The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

ANNEX 1: UPTAKE AMONG NON- FSM REGISTERED PUPILS NOT PREVIOUSLY TAKING A MEAL

This Annex provides data and more detailed commentary on the alternative measure of uptake ( i.e. uptake among the key target group: those who were non- FSM registered and who did not previously take a school meal) summarised in Chapter 3.

1. Clearly, the fewer pupils who took a school meal before the trial, the more scope there was to increase the level of uptake during the trial. And as schools with high levels of FSM entitlement (schools in the more deprived areas) also tended to have higher levels of uptake, it follows that they had less scope to increase uptake in absolute terms.

2. An alternative measure of the increase in uptake is to examine the proportion of those to whom FSM was extended to, who did not previously take a meal but started taking a school meal during the trial. In other words, how likely were these pupils to take a FSM when offered one as part of the trial?

Uptake by pre-trial level of uptake

3. Table A1.1 shows the likelihood of uptake where FSM was extended, by uptake level within the target group (P1 to P3 Non- FSM pupils) prior to the trial. Overall, 47% of those to whom FSM was extended during the trial and who were not already taking a meal, did so during the trial. ³¹

Table A1.1: Relative increase in uptake of schools meals among target group by pre-trial level of uptake

4. Using this measure, pupils were less likely to take a school meal when offered one as part of the trial in schools where the level of uptake was highest previously among the target group. Just over one in three (36%) pupils took up the offer of a FSM where they had not taken a school meal previously, in schools where there was the highest uptake pre-trial among the target group. In contrast, almost half (48%) of pupils took up the offer of a FSM under the trial in schools where there had been the lowest level of uptake among the target group pre-trial.

5. In other words, among the target group, while the overall level of uptake remains lower in schools where it was lowest pre-trial, the gap narrowed between schools where uptake levels were high and low previously, because relatively more pupils in schools with previously low uptake took up the offer of a FSM under the trial.

6. This is likely to at least partially reflect a ceiling effect - that there are some pupils who, for whatever reason, will never take a school meal. As the proportion of pupils who take a school meal nears 100% in a school, it is less likely that a high proportion of the remainder can be persuaded take a school meal.

Uptake by local authority

7. This effect is also seen, though only partially, in the breakdown by local authority. While Glasgow had the highest proportion of P1 to P3 non- FSM entitled pupils taking a school meal before the trial (48%), only around 4 in 10 (41%) of pupils who had not previously taken a school meal took up the offer of FSM during the trial. This was the lowest proportion of the five local authorities. In comparison, in the local authority with the lowest proportion of uptake among this group before the trial - East Ayrshire (30%) - 44% of pupils in the target group who had not previously taken a school meal, took up the offer of a FSM during the trial. The local authority with the largest proportionate increase in uptake was Fife: over half (55%) of pupils who had not taken a school meal before and were now entitled to a FSM took it, increasing uptake from 41% to 73% among this group. In terms of uptake of school meals before the trial, Fife was midway between Glasgow and East Ayrshire, i.e. it had neither the lowest or highest pre-trial levels of uptake.

Table A1.2: Relative increase in uptake of schools meals among target group by local authority

Uptake by size of school and location of cooking facilities

8. The size of the school, as defined by the school roll ³³, and whether school meals were cooked onsite or offsite, were related to the likelihood of taking a FSM among those who FSM was extended to and who didn't take a school meal before (shown in table A1.3). In the smallest schools, uptake among the target group increased from 45% to 76%: thus 56% of those non- FSM registered pupils who had not taken a school meal before the trial took up the offer of a free school meal. In the largest schools, uptake among this group increased less, from 38% to 66%: 45% taking up the offer as part of the trial. In other words, as uptake increased more in smaller schools than larger schools during the trial, the pre-existing gap in uptake levels also widened.

9. With regard to the location of cooking facilities, more target group pupils took up the offer of FSM in schools with onsite facilities (50%) than those who received meals from offsite (41%). Therefore, while the gap in uptake among the target group between schools with on and off-site cooking facilities was small before the trial (42% compared to 40%) it had increased by the time of the late February 2008 survey (71% compared with 65%).

10. Indeed, as table A1.3 shows, small schools with onsite cooking facilities saw the highest level of increase in uptake among this target group of pupils, from 49% before the trial to 80% during the trial. In other words, 6 out of every 10 (60%) pupils in the target group in these schools, who previously had not taken a school meal, did so when offered a free school meal. In comparison, large schools without onsite cooking facilities saw the lowest level of increase in uptake, from 36% to 59%, or fewer than 4 out of every 10 non- FSM registered pupils (37%) taking a school meal when offered a free school meal. These patterns were seen across the different local authorities.

Table A1.3: Relative increase in uptake of schools meals among target group by size and location of cooking facilities.

Uptake by level of deprivation

11. Table A1.4 shows the change in uptake levels by FSM registration in schools. In the least deprived schools, where less than 9% of all pupils where FSM registered, uptake increased among the target group (P1 to P3 who were not registered for FSM before the trial) from 38% to 69%. In other words, 50% of pupils who had not taken a school meal before and were now entitled to a FSM took it in these schools. In comparison, uptake increased from 53% to 75% in schools in the most deprived areas - 47% who were offered FSMs under the trial and did not previously take a school meal, took them.

12. What does this tell us about changes in uptake in the more deprived areas? As noted previously, pupils not registered for FSMs were more likely to take a school meal before the trial if they were in a school with a high level of FSM registration, i.e. a school in a deprived area. During the trial, this gap between the least and most deprived areas narrowed. Importantly however, the likelihood of taking up the offer of a FSMs among those who did not take one before, and who were offered them as part of the trial, did not differ substantially by whether the school was in a deprived area - roughly half (50% and 47%) took up the offer of a school meal in schools in both the least and most deprived areas.

13. It might have been expected that there would be a greater uptake among those in the most deprived areas (where there will be a higher proportion of less affluent families, including those just above the threshold for FSM eligibility). However, the pre-trial uptake among non- FSM registered pupils in the more deprived areas was higher and there was therefore less scope to increase it.

Table A1.4: Relative increase in uptake of schools meals among target group by FSM registration within schools (banded)

« Previous | Contents | Next »