(g)—Overlapping with the Poor Law Authority.
We have already described the extent to which, in the provinces, the provision of meals by the Local Education Authority overlaps the granting of relief by the Poor Law Authorities. London is no exception to the general rule. In 1908 it was found that out of 1,218 families investigated, 3·2 per cent. were at the time in receipt of out-relief, while 13·54 per cent. had recently been receiving such relief.[[447]] In February, 1910, it was reported that, of the children who were being fed all over London, 4·6 per cent. were from families to whom Poor Law relief was being granted.[[448]] The confusion was the greater since the practice of the Guardians varied in each Union. "There is no uniformity of policy or action amongst the Boards," reports the Education Committee of the County Council in 1910. "For example, there could hardly be a wider divergence of principle and practice between public bodies than that which exists between such Boards as Paddington, Fulham, and St. George's-in-the-East on the one hand, and Islington and Poplar on the other. In the case of Fulham, the Guardians, when assessing the relief to be granted, take into account the extent to which school meals are already being supplied to children of the family ... but in the case of Poplar, the Guardians have informed the various school Care Committees that 'the fact that a family is in receipt of poor law relief should not be considered as a reason for the children not being supplied with meals.'"[[449]] To put an end to all this overlapping and diversity of practice, the Council proposed that the Guardians should purchase school meals for the children of families who were in receipt of relief. The Local Government Board, however, declined to agree to this course. In practice, they thought, it was hardly possible to avoid all difficulty of overlapping, "though it should be feasible, with careful administration, to restrict it within reasonable limits"; the only suggestion they offered towards the solution of the difficulty was that, if it appeared to the Education Authority that a child whose parents were receiving out-relief required supervision by the Guardians, the Education Authority should communicate with the Guardians with a view to an investigation of the circumstances.[[450]] This suggestion was acted upon, and the Care Committees were instructed in future to notify to the Guardians all cases in which, to their knowledge, necessitous children belonged to families in receipt of poor law relief.[[451]] But such notification had little practical result. The Guardians continued to grant inadequate relief, and the Council felt compelled to continue to provide these children with food. How necessary school meals were was, indeed, clearly shown by a resolution of the Hammersmith Guardians, who themselves actually declared that, "when school children's parents are in receipt of outdoor relief, that fact should in general be taken as an indication that such children would be benefited by school meals, and not as an indication that they are adequately fed, since, as a matter of fact, outdoor relief is seldom or never adequate"![[452]]
Though the Council's proposal that the Boards of Guardians should repay the cost of the meals was rejected by the Local Government Board, as far as London generally was concerned, individual Boards have agreed to the plan. In Lambeth and Chelsea the Guardians have consented to pay the cost of meals supplied to the children of parents who are receiving out-relief, if they consider that school meals are necessary.[[453]] At Hampstead, where the funds for the provision of school meals are supplied by the Council of Social Welfare,[[454]] an informal arrangement has been made with the Guardians. Where the mother can stay at home and can be trusted to expend the relief given in food for the children, the Guardians have agreed to give ample relief. Where the mother goes out to work or cannot be trusted to feed the children properly, or where it is undesirable for the children to go home, the Council of Social Welfare pays for school dinners.
But as a rule no definite arrangement is made. A few Care Committees refuse to feed children whose parents are receiving relief, but in the great majority of schools cases are to be found where children are being fed by the Care Committee, while their parents are being relieved by the Guardians.[[455]] Frequently no official communication passes between the two authorities concerned. The Guardians may learn indirectly through the Relieving Officer, or perhaps through some member of their Board who happens also to be a member of the Care Committee, that the latter are feeding the children. Where a system of mutual registration has been established, each authority will, theoretically, be informed of what the other is doing. How far all cases are actually notified will depend on the secretary of each individual Care Committee. And this system of mutual registration does not prevent overlapping in many cases where the children are on the feeding-list for a short time only, since cases are often notified only once a month, by which time the necessity for feeding may have ceased. Occasionally the Guardians ask the Care Committee to inform them if they discover any cases where the relief appears inadequate, so that they may increase it, if necessary. In other Unions the Guardians deliberately count on the provision of school meals to supplement the relief given; they tell the parents to apply for dinners and grant less relief in consequence, thereafter priding themselves on keeping down the rates.
APPENDIX
EXAMPLES OF FEEDING CENTRES IN LONDON
(a)—School, visited October, 1913.
Here the dinner is served in the Infants' School in a room at the top of the building. Some sixty infants, all attending the school, were being fed. They entered the room two by two and sat down together at low tables on specially small chairs. Two teachers were present throughout the meal; they served the food, and four of the children handed it round. Perfect order was kept, and at the end of the meal all the children rose together, and, after saying grace, marched out quietly. The food is cooked on the premises, the menu being drawn up by one of the teachers and varied every day. The whole meal was served in as attractive a manner as possible, and testified eloquently to the care and thought which must have been spent on its organisation.
(b)—School, visited June, 1913.
Here the meal is served in the school hall. The Headmistress much objects to this plan, since it leaves the atmosphere close and stuffy all the afternoon. Moreover, the bringing in of the tables and forms, an operation which has to be begun twenty minutes before the end of morning school, causes a considerable commotion. On the day of our visit 160 children, boys, girls and infants, were receiving dinner. For this number there were only one supervisor and two servers, assisted by five or six monitresses chosen from among the elder children. As a result of this inadequate supervision the meal was served in a perfect babel of noise; the children shouted and screamed and banged their spoons on the table. A bell was rung at intervals throughout the meal to obtain silence, but no attention was paid to it. The fact that there was a deficiency of seating accommodation heightened the confusion. At the end of each table a child had to stand, and those sitting down were crowded much too closely together. Separate tables were reserved for the infants, of whom there were a large number, some of them tiny mites of three years old. The tables, however, were not specially adapted for them, being of the ordinary height. In consequence many of the little ones had considerable difficulty in feeding themselves, their heads only just appearing above the table, and, of course, nobody had time to attend to their wants. It is only fair to add that we saw the centre at a particularly unfortunate time, since the supervisor had only taken over the work a few days prior to our visit, and therefore had not yet obtained a firm hold over the children. The noise, we were told, was usually not so great.
(c)—Centre, visited May, 1913.
This centre, attended by children from two neighbouring schools, is a striking illustration of what can be effected by patient and careful supervision. At the time of our visit this work was being performed by an assistant teacher, but before her appointment the secretary or some other member of the Care Committee daily supervised the meal for two years. The meal was served in a large, cheerful room. No tablecloths were supplied; at one time flowers were provided, much to the joy of the children, but it was found impossible to continue this practice. The children were seated at small tables, some eight or ten at each, an arrangement which renders the work of supervision very much easier. There were no infants present, as these are sent to the Cookery Centre. A boy or girl was responsible for each table; they handed round the food, paying attention to the individual appetites of the children. No waste of food was permitted, the children being kept till they had finished. The whole scene, the quiet and orderly behaviour of the children and their consideration for one another's wants, left a most pleasing impression upon the mind. At the date of our visit the numbers were small, only some 50 children being present, but we were told that their behaviour was quite as orderly even in winter, when the numbers were much larger.
(d)—Centre, visited March, 1913.
This centre is a large basement room in a Mission Hall, dark and unattractive, accommodating between 200 and 300 children. It serves several neighbouring schools, and the numbers on the day of our visit were too large to admit of all the children sitting down together. As each child came in and gave up its ticket, it seized a spoon and fork from a pile on a table near the door, and rushed to its place. When about half the children were seated, grace was sung or rather shouted, and then the food was brought in and literally flung on to the table by the server and one or two of the elder boys. Though the numbers were so large there was only one supervisor, though we were told that occasionally one of the sisters from the neighbouring settlement came to help. With such inadequate supervision it was, of course, impossible to teach table manners. The children, the boys especially, gobbled down their dinner, amid a hubbub of noise, and hurried out as soon as they had finished, other boys rushing in to take their places. No special provision was made for the infants; they were placed with the other children and were given the same food. No attention was paid to individual appetites and much of the food, we were told, was wasted.
(e)—Centre, visited June, 1913.
This is a centre for Jewish children, serving three or four neighbouring schools. The room not being large enough to accommodate all the children at once, two relays are necessary, even in summer. Over 200 children were present, but there was only one supervisor, assisted by four or five women. The children entered in an orderly fashion and seated themselves at the table, none being allowed to begin the meal till all were seated. The infants were placed at a separate table; they are given special food when the dietary provided for the other children is not suitable for them. Some of the elder girls acted as monitresses and helped to serve the food and clear up afterwards. Unfortunately, owing to the fact that other children were waiting to come in, the meal was necessarily hurried, the second course being placed on the table while the children were still eating the first course. Though the order maintained was wonderful, considering the large numbers present, it was impossible to attend adequately to the children's manners; many of them were using their fingers, and there appeared to be considerable waste of food.
(f)—Centre, visited October, 1913.
This is another centre for Jewish children. The dinner was served in a large, dreary parish hall, to some 200 or 300 children. There was one supervisor and four servers, while tickets were taken by the caretaker. Order was well preserved, but only by means of the frequent ringing of a bell, and by the enforcement of absolute silence. The supervisor said that if the children were allowed to talk the noise would be unbearable. Before being given their food, the children were told to hold up their hands if they were "big eaters," the margin of waste being minimised in this way. Although the manners and behaviour of the children could not be said to be bad, the whole effect was singularly unattractive—the bare room, the large numbers, and the frequent shouted commands and rebukes of the supervisor leaving no scope for humanising and educational influences.
