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.

Yes I agree the only way to change the menu is to go with a different provider and avoid the supposedly gold standard (yet totally rubbish) county council provider. Hopefully the present contract is only for one year and we can look at healthier more flexible providers.

Pmsl at the idea if choosing a school on the basis of it having a kitchen or not.

For starters many parents do not get any choice, you get your catchment school and many can't get that.

And actually when I was looking at schools the feel of the school was more important, the atmosphere, that it was a happy and engaging environment. Plus outside space and for us we were lucky enough that one of our local schools has its own swimming pool on site and all pupils get lessons from rec through to leaving for high school. But we are incredibly fortunate to live in an area where there genuinely was a bit of choice re schools and that varies depending on the birth rate which has consistently going up. I am in the fortunate position of elder sibling born in lower birth rate years so they got places and younger ones benefit from the sibling ruling.

This whole free meals thing is a joke, not all kids need them. Thru should spend money on decent free meals for families that need them and on getting children that need it support in the classroom. Much better use of resources than free lunches for all.

Hi 5madthings,

If you would like to read my statement again you will see I said it was something I took into CONSIDERATION. But you were probably too busy laughing to take that in.

As for choice everyone can exercise a choice even if it doesn't happen but if everyone wanted kitchens in schools do you not think it would happen?

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

Well actually none of these things have money taken from them since they are all requirements legally and when it comes to upgrading toilets again that sadly seen as a side project by most schools.

As for including cutlery, crockery and the cost of the kitchen in the cost of a meal, you could yes but only if you factored it over the number of meals produced over the life of these objects which would prob be a very negligible cost over the life of these items so lets be realistic rather than sensationalist.

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.

Actually, I don't think people were saying that. They were saying that the full cost of this initiative has not been funded. It has not. That is because recently, the government has been keen to expand existing schools no matter the detriment to their current/future pupils instead of trying to build new ones - instead they've left that to the ludicrously overfunded free schools programme.

Our school, to take one local and small case, has been expanded to the tune of more than a hundred pupils over the school. We have had not only to find several new classrooms from the available space (which simply cannot be made larger in any way) but also to expand the kitchen. There has been some funding for building work to accommodate this but there is certainly no possibility of adding actual rooms to the building. It is a Victorian building on a tiny site and the playground space is already seriously overcrowded. There was already not enough space to feed all pupils properly in the time available leading to a lot of rushed meals and upset children. Playground space is so tiny that there are incidents every day of children being caught up in other kids' games and injured unintentionally. It's only going to get worse, quite honestly. The school meals thing has been an absolute nightmare in terms of feeding approximately twice the previous number of children in the same space and within the same time constraints. The kitchen is being upgraded and gaining a tiny amount of space from the reception area but it's not really good enough. The meals aren't good enough either. It's badly thought out, it's been badly carried out, most children won't benefit from it and it's taking money away from budgets which schools wanted to spend on educating our children.

No, people were actively saying that the cost of the meals was not being met with one I believe stating each meal was 50p short per meal.

As for time constraints have things been looked at like staggering breaks or such? As. Said before what would happen if everyone decided to pay for lunch? It would be the same situation.

You are bringing in other factors of this which is not part of the free school meal debate but a wider issue.

what would happen if everyone decided to pay for lunch?

Well, but they wouldn't. Because the lunch offered is genuinely a big pile of crap. Previously a very small number of children not on FSM took it up. I will be interested to see how things pan out as the term progresses.

As for bringing other factors in, well, that's true. But our school is certainly not alone in facing these issues, far from it. It is not sensible to rush in a policy like this without providing adequate funding and taking account of the very real issues schools are already facing. How could it be?

As for staggering breaks and lunch, that's all very well, and of course schools do it. But there is a reason why they would prefer to have breaks reasonably evenly distributed throughout the day!

Because the lunch offered is genuinely a big pile of crap

So then work towards doing something about it rather than working against it? Or is that too simplistic?

Well yes, it is. Because it's easier (and cheaper for those who are paying for children in KS2) to just pack up a healthy lunch of nice things that your children will eat and enjoy rather than waiting for the wheels to grind slowly round while the school's senior management team get their heads round the fact that some people genuinely do want their children to eat well. All children eating well will require a lot more money than is currently being spent.

