Chapter II: The Administration of the Education (provision of Meals) Act (1)

We propose in this chapter to describe the manner in which the Local Education Authorities are administering the Act of 1906. We shall see that the adoption of the Act has been by no means universal and that in many towns provision is still made by voluntary agencies. Where the Act has been put in force we shall find the greatest diversity of practice in such matters as the selection of the children, the dietary provided and the manner in which the meals are served. One Local Authority will construe its duties under the Act in the narrowest sense, cutting down the number of children to be fed to the minimum, and serving the meals with the least possible expense. Another authority will look on the school meal as a valuable means for improving the physique of its scholars; it will endeavour to secure that all children who are underfed shall be given school meals; the dietary will be carefully planned, while, in the matter of the service of the meals, the aim will be to make these in every way educational. We shall see that meals are as a rule given only during term-time, holiday feeding out of rates being held to be illegal, while many authorities limit their operations to the winter months. Most authorities have confined their provision almost entirely to necessitous children, the plan of providing meals as a matter of convenience for children of parents who are at work all day or are otherwise prevented from preparing a midday meal, and who would be able and willing to pay for school dinners, finding but little favour. We shall describe the arrangements made in the Special Schools for defective children, where a dinner is provided either for all children attending the school or for all those who care to stay, and in the Day Industrial Schools, where the provision of three meals a day for all is the rule. We shall discuss the extent to which the provision of meals by the Local Education Authority overlaps the relief given by the Poor Law Guardians. Finally we shall touch upon the question of underfeeding in the rural districts, where the problem is little less urgent than in the towns.

(a)--The Adoption of the Act.

The Provision of Meals Act came into force on December 21, 1906. As we have seen, it was merely permissive and its adoption was, therefore, only gradual.[176] Many Local Education Authorities contented themselves with making arrangements with voluntary agencies, the Education Committee continuing the already common practice of providing accommodation and apparatus, and the voluntary society providing as hitherto funds for the food. Thus, at Hull, the Education Authority co-operated with the Hull School Children's Help Society, which had been founded in 1885 for the provision of free meals. This arrangement was continued till 1908, when the Society's funds were exhausted and recourse was had to the rates.[177] At Scarborough, the Amicable Society, which had been founded in 1729 "for clothing and educating the children of the poor of Scarborough," arranged with the Education Authority that the provision of meals should be organised through a Joint Committee of the two bodies.[178] At Liverpool, where the provision of meals had been undertaken since the early part of 1906, before the Act was passed, by a voluntary committee consisting of members of the Education Committee, the Central Relief Society, the Guardians and others, this system was continued for some years. In spite of strenuous opposition in 1908 from the Labour party and the local Fabian Society, who complained that the numbers fed were far below the number in need of food, and that no proper attempt was made to ascertain the extent of the need, a special committee appointed by the Education Committee to investigate the whole question reported that the existing voluntary system was adequate. It was not till November, 1909, that the Education Committee resolved that, "after full consideration of the circumstances and after having regard to the fact that it has been necessary to call upon the general public on two occasions during each year for subscriptions to the funds, the Committee cannot but conclude that the time has now come when the provisions of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906, should be put into force, and, therefore, _though with great reluctance_," they recommended that application be made to the Board of Education for power to levy a rate.[179]

Footnote 176:

Aston Manor was the first town to apply for authority to levy a rate.
Bradford, Manchester, and other towns soon followed. During the year
ended March 31, 1908, 40 authorities were authorised to levy a rate.
During the two following years the number was increased to 85 and 96
respectively. (Report on the Working of the Education (Provision of
Meals) Act up to March 31, 1909, p. 8; Report of the Board of
Education for 1908-9, p. 123; ditto for 1909-10, p. 62.)

Footnote 177:

Appendix to Minutes of the Hull Education Committee, October 22, 1909.

Footnote 178:

Report of the Scarborough Amicable Society for 1910, pp. 5, 8.

Footnote 179:

"Feeding the Children," by H. Beswick, in the _Clarion_, October 11,
1912.

Leicester, perhaps, furnishes the most notable example of the survival of the voluntary principle. In 1906, when the Provision of Meals Bill was before Parliament, the Town Council appears to have been in favour of it. After the Act was passed, however, the Leicester branch of the Charity Organisation Society opposed its adoption. At a conference between representatives of the Charity Organisation Society and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a scheme was formulated for administering the Act from voluntary funds. The scheme was accepted by the Town Council, and the formation of the Children's Aid Association was the result.[180] This body consists chiefly of members of the Charity Organisation Society and of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, with a small minority representing the Education Committee. In spite of considerable opposition from the Labour party, who demand that the Act shall be put into force, meals are still provided by this Association out of voluntary funds.[181]

Footnote 180:

First Annual Report of the Leicester Children's Aid Association,
1907-8, p. 3.

Footnote 181:

For a description of the methods adopted, see post, pp. 96-7. A
somewhat similar system is in force at Chesterfield, where the
arrangements for feeding are made by the Civic Guild, the expense
being borne out of their funds. The Education Committee is represented
on the General Council and Executive Committee of the Guild in a
general sense, not in connection with feeding alone. Cases of children
requiring food are reported by the Attendance Officers, and are fed at
once by the Guild, investigation being made afterwards. If help is
found necessary the whole family is adequately relieved. Arrangements
are usually made for the children to be fed at eating-houses. The
number of children so dealt with is very small.

