5. Support for schools at delegation
5. Support for schools at delegation
5.1 The delegation process was seen by some interest groups as having been a ‘baptism of fire’
for head teachers and governors as they assumed responsibility for meal provision.
Governing bodies were required to understand about tendering and contracts, best use of
kitchens and kitchen staff, as well as acquiring the knowledge to understand and
implement nutritional standards. This section looks at the level of support provided to
schools at delegation, in order to help them take up their new responsibilities.
Initial support
5.2 The study found a substantial variation in the degree of support LEAs provided to
schools as they entered this new area of responsibility. For the most part, support at
delegation was limited to the provision of guidance notes on major issues such as TUPE
(Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)), health and safety, food
hygiene, all responsibilities that transferred to the governing body. Governors reported
receiving very little or nothing in the way of formal guidance and support, although
several LEAs had sent information packs to head teachers and governors, outlining the
issues which they were likely to encounter and offered a service to support schools
through the tendering process at delegation.
5.3 Some LEAs provided support to schools during tendering processes at an agreed fee,
described by one LEA as, ‘to hold schools’ hands’ through the process of tendering. One
school that had used this service spoke warmly about the value of the support it had
received from the LEA. An officer from another LEA, by contrast, commented that
once schools took responsibility for their meals budget, they could not expect the LEA
to assist them with choosing a supplier or managing their contract. If they did want this
service, the LEA would provide it on a consultancy fee basis. The LEA had charged
one secondary school around £2,000 for support throughout the tendering process, and
consequently the school had secured £18,000 investment in its kitchens and dining
rooms. As the officer noted, ‘so it paid for itself’.
5.4 One LEA that otherwise provided minimal support at delegation, bought into a
brokerage service which provided schools with information on a range of service
providers. A number of schools had utilised the service in making their decisions about
meal provision.
5.5 However some schools, particularly larger secondary schools, had sufficient resources
and expertise to enter the tendering process alone, negotiate new contracts or establish
their own services with no additional support from the LEA. Indeed, LEAs mentioned
schools within their authority that had taken the delegated budget enthusiastically,
severed all links with the LEA with regard to school meals and were believed to be
providing a successful service. The approach taken by a governor of one small school
was to obtain a copy of a previous contract and, with suitable amendments and
deletions, to use that for their existing supplier.
5.6 The business manager of a secondary school admitted relying heavily on personal
contacts within the LEA to provide unofficial advice during the first year negotiations
with a private contractor.
28