The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 4: PROCESS AND PRACTICAL ISSUES FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND SCHOOLS

Key points

The implementation of the trial was relatively straightforward. There were no unexpected impacts and roll-out by other local authorities should not be problematic.

Problems that emerged were generally minor teething problems that could be relatively quickly remedied.

The main challenges schools faced were the size of dining areas coupled with the time available for lunch. Strategies found useful in overcoming this were:

• staggering the times pupils arrive at dining areas
• setting tables in advance
• operating different queuing systems or service areas
• allowing slightly lengthened lunchtimes ( e.g. letting P1 pupils out 5 or 10 minutes early)
• using alternative accommodation (especially for packed lunches)

The quality and quantity of food provided was not seen to have changed as a result of the trial. Waste was proportionate to pre-trial levels.

Provision for special dietary needs was not a problem - special dietary needs have a minor impact on uptake and there is no evidence of increased demand for special foods as a result of the trial.

Workloads of local authority and teaching staff remained relatively unchanged. The greatest impact was on catering staff who tended to have slightly increased workloads as a result of the trial. However, once extra staff had been recruited, there were generally no major problems.

4.1 This chapter focuses on challenges that schools and local authorities faced in implementing the trial and the approaches they took to resolving them. It should be noted that the local authority catering managers, the stakeholders in the case study schools, and respondents to the parents' survey were generally very positive about the trial.

Expected issues and actual issues with trial

4.2 In the pre-trial uptake survey in October 2007, schools were asked if they anticipated any problems. Overall, 39% of schools expected problems. Encouragingly though, in the late February 2008 survey, only around half that number (21%) reported that the trial had actually created practical difficulties.

4.3 Table 4.1 shows the proportion of schools envisaging and actually encountering practical difficulties, by local authority and by whether the cooking facilities were onsite or offsite.

Table 4.1: Whether schools envisaged and encountered any practical difficulties as a result of the extension of FSM eligibility to all P1 to P3 pupils, by local authority and cooking facilities

4.4 Whilst schools' cooking facilities did not make any differences to whether they expected practical difficulties, a smaller percentage of schools with offsite cooking facilities experienced actual problems.

4.5 Smaller schools were less likely to experience practical difficulties (see table 4.2). Only 13% of small schools (schools with 111 pupils or less) experienced difficulties, compared to 33% of large schools (schools with at least 265 pupils).

Table 4.2: Whether schools envisaged and encountered any practical difficulties as a result of the extension of FSM eligibility to all P1 to P3 pupils, by school size

4.6 Unsurprisingly, schools who already had the highest levels of uptake pre-trial were the least likely to encounter practical difficulties (see table 4.3).

Table 4.3: Whether schools envisaged and encountered any practical difficulties as a result of the extension of FSM eligibility to all P1 to P3 pupils by pre-trial level of uptake (all P1 to P3)

4.7 In the late February 2008 survey, schools were asked whether they had been required to take particular steps to accommodate the trial (shown in Table 4.4.). A third indicated that they had purchased additional equipment.

4.8 Only 16% had introduced staggered sittings although more of the largest schools had done this (26% of schools with 265+ pupils). The question on the school meal census form simply asked schools to indicated 'yes' or 'no' to 'Introduction of staggered sittings' ²⁰ so it is not clear how many of these schools had actually staggered the lunch period or whether they had staggered the queues within the existing lunch period. Some of the case study schools tended to do the latter, also perhaps allowing P1s and P2s out five or ten minutes earlier, rather than formally staggering the lunch period for the whole school.

4.9 Few schools had increased the length of the lunch period (8%) or made changes to where pupils take meals (6%).

Table 4.4. Steps taken to accommodate the extension of FSM to all P1-P3 pupils

4.10 The qualitative research with schools and local authority catering managers confirmed that there were initial concerns about the increased volume and the logistical issues, but, in the event, the implementation of the trial appears to have been relatively straightforward.

4.11 It was commonly suggested that the initial challenges encountered were generally easily resolvable 'teething problems' and 'minor glitches', which, after a week or two, schools and local authority staff felt sufficiently geared up to meet.

4.12 The challenges identified by schools and local authorities can be classified as 'non-food related' and 'food related' and are discussed more in detail below.