CHAPTER IV
THE EXTENT AND CAUSES OF MALNUTRITION
"Defective nutrition," Sir George Newman points out, "stands in the forefront as the most important of all physical defects from which school children suffer."[[456]] Malnutrition, 'debility' and other physical defects in childhood "are the ancestry of tuberculosis in the adult. They predispose to disease, and are, in a sense, both its seed and its soil."[[457]]
It is impossible to give any figures as to the extent of this defect, since nutrition is not a condition which can be measured by any definite standards. The weight of the child is, of course, a most important matter to be noted, but there are other points—"the ratio of stature to weight; the general appearance, carriage and 'substance' of the child; the firmness of the tissues; the presence of subcutaneous fat; the development of the muscular system; the condition of the skin and redness of the mucous membranes; the expression of listlessness or alertness, apathy or keenness; the condition of the various systems of the body; and, speaking generally, the relative balance and co-ordination of the functions and powers of digestion, absorption and assimilation of food."[[458]] Each observer adopts a different standard of what constitutes good nutrition, and hence the statistics given in the reports of the School Medical Officers cannot be used for comparative purposes. According to the latest figures, as quoted by the President of the Board of Education, 10 per cent. of the elementary school children of England and Wales suffer from defective nutrition.[[459]] Many of the School Medical Officers, however, have obviously adopted a low standard and Mr. Arthur Greenwood, who has made a careful enquiry into this subject, is of opinion that, "taking the country as a whole, not merely 10 per cent., but probably a number approaching 20 per cent., show perceptible signs of malnutrition."[[460]]
Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that the degeneration is progressive. In an enquiry conducted by Dr. Arkle at Liverpool, 2,111 children from three elementary schools were compared, as to height and weight, with 366 children from secondary schools. The results (see accompanying table) showed that at practically every age the heights and weights of the children varied directly with the class from which they were drawn, and the deficit increased out of proportion to the rate of growth. "These figures," he points out, "are rendered all the more striking when one considers that one is talking of children and not of full-grown men. A difference of a stone in the weight of two men may not be a very great matter, but when the investigation shows such a discrepancy between two groups of boys of eleven, it means that one of the groups is deficient to the extent of one-fifth of the whole body weight, and the decadence is so progressive that the deficiency has by fourteen years of age almost reached a quarter of the whole body weight."[[461]]
This malnutrition is to be attributed to many causes besides actual lack of food. Improper food and hurried methods of eating account for much malnutrition. So much has been written on the subject of the wrong feeding of children that it seems unnecessary to labour this point. One can, indeed, hardly open a report of a School Medical Officer without finding this evil deplored. In the poorest homes there are frequently no fixed meal times; the children are given "a piece" when they are hungry, and this is often eaten in the street or on the doorstep. Bread and tea figure largely in the dietary. Supper is frequently the principal meal of the day, with resulting indigestion for the children.
Employment out of school hours and want of sleep are again important factors. Indeed, in the eyes of some School Medical Officers, malnutrition is due more to want of sleep than to lack of food. The children are almost invariably kept up till late at night, it being a rare exception to find a child being sent to bed at anything approaching a reasonable hour.
A still more potent cause, perhaps, is to be found in bad housing conditions. Striking testimony as to the relation between the physique of school children and housing was adduced by Dr. Leslie Mackenzie and Captain Foster, as a result of an enquiry into the condition of 72,857 school children in Glasgow. "If we take all the children of ages from 5 to 18," they report, "we find that the average weight of the one-roomed boy is 52·6 lbs.; of the two-roomed, 56·1 lbs.; of the three-roomed, 60·6 lbs.; of the four-roomed and over, 64·3 lbs. The respective heights are 46·6 inches; 48·1 inches; 50·0 inches and 51·3 inches. For girls the corresponding figures are:—Weights, 51·5 lbs.; 54·8 lbs.; 59·4 lbs.; 65·5 lbs. The heights are 46·3 inches; 47·8 inches; 49·6 inches; 57·6 inches."[[462]]
At East Ham also the nutrition of the children was found to vary in accordance with the number of rooms:—[[463]]
| Number of Rooms. | Number of Children Examined. | Percentage with Nutritional Defects. |
|---|---|---|
| Children from 2 and 3-roomed houses | 255 | 17·2 |
| 4-roomed houses | 486 | 16·7 |
| 5-roomed houses | 657 | 13·2 |
| 6-roomed houses | 1,486 | 13·5 |
| Number of Persons per Room. | ||
|---|---|---|
| Less than one | 877 | 9·2 |
| One | 576 | 15·4 |
| Between one and two | 1,379 | 15·2 |
| Two and more | 181 | 17·7 |
The interpretation of these tables, as the School Medical Officer points out, must be guarded. But, he continues, "I think it is safe to assume that nutrition ... suffered the more confined the individual."[[464]]
Actual physical defects, such as decayed teeth,[[465]] adenoids or enlarged tonsils, or definite diseases, such as phthisis, may account for malnutrition in many cases. Want of cleanliness again may be a cause.[[466]]
The precise effect to be attributed to each cause is difficult to estimate. Often, of course, two or more factors will be present, concurrently and interdependently. In an enquiry made in 1910 by Dr. Chate, into the condition of 570 children (307 boys and 263 girls) in a rural or semi-rural district of Middlesex who were suffering from malnutrition, it was found that poverty was the principal cause in 29·5 per cent. of the cases among the boys, and 26·1 per cent. among the girls. Adenoids, worms, rickets, carious teeth and oral sepsis accounted for 32·7 per cent. among the boys, and 33·3 per cent. among the girls. Improper diet was the main cause in 2·3 per cent. of the cases. In 69 cases malnutrition was due to some disease such as tuberculosis, chronic bronchitis, etc., while in 13 cases it was attributed to overcrowding, and in 10 cases to overwork with insufficient sleep.[[467]] In the following year a similar enquiry was made by Dr. Tate in a suburban residential area of the same county. Out of 167 cases, defective nutrition was found to be due to poverty and neglect in 23·3 per cent.; to rickets, adenoids, worms or digestive disorder in 28·5 per cent.; to lung affection in 5·4 per cent.; in 7·2 per cent. malnutrition "appeared to be associated with some previous or present condition of ill-health, to account for which no organic mischief could be found at the time of inspection"; while in 33 instances no obvious cause could be assigned.[[468]]
At Bootle the School Medical Officer reports that out of 289 cases of sub-normal nutrition, the cause is to be sought in 78 per cent. in some definite disease or physical defect (including disturbances of digestion due to improper feeding); in 17 per cent. there are no definite signs of organic disease; while in 5 per cent. malnutrition is due to neglect.[[469]]
At Wolverhampton Dr. Badger reports that, out of 131 cases, malnutrition is due to the influence or reaction of disease, convalescence from recent disease, or defective heredity in 64; to pampering in 4; to excessive growth in 1; to overwork and insufficient sleep in 11; to ignorance and poverty in 25; while in 26 cases there was strong evidence of neglect, dirt or drink.[[470]] In his opinion, an opinion based upon a comparison of the clothing and footgear of the malnourished and normal children, "the malnutrition of the scholars examined was not primarily due to poverty."[[471]] This, as Sir George Newman points out, "may well have been the case, but the fact that the examinations were 'routine' in character, when the children are apt to be specially dressed and boots even borrowed for the occasion, makes this particular item, unless subjected to further analysis, of little or no value as a criterion in forming a judgment as to the relation of poverty to the malnutrition."[[472]]
Other School Medical Officers are of the same opinion as Dr. Badger. At Congleton the School Medical Officer visited the homes of a considerable number of children whose nutrition was defective, with a view to ascertaining the cause of their condition. He found that "actual poverty of the parents and inability to provide food was comparatively rare, that neglect was common, and unsuitable food probably the most frequent cause."[[473]] At Hornsey in the majority of cases "some definite ailment was apparent to explain, at least partially, the condition. There were very few instances in which it could be certainly stated that insufficiency of food was the sole cause."[[474]] At Manchester "the vast majority" of children whose nutrition was medium "and many of those who were poorly nourished were not in this condition through want of food.... Each year's work adds to the evidence that poverty is not responsible for more than about 50 per cent. of the cases."[[475]] On the other hand, the School Medical Officer for Kidderminster reports, "I find that the better condition of trade and employment in the town was reflected in the improved nutrition of the children.... This also tends to show that the majority of cases of defective nutrition arise, not from carelessness and inattention on the part of the parents, but from inability on their part to provide the children with sufficient nourishment owing to want of means."[[476]]
It is indeed impossible to say how much malnutrition is due to poverty. Though the immediate cause may be disease, overwork, or overcrowding, these evils are themselves largely the result of insufficient means.