This delay on the part of the Local Authorities in towns where, it was asserted, it was notorious that children suffered from want of food,[182] led to an attempt to make the School Medical Officer responsible for determining whether or not it was necessary to put the Act in force. In December, 1908, a Bill was introduced by the Labour party with the object of providing that, when requested by the Education Committee, by a majority of the managers, or by the head teachers, the Local Authority should provide for the medical inspection of the children for the purpose of determining whether they were suffering from insufficient or improper food; if the medical inspector reported that the children were so suffering, the Local Authority should be obliged to provide food. The Bill was not proceeded with, and the same fate befell four similar Bills introduced within the next five years.[183]

Footnote 182:

_Hansard_, April 23, 1909, 5th Series, Vol. 3, p. 1797.

Footnote 183:

Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill, December 8, 1908; February
19, 1909; April 14, 1910; February 19, 1912; April 15, 1913.

In 1911-1912, out of 322 Local Education Authorities in England and Wales, 131 were returned as making some provision for the feeding of school children (_i.e._ 13 counties, including London, 57 County Boroughs, 35 Boroughs and 26 Urban Districts).[184] Of these 95 were spending rates on the provision of food; 19 were spending rates on administrative charges only (accommodation, apparatus, etc.), the cost of food being borne by voluntary funds; whilst in the remaining 17 areas[185] the cost of both food and administration was met by voluntary contributions.

Footnote 184:

Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, pp. 320-322, 329.

Footnote 185:

The most important of these are Leicester, Sunderland, and Barnsley.

The steady decrease in the amount derived from voluntary contributions, and the increase in rates are shown by the following table :--[186]

Rates L Voluntary Miscellaneous sources Total.
Contribution L (contributions from
parents, Poor Law
Guardians, etc.) L

For the year 67,524 17,831 335 85,690 1908-9

For the year 125,372 9,813 906 136,091 1909-10

For the year 140,875 7,537 1,370 149,782 1910-11

For the year 151,763 3,064 2,292 157,127 1911-12

Footnote 186:

See Report on the Working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act up
to March 31, 1909, p. 30, and (for London) p. 24; ditto for the year
ended March 31, 1910, p. 20; Report of the Chief Medical Officer of
the Board of Education for 1910, p. 309; ditto for 1911, p. 332. The
voluntary contributions are understated in the figures for 1908-9, and
possibly throughout. The returns for 1908-9, for instance, do not
include Liverpool, where the whole cost was defrayed by voluntary
contributions, and no financial details were supplied to the Board.

The discrepancy in the total for 1911-12 is due to the fact that the
figures in the several columns are not given exactly, but to the
nearest L.

The total number of children fed is given in the returns for 1911 as 124,685.[187] This, however, does not include a few counties and towns which did not return the number fed during the year. In most of these areas the number fed is very small, but at Barnsley the number attending daily was about 2,917, and in London the highest number fed in any one week during the year was 44,983. If we take these figures as representing roughly between two-fifths and one half of the total number of children who were fed at some time or other during the year, we get a total of about 230,000,[188] out of a total school population of 5,357,567.[189]

Footnote 187:

Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, pp. 322-24, 330.

Footnote 188:

This does not include children fed at Day Industrial Schools, Open Air
Schools or, with one or two exceptions, Special Schools for Mentally
or Physically Defective Children.

Footnote 189:

This number represents the average attendance at the ordinary
Elementary Schools, not the total number on the rolls. (Statistics of
Public Education in England and Wales, 1911-12, Part I., pp. 27, 333.)

In most towns where the Act has been adopted the amount spent on food is well within the limit of the halfpenny rate. In 1911-12, only Bradford and Stoke-on-Trent exceeded the limit, the latter (by an inconsiderable sum) owing to the coal strike. At Bradford the rate has almost from the first been annually exceeded by a considerable amount.[190] This excess is due partly to the numbers fed (a large proportion of the children receiving breakfasts as well as dinners), partly to the fact that the meals are continued throughout the holidays. The Local Government Board Auditor has regularly surcharged the excess expenditure, but the Finance Committee defrays it out of the Corporation trading profits, which are not subject to the Local Government Board audit.

Footnote 190:

In 1908-9, by L1,645; in 1909-10, by L2,370; in 1910-11, by L1,163,
and in 1911-12, by L374. (Report on the Working of the Education
(Provision of Meals) Act up to March 31, 1909, p. 26; Report of the
Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for 1910, p. 304;
ditto for 1911, p. 317.)

The limitation of the rate has in some towns undoubtedly restricted operations. In 1909, for instance, the Workington Education Committee were reluctantly obliged, owing to the exhaustion of the funds raised by the halfpenny rate, to stop the meals at a time of great distress.[191] At East Ham, the product of a halfpenny rate not being sufficient for a whole year, meals can only be given during the winter months.[192]

Footnote 191:

_Hansard_, April 23, 1909, 5th Series, Vol. 3, pp. 1862-1863. A
similar complaint was received from Hartlepool. (_Ibid._)

Footnote 192:

See Minutes of Kingston-on-Hull Provision of Meals Sub-Committee,
March 24, 1911, Appendix, p. 16. The abortive Bills introduced in 1908
and the following years by Labour members contained a clause that the
limitation of the rate should be abolished.

