7. The impact of delegation on meals
for the whole week or to pay for meals for half a term in advance. Of the case study
primary schools, three offered a cash system with pupils paying on the day, albeit for a
set meal. Whilst this did raise operational difficulties for the kitchen staff, the service
offered families the flexibility of deciding on the day whether to take meals, and had
increased take-up on certain weekdays.
7.8 Contractors and schools stressed the importance of making dining areas attractive to
pupils to encourage take up. Several case study schools talked specifically of the
upgrading of serving areas as part of their renegotiated contracts. Others had made
improvements from their own resources.
Hot or cold
7.9 Some schools had moved from hot meals to a sandwich service. For many, this had
been an emotive issue although not necessarily perceived as reducing the quality of the
meals provided or reducing the nutritional standards. Indeed, there was strong feeling
that this had in some cases improved provision. The contract manager in the LEA in
which hot meals had been replaced by packed lunches in six middle schools commented
that this had probably offered pupils a better balanced option.
Those schools which have closed hot meal service and converted to the packed lunch, the overall
feeling is that those children who eat the packed lunch do get a better balanced meal than if
they were using a cash cafeteria.
7.10 In another LEA, where the central contract had changed from a hot meals service to
sandwich and soup provision provided by a private contractor, the contracts officer
admitted that her initial reservations had proved ungrounded.
Personally I wasn’t happy about going over to the sandwich plus option because of the area the
schools serve, the hot meal was the only hot meal the children were getting. But since the
introduction of this service there’s less waste. The children do eat what is supplied.
7.11 One primary school which had opted for the central contract sandwich provision was
pleased with the provision and believed that pupils received nutritious meals. However,
withdrawing the hot meal had reduced the opportunity that type of provision had given
the school to teach pupils the value of eating together. The hot meal had been arranged
with ‘family’ service, with pupils of mixed ages sitting together, and with an emphasis on
the social aspect of meals and on table manners.
We are in a social area where there are a great many problems and in some cases table
manners are not high on the agenda and a hot meal with a knife and fork gave us the chance
to do that. With the new service that has gone out the window, with sandwiches they are getting
it in a [fast food paper carrier] bag, it doesn’t lead to that. When we lost the family service we
lost the opportunity to reinforce that. We still make them sit properly and all that, but they
don’t use a knife and fork so you can’t do the very nuts and bolts of it.
7.12 Pupils too had enjoyed the ambience of the family service and regretted its passing.
We used to have, like on every table, we used to have Year 6s or Year 5s serving people, like
the little ones with spoons and that and it was good because you were like helping them and
you had time to ask them, to talk to different people and that.
[And what was the food like?]
It was big sausages and gravy and potato. And after that you got a pudding. You got hot
custard or jam roll, things like that.
37