Chapter II: The Administration of the Education (provision of Meals) Act (3)

In London, during the Christmas holidays, 1911-12, meals were provided
out of a sum placed at the disposal of the Chairman of the Council by
the General Purposes Committee, from the balance of the account in
connection with the erection and management of the Coronation
Procession stands. (Minutes of the London County Council, February 13,
1912, p. 2791.)

Footnote 295:

Report of the West Ham Education Committee for the year ended March
31, 1910, p. 46; _Ibid._ for the year ended March 31, 1911, p. 39.

Footnote 296:

_Ibid._ for the year ended March 31, 1912, pp. 50-1.

Footnote 297:

The _East Ham Echo_, August 22, 1913.

Footnote 298:

At Brighton meals were provided on Saturdays by the Local Education
Authority out of the rates till January, 1909, when it was declared to
be _ultra vires_. (Report on the Medical Inspection of School Children
in Brighton for 1908, p. 99.)

The question of the legality of the provision of meals during the holidays out of the rates is, indeed, an open one. The London County Council took counsel's opinion on the point in 1909 and again in 1910, each time receiving the reply that holiday feeding was illegal,[299] but the question has never been settled by a case in the courts. On special occasions the Local Government Board have relaxed their prohibition. Thus, in 1911, Mr. John Burns stated in Parliament that though the Board would not sanction in advance any expenditure incurred in providing meals during the week the schools were closed on account of the Coronation festivities, they would be prepared to consider each case on its merits, and decide whether any surcharge that might be made should be remitted or upheld.[300] And in the spring of 1912, during the widespread distress caused by the coal strike, the Board sanctioned the provision of meals during the Easter holidays.

Footnote 299:

Minutes of the London County Council, February 2, 1909, p. 121;
Minutes of the Education Committee, November 23, 1910, p. 991.

Footnote 300:

_Hansard_, March 27, 1911, 5th Series, Vol. 23, pp. 1074-5.

On several occasions Bills have been brought in by the Labour party to legalise the provision of meals during the holidays, the latest being in April, 1913.[301] So far these efforts have met with no success, though the Prime Minister declared in 1912 that the Government was favourable to the principle,[302] but it has now been promised that the forthcoming Education Bill shall contain a clause enabling Local Authorities to provide meals on Sundays and during holidays.[303]

Footnote 301:

See Education (Administrative Provisions) Bills, April 14, 1910 (No.
128), February 19, 1912 (No. 18), April 15, 1913 (No. 101), which all
contained a clause for provision of school meals during the holidays;
Education (Provision of Meals) Act Amendment Bills, July 20, 1910 (No.
265); April 19, 1911 (No. 181); March 13, 1912 (No. 82); April 16,
1913 (No. 109).

Footnote 302:

_Hansard_, March 28, 1912, 5th Series, Vol. 36, p. 598.

Footnote 303:

_Hansard_, July 22, 1913, Vol. 55, pp. 1910-11.

There seems indeed to be a general consensus of opinion in favour of holiday feeding. The experiments made by Dr. Crowley at Bradford in 1907, and by the Medical Officer of Health at Northampton in 1909, which we shall describe later,[304] not to mention the testimony offered by numbers of teachers as to the deterioration of the children physically during the holidays, prove conclusively the need for the continuation of the meals, if the children are not to lose much of the benefit which they have derived during term time.

Footnote 304:

See post, pp. 184-7.

In passing we may note that not only do many Local Authorities--how many we are unable to ascertain, but the number must be considerable--discontinue the meals during the holidays, but they stop them entirely during the summer months.[305] In some towns, where employment is good during the summer, there may be little need for school meals, but in large towns, such as Bootle and Salford, which contain a large population who rely on casual labour, it is obvious that the cessation of the meals during the summer must cause considerable hardship.

Footnote 305:

This may be through lack of funds, as at East Ham (see ante, p. 56),
but is not always due to this cause.

(f)--The Provision for Paying Children and Recovery of the Cost.

When the Provision of Meals Act was passed it was assumed that a considerable proportion of the cost of the meals would be borne by the parents. It was confidently expected that large numbers of parents would be willing to avail themselves of the provision of a midday meal at school for their children and would gladly pay for it.[306] The circular issued by the Board of Education to the Local Authorities pointed out that the Act aimed at securing that suitable meals should be available "just as much for those whose parents are in a position to pay as for those to whom food must be given free of cost."[307] "There will generally be no difficulty in providing, where it is so desired, a school dinner at a fixed price in the middle of the day, attended by children for whom, by reason of distance from the school or because the mother's absence makes a home meal difficult, the parent prefers to take advantage of an arrangement similar to that now in operation in most secondary day schools."[308] Moreover, little difficulty was anticipated in extracting payment from those parents who could afford to pay but neglected to do so. These expectations have not been fulfilled. In the year 1908-9 the sums received from the parents, either contributed voluntarily by them or recovered after prosecution or threat of prosecution, amounted to only L295, or .44 per cent. of the total receipts.[309] In 1911-12 the amount so received had increased but was still only 1 per cent.[310]

Footnote 306:

See, for instance, _Hansard_, December 6, 1906, 4th Series, Vol. 166,
p. 1283; December 7, 1906, pp. 1340, 1344. See also _ibid._, July 9,
1903, Vol. 125, p. 196, and April 20, 1904, Vol. 133, p. 788.