The relation between the malnutrition of the children and the amount of the family income is strikingly illustrated by the results of an enquiry recently made into the diet of the labouring classes in Glasgow. A careful study was made of the family diet of certain selected families during a week, or in some cases a fortnight, and the energy value of each diet expressed in terms of the requirements of a man per day, a woman or a boy of 14 to 16 being reckoned as equivalent to ·8 of a man, a girl of 14 to 16 as ·7, and children of 10 to 13, 6 to 9, 2 to 5, and under 2 respectively as ·6, ·5, ·4, ·3. "If a family diet expressed in this way gives a yield of energy of less than 3,500 calories per man per day, it is insufficient for active work, and if less than 3,000 calories, it is quite inadequate for the proper maintenance of growth and of normal activity."[[477]]
"Taking the average intake of energy and of protein in the various groups [comprising 52 families], the results are as follows:—
| Energy. | Protein. | |
|---|---|---|
| Group A. [Income regular, average 39s.] (excluding LIX. abnormal) | 3,184 | 113·8 |
| Group B. [Income regular, lodgers kept, average 43s.] | 3,316 | 111·7 |
| Group C. [Income regular, between 27s. & 31s.] | 3,467 | 118 |
| Group D. [ " " " 20s. & 25s.] | 3,456 | 117·7 |
| Group E. [ " " under 20s.] | 2,690 | 97·8 |
| Group F. [Income irregular, over 20s.] | 2,994 | 108 |
| (excluding XLIV. abnormal) | 2,784 | 101·4 |
| Group G. [Income irregular, under 20s.] | 2,797 | 96·6 |
| Group H. [ " " father drinks] | 3,155 | 103·9 |
| or, excluding XXVII. abnormal | 2,921 | 95·6 |
"These figures show conclusively that, while the labouring classes with a regular income of over 20s. a week generally manage to secure a diet approaching the proper standard for active life, those with a smaller income and those with an irregular income entirely fail to get a supply of food sufficient for the proper development and growth of the body or for the maintenance of a capacity for active work."[[478]] "An interesting point in connection with these studies is the influence of the diet on the physical condition of the children." The weights of a number of children which were obtained "show very markedly the relationship between the physique and the food. When the weight is much below the average for that age, almost without exception the diet is inadequate."[[479]]
Dr. Larkins, late assistant School Medical Officer for Surrey, also came to the conclusion "that a steady wage of 20s. a week is required to produce and properly maintain average strong well-nourished children; that below this figure, the danger zone is reached." This conclusion was based on an enquiry he made into the wages of the parents of all children aged 13 that he examined during a considerable period.[[480]] The results are seen in the following table:—
| Average Weekly Wages. | Average Weight in lbs. of children aged between 13 and 14. | General Condition of the children (Percent Very Good / Average / Poor) | Average number of children in family. (Total, Under 14, Over 14) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Over 25s. | 99·6 | 50 / 46 / 4 | 5·5 3·4 2·1 |
| 20s. to 25s. | 84·1 | 15 / 73 / 11 | 5·7 2·8 2·9 |
| 18s. to 20s. | 77·0 | / 56 / 44 | 6·3 3·8 2·5 |
| 16s. to 18s. | 72·6 | / 42·5 / 57·5 | 6·6 4·2 2·4 |
| 14s. to 16s. | 74·3 | / 22 / 78 | 7·6 2·9 4·7 |
| 12s. to 14s. | 70·8 | / 20 / 80 | 3·6 2·2 1·4 |
The wages are the total weekly income out of which everything has to be paid, including rent, which varies from 4s. to 7s. 6d. ("The Influence of Wages on the Child's Nutrition," by F. E. Larkins, M.D. Edin., D.P.H., late Assistant School Medical Officer for Surrey, in The Medical Officer, December 17, 1910, p. 347.)
The effect of education is, as was recognised thirty years ago, to intensify the evil of malnutrition. "To educate underfed children," says Dr. Leslie Mackenzie, "is to promote deterioration of physique by exhausting the nervous system. Education of the underfed is a positive evil."[[481]] "Defective nutrition," says the School Medical Officer for Blackburn, "to a far greater extent than any other single cause, and probably more than all other causes combined, renders children incapable of education. In a growing child the demands of muscle and bone must be satisfied before those of nervous tissue, and consequently when there is deficiency, or what comes to the same thing, unsuitability of food or inability to assimilate it, the nervous system is the first to suffer, the brain is starved and anæmic, and the extra strain involved in school work can have only a harmful, and in some cases a disastrous result."[[482]] "There is probably no disease of children," says another School Medical Officer, "which needs combating more than bad nutrition.... It is quite impossible for any child thus affected to compete mentally with normal children of similar age; in fact, mental defect is frequently found in association with malnutrition."[[483]]
This relation of mental capacity to nutrition was exemplified in the figures quoted by Dr. Ralph Crowley at the Education Conference in 1907. He examined 1,840 children in elementary schools at Bradford, and classified them according to their nutrition and intelligence.
Of the children of exceptional intelligence, 62·7 per cent. were of good nutrition, 35·6 per cent. were below normal, and 1·7 per cent. were of poor or very poor nutrition. Of the children who were exceptionally dull, only 24·9 per cent. were of good nutrition, 39·5 were below normal, and no less than 35·6 poor or very poor.[[484]]
In an enquiry made at Manchester by the School Medical Officer a few years ago, it was found on examining 146 poorly nourished and 163 markedly badly nourished children, that 56·1 per cent. of the former were below par in mental capacity, and 4·8 per cent. were classed as bad; of the latter 63·2 per cent. were below normal, and 12·9 per cent. bad.
But the most remarkable results are recorded by Dr. Arkle, of Liverpool, in the enquiry to which we have already referred. He asked the teachers to give evidence as to the intelligence of the 2,111 elementary school children whom he examined. "The teachers in 'A' and 'B' both return about 60 per cent. of the children as normal in intelligence, but whereas the former returns 25 per cent. as above and 15 per cent. below normal, the latter only returns 5 per cent. above and 35 per cent. as below the normal. But it is in the return from the poorest school that we get the most curious result. In 'C' the master only feels justified in calling 22 per cent. of the boys normal, while he puts 33 per cent. above and 45 per cent. below normal." These figures, "it seems to me," writes Dr. Arkle, "can only be explained on one hypothesis. I believe, and my personal notes tend to confirm this view, that almost all the abnormal intelligences in the poorest school are due to the one factor—starvation.... Over and over again I noted such cases of children without an ounce of superfluous flesh upon them, with skins harsh and rough, a rapid pulse and nerves ever on the strain, and yet with the expression of the most lively intelligence. But it is the eager intelligence of the hunting animal.... I fear it is from this class that the ranks of pilferers and sneak thieves come, and their cleverness is not of any real intellectual value. On the other hand, with children of a more lymphatic temperament, starvation seems to produce creatures more like automata.... If I told one of these children to open its mouth, it would take no notice till the request became a command, which had to be accompanied by a slight shake to draw the child's attention. Then the mouth would be slowly opened widely, but no effort would be made to close it again until the child was told to do so.... I believe both these types of children are suffering from what I would call starvation of the nervous system, in one case causing irritation and in the other torpor. And, further, these cases are always associated with the clearest signs of bodily starvation, stunted growth, emaciation, rough and cold skin and the mouth full of viscid saliva due to hunger."[[485]]
Somewhat similar results were observed by Dr. Badger, the School Medical Officer for Wolverhampton. In comparing 1,299 normal children of thirteen years of age with 100 mal-nourished children, he found that, while of the normal scholars 16·6 per cent. were of good intelligence, 68 per cent. of average intelligence and 15·5 per cent. dull, among the mal-nourished children the percentages were respectively 16, 59 and 25.[[486]] This "record in respect of intelligence," points out Sir George Newman, "shows, what has been noted by other observers, that though the proportion of children considered as 'dull' by the teachers is considerably larger among mal-nourished children than among children generally, nevertheless there are children who suffer serious defects in nutrition whose mental powers are well above the average. It is naturally quick and keen children such as these who require care in order that their physical health may not be further injured by excessive mental application."[[487]]
CHAPTER V
THE EFFECT OF SCHOOL MEALS ON THE CHILDREN
Since the causes of malnutrition are so many and diverse it is obvious that this defect cannot be remedied or prevented solely by the provision of school meals. But that the provision of wholesome food at regular hours has a marked effect in the improvement of the physique of the children, there is abundant evidence.
Unfortunately, though the periodic weighing of children who are receiving school meals, in order to ascertain the effect produced, has been strongly advocated by the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education,[[488]] this advice has rarely been acted upon. It is true that a few—a very few—Education Authorities profess to have a system of weighing children who are receiving meals, before they are put on, and after they are taken off, the feeding-list, but for the most part this weighing is only done spasmodically, and the records are not accessible.
Several such enquiries have, however, been made in the past, the best known being that made by Dr. Ralph Crowley at Bradford in 1907.[[489]] The results of this experiment have been often quoted, but they are so important that they will bear repetition. Forty children were selected from two of the poorest schools in the city, the children being mainly those who appeared to be most in need of food, though a few were included primarily on the ground of their particularly poor home circumstances.[[490]] To these children from April 17 to July 24 two meals a day were given—breakfast, consisting of oatmeal porridge with milk and treacle followed by bread and margarine or dripping, with hot or cold milk to drink; and a dinner comprising in rotation one of seventeen different menus specially drawn up so as to contain the amounts of fat and proteid necessary for a child's nourishment.[[491]] Every effort was made to render the meals of as much educational value as possible, and special attention was given to such matters as the provision of table-cloths and flowers and the inculcation of good manners.
The children experimented on were weighed three times during the five weeks preceding the starting of the meals, and every week while they were receiving them. For the purpose of making comparative observations 69 children were selected who were being fed at home, and who in other respects were as comparable as possible with those who were receiving the breakfasts and dinners. These "control children" were also weighed weekly. During the four weeks, March 12 to April 9, before the feeding began, the forty children gained on an average ·17 kilos, and during the week previous to feeding ·008 kilos. At the end of the first week of feeding the average increase was found to be ·58 kilos (1 lb. 4 oz.).[[492]] During the next week, there was a slight loss of ·001 kilos, followed by a gain during the next two weeks of ·15 and ·13 kilos respectively. During the ensuing eleven days, the Whitsuntide holiday, no meals were given. At the end of this period it was found that the "control children" who, during the three weeks preceding the holiday, had lost ·003 kilos on the average, had during these eleven days gained an average of ·23 kilos; in the case, however, of the children fed at school, not only had the lack of food neutralised the benefits of fresh air and exercise, but they had actually lost an average of ·48 kilos, a loss which it took them nearly a fortnight to make up, after the meals had been started again. During the eleven days after the holiday the "control children" only gained ·02 kilos. A group of "control children" from another school similarly gained ·21 kilos during the holiday, and only ·04 kilos during the subsequent fortnight. The same result was observed during the five weeks' summer holiday; the "control children" gained on an average ·37 kilos (i.e., at the rate of ·074 kilos per week), while the children fed at school lost ·46 kilos.[[493]] The accompanying chart illustrates the rate of increase of the two groups of children. Apart from the increase in weight, the improvement in the general appearance and carriage of the children who received the meals "was more or less apparent in all, and very obvious in some of the children, who visibly filled out and brightened up."[[494]] The reverse process was equally apparent after the summer holidays.
Chart illustrating the average gain or loss in weight—during the intervals shown—of the children who were fed at Bradford. The broken line shows the average increase in weight—during the same time—of the "Control Children."
