improving the take up of free school meals · free meals. it identified good models of practice and...

Improving the Take Up

of Free School Meals

RE S E A RCH

Pamela Storey and Rosemary Chamberlin

Thomas Coram Research Unit

Institute of Education

Re s e a rch Re p o rt RR27 0

Research ReportNo 270

Improving the Take Upof Free School Meals

Pamela Storey and Rosemary ChamberlinThomas Coram Research Unit

Institute of Education

The views expressed in this report are the authors' and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education and Employment.

© Crown Copyright 2001. Published with the permission of DfEE on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Applications forreproduction should be made in writing to The Crown Copyright Unit, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, NorwichNR3 1BQ.

ISBN 1 84185 509 XMay 2001

2

Contents

AcknowledgmentsPage

Summary 1

1. Background to the study 41.1 Introduction 41.2 The research programme 5

2. Free school meals and the school 7

3. Getting onto free school meals 93.1 Informing parents about eligibility 93.2 Registering eligibility 113.3 Staying in the system 113.4 Making the decision 12

4. Eating meals in school 134.1 The popularity of school meals 134.2 A place to eat? 144.3 Eating with friends 154.4 Value of the free school meal 164.5 Free school meals and a balanced diet 174.6 Catering for special dietary requirements 194.7 Free packed lunches 204.8 Positive responses to improve take up 22

5. Stigma 235.1 Systems of payment 235.2 The problem of packed lunches 255.3 Being different 26

6. Conclusions and recommendations 296.1 Selling free school meals 296.2 Making the process easy 306.3 Providing a quality meal in congenial surroundings 306.4 Addressing discriminatory practices 30

References 32

Appendix 1: The case study schools 33Appendix 2: Questionnaire survey and interviews with pupils 34Appendix 3: Parent interviews 35

3

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all who contributed to this research, not least to the staff, pupils and parentsof the schools who gave us their time. These many interviewees provided us with the accounts,comments and insights which informed this study. We would also like to thank Tim Marsh fromthe Child Poverty Action Group and Anne Mason, Lorraine Morris and Laura Sukhnandan fromDfEE for their valuable contribution to the study both in discussion and through their commentson the final report

1

Summary

Aims of the study The study examined how the nature of theschool and its meal provision, its managementand administration, influenced the take up offree meals. It identified good models of practiceand successful strategies for schools tomaximise the take up of free provision.

The researchSeven secondary, two middle and four primaryschools in seven LEAs in England were selectedas case studies. Each school was visited to seehow school meals generally, and free schoolmeals in particular, were organised. In additionto observation, over 250 pupils took part ingroup or individual interviews. School andcatering staff were also interviewed. Over 450secondary pupils completed questionnaires andover 50 parents took part in telephoneinterviews. Relevant staff in the LEA were alsointerviewed.

Main findingsStigmaA third of pupils surveyed and over two fifths ofparents identified embarrassment or fear ofbeing teased as a key factor which put peopleoff taking their free meal. Memories of theirown school days coloured parents’ perceptionsof how free meals operate today and they spokeof wanting to protect their children from being‘different’ or feeling that they were ‘not like

Whilst most pupils reported no instances ofthose receiving free meals being teased orbullied because of the provision, there wasevidence that this did occur, unbeknown toschool staff, and especially in schools whereonly a few pupils took free meals. However,even in schools where pupils reported no overtteasing or name calling, pupils were sensitive towhat they believed others thought of them.

Some pupils said that they preferred not to takeup their eligibility because they knew that otherpeople would be aware of their free meal status.

Even schools that believe they are providing fairand non discriminatory arrangements for freeschool meals, continue to operate systems whichmake pupils on free school meals readilyidentifiable. Parents and pupils raised two majorconcerns that gave rise to discrimination, thesystems of payment for cafeteria meals and thestorage and presentation of free packed lunches.

If pupils have to identify themselves in any wayto the dinner staff, either by giving their namesor producing tickets or tokens for their meal,this was a source of embarrassment for somepupils. Two secondary schools had recentlyintroduced cashless systems in their cafeteriasso that all pupils used smart cards to pay fortheir meals. This meant that pupils taking freemeals could retain their anonymity at the till. Inschools where only free packed meals were onoffer, some parents who declined to take upmeals said that the high profile packaging of themeals and their storage separately from otherpupils’ home produced lunches had deterredthem from applying.

The quality of the mealOver the past twenty years the proportion of allpupils eating their lunch in school everyday hasdeclined substantially. In three of the sevensecondary schools studied, only one fifth ofpupils chose to eat in the school cafeteriaeveryday. When asked why people did not takeup their entitlement to free school meals, aroundtwo-thirds of pupils and parents considered thatthe quality and choice of food on offerdiscouraged take up. Often the choicesavailable in school, particularly in secondarycafeterias, were described as unappealing, withunhealthy options and a restricted and repetitiverange of food. Vegetarians and those with

Improving the take up of free school meals

2

restricted dietary requirements faced verylimited menus. In six out of the sevencafeterias, paying pupils spent on averagebetween 20-30p more than the value of the freeschool meal on their daily lunch and the freeschool meal failed to provide a well balancedtwo course meal in most of these cafeterias.Combined with the overcrowded dining roomsand long queues, pupils were put off taking uptheir free meal, particularly if their friends werebringing a packed lunch from home and theywere unable to eat their lunch with them.

Of the six case study primary and middleschools, only three offered a hot meal service.The others, in common with many smallschools, provided only a packed lunch forregistered pupils. The study found evidence thatschools offering only a packed lunch are likelyto have lower take up of free school meals thanschools offering a hot meal. Schools too wereaware of pupils who, although eligible, declinedto take free lunch. Parents said that they did notapply because they believed that they couldprovide a better packed lunch for their childrenfrom home. Pupils expressed concerns abouthaving no choice in what the free lunchcontained, unlike lunches brought from homewhere they usually had some say in what theirparents packed for them. This lack of any choiceor control over the content of the free packedmeal worried many children.

However, two schools had taken positive stepsto address the packed lunch problem.

One school had introduced a hot meal service.Having no kitchen facilities on site, the mealwas brought in by a local contractor. After oneterm, 40% of all pupils were having the hotmeal every day and the percentage of pupilstaking free school meals increased from 5% to14% in one term.

A second school, achieved a modest rise in takeup (1%) by using its delegated budget toproduce packed lunches ‘in house’ rather thanreceiving them from an outside supplier. This

meant that the packed lunches were freshlyprepared and gave pupils the opportunity toexercise some choice in the content of meals,letting the sandwich maker know theirpreferences.

Improving access to free school mealsAlthough the majority of parents said that theyknew that free school meals existed, interviewsrevealed that 11% of eligible parents had notclaimed meals because they did not know theirentitlement or how to apply.

Parents questioned why, when they completeforms for the DSS or the Jobcentre, there wereno direct links to register them for theseadditional benefits. Most schools includedinformation about eligibility and availability offree school meals in induction packs for newpupils and often included registration forms,reminding parents about the free provision innewsletters and at open evenings.

Even when parents knew they were eligible,some needed to be reassured about how freeschool meals operated in their child’s schoolbefore they would apply. Some were concernedthat, in registering their child for free schoolmeals, they did not know what they would becommitting their child to receiving.

ConclusionsThe study identified a number of good practicestrategies which might be adopted to encouragemore parents and pupils to take up free meals.

• Schools can improve take up of freeprovision by providing meals thatparents value and pupils want to eat.

• In schools with a cafeteria the value ofthe free meal should keep pace with thepurchase price of a healthy meal.

• Schools, LEAs and benefit providersneed to ensure that parents are aware oftheir eligibility. Benefit providers could

Summary

3

offer parents direct registration ofeligibility with the LEA.

• Schools should send regular remindersto ensure that, should parents’circumstances change, they are aware oftheir eligibility.

• Schools need to ‘sell’ the free schoolmeal option to parents especially inschools where only a minority of pupilsqualify for free lunch and there is no‘grapevine’ of information. Theyshould let parents see what is on offeras a free meal and stress the value,nutritionally and financially.

• Having a free school meal should notprevent pupils from eating with theirfriends who bring packed lunch fromhome. If dining space is limited, thencafeterias should provide the option of apacked meal which pupils can take outto eat with friends.

• Schools need to be vigilant todiscourage teasing and name calling ofpupils on free school meals especially inschools where few pupils take freeschool meal pupils.

• Schools with cafeteria systems shouldwhere possible introduce cashlesssystems such as swipe cards to helpeliminate identification at the tills.

• Schools with low eligibility for freemeals and providing only packedlunches should reduce the high profileof the free meals by encouraging pupilsto bring their own lunchboxes for thefree meals and explore ways of storingall packed meals together.

• Schools should ensure that the foodoffered provides sufficient choice andvariety for free school meals pupils whofollow restricted diets.

4

1 Background to the study

1.1 Introduction

In the past, school meals have played animportant role in the nutrition of children frompoorer families, with the free school mealensuring that children received at least onesubstantial meal a day. As, on average, a childeats nearly two hundred meals in school eachyear, food in school accounts for around a fifthof all their meals. The 1980 Education Actabolished the minimum nutritional standardsthat controlled the quality of school meals andthe fixed price national charge. These changes,combined with the shift towards free choicecafeteria systems, means that today manychildren do not have a ‘traditional’ meal inschool at midday.

At the same time, there is increasing concernabout the diets of children and young people,particularly those living in low incomehouseholds. The National Diet and NutritionSurvey of Young People (Food StandardsAgency 2000) and the National Audit OfficeReport Tackling Obesity in England (NAO2001) both highlight the nutritional deficienciesof the diets of children and young people, withthe consumption of too much sugar and fat andan insufficient intake of fibre, vitamins andminerals. Recent initiatives, such as the HealthySchools programme, designed to encourage andpromote healthy diet from within theenvironment of the school, and the NationalSchool Fruit Scheme to provide free fruit for 4-6year olds may make improvements to the dailydiets of pupils.

Free provision of school meals ensures that themost needy children get something to eat whileat school, and recent moves by the Departmentfor Education and Employment (DfEE) toreintroduce compulsory nutritional standards forschool meals (DfEE, 2000) should guaranteethat children who eat the provided dinner

receive a balanced meal at least once a day. Inthese circumstances, it becomes even more of apriority to ensure that children who have theright to a free meal actually take it.

