Guest post: 'Offering every infant child a healthy school meal has just become a reality'

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

With school cooks, head teachers and caterers gathered in Whitehall to celebrate the launch of 'Universal Free School Meals' last night, the deputy prime minister pointed out in his speech of thanks, that we don't need university based studies and hoards of scientists telling us what we intuitively know - that school children work better in the afternoon with a healthy, balanced lunch in their tummies versus a jam sandwich and sugary drink.

But the good thing about the free school meals is that, actually, we do have the research to prove just that, in the form of a pilot study carried out in Durham and Newham between 2009 and 2011.

It showed that children who were given healthy, free school lunches were two months ahead academically compared with their contemporaries, as well as revealing an almost 25% increase in vegetables being eaten, an 18% reduction in crisps and a fall in consumption of sugary drinks.

The lunches also led to children eating together. Socialising around the lunch table. Trying new foods. Experiencing new tastes. Having a go with new textures.

Universal free school meals for primary school children were a key recommendation in the independently produced School Food Plan, published by Henry Dimbleby and John Vincent in July last year.

To the astonishment of most people in the ‘business’ of delivering school dinners - from the civil servants to the school cooks, the local authorities to the head teachers - together they have virtually pulled off this vision for children from reception through to the end of year two.

However, many questions have been raised. Questions like ‘why stop at year 2?’, ‘how do we know standards will be kept up?’, and 'what about the hundreds of schools who haven't been able to get the service up and running?’ In spite of much-hyped horror stories of teachers trekking to the local pub to buy in sandwiches, the vast majority of schools are on board and able to offer free school meals, and for those who are struggling, a further £150m and a dedicated support service has been set up to offer advice and help to make the grade.

And now that the majority have signed up, the task is to maintain standards. How do we stop schools going off-piste? This will partly be down to parent-power, but from January, school cooks will be preparing lunches to comply with food-based regulations such as limiting fried foods and pastry-based foods to twice a week and using low fat milk.

These food-based regulations are much easier for cooks and parents to understand. If, as a parent, you look at the school lunch menu and think ‘hang on, there are more chips and chocolate sponge pudding on the menu than there should be’, then you can go to your school and lobby to get things on track.

People have questioned why parents who can afford to pay for school lunches should benefit - isn't it a waste of money? I don't think so. Beyond the fact that parents who are struggling will no longer be landed with a £400 bill every year, the scheme means that everyone - whether their parents could afford that bill or not - is eating and enjoying food together.

A friend of mine's little girls tried school lunches for the first month in reception last year. A combination of being frightened by the size and system in the dining room - as lots of reception children are - and her best friend having sandwiches in another part of the hall meant she was crying into a jacket potato most days, eating virtually nothing and falling out of school at 3.20pm white as a sheet and with her concentration levels long since blown to smithereens.

Now, her best friend is having the free school lunch, which in turn has given my friend's daughter the confidence to have them too. This is great for her, but also good for the school lunch system - now she's in it, she’s likely to stay in it, and be a crucial ‘customer’ to the end of her school years.

The bottom line is this: we know that a healthy school lunch can improve a child’s academic performance - and we also know that, according to research, only 1% of packed lunches meet the nutritional guidelines that currently apply to school foods. Having everyone eat together can also help embed social skills around the dining table. The goal to offer every infant child a healthy, tasty school meal has just become a reality, and surely this should be celebrated.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03b2zbk

The Durham and Newham studies were discussed on 'More or Less' on R4 last year.

Apparently:

• Parents observed no changes in behaviour
• Overall food consumption didn't change when taking into account what was eaten at home.
• Some teachers saw improvements in behaviour, some didn't.
• Performance did improve, but only amongst those who would have been eligible for fsm anyway. Therefore a wider study is needed to establish the link between fsm and improved results.
• The schools that took part in the study were given refurbished kitchens, staff were trained and the scheme was promoted to local families.
• The 'Hawthorn effect' may have been in operation - i.e. if you study people and tell them what you think you will find they will try to meet your expectations. Also, it's nice to be studied and feel 'special'.
• These were disadvantaged areas - there is no wider study to show that this will make much difference in other areas.
• The reduction in crisps was more to do with the fact that crisps are a typical 'packed lunch' food. There was also a reduction in fresh fruit eaten.

I'm sure these studies provided some information, but let's not get carried away. If Tim Harford is raising an eyebrow, so am I.

If, as a parent, you look at the school lunch menu and think ‘hang on, there are more chips and chocolate sponge pudding on the menu than there should be’, then you can go to your school and lobby to get things on track.

Or maybe just give them a healthy packed lunch?