At Northampton, in 1909, a similar experiment was conducted under the supervision of the Medical Officer of Health. Forty-four children were given breakfast and dinner for fourteen weeks, and weighed weekly, together with forty children of the same social class who were not receiving meals. At the beginning of the experiment the average weight of the fed children was 1·71 kilos less than that of the "controls"; in the second week their average gain was much greater, and by the end of the fourteenth week the difference in weight was reduced to 1·02 kilos. During the Easter holidays of ten days in which no meals were given, the children who had previously been fed lost in weight while the "controls" gained.[[495]]
Another interesting experiment was conducted by Dr. Haden Guest in a poor school in Lambeth in the early part of 1908.[[496]] A large number of children were selected—244—but the attendance of many of these was irregular and continuous records were obtained in the case of only 89 children. From January 24 to April 11 a midday meal was given six days a week. The meal consisted of two courses, a normal portion of which was calculated to be sufficient to supply the amounts of proteids, carbohydrates, fats and salts, physiologically necessary for children. The same meal was never given twice in succession, a variation of six menus being repeated over twelve consecutive days. The room in which the meals were served was bright and airy, the surroundings having, in Dr. Guest's estimation, an important physiological bearing on good digestion. All the children in the school were weighed before and after the experiment and again in the first week of July, the children who were receiving dinners being also weighed regularly during the experiment. Taking first the case of the elder children, we read that the results "showed a very decided and positive improvement both from the general standpoint and from that of increase in weight, the fed children increasing at a more rapid rate than the other children in the school with whom they were compared."[[497]] "Starting a good deal below the normal of their own school mates, they tended, under the influence of one good meal a day, rapidly to approach that normal." And again, "the increase in the healthy appearance of the children and in their general alertness was marked. Children with sores, small abscesses, colds and blepharitis recovered from these ailments.... The amount of absence from school due to illness was considerably less during the course of the experiment." This testimony was fully borne out by the headmaster. "The effect of the feeding of the children," he declared, "is a marked improvement judging from the general appearance of the boys, who are almost all brighter. The improvement is particularly noticeable in their play. They are more vigorous and enter more heartily into the rougher games of boys and bear the knocks without coming to the teacher to complain. They certainly enjoy their play more and show less fatigue. There are few lads shivering against the walls with hands in pockets, sloping shoulders and pale faces. In school, the effect during the first few weeks was drowsiness. This was succeeded by improved tone and greater independence of character, and generally a greater individuality. The difference in mental condition is not so marked, and is certainly more difficult to measure. There is less fatigue in lessons, and the lads are capable of more continuous exertion." The teachers' reports on the girls were of the same character, though not so decided in tone, except on one point—that those who were fed were "more troublesome," that is to say, more full of spirits, a factor which appeared also in their play. Turning to the effect of the meals on the infants a most disquieting state of affairs was disclosed. It was found that, while the weight of the infants who were fed was less than that of the other infants of their own school, "the difference was much less than in the case of the bigger children, the increase in weight in each case correspondingly slow, and the amount by which both groups fell below the normal greater." During the first week there was a remarkable fall in weight among the infants who received meals, ascribable partly to the fact that they did not receive the necessary attention which was afterwards given them, partly to the fact that they were unfamiliar with good nourishing food (a factor operating in the case of the elder children also, though to a far less degree[[498]]); largely, however, it was due to their being "actually unable to digest and assimilate this food." This slow progress on the part of the infants Dr. Guest attributed to improper feeding at home. In most Lambeth homes the younger children received the same diet (the staple articles being tea and bread and butter) as the older ones, but whereas the latter could manage on this diet, and, with a good midday meal in addition, even flourish, the former could not thrive. Dr. Guest therefore advocated that necessitous infants should be fed at least twice a day, on a diet different from that given to the elder children, and that more individual care should be devoted to each child, since in most cases they required coaxing before they would eat the wholesome food provided.
On the cessation of the meals we find the same result ensuing as we have already noticed at Bradford and Northampton. For when, in July, 1908, three months after the meals had been discontinued, all the children were again weighed and measured, it was found that there was a general decline in weight; the decline was so general that it was obviously due partly to a diminution in clothing, but "the necessitous children, who after the conclusion of the experiment were only fed spasmodically, show a greater decrease than the other children, pointing to either a stationary weight during the twelve weeks from April to July or a loss of weight."
Interesting figures as to the effects of different dietaries were obtained at Sheffield in 1910. Before this date the meals provided for necessitous children had taken the form of cocoa breakfasts. As an experiment at one school some of the boys were given porridge for several weeks. Their weights were compared with those of a group of other boys who were receiving cocoa breakfasts at school, and also with a group of boys who were being fed at home. The two groups of boys who were fed at school were drawn from equally poor districts, those who were fed at home being somewhat better off. It was found that the boys who were receiving cocoa breakfasts only gained on an average ·0451 kilos or 1·58 oz. per week; the boys who were being fed at home gained ·0594 kilos (2·09 oz.); while the boys who were receiving porridge breakfasts gained as much as ·0942 kilos (3·317 oz.). As a result of this proof of the superiority of porridge diet, porridge breakfasts were substituted for cocoa breakfasts in all the schools.[[499]]
At Brighton it has for the last few years been the practice to weigh before and after the course of meals the children who have been recommended for feeding on medical grounds. At the end of the last session, 1912-13, 269 children who had received meals for nine weeks or more were thus re-examined. It was found that 133 of these, or 50 per cent., no longer needed meals on medical grounds, that is, they had been brought over the average weight for a given height.[[500]]
Where only milk or codliver oil is given a remarkable improvement is often effected. Indeed, several teachers told us that in their opinion the provision of milk was more beneficial than either breakfasts or dinners. At a Bethnal Green school, during the winter of 1909-10, it was found that out of 57 boys and 109 girls examined at the medical inspection, 24 of the boys and 61 of the girls were underfed. These children were given a tea-spoonful of codliver oil in a cupful of warm milk every day during the morning interval. At the end of the year the nutrition was re-assessed, with the following results:—[[501]]
| Good. | Average. | Bad. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 57 boys | Before | 4 | 19 | 34 |
| After | 26 | 28 | 3 | |
| 109 girls | Before | 3 | 49 | 57 |
| After | 42 | 61 | 6 | |
The results of these experiments are sufficient in themselves to establish conclusively the benefit to be derived from regular feeding even when no other factor in the child's environment is changed. "No doubt," says Dr. Haden Guest, "irregular and late hours, disturbed sleep, overcrowding, improper clothing and employment of children after and before school hours, do each and all exercise a very detrimental effect on the children of poor parents. But that the greatest influence for evil is exerted by improper and insufficient food is a matter over which it appears impossible to have great controversy."[[502]]
And these results are corroborated by abundant testimony from School Medical Officers, teachers, Care Committee workers and others, of the benefit derived by the children where the Provision of Meals Act has been put in force. "The children derived an enormous amount of benefit" from the meals.[[503]] "The physical appearance of the children speaks in pronounced terms" of the value of feeding.[[504]] "Those who have any practical experience ... are all agreed that such meals [free breakfasts] are of the greatest value, not only from a humanitarian point of view but also as a necessary adjunct for successful education."[[505]] "There is continuous evidence of the immense benefit conferred upon the children by the administration of this Act—both from the inspection of the scholars at the dining-centres and from the reports of the teachers."[[506]] These are a few typical opinions culled from reports of School Medical Officers. At Manchester "the operation of the provision of free meals acts very largely ... not so much in the way of improving the physical condition of children already emaciated and debilitated, but of preventing their ever reaching that condition by stepping in when the home income fails. It is certain that since the organisation of the supply of free meals at centres covering practically all parts of the city where they are required, the number of underfed children—i.e., the number showing signs of underfeeding—has decreased markedly. It is also certain that the type of child at the feeding centres is gradually improving—i.e., there are fewer children found in the centres with signs of the result of bad nourishment, and there are fewer such children in the schools."[[507]] At Bradford, where the Local Education Authority has systematically endeavoured to effect an improvement in the condition of the children both by the school medical service and the provision of meals, there has been in the last few years a very marked improvement in nutrition and "a fairly regular increase in weight amongst Bradford children as a whole. They are approaching nearer each year to the national average."[[508]]
The witness of the teachers is no less favourable. In London, for instance, the Education Committee in 1910 made enquiries among the head teachers of some of the schools where a considerable number of meals were provided; the majority of the teachers were enthusiastic as to the benefit derived. "Physical progress is most marked," said one headmistress. "The disappearance of chronic headaches, sores on faces, gatherings on fingers, pains in chest ... point to a more 'fit' condition, which the children can only express for me by saying that they 'feel better now,' for they 'are not hungry all the afternoons now.'"[[509]] And a headmaster writes, "The change in the children after a month's provision of suitable and nourishing diet for breakfast and dinner has been distinctly beneficial. They have been more inclined to take part in the school sports, into which they have entered with considerable zest. Their appearance, too, has greatly improved. Their eyes have become brighter, their cheeks rounded. If, for any reason, such as temporary absence, they have lost the advantage of regular feeding, they have almost immediately shown signs of deterioration. When the period [of feeding] has been prolonged to three or six months, their health has permanently improved, and their capacity for work and play has still further developed."[[510]] "The children on the necessitous register," says another headmaster, "now fully participate in these activities [games and sports] and supply rather above their proportionate number of prominent performers; this is equally true of swimming. It is indisputable that in the past lack of nourishment, where it did not entirely exclude, greatly limited the part taken by many children in this the most attractive side of school life."[[511]]
We have ourselves questioned numbers of teachers, both in London and the provinces, on this point. Here and there are found, it is true, teachers who declare that no improvement is to be observed, perhaps because, being with the children day by day they do not notice any change. But the verdict as to the beneficial results of school meals is almost unanimous. At Bradford we were told that it used to be not uncommon for a child to faint in school from want of food; such an occurrence is now unknown. Often children who are dull and listless are found, after a course of regular meals, to become full of life and spirits. It is indeed frequently remarked that the children become "naughtier" after the meals, a sign, of course, of increased vitality.