Non-food related issues

4.13 The main non-food related issue raised by schools and local authorities was that some schools lack dining room capacity to provide dinners for all pupils at any one time. Related to this was the limited time for getting pupils fed. Other issues raised by schools and local authorities were the lead-in and start time of the trial, staff workloads, and recruitment of additional catering staff.

Physical limitations of space & time

4.14 The main challenges schools faced in implementing the trial were physical space and time pressures; the interrelated problems of the size of dining areas (compared to the size of schools) coupled with the time available for lunch:

"The biggest problem is not having enough time because we only have a 45 minutes lunch hour … so talking about over 200 children to be served their meal in 45 minutes."
Headteacher

"Problems? Space, and accommodating a large number of children within a specific timeframe, the lunch break is 45 minutes, so trying to feed maybe 300 children within that space of time, in a limited space can be quite difficult."
Local Authority Catering Manager

4.15 Schools tended to have dining rooms that were too small to physically accommodate, in one sitting, the increased number of pupils taking a school meal. Nonetheless, throughout the discussions, there was a sense that this was not unexpected and so schools had, to varying degrees, been able to plan and adjust lunchtime organisation accordingly.

4.16 Indeed, most schools did not experience an increase in the number of children staying on the school premises at lunchtime, because, pre-trial, the large majority of P1-P3 pupils tended to stay for either a school meal or a packed lunch, with very few going home:

"All of our children stay for lunch, there is only one goes home, so over fifty children stay, they've always stayed, they were either packed lunch or they were paying for their dinner, so they were in the dinner hall anyway."
Headteacher

4.17 The greatest problems were encountered at schools using multipurpose areas (either for all pupils or for packed lunches) rather than a dedicated dining area.

"Overall we didn't think there would be an increase in the amount of children staying at lunchtime, because a lot of them stayed and had packed lunches anyway. It was the issue of they needed to be near the kitchen to get a hot meal and our packed lunches were in a separate space …. So the solution that they gave us to that was that we still used the separate space which was quite near the main kitchen, but they provided a hot trolley and all the meals were loaded on to a hot trolley and taken through. It seems to be working fine."
Headteacher

4.18 There was a shared perception among the stakeholders that problems related to limited dining room capacity and available lunch time were relatively easily and effectively resolved through introducing minor changes and flexible arrangements for lunch breaks and by being as prepared as possible at the outset.

Arrangements to optimise lunch 'time' and space

4.19 In order to overcome the constraints related to the time and space pressures, some schools operated staggered queuing systems with rota arrangements (which some had operated, often to a lesser degree, pre-trial). This was seen to have considerably lessened time and queue pressures and is discussed in more detail below.

4.20 Aside from staggering the times that pupils arrive at dining areas, schools commonly suggested that they had developed flexible routines designed to optimise lunch 'time' and that minor adjustments to routines had substantially helped to relieve the pressures.

4.21 Examples of specific actions undertaken to optimise time and space, which are discussed in more detail below, include:

• staggering times pupils arrive at dining areas
• pre-ordering systems
• setting tables in advance
• operating different queuing systems or service areas
• reducing food choice
• slightly lengthened lunchtimes
• using alternative accommodation

4.22 Menus had frequently been sent home in advance of the introduction of the trial. Many parents discuss the menu options for each day with their child in order to help them decide whether they will opt for a school meal that day, and, if so, what meal they will choose. As a result, many pupils had decided what they would like to eat before arriving at the counter. This arrangement was in place in many of the schools pre-trial anyway but staff felt it helped speed up the process.

Staggering Queues

4.23 Schools tended to operate systems whereby there is one lunchtime where all pupils are on break, but the times pupils arrive at the dining area are slightly staggered. Commonly, the queues were staggered by just 5 or 10 minutes. Some of the case study schools organised two or three sittings for lunch whilst others used classrooms for additional space for packed lunches, at the same time, reducing queues.

4.24 Some schools had adopted the practice of organising rotas whereby entry to dining areas was staggered by year group. Younger pupils were generally given priority in the queues, with pupils from P1 to P3 served lunch first, with P4 to P7 pupils taking turns to be next into the dining area thereafter.

