are pupils being served? - gcu · with tracey hughes and jill marchbank scottish poverty and...

JohnH.McKendrick,DavidBouse,DanielConnell,JenniferFerguson,KevinGraham,KelseyMarshall,SamanthaMcRobert,RachelMcGee,RachelSwan,LaurenTomassi,andValeriVasilev,

withTraceyHughesandJillMarchbankScottishPovertyandInequalityResearchUnit,GlasgowCaledonianUniversity

Arepupilsbeingserved?Asecondaryreviewofthesector’sevidencebase

onschoolmealprovisionatlunchtimeinScotlandAugust2019

2 Arepupilsbeingserved?

TableofContentsTableofContents......................................................................................................................2Abbreviations............................................................................................................................2Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................2ListofTablesandFigures..........................................................................................................3TwentyMainMessages............................................................................................................51.Introduction:schoolmealsforScotland?.............................................................................82.Everybody’sBusiness:Schoolfoodaspublicpolicy............................................................123.SocialJusticeandBeyond:Whatarethekeyissuespertainingtofoodinschools?..........174.WhatDoWeKnowAboutFreeSchoolMeals?Keyfindingsfromarapidreviewofthekeyliterature.................................................................................................................................225.WhatDoWeKnowAboutFreeSchoolMeals?ExpertScottishknowledgefromAPSEandASSISTFM...............................................................................................................................346.NationalTrendsinScotland................................................................................................397.AccountingforVariationintheUptakeSchoolMealsinScotland.....................................448.RegionalTrendsinScotland................................................................................................489.LocalFocus:Outliersandissuesforfurtherresearch.........................................................5610.ACriticalReviewoftheEvidenceBase.............................................................................6411.WhatNext?SomeConcludingThoughts..........................................................................69Annex1–References.............................................................................................................73Annex2–OntheStreetCaseStudies.....................................................................................78Annex3–IntheSchoolCaseStudies......................................................................................88Annex4–LocalServiceDevelopmentCaseStudies...............................................................99

AbbreviationsThroughoutthereport,FSMsisusedasshorthandforfreeschoolmealsandUFSMsisusedasshorthandforuniversalfreeschoolmeals.

AcknowledgementsWearegratefultoAssistFM(JayneJonesandKeithBreasley)fortheireditinginputandaffordingustheopportunitytodrawupontheirexperienceandon-goingworkwithAssistFMinrelationtofreeschoolmeals(FSMs)inScotland.Inparticular,wearegratefulforthetimethatAlanCunninghamofTotalizeMediawasabletosharewithus.ThanksalsotoPaulO’BrienandDebbieJohnsofAPSE,foradvisingontheAPSEdatathatwereusedinthisreport.SomepreliminarythoughtsandfindingsweresharedattheAssistFMseminarinDunfermlineonFebruary26th2019.Thisreportwaslaunchedatthe19thannualAssistFMconferenceinGlasgow(WatchersontheWallconference)onAugust30th2019.

Arepupilsbeingserved? 3

ListofTablesandFiguresTable1:AtimelineofdevelopmentsinschoolmealprovisioninScotland,2000-2022........13Table2:SelectedAPSEperformanceindicators,Scottish/Englishlocalauthorities,2016-1735Figure1:Marketingofschoolmeals,Scottishlocalauthorities,2018...................................37Figure2:UptakeofschoolmealsinScotlandoncensusday,bysector,2003-18..................40Figure3:RegistrationforfreeschoolmealsinScotland,bysector,2003-18.........................41Figure6:UptakeofschoolmealsinprimaryschoolsinScotland,byagestageandschoolroll,2018........................................................................................................................................45Figure7:UptakeofschoolmealsinsecondaryschoolsinScotland,byschoolroll,2018......45Figure8:UptakeofschoolmealsinScotland,byurban/ruralstatusandschooltype,2018.46Figure9:UptakeofschoolmealsininScotland,bypercentageofpupilsregisteredforFreeSchoolMealsandschooltype/FSMstatus,2018...................................................................47Table3:UptakeofschoolmealsamongpupilsinattendanceoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,byschooltype,2018.....................................................................48Figure10:UptakeofschoolmealsamongprimaryschoolpupilsinattendanceoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,2015-2018.................................................................50Figure11:UptakeofschoolmealsamongsecondaryschoolpupilsinattendanceoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,2003-2018..........................................................50Figure12:RegistrationforfreeschoolmealsamongprimaryschoolpupilsoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,2006-2018.....................................................................51Figure13:RegistrationforfreeschoolmealsamongsecondaryschoolpupilsoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,2006-2018.....................................................................52Table4:UptakeoffreeschoolmealsamongpupilsinattendanceoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,byschooltype,2018.....................................................................53Figure14:UptakeoffreeschoolmealsamongprimaryschoolpupilsinattendanceoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,2015-2018..........................................................54Figure15:UptakeoffreeschoolmealsamongsecondaryschoolpupilsinattendanceoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,2003-2018...............................................54Table5:UptakeofFreeSchoolMealsAmongRegisteredPupilsinAttendanceatPrimarySchools,ScottishLocalAuthorities,2018...............................................................................57Table6:UptakeofFreeSchoolMealsAmongRegisteredPupilsinAttendanceatSecondarySchools,ScottishLocalAuthorities,2018...............................................................................58Table7:ChangeinUptakeofFreeSchoolMealsAmongRegisteredPupilsinAttendanceatSecondarySchools,ScottishLocalAuthorities,2014-2018....................................................60Figure16:SecondarySchoolsWiththeGreatestPercentagePointIncreaseintheUptakeofFreeSchoolMealsAmongRegisteredPupilsinAttendance,ScottishLocalAuthorities,2014-2018........................................................................................................................................61Figure17:SecondarySchoolsWiththeGreatestPercentagePointDecreaseintheUptakeofFreeSchoolMealsAmongRegisteredPupilsinAttendance,ScottishLocalAuthorities,2014-2018........................................................................................................................................62Table8:Frequencywithwhichpresentedforschooldinners................................................89Table9:Pupils’mainreasonfornoteatingschoolmeals......................................................90Table10:Pupilevaluationsofthecontemporaryschooldiningenvironment.......................91Table11:Pupilevaluationsoftheextenttowhichfactorscouldimproveuptakeofschoolmealsintheirschool...............................................................................................................92


Figure18:SecondaryschooluptakeofschoolmealsinSouthLanarkshireoncensusday,2003-18.................................................................................................................................101Figure19:SecondaryschooluptakeofschoolmealsinArgyll&Buteoncensusday,2003-18..............................................................................................................................................102Figure20:SecondaryschooluptakeofschoolmealsinScot.Bordersoncensusday,2003-18..............................................................................................................................................103Figure21:UptakeofschoolmealsinNorthAyrshireoncensusday,2003-18.....................104


TwentyMainMessagesAssistFMtaskedustoreviewtheevidencebasetobetterunderstandtherealitiesandtrendspertainingtotheuptakeoffreeschoolmeals(FSMs)inScotland.WedrewfromAssistFM’sresearchandevaluationwork,undertookarapidreviewofkeyliterature,andcompletedobservationalfieldcasestudiesoftheoutofschoolfoodenvironmentfortenschoolsinwestcentralScotland.Thereportthatfollowsprovidesafulleraccount.Here,wesummarisethekeyfindingsunderfourheadings:

Whatdidweknowattheoutset?

• Socialpolicyandpublichealthagenda.Schoolmealsaremorethanthemeanstoprovideeverydaysustenancetochildren;sincetheMillennium,theScottishGovernmenthaspromotedschoolmealsinScotlandasapublichealthinterventionand,morerecently,asananti-povertyintervention.

• Changingnatureofschoolsandsociety.Therationaleforprovidingschoolmealsin21stCenturyScotlandissimilartothatwhichunderpinnedtheSchoolMealsActinEdwardianScotland,buttheservicenowoperatesinamarkedlydifferentandrapidlychangingcontext;impactingonthecontemporaryserviceinclude,budgetarypressuresonlocalauthorities,lessoftheschooldaysetasideforlunchtime;controloftheschoolestatenotalwaysrestingwithinthepublicsector/schoolmanagement;greaterawarenessofpublichealthandenvironmentalissues;aconcernwithmeasuringperformance;andagreaterconcerntoviewchildrenasactiveagentswiththerighttoexpresstheirviewsonmattersthatconcernthem.

• Scottishgovernmentevidencebase.Theannualschoolmealscensushas,since2003,collecteddataonschoolmeals(uptake),andfreeschoolmeals(uptake,reachandregistration)allowingstakeholderstobetterunderstandcontemporaryservicereachandtrendsthroughtime.

• Anengagedsector.Atalllevels,stakeholdershaveshownawillingnesstoinnovateandtoengageindebatestoimprovetheschoolmealsservice.AssistFM,astheleadingbodyforspecialistsworkinginthesector,hasbeenattheforefrontofthesedebatesandinnovations.

• Policycanhavepositiveimpact.TheintroductionofuniversalentitlementtoFSMstoallP1-3pupilsinJanuary2015resultedinastep-changeleadingtoanincreaseintheoverallrateofschoolmealsuptakeinScottishprimaryschools.

Whatdowenowknowbetterandwhathavewelearned?

• Bignumbersandbigimpact.Onatypicalschoolday,almost350,000schoolmealsareservedinScotland;themajorityofschoolpupilsinScotlandpresentforaschoolmealeveryday(51%).Morespecifically,onatypicalday,themajorityofpupilsregisteredforFSMsinprimary,secondaryandspecialschoolstypicallypresentforthismeal(76%,60%and77%,respectively).Notfarshortof100,000schoolmealsperdayareservedto


pupilswhoareentitledtoafreeschoolmealonaccountoftheirfamilybeingeligibleforsocialsecurity.

• Universalprovisiondoesnothaveauniversalreach.ItwasalreadywidelyknownthatuptakeofFSMswashigherinprimarythansecondaryschools,andthatwithineachschoolage-stage,uptakewashigherinsmallerschoolsandschoolsservingareasthatweremoreruralincharacter.Aswellaspresentingtheevidencebasetoconfirmwhatwaswidelyperceived/experienced,thisreportalso(i)notesthecomplexityoftheassociationbetweendeprivationareastatusanduptake,withhigherFSMuptakeassociatedwithprimaryschoolswithgreaterFSMregistration,whereashigherFSMuptakeisassociatedwithsecondaryschoolswithlowerFSMregistration;(ii)themarkeddifferencesinuptakeacrosslocalauthorities;and(iii)themarkeddifferencesincontemporaryuptakeandtrendsacrossindividualschoolsinScotland.

• Apluralityofalignmentsandpriorities.Itisclearthatthereisnotalignmentofprioritiesamongkeystakeholders.Theaspirationsoftheschoolcateringservicetoincreasereachanduptakeofschoolmealsdoesnotalwaysalignwithschoolmanagement;indeed,someschoolmanagementrejectsomeofthepracticalstepsrequiredtoachievethis(e.g.preventingfoodpurchasedoutsidebeingconsumedinschooldininghalls;introducingstaggeredlunchbreakstoextendcapacity,etc.).Furthermore,therightsofpupils(particularlyseniorpupils)tochoosewhatandwheretoconsumefoodatlunchtime–whichissupportedbymanyschoolmanagersandpupilsalike–maynotalwaysbeconducivetomaximisinguptakeofschoolmeals.

• Averageexperiencesandtrendsarenotuniversallyexperienced.Scotland’sexperienceisnotonethatisuniversallysharedacrossitsschools.Althoughpatternsandtrendscanbediscerned,itisimportanttotakeintoaccounttheuniqueandparticularcontextwithinwhicheachschoolmealsserviceoperates.

• Lunchtimeisasocialtime-spaceforyoungpeople.Theobservational,surveyandfocusgroupinterviewevidencewithyoungpeopleattesttotheimportanceoffactorsotherthanfoodinshapingthelunchtimechoicesandexperiencesofsecondaryschoolpupils.Providingopportunitiestobewithfriendsandtobeindependentofthe‘schoolenvironment’arekeyconsiderationsforthesepupils.

Criticalreflectionsontheevidencebase

• Schoolmealscensus.TheannualschoolmealscensusisanexcellentresourcethathashelpedtobetterunderstandthediverseexperiencesacrossScotland.However,therearemanysignificantlimitationswiththesedata,whichimplythatsupplementaryanalysisisrequirediftherealityofschoolmealuptakeistobebetterunderstood.Ofparticularnote:(i)theencouragingintroductionoflocalinterventionstoextendfreeschoolmealentitlementinrecentyearsiscompromisingtheutilityofthecensusasastableindicatorofchangethroughtime;(ii)thelackofdisaggregation,notablybyyeargroupandgender,limitsourunderstandingofwhopresentsforschoolmealsandthereasonsforsodoing;(iii)thewelcomeflexibilitythatisexercisedinallowingschoolmealentitlementtobeusedtopurchasemid-morningsnacks,introducessomeuncertaintyinthedegreetowhichthedatacanbeusedtoestimateconsumptionoflunchtimefoodinschool;(iv)theapproachisunabletoaccounttoascertainwhetherthereisaseasonaleffect


(aggregationofweathereffects),whichmakesthispoint-in-timeestimate(January/Februaryeveryyear)problematic;and(v)considerationofissuespertainingtothefactthatlocalauthoritygrantfundingispartlybasedonthesedata.

• Outofschoolfoodenvironment.Observationalfieldworkandsurveys/interviewswithpupils,schoolmanagementandcateringprofessionalsallattesttotheimportanceoftheout-of-schoolenvironmentin‘pulling’secondaryschoolspupilsawayfromschoolsatlunchtime.Atpresent,thisevidenceisimpressionisticandanecdotal;thereisaneedtounderstandmorepreciselytheimpactoftheoutofschoolenvironmentonschoolmeals.

• Theimpactofservicedelivery.Theevidencebaseontheimpactofservice-ledchangesisanecdotal,impressionisticandsuperficial.Ifbestpracticeistobeascertained,sharedandadoptedacrossthesector,thereisaneedtoinvestinmorerobustevaluation.

• Canvassingtheperspectivesandexperiencesofkeystakeholders.AssistFMhascommissionedmarketresearch,whichhasengagedcateringprofessionals,schoolmanagementandschoolpupils.However,muchofthisworkisnowdatedandtheresearchdesignisinsufficientlyrobusttoinformdecision-making.Thereisaneedforhighqualityresearchwithallstakeholders(whichwouldalsoincludeparentsandsuppliers)tobetterunderstandthecontemporaryschoolmealexperienceinScotland.

