School meals

Universal Credit, which will see five benefits combined into one, means the end of the current basis for determining free school meals and therefore Pupil Premium eligibility. The Department does not yet know how it will identify disadvantaged pupils following Universal Credit’s introduction, and there is relatively little time to find an answer. There has also been substantial variation in the level of under-claiming between local authorities. In 2013, in some areas more than 30% of eligible pupils did not take up their free school meals entitlement compared to 0% in other areas. The Department told us that it wanted to target local authorities where under-claiming was high, so that schools do not miss out on funding because parents fail to claim. 14

A study by Feinstein et al 11 in 2008 tested the impact of diet at several points in childhood on children’s school attainment. The study, using longitudinal data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) 12 , examined differences between children who used packed lunches and those who ate school meals. It also took into consideration children’s diet before they started school.

sympathise with the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon), for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and for Redcar (Ian Swales), which they made well in their passionate contributions to the debate. Although the sums that I have just quoted may seem small compared with the overall education budget, in the current fiscal climate it would be genuinely difficult to increase spending by between £35 million and £70 million, however desirable it would be to extend free school meals to students at sixth-form and FE colleges. Of course, we keep the matter under review and I will discuss the arguments that have been made today with my ministerial colleagues. That is the commitment that I give to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. (HC Deb 13 June 2012 c94W).

2.7 Since 2005, schools across Northern Ireland have made significant progress in meeting the Department’s nutrition requirements. Additional improvement, however, is still needed to ensure that all schools are fully compliant with the standards: in particular, the Nutritional Associates have highlighted ongoing concerns relating to what foods can be served together and the extent to which menus are balanced. Moreover, pupils at many schools still have access to a variety of food and beverages from vending machines and tuck shops that is of little nutritional value – for example, high in fat, sodium, and/or added sugars, but low in nutrients such as vitamins or minerals. The continued existence of unhealthy food in vending machines and tuck shops in some schools is at odds with the healthy eating message being delivered by school meals services. Such conflicting messages

The Tackling Poverty Action Plan, issued in July 2013, uses the percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals who achieve the Level 2 threshold including English/Welsh and mathematics at Key Stage 4 as one of the key performance indicators to measure progress against the objectives of this plan. This data can be found in Table 4 and Chart 3 of this bulletin. The plan also gives a target to reduce the attainment gap at Foundation Phase. Data for this can be found in Table 1.

The Tackling Poverty Action Plan, issued in July 2013, uses the percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals who achieve the Level 2 threshold including English/Welsh and mathematics at Key Stage 4 as one of the key performance indicators to measure progress against the objectives of this plan. This data can be found in Table 4 and Chart 3 of this bulletin. The plan also gives a target to reduce the attainment gap at Foundation Phase. Data for this can be found in Table 1.

A range of other factors influenced take-up. School meals were preferable where the school menu was seen to offer a wider range of food than packed lunches. In spite of efforts by schools to accommodate difference, dietary or religious requirements and the restrictive tastes of self- professed ‘fussy eaters’ limited the choice of food from the school menu. Strategies aimed at tackling barriers relating to choice included the pre-ordering system, involving pupils in menu choice and implementing strict packed lunch policies to prohibit foods that made packed lunches more appealing than school meals, such as crisps, chocolate and fizzy drinks. Where food was perceived to be of poor quality both by parents and by children, this was a barrier to take-up. Control over the type and amount of food eaten was an important factor for both parents and pupils and an area where packed lunches could be seen to offer more autonomy. Evidence suggests that giving pupils and parents more control over menu choices through pre-ordering systems, increasing pupils’ input into menu design and good communication with parents about what and how much their child is eating at lunchtime could facilitate take-up of school meals in families where control acts as a concern.

