The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

7.1 The overarching aim of the evaluation was to inform roll-out in other areas by exploring:

• the change in uptake of school meals by P1-P3 pupils
• process and practical issues for local authorities and schools in implementing free school meals for P1 to P3 pupils
• the range of potential health and other benefits of the trial
• the impact of the trial on the costs of providing school meals
• unexpected impacts and barriers to roll-out in other local authorities.

7.2 Overall, the principal conclusion is that the implementation of the trial was relatively straightforward. There were no unexpected impacts and roll-out by other local authorities should not be problematic.

7.3 Parents, teachers, local authority staff and catering staff were overwhelmingly positive about the provision of universal free school meals for P1-P3 pupils.

7.4 Problems that emerged were generally minor teething problems that could be quite quickly remedied through planning, preparation, flexibility, and small adjustments to daily routines. Furthermore, the issues which did arise were not unexpected.

Uptake

7.5 The trial resulted in significantly increased uptake of school meals:

• Among the target group of P1-P3 pupils not FSM registered, uptake of school meals increased from 41% to 69% (an increase of 28 percentage points).
• Among P1-P3 pupils who were previously FSM registered, uptake increased from 89.2% to 93.6% (an increase of 4.4 percentage points).
• Overall, the uptake among all P1-P3 pupils increased from 53% to 75% (an increase of 22 percentage points).
• There was concern that the trial might negatively impact on P4-P7 uptake (for example, because queues might increase or food choices might reduce). However, there was been a small but positive impact on this group - uptake increased from 47.3 % to 49.9% (an increase of 2.6 percentage points).
• Overall, the uptake among all primary pupils increased from 50% to 60% (an increase of 10 percentage points).
• Uptake increased in all five trial areas. Among the target group of P1-P3 pupils not FSM registered, the biggest increases were in Fife and Scottish Borders (both 32 percentage points) and East Ayrshire (31 percentage points). The increases were relatively lower in West Dunbartonshire (26 percentage points) and Glasgow (22 percentage points).
• Among those previously registered for FSM, the increases in uptake ranged from 8.5 percentage points in Scottish Borders to 3.4 percentage points in Glasgow.
• Among P1-P3 pupils who were not FSM registered and who did not take a school meal before the trial, those in the most deprived areas and those in the least deprived areas were equally likely to take up the offer of a free school meal. It might have been expected that there would be a greater uptake among those in the most deprived areas (where there will be a higher proportion of less affluent families, including those just above the threshold for FSM eligibility). However, the pre-trial uptake among non- FSM registered pupils in the more deprived areas was higher and there was therefore less scope to increase it.
• The increase in uptake was higher in smaller schools and in schools with on-site (as opposed to off-site) cooking facilities.
• In all five areas there was a substantial upward trend in P1-P3 uptake at the start of the trial. In three areas (West Dunbartonshire, East Ayrshire, and Glasgow) this decreased slightly and, to varying degrees, stabilised over the following months. In the remaining two areas, uptake was less stable, fluctuating between around 60% and around 70% in Scottish Borders and between around 66% and around 73% Fife.

7.6 It should be noted that uptake figures measure the proportion of pupils taking a school meal on a given day. Many pupils take a school meal some days and a packed lunch on other days. Rather than conceptualising 'pupils who take school meals' and 'pupils who do not take school meals', it is more helpful to think about the proportion taking a school meal on a given day, and the number of times a week pupils take a school meal. So it would be wrong to assume that 22% of P1-P3 pupils have changed from never taking school meals to taking them five days a week - it is more complex than that. For example, some pupils who took never took a school meal before are now taking them five days a week but some are now taking them on one or two days.

7.7 Uptake increased more in schools with lower levels of FSM registration, where the pre-trial uptake tended to be lower. The five trial areas have a higher proportion of FSM registered pupils than Scotland as a whole, so should FSM for P1-P3 pupils be rolled out in the remaining local authority areas, the overall increase in uptake across the rest of Scotland is likely to be higher than that observed in the trial areas.

Reasons for taking, or not taking, school meals

7.8 Parents indicated that the main reasons for their children taking school meals were that they want them to have a hot meal, that they know they will get a healthy lunch, that the children like the food provided, and because they are provided free. 7.9 Interestingly, the reasons given by those whose children took school meals more often since the trial started were very similar to the reasons given by those whose children took school meals the same amount. The exception was that those whose children took school meals more often were much more likely to say that the fact they were free was one of the main reasons.