Footnote 307:

Report on Working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act up to
March 31, 1909, p. 41.

Footnote 308:

_Ibid._, p. 42.

Footnote 309:

_Ibid._, p. 33.

Footnote 310:

The amount was L1,570 out of a total of L157,127. (Report of the Chief
Medical Officer of the Board of Education for 1911, p. 332.)

The smallness of the sums voluntarily contributed by the parents is largely due to the action of the Local Authorities. In the great majority of towns in England[311] no serious attempt has been made to establish "school restaurants"; the Local Education Authority, owing perhaps to lack of accommodation, perhaps to the difficulty of providing for a fluctuating number of children (a difficulty felt especially where the meals are supplied through a caterer), perhaps to the feeling that the provision of school meals as a matter of convenience would encourage the mothers to go out to work, has limited the provision to necessitous children. In 1911-12, out of 118 towns (apart from London) in which provision was made for underfed children, in only twenty-two were any of the meals paid for wholly by the parents. The number of children so paid for was in most cases negligible, the total amounting to only a few hundreds. And these figures include meals paid for under compulsion (though without prosecution) as well as meals voluntarily paid for as a matter of convenience.[312]

Footnote 311:

For provision made for paying children in Scottish towns, see Appendix
II., pp. 242, 245, 246.

Footnote 312:

Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, pp. 325-7, 331. In eleven other towns the parents in some cases
paid part of the cost.

But even where the system of voluntary payment has been tried, it has been a failure. At Bradford, where a large proportion of married women work in the mills, it was felt that many parents would take advantage of a system by which they could obtain a midday meal for their children at cost price.[313] The Education Committee accordingly sent round a circular to the head teachers asking them to announce to their scholars that a good dinner could be obtained for 2d.[314] The response was disappointing. Comparatively few of the mothers took advantage of the offer, and the result, though the number of paying children[315] seems to be larger than in any other provincial town,[316] can only be described as a failure. This may be partly attributed to the cost. Where there are several children a payment of 2d. per head may be more than the parent can afford. But the main cause of failure is undoubtedly the dislike of the independent type of parent who can afford to pay to sending his children to meals the majority of which are being given free. In fact any system which seeks to combine free and paying meals, the free meals being the chief element, is fore-doomed to failure.[317]

Footnote 313:

"The needs would be met of a host of children who never got a decent
meal." (Councillor North, Bradford City Council Proceedings, February
26, 1907, p. 233.)

Footnote 314:

Extracts from the Annual Reports of the Bradford Education Committee
for the four years ended March 31, 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910, pp. 14,
16. The charge is now 2-1/2d.

Footnote 315:

The numbers given in the Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the
Board of Education for 1911 (p. 325) are 182, but some of these were
paid for by the Guardians. No record, we were told, is kept of the
individual children who pay, but the amount received in 1912-13 from
parents who voluntarily paid the whole cost was L169 19s. 8d. Thus
only some 16,320 meals were wholly paid for, out of a total of
782,979. (Bradford Education Committee, Return as to the Working of
the Provision of Meals Act for the year ending March 31, 1913.)

Footnote 316:

At Finchley as many as two-thirds of the meals are paid for, but the
charge is very low, only 1/2d. per meal. We were informed that the
price would not cover the cost of food if it were not for the fact
that the meat used in connection with the dinners was provided as a
voluntary gift.

Footnote 317:

This was the opinion of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical
Inspection and Feeding in 1905. (See ante, p. 37.) "If no distinction
is made between the paying children and the non-paying children,"
declared one witness, "I feel sure that the Birmingham artisan would
not send his children. He would not let them go to receive a meal in
regard to which it was not known whether it was given free or not."
(Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Inspection and
Feeding, 1905, Vol. II., Q. 1246, evidence of Mr. George Hookham.) See
also the evidence given by Mr. F. Wilkinson, the Director of Education
for Bolton. (_Ibid._, Qs. 3115-3119.)

In the Special Schools for mentally or physically defective children, where the dinner is provided more as a part of the school curriculum than as a "charity" meal, there is not, as we shall see, much difficulty in inducing the parents to pay for the meals.[318] In rural districts also, where the children are in many cases unable to go home at midday, the system of paying dinners has more chance of success.[319]

Footnote 318:

See post, p. 120.

Footnote 319:

See post, pp. 123-5.

Turning now to the question of the recovery of the cost from unwilling parents, the Provision of Meals Act, it will be remembered, laid down that the Local Authorities should require payment unless satisfied that the parents could not pay, and the cost might be recovered summarily as a civil debt. In practice this has been found very difficult to accomplish. It is impossible to tell from the returns how much of the L1,570 received from parents in 1911-12 was contributed voluntarily, and how much recovered after compulsion, but the amount recovered must necessarily be very small.[320]

Footnote 320:

The amount recovered _after prosecution_ in 1911-12 was L42 10s. 6d.
for the whole of England and Wales, London accounting for more than
half this sum. (Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of
Education for 1911, pp. 325-7.) To this we must add the amount
recovered with more or less difficulty, but without prosecution.