Currently only those children whose parents arein receipt of Income Support or income basedJobseeker’s Allowance or who receive thesebenefits in their own right are entitled to freeschool meals. Children of asylum seekers arealso eligible in certain circumstances. It isestimated that 1.8 million children are entitled toa free school meal but that around 20%, for avariety of reasons, do not take up theirentitlement; take up is known to vary by regionand by school (McMahon and Marsh, 1999).

In late 2000, the Child Poverty Action Group(CPAG) commissioned Thomas CoramResearch Unit (TCRU) to undertake a study toinvestigate some of the reasons behind this nontake up of entitlement and to explore how thenature of the school and its meal provision, itsmanagement and administration, influence thetake up of free meals. At the same time thestudy set out to identify good models of practiceand successful strategies to maximise take up.

The specific objectives were:

• To compare the strategies employed byschools to minimise the identification ofpupils taking free school meals, such asthe systems in place to collect dinnermoney, the use of cashless cafeterias,customising of provided packedlunches; to investigate how thesestrategies are reflected in the proportionof pupils taking up free meals in thoseschools.

• To investigate pupils' views andexperiences of the management andadministration of free meals in their

Background to the study

5

school and their perception of anyschool strategies in place whichencourage or discourage take up; toseek their views of what the barriers areto take up and how best the take up offree meals could be encouraged in theirschool.

• To identify the reasons parents fail toregister their child's eligibility with theschool and to explore parents’ concernabout stigmatisation within the widercommunity, should the school fail tohandle the issue discreetly, or for theirchild in school.

• To examine the extent to which, and thereasons why, parents respond topressures from their children whoexpress preferences for money to buylunch, either in or out of school, or toeat a home produced packed lunchrather than take up their free meal.

1.2 The research

The study focused on a sample of case studyschools, selected from seven different LEAs.The DfEE Annual School Census (ASC) andOfsted reports were used to provide backgrounddata for the selection of the schools. As one ofthe main aims of the study was to find examplesof good practice, LEAs with reported high takeup of school meals by registered pupils, asrecorded in the ASC, were initially targeted as asource of schools for inclusion. Within eachLEA, one secondary school which reported hightake up was selected, and one feeder primary ormiddle school of each of those selectedsecondary school. One LEA with low take upwas also included in the study and again asecondary and feeder school were selected. Twofurther secondary schools were selected in oneLEA which had recently introduced a policy ofcashless cafeterias. In total, thirteen schoolswere selected for study, including examples ofboth high and low levels of registered eligibility.There was also a range of meal provision, with

some schools offering only a packed lunch,whilst others cooked hot meals on the premises.Schools 1-7 were secondary schools andSchools 8-13 primary or middle schools. In fiveLEAs, both a secondary and a feeder middle orprimary school were selected. For more detailsof the case study schools, see Appendix 1.

The principal methods for data collection were

• Over 40 interviews with school caterers,LEA and appropriate school staff tolook at practice in monitoring andevaluating take up by registered pupilsof meals; and to identify policies toencourage take up of school meals byall pupils, and by eligible pupilsspecifically.

• Observations in each school to identifypractices which encourage take up suchas the management and supervision ofschool meals including dining roomarrangements for queuing and 'sittings',methods of payment, the range of foodson offer, arrangements for pupils with apacked lunch from home and theavailability of other catering optionseither on or off site.

• Interviews, with over 250 pupils,individually, in pairs or small groups, tocollect their views and experiences.Most interviews took place during classtime although some were conductedduring the lunch period. In paired orgroup interviews, pupils were not askeddirectly if they were eligible for freemeals, although pupils oftenvolunteered this information to theinterviewer. Some schools arranged oneor two group interviews to consistentirely of pupils taking free schoolmeals, but most were mixed groups or,in schools with few eligible pupils,composed entirely of ineligible pupils.Further details of these interviews aregiven in Appendix 2.


6

• A short questionnaire survey of over470 secondary pupils provided data onthe usually lunchtime options for pupilsand confidential data on their viewsabout free school meals (See Appendix2).

• Telephone interviews were conductedwith over 50 parents. Parents werecontacted via a letter sent out by eachschool. In addition, parents whosechildren had volunteered to talk furtheron the subject of school meals werecontacted for their permission for theirchildren to be interviewed, and werethemselves asked for their views.Nearly three-quarters of the parentsinterviewed were either currentlyentitled or had in the past been entitledto free school meals for their children(See Appendix 3).

The study was intended as a short qualitativestudy to explore the issues which might bear ontake up and this is reflected in the analysis of thedata collected. Interviews with parents used astructured schedule and were coded for speed ofanalysis with SPSS as were the pupils’questionnaire survey data. Group interviewswith pupils were tape recorded and analysedthematically. Throughout the report, ‘eligible’is used to denote parents and pupils who qualifyby their benefit status for free meals,‘registered’ denotes those who have registeredwith the school or LEA to have a free meal and‘take up’ denotes those who are actually havingthe provided meal.

7

2 Free school meals and the school

There is a duty on LEAs to provide free schoollunches to eligible pupils who are registered formeals. The funding for those meals isdistributed to LEAs through the system ofStandard Spending Assessments (SSA). TheSSAs include a component which reflects thevariation between LEAs in the proportion ofschool-age pupils in households in receipt ofIncome Support or income based Job Seeker’sAllowance benefits. LEAs are free to decidehow to distribute the funding they receivethrough SSAs to their schools. This chapterlooks briefly at the background to free schoolmeals within the LEA and within schools.

The DfEE Annual School Census (ASC) recordsthe number of pupils at each school who areknown to be eligible for free school meals andfor whom specific refreshment provision wasmade on census day. Little is known of howaccurately these figures reflect the true level ofeligibility within each LEA, or within eachindividual school. Generally, higher levels ofeligibility might be expected in primary schoolsthan in secondary schools, with parents movinginto paid work as their children get older andlosing their right to free meals. School 9, amiddle school taking pupils from Year 4 to Year7, with 11% of pupils registered for free schoolmeals demonstrated this process. The principalfeeder infant school, from which most of thepupils transferred, recorded 33% of pupilsregistered.

The ASC also records take up of free meals, aseligible pupils who took their free meal oncensus day. Take up percentages must beinterpreted with considerable caution as theyonly indicate take up by registered pupils. Sincethe registered figure is not necessarily a truereflection of eligibility in a school, the take upfigure may be misleading, for example, a schoolmay record 100% take up by registered pupils

but in reality only a third of eligible pupils maybe registered.

Over the past decade the issue of free schoolmeals is one which has become increasinglyimportant within schools. The percentage ofpupils registered as eligible for free schoolmeals is now generally accepted as an indicatorof social deprivation within the schoolpopulation (Sammons et al 1994). The indicatoris now included in the DfEE’s Autumn Packagebenchmark of school performance information,which is used as background information forOfsted inspections.

Many schools were aware in the past of childrenin school who were eligible for free schoolmeals but did not register for them. In the mostrecent Ofsted inspection reports for four casestudy schools, specific mention of underregistration was made. Schools 3, 8 and 10 sentletters to all parents, requesting them to registerif they were eligible for free school meals,(although reassuring parents that disclosurewould not commit their child to having to eatthe free school meal). For School 3, thisexercise revealed that whereas 13% of pupilsqualified for free school meals, only 3% wereactually registered, at School 8 that a further 2%were eligible and 1% at School 10.

However whilst schools sought to gain a truepicture of the eligibility within their school andto encourage parents to register their children,none of the schools had any proactive policy toencourage pupils to take up the food on offer.Whereas schools with a set price meal are likelyto know if registered pupils are taking their freemeals, in schools with a cafeteria system therewere no systems in place for regularlymonitoring or maintaining high take up.Moreover, beyond altruism, there are noincentives for schools to increase the take up ofthe free meal.


8

Indeed for some schools there are strongdisincentives. Whilst there is no requirement forLEAs to use the ASC figures when decidinghow to distribute funds to schools, this is acommon practice. LEAs are free to fund schoolmeals using a count by term but many setbudgets annually to reduce administration.With budgets set by completion of the ASC inJanuary of the preceding academic year, schoolswith delegated budgets may be allocatedfunding for the following year based on thepercentage of children registered at that time. Insome LEAs the budget is set below the fullfigure to cover the cost. Consequently, a schoolmaking a determined effort to increase numbers

taking the free meal and encouraging allchildren to take their meal everyday, can finditself with a budget deficit. School 11 increasedthe number of children taking free meals from24 to 62 over a period of a term. The schoolhad to carry the cost from the school budget ofproviding the additional free meals for twoterms, estimated at around £5000.

• There are no incentives to schools toencourage pupils to take free schoolmeals and some evidence to suggestthat schools may be better off ifpupils do not take up the meals

9

3 Getting onto free school meals

This chapter explores the ways in which parentsget to know about their eligibility and reviewsthe administrative systems in place for parentsto register for free meal provision. It alsoconsiders how families make their decisionabout whether to apply to take up theireligibility.

3.1 Informing parents about eligibility

Even within this small sample of LEAs, therewas a range of practice for informing parentsabout their eligibility, with in many cases anunderlying assumption that parents know aboutfree school meals. Although the majority ofparents said that they knew that free schoolmeals existed, interviews revealed that asubstantial minority did not ‘know the system’,and did not know who was eligible and how toapply. For those who did know, informationcame from a range of sources, from friends,from what they recalled of their own schooldays, from the DSS or Jobcentre, from readingpamphlets in the post office or directly from theschool.

However, in interview, four parents separatelyreported that they had, at the time of theireligibility, not been aware of their eligibility.One mother had not found out that her twochildren were eligible until she started helpingout as a classroom assistant. Families receivingIncome-based Jobseekers Allowance appearedparticularly likely to be unaware of the fullrange of benefits to which they were entitled.One mother, with three children in primaryschool, described why they had not applied forfree school meals when, a few monthspreviously, her husband had been unemployedfor two months:

‘It wasn’t embarrassment, it wascomplete ignorance on our part. By the

time we knew, we weren’t eligible. Itwas like getting blood out of a stone atthe Jobcentre about any benefits. Noone mentioned free school meals. Wehad never been in that position before,so we didn’t know.’

A single mother described a similar situation.With two daughters in secondary school, shespent three months on Income-relatedJobseekers Allowance.

‘No one mentioned free school meals atthe Jobcentre or at school, so we neverknew we were eligible’.

