« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER THREE: WHERE PUPILS EAT
3.1 This chapter summarises baseline findings on where pupils eat, including details of the dining hall, lunchtime rules, procedures and queuing arrangements, the extent to which lunchtime is a social occasion and pupil's decisions about where to eat. Key recommendations from Hungry for Success relating to where pupils eat include:
Recommendation 11: All schools should examine their seating and queuing arrangements to ensure that the social experience of lunch is maximised
Recommendation 12: To address queuing difficulties and in any review of the length of the lunch break, the following factors should be considered:
- Multiple service points
- More cash points in cash cafeterias
- Staggered arrivals of diners/separate sittings
- Pre-ordering facility
- Separate counter for collecting pre-ordered meals
- Delivery of pre-ordered meals to lunchtime clubs
- Examining the potential for additional outlets elsewhere in the school
- The needs of disabled pupils
Recommendation 13: When education authorities and schools are examining the structure of the school day, the lunchtime experience should be part of that consideration
Recommendation 17: Improvements to the dining room to enhance its atmosphere and ambience, and encourage its use as a social area should be considered as a priority by local authorities and should be taken into account in their wider school estate planning. It is desirable, whenever possible, that a separate dining area should be provided
Recommendation 18: Future design, layout and usage, along with other factors such as décor and background music, should be considered by all schools, with significant pupils' input and programmes for change drawn up
The dining room
3.2 Some of the dining rooms were dedicated rooms. In one or two cases, these rooms were separate from the main buildings and occasionally they were linked to additional eating space. However, some of the dining areas were multi-purpose and so acted as an assembly hall or were used as a sixth form common room. In a number of cases, dining rooms were used as a thoroughfare at other times of the day.
3.3 Some schools suffered from a lack of space and cramped conditions. A lack of tables and chairs was reported in some schools. Such problems tended to be found in the schools where dining areas were multi-purpose or were central corridors for most of the day.
3.4 The size and shapes of tables and types of chairs varied across schools. However, some schools that have had recent refurbishments to the dining rooms has consulted with pupils and introduced changes to make the dining room more comfortable, and in one or two cases, to appear more like a café or bistro
"They were involved right from the word go in the design, the tendering, and actually awarding of the contract. That is pupil power in action. It was great" (Head Teacher, secondary school).
3.5 One school had varied the types of seating within the dining room, providing oblong screened, circular and high tables in different areas of the room. In one of the special schools with a wider age range of pupils, some of the older pupils had to use furniture that was too small for them.
3.6 In a number of secondary schools, pupils operated "unofficial" seating arrangements, meaning that areas or specific tables were allocated by the pupils to specific year groups. In one school, the policy to segregate year groups had been official, but had been changed recently by the new Rector to enable pupils to mix more and for families to sit together. However, the pupils preferred to stick to the areas previously designated, which may have been in part due to a lack of awareness of the changes.
3.7 Generally, pupils bringing in packed lunches were not segregated from those taking school meals, though segregation did happen informally in a number of cases. One small primary school had separated the two groups due to a lack of space in the dining area. This change was also seen to have improved discipline and reduced noise.
3.8 The décor in the dining areas was generally colourful and bright. Many of the dining rooms had brightly coloured walls and furniture and one school had recently been redecorated, involving pupils in the choice of colour scheme. This had meant that the changes were well received and had increased the pupils' satisfaction with the eating space as previously it had been in a poor state of decoration with peeling paint and a broken window. Despite the improvements, the head felt that there were still more improvements that could be made.
3.9 Posters were used in some case study schools to brighten the dining room, although there were other schools where no posters were in evidence, often where dining rooms had restricted wall space. Many of the posters were related to healthy eating; others were displayed on the subject of behaviour or food brand advertising. Many of the schools also included displays of the pupils' work on the walls. For example, in one of the special schools, displays of pupils' work; for example national poetry day poems about food, work on food groups and work on how the school promotes health, were pinned on the walls.
3.10 In the questionnaires, pupils were asked to rate the dining room as a place to eat (see Figure 3.1). Ratings were generally more positive in primary than secondary schools, as a significantly higher number of pupils in secondary than primary schools rated the school dining room as not a nice place to eat (31% compared to 17%). One secondary pupil when asked why they did not use the school canteen at lunchtime replied: "It doesn't usually look appealing…I think if it looked better I would go". This suggests that improving the dining rooms may encourage more pupils to use the school meals service.