Where the Local Education Authority confines the provision of meals strictly to the cases where the family income is below a certain amount per head, as at Leeds, there is of course little to be recovered, attempts at recovery being limited to cases where the parents have made an incorrect statement as to their income, and have therefore been obtaining the meals under false pretences. At West Ham, indeed, the Education Committee has interpreted the Provision of Meals Act to mean that recovery must be attempted in every case where meals are supplied. When a parent applies for meals for his children on the score of being unable to provide for them himself--for only necessitous children are fed, no provision being made for voluntary payment--he has to sign a form by which he agrees to repay the cost of all meals which have been supplied when he gets back into work and can afford to do so. Moreover, he has to send a note every day saying that he still wishes his children to be fed,[321] this being insisted on as a proof that meals have been supplied in the event of an attempt at recovery. In any case the full cost is rarely charged, the wage and the number of children being taken into consideration, and a rebate of sometimes as much as 75 per cent. being granted. But as a matter of fact very few accounts are sent to the Borough Treasurer for collection, as the wages of nearly all the parents of the children who are fed, even when they are in good work, are too small to allow of their paying for meals supplied in the past.[322]

Footnote 321:

See ante, p. 64.

Footnote 322:

Report of the West Ham Education Committee for the year ending March
31, 1912, p. 54.

When the Local Education Authority is determined to provide food for all children who need it, for those who are underfed through the neglect of their parents to provide for them as well as for those whose parents are too poor to do so, a considerable amount ought to be recovered. The difficulty lies in the impossibility in many cases of securing sufficient evidence of the parent's ability to pay. Magistrates are notoriously loth to convict. At Bradford we were told that in numbers of cases magistrates' orders for payment had been served on the parents, but these orders were frequently disregarded by parents who knew the practical difficulties in the way of enforcing them.[323]

Footnote 323:

In 1911 proceedings were taken against parents in only eight towns,
including London. The number of cases was 219, of which 147 were in
London. (Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education
for 1911, pp. 325-327.)

Whether the amount due for meals which have been already supplied is paid by the parent or not, the commonest result of sending a notice that the Local Authority intends to recover the cost is that the parents refuse to allow their children any longer to receive the meals. "In practice it is found," says the Bootle School Canteen Committee, "that when action is taken to enforce payment the children are withdrawn by their parents from further participation in the meals, with the result that the children revert to their former ill-fed condition."[324] At York, too, we were told that when a child who is found to be underfed through neglect is put on the feeding-list and a letter written to the father that he will be charged the cost of the meals, he invariably writes back demanding that his child shall be taken off the list. Nothing more is done and the child remains underfed. The Local Education Authorities are, indeed, "on the horns of a dilemma in dealing with such cases, as the Act obliges them to make this attempt to recover the cost, and they know that the only result of their doing so will be that the children are withdrawn from the meals."[325] So much has the Bradford Education Authority felt this difficulty that they have more than once sought power, by inserting a clause in the local Bills promoted by the Corporation, to compel the attendance of children at meals in all cases in which the School Medical Officer certifies that the children are underfed, and to recover the cost. These efforts have so far proved useless, it being held that such a clause involves a new principle and cannot therefore be included in a local Act.[326]

Footnote 324:

Report on the work of the Bootle School Canteen Committee, 1910-11, p.
21. Since this date the Committee have accordingly made no attempt to
prosecute parents for repayment of the cost.

Footnote 325:

Extracts from Annual Reports of Bradford Education Committee for the
four years ended March 31, 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910, p. 13.

Footnote 326:

At Bradford a child who is underfed through neglect is put on the
feeding-list for a month before the bill is sent to its parents, so
that it may receive the benefit of the meals for this period at any
rate.

The question of dealing with neglectful parents is indeed beset with difficulties. Under the Children Act, 1908, a parent or guardian can be prosecuted for neglecting a child "in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary suffering or injury to its health." This neglect is defined to mean those cases where the parent or guardian "fails to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging," or, if unable to provide the same himself, fails to apply to the Guardians for relief.[327] It is rare for the Local Education Authorities themselves to institute proceedings under this Act. Usually they prefer to refer cases to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Often an improvement in the condition of the child is effected as a result of the visits of this society's inspectors to the home. But when these warnings prove useless, frequently nothing more is done; the society are loth to prosecute, except in extreme cases when they can be practically certain of securing a conviction.

Footnote 327:

8 Edward VII., c. 67, sec. 12.

(g)--Overlapping between the Poor Law and the Education Authorities.

We have already alluded to the neglect of the Guardians to deal with more than an insignificant fraction of the children who are underfed. The attempt made in 1905 to force them to fulfil their responsibility in this respect was, as we have seen, a complete failure, and the duty was therefore cast upon the Local Education Authorities. But even in the few cases where the Guardians have assumed the responsibility by granting out-relief to the family, the amount of this relief is, in the vast majority of cases, totally inadequate. This was abundantly proved by the Report of the Poor Law Commission in 1909. "The children," they reported, "are undernourished, many of them poorly dressed and many bare-footed ... the decent mother's one desire is to keep herself and her children out of the work-house. She will, if allowed, try to do this on an impossibly inadequate sum, until both she and her children become mentally and physically deteriorated."[328] When the mother was careless or neglectful no supervision was exercised by the Guardians to see that even this inadequate amount was really spent on the children. This indictment still holds good to-day. The inadequacy of the relief granted by the Guardians, in all but a few exceptional Unions, has, in fact, become a byword.

Footnote 328:

Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of
Distress, 1909, 8vo edition, Vol. III. (Minority Report), p. 36.

