CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSIONS

The provision of meals for school children is, as we have pointed out, merely an attempt to mitigate some of the evil effects of industrial disorganisation. The principal end at which Society should aim is the removal of the causes, low wages, casual employment, recurrent periods of unemployment, and bad housing, which make them necessary. But meanwhile, as long as economic conditions remain as they are, some provision must be made for the present generation of school children. And the provision of school meals is not merely a question of relief, it is also a preventive measure. "Every step ... in the direction of making and keeping the children healthy is a step towards diminishing the prevalence and lightening the burden of disease for the adult, and a relatively small rise in the standard of child health may represent a proportionately large gain in the physical health, capacity, and energy of the people as a whole."[534]

Footnote 534:

Report of Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for 1910, p. 1.

Granted, therefore, that the school meal is, for the present at any rate, a necessity, the question remains, for what children shall this meal be provided. We have described the methods of selection at present in force. We have seen that, though a few children are given school meals because they are found by the School Doctor to be ill-nourished, the great majority are selected by the teachers on the ground of poverty, a method which involves an enquiry into the parents' circumstances. We have shown some of the disadvantages inherent in this method of selection. The enquiries deter parents from applying. It is impossible for the teachers to discover all cases of underfed children. If the child is told by its parents to say that it has plenty to eat at home, how is the teacher to know that it is underfed? It is difficult, and in many cases quite impossible, to ascertain the amount of income coming in. Even if this could always be accurately ascertained, it would be difficult to discriminate with justice since other circumstances vary so widely. The enquiry is demoralising for the parents, putting a premium on deception and creating a sense of injustice. So unsatisfactory, indeed, has this system of investigation into income proved to be that there is a general consensus of opinion among adherents of the most opposing schools of thought that it must be given up. "As a Guardian of the poor and a member of the Charity Organisation Society, and in many other ways," says the late Canon Barnett, "I have come to see that no enquiry is adequate. I would not trust myself to enquire into any one's condition and be just. Enquiry is never satisfactory and is always irritating.... _I believe it is enquiry and investigation and suspicion which undermine parental responsibility._"[535] Even so firm a supporter of Charity Organisation Society principles as the Rev. Henry Iselin would, we gather, prefer to the present inadequate system of investigation the provision of a meal for all children who like to come, without enquiry, though he would, of course, make the conditions of the meal in some way deterrent.[536] In discussing what is the best method to be adopted we must, therefore, rule out any plan which involves an enquiry into the family income.

Footnote 535:

Report of Select Committee on Education (Provision of Meals) Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, Qs. 2290, 2312. (The italics are mine.)

Footnote 536:

See post, p. 222.

(i) We may consider first the proposal that the selection should be made by the School Doctor, school meals being ordered for all children whom he finds to be suffering from mal-nutrition. This method, which is strongly recommended by the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education, has been adopted in a few towns, but only to a very limited extent and always in subordination to the system of selection based on the "poverty test." The selection by the "physical test" would obviate all the disadvantages arising from the demoralising enquiry into the parents' circumstances. On the other hand, the practical difficulties would be very great. At present a child is normally examined by the doctor only two or three times during the whole of its school career. Under the system proposed frequent examinations would be necessary, which would entail an enormous increase in the school medical staff. But, however frequent the examinations, the discovery of all underfed children would not be assured. It is not always possible for the doctor to determine the cause of malnutrition in any particular case; hence many children would be included who get plenty of food at home, but yet, from some other cause, do not thrive. More important, numbers of children would be excluded who fail to get sufficient food but who yet appear healthy. As a School Medical Officer points out, "temporary lack of food does not stamp the child in such a way that it is possible to detect past privations by ordinary inspection."[537] The underfeeding might be prolonged for a considerable time before its effects were apparent. But it is essential that underfeeding should be discovered before the child shows definite signs of malnutrition, since the object to be aimed at is to prevent its ever getting into this state. The physical test, therefore, forms too narrow a basis to be satisfactorily employed, at any rate as the sole test, in the selection of children to be provided for.

Footnote 537:

Report of School Medical Officer for Leicester for 1912, p. 34.

(ii) We will consider next the plan to which we have already alluded, the provision of meals, free and without enquiry, for all children who like to come, it being understood that the meals are intended only for "necessitous" children, _i.e._, those children who through poverty are unable to obtain an adequate supply of food at home. Those who aim at making this provision in some way deterrent suggest a breakfast of porridge, the time of the meal and the nature of the food providing a test of need. "As the man inside the workhouse must not have better, but a decidedly worse, treatment than the man outside, so if the food be nourishing but not too palatable it may chance that only the truly necessitous may apply."[538] Children who can obtain food at home will prefer to do so. But it is found in practice that it is not only the children who can get sufficient food at home who are deterred by such a device, but that the "truly necessitous" also refuse to come. Such a system, in fact, defeats its own ends. It is futile to provide meals for all underfed children and at the same time to make that provision so deterrent that those for whom it is intended decline to avail themselves of it. Even if there is no intention of making the provision deterrent, the idea that the meals are meant only for necessitous children will, in fact, make it so; many parents will prefer to feed their children at home on a totally inadequate diet rather than disclose their poverty by sending them to the school meals. The "poverty test" in fact, in whatever form it may be applied, will exclude numbers of children whom it is desirable to provide for.

Footnote 538:

"A New Poor Law for Children," by Rev. Henry Iselin, in _Charity Organisation Review_, March, 1909, p. 170.

(iii) The two methods that we have described would each leave a large class of children without provision. The first would fail to discover numbers of children who are underfed, but who do not show obvious signs of malnutrition. The second would not touch those cases where the children cannot get sufficient food at home, but where the parents are too proud to accept school meals for them. A combination of the two methods would remove both these objections. The provision of meals, free and without enquiry, for all necessitous children, would secure the feeding of the majority of those who are underfed, while the School Doctor would generally discover those cases where the parents try to conceal the fact that they cannot give their children sufficient food at home. For these children the doctor would, of course, order school meals. This method would not obviate the necessity of a great increase in the school medical service. Moreover, by any of the methods discussed, provision would be made only for underfed children. There would remain the hosts who are unsuitably fed; the worst of these cases would, of course, be discovered by the doctor, but only the worst cases. And, again, no provision would be made for the children whose mothers are at work all day and consequently unable to provide a midday meal, and for whom the school dinner would be a great convenience, for which the parents would, in many cases, be willing to pay.

(iv) There remains the only logical conclusion, the provision of a meal for all school children, as part of the school curriculum. Such a provision need not necessarily be compulsory, though it should be so in all cases where the School Doctor recommends it. From every point of view, the psychological, the medical and the educational, the advantages to be gained from such a course would be enormous. General provision for all would do away with all pauperising discrimination between the necessitous and the non-necessitous. On the medical side it would be difficult to over-estimate the benefits to be secured. On this point the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education has recently pronounced in no measured terms. "From a purely scientific point of view," he declared, "if there was one thing he was allowed to do for the six million children, if he wanted to rear an imperial race, it would be to feed them.... The great, urgent, pressing need was nutrition. With that they could get better brains and a better race."[539] The beneficial results already observed in the case of children who have received a regular course of school meals would be extended to all. Then, again, the common meal would serve as an opportunity for the exercise of many little acts of consideration for one another. The teachers would be brought into more intimate relations with the children, for they get to know the children better at meal time than in any other way. The school meal would serve as an object lesson; taken in conjunction with the teaching of housewifery and cookery in the schools, it would speedily raise the standard in the homes. There would be another advantage. Adequate rest after the meal could be insisted on, followed by healthy play in the open air in the playground instead of in stuffy rooms and backyards. In the rural districts, as we have already shown, it is imperative that dinner should be provided for all who want to stay. Numbers of children are unable to return home, and it is almost impossible for the parents to provide suitable cold food for them to take with them; even when they can go home to dinner they frequently have a long walk, with the consequence that the meal must be eaten hastily and the children hurry back to school immediately afterwards.

Footnote 539:

Report of Proceedings of University Extension Oxford Summer Meeting, 1913, p. 17.

If general provision is made, ought the parents to be required to pay or should the meal be free to all? The first plan has much to recommend it and has been advocated in many quarters. At the recent conference at the Guildhall on School Feeding, for instance, there appeared to be a general agreement in favour of this course. The experience of the Special Schools for Defective Children, and some of the rural schools, where a midday meal or hot cocoa is provided, shows that numbers of parents are able to pay, and there does not appear to be much difficulty in collecting the payment.[540] And in the ordinary elementary schools, where little provision is made for paying cases, it would appear that there does exist a certain demand for such provision.[541] On the other hand, it must be admitted that it is a question whether any large number of parents would voluntarily pay for their children's meals when it was known that provision was made for all and that other children were receiving the meal free. The payment would have to be left to the parent's conscience, for any attempt to try to decide in which cases payment should be insisted on and in which it should be remitted would introduce again the evils of the present system, with its demoralising enquiry into the parents' circumstances--though in a somewhat mitigated form, since no distinction would be made between the paying and the non-paying children, and the latter would not be marked off as a separate class as at present. Another difficulty, though a minor one, would arise in the fixing of the price to be charged. In the more prosperous districts the dinner might be self-supporting, but in the poorest localities it would hardly be possible to charge an amount sufficient to cover the cost of the food.

Footnote 540:

See ante, pp. 120, 123-5, 155-6.

Footnote 541:

In the ordinary elementary schools in some of the Scottish towns, large numbers of children pay for the dinners. (See Appendix II., pp. 242, 245, 246.)

The provision of a free meal for all would obviate these difficulties. It will be objected at once that such a plan will undermine parental responsibility, but, as we have shown in the previous chapter, communal provision of other services has not had this result. And against this lightening of parental burdens must be set the continual increase of duties which are being placed upon them. A more serious objection lies in the expense. Taking the cost of a school dinner at 2-1/4d. per head,[542] the provision of one meal a day for five days a week during term time for all the six million school children in England, Wales and Scotland would cost about L12,500,000. This is, of course, an outside estimate, for it would probably be found that a considerable number of parents would prefer to have their children at home to dinner rather than send them to the school meal; and the provision might be confined to schools in poor districts. To the actual cost of supplying the meals there must be added the initial outlay incurred in providing dining-rooms and appliances.[543] On the other hand, there would be a great saving of time and energy which is now consumed in making enquiries. And the provision of school meals would tend to diminish the amount which will otherwise have to be spent in the near future on medical treatment. Food, as Sir George Newman has pointed out, is of more importance than drugs and surgical treatment, and if regular meals were provided there would be much less need for school clinics.[544] The expenditure on the provision of school meals would, indeed, be nationally a most profitable investment; it would be amply justified by the improved physique of the rising generation and by the consequent increase in their efficiency. It would be far more productive, in fact, than much of the money which is now spent on education, than the outlay, for instance, on the erection of huge school buildings, an outlay the necessity of which is becoming more and more questionable in the light of the proved superiority of open-air education.

Footnote 542:

The cost depends, of course, on the kind of food provided. At Bradford, where a two-course dinner is given, the total cost per meal, for administrative charges (the upkeep of the Cooking Depot, the rent of the dining-rooms, the wages of the staff, payment for supervision, the carriage of the food, sinking fund, etc.), amounted in 1912-13 to 1.2d., and for food to 1.26d., making a total of 2.46d. About one-third of the meals supplied were breakfasts, which are usually rather cheaper than dinners, so that the cost per dinner would be slightly more. (Bradford Education Committee, Return as to the Working of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act for the year ending March 31, 1913). At Edinburgh, where a one-course dinner is given, the cost is .9d. for food and 1d. for administrative charges. (Report of the Edinburgh School Board for 1912-13, p. 35.)

Footnote 543:

We must add one other item of expenditure, which will be necessary whatever course be adopted with regard to the provision of meals, namely, the appointment of salaried organisers for each group of schools, to supervise the work of medical treatment, after-care, and all other activities directed to the physical well-being of the child.

Footnote 544:

Report of Proceedings of University Extension Oxford Summer Meeting, 1913, p. 17.

