granted even if recipients are not entitled to standard benefits. (a) It is true that the scope of the education package is tight, because § 28 sec. 7 sentence 1 SGB II allocates only the sum of EUR 10 per month for participation. Yet at least for children under six years of age, this sum […] has not been randomly estimated but identified and calculated based on the income and consumption survey […]. The fact that the level of the education package for adolescents aged 15 to 18 is likewise limited to EUR 10 is justified […] because additional consumer expenditure for hobbies, toys, attending sports and cultural events, for consumer goods for education, entertainment and recreation, as well as borrowing fees for sports articles and books are taken into consideration in the calculation of standard needs. 131 (b) However, in the education package, offerings of education and social, political and cultural participation must really be accessible for persons in need of assistance without further costs beings incurred. At least since 1 August 2013, such further actual expenditure is taken into account under § 28 sec. 7 sentence 2 SGB II. While it is true that the provision is a discretionary rule and that the reasoning aims primarily at financing the necessary equipment […], the provision is nevertheless open to interpretation in conformity with the Constitution; this means that the social courts are able to ensure that a claim (see C I 1 above) exists for travel expenses incurred in the context of such offerings. 132 (c) There is no constitutional objection to the legislature having stipulated certain purposes for which these benefits […] may be used. It facilitates participation in sport, play, culture and social contacts […], in lessons in artistic subjects such as music lessons and similar guided activities in cultural education […] and in recreational activities […]. This takes sufficient account of individual liberty in that it caters to the varying interests and preferences of children and adolescents. 133 (d) It is also within the legislature’s leeway to provide benefits for education and participation […] in the form of vouchers to pay for existing municipal offerings (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <224>; 132, 134 <161, para. 67>). The challenged provisions provide beneficiaries with claims to use existing offerings, thus removing the financial obstacles that could stand in the way of integration of children and adolescents into society or even prevent such integration […]; yet there is no right to extended offerings. Providing benefits by means of vouchers would only have to be objectionable on constitutional grounds if there were no offerings for which the vouchers could be used. 134 (4) Nor are there any serious constitutional objections to the decision by the legislature to separately cover consumer expenditure for children and adolescents incurred for the purchase of writing material, drawing material and the like in the basic school package (Schulbasispaket) […]. These arrangements […] stipulate an allowance of EUR 70 on 1 August and EUR 30 on 1 February of each year, in addition to the standard needs determined for personal school supplies for schoolchildren. The legislature’s intention […] was to emphasise the permeability of the German educational system and bring some relaxation into the tense financial situation at the beginning of 135 25/29