In the great majority of towns, the Local Education Authority is consequently driven to feed children whose parents are in receipt of poor relief. Thus two authorities deal with the same case, without, in many instances, either of them knowing what the other is doing.[329] Only in a few cases has any attempt been made to prevent this overlapping. For example, at Leicester (one of the few towns, we may note, where liberal out-relief is granted by the Guardians) there has from the first been co-operation between the Guardians and the Canteen Committee.[330] The Relieving Officer refers to the Canteen Committee many applications that are made to him where temporary help only is needed, and the Committee has frequently tided families over a bad time and saved them from recourse to the Poor Law. On the other hand, when a family is receiving out-relief the Canteen Committee refuses to grant food for the children. At Acton a similar policy has been adopted. If parents who are in receipt of out-relief apply for school meals for their children, the Secretary of the Education Committee recommends them to apply to the Guardians for more relief, at the same time himself writing to the Relieving Officer. As a rule the relief is increased in consequence. Meanwhile the teachers are told to watch the children to see that they do not suffer from want of food. At Dewsbury, also, temporary cases are dealt with by the Canteen Committee, but all chronic cases by the Guardians.[331]

Footnote 329:

Occasionally, as we have seen, the Guardians are represented on the
Canteen Committee, as at Crewe.

Footnote 330:

First Annual Report of the Leicester Children's Aid Association,
1907-8, p. 4.

Footnote 331:

Report of the School Medical Officer for Dewsbury for 1911, p. 41.

Elsewhere an attempt has been made to prevent overlapping by other means. While the Education Authority undertakes to provide for all the underfed children, an arrangement is made with the Guardians whereby they repay the cost of the meals supplied for all children whose parents are in receipt of relief. The relief is thus given partly in the form of school meals, a plan strongly to be commended, since it ensures that the relief given on account of the children is in fact obtained by them. This plan has been for some years pursued at Bradford. At first there appear to have been complaints that the Guardians were reducing the relief granted, on account of the dinners supplied at school,[332] but the dinners are now given in addition to the ordinary relief.[333] In 1912-13, the Guardians paid L303 to the Education Authority on this account.[334] Even so, there is some slight overlapping, since the Guardians only pay for dinners and in some cases the Canteen Committee are of opinion that a second meal is needed, and consequently breakfasts are granted and paid for by the Education Authority. A similar plan has been adopted at Blackburn,[335] Huddersfield,[336] Brighton,[337] York and Liverpool. In the last named town the arrangement has only recently been made, and is in force in only two of the three Unions into which the town is divided, West Derby and Liverpool. The Guardians have agreed to issue coupons for school meals to children whose parents are in receipt of out-relief, and will pay to the Education Authority 2d. per meal. We were informed that, in the case of the West Derby Guardians at any rate, these coupons would only be given to children whose mothers were out all day. The relief would be reduced in consequence, though not to the extent of the full value of the meal. The Guardians of the Toxteth Union declined to make a similar arrangement, but suggested that the Local Education Authority should inform them when they found children underfed whose parents were in receipt of relief, and they proposed in these cases to increase the relief.[338]

Footnote 332:

Bradford City Council Proceedings, June 16, 1908, p. 395; April 11,
1911, p. 305.

Footnote 333:

Thus the minimum relief for a widow is 4s., with 2s. each for the
first two children, and 1s. each for other children. In addition five
dinners a week, amounting in value to 1s. 0-1/2d., are given to all
children attending school. (Bradford Poor Law Union, Outdoor Relief
Arrangements.)

Footnote 334:

Bradford Education Committee, Return as to the Working of the
Provision of Meals Act for the year ending March 31, 1913.

Footnote 335:

Report of the School Medical Officer for Blackburn, 1911, p. 218. Out
of 59,537 meals given during the year, the Guardians paid for 17,786,
or nearly one-third.

Footnote 336:

Report of the Huddersfield Education Committee, 1911, p. 23.

Footnote 337:

Report of Brighton Education Committee for the year ending March 31,
1912, p. 28.

Footnote 338:

For the arrangements made between the Liverpool Education Committee
and the Guardians with regard to payment for children admitted as
voluntary cases to the Day Industrial Schools, see post, p. 118 n.

Other Local Education Authorities have tried this plan of communicating with the Guardians, in the hope that they would grant adequate relief for the needs of the children, but, finding no such result ensue, have discontinued the practice. At Bury St. Edmunds, for instance, it was found in the winter of 1907-8 that "a large percentage of the families whose children were fed at school were in receipt of outdoor relief of an amount which the Education Authority thought inadequate. The attention of the Board of Guardians was called to the fact, but no steps were taken by them."[339] The Education Committee accordingly continued to feed the children, and we gather that now no communication is made by them to the Guardians. Similarly at West Ham we were informed that the Education Committee used to report cases to the Guardians, but the practice proved useless and it has been given up, except for special cases, where the Guardians will sometimes increase the relief given.

Footnote 339:

Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of
Distress, 1909, 8vo edition, Vol. III. (Minority Report), p. 166 n.

In a few Unions, as at Leeds, the only result of the Guardians learning that the children are receiving school meals--the need for which points to the conclusion that the out-relief granted is inadequate--is that they promptly reduce the relief, though not contributing to the Local Education Authority anything towards the cost of the meals. They appear to regard the provision of school meals merely as a means of reducing the poor-rates, and casting the burden on other shoulders. Naturally in such circumstances the Local Education Authority does not report cases to the Guardians.