Unfortunately the general provision of a school dinner will not be a complete solution of the problem. There will remain the children for whom one meal a day will not be sufficient, while the discontinuance of the meals during the holidays will cause them serious suffering. Experience has amply shown the necessity of the meals being continued during the holidays and power must be given to the Local Education Authorities to make this provision when it is required. They must also be allowed to provide an additional meal for those children for whom dinner alone is not sufficient. Any proposal to limit the provision to one meal could not, indeed, be seriously entertained, for numbers of Local Authorities are already supplying this extra food and would resist any curtailment of their powers in this respect. But when we come to consider for what children this additional provision shall be made, we are face to face with all the old difficulties of selection. Obviously it cannot be made for all. Perhaps the best method would be to provide for all children who liked to come, whilst attendance should be obligatory on those for whom the School Doctor ordered extra nourishment. Such a prospect would be viewed with alarm by many, but the numbers to be provided for would probably not be excessive, if it was understood that this extra provision was intended only for necessitous or delicate children. It is found that the attendance drops off considerably during the holidays, and that it is always less for a breakfast than for a dinner; it requires more exertion to come in time for breakfast, while the fare provided is not so popular. Probably the danger would be rather on the side of too few children being provided for than too many.

No plan that can be proposed is free from disadvantages. And this brings us back to the point at which we started in this chapter. From the nature of the case, no attempt to deal with effects only, while causes remain untouched, can be wholly satisfactory. Provision must be made for the present generation of school children; their necessities must be relieved and future inefficiency due to underfeeding in childhood must be prevented. But at the same time, and above all, a determined attack must be made on the evils which lie at the root of the children's malnutrition. Industrial conditions must be so organised that it is possible for every man himself to provide for his children at least the requisite minimum of food, clothing and other necessaries.

_Summary of Conclusions_

1. That, so long as economic conditions remain as they are, the provision of school meals is a necessity.

2. That no method of selection of the children who are to receive the meals can be satisfactory, and that all attempts at picking and choosing should, therefore, be abandoned. The meal should be provided for all children who like to come, without any enquiry into their parents' circumstances. Attendance should be compulsory if recommended by the School Medical Officer.

3. That the meal should be regarded as part of the school curriculum and should be educational. It should be served, as far as practicable, on the school premises, in rooms which are not used as class-rooms; the plan of sending the children to eating-houses or to large centres should be discontinued. Some of the teachers should be present to supervise the children, who should be taught to set the tables and to wait on one another. The meal should be served as attractively as possible.

4. The dietary should be drawn up in consultation with the School Medical Officer, with a view to the physiological requirements of the children, special attention being paid to the infants.

5. The preparation of the food should not be entrusted to caterers, but should be undertaken by the Local Education Authority.

6. The meals should be continued throughout the school year, and, if necessary, during the holidays.

APPENDIX I EXAMPLES OF MENUS

(1) Bradford

SPRING DIETARY, 1913

Dinners to be repeated every four weeks

1st week:

Monday. Brown vegetable soup. Rice pudding.

Tuesday. Cottage pie; green peas. Stewed fruit.

Wednesday. Potato and onion soup. Plum cake (Cocoanut cake alternate months).

Thursday. Meat and potato hash; beans. Rice pudding.

Friday. Fish and potato pie; parsley sauce; peas. Ground rice.

2nd week:

Monday. Potato and onion soup. Rice pudding.

Tuesday. Shepherd's pie. Stewed fruit.

Wednesday. Yorkshire pudding; gravy; peas. Sago pudding.

Thursday. Scotch barley broth. Currant pastry.

Friday. Fish and potato pie; parsley sauce; peas. Rice and sultanas.

3rd week:

Monday. Brown vegetable soup. Rice pudding.

Tuesday. Meat and potato hash; beans. Stewed fruit.

Wednesday. Potato and onion soup. Ginger pudding and sweet sauce.

Thursday. Stewed beef and gravy; mashed potatoes. Baked jam roll.

Friday. Fish and potato pie; parsley sauce; peas. Semolina pudding.

4th week:

Monday. Potato and onion soup. Wholemeal cake.

Tuesday. Hashed beef and savoury balls. Rice pudding.

Wednesday. Yorkshire cheese pudding; peas and gravy. Stewed fruit.

Thursday. Shepherd's pie; green peas. Sago pudding.

Friday. Fish and potato pie; parsley sauce. Rice and sultanas.

(2) Leeds

WINTER DIETARY

Repeated week after week.

Monday. Pea soup; brown and white bread. Parkin.

Tuesday. Shepherd's pie; brown and white bread. Buns or cake.

Wednesday (except during Advent and Lent)--Irish stew; brown and white bread. Parkin.

Wednesday (during Advent and Lent)--Lentil and tomato soup (alternately with fish pie); brown and white bread. Parkin.

Thursday. Crust pie; brown or white bread. Buns or cake.

Friday. Lentil and tomato soup (alternately with fish pie); brown and white bread. Parkin.

(Some other kind of cake or bun is now sometimes substituted for parkin.)

SUMMER DIETARY

Monday. Rice pudding; stewed fruit. Currant cake.

Tuesday. Shepherd's pie; brown and white bread. Seed cake.

Wednesday. Crust pie; brown and white bread. Currant cake.

Thursday. Potted meat sandwiches. Rice pudding.

Friday. Lentil and tomato soup; white and brown bread. Buns.

(3) West Ham.

WINTER DIETARY.

Monday. Irish stew. Brown bread and jam.

Tuesday. Lentil soup. Baked currant pudding.

Wednesday. Roast mutton; potatoes; haricot beans; bread.

Thursday. Mince. Suet pudding; jam or stewed fruit.

Friday. Soup. Rice with jam or treacle.

(During summer lighter food is substituted.)

(4) Acton.

Monday. Soup and bread. Currant roll.

Tuesday. Stewed meat; cabbage; potatoes.

Wednesday. Soup and bread. Plain suet pudding with syrup.

Thursday. Irish stew and potatoes. Plain pudding.

Friday. Soup and bread. Rice pudding.

Saturday. Stewed meat and two vegetables.

This menu is theoretically repeated week after week throughout the year, but in practice it is not always strictly adhered to.

(5) London.

_Dinners which may be supplied by the Alexandra Trust._ (_See Minutes of the L.C.C., Dec. 17, 18, 1912._)

WINTER MENU.

1. Haricot bean soup; bread. Treacle pudding.

2. Fish and potato pie; bread. Baked raisin pudding.

3. Pea soup; bread baked in dripping. Fig pudding.

4. Stewed beef or mutton; dumplings; steamed potatoes; bread.

5. Beef stewed with peas; dumplings; potatoes; bread.

6. Mutton stewed with haricot beans; steamed potatoes; bread. Suet pudding.

7. Meat and potato pie; bread.

8. Meat pudding.

9. Toad-in-the-hole; potatoes; bread.

10. Rice pudding; two slices of bread and butter.

SUMMER MENU.

1. Rice pudding; two slices of bread and butter.

2. Toad-in-the-hole; potatoes; bread.

3. Meat pies; potatoes; bread.

4. Meat pudding; potatoes; bread.

5. Cold meat pie; fruit roll.

6. Meat sandwich; piece of cake.

7. (For Infants) Hot milk and bread; fruit roll.

DINNERS FOR INFANTS

1 Liquid part of winter dinner menus, Nos. 4, 5, 6.

2 Rice, tapioca, macaroni or barley pudding, with two slices of sultana bread and butter.

3 Stew--very fine mince.

4 Baked custard, with bread and butter.

5 Savory custard, with bread and butter.

(6) Grassington (Yorkshire)

SAMPLE MENUS[545]

Footnote 545:

There appears to be no fixed dietary, the dinners being varied each week.

Monday. Haricot bean soup; bread. Steamed suet pudding and treacle.

Tuesday. Meat and potato pies with crusts on. Rice pudding.

Wednesday. Onion soup; bread. Steamed ginger pudding; sweet sauce.

Thursday. Meat and potato pie with crusts on. Sago pudding.

Friday. Yorkshire pudding; gravy; mashed potato. Marmalade pudding; sweet sauce.

Monday. Potato soup; bread. Steamed ginger pudding; sweet sauce.

Tuesday. Meat and potato pies with crusts on. Cornflour pudding.

Wednesday. Pea soup. Plain plum puddings; sweet sauce.

Thursday. Meat and potato pies with crusts on. Rice pudding.

Friday. Shepherd's pie (minced meat, mashed potato). Sago pudding.

APPENDIX II THE PROVISION OF MEALS IN SCOTLAND

The Provision of Meals Act of 1906 applied only to England and Wales. As we have seen, the attempt of the House of Commons to extend its operations to Scotland was defeated in the House of Lords, and it was not till 1908 that the Scottish School Boards were granted power to utilise the rates for the provision of food.[546] By the Education (Scotland) Act passed in that year it was enacted that a School Board might, either by itself or in combination with other School Boards, provide accommodation, apparatus and service for the preparation and supply of meals.[547] Where it appeared that a child was unable by lack of food or clothing to take full advantage of the education provided, the School Board should, after due warning, summon the parent or guardian to appear and give an explanation of the child's condition. If the explanation was not forthcoming or was insufficient or unsatisfactory, and the condition of the child was due to neglect, the Procurator Fiscal should prosecute the parents under the Prevention of Cruelty Act.[548] If, however, it appeared that the parent or guardian, through poverty or ill-health, was unable to supply sufficient food or clothing, the School Board, if satisfied that the necessities of the case would not be met by voluntary agency, should make "such provision for the child ... as they deem necessary" out of the school fund.[549] Temporary provision might be made by the School Board pending completion of procedure against the parents, and the cost of such provision might be recovered.[550] The powers conferred upon Scottish School Boards thus differed in several respects from those conferred on English Local Authorities by the Act of 1906. The School Boards were granted power not only to provide food but also clothing, and no limitation was placed upon the amount which might be spent out of the rates on the provision of these necessaries. Moreover, the Act was not permissive. In England, when in any area school children are suffering from lack of food, and voluntary funds are not forthcoming to meet their needs, the Local Education Authority _may_ provide food out of the rates; in Scotland the School Board _shall_ make such provision.

Footnote 546:

See ante, p. 48.

Footnote 547:

8 Edward VII., c. 63, sec. 3 (2).

Footnote 548:

_Ibid._, sec. 6 (1).

Footnote 549:

_Ibid._, sec. 6 (2).

Footnote 550:

_Ibid._

No report has yet been published by the Scottish Education Department as to the action taken either by the School Boards or by voluntary agencies in the work of the provision of meals. As far as we can gather from the reports of the Chief Inspectors, though several Boards co-operate with voluntary agencies and provide apparatus and service, in only some half-dozen towns, _e.g._, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Govan, Leith, Perth, has the system of providing food out of the rates been adopted to any extent.[551] The increase in expenditure on the provision of meals, etc., for necessitous children under the Act of 1908 is shown by the following table:--[552]

Footnote 551:

During the coal strike in the spring of 1912, some Boards in the Fife district took action under section 6 and provided free meals. (Report of the Chief Inspector for the Southern Division for 1912, p. 11.)

Footnote 552:

Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, 1912-13, p. 4.

Providing Food, Clothing or Total. Accomodation other expenditure for Meals, (for necessitous Sec. 3(2) children) Sec. 6

1908-9 (Part of L 67 L 11 L 78 year only.)

1909-10 290 921 1,211

1910-11 3,777 3,768 7,545

1911-12 4,586 3,172 7,758

In Edinburgh, the necessity for feeding underfed school children was recognized[553] very soon after the passing of the Education Act of 1872. The Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor early undertook to deal with cases reported by the Attendance Officers. In 1878 Miss Flora Stevenson started a scheme for feeding and clothing destitute children, on condition that children so assisted must attend school.[554] Towards the close of the nineteenth century numerous other voluntary organisations appear to have been established.[555] As in other towns the provision by these voluntary agencies proved inadequate and unsatisfactory. Meals were supplied only for about ten weeks in the year. They were served in eating-houses, where the food was poor and the arrangements of the roughest description. The children were selected by the teachers and attendance officers, and there was no adequate investigation into the cases. In the autumn of 1909 the Lord Provost summoned a conference to discuss the question, and a scheme of co-operation between the School Board and the two chief voluntary agencies, the Flora Stevenson Committee and the Courant Fund, was drawn up, by which the voluntary funds were pooled, and cases were decided by a committee consisting of representatives of the three bodies concerned. In the following year the School Board undertook the entire responsibility for the provision of meals, though it still relied on voluntary contributions. It decided to establish a cooking centre of its own instead of entrusting the supply of the meals to caterers. Care Committees of voluntary workers were to be appointed for each group of schools to investigate all cases of destitution, and to "keep in continuous and sympathetic touch" with the families. Cases were to be recommended by the medical officer, school nurses, teachers and attendance officers, in addition to applications made by the parents; the Care Committee was also itself to take the initiative in searching out cases of destitution. To secure uniformity of treatment a Central Care Committee, composed of representatives of the School Board and the voluntary agencies, was appointed to give the final decision on all cases; this central committee was also to supervise the collection of the necessary funds, and to rouse general interest in the problem of school feeding.[556] The Courant Fund declined to act with the Board under this scheme, but the Flora Stevenson Committee co-operated cordially.