7.10 The financial benefits were welcomed by parents - particularly those with more than one child. More specifically, there was a view that school meals were not good value for money, particularly if the child was 'fussy' and the parent was not sure how much of the meal they would eat. If it was free they were more willing to take the risk of some or all of it not being eaten. While this may raise concerns about wastage, catering staff indicated that levels of waste were the same as they were pre-trial, and this willingness to 'risk' a school meal (or a different menu option) has the potential to expand the range of foods pupils try - and find they enjoy.

7.11 The menu options on any given day exert a strong influence with many pupils taking a school meal on days they liked the choices on offer and taking a packed lunch on days that they did not (or thought their favourite choice would run out because their class was last on the rota that day). Although the less healthy options (such as pizza and sausages) seemed universally popular, pupils' individual preferences would often include healthy options too, and it would be wrong to suggest it was as simple as 'unhealthy = popular' and 'healthy = unpopular'. To maximise uptake, there is scope to make better use of uptake data and catering staff's knowledge of which dishes are popular to plan menus ( e.g. not having two 'unpopular' main courses on the same day) and to more accurately predict demand (so those at the end of the queue are likely to get their first choice).

7.12 While uptake among all P1-P3 pupils has increased to 75%, this still means that a quarter are not taking a school meal on a 'normal' day. It was clear from the research that the main reason for non-uptake is that some children are 'fussy eaters'. It should be acknowledged that parents of these children generally wanted them to have school meals and would welcome help to encourage their children to sample a broader range of foods. There does, however, appear to be a ceiling effect - there are some pupils who, for whatever reason, will never take a school meal. Nevertheless, the research indicates that the greatest impact on uptake might be realised through initiatives to enhance parents' skills in encouraging young children to eat a wider range of foods, as opposed to changes to the school meal experience itself ( e.g. queuing systems, décor etc.).

7.13 Parents indicated that if school meals were no longer free, their child would take a school meal more frequently than they did pre-trial - in particular, on days that they liked the food on offer. This suggests that if charges are reintroduced, overall uptake will decrease but will remain higher than pre-trial levels. It also suggests that this cohort will have higher levels of uptake once they reach P4 and beyond.

7.14 While parents generally found it valuable to have menus sent home and many considered the invitation to sample the foods on offer useful, sometimes foods were given attractive 'child-friendly' names such as 'Nemo Pizza' and 'Shark Infested Mince'. As a result, it was unclear what the individual ingredients in some dishes were, leaving parents feeling that they could not always help their child decide what they wanted, nor cook the same food at home if their child asked for it.

Practical issues: limited time and space

7.15 The main challenges schools faced were physical space and time pressures; the interrelated problems of the size of dining areas coupled with the time available for lunch.

7.16 However, these logistical issues were not unexpected and there was a strong view that small adjustments to daily routines would go a long way towards relieving them.

7.17 Interviewees outlined a range of successful strategies that would be useful to share with other schools should FSMs be rolled-out across other local authorities. In particular, strategies found useful in making effective use of limited time and space include:

• staggering the times pupils arrive at dining areas
• setting tables in advance
• operating different queuing systems or service areas
• allowing slightly lengthened lunchtimes ( e.g. letting P1 pupils out five or ten minutes early)
• using alternative accommodation (especially for packed lunches)

7.18 With regard to pre-ordering systems, there were mixed views; in some cases they were viewed as unnecessarily time consuming for little benefit, while other schools found them successful.

Lead-in and start time of the trial

7.19 Although schools and local authorities managed very successfully to implement the trial without major difficulties, there was a commonly held view that a longer lead-in time would enable more preparations to be put in place. In particular, there was insufficient time for potential new staff to undergo Disclosure Scotland checks and, on occasion, additional equipment was not in place at the outset.

7.20 There was also a view that it would have been better for the start of the trial to coincide with the beginning of the school year in August, to avoid pupils getting into a routine which is then changed. These problems could be easily overcome for roll-out in other areas.

Impact on the quality and quantity of food

7.21 The quality and quantity of food provided was not seen to have changed as a result of the trial. Furthermore, waste was proportionate to pre-trial levels.

7.22 Popular options did sometimes run out for those at the end of the queue, but this was also an issue pre-trial and the problem was not exacerbated by the trial.

7.23 Provision for special dietary needs was not a problem - special dietary needs have a minor impact on uptake (only 4% of survey respondents cited dietary needs as a factor influencing uptake) and there is no evidence of increased demand for special foods as a result of the trial.

Impact on workloads

7.24 Workloads of local authority and teaching staff remained relatively unchanged as a result of the trial. The greatest impact was on catering staff who tended to have slightly increased workloads. However, once extra staff had been recruited, there were generally no major problems.