We may note that the power of the Local Education Authorities to provide food for necessitous children is not limited to their powers under the Provision of Meals Act. By the Education Act of 1902 grants may be given for the maintenance of children at Secondary Schools. At Bradford, at any rate, in quite a number of cases this grant is earmarked for providing school meals.[193] More important is the power to provide three meals daily for all children attending Day Industrial Schools. These children are drawn very largely from the class to whom free meals would have to be given if they were attending the ordinary elementary schools.[194] Again, necessitous children who are physically or mentally defective can receive meals at the Special Schools, and the cost of the food (and other expenses) can be charged to the Special Schools account. Thus, at Liverpool, dinner is provided for all defective children, this provision having been undertaken deliberately as part of the school curriculum long before the Provision of Meals Act was passed. The class of physically defective children for whom Special Schools can be provided include not only cripples, but all children who are certified by a doctor to be "by reason of ... physical defect ... incapable of receiving proper benefit from the instruction in the ordinary public elementary schools."[195] This wide definition enables the School Medical Officer to send to the Open Air Schools, which several Local Authorities have established, and at which one or more meals a day are provided, not only children suffering from definite diseases, but also those who are underfed, anaemic and generally debilitated, to whom the fresh air, healthy life and regular, wholesome meals prove an inestimable boon.

Footnote 193:

"School Feeding," by Wm. Leach, in the _Crusade_, November, 1911 (Vol.
2, p. 192).

Footnote 194:

For a fuller account of the arrangements made for providing food at
the Day Industrial Schools and the Special Schools see post, pp.
117-122.

Footnote 195:

Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899 (62
and 63 Vict., c. 32, sec. 1 (1)).

(b)--Canteen Committees, their constitution and functions.

The arrangements for carrying out the Provision of Meals Act are usually in the hands of a Committee called variously the School Canteen Committee, the Children's Care Committee, the Underfed Children's Meals Committee, or, as at Leicester, the Children's Aid Association. The constitution of this Committee varies in different towns. Sometimes it is composed entirely of members of the Education Committee.[196] Sometimes outside bodies, such as Boards of Guardians and voluntary agencies, are represented upon it. Thus at Crewe the Children's Care Committee consists of representatives of the Local Education Authority, teachers, Guardians and various voluntary societies.[197] At Leicester the members of the Education Committee are in the minority, the Children's Aid Association being composed chiefly of members of the Charity Organisation Society and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Elsewhere the Committee may be composed entirely, or almost entirely, of voluntary workers. Thus at Leeds, where all the members are women, all, except the Chairman and Vice-chairman, who are members of the Education Committee, are voluntary workers; two Inspectors attend the meetings and carry recommendations to the Education Committee, but they do not vote. At Bury St. Edmunds, where the Committee is also composed of women members, the only representative of the Education Committee is the official who holds the post of Borough Treasurer and Secretary to the Education Committee. At Bournemouth the schools are grouped under four District Care Committees, composed of voluntary workers nominated by the School Managers, and of representatives of the head teachers, the School Attendance Officers being _ex officio_ members. These District Care Committees are controlled by a Central Care Committee, composed partly of members of the Education Committee, and partly of co-opted members. The School Medical Officer here, as in some other towns, is an _ex officio_ member.[198]

Footnote 196:

As at Birkenhead, Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Stoke,
West Ham.

Footnote 197:

Report of School Medical Officer for Crewe, 1911, p. 23.

Footnote 198:

Report of the School Medical Officer for Bournemouth for 1911, pp.
5-7.

The functions of the Canteen Committee also vary in different towns. Sometimes, as at Bradford, all the arrangements for the management of the centres and the decision as to which children shall be fed are in the hands of the Committee. At Leeds the Committee has no executive power, its functions being limited to making recommendations to the Education Committee as to the management of the dining centres. At Bury St. Edmunds each member of the Committee is responsible for one school, making arrangements with caterers for the feeding of the children and visiting the homes. This visiting of the homes is rarely, if ever, undertaken by members of the Canteen Committee, unless it is composed of voluntary workers.

(c)--The Selection of the Children.

In the selection of the children who are to receive school meals two methods may be adopted. The selection may be based either on the physical condition of the child or on the economic circumstances of the family. The majority of the children selected will, of course, be the same whichever method is adopted, since the child will generally be found to be under-nourished if the family income is inadequate, and vice versa; but there are some children who, although the family income is comparatively good, are yet, for some cause or other, underfed, and these will be excluded if the "poverty test" is the only criterion used. From the first the Board of Education has urged that the "physical test" should be used as well as the "poverty test." The administration of the Provision of Meals Act should be carried on in the closest co-operation with the School Medical Service.[199] The School Medical Officer should approve the dietary, he should supervise the quality, quantity, cooking and service of the food and should inspect the feeding centres.[200] In the selection of the children he should take an important part. Not only should he recommend for school meals all cases of bad or insufficient nutrition observed in the course of medical inspection. "The end to be aimed at," writes Sir George Newman, "is that all children admitted to the meals should be medically examined by the School Medical Officer either before, or as soon as possible after, admission."[201] That is to say, the Provision of Meals Act should not be considered primarily as a measure for the relief of distress; "the physical and mental well-being of [the] children ... should be regarded as the principal object to be kept in view."[202]