• Agencies dealing with eligible familiesshould not assume that every familyis aware of its entitlement

The parents quoted above were on benefits foronly a short period and with numerousapplications to be made, not all information isread thoroughly at that time or is fullyunderstood. Several parents questioned why,when they complete forms for the DSS or theJob Centre, there were no direct links to registerthem for these additional benefits.1

‘You have to jump through so manyhoops to get something. There’s no

1 From June 2001 a new system will be piloted incertain areas which will integrate the administrationof free school meals and welfare benefits. TheBenefits Agency and the Employment Service willprovide a standard free school meal application formfor parents entering the benefits system. The form,validated by the agency, will be sent straight to theLEA. Parents will not be required to provide anyfurther verification and the LEA will be informeddirectly by the agencies when the eligibility ceases. Ifthe pilot scheme is successful, the system will bereproduced nationally.


10

reason why there should not be directlinks from the benefits office to the LEAand the school. If it could work, it wouldcut down on the processing.’

Such a system would benefit families who findthe very process of application, with yet morebureaucracy, a disincentive to take up freeschool meals. A pupil in Year 8 described whyshe had not taken up free school meals when herparents separated. She said that her mother, withwhom she lived, was already under stress andcould not face the prospect of filling in yetanother form.

• Better communication betweenagencies could improve take up bydirectly informing the LEA of pupilseligibility

One mother, who had been eligible but had notapplied, suggested that either the school or theLEA should write direct to every eligible childand make the offer of the free school meal, topromote the concept of the meal as a right ratherthan something they have to apply for.

‘Let’s all opt in. At the moment,everyone is excluded until you apply,let’s try it the other way, everyone isincluded unless they opt out.’

Most schools include information abouteligibility and availability of free school mealsin induction packs for new pupils and ofteninclude registration forms. Some continue thisprocess with regular reminders to parents aboutthe free provision in newsletters and at openevenings. In some cases, schools and schoolgovernors write specifically to parents toencourage registration of eligibility. (Howeverhead teachers and school administration staffadmit that any campaigns to encourageregistration are more often motivated by theirconcern regarding the Performance andAssessment Report (PANDA), league tablesand inspections, rather than attempts to addresswelfare priorities.)

• Schools need to ensure that allparents are regularly reminded thatfree school meals are available andthe registration process clearly laidout

There was some evidence of parents and pupilsbeing unclear about what registering wouldcommit them too. Pupils not registered for freeschool meals believed that they would be madeto have the free meal every day whether theywanted it or not.

A..‘Because you have to have a freeschool meal everyday and sometimes,you like to mix it up a bit, likesometimes have school lunch,sometimes have packed lunch.’B. ‘And it’s a set meal as well. And youcan only have a certain meal everyday.’[Year 8 pupils]

A..‘And I think if you don’t have it, theyquestion ‘Why didn’t you have it?’B.‘It’s good that they are worried aboutwhat you are eating but…A..‘But if you don’t have it, then they’llsay why and if its packed lunch thenthey’ll write you off the list. [Year 6pupils]

Even though parents may know that they areeligible, they do not always know how the freeschool meal system actually works in school.Parents recalled their experiences, or theirobservation of the experiences of others, whenthey were at school themselves. They neededreassurance that free school meals were betterarranged in the school their children attended.Schools need to offer more information toparents beyond that the provision is there. Onemother explained that she had not appliedbecause she was uncertain what she would be‘letting her children in for’. She felt that had shebeen told more about what was on offer, howthe system worked in the school, perhaps if theschool had suggested that her children try it for

Getting onto free school meals

11

a week or two, then she might have been morelikely to register.

• Parents need to be reassured abouthow free school meals are organisedin school.

3.2 Registering eligibility

Again, parent interviews revealed thatmisunderstandings occur about the process ofregistering children for free meals, especiallywhen assumptions are made that parents knowmore about the system than they really do. Onemother, with longstanding but unregisteredeligibility, described how, impressed by thecafeteria on the induction tour of her daughter’snew secondary school, she decided to take upthe free school meal. She ticked the school formto confirm that she was eligible for free schoolmeals, not realising the need to register with theLEA before the start of term. When thedaughter started at her new school, there was nofree meal for her. Only then did the parentdiscover the requirement to register at the localLEA office.

Registration processes for families who decideto apply for free school meals vary from LEA toLEA. In the seven LEAs examined in this studythere were three main methods;

• Visit to school• Visit to LEA or benefit office• By post

Parents generally found visiting the school theeasiest option, particularly when their childattended primary school which was usuallyclose to home and to which they were likely tobe frequent visitors anyway. School staffstressed that they always tried to be discreetwhen handling enquiries and registrations.Parents reported that the schools were helpfuland handled the process well although onemother said that she had been put off applyingherself after witnessing the head teacher very

publicly discussing an application with anothermother in the front reception hall of the school.

Alternatively, in some LEAs, parents made theirapplication and renewals at the central office.Whilst this method was preferable for parentswho had reservations about dealing with schoolstaff, attending the benefit office or LEA ordealing with the registration by post could beproblematic if it required either a specialjourney on public transport, or the need tophotocopy proof of eligibility.

‘It’s awkward. We’re both disabled and wehave to travel to [town]. It would be a loteasier to do it through the school.’

• Parents should be able to completethe registration process either atschool, a central office or by post,whichever is the best option for them.

There were substantial variations between LEAsin the time taken between parent’s applicationand their child receiving a free school meal. Inthe best examples, lunch was provided from theday of registration, even if registration tookplace away from the school, with the LEAoffice contacting the school immediately so thatpupils could receive lunch on that day. Howeverin one area, processing was reported to take upto two weeks. During the period betweenapplication and confirmation, the free schoolmeal was not supplied and parents were notreimbursed for the cost of the meals theyprovided for their child during that time.

• Free school meals should be providedas soon as parents make theirapplication.

3.3 Staying in the system

There was also variation in the length of timefor which the registration remained effective. Infive LEAs, the registration ran for a full year. Inthe others, it ran for lesser periods. Renewal


12

forms or confirmations of continuing eligibilitywere either sent by the school or by the centraloffice. Whilst some parents had no problemscompleting the forms on time, all the schoolsmention difficulties with parents who failed tocomplete their renewal before it expired,resulting in a free meal not being provided fortheir children. Where schools were aware thatrenewal was imminent they were able to remindthe pupil or send a further reminder letter.Where renewal was not made by the specifieddate, some LEAs invoiced parents for the costof meals, whilst other LEAs continued toprovide meals. Within the terms of the currentlegislation, charging parents for the cost ofmeals is illegal if parents have alreadyestablished their eligibility for free schoolmeals.

• Confirmation of continued eligibilityshould be as easy as possible andproof of continued eligibility shouldnot be required more than once ayear.

3.4 Making the decision

Once parents become eligible and are aware thatthey can receive meals for their children, not allparents decide to apply. Interviews with parentsand pupils revealed that the parent’s decisionscan be heavily influenced by the child’s view offree meals.

‘There was a time once when I wasgoing to have one, a packed lunch. Ijust said no, I’d seen what S had in hisand I thought ‘No’. [Year 6 girl]

Whilst some parents responded to theirchildren’s wishes about whether or not to takeup free school meals, some parents admitted thatthey had never discussed the prospect with theirchildren.

One mother, living in a rural area with threechildren in primary school said that she had

never pursued the option because she didn’twant her children to think that they weredifferent, she wanted them to carry on as‘normal’ despite the change in theircircumstances . She was ‘too proud’. She hadnever talked about it with her children and shehad felt it was going ‘backwards’, going ontobenefits, as she had been ‘brought up to beindependent and feeling you have achieved’.Also, by providing them with a packed lunchshe believed that she knew what they wereeating and that going onto free school mealswould negate her role as a mother. She saw hercontribution of the daily packed lunch as‘something that Mummy had lovingly prepared.I don’t want to be done out of a job’.

As children get older, parents do discuss theoptions more openly. Another mother who hadpreviously made the decision not to put her twochildren on free school meals when they startedschool thought that now they were older shewould discuss it with them.

One girl in Year 6 explained that she wanted hermother to make the decision. Currently at aschool with packed lunches she had notregistered. With the prospect of a cafeteria mealat her secondary school, the decision was up forrevision.

‘When I go to [Secondary] my Mumsays I might have free school meals. Iwant her to choose and she says ‘It’s upto you’. I want her to choose becauseshe knows best.’ [Year 6 girl]

Both parents and pupils talked about thedecision to take or not take free meals, whetherthe decision was taken jointly or not, as onewhich was influenced by their perception andexperiences of both the free meal system andschool meals more generally. The followingsections look at how these views andexperiences dispose parents and pupils to takeup the provision.

13

4 Eating meals in school

In the questionnaire survey of secondaryschools, which included pupils who were noteligible for free school meals as well as thosewho were, pupils were asked why they thoughtpeople did not take up their right to free schoolmeals. Over 40% responded that the mainreasons related to some aspect of the schoolmeal in their school. Nineteen out of 51 parentsinterviewed mentioned that the food on offer attheir child’s school would deter parents fromapplying. Here, we explore in detail the viewsand experiences of both pupils and parentsabout how the quality and choice of schoolmeals limits take up of free provision.

All secondary schools now have control overmany aspects of their own budgets including theprovision of school meals. Primary and specialschools also have the option to adopt delegatedbudgets.

Even in the small number of schools studiedhere, there was a substantial variation in thetype of meal provided, from packed lunchesdelivered from an outside contractor to a schoolemploying its own chef and kitchen staff in thecafeteria. All seven secondary schools offered acafeteria with hot food prepared on site but onlythree of the six primary or middle schoolsprovided a hot meal. Only one had a workingkitchen for the meal to be prepared on site, theother two had a hot meal cooked off site andbrought in by the contractor. The remainingthree schools offered only a packed lunch forchildren taking free school meals. At two, thepacked lunches were delivered from an outsidecontractor whilst the third had taken thedelegated budget and started to produce its ownpacked meals on the premises.

4.1 The popularity of school meals

Over the past 20 years, the overall proportion ofchildren taking school meals has declined

substantially from 64% in 1979 (Cole-Hamiltonet al 1991) to 42% in the late 1990s (House ofCommons, 1999). Whilst this decline is almostcertainly a consequence of a shift to packedlunches brought from home, there is alsoevidence that the traditional lunchtime has beensubstantially eroded. A teacher at School 1explained ‘In this school, there is constant

with staff aware that pupils are divinginto their school bags between lessons to extracta quick bite or two. Particularly for pupils whohave had a long journey to school and with littleor no breakfast, mid morning break can becomethe main daily trip to the cafeteria, with somepupils not eating again at lunchtime. Someschools acknowledged this change of practiceand two of the seven case study secondaryschools permitted pupils to use their free mealprovision at breaktime. However, school meallegislation is clear that the free school lunchshould be provided in the middle of the day.