4.25 There was a general consensus that younger pupils take longer to eat their lunch and therefore require maximum time in the dining area. Several schools introduced systems whereby some pupils went out to play before going to the dining area:

"Well we always had two sittings for lunch and first of all we kept the two sittings and tried it, but that didn't work at all, so we had to make up a new rota system and have three sittings for lunch so that the primary 3s and 4s went out to play first, so they had their play time before their lunch, and the wee ones have their lunch and then go out to play."
Headteacher

"It's not a problem…three classes get sent out to play for ten minutes till we deal with the other three classes and then they get brought in."
Canteen Staff

4.26 This arrangement was seen to have a significant impact on easing the pressures of limited time and space. However, there were some concerns that boys, in particular, may carry on playing and never come in for lunch.

"The play is important for them…especially the boys who just want to play football end of story, and sometimes I do know ones who have missed their lunch."
Class Teacher

4.27 As a result, it was suggested that it is necessary to 'keep an eye on them'. This was easier in the smaller schools than in some of the larger schools visited.

4.28 Overall, there was a general consensus that staggered queuing systems worked well. Indeed, queuing is recognised as a key factor in the school meal experience and reducing the queuing and serving time for food is cited as an important factor influencing decisions about whether or not to have school meals. As a consequence of most case study schools operating staggered systems to combat time and space issues, significant queue pressures were relatively rare. Among pupils, the amount of time spent queuing was an infrequent complaint, and during the observation at lunchtime in the case study schools, there was no evidence of excessive queuing.

4.29 Rota systems were generally perceived to be effective in reducing overcrowding and time spent queuing whilst usually ensuring that pupils had equal opportunities to be first served - which again is viewed as a factor influencing uptake. Parents generally accepted the systems and there was a perception that pupils quickly accepted it as a routine part of their school day. In the schools visited, the length of time allocated for lunch appeared sufficient; pupils were served and ate their lunch without being overly rushed, still having time for socialising whilst eating, and playing either before and/or after eating. Indeed, by and large, pupils were of the opinion they had sufficient time for lunch.

4.30 While it was felt that staggering queues generally works very efficiently, on occasions, a lack of choice for those at the end of queues was commented on. It was suggested that the rota systems can influence uptake; pupils often commented that they were more likely to have a school meal on days when they were early in the rota and so would have more choice of foods:

"My eldest, she wants to come on a Thursday, that's pizza day and she'll say, well I think our class is going to be last in today, into the dinner school, so I might not get it. So then she doesn't want to go."
Parent

4.31 However, the problem of running out of popular food choices was not perceived to be a direct result of the trial; it was present pre-trial.

Pre-ordering systems

4.32 To speed up service, one of the local authorities and some of the individual schools in other local authorities, had introduced systems whereby pupils would pre-order food ahead of the lunch break. Reasons for implementing pre-ordering systems include:

• ensuring a sufficient amount of food
• ensuring pupils receive their preferred choice
• speeding up lunchtime by ensuring pupils knew what they were having when they arrive at the service counter
• reducing waste

4.33 Within the case study schools, a variety of pre-ordering systems were in place based on daily or weekly ordering. In general, they were perceived to have been effective. The fact that children did not have to make choices at the counter was viewed as being particularly useful:

"Mine line up by choice and you have a token system, the colours, so it just depends how you want to work it, but definitely make sure they know before they get to the hall."
Class Teacher

4.34 One school administrator described how pre-ordering forms were initially sent home with pupils, to be completed with their parents, but the system had to be adapted as a result of forms not being returned:

"Now, every week we put an envelope out with the next week's dinner choice. Now that is a free school meals child, now what we found, if we let the free school meals child take them home, they don't come back with them, so we sit with them in classes and get them to choose in classes."
School Administrator

4.35 Some parents commented on this adapted arrangement, recognising the problem but also suggesting that it resulted in them being unaware of what their child is eating each day. Another teacher suggested that this arrangement was particularly time consuming and thus, did not work for her. She also highlighted a problem she had encountered with the system requiring forms to be sent home:

"I tried to do it in class once and it took half an hour and I thought no, I can't afford the time to do that, so we sent them home, but then you do get the children saying 'I don't like that, my mum just ordered it for me'."
Teacher

4.36 For one school relying on a production kitchen, the local authority catering manager described how the pre-ordering system they had implemented was useful in ensuring appropriate proportions of each menu option are sent to the school:

"One dining school, as a pilot, put in a pre-ordering system where the kids and the pupil councils would own a board, a very bright coloured board with our logo on it and the kids choose the day before by using tokens, of what they want for the next day. That then gives the production kitchen a better idea of what split to send the different foods; that then means that the kids who are maybe new into the school meal service are not coming and then being disappointed."
Local Authority Catering Manager

4.37 Schools operating pre-ordering systems generally thought that they had been helpful - by speeding up service at the counter and helping reduce waste. However, there was an alternative view that they are unnecessary because catering staff quickly learn pupil likes and dislikes and can produce accordingly.