• Schoolcateringestate.Thereisgrowinganecdotalevidencethatschoolredevelopmenthasreducedthecapacitytodeliverschoolmealsatlunchtime.Thereisalsoanecdotalevidenceofvariablepracticeinusingschoolspacebeyondadedicated‘lunchspace’.Asforservicedelivery,thereisaneedformostsystematicappraisalofthecapacityoftheschoolestateanddescriptionofthewayinwhichthespacesofschoolsarebeingusedinconjunctionwithschoolmealsprovision.

Whatneedstohappennow?

• Outlieranalysis.Sector-ledanalysisofschooloutliers–bothforScotlandasawhole,amongschooltypes,andwithinlocalauthorities–shouldbeprioritisedinorderthatthesectorcanlearnfromschoolswithatypicalexperiences,bothpositiveandnegative.

• Schoolandlocalauthorityreflection.TheSPIRUanalysisprovidesschoolsandlocalauthoritieswiththemeanstobetterunderstandhowtheirexperiencecomparestoothersinScotland.Itwouldbeprudentforthosewithresponsibilityforcateringinschoolstoreflectontheirstanding,relativetoothers.

• Morerobustanalysisofuptake.Theclaimstounderstandingmadeonthebasisoftheschoolmealscensusdataalone,arecompromisedbytheuncertaintiesovertheimpactofthewaysinwhichthesedataarecollected.Seriousconsiderationneedstobegiventolayeringthecoredatawithcomplementaryanalysis.

• Clarificationofpurposeandre-alignmentofaction.Thereisaneedtomaptheconcernsandperspectivesofstakeholderstoreachasharedcollectivepositiononwhatactionsshouldbetakentoaddresscommonpriorities.

• Robustevaluationandsharingofschool-levelpractice.Notwithstandingtheimportanceofschool-levelcontexts,thereisanurgentneedtoconsiderthewayinwhichthelessonsforrobustevaluationofbestpracticecanbesharedeffectivelyacrossallstakeholdersinthesector.


1.Introduction:schoolmealsforScotland?“WemakethecommitmenttodeliverfreeschoolmealstoallchildrenfromP1toP7bytheendofthiscouncilterm(2022).”

(GlasgowCityCouncillorChrisCunningham,reportedinHunter,2019)

1.1–DoesScotlandDeliver?Almost350,000pupilsinScotlandpresentforschoolmealsonatypicalschoolday,equivalenttoslightlymorethanonehalfofthepupilpopulation(calculatedfromScottishGovernment,2018a).Althoughnotastrangertocriticalcomment(ObesityActionScotland,2017;Vidinova,2018),awiderangeofinitiativesovermanyyearshassoughttoimprovetheschooldiningexperienceandthewidercontributionofschoolfoodtochildren’swellbeinginScotland.Giventhedisparatenatureoftheevidencebasethatexists,itisprudenttocollatewhatiscurrentlyknowntoappraisetheextenttowhichschoolmeals‘deliver’forchildreninScotland.1.2–AssistFMandSPIRUAssistFMisanon-profitorganisation,whichaimstopromotefacilitiesmanagementservicesacrossitsmemberauthoritiesinScotland,akeyaspectofwhichistheschoolmealsservice.InadditiontopromotingschoolmealsinScotland(throughinitiativessuchasScottishSchoolMealsWeekandviaportalssuchastheScottishSchoolMealswebsite),AssistFMiskeentobetterunderstandthewiderrealitiesofschoolmealsinScotlandbyundertakingindependentresearchandanalysingpublishedevidence.LindsayGraham,independentfoodadvisortotheScottishGovernment,suggestedthatAssistFMenlistthesupportoftheScottishPovertyandInequalityResearchUnit,toappraisetheirevidencebase.TheprojectbriefwasagreedbetweenProfessorMcKendrick(SPIRU),JayneJonesandKeithBreasley(AssistFM)andAlanCunningham(TotalizeMedia)onSeptember19th2018.AssistFMprovidedSPIRUwiththefollowingresearchoutputs:• Unpublishedresearchwithschoolpupilsinsixlocalauthorities,i.e.DumfriesandGalloway

(December2012),Highland(2016)Inverclyde(February2011),NorthAyrshire(October2010),Renfrewshire(2011)andStirling(September2015)

• Datasetfrom2018surveywithkeycontactsinScottishlocalauthorities(23responsescovering25authorities,i.e.78%ofalllocalauthoritiesinScotland)

• CollationoflocalauthoritydatafromtheannualSchoolmealscensusforScotland(2005-2017)intoasinglespreadsheet.


• SelecteddatafromAPSE’sannualmonitoringofitsmemberorganisationsinScotland;APSEsupplementedandupdatedthesedataintheSpringof2019

AteamoftenSPIRUStudentResearchersworkedonthisprojectundertheguidanceofProfessorMcKendrickfromOctober2018–January2019.TwoSPIRUresearchersundertooksupplementaryanalysis,withthefullreportdraftedinApril2019,andpublishedinAugust2019,followingfeedbackoftheinterimreportfromAssistFMandAPSE.1.3-ThePurposeofThisReportTheaimofthisreportistodelivera‘stateofthenation’summaryofexistingevidenceonmatterspertainingtoFSMsinScotland.Inadditiontomakingbestuseofexistingevidence,itdrawsonrelevantacademicresearchandissupplementedbyfieldvisitstoappraisethefoodretailenvironmentsurroundingaselectionofsecondaryschoolsinwestcentralScotland.Thespecificsubstantiveobjectivesofthisreportarefourfold:• Identifytheextenttowhichtrendsandtendenciesintheconsumptionofschoolmealsin

ScotlandareuniversalacrossScotland(exploringlocalauthorityandschool-levelvariation).• EvaluatetheextenttowhichFSMsisdeliveringin-kindsupporttoreducehouseholdexpenditure

inScotland• AppraisetheexistingevidencebaseforschoolmealsinScotland.• SpecifyprioritiesforfutureresearchonFSMsinScotland.1.4–UnderstandingtheKeyIndicatorsAcriticalreviewoftheevidencebaseisprovidedinSection9.Bywayofintroduction,wespecifythedatapertainingtoschoolmealsthatareavailableforindividualschools(andwhichcanthereaftercanbeaggregatedforlocalauthorityandScottishaverages).Wealsoexplaintheindicatorsthatcanbederivedfromthesedataandtheparticularvalueofeachoftheseindicators.In2018,sixcountswereprovidedforeachschoolinScotland,basedondatacollectedintheannualschoolmealscensus.• Schoolroll(onHealthyLivingsurveyday)• PupilsregisteredforFSMs• Pupilsinattendance(onHealthyLivingsurveyday)• Pupilswhotookaschoolmeal(onHealthyLivingsurveyday)• Pupilspresent(onHealthyLivingsurveyday)andregisteredforFSMs• Pupilspresent(onHealthyLivingsurveyday)whotookafreeschoolmealAdditionally,schooltypeisdefined(primary,secondaryorspecial).TheschoolleveldatasetalsoprovidesoneindicatoroffreeschoolmealuptakeforPrimary4-7pupilsinprimaryschools:


• %ofpupilswhoareregisteredforafreeschoolmealthroughtargetedprovision,whereuniversalprovisionisavailableforsomeyeargroups(primaryschoolonly)–thispercentageestimateisdirectlyprovidedintheoriginaldataset

Afurtherfiveschoolmealindicatorscanbecalculatedfromtheoriginaldata.• %ofpupilswhoareregisteredforafreeschoolmeal(whetherthroughtargetedoruniversal

provision)• %ofpupilswhotookameal(onHealthyLivingsurveyday)• %ofregisteredpupilsinattendancewhotookafreeschoolmeal(onHealthyLivingsurveyday)• %ofregisteredpupilswhotookafreeschoolmeal(onHealthyLivingsurveyday)• %ofpupilswhoarenotregisteredforafreeschoolmealwhotookaschoolmeal(onHealthy

Livingsurveyday)Furthermore,theschoolmealsdatacanbeusedtocalculatetwowiderindicatorsthatmaybehelpfulinunderstandingschoolmealsconsumption:• %ofpupilsregisteredforafreeschoolmealwhowereinattendance(onHealthyLivingsurvey

day)• %ofpupilswhoarenotregisteredforafreeschoolmealwhowereinattendance(onHealthy

Livingsurveyday)Althoughcloselyrelated,eachindicatormakesaspecificcontributiontoourunderstandingofschoolmealsinScotland• Reach.TheextenttowhichpupilsinScotlandarepresentingforschoolmeals,asestimatedby

datacollectedonHealthyLivingsurveyday,i.e.%ofpupilswhotookameal(onHealthyLivingsurveyday)

• ReachofFSMeligible.Theextenttowhichpupilswhoareeligibleforafreeschoolmeal,presentforthisfreeschoolmeal,i.e.%ofpupilswhoareregisteredforafreeschoolmealwhotookaschoolmeal(onHealthyLivingsurveyday)

• ReachbeyondFSMeligibility.Theextenttowhichpupilswhoarenoteligibleforafreeschoolmeal,electtopresent(pay)foraschoolmeal,i.e.%ofpupilswhoarenotregisteredforafreeschoolmealwhotookaschoolmeal(onHealthyLivingsurveyday)

• In-schoolUptake.Theextenttowhich,ofthosewhoareinattendance,pupilsinScotlandarepresentingforschoolmeals,asestimatedbydatacollectedonHealthyLivingsurveyday,i.e.%ofpupilswhotookameal(onHealthyLivingsurveyday)

• In-schoolUptakeofFSMeligible.TheextenttowhichFSMsarebeingutilisedbyeligiblepupilswhentheyarepresentinschool,i.e.%ofregisteredpupilsinattendancewhotookafreeschoolmeal(onHealthyLivingsurveyday)

• In-schoolUptakebeyondFSMeligibility.Theextenttowhich,ofthosewhoareinattendance,schoolmealsarebeingpurchasedbythosepupilswhoarenoteligibleforafreeschoolmeal,i.e.%ofnon-FSMregisteredpupilsinattendancewhotookafreeschoolmeal(onHealthyLivingsurveyday)

• Need.RegistrationforFSMscanbeusedasaproxyforneed,wheneligibilityisdefinedfromthenationalcriteriaofbeinginreceiptofspecifiedformsofsocialsecurity,i.e.%ofPrimary4-7pupilswhoareregisteredforafreeschoolmeal(primaryschoolonly)and%whoareregisteredforafreeschoolmeal(secondaryandspecialschoolsonly)

• ProvisionofFSM.TheextenttowhichFSMsareprovided,regardlessofthegroundsforeligibility,i.e.%whoareregisteredforafreeschoolmeal,whetherongroundsofageorneed(notethatforsecondaryandspecialschools,provisionandneedareasone,asthereisnouniversalprovisiononaccountofage)


• MultipleDisadvantages.TheextenttowhichpupilswhoareeligibleforFSMsaremore/less/equallylikelytobeinattendance,comparedtopupilswhoarenoteligibleforFSMs,expressedasapercentagepointdifferenceagainstthosenoteligible(attendancedatabasedonreturnsforHealthyLivingsurveyday)

1.5-TheStructureofThisReportAfterthisintroduction,thisreportisorganisedintotenfurthersections:• Everybody’sBusiness:Schoolfoodaspublicpolicy(Chpt.2)• SocialJusticeandBeyond:Whatarethekeyissuespertainingtofoodinschools?(Chpt.3)• WhatDoWeKnowAboutFreeSchoolMeals?Arapidreviewofthekeyliterature(Chpt.4)• WhatDoWeKnowAboutSchoolMeals?ExpertScottishknowledgefromAPSEandASSISTFM

(Chpt.5)• NationalTrendsinScotland(Chpt.6)• AccountingforVariationintheUptakeofFreeSchoolMealsinScotland(Chpt.7)• RegionalTrendsinScotland(Chpt.8)• LocalFocus:OutliersandIssuesforFurtherResearch(Chpt.9)• ACriticalReviewoftheEvidenceBase(Chpt.10)• WhatNext:SomeConcludingThoughts(Chpt.11)Furthermore,therearefourAnnexesattheendofthereport:• References(Annex1)• SPIRU‘OntheStreet’CaseStudies(Annex2)• ASSISTFM‘IntheSchool’CaseStudies(Annex3)• LocalServiceDevelopmentCaseStudies(Annex4)


2.Everybody’sBusiness:Schoolfoodaspublicpolicy“…Freeschoolmealswillhelpgiveeverychildthechanceinlifetheydeserve,buildingastrongereconomyandafairersociety.”

(DeputyPrimeMinister,NickClegginannouncementoffundingforFSM,2013)

2.1–IntroductionSchoolfoodhasbeenthefocusforawiderangeofpublicpolicyinterventionsinthe21stCentury.AsTable1shows,campaigners,interestgroupsandgovernmenthaveallcontributedtodebatesanddevelopments.Theinterventionshavetakentheformofexposes,demonstrationprojects,legislation,settingofstandards,andpolicyprovisions.Thesubstantivefocusofthisworkhascoverednutrition,benefitentitlement,povertyproofingandservicedelivery.WithinScotland,someinitiativesarelocal,whileothersareScotland-wide.DevelopmentsbeyondScotlandhavealsoshapedthinkingwithin,bothfromUK-widedebatesonschoolmeals,aswellaslocaldevelopmentsfromotherpartsoftheUK.ThepurposeofthischapterisnottodetailalloftheinterventionsthathavebeenlistedinTable1,asitislikelythatmostreadersofthisreportwillalreadybefamiliarwiththese.Rather,withthefocusofthisreportonFSMs,thepresentobjectiveistodemonstratehowawiderangeofinterventions-thatvaryinthedegreetowhichfreeprovisionisthecentralfocus–shapetheprovisionofFSMsinScotland.Four‘pathwaystoprogress’aredescribed;valuingFSMsbysupportingsomethingelse(2.2.1);positioningFSMsasbeingpartofsomethingbigger(2.2.2);improvingFSMsbydrivingupstandardsforall(2.2.3);anddeterminingprovisionforFSMs(2.2.4).Foreach,referenceismadetotherangeofrecentinterventionsofthatilk,withoneexampleusedtodemonstrateimpactonhowFSMsareprovidedinScotland.2.2–PathwaystoProgress2.2.1–ValuingfreeschoolmealsbysupportingsomethingelseTheconcernstotackleholidayhungerandtoincreaseprovisionofbreakfastclubs,havebeenfuelledbytheevidencethatchildrenfromthemostimpoverishedanddeprivedbackgroundsareunabletoachievetheireducationalpotentialasaresultofbeingunder-nourished.Althoughthefocusistheprovisionoffoodoutwiththeschoolday(beforehandoronnon-schooldays),inadvertentlythisatteststotheimportanceofschoolmealsinprovidingthesustenancethatisrequiredduringtheschoolday.Thus,projectssuchas


Table1:AtimelineofdevelopmentsinschoolmealprovisioninScotland,2000-2022

Year Initiatives/KeyDevelopments2000 IntroductionoftheEducation(NutritionalStandardsforSchoolLunches)(England)Regulations20002001

2002ImplementationofTheEducationAct2000(EnglandandWales),whichamendedthefreeschoolluncheligibilitycriteria,increasingthenumberofchildreneligibletoreceivefreeschoolmeals.