Footnote 199:

"When a system of medical inspection of school children such as
already exists under several Local Education Authorities has been
established, the School Canteen Committee, so far as its operations
are concerned with underfed, ill-nourished or destitute children,
should work in intimate connection with the school medical officer."
(Circular issued by the Board of Education, January 1, 1907, in Report
on the Working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act up to March
31, 1909, p. 44.) "It is obviously desirable that any arrangements
made by a Local Education Authority under the Education (Provision of
Meals) Act, 1906 ... should be co-ordinated, as far as possible, with
the arrangements for medical inspection under the Act of 1907." (Board
of Education, Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools in
England, 1908, p. ii.) The general supervision of the administration
of the Act was placed in the hands of the Board's Medical Department.

Footnote 200:

Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1910, p. 254.

Footnote 201:

_Ibid._ for 1911, p. 276. This course is strongly urged by the School
Medical Officer for Portsmouth. "_All_ children, however selected,
either by the physical or poverty test, _should be examined by the
School Medical Officer_. This in many areas would involve a good deal
of extra work on many medical men who find their time already fully
occupied. Yet if any work is worth doing it is worth doing well, and
here it is that the value of the School Medical Officer comes in, by
culling and recording facts relating to the personal condition of the
child, as well as the home conditions and surroundings of his or her
life." ("The Importance of a Well-advised and Comprehensive Scheme in
the Selection of Children ... under the Education (Provision of Meals)
Act," by Victor J. Blake, in _Rearing an Imperial Race_, edited by C.
E. Hecht, 1913, pp. 22-23.)

Footnote 202:

Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, p. 275.

Very few authorities have made any attempt to select the children primarily or even to any great extent on the "physical test." In Brighton the plan has perhaps been tried with more thoroughness than in any other town. When, in 1907, the Education Committee undertook the provision of meals in association with the Voluntary Canteen Committee, it was resolved that "the term 'underfed' ... should be held to apply distinctively to those scholars who, by reason of more or less continuous antecedent underfeeding, are physically below a certain specified standard of size and weight. These cases, which must of course be the first consideration of any feeding scheme, can only be scientifically detected by a detailed system of medical weighing and examination, and when so detected should be dealt with in accordance with medical advice."[203] Accordingly all the children for whom an application for free meals is made are weighed and measured, and the Canteen Committee, when deciding whether any particular child shall be fed or not, has before it this report as to the child's physical condition. Whether the meals are supplied free depends on the economic circumstances of the family. If the child needs meals on medical grounds but the income is adequate, a circular is sent to the parent warning him of the child's condition. Sometimes the parent will be willing for meals to be supplied on payment of the cost. If the parent refuses to pay, meals are not granted, but the name of the child is placed on a special list for observation.[204] Roughly about fifty per cent. of the children are fed solely on economic grounds and fifty per cent. on medical grounds.[205]

Footnote 203:

Brighton Education Committee, Report of Canteen Joint Branch
Sub-Committee, July 17, 1907. There were, of course, also the cases of
"necessitous" children who did not appear on medical grounds to be
suffering from malnutrition, but who, from the economic circumstances
of the parents, were unable to obtain sufficient food. Children to
whom the provision of a mid-day meal would be a convenience, and whose
parents were able and willing to pay the cost, should also be provided
for. (_Ibid._)

Footnote 204:

We have not been able to ascertain exactly what happens to these
children on the "watching" list. In 1910 the School Medical Officer
reports that they "are examined at intervals by the school doctor, and
their progress is noted, the [Canteen] Committee taking such action as
is recommended. Enquiries are also carried out by the school nurse,
under the supervision of the school doctor, as to the nature of the
meals given at home in these cases." (Report on the Medical Inspection
of School Children in Brighton for 1910, p. 134.) These home visits by
the school nurse are no longer paid.

Footnote 205:

In 1911, out of 1,050 children who received free meals, 54 were not
examined, 550 were recommended by the school doctor on medical
grounds, 446 were fed solely on economic grounds. (_Ibid._ for 1911,
p. 119.) In 1912, out of 1,070 children fed, 69 were not examined, 422
were recommended on medical and 579 on economic grounds. (_Ibid._ for
1912, p. 122.)

At Heston and Isleworth, the Canteen Sub-Committee decided in 1911 to obtain from the School Medical Officer a report on the state of each child before determining whether it required school meals.[206] At Lancaster also all children who are recommended for free meals are seen by the School Medical Officer.[207]

Footnote 206:

Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, p. 277.

Footnote 207:

Report of School Medical Officer for Lancaster for 1911, p. 26.

But these cases are exceptional. In 1909 "the number of Local Education Authorities who left the final selection in the hands of the School Medical Officer, or acted exclusively upon his recommendation or required every application to be endorsed by him," was, so far as the information of the Board of Education extended, less than a dozen.[208] In 1911 Sir George Newman writes, "it is true that in the majority of cases the School Medical Officer takes some part ... in the work connected with the provision of meals, but the number of cases in which he exercises all the functions ... appropriately devolving upon him are very few indeed."[209] In the great majority of towns, though the School Medical Officer may recommend for school meals children whom he finds suffering from malnutrition in the course of medical inspection, the greater number of children are selected on the "poverty test."