7.25 In general, staff viewed the implementation of the trial as simply an extension of what they were already doing. However, staff undertaking supervision in the dining room sometimes felt they might have less time to encourage healthy eating among individual children.

Potential health and other benefits

7.26 Universal healthy free school meals have the potential to impact on children's health, wellbeing, and educational performance in the medium to long term. However, there is unlikely to be a 'quick fix' in terms of changing children's eating preferences overnight, and given the short-term nature of the trial, this evaluation did not seek to examine such impacts in detail. Instead, the evaluation explored early perceptions of health and other benefits, from which the following conclusions can be drawn:

• The trial provided pupils with an opportunity to try new foods, resulting in pupils asking at home for foods they had tried at school. In some cases, these were healthier options.
• Although pupils appeared to have a good awareness of healthy foods, there is no evidence that the trial had impacted upon this. When deciding what to eat, children tend to pick what they like the taste of. Choosing healthier options is likely to come as a result of them trying and enjoying new foods. Therefore, evidence that the trial acted as a catalyst for pupils' willingness to try new foods is a positive finding.
• There was some evidence that the trial had impacted positively on the home environment of pupils. In particular, it had resulted in parents talking about food with their children more often and some parents noted that children were more confident in discussing their food preferences.
• In turn, some parents were keen to make meals for their children that they had enjoyed at school but they did not always know how to make them. Providing recipe cards or books of school recipes was suggested as a solution.
• Teachers did not report any behavioural changes in pupils at lunchtime or in afternoon classes.

7.27 Although there was evidence that pupils were trying new foods and that some were asking for new foods at home, including healthier options, the evidence is unclear on how many children were doing so and the extent to which children were eating more healthily at home. On other potential benefits such as whether parents felt they knew more about healthy foods and were buying healthier foods for the home, the evidence is also unclear.

7.28 Around a third of parents in the survey reported these changes. However, there was little evidence from the qualitative research with parents that these things had changed as a result of the trial. Furthermore, in the survey, there was little difference between those whose children were taking school meals the same amount as before and those whose children were taking school meals more often. It is not clear why this is the case - it might be expected that if the trial is having an impact on these issues it would have a greater impact on those who are taking school meals more often. In some cases, it may simply be that the child is five months older and the changes would have occurred anyway. It is also possible that having more of their friends taking school meals has had a positive influence on those who were already taking them. Finally, some parents may have (consciously or unconsciously) over-reported the benefits of the trial, under the impression that doing so would increase the likelihood of the continuation of free school meals for their child. While the letter accompanying the questionnaire clearly stated that their individual response would not be used to decide whether the trial was rolled out in their child's school, it is more difficult to reassure parents through a postal questionnaire than through face to face discussions.

Costs

7.29 One of the reasons for selecting the five particular authorities involved in the trial was that they were each operating in a different context - in terms of size of local authority, levels of deprivation, urban/rural mix, size of schools, previous levels of uptake and structure of school meals provision - and so faced different challenges. The costs reflected this and should not therefore be read as an assessment of the efficiency of different areas in implementing the trial, but as a guide to the range of costs incurred by local authorities in different circumstances.

7.30 The costs of the trial varied widely from £1.79 per additional meal in Fife to £4.65 in Scottish Borders. Costs tended to be higher in areas with a higher percentage increase in uptake, i.e. where more fundamental changes needed to be made to staffing and equipment levels. Costs also tended to be lower in areas where the total number of additional meals served was higher - perhaps where there was more scope for economies of scale to reduce some of the costs ( e.g. in relation to buying equipment in bulk or negotiating contracts with food supplier).

Future research

7.31 An important issue to consider, which was outwith the remit of this research given the short lead in time for the trial, is what pupils are actually eating. There was evidence that many pupils picked at their school meals, eating only the bits they like. In particular, it was suggested that some of the healthier foods such as vegetables and soup were frequently left untouched by some pupils.

7.32 Comparisons with what pupils who take packed lunches are eating would also be useful. For example, research in Sheffield primary schools, commissioned by the School Food Trust, ²⁹ found that school meals provide healthier food than packed lunches. However, research by Colquhoun et al in Hull primary schools suggests that pupils taking school meals may be consuming more afternoon snacks high in fat, sugar and salt than those taking packed lunches ³⁰ - so nutritional intake at lunchtime should not be considered in isolation.

7.33 Having got to a stage where more pupils are enjoying the school meal experience and are willing to try new foods, the next steps are to ensure that pupils are eating all or most of the school meals they choose, and that links with parents are improved in order to ensure that the free healthy school meal initiative reaches its full potential.

« Previous | Contents | Next »