2003 IntroductionofHungryforSuccess(February19,2003)2004 PublicationofHealthyLivingBlueprintforSchools(DepartmentforEducationandSkills,2004).

2005

PublicationofEatingWellatSchool:NutritionalandPracticalGuidelines(Crawley,2005).PublicationofTurningtheTables:TransformingSchoolFood.AReportontheDevelopmentandImplementationofNutritionalStandardsforSchoolLunches(SchoolMealsReviewPanel,2005)Jamie’sSchoolDinners,afour-partdocumentaryseriesairsonChannel4.UKGovernmentestablishestheSchoolFoodTrust,anon-departmentalpublicbodytoassistschoolstoimproveschoolmealsLaunchofFoodinSchoolsProgramme(DepartmentofHealthandtheDepartmentforEducationandSkills,UK)

2006

2007

Trialinfivelocalauthorities(EastAyrshire,Fife,Glasgow,ScottishBordersandWestDunbartonshire)in2007/08fortheprovisionoffreeschoolmealstoallpupilsinP1-3.IntroductionofSchools(HealthPromotionandNutrition)(Scotland)Act2007–April19th

2008

PublicationoftheindependentEvaluationoftheFreeSchoolMealsTrialforP1-3pupils(MacLardieetal.,2008)IntroductionofTheNutritionalRequirementsforFoodandDrinkinSchools(Scotland)Regulations2008–June26th.PublicationofHealthyEatinginSchools.Aguidetoimplementingthenutritionalrequirementsforfoodanddrinkinschools(Scotland)regulations2008(ScottishGovernment,2008).

2009

ExtensionofnationalentitlementcriteriaforfreeschoolmealstoincludepupilswhoseparentsorcarersareinreceiptofbothmaximumChildTaxCreditandmaximumWorkingTaxCreditandtheirincomeisunder£6,420(fromAugust)

2010Introductionoflocalschemesinanumberoflocalauthoritiestoextendprovisionoffreeschoolmealsintheearlyyearsofprimaryschool(P1-3).

2011

2012IntroductionoftheScottishGovernment’sHealthyLivingSurvey,whichincorporatedtheoldSchoolMealsSurvey.

2013

ExtensionofnationalentitlementcriteriaforfreeschoolmealstoincludepupilswhoseparentsorcarersreceiveChildTaxCredit,donotreceiveWorkingTaxCreditandhadanannualincome(asassessedbytheInlandRevenue)ofbelow£16,105(fromApril)PublicationofTheSchoolFoodPlan(DimblebyandVincent,2013)fortheDepartmentofEducation,UK

2014

IntroductionofBetterEatingBetterLearningIntroductionoftheCostoftheSchoolDayprojectintheCityofGlasgowPassingoftheChildrenandYoungPeople(Scotland)Act2014,whichbecamelawonthe27thMarch2019andwhichplacedastatutoryobligationonlocalauthoritiestoprovidefreeschoolmealstopupilsinP1-P3.

2015IntroductionofuniversalprovisionofFreeSchoolMealstoallpupilsinP1-3(fromJanuary)PublicationofTheCostoftheSchoolDayevaluationreport(Spencer,2015)

2016

2017

ExtensionofnationalentitlementcriteriaforfreeschoolmealstoincludepupilswhoseparentsorcarersareinreceiptofUniversalCreditandtheirmonthlyearnedincomedoesnotexceed£610(fromAugust)ScottishGovernmentworkwithlocalauthoritiestoexploretheuseoflocalinitiativestoextendprovisionoffreeschoolmeals(2017and2018)

2018

IntroductionofClub365projectinNorthLanarkshire.ExtensionoffreeschoolmealstoallPrimary4pupilsinGlasgowCommitmenttoextendtheCostoftheSchoolDayprojectaspartoftheScottishGovernment’sTacklingChildPovertyDeliveryPlan,2018-2022.

2019 CommitmenttoextendfreeschoolmealprovisiontoallprimaryschoolpupilsinGlasgowby2022.


NorthLanarkshireCouncil’s365Project,indirectlystrengthenthecaseforprovisionofFSMsbyprovidingfoodtochildrenbeyondtheschoolday.2.2.1a-365Project(NorthLanarkshireCouncil)Inresponsetohighlevelsofunemployment,healthinequalityandpoverty,NorthLanarkshireintroducedthe365Project.Itaimstoprovideallchildreneligibleforafreeschoolmealwithahotnutritiousmealforeverydaythattheyarenotinschool.Theneedforout-of-schoolfoodprovisionbecameevidentwithamarkedincreaseintheuseoflocalfoodbanksinholidayperiodsandawarenessofadisparityin‘learningloss’betweenlow-incomepupilsandmiddle-incomepupilsafteraholiday,particularlyevidentafterthesummerholidays.Itisunderstoodthat‘holidayhunger’contributestothis‘learningloss’,aslow-incomepupilsdonothaveaccesstoabalancednutritionaldietthroughoutthislengthyperiod.Thus,the365Projectaimstocontributetonarrowingtheattainmentgap.Theprojectalsopromotessittingdowntoameal,thusprovidingsocialspaceforinteractioninthesummerholidays.Theprojectisnotonlyfocusedonfood;livingonalowincomecanalsomeannothavingaccesstoleisurepursuits,andakeyfocusfortheprojectistheprovisionoffoodaroundaprogrammeofgamesandactivities.Interimin-houseevaluationhasbeenpositive,withreportsofincreasedattendanceatschoolamongthoseparticipating.IncreasedattendanceatschoolalsoimpliesgreateruptakeofFSMs.Moreover,teachershavebeenreportedtoacknowledgeanimprovementinbehaviourandconcentrationlevelsofparticipatingpupils;oncemore,thisatteststothevalueofprovidingfoodtosupporteducationalengagement.2.2.2-PositioningfreeschoolmealsasbeingpartofsomethingbiggerInrecentyears,anumberofkeyinitiativeshavebeenintroducedinScotlandtoaddressthewiderissueofpovertyand/ineducation.OfparticularnoteistheEIScampaign,FaceUptoChildPoverty,andtheCostoftheSchoolDayproject,initiallyintroducedintheCityofGlasgowasapartnershipprojectbetweenCPAGScotland,thePovertyLeadershipPanel,GlasgowCityCouncil,GlasgowCentreforPopulationHealthandNHSGreaterGlasgowandClyde.Bothprojectshaveabroadanti-povertyfocus,andbothacknowledgetheimportanceofFSMsasanintegralpartofawideranti-povertystrategyorapoverty-proofedschool.Significantly,bothprojectshavebeenextendedaspartoftheScottishGovernment’sfirstTacklingPovertyDeliveryPlan,withpilotandbestpracticebeingadaptedandadoptedacrossScotland.2.2.2a–TheCostoftheSchoolDay(initiallyCityofGlasgow,ledbyalocal/nationalpartnership,nowbeingadoptedinmanylocalauthorities)TheCostoftheSchoolDayaimstoidentifyandovercomethewiderangeoffinancialbarriersthatarefacedbythechildrenoflow-incomefamiliesinScottishschools.Itaimstoensurethatallpupilshaveaccesstoalloftheopportunitiesthateducationpresentsandtoensurethatpupilsarenotexcludedfromlearningorparticipationonthegroundsofcost.Itraisesawarenessofthehiddencostofschoolinganddrawsattentiontothestigmathatcanresultfromawarenessofapupil’sfreeaccesstoschoolmealsonthegroundsoffamilybenefitentitlement.Thisstigmacanbeabarriertouptakeandcanadverselyimpactonachild’s


mentalandphysicalwell-being.Byaimingtosensitivelyreducethepressuresonlow-incomefamilies,theCostoftheSchoolDayprojectcontributestoeffortstotackleoneofthethreedriversofchildpovertyrecognisedbytheScottishGovernment,i.e.reducinghouseholdcosts(ScottishGovernment,2018b).Ithashighlightedarangeofhiddenorheightenedcosts,incurredthroughschooltrips,uniforms,resourcesforlearning,clubsandactivities,funevents,transportandsubject-specificsupplements(e.g.geographyfieldtripcontributions).Byreducingthehiddencostofschooling,thechildbenefitsdirectlybybeingmoreabletobecomefullyinvolvedinschoollifeandtheopportunitiesthatpresent.Furthermore,themoneynotbeingspentonschoolingcanbeusedinthelow-incomefamilytomeetthecostofessentialoutgoings.A‘CostoftheSchoolDayToolkit’,facilitates‘poverty-proofing’theschool.TheeffectiveprovisionofFSMsisacornerstoneofTheCostoftheSchoolDayintervention,withattentiongivennotonlytoentitlement,butalsotothemannerinwhichtheserviceisaccessed.Althoughnotwithoutitsproblems,theinterventionhasencouragedtheadoptionofcashlesssystemstoavoidthepotentiallystigmatisingidentificationofthosepupilswhoareentitledtoFSMs.2.2.3–ImprovingfreeschoolmealsbydrivingupstandardsforallTherehasbeennoshortageofinterestinthequalityofschoolmeals.Adiverserangeofstakeholdershascontributedtodebatesanddeliberationsonhowtoimprovethenutritionalvalueofschoolfood.Attimes,thesedebateshavebeenhighlyvisible,withcelebrity-ledcampaignsthroughnationalmedia(e.g.JamieOliverin2005),tolocalfurorearoundtheperceivedpoorqualityoffareofferedinparticularschools(withhighprofilecasestudiesinArgyllandButein2012;andDundeein2018).Specialistinterestgroupshavealsobeentotheforeinspecifyingstandardsandpriorities,bothascriticalfriendsworkingoutwiththesectorandthosewithinandresponsibleforstandards.Here,theendresultisenhancementofFSMs,byfocusingonimprovingstandardsforall.InScotland,thecriticalmomentinrecentyearswastheintroductionofHungryforSuccessin2003.2.2.3a-HungryForSuccess:AWholeSchoolApproachtoSchoolMealsinScotlandTheScottishExecutive’sExpertPanelonSchoolMealspublished‘HungryForSuccess’in2003.H4SwasviewedasthebeginningofaholisticapproachtofoodineveryschoolinScotland.Itsuggestedthatallpupilsshouldbegivenaccesstosuitablefoodselectionswithinahealth-promotingenvironment.Itsmainprioritieswere:toremovestigmainregardtotheuptakeandconsumptionofFSMs;tohavebetterpresentationofthemeals;andtosethigherstandardsofnutritionforschoolmeals.However,‘HungryForSuccess’imploredschoolsnottoviewmealsinisolation.ThewiderhealthproblemsthatwereevidentacrossScotland,andtheirrelatedstressors–unhealthylifestyles,poverty,poorhousingandunemployment–werealsobeacknowledgedandaddressed.Recognitionwasalsogiventothepracticalchallengesindeliveringschoolmeals,suchtherushatlunchtimeandinadequatesizeofdiningrooms.These–andother-factorswereacknowledgedascontributingtopupilspreferringtoventureoutwiththeschoolgroundsatmealtimes.‘HungryForSuccess’encouragedschoolstobeinclusiveintheirattemptstodriveupstandards;mostsignificantly,byengagingthecateringprofessionals,e.g.byencouragingcateringanddiningroomstafftoundergoappropriatetrainingtoenablethemtoeffectivelymanagethediningenvironmenttocreateanenjoyableexperienceforpupils.


2.2.4–DeterminingprovisionforfreeschoolmealsTherehasalsobeendirectactiontoextendthereachofFSMsinScotland.Mostnotably,followingasuccessfultrialinfivelocalauthorities(EastAyrshire,Fife,Glasgow,ScottishBordersandWestDunbartonshire)in2007/08,theChildrenandYoungPeople(Scotland)Act2014placedastatutoryobligationonlocalauthoritiesinScotlandtoprovideFSMstopupilsinP1-P3.ThisprovisionwasimplementedfromJanuary2015.Perhapsencouragedbythenationallead,somelocalauthoritiesinScotlandhaveextendedeligibilitycriteriatoparticulargroupsofpupils.However,perhapsmostnotableofallistherecentcommitmentofGlasgowCityCounciltoincrementallyextenduniversalprovisionsuchthatallpupilsinprimaryschoolswillreceiveafreeschoolmealby2022.2.2.4a-ExtensionofFreeSchoolMealstoallPupilsinPrimarySchool(GlasgowCityCouncil) In2018,Scotland’slargestcouncilextendedeligibilitytoFSMstoallPrimary4pupilsandcommittedtoextenduniversalprovisionincrementallysothatallpupilsinallofitsprimaryschoolswereentitledtoafreeschoolmealby2022.CurrentlyentitlementtoFSMsintheupperstagesofprimaryschoolandsecondaryschoolisonlyavailabletothosefamiliesclaimingeitheruniversalcredit,incomesupport,income-basedjobseeker’sallowance,income-basedemploymentandsupportallowance,childtaxcreditwithincomelessthan£16,105,childtaxcreditANDmaximumworkingtaxcreditwhereincomeislessthan£6,420,orthereissupportunderpartVIoftheimmigrationandasylumact1999.However,therehasbeenwiderdebatearoundtheefficacyofuniversalfreeprovisionforPrimary1-3pupils.Indeed,extendinguniversalprovisionisofwidersignificancethanschoolmealsalone,universalbasicincomeisalsobeingproposed(Painteretal.,2019)andisunderconsiderationinsomepilotauthorities(MacEwan,2018). 2.3–ConclusionIthasbeenshownthat,inthelastdecade,andinresponsetowidersocialconcerns,schoolfoodandpovertyhasemergedasafieldofinterestinScottishpublicpolicy.Differenttypesofinterventionsandapproacheshavebeenused,activelyengagingawiderangeofstakeholders.FSMshasbeenthedirectfocusforpolicy,aninadvertentbeneficiaryofwiderconcernsoverschoolmeals,anintegralpartofwiderstrategiestotacklepovertyandisimplicitlyvaluedwhenattemptstoextendfreefoodprovisionoutwiththeschooldayarepromoted.BeforemovingontoprovidearapidreviewofthekeyliteraturepertainingtoFSMsinScotland(chapter4),wefirstturntodescribethewaysinwhichschoolfoodhasbeenpresentedasaquestionofsocialjusticeinScotlandandtoacknowledgethewideragendasthatarealsopertinenttoschoolfood(chapter3).