Footnote 553:

For the following account I am mainly indebted to the kindness of Mrs. Leslie Mackenzie and Mr. I. H. Cunningham.

Footnote 554:

Report of Select Committee on Education (Provision of Meals) Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, Q. 4211; Report of Royal Commission on Physical Training (Scotland) 1903, Vol. II., Q. 2396.

Footnote 555:

Report of Special Sub-Committee on Meals for School Children, in Minutes of London School Board, July 25, 1889, Vol. 31, p. 382.

Footnote 556:

Edinburgh School Board, Memorandum on the Feeding of School Children, 1910, pp. 5-6.

The cooking centre was opened in January, 1911, and by the end of the year the system of Care Committees was in working order. Voluntary subscriptions rapidly decreased, however, and in May, 1912, the Board resolved that recourse must be had to the rates. The Central Care Committee thereupon ceased to exist, its duties being transferred to the Attendance Committee. The local Care Committees, of which eight had been appointed, were continued for a time, but at the beginning of 1913 the duty of investigation was entrusted to the Attendance Officers,[557] and the local committees also were given up. The system had not worked entirely without friction. The method of investigation was cumbersome and slow, and the local committees were not in sufficiently close touch with the Central Committee. The committees were too large; from one to nine schools were allocated to each, and the membership usually numbered about twenty-five. But it is to be regretted that the system has been entirely abandoned. Apart from the work of investigation, which, as we have shown elsewhere, is not a task which can suitably be entrusted to voluntary workers, there are many matters connected with the welfare of the school child in which the volunteer's services can be of the greatest value.

Footnote 557:

Two special officers have been appointed to make enquiries.

The meal given is always dinner, though in one of the poorest districts breakfasts have recently been started; for these a halfpenny is charged, except to those children who are on the free list. Till lately two courses were supplied at dinner, but now usually only one is given. The meals are served ordinarily in the schools, but in one or two places in halls hired for the purpose. From reports that we have received the arrangements seem to compare very favourably with those obtaining in most English dining-centres. The teachers frequently take a great interest in the question and supervise the meals. Some of the elder boys and girls help to serve the food and wait on the children. The infants are served at a separate table or, perhaps, in a separate room. Attention is paid to cleanliness and tidiness, and the children's manners are very good.

Provision is made not only for necessitous[558] children, but for those who can pay part or the whole of the cost. Non-necessitous children may obtain a dinner on payment of 2d., while the "semi-necessitous" may pay 1d. It is noteworthy that the number of free dinners is decreasing, while the number of penny dinners is on the increase. Of the 413,000 meals supplied during 1912-13, nearly 50 per cent. were supplied to "semi-necessitous" children on payment of 1d.; about 25 per cent. were given free, the remaining 25 per cent. being supplied to children whose parents were receiving relief from the Parish Council, children in Higher Grade and Special Schools, and the elder girls who helped in serving the meals.[559] The work of investigation has been greatly reduced by the introduction of the penny dinner, and it has been suggested that the provision of a halfpenny dinner would still further diminish the need for free dinners, and consequently the need for investigation.

Footnote 558:

There is no fixed scale in determining which children are necessitous, but free meals are usually granted if the gross income of the household is less than 3s. a head.

Footnote 559:

For the week ending December 19, 1913, the number of children fed was:--

Necessitous 442 Paying children 1,389 Parish Council children 207

For many years before the School Board undertook the responsibility for providing for its underfed children, the Parish Council was supplying meals to the children of mothers who were receiving parish relief. The Report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training in 1903 had drawn attention to the question of underfeeding among children, and the Parish Council determined to provide meals for the children for whose relief it was responsible, in order to ensure that no complaint might be brought against it.[560] Hot dinners were provided every day except Sunday.[561] They were intended chiefly for children whose mothers were at work all day, but tickets were also given in cases where an increase of relief would not have benefited the children, or where the children had a consumptive tendency.[562] The dinners were served in eating-houses where "the conditions as to the serving of the meals, and the manners of the children--entirely without supervision--" were "anything but civilising."[563] When the School Board took over the general arrangements for feeding, it seemed at first as if the Parish Council would still continue its own methods, but the superiority of the Board's scheme was soon apparent, and the Parish Council made an arrangement with it by which children whose mothers were receiving relief would have meals at school, the Council paying 1-1/2d. per meal to the School Board.[564]

Footnote 560:

Evidence before the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1909, Vol. VI., Qs. 61553-5.

Footnote 561:

_Ibid._, Q. 61371 (12).

Footnote 562:

_Ibid._, Q. 55247 (31).

Footnote 563:

Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1909, 8vo edition, Vol. III., p. 148.

Footnote 564:

"Administrative problems arising out of Child Feeding," by J. A. Young, in _Proceedings of the National Conference on the Prevention of Destitution_, 1911, pp. 339-340.

In Glasgow, as in Edinburgh, the provision of meals was very early undertaken by voluntary societies. As far back as 1869 the Glasgow Poor Children's Dinner Table Society was founded,[565] and in 1875 another philanthropic society established Day Refuges, which were intended chiefly for children of widows or widowers who were at work all day, and at which three meals were supplied daily.[566] The Poor Children's Dinner Table Society continued to be the chief agency for supplying meals till 1910, when voluntary contributions proved inadequate and the School Board took over the provision of the meals. A central cooking centre, with modern labour-saving appliances, was built, the food being distributed to the different centres by motor waggon. The meals are served either in the schools or in halls hired for the purpose. The supervision is usually undertaken by the attendants; at some centres assistance is given by members of the old dinner societies, but the numbers are falling off. Only necessitous children are fed. Each case is decided on its merits, but dinners are not usually granted if the family income exceeds 3s. per head.[567] The children are selected by the school doctors, nurses, attendance officers or teachers, and enquiries are made by the attendance officers, immediate provision being made in urgent cases. Boots and clothing, which up to 1912 were supplied by the Poor Children's Clothing Scheme, are now provided by the School Board.[568] In the special schools for the physically defective, dinner is provided for practically all the children, and the parents pay. The food is good in quality and served in an attractive manner, tablecloths of some kind and flowers being provided. The supervision is undertaken by the nurses and teachers.

Footnote 565:

Report of Select Committee on Education (Provision of Meals) Bills (England and Scotland), 1906, Qs. 3075-8.

Footnote 566:

Evidence before the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, 1909, Vol. VI., Q. 59728 (18); Report of London School Board on Underfed Children attending School, 1899, p. 253.

Footnote 567:

See Dundee School Board, Report on the Feeding of School Children, 1913, p. 31.

Footnote 568:

Report of Glasgow School Board for 1911-12, p. 13.

Perth was one of the earliest School Boards to use its powers under the Act of 1908 and to provide food and clothing out of the rates, the system being begun in 1909. A Care Committee was appointed in 1911 to assist the School Board in looking after the welfare of the children and to take part in the distribution of the meals; the members visit the homes, but apparently have no voice in the selection of the children.[569] The dinners are mostly served in a Church Hall and are supervised by the Care Committee and members of the School Board. Most of the dinners are supplied free, only a small proportion being paid for.[570] In the matter of boots, if a child is found improperly shod, a notice is sent by the Board to the parents. If they do not provide boots themselves, the Board supplies them and calls upon the parents to pay[571]; about two-thirds of the money thus spent is recovered from the parents.[572]

Footnote 569:

Report of Chief Inspector for Southern Division for 1912, pp. 11-12.

Footnote 570:

Perth School Board, Officers' Report on the supplying of Meals and Boots to School Children, 1912-13, pp. 1-3.

Footnote 571:

Report of Chief Inspector for Southern Division for 1912, p. 12.

Footnote 572:

Perth School Board, Officers' Report, 1912-13, p. 4.

In most towns, as we have said, the cost of the food is still borne out of voluntary funds, whether the School Board itself undertakes the provision of meals, or whether this is done by a voluntary society.

In Dundee provision has been made by "The Free and Assisted Dinner Fund" since the winter of 1884-5.[573] The meals are given usually in the schools, but sometimes in coffee houses. The prevailing menu appears to be soup. In view of the large number of married women who are industrially employed at Dundee, the school meal is a great convenience. A large proportion of the children, something like two-thirds in fact, make some payment towards the meal.[574] But the price charged is very low; a single bowl of soup costs a halfpenny, while the payment of a penny a week secures a bowl daily.[575] At Paisley also a large proportion of the children pay. Soup and bread, or, if the children prefer, cocoa and bread, etc., is provided for the sum of one halfpenny, the poorest children receiving it free. The balance of expenditure on food is met from voluntary funds; the School Board pays all expenses of administration.[576] In Aberdeen the work of providing meals, which had formerly been undertaken by the Aberdeen Educational Trust, was transferred in 1909 to the School Board, together with the income which the Trust had devoted to this purpose.[577] At Greenock the School Board have raised a voluntary fund for the provision of books, boots or food for necessitous children, but it has not been found necessary to supply any meals within the last two years. In Inverness provision is made by a voluntary organisation, the children being sent to local eating-houses.

Footnote 573:

Dundee School Board, Report on the Feeding of School Children, 1913, p. 11.

Footnote 574:

_Ibid._, p. 15.

Footnote 575:

_Ibid._, pp. 13-14.

Footnote 576:

In the special schools for defective children at Paisley a two-course dinner is provided at a charge of 8d. a week.

Footnote 577:

Report of Chief Inspector for the Northern Division for 1911, p. 24.

Turning now to the rural districts, we may mention an early experiment somewhat similar to that at Rousdon, to which we have already referred. In 1878 the minister of the small country parish of Farnell came to the conclusion that the attendance at school would be more regular, and the children would derive more profit from the education given if a hot midday meal were provided. Accordingly a soup kitchen was instituted at the school, the plant being provided by voluntary contributions. A charge was made of a halfpenny per meal or 1d. per family, where there were more than two children. Practically all the children availed themselves of the provision. The effects were soon visible, not only in improved attendance--the grant earned rose from L89 in 1878 to L99 in 1883--but in greater immunity from epidemics and illness than in neighbouring schools, and in the greater buoyancy of spirits of the children.[578]

Footnote 578:

"Can a sufficient mid-day meal be given to poor school children ... for ... less than one penny?" by Sir Henry Peek, 1883, p. 13.

In this matter of providing a midday meal for the children attending rural schools, Scotland would appear to be, on the whole, in advance of England, though the extent of the provision made varies considerably in different districts. Thus, in the Border Counties, very few schools make any arrangements,[579] while in Fifeshire, where the Inspector "has consistently pressed upon managers" the necessity for providing dinners, the attitude of most of the rural Boards is one of "stolid apathy."[580] In Aberdeenshire, on the other hand, a cup of cocoa or a plate of soup is provided in most of the country schools,[581] and in the county of Inverness almost all the schools provide some sort of hot liquid.[582] In Kincardineshire it was reported in 1906 that the soup kitchen was a "universal institution."[583] The meals may be paid for by the children, these payments being supplemented by voluntary contributions in money or in kind.

Footnote 579:

Report of Chief Inspector for the Southern Division for 1911, p. 27.

Footnote 580:

_Ibid._, pp. 27-8.

Footnote 581:

First Report on Medical Inspection of School Children in Scotland, by Dr. Leslie Mackenzie, 1913, p. 51.

Footnote 582:

"The Diet of Country Elementary School Children," by Dr. Gordon A. Lang, in _Rearing an Imperial Race_, edited by C. E. Hecht, 1913, p. 116.

Footnote 583:

Report of Chief Inspector for Northern Division for 1906.

But even where it is the rule to find cocoa or soup supplied, it is inadequate for the wants of many of the children, who require a more substantial and nourishing midday meal. Moreover, the provision appears as a rule to be confined to the winter months, a limitation patently absurd, since the _raison d'etre_ of the meals is not so much the poverty of the parents, a condition which may fluctuate according to the seasons, but the fact that the distances are, in many cases, too great to allow the children time to return home at midday--which condition is, of course, constant the whole year round.

