The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 3: UPTAKE OF FREE SCHOOL MEALS

Key points

The trial resulted in significantly increased uptake of school meals in mainstream schools.

Among the target group of P1-P3 pupils not FSM registered, uptake of school meals increased from 41% to 69% (an increase of 28 percentage points).

Among P1-P3 pupils who were previously FSM registered, uptake increased from 89.2% to 93.6% (an increase of 4.4 percentage points).

Overall, the uptake among all P1-P3 pupils increased from 53% to 75% (an increase of 22 percentage points).

There was concern that the trial might negatively impact on P4-P7 uptake (for example, because queues might increase or food choices might reduce). However, there has been a small but positive impact this group - uptake increased from 47.3 % to 49.9% (an increase of 2.6 percentage points).

Overall, the uptake among all primary pupils increased from 50% to 60% (an increase of 10 percentage points).

Uptake increased in all five trial areas. Among the target group of P1-P3 pupils not FSM registered, the biggest increases were in Fife and Scottish Borders (both 32 percentage points) and East Ayrshire (31 percentage points). The increases were relatively lower in West Dunbartonshire (26 percentage points) and Glasgow (22 percentage points).

Among those previously registered for FSM, the increases in uptake ranged from 8.5 percentage points in Scottish Borders to 3.4 percentage points in Glasgow.

Among P1-P3 pupils who were not FSM registered and who did not take a school meal before the trial, those in the most deprived areas and those in the least deprived areas were equally likely to take up the offer of a free school meal.

In the non-trial areas across Scotland, the level of uptake of schools meals remained relatively static. Changes in the trial areas are therefore almost certainly a result of the trial rather than wider trends in uptake.

Uptake increased most in schools where it was lowest previously. The increase in uptake was also higher in smaller schools and in schools with on-site (as opposed to off-site) cooking facilities.

In all five local authorities there was a substantial upward trend in uptake at the outset of the trial. In three areas (West Dunbartonshire, East Ayrshire, and Glasgow) this decreased slightly and, to varying degrees, stabilised. In the remaining two areas, P1-P3 uptake was less stable, fluctuating between around 60% and around 70% in Scottish Borders and between around 66% and around 73% in Fife.

A quarter of P1-P3 pupils were still not taking a school meal on a 'normal day' and it was clear from the research that the main reason for non-uptake is that some children are 'fussy eaters'. The parents of these children generally wanted them to have school meals and would welcome help to encourage their children to sample a broader range of foods. The greatest impact on uptake might be realised through initiatives to enhance parents' skills in encouraging young children to eat a wider range of foods, as opposed to changes to the school meal experience itself (queuing systems, décor etc.).

The trial does not appear to have had an impact on uptake levels in special schools.

3.1 This chapter presents analysis of the returns from schools in the two uptake surveys; the pre-trial baseline uptake survey in October 2007 and the late February 2008 uptake survey ⁹. It focuses primarily on mainstream local authority schools, but also covers returns received from special schools, and on trend data throughout the trial period received from the five trial local authorities.

3.2 It should be noted that uptake figures measure the proportion of pupils taking a school meal on a given day. Many pupils take a school meal some days and a packed lunch on other days. Rather than conceptualising 'pupils who take school meals' and 'pupils who do not take school meals', it is more helpful to think about the proportion taking a school meal on a given day, and the number of times a week pupils take a school meal.

3.3 Before analysing uptake levels, we examine the baseline level of Free School Meal registration in the trial areas before the trial commenced. This provides important context to the uptake data: the lower the level of existing registration for FSM, the more that the extension of FSM to all Primary 1 to Primary 3 pupils may increase the overall level of uptake.

Level of registration for Free School Meals ( FSM) in the five trial areas

3.4 Table 3.1 below shows the 2007 pre-trial level of registration for FSMs by local authority (in mainstream schools). Among the five trial local authorities, the highest level of registration for FSMs was in Glasgow, where over a third of pupils (35%) were registered. Scottish Borders had the lowest level of FSM registration, with fewer than 1 in 10 pupils registered for FSM.