3.11 It should be noted that the majority of pupils in all schools rated the dining room as a nice place to eat. These results may suggest that any changes made to dining rooms have been well received. However, it may also be that the different age groups have different expectations about what the dining room should look like, with secondary pupils comparing the dining room to other nearby outlets that they use at lunchtime.
Figure 3.1: What do you think of your school dining room as a place to eat in? (% of pupils)
Base: Primary - 648; Secondary - 1623, Special - 82
Percentages do not all add up to 100 due to rounding
Source: case study school pupils' attitudinal questionnaires
3.12 Among secondary pupils, opinions towards the dining room appeared to worsen with age (see Figure 3.2). For example, 68% of pupils in S1 rate the dining room as a nice place to eat compared with 52% of S5 pupils.
Figure 3.2: What do you think of your school dining room as a place to eat in? (% of secondary pupils)
Base: S1 - 229; S2, - 424; S3 - 374; S4 -312; S5 -202, S6 -64
Percentages do not all add up to 100 due to rounding
Source: case study school pupils' attitudinal questionnaires - secondary schools
Lunchtime rules, procedures and queuing
3.13 As the size of the dining room and queuing could be an issue in some schools, they had put procedures in place to reduce queuing. In a number of primary schools, pupils in primary one tended to come to the dining room approximately 10 minutes before older pupils, so they could be served and seated before the others. Remaining pupils from different year groups entered the dining room in stages. This could be run on a rotation scheme so a certain year group was not always the last to be served. Pupils in the last year to be served complained about the lack of choice available to them. This was a particular problem where the rotation scheme was not in operation. The fact that primary schools usually had different sittings for different year groups helped to reduce queuing times, which in turn could help to improve behaviour in the dining hall. The majority of secondary schools had one single sitting, although some had introduced slightly staggered starts to lunchtime to enable younger pupils to queue for lunch before the older pupils.
3.14 Behaviour in the queues did vary from school to school. Positive behaviour was helped by good queue management systems including active supervision by staff and prefects. In contrast, indiscipline in queues was associated with a complex interaction between larger numbers of pupils; longer waiting times; poor supervision; inadequate paying facilities and the fear of popular food items running out leading to limited choice:
"If you are not at the front of the queue you miss out on like half the things there" (pupil, secondary school ).
3.15 A number of schools had introduced separate areas for different types of food ( e.g. hot food, snack food, sandwiches and salad). For example, salad or deli bars and milk bars had been introduced in some schools. These bars created an additional service point as well as changing the look of the canteen, to appear more like a bistro or café. Cold food such as sandwiches, pre-packed salads portions, crisps, cakes and fruit were sometimes sold on a self-service basis. When this was done and managed well, it facilitated quicker service, which in turn helped foster positive behaviour. However, it should be noted that this did not always work well; sometimes queuing times were still a problem despite the existence of separate areas. In such cases, some pupils opted for cold food in order to spend less time over lunch.
3.16 Efficient queue management could have unexpected consequences. In one medium sized primary school, queues were managed very efficiently and the behaviour of pupils was good. Nonetheless, pupils did report frustration with the queuing system as it meant they had to make a decision between hot and cold food and join the appropriate queue before they had seen what choices were available.
3.17 Factors considered in the layout of food could at times also lead to undesired outcomes. For example, one smaller secondary school, where pupils perceived queuing times to be long, had moved chocolate and sweets next to the till due to a reported problem with pilfering. One consequence of this action, reported by older pupil, was that some pupils went straight to the till and buy chocolate rather than waiting in a long queue to buy more healthy choices:
"I canny be bothered to go there, to like push all the way over the other side so I just have a packet of sweets because they are beside the tills so wherever you go you can get sweets" (pupil, secondary school).
3.18 In one large secondary school, the Head Teacher used queuing as a form of time management and was reluctant to reduce queuing time as this increased the amount of unstructured time pupils had over the lunch break:
"…..if there is a very efficient flow through the dining room and the kids are out very very quickly that poses a whole series of other difficulties, principally what they will do with the remainder of the time. .......If you increase the flow to the extent that the pupils have a significant amount of time to fill at lunchtime one should not be surprised if they fill it doing things that you disapprove of" (Head Teacher, secondary school).
3.19 The Head Teacher in this school actively promoted positive behaviour and queues were supervised by members of the senior management team, supplemented by sixth year pupils on a rota basis. At the same time, researchers observed that the queues were sometimes boisterous and pupils reported some problems with jostling and spilt food in the congested payment queue.