The unattractiveness of school meals is formany pupils and parents an important factor inthe take up of free meals. In schools where onlya minority of children opt to pay for schooldinner, parents whose children are eligible for afree meal reported being under pressure tosupply a packed meal. As one mother,struggling financially to provide a packed lunchfor her Year 10 daughter who had just given upher free meal, observed;

‘Now she is at an age where she wantsto be exactly like her friends – I can’t doit full time, it’s not viable.’

The questionnaire survey of secondary schoolpupils showed the variation in use of the schoolcafeteria as the main lunchtime option anddemonstrated that eating in the cafeteriaeveryday is not the norm (see Table 4.1). Onaverage, less than one third of non-free schoolmeal pupils used the cafeteria everyday forlunch and nearly two fifths (38%) reported that


14

Table 4.1 Pupils having cafeteria lunch everyday and pupils never taking cafeterialunch by secondary school (questionnaire survey data- non free school mealpupils only)

School Pupils % eating incafeteriaevery day

% nevereating incafeteria

1 37 19% 30%2 52 47% 28%3 80 18% 44%4 69 21% 46%5 25 29% 46%6 104 40% 36%7 34 29% 41%All schools 401 30% 38%

they never used the cafeteria for lunch. Therewas substantial variation between the schools,almost certainly reflecting pupils views andexperiences of the lunch on offer and thegeneral attractiveness of the dining facilities.School 2 with the highest proportion (47%) ofpupils using the service very day employed itsown chef and the school ran the service. Pupilspraised the hot ‘specials’ which included regularroast dinners and the cafeteria also served thestandard school lunch of pizza, burgers or chips.Whilst the building housing the kitchen anddining rooms were unattractive, the interiorswere well decorated, background music helpedto improve the atmosphere and the lunch periodwas staggered to reduce congestion. At thisschool, only 23% of pupils (compared with 37%for all schools) believed that pupils would beput off taking their meal because of the food onoffer. Take up as recorded in the ASC was 90%at that school. Similarly, the facilities in School6, used everyday by 40% of pupils, were calledthe Café and the general layout and presentationof the food imitated that of high street outlets.At four other secondary schools, well over 40%of pupils never used the cafeteria and here therewere comments about the limited range of foodon offer and the cost, together with issuesaround the general unattractiveness of the diningareas.

The existence of attractive alternatives is asrelevant to the issue of whether children haveschool meals as is the condition of the food andcafeteria. In four of the secondary schoolssurveyed, older pupils were generally allowedout to buy meals at local shops. At schoolswhich permitted going out, pupils spoke of thegood value of food on offer in localsupermarkets, takeaways or chip shops.

4.2 A place to eat?

Facilities for eating varied from school toschool, and pupils’ comments around thephysical space and organisation of the schoolcafeterias and dining rooms suggest that theywere often put off, even before they tried thefood on offer. Although pupils approved theattractive dining areas in some schools forexample those that had a café atmosphere, atothers, with resources concentrated intoexpanding academic facilities, diningarrangements tended to be a poor relation.Schools reported that although their schoolpopulation had increased two or three fold sincethe dining areas were originally designed, therehad been no increase in space provided, tomatch the rise in pupil numbers. At School 4,despite a doubling in the number of pupils, thespace for the cafeteria had been substantially

Eating meals in school

15

reduced. With seating for only fifty of the 1000pupils, most cafeteria users took their food backto the classroom to eat.

In the secondary schools with lunch periods ofsometimes less than an hour and over 1000pupils to take their lunch, cafeterias were unableto cope with providing meals for so many.Pupils frequently commented on the time spentin queuing for their meal even before facing theovercrowded conditions for eating in thecafeteria. Lunchtime is the main sociable periodof the day for pupils and queuing for meals cutsinto that valuable time, reducing opportunitiesto be with friends or to attend a club or playingsport. Even when the cafeteria produced a goodquality hot meal, the overcrowded and crampedfacilities meant that pupils preferred to bring apacked lunch.

‘There’s nine hundred people queuingup for a hot meal and if you’re notthere, dot of one o’clock, then you’renot going to get a meal for about halfan hour, so its easier just to bringsandwiches or go downtown.’ [Year 12]

‘You struggle for a seat in there atlunchtime. You’ve got to stand upagainst the wall or you’ve got to gooutside and you’re not allowed to gooutside with food. But that’s the only

[Year 9]

‘If you bring your own, you don’t haveto queue. And you can eat it at anytime’. [Year 8]

At one school, a young man in the sixth formwho was still eligible for free school mealsfound it easier not to bother and more sociableto eat with friends;

‘I used to eat in the cafeteria when Iwas on free school meals but now I justbring a packed lunch now. It’s easier,it’s less hassle. You can eat your

packed lunch in the common room withyour mates’.

Whilst most pupils either did not mention thestaffing of the cafeterias or commented on thekindness of dinner staff, in one school, fourgroups of pupils from different year groupsspontaneously reported that the attitude andbehaviour of the school meal assistants deterredpupils from using the cafeteria.

4.3 Eating with friends

For pupils on free school meals, eating in thecafeteria can become a discriminatoryexperience if all their friends bring a packedlunch from home which they eat elsewhere.Two parents, with children in primary schools,reported that their children were requestingpacked lunches instead of their free hot meal sothat they could eat with friends, even thoughboth parents preferred their children to have thehot meal. In those schools, pupils with packedlunches ate in the same hall as those taking hotmeals, and although there were no reasons forseparation, dinner supervisors preferred to keepthe two groups of diners apart.

At School 2, those taking the hot meal wereallowed to take it through to eat with friendseating their home produced packed lunch. InSchool 1, where space was more limited and thepacked lunch pupils ate elsewhere, pupils couldbuy the equivalent of a packed lunch from thecafeteria to take to the ‘packed lunch’ room toeat with friends. Similarly School 12, as well asmaking hot lunches, also made up packedlunches to provide additional choice for pupils.By doing this, they were able to provide for oneregistered child who, because of behaviouralproblems, had been excluded from school overthe lunch period. He collected his schoolsupplied packed meal and returned home to eatit.

• Having a free school meal should notprevent pupils from eating withfriends who bring packed lunches


16

4.4 Value of the free school meal

The value of the free school meal variedsubstantially from school to school. In the casestudy primary and middle schools, the value ofthe meal was not relevant since all three schoolswith a hot meal offered a set meal at a fixedprice. However, in secondary schools with theircafeteria system, the value of the entitlementcan become crucial. The lowest value in thecase studies was 90p and the highest value£1.65.

However more important than the differences inthe face cash value of the free meal was whatthe free meal price actually bought in the schoolcafeteria. Table 4.2 compares for each school,the value of the free meal with the averageamount spent by non free school meal pupilswho used the cafeteria everyday for their lunch.In all except School 5, the daily average spendby those not on free school meals was around20p- 30p higher, so that at the school where theticket value was 90p, the average spend by otherusers of the cafeteria was nearly 30p per daymore. (School 5 offered a daily ‘set menu’ for£1.35 and this may account for the closer matchin the daily spend. The set menu was a popularchoice with all pupils because of the speed withwhich it was delivered and the consequentlyshort queue.)

Table 4.2 Value of free school meal andaverage (mean) spend on lunch at case studyschools

School Value of Freeschool meal

Average spendby pupils not onfree school meals

1 1.34 1.572 1.20 1.533 0.90 1.194 1.65 1.855 1.35 1.376 1.45 1.627 1.45 1.78

The new national requirements for nutritionalcontent (DfEE 2000) include therecommendation that the free school mealshould provide a two-course lunch and a drink.Even in School 4, with the highest value ticket(£1.65), pupils were severely restricted in whatthey could afford to have. On the day of thestudy visit, the hot meal of the day was fish andchips, priced at £1.75, without additionalvegetables or a pudding. The school’sperception of the free school meal ticket wasthat it provided a supplement towards lunch,rather than providing an adequate meal. Pupilson free school meals rarely took the cookedmeal because it was too expensive and optedinstead for a sandwich, but even then found thatthey could afford little else.

A. ‘Sandwiches are so expensive on adinner ticket. You can’t get a sandwichand a drink at the same time.’B. ‘I bring extra money with me.’C. ‘I can’t bring extra money, so Istarve.’ [Year 9s]

A. ‘It’s not like even you get a lot on thedinner ticket - £1.65.’B. ‘I think it should be at least twopounds then we would be able to get abeneficial healthy meal.’C. ‘It shouldn’t have a value – it shouldbe that you just get a meal.’ [Year 8s]

Parents at that same school supported theirchildren’s experiences that the meal ticket failedto buy a meal. One mother observed that itprovided only a snack, ‘a baked potato is not ameal’ and that she felt obliged to cook dinnerfor her daughter in the evening. At anotherschool, a mother with a son in Year 10 observedthat in the last year or so he came home‘starving’ from school;

‘It was all right until a couple of yearsago and then he started coming insaying ‘I’m starving’. At that age, theyeat as much as a grown man.’


17

A quarter of the parents interviewed whosechildren were receiving free school meals,supplemented the meal everyday with eitheradditional money or food. All those withchildren in secondary school were givingadditional money to supplement the lunch somedays if not everyday. A mother whosupplemented what her daughter spends on thefree school meal by an extra £3 each week,compared the choice available to her daughterwith that on offer to her younger child inprimary school, where a set meal withvegetables or salad and a sweet or fruit wasalways provided. Both parents and secondarypupils made references to the quality of the freeschool meal in primary school compared withthat offered in the cafeterias of secondaryschools;

A. ‘In our old school you used to get aproper dinner like, as in, on a plate.’B. ‘And you’d queue up in a line andthey’d have a selection of differentthings and you’d say ‘I’ll have somepizza, some chips and baked beans’ andthen they’d have pudding as well soyou’d get a proper cooked meal and adrink of water.’ [Year 8s]

Pupils talked about going ‘over the limit’ withwhat their free meal entitled them to buy and,arriving at the till, having to put back items tostay within the budget. More often than not,dinner staff exercised some flexibility on this.If the overspend was only slight i.e. 5 –10p thensome dinner staff would waive the excess orperhaps advise pupils to under spend the nextday to make up. Others, however, applied therule strictly.