Table 3.1: Level of FSM registration by local authority in primary schools. Pre-trial survey and School Meals Census

3.5 In all five local authorities, the level of FSM registration found in the pre-trial survey in October 2007 was slightly lower than the level of registration as reported in the February 2007 School Meals Census and similar to that reported in the February 2008 School Meal Census. It does appear that there may have been a small drop in the level of FSM registration in the trial areas between 2007 and 2008. In Glasgow, for example, the level of registration figure dropped from 37.3% to 34.5%, while in East Ayrshire, it dropped from 19.7% to 18.8%.

3.6 Overall, the level of FSM registration in the five trial areas was higher than for Scotland as a whole (24.7% compared with 16.9%). Therefore, should FSM be extended to all P1 to P3 pupils across all local authorities, the increase in eligibility will be slighter greater in the other 27 local authorities combined, than it was in the 5 trial areas (around 83% ¹² of all P1 to P3 pupils compared to 75% in the trial areas).

3.7 Table 3.2 shows the level of FSM registration in the five trial areas by stage of schooling. Overall, there was very little difference between the level of FSM registration among the Primary 1 to Primary 3 pupils, and Primary 4 to Primary 7 pupils. In four of the five areas - Glasgow being the exception - a marginally higher proportion of P1 to P3 pupils than P4 to P7 pupils were registered for FSMs.

Table 3.2: Level of FSM registration by local authority and stage of schooling in primary schools. Pre-trial survey

Uptake of school meals before the trial

3.8 Table 3.3 shows the level of uptake of school meals by whether registered for FSMs across the five local authorities before the trial commenced. Overall, around half (50%) of all primary pupils (registered and non-registered) in the five trial areas took a school meal before the trial.

Table 3.3: Uptake of school meals by whether registered for Free School Meals and local authority. Pre-trial survey, Oct 2007

3.9 Among the FSM registered pupils, just under 9 in 10 (88%) took a school meal. The proportion of FSM registered pupils who took a school meal was highest in Glasgow (89%) and lowest in the Scottish Borders (79%).

3.10 In comparison, just under 4 in 10 (38%) of the non- FSM registered pupils took a school meal. Among this group, the proportion who took a school meal was again highest in Glasgow (43%). It was lowest in East Ayrshire (29%) and Scottish Borders (32%).

3.11 Table 3.4 shows the level of uptake of school meals in the pre-trial survey by year group. Overall, across the five trial areas, a higher proportion of P1 to P3 pupils than P4 to P7 pupils took a school meal (53% compared with 47% respectively). This gap is seen in all five of the trial areas, and was largest in West Dunbartonshire (10% difference) and smallest in the Scottish Borders (2%).

Table 3.4: Uptake of school meals by whether registered for FSM, local authority and year group. Pre-trial survey, Oct 2007

3.12 The difference in uptake levels between P1 to P3 pupils and P4 to P7 pupils was higher among non- FSM registered pupils than FSM registered pupils. Across the five areas, 89% of FSM registered pupils in P1 to P3 took a school meal, compared to 87% in P4 to P7. In comparison, among the non- FSM registered pupils, the level of uptake dropped from 41% among P1 to P3 pupils to 35% among P4-P7 pupils.

3.13 It should be noted that schools where there was a low level of FSM registration also tended to have lower levels of uptake. This is not only because pupils who are FSM registered are more likely to take a school meal than non- FSM pupils. It is also because both FSM registered and non- FSM registered pupils were more likely to take a school meal if they were in a school where there was a high level of FSM registration.

Table 3.5: Uptake of school meals by whether registered for FSM and level of FSM registration within schools (banded)¹³. Pre-trial survey, October 2007

3.14 Table 3.5 shows that both FSM and non- FSM pupils were more likely to take a school meal if they were in a school with a high level of FSM registration. This pattern is particularly strong among non- FSM registered pupils. In other words, the more pupils in a school that were registered for FSM, the more likely that non- FSM pupils would take a school meal. ¹⁴ As FSM registration is generally accepted as a good indicator of deprivation at a school level, this shows that uptake pre-trial was higher in schools in the more deprived areas among all pupils (both FSM registered and non- FSM registered).

