Three academics from the University of Manchester have raised concerns over the severe levels of child poverty in England, calling for urgent action to address the inequalities affecting millions of children. In a recently published piece from Policy@Manchester, Dr Carl Emery, Dr Louisa Dawes, and Sandra Clare argue that at least 900,000 children in poverty across England are currently missing out on free school meals (FSM), which are used as a main indicator of child poverty levels. The authors contend that this figure, while significant, does not fully represent the depth of child poverty nationwide.
Drawing on data from the Department for Work and Pensions, the academics reveal that 29% of children in the UK are currently growing up in poverty, a statistic that rises to almost half in families with more than three children. The researchers point out that the rate of children eligible for FSM has increased steadily over the last decade, now encompassing 23.8% of pupils across English schools.
“Despite these concerning statistics, no single data source fully captures the complexity of child poverty in the UK,” the researchers write. “FSMs have often been viewed as a proxy for poverty, yet the eligibility criteria means many vulnerable children are left out.”
While the extension of FSM eligibility has been expanded in recent years, and the new Labour government has promised free breakfast clubs in every primary school, the academics believe this doesn’t go far enough. “As one under-served group gains recognition, another group is left unacknowledged,” they state, calling for more inclusive measures.
The academics point to troubling data on school exclusions, highlighting that, of the 263,904 students who were suspended last year, 55% were FSM-eligible. The report also reveals that FSM-eligible pupils are more than four times as likely to face permanent exclusion than their non-FSM counterparts. The researchers question whether pupils who are eligible for FSM and are temporarily or permanently excluded are receiving their entitled meal provisions.
They further stress that a significant number of children are absent from school for reasons other than exclusion, such as lack of access to suitable educational resources, or are being home-schooled due to unmet local educational needs.
The authors also raise concerns regarding government guidance that suggests children temporarily not attending school should receive weekly food parcels, packed meals, or supermarket vouchers equivalent to FSM provision. However, they caution that it is unclear if these provisions are being delivered as intended, given the increasing financial strain on schools and local authorities.
Emery, Dawes, and Clare call for sweeping policy changes, including the introduction of universal FSM for all children in education aged three to 18, estimating this would cost £2 billion. They cite findings from accountancy firm PwC, which project that universal FSM could boost the economy by £41.3 billion, enhance lifetime earnings, and reduce NHS costs over time.
The researchers also address concerns from organisations like Impetus regarding the universal FSM approach currently being piloted in London. The academics argue that broad-based access to school meals could help mitigate many of the issues associated with child poverty and improve children’s educational outcomes.
The University of Manchester authors are hopeful that their recommendations will lead to more equitable policies to ensure that no child in poverty is left behind in the UK’s educational system.