Footnote 208:

Report on the Working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, up to
March 31, 1909, pp. 12-13.

Footnote 209:

Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, p. 273.

As a rule the primary selection is made by the teachers, either on their own initiative or on receiving requests from the parents. The School Nurse, the Attendance Officer or perhaps a member of the local Guild of Help may also recommend cases.

Sometimes a personal application by the parent at the Education Offices or before the Canteen Committee is insisted on. Thus at Manchester the parents have to make application either at the Education Offices or at any of the district centres, of which there are twenty-four, situated in different parts of the town, and open at convenient hours. The teachers can advise children, whom they consider to be in need of food, to tell their parents to apply, but they take no further part in the selection of the children. At West Ham also the parents have to apply at the Public Hall or Education Office. The section of the Act dealing with repayment is read to the applicant, who then decides whether or not he wishes his children to be fed.[210] On the parent's signing a form (by which he agrees to repay the cost of meals when he gets into work[211]), tickets are issued for a week, pending enquiry. The parent is expected to send a note to the head teacher each day to say that he or she still wishes the child to be fed.[212] This personal application has to be renewed every month. The teachers are allowed to give urgency tickets for three meals, but if the parents fail to apply the meals have to be discontinued. At Erith "no breakfasts are supplied till the parents have registered at the Distress Committee (if eligible), or have made personal application there, or at the Education Office."[213] At Leicester, again, the parent has to make personal application at the office of the Canteen Committee, and this application has to be renewed every month. At Birmingham, except in special cases, the parent has to attend the meeting of the Committee; if he fails to appear, after being given a second chance, the child, who has meanwhile been temporarily receiving the meals, is removed from the feeding list.[214]

Footnote 210:

Report of West Ham Education Committee for the year ending March 31,
1910, p. 51. This is the procedure now in force.

Footnote 211:

See post, p. 110.

Footnote 212:

We were informed by the head teacher of an infants' department that
she did not insist on a note being sent more than two or three times a
week.

Footnote 213:

Report of Erith Education Committee for the three years ending March
31, 1911.

Footnote 214:

_The Public Feeding of Elementary School Children_, by Phyllis D.
Winder, 1913, p. 27.

The primary selection of the children having been made, by whatever method, enquiry is then made into the home circumstances of the family. The object of this enquiry is or should be twofold: to ascertain the resources of the family, so as to determine whether the parents are able to provide adequate food for the child or not, and to find out whether help is needed in any other direction, and by friendly advice to improve the conditions of the home. We shall discuss later the great advantages to be obtained from the employment of voluntary workers for the purpose of these friendly home visits, as distinct from the duty of making enquiries.[215] Here it is sufficient to note that very few Education Authorities have made use of their services at all.[216] The most notable example is, of course, furnished by the London Care Committees. A somewhat similar system has been adopted at Bournemouth. Here, as we have seen, the schools have been divided into four groups, and a Care Committee appointed for each. The members investigate the circumstances of children who are alleged to be in want of food and report to their Committee, which thereupon decides whether or not the children shall receive free meals. At Liverpool a tentative effort has been made in the same direction. Care Committees, managed by the different settlements, have for some years been attached to some half-dozen schools, but their position is rather indefinite. The enquiries are made by the School Attendance Officers, but the Education Committee asks the Care Committee for reports on special cases. At one school the Care Committee appears to visit all the cases. A wider scheme for the establishment of a system of Care Committees is at the present time (1913) under consideration. At Brighton also, where Care Committees have been appointed, mainly for the purpose of finding employment and generally supervising the children when they leave school, a Care visitor is sometimes asked to supplement the enquiries of the School Attendance Officers in doubtful cases where further investigation is needed. At Leicester the enquiries are made by a paid investigator appointed by the Children's Aid Association, subsequent friendly visits being paid by voluntary workers.[217] In most towns, however, the work of enquiry is undertaken solely by the School Attendance Officers.[218]

Footnote 215:

See post, pp. 145 _et seq._

Footnote 216:

Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1910, pp. 107-8; ditto for 1911, pp. 104-5. In several of the few
towns where Care Committees have been appointed, they take no part in
the work of feeding the children, their functions being confined to
the "following up" of medical cases and perhaps the finding of
employment for the children when they leave school.

Footnote 217:

At Southend-on-Sea enquiry is made by the Civic Guild into many of the
cases. (Report of the School Medical Officer for Southend-on-Sea for
1911, p. 54.) At Bradford the Canteen Committee communicates to the
Guild of Help the names of all the new cases which are put on the
feeding list. The members of the Guild thereupon visit any cases in
which other help besides the meals is needed.

Footnote 218:

As at Birkenhead, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Salford, Sheffield,
Stoke, etc. At Birkenhead an attendance officer has been specially
appointed for this purpose. At Bradford a special constable has been
told off to make enquiries in difficult cases.