3.SocialJusticeandBeyond:Whatarethekeyissuespertainingtofoodinschools?“…Freeschoolmealsmakesurethatyoungchildrengetahealthyandnutritiousmealeveryday,improvingtheirconcentrationintheclassroomandhelpingthemtoachievebetterresults.Thishasbeenahugereliefformany…savingfamilies£380ayearforeachchild”

(SNP,2016)3.1–IntroductionThisreportisconcernedwithFSMs.Theprevioussectionexplainedthemechanisms,whichshapeFSMsprovisioninScotland.TheprimarypurposeofthissectionofthereportistospecifytherangeofwaysinwhichFSMsispertinenttowidersocialjusticeagendas.Considerationisgiventoissues,whichfocusspecificallyonFSMs(3.2)andthosethatarefocusedmoregenerallyonthewiderschoolfoodagenda,butwhicharepertinenttounderstandingFSMsasanissueofsocialjustice(3.3).3.2–IssuesSurroundingFreeSchoolMealsThereareseveraldriverstoimprovetheeffectivenessofschoolmealsinScotland.Keyamongthesearethedesiretotacklefoodsecurity(3.2.1),removeclassroomhunger(3.2.2),tackleincomepoverty(3.2.3)andtacklewiderproblemsassociatedwithpoverty(3.2.4).DebatesalsofocusonwhetherthereisadequateinfrastructuretodeliverFSMs(3.2.5),themeritsofuniversalversustargetedprovision(3.2.6),stigma-freeadministration(3.2.7)andtheaffordabilityofschoolmeals(3.2.8).3.2.1–FoodSecurityFoodsecurityimplieshavingreliableaccesstoasufficientamountofsafe,nutritiousandaffordablefood(WorldFoodSummit,1996).Itisunderstoodtobeapre-requisiteforanactiveandhealthylife(Deeds,2015).Researchindicatesthatthereareadversementalandphysicalconsequencesforfoodinsecureyoungpeople(Jyotiet.al,2005).FSMscontributetowardfoodsecurityforeligiblechildrenthroughtheprovisionofonehealthyandnutritiousmealatlunchtimeduringeachschoolday.Itshouldbeacknowledgedthatalthoughmakingacontributiontowardfoodsecurity,lunchtimeschoolmealscannotaloneprovidetotalfoodsecurity.


3.2.2–TacklingIncomePovertyFSMsarealsovaluedforthecontributiontheymaketotacklechid/familypoverty.TheprovisionofFSMshelpstorelieveincomepressureonlow-incomefamilies,whoasaresultcanmakeaconsiderablesaving,particularlywhenthereareseveralchildreninthefamily(TheChildren’sSociety,2012).TheSNP(2016)estimatesthatFSMssavesfamilies£380eachyearperchild.TheChildren’sSocietyestimated140,000childrenhadalreadyescapedfoodpovertyasaresultofFSMsandanestimated100,000childrenwouldfurtherbeassistedifplanstoexpandprovisionwereextendedatthattime.Anti-povertyinterventionsoftheilk–thosewithaimtoreducehouseholdexpenditure–areacentralfocusintheScottishGovernment’sapproachtotacklingchildpovertyinScotland,asexpoundedinthe“Tacklingchildpovertydeliveryplan”(ScottishGovernment,2018b).3.2.3-ClassroomHungerItisestimatedthat8,370childrenarriveatschoolhungryeverydayintheUK(Kelloggs,2013)andthatchildrenwhoarrivetoschoolhungryloseonehouroflearningtimeeachday.Theevidencethatmorninghungercontributestolearninglossisalsoapplicabletoafternoonhunger;likebreakfastclubs,lunchtimemealsalsomakeapositivecontributiontosupportinglearninginschool.Jyotietal.(2015)haveestablishedthatunder-nourishedchildrenaremorelikelytofallbehindinclassordropoutbeforecompletinghighschool.Therefore,byaddressingclassroomhunger,FSMscanalsohelptoovercomeoneofthebarrierstoacademicachievementforchildrenlivinginpoverty.3.2.4–TacklingTheProblemsAssociatedWithIncomePoverty–CaseStudyObesityProvidingschoolmealsarenotonlyvaluedasameansoftacklingpovertydirectly(3.2.2);theyarealsovaluedasameanstotacklesecond-orderproblemsthatarestronglyassociatedwithpoverty,orcreatedbyit.Obesityisonesuchproblemthatislinkedwithpoverty.Healthymealsareoftenmorecostlythanunhealthymeals(CPAG,2019).Parentsfromlowincomebackgroundscanfinditmoremanageabletopurchaseprocessedfoodsatlocalshops,ratherthanpayhighertravelcostsofvisitingmoredistantstoresthatofferagreaterrangeoffreshandhealthyfood(CPAG,2019).Thismay,atleastinpart,explainwhychildrenfrompoorerbackgroundsaremorelikelytosufferfromchildhoodobesity.Astherearestrictnutritionalguidelinesforschoolmeals,theycouldpotentiallybehealthierthanotherlunchtimeoptionsandcouldhavepositiveimpactonthehealthofachildandthepreventionofobesity,particularlyifconsumedfivedaysaweek(Homer,2010).However,oncemore,itisimportanttorememberthatschoolmealsprovideonlyafractionofachild’sdietandsotheabilitytotackleobesitysolelythroughtheprovisionofFSMsislimited(Jones,2018).Ofcourse,healthyschoolmealscanonlyhelptotacklechildhoodobesityifchildrenactuallyeatthemealsprovided(Ofsted,2018).Morepositively,experiencingahealthynutritiousmealinschoolmaycontributetowardchild-led‘demand’forsimilarqualityfoodbeyondtheschool.


3.2.5–DoSchoolsHavetheInfrastructuretoDeliver?Amajorissueforschoolsisencouragingchildrentopresentforschoolmealsagainstthecompetitionofthepackedlunch,ortheallureofoutofschoolcompetitionwiththeir‘lunchtimespecials’.LornaAitken(2018),DevelopmentOfficerforFoodforThoughthasarguedthatitispossibleforpublic(schoolmeal)andprivate(outofschool)servicestoworktogethertoencourageyoungpeopletoeatmorehealthily.Suchpublic-privatecollaborationorpartnershipmaybedesirableasnotallschoolshaveadequatefacilitiestoaccommodateallpupilsintheircafeteriaatlunchtime.Indeed,asisevidenceinAnnex3,excessivewaitingtimescausedbylongqueuesinthelunchroom/schoolcanteenarereportedtobeamajordisincentiveforpupils.ItisnotatallclearthatschoolshavetheinfrastructuretodeliverwhatisaspiredforschoolmealsinScotland.3.2.6–UniversalVersusTargetedServiceProvisionFollowingasuccessfulpilotinfivelocalauthoritiesin2010,theScottishGovernmentcommittedtoprovideallchildreninP1-3withafreeschoolmealfromJanuary2015(see2.2.4).Morerecently,theCityofGlasgowhascommittedtoprovideallprimaryschoolchildrenwithafreeschoollunchtimemealby2022.ThisraisestheissueofwhetherFSMsshouldbeuniversalortargetedtopopulationsinneed.Thisisawiderdebateinsocialprovision,whichhasalsobeendebatedfollowingtheuniversalprovisionoffreeprescriptions,freeuniversitytuition,freepersonalcarefortheelderly,andfreebustravelforpeopleofpensionableage.Proponentsofuniversalprovisionofschoolmealshavearguedthatitcoulderadicatethestigmathatcanbefeltthroughtargetedprovision,increasetheuptakeofschoolmeals(withtheconsequentbenefitsforhealthandeducationalattainment)andhelptoaddressinequality(CPAG,2019).Universalprovisionisalsovaluedasitprovidesforchildrenfromlow-incomefamilieswhowouldotherwisenotbeeligibleforFSMs.However,universalprovisionleadstoaccusationsofwastefulspend.ItcanbearguedthatprovidingpupilsfromhigherincomebackgroundswithFSMsisawasteofresourcesasthechildrenareunlikelytorequiresuchsupport,andscarcefundingwouldbebetterspentelsewhere(Horton,2017).Targetedserviceprovisionisnotwithoutitschallengesandmustovercometheproblemsthatcanarisefromsettingandadministeringeligibilitycriteria.3.2.7–LocalIntelligenceandActionTheEducation(Scotland)Act2016gavelocalauthoritiestheabilitytograntdiscretionaryfreeschoolmeals.Inpractice,Headteachersmayberesponsibleforexercisingthisdiscretion.Theadvicegiventolocalauthoritiesisthatthisdiscretionshouldbeusedparticularlywhentherearecasesofhardshipduetoexceptionalcircumstances,suchaswhenafamilyhasnoincomeduetotheirimmigrationstatus.However,thereisconsiderablescopeforlocalauthorities/headteacherstosettheirownstandards,giventhatitapplies“topupilswhosatisfysuchconditionsastheauthoritythinksfit.”Atpresent,thereisnounderstandingof:(i)theextenttowhichthisdiscretionisbeingapplied;(ii)theconditionsunderwhichthisdiscretionisbeingapplied;(iii)whichpupilsarereceivingdiscretionaryprovision;(iv)howthisdiscretionaryprovisionisbeingfunded;(v)theextent


towhichheadteachersareawareofthisdiscretion;(vi)theextenttowhichlocalauthoritiesarepromoting/encouraginguseofthesediscretionarypowers.3.2.8-StigmaandschoolmealsSchoolshaveproducedavarietyof‘solutions’tohelpreducethestigmafeltbypupils,includingoperatingcashlesssystems(James,2012),wherebyyoungpeopleuseacardtopayfortheirmeal,whichisautomaticallyloadedwithcashforthosewhoreceiveFSMs,makingitlessobviouswhoishavingtheirlunchprovidedforthem.However,thisdoesnotalwayswork,particularlyatsecondaryschoollevel,asmanychildrenchoosetoeatlunchoutwiththeschoollunchhall.ThiscouldbeanisolatingandembarrassingexperienceforyoungpeoplewhoreceiveFSMsastheyarelikelytofeelexcludedifalloftheirfriendsaregoingtotheshopsforlunchandtheyhavetostayinschoolfortheirfreeschoolmeal(CPAGandBYC,2019).3.2.9–Canweaffordit?Finally,itisimportanttoconsiderwhetherfundsareavailabletosupplyFSMstoallyoungpeople,andwhetherthebenefitsoutweighthecoststhatwouldbeincurred.EventhoughtheScottishGovernmentspentatotalof£53,918,000in2017/18inordertosupportlocalcouncilsintheprovisionofFSMstoP1-3pupils,localauthoritiesarguedthatthiswasinsufficienttocovercostsandthat,asbudgetswerealreadyfinanciallystrained,itislikelythatlocalserviceswillbecutand/orresidentswillseeanincreasetocounciltaxchargesinordertocovercosts(BBCNews,2015).Thesecutsandcostsmustbesetagainstthebenefitsthatwouldbegainedbychildrenfromlow-incomeworkingfamilies.ItisthereforecomplicatedtotakeaccountofboththeshorttermandfarreachingbenefitsofFSMs,inordertoassesswhetheritisasensibleinvestment.3.3–OtherIssuesSurroundingFoodinSchoolsSomeofthewiderissuesthatpertaintofoodandschoolsconcernfoodprovisionbeyondlunchtime,i.e.atbreakfast(3.2.1)andduringschoolholidays(3.3.2).Moregenerally,thereareconcernsaboutthewiderenvironmental(3.3.3)andpublichealth(3.3.4)impactofschoolfood.3.3.1–BreakfastProvisionWithoutbreakfast,concentrationlevelsareimpairedandthequalityofschoolworksuffers(3.2.3).Thiscanhaveahugeimpactonshortandlong-termoutcomes(TheScottishGovernment,2006).Breakfastclubs,freefruit,freemilkandFSMsallhaveaparttoplayinreducingtheeffectsthroughouttheschooldayofpoverty-inducedlearningloss.3.3.2–HolidayProvisionHolidayhungerhasemergedasaconcerninrecentyears.Evidenceisemergingofparentsnotbeingabletoadequatelyfeedtheirownchildrenthroughouttheholidays,evenifthey


areinwork(Children&YoungPeopleCommissionerScotland,2017).ThroughouttheUKtherehasbeenariseintheuseoffoodbanksoverthesummerholidays,whichatteststotheproblemofparentsnotbeingabletoaffordfood.Inresponse,manylocalschemessuchas‘FeedingBritain’aninitiativeproviding79clubswith27,000mealstochildrenovertheholidays(Foster,2018)areemergingtomeetthedemandforholidayfood.ThisprovisionisnotuniversalacrossScotlandandnotalllocalauthoritiesarecommittedtoholidayprovision.3.3.3–FoodMilesSourcinglocal,freshproducemaybemoredesirablethanpurchasingfoodthathasbeenstoredforextendedperiodsortransportedoverlongdistances,whichcanaffectfoodquality.TransportationoffoodbyairorlandoverlongdistancesalsoincreasesgreenhousegasseswithCO2beingaknowncontaminantofcrops(McKie,2008).Iffoodweremainlylocallysourced,therewouldbepotentialfinancialandenvironmentalbenefits.3.3.4–HealthyLifestylesObesity,coronaryheartdisease,cancer,diabetesandstrokesareallhealthissuesrelatedtopoornutritionalhealthintheUK.Obesityaloneaffects13%ofchildreninScotland.Inresponsetothishealth‘crisis’,nationalandlocalgovernmentshavefocusedoninitiativestopromotehealthierlifestylesandhealthierfoodchoices.Forexample,EatingWellatSchoolencouragedmakingnutritionallyvaluablechoices,whilst2006broughtabouttheimplementationofNutritionalGuidelinesforEarlyYears.Continuingthisagenda,thefocusofmanaginglevelsofsugarandfatswasrefocusedin2008withintroductionofTheNutritionalRequirementsforFoodandDrinkinSchools(Scotland)Regulations.Inaddition,initiativessuchas‘FoodforThought’usefoodasacontextforlearning,promotingafoodeducationthatsustainscontinuedhealthychoicesforchildreninandoutoftheschoolsetting.AlsosignificantistheworkoftheSoilAssociationanditsFoodforLifeSchoolAward,inwhichschoolfoodisanintegralpartofawholeschoolapproachtoimprovingpupilshealthandwellbeing.Thus,schoollunchtimemealsareviewedasanintegralpartofwiderinitiativestoimprovethehealthandwellbeingofchildreninScotland.3.4–ConclusionFSMscanhaveapositiveimpactonpupils’academicengagementandperformance,andhavelonger-termpositivehealthoutcomes.However,socio-culturalpressuresshapechildren’sfoodchoicesandyoungpeoplemaynotchooseschoolmealsovermorefamiliarorattractivealternatives.AlthoughtheintroductionofFSMscouldbeviewedasasuccess,italoneisinsufficienttotackleissuesoffoodinsecurityandfamilypovertyinScotland.