I really don't think we should have to be lobbying not to have chips and chocolate sponge on the menu too often. Surely the whole premise of this is to give children a healthy meal? Things like brown bread and not too many empty starches should be the starting point, not something that needs to be lobbied for!

last week dd had fish fingers and wedges twice and omelette, baked beans and chips the other day. Puddings have been ice cream, muffins and a cookie.

Like everyone else on the thread her lunch box was a lot healthier and I always made sure it had a mix of fruit and dairy in their too. I'll admit to the occasional "treat" thrown in but I never ever packed crisps or puddings in.

I'm giving it the full 3 weeks (that's how long our menu plan runs for) but I am not impressed so far.

And I would be a lot happier to see full fat milk on the menu (and less bloody pizza and fish fingers)

And what ha
Opens in the mean time. People let their kids eat crap and suffer the consequences the duration of the campaign?

Happens

Aren't all those saying that the school meals are not good quality also suggesting that those children that have always been on school meal have received poor quality meals from the start? If either of my children didn't tell me they enjoyed lunch at school I would give them packed lunch regardless of lunch being free or not.

I would be horrified however if a school was providing sandwiches as their lunch, these are the schools that should have full investment from the government to provide a proper kitchen.

As for those that are saying that the cost covered is not being covered in full could they provide the source for that info since its not been reported in any main media I can find and its totally news to me.

Lobby the school I hear you say!!?

We tried, we failed. A group of about 20 parents in our city school raised concerns about the menu. There was no compromise reached and no flexibility in the menu despite parental requests. In addition the head and staff have a very poor idea of healthy food. Their own children attended the school with packed lunches of crisps, white bread, chocolate bars and sausage rolls last year. I guess school dinners must seem quite healthy to them!

Yes, I think school meals in many areas have been poor quality for years - no school kitchens, low budgets, catering outsourced to the cheapest providers so you get heavily processed food being kept warm for hours before being dished up in fairly odd combinations, and popular items running out before later sittings so the last batch of children through the system get no choice or tiny portions. The menus schools send out often sound fine, but the reality is usually dried-up, unhealthy and unappetising. Which is why my DCs always had packed lunches at primary school.

Obviously some schools do manage to do it better through higher budgets or on-site catering or better outside caterers, so it is possible to do decent school meals, but it certainly isn't happening everywhere.

We have accepted that we will stick to healthy packed lunches rather them unhealthy school dinners. Our caterers are supposed to be one of the best. The best, my arse!!

We let ds4 have the free dinners last week, he had burger and chips and ice cream and fish fingers and chips and choice muffin!

Today he took a packed lunch. We only ever gave the madthings a School dinner as a treat ie the themed meals they do and the Xmas meal etc or if we had been away and we're out of pack up stuff.

I hoped the meals would have improved now but no, it's the same processed crap all prepared off site and brought in and heated up, yuck. And I have spoken to the school but it's contracted out by county council to Norse who do all the school meals in Norfolk I think?

To everyone that says they have lobbied and or are not happy with quality this will only change if you follow the right procedure to do it. Saying "I/we have spoken to the head is not enough. Also they may rightly so say it is contracted out but it will only be contracted out for a certain time. Find out this time and fine out when the appropriate time to lobby fir a change in provider will be.

Remember if you feel you are not being listened to you can formally request this is reviewed by the governors. Find out the right process for your school and follow it. The larger the group of parents that are not happy the more the school is obliged to listen, but only if you follow the process. Just not being happy about it is not enough.

Our school menus are set by the lea and the same in every school. So no amount of complaing to school would change thing

Re the funding, just google 'free school meals funding' in the Google News section and you will get literally hundreds of articles showing that there simply hasn't been the necessary investment from the government.

Just a small selection of articles showing funding shortfall in different parts of the country:

www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11457372.Council_facing_free_school_meals_funding_shortfall/

www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/11447427._Funding_shortfall__over_free_school_meals/?ref=la

www.sevenoakschronicle.co.uk/infants-free-school-meals-despite-lack-funds/story-22810511-detail/story.html

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/aug/29/primary-school-free-meals-pledge-pub-sandwiches

Sirzy - That will only be because the school has agreed to a contract with the LEA

Findesemaine -

Local Government Association research found nearly half of councils did not receive enough funding in time for the start of the school year. - Indicating that the shortfall will be made up just that it wasn't around for the start, so overall not really a shortfall just a cash flow problem

“But this will still leave 129 which cannot produce their own lunches although some of those schools would never have the scope to add a kitchen. The £2.7 million allows us to provide a meal for every infant in Kent but to have done it properly we would probably needed about £7 million.

This one is a problem with the fact these schools did not have a kitchen, I would expect every school to have a kitchen in the first place so again this is firstly a councils problem for allowing this to take place and secondly a facilities issue. Would a business expect staff to have no access to food at lunch time?