‘I’ve never had hassle from the peoplehere and sometimes, there’s obviously alimit to how much you can have in ameal and I’ve gone over that a couple oftimes, and they’ve just said, ‘Don’t haveso much the next day and it’ll cancelout.’ They are very reasonable about it

[Year 12]

‘They used to let you off but now theysay you’ve got to have the right amountof money or you’ve got to put thatback.’[Year 9]

In one school, pupils complained that priceswere not marked clearly, so it was difficult forthem to know whether they were spending up toor over their allowance, a situation which ledthem to embarrassing exchanges at the till.

Conversely for some pupils, there were issuesaround not being able to carry over any unspentmoney – if one day they under spent becausethey were not hungry, were going to a club orhad brought something from home, then therewas no way to carry over credit to the next day.

At one school, the pupils complained aboutprices in the cafeteria continuing to rise byaround 5p per term, although the value of theirmeal ticket rose by only 5p a year. Many pupilswere well aware of prices in neighbouring shopsor at Macdonald’s, and compared schoolcafeteria prices unfavourably with thesecompeting outlets.

Schools where outside contractors managed thecafeteria appeared to do little to monitor pricesto ensure that pupils could buy an adequate mealfor the value of their free provision.

• Schools should check regularly thatmeal ticket value keeps pace withcafeteria prices

4.5 Free school meals and a balanceddiet

The restricted buying power of the free schoolmeal in the secondary school cafeterias meantthat pupils had only a limited choice unless theysupplement their free meal with extra cash.This contrasted with all three primary schoolswith a hot meal service. Here, the menu offered


18

a choice at a fixed price and provided anutritionally balanced two course meal.

‘She usually has free school meal but theyare awful, the same thing everyday, pizza orchicken burger. I give her an extra pound aday towards a drink or if I’m short then shetakes a drink in a bottle. She gets sick todeath of the same things, everything is alldried up and nasty. The hot meals in herprimary school were good.’

Concerns were raised by parents and pupils insecondary schools that the value of the mealticket encouraged pupils to eat unhealthily. AtSchool 5, the ‘set price’ menu offered sausageroll, chips, gravy and a drink, a selection thatfails to fulfil the requirements of a nutritionallybalanced meal. Overall in the questionnairesurvey, 8% of pupils mentioned the limitedchoice or unhealthiness of the food on offer as adeterrent to having school meals. Girls weretwice as likely to offer this as a reason than wereboys. In the interviews, girls were critical ofwhat they find themselves eating to stay inbudget. They could afford the unhealthy itemsbut if they ate healthy food, they could notafford as much.

A. ‘You’ve got enough money to getsomething unhealthy, sausage rolls,spring rolls, burgers.’B. ‘Which is annoying ‘cos if you wantto get something healthy then I thinklike, you should be able to, becausethat’s obviously better for you butyou’re persuaded to get something

A. ‘Because you get more.’ [Year 9girls]

‘Since I went on the dinner ticket I, Ithink lots of people, have put on lots ofweight because of how much of the junkfood there is.’ [Year 10]

Schools varied in the extent to which theyactively attempted to encourage healthy eating.The head teacher of one school explained;

‘The school tries to do the ‘healthyeating thing’ but in the end there has tobe a compromise between that andgiving them something they will eat.’

A parent at that school supported the head’saccount. Parents had complained about theemphasis on a ‘chips and gravy’ diet. Thecafeteria manager had attempted to improve theoptions, but demand had dropped and she hadreturned to the less healthy menus. The motherexplained that she tried hard to provide ahealthy diet at home but was appalled at whather children were eating at school.

In two schools, using the same contractor,pupils spoke about the choices they could makebetween the different types of meals provided -Traditional Tastes, Fast Fillers, a Meal Deal(usually a burger, chips and a drink) andHealthy Hits. One of the schools attempted toencourage the take up of the Healthy Hits byawarding points to the pupils who chose themand giving prizes of CD tokens to those withmost points. At the other school, there was nosign of particular encouragement to choosehealthy meals, with posters by the serving hatchadvertising the chip baps.

One parent describing the restricted choiceavailable to her daughter on free school meals,believed that schools, when providing the freeschool meal, were missing an opportunity toeducate the school population to better eatinghabits.

‘They need to be learning about nutrition insecondary school, not just shoving fooddown their throats.’

• The value of the meal ticket shouldpermit pupils to make healthy choicesand to buy sufficient items to satisfy


19

the statutory requirements forbalanced meals

Four secondary schools reported rules,instigated by either the school or the LEA, thatthe free school meal must include at least oneprotein item, although this applied to pupils inYears 7-9 only in one school. The othersecondary schools reported no restrictions andindeed, in those with cashless cafeterias, suchrestrictions would be unworkable.

A. ‘You have to buy at least a sandwichor a hot food. You can’t like just buychocolate because they have a go atyou.’B. ‘You either have to have a sandwich,a salad or some hot food with a drink.’C. ‘You’re not allowed to have adoughnut, crisps and a chocolate bar.’[Year 7s]

Pupils felt that at times these restrictions weretoo inflexible especially if they had brought in ahome made sandwich to supplement their lunchand they were forced to buy another.

‘Sometimes you might bring your ownsandwiches in. I think we should havethe choice ourselves, because if we wantto eat unhealthily then we should beable to and if we just want to, get anapple and a bottle of water.’

4.6 Catering for special dietaryrequirements

Pupils on free school meals who are vegetarianor require special diets for cultural or medicalreasons reported facing additional problemsaround restricted choices. Unless they arrivedpromptly at the cafeteria when it first opened forlunch, there might be little or nothing left to eatwhich fitted with their special requirements. Aparent whose daughter had an allergy to dairyproducts found problems with the cafeteriarunning out of items she could eat. This meant

that she tended to eat the same thing almosteveryday.

‘She can’t eat pizza because of thecheese so that restricts the choice. Shedoesn’t eat chips out of choice, so it’sjacket potato almost everyday.’

The problem could be acute in schools wherepupils with dietary restrictions based onreligious grounds form an isolated minority. Inone primary school, with pupils from 24different countries and over 50% of pupils fromfamilies where English was not the firstlanguage, there were no problems. The schoolinsisted that the menu offered no itemscontaining pork or beef and there was always atleast one vegetarian main dish, more often two.

However in School 4, with 5% of pupils fromhouseholds were English is not the their firstlanguages, pupils raised more serious issuesaround restricted choice. Coupled with thelimitation that she must purchase a protein item,one girl recounted how she found herself forcedto buy items containing pork which she wasunable to eat.

‘It’s sausage rolls and hot dogs and thatbacon thing they do. It’s all pork.Sometimes if there’s not many savourystuff left and if you’re Muslim and youcan’t buy pork, they make you buypork.’ [Year 9]

There were similar problems for vegetarians,with only a limited range and often a veryrepetitive menu.

‘The poor vegetarians, there’s only twoor three things they can actually haveand it tastes so foul.’ [Year 12]

As one parent with two children taking freeschool meals observed:

‘There’s always chips on. We have avaried diet at home, couscous, pasta,


20

rice but they prefer chips, so it’s pizza,burger and chips They tend to get chipsand gravy. Mainly because there’snothing vegetarian on offer, no onewants a baked potato everyday. There’snot a lot of vegetables’

• Schools need to monitor that therange of food offered providessufficient choice and variety for freeschool meal pupils with special and/orrestricted diets

4.7 Free packed lunches

In common with many primary and middleschools, Schools 8, 9 and 10, had no hot mealservice and children brought a packed lunchfrom home or were supplied with a free packedmeal. This study provides evidence from bothparents and pupils that schools offering only apacked lunch are likely to have lower take up offree school meals than schools offering a hotmeal.

Both children and parents have positiveperceptions of the value of hot food. Childrenin the primary schools with only a packed mealdiscussed how they were looking forward toattending the secondary school where therewould be a cafeteria. Secondary schools servingthese primary schools were very conscious thattheir new intake of pupils had no culture of a hotmeal at lunchtime and that children who hadpreviously not registered for free meals took uptheir free meal option when they moved on tosecondary school.

A. ‘It’s a novelty having a hot meal’B. ‘People need a hot meal midday’C. ‘It’s good to have something hot.’[Year 7 pupils]

One mother of a primary school pupil believedthat younger children were more in need of ahot meal at midday than older children.

‘I think they have got it the wrong wayround. It’s more important for youngerchildren to have a meal, youngerchildren need the meal, yet it isn’t likethat. The meals are in the secondaryschools – they’ve done it the wrong wayround.

Pupils appeared knowledgeable about thecontent of the supplied free packed lunches,even in School 8 where only a handful ofchildren ever took the free provision. In theschools visited, the packed lunches contained awell balanced meal, offering a round ofsandwiches, cake, biscuit or pudding, a drinkand fruit. Some contained items which werecoveted by children bringing home madelunches. However when asked if they wouldhave the free packed lunch, pupils weregenerally very hesitant, expressing a muchrepeated fear that the bag might contain itemsthat they did not like. Although few primaryschool children prepared their own packedlunches at home, they usually had some say inwhat their parents packed for them. This lack ofany choice or control over the content of thefree packed meal worried many children.

‘Cos you’ve got stuff which is alreadymade and you can’t really choose, likeyou can at home. And also it’s notalways that nice stuff.’ [Year 5]

‘The stuff, you don’t really know what’sgoing to be in it, in the sandwiches,Sometimes they do one butteredsandwich and tuna mayonnaisesandwich. I don’t fancy it very much.’[Year 6]

A. ‘Cos there might be stuff that youdon’t want, all wrapped up so you don’tknow what’s in there.’B. ‘And there might be stuff that you areallergic and you don’t realise’.A. ‘Parents know what you like anddon’t like so they don’t put the other


21

C. ‘If you get a free school lunch you

B. ‘What you want.’D. ‘You don’t get a snack’B. ‘And you have to have egg rolls.’C. ‘And cold sausage.’

[Year 4 pupils]

Parents too, shared these reservations, especiallyas they were aware of their children’s ownpreferences and dislikes. One mother with adaughter in Year 1 had not applied for her freelunch. Describing her daughter as ‘faddy’, shepreferred to pack a lunch that she knew herdaughter would eat rather than have her eatnothing.