I don't think I've ever spent a whole ten pounds a week on my daughter's lunches, which is about what a week of school dinner would cost, but she's always had nice things to eat. Because every penny of what I was spending went on actual food. In the school lunches scenario, you have to spend money on staff and space and time and cooking costs as well.

Unless we want to spend actual money on school dinners, they will probably never be of an acceptable standard. This policy is driving things the other way to a state where children are fed to the bare minimum of what's acceptable, and that's not actually something I find desirable. I would far rather see any money that's been put into this directed towards a) raising the threshold for FSM and b) improving their quality. That way, at least the children who really need it might actually be getting a decent meal.

The guest post makes me chortle. DD told me she chose a jam sandwich and some orange juice at school today, I shit you not. Things I don't give her at home. She's all for this policy!
I know I'm coming to this late but really, the way it is working out in practice, what an odd thing to prioritise spend on. I'd rather the school didn't need to come to the PTA for basic estates funding.

domesticslattern

So have you told your daughter what you would rather she did eat and work from their? I agree there is not enough health education at schools but if you are providing it at home then let your daughter realise these and influence her that way?

As for the school coming to the PTA for what you see as basics then is it not up to you as a committee to agree to support or challenge that?

FinDeSemaine

I would say the same to you about education of your child, you are clearly in education but your tone says it all when you say the slt need to "get their head around it" why should it be so adversarial? If you don't raise the issue then you cant help resolve the problem. Although it strikes me from your tone you are happier criticising.

I'm not happier criticising. I heartily wish that I didn't have to. Years of trying to change things for the better have ground me down slightly. And no, I do not work in education, however I am closely involved with my daughter's school and give a lot of time and energy to improving things for all the children who attend it. There are so many more important things that we could be doing than offering kids (many of whose parents would probably be perfectly happy to send them in with an egg sandwich, a yoghurt and an apple) jam sandwiches and orange juice. That money could really be targeted well, if someone were just to think about it a bit. Instead, schools have been forced to use money that was intended to benefit children educationally to deliver something that loads of people don't even want.

As for domesticslattern telling her daughter what to eat, why on earth is her tiny child even being offered a jam sandwich and orange juice for lunch? This is wholly inappropriate and, I thought, exactly what the OP said this policy was designed to prevent.

How can you not see how flawed this is?

And ALL schools rely on the PTA for basics, do they not? Playground equipment, trips to do actual educational stuff, books, writing materials, art materials, tissues for kids with colds, pritt sticks, plasters for skinned knees FGS. Really, when the government is not even funding schools to the level where they can provide these absolute basics without calling on parents, how is it sensible to then tell them to feed their kids for 37p a day or whatever it is and expect it to be healthy? It makes me weep with frustration, quite frankly.

ALL schools rely on the PTA for basics, do they not

Not ours no, all of that is taken care of by our standard budget, granted the PTA does provide £5 per child a year to subsidise a trip but other than that ours is spent on reading corners, an activity trail, additional playground paintings, cost of colourful benches rather than the standard to make the place more welcoming.

These are all things that make school life more enjoyable but by no means essential.

Well you are very lucky then. I don't think that the situation in our school is at all unusual from what friends with children at other local schools have said. Though we do have a higher staff to child ratio than most schools so perhaps the budget is going on that rather than tissues etc. And one trip a year? We try to do at least two per term per class.

We only subsidise one trip, each year group usually goes on one a term plus the whole school going to a panto at Christmas but we still only subsidise one trip otherwise all our money would be spent towards trips.

I have heard of schools "requesting" £10 towards simple stationary items which I think is unacceptable and the chair of governors branded as Victorian. I don't think we are in a lucky situation just that our slt keep a tight track on everything and manage what is a meagre budget quite well.

As for meals if every school didn't try to work to a lowest common denominator (as in lowest cost wins) and worked together to quality than the free market would either loose business or be forced to increase quality.

I look at it like this, a friend of mine was bragging how he had saved £500 off his car insurance for a year. Six months later he is complaining because he is having to pay £500 excess for an accident. My policy has no excess for a tp collision because I chose quality over price.

When contracts are next up for renewal schools should be using this extra purchasing power to force a companies hand.