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/aug/29/primary-school-free-meals-pledge-pub-sandwiches

Story is again a lack of planning and facilities.

www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11457372.Council_facing_free_school_meals_funding_shortfall/

Again facilities and piss poor planning in the first place.

The problem is councils have made a conscious decision to not invest in these areas and such had to dip into funds to bring services in line.

If all school children suddenly were paying for these meals all of these funds would still have to have been paid out in order to accommodate.

The kitchen provision was something I actually questioned before choosing a school.

I don't think the government ever offered to provide anything more than a per meal budget.

Therefore, obviously, schools will have to meet the difference if they have additional infrastructure, admin or staff costs or want to provide a more expensive meal.

I think the stuff about lobbying rather misses the point. This is supposed to be making it easy for all children to access healthy food. It isn't supposed to be dependant on them having the kind of parents who start petitions, investigate alternative food providers and lobby the governors.

How do we stop schools going off-piste? This will partly be down to parent-power

Um, weren't those the people who couldn't be trusted not to send their children to school with a 'jam sandwich and a sugary drink'?

I would expect every school to have a kitchen in the first place

DS's old infant school didn't have a school kitchen for a couple of decades - it was converted into a class room years ago. In the last five years they have had to build 3 extra classrooms to accommodate increased intake. (SW London)

They now do have a school kitchen, but that has been built on playground space.

Whether or not the school has a kitchen and whether or not that is the council's fault, and whether the council is Tory, Labour or libdem it still costs money to build a new kitchen.

Local Government Association research found nearly half of councils did not receive enough funding in time for the start of the school year. - Indicating that the shortfall will be made up just that it wasn't around for the start, so overall not really a shortfall just a cash flow problem

Given that the meals are already supposed to be being provided, it's a bit more far-reaching than a cashflow problem, really. It's a basic lack of planning, forethought and knowledge of the issues from the people who came up with the idea. And there are tons of schools without kitchens. The requirement to have kitchens etc was recently removed by the same government who came up with the brilliant wheeze of making schools provide lunches for all KS1 children only a couple of years later.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19877351

FinDeSemaine

I am not saying that it isn't stupid that a requirement of a kitchen was removed but I am glad you agree that every school should have a kitchen. However I am glad you can see the situation is not about the cost of meal provision per day but capital investment in the school in the first place.

As for the view that "the kitchen was converted to a class room due to expansion"

Over the last five years our school has added four classrooms, each time the thought of removing the kitchen was always seen as madness. Again this is down to school management and governorship to make this decision. Did any of these schools make people think outside of the box to create a new classroom? Probably not.

Just because a requirement for something is removed doesn't mean it should be.

Again this is down to school management and governorship to make this decision. Did any of these schools make people think outside of the box to create a new classroom? Probably not.

This was done years ago - different board of governors, different head, different council members, different hot topics in education.

I don't think it was so much a case of not 'thinking outside the box'. It was probably more that when the kitchen was decommissioned nobody had heard of Jamie Oliver, school dinners weren't a 'hot' topic, and they were probably trying to follow some other government directive with limited funds.

Equally schools have been built without kitchens.

Perhaps you are right, maybe all the schools who have had to divert money from elsewhere to pay for kitchens should have been stashing money away in a special 'maybe one day free school meals will be compulsory' fund. Maybe they are incompetent. However, blaming schools or parents doesn't make the policy any more effective when it is supposed to help children regardless of their parents or where they go to school.

merry mouse,

I think you will find my point was actually that people are saying that the school is having to pay more per meal than is being funded which is not the case. The only thing having to be paid out for re-commissioning/establishing a kitchen and even though there has been over a year to plan for this some people are acting as though this came out the day before schools went back.

Hope this clears the confusion up for you as to my point.

1. You can include the cost of the kitchen, additional use of school hall, cutlery and additional school staff as a cost per meal or as an overhead, it still costs money.

2. Whether a school has had 2 years, 6 months or a week to budget for a new kitchen (And as far as I am aware the funding details weren't announced until December), it still costs money.

3. Even if every school bursar and council member claiming that they have had to spend money above and beyond what has been provided by government is incompetent or a crook; and they are lying when they say that they have had to spend money from their own reserves or divert funds from elsewhere, to be worthwhile this policy has to be effective despite councils, schools and parents.

There is no point in free school meals if they only help children from the right background living in the right area with the right parents - they don't need help.

The problem is councils have made a conscious decision to not invest in these areas and such had to dip into funds to bring services in line.

Probably flashing it around managing asbestos, upgrading toilets, improving disability access and funding SEN.