4.WhatDoWeKnowAboutFreeSchoolMeals?Keyfindingsfromarapidreviewofthekeyliterature“Theevaluationofourpilotprojectsaysthatfreeschoolmealshadapositiveimpactonallaspectsofachild'sschooling”

(NicolaSturgeon,FirstMinisterofScotland,inBBCNews,2015)4.1-IntroductionTheprimarypurposeofthisreportistoutilisetheunpublishedevidencebasegeneratedfromqualitativeandquantitativeresearch,byorwiththesector.However,itshouldbeacknowledgedthatmuchschoolmealsresearchhasalreadybeenpublishedandthatthisevidencebasealsohascontemporaryvaluetothosewhopromoteschoolmealsinScotland.Inthischapter,wesummarisethemostpertinentfindingsfrompublishedresearch.Whatispresentedisnotafullyfledgedliteraturereview;rather,itisacollationofkeyfindingsandexpertopiniononfourkeyissues–thevalueofschoolmeals(4.2),patternsofuptake(4.3),strategiesthatcanbedeployedtoincreaseuptake(4.4)andtheevidencebase(4.).TheprimarygoalistodrawlessonsfromschoolmealsresearchinScotland;however,referenceisalsomadetolearningbeyondofScotland,whereisitconsideredrelevant.Similarly,whereappropriate,lessonsforschoolmealsarealsodrawnfromstudiesthatarehaveabroaderfocusbutwhichcontainssomekeypointsthatarepertinenttoFSMsprovision. 4.2–WhySchoolMealsMatterTacklingpoverty:theneedforschoolmeals

• Stewart(1999)recountsthehistoryoftheintroductionofschoolmealsinthe20thCentury,showingthatitwashighlypoliticised,withsupportforschoolmealsnotalwaysfollowingpredictablelinesby21stcenturystandards.

• MorelliandSeaman(2010,p.142)arguethat–giventhegrowthinchildpovertyintheUK–deliveringschoolmealsisananti-povertystrategythatwouldreducehouseholdcosts.

• MorelliandSeaman(2010,p.156)calculatethatUFSMwouldleadtoareductionininequalityinScotlandandthatthatreductionwouldbegreaterinScotlandthanotherpartsoftheUK.

• Craigetal.(2014,p.9)arguethatFSMpolicyhasbeenshapedbythecomplexpoliticalchallengesthatpresent.

• Fordetal.(2015,p.22)reportthatsomeparentswhosechildrenwerepreviouslyineligibleforFSM,madereferencetothefinancialbenefitsofuniversalfreeprovisioninP1-P3.

• Holford(2015,p.976)isamongthemanyauthorswhonotethatasignificantproportionofeligiblechildrendonotpresentforFSM,limitingitspotentialasananti-povertyintervention.

Improvinghealth:theneedforhealthyschoolmeals• SeamanandMoss(2006,p.305)refertoevidencethatestimatesthatoneinfivechildrenintheUKare

overweight,withobesityratesrisingforthepasttwodecades.Theyarguethatprovidinghealthy


schoolmealshasthepotentialtocontributetoeffortstotackleobesitythroughhealthyeating;converselyprovidingschoolmealsthatarehighinsugarandfatwillexacerbatetheproblem.

o HighlevelsofobesityarenotedbyMorelliandSeaman(200,pp.142-143)o HighlevelsofobesityarealsonotedbyMacDiarmidetal.(2009,p.1297)

• SeamanandMoss(2006,p.305)furtherfoundthatthereisconfusionamong11and12yearoldchildrenastowhatconstituteshealthyfood–educatinginconjunctionwiththeprovisionofhealthyschoolmealshasthepotentialtoincreaseawarenessofhealthyeating.

• Craigetal.(2014,p.9)arguethatFSMpolicyhasbeenshapedbythecomplexhealthchallengesthatpresent.

• Wallingetal.(2016,p.1)arguethatschoolmealsprovideauniqueopportunitytoimprovepublichealth.

• Eadieetal.(2016,p.2)positiontheintroductionofUFSMagainstthepolicyfocusonreducinghealthinequalitiesinScotland.

Providingnourishmentforall• Lucasetal.(2007,p.7)refertoguidancethatlunchshouldconstituteabout30%ofdailyenergyneeds.• Biltoft-JensenandHolm(2016,p.1)notethat40%-45%ofthedailyenergyintakeofchildrenaged

between6and14yearsoldisconsumedduringschoolandafter-schoolactivities.• Ontheotherhand,Willsetal.(2015,p.23)reportthatonequarterofyoungpeoplereportednot

eatinganythingatlunchtime(24.3%)andonefifthreportednotdrinkinganythingatlunchtime(19.1%)onthedayoftheirstudy.

• Norrisetal.(2016,p.836)arguethatschoolmealscontributesignificantlytochildren’sfoodintake.Providingnourishmenttothosewhoneedit

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.1)contextualisetheirstudybynotingthatschoolmealprovisionintheUKwasoriginallyintroducedtomeettheneedsofpoorchildren.

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.2)alsorefertoastudythatdemonstratesthatthosereceivingFSMreceiveahigherproportion,thanthosenotreceivingFSM,oftheirenergyandnutritionalneedsthroughlunchtimefood.TheyconcludethattheFSMmaybethemainmealofthedayforthesechildren.

• Chambersetal.(2016)foundthatthefreeschoollunchwasoftenachild’smainmealoftheday.• RonaandChin(1989,p.69)intheirstudyofschoolmeals,schoolmilkandpupilheight,foundthatthe

lowestrateofgrowthwastobefoundamongchildrenreceivingFSMs,suggestingthatschoolfoodalonewasinsufficienttocounterwidernutritionaldeficitsOfcourse,thisevidencecouldbeusedtostrengthenthecaseforFSMprovisionandevenextendingfoodprovisioninschools,i.e.toprovidenourishmentforchildrenwiththelowestlevelsofgrowth..

• Stewart(1999,p.11)recountsthatthegoalofimprovinghealthwasamajorfactorbehindtheintroductionofschoolsmealsinScotland.

Ensuringhealthiernutrition• Chambersetal.(2016,p.2)refertostudiesthatsuggestthatschoollunchesaremorenutritiousthan

bothpackedlunches(whicharemorelikelytocontainhighenergyfoodsanddrinks)andfoodconsumedoutsideofschool(whichisassociatedwithahigherpercentageoffoodenergythroughsugarconsumption).

• Norrisetal.(2016,pp.836-839)foundthatschoolmealswerehealthierthanpackedlunchesandstreetlunches,althoughnotalllunchesconsumedweremeetingtheScottishNutrientStandardsforSchoolLunches.

• Fordetal.(2015,p.14)reportthatparentsperceivethatschoolmealsarehealthierthanthealternatives.,althoughparentsalsoreportbeingreassuredifprovidingpackedlunches(p.16).

• Fordetal.(2015,p.18)reportthatsomeparentssuggestthatschoolmealshadledtochildreneatingmorehealthilyoutsideofschool.

Wideningfoodhorizons• Fordetal.(2015,18)reportthatsomeparentssuggestthatschoolmealsofferedchildrenthe

opportunitytoeatfoodsthatwerenotavailableathome.Improvingeducationalattainment

• Wallingetal.(2016,p.9)makesreferencetoastudyinEngland,whichdemonstratedthattheprovisionofschoolmealscouldhaveasignificantimpactonthecognitiveabilityofpupils.Forexample,Keystage2testsresultswereshowntoimproveduringtheimplementationofcelebrityChefJamieOliver'sefforttomakeschoolmealsinEnglandhealthier.


• Stewart(1999,p.5)referstohistoricargumentsthatassertthatitiscounter-productivetoattempttoeducateill-nourishedchildren.

Improvingoutcomesinschool• Craigetal.(2014,p.10)refertopreviousresearch,whichsuggeststhatschool-basedbehaviour,

classroomproductivity,attendanceandpupilperceptionoftheirschoolworkwerealsopositivelyassociatedwithschoolmealsconsumption.

• Wallingetal.(2016,p.9),throughreferencetothesamestudynotedabove,makesreferencetoevidencethattheprovisionofschoolmealscanhaveasignificantimpactonreducingabsenteeisminschools.

Meetingstatutoryresponsibilities• Chambersetal.(2016,p.1)notethatUKlocalauthoritieshaveastatutoryresponsibilitytoprovide

mealsatlunchtimeinschools.Inaddition,childrenwhosefamiliesareinreceiptofcertainbenefits/taxcreditsareentitledtoafreeschoolmeal.

Achievinglongtermeconomicgains• Chambersetal.(2016,p.2)refertostudiesthatarguethatschoolmealshavethepotentialto

generatelong-termeconomicgainsviaimprovedhealthandproductivity,whichinturn,couldbeachievedbyofferingfoodinschoolsthatisnutritionallydense.

Deliveringimmediateeconomicgains• Craigetal.(2014,p.9)arguethatFSMcouldgeneratelocaleconomicbenefitsiftheiringredientswere

sourcedfromlocalsuppliers.Releasingtimepressureforparents

• Ford(2015,p.31)arguesthattheimplementationoftheUSFMpolicyhasalsohadanumberofunintendedandpositiveconsequencessuchas,anincreaseinavailabletimeforparentswhowouldnormallyhavehadtomakeapackedlunch.

4.3–UnderstandingUptakeMixed-mode

• Norrisetal.(2016,p.836)foundalmosttwofifthsofpupilsdidnothavethesamemodeoflunchtimemealeveryday(38.6%switchedbetweenschoolmeals,packedlunchesandstreetmeals),whileonethirdhabituallyhadschoolmeals(32.8%).

4.3.1–Population-basedvariationLoneparentfamilies

• RonaandChin(1989,p.68)inacross-nationalstudyinthe1980sinScotlandandEngland,foundthatchildrenofloneparentshadthehighestuptakeofschoolmealsamongfamilytypes.

Socialclass• RonaandChin(1989,p.68)alsofoundthatuptakeofschoolmealswashigheramongchildrenwhose

fatherswereeithersemi-skilledmanualworkersorunskilledmanualworkers.• Craigetal.(2014)makereferencetotheworkofBartfieldandKim(2010),whichsuggeststhat

economicvulnerabilityisafactorthatincreasestheuptakeofFSM.Ethnicity

• RonaandChin(1989,p.68)foundthatAsianethnicgroupshadaconsistentlyloweruptakeofschoolmeals,whereas‘Caucasians’andAfro-Caribbeanshadthehighestuptake.

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1274)identifylanguageissues(inabilitytocompletetheFSMentitlementform)asbeingapossiblereasonfornon-uptakeofFSMsinEngland(inrelationtoapilotforuniversalentitlement).

Religion• Montemaggietal.(2016)premisetheirstudyinEnglandonevidencethatCatholicsareover-

representedamongchildrenentitledtoreceiveFSMs.


• Montemaggietal.(2016,p.7)reportthatCatholicschoolsinEnglandhavealoweruptakeofFSMsthanthenationalaverage.TheyattributethistoculturalresistancetoreceivingFSMsamongstparentsfromethnicminorities(p.8).

LowLiteracyratesamongparents• Montemaggietal.(2016,p.14)arguethatlowliteracyratesamongparents(particularlywhenEnglish

isasecondlanguage)isabarriertotheseparentsapplyingfortheirchild’sFSMentitlement.Generalsocio-economicenvironment

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.1)refertotheworkofMcDermidetal.(2015)whonotethatchildrenfromdeprivedareasaremorelikelytobuytheirlunchoutsideofschool,comparedtochildrenfromnon-deprivedareas.

HigheruptakeinschoolswithhigherlevelsofFSMentitlement• Chambersetal.(2016,p.8)evidencethatuptakeofFSMisgreaterinschoolswherethereisahigher

proportionofpupilswhoareentitledtoFSMandwhowereinattendanceontheschoolmealscensusday.Theynote,however,thatthisincreaseisnotproportional.

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.3)refertotheworkofSahotaetal.(2014)whoarguethatwhereFSMregistrationishigh,take-upisnormalised,andthereforenotbeingsingledoutisnotafactorthatmightleadtolowuptake.

HigheruptakeofFSMwhenthereishigheruptakeofschoolmealsamongpupilsnotentitledtoFSM

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.8)evidencethatuptakeofFSMisgreaterinschoolswherethereishigheruptakeofschoolmealsamongthosepupilswhoarenotentitledtoFSMs.

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1278)concludethatthebestwaytoincreaseFSMuptakeistoincreaseuptakeforallpupils.

• Holford(2014,p.980)evidencethatFSMuptakeismostlikelytoincreasewhennon-FSMuptakeincreases.

• ThelimitationsoftheUFSMpolicyforP1-P3canbeshownwiththetransitionfromP3toP4,wherepresentationforschoolmealsdrops,bothamongthoseentitledtoFSMsandthosewhoarenot(Ford,2015,pp.32-33).

4.3.2–SocietalfactorsStigma

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.2)refertohistoricalevidencethatsuggeststhatmanychildrendidnotpresentfortheirFSMastheirparentswerefearfulofbeinglabelled‘paupers’.

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.2)observethatmanylocalauthoritiesinScotlandhavebeenconcernedwithreducingstigmaassociatedwithFSM,e.g.throughtheintroductionofcashlesssystemstoensureanonymity.

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.2)refertotheworkofMoffit(1983)whoarguedthatstigmaexplainsnontake-upofFSMs.

• Ontheotherhand,Chambersetal.(2016,p.2)refertotheworkofSahotaetal.(2014)whoarguedthatstigmaisnotasignificantfactorinaccountingfornon-uptakeofFSMinbothprimaryandsecondaryschools.

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.9)concludethatstigmamaybeanissuethataccountsfornon-uptakeofFSM–theyreachthisconclusiongiventheevidencethatuptakeishigherinschoolswheremorepupilsareregisteredforFSMs.

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1274)identifystigmaasbeingoneofthemainreasonsforthenon-uptakeofFSMsinEnglandwhenapilotforuniversalentitlementwasimplemented.However,theyalsonotethatheadteacherstendedtodismisstheproblemofstigma,giventhattheywereoperatingcashlesssystems(p.1276).

• Holford(2014,p.978)notesthatseparatingthoseeatingschoolmealsfromthoseeatingpackedlunchesdrivesschoolmealsstigma.Moregenerally,Holford(2014,p.977)referstoMoffit(1983)innotingthatstigmacaninfluenceuptakeofwelfarebenefits.


