The name is absent



2. Delegation Process

wouldn’t be very popular. So we are probably just stuck with collecting that extra piece of data
each year.

2.16 In some LEAs a specific sum had been delegated for repairs and maintenance (R&M) to
kitchens and kitchen equipment. Again several methods for assessing this portion of
the budget were reported. In two LEAs, each school received a basic capital sum, plus
an additional element based on the number of pupils on the roll. One LEA used the
square footage of kitchen as the basis for assessing the division by school.

The secondary schools get the repair and maintenance budget divided up on the square footage
of the kitchen as we felt that this was the fairest way of doing that. The primary schools have
no kitchens and at least this way, smaller secondary and the middle schools in particular, had
a fairer chance of maintaining their services.

2.17 In others, the total R&M budget was divided up equally between the schools, regardless
of the number of meals served or size of kitchen.

2.18 One LEA encountered problems explaining to secondary schools leaving the central
contract that there was no budget for school meals beyond the payment to cover free
meals. Revenue from paid meals had been used for all repairs, maintenance and kitchen
refurbishment work for many years. The LEA officer believed that private contractors
had misled schools on this issue, perhaps based on their experiences in other LEAs
where there were budgets for this work. This had led to some uneasiness, with schools
feeling that part of their budget was being withheld.

2.19 One LEA that reported having nothing to delegate apart from the free school meal
budget and small sums for repairs and maintenance, related how they had had to put an
extra sum of money into the free school meal budget, ‘
because of consternation from head
teachers that having taken responsibility for the meals service, the budget would not be big enough to
sustain free school meals
’. This had resulted in about a 6% increase in the overall free
school meal budget (approximately £75,000 per year to be shared between schools) to
pay for free school meals take up at that time. Another LEA reported delegating all its
central meals budget, but then also creating a separate small budget of £7-8,000 for
client satisfaction costs, which they used for monitoring nutritional standards and health
and safety. Here, the schools meals budget had been carefully reviewed the September
prior to delegation, in anticipation of the change.

2.20 Only one LEA reported making changes in the formula since the delegation process
began, moving from take up of free school meal to entitlement and then back to take
up. The business adviser at one school in the LEA had found these changes in the
delegation formula inhibiting for long term planning. The school, with a high
proportion of pupils taking free school meals, had not felt confident to negotiate its
contract with the outside catering contractor for more than one year at a time. A one
year contract limited the capital investment the contractor was prepared to make
towards refurbishment of the school kitchens and dining areas. Additionally, during the
year in which the budget had been based on entitlement, the LEA had requested that
schools return unspent monies. This had not been popular with schools and one head
teacher questioned the legality of the request.

I can’t see how it is legal to have an agreed budget which the governors agree as the legal
custodians of the school and then the LEA to change the goal posts and the money to be

14



More intriguing information

1. Mean Variance Optimization of Non-Linear Systems and Worst-case Analysis
2. Pupils’ attitudes towards art teaching in primary school: an evaluation tool
3. Impacts of Tourism and Fiscal Expenditure on Remote Islands in Japan: A Panel Data Analysis
4. Computational Batik Motif Generation Innovation of Traditi onal Heritage by Fracta l Computation
5. Dementia Care Mapping and Patient-Centred Care in Australian residential homes: An economic evaluation of the CARE Study, CHERE Working Paper 2008/4
6. AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE PRODUCTION EFFECTS OF ADOPTING GM SEED TECHNOLOGY: THE CASE OF FARMERS IN ARGENTINA
7. The name is absent
8. Trade and Empire, 1700-1870
9. Flatliners: Ideology and Rational Learning in the Diffusion of the Flat Tax
10. The name is absent
11. Integrating the Structural Auction Approach and Traditional Measures of Market Power
12. Meat Slaughter and Processing Plants’ Traceability Levels Evidence From Iowa
13. The name is absent
14. An Economic Analysis of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Consumption: Implications for Overweight and Obesity among Higher- and Lower-Income Consumers
15. Empirical Calibration of a Least-Cost Conservation Reserve Program
16. The name is absent
17. The name is absent
18. The Global Dimension to Fiscal Sustainability
19. New urban settlements in Belarus: some trends and changes
20. How we might be able to understand the brain