APPENDIX III THE PROVISION OF MEALS ABROAD

We have not been able to make any original enquiry into the systems of school feeding existing in other countries. The following history of the "Cantines Scolaires" in Paris and brief notes as to the provision made in other foreign towns may, however, be useful for purposes of reference, and as showing how widespread has been the movement for the feeding of school children. The information as to foreign towns other than Paris is derived mainly from _Prize Essays on Feeding School Children_, 1890; _Report of London School Board on Underfed Children attending School_, 1899, Appendix ix., pp. 255-272; _Feeding of School Children in Continental and American Cities_ (Cd. 2926), 1906; _The Free Feeding of School Children_, a reprint of the reports by the Special Sanitary Commissioner of the _Lancet_, 2nd edition, 1907; while fuller and more recent information is to be found in _School Feeding, its Practice at Home and Abroad_, by Louise S. Bryant, 1913.

(a) France

(i) The Cantines Scolaires in Paris

Paris has long offered to other cities an inspiring example of an efficient and uniform system for feeding poor school children. She was the first to make systematic provision on a large scale. She had a basis of organisation ready to her hand in the _Caisses des Ecoles_. These bodies correspond in some degree to the English Care Committees, though with a far wider sphere of action. The original object of these school funds was to encourage school attendance by rewards to industrious pupils and help to the needy. The first _Caisse_ was established in 1849 by the National Guard in the second _arrondissement_, and gradually the system spread. In 1867 a law was passed encouraging the formation of _Caisses_ in every _commune_, and directing that their revenues were to consist of voluntary subscriptions and subventions by the commune, department or state.[584] This law was merely permissive, but in 1882, by the Compulsory Education Law, the establishment of these organisations was made obligatory.[585] A _Caisse_ was accordingly set up in each of the twenty _arrondissements_ of Paris. Attendance at school being now compulsory, and it being therefore no longer so necessary to provide incentives to attendance, the _Caisses_, though they still continued to grant prizes, turned their attention more and more to the physical needs of the children, boots, clothing, food, country holidays and, later, creches, Savings Banks, skilled apprenticeship and medical treatment. The _Caisse_ was a voluntary body, but was officially recognised by the municipality. The General Committee was composed of the Mayor, the members of the Municipal Council, and the school inspector for the district, together with from twenty to twenty-four persons elected by the subscribers.[586]

Footnote 584:

"The Free Feeding of School Children," a reprint of the reports by the Special Sanitary Commissioner of the _Lancet_, 2nd edition, 1907, p. 7.

Footnote 585:

_Ibid._, p. 8.

Footnote 586:

_Ibid._, p. 9.

As in other towns, the early attempts at feeding poor school children were due to private initiative; meals were provided by the _Caisses des Ecoles_ or other voluntary associations or by philanthropic individuals. These attempts were unco-ordinated and inadequate to deal with the evil of underfeeding. In 1879 the Municipal Council made an enquiry into the whole question. As a result a scheme was drawn up to place the work on a more satisfactory and uniform basis under public control. The provision of meals was entrusted in each _arrondissement_ to the _Caisses des Ecoles_, and a grant of 480,000 francs was voted by the Municipal Council to aid them in this work.[587]

Footnote 587:

"The Cantines Scolaires of Paris," by Sir Charles A. Elliott, in the _Nineteenth Century_, May, 1906, pp. 834-5.

It is interesting to note that it was seriously considered whether the meals should not be supplied free for all children attending the schools. The Council, however, came to the conclusion that, "in freeing the parents of all responsibility with regard to their children, and in accustoming them to evade their duties, they would be running the risk of weakening the family spirit, to the great detriment of the morality both of the children and of the parents."[588] It was, therefore, decided that free provision should be limited to necessitous children. At the same time it would be difficult to exclude children who were willing to pay for their meals, hence provision should be made for these too.

Footnote 588:

"Organisation des Cantines Scolaires a Paris," a manifold manuscript report issued by the Direction de l'Enseignement primaire, 3me bureau, 1912.

The voluntary subscriptions which had supported the work before 1880 continued in theory to be the chief resource of the new _Cantines Scolaires_. These voluntary subscriptions rapidly decreased, being either withdrawn altogether or diverted to the other objects of the _Caisses_. At the same time both the number of meals provided and the proportion of free meals increased no less markedly. In 1880, the first year in which meals were provided under the new system, only 33 per cent. of the meals were supplied free (the remainder being paid for by the parents); in 1898 this proportion had nearly doubled, being 63 per cent. The municipal subsidy rose correspondingly, and in 1899 amounted to 1,017,000 francs. The Council took fright and appointed a Commission to consider the question, with the result that the grant was restricted to 1,000,000 francs.[589] This limit has been fairly strictly adhered to, for the grant amounts now to only 1,050,000 francs, though the proportion of free meals has continued slowly to increase.[590]

Footnote 589:

"The Cantines Scolaires of Paris," by Sir Charles Elliott, in the _Nineteenth Century_, May, 1906, pp. 835-6.

Footnote 590:

According to the latest figures 70 per cent. of the children for whom meals are provided receive them free.

Each _Caisse_ is allowed a free hand in the actual details of administration, hence the arrangements vary in the different _arrondissements_. The want of uniformity has obvious disadvantages, and a proposal was recently made that the system should be centralised, but this would have necessitated the appointment of a large and expensive staff, and it was felt desirable to leave the initiative and responsibility to voluntary workers.[591] Everywhere the meal is served on the school premises, a kitchen being established for each school or group of schools. The meal is cooked by the _cantinieres_, and is sometimes provided by them at a fixed price per head; more often the _Caisse_ prefers to purchase the materials itself, a more economical method, and one which ensures a better quality of food.[592] The dinner may consist of one, two or three courses. The food is plentiful and good, well-cooked and well-served, and the menu sufficiently varied. The meals are made as attractive as possible to encourage the better-class parents to make use of them. The price charged varies from 1d. to 2d.; in almost all the _arrondissements_ the charge appears to be below the cost price. No difference is made between the children who pay and those who are on the free list. The teachers do not assist in serving the food, as in England, but are always present to supervise the children, and, in some schools at any rate, they eat their dinner with them. At first the supervision was undertaken voluntarily, but since 1910 the teachers have received an extra remuneration of 1.50 francs a day for this duty.[593] This sharing in a common meal by all classes alike, together with the presence of the teacher, has had a marked influence on the children's manners. Besides the mid-day meal, which is given by all the _Caisses_, breakfasts of soup are sometimes supplied to the children who are receiving free dinners, while in some _arrondissements_, _e.g._, the eighteenth, a small meal is also given at four o'clock to these children if they remain at school for the "classe de garde."[594] A further extension has recently been made in the seventeenth _arrondissement_, where it was decided in 1912 to try the experiment of a "classe de garde" till eight o'clock in the evening, with a supper, for children of widows or widowers who were at work till late, or for other especially poor children, or children with bad homes, the object being both to secure them adequate nourishment and to remove them from the temptations of the streets. For this purpose the Municipal Council voted a sum of 10,000 francs.[595] Weakly children have codliver oil given to them in winter and syrup of iodide of iron or phosphate of lime in the summer.

Footnote 591:

"Organisation des Cantines Scolaires a Paris," report by Direction de l'Enseignement primaire, 3me bureau, 1912.

Footnote 592:

_Ibid._

Footnote 593:

_Ibid._

Footnote 594:

"Caisse des ecoles du 18e arrondissement," Exercice de l'annee 1911, p. 34.

Footnote 595:

Proposition tendant a l'ouverture d'un credit de 10,000 francs en vue de permettre a la Caisse des Ecoles du XVIIe arrondissement d'organiser, a titre d'essai, une classe de garde prolongee jusqu'a huit heures et une cantine du soir, deposee par M. Frederic Brunet, conseiller municipal, Septembre 19, 1912.

The methods of enquiry vary in the different _arrondissements_. Usually the enquiries are made by a paid investigator, but the numbers of children on the free list are so large that the investigation is as a rule very superficial. The necessity of keeping secret the fact that a child is receiving the meals free also militates against any effective enquiry into the parents' circumstances. The meals are granted for a school year, hence it frequently happens that a child continues to receive them long after the need has passed away.[596] The enquiries are, as might be expected, the least satisfactory part of the Paris system. In granting the meals the _Caisses_ usually take a generous view; it is held, for instance, that a man earning up to 30s. a week cannot adequately feed and clothe more than three children, and if his family is larger than this the _Caisses_ are prepared to assist him; while widows' children are invariably fed if application is made.[597]

Footnote 596:

"Organisation des Cantines Scolaires a Paris," report issued by Direction de l'Enseignement primaire, 3me bureau, 1912; "Necessitous Children in Paris and London," by George Rainey, in _School Hygiene_, November, 1912, Vol. III., p. 198.

Footnote 597:

_Ibid._, p. 198.

An interesting feature of the Paris system is the provision of clothes. The municipality insists that the children shall come to school properly clothed; it is ready to provide the requisite garments, but it insists that they shall be kept clean and tidy. Frequent inspections are made for this purpose. The result is a notable raising of the level of cleanliness and tidiness in the schools, both the parents and the children themselves learning to take a pride in their appearance.[598] So far, indeed, from the work of the _Caisses_ having undermined parental responsibility, it would appear that the reverse is the case, the parents responding to the higher standard demanded of them.

Footnote 598:

_Ibid._, pp. 198, 200.

What strikes one in comparing the Paris system with that obtaining in English towns is the thoroughness with which the problem is tackled in Paris and the widespread interest taken by the citizens generally in the work of the _Caisses_. No half measures content them. From the first the work has been educational, the primary object of the _Caisses_ being to encourage school attendance rather than to relieve distress. The educational progress of the children, the improvement in their physique, the raising of the standard of manners and cleanliness, all show that the results have amply justified the expenditure.[599]

Footnote 599:

For the above description, see, besides the references already quoted, Report of London School Board on Underfed Children attending School, 1899, Appendix IX., pp. 262-5; "The Cantines Scolaires of Paris," by Marcel Kleine, in _Report of Proceedings of the International Congress for the Welfare and Protection of Children_, 1906, pp. 65-82; "Feeding School Children: The Experience of France," in the _Manchester Guardian_, February 22, 1906; "Children's Care Committees in Paris," in the _Morning Post_, March 19, 1909; "School Canteens in Paris," by Miss M. M. Boldero, in the _School Child_, July, 1910; _School Feeding, its History and Practice at Home and Abroad_, by Louise Stevens Bryant, 1913, pp. 77-93; Conseil Municipal de Paris, Proces Verbal, June 25, 1909, December 31, 1909, March 23, 1910.

(ii) Provision in other French Towns.

Paris was not the first municipality in France to interest itself in the provision of school meals. The pioneer town in this respect seems to have been Angers, where as early as 1871 the Societe de Fourneau des Ecoles Laiques was founded with the support of the municipality, to provide hot dinners, either free or at a cost of 10 centimes, during the winter.[600] Towards the close of the nineteenth century many municipalities were providing meals, either directly or indirectly through voluntary organisations.

Footnote 600:

_School Feeding_, by Louise S. Bryant, 1913, pp. 93-94.

Thus at Havre, in 1898, the municipality was making a grant of L500 to a voluntary society; meals were provided for 10 centimes, or were given free in cases of poverty; about five-eighths of the children who attended paid for the meals.[601]

Footnote 601:

London School Board, Report on Underfed Children attending School, 1899, p. 265.

At Marseilles Cantines Scolaires were organised by the municipality in 1893. Prior to this date meals had been provided in some three or four schools, but only in a haphazard manner by voluntary agencies. By the bye-law of 1893 a committee of twenty-two was to be appointed by the Mayor, and presided over by him or his representative; this committee was to investigate the demands made for free meals. In 1905 about 8 per cent. of the children in the communal schools were dining at school, about half this number paying for the meal; in the infant schools the proportion fed was much greater, viz., 18 per cent., while only about one-sixth of the parents paid. As in Paris, no distinction was made between the paying and the non-paying children. Dinner tickets could be bought at all the police stations; if the parents wished to receive the meals free, they had to make application personally or by letter to the education department; if on investigation they proved to be unable to pay, the municipality provided them with tickets.[602]

Footnote 602:

_Lancet_ Reports, 1907, pp. 50-56.

