The food may be supplied by the Alexandra Trust, a local caterer, a cookery centre or a kitchen managed by the Local Association. The quality of the food varies according to the arrangements made by each Local Association. The food specially prepared for the Jewish children appears to be generally good. At the cookery centres again, though complaints are occasionally heard that the dinners are badly cooked, they are as a rule appetising, and the menu is varied. The great majority of the meals are, however, supplied by the Alexandra Trust. Ten different dinner menus have been drawn up by this Trust, with a slight variation for summer,[[438]] but in practice there is very little variety, practically the same dietary being repeated week after week; usually there is a deficiency of proteids and fats. The quantity supplied for each child varies considerably in different centres. In one that we visited, for instance, each child was given a large helping of suet pudding with minced meat, followed by a large plateful of rice, and second helpings were given if required; at another, where the dinner consisted of only one course, with a piece of bread, the portions were very small; the cook admitted that some of the children could eat more, but if any were allowed a second helping all would ask for it, whether they wanted it or not, and the food would then be left uneaten.

How far the infants' needs are specially catered for depends on each Local Association. Sometimes they are fed by themselves at the Cookery Centre, where it is easier to provide suitable food and to pay individual attention to their wants. More often they go with the elder children to the feeding-centres. The Alexandra Trust has drawn up a special menu for infants, and in centres where the food is supplied otherwise than by the Trust the Council have instructed the Local Association to make special provision.[[439]] But it is rare to find any such provision made. As a rule the infants have the same food as the elder children, though in centres where there is careful supervision, and where the infants are placed at a separate table,[[440]] the size of the helping is suited to their appetites. In many centres the number of infants is so few as to make the preparation of a separate diet hardly worth while, and the provision of special food has been known to give rise to jealousy on the part of the elder children.

Ordinarily one meal a day is provided, this meal being almost invariably dinner, but in cases of special necessity or delicacy an additional meal may be given. This meal may be either breakfast, milk or codliver oil. The practice varies in each school. In some schools breakfast is never given, or given only in very rare cases. In others breakfasts as well as dinners are given to the most necessitous children. At St. George's-in-the-East formerly only breakfasts were given, but now dinners are given in addition to all the children on the feeding-list; the breakfast is used as a test, the theory being that if the child does not come for breakfast it shall not receive dinner, but in practice this plan is not strictly carried out. Milk and codliver oil are given in most schools, when recommended by the School Doctor; in some schools milk is also given on economic grounds, as an additional meal to specially necessitous children, instead of breakfast. In a few schools a quantity of milk is supplied in the middle of the morning, and any child who pays a halfpenny can have it, the children, especially the infants, being encouraged to spend their halfpence on milk instead of on sweets.

Where no other suitable accommodation is available, the meals may be served in the School Hall, but this method is not encouraged by the Council, and is frequently objected to by the teachers, and it is only occasionally utilised. Often, as we have already mentioned, the meals are served in the cookery centres, but the number of children that can be thus accommodated is necessarily limited, and the centre may be closed during the summer. Till recently some Local Associations arranged for their children to be sent to small eating-houses. We have already pointed out the disadvantages—the impossibility of making the meal in any sense educational, and the lack of control over the dietary—inherent, even under the most favourable conditions, in this system. But in London, in many of these cookshops, the conditions were the reverse of favourable; they could, indeed, only be described as deplorable. For instance, at one eating-house, where the children were sent for their dinners up to the spring of 1912, the room used was hardly larger than a cupboard, and only six or eight children could be fed at a time; the children had to go in relays and, when the numbers were very large, had to sit on the stairs eating their food. In others the conditions were equally bad. The plan of utilising restaurants is, we are glad to say, falling into disfavour, but it is not yet entirely abandoned.

The most usual method is for the children to be sent to centres. These centres are frequently basement rooms, dark and cheerless. Occasionally plants or flowers are provided, but it is very rare to find any attempt at table decoration. Since the average cost of serving the meals is much less proportionately if the number of children is large, the County Council has, for the sake of economy, decided that, where possible, schools shall be grouped, and the children from them fed at one centre.[[441]] As we have already pointed out, the herding together of large numbers of children from different schools deprives the meal of much of its educational value. The children from the different schools will come in at different times. Often the centre is not large enough for them all to be accommodated at once, and they have to be served in relays, with the consequence that the meal must be hurried through. They are usually seated at long tables, and are often crowded together, so that adequate supervision is rendered very difficult.

The supervision is occasionally undertaken voluntarily by teachers, and in many centres by other voluntary workers. Where their regular attendance can be secured the good results are soon apparent. But the visits of voluntary supervisors are too often irregular, and it may happen that no one is present to supervise the meal, except the women who serve the food. In many districts it is impossible to obtain the services of volunteers at all, and paid supervisors are appointed.[[442]] These may be assistant teachers, retired teachers or other suitable persons. One supervisor may be appointed for every hundred children, but frequently the number to be looked after by one supervisor far exceeds a hundred. Thus, in three centres we visited, there were 140 to 160 children present, whilst in two others the numbers were well over two hundred; in all these there was only one supervisor.

The County Council has drawn up regulations for the management of the centres,[[443]] but these regulations are largely disregarded. The Council, for instance, has laid it down that boys and girls are to be appointed to act as monitors, to assist in laying the tables and serving the meals. In many centres this is not even attempted, and occasionally where their services are utilised, owing to the large number of children present, the supervisor is unable to devote much attention to the training of the monitors, and their presence rather adds to the prevailing confusion than conduces to the orderly and quiet service of the meal. Another of the Council's regulations directs that a separate mug shall be provided for each child.[[444]] But it appears to be the exception rather than the rule for this instruction to be observed. Though a sufficient supply of mugs is, or can on application be, supplied for every centre, the women who serve the meals, being only employed and paid for a fixed time, object to the extra labour involved in washing up. Frequently no mugs are placed on the table at all, though we were told that the children could have water if they asked for it; when mugs are provided there is often only one to every two or three children, perhaps to every five or six! At one centre that we visited, though the girls were allowed mugs, the boys were not trusted, and mugs of water were placed on a side table for their indiscriminate use after the meal.

The actual management of each centre varies, of course, very largely according to the personality of the supervisor. We have visited some two or three centres where all the arrangements were admirable; the children were quiet and well-behaved, there was little or no waste of food, and attention was paid to individual wants. But these cases are unfortunately exceptional. Out of twenty centres in different parts of London that we have seen,[[445]] in at least half the educational advantages to be derived from the common meal are imperfectly realised.[[446]] In a few cases the supervisors appear to consider this aspect as but of secondary importance. So long as the children are fed and some sort of rough order preserved, they are satisfied. The meal may be eaten in a babel of noise. Food which the children do not fancy they will throw on the floor, little attempt being made to prevent waste. But in any case, in many centres, owing to the large number of children to be attended to, the task of inculcating table manners is an almost impossible one. Though the supervisors do their utmost, for instance, to teach the children to use spoons and forks, it is not uncommon to observe children eating with their fingers—even occasionally licking their plates! It is impossible for the supervisor to give that individual attention which is absolutely essential if the meal is to be in any sense educational.

(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]]