We find that, as a result of the regular feeding, the resisting power of the children is increased and they are less susceptible to the contraction of infectious and other diseases.[[512]] The attendance at school is thus improved. At a school in the Potteries, the headmaster informed us that during the coal strike in 1912, when three meals a day were given in the schools, there was far less non-attendance than usual through biliousness, headaches or other minor ailments.[[513]] At Liverpool we were told that there has been a considerable improvement in the regularity of the children's attendance, as a result of the dinners.[[514]] Non-attendance may be due, of course, not only to illness, but also to lack of food. When the parents have nothing to give the children for breakfast they will encourage them to sleep through the morning. The headmaster of a very poor school in Liverpool told us that some years ago, before the Education Committee had undertaken the provision of meals, the attendance was very bad. He raised a voluntary fund and provided breakfasts himself. As a result the attendance improved to such an extent that the increased grant amounted to £74, which more than covered the cost of the food (£63).
It would be interesting to compare the nutrition of the children in the Day Industrial Schools, where three meals a day are given. Since the children in these schools, who, it must be remembered, are drawn very largely from the poorest and most neglected class, return home in the evening, the only condition altered is the supply of food. We have, unfortunately, not been able to obtain any statistics as to the weights of these children, but we have received ample evidence from teachers and others as to the very marked physical improvement which is to be observed after they have been in the schools but a very short time. At Liverpool some time ago it was found that the children attending the Day Industrial Schools suffered much from sores and gatherings. On the diet being altered very considerably, these ailments entirely disappeared, and the children, we were told, are now in perfect health. At Leeds the School Medical Officer found that, while of 11,763 children from the ordinary elementary schools, 5·6 per cent. were of sub-normal nutrition, the percentage in the same condition among the Day Industrial School children (of whom 91 were examined) was only 1·1.[[515]]
Let us turn now to the effect of the meals on the mental capabilities of the children. This effect is, from the nature of the case, less easy to assess, and the evidence is not so unanimous as on the question of the physical effect. A minority of teachers assert that no improvement is to be observed. At Hull, for instance, out of 165 head-teachers who were asked for their opinions on this point, 76 declared that there had been a considerable or distinct improvement, 53 that there had been a slight improvement, and 36 that there was no visible difference.[[516]] At Bradford, 134 teachers were of opinion that there had been a considerable or distinct improvement, 35 that the improvement had been slight, 35 that no visible difference was to be noticed.[[517]] "I cannot say," said the headmaster of a London school, "that the improvement in mentality has been in any way commensurate with the physical improvement."[[518]] On the other hand, a headmistress declared, "there is undoubted improvement physically and educationally in the necessitous children supplied with meals at this school. But I confess the fact only came home to me vividly at our last terminal examination, when I found three of them headed the class in Standard III. (including all subjects)."[[519]] Another wrote, "the girls receiving regular meals have become more alert, less apathetic, and consequently far more ready to respond to the teachers' efforts to gain their undivided attention. The interest thus aroused has led the girls to look upon all branches of their work with more favour than heretofore. The taste for knowledge once established, homework has followed with the inevitable results produced by voluntary effort rather than compulsory work."[[520]] In North Kensington the "children who are supplied with milk at school or who are given breakfast and dinner respond at once to the better feeding, and show distinct improvement in their class work."[[521]] At Darlington it was reported that, "generally speaking, the replies [from the teachers] were very definite to the effect that the provision of dinners had assisted the educational progress of the children."[[522]] And a striking illustration of the benefit derived from a regular course of feeding is given us by a medical member of an Education Committee who writes, "I find the condition of the children much improved by feeding. Some children who, eighteen months ago, were considered half-witted are now monitors and monitresses, taking an intelligent interest in their work."
We have already noticed the improvement in attendance consequent on the provision of meals. This, of course, assists in the educational progress, not only of those children who before attended irregularly, but of the whole class, since the others are no longer kept back by the irregular attenders.
Too much importance cannot be attached to the training of the children in habits of self-control and thoughtfulness for one another. For this training the common meal furnishes an excellent opportunity. As we have seen, far too little attention is paid to this aspect of the question. It is true that, even where the meal is served in a somewhat rough-and-ready fashion, leaving, in the eyes of the educationalist, much to be desired, we have generally been informed that there has been an improvement in manners. At first the children, many of whom, probably, had rarely sat down to a meal before, would throw the food at each other or on the floor, and the scene was often a pandemonium. Some sort of order has been evolved out of this chaos. But how far this falls short of what might be effected is seen when one compares the great majority of feeding-centres all over England, not necessarily the worst, with a small minority, such as some of the Bradford centres, or one or two London centres, where the meal is truly educational. It is interesting to hear that, when recently a party of children were sent to the Cinderella Holiday Home from one of the Bradford schools and the supervisor was particularly requested to notice those who had been receiving meals, it was found that they alone knew how to behave at table, and that the others learnt from them.
In another direction the school meal may have an educational result of the highest importance. Children in all ranks of life are notoriously conservative in the matter of food and shy of venturing on unknown dishes, but with the poorest class of children it is not only "faddiness" which has to be contended with; the unaccustomed food, however wholesome for the normal child, actually does not agree with these chronically underfed children. As was pointed out at the time of the passing of the Provision of Meals Act, "one great merit of this Act ... will be the teaching and training of a child in the matter of taste. At present it is a well known physiological fact that the slum stomach cannot accommodate itself in a moment to good, wholesome food. The child has been accustomed to tea and jam and pickles, and to food that is often more tasty than nourishing. It will now eat under public and medical superintendence and gradually a pure and simple taste will be cultivated."[[523]] That this prophecy is in process of being fulfilled may, we think, with justice be claimed. There still exists a certain amount of difficulty in inducing the children to take food to which they are unaccustomed, but that this difficulty can be surmounted by the exercise of tact and attention to individual needs has been practically demonstrated again and again. Over and over again we have been told the same tale, "at first the children would not eat this or that dish, but now they have learned to like it." Especially is this the case with porridge. At first, wherever this was given, it was found that many refused to eat it, but this antipathy was gradually overcome, and the children finally ate it with relish.[[524]] It is amusing to find that at St. George's-in-the-East, where a porridge breakfast was devised as a test of need, it being thought that no child would come who was not really hungry, the children now like the porridge so much that this diet no longer furnishes a test. Where the children do not learn to eat what is provided, it always turns out, on further enquiry, that the supervisors have failed, either because of the large numbers whom they have to look after or, perhaps, through lack of enthusiasm, to devote that careful and detailed attention to the children without which it is quite impossible to bring about any change.
Moreover, it is encouraging to notice that this education of the children in the matter of taste is not without its effect on the home diet. This was observed as long ago as 1895. In giving evidence before the Committee of the London School Board, Mrs. Burgwin declared that, as a result of the porridge breakfasts given to the school children, there was "an increasing demand upon the local shop-keepers by the poor families themselves."[[525]] "At first," said Miss Honnor Morten, "the children did not care for porridge, but the result of the breakfasts has been that many now persuade their parents to make it for them."[[526]] "The children," says Lady Meyer, who has started penny dinners in connection with the Health Centre at Newport, "act as missionaries to their mothers, comparing the meals at the Health Centre with those at their homes, much to the disparagement of the latter, which quickly brought the more intelligent mothers to the centre to 'see how it was done.'"[[527]]
As far as the children are concerned, indeed, whether we consider the improvement in physique, mental capacity or manners, there is no doubt that the provision of school meals has proved of the greatest benefit.
CHAPTER VI
THE EFFECT ON THE PARENTS
The evidence which has been presented in the preceding chapter as to the benefits resulting from the feeding of school children would have evoked, fifty, or even twenty years ago, a simple and decisive retort. Granted, it would have been argued, that the health and educational capacity of the children is deteriorated by lack of nourishment, that irreparable and preventible damage is inflicted, and that the provision of meals by a public authority averts this evil for many and mitigates it for all; yet no plea of immediate expediency can stand against the ultimate loss involved in any public assumption of the cost of providing maintenance for children. If a local authority supplies part, even a small part, of their food, parental responsibility is, pro tanto, diminished, with results disastrous not only to the character of the parents but to the prospects of the children themselves. For if parents receive assistance in one direction from a public authority, they will soon clamour to receive assistance in other directions as well. In order to qualify for it, they will neglect their children, who will thus benefit in one way only to be victimized in others. The children themselves, having been fed from public funds, will be trained in habits of dependence, and, when they grow up, will insist on still further provision being made for their children in their turn. Thus one tiny breach in the walls of the family will insensibly be widened till it admits a flood in which domestic affections and the integrity of the home, "relations dear, and all the charities of father, son, and brother" are submerged.