Change in uptake of school meals as a result of the trial

3.15 The trial led to a significant increase in uptake of school meals in all five trial local authorities. Overall, uptake of school meals increased from 50% of all primary pupils to 60%. Among the group that the trial targeted, namely P1 to P3 pupils who are not registered for FSM, the level of uptake increased from 41.3% to 68.9%, an increase of 27.6 percentage points. Overall, among P1 to P3 pupils, uptake of school meals increased 21.9 percentage points to 74.9%.

3.16 In the non-trial areas across Scotland, the level of uptake of schools meals remained relatively static between the 2007 and 2008 School Meals Censuses, marginally increasing from 45.6% in 2007 to 46.3% in 2008 among all primary school pupils. Changes in the trial areas are therefore almost certainly a result of the trial rather than wider trends in uptake.

3.17 Table 3.6 shows uptake of school meals by whether registered for FSM, local authority and year group in the late February 2008 survey. The figures in brackets show the percentage point (pp) change from the pre-trial survey.

Table 3.6: Uptake of school meals by whether registered for FSM, local authority and year group. Late February 2008 survey, percentage point change from pre-trial survey shown in brackets

3.18 In all five local authorities, there was a sizeable increase in school meal uptake among the target group of non- FSM registered P1 to P3 pupils. In Fife, uptake increased from 41% to 73%, while in the Scottish Borders uptake increase from 33% to 65%. The increase in uptake was lower, relatively, in Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire (up 21 percentage points to 69% and up 26 percentage points to 66% respectively).

3.19 In all five trial local authorities, the level of uptake also increased among P1 to P3 pupils who had been entitled to receive FSMs before the trial started. Overall, the increase in uptake among this group was 4.4 percentage points (from 89.2% to 93.6%) and ranged from a 3.4 percentage point increase in Glasgow, to an 8.5 percentage point increase in the Scottish Borders. Although the trial did not directly target this group, these increases appear to be a result of the trial. This could be due to a number of different factors, for example, pupils wanting to sit with friends who were now taking a school meal, increased publicity or a reduction in parental concern about stigma.

P1-P3 uptake compared to P4-P7 uptake

3.20 There was concern before the trial that the extension to P1 to P3 pupils may have a negative effect on uptake among P4 to P7 pupils (for example, because queues might be longer). However, uptake among P4 and P7 pupils also increased slightly, up 2.6 percentage points to 49.9% between the pre-trial and late February 2008 surveys. Among FSM registered P4 to P7 pupils, the increase was 1.4 percentage points (to 88.1%), while among non- FSM registered pupils, the increase was 2.9 percentage points (to 38.0%).

3.21 Pre-trial, while uptake levels were relatively consistent across the lower primary year groups (P1 to P3), uptake of schools meals decreased slightly between P4 and P7. Among non- FSM registered pupils, uptake was 38.5% among P4 pupils pre-trial, and 32.4% among P7 pupils. The size of the increase in uptake during the trial was relatively consistent across the different year groups, with uptake increasing to 40.4% among non- FSM pupils in P4 and to 35.7% among pupils in P7 in the late February 2008 survey.

Changes in uptake compared to pre-trial uptake levels

3.22 Uptake of school meals increased most in schools where it was lowest previously, both among pupils where FSM had been extended, and among pupils who were registered for FSM before the trial. This result is not surprising. Schools with the lowest levels of uptake previously had the most scope to increase levels of uptake. Table 3.6 shows the level of uptake of school meals by level of uptake pre-trial (among P1-P3 non- FSM pupils) banded into quartiles.

3.23 The quartile of schools with the lowest uptake in the pre-trial survey saw an average increase in uptake of 36.5 percentage points among the P1 to P3 pupils to whom FSM had been extended. In comparison, the quartile of schools with the highest uptake in the pre-trial survey saw the smallest increase in uptake in this group, an increase of 11.9 percentage points.

3.24 This pattern is also seen among P1-P3 pupils who were registered for FSM pre-trial. In the quartile of schools were uptake was lowest previously, uptake increased 3.5 percentage points among this group to 89.3%. In comparison, in the quartile of schools were uptake was highest previously, uptake increased by 1.1 percentage points to 94.3%.