Any systematic arrangement between the two Authorities appears indeed to be exceptional. As a rule there is practically no co-operation, beyond, perhaps, the notification of cases by both authorities to some Mutual Registration Society,[340] or the informal meetings of the Relieving Officers and the School Attendance Officers.[341]

Footnote 340:

Thus at Manchester, the Education Committee and the Guardians send
lists of their cases to the District Provident Society, and the
Secretary lets each Authority know what the other is doing.

Footnote 341:

It is impossible to give any figures as to the overlapping that
exists, since the practice varies so much in different towns, and in
many cases no records are kept.

(h)--The Provision of Meals at Day Industrial Schools and Special
Schools.

We have already alluded to the power of the Local Education Authorities to provide meals for the children attending the Day Industrial Schools and the Special Schools for the mentally or physically defective. The Day Industrial Schools are intended primarily for children who have played truant from the ordinary schools and who are committed by a magistrate's order. But in the case of widows or deserted wives who have to work all day, or when the father is incapacitated from work by illness or infirmity, or if the father is a widower, the children may be admitted to a Day Industrial School, without an order, as "voluntary cases."[342] When children are committed by a magistrate's order, the parents are ordered to make a weekly payment towards the cost of industrial training and meals.[343] In the case of children admitted voluntarily such payment is also theoretically demanded,[344] but in practice it is, as a rule, impossible to exact it. Thus at Liverpool, though small payments are received from widowers, the condition as to payment has to be waived in the case of widows and deserted wives, or when the father is unable to work through illness.[345] At Bootle we were informed that no payment is received from any of the voluntary cases. The Schools are open from 6 or 7 in the morning to 5.30 or 6 at night and three meals are provided. The dietary is as a rule monotonous, being continued week after week with practically no variation. In point of order, as might be expected, the service of the meals compares favourably with those given to necessitous children, erring rather on the side of over-much discipline. It is, unfortunately, by no means uncommon to find absolute silence insisted on, a regulation which has a most depressing effect. In these Day Industrial Schools the Local Education Authorities have a valuable instrument for providing for the numerous cases where mothers are at work all day and so cannot provide proper meals for their children, or where the children are neglected. This was urged by many witnesses before the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws,[346] and again recently by the Departmental Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools.[347] Very few authorities, however, have taken advantage of this power. In 1911 there were only twelve Day Industrial Schools in England, provided by eight authorities, and eight in Scotland, of which seven were in Glasgow.[348] The total attendance numbered a little over 3,000, the voluntary cases amounting to only 308.[349] These numbers showed a decrease compared with previous years,[350] and this decline has since continued, partly owing to the fact that truancy is far less common now than formerly, partly owing to the provision of meals for children attending elementary schools, which renders the Day Industrial Schools less necessary.[351]

Footnote 342:

Elementary Education Act, 1876 (39 and 40 Vic., c. 79), sec. 16 (4);
Children Act, 1908 (8 Edward VII., c. 67), sec. 79; "Day Industrial
Schools," by J. C. Legge, in _Proceedings of National Conference on
the Prevention of Destitution_, 1911, p. 360.

Footnote 343:

Children Act, 1908, sec. 82 (1).

Footnote 344:

_Ibid._, sec. 79.

Footnote 345:

"Day Industrial Schools," by J. C. Legge, in _Proceedings of National
Conference on the Prevention of Destitution_, 1911, p. 361. For many
years an arrangement has been in force by which the Liverpool Select
Vestry pay the Local Education Authority 9d. a week in respect of each
child in their area admitted as a voluntary scholar. (_Ibid._) A few
years ago the Guardians of the Toxteth Union agreed, in such cases,
where the parent was in receipt of outdoor relief, to increase the
relief by 6d. on condition that this was paid to the Education
Authority. (_Ibid._, p. 362.) The West Derby Guardians pay a lump sum
of L40 a year.

Footnote 346:

Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1909. 8vo edition,
Vol. III., p. 165.

Footnote 347:

Report of the Departmental Committee on Reformatory and Industrial
Schools, 1913, p. 62.

Footnote 348:

Fifty-fifth Report on Reformatory and Industrial Schools, 1911, Part
I., pp. 28-30; Part II., p. 20. Two of the schools in England have
since been closed, and the school at Leeds is shortly to be given up.

Footnote 349:

_Ibid._, Part I., pp. 267-292; Part II., p. 20.

Footnote 350:

_Ibid._, Part II., p. 19.

Footnote 351:

Report of the Departmental Committee on Reformatory and Industrial
Schools, 1913, p. 62.

The arrangements made for providing for the mentally and physically defective children vary in different towns. Sometimes no special provision is made. At Leicester, for instance, the mentally defective children who come from a distance bring their food with them and the caretaker warms it. Frequently, however, a regular dinner is supplied. Thus at Eastbourne dinners are provided at the Special School for dull and backward children at a very small charge.[352] At Bradford some of the children pay 1-1/2d. a meal, others receive it free. At Liverpool a payment of 1s., 6d. or 3d. a week is demanded, according to the circumstances, the meals being given free in special cases.[353] In Birkenhead, too, the charge varies, some paying 1s. a week, some 2d. or 1d. per meal, at the discretion of the teacher; no meals are given free, children who cannot pay being sent to the centre to have their dinner with the necessitous children from the ordinary elementary schools. There appears to be usually little difficulty in collecting payment. At Birkenhead we were told that some difficulty was experienced at first, but the children appreciate the dinners so much now that they beg their parents to give them the necessary pence.