Some pupils said that they preferred not to take up their eligibility because they knew that other people would be aware of their free meal status. Even schools that believe they are providing fair and non discriminatory arrangements for free school meals, continue to operate systems which make pupils on free school meals readily identifiable. Parents and pupils raised two major concerns that gave rise to discrimination, the systems of payment for cafeteria meals and the storage and presentation of free packed lunches. If pupils have to identify themselves in any way to the dinner staff, either by giving their names or producing tickets or tokens for their meal, this was a source of embarrassment for some pupils. Two secondary schools had recently introduced cashless systems in their cafeterias so that all pupils used smart cards to pay for their meals. This meant that pupils taking free meals could retain their anonymity at the till. In schools where only free packed meals were on offer, some parents who declined to take up meals said that the high profile packaging of the meals and their storage separately from other pupils’ home produced lunches had deterred them from applying.

Since August 2010 local authorities have been permitted to provide free school lunches to all P1-3 pupils, and may provide food and drink at school free of charge at any point of the school day (with the exception of lunch time). However, they are not required to do so. Some local authorities and individual schools provide free fruit, breakfasts or other free school meals to children and young people. 18

The data from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) gives the number of all 4 to 15 year-olds who live in a household that claims one of: Income Support; Income- based Jobseekers Allowance; Income-related Employment and Support Allowance or Child Tax Credit (who are not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual gross income of no more than £16,190). This covers 99% of the pupils entitled to free school meals. The information is produced at local authority level from a 10% sample (approximately 2.4m records), and covers December 2012.

The study on National Cost Assessment of the school meals programme illustrates the costs drivers of the existing programme at the school level and the central level. In view of these appropriate steps can be taken to manage the drivers at both levels in other to make the programme more cost effective and better managed. The cost per child for both the school level and central was established at GMD652.7 and GMD431.8 respectively, leading to consolidated cost of D1084.50 per child /annum ($ 27.11 per child per annum). As explained earlier the reason for a high cost at the school level is because no cost was provided for logistics, storage & utilities, management and administration and other running costs at the central level. Having comprehend the costs nature of the existing programme at both levels policy maker and planner can now be in a position to formulate and plan future school meal programmes that will optimize its benefits and reduce its costs for posterity.

Hence, the third factor – school food systems – has developed very differently across European countries. The main two types are a complete school meal provided to a majority of pupils (e.g. Italy and Finland) versus single food items (e.g. milk, fruit) offered in addition to, or instead of a lunch box brought from home (e.g. Norway and often in Denmark). Providing organic school food is especially de- manding because these products may have separate supply chains, premium prices, underdeveloped processing, and restricted avail- ability, while the provision itself has to match certification standards. Italy has a complete meal service with a warm lunch for the majority of pupils from six to 13 years. It can be seen as a frontrunner of or- ganic school food provision. Striving for high quality school food, Italian regions have implemented ambitious laws and guidelines sup- porting the use of organic produce. Municipalities have designed sophisticated calls for tenders and supported the establishment of organic supply chains – often on a regional basis. Up to 40 % (by weight) of the food products procured for school meals are organic.

If the government continued to offer free school meals to all children whose families claim universal credit, around two million children from poor and low-income families in England would benefit once roll out is completed. Under the benefits system that universal credit is replacing, only families where parents are working too few hours to claim working tax credits are entitled to free school meals. The government proposals will mean that just 700,000 of the 1,700,000 school children in poverty who could be helped, will receive free school meals. 19

In order to prevent children and young people from becoming obese, healthier eating patterns are urgent. Organic school meals may be an effective strategy to provide healthy food to children. The purpose of this study was to take a closer look into the current status of organic school meal systems in Denmark, by conducting a case study of three municipalities in the Zealand region that have the most developed models for school meals service in this country. These municipalities have for some years introduced organic food for sale in their primary schools, with three quite different approaches. Copenhagen has established a large central kitchen, producing partly organic food that is heated and sold in tuck shops at the schools. Roskilde cooperates with an organic catering company, delivering food to be sold in school canteens. Gladsaxe has part-time employed staff preparing and selling food at each school, and these people are educated about organic food by a municipal coordinator. Based on interviews with key informants in the three municipalities, the report describes the involved actors, interactions among actors, and barriers and future plans regarding an increased consumption of organic food in school meals. Similarities and differences between the municipalities are discussed. The main challenges for an increased consumption of organic food in schools are related to lack of infrastructure in the schools such as kitchens and dining halls, and that the school meal systems developed so far are not well rooted among the pupils, teachers, other school staff and the parents.

