3. Changes in provision with delegated budgets
the contracts to provide up-front capital investments and offering to return a cash
percentage of turnover to schools. These negotiations had been necessary because
schools had become aware of the commercial incentives that private contracting
companies would offer for their contact.
3.12 In some instances, contractors themselves made approaches to schools whose contracts
they did not wish to lose, to offer new facilities to schools. One large case study school
had been delighted with the terms offered by the private contractor that had previously
supplied the school via the LEA central contract, and had agreed to a new three-year
individual contract. The head teacher explained that the existing provision had been run
down and needed substantial upgrading.
The LEA never pumped thousands into the kitchen service. If you saw the kitchens before we
worked together, the windows were dropping out, the roof was leaking, the equipment was
obsolete. It was horrendous.
The contractor had refurbished the kitchen and paid for a new servery to enhance the
appearance of the dining facilities. The contractor had also installed nine tills to speed
up the service and reduce queuing.
Finding a new supplier
3.13 For schools dissatisfied with their existing provision or facing substantial changes in
LEA provision, delegation provided the opportunity to find a new supplier. The head
teacher of a small rural primary school described the situation that led to the school
opting for a hot meal supplied from the nearby village pub.
Before delegation, we were in the county system and the meals were actually cooked at [village]
primary school three miles up the road, packaged up in metal containers and shipped out to us.
The meals weren’t too beautiful but then again, it’s very difficult to do that when you have to
pack them up and bring them over. But the quality of them was not brilliant by any means.
We did go into the best buy business, we looked at [county preferred private contractor]. The
problem with that was that we were so far from anywhere that they were offering us sandwiches
at a very high premium. We weren’t large enough to warrant a hot meal coming here.
3.14 The head teacher, the governors and the supplier all believed that keeping a good meal
service was vital to the school. The supplier herself recalled her own school lunches
positively and believed that they were an experience that children should not miss, and
the governors agreed that money should be allocated from the budget to subsidise the
meals.
3.15 In another LEA, governors and head teachers of a group of voluntary-aided secondary
schools (two of which had been dissatisfied with DSO provision) decided to leave
central services at delegation, to form their own consortium, with meals supplied by an
outside caterer. Post-contract, the schools negotiated with the caterer to split the
consortium, and operate at individual school level. However, one school was
dissatisfied with the service being provided, and was also in dispute with the caterer
regarding issues of profits and loss. The school withdrew, amicably, from the contract,
with the support of the LA Catering Manager, and returned to the DSO on a yearly
contract basis.
3.16 Another positive experience was provided by a city secondary school which was
contracted with the LEA central service for the main school cafeteria. A governor
20