1. Background to the Study
individual contracts and schools that had negotiated consortium contracts. Case study
schools were selected to provide examples of monitoring using private services, LEA
services and no external monitoring. Additionally, four had gained Healthy School
Awards, one was an Accelerated Learning School (where the meal provision was seen as
integral to the accelerated learning process), and one had won the School Chef of the
Year award in recent years.
1.10 No special schools were included in the case study selection. Interviews during Strand 2
suggested that on the whole, the meal provision for special schools changed very little in
response to delegation. Even in areas where the central service have been scaled down
to a sandwich service, special schools tend to have retained their own hot meal kitchens.
Strand 3 Data collection
1.11 Nine schools were selected for full case studies. In these schools, semi-structured
interviews were conducted with school staff at all levels involved in meal provision,
including the school head teacher and/or bursar, catering and dinner supervision staff
and, where appropriate, outside meal suppliers. A member of the governing body, most
often the Chair of Governors was also interviewed. Interviews were conducted with
over 100 pupils, in formal groups during class time or in small informal groups during
the lunch period, to elicit their views and experiences.
1.12 A sample of parents of pupils attending the case study primary schools were contacted
via a letter sent from the school and explaining the purpose of the research. Parents
were invited to send their contact details, via a Freepost envelope to the research team.
Short semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with the 3% of parents who
responded.
1.13 At six schools, only a limited range of interviews were conducted with school and
catering staff and governors where appropriate. Pupils and parents were not included in
the data collection.
Structure of the report
1.14 The report is structured with the following sections
• Section 2 looks at the processes of delegation, consultation, calculation of delegation
formulae and issues around the ring fencing of delegated funds.
• Section 3 describes how schools took up their delegated funding and the extent to
which delegation led to changes in the suppliers of meals in schools.
• Section 4 examines the impact of delegation on the kitchen and dining
accommodation of schools in terms of maintenance and capital expenditure.
• Section 5 reviews the evidence of support provided for schools at delegation
• Section 6 describes the services in place to monitor meals provided in schools
• Section 7 examines the impact of delegation on school meals in terms of take-up,
quality, pricing and nutritional standards.
• Section 8 assesses the impact of delegation on central services
• Section 9 identifies the key points raised by the study.
10