7. The impact of delegation on meals
7.13 A school in the same authority stressed similar social factors in its rationale for retaining
the hot meal by employing a private contractor. The deputy head saw the role of the
school not only in terms of academic development but also in terms of fulfilling a
developmental function.
Because we are talking about children who do not usually eat around a table. They eat off
their knees or they eat on the move. It’s not just about academic attainment, it’s about
developing the whole child.
Price of meals
7.14 Interviewees from LEAs, private catering contractors, schools and kitchens were very
aware that any rise in prices led to a decrease in the number of meals sold.
7.15 In almost all the case study schools, the price of meals had risen in the time since
delegation. On the whole, these rises had been substantial, generally between 40p and
50p over the past two to three years. One of the most expensive meals had started at
£1.30 but had risen to £1.80. The manager of one private county contract observed:
Next term prices go up to £1.55, up 5p and the third rise in 18 months. With two or three
children, that adds up.
7.16 In pupil interviews, the price of meals was a common complaint and the cost was
frequently cited as the main reason for not having a meal in the cafeteria everyday. For
some, the size of portions relative to cost was an issue, rather than the cost itself, with
the items on sale being seen as poor value for money, especially when compared with
prices elsewhere.
7.17 In one LEA, around half of primary schools and the majority of secondary schools
opted to negotiate individual contracts with the central catering service and pricing of
meals had become a substantial issue. With the cross-subsidy no longer in operation, the
price of meals varied by over a pound from school to school within the LEA.
7.18 The rising price of meals has particular significance for the value of the free school
meal. Whilst this has not in the past been an issue in schools offering a set menu at a
set price, it raises problems in cash cafeterias. At one case study secondary school,
pupils, teachers and kitchen assistants all raised concern that the value of the free school
meal had remained unchanged, whilst prices in the cafeteria had risen several times.
Whilst it was possible to purchase a balanced meal such as a sandwich and fruit, this did
not provide a substantial meal.
7.19 Whilst school staff remarked that prices of food on the menu should go up by realistic
sums, i.e., 1p or 2p as necessary, pupils had other views. They commented that it was
often difficult for them to cope with ‘odd’ prices and that rounded sums made the
adding easier for them. Items were rarely individually priced in cafeterias with the menu
either on the wall or chalked on a board. Working out what they were spending when
items cost 48p and 33p was not always easy, especially when serving staff were urging
them to make quick selections and not to hold up the queue. No one wanted the
embarrassment of arriving at the till to find that they had overspent their dinner money
or their free school meal allowance. A group of pupils at a large secondary school
described the situation in their cafeteria.
38