Table 3.6: Uptake of schools meals in late February 2008 survey by banded uptake (among P1-P3 Non- FSM pupils in pre-trial survey), and percentage point changes since pre-trial survey

Take-up among the key target group - non- FSM registered pupils not previously taking a meal

3.25 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. 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.

3.26 The key findings from analysis of this measure are ¹⁵:

• 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.
• Among this 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. 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 among the target group increased more in smaller schools.
• More target group pupils took up the offer of FSM in schools with onsite facilities than those who received meals from offsite.
• Small schools with onsite cooking facilities saw the highest level of increase in uptake among this target group. Large schools without onsite cooking facilities saw the lowest level of increase in uptake. These patterns were seen across the different local authorities.
• The likelihood of taking up the offer of a FSM 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. 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.

Special schools

3.26 The trial does not appear to have had an impact on uptake levels in special schools - although the results should be treated with caution as there were some problems with the data ¹⁶. The pre-trial survey showed that the P1-P3 level of uptake was already extremely high (98% among FSM registered pupils ¹⁷, 91% among non- FSM registered pupils, and 96% overall). There was therefore little scope to increase it further. The results from the late February survey actually show a slight decrease (to 95% among FSM registered pupils, 87% among non- FSM registered pupils, and 93% overall). It seems extremely unlikely that the trial had a negative impact, and this apparent decrease probably reflects the issues with the data rather than a real change.

Trends in uptake over the trial period

3.27 The change in uptake captured by the two surveys does not cover any change in patterns of uptake during the trial period and thus may obscure important trends. To complement the information obtained from the surveys, local authorities were asked to provide additional uptake data throughout the duration of the trial.

3.28 It should be noted that this data was not collected in the same way as the data in the pre-trial and late February 2008 surveys and is not directly comparable ( e.g. some areas did not adjust for absences and some excluded FSM registered pupils). It is useful to illustrate general trends rather than absolute levels of uptake.

3.29 Figure 3.1, plotting P1 to P3 uptake by month, provides a concise picture of the trends in the five trial areas. In all five local authorities there is a large upward trend at the outset of the trial. In three areas (West Dunbartonshire, East Ayrshire, and Glasgow) this decreases slightly and, to varying degrees, stabilises. After the initial sharp increase, there is less stability in Scottish Borders and Fife; in the Scottish Borders, uptake fluctuates between around 60% and around 70% while in Fife it fluctuates between around 66% and around 73%.

Figure 3.1: P1-P3 Uptake trends across the 5 local authorities.
(This chart illustrates general trends over the trial period. For absolute and relative uptake levels, refer to Tables 3.4 and 3.6)

3.30 The qualitative research in case study schools and the quantitative survey of parents of P1-P3 pupils also explored uptake - both levels of uptake and factors influencing uptake.

Initial uptake

3.31 Some schools suggested that uptake was higher in the initial few weeks of the trial than in following weeks. There was a view that this was due to the 'novelty factor'. However, more commonly, it was seen to be because of 'finicky eaters', who reverted to packed lunches.

"I think [parents] were persuading their children, you are going to go and try it, and for some children, it wasn't for them."
Headteacher

"I think a couple of them have tried the school dinners but they're just really fussy so they've gone back to packed lunches."
Class Teacher

3.32 While 'fussiness' emerged as the most prominent factor affecting uptake, it was also suggested that the slight drop in uptake was a result of pupils not getting their preferred choice of food:

"I think she did two weeks and never got what she asked for, so that's why we're back to packed lunches."
Parent

3.33 However, this problem of pupils not getting their preferred choice existed pre-trial and there was no evidence that the trial had exacerbated it.

3.34 In order to accommodate provision of healthy free school meals, one trial local authority felt it necessary to remove their school-provided packed lunch option. There were strong views on this, with some suggestion that this arrangement impacted upon uptake because a sandwich option was popular with children and felt to be adequate for their small stomachs. Where schools had stopped providing school packed lunches ( i.e. snack based cold meals of rolls, sandwiches, packets of salad vegetables ( e.g. cherry tomatoes), fruit, yoghurt etc.), it was suggested that an increased number of pupils opted to have a packed lunch from home as opposed to having a school meal.

3.35 Hardly any children go home for their lunch (among children of survey respondents, just 2% of P1 pupils, 1% of P2 pupils, and 1% of P3 pupils go home/to a relative or friend's home for lunch 5 days a week). Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate school meal and packed lunch uptake among children of parents' survey respondents, both pre-trial and during the trial. ¹⁸ As they show, there are some pupils who typically take school meals or packed lunches 5 days a week and some who normally take them 0 days a week. However, there is a considerable proportion who vary their lunches, having school meals/packed lunches 1-4 days a week. As figures 3.11 and 3.12 illustrate, the average number of days a week pupils have school meals has increased substantially as a result of the trial, while for packed lunches it has decreased significantly.

3.36 As illustrated in figure 3.1, before the introduction of the trial, among children of survey respondents, 28% took school meals 5 days a week. When they were surveyed during the trial, the corresponding figure was 64% - an increase of 36 percentage points. Conversely, 33% were having school meals on 0 days in a typical week pre-trial, compared with 11% during the trial. The proportions having school meals 3 or 4 days a week remained reasonably in line before and during the trial, while having school meals only 1 day and only 2 days a week both decreased over the timescale.

Figure 3.1: School meal uptake before & during trial

Q Before the introduction of FSMs, in a typical week, how often did your child have a school meal?
Q In a typical week nowadays, on how many days does your child have a school meal?

Base: parents (926), 11th February - 15th April 2008
Source: Ipsos MORI

3.37 As illustrated in figure 3.2, the increase in school meal uptake was mirrored by similar decreases in the proportions of pupils having packed lunches; 65% of pupils were having packed lunches 0 days a week pre-trial compared to 33% of pupils 0 days a week during the trial, while those having packed lunches 5 days a week decreased considerably during the trial (from 28% to 9%).

Figure 3.2: Packed lunch uptake before & during trial

Q Before the introduction of FSMs, in a typical week, how often did your child have a packed lunch?
Q In a typical week nowadays, on how many days does your child have a packed lunch?

Base: parents (926), 11th February - 15th April 2008
Source: Ipsos MORI

Reasons for having school meals

3.32 The two overriding reasons for parents opting to send their child for a school meal are that they 'want them to have a hot meal' and that they 'know they will get a healthy lunch'. As illustrated in figure 3.3, parents in the most deprived areas are more likely than those in the least deprived areas to suggest that these are key reasons influencing uptake. Parents in the least deprived areas are, on the other hand, more likely than those in the most deprived areas to say 'because they are provided free' and 'because their friends have them' are important reasons.

3.33 It is interesting to note that a greater proportion of parents in the least deprived areas say that 'because they are provided free' is a main reason. Looking only at those who were not previously entitled to FSMs, the difference is similar; 42% of those in the most deprived areas cite this as a reason, compared to 50% of those in the least deprived areas.

Figure 3.3: Reasons for child having school meals (all parents)

Q If your child ever takes a school meal nowadays, what are the main reasons?

Base: parents (926), 11th February - 15th April 2008
Source: Ipsos MORI

3.34 The reasons for having school meals given by parents of children who had school meals more often since the start of the trial were very similar to the reasons given by parents of children who had school meals the same amount. The exception was that parents of those children having school meals more often were more likely to give 'because they are provided free' as a main reason (59% of those taking school meals more often compared with 27% of those taking them the same amount).

Reasons for not having school meals every day

3.35 The main reasons for not having school meals every day were two sides of the same coin - that pupils do always like the food choices on offer, and that parents feel they can provide food their child will like and eat. The high incidence of parents reporting that 'they don't like the food choices on offer' is likely to reflect the fact that children do not always like the food choices on offer and therefore do not always stay for school meals - otherwise there would be a much higher proportion of children who never or very rarely take school meals. As illustrated in figure 3.4, parents in the most deprived areas are more likely than those in the least deprived areas to suggest that these are key reasons influencing uptake.

3.36 Peer influence was again identified as having an impact, although, less so among the parents in the least deprived areas. In the qualitative research, there was a view, on occasion, that 'sometimes it's not even the meals it's the queue'; pupils taking school meals have to queue whilst those having packed lunches sit and eat straight away. It was therefore suggested that pupils prefer the packed lunch option because it allows them to leave the dining room (to go out to play) quicker. However, queues were not generally identified as a major barrier to uptake: 8% of survey respondents considered it to be an influential factor. Only a small minority of parents suggested that their child has a packed lunch instead of a school meal because it is the healthier option. This view was more common among parents in the least deprived areas than those in the most deprived areas. The qualitative work supported these findings.

3.37 As with the reasons for taking school meals, the reasons for not having them every day were similar for those taking them more often and those taking them the same amount ¹⁹.

Figure 3.4: Reasons for not having school meals

Q If your child does not always take a school meal, what are the main reasons?

Base: parents (926), 11th February - 15th April 2008
Source: Ipsos MORI

Menu options

3.38 The various stakeholders shared a perception that options on the menu on any given day exert a strong influence on uptake, with pupils 'opting in and out' on a daily basis; 'On the days there isn't anything they like, they don't have them'. As one local authority catering manager observed:

"I monitored for the first two weeks … and I could see a direct correlation between, on the individual days, the menu choices …. it was quite clear to me that, that was showing that there were certain menu days when the meal numbers dropped and I'm assuming it was because the children didn't like the menu, so that was very clear."
Local Authority Catering Manager

3.39 Indeed, parents and pupils also supported this view:

"… depending on the selections, my daughter will come two or three times a week."
Parent

"On Wednesday, I didn't like any of the menu, I just went to my mum and said 'mum I don't like anything on the menu, can I have home dinners?' and she said aye."
P3 Pupil

3.40 Although the less healthy options (such as pizza and sausages) seemed universally popular, pupils' individual preferences would often include healthy options too, and it would be wrong to suggest it was as simple as 'unhealthy = popular' and 'healthy = unpopular'.

3.41 On days that pupils do not like any of the available options, they tend to opt for a packed lunch:

"They will look a the menu and see if there is something on it, all right then, I will have school dinners that day, that day, and that day, and then have packed lunches other days."
Dining Hall Supervisor

"Likes of today, there is fish and sausage and they like both, but there is days maybe they are not very keen, so they go away and have packed lunch that day."
Canteen Staff

3.42 As a result of these preferences, stakeholders reported a big increase in uptake on certain days, and substantially decreased uptake on other days. For example, on Fridays, which tends to be the day for less healthy 'treat' foods (such as fish and chips, pizza, hot dogs, burgers and sausages) uptake increases. Pupils themselves often expressed their preferences:

"I'm fussy about food - I just go to school dinners when it's pizza."
P2 Pupil

"I check on the menu and if it is smiley faces and chicken dippers I always go."
P3 Pupil

3.43 However, stakeholders reported that this reflects the pre-trial trend; such options have historically been popular.

3.44 While it was frequently suggested that children are 'picky eaters', there was also a view that that inappropriate menu options sometimes impact upon levels of uptake. Concerns were expressed that some combinations were peculiar, while there was a view that some of the options are matured, acquired tastes that are inappropriate for young children, for example, because they are too spicy:

"Likes of gammon steak and lamb madras and things, I don't think there is that many little Primary 1s and 2s and 3s that will go for that. Lisa, she likes lamb and she likes rice and she had the lamb madras once, but she said I didn't like the sauce. Gammon steaks, I don't think there will be that many kids that eat gammon steaks."
Parent

3.45 Parents, education, and catering staff felt that themed menus - such as those for Burns Day, Christmas, and 'foods from around the world' days - contributed to increased levels of uptake while also offering pupils the opportunity to sample new foods. However, some schools felt the rigidity of local authority menus did not allow flexibility for such events.

Peer influence

3.46 It was commonly suggested that peers play a role in influencing whether or not a child will have a free school meal. There was a view among stakeholders that pupils like to do what their friends do, regardless of the food options:

"I remember when we were trying to get him to try it, we used to talk to the other parents, say, we'll all send our children for a canteen lunch and that way they'll be together, yes, it is a big influence."
Parent

"Mine will say 'could I have a packed lunch today? because my friends are packed lunch'."
Parent

3.47 This may be exacerbated in schools where packed lunchers and school meal pupils eat in separate dining areas. However, schools tended to operate systems whereby the two sit at different tables. In such systems, the social aspect of lunch may not be accommodated:

"I think some of it is to do with the fact 'well my child likes to sit with her friends and she doesn't really want to have to go into a different room'. One of the things that's happened in some of the schools, just a couple of them I have visited, they have actually rearranged their dining arrangements, so that the children with a packed lunch and a hot dinner can actually sit together. I do think there are some behaviours and ways of management in school that actually discourage the children."
Local Authority Catering Manager

Likelihood of receiving preferred food choice

3.48 Another factor influencing uptake is likelihood of receiving preferred food choice:

"They will have something else obviously, but they probably won't finish it, or won't enjoy it. Then they come home, I didn't get my pizza, or I didn't get my fish today because it was finished by the time I got there. I don't want to go back for school dinners I want to have a packed lunch."
Parent

3.49 However, as noted above, this had been recognised previously and did not arise as a result of the trial.

Free school meals versus packed lunches

3.50 There was a widespread view among parents that the provision of free school meals relieved the burden on them to select and prepare a packed lunch that is both healthy and will be eaten:

"It takes the pressure off you, it allows me not to think about it and maybe that sounds lazy, but that's how I feel about it. It takes the pressure off me having to think about with my weekly shop, with everything else, 'what do I need to make her for lunch every day?'"
Parent

Researcher: "When you first heard about the free school meals for Primary 1 to Primary 3 pupils what was your initial reaction to that"?

M "One less packed lunch to make".

F "Exactly, fantastic idea not having to think about what you would put in the packed lunch."
Parents

3.51 However, parents explained that empty wrappers and/or food remaining in a lunch box at the end of the day provide useful evidence of what their child had eaten - or not eaten - each day. With school meals, parents were not able to determine what their child had eaten at lunchtime.

The financial aspect

3.52 The very fact the trial provided a meal for free had a significant impact on uptake. A common initial reaction among parents was that the trial would relieve the financial burden associated with paying for a lunchtime meal:

Researcher: "When you first heard about the free school meals trial, what was your initial reaction?"

F "That will save me £1.47"

M "I think the biggest benefit is financial isn't it, costs a fortune to put kids to school with uniforms, trainers, outings, that is one less financial burden."

F "I'm on my own and I find it a benefit no having to pay money for packed lunches and things like that."
Parents

3.53 The trial was also viewed as alleviating the general 'hassle' of providing lunch money each day:

"Oh thank God, I'm not going to have to rummage about looking for change every day; that was the first reaction."
Parent

3.54 The simple benefit of increasing disposable income was particularly evident among parents with more than one child - some parents mentioned that meeting the cost of school meals is prohibitive, with it frequently being suggested that packed lunches are more economical:

F "As you say, it is bad enough with one but if you've got two or three."

F "I did have three, we were like that, it was just too much to pay every week - to pay for the three kids to come to school dinners."
Parents

3.55 In particular, it was suggested that the trial would have a significant effect on those families just above the free school meal eligibility threshold. In some instances, the trial was seen to have freed up money for other items/activities. For example, one parent mentioned that they had been able to buy their child trainers.

3.56 Parents commonly perceived that school meals were not good value for money if they were paying for them. However, as a result of the trial providing meals for free, many parents said they had negotiated with their child to have a school meal, as they had nothing to loose and could save money:

"I must say it did make me sway towards school dinners when I knew it was free…I sat down and said to them right, if we have four school dinners, we get one home dinner and then they accepted that as well."
Parent

"I would object to maybe paying the full cost if it is just going to go in the bin, it is just a waste of time for everybody, so I find it quite good."
Parent

« Previous | Contents | Next »