The thoroughness of the investigation varies considerably in different towns. The parent's statements as to the amount of wages earned are in some cases checked by enquiries from the employers. At Birmingham the wages are always thus verified where the worker is employed by one firm regularly. At Bradford the wages are verified except when the applicants are working on their own account, for instance hawking, when it is clearly impossible. Generally enquiry is made from the employer as to the wages of the head of the house only, but at Leeds and at Leicester the wages of all earning members of the family are verified. At Leicester in doubtful cases enquiries may be made from the employer as often as once a week. In other towns, as at Stoke and York, where the current rates of wages are well known, wages are only verified when there is any doubt as to the parent's statement. At Bootle little attempt is made to verify the information given by the parents. Here the enquiries are made--so far as they can be said to be made at all--by the teachers. The help of the Attendance Officer can be asked in difficult cases, but this appears to be seldom done. The teachers naturally have no time to visit the homes, and the enquiry generally resolves itself into a form being given to the child for its parent to fill up. The parents are asked to state the rent, the number in the family and the total weekly income, taking the average for four weeks. When one considers the difficulty normally experienced in filling up forms correctly, one can readily imagine that the information thus obtained is practically valueless. Where the answers are unintelligible--an occurrence by no means rare to judge from the few specimens of case papers which we have seen--the information may be supplemented by questioning the children.

Often urgency tickets can be issued by the teachers, pending enquiries, as at Bradford, Birmingham, Bootle and Liverpool. At Birkenhead the teacher can only report the need for meals, but the enquiries only take two or three days. At Leeds we were told that a week or ten days generally elapses between the time of application and the child's being placed on the list, with the result that in some cases the most urgent need is passed. It is true that the head teachers can secure a child's being placed immediately on the list by writing specially to the Education Office, but to do this every time would involve a considerable expenditure on postage, which is not refunded.

When investigation has been made into the home circumstances, the decision as to whether or no the child shall be fed is made generally by the Canteen Committee or by a small sub-committee of this Committee, or perhaps by the Chairman.[219] Sometimes the responsibility rests with the Secretary of the Education Committee or some other official, as at Acton and Leeds. At Bournemouth the cases are decided by the District Care Committees, which are composed of voluntary workers and teachers. At Bootle the decision appears to rest entirely in the teachers' hands.

Footnote 219:

Thus, at Birkenhead, where the Canteen Committee meets very seldom,
the cases are decided by the Chairman.

The decision is based on a consideration of the family income. Many authorities have adopted a scale. At Birmingham meals are granted if the income per head, after rent is deducted, does not exceed 2s. 9d. in winter or 2s. 6d. in summer.[220] In Bootle the income limit, in summer and winter alike, is 3s. 6d. for an adult and 2s. 6d. for each child under 14.[221] When we consider, however, the slipshod method of enquiry pursued at Bootle, we cannot attach much importance to the existence on paper of this scale. At Bradford dinners are given if the income does not exceed 3s. per head; if the income is less than 2s., breakfasts also are given. This scale is taken only as a rough criterion of the needs of the family. Special circumstances are taken into account, such as the size of the family, sickness, old debts, etc. And where the circumstances of the family are slightly above the point at which free meals may be given, the parents are often allowed to receive them on paying 1/2d. or 1d. towards the cost. At Leeds, on the other hand, the scale, which is a low one (2s. in winter and 1s. 6d. in summer) is, we are informed, rigidly observed. No regard is paid to the circumstances of the family. As a rule, directly the family income rises above the limit, the child's dinners are stopped, no matter how much debt has to be paid off. A delicate child who needed feeding or an underfed neglected child would not be fed if the income was above the limit. At Liverpool the scale is 2s. per head; at Stoke it is 2s. 6d.; at Brighton it is 3s. per adult, two children being reckoned as one adult. In all these towns the limit is not a hard and fast one, regard being paid to any special circumstances. At Manchester a sliding scale has been adopted. If there are five or more in the family the limit is 2s. 6d. per head, if there are only three or four 2s. 9d. is allowed, while if there are only one or two 3s. is allowed.[222] At Salford the limit is 10s. per week for two persons, and 2s. extra for each additional member of the family, rent not being deducted. In other towns, as at Birkenhead, Bournemouth, Leicester and West Ham, there is no fixed scale, each case being decided on its merits.

Footnote 220:

_The Public Feeding of Elementary School Children_, by Phyllis D.
Winder, 1913, p. 26.

Footnote 221:

Report of Bootle School Canteen Committee, 1911-12, p. 3.

Footnote 222:

Report of the Manchester Education Committee, 1910-11, p. 221.

As a rule the cases are revised about once a month. Sometimes chronic cases will be continued for two or three months at a time, as at Liverpool. At York the cases are revised only twice a year. At the beginning of the winter the head teachers send in lists of children whom they consider to be necessitous. These children (if the Cases Selection Sub-Committee decide to feed them) remain on the feeding list till the following April, when the head teachers are asked to send in a list of children who they consider need not receive meals during the summer. The Attendance Officers visit again and the cases are revised by the Committee. This method is said to be satisfactory as, though officially the cases are revised so seldom, practically the circumstances are known, since the Attendance Officers regularly visit the homes in the course of their ordinary work and the Chairman of the Canteen Committee knows many of the children intimately. At Bootle, where, as we have seen, the decision as to which children shall be fed is practically in the hands of the teachers, there seems to be no system of revising the cases, and the tendency is for a child who is once put on the feeding list to remain on it till the meals are discontinued in the summer, unless the parents voluntarily withdraw the child on an improvement in the home circumstances.