At Nice also Cantines Scolaires were established by the municipality about 1896. Here the object was not so much to feed starving children as to provide a suitable meal for children who came such distances that they were unable to return home at mid-day. The municipality built kitchens, provided all the necessary apparatus, and paid the salaries of the cooks. A penny was charged for a dinner of soup, the meal being given free to those who could not afford to pay. Any deficit was supplied by voluntary subscriptions. In the infant schools, on the other hand, the municipality assumed the entire responsibility, and a hot meal was provided for all the children without payment.[603]

Footnote 603:

_Ibid._, pp. 41-43.

By 1909 Cantines Scolaires of one kind or another had been very generally established. It appeared that at this date something like three-fifths were supported entirely by public funds, the remainder being so supported indirectly and partially. In many towns where regular cantines had not been instituted, the teachers or janitors served warm soup to the children at a nominal sum. In country districts or smaller towns, the children would bring the raw material for soup and the teacher would prepare it; the children would also bring their own bread, and sometimes wine and cake. Whether any organised provision was made or not, the great majority of the schools everywhere had a stove on which the children could warm any food they brought with them.[604]

Footnote 604:

_School Feeding_ by Louise S. Bryant, 1913, pp. 80, 94-97.

(b) Switzerland

Switzerland was one of the first countries in which provision for necessitous school children became the subject of national legislation. The question early attracted attention. The long distances which many of the children had to walk to school rendered the provision of a mid-day meal of the greatest importance, while clothing and especially boots were little less necessary. After 1890 the system of providing food and clothing was greatly extended. The provision was everywhere made by voluntary societies, but assistance was given from the cantonal and communal funds. The cantonal contribution was derived chiefly from the alcohol monopoly profits and was devoted to this provision for the children's wants on the theory that their misery was in most cases the direct result of parental insobriety![605] This method of administration by voluntary societies, subsidised but not controlled by the municipal authorities, proved most extravagant, and led to much abuse, while it aroused sectarian jealousies. The municipalities began, consequently, to take over the direct management of the school meals.[606] In 1903 the Federal Government issued an order making it _obligatory_ for cantons to supply food and clothing to necessitous children in the public elementary schools. Three years later it authorised the use of state funds for this purpose, on the understanding that in no case should the cantonal or city support be lessened because of this federal support.[607]

Footnote 605:

Report of London School Board on Underfed Children attending School, 1899, pp. 271-2.

Footnote 606:

_The Bitter Cry of the Children_, by John Spargo, 1906, p. 277.

Footnote 607:

_School Feeding_, by Louise S. Bryant, 1913, p. 133.

(c) Italy

As in other countries, the early attempts at school feeding in Italy were made by voluntary agencies. In many towns, towards the close of the nineteenth century, Committees of Assistance and Benevolent Funds were instituted to assist poor pupils in the elementary schools, chiefly in the matter of books and clothing, but in several communes of Lombardy and Romagna meals were also given. A small grant, which in 1897 was raised to 120,000 francs (L4,800), was made by the Department of Public Instruction to the school authorities in the large cities, and especially Rome, who provided a mid-day meal for their children.[608]

Footnote 608:

Report of London School Board on Underfed Children attending School, 1899, p. 267.

The first town in which the municipality undertook the provision of meals was San Remo, in 1896. This policy was inaugurated by the Socialist Council. It was temporarily abandoned in 1898, when a Conservative Council was appointed who preferred the subsidising of voluntary agencies to direct municipal action, but was re-introduced on the return of the Socialists to power some four years later.[609]

Footnote 609:

_Lancet_ Reports, 1907, pp. 31, 33.

In Milan an agitation for the provision of meals was set on foot in the last decade of the nineteenth century. The municipal authority declined to undertake the work themselves, but advocated the formation of charitable committees to raise subscriptions for the purpose, offering to supplement these voluntary funds with a municipal subvention. This grant amounted in 1897 to about L400.[610] It was soon found that this system did not work satisfactorily, and the municipality was obliged, though somewhat reluctantly, to assume the responsibility.[611]

Footnote 610:

Minutes of London School Board, May 26, 1898, Vol. 48, p. 1810.

Footnote 611:

_Lancet_ Reports, 1907, p. 20.

But it is in the small rural town of Vercelli that we find the most remarkable experiment.[612] Here for some years a charitable committee had been providing meals for children who lived too far from school to go home at mid-day, and the municipality had granted a small subsidy, but it was felt that this provision was entirely inadequate. In 1900 it was decided to provide a meal for all the children attending the elementary schools. The object was not the relief of distress but education in its fullest sense, as distinct from mere instruction. It was argued that the mid-day recess furnished an opportunity for moral education which could not be imparted in the class-room. The teachers would be brought into more intimate relation with the children, while the joining of richer and poorer alike in the common meal and in recreation afterwards would instil sentiments of brotherhood. The meal was to be free to all and attendance compulsory, for rich and poor were to be treated exactly alike. With the same object of preventing class distinctions, clothes were supplied for the poorer children, the municipality providing the material which was worked into garments by the sewing classes. The teachers were to have the same food, though they were allowed a double quantity, and were to eat it with the children. For this extra duty of supervising both the meals and recreation they only received an additional L2 a year. Since the moral rather than the physical welfare of the child was the primary consideration, too little attention was paid to the actual food that was given. The parents, it was argued, could in the great majority of cases amply feed their children at home, hence all that was needed was to supply sufficient food to compensate for the waste of energy during the two and a half hours of morning school. A cold meal of bread and sausage or cheese was given. This did not satisfy the more prosperous children, who would have preferred to pay for a hot meal, and some 10 per cent. of the children, chiefly the richer ones, obtained a medical certificate exempting them from attendance. Nor was the meal sufficient for the poorest children who were suffering from lack of food. To provide a really adequate meal free for all would have been too expensive an undertaking. Accordingly, after some six years, the general free provision was abandoned. Instead, hot soup was provided, which was given free to the poorest children, any others who wished being allowed to receive it on payment of 1.50 lire a month.[613]

Footnote 612:

[Footnote 5: For the following account, see _Lancet_ Reports, pp. 24-30. It is interesting to note that this scheme for making universal provision was introduced by the Conservative party.]

Footnote 613:

_School Feeding_, by Louise S. Bryant, 1913, p. 141; Il Patronato Scolastico Umberto 1 in Vercelli e la sua Opera al 31 Dicembre, 1912, pp. 5, 6.

The "School Restaurant" seems to have been established in Italy to a greater extent than in any other country. A very large proportion of the children attend, and a great number of these pay for the meals. In 1908-9 it was found that in forty-three cities the average attendance amounted to 37 per cent. of the total school population; while in several towns the attendance rose to over 70 per cent.[614]

Footnote 614:

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._, p. 140.]

(d) Germany

In Germany little attention appears to have been paid to the question of feeding school children, apart from their parents, till the closing years of the nineteenth century.[615] In some of the large towns, at any rate, the arrangements that were made were quite inadequate. In Berlin, for instance, there was in 1890 no society whose chief object was the provision of school meals. A society which provided food for the poor generally had a branch which devoted special attention to the needs of school children, and gave a small sum, generally only 15s. or 20s. a year, to the committee of each parish school, to be used at the headmaster's discretion. Generally milk and bread were given in the headmaster's house.[616] About 1890 the subject began to attract more attention, especially in connection with the vacation colonies for school children; it was found that the children who were sent to these colonies, on returning to their homes, lost the benefit they had gained, owing to lack of food. On an attempt being made to continue the work of the colonies by feeding some of the children, it was found that thousands of others were also underfed.[617] In 1897 a Bill was introduced in the Reichstag by the Social Democrats to make provision for school meals in the cities. The Bill was defeated on the ground that it would increase the migration to the cities from the rural districts.[618] Some ten years later the agitation for national legislation was renewed, as a result of the discovery that from 44 to 46 per cent. of the conscripts for the Imperial Army were rejected on account of physical unfitness.[619]

Footnote 615:

"Prize Essays on Feeding School Children," 1890, pp. 65, 212-4.

Footnote 616:

_Ibid._, p. 65.

Footnote 617:

_School Feeding_, by Louise S. Bryant, 1913, pp. 17-18, 104.

Footnote 618:

_Ibid._, pp. 18, 105.

Footnote 619:

_Ibid._, pp. 99, 106.

In 1909 it was found that out of 189 cities from which information was obtained, in 78 meals were being provided by voluntary societies, without any subsidy from, or control by, the municipal authorities, though these latter usually co-operated in the supervision and service, and often supplied rooms, gas and cooking free; in 68 cities, meals were provided by voluntary organisations, but the city governments subsidised, and usually exercised some control over, their work; while in 43 cities the provision of meals was undertaken entirely by the municipality.[620]

Footnote 620:

_Ibid._, pp. 114-5.

(e) Austria

In Austria school meals are provided in most of the large towns.

In Vienna the Central Association for feeding necessitous school children was founded in 1887, with the help and approval of the municipality, the Mayor acting as President and the Municipal Council being represented on its Administrative Council. Meals were given from November to April, occasionally at the schools, but more often in restaurants. All the meals were supplied free. The children were selected by the School Managers and the headmaster, and enquiry was made by Local Committees with the help of voluntary workers. The teachers supervised the meals.[621] In 1888-9, the Municipal Council made a grant to this society towards the provision of food;[622] by 1896 this municipal subsidy amounted to 50,000 frs. (L2,000), while 52,500 frs. were granted for the supply of clothing.[623] In 1906 the food subsidy had risen to L3,350.[624] The provision made was, however, inadequate. Meals were only given during the winter, and were not obtained by all the children who needed them. It was felt that the city ought to assume direct control. In 1909 kitchens and dining-rooms were built in four new public schools.[625]

Footnote 621:

"Prize Essays on Feeding School Children," 1890, pp. 66-70, 181-7, 197-8.

Footnote 622:

_Ibid._, pp. 138, 198.

Footnote 623:

London School Board, Report on Underfed Children attending School, 1899, pp. 258, 260-261.

Footnote 624:

_Feeding of School Children in Continental and American Cities_, 1906, p. 6.

Footnote 625:

_School Feeding_, by Louise S. Bryant, 1913, p. 143.

(f) Belgium

In most of the Belgian towns in the last decade of the nineteenth century voluntary organisations were to be found whose object was to provide food and clothing for poor school children. This provision was made to enable them to attend school instead of begging in the streets, since education was not compulsory.[626] In Brussels the chief society was "Le Progres" Club, which in 1888 commenced the provision of soup dinners in the schools. The Town Council assisted by providing tables and undertaking the carriage of the food to the different centres, and in 1891 by granting a subsidy of 5,000 frs. An application was very soon made for an increase of this subsidy, whereupon the municipality undertook a detailed enquiry into the whole question of the food, clothing, lodging, cleanliness and health of the children in the communal schools. It was found as a result that 16.89 per cent. were badly shod, 25.04 per cent. badly clothed, and 25.55 per cent. insufficiently fed.[627] The work of medical inspection and treatment was very early undertaken by the local authority. At the date of this report (1894), a doctor and dentist were attached to each school; frequent inspections were made by the doctor, and preventive medicine, _e.g._, codliver oil, was provided from public funds.[628] The provision of meals continued to be undertaken by voluntary organisations, aided by a municipal subsidy. In 1903-04, this subsidy amounted to 10,000 frs. for the communal schools, and 5,000 frs. for the clerical schools. In addition large quantities of clothing were supplied from public funds.[629]

Footnote 626:

London School Board, Report on Underfed Children attending School, 1899, p. 256.

Footnote 627:

_Ibid._, p. 255; Board of Education, Reports on Educational Subjects, Vol. II., 1898, p. 682.

Footnote 628:

London School Board, Report on Underfed Children attending School, 1899, p. 256.

Footnote 629:

_Lancet_ Reports, 1907, pp. 14-15.

At Liege, as early as 1883, the municipality organised the provision of soup for all children in the kindergartens who wished to receive it.[630] The dinner was only given on condition that the children were clean and tidy. Each child was expected to have clean linen twice a week and also to have a pocket handkerchief. A teacher was present to supervise the children, and share the meal with them. Each child brought a basket of bread and fruit to supplement the food provided, and at the end any bread that remained was packed in the baskets by the children, to prevent waste and to inculcate habits of thrift.[631] The whole cost was borne out of municipal funds. In 1901 a voluntary committee was formed for providing soup in the communal primary schools. This committee placed at the disposal of the municipality a sum of 10,000 frs., in order that general provision might be made for the first year's scholars in the primary schools, on the same lines as in the kindergartens. In other classes in the primary schools soup was given only to necessitous children, or to those whose parents were at work all day; this provision was at first limited to three months during the winter, but in 1905 the municipality voted a grant of 7,000 frs. in order that it might be extended to six months.[632]

Footnote 630:

_Feeding of School Children in Continental and American Cities_, 1906, p. 2; London School Board, Report on Underfed Children attending School, 1899, pp. 259, 260-1.