If such anticipations seem exaggerated, they have nevertheless played an important part in determining the policy pursued in England towards more than one question, and lie behind many of the criticisms which are passed on certain recent forms of social intervention. The idea that relief given to the child must be regarded as relief given to the parent, and that, if given at all, it must be accompanied by severe restrictions, was enunciated emphatically in the Poor Law Report of 1834—indeed that famous document scarcely mentions children except in so far as the treatment of adults is influenced by these appendages—and has since become a settled part of Poor Law policy. The fear that parental responsibility might be weakened was a criticism brought against the Education Act of 1870, against the abolition of school fees in 1894, and against the provision of medical treatment for school children under the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act of 1907. Naturally, therefore, the public provision of meals for school children has not escaped the criticism that it would weaken the bond between parent and child and ultimately result in "the breaking up of the home." "To remove the spur to exertion and self-restraint," reported a special committee of the Charity Organisation Society in 1887, "which the spectacle of his children's hunger must be to any man in whom the feelings of natural kindness are not altogether dead, is to assume a very grave responsibility, and perhaps to take away the last chance of re-establishing the character and fortunes of the breadwinner, and, with him, the fortunes of the whole household. It is true, no doubt, that there are parents who are past redemption by influences of this kind, but the majority of the committee are of opinion that it is better in the interests of the community to allow, in such cases, the sins of the parents to be visited on the children than to impair the principle of the solidarity of the family and run the risk of permanently demoralising large numbers of the population by the offer of free meals to their children."[[528]]
Now it is obvious that an economic policy which was determined primarily by a consideration for the "solidarity of the family" would lead to far-reaching measures of industrial reorganisation. If the ideal is a society in which "the bread-winner" is by his "exertion and self-restraint" to guarantee "the fortunes of his whole household," the immediate object of attack must be those industrial evils which effectually prevent him from doing so at present, and of which the principal are low wages, casual labour, recurrent periods of unemployment and bad housing. That a crusade conducted in the interests of the family against these regular features of modern industry is entirely desirable need not be questioned. But in its absence it is obvious that, so far from allowing "the sins of the parents to be visited on the children," what we are really doing is to allow the sins of the employer to be visited on the employed or the sins of the community to be visited upon future generations of unborn children, and it seems almost frivolous to ascribe the results of this constant and vicarious sacrifice to the measures which, like the provision of school meals, are directed merely to the partial mitigation of some of its worst effects. The truth is, to put the matter bluntly, that what breaks up the family is not the presence of food but its absence, and that, if the public conscience is unperturbed by the spectacle of numerous homes in which economic circumstances have deprived the parents of the means of providing meals for their children themselves, its sudden sensitiveness at the thought of meals being provided by some external authority would be ludicrous if it did not lead to such tragic consequences. The reader who reflects on the thousands of dock-labourers in London, Liverpool and Glasgow who, through no fault of their own, can obtain only three days' work a week, or on the 25 to 30 per cent. of the working-class population of Reading who have been shown by Professor Bowley to be receiving a total family income below the low standard fixed by Mr. Rowntree,[[529]] and to be receiving it, in 49 per cent. of the cases, because they are "in regular work but at low wages,"[[530]] will scarcely argue that the mere provision of meals, however injudicious he may regard it, is likely to contribute seriously to the weakening of family relationships which have been already strained or broken by industrial anarchy or industrial tyranny. Sublata causa tollitur effectus. But does any one seriously believe that a cessation of school meals would restore the desired "solidarity of the family" to the casual or sweated labourer?
If the suggestion that the provision of meals is a principal cause undermining parental responsibility is fantastic, is the suggestion that it must necessarily exercise some influence in that direction better founded? We shall deal later with such facts as can be used to throw light on this question. But we may point out here that the idea underlying it usually derives part of its cogency in the minds of many of its supporters less from any concrete evidence than from an implicit assumption that there is a "natural" division of duties between public authorities and the individual citizen, and that any redistribution of them between these two parties, which removes one function from the latter to the former, must necessarily result in the undermining of character, the weakening of the incentive to self-maintenance, the decay of parental responsibility, in short, in all the phenomena of the process known as "pauperisation." Now we need scarcely point out that, stated in this crude form, the theory that every assumption of fresh responsibilities by public authorities results in the undermining of character has no foundation in the experience of mankind. It is, of course, quite true that any sudden removal from an individual of duties which he has hitherto been accustomed to discharge may result in weakening the springs of effort. It is also quite true that any sudden addition to his responsibilities may result in crushing them, and that, as far as the more poorly paid ranks of labour are concerned, energies are far more often worn out in a hopeless struggle than sapped by an insidious ease. But by themselves these facts prove nothing as to the manner in which burdens, duties, responsibilities, should be distributed between the community and its individual members. What experience shows is that there is no "natural" allocation of functions, but that there has been throughout history at once a constant addition to, and a constant re-arrangement of them, and that the former process is quite compatible with the latter. Nor is there any ground for the idea that the extension of the activities of public bodies must necessarily result in accelerating the approach of the state of economic and moral inertia described by those who anticipate it as "Pauperism." If that were the case, all civilised communities would, indeed, have been hastening to destruction from a time "whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary." For our fathers had no elementary education, our grandfathers no municipal water, and few lamp-posts; while our great-grandfathers enjoyed the independence derived from the possession of relatively few roads, and those of a character sufficiently bad to offer the most powerful incentives to the energy and self-reliance of the pedestrian. On this theory the citizen of Manchester would be more pauperised than the citizen of London; both would be seriously pauperised compared with the peasant of Connemara; while the wretched inhabitants of German municipalities would be wallowing in a perfect quagmire of perpetual pauperism. Why indeed should one stop here? There have been periods in history in which not only these functions, but the organisation of justice and the equipment of military forces have been left to the bracing activities of private individuals; and an enquiry into the decline and fall of individual independence would, if logically pursued, lead us into dim regions of history far anterior to the Norman Conquest. The origins of modern pauperism, like the origins of modern liberty, are to be sought among "the primeval forests of Germany!"
While, however, there is no foundation for the doctrine that every extension of public provision results in a slackening of energy on the part of the individual, it is, none the less, possible that this may be the result of the particular kind of provision which consists in the supplying of meals to school children. In the event of that being proved to be the case, it is by no means easy to say what policy should be pursued. Public authorities, it may be argued, should cease to provide school meals. To this answer, which is at first sight plausible, there are two objections which are together almost insuperable. The first is that Education Authorities are under a legal obligation to provide education for the children in their charge and to carry out medical inspection with a view to discovering their ailments; while they may, if they think fit, provide medical treatment for them. They owe it to their constituents to spend their money in the most effective and economical manner. Education given to children who are suffering from want of nourishment not only is ineffective, but may be positively deleterious. When the extent of malnutrition is known, is it reasonable to expect the Authorities deliberately to shut their eyes to the fact that so far from benefiting the children who suffer from it they may be positively aggravating their misfortunes? If it be replied, ruat coelum fiat justitia, let the children suffer in order to improve the moral character of their parents, an Education Committee may not unfairly retort that it is elected primarily to attend to the welfare of the children, and that the wisdom of elevating parents, who ex hypothesi are demoralised, at the cost of the rising generation is, at any rate, too problematical to justify it in neglecting its own special duties. Moreover, even assuming that public bodies were willing to apply to the education of children the principles recommended in 1834 for the treatment of "improvidence and vice," there is no reason to suppose that they would succeed in averting the "pauperisation" which is dreaded. No fact is more clearly established by the history of all kinds of relief administration since 1834 than that the effect of refusing to make public provision for persons in distress is merely to lead to the provision of assistance in a rather more haphazard, uncoordinated and indiscriminate manner by private agencies. A purely negative policy is systematically "blacklegged" by private philanthropists. Rightly or wrongly the plain man finds his stomach turned by the full gospel of deterrence; with the result that, while the English Poor Law is nominally deterrent, enormous sums are spent every year in private charity in London alone; that in 1886 the Local Government Board recommended local authorities to provide relief for certain classes of workers apart from the Poor Law, on the ground that the Poor Law, for whose administration the Local Government Board is responsible, is necessarily degrading; and that, finally, a special Act had to be passed in 1905 creating authorities to administer assistance for unemployed workmen whom public opinion would no longer allow to be left to the tender mercies of a deterrent policy of Poor Relief. That the same result would follow with even greater certainty were public bodies to decline to provide for necessitous school children is obvious, inasmuch as to the foolish sentimentality of the ordinary person the sufferings of childhood make a special appeal. Indeed it has followed already. In the days when Education Authorities had no power to spend public money on the provision of meals for school children, what happened was that the provision of meals was begun by private persons, and in the towns which have not put the Act of 1906 into force such private provision obtains at the present day. Such extra-legal intervention has all the disadvantages ascribed to the public provision of meals, for one can scarcely accept the extravagant contention that while soup supplied by an Education Authority pauperises, soup tickets supplied by a philanthropic society do not. And it has few of its advantages. For private philanthropy tends to be more irregular and arbitrary in its administration than most public authorities. Since it cannot cover the whole area of distress, its selection of children to be fed is more capricious; since its funds are raised by appeals ad misericordiam they often fail when they are needed most; and when, as often happens, more than one agency enters the field, the result is overlapping and duplication. Nor will it seem a minor evil to those who care for the civic spirit that even the best-intentioned charity can never escape from the taint of patronage, can never be anything but a sop with which the rich relieve their consciences by ministering to the poor.
The statement that the feeding of school children weakens parental responsibility presumably means that the provision of meals at school induces parents to neglect to provide meals themselves. When one turns from these general considerations to examine how far this result has actually occurred, one is faced with the task of sifting a few grains of fact from a multitude of impressions. The first and most essential preliminary to the formation of any reasonable judgment is to determine the circumstances of those families one or more of whose members are receiving meals at school; and in order to throw some light on this point we give, in the following table, such particulars from six areas as are available:—[[531]]
| Causes of distress | Stoke. | Bradford. | Birmingham. | School in St. Pancras. | School in Bermondsey |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unemployment | 16 | 11 | 26 | 9 | 13 |
| Casual employment | 3 | 26 | 54 | 8 | 18 |
| Short time | 5 | 3 | 8 | — | — |
| Regular work but low wages | — | 16 | 6 | 1 | 2 |
| Illness or disablement of father | 15 | 19 | 47 | 5 | 9 |
| Widows | 16 | 41 | 40 | 10 | 9 |
| Desertion or absence of father | 3 | 32 | 19 | 2 | 2 |
It will be seen that the four largest classes of families consist of those in which the father is casually employed, is disabled by illness or accident, is dead or is unemployed. If one adds to these 605 families the 41 in which the father is paid low wages or is working short time, there is a total of 646 out of 718 families in which distress is due either to industrial causes or to a misfortune. Since men do not usually contract illness or die in order that their children may be fed at school, there is no question of the responsibility of the father being weakened in the 285 cases in which death or ill-health was the cause which led to the provision of school meals.