Footnote 352:

Report of School Medical Officer for Eastbourne for 1912, p. 46.

Footnote 353:

The majority pay about 6d. a week. In the case of physically defective
children the parent's payment is intended to meet the expenses of
dinner, any medicines or dressings that may be necessary, and the cost
of conveyance. It does not, of course, nearly cover these charges.

At the Open Air Schools[354] the common meal always forms part of the regular school routine. As a rule three meals a day are provided,[355] and sometimes milk is given in addition in the middle of the morning. Usually some charge is made towards the cost of the meals, varying from 6d. to 3s. per week, according to the parents' circumstances, but in necessitous cases the charge is remitted.[356]

Footnote 354:

In 1911 there were only nine Open Air Schools, maintained by eight
authorities. (Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of
Education for 1911, p. 215.)

Footnote 355:

At Darlington only a mid-day meal is provided.

Footnote 356:

At Norwich the charge varies from 6d. to 1s. 6d.; at Sheffield, from
6d. to 2s. 6d.; at Halifax it may amount to 3s. At Barnsley all the
parents are charged 2s. 6d. per week, no children being admitted
without payment. At Bradford the meals are given free to all.

The service of the meals at these Special Schools presents in general a marked contrast to the methods prevailing at the centres for necessitous children. For example, at Birkenhead, where the management of the feeding centres leaves much to be desired,[357] the dinner provided at the Mentally Defective School, for all children who care to stay, is served in an attractive and educational manner. One or more teachers are always present to supervise it. The children enter all together and sit down at small tables. The boys and girls take it in turns to lay the tables and clear away afterwards, and help to serve the food. Table-cloths are provided and these are kept remarkably clean. Somewhat similar conditions prevail at Liverpool in the Special Schools for Physically and Mentally Defective Children.[358] But it is at a school for feeble-minded children at Bradford that we found the most perfect arrangements. The smallness of the numbers--only some 17 or 18 children being present--allowed attention to be paid to each individual child. The dinner was served in a bright cheerful hall, and the tables were nicely laid by the children, with table-cloths, plants and flowers; these latter the children often bring themselves. Two teachers are always present and preside at the two tables, having their dinner with the children. The children's manners were excellent and spoke volumes for the patience and care exercised by the teachers.

Footnote 357:

See ante, pp. 95-6.

Footnote 358:

At one of these schools, the mentally defective children were having
their dinner in one room, the physically defective in an adjoining
room. All the children stay for the meal. The headmistress supervised,
assisted by a teacher for the mentally defective, and the school nurse
for the physically defective children. Tablecloths were provided for
the latter, but not for the former. The dinner was cooked by the
children who had been attending the cookery class in the morning; the
children laid the tables, and monitors helped to serve the food.

The example afforded by the service of the meals at these special schools might well be imitated by the Education Authorities in providing meals at the ordinary elementary schools.

(i)--The Underfed Child in Rural Schools.

We have confined our investigations almost entirely to the Urban Districts. We must, however, briefly touch upon the question of underfeeding in the country. Here the conditions are different. The problem is not only how to provide for the children who do not get sufficient to eat; there are also to be considered the large numbers who are unable to return home at midday and have to bring their dinner to school with them. Many of these children have to walk long distances, perhaps two miles, three miles, or even more. The long walk necessitates an early start from home; this makes the interval between breakfast and dinner long and the exercise sharpens the appetite. Hence it is of the greatest importance that the midday meal should be adequate. In most cases, however, as the reports of School Medical Officers abundantly testify, the dinner which these children bring with them consists of bread and jam, cake or pastry, with perhaps a bottle of cold tea.[359] In a few schools the teachers have organised cocoa clubs, the children paying 1d. or 1-1/2d. per week, which is as a rule just sufficient to cover expenses.[360] Incidentally, it is noticed, the weekly payment for cocoa has a good effect on the attendance. "A child having once paid his or her cocoa fee at the beginning of the week seldom stays away from school during the remainder of the week if it can possibly be avoided."[361]

Footnote 359:

In East Sussex, for instance, where particulars were supplied by the
teachers as to the meals brought by eleven of the children, it was
found that the food was totally inadequate, in most cases consisting
of bread and butter, or cake, with perhaps a small piece of cheese or
an apple. Two children of five years old, who had to walk two miles to
school, brought, one of them bread and butter only, the other cake.
Three children, who had to walk three and a half miles, brought either
cake or only bread. ("The Diet of Elementary School Children in
Country Districts," by Dr. George Finch, in _Rearing an Imperial
Race_, edited by C. E. Hecht, 1913, p. 29.) In a Bedfordshire school
out of 62 children who brought their dinner to school with them, one
had an apple tart, three had bread and cheese, while 58 had "bread
with a thin layer of butter or lard on it, or else bread and jam, or
bread and syrup. This meal was washed down with water, as nothing hot
was obtainable." ("How the Family of the Agricultural Labourer Lives,"
by Ronald T. Herdman, reprinted in _Rearing an Imperial Race_, p.
341.)