Another mother who had similarly declined freemeals expressed her concerns that the packedlunches needed to be presented differently forthe youngest children, with food cut up forthem, especially the fruit which was difficult totackle whole.

Both children and parents talked aboutsupplementing the packed lunch with additionalitems from home. One mother always sentadditional food because her son did not eat theprepared sandwiches. Pupils talked abouthaving tried the free packed lunches in the pastbut giving up, not because they were no longereligible, but because the meal was not what theywanted.

‘Mum said you don’t really eat anythingout of it ‘cos its mostly things you don’tlike in there. So that’s why we startedbringing our own.’ [Year 5]

‘No, I’ve had it before and I don’t like itbecause they forced me to eat it’.[What did it have in it?]‘Cold milk, cold pizza, sandwiches withsausages in and I don’t like bread[Year 4]

Seven, of the 11 parents interviewed who hadnot applied for free meals despite current or pasteligibility, commented that they had neverapplied because, as only a packed lunch was onoffer, they could provide that themselves.

‘They won’t get what they want and ifyou can’t give them sandwiches and ayoghurt and something, it’s a poor do.And the sandwiches did look revolting,they weren’t made on the premises.’

One mother remarked that her daughter broughthome the remains of her free packed luncheveryday. She herself had tried the sandwichesand admitted that they did taste horrible, havingtaken on the taste of their plastic packaging.

‘The sandwiches tend to leak and gosoggy, they don’t look appealing– ifthey prepared them in the school thenthey might be fresher and better. Shebrings home what she leaves and wethrow it away, which is a waste.’

Although schools which provided only packedmeals were aware that parents did not apply forfree meals, there was often a reticence toacknowledge the underlying problem, thequality of the provision on offer. One motherhighlighted this point when she described theschool’s reaction when her Year 6 daughter wasseen by the school to be regularly throwing mostof her free packed lunch away. The school rangthe parent because they were anxious that herdaughter might be dieting. The motherexplained that her daughter had a good appetiteand ate well a home and now at her new schoolenjoyed her free meal everyday.

‘If it had been good food she wouldhave eaten it, as she does now atsecondary school where she can get aproper meal, roast dinners, for her mealticket.’


22

4.8 Positive responses to improve takeup

Two primary schools, aware of the issuesaround limited choice in the supplied packedlunches had taken steps to improve theprovision and to increase the take up of freemeals.

Making the packed lunch in schoolSchool 10 had dispensed with the outsidecontractor supplying the packed meals and usedthe delegated budget to employ a lunchtimeassistant to prepare the packed meals. Thenumber of pupils applying for free school mealshad increased by less than expected, a modest1% since this step was taken. Half those knownto be eligible were still not taking up their freeprovision. As the budget for the expectedincrease in take up had been allocated for theyear, the additional funds were being used tomake the free packed lunches better quality thanthey might have been had every eligible pupiltaken up the provision. Even so, because thisschool is in an LEA with one of the lowest freelunch allowances, the lunches were still far fromlavish.

By taking the step of producing lunches on site,the school felt that it could address the issuesaround lack of choice for their pupils. The headteacher and the sandwich maker believed thatthe system gave pupils the opportunity to“effectively negotiate” what they wanted in theirsandwiches. Initial consultations with pupilsmeant that those who expressed their viewsinfluenced the type of packed lunch produced.The sandwich-maker felt confident that she wasresponding to the children’s wishes. Howeverthe pupils felt these consultations needed to takeplace frequently so that changes of opinionabout what they wanted to eat could be cateredfor, much like they would if their lunches wereprepare-d at home;

‘They could have a list of things you’dlike in your sandwiches, and you could

tick off what you’d like for the next day,

‘Yes, they could have a chart so you’d fillin what you’d like on Monday, Tuesday

One mother who had visited the school since thechange, commented on the improved quality ofthe sandwiches – in her view they were now‘good enough to eat’.

Converting to a hot mealSchool 11 had converted from packed lunchesto providing a hot meal. In common with manyschools, the hot meal service had beenwithdrawn in the early nineties and all thekitchen space reallocated to other use. Howevera new head teacher and school governors haddecided to reinstate the hot meal service,primarily to increase the percentage of pupilstaking free school meals, but also because theywere committed to providing a hot meal duringthe winter months.

After consultation with parents to assess thatthere would be adequate demand, an outsidecontractor had been found who would fulfil therequirements of the school and would cover allthe capital expense necessary. The meal iscooked off site and brought into school. Theonly accommodation required by the contractorwas a room for washing up. The servery wasconstructed at one end of the main hall wherechildren eat their meal. The contractors set upthe system during the summer break.

By the second term, 180 children were regularlytaking the daily hot meal, a meal whichconformed to the new nutritional standards. Thenumber of free school meals rose in one termfrom 24 to 62, and the school achieved itsprincipal objective of reaching its nextbenchmark percentage for its PANDA.

• Schools can improve take up byproviding free school meals thatchildren and parents value

23

5 Stigma

Stigma is considered to be a key factor inlimiting take up of free school meals. Bothpupils and parents when asked to suggestreasons why people did not take up their freeprovision, mentioned embarrassment or fear ofbeing teased only slightly less frequently thanthey talked about the quality or the lack ofchoice of the food. In the pupil questionnairesurvey, a third of pupils identified this as anissue, with pupils on free school meals just aslikely as other pupils to record this.

Parents often recalled events from their owntime at school;

‘I don’t like people knowing mybusiness. I’m of the opinion that it’snone of the school’s business. I canremember the situation in the 80s, I’mgoing from my own bad experiences.Free school meals, it was the same asthe National Health spectaclessyndrome.’

‘When I went to school, people used totake the micky. Parents remember that.I’ve a friend whose children could havefree meals but she doesn’t apply. Sheremembers that.’

These memories coloured parents’ perception ofwhat happens in school today. Parents who areor were eligible but had not even discussed theoption with their children, spoke of wanting toprotect their children from being ‘different orfeeling that they were not like other children.

The case study schools generally felt that theywere successfully addressing issues whichmight give rise to any pupils being stigmatised.However some were more successful thanothers and there were two principal areas inwhich discriminatory practices were common:

systems of payment for cafeteria meals, and thestorage and presentation of free packed lunches.

5.1 Systems of payment

Schools 11,12 and 13 (all primary schools)provided only a set meal at a fixed price, sothere were no problems of pupils being‘different’ because of the methods of payment.The systems in these schools for collectingmoney were along traditional lines with childreneither bringing dinner money in an envelopeonce a week or parents sending cheques to coverlonger periods. No one except office staff knewwho had and who had not paid and dinnersupervisors were supplied with lists of childrenhaving dinner with no identification relating topayment.

In Schools 1 –5 with cash cafeteria systems,pupils having free meals were more obvious. AtSchool 2 and School 4, pupils having free mealsreceived tickets each day and used these forpayment at the till. At Schools 1,3 and 5, pupilsgave their names to the till operators who weresupplied with lists of pupils registered for freeschool meals. Pupils interviewed at theseschools said that systems which required themto identify themselves to dinner staff, andtherefore indirectly to other pupils nearby, couldbe embarrassing. In schools with a ticketsystem, pupils felt that lists would be better andin schools with lists, pupils believed that a ticketsystem would be less embarrassing.

Schools which used tickets gave these out eachday, often at break time. School 4 had triedgiving out a whole week’s tickets at one timebut had discontinued the practice, except for thesixth form, because of problems with lost ormislaid tickets. Although tickets wereanonymous in that pupils did not have to make


24

themselves known at the till but just gave in theticket, pupils found the process embarrassing, aswas queuing to get the ticket in the first place.One mother described her daughters feeling:

‘People are embarrassed but they don’tneed to be at primary school, becauseno one knows. There’s no need to beembarrassed, they all go in with theirpeers. But at secondary school, otherchildren do know, they get these ticketsand you can get more bothered as youget older. My daughter, who has nowleft school, she didn’t like queuing up toget a ticket, but my son has noproblems. He says ‘There are lots ofpeople having it.’ But queuing for theticket at break bothers him, because helikes to play football then.’

Tickets have the disadvantage (or perhapsadvantage) that they can be sold to other pupilsand there was evidence in some schools of asteady trade in tickets.

‘People sell their tickets. They prefer togo up the field and have a smoke, buysome sweets.’ [Year 9]

‘I’ve done it a couple of times. You cansell them for a £1.’[Why did you do that?]‘When I’ve wanted the money forsomething else, to buy a birthday cardor something.’ [Year 9]

Alternatively, the list system has the advantagethat pupils do not have to queue twice, (once fortickets and again for the meal) and there are notickets to sell. (Not all opportunities forcreativity are lost however and pupils reportedimpersonating absent friends or going throughthe system twice using different tills.)

For some, the process of having to give theirnames was humiliating. Some till staff got toknow which pupils were on free meals so thatthere was no need to give names, whilst others,

because of the high number of pupils on freemeals or a turnover of till staff did not, so thatpupils had to give names every time.

A. ‘It’s embarrassing, cos you have tostand there and get your name tickedoff. The dinner ladies still don’t knowme after two years’B. ‘They could be more discreet. Theyjust sit there and say ‘Name please’ andjust tick it off and everyone’s looking.’C. ‘It would be better if they know whoyou was, so that you could just walk by,rather than standing there waiting forthem to tick the list.’ [Year 9 group]

One group of pupils observed how this wasdifficult for people to get used to, especiallywhen they were new to the system.

A. ‘You can see that some people arereally nervous when they go to get it.’B. ‘Especially in Year 7, you can seethem they say ‘Free school meals’ andthey are nervous.’ [Year 10]

‘My friend has free school meals and hedidn’t eat for the first two weeks of termhere. And then his brother had to takehim and make him.’ [Year8]

Smart card systems are becoming increasinglypopular as a means of eliminating the need forlists or tickets. School 6 and School 7 hadrecently introduced these systems, having beenrequired to do so by their LEA. Administrativestaff from both schools considered that thesystem worked well and was an improvement.Not only were pupils who had free school mealsless conspicuous but there were additionalbenefits that cafeteria staff did not have tohandle money. Opportunities for stealing, lossof dinner money and bullying were reduced. AtSchool 6 the percentage registered for freeschool meals was 33% and at School 7, 8%.Both schools believed this to be an accuratereflection of eligibility. In neither school,however, had the percentage of pupils applying

Stigma

25

for free school meals immediately increasedwith the introduction of the anonymous swipecards.