Footnote 631:

"Prize Essays on Feeding School Children," 1890, pp. 204-5.

Footnote 632:

_Feeding of School Children in Continental and American Cities_, 1906, pp. 2, 4, 6.

(g) Holland

Holland was the first country to enact national legislation for the provision of school meals. The law of 1900 enforcing compulsory education authorised municipal authorities to provide food and clothing for all school children, whether in public or private schools, who, owing to lack of these necessaries, were unable to attend school regularly. This provision might be undertaken directly by the municipality, or by means of subsidies to voluntary organisations.[633]

Footnote 633:

_School Feeding_, by Louise S. Bryant, 1913, p. 130.

(h) Denmark

In some of the cities of Denmark meals were provided by voluntary agencies in the 'seventies. In 1902 a law was passed allowing municipal authorities to subsidise these organisations. This system, however, proved unsatisfactory and, in 1907, a campaign was set on foot for compulsory national legislation.[634]

Footnote 634:

_School Feeding_, by Louise S. Bryant, 1913, p. 146.

In Copenhagen the municipality from 1902 made a grant of 25,000 kr. (about L1,400) to the "Society for Providing Meals to Free School Children," the voluntary contributions to which were rapidly diminishing. This society, though a voluntary organisation, was directly connected with the municipality, its Executive Board consisting of the seven municipal school inspectors and four private gentlemen, while the municipal school director was _ex officio_ president. More than half the total expenditure was met out of the municipal subsidy, the balance being made up by voluntary contributions. Dinners were given three days a week to all the children in the free schools who wished to attend. No charge was made and no question raised as to the economic circumstances of the parents. About 33 per cent. of the total number of free school children availed themselves of this provision.[635]

Footnote 635:

_The Feeding of School Children in Continental and American Cities_, 1906, pp. 3, 5, 7.

(i) Norway

Christiania was the first town in Norway to make municipal provision for underfed school children. The system was started in 1897. A proposal was made to distribute food free to all elementary school children, but this was, at the time, rejected. In the winter of 1897-8, applications were made on behalf of 25.92 per cent. of the pupils in the school, the great majority of the meals being given free.[636] The children made such marked progress as a result of this experiment that the system was extended and in Christiania and several other towns a good dinner was provided by the school authorities for all school children who cared to attend, the entire cost of the system being met by taxation.[637] It was soon found that the advantages of this free provision outweighed the expense. At Trondhjem, when the proposal was first made by the Socialists, it was bitterly opposed, but by 1906 the system was unanimously supported by all sections.[638]

Footnote 636:

London School Board, Report on Underfed Children attending School, 1899, p. 268; _School Feeding_, by Louise S. Bryant, 1913, p. 145.

Footnote 637:

_The Bitter Cry of the Children_, by John Spargo, 1906, pp. 114-115, 275.

Footnote 638:

_Ibid._, p. 276.

(j) Sweden

In many towns in Sweden schemes for feeding poor school children were started in the 'eighties, these voluntary schemes being later subsidised by the local authorities.[639]

Footnote 639:

_School Feeding_, by Louise S. Bryant, 1913, pp. 143-4.

In Stockholm several voluntary organisations were formed for supplying meals, the provision being usually limited to necessitous children. In order to preserve the self-respect of the children and parents, some of these societies adopted the plan of allowing the children to contribute to the expense of the dinner by performing some manual work, the making of baskets (which were sold), the mending of clothes, the sweeping out of the rooms, etc.[640] Towards the close of the nineteenth century the School Boards of the several parishes resolved to build kitchens at the schools. The kitchens generally contained several fireplaces, at each of which dinners for a certain number of children were prepared by the elder girls.[641] Each child only received a dinner three times a week.

Footnote 640:

"Prize Essays on Feeding School Children," 1890, pp. 71-75.

Footnote 641:

London School Board, Report on Underfed Children attending School, 1899, pp. 270-271.

At Joenkoeping the free distribution of meals dates from 1887. The funds, which were derived from voluntary contributions and proceeds of concerts, were administered by the Board School Inspector, and the distribution of the food was supervised by the School Board. The children were usually sent for dinner to the houses of private ladies who undertook the catering.[642] The poorest children were fed twice a week, those who were rather less poor only once.

Footnote 642:

_Ibid._, p. 270.

At Gothenburg, besides the provision made by voluntary agencies, the Board of Education distributed bread to certain children who were selected by the School Board.[643]

Footnote 643:

_Ibid._, p. 269.

(k) United States of America

In America[644] the movement for the feeding of school children is of comparatively recent date. It is true that in the numerous Day Industrial Schools which were instituted in the nineteenth century by voluntary organisations, _e.g._, by the Children's Aid Society, meals were always given,[645] but it was not till 1904, when Mr. Robert Hunter in his "Poverty" stated that probably 60,000 or 70,000 children in New York City often arrived at school hungry and unfitted to do their school work well,[646] that public attention was seriously directed to the question of under-feeding among school children.

Footnote 644:

See for a full description of the provision made in America, _School Feeding_, by Louise S. Bryant, 1913.

Footnote 645:

"Prize Essays on Feeding School Children," 1890, pp. 225-35.

Footnote 646:

_Poverty_, by Robert Hunter, 1904, p. 216.

In New York in 1908 a School Lunch Committee of physicians and social workers was formed with the object of ascertaining if a three cent lunch could be made self-supporting. This idea of making the meals self-supporting seems to be characteristic of the provision made in most of the American cities. Two schools were at first chosen, and the experiment proved so successful that two years later the Board of Education gave permission for lunches to be supplied in other schools. The Board provided rooms, equipment and gas; the cost of the food and service had to be met by the sale of tickets. The meals are served sometimes in the basement in the schools, and there does not appear to be always adequate accommodation. The meal itself is well cooked and served, the elder children helping the staff. A physician draws up the dietaries. These include one main dish such as soup, stew, rice pudding, etc., costing the child about four cents. There are besides "extras," such as dessert, cakes or other delicacies, which may be bought for one cent, but only by children who have had the main dish. The meals are not quite self-supporting, as a small number are given free.[647]

Footnote 647:

_School Feeding_, by Louise S. Bryant, 1913, pp. 147-50.

In Philadelphia the Starr Center Association undertook school feeding in some schools over fifteen years ago, but it is now managed by the Home and School League. Several of the schools provide a meal, some at 10.30 a.m., others a fuller meal at midday. The cost is one cent for lunch and three to five cents for dinner. There is one hot dish of soup or rice pudding, etc., and the children may spend another cent on the "extra" dainty. The meals are self-supporting. The teachers co-operate enthusiastically, and sometimes eat with the children. The food is served on japanned trays in enamel bowls and a paper napkin is provided. The washing up is done by the children under supervision, and everything is carefully sterilised. Both the superintendent, who is responsible for planning the meals and purchasing the food materials, and the home visitor are trained dietists.[648]

Footnote 648:

_Ibid._, pp. 151-164.

In Boston the Hygiene Committee of the Home and School Association began to organise school dinners in 1909, at a school with a kitchen attached. By 1911 meals were being supplied at twenty-two schools. Equipment was given in the first place, and the meals are now self-supporting. In schools where there is a kitchen, the cooking classes prepare and serve the meals; here one cent amply covers the cost of the food. In other schools outside help is hired, and an extra cent per meal ticket meets this expense.[649]

Footnote 649:

_Ibid._, pp. 164-8.

Throughout the rest of the States the system is gaining ground. By 1912 some thirty cities had organised the provision of school meals, while in at least twenty others the question was under consideration. Everywhere this provision was made by voluntary organisations.[650] Public funds could not be utilised, but there was growing anxiety that the question should be made a national concern. The nearest approach to legislative action was taken by Massachusetts, where in 1912 the Committee on Education of the Lower House reported favourably a Bill to allow School Boards to spend part of the school funds on the provision of meals.[651]

Footnote 650:

_Ibid._, p. 19.

Footnote 651:

_Ibid._, pp. 20, 182-3.

INDEX

Aberdeen, 246; county of, 247

Acton, 68, 90, 104, 114, 234

After-care, 139, 140, 145, 227_n_

Alexandra Trust, 155, 157

Angers, 255

Anglesey, 125-6

Arkle, Dr., 171, 181-2

Aston Manor, 51_n_

Attendance, effect of meals on, 8, 123, 188, 195-6, 198-9, 246

Audit by Local Government Board, 56, 102, 103, 104-5

Austria, 262-3

Badger, Dr., 175, 176, 182

Barnett, Canon, 220

Barnsley, 54_n_, 55, 121_n_

Bedfordshire, 123_n_

Belgium, 263-5

Berlin, 261

Bermondsey, 210_n_, 211

Bethnal Green, 76_n_, 191-2

Birkenhead, 58_n_, 66_n_, 67, 68_n_, 69, 71_n_, 80, 83, 95-6, 120, 121

Birmingham, 12_n_, 13_n_, 19_n_, 35_n_, 36_n_, 42_n_, 43_n_, 44_n_, 64, 66, 67, 68, 71-2, 73, 86_n_, 101_n_, 109_n_, 210_n_, 211

Birrell, Mr., 46

Blackburn, 115, 179

Blake, Dr. Sophia Jex-, 8

Board of Education, xvi, 40, 48, 60, 91, 101, 106. See also _Newman, Sir George_

Board School Children's Free Dinner Fund, 13, 15_n_

Bolton, 42_n_

Bootle, 67, 68, 70, 71, 78-9, 82, 85-8, 98_n_, 106, 111, 118, 175, 196_n_

Boots, provision of, 145, 244, 245, 257. See also _Clothing_

Boston, 270

Bournemouth, 59, 65, 68-9

Bowley, Professor A. L., 205

Bradford, xvi, 36_n_, 42-3, 51_n_, 56, 57, 58_n_, 59, 66, 67, 68, 78, 81, 83, 92-3, 98, 99_n_, 100_n_, 103, 105, 108, 112, 115, 120, 121-2, 127, 130, 180-1, 184-6, 193, 195, 197, 199, 200_n_, 210_n_, 211, 213, 216-217_n_, 226_n_, 231-2

Breakfasts, versus dinners, 76-9, 128; dietary at, 82; attendance at, 76, 77, 228; a test, 76-7, 159, 200, 222. See also _Meals_

Brighton, 61-2, 66, 69, 104_n_, 115, 191

Bristol, 41_n_

Browne, Dr. Crichton, 10

Brussels, 263-4

Brynconin, 123_n_

Burgwin, Mrs., 6, 17_n_, 23_n_, 201

Burns, Mr. John, 44, 46, 104

Bury St. Edmunds, 58, 59, 116

Buxton, Mr. Sydney, 10

_Caisses des Ecoles_, 249-55

Camberwell, 153

Canteen Committees, 47, 58-9, 68, 70, 73, 74. See also _Children's Care Committees_.

_Cantines Scolaires_, 249-55, 256, 257

Care Committees. See _Children's Care Committees_

Carlisle, 12_n_

Casual Employment, 204, 205, 211, 219

Caterers, supply of meals by, 83, 128, 157, 229. See also _Alexandra Trust_ and _Restaurants_

Centres, service of meals in, 91-6, 160-3, 229; inspection of, 60

Charity Organisation Society, 1, 4, 11, 53, 58, 75, 96, 203, 220

Chate, Dr., 174

Chelsea, 165

Chesterfield, 53_n_

Children, numbers fed, 16, 55, 137_n_, 143; underfed, numbers of, 16, 29, 170-1, 205_n_, 264, 268; underfed, effect of education on, xiii, 2, 6, 8-10, 179-83, 208; numbers attending school, 55, 226; neglected, 24, 25, 32, 43_n_, 69, 75, 112-3, 119, 129, 215-6, 237; necessitous, report on home circumstances of, 138-9; physique of, at Liverpool, 171-2; industrial employment of, 172, 192; effect of meals on, physically, xiii, 3-4_n_, 5-6, 7-8, 29_n_, 30, 82, 157, 184-197, 201, 224, 246-7; mentally, 7-8, 31, 188, 197-9, 201; in point of manners, 22, 23_n_, 199, 201, 253; in matter of taste, 97, 199-201; morally, 76, 202. See also _Attendance_, _Day Industrial Schools_, _Infants_, _Malnutrition_, _Meals_, _Selection_, _Special Schools_

Children Act (1908), 112, 118_n_

Children's Aid Association, 53, 58, 66, 96. See also _Canteen Committees_.