Footnote 360:

Thus at Brynconin, where 85 children are supplied daily with cocoa for
a weekly charge of 1d., the week's expenditure on cocoa, sugar and
milk amounts to 6s. 6d., and the children's payments to 6s. 10d.
(Report of the School Medical Officer for Pembrokeshire for 1912, p.
14.) See also Reports of the School Medical Officer for Hampshire
(1910), p. 25; for the Isle of Ely (1910), p. 18; for Gloucestershire
(1910), p. 53; for East Suffolk (1910), p. 19; for West Sussex (1911),
p. 10. Sometimes the cocoa is provided free through the generosity of
the teachers. (See Report of Monmouthshire Education Committee on the
Medical Inspection Department for 1910, p. 9.)

Footnote 361:

Report of the School Medical Officer for Hampshire for 1910, p. 25.

Sometimes the teacher encourages the children to bring bottles of milk, cocoa or coffee and sees that they are warmed over the fire before being partaken of.

Occasionally a regular dinner is provided. We have already mentioned the experiment made at Rousdon by Sir Henry Peek in 1876. This has been continued to the present day. A hot dinner is provided daily, consisting of one course, soup with bread and vegetables two days a week, and some form of suet pudding the other three days. About half the children stay for the dinner and pay one penny each, these payments just about covering the cost of the food. The meal is served in a dining-room in the school and the ex-headmaster and the present headmaster voluntarily undertake the supervision.

A somewhat similar plan has been tried at Grassington, in Yorkshire. When, eighteen years ago, the teaching of cookery was introduced, it was resolved to combine with that instruction the provision of a hot midday meal. The children not only cook the dinner themselves, but they take it in turns to order and pay for the materials, thus acquiring the valuable knowledge how to buy. They are taught the value of the different foodstuffs and learn how to make a good substantial dinner at a little cost. A two-course dinner, ample and varied, is provided daily at the school.[362] Each child is allowed to eat as much as it wants, but no waste is allowed. Marvellous as it appears, the payment of a 1d. per meal covers the cost of the food.[363] The dinner appears to have been intended chiefly for the children who came from a distance, but the parents of the children who live in the village have been glad to avail themselves of the provision, since the school dinner is better than they can supply at home.[364] Nearly half the children stay. All the arrangements are, and have from the first been, made by the headmaster's wife, who takes the cookery lesson and serves the meal herself, and the success of the experiment must be very largely attributed to her voluntary labours.

Footnote 362:

For sample menus, see Appendix I., p. 236.

Footnote 363:

For instance, the cost of the food for the dinners for twelve weeks
amounted to L7 9s. 8d., and the children's payments to L7 9s. 5d. On
cold snowy mornings hot cocoa is provided before morning school for
all the children. The cost of this is, we gather, borne entirely by
the headmaster and his wife.

Footnote 364:

_Yorkshire Post_, July 9, 1908.

In two schools in Cheshire also, Siddington and Nether Alderley, hot dinners are provided at a charge of 1-1/2d., in the former during the winter months, in the latter all the year round. In both cases the children's payments cover, or slightly more than cover, the cost of the food, the other expenses being borne by voluntary funds.

Such provision is, however, quite exceptional. As a rule no provision whatever is made. "I have only once seen any supervision of the meal on the part of the teachers," writes a late Assistant School Medical Officer for East Sussex; "in fine weather the children generally eat [their dinner] out of doors; in bad weather it is taken in the school or cloak-room in what are often very unhygienic surroundings."[365] "There is no doubt," writes another School Medical Officer, "that at some of the schools the conditions in which the children get their midday meal are deplorable."[366] "It is only too common a sight," reports the School Medical Officer for Derbyshire, "to see little children sitting in a corner of the class-room, cloak-room or even the playground, munching at thick slices of bread and butter. Under these circumstances," he continues, "it cannot be wondered at that children below the normal development are to be found in our schools."[367] In Anglesey the School Medical Officer finds more children badly nourished in the rural areas than in the urban areas; this he attributes mainly to the long walk to school every day, the inadequacy of the midday meal and the hurried manner in which it is eaten.[368]

Footnote 365:

"The Diet of Elementary School Children in Country Districts," by Dr.
George Finch, in _Rearing an Imperial Race_, edited by C. E. Hecht,
1913, p. 109.

Footnote 366:

Report of the School Medical Officer for Hampshire, 1910, p. 24.

Footnote 367:

Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for
1911, p. 284.

Footnote 368:

_Ibid._, pp. 283-4.

It is indeed essential that in all country schools to which children come from a distance, provision should be made for the serving of a midday meal under proper supervision.[369] As Dr. George Finch points out, "the authority which requires the child to spend its day away from home might not unreasonably be expected by the parents to make some provision that its midday meal might be taken under not unfavourable conditions. The parent, however conscientious, cannot adequately deal with the problem, and the provision of suitable cold food is not an easy matter, even in the more well-to-do family."[370] The meals should be served as part of the school curriculum and might well be combined with the teaching of cookery as is done at Grassington.

Footnote 369:

As we have seen, the Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical
Inspection and Feeding in 1905 recommended that managers of country
schools should arrange, during the winter at any rate, to provide
either a hot dinner or soup or cocoa for children who lived too far
away to go home at mid-day. (See ante, p. 38.)