One pupil, not on free school meals, explainedhow the system worked;

‘There’s this machine we use. Youswipe your card and put money in, andthen you press this button and themoney’s on your card.’

Pupils with free school meals had their cardscredited with the daily free meal allowance eachday after 11.30 a.m., to prevent spending oflunch money at break time. Any money leftunspent was not carried over to the followingday, although additional money could becharged to cards if pupils wished to supplementthe free provision.

Although the cards were popular with most, afew, non free school meal pupils pointed out thedrawbacks for them. They had to queue twice -once to charge the card and once to get thedinner. Lost cards cost £2 to replace and thisacted as a disincentive to use the cafeteria since,once cards were lost, they did not always botherto replace them and so could not buy a schoolmeal.

However, all the pupils interviewed agreed thatthe system disguised those receiving free schoolmeals.

‘People used to just walk past the counterand say their name and not pay, andthat’s why they changed it, so now no-one knows if you don’t pay.’

Parents too were aware of the advantage ofanonymity that the cards provided and feltreassured that their children would no longer bemarked out as taking free meals;

‘They’re worried that they will beteased, though now they’ve got the card

no-one knows. Who knows who has freemeals and who doesn’t.’

‘I think I would now, the other childrendon’t know, because they’ve got this

• Non-discriminatory payment systemshelp reduce embarrassment andstigma

5.2 The problem of packed lunches

Schools recognised that free packed lunchescould raise discrimination issues. Free packedlunches were generally delivered to School 8and School 9 each morning. Distinctivelypackaged, they were identifiable by all pupils,even in School 8 where only a handful ofchildren ever took the free meal. The deliveredmeals were either kept in the fridge or in a coolbox provided by the supplier until thedistribution at lunchtime. Similarly School 10producing its own in-house packed lunches wasobliged to keep the provided sandwiches at thecorrect temperature. This practise contrastedwith the treatment of packed lunches broughtfrom home which were usually stored in theirindividual lunchboxes in a corner of theclassroom.

Two mothers who had not applied for free mealsfor their children, despite their eligibility, raisedtheir concerns about the high profile of the freepacked lunches in their distinctive bags. Theyboth felt that their children would feel differentand that they might be subject to stigmatisation.As one said, had there been a hot meal system inthe school which would not have distinguishedwho was having free school meals, then shewould have taken up the entitlement.

One primary school had attempted to addressthe issue of the distinctive packaging byencouraging all pupils to bring their ownlunchbox to school. Those receiving free schoolmeals left their boxes by the school office where


26

the delivered meal was repacked in each child’sown box in time for the midday break. Theschool was aware that leaving their boxes in aspecial place distinguishes children, butbelieved that as the supplied lunches had to bekept cool until lunchtime, they could not resolvethe issue in a less discriminating way. Howeverseveral parents who were interviewed wereunhappy with the practice and had not taken upthe free meal.

‘I didn’t want them feeling different,because they are dished out from the office.It was my pride, I’m not having any of that.’

The only resolution to this problem is probablythat all packed lunches, whether from home or acommercial supplier, should be stored eachmorning in suitable refrigeration or cool boxes.One parent governor who was not herselfeligible suggested that it might be better forschools with only a few children registered forthe free packed lunch to abandon the wholeprocess and give parents the financial equivalentto provide their own packed lunches for theirchildren.

‘It’s unlikely we’d ever apply, even if wecould. It’s a bit obvious, especially atthe primary school. Not very manychildren take them but everyone knows,So-and-So gets their lunch from theoffice. Where there are so few, would itbe better to give a cash allowance sothat parents could provide their ownsandwiches?’

One LEA had adopted that policy in the past, toaddress the problem of providing small numbersof meals to isolated rural schools. However asthe legislation clearly states that a meal must beprovided and a cash payment cannot be made inlieu of a meal, the LEA had returned toproviding the packed lunches.

• Schools need to make free packedmeals less readily identifiable

5.3 Being different

Although many schools continue to operatesystems that do mark out pupils taking freeschool meals, the study suggested that theconsequences of this discrimination may vary.In the survey, pupils at Schools 1-5 (withdiscriminatory payment systems) are just aslikely as those at Schools 6-7 (with cashlesssystems) to suggest stigma as a reason for pupilsnot taking free meals. (The cashless systemshad only recently been introduced in Schools 6-7 and pupils may have been thinking morewidely than current experience in their ownschool.) The interview data suggest that atschools with higher proportions registered andtaking their free meal, embarrassment or stigmawas not identified by pupils as a reason for nottaking the meal. However, in some, but not all,schools where only a few pupils were registered,pupils admitted that there were problems. Frompupils’ own accounts, there appears to besecurity in numbers.

‘I know someone in Year 5, he doesn’thave school meals because he’s tooembarrassed because hardly anyonehas them.’[Year 4]

‘There’s three other people in my formand I'm fine with it. At the end of theday, you get your food. That’s the main

[Year 9]

Such views were echoed in parents’ accounts;

‘There’s no problem with stigma, asthere are a lot of single mothers in thearea.’

‘Stigma? No, there’s that many peopleon benefits now.’

At School 9, where over 11% of pupils took thefree packed lunch, none of the pupilsinterviewed mentioned embarrassment or stigmaas being a problem. The school made noattempt to disguise the free packed meals in

Stigma

27

their distinctive bags when they were distributedat lunchtime by the dinner assistants. Whenpupils were asked if there was ever any teasingabout free school meals, none could recall anyincidents that they had seen. However, in morerural School 8, where five pupils were known tobe eligible but currently only one pupil took thefree packed lunch, pupils reported that teasingabout free school meals was a frequentoccurrence.

A. ‘In the fifth and sixth year, people dostart taking the micky out of you, so Ireckon people will be a bit scared abouttaking it then.’[So what do people say?]A. ‘They just say, ‘Oh ha ha, you haveto have free school meals’ or ‘Ha,you’ve got a horrible bag.’’B. ‘Everybody teases everyone, ‘You’vegot a rubbish lunch, you’ve only got a

[Year 6 group]

These pupils commented that those who did getteased did not tell teachers, which explainsperhaps why adults in schools, whether heads,teachers, administrative or kitchen staff tend tobelieve that there is little stigma or teasing inrelation to free school meals. They may,however, underestimate the extent to whichmany children do worry about the teasing andname calling.

• Schools need to vigilant to discourageteasing and name calling of pupils onfree school meals especially wheretake up is low and free school mealpupils more isolated

At School 3, where only around 3% of pupilsactually took the free school meal, but at whichthe highest proportion (49%) of pupils identifystigma as key to limiting take up, there wasevidence of more serious problems with namecalling and teasing.

A. ‘Most people at this school wouldcall them cheap as soon as they foundout’,B. ‘It’s difficult, if people see you’ve got

C. ‘They’re frightened about what other

A. ‘Because they don’t want anybody toknow they are a gypo.’

One parent, who had been eligible in the pastbut had not applied, described the localsituation.

‘Both children said ‘No way Mum’. Ihaven’t brought my children up to beclass conscious but there is definitely adistinction. They are at the middle andhigh schools now, which take childrenfrom the village and a wider catchmentarea and there is a gap between thosechildren and the children from thegypsy encampment. And everyoneseems to know everyone who does takefree school meals, because there is a listof children taking free school meals.’

Such strong responses were rare. More often,pupils commented that, whereas people mightbe put off from taking a free school mealbecause they were worried about being teased,in actual fact that just didn’t happen in theirschool. One pupil, who declined to take her freemeal, explained that it was not teasing whichput her off, but the fact that she would have tofield questions from other pupils;

‘I wouldn’t get teased, not teased, but ask. It saves hassle to pay for it

yourself.’

For older pupils, there were more issues aroundwhat people thought rather than what theyactually said. Both parents and pupils describedworries and feelings about being perceived as‘lower’ or inferior;


28

‘My daughter, she says ‘I feel guiltyeven though other girls get it. Thepeople’s faces in the canteen, the waythey look at you.’ It doesn’t put her off.I say to her ‘You’re entitled.’’

‘And they don’t want to seem lower, likelower than their friends. Like peoplewill think that they are really poor andthat.’[Year 7]

‘People just think that if you’re on freeschool meals you’re going to be a one-sock person, they think that you’re notvery nice and that your parents justcan’t be bothered to get a job orsomethink. But that’s not the case inmost situations.’ [Year 7]

‘Some of my friends, they think like, theyhave a bad life, not life, that taking aticket means you have a bad home lifeand they sort of try to be like everyoneelse and they don’t have it.’ [Year 8]

This was not a universal feeling. Duringinterviews with pupils having their home madepacked lunches in schools offering hot meals,pupils commented that they would like to havethe hot meal but their family could not afford it,particularly where there were other children inthe family. They had enquired about free mealsand had been disappointed not to be eligible.One boy, at a school where eligibility was high,said he would like to have free school meals ifhe could as;

‘All my friend tell me how nice it is.’

Several pupils from both secondary and primaryschools suggested that if free school meals weremore widely available then there would befewer problems around stigma and peoplefeeling different.

‘I think if they do it, they should do itfor nearly all the school because

otherwise people feel that they aredifferent.’ [Year 9]

‘I think the school should try to includeeveryone, because they do it for peoplewho are single parented `but they don’tdo it for people who have two parentswho both work who are poor. It’s like ifthey both work they will have enoughmoney and stuff like that.’ [Year 6]

As issues around teasing and stigma were moreoften voiced in schools were registeredeligibility was low, widening eligibility formore pupils to have free meals might reducethese problems and improve take up by all. Inthe interviews, parents on Working FamiliesTax Credit (WFTC) commented that they couldnot afford for their children to have schoolmeals everyday. Although WFTC includes anotional element in lieu of free school meals,parents were not always aware of that. Theycommented that moving from Income Supportto WFTC had meant that their children nowtook packed lunches. One mother of a primarypupil, previously having free school meals,believed a hot meal would be better for her sonat midday, rather than waiting until she arrivedhome from work to prepare one.

‘As a working parent, it would be abenefit for him and for me to have a hotmeal in school. It’s late by the time I gethome to cook. If he had a lunchtimemeal and came home to have a snack, itwould be better’.

‘I’m worse off now on family credit.They say you’ll be better off, but beforeI didn’t have to pay towards the rent orCouncil Tax or school meals. You canearn £57, but when you work it out,you’re working for almost nothing.’

