3. Changes in provision with delegated budgets
The consortium was set up in consultation with parents, who were very supportive of
the venture, including paying half termly in advance for meals to improve cash flow.
The kitchen used local suppliers, insisted on good quality fresh fruit and vegetables, and
provided a set hot meal, sandwich choice, and salad bar. An indication of its success
was that another school asked to join the consortium.
3.20 One primary school decided not to enter its LEA’s PFI contract with an outside caterer.
It undertook a feasibility study on providing the meals itself, using frozen foods and
regeneration ovens, a system previously trialled under the LEA. The Governing Body
had decided to take this option when the study indicated that this would be
commercially profitable and earn revenue for the school, for further improvements in
the service.
Closing down
3.21 Several LEAs reported that some schools in their areas had closed down their kitchens
when funds were delegated. The Contract Manager in an LEA where six schools had
closed their kitchens described this as a direct result of delegation:
Without the introduction of Fair Funding, that wouldn’t have happened because the bigger
schools prop them up. The bigger schools now reap the benefit because they have good
individual contracts, which actually address issues of capital equipment.....
3.22 The bursar at one school reported not wanting to take the delegated budget because the
school was aware that the meal service, provided from a private contractor via the
central contract was not financially viable without subsidy. With only 7% of pupils
entitled to free school meal, the school estimated that it would have to subsidise the
provision by at least £7000 from the annual budget to maintain a hot meal service.
After consulting with parents and despite some objections from a minority, the
governors decided that they would prefer not to keep the service. Packed lunches for
free school meals were provided via the central contract. The governors had considered
installing sandwich and drinks machines or having a sandwich service brought in, but a
survey of parents had produced only a 10% response. The school offered no paid food
or drink provision on the premises. One advantage of the decision was that the school
had acquired more space, the kitchen areas had been decommissioned and the school
now had a dedicated space for the library (previously accommodated in a corridor), new
SEN and ICT suites.
It was successful. At the end of the day, our delegation was going to be £1300 from the LEA
and we would have had to contribute another £7000 towards that to maintain the kitchen ....
Now when parents see what we have put into the school, they are applauding the decision.
There were afew losers but the majority, and the school as a whole, has benefitedfrom what we
did.
Limited options
3.23 Despite the freedom schools were given under delegation to choose the supplier of their
meals, several respondents mentioned that, in reality, that choice was often limited.
Small schools might be expected to experience difficulties in finding a supplier, because
they were not commercially attractive to a major contractor and because no smaller
supplier was available in the locality. However several large secondary schools described
similar difficulties in locating a suitable supplier. The head teacher of one school
acknowledged the advantages that delegation in principle offers in terms of giving
schools choice, but her school had found little choice in the marketplace.
22