It is often argued, however, that the public provision of assistance is itself one cause of the distress which it is designed to relieve, because it must necessarily exercise a deteriorating influence over industrial conditions. The knowledge that his children will be fed is likely, it is said, to lead a man to relax the demands which he makes on his employer. The knowledge that he need not offer a subsistence wage for a family leads the employer to offer worse terms to his employees, more irregular employment or lower rates of wages, with the result that the ratepayer relieves the employer of part of his wage bill. Cut off all public assistance, and "economic conditions will adjust themselves to the change." Now it is perfectly true that the need which prompts the provision of school meals does normally arise from bad industrial conditions, and that to allow those conditions to continue while merely mitigating their effects is an offence against morality and an outrage on commonsense. Whether school meals are desirable or not for their own sake, it is the right of the worker that industry should be organised in such a way that he should be able to provide for his children in the manner which he thinks best, and that he should not be compelled (as he often is at present) to choose between seeing them fed at school and seeing them half-starved at home. But the theory which we have stated goes much further than this. It holds that public provision is a cause of bad industrial conditions, and that the mere abolition of public provision would in itself result in those conditions being improved. It is obvious that, as far as certain economic evils are concerned, this doctrine does not hold good. Many children are underfed because their parents are suffering from sickness or accident incurred in the course of their employment. Clearly an employer will not be induced to render his processes safe merely by the fact that his employees' children will suffer if they are unsafe. Many children are underfed because their parents are casually employed or altogether unemployed. Equally clearly there is no reason whatever to suppose that casual labour would cease because of their starvation; for if that were the case it would have ceased long ago. Nor again does the more specious doctrine that the wages of men are lowered by the provision of food for their children rest upon a securer foundation. In the nature of things it can neither be verified nor disproved by an appeal to facts; for the controversy is not concerning facts but concerning their interpretation. If we point out that in Bradford, when the Education (Provision of Meals) Act was first adopted in 1907, the majority of children fed were children of woolcombers, dyers' labourers, carters and builders' labourers, and that since 1907 the first three classes of workers have all received advances of wages, it may, of course, be answered that the advance would have been still greater if the children had not been fed.[[532]] In reality, however, the more this theory that the feeding of school children acts as a subsidy to wages is examined, the weaker does it appear. Historically it is traceable to the popular rendering of Ricardo introduced by Senior into the Poor Law Report of 1834, and it still contains marks of its origin. It assumes, in the first place, that wages are never above "subsistence level." For, clearly, if they are above it, there is no reason why they should be lowered if the cost of keeping a family is somewhat reduced. It assumes, in the second place, that they are never below the subsistence level of a family; for clearly, if they are, that in itself proves that the absence of public provision has not been able to maintain them. It assumes, in the third place, that the ability of workers to resist a reduction or to insist on an advance depends not upon the profitableness of the industry, nor upon the strength of their organisation, but solely upon their necessities. Of these assumptions the first two are untrue, and the last is not only untrue, but the exact opposite of the truth. In reality, as every trade unionist knows, the necessities of the non-wage earning members of a family do not keep wages up; they keep them down. A man who knows that a stoppage of work will plunge his family in starvation has little resisting power, and acquiesces in oppression to which he would otherwise refuse to submit. It is the strikers' wives and children who really break many strikes, and if the pressure of immediate necessity is removed the worker is not less likely, he is more likely, to hold out for better terms.
Nor is there much more substance in the theory that the provision of meals by a public authority weakens family life by "undermining parental responsibility." We are not, of course, concerned to deny that in the working classes as well as in the propertied classes there are a certain number of persons who are anxious "to get something for nothing." Cases, no doubt, do arise in which a parent who knows that the needs of his children will partially be met by the food supplied by an Education Authority may for that reason contemplate their fate when abandoned by him with less apprehension. At most, however, such cases constitute only 10 per cent. of those on the table, and the wisdom of withholding assistance from the remaining 90 per cent. merely in order to bring pressure upon this small fraction of all the families concerned is, to put the matter at the lowest, highly questionable. Moreover, even assuming that children who are neglected by their parents should be made to suffer in order to teach the latter a moral lesson, what probability is there that the lesson will be appreciated? In those families where a father is contemplating the desertion of his home, family relationships must obviously be weak and unstable. Is it seriously suggested that the mere fact that a public body is known to provide meals for children in attendance at school is sufficient to tilt the scale; that a man who is willing, ex hypothesi, to contemplate relinquishing his wife and younger children to the Poor Law will be deterred from leaving them merely by anxiety as to how the children of school age will obtain their midday meal; and that, when his apprehensions upon this point are removed, he will hasten to avail himself of his freedom in order to abandon them to much more serious evils than the loss of one meal per day? Such a suggestion carries its refutation on its face. When family life has been so disintegrated that a man is contemplating the desertion of his wife and children, he is not likely either to be encouraged to do so by the mere fact that meals for school children are provided by a public body, or deterred from doing so by the fact that they are not. And a similar answer may be made to those who argue that "the result of feeding children at school is merely to encourage their parents to spend more upon drink." No one, of course, would deny that, if a man has already formed the habit of indulging his tastes without regard to the consequences, an increase in his means will enable him to spend more upon such indulgence. But that is a very different thing from accepting the implication that every accession in the income of a class merely leads it to fresh extravagance. The evidence, indeed, points in the opposite direction. During the last forty years there has been a great extension of public provision and a rise in money wages. Yet it is a matter of common knowledge that the consumption of alcoholic liquor per head of population has diminished and is still diminishing.
In reality, however, the idea that any large number of parents misuse the public provision of meals appears to be quite without any solid foundation, and to be a hasty generalisation from exceptional cases, which, because they are exceptional, are recorded by charitable persons with pious horror, and are given an undeserved and misleading notoriety. Almost all the actual evidence available points in the opposite direction. Again and again has it been stated to us that parents withdraw their children from the school meals as soon as an improvement in their circumstances enables them to provide food at home.[[533]] Indeed, it is often said that they withdraw them before they can properly afford to do so, and before the Canteen Committee thinks it wise for the school meals to be stopped, while many refrain from applying for meals until they are driven to do so by actual necessity. The truth is that behind the talk on parental responsibility which finds favour in certain sections of society—especially those where it is customary for parents to pay for their children to be fed at school during 30 to 40 weeks of the year—there is a considerable amount not only of ignorance but of hypocrisy. These critics are apt entirely to overlook the fact that during the last hundred years parental responsibilities, so far from being diminished, have been multiplied by the State. Middle-class parliaments have insisted that working-class parents should send their children to school, should dispense with the help of their earnings, should provide them with food, clothing and medical aid. More important, they forget that to insist on "responsibility" is meaningless unless the means of discharging it are available; for one cannot blame a man for failing to do what he wishes to do, but which he is prevented from doing by force majeure. Now this is precisely the position of the majority of such parents as are aided by school meals. They did not fix the wages of adult men at 18s. a week; they did not ordain that employment at the ports of London and Liverpool and Glasgow, and in a score of other trades, should be a gamble. They did not decree that those who direct industry should at intervals of five to seven years find it convenient to curtail production and turn their employees on to the streets. They are born into a world where this is the established social order, an order which, as individuals, they are impotent to alter. If some of them occasionally give up a struggle which must often seem hopeless, at whose door does the blood of these men and their children lie? If it is desired that every man should regularly provide the whole maintenance of his family, then industry must be organised in such a way as to make it possible. Till that is done, to blame working people for acquiescing in circumstances which they did not create and which they detest is not only cruel but absurd. When every competent worker is secured regular employment and a living wage, it may be desirable that forms of public provision which exist at present should cease—though, even so, it is possible that the educational value of school meals will lead to their being continued. Till that happy condition is brought about they must be not only continued, but extended and improved.
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSIONS
The provision of meals for school children is, as we have pointed out, merely an attempt to mitigate some of the evil effects of industrial disorganisation. The principal end at which Society should aim is the removal of the causes, low wages, casual employment, recurrent periods of unemployment, and bad housing, which make them necessary. But meanwhile, as long as economic conditions remain as they are, some provision must be made for the present generation of school children. And the provision of school meals is not merely a question of relief, it is also a preventive measure. "Every step ... in the direction of making and keeping the children healthy is a step towards diminishing the prevalence and lightening the burden of disease for the adult, and a relatively small rise in the standard of child health may represent a proportionately large gain in the physical health, capacity, and energy of the people as a whole."[[534]]
Granted, therefore, that the school meal is, for the present at any rate, a necessity, the question remains, for what children shall this meal be provided. We have described the methods of selection at present in force. We have seen that, though a few children are given school meals because they are found by the School Doctor to be ill-nourished, the great majority are selected by the teachers on the ground of poverty, a method which involves an enquiry into the parents' circumstances. We have shown some of the disadvantages inherent in this method of selection. The enquiries deter parents from applying. It is impossible for the teachers to discover all cases of underfed children. If the child is told by its parents to say that it has plenty to eat at home, how is the teacher to know that it is underfed? It is difficult, and in many cases quite impossible, to ascertain the amount of income coming in. Even if this could always be accurately ascertained, it would be difficult to discriminate with justice since other circumstances vary so widely. The enquiry is demoralising for the parents, putting a premium on deception and creating a sense of injustice. So unsatisfactory, indeed, has this system of investigation into income proved to be that there is a general consensus of opinion among adherents of the most opposing schools of thought that it must be given up. "As a Guardian of the poor and a member of the Charity Organisation Society, and in many other ways," says the late Canon Barnett, "I have come to see that no enquiry is adequate. I would not trust myself to enquire into any one's condition and be just. Enquiry is never satisfactory and is always irritating.... I believe it is enquiry and investigation and suspicion which undermine parental responsibility."[[535]] Even so firm a supporter of Charity Organisation Society principles as the Rev. Henry Iselin would, we gather, prefer to the present inadequate system of investigation the provision of a meal for all children who like to come, without enquiry, though he would, of course, make the conditions of the meal in some way deterrent.[[536]] In discussing what is the best method to be adopted we must, therefore, rule out any plan which involves an enquiry into the family income.