Without discussing here the question whether it is possible to devise any system of selection which can be satisfactory, we may note some of the disadvantages of the methods at present in use. In the first place, since the selection is made in the main through the teachers, it necessarily follows that the numbers fed in any particular school depend very largely on the attitude taken by the head teachers. As a general rule the teachers are keenly interested in the physical welfare of their children, and anxious to do everything in their power which may promote it; but some teachers are opposed to the provision of meals, feeling that too much is done for the children; others, again, consider their schools "superior," and do not like their children to go to free meals. Constantly one finds an astonishing disproportion between the numbers fed at two adjacent schools, drawing their children from the same locality. It is true that the character of two schools, within a stone's throw of each other, may vary in a curious way, one attracting a more prosperous class of children--perhaps because of the personality of the teacher, better buildings, or some other cause--but this would not account for all the difference. At Bootle, for instance, it was reported, "there is apparently an absence of uniformity in assessing the needs of the children; for in the six schools of the poorest neighbourhoods it is found that of the number on the rolls the percentage of scheduled children varies from 6 per cent. to 34 per cent., and that in two schools of almost identical character, in one case 10 per cent. of the children are returned as needing daily breakfasts, and in the other 34 per cent."[223] Where the teachers are anxious to place all apparently underfed children on the feeding list, pressure is not infrequently exercised by the Education Authority to induce them to keep down the numbers.

Footnote 223:

Report of the Bootle School Canteen Committee for 1910-11, p. 22. At
Birkenhead, and probably in other towns, the percentage of children
fed in the Church of England schools is very much higher than in the
Council schools, whilst the Roman Catholic schools feed a larger
number still than the Church schools. This is doubtless due partly to
the character of the buildings, the non-provided schools being
generally very much inferior, and the better-off children being
consequently attracted to the Council schools; partly, of course, also
to the fact that the Roman Catholic population is chiefly Irish and
very poor.

When an application by the parent is obligatory, there is cause for very grave doubt whether the provision of meals reaches all for whom it is intended. Miss Winder has shown that, at Birmingham, out of 22,753 children for whom applications were received during the three years 1909-11, 4,700 were not fed because the parent failed to appear before the Committee. She investigated the circumstances of twenty-eight of these families and came to the conclusion that, "although the small number of families investigated cannot justify an absolutely positive assertion, I think it may fairly be concluded that, on the whole, they are representative of most of the families whose applications are not granted, and that the home circumstances of these families are much the same as those of the families whose applications have been granted."[224] This is the impression gained from enquiries at other towns. At West Ham it is clear that there are children who need the meals, but do not get them because their parents will not apply. The number of "missed" cases does not appear to be large, for the Act is administered in a sympathetic spirit, the Superintendent of Visitors impressing on the Attendance Officers that they should bring to his notice any case where the children appear to be suffering from lack of food. But there are cases where the parents, though they will take the urgency tickets for three meals which the teachers can give them, will take no further action. At one school the headmaster pointed out two boys who looked obviously in need of food and attention generally, but whose father, though out of work, would not apply. In another case he had used his discretion and kept two boys on the list for a month in spite of their parents' failure to renew their application, but he felt obliged at last to take them off though he considered that they still needed the meals. In such cases the Attendance Officers are supposed to visit the homes to find out the cause of the children's underfed condition, and to urge the parents, if necessary, to make application for school meals, but this course does not seem to be by any means always pursued.

Footnote 224:

_The Public Feeding of Elementary School Children_, by Phyllis D.
Winder, 1913, pp. 27, 29, 59, 62.

At Leicester again, nothing appears to be done in those cases where the child needs food but the parent refuses to apply. And such cases appear to be frequent. We were told by the vicar of a very poor parish that numbers of the parents would not make the necessary application. This evidence seems to be borne out by a comparison of the numbers of cases helped by the Distress Committee and the Canteen Committee. In 1910, for instance, it was found that on September 30, 607 married men and widowers, having 1,145 children wholly, and 214 partly, dependent upon them, were registered at the Labour Bureau as unemployed.[225] These numbers were, of course, not a complete index of the unemployment in the town. But, turning to the report of the Canteen Committee, we find that on the same date only 105 children were being helped.[226] The great discrepancy between these figures seems to point to the fact that the Canteen Committee had not discovered all the cases of children who were suffering from want of food.

Footnote 225:

_Leicester Pioneer_, October 29, 1910.

Footnote 226:

Quarterly Report of the Leicester Children's Aid Association, July 1
to September 30, 1910.

The failure of the parents to apply may in some cases be due to laziness and disregard for their children's welfare. Or it may be that they are too sensitive to ask for help. Or again it may be difficult or impossible for them to attend at the time named. The hour is usually fixed so as to be that most convenient for the parents, but it is impossible, of course, to fix a time which will suit all. At Birmingham cases have even occurred "where the father has been obliged to pay tram fares in order to arrive in time to prove his inability to feed his children"![227]

Footnote 227:

_The Public Feeding of Elementary School Children_, by Phyllis D.
Winder, 1913, p. 29.