Setting tables in advance

4.38 Stakeholders in schools described routines whereby they eased time and space pressures by undertaking as much preparation as possible ahead of pupils arriving for lunch. Specifically, by having tables laid in advance of pupils arriving at the dining area:

"I think we definitely find that having the tables set with the cutlery on the tables and the water already on the tables has made a huge difference and we also, we put out the soup, just as the wee ones are coming in to allow time to cool so the soup is not really hot when they get it, it is a temperature that they can take the soup and we also, we put out the sweets²¹, on the day they get sweets we put them out on the table as well and just go round with the custard for them. So that speeds things up. It also means there is less to-ing and fro-ing for them with their meals. So anything we can do like that to cut down on the amount of going back and forward for the children certainly has made a difference."
Headteacher

4.39 Schools which operate 'plate it up' systems whereby cutlery, water, soup, and/or puddings are set on tables in advance of pupils arriving at the dining area, suggest that these relatively straightforward changes considerably relieved time pressures.

Operating different queuing systems or service areas

4.40 Some schools utilised different service areas to minimise the length of time pupils queued for meals, commonly having different queues and service areas for pupils depending on whether they wanted to eat hot or cold food or what year group they were in. This was seen to go some way in alleviating pressure.

Reducing food choice

4.41 In order to provide a free healthy meal, one of the trial local authorities removed the option of a school-provided packed lunch. There was some criticism of this arrangement, in particular, from parents, who suggested that the cold option was popular with the children.

Slightly lengthened lunchtimes

4.42 In some schools where uptake has increased dramatically, in particular in the larger schools visited, headteachers had implemented systems whereby P1-P3 pupils have a slightly longer lunch break than they had pre-trial. While six of the ten case study schools allowed an extra five, or sometimes ten minutes for younger pupils, in one large school with a substantial increase in uptake as a result of the trial, an extra 15 minutes was required. However, this was exceptional. As noted above, only 8% of schools indicated in the late February 2008 survey that they had increased the length of the lunch period (although it may be that some schools did not include allowing the P1s out five minutes early).

" We also just could not physically fit all the children in, in the 45 minutes, it just wasn't possible so now what we have to do is the Primary 1's have to come along 15 minutes before the end of the school, which really is not ideal because it means they're losing 15 minutes of school time every day, so that's an hour and 15 minutes they're losing every week, of time that really should be in the class spent on the education, but that is the only way we can fit everyone in, it would just be impossible otherwise."
Headteacher

4.43 Although recognising this arrangement was not ideal, because it results in pupils missing out on curriculum time, such flexibility was viewed as being particularly useful in relieving pressures on the dining area, and, there was a view that it is perhaps balanced out by the fact pupils are 'getting healthy meals':

"The only problem we have is because we are sharing accommodation and the time's a bit tight, but we tend to get all the children out before half past twelve. Thirty-five minutes we really have to get the children through the dinner hall and it is tight, but we tend to do that. That was the other thing, we tend to make sure the children are down in the hall for five to, so their dinner hour starts a wee bit earlier, so it's maybe ten to. We are maybe losing classroom time, but it is just a necessary evil - Probably gain the fact that they are getting healthy meals and getting the whole free meal thing for P1 to 3."
Headteacher

Using alternative accommodation

4.44 As a direct result of the limited capacity of dining areas, some schools had to utilise other areas of the school to accommodate the increased number of pupils. In particular, arrangements for pupils having packed lunches were altered:

"I think it has been a bit of problem at the start. At the start we were wondering where to put the children who were having packed lunches because everybody was in the lunch hall. We don't have another room. So we've had to use the GP (General Purpose) room for eating which is not great because there are problems - Straight after lunchtime, it's not great. Some children eat in there, some children eat in the gym hall, some children eat in the corridor and some eat outside, which is okay if the weather is fine."
Class Teacher

4.45 Apart from these minor changes to daily routines, the very fact the meals were provided free was also seen to help queues to move quickly as a result of removing the complication of money changing hands.