16. There were 7,596 pupils who were recorded as being present on census day but schools indicated they were not availing of a school lunch break. These pupils were mainly in nursery and primary schools. This will include part-time nursery pupils and primary pupils whose school day, by census date, did not yet include a lunch break. From the 2012/13 school meals census data onwards these pupils have been excluded from the count of pupils present for the purposes of calculating uptake of school meals.

10. The main statistics in this statistical bulletin have been derived from the annual school meals data collection, commonly known as the school meals census. The data collection for the 2014/15 school meals census was undertaken by the Department, with data collected directly from each grant-aided school. Prior to 2012/13 the former ELBs were responsible for the collection of data in relation to schools in the controlled and maintained sectors and provided a collated return for their area to the Department.

Food deprivation remains a serious obstacle to children’s physical and cognitive development in many developing countries. For example, the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) provided school meals to around 22 million children in 70 countries in 2008 (Bundy et al., 2009). SMPs are generally thought to help tackle the problem of chronic food shortages for school age children. In the short-run, school meals are expected to alleviate hunger in the classroom and help the child to concentrate better and learn more. In the long-run, improved nutrition is expected to increase children’s physiological capacity for learning and to reduce morbidity by strengthening the immune system, thereby reducing missed school days due to sickness. In addition, school meals make going to school more attractive. The impact of on-site school meals on learning is expected to operate through an increase in school attendance and through improvement in learning efficiency while in school, because in the absence of hunger children are able to concentrate better and because (micronutrient-fortified) school meals may also improve cognitive functions. School meals can also subsidize the cost of school attendance by providing food with the potential of improving learning and nutrition (Adelman et al., 2008). If beneficiary households respond to school meals by reducing their food expenditures, more resources will be available, which may increase expenditures on education or other activities.

Universal Credit, which will see five benefits combined into one, means the end of the current basis for determining free school meals and therefore Pupil Premium eligibility. The Department does not yet know how it will identify disadvantaged pupils following Universal Credit’s introduction, and there is relatively little time to find an answer. There has also been substantial variation in the level of under-claiming between local authorities. In 2013, in some areas more than 30% of eligible pupils did not take up their free school meals entitlement compared to 0% in other areas. The Department told us that it wanted to target local authorities where under-claiming was high, so that schools do not miss out on funding because parents fail to claim. 13

If the government continued to offer free school meals to all children whose families claim universal credit, around two million children from poor and low-income families in England would benefit once roll out is completed. Under the benefits system that universal credit is replacing, only families where parents are working too few hours to claim working tax credits are entitled to free school meals. The government proposals will mean that just 700,000 of the 1,700,000 school children in poverty who could be helped, will receive free school meals. 19

According to the authors of the School Food Plan, take-up is likely to be high where there is a commitment from senior management, the governors and the catering staff to achieve this – also when the dining hall experience is pleasant (Dimbleby and Vincent, 2013). Therefore, investing in the facilities to make them welcoming and efficient and potentially staggering lunch breaks and having special arrangements for reception children when they first start taking school meals can help. Given that exposing children to a variety of foods can improve the willingness to try new foods in the long term and that peer pressure may help in this regard having a variety of food available on menus, instituting food-themed days or other promotional activity or simply putting vegetables on every child’s plate can help, as can sitting all children (including those who continue to take packed lunches) together – also a key factor in allowing any socialisation and dining etiquette impacts to take place (Andersen et al., 2016). As what is put on the plate is not necessarily what ends up getting eaten by children, encouraging children to finish what’s on their plate and making food look more appealing is likely to ensure school meals actually provide enough energy and the appropriate nutritional content to children taking them.