Queuing times
3.20 Pupils' responses to questions in the questionnaires about queuing suggested that queuing times were generally acceptable across all of the case study schools. Pupils who at least sometimes had a school meal were asked how long they had to queue for the lunch (see Figure 3.3). Reported queuing times were shortest in special schools, with just over a half of pupils being served within 5 minutes. Perhaps, expectedly, due to the larger school rolls in secondary schools, reported queuing times were longer than those in primary schools. However, over half the pupils in both primary and secondary schools said they were generally served within 10 minutes. It should be noted that a significant proportion of pupils (24% of primary and 13% of secondary pupils) said that queuing times varied day to day.
3.21 Perceptions of queuing times varied among the different year groups within primary and secondary schools, with older pupils in both having reporting shorter queuing times than younger pupils. For example, primary seven pupils reported shorter times than the younger pupils, with 53% saying they were served within five minutes (compared with 22% of primary five pupils and 30% of primary six pupils). In secondary schools, 34% of S6 pupils said they queued for less than five minutes compared with 16% of pupils in S1.
Figure 3.3: How long do you usually have to queue for your school meal? (% pupils)
Base = Primary - 450; Secondary - 784; Special - 74 (all those who sometimes eat a school meal)
Percentages do not all add up to 100 due to rounding
Source: case study school pupils' attitudinal questionnaires
3.22 Pupils were also asked whether they considered the queuing times to be acceptable (Figure 3.4). Given the fact that reported queuing times in secondary schools were longer than those in primary schools, it is perhaps not surprising that satisfaction with queuing times was lower in secondary schools. That is, 53% of secondary school pupils felt that the queues were too long, as opposed to 33% of primary school pupils. Within secondary schools, pupils in S4 were most unhappy with queues, with 66% feeling that the queues were too long. In primary schools, just under half of primary 5 and primary 6 pupils felt the queues were 'OK' (46% and 47% respectively) compared with 67% of primary 7 pupils.
Figure 3.4: Do you think the time you spend queuing for lunch is OK or too long? (% of pupils)
Base = Primary - 450; Secondary - 784; Special - 74 (all those who sometimes eat a school meal)
Percentages do not all add up to 100 due to rounding
Source: case study school pupils' attitudinal questionnaires
3.23 It could be argued that pupils' perceptions of whether queuing times in the dining hall are too long is a more important factor that actual queuing times, as it could be these perceptions that contribute to discouraging pupils from taking school meals. For example, some pupils seemed to prefer having a packed lunch or going outside for lunch rather than having a school meal as this meant they had to spend less time queuing:
"The shops are a lot quicker. The canteen staff, and there is quite a few of them, but they're still not as quick as the shop owners" (pupil secondary school) .
Lunchtime as a social occasion
3.24 Researchers generally found the atmosphere in the dining rooms to be sociable in all schools once pupils were seated, although there were frustrations evident where space was restricted and when pupils were queuing and moving about. In schools where there was one lunch sitting and where space permitted, pupils were generally not rushed and were able to stay in the dining area to socialise after they had finished eating. In contrast, where a rota system was in operation due to limited space in the dining room, on some occasions pupils were unable to sit together and were encouraged to leave the dining room as soon as they had finished their meal. This appeared to be a more common situation in primary than secondary schools.
3.25 Most dining areas were noisy and in the qualitative interviews this was something that pupils frequently complained about. One secondary school had two TV screens in the dining room, which showed music channels. In another large secondary, there were TV screens in the dining area although these were not in use. This school also played music in the sixth form area that also doubled as one of four dining halls. Some pupils seemed keen on having music in the dining room, and suggested this as an improvement, while others agreed it might be a good idea when prompted. However, a number of pupils were more cautious about this idea, as they were conscious of the cost, wanted the music to be calm and not too loud, and suggested it could lead to arguments about what music should be played:
"If they had a CD player then some people wouldn't like the music anyway" (pupil, secondary school ).
3.26 Whether staff and classroom assistants ate with pupils in the dining room varied from school to school. In some secondary schools, the teachers ate in the dining hall but at a separate "teachers' table". In another secondary school, there was hatch connecting the kitchen and the staff room, so staff were served through the hatch but ate in the staff room. In primary schools, teachers and classroom assistants on supervisory duty ate at tables with the children while other staff ate in the staff room. In general, where staff members were present it was more in a supervisory than a 'social' role.