Workloads

4.46 There was a general consensus that the trial had no significant impact on workloads, with many considering the implementation of the trial to be 'part of their job', or an extension of what they were already doing.

Local Authority Staff

4.47 Local authority catering managers commonly subscribed to the view that workloads, and their own in particular, had changed relatively little as a result of the trial:

"It's been pretty insignificant, apart from attending another meeting, allowing a bit of time for, apart from that it has not been too bad at all, just like an extension of what you are doing, we're not doing anything different, it is just increasing the volume from my point of view."
Local Authority Catering Manager

4.48 It is interesting to note that local authority catering managers commonly said that the trial local authorities had implemented the initiative independently of each other. Local authorities did not have close links with each other; they had not tended to communicate with each other, discuss common issues, or share best-practice in the course of the trial. This was largely seen to be due to a belief that local authorities all have different systems and structures in place and what works best in one area will not necessarily work in another area:

"It would help if each authority was a mirror, but it's not, we do different things, different menus, different uptakes."
Local Authority Catering Manager

4.49 As a result of these perceived differences, it was felt that increased communication and co-operation between authorities would not be particularly useful. On the other hand, within local authorities, partnership working, in particular between catering and education, was viewed as being key to successful implementation of the trial:

"It depends how the local authorities work, but we work quite well with education and that's all that's needed …. From day one, this has been let's get information out, let's do this, this is a joint approach, what can we do? So from those points I think that's been beneficial it really has."
Local Authority Catering Manager

4.50 Indeed, there was a view that as a result of the trial, there was closer collaboration than ever before, with ' catering service and education working more closely now than they ever have'.

School Staff

4.51 A variety of school staff are involved in school meals. For head cooks, the bulk of work is in budgeting, ordering, and preparation. On the other hand, the bulk of the work for canteen staff is in preparing, cleaning, and serving. Teaching staff meanwhile frequently play a supervisory role in dining areas at lunchtimes.

Head Cooks

4.52 The qualitative interviews with head cooks revealed that they felt that the trial had not had any major impact on their work, for example, in ordering and preparing the increased quantities of food. It was viewed as perhaps being a little bit more work, but essentially, an extension of what they were already doing, which they quickly adapt to:

Researcher: " What impact has the trial had on your job?"

"Just the same, do what I have to do - a bit more work …. It's just actually doing the same work but doing more of it."
Head Cook

"You just up your quantities so it is not any problem."
Head Cook

4.53 One theme to emerge was the feeling that the trial had impacted upon the time they spent encouraging children to develop healthy eating habits and varied diets:

"I used to go out and you would talk to them and that but I don't get the chance to do that now. You did try to encourage them to eat."
Head Cook

"I don't feel I get out into the hall beside the kids as much as I did before because I'm not in the dining room with them now."
Head Cook

Other catering staff

4.54 There was more of an impact on the workloads of catering staff who serve pupils and clean up afterwards, and staff undertaking lunchtime supervision.

4.55 It was suggested that the greatest impact on catering staff was on dining area preparation, the increased number of pupils to serve, and cleaning up after pupils. However, there was general consensus among canteen staff that, despite being 'a wee bit busier', their workloads similarly remained manageable and they quickly got their 'heads down' and adapted, soon forgetting routines of old:

"It's all just kind of used to it now, seems as if we just always did this now, it doesn't take you long to get used to it, although at the beginning you are like 'oh no, I'm going to go and get another job, I'm sick of the dishes'."
Canteen staff

4.56 Catering staff were inclined to agree that the trial was simply an extension of what they were already doing.

4.57 However, on one occasion, it was felt that that the increased work of the trial had impacted on cleaning routines:

"There is a bit more cleaning. Every day cleaning is getting done just the same, it is the bigger stuff that we are not getting time for, likes of, well, the cookers and that are getting stripped but not as much as what, you know the big things are not getting cleaned as much as I would like."
Head Cook

Supervision

4.58 Class teachers and learning assistants generally carried out dining area supervision, while in some schools, management staff such as headteachers and their deputies also undertook supervisory duties. As one learning assistant noted, they too felt that their workloads were relatively unaffected:

"Our routine in the dining room is exactly the same as it was before."
Classroom Assistant

4.59 Similarly, as one headteacher noted:

"The biggest thing was really just a sudden increase in numbers and we thought that might put a bit of a strain on the kitchen staff and just our own supervision. It has turned out not to be not too bad."
Headteacher

4.60 Regarding supervision, one theme that emerged was that the increased volume of pupils taking a school meal resulted in an increase in the number of spillages, and dropping trays of food. Inevitably, more pupils required help with cutting up food, and there was an increase in the amount of cleaning up required.

4.61 As a result, catering and education staff undertaking supervisory duties sometimes felt that they had less time to support individual pupils, for example, to develop good eating habits, choose healthy options, and monitor wastage. One headteacher also described the knock on impact on playground supervision:

"Then again of course, the longer my lunchtime supervisor is in helping in the dinner hall the less time she is out in the playground, so a kind of Catch 22. I mean there is always spillages, there is always kids needing things cut up for them."
Headteacher

4.62 Some of the early problems experienced were related to the issue of extra catering staff not having been recruited in time for the start of the trial, but these problems were relatively quickly resolved.

Recruiting staff

4.63 Some of the most negative criticisms about the implementation of the trial concerned the recruitment of extra catering staff. It was suggested that, for some schools and local authorities, this had proved problematic, and it was commonly commented that this was a result of the limited hours required:

"We are trying to find somebody, it is difficult, it is something like an hour and half and to get somebody to commit to that time is really difficult."
Headteacher

4.64 On occasion, it was suggested that the local authority had authorised the allocation of extra hours for current catering staff. However, a number of headteachers felt that, through their knowledge of local circumstances, they themselves could have allocated hours more effectively:

"Obviously there was an allocation of extra hours for two of the members of staff, but … I actually felt that I could have allocated the hours better myself if I had been given my choice, rather than being told what they had to do."
Headteacher

4.65 There was also a view that extending the hours of existing staff does not resolve the problem because it is the short period of serving time that proves problematic:

"I would rather have had an extra member of staff, just at the actual service time, so that, well you saw we have a busy counter."
Headteacher

4.66 As the headteacher above notes, the problems around provision of catering staff were not wholly unexpected. Indeed, it was frequently commented that problems were exaggerated in the first weeks of the trial as a result of the short lead-in to implementing the trial.

Lead-in and start time of the trial

4.67 One other issue highlighted by school and local authority staff was the lead-in and start time of the trial. It was frequently noted that the lead-in timescale was particularly short and this may have exacerbated problems because of insufficient time to undertake adequate preparation. In particular, it was commented that the short lead-in time did not allow sufficient time for potential new staff to undergo Disclosure Scotland checks.

4.68 There was a view that the start of the trial not coinciding with the start of the school term was not ideal. It was felt that pupils, in particular those in P1, had just got used to their daily lunchtime routines when it was 'all change'.

4.69 It was frequently suggested that these problems could be easily overcome for any roll-out in other local authorities.

Administration

4.70 There was a shared perception that any administrative impact related to the trial was minimal - and much of the administration related to the monitoring and evaluation of the trial rather than the extension of free school meal provision itself. Many administrative staff involved in school meals felt any additional administrative impact of the trial was balanced out by the fact it had become a cashless transaction.

Equipment

4.71 Schools generally encountered no problems with obtaining sufficient kitchen and dining room equipment from their local authority. Staff at the case study schools commonly felt that it was a case of 'saying we will need more tables, chairs, cutlery, trays, whatever it was, and getting it'. Pre-trial audits of equipment requirements and the resultant careful planning was perceived to have eliminated any potential problems.

4.72 Although a small minority of schools had experienced some problems regarding dining room equipment at the outset of the trial, they suggested that these were teething problems that balanced out in the early days of the trial:

"They checked the tables, they checked the seating capacity before that happened. They also had to order in cutlery and trays and they did have a wee spell where we had to wash trays until more came in, but certainly the cutlery had to be ordered and occasionally they did have to wash stuff, but that has balanced itself out now and it's not such a problem."
Headteacher

4.73 Local authority catering managers concurred with the view that significant equipment-related problems had not been encountered:

"What we did initially, was speak to the catering manager and give them a very small amount, a set amount to say look use this for the free school meals and to buy things like knives, forks, cutlery, crockery and that type of thing and we then controlled the bigger items, if they needed more tables or anything else to accommodate that, we ordered that ourselves, but no problems at all."
Local Authority Catering Manager

Food related issues

4.74 Food related issues the research explored include:

• availability of food
• quality and quantity of food
• predicting uptake
• food wastage
• provision for special diets and allergies
• encouraging children to eat healthily

4.75 As with non-food related issues, stakeholders tended to suggest that food-related problems that were encountered tended to be 'snags', rather than serious difficulties, which were largely resolved in the early days of the trial, sometimes by simple alterations to routines.

Availability of food

4.76 Some of the most negative criticism of the trial, in particular, from pupils and parents, related to schools running out of the preferred food options. However, on further investigation, it appeared the issue was no more of a problem since the introduction of the trial:

"We haven't had any problems, I mean other than some of them not getting what they want, but that would be an issue before this even started and maybe the child would be upset because he didn't get what he wanted, but we can't cater for every single individual. There is going to be days next week when she will get what she wants and somebody else will be upset."Head Cook

Quality and quantity of food

4.77 There was strong agreement among teachers, catering staff and local authority catering managers that the quality of the food and the size of portions should not, and had not, changed as a result of the trial. Indeed many schools were using the same menus, staff, and suppliers as they had done pre-trial. However, in the quantitative survey with parents, responses concerning the quality and quantity of food since the introduction of the trial were generally much more positive (in particular, among parents in the most deprived areas). Despite a reminder on the front of the questionnaire that the research was not designed to help decide whether the trial would be continued in their child's school, it is possible that parents may have felt that there was more likelihood of the trial being continued or being rolled-out if they provided positive responses. Indeed, in the qualitative work with parents, these perceptions were much less evident, with the various stakeholders commenting that they were not aware of any change in the quality or quantity of food.

Predicting uptake

4.78 Schools and local authorities agreed that an inability to accurately predict uptake levels exacerbated problems faced in the early days of the trial:

"What we didn't know was how many would come along, that was the difficult bit. Pizza being more popular than perhaps chicken korma but we didn't know what our uptake would be - was it going to be 10%, or was it going to be 90%? - That was the difficulty."
Local Authority Catering Manager

4.79 However, there was agreement that uptake soon stabilised and food selections quickly become predictable:

"Another problem was perhaps getting used to the additional numbers and what people were actually selecting. So in the early stages we were short of food, or over providing food, but again that takes a period of time, but that works itself out."
Local Authority Catering Manager

4.80 As discussed below, schools felt that the inability to predict uptake may have resulted in increased wastage at the outset of the trial. However, a few schools mentioned that they had completely run out of food in the first week of the trial. Other schools suggested that the preparations they undertook at the outset of the trial were key to ensuring they did not find themselves in such a position. Specifically, some schools had sent out a leaflet to parents, asking them to indicate whether their child would be likely to take a school meal. While some found this a useful indication of potential uptake, allowing them to be better prepared, others felt the approach would not be of much assistance:

"I don't know how much benefit you would gain from the exercise itself, because you can quickly adjust. In a kitchen environment you are not going to run out of food, you can always put something else on, until it pans out, so quite a big exercise to gauge and I think in some of the bigger primary schools that would be quite a huge undertaking. And how accurate would the data be?"
Local Authority Catering Manager

4.81 Indeed, as one parent commented:

"I think you were to put on it [the form] how often you would possibly come. Every day, once a week, a couple of times. I put down three times, but she was going five times a week for the first few months."
Parent

4.82 It was also suggested that the findings of this evaluation should go some way in helping to alleviate problems with predicting uptake should the initiative be rolled-out across other local authorities.

Food wastage

4.83 Overall, there was a general perception that food wastage (either as a result of providers or pupils throwing it out) was proportionately the same amount as pre-trial. It was felt that the early days of the trial might have witnessed increased levels of food wastage, largely because of not knowing what uptake would be, and therefore, of overcompensating in order to avoid running out of food.

