4. Looking after the kitchen
matched funding. But this is a poor area and they often struggle in this area because there are
no large businesses to provide sponsorship.
4.12 A recent trend has been for LEAs to enter into PFI contracts with developers in
schools that needed substantial new building investment. Here, the developer takes
over the running of the school, apart from its teaching functions, with catering services
being sub-contracted out. In one such school, this had resulted in much improved
kitchen and dining facilities that were greatly welcomed both by the head teacher and
the cook, who had been retained by the catering sub-contractor.
4.13 Delegation also affected the way capital repairs to kitchens were prioritised and
undertaken, with one LEA commenting that schools outside the LEA catering contract
were able to bid for capital as any other. While the LEA would do this for schools
within their contract, those with their own budgets would have to do this themselves.
But, as the officer pointed out, ‘classrooms take priority’.
4.14 It is not surprising that schools were enthusiastic in taking up offers of financial
assistance to improve kitchens and that this became a bargaining tool when negotiating
or renegotiating contracts. The governor of a large secondary school admitted that they
were currently seeking help for a new kitchen floor and the future contract might well
hang on that alone.
The bursar is looking around now at the possibility of changing [supplier] because the kitchen
is a mess and needs a lot of money spent on it, especially the floor. There is current discussion
with the central provider around what needs doing, and the school has a different view from the
authority.
4.15 Several LEAs believed that the issue of maintaining the kitchen had swayed the decision
to retain the meal service or not, in some schools. One LEA Education Finance
Manager foresaw schools opting out of retaining kitchens in the future, simply because
of concerns about costs for repair and maintenance.
The funding formula for schools made no difference between schools that have kitchens and
those that do not. One school was therefore concerned that they were having more costs because
of their on-site kitchen than a school that has no kitchen, and they were looking to say ‘We
don’t want a kitchen’.
Summary
4.16 The study found that issues of kitchen maintenance and replacement were among those
that had been least understood in the delegation process. Repair and maintenance
budgets previously held by LEAs, even if fairly limited, allowed for upkeep and
refurbishment of kitchens in schools, on a rolling basis. Divided between all schools in
an authority, the budgets were small, with implications for when repairs and
maintenance could be undertaken. Many schools and governors appeared unprepared
for their responsibilities in this, and unsure what equipment they might retain at
delegation. Resolving these thorny issues had been time-consuming and difficult for
LEAs. Likewise, the division of ownership and responsibility between school and
contractor in relation to kitchen equipment had often not been appreciated prior to
delegation.
26