to be no fixed dietary, the dinners being varied each

week.

Monday. Haricot bean soup; bread. Steamed suet pudding and treacle.

Tuesday. Meat and potato pies with crusts on. Rice pudding.

Wednesday. Onion soup; bread. Steamed ginger pudding; sweet sauce.

Thursday. Meat and potato pie with crusts on. Sago pudding.

Friday. Yorkshire pudding; gravy; mashed potato. Marmalade pudding;

sweet sauce.

Monday. Potato soup; bread. Steamed ginger pudding; sweet sauce.

Tuesday. Meat and potato pies with crusts on. Cornflour pudding.

Wednesday. Pea soup. Plain plum puddings; sweet sauce.

Thursday. Meat and potato pies with crusts on. Rice pudding.

Friday. Shepherd's pie (minced meat, mashed potato). Sago pudding.

APPENDIX II

THE PROVISION OF MEALS IN SCOTLAND