4.84 Some schools suggested that there was a trend of increased uptake at the start of the trial that decreased slightly after a short time (as discussed in Chapter 2 above, this was the overall pattern in East Ayrshire, Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire). It was commonly felt that 'picky eaters' who reverted to packed lunches caused the decrease and may perhaps have contributed to additional wastage in the early days of the trial:

"Once it has kind of settled down into a pattern, at least now she [head cook] knows roughly what she's getting every day …. Certainly to begin with that was much more difficult, but now she seems to be running about 180 or something."
Headteacher

4.85 A widespread view was that wastage was not directly related to the trial, but rather, by the options on menus. Some foods were commonly identified as being most likely to be wasted, specifically, vegetables and soup, which pupils were encouraged to try:

"It depends what the choice is - vegetables mainly because a lot of them don't like their vegetables, but obviously we put a bit of each onto the plates and what the assistants do is try to get them to taste a bit."
Head Cook

4.86 Sometimes peculiar combinations of food, or unrealistically large portions were cited as contributing to waste. Again, these are not a direct result of the trial:

"I think the biggest waste, like some days, it depends what you have, like a day they get pizza and they're supposed to get a baked potato, they don't eat the whole baked potato, but other days there is very little wastage."
Head Cook

"I've got a few who don't because they just don't like the choices and to be honest, some of them are quite bizarre choices, pizza and potatoes and the combinations of food, I can imagine why they wouldn't want to take it."
Class Teachers

Provision for special diets and allergies

4.87 There was consensus among providers of school meals, at both school and local authority level, that as a result of having previously developed policies to deliver appropriate provision for pupils with special diets, they encountered no real problems related to provision for such needs. Schools tended not to have had many requests for special diets in the course of the trial. However, there is a perception that pupils with special dietary requirements tend to have a packed lunch, or go home for lunch as a result of their dietary requirements:

"I think some of the children with allergies always bring their own packed lunches. The catering staff know that these children have allergies and I think things like peanuts aren't in the meals anyway, but the parents just being extra cautious, so some of these kids tend not have free meals, they tend to take packed lunches."
Headteacher

4.88 Indeed, the responses to the quantitative questionnaire support this view. Of the 332 parents who indicated that their child does not always have a school meal, very few (4%, n=14) cited dietary needs as an influencing factor. Of these 13, 6 pupils are vegetarian, 3 do not always have school meals because of religious needs they do not feel are always catered for, while 2 cited allergies. Providers suggested that they would be able to cater for them should this be required. However, although very few parents indicated that their child did not take school meals because they were vegetarian, some felt the vegetarian choice and variety was limited.

4.89 While most case study schools received very few requests for halal foods, one school had encountered considerable demand but had not experienced any serious complications as a result of the trial. Parents thought that the halal food provided was adequate but not necessarily the same kind of foods that the children would eat at home.

4.90 Teaching and catering staff encountered some problems with children not being aware of their requirements, for example, in knowing that only some of the food was halal and that they should only be eating that. Canteen staff talked of having to be 'on the ball' to ensure 'no-one slips past':

"We've got to watch some of the kids that are allergic to things as well. We've got a few of them … they would just eat anything."
Canteen Staff

"Well some of them are and some of them aren't [aware that it should be halal they are looking for]. We've got one wee lassie… she is halal, but the days the chicken burger is on she'll ask for the chicken burger and we say, 'you can't have that, it's not halal' … then it is the tears, 'can I have that?' and then it is the same when the ham is on, the sandwich with the ham, she will ask for that."
Canteen Staff

4.91 Again however, stakeholders indicated that this was an issue pre-trial and, at worst, had slowed down service in the early days of the trial because of having to teach the 'new' uptake 'how things worked'. As one headteacher noted:

"We had big signs saying 'not halal', but some of the children, you were really struggling to have this conversation with them. 'Tell me…' - this is all to get one child up to the hatch, 'are you Muslim?… Okay do you go to Mosque?… Should you be eating halal food?' This is just all to try and make sure - obviously when the children are a bit more older, they are bit more articulate, then that's fine, they know that there is the big sign there, that says 'not halal', so it means that everything else is fine for me to eat, but that slows things down even more to begin with."
Headteacher

4.92 Indeed, as one headteacher noted:

"The problem is, they didn't have discussions about halal food in the house because obviously, in their own house everything that is prepared for them is appropriate for them to eat."
Headteacher

« Previous | Contents | Next »