3.27 In many schools, pupils indicated that the catering staff were "really nice", "friendly" and "smiley" and our observations were that most catering staff, although busy, were pleasant and patient with pupils and knew many by name. However, in one or two schools, pupils complained that catering staff were unsociable, or even "grumpy". Some pupils felt this was because they were very busy and did not have time to talk, but all who reported this felt it made the dining area feel less sociable.
School meal uptake
3.28 As discussed in Section B, uptake of school meals in schools varied in most cases between around a third and a half of pupils, with the vast majority of the remaining pupils eating a packed lunch. In the questionnaire, pupils were asked what type of lunch they had on school days. This question allowed for multi-response. The results are displayed in Figure 3.5.
3.29 The majority of pupils in all schools took a school meal on some days. In primary schools pupils were principally eating school meals (69%) or packed lunches (60%), although around one in eight (13%) reported going home at least on occasion. The main types of lunch taken by secondary school pupils were school lunches or lunches bought externally (both types reported by 54% of pupils). In addition, over a quarter (27%) ate packed lunches and one in seven (15%) went home. Most (90%) of the pupils completing the questionnaire in the two case study special schools ate school meals. Fewer reported alternative school meal types, though one in five (20%) brought in packed lunches.
3.30 In the primary cases study schools, the early implementation of the recommendations in primary schools does not appear to have discouraged the majority of pupils from taking school meals although 31% of primary pupils completing questionnaires reported that they never ate school meals. It is not possible within the parameters of the research to assess whether this figure has increased or decreased since the implementation of recommendations of Hungry for Success.
3.31 There were some stage differences in terms of what type of lunch primary pupils had. More primary 7 pupils (78%) than primary 5 (67%) or primary 6 (63%) pupils had a school meal; these pupils were less likely to have a packed lunch than primary 6 pupils (54% compared with 66%). It was more common for females than males to bring a packed lunch to primary school (66% compared with 55%).
Figure 3.5: On school days, what type of lunch do you have? (% pupils)
Base: Primary - 648; Secondary - 1623; Special - 82
Source: case study school pupils' attitudinal questionnaires
3.32 Across secondary case study schools, 46% of pupils completing the questionnaire reported never eating a school meal. These results highlight the potential importance of the gradual approach of introducing changes to secondary school menus suggested by many schools, in order to ensure there is no significant decrease in school meal uptake. Given the fact that 54% of secondary pupils went out of school for lunch on some days also highlights the fact that secondary pupils are not so much of a captive audience as primary school pupils. Just under a tenth of secondary pupils (9%) said they did not have a lunch.
3.33 There were gender differences in terms of what type of lunch secondary pupils had. Significantly more females than males had school meals on some days (60% compared with 43%) whereas males were more likely than females to go out at lunchtime on some days (58% compared with 51%).
3.34 In terms of age differences, it was more common for younger than older pupils to go for school meals (apart from S6 pupils). For example, 65% of S1 pupils sometimes had school meals as opposed to 43% of S5 pupils. However, this figure did rise among S6 pupils, with 59% of these pupils eating school meals some days. Younger pupils were also more likely to go out for lunch (67% of S1 pupils compared with 30% of S6 pupils). It appears that younger pupils vary what they do for their lunch every day to a greater extent than older pupils.
3.35 These results indicated the proportion of pupils sometimes taking school meals or making some other lunchtime choice. In order to explore the picture of school meal uptake further, pupils were also asked how many days a week they usually had a school lunch (see Figure 3.6).
Figure 3.6: How many days do you usually eat a school meal for lunch each week? (% pupils)
Base: Primary - 648; Secondary - 1623; Special - 82
Percentages do not all add up to 100 due to rounding
Source: case study school pupils' attitudinal questionnaires
3.36 The answers to this question differed from the results of the previous question in terms of the pupils who never ate school meals. For example, Figure 3.6 suggests that 22% of primary and 43% of secondary pupils never ate school meals (previously 31% of primary and 46% of secondary pupils). However, although the figures do vary between the two questions, the broad pattern of results is comparable, in that the proportion of pupils who never took school meals was highest in secondary schools, followed by primary schools, and then special schools.
3.37 The results also indicate that around a third of case study primary pupils (32%) ate school meals five times a week compared with 14% of secondary pupils and 74% of special school pupils. Once again this demonstrates a very high level of school meal uptake in special schools. Just over one in five (21%) primary and secondary pupils indicated that the number of times they took school meals changed from week to week.