Footnote 370:

"The Diet of Elementary School Children in Country Districts," by Dr.
George Finch, in _Rearing an Imperial Race_, edited by C. E. Hecht,
1913, p. 109.

Conclusions.

It may be useful now to sum up the main points which emerge from the foregoing description. The proposal, which we shall discuss in the final chapter, to make the midday meal a part of the school curriculum, to be attended by all children who wish to avail themselves of the provision, would obviate many of the difficulties that arise under the present system. Meanwhile we may point out some ways in which improvements can be effected, apart from this more drastic proposal.

1. Since the Provision of Meals Act is only permissive, Local Education Authorities are allowed to remain inactive in spite of the fact that children in their schools are underfed, and that no adequate provision is made by voluntary agencies. It should be made obligatory on the Local Authority to take action in such a case.

2. The limitation of the amount which may be spent on food by the Local Education Authority to the sum yielded by a halfpenny rate restricts operations in some towns, and prevents provision being made for all the necessitous children. This limitation should be removed.

An alteration of the law in these two directions would merely assimilate the powers and duties of the English Education Authorities to those already conferred on the Scottish School Boards by the Education (Scotland) Act of 1908.[371]

Footnote 371:

See post, pp. 237-8.

3. The selection of the children who are to receive school meals is based, often solely and always primarily, on the poverty test. Little attempt is made to link up the provision of meals with the school medical service. The meals, that is to say, are regarded primarily as a means of relieving distress rather than as a remedy for malnutrition. The numbers selected vary according to the policy of the Local Education Authority and the views taken by the individual head teachers. Nowhere can the selection of the children be said to be satisfactory. In towns such as Bradford, where the Local Authority is determined to search out all cases of children who are suffering from lack of food, the great majority of underfed children are doubtless discovered, but in other towns numbers of such children are overlooked and left unprovided for, while everywhere little or no provision is made for the countless children who are improperly fed at home. We shall discuss in the final chapter the best method to be pursued in this matter of selecting the children.

4. There is great diversity of practice in different towns with regard to the time at which the meal is given, the manner in which it is prepared and served, and the kind of food supplied. Where only one meal is provided, it would appear that dinner is for many reasons preferable to breakfast. The dietary should be varied and should be drawn up in consultation with the School Medical Officer; it should be so planned as to contain a due proportion of the elements which are lacking in the child's home diet, and special provision should be made for the infants. The preparation of the meals should not be left to caterers but should be undertaken by the Local Authority, so that adherence to the approved dietary and a high standard of quality can be assured. The meal should be regarded as part of the school curriculum. It should be served as far as possible on the school premises, and should be attended only by children from that particular school. The children should be taught to set the tables and wait on one another, the tables being nicely laid, with table-cloths and, if possible, flowers or plants. Clean hands and faces and orderly behaviour should be insisted on. Some of the teachers should supervise the meal and should receive some extra remuneration for this service.

5. The discontinuance of the school meals during the holidays has been shown to undo much of the benefit derived during term-time, and it entails unnecessary suffering on the children. The expenditure of the rates on holiday feeding must be legalised. The limitation of the provision to the winter months, as is the practice in some towns, is even more absurd. Local Authorities should be required to continue the school meals throughout the year, if need exists.

6. The sums contributed by the parents towards the cost of their children's meals amount to only a trifling fraction of the total expenditure. The power of providing meals as a matter of convenience for children whose parents are able and willing to pay has been very sparingly used by the Local Education Authorities, as far as the ordinary elementary schools are concerned. In the special schools for defective children, on the other hand, where not infrequently a midday meal is provided for all the children, a considerable proportion of the parents contribute towards the cost. It is difficult to say whether the establishment of School Restaurants in the ordinary schools would be successful. One point, however, seems clear; if the plan is to succeed, the meals must be intended primarily for paying children; if they are provided mainly for necessitous children, parents who can afford to pay will not send their children to any great extent.

In the case of the parents who can afford to feed their children but neglect to do so, the attempt to recover the cost of the meals supplied to the children results as a rule in almost total failure, owing to the extreme difficulty of obtaining conclusive evidence of the parents' ability to pay. An attempt to recover may be worse than useless, for it frequently leads the parent to withdraw his children promptly from the school meals, though their need of the meals continues as great as before.

7. Owing to the inadequate relief usually given by the Boards of Guardians, the Local Education Authorities are in many cases forced to feed children whose parents are receiving poor relief. In only a few towns is any systematic attempt made to prevent this overlapping between the two authorities. So long as the Guardians retain their present functions, the plan adopted at Bradford and a few other towns, by which the out-relief granted by the Guardians is given partly in the form of school meals, the Guardians paying the Education Authority for these meals, might well be extended to other towns. By this plan overlapping of relief is avoided, while it ensures that the relief given to the mother on account of her children is in effect obtained by them.

8. In the rural districts the conditions under which the children eat their midday meal are frequently deplorable. The long walk to school renders it even more important than it is in the towns that the meal should be a substantial one, but the food which the children bring with them is as a rule entirely inadequate. In the few schools where a hot dinner has been provided, the plan has met with marked success, and such provision should be made in all schools. It might advantageously be combined with the teaching of cookery, a plan which is more practicable in the country than in the towns, since the numbers to be provided for are comparatively small.