But even if the parent is not obliged to appear in person, but may send an application by note or verbal message to the teacher, there are still "missed" cases. It is notorious that many parents are too proud to let their need be known; in such cases, as teachers have frequently told us, it may be a considerable time before it is discovered that the child is suffering from want of food; and when the discovery is made there is frequently difficulty in inducing the parents to send the child, or in inducing the child itself to go, to the school meals. There still seems to exist, in certain districts at any rate, an idea that the provision of meals is Poor Law Relief, and parents consequently shrink from applying. Moreover, it is not generally recognised that the provision of school meals is by no means universally known to the parents. The School Medical Officer for Leicester reports that "in certain cases it was a matter for regret that the families had not received help earlier by personally applying for assistance. Ignorance of the existence of the Canteen Committee was given as the reason for non-application."[228] And we have ourselves been told in other towns of cases where the children were suffering from want of food, but were not receiving school meals because the parents were unaware that they could be obtained.

Footnote 228:

Report of the School Medical Officer for Leicester for 1912, p. 36.

The enquiries into the home circumstances undoubtedly exercise a deterrent influence--to what extent depends on the manner of the particular individual who makes the enquiries--both with the more independent parent who resents the investigator's visit, and with the criminal and semi-criminal parent whose record does not bear close investigation. Thus the headmaster of a school in one of the worst districts of Liverpool told us that numbers of the boys were in need of food but the parents would not submit to the necessary enquiries and consequently meals were not granted. At Leicester, the searching enquiries made by the Canteen Committee, which, it must be remembered, is practically a department of the Charity Organisation Society, coupled with the insistence on an application by the parent in person, result, as we have seen, in numbers of underfed children remaining underfed.

Where the Education Authority has adopted a scale of income on which to base the decision as to which children shall be fed, this scale is frequently below, and in some cases very considerably below, the minimum amount which has been shown to be necessary for expenditure on food.[229] Where the scale is rigidly adhered to, two classes of children are excluded altogether, those who are underfed through the neglect of their parents to provide for them though able to do so, and those cases where the family income may be sufficient to meet normal calls but where, owing to illness or the delicacy of the children or other special circumstances, extra nourishment is required.

Footnote 229:

See note on page 205, _infra_.

To sum up, we find as between town and town, and even as between school and school in the same town, a great want of uniformity in selecting the children to be fed. Where the Education Authority has determined that all its underfed children shall be provided for, the child's need being the paramount consideration, undiscovered cases of underfeeding are reduced to a minimum. Where, on the contrary, enquiries are carried out in a deterrent manner, or the parent is made to apply in person for the meals, or the selection is based on a rigid application of a scale, there is reason to fear that considerable numbers of children are, and remain, "unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them."

(d)--The Preparation and Service of the Meals.

(i) The Time of the Meal.

There are considerable differences of opinion as to what kind of meal should be given. Many Local Authorities prefer breakfast. It is argued that when no breakfast is forthcoming at home the interval between the meal the previous evening and the midday dinner is too long, and that it is cruel to expect the child to attend morning school, when the heaviest work of the day is done, without a meal, especially in the cold winter months. By midday the parents, especially in districts where there is much casual labour, may have earned enough to provide some sort of a meal. But the arguments in favour of breakfast--as the sole meal provided--are largely based not so much on the child's physical needs as on the moral effect produced both on the child and the parent. The provision of breakfast furnishes a test of need. The meal is not so popular as dinner, and will only attract those who are really hungry.[230] Co-operation on the part of the mother is demanded, since she must get up early to see the children are dressed in time. Moreover, the provision of breakfast does not act as an inducement to the mother to go out to work, as it is feared the provision of dinner may.

Footnote 230:

Thus it was found at a school in Bethnal Green that, "in spite of the
supervision of a most efficient Care Committee," the change from a
porridge breakfast to a meat pie dinner doubled the number of children
attending. ("The Feeding of Necessitous Children. A Symposium. I.,
Experience in S. W. Bethnal Green," by A. W. Chute, in _Oxford House
Magazine_, January, 1909, p. 37.)

The arguments seem to us overwhelmingly in favour of dinner. The provision of a midday meal may possibly encourage mothers to go out to work, though it is exceedingly difficult to trace such a result to any great extent. But on the other hand there are numbers of cases already where the mothers are forced, by stress of circumstances, to be the breadwinners and are obliged to leave home all day, or, if they come home for the dinner hour, have no time to prepare a proper meal. The children will either get a piece of bread, or will be given coppers to buy their own dinner; in either case the meal will be equally unsatisfactory. Possibly the children will go dinnerless altogether, and the afternoon's lessons will then be a serious tax on their brains. The attendance at breakfasts is always less than at dinner.[231] The breakfast acts, that is to say, as a successful "test." But this means that many children, either because their mothers are too lazy to get them dressed early, or because they are too lazy themselves, miss the meals, _though they are admittedly in need of them_.

Footnote 231:

At West Ham, for instance, where all the children on the feeding list
receive both breakfast and dinner, the number of breakfasts given
during the year 1911-12 was 247,233, and the number of dinners
273,894; the attendance at breakfast was thus only ninety per cent. of
the attendance at dinner. (Report of the West Ham Education Committee
for the year ended March 31, 1912, pp. 175-77.)