Children may be missing out on free school meals as families favor private education, study finds

India’s Mid-day Meal Scheme is a large public food program that gives children free cooked meals during the school day. It was introduced three decades ago to improve children’s nutrition and encourage them to attend school. The meals are available only through government and government-aided schools.

The scheme matters because food can support children who face serious hardship. A meal at school may reduce pressure on families and help children remain in education. However, the study found that families judge the scheme through more than nutrition. They also consider school quality, dignity, costs, and their children’s future prospects.

The program remains an important source of support, especially for the poorest households. Yet some families avoid it because they prefer private schools or feel stigma around receiving free food. Researchers recommend better school infrastructure, less stigma, community-designed menus, and help with hidden costs such as transportation.

India’s Mid-day Meal Scheme serves around 118 million children. Its scale makes it the world’s largest school feeding program and one of India’s most successful food programs. The scheme was created to improve nutrition and encourage children to attend school.

Its meals are offered only in government and government-aided schools. This rule links access to food with parents’ decisions about school choice. Families who select low-cost private schools may lose access to the free meal, even when their children remain vulnerable to food insecurity.

The study found that reach depends on more than the number of meals available. Parents also weigh school quality, fees, transportation, household labor needs, dignity, and aspirations for their children. Wider access may require improving government-school infrastructure and reducing the hidden costs that make those schools difficult for some families to use.

Some low-income families choose low-cost private schools because they see them as offering a better education. Their decisions are shaped by aspirations for their children’s futures, not simply by the immediate value of a free meal. Since the scheme operates only in government and government-aided schools, school choice can mean giving up meal access.

The study found that families judged the scheme less by its nutritional value than by how well it fitted their educational hopes. A parent may decide that paying private-school fees is worthwhile if the school seems more likely to provide the desired opportunities. In that choice, education can outweigh food support.

This decision creates a difficult trade-off. Families may lose a regular school meal while taking on new costs. The researchers therefore argue that improving meal quality alone will not be enough. Government schools also need better infrastructure and stronger messaging about the scheme’s wider value.

Choosing a low-cost private school can shift financial pressure onto already poor households. Families may lose a free school meal and still need to pay fees. The study found that some households cut back on food at home to afford private education, worsening their food-budget problems.

The trade-off is especially difficult for the poorest families. They may need children’s labor, making regular school attendance harder. They can also face hidden costs such as transportation. These pressures mean that a free meal may be less useful if attending the school requires money or takes children away from essential work.

The consequence is a complicated form of hardship. A family may pursue what it sees as better education while sacrificing food security or relying on children’s work. The research shows why school meal programs must be evaluated alongside fees, transport, household labor, and education quality rather than nutrition alone.

Stigma can make children reluctant to accept meals that are meant to support them. The study found that attitudes toward free food were shaped by caste, class, gender, and religion. Social meanings therefore influenced whether families saw the scheme as helpful, uncomfortable, or inconsistent with their values.

Some children felt ashamed when lining up for food or asking for more. Expectations also mattered: some people believed parents should feed their own children. Under those pressures, accepting a school meal could feel like admitting hardship or failing to meet a social expectation, even when the family needed the food.

These reactions can reduce the scheme’s reach. A nutritious meal does not automatically become useful if children avoid it or families reject the school providing it. Researchers call for framing and messaging that reduce stigma, as well as community co-design of menus, so families’ experiences and concerns are included.

The researchers call for changes that address families’ full experience, not just the food itself. Better infrastructure in government schools could make them more attractive to parents who currently prefer private education. Clearer framing and messaging could also reduce the shame attached to receiving free meals.

The scheme could become more accessible through community co-design of menus and by reducing hidden costs such as transportation. Researchers also want the program to highlight how school meals ease the daily care burden on working mothers. These changes connect food provision with school quality, dignity, household budgets, and family routines.

The study suggests that improving meal quality alone will not reach every child. Families need to see government schools and their meals as compatible with educational aspirations and everyday life. The findings also offer lessons beyond India: meal programs should consider how families interpret and experience them.

School meals influence several parts of family life because food, education, and household work are connected. They can improve children’s nutrition and encourage attendance, while easing pressure on families that struggle to provide food. Their availability can also shape which schools parents choose.

For example, a family may select a private school believed to offer better education, even though it provides no free meal. The family may then cut food spending at home to pay fees. Another household may depend on children’s labor or face transport costs, making a government-school meal less accessible. These choices can deepen unequal educational opportunities.

Meals may also reduce the daily care burden on working mothers by providing food during school hours. But stigma, school quality, and hidden costs can prevent families from using them. The study therefore supports broader planning that connects nutrition with attendance, education, labor, dignity, and family care.