(i) We may consider first the proposal that the selection should be made by the School Doctor, school meals being ordered for all children whom he finds to be suffering from mal-nutrition. This method, which is strongly recommended by the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education, has been adopted in a few towns, but only to a very limited extent and always in subordination to the system of selection based on the "poverty test." The selection by the "physical test" would obviate all the disadvantages arising from the demoralising enquiry into the parents' circumstances. On the other hand, the practical difficulties would be very great. At present a child is normally examined by the doctor only two or three times during the whole of its school career. Under the system proposed frequent examinations would be necessary, which would entail an enormous increase in the school medical staff. But, however frequent the examinations, the discovery of all underfed children would not be assured. It is not always possible for the doctor to determine the cause of malnutrition in any particular case; hence many children would be included who get plenty of food at home, but yet, from some other cause, do not thrive. More important, numbers of children would be excluded who fail to get sufficient food but who yet appear healthy. As a School Medical Officer points out, "temporary lack of food does not stamp the child in such a way that it is possible to detect past privations by ordinary inspection."[[537]] The underfeeding might be prolonged for a considerable time before its effects were apparent. But it is essential that underfeeding should be discovered before the child shows definite signs of malnutrition, since the object to be aimed at is to prevent its ever getting into this state. The physical test, therefore, forms too narrow a basis to be satisfactorily employed, at any rate as the sole test, in the selection of children to be provided for.
(ii) We will consider next the plan to which we have already alluded, the provision of meals, free and without enquiry, for all children who like to come, it being understood that the meals are intended only for "necessitous" children, i.e., those children who through poverty are unable to obtain an adequate supply of food at home. Those who aim at making this provision in some way deterrent suggest a breakfast of porridge, the time of the meal and the nature of the food providing a test of need. "As the man inside the workhouse must not have better, but a decidedly worse, treatment than the man outside, so if the food be nourishing but not too palatable it may chance that only the truly necessitous may apply."[[538]] Children who can obtain food at home will prefer to do so. But it is found in practice that it is not only the children who can get sufficient food at home who are deterred by such a device, but that the "truly necessitous" also refuse to come. Such a system, in fact, defeats its own ends. It is futile to provide meals for all underfed children and at the same time to make that provision so deterrent that those for whom it is intended decline to avail themselves of it. Even if there is no intention of making the provision deterrent, the idea that the meals are meant only for necessitous children will, in fact, make it so; many parents will prefer to feed their children at home on a totally inadequate diet rather than disclose their poverty by sending them to the school meals. The "poverty test" in fact, in whatever form it may be applied, will exclude numbers of children whom it is desirable to provide for.
(iii) The two methods that we have described would each leave a large class of children without provision. The first would fail to discover numbers of children who are underfed, but who do not show obvious signs of malnutrition. The second would not touch those cases where the children cannot get sufficient food at home, but where the parents are too proud to accept school meals for them. A combination of the two methods would remove both these objections. The provision of meals, free and without enquiry, for all necessitous children, would secure the feeding of the majority of those who are underfed, while the School Doctor would generally discover those cases where the parents try to conceal the fact that they cannot give their children sufficient food at home. For these children the doctor would, of course, order school meals. This method would not obviate the necessity of a great increase in the school medical service. Moreover, by any of the methods discussed, provision would be made only for underfed children. There would remain the hosts who are unsuitably fed; the worst of these cases would, of course, be discovered by the doctor, but only the worst cases. And, again, no provision would be made for the children whose mothers are at work all day and consequently unable to provide a midday meal, and for whom the school dinner would be a great convenience, for which the parents would, in many cases, be willing to pay.
(iv) There remains the only logical conclusion, the provision of a meal for all school children, as part of the school curriculum. Such a provision need not necessarily be compulsory, though it should be so in all cases where the School Doctor recommends it. From every point of view, the psychological, the medical and the educational, the advantages to be gained from such a course would be enormous. General provision for all would do away with all pauperising discrimination between the necessitous and the non-necessitous. On the medical side it would be difficult to over-estimate the benefits to be secured. On this point the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education has recently pronounced in no measured terms. "From a purely scientific point of view," he declared, "if there was one thing he was allowed to do for the six million children, if he wanted to rear an imperial race, it would be to feed them.... The great, urgent, pressing need was nutrition. With that they could get better brains and a better race."[[539]] The beneficial results already observed in the case of children who have received a regular course of school meals would be extended to all. Then, again, the common meal would serve as an opportunity for the exercise of many little acts of consideration for one another. The teachers would be brought into more intimate relations with the children, for they get to know the children better at meal time than in any other way. The school meal would serve as an object lesson; taken in conjunction with the teaching of housewifery and cookery in the schools, it would speedily raise the standard in the homes. There would be another advantage. Adequate rest after the meal could be insisted on, followed by healthy play in the open air in the playground instead of in stuffy rooms and backyards. In the rural districts, as we have already shown, it is imperative that dinner should be provided for all who want to stay. Numbers of children are unable to return home, and it is almost impossible for the parents to provide suitable cold food for them to take with them; even when they can go home to dinner they frequently have a long walk, with the consequence that the meal must be eaten hastily and the children hurry back to school immediately afterwards.
If general provision is made, ought the parents to be required to pay or should the meal be free to all? The first plan has much to recommend it and has been advocated in many quarters. At the recent conference at the Guildhall on School Feeding, for instance, there appeared to be a general agreement in favour of this course. The experience of the Special Schools for Defective Children, and some of the rural schools, where a midday meal or hot cocoa is provided, shows that numbers of parents are able to pay, and there does not appear to be much difficulty in collecting the payment.[[540]] And in the ordinary elementary schools, where little provision is made for paying cases, it would appear that there does exist a certain demand for such provision.[[541]] On the other hand, it must be admitted that it is a question whether any large number of parents would voluntarily pay for their children's meals when it was known that provision was made for all and that other children were receiving the meal free. The payment would have to be left to the parent's conscience, for any attempt to try to decide in which cases payment should be insisted on and in which it should be remitted would introduce again the evils of the present system, with its demoralising enquiry into the parents' circumstances—though in a somewhat mitigated form, since no distinction would be made between the paying and the non-paying children, and the latter would not be marked off as a separate class as at present. Another difficulty, though a minor one, would arise in the fixing of the price to be charged. In the more prosperous districts the dinner might be self-supporting, but in the poorest localities it would hardly be possible to charge an amount sufficient to cover the cost of the food.
The provision of a free meal for all would obviate these difficulties. It will be objected at once that such a plan will undermine parental responsibility, but, as we have shown in the previous chapter, communal provision of other services has not had this result. And against this lightening of parental burdens must be set the continual increase of duties which are being placed upon them. A more serious objection lies in the expense. Taking the cost of a school dinner at 2-1/4d. per head,[[542]] the provision of one meal a day for five days a week during term time for all the six million school children in England, Wales and Scotland would cost about £12,500,000. This is, of course, an outside estimate, for it would probably be found that a considerable number of parents would prefer to have their children at home to dinner rather than send them to the school meal; and the provision might be confined to schools in poor districts. To the actual cost of supplying the meals there must be added the initial outlay incurred in providing dining-rooms and appliances.[[543]] On the other hand, there would be a great saving of time and energy which is now consumed in making enquiries. And the provision of school meals would tend to diminish the amount which will otherwise have to be spent in the near future on medical treatment. Food, as Sir George Newman has pointed out, is of more importance than drugs and surgical treatment, and if regular meals were provided there would be much less need for school clinics.[[544]] The expenditure on the provision of school meals would, indeed, be nationally a most profitable investment; it would be amply justified by the improved physique of the rising generation and by the consequent increase in their efficiency. It would be far more productive, in fact, than much of the money which is now spent on education, than the outlay, for instance, on the erection of huge school buildings, an outlay the necessity of which is becoming more and more questionable in the light of the proved superiority of open-air education.
Unfortunately the general provision of a school dinner will not be a complete solution of the problem. There will remain the children for whom one meal a day will not be sufficient, while the discontinuance of the meals during the holidays will cause them serious suffering. Experience has amply shown the necessity of the meals being continued during the holidays and power must be given to the Local Education Authorities to make this provision when it is required. They must also be allowed to provide an additional meal for those children for whom dinner alone is not sufficient. Any proposal to limit the provision to one meal could not, indeed, be seriously entertained, for numbers of Local Authorities are already supplying this extra food and would resist any curtailment of their powers in this respect. But when we come to consider for what children this additional provision shall be made, we are face to face with all the old difficulties of selection. Obviously it cannot be made for all. Perhaps the best method would be to provide for all children who liked to come, whilst attendance should be obligatory on those for whom the School Doctor ordered extra nourishment. Such a prospect would be viewed with alarm by many, but the numbers to be provided for would probably not be excessive, if it was understood that this extra provision was intended only for necessitous or delicate children. It is found that the attendance drops off considerably during the holidays, and that it is always less for a breakfast than for a dinner; it requires more exertion to come in time for breakfast, while the fare provided is not so popular. Probably the danger would be rather on the side of too few children being provided for than too many.
No plan that can be proposed is free from disadvantages. And this brings us back to the point at which we started in this chapter. From the nature of the case, no attempt to deal with effects only, while causes remain untouched, can be wholly satisfactory. Provision must be made for the present generation of school children; their necessities must be relieved and future inefficiency due to underfeeding in childhood must be prevented. But at the same time, and above all, a determined attack must be made on the evils which lie at the root of the children's malnutrition. Industrial conditions must be so organised that it is possible for every man himself to provide for his children at least the requisite minimum of food, clothing and other necessaries.
Summary of Conclusions
1. That, so long as economic conditions remain as they are, the provision of school meals is a necessity.
2. That no method of selection of the children who are to receive the meals can be satisfactory, and that all attempts at picking and choosing should, therefore, be abandoned. The meal should be provided for all children who like to come, without any enquiry into their parents' circumstances. Attendance should be compulsory if recommended by the School Medical Officer.
3. That the meal should be regarded as part of the school curriculum and should be educational. It should be served, as far as practicable, on the school premises, in rooms which are not used as class-rooms; the plan of sending the children to eating-houses or to large centres should be discontinued. Some of the teachers should be present to supervise the children, who should be taught to set the tables and to wait on one another. The meal should be served as attractively as possible.
4. The dietary should be drawn up in consultation with the School Medical Officer, with a view to the physiological requirements of the children, special attention being paid to the infants.
5. The preparation of the food should not be entrusted to caterers, but should be undertaken by the Local Education Authority.
6. The meals should be continued throughout the school year, and, if necessary, during the holidays.