We would never do a panto. All our trips are museums, wildlife reserves, art galleries, opera, ballet etc, usually with a workshop for the children to do something that is genuinely educational and outside their usual experience. Many of them will never get the opportunity to go somewhere like that apart from with school - one kid I took on a trip to the Natural History Museum a few years ago was saying how he'd love to go back. I said 'maybe your mum or dad could take you' and he looked absolutely shocked. They would never take him. It's about ten stops on the tube (cost would be a couple of quid for travel for one parent and as many children as you have). Parents are obviously asked to pay towards the cost of the trip, but many can't. We could also never request money for stationery items as most parents simply could not afford it.

I think you are naive with regards to how school meals might become more quality-driven. Why do you think they are trying to save money on meals? Do you think it is because they're bastards who like to feed children sugar and shit for lunch or because they need to save money somewhere and this is the easiest place? Also, how high quality a meal do you think you could serve for 37p per kid per day?

By the way, I don't think our management team are doing badly with the budget. On the contrary, I think they manage it pretty well. Unfortunately, it is not enough to provide good education AND basics AND decent meals. And that is where the problem lies. It should be.

We are lucky: ds' school serves excellent school meals and he had a cooked lunch at school before the free meals policy. He's just started in Y2, so he is entitled to free school meals for a year. This will save us about £300, so I should be delighted, right?

The thing is, we're fortunate enough to live in an affluent area where nearly everybody can afford to feed their children well. However, our village school lost a chunk of its funding last year due to a change in the eligibility rules, and had to make two valued members of staff redundant. I can't help feeling that the £30-£35K cost of the free school meals could have been better spent...

Still no OP?

Those of you who are sending your children with carrot/cucumber sticks and houmous, a yogurt and whatever else you deem to be "healthy", I think you are missing the point! The point is children NEED carbs, they need a certain amount of stodgy foods to fill them up and so that they are not hungry. That DOES constitute part of a healthy meal, and those children that have hot lunches do tend to concentrate and work better in the afternoon than those eating the "healthy" packed lunches that you "know they will eat".

My children have always had school dinners, last year this equated to a bill for £45 a week (I have four children). However I am happy with the meals they are provided with, I am happy with the choices on offer and the standard has not changed in offering ks1 children a free meal. At our school most children took up the hot lunches anyway so there is very little difference in the volume of children to be fed, and the children do try foods that if I put in front of them at home they probably wouldn't contemplate. As a result my children will eat most things (apart from dd2, who at 5 has recently became vegetarian).

Our school lunches do not appear to include bread as an option. They have a meat option, a vegetarian option, a pasta dish and jacket potatoes with a variety of fillings are always available. They also have a pudding, sometimes a fruit based, sometimes a cake, but always have the choice of yogurt or fruit too. Children must have a balanced plate, and whilst they do not have to clear the plate most want to, to get the prized "I ate all my lunch" sticker.

Having looked at private schools, most have mandatory school lunches, and did when I attended some twenty odd years ago too. This is not a new thing, and is mainly because it is widely recognised that children do better with a hot lunch. Since Jamie Oliver overhauled the school dinners they are not full of sugar and salt and I would be very interested to compare the fitness levels, academic attainment levels and bmi's of children who take school meals and children whose parents look down on them and send their version of a "healthy" packed lunch.

My kids have always had school dinners, one week into the new regime we are changing to packed lunches. They are coming home hungry and complaining of both quality and quantity of food (they'd eat it even though horrible). And the cost of school dinners has gone up (DC are KS2).

I was picking DS up at lunchtime yesterday (reception and half days) the queue for just year 1 and 2 children for dinners was massive (round 3 walls of the large hall and out the door) today reception children are being added to that (up to 40) with ks2 after that still!

My nephew proclaimed "I am glad I'm on packed Lunches as I have time to eat then play not just queue!"

My sons school has reduced from 3 options (main meal, vegetarian alternative and jacket potato) to two by removing the veggie option.

Apparently its ok as they can have jacket potato and cheese. Every day? There are quite a few children who either dont eat pork or beef or keep halal or kosher and a few true vegetarians aswell.

May be going back to sandwiches.

If you are unhappy with the changes at your own schools then you need to feed that back to school management and look at getting the supplier changed. If enough people do that then things will get better.