Children's Care (Central) Sub-Committee, 137_n_, 140, 144

Children's Care Committees, in provinces, 65-6; in London, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143-54, 165, 166; in Scotland, 240, 241, 244-245; constitution of, 144; membership of, 145; functions of, 65, 139, 145, 148, 149; secretaries of, 139-40, 148-9, 227_n_; organisers of, 138, 140, 148-9; advantages of, 145-7; disadvantages of, 147-53; diverse policies of, 151-3; overlapping of work of, 152-4; local associations of, 140, 141, 157, 158. See also _Canteen Committees_, _Relief Committees_, _Voluntary Workers_

Children's Country Holidays Fund, 145

Chorlton, 42_n_

Christiania, 266-7

Civic Guild, 53_n_, 66_n_

Cleanliness, relation of, to nutrition, 174

Clothing, provision of, 145; in Scotland, 237, 238, 244; abroad, 254, 257, 258, 260, 263, 264, 265. See also _Boots_

Cocoa Rooms. See _Restaurants_

Cod Liver Oil, provision of, 144, 155, 159, 254, 264; effects of, 191-2

Collie, Dr., xii, 30, 31

Conference, on State Maintenance, 32; on School Feeding, 225

Congleton, 176

Cookery Centres, preparation and service of meals at, 83, 90_n_, 124, 126, 130, 135-6, 155, 157, 158, 160, 270

Copenhagen, 266

Council for Promoting Self-supporting Penny Dinners, 12, 15_n_

Council of Social Welfare, 141_n_, 165-6

Crewe, 58, 114_n_

Cripple Schools, 143_n_, 155-6, 190-1_n_. See also _Special Schools_

Crowley, Dr. Ralph, 105, 180-1, 184, 186

Cumberland, 174_n_

Darlington, 120_n_, 198

"Day Feeding School," at Manchester, 14_n_

Day Industrial Schools, 15_n_, 32, 117-9; provision of meals at, 15_n_, 51, 57, 117-9, 196-7; in America, 268

Defective Children. See _Special Schools_

Denmark, 265-6

Derby, 98_n_

Derbyshire, 125

Destitute Children's Dinner Society, 3-6

Dewsbury, 114

Diet, at home, unsuitable, 78, 79, 128, 172, 174, 178_n_, 189, 223; effect of school meals on, 201, 224; of working classes in Glasgow, 177-8; minimum amount necessary, 177, 205_n_

Dietary (at school), xv, xvi, 5, 19, 50, 79-82, 157-8, 252, 269; at Bradford, 78, 81, 185; planning of, 60, 79-80, 128, 229; for Infants, 82, 229, 236; at Restaurants, 80-1, 88, 89, 90, 160; at Day Industrial Schools, 118; sample menus, 231-6. See also _Cod Liver Oil_, _Milk_, _Porridge_

Dinners. See _Meals_

Disfranchisement, 39_n_, 41_n_, 42, 48

Distress Committee, 64, 73

Divisional Superintendent, 149_n_

Dukes, Dr. Clement, 28_n_

Dundee, 245

Eastbourne, 120

East Ham, 56, 106_n_, 173

Eating Houses. See _Restaurants_

Ecclesall Bierlow, 42_n_

Ede, Canon Moore, 19_n_

Edinburgh, 45, 226_n_, 238, 239-43

Education, compulsory, 2, 6, 11-12, 239; effect of, on underfed children, xiii, 2, 6, 8-10, 179-183, 208; provision of meals a corollary of, 9-11, 32, 33

Education Act (1870), 2, 6, 203; (1872), 239; (1902), 27, 57

Education (Administrative Provisions) Act (1907), 203

Education (Administrative Provisions) Bills, 54, 105_n_

Education (Provision of Meals) Act, xii, xiv, xvi, 3, 61, 109, 110, 112, 200, 237, 238; debates on, 44-7; provisions of, 47-9; adoption of, xiv, 50, 51-8; should be compulsory, xv, 127

Education (Provision of Meals) Act Amendment Bills, 101_n_, 105_n_

Education (Scotland) Act (1908), 48, 127, 237-8

Eichholz, Dr., xiii, 29, 30, 134

Elementary Education Act (1876), 15_n_, 118_n_

Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act (1899), 57_n_

Elementary Education (Feeding of Children) Bill (1905), 39_n_

Enquiry, 65-8, 242; by whom made, 37, 65-6, 67, 132, 133_n_, 240, 241, 244, 254, 263; inadequacy of, 133, 149-50, 239; from employer, 66-7, 149; not suited to voluntary worker, 149, 241; deterrent, 74-5, 220; proposed abandonment of, 220-1, 225, 229

Erith, 64

Fabian Society, 25, 52

Farnell, 246

Farquharson, Dr. Robert, 9_n_

Feeble-minded Children. See _Special Schools_

Fenton, 80

Finch, Dr. George, 123_n_, 125, 126

Finchley, 108_n_

Fifeshire, 238_n_, 247

Foreign Countries, provision of meals in, 24, 249-70

Foster, Captain, 172-3

France, 3_n_, 249-57

Frere, Miss Margaret, 40_n_

Fulham, 41_n_, 164

Gateshead, 12_n_, 13_n_

Germany, 261-2

Giffen, Sir Robert, 20-1

Glasgow, 119, 173, 177-8, 205, 238, 243-4

Gorst, Sir John, 33, 39_n_

Gothenburg, 268

Govan, 238

Grassington, 124-5, 236

Greenock, 246

Greenwood, Mr. Arthur, xii, xiii, 171, 193_n_

Grimthorpe, Lord, 47

Guardians. See _Poor Law Guardians_

Guernsey, 3-4_n_

Guest, Dr. L. Haden, 187-90, 192

Guild of Help, 63, 66_n_. See also _Civic Guild_

Halifax, 121_n_

Hall, Dr. William, 30

Hammersmith, 165

Hampstead, 141_n_, 165-6

Hartlepool, 56_n_

Hastings, 12_n_

Havre, 256

Hay, Mr. Claude, 33, 38, 39_n_, 46_n_

Henderson, Mr. Arthur, 38

Heston and Isleworth, 62

Holidays, provision of meals during, xiv, 50, 56, 101-6, 141-2; loss of weight during, 185-6, 187; necessity for meals during, 105, 128, 227-8, 229

Holland, 265

Home, provision of food at, 90_n_, 96-7, 141_n_

Hookham, Mr. George, 35_n_, 36_n_, 109_n_

Horn, Miss, 45

Hornsey, 176

Housing, 204, 219; relation of nutrition to, 172-3

Huddersfield, 115

Hugo, Victor, 3_n_

Hull, 35_n_, 51, 197

Hunter, Mr. Robert, 268

Hutchison, Dr. Robert, 29

Industrial Schools, 29_n_. See also _Day Industrial Schools_

Infants, special provision for, 82, 92, 94, 128, 158-9, 167, 168, 169, 189, 229, 236, 241; provision for, abroad, 256, 257, 264

Inverness, 246; county of, 247

Iselin, Rev. Henry, 204_n_, 210_n_, 220, 222_n_

Italy, 258-61

Joint Committee on Underfed Children, 26, 131-4, 137

Joenkoeping, 268

Jowett, Mr. F. W., 43, 46_n_

Juvenile Employment. See _After-care_

Kensington, 198

Kerr, Dr., 79, 80

Kettering, 42_n_

Kidderminster, 176

Kincardineshire, 247

Labour Party, 52, 53, 54, 56_n_, 105

Lambeth, 165, 187-90, 195_n_

Lancaster, 63

Larkins, Dr., 179

Leeds, 30, 58, 59, 66_n_, 67, 68, 69, 83, 93-4, 98_n_, 99, 103, 110, 119_n_, 196-7, 233-4

Leicester, xiv, 52-3, 54_n_, 58, 64, 66, 67, 69, 72-3, 74-5, 96-7, 114, 120

Leith, 238

Liege, 264-5

Liverpool, 13_n_, 52, 55_n_, 57, 58_n_, 65-6, 67, 69, 74, 90-1, 98_n_, 115-6, 118, 120, 121, 146, 171, 181-2, 195-6, 205

Local Education Authorities, power of, to provide meals, 3, 23-6, 28, 31, 32, 38, 46, 47-9, 56-8; adoption of Provision of Meals Act by, 51-4; numbers making provision, 54; different policies of, 50; co-operation and overlapping of, with Guardians, 41, 51, 113-7, 129-30, 139, 163-6; provision of meals by, abroad, 249-70. See also _School Boards_, _State_, _Voluntary Agencies (co-operation of, with Local Authorities)_

Local Government Board, xiv, 39, 40, 56, 102, 103, 104, 164, 165, 209

London, xvi, 3-7, 10, 12-3, 13_n_, 15-27, 29, 35, 41, 55, 65, 103_n_, 110_n_, 111_n_, 131-69, 190-1_n_, 194, 195, 197-8, 199, 205, 213_n_, 235-6

London County Council, xvi, 41, 104, 131, 134-5, 136-41, 144, 150, 151, 152, 153-4, 156

London School Board, 13_n_, 137_n_; committees of, on underfed children, 16-26, 29, 131

London Schools Dinner Association, 16-7, 134_n_

London Vegetarian Association, 142-3

Lough, Mr., 46

Mackenzie, Dr. Leslie, xiii, 172, 179

Macmillan, Miss Margaret, 100

Macnamara, Dr., 33

Malnutrition, extent of, 34, 170-1; causes of, 45, 172-9, 221; signs of, 170, 221; effects of, on physique, xii-xiii, 29-30; effects of, on mental capacity, 31, 179-83, 198; relation of, to family income, 177-9. See also _Children_

Manchester, 14_n_, 29, 40_n_, 51_n_, 58_n_, 63, 66_n_, 69, 83, 91, 117_n_, 176, 181, 193

Marseilles, 256

Massachusetts, 270

Meals, School, motives for provision of, 2, 4, 6, 8, 27; public provision of, 2, 3, 23-26, 27-49, 202-18, 249-70; a corollary of compulsory education, 9-11, 32, 33; cost of, 4_n_, 123_n_, 124_n_, 156_n_, 226-7; price of, 108, 109, 123_n_, 124, 125, 135, 156, 226, 245, 246, 253; expenditure on, 54-5; time of, 76-9, 128, 222, 253; number of, per day, 78-9, 159, 227, 228; number of, per week, 5, 16, 35, 36, 133, 157, 267, 268; continuance of, throughout the year, 6, 23, 35, 36, 50, 97, 106, 129, 133, 229, 239, 247-8, 263, 265; preparation and distribution of, 82-3, 128, 157, 229, 240, 244; service of, xv, xvi, 28-9, 45-6, 50, 83-101, 122, 126, 128, 156-63, 167-9, 199, 229, 241, 252; in Day Industrial Schools, 118-9; in Special Schools, 85, 100_n_, 121-2, 244; service of, by Poor Law Authorities, 43, 243; provision of, at home, 90_n_, 96-7, 141_n_; a form of relief, 61, 96, 127, 151, 219; a preventive measure, 219; provision of, deterrent, 220, 222; provision of, not universally known, 74; reasons for granting, 138, 210-11; necessity for, 138, 218, 219, 224, 228, 229; provision of, for all necessitous children, 220, 222, 223, 228; general provision of, without enquiry, 25, 126-7, 223-8, 229, 251, 258, 259-61, 264, 265, 266-7. See also _Centres_, _Children_, _Cookery Centres_, _Dietary_, _Holidays_, _Local Education Authorities_, _Parents_, _Payment_, _Poor Law Guardians_, _Rates_, _Restaurants_, _School_, _Supervision_, _Voluntary Agencies_, _Wages_

Medical Inspection, 10, 24, 54, 208, 221; in Brussels, 264; and Feeding, Inter-Departmental Committee on, 34-8, 44, 109_n_, 126_n_, 134_n_

Medical Officer of Health, 81

Medical Treatment, 65_n_, 139, 145, 203, 208, 227

Mental Capacity, relation of, to nutrition, 31, 179-83, 198

Mentally Defective. See _Special Schools_

Meyer, Lady, 201

Middlesex, 174-5

Milan, 259

Milk, provision of, 97, 144, 155, 159; effects of, 191-2

Monitors, 92, 94, 101, 121, 128, 161-2, 168, 169, 229, 241

Morten, Miss Honnor, 201

Mundella, Rt. Hon. A. J., 8_n_, 9, 10, 11, 12

Municipality. See _Local Education Authorities_ and _State_

Mutual Registration, 117, 152, 166

National Food Supply Association, 19

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 53, 58, 113

National Union of Teachers, 32

Nether Alderley, 125

Newcastle-on-Tyne, 102

Newman, Sir George, xii, 60, 63, 80_n_, 88, 170, 175, 183, 184, 221, 224, 227

Newport, 201

New York, 268-9

Nice, 256-7

Niven, Dr., xiii, 30

Northampton, 105, 186-7

Norway, 266-7

Norwich, 35_n_, 121_n_

Nottingham, 58_n_, 93_n_, 103

Open Air Schools, 57-8, 85, 120-1, 227

Outdoor Relief. See _Poor Law Guardians_

Over-pressure, 8-10. See also _Education_

Paisley, 246

Parents, application for meals by, xv, 63-4, 71-5, 144, 150, 256; withdrawal of children from meals by, 70, 216-7; dislike of, to accept meals, 73-4, 217, 222, 223; co-operation of, 76, 77, 146; effect on responsibility of, 2, 23-4, 28, 45, 47, 76, 135, 202-18, 226, 254-5; abuse of provision of meals by, 42, 216; obligations of, increased, 11-2, 217, 226; neglect of children by, 24, 25, 32, 43_n_, 75, 112-3, 119, 129, 203-4, 215-6, 237. See also _Payment_ and _Recovery_

Paris, 24, 249-55

Parish Council, provision of meals by, in Edinburgh, 242-3

Payment, by parents for school meals, 4-5, 19, 25, 33, 37, 46, 47, 50-1, 62, 69, 106-12, 129, 136, 142, 154-6, 159, 223, 225-6; for children at Day Industrial Schools, 118; for children at Special Schools, 109, 120, 121, 129, 155, 156, 225, 244, 246_n_; in rural districts, 38, 109, 123, 124, 125, 225, 247; in Scotland, 241, 242, 245, 246; abroad, 251, 252, 253, 256, 257, 261, 268-9, 270. See also _Penny Dinners_

Peek, Sir Henry, 7, 9, 15, 124

"Penny Dinners," 11, 13, 15, 19. See also _Payment_

Perth, 238, 244-5

Philadelphia, 269

Physical Deterioration, 3, 27, 32, 33, 134, 262; Inter-Departmental Committee on, xi, 27, 29-32, 33, 38

Physical Test. See _Selection_

Physical Training (Scotland), Royal Commission on, xi, 27-9, 33, 242

Poor Law, Report of Royal Commission on (1834), 203, 214

Poor Law Guardians, inaction of, 14-5; inadequacy of relief given by, 14, 17-18_n_, 113-4, 116-7, 129, 165, 166; the authority for the provision of meals, xvi, 33_n_, 39_n_, 45, 46, 47_n_, 141; service of meals by, 43; no co-operation between Voluntary Agencies and, 14, 17; prosecution by, 14-5, 43; overlapping of, with Education Authorities, 51, 113-7, 129-30, 139, 163-6; representation of, on Canteen Committees, 58, 114_n_; payment for school meals by, 108_n_, 115-6, 130, 164, 165; payment for children in Day Industrial Schools by, 118_n_; provision of meals by, at Manchester, 14_n_. See also _Parish Council_, _Poor Rate_, and _Relief (School Children) Order_

Poor Laws, Royal Commission on (1909), 113, 119, 197_n_

Poor Rate, provision of meals from, 32, 39. See also _Poor Law Guardians_

Poplar, 164

Porridge, 78, 200, 201; effects of, 82, 190; as test, 200, 222

Portsmouth, 60_n_, 81, 83, 98, 103

Potteries, 195

Poverty Test. See _Selection_

Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 237

Prices, changes in, 20-1

Ragged School Union, 5

Ragged Schools, 2, 3, 4

Rates, expenditure on provision of meals from, 3, 28, 31, 34, 48, 54-5, 134, 135, 136-7, 141; in Scotland, 237, 238-9; limitation of amount to be spent from, xiv, 48, 56, 127, 238; provision of meals during holidays from, 56, 102, 103-5. See also _Education (Provision of Meals) Act (adoption of)_ and _Poor Rate_

Reading, 205

Recovery of Cost, 38, 39, 43, 47, 107, 109-12, 129, 238

Referee Fund, 6-7, 13, 15_n_

Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Departmental Committee on, 119

Relief, deterrent policy of, 203, 208-9, 220, 222

Relief Committees, 26, 37, 132, 137_n_. See also _Children's Care Committees_

Relief (School Children) Order, xi, 39-44

Relieving Officer, 114, 117, 166

Restaurants, service of meals at, 43_n_, 53_n_, 88-91, 96-97_n_, 160, 229, 239, 243, 245, 246; dietary at, 80-1, 88, 89, 90

Ricardo, 214

Rome, 259

Rousdon, 7-8, 12, 38_n_, 123-4, 246

Rowntree, Mr. Seebohm, 152, 205

Rural districts, 122-6; provision of midday meal in, 7-8, 12, 109, 123-5, 225; in Scotland, 246-8; abroad, 257; need for provision in, 37-8, 51, 122, 125-6, 130, 224-5

St. George's-in-the-East, 151_n_, 153_n_, 159, 164, 200, 210_n_, 211

St. Giles'-in-the-Fields, 141_n_

St. Pancras, 210_n_, 211

Salford, 42_n_, 66_n_, 69, 106

San Remo, 259

Scale of income. See _Selection_

Scarborough, 52

School, service of meals in, 84-8, 89_n_, 128, 159-60, 167-8, 229, 241, 244, 245, 252; fees, abolition of, 203

School Attendance Officers, 53_n_, 59, 63, 72, 117; selection of children by, 63, 239, 240, 244; enquiry by, 66, 67, 70, 139, 241, 244; supervision of meals by, 90, 98

School Attendance Officers' Association, 33_n_

School Boards, powers of, in Scotland, 127, 237-8; co-operation of, with Voluntary Agencies, 238, 240, 245, 246. See also _Local Education Authorities_

School Medical Officers, proposed responsibility of, for putting Provision of Meals Act in force, 53-4; part taken by, in provision of meals, 37, 60, 63; _ex-officio_ members of Canteen Committee, 59; selection of children by, 60-3, 112, 143-4, 219, 221-2, 223, 228, 229, 240, 244; milk and cod liver oil recommended by, 143-4, 159; planning of dietary by, 60, 80, 81, 128, 229; testimony of, as to effect of meals on children, 192-3

School Nurse, 62_n_, 63, 121_n_, 240, 244

School Restaurants, 37-8, 107, 129, 261. See also _Payment_ and _Cantines Scolaires_

Scotland, 48, 225_n_, 237-48

Secondary Schools, 57, 92_n_

Selection of children, xv, 59-75, 127-8; under voluntary agencies, 18-9, 35, 210; by physical test, 59-63, 143-4, 219, 221-2; by poverty test, 59-60, 63-5, 68-9, 75, 127, 143-4, 220, 221, 222-3; based on scale of income, 68-9, 75, 151-2, 242_n_, 244; final decision in, 68; revision of cases, 69-70; want of uniformity in, 50, 70-1, 75, 151-4; disadvantages of present system, 70-5, 220; suggested schemes of, 221-8, 229. See also _School Attendance Officers_, _School Medical Officers_, _School Nurse_ and _Teachers_

Senior, Mr. Nassau, 214

Sheffield, 66_n_, 82, 121_n_, 190

Siddington, 38_n_, 125

Sims, Mr. G. R., 7

Slack, Sir Bamford, 33_n_, 38

Sleep, want of, 172, 192

Smith, Mr. S., 9-10

Social Democratic Federation, 25

South African War, xi, 2-3, 27

Southampton, 78

Southend-on-Sea, 66_n_

Southwark, 6-7

Special Schools for Defective Children, 144_n_; provision of meals at, 22-3, 31, 51, 57-8, 85, 100_n_, 109, 117, 120-2, 129, 155, 225, 244, 246_n_. See also _Cripple Schools_ and _Open Air Schools_

Spectacles, 145

State, provision of meals by, 2, 3, 23-6, 27-49, 202-18; abroad, 249-70. See also _Local Education Authorities_

Stevenson, Miss Flora, 239, 240

Stockholm, 267

Stoke-on-Trent, 42_n_, 56, 58_n_, 66_n_, 67, 69, 80, 89, 210_n_, 211

Sub-Committee on Underfed Children, xvi, 137, 141

Sunderland, 54_n_

Supervision of Meals, 85, 95, 97, 157, 161, 162-3, 167, 168, 169, 201, 244; at Restaurants, 88, 89, 90, 91. See also _School Attendance Officers_, _Teachers_ and _Voluntary Workers_

Supper, provision of, in Paris, 253

Surcharge. See _Audit_

Surrey, 179

Sussex, East, 122-123_n_, 125

Sweden, 267-8

Switzerland, 257-8

Tate, Dr., 175

Teachers, provision of meals by, 36, 103, 123_n_, 124_n_; selection of children by, 18, 37, 63, 64, 68, 70-1, 127, 132-3, 139, 144, 219-20, 239, 240, 244; urgency tickets given by, 64, 67-8, 72; enquiry by, 37, 67, 132; members of Canteen and Care Committees, 58, 59, 138, 144; supervision of meals by, 36, 48, 87-8, 92, 93, 97-100, 121, 122, 125, 128, 161, 167, 168, 229, 241, 244, 253, 260, 263, 264, 269; testimony of, as to effect of meals on children, 188, 194-5, 196, 197-8

Teachers, National Union of, 32

Teeth, defective, malnutrition due to, 174

Toxteth, 116

Trondhjem, 267

Underfeeding. See _Malnutrition_

Unemployment, 204, 209, 211, 219

United States, 268-70

Urgency tickets, 64, 67-8, 72

Utensils, insufficient supply of, 101, 156-7, 162

Vercelli, 259-61

Vienna, 262-3

Visiting of homes, 45, 59, 65, 138-9, 145-6, 147-8, 150. See also _Enquiry_

Voluntary Agencies, provision of meals by, xiv, 2, 3-38, 40, 50, 51-3, 54, 96, 131-6, 141-3, 209-10, 237, 238, 239, 243-4, 245-6, 250-1, 255-6, 258, 259, 261-70; the best agency for provision of meals, 28, 49; disadvantages of provision by, 15-9, 22, 35-6, 44, 49, 142-3, 209-10, 239; number of, 34; expenditure of, 34-5; organisation of, 15-27, 34, 36, 131-4; discontinuance of, 44; co-operation of, with Local Authorities, xii, 3, 13, 24-5, 31, 36, 47, 51-2, 58, 238, 239-40, 245-6, 250-1, 255-7, 258-9, 262-4, 265-6, 267-8, 269; co-operation of, with Guardians, 14, 17, 40

Voluntary Contributions, amount of, 54-5, 137, 141-2, 251; provision of meals during holidays from, 103, 104, 141-2

Voluntary Workers, utilisation of services of, 65-6, 144, 263; organisation of, 139; Canteen Committees composed of, 58-9, 68; supervision of meals by, 90, 95, 98, 161, 168, 244, 245. See also _Children's Care Committees_

Wages, effect of provision of meals on, 45, 212-4; low, 204-5, 211, 219

Wandsworth, 41_n_

Ward, Mrs. Humphry, 190-1_n_

Waugh, Mr. Benjamin, 14

West Derby, 116

West Ham, 58_n_, 64, 69, 72, 77_n_, 78, 83, 94-5, 102, 104, 110-11, 116-7, 234

Whitechapel, 142, 154

Winder, Miss Phyllis D., 71-2

Wilson, Mr. W. T., 44_n_

Wolverhampton, 175, 182

Women, married, employment of, 76-7, 97, 107, 108, 223, 245

Workington, 56

Wyatt, Mr. C. H., 14_n_, 40_n_

York, 67, 69, 78, 82, 111-2, 115, 205_n_

* * * * * *

Transcriber's note:

Missing or obscured punctuation was corrected.

Typographical errors were silently corrected.

Spelling and hyphenation were made consistent when a predominant form was found in this book; otherwise it was not changed.

One unpaired double quotation mark could not be corrected with confidence.

One unpaired curved bracket could not be corrected with confidence.

Tables have been reformatted to a manageable width where necessary.