Decisions on lunchtime choices
3.38 A number of factors influenced the choice of whether pupils would go out of school to eat or would eat at school, and whether to eat school meals or packed lunches. Some pupils made this decision on a daily basis.
3.39 Often pupils in primary schools and special schools were not permitted to leave the school grounds at lunchtime. Where this was allowed, it was only the older pupils who were given the privilege. The picture was more varied in secondary schools. In some cases, all secondary pupils were allowed out at lunchtime and in others it was only the older pupils. Where schools did have rules on who could leave the school grounds, it did not appear to be the case that they were always rigorously enforced:
"I think in some ways the school will still be saying 'don't go out of the school grounds' but they've never enforced it. I think the reason for that is because they know they can't handle the amount of people that would be there at lunchtime if everybody did" (pupil, secondary school).
3.40 Additionally, one school's younger pupils found other ways of 'getting round the rules' to obtain alternative food options, such as asking older pupils to purchase food for them.
3.41 Pupils who sought alternative provision outside the school often bought from either ice cream or snack vans outside the schools, local cafes and shops and carry out shops. Thus, many of the food options bought outside of school were unhealthy; chips, burgers and pizzas were popular options. Pupils also bought confectionery, crisps and fizzy drinks.
3.42 In the questionnaire, pupils who decided on at least some days to bring a packed lunch, to go outside, or to go home for lunch were asked why this was the case. The reasons given by primary pupils are displayed in Figure 3.7. The main reason was that pupils simply preferred having a packed lunch (52%), although 39% of pupils said that on some days, they do not like the food available as school meals. The fact that 21% of pupils thought that school meals cost more than other options, and that school meals don't give enough choice of foods, may not be very encouraging. It will be interesting to revisit this result when recommendations have become more embedded, to determine if pupil opinion has changed over time.
Figure 3.7: Why do you have a packed lunch or eat at home instead of a school meal? (% primary pupils)
Base: 421
Source: case study school pupils' attitudinal questionnaires - primary schools
3.43 The results for secondary pupils are displayed in Figure 3.8. The most common reasons for not eating school meals were that pupils preferred to go out for lunch (46%) or their friends were not eating school meals (31%). However, one worrying finding was that 31% of pupils made other arrangements at lunchtime as they felt the school meals cost more. Pupils also mentioned that they did not feel that the school meals service provided enough choice of foods (29%) or that they did not like to eat in the dining room (23%). It is possible that these reasons could become less common when the recommendations have been implemented in secondary schools, such as improving and refurbishing the dining rooms to allow lunchtime to be more of a social experience, and providing more choices on the menus.
Figure 3.8: Why do you have a packed lunch or eat at home instead of a school meal? (% secondary pupils)
Base: 1304
Source: case study school pupils' attitudinal questionnaires - secondary schools
3.44 The qualitative research confirmed that reasons for seeking provision outside the school varied. Some pupils reported that the school meals were too expensive and it was cheaper to eat outside the school. Others reported comparable prices, but said that portion sizes from external outlets tended to be larger and so in their view produced better value for money. For example, pupils in one secondary school, where the portion size for chips had been reduced, opted for a nearby chip shop which sold bigger portions. There were some complaints from secondary pupils about the portion sizes: "Prisoners get more than we get for lunch" (pupil, secondary school). However, in some cases at least, catering staff reported that pupils did not eat all elements of the meal provided, which meant that the intended size of meal as a whole was reduced.
3.45 Other reasons pupils reported for not takings school meals, included the fact that they liked to leave the school at lunchtime, and to eat their lunch in an unsupervised atmosphere. Some other pupils simply said that they did not like school meals and preferred the food available outside the school:
"Most people go out for lunch to the chippie or to the bakery because school meals are not great" (pupil, secondary school) .
3.46 The qualitative research suggested that decisions about lunchtime choices were often taken on a daily basis. Taken together with the results in the previous section, it is clear that the number of pupils eating school meals each day wass not always predictable. The qualitative research confirmed there were a number of influences on lunchtime choice, including:
- the choice of school meals on offer that day
- the weather, with more pupils staying in school during poor weather
- parents, who provided packed lunches on some days and money for school meals at other times
- peer pressure from friends
3.47 Few parents appeared to be using menus sent to them to help pupils make informed choices in advance:
"I have made menus available for parents but they are not taking it really on board" (Head Teacher, primary school).
« Previous | Contents | Next »