• Fordetal.(2015,p.19)reportthatsomeparentsconsideredthatstigmawasanissuehamperinguptakeofFSMamongolderchildren.SomeparentsthemselvesreportedbeingstigmatisedwhenpresentingforFSMaschildren.

Preferencefornon-healthyfood• Chambersetal.(2016,p.4)refertothewiderliterature,andnotethatchildren’spreferencefornon-

healthyoptionsisoneofthefactorsthataccountfornon-uptakeofFSM.• Willsetal.(2015,p.29)reportthatsomeyoungpeopleexplicitlymentionedtheattractionof

purchasingunhealthyfoodbeyondtheschoolgate,whileotherscriticisedthelackofsaltandsugarinschoolfood.

• Eadieetal.(2016,p.51)notethatcateringmanagersandheadcooksreportthatlesshealthyoptionsremainthemostpopularmenuitems,evenfollowingtheintroductionofUFSM.

Influenceofpeers• Biltoft-JensenandHolm(2016,p.1)refertoresearchthathasshownthatpeersareimportantshapers

ofchildren’seatinghabitsinschool.• Fordetal.(2015,p.26)reportthatparentsacknowledgedtheroleofpeersinshapingtheirchildren’s

schoolmealconsumptionbehaviour.Importanceoftheopportunitytospendtimewithfriends

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.4)refertothefindingsofMacDiarmidetal.(2015)whofoundthattheopportunitytospendtimewithfriendsisthemainreasoncitedbysecondaryschoolchildrenforpurchasingfoodoutsideofschoolatlunchtime.Theyrefertostudiesthatnotethatwheneatingindininghalls,pupilsarelesslikelytobeabletositwiththeirfriends.

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1277)notethatlimitedopportunitiesforsocialisingwithfriendswasabarriertotakingaschoolmeal.

• Craigetal.(2014)makereferencetoanumberofstudies,whichsuggestthatnotbeingabletoeatwithfriendsisafactorthatdecreasestheuptakeofFSM.

• Willsetal.(2015,p.ix)reportthatbeingwithfriendsisimportantintermsofdeterminingwherepupilsbuyfoodanddrinkatlunchtime.

Attractionofleavingschoolatlunchtime• Craigetal.(2014)makereferencetoanumberofstudies,whichsuggestthathavingthefreedomto

leavetheschoolatlunchtime(oftendeterminedbyage)isafactorthatdecreasestheuptakeofFSM.• Willsetal.(2015,p.ix)reportthatyoungpeoplefromschoolsservingdeprivedareaswantedto

‘escapetheschoolenvironment’atlunchtime.4.3.3–School-familyinteractionsInformationdeficit

• Holford(2014,p.977)contextualiseshisstudybynotingthatalackofinformationaboutwelfareanditsbenefitscanhamperFSMuptake.

FSMRegistrationProcess• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1274)identifyproblemswiththeclaimingprocessasbeingoneofthemain

reasonsforthenon-uptakeofFSMsinEnglandwhenapilotforuniversalentitlementwasimplemented.

• Fordetal.(2015,p.26)reportthatsomeparentscriticisedsomepre-orderingprocedures,whichhadledtotheirchildrennotbeingservedtheFSMtowhichtheywereentitled,onaccountofparentsnotreturningthepre-orderformsonthesetdate.

• Montemaggietal.(2016,p.13)reportthatparentsconsiderformsforFSMentitlementtobeoverlycomplexandintrusive.

4.3.4–In-schoolfactorsSupportiveschoolculture

• Craigetal.(2014)makereferencetotwostudies,whichsuggestthatschoolcultureisafactorthatincreasestheuptakeofFSM.


Limitedchoiceoffood• Chambersetal.(2016,p.4)refertothefindingsofMacDiarmidetal.(2015)whofoundthatthe

greatervarietyoffoodthatcanbefoundfromoutletsaroundschoolsisoneofthereasonsthatsecondaryschoolchildrenpurchasedfoodoutsideofschoolatlunchtime.

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.4)arguethatday-to-daytake-upismenudependent,withchildrenmorelikelytopresentforschoolmealswhenpopularitemsareonthemenu.

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1274,p.1276)identifylimitedfoodchoiceasbeingoneofthemainreasonsforthenon-uptakeofFSMsinEnglandwhenapilotforuniversalentitlementwasimplemented.Specifically,pupilshadmentioned(i)limitedhalaloptions;and(ii)limited‘snack’typeoptions.

• Craigetal.(2014)makereferencetoanumberofstudies,whichsuggestthatimprovedschoolfoodchoiceisafactorthatincreasestheuptakeofFSM.

• Fordetal.(2015,p.26)reportthatparentsacknowledgedmenuchoicesshapedtheirchildren’sschoolmealconsumptionbehaviour.

Inadequateportionsize• Chambersetal.(2016,p.4)refertothewiderliterature,andnotethatsecondarypupilshave

identifiedinadequateportionsizesasoneofthefactorsthatleadthemnottopresentforschoolmeals.

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1276)notesthatpupils–especiallyboys–werecriticalofoptionsizesthatweretoosmall.

RestrictionsplacedonFSMallowance• Chambersetal.(2016,p.4)refertothewiderliterature,andnotethatsecondarypupilshave

identifiedlimitationsoftheFSMallowance(notbeingabletopurchaseadditionalfoodanddrinks)asoneofthefactorsthatleadthemnottopresentforFSMs.

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1277)reportpupilsinEnglandcriticisingthelevelofFSMasbeinginsufficienttocoverthecostoffoodtheywantedtopurchase.

Qualityoffood• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1274)identifyqualityoffoodasbeingoneofthemainreasonscitedforthenon-

uptakeofFSMsinEnglandwhenapilotforuniversalentitlementwasimplemented.• Craigetal.(2014)makereferencetoanumberofstudies,whichsuggestthatimprovedschoolfood

(nutritionalcontent)isafactorthatincreasestheuptakeofFSM.• Willsetal.(2015,p.26)foundthattastewasthemostimportantfactorcitedbyyoungpeople

purchasingfoodbeyondtheschoolgateatlunchtime(97.5%).• Eadieetal.(2016,p.51)reportthatschoolprovisionof‘packedlunch’optionshasprovenpopular

whereavailable.Generaldiningenvironmentinschools

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.4)refertothefindingsofMacDiarmidetal.(2015)whofoundthatbettervalueformoney(relativetoschoolmeals)whenpurchasingfromoutletsaroundschoolsisoneofthereasonscitedbysecondaryschoolchildrenforpurchasingfoodoutsideofschoolatlunchtime.

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.9)evidencethattake-upofFSMwashigheramongthosesecondaryschoolpupilswhowereattendingschoolswhoseschoolbuildingswereratedasbeingsuitable(ratingindependenttothoseofthepupils).

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1274)identifythegeneraldiningexperience(pupilswerecriticalofnoise,lightingand‘institutionalfeel’)/organisationofspaceasbeingoneofthemainreasonsforthenon-uptakeofFSMsinEnglandwhenapilotforuniversalentitlementwasimplemented.

• Craigetal.(2014)makereferencetoanumberofstudies,whichsuggestthatanimprovedschooldiningenvironmentisafactorthatincreasestheuptakeofFSM.

• Willsetal.(2015,p.ix)reportthatyoungpeoplefromschoolsservingdeprivedareasnotedthattheydidnotfeelwelcomeintheschoolcafeteria.

• InterestinglyWillsetal.(2015,p.18)evidencethatthemajorityofyoungpeopledidnotconsiderthatatmosphereofoutofschoolstorestobeimportantinshapingpurchasingbehaviour(58.2%).

• Fordetal.(2015,p.23)reportthatparentswerecriticalofthediningenvironmentinschools.• Eadieetal.(2016,p.36)reportparticularconcernwithincreasednoiselevelsinthedining

environmentsoflargerschoolsfollowingtheintroductionofUFSM.


Inadequatecapacitywithinschools

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.3)arguethatitisoftenimpossibleforpupilstobeseatedinschoolatonesitting.

• Holford(2014,p.986)evidencethatcapacityconstraintsassociatedwithagrowingintakeareassociatedwithlowerratesofschoolmealsuptakeamongnon-FSMregisteredpupils.

Limitedtimeavailabletoeatfoodinschoolsatlunchtime• Chambersetal.(2016,p.3)arguethatthereislimitedtimeavailabletoeatfoodinschoolsat

lunchtime.• Craigetal.(2014)makereferencetoanumberofstudies,whichsuggestthattimeconstraintsisa

factorthatdecreasestheuptakeofFSM.Queuing

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1277)notethatthelengthoftimespentqueuingwasthemostunpopularpartofthediningexperienceinbothprimaryandsecondaryschools.Itwasreportedthatthisdirectlyledtopupilsseekingalternativeplacesinwhichtoeat.

• Craigetal.(2014)makereferencetoanumberofstudies,whichsuggestthatalongqueueisafactorthatdecreasestheuptakeofFSM.

• Willsetal.(2015,p.20)reportthatthelackofaqueuewasalsonotedasareasontostayinschoolandpresentforaschoolmealatlunchtime,particularlyforseniorpupilsaroundexaminationtime.

• Willsetal.(2015,p.31)reportstrongdissatisfactionthatyoungpeoplehadtoqueuetwice–oncetoloadtheirpaymentcardandthenagaintopurchasetheirfood.

• Fordetal.(2015,pp.23-24)reportthatparentswerecriticalofthelongtimespentqueuing,whichmeanteither(i)areductioninplaytimeforchildren,or(ii)childrenrushingtheirfoodconsumptiontoaccessplaytime.

• Eadieetal.(2016,p.26)notewidespreadreportsofincreasedqueuingtimefollowingtheintroductionofUFSM.

Lackofconsultationwithpupils• Willsetal.(2015,p.28)reportthatmanyyoungpeopleintheirstudycomplainedthattheyhadnot

beenaskedwhatfoodordrinktheywantedtobeservedinthecafeteria.Lessfun

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1277)reportthatprimaryschoolpupilsinEnglandwereinclinedtoperceivethatpackedlunchesweremorefunthanschoolmeals.

Cost• Inwhatmightseemtobecounter-intuitive,Chambersetal.(2016,p.8)evidencethatuptakeofFSMis

higherwhenthecostofaschoolmealishigher.• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1277)identifysignificantschool-levelvariationinthecostofschoolmealsin

England,withforexample,thecostofajacketpotato,beans,saladandyoghurtvaryingfrom£1.15to£2.45.

• Holford(2014,p.982)notethatuptakeofschoolmealsamongnon-FSMpupilsisnegativelyimpactedbyhigherprices.

• Holford(2014,p.982)arguesthatinareaswithagreaterprevalenceofpoorhouseholdswhoarenoteligibleforFSM,therewillbeagreatersensitivitytopricerises(orincomeshockswithinthehousehold).

• Craigetal.(2014)makereferencetoanumberofstudies,whichsuggestthatuniversalprovision(withoutcost)isafactorthatincreasestheuptakeofFSM.Mostgenerally,theyalsorefertostudies,whichindicatethatcostisalsoafactorthancanimpactonuptake.

• Willsetal.(2015,p.31)reportthatyoungpeoplefromschoolsservingdeprivedareasweremoresensitiveaboutcost.


4.3.5–FoodenvironmentbeyondtheschoolCompetitionbeyondtheschoolgate

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.4)refertoaGlasgowstudythatestimatesthatthereareanaverageof35foodretailerswithinan800mradiusofsecondaryschoolsinGlasgow.

• Willsetal.(2015,p.12)enormousvariationintermsofthenumberoffoodbusinesseswithin800moftheschool.

• Willsetal.(2015,p.ix)reportthatproximitytoschoolisimportantintermsofdeterminingwherepupilsbuyfoodanddrinkatlunchtime,althoughmanywillgofurthertoavoidqueues,spendtimewithfriends,orpurchasefoodthattheyparticularlywant.

• Willsetal.(2015,p.ix)reportthatmorethanthreequarters(77%)ofyoungpeoplereportedbuyingfoodanddrinkbeyondtheschoolgatesatleasttwiceperweek(risingtoover90%insomeofthemostdeprivedschools).

• Willsetal.(2015,p.1)foundthat63%ofsecondaryschoolpupilsreportbuyingsomethingtoeatordrinkbeyondtheschoolgateatlunchtime.

• Willsetal.(2015,p.ix)reportthatthemostpopularoutletsbeyondtheschoolgateforlunchtimepurchasewerefastfoodoutlets(25.8%),newsagents(25.1%),supermarkets(23%)andgrocery/cornershops(20.1%).

Bettervalueformoneyoutsideschool• Chambersetal.(2016,p.4)refertoHungryforSuccessandBetterEating,BetterLearningandnote

thatbothinitiativesencouragepayingattentiontotheschoolenvironmenttoencouragehigheruptakeofschoolmeals.

Serviceprovided• Willsetal.(2015,p.19)foundthatthree-quartersofyoungpeoplenotedthattheserviceprovidedby

outofschoolretailerswasimportantinshapingoutofschoolpurchasesatlunchtime(73.8%).Valueformoney

• Chambers,etal.(2016)notethatvalueformoneywasidentifiedasoneofthemainreasonswhychildreneatoutsideofschool.

4.4–StrategiestoImproveUptakeofSchoolMeals4.4.1–SchoolcateringserviceCanteenambiance

• SeamanandMoss(2006,p.309)notedthatHungryforSuccessacknowledgedthatagoodatmosphereincanteensinessentialtosupportchildren’sattendance.

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1278)reportthatbothprimaryandsecondaryschoolpupilsfavourcreatingamore‘restaurant-like’designwith(i)betterdecoration(ii)music(iii)noise-abatementmeasures,(iv)tableclothsand(v)bettersignagedesignedbypupils.

• Willsetal.(2015,p.41)concludethatschools,whichcreateamorepleasantenvironment,aremoresuccessfulatkeepingpupilsinschoolatlunchtime.

• Willsetal.(2015,p.x)concludethatactiontargetedatimprovingschooldiningexperienceismorelikelytobesuccessfulthanattemptstocontroltheexternalfoodenvironment.

Makingdininghallsapupilfriendlyenvironment• Chambersetal.(2016,p.10)concludethatschoolsandlocalauthoritiesshoulddomoretoensurethat

theschooldiningenvironmentismanagedinapupil-friendlymanner.• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1278)alsoconcludethatthereisaneedforapupil-centredapproach.• Willsetal.(2015,p.43)concludetheimportanceforschoolstoaddressyoungpeople’sneedto

socialisewithfriendsduringandafterlunch.


Desegregatedininghalls• Holford(2014)concludesthatpromotinginclusiveeatingspaceswithinprimaryschools(wherethose

takingapackedlunchcansitalongsidethosetakingschoolmeals)shouldbeencouragedasameanstotacklestigmatisation.

Canteenstaffandattitudestowardspupils• SeamanandMoss(2006,p.309)provideevidencefromacasestudyschool,whichdemonstratedthat

achangeinstaffandstaffattitudescreatedachangeinambience,whichinturnledtoincreasedschoolmealuptake.

• Eadieetal.(2016,p.5)notetheimportanceofexperienceandtrainedcateringstafftoensurethesystemcontinuedtoworkwellwhentimewaspressuredduetoincreaseduptakeofFSM.

Foodoffered• SeamanandMoss(2006,p.310)provideevidencefromacasestudyschool,whichdemonstratedthat

–althoughsomechildrenalwayspreferredunhealthyoptions–children’spreferenceswereoftendefinedbyfoodtype,e.g.alikingofsausages–theysuggestthatfocusingonprovidinghealthierversionsofpopularfoodshasthepotentialtoincreasepupiluptake,

Providingpopularfood• Willsetal.(2015,p.43)concludetheimportanceofschoolsprovidingsufficientamountsofpopular

foods.4.4.1–SchooleducationmanagementSeniormanagersupport

• Eadieetal.(2016,p.7)suggestthatseniormanagementattitudewasoneofthekeyfactorsthatwasassociatedwithuptakeofUFSM.

Targetingparents• SeamanandMoss(2006,p.313)notedthatparentsareimportantindetermining/shapingthefood

thatchildrenconsumeinschool–theyarguethatitisimportanttoeducateparentsonkeyissuespertainingtoschoolmeals.

• Montemaggietal.(2016,p.15)recommendprovidingparentswithclearandconciseinformationonFSMthroughouttheschoolyear.

• Eadieetal.(2016,p.5)notethepositivevalueofschoolmealstastersessions.Home-schoolrelationships

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1276)identifydevelopinghome-schoolrelationshipsasbeingcrucialinpromotingFSMuptake.

• Fordetal.(2015,33)concludetheimportanceofimprovedcommunicationwithparentstofacilitateunderstandingofFSMsamongparents.Thiscouldextendtoprovidingtastingsessions.

InvolvingPupils• Chambersetal.(2016,p.11)concludethatyoungpeopleshouldbeinvolvedin(i)menucreationand

(ii)designandlayoutofdiningspace.• Willsetal.(2015,p.43)advocateundertakingregularconsultationswithyoungpeoplewithregardsto

food,drinkandthesocialenvironmentwithinschools.Localintelligence

• Willsetal.(2015,p.x)concludetheneedforlocalinterventionthatisawareoflocalcircumstanceinordertoimprovenutritionalintakeamongyoungpeople.

Managingthewiderschoolenvironmentfordining• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1278)concludethatthereisaneedtoconsiderthepossibilityofusinglocations

outsidetheschooldininghall(bothinsideandoutside)fortheconsumptionofschoolfood.Managingtimeavailablefordining

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1278)concludethatthereisaneedtoappraisethetemporalorganisationoflunchtimesinordertoimprovethesocialaspectsofthediningexperience(toreducepressureonfacilitiesatthesametime).


Whole-schoolfocusonhealthyeating• Lucasetal.(2007,p.13)arguethatthereisaneedforabroaderfocusonschoolmealsiftheaimisto

improvehealthyeating.Increasedawarenessamongstaff

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1278)concludethatthereisaneedforabetterunderstandingofthefactorsthatleadtonon-uptakeofFSMamongstaff.

4.4.1–Infrastructure

Cashlesssystems

• Montemaggietal.(2016,p.12)evidencethatcashlesssystemsleadtoanincreaseinFSMuptake.Infrastructure

• Eadieetal.(2016,p.4)arguethatinfrastructureimprovementsarenecessaryifUFSMaretobeimplementedeffectively.Issuestobeaddressedincludelimitedcapacity,foodstoragecapacityandaccommodatinggreaternumberspresentingforhotmeals.

4.4.4–SeniorandstrategicinterventionIncreasingFSMentitlementamonglowincomehouseholds

• MorelliandSeaman(2010,p.151)demonstratethatextendingtherangeofbenefitsthattriggerFSMwouldleadtoincreasedentitlementamongsomelowincomehouseholds,butnotamonghouseholdswiththeverylowestincomeswhoarealreadyentitledtoFSMs.

IncreasingFSMusethroughuniversalprovision• MorelliandSeaman(2010,p.155)demonstratethroughanalysisoflongitudinaldatasetsthatuniversal

provisionismoreeffectivethanimprovingtargetingofFSM.• Ontheotherhand,Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1274)notesignificantlevelsofnon-uptakeinareaswhere

universalprovisionofFSMwaspilotedinEngland.However,theydoconclude(p.1278)thatnormalisingFSMentitlementshouldbeencouragedasaneffectiveinterventionagainststigma.

• Similarly,MilneandGibb(2016,p.11)opinethatthegainintermsofpercentagepointincreaseinFSMuptakedoesnotrepresentvalueformoneygiventhescaleofinvestmentforUFSM.

• MilneandGibb(2016,p.11)believethattherearegroundsforattributinganincreaseduptakeofFSMamongP7-P7pupilstotheintroductionofUFSMforP1-P3pupils.

• Holford(2014,p.980)estimates(inadvanceoftheintroduction)thepositiveimpactofuniversalprovisioninP1-P3onratesofuptakeamongFSM-registeredpupils.

• Holford(2014,p.989)concludesthatuniversalprovisionisaneffectiveinterventiontoimproveFSMuptake.

Cateringstaffcomplement• Eadieetal.(2016,p.12)reportthatcateringstaffexpressconcernsoverinadequatestaffinglevels,

whichwerethoughttohampertheirabilitytoservetheincreasednumberofchildrenpresentingforschoolmealsfollowingtheintroductionofUFSM.

Experienceofcateringstaff• Eadieetal.(2016,p.13)reportconcernsoveralackoftrainingandexperiencedcateringstaff,

renderingitmoredifficulttomeetthechallengesassociatedwiththeincreasednumberofchildrenpresentingforschoolmealsfollowingtheintroductionofUFSM(e.g.moremealstoprepare,moreP1pupilswhomightneedassistance,morepupilswhoaresloweratmovingthroughthedininghall,morecleaninguptomanage).

Earlyintervention• Holford(2014,p.989)arguesthatfocusinginvestmentontheearlyyearsisprudentasitmayestablish

‘socialandhouseholdnorms’thatwouldleadtohigherratesofFSMandnon-FSMentitlementbeyondtheyearsofuniversalprovision.

Anonymisedpaymentsystems• Holford(2014)concludesthatanonymisedpaymentsystemsshouldbeextendedinordertoreduce

stigmaamongFSMregisteredpupils.


4.5–TheEvidenceBaseFocusonchildreneligiblebutnotpresentingforschoolmeals

• Gorard(2012,p.1014)arguesthatthisisadistinctgroup.Englishdataisanalysedanditissuggestedthatthereissomeevidencetosuggestthatthisgroupmaybethemostdeprivedofallpupils(moredeprivedthanboth(i)thoseeligibleandwhopresentforFSMand(ii)thosenoteligibleforFSM)

Eligibilityforfreeschoolmeals• MorelliandSeaman(2010,p.146)notethateligibilityforthebenefitsthatdetermineentitlementto

FSMshaschangedthroughtime.• MorelliandSeaman(2010,pp.146-47)notethateligibilityforFSMsinScotlandwasincontinual

declinebetween1998and2004.• MorelliandSeaman(2010,p.149)notethateligibilityforFSMsinScotlandamonghouseholdswiththe

lowestincomesfelldramaticallybetween1991and2003.Evaluatingcashversuscashlesssystems

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.10)arguethatthereisaneedtoevaluatetheimpactofthesedifferentsystemsofpayingformealsinordertounderstandtheimpactonFSMuptake.

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.9)recommendthatinformationonwhethertheschooloperatesacashlesssystemshouldbeincludedintheannualschoolmealscensus.

Schoolethos• Chambersetal.(2016,p.10)notethatthereisalackofinformationon‘schoolethossurrounding

meals’,whichlimitsinterpretationofschoolmealscensusdata.Outofschoolfoodenvironment

• Chambersetal.(2016,p.10)notethatthereisalackofinformationon‘localretailers’,whichlimitsinterpretationofschoolmealscensusdata.

Howschoolsmanagetheirestateandspace• Chambersetal.(2016,p.9)notethatthereisanabsenceofdataonhowschoolsmanagethespace

theyhaveinordertofacilitateschoolmealsuptake.Lackofdirectengagementwithprimaryschoolchildren

• Sahotaetal.(2013,p.1278)notethattheycanvassedparentstoconveytheopinionsofprimaryschoolchildren.Theyacknowledgethatthereisaneedtoengagedirectlywithprimaryschoolpupils.

• Wallingetal.(2016,p.9)concludethatitisvitaltoknowmoreaboutchildren’sownexperiencesandunderstandingofschoolmeals,whichhasbeenlittlestudied.

• Fordetal.(2015,p.34)recommendmoredirectengagementwithchildrentounderstandtheirperceptionsofthediningenvironment.

Limitedcohortstudies• Sahotaetal.’swork(2013,p.1278)focusesonschoolswithhighlevelsofFSMentitlement.Thisleads

themtoconcludethatthereisaneedtoexploreissuesinschoolswithlowlevelsofFSMentitlement.• Lucasetal.(2007,p.12)arguethatthereisaneedtomonitoruptakeofmealsandnutritionalintakeof

consumedmealsbysocialgroups,inordertoassesswhetherprovidedschoolfoodissuccessfulasapublichealthintervention.

Focusonpeerinfluence• Biltoft-JensenandHolm(2016)arguethatmoreresearchisneededtounderstandpeerinfluenceson

schooleatinghabits.Lackofindividualleveldata

• Holford(2014,p.981)notesthatanalysisofschoolmealsdatawouldbestrongerifitwereavailableattheleveloftheindividual(ratherthanaggregatedforschoolcohorts).

Lackoflongitudinalevidence• Lucas(2007,p.14)observethattherearefewhighqualitylongitudinalstudiesorrandomisedcontrol

trialstoevaluatetheimpactofschoolmealspoliciesonnutrition,behaviour,dietqualityandhealth.• Eadieetal.(2016)alsoidentifylonger-termmonitoringofUFSMasapriority.


Insufficient,butwithvalue• Craigetal.(2014,p.2)recommendthatadditionaldatacollectionisrequiredinordertoevaluatethe

implementationofFSMpolicies.However,theyalsorecommendthatbestusebemadeofexistingresources(suchasGrowingUpinScotlandandtheschoolmealscensusintheHealthyLivingSurvey).

Datadiscrepancyandcredibility• Eadieetal.(2016,p.7)identifieddifferencesbetweenroutinelycollecteddatabyschoolsandlocal

authoritiesandthedatapresentedintheannualschoolmealscensusaspartoftheHealthyLivingSurvey.

4.6-ConclusionTheprovisionofFSMshasbeenevidencedtopositivelyimpactoneducationalattainment,socialinclusionandnutrition.Inaddition,providingFSMsuniversallycanhaveanumberofunintendedandpositiveconsequences,suchascreatingmoretimeforparentsandremovingstigmasattachedtothepreviouslymeanstestedFSMs.Providingasafe,pleasantdiningexperienceforpupilsalsoappearstoinfluencewhetherornottheychoosetoremaininschooltoeat.However,theprimaryfactorshapingpupildiningchoicesisthepulloftheexternalenvironment.


5.WhatDoWeKnowAboutFreeSchoolMeals?ExpertScottishknowledgefromAPSEandASSISTFM““…wehavealsoidentifiedpracticalmechanisms…sothatschoolscanbegin,orinmanycasescontinue,thejourneytowardsprovidingattractive,nutritionallybalancedmealstoallchildrenwhowishtotakethem,withoutfearofstigma,inanenvironmentthatiswelcoming,comfortableandfun.”

(MichaelO’Neill,ChairmanofExpertPanelonSchoolMeals,ForewordinHungryforSuccess,2002,5)

5.1–IntroductionHere,weprovideanoverviewofkeyfindingsfromworkundertakenbythetwomaininterestgroupsresponsibleforschoolmealservicesinScotland,APSEandAssistFM.Thechapterdrawsuponbothadministrativedataandexpertexperience,startingwithananalysisofAPSE’slocalauthorityperformancedata(5.2),beforemovingontoreflectonfindingsfromtheASSISTFM2018SurveyofLocalExpertsinEducationcatering(5.3).5.2–APSE’SPerformanceIndicatorsforEducationCateringinScotlandAPSE’sannualreportbringstogetherperformancedata,presentingevidenceinanaccessibleformat.TheUK-widereportcomprisestrendanalysis,keyserviceprofiledataandperformanceindicators.Forthepurposeofthisreport,wefocusonScotland,drawingsomecomparisonsbetweenScotlandandEngland,andexploringthekeydifferencesamongScottishlocalauthorities.Table1comparesScottishperformancetothatofEnglandforfouraspectsofcateringinschooleducation.5.2.1–EnvironmentNotonlydoessourcingfoodlocallyhelplocalbusinesses;itisalsoenvironmentallyfriendly.MuchmorefoodissourcedlocallyinEngland(49.5%),comparedtoScotland(18.2%),althoughthereisalsomuchvariationinlocalsourcingacrossScottishlocalauthorities,rangingfromlessthan1%to58%.AmorepositiveportrayaloftheenvironmentalcredentialsofScottishlocalauthoritiesisconveyedwithregardstocrockeryandcutleryuse.Inrecentyearstherehasbeenapushtoreduceourplasticfootprintasoftenplasticisunrecyclableandcanbeharmfultoourenvironment.Inparticular,disposablecrockeryandcutlerycancontributetothisbuild-upofwaste.TheuseofdisposablecrockeryandcutleryislowinbothScottishandEnglishlocalauthorities.97.3%ofschoolsinEnglanddonotusedisposablecrockery/cutlery,comparedtoanaverageof85.5%inScotland(witharangewithinlocalauthoritiesfrom75%ofschoolstoallschools).


Table2:SelectedAPSEperformanceindicators,Scottish/Englishlocalauthorities,2016-17

England Scotland

Environment %foodsourcedlocally 49.5%* 18.20%

%schoolsnotusinganydisposablecrockery/cutlery 97.30% 85.40%Nutritionandhealthyeating

%frontlinestafftrainedinfoodnutritionandhealth 69.10% 58.50%%schoolsofferingbreakfastservice 11.00% 20.10%Productivity

Staffabsence(frontlinestaff) 4.30% 4.60%Lunchmealsservedperstaffhour(primary) 10.7 8.8Lunchmealsservedperstaffhour(special) 8.0* 5.7*Priceperformance

Averagespendperpayingpupil(secondary) £1.05 £0.77Subsidyperlunchtimemeal £1.55 £1.76Foodonlycostperlunchtimemeal(primaryandspecial) £0.78 £0.78Totalcostperlunchtimemeal(primary) £2.47 £2.77Totalcostperlunchtimemeal(secondary) £2.55 £2.985.2.2–Nutrition/HealthyEatingTable2alsooffersaninsightintonutritionandhealthyeating.AlthoughthemajorityoffrontlinestaffinScotlandaretrainedinfoodnutritionandhealth(58.5%),thisislowerthantheproportionofstaffinEngland(69.1%).Ontheotherhand,breakfastservicesarealmosttwiceaslikelytobeofferedinScottishschoolscomparedtoEnglishschools(20.1%and11%,respectively).Oncemore,theseaggregateScottishleveldatadisguisewidedisparitiesacrosslocalauthorities.Forexample,therearesomeauthoritieswhereallfrontlinestaffarereportedtobefullytrainedinfoodnutritionandhealth,whereasthereisonelocalauthorityinwhichlessthanoneintenstaffarereportedtobefullytrainedinthesame(8.9%).Similarly,somelocalauthoritiesoffernobreakfastservicewhileonelocalauthorityreportsthattwothirdsofitsschoolsofferthisservice(66.4%).5.2.3–ProductivityIngeneral,increasingproductivityisconsideredtobethekeydrivertothefuturesuccessandhealthoftheUKeconomy(Kierzenkowskietal.,2018).Withregardstoeducationalcatering,APSEpresentdataonstaffabsenceandthenumberofpupilsservedperstaffmemberduringanaveragelunchbreak.LevelsoffrontlinestaffabsencearesimilarinEnglandandScotland(4.3%and4.6%respectively),withabsenceratesreportedtorangefromzeroto7.1%acrossScottishlocalauthorities.ProductivityisreportedtobehigherinEngland,despitethefactthatanextensionofuniversalprovisioninP1-3hasincreasedproductivityinScotlandinrecentyears.Italsoprudenttonotethatthehigherproportionofsmaller/ruralschoolsinScotlandwillimpactontheseindicatorsofproductivity.


5.2.4–PricePerformanceThefinaldatainTable2refertopriceperformance.Schoolmealsaresupposedtobeaffordableforpupilsandtheirfamilies,althoughfeesmustbesetatalevelthatensurestheviabilityoftheservice.Atthesametime,inScotland,schoolsmustadheretostringentfoodstandardstoensuretheprovisionofahealthyoffering.InTable2,dataareprovidedontheaveragespendperpayingsecondaryschoolpupil,thesubsidyperlunchtimemeal,foodonlycostperlunchtimemeal(forbothprimaryandspecialschools)andtotalcostperlunchtimemeal(atboththeprimaryandsecondaryschoollevel).Insummary,theaveragepupilspendislowerinScotland(77p,comparedto£1.05forEngland),whilethesubsidyandtotalcostofthemealareallhigher(forexample,asubsidyof£1.55permealinEngland,comparedto£1.76inScotland).Oncemore,theseaggregatefiguresforScotlanddisguisevariationacrosslocalauthorities,withsomereportingasubsidypermealofasmuchas£2.52andtotalcostofaprimaryschoolmealashighas£4.09.5.3–ASSISTFM2018SurveyofLocalExpertsinEducationCateringinScotlandTheASSISTFM2018surveyoflocalexpertsinEducationCateringinScotlandhadtwoprimaryobjectives.ThefirstwastoexaminethemarketingandpromotionalcampaignslinkedtoschoolmealsinScotlandoverthepastdecade,andthesecondwastoexplorethechallengesfacingschoolcateringinScotland.5.3.1–MarketingofschoolmealsinScotlandFigure1displayskeyfindingspertainingtothemarketingofschoolmealsinScotland,summarisingtheproportionoflocalauthoritiesinScotlandthatdeliveroneachindicator.ThereappeartobesomeuniversalcharacteristicsofeducationalcateringinScotland;allreportcashlesscateringinsecondaryschoolsandallprovidecateringeveryweekday.AcashlesscateringsystemisthoughttoreducethestigmaencounteredbythosewhoreceiveFSMsanditmayalsoimprovetheefficiencyoflunchtimeservice.Eachpupilisprovidedwithaswipecardwhichtheycantopupwithmoney,eitherintheschoolpremisesoronline.Pupilscantoptheircardupinadvance,forexample,onamonthlybasis,andparentsarealsoprovidedwithaccesstotheirchild’saccountwheretheycanviewtheirpurchasesandspending.Foodallergenscanalsoberegisteredonthesecardsandtherearesystemsinplace,whichwillflagupattheregisterwhenapupilispurchasingfoodthatisnotsuitableforthem.ThemajorityofScottishlocalauthoritiesalsohavetheirownfoodbrand,marketingcampaigns,andthemedfooddays.Localauthoritiesarecreatingtheirownbrandsinordertoappealtomorepupilsandtoencouragethemtoeathealthier,nutritiousfoodswithintheschoolgates.In2018,twothirdsoflocalauthoritieshadtheirownbrand(67%),withmanyofthesebrandsbeingwellestablished;themajorityofthesewereintroducedmorethanfive


yearsago(57%).ThemajorityoflocalauthoritiesinScotlandreportthattheyhaveorganisedamarketingcampaigninschools(83%).Figure1:Marketingofschoolmeals,Scottishlocalauthorities,2018

ThemajorityofschoolswithinthelocalauthoritiessurveyedwerereportednottohaveaFoodForLifeAccreditation(only43%wereaccredited).Thisisanopt-inprogrammewhichisdesignedtoinvolve,engageandmotivatepupilstomakeinformeddecisionsabouttheireatinghabitsandtoengenderahealthyfoodculturewithinschools.Notonlyarethepupilsprovidedwithhealthyfoodoptions,buttheyalsohavetheopportunitytolearnaboutfoodintheclassroomandhowtogrowitoutdoors.Whenaschoolisaccreditedtheyarerankedbasedontheircommitmenttothesevaluesandcanbegivenbronze,silverorgoldaccreditations.Itmightbearguedthatyoungpeople’skeeninterestinenvironmentalissuescouldbeanuntappedsourceofpotentialformarketersseekingtopromoteschoolmeals.5.3.2–PromotionalcampaignsoverthelastdecadeAsidentifiedabove,themajorityofScottishlocalauthoritieshaverunaschoolmealsmarkingcampaign(83%).Thesecampaignscanincludethepromotionofthemeddays,whichareusedtocreateafunatmosphereatlunchtimesandtohighlighttherangeoflunchtimefoodoptionswithintheschoolgates.Manyschoolsusemultiplemarketingcampaignsthroughouttheyearthatreflectseasonalandthemedoccasions.Forexamples,RobertBurnsDay,RedNoseDay,Halloween,WorldFoodWeek,Easter,StAndrewsDay,Christmas,andBonfireNight.Inaddition,someschoolspromoteschoolmealsatparents’eveningsandpromoteloyaltycardstopupilsduringlunchtimes.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

FoodLifeaccreditation

Ifhaveownbrand,introducedwithinlastfiveyears

Haveownbrand

Ranmarketingcampaign

Havefunctioncatering

Onlinepaymentoffered

Cateringeveryweekday

Ifhavecashlesscatering,introducedwithinlastfiveyears

Cashlesscateringsecondaryschools


SomelocalauthoritieshaveledmarketingcampaignstopromotetheuptakeofFSMs.Targetingparents,thisworkhasinvolvedradioadvertisement,videoproductionandsponsoredfeedsonFacebookandTwitter.5.3.3ChallengesforSchoolCateringinScotlandTheASSISTFMsurveyaffordedkeyinformantstheopportunitytoprovidefurthercommentandsharetheirinsiderexperiencesofschoolcateringprovisioninScotland.ItwasopinedthatlocalauthoritiesfaceanumberofchallengesinrelationtoschoolcateringinScotland.ManyauthoritieswerejudgedtostrugglewiththeintroductionofFSMsforallP1-P3pupils,withsomeidentifyingalackofproperequipmentandspacewithintheirkitchensinordertomeettheheighteneddemand.Furthermore,cashlessoperatingsystemsalsopresentproblems.Stafftrainingisnecessarytoensurethesesystemsareoperatedefficiently;however,duetostrictbudgetsandcostcutting,ithasprovendifficulttofullytraineverystaffmembertotherequiredstandard.Alackofstaffandstaffabsences,arereportedtohavecreatedfurtherdifficultiesinsomelocalauthorities,ashasareductioninmanagementcapacityduetowidercostcuttingmeasures.5.4–ConclusionThischapterprovidesinsightsintoschoolmealandcateringprovisionbasedonthefindingsoftheAPSE’SPerformanceIndicatorsforEducationCateringinScotlandandtheASSISTFM2018SurveyofLocalExpertsinEducationCateringinScotland.TheAPSEperformancereview’sfiguresonthelocalsourcingofschoolmealshighlightshowonlyasmallpercentageofScottishschoolmealsarelocallysourced.Maximizinglocalfoodmightnotonlybenefitlocalproviders;itmayalsoappealtothewiderenvironmentalsensitivitiesofschoolpupils.TheASSISTFMsurveyprovidedaninsightintokeyaspectsofeducationalcateringinScotlandatthepresenttime,forexample,theuniversaladoptionofcashlesssystems.Althoughthebenefitsarewidelyacknowledged,keyinformantinsightssuggestthatthesebenefitsarenotyetbeenfullyrealizedinpractice.AlthoughtheinsightsraisedinthereportsofthesekeyinterestgroupsextendbeyondthesharpfocusofthisreportonFSMs,theyarenotwithoutrelevance.Ingeneral,theremaybepotentialinbetterutilizingtheseresourcesinfuturetofocusmoredirectlyonissuespertainingtoFSMs.Fornow,thewiderchallengesfacedinthesectorrelatingtotheoperationofcashlesscateringaresignificantgiventhatthisisheraldedasakeymeansthroughwhichfreeschoolmealstigmaisavoided.Furthermore,therelativelyhighercostsofprovidingschoolmealsinScotlandmaybecomeanissueifstepsaretobetakentoextendfreeschoolmealprovision,orevenmaintainexistinglevelsofprovisionintimesofconstraintforlocalauthoritybudgets(TheAccountsCommission,2019).


6.NationalTrendsinScotland“…whatgoodwillitdoustoprovidethehealthiestfoodinScotlandifnobodycomes?”

(MichaelO’Neill,ChairmanofExpertPanelonSchoolMeals,Foreword,inHungryforSuccess,2002,5)

6.1–IntroductionTheimportanceofunderstandingnationaltrendscannotbeunderstated.Ifitisconsideredthatchildrenmustbeproperlynourishediftheyaretothriveineducation,thentheevidenceofschoolmealuptakemakesanimportantcontributiontoourunderstandingofwhetherScotlandisprovidinganenvironmentinwhichschoolchildrencanachievetheiracademicpotential.Thenationaldatathatfollowexplorethreeissues:uptakeofschoolmeals(6.2),registrationforFSMs(6.3)anduptakeofFSMs(6.4).Timeseriesandcontemporarydataareanalysed.

6.2–Uptakeofschoolmeals,2006-2018Figure2reportstrendsintheuptakeofschoolmealsinScotland,bysector,from2003to2018.Asnotedabove,thedataisprovidedinatimeseriesgraph.Fulltime-seriesdataarepresentedforsecondary,primaryandspecialschools,inadditiontoScotlandasawhole.However,forreasonsoutlinedinChapterThree,since2015itismoreusefultosetapartthoseyeargroupsinprimaryschoolforwhichschoolmealsarenowprovideduniversally(P1-3)fromthoseforwhichprovisionistargeted(P4-7).Onthewhole,therewaslittlevariationintheproportionofpupilsinScotlandwhopresentedforaschoolmealbetween2003and2014,witheveryotherchildconsumingaschoolmeal.TheintroductionofuniversalprovisioninP1-3ledtoanimmediateandmarkedincreasebetween2014and2015(from49.8%to56.5%),althoughinrecentyearssomeofthatincreasehasbeenlost(fallingfrom58.1%ofpupilsin2016,through56.9%in2017to55%in2018).Nevertheless,sincetheintroductionofuniversalprovisionin2015,themajorityofpupilsinScotlandhavebeenpresentingforschoolmeals.Theseaggregatedatadisguisesignificantvariationsacrossschooltype.Indeed,eachofthethreeschooltypescanreportadifferenttrajectoryinrecentyears.NotonlyhavethenumberofspecialschoolsandpupilsinattendanceatspecialschoolsreducedinScotlandinrecenttimes;theproportionofpupilsinspecialschoolswhopresentforschoolmealshasalsosteadilyfallenthroughtime.Ontheotherhand,uptakeofschoolmealsremainssignificantlyhigherinspecialschools,incontrasttomainstreamschools.


Backin2003,onehalfofpupilsinbothprimaryschoolsandsecondaryschoolspresentedforschoolmeals.Indeed,uptakewasmarginallyhigherinsecondaryschools(51.2%insecondaryschools,comparedto49.6%inprimaryschools).Formuchofthedecadethereafter,trendsbegantodiverge;secondaryschooluptakefellsteadilythroughto2009,withsomeofthatlossthenrecovereduntil2016.Incontrast,uptakeinprimaryschoolsheldfairlyconstantthroughuntil2009,resultingindivergencebetweenprimaryandsecondaryschools(48.9%inprimaryschools,comparedto39.2%insecondaryschoolsin2009).From2009through2014,smallandsteadyincreasesinuptakewereevidentinbothprimaryandsecondaryschoolsandsmalldecreaseshavebeenreportedforbothsince2016;theonlydifferencesince2009beingthespikeinuptakeforprimaryschoolmealsin2015withtheintroductionofuniversalprovisionforP1-P3.Figure2:UptakeofschoolmealsinScotlandoncensusday,bysector,2003-18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

P1-P3

P4-P7

Primary

Secondary

Special

Total

TotalexcludingP1-P3


6.3–Registrationforfreeschoolmeals,2006-2018‘RegistrationforFSMs’referstothosewhoareeligibleforFSMsandhaveregisteredtoreceivethem.Priorto2015eligibilitywaslargelybasedonthereceiptofbenefitsandlargelyremainssotoday,withtheexceptionofP1-3pupilswhoarenowuniversallyeligible,i.e.theycanregