Research published by the DfE Breakfast club early adopters: final report – GOV.UK provides some interesting insights into the government’s early adopters of their plan for a free ‘breakfast club’ in every primary school.
Some of the comments in the Report’s Executive summary suggest that food is not the real benefit to most families of such ‘breakfast clubs’, but an extension of the wrap around care offered by schools.
‘Parent awareness of provision was high (92%), primarily through school newsletters (36%) and apps (19%). The free breakfast club usage reflected family circumstances: 69% of aware parents reported their child attends, with higher rates among full-time employed parents (79%) and lower among free school meal eligible families (66%).
Enabling employment emerged as the primary motivation for use (53%), followed by child enjoyment (43%) and easier drop-offs (35%).
The free breakfast club sits within existing family routines rather than replacing them entirely. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of families report that their child usually has breakfast at home, though breakfast club users are less likely to eat at home than non-users (74% vs 94%). Current before-school arrangements varied considerably: 45% of families used the free breakfast club for childcare, whilst 41% had a parent or carer at home.’
All from the Executive summary, but with some re-ordering.
One comment that really interested me was that ‘Pupils exercised considerable autonomy in choosing what to eat, which activities to pursue, and how to interact socially, distinguishing free breakfast clubs from structured classroom time. Pupils showed strong engagement with both food and activities, although some attended primarily for social interaction and play.’
Clearly, there are some users of the ‘clubs’ that are there for the food. But, does this justify a universal service, especially with primary schools starting at so many different age groups from age 2 to age 5.
An interesting finding was that ‘Participation rates are higher among families not eligible for FSM (74%) compared to FSM-eligible families (66%), and among parents in full-time salaried employment (79%). The type of provision accessed varies by family circumstances. Most families (70%) exclusively use free breakfast club provision, whilst 16% combine free and paid provision, and 13% use only paid provision. Parents not currently employed are most likely to solely use the free provision (90%), whilst families with higher incomes are more likely to use paid provision either exclusively or in combination with free offerings.’ (page 48)
Also of interest was the higher take-up by parents of children with SEND
‘Parents of children with SEND demonstrate slightly different usage patterns, being more likely to send their child to breakfast clubs every weekday (49%) compared to parents of children without SEND (42%). This higher frequency of attendance aligns with findings from parent interviews, where parents of children with SEND describe breakfast clubs as particularly valuable for providing calm, structured morning transitions.’ (page 51)
In the interviews with parents, there was little mention of the attraction of the ‘free breakfast, only accounting for 8% of one of the top three choices, leading the report to state that:
‘Interviewed parents recognise the provision serves multiple purposes including providing childcare support, facilitating work routines, offering socialisation opportunities, alleviating financial pressures, helping their children settle into the school environment, and building confidence. This multifaceted nature of the breakfast club makes it valuable to families across diverse circumstances.’ (page 53).
If the aim of the government was to encourage more employment among families with primary aged children, then the pilot seems to have been a success. But are they really ‘breakfast clubs’? The report’s recommendations acknowledge this issues:
‘Strengthen the programme narrative beyond breakfast provision. The evidence demonstrates that free breakfast clubs deliver multiple interconnected benefits that extend beyond food provision. The Department should consider strengthening the programme branding and communication strategy to reflect this broader value proposition. Rather than “breakfast clubs,” consider terminology such as “before-school clubs” or “morning clubs” that better captures the comprehensive nature of the provision. This re-emphasis should emphasise the programme as offering a supported transition into the school day (‘soft start’) that can foster pupils’ social development and cross-age relationship building while providing an opportunity eat a nutritious breakfast. To appeal to parents, it should also focus on the free breakfast club as enabling parental employment and reducing household stress. This positions the free breakfast club as one component of a holistic morning experience. This shift in narrative would help address the 49% of non-users who cite “lack of need” by demonstrating relevance beyond food provision alone’. (page 89)
More concerning to me is the fact that ‘FSM-eligible families (who show lower usage despite potentially greater need)’. Should helping these children to make use of the ‘clubs’ better fulfil the ‘breakfast club’ part of the original mission of such clubs?
The data for this sample was limited, and it was based upon an opt-in approach. I would be concerned if across England children eligible for free school meals were making less use of the free food on offer before school and also not joining in on what now looks more like an extended school day than an initiative to help families with their food bills.
Is the trade-off between extra childcare and more employment possibilities, especially for women worth the cost? I guess the government decided the answer to that question before it set up the pilot programme ahead of a national roll out.