• Problems of embarrassment andstigma which attach to free schoolmeals might reduce if more pupilstook up their entitlement.

29

6 Conclusions and recommendations

This short exploratory study reveals substantialevidence of parents and pupils not taking uptheir entitlement to free school meals. Schoolsoften fail to tackle the problem of poor take upin the mistaken belief that low take up reflectsparents reticence to apply because of pride andconcerns about stigma. Whilst this may be truefor some parents who fear that their child willbe marked out as different at school, for manythe overwhelming reasons relate to the qualityof the meal offered and a lack of informationabout how the free meals system works.

The study has highlighted the diversity of mealprovision, whether free or paid, which iscurrently on offer to pupils. The evidencewithin this report raises questions of howcompulsory nutritional standards for schoolmeals will impact on the school cafeteria, andmore importantly, on pupils. In addition to theintroduction of the new standards, there is arecommendation that a two course meal shouldbe available for pupils on free school meals. Ifschool meals are to play a role in promotinggood health and addressing social disadvantage,then perhaps now is the time for substantivestudy, in terms of scale and scope, to identifysuccessful strategies and models of goodpractice for the take up of healthy balancedmeals by all school pupils.

This research suggests that schools cansuccessfully improve take up by addressingdiscriminatory practices and by providingquality meals which parents and pupils willwant to take. However, there is currently littleincentive for schools to increase take up of freemeals. If take up is to improve, then the waysby which schools could be motivated to adoptgood practices need to be explored andimplemented.

6.1 Selling free school meals

The study suggests that schools and benefitsagencies do not always inform parents abouttheir entitlement to free school meals. Someparents ‘fall through the system’ and remainunaware that the provision is available for theirchildren. Even parents who do know that theyare eligible are put off from applying becausethey do not know how the system works or howfree school meals operate in their child’s school.

• Schools, LEAs and Benefit Offices needto ensure that parents are aware of theireligibility. Regular reminders areneeded from schools to ensure that ifparents’ circumstances change, they areaware of their entitlement and how tomake an application.

• Schools need to reassure parents abouthow free school meals are organised inthe school. Parents need to know thattheir children will not be identified asdifferent, and that they will still havethe flexibility to alter their arrangementson a day-to-day basis if they wish.

• Schools need to ‘sell’ the free schoolmeal option to parents. They should letparents see what is on offer as a freemeal and stress the value, nutritionallyand financially. This is more likely tobe successful if the meal is alsoattractive to a majority of children whopay.

• Schools may need to work harder whenonly a minority of pupils qualify forfree lunch, because there is less likely tobe a ‘grapevine’ of information.


30

6.2 Making the registration process easy

As all parents on the qualifying benefits areentitled to free meals for their school agechildren, agencies should be working togetherwith the LEA to develop direct systems ofregistration and confirmation of continuedeligibility. Meantime, access to the registrationprocess should be as widely publicised aspossible.

• Parents should be able to complete theregistration process either at school, acentral office or by post, whichever isthe best option for them.

• Parents should be able to confirm theircontinuing eligibility at the school, atthe central office or by post so thatchildren do not have to go without ameal.

• Registration for free school mealsshould be directly available for parentson the required benefits without furtherform-filling.

• Free school meals should be provided assoon as parents make the application.

6.3 Providing a quality meal in congenialsurroundings

Often the choices available in school,particularly in secondary school cafeterias, areunsuitable, with unhealthy options and arestricted and repetitive range of food.Overcrowded dining rooms and long queuesdeter pupils from taking their meal in school,especially if their friends bring a packed lunchfrom home and eat elsewhere. Schools that onlyoffer a packed lunch are unlikely to maximisetake up.

• Schools can improve take up byproviding meals that children andparents value. If the outside caterer’s

meal is unsatisfactory, schools shouldexplore producing a cooked meal orpacked lunches in school to improvequality.

• Schools should check regularly thatmeal ticket value keeps pace withcafeteria prices and purchases a fullmeal.

• The value of the meal ticket shouldpermit pupils to make healthy choices.Healthy food should be available for allpupils, not just those who arrive at thecafeteria first.

• School should monitor that the range offood offered provides sufficient choiceand variety for free school meals pupilswho follow restricted diets.

• Having a free school meal should notprevent pupils from eating with theirfriends who bring packed lunch fromhome. If dining space does not permitthose taking hot meals to sit withpacked lunch pupils, cafeterias shouldprovide the equivalent of a packed mealwhich pupils can take out to eat withfriends.

• Schools need to establish systems forchecking if pupils take the meals theyare registered for and if they are not,sensitively and without pressurisingpupils, find out the reason.

6.4 Addressing discriminatory practices

Even schools which believe they are providingfair and non-discriminatory arrangements forfree school meals, continue to operate systemswhich make pupils on free school meals readilyidentifiable. Whilst there may be no overtteasing, name calling or bullying in the school,pupils sensitive about receiving free provisionmay prefer not to take up their entitlement ifthey think others are aware that they do.

Conclusions and recommendations

31

• Schools with cafeteria systems shouldwhere possible introduce cashlesssystems such as smart cards to helpeliminate identification at the tills.

• Schools with low eligibility for freemeals and providing only packedlunches should reduce the high profileof the free meals by encouraging pupilsto bring their own lunchboxes for thefree meal and storing all packed mealstogether.

• Schools need to be vigilant todiscourage teasing and name calling ofpupils on free school meals especiallywhere take up is low and free schoolmeal pupils more isolated.

32

• References

Cole-Hamilton, I., Dibbs S., O’Rouke J. (1991) Fact Sheet School Meals Food Commission CPAGLondonDfEE (2000) Healthy School Lunches Guidance for school caterers on implementing nationalnutritional standards. LondonFood Standards Agency (2000) National Diet and Nutrition Survey of Young People Aged 4-18 LondonHouse of Commons Education and Employment Committee (1999) School meals Stationery OfficeLondonMcMahon W.and Marsh T., (1999) Filling the Gap CPAG LondonNational Audit Office Report (2001) Tackling Obesity in England NAO LondonSammons P., Thomas S., Mortimore P., Owen C., Pennell H. (1994) Assessing school effectiveness:developing measures to put school performance in context. London

33

Appendix 1: The case study schools.

Thirteen schools were selected for the case studies in seven LEAs. In five LEAs, both a secondary and afeeder middle or primary school were selected for inclusion.

Table A 1 Case Study Schools

LEA School Type Totalpupils

%registeredfor freemeals

A 1 Secondary 1200 4 Rural town school. Lists at till forfree school meals.

B 2 Secondary 1400 13 Large town school with ticketsystem for free school meals.School run cafeteria

C 3 Secondary 1000 13 Small town with lists at till for freeschool meals.

D 4 Secondary 1100 9 Suburban school with ticket system.5%of pupils EAL

E 5 Secondary 1150 26 City secondary with cafeteria. Listsfor free school meals. LEA operatedcafeteria

F 6 Secondary 900 33 City school with cashless cafeteriaF 7 Secondary 800 6 City school with cashless cafeteriaA 8 Primary 150 3 Rural school with packed lunches

onlyB 9 Middle 600 11 Large town. Packed lunches onlyC 10 Middle 222 9 Small town school producing in

house free packed lunchesD 11 Primary 450 14 Suburban primary. Hot meal

brought inE 12 Primary 201 36 City school, hot meal cooked on the

premisesG 13 Primary 185 55 Inner city school with over 50%

EAL. Hot meal brought in

34

Appendix 2: Questionnaire survey and interviews with pupils

Questionnaires were completed by 474 pupils attending the seven secondary case study schools. Thesequestionnaires provided data on daily lunchtime arrangements, such as how many pupils regularly usedthe school cafeteria and how much was usually spent there at lunchtime. It also asked pupils the reasonswhy pupils might not take up free meals and what aspects of their school encouraged or discouraged thetake up of free meals.

Table A.2.1 Questionnaire survey pupils by school and school year

SchoolYear 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

total

7 18 12 20 508 22 14 22 20 24 1029 1 21 39 27 27 11510 22 11 29 25 24 29 14011 11 27 18 5612/13 3 3Year notrecorded

5 1 1 1 8

Total 46 65 86 74 33 114 56 474

Interviews with pupilsInterviews were conducted to collect the view and experiences of pupils. They covered similar issues tothe survey questionnaire but in particular provided the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding aroundthe issues limiting the take up of free meals.

Table A 2. 2 Pupils interviewed in secondary and primary middle schools

Pupils interviewed in Secondary Primary/middleFormal groups 168 43Informal groups 27 58Individual telephone 13Total 208 111

There were three types of interviews, formal groups, informal groups and individual interviews bytelephone

• Formal groups. Some school s were able to provide the option for the researchers to have smallgroups of pupils from 2-3 to 6 in size to discuss the school meals provided and the specific issueof free school mealsAt one school, two whole classes were given over to the researcher so thatopportunities for small group discussions were limited.

• Informal groups over the lunch period. Researchers spoke to pupils over lunch at the same timeas observing cafeteria and dining room practises.

35

• Individual interviews by telephone. The questionnaires completed by secondary pupils providedthe option to complete a section for those who were happy to speak to a researcher again.

36

Appendix 3: Parent interviews

The case study schools forwarded letters to a sample of parents, explaining the aims of the study andinviting parents to contact the research team. Initially, 100 letters were sent out at each school butbecause of the low response, this was increased to 200 in secondary schools and 150 in each primary/middle school. Respondents were contacted by telephone for a short semi structured interview. At theend of each successful interview, parents were asked if they could put the researchers in touch with otherparents and this snowball technique provided a further opportunity to access parents.

As it was necessary to obtain parental consent to speak to pupils who had volunteered for telephoneinterviews, some additional parents were interviewed at that time.

A total of 51 parents, mainly mothers (only one father) provided an interview. Because of the snowballtechnique and as there were often children in the family attending schools not included in the case study,parents sometimes raised issues which related to other schools.

Table A. 3 Parents interviewed by eligibility for free school meals

Parents’ entitlement to free school mealsCurrently eligible

All children taking free schoolmealsSome taking free school mealsNone taking free school meals

1912

Eligible in the past but not nowTook free school mealsDid not take free school meals

59

Never eligible to free school meals 15Total parents 51

improving the take up of free school meals · free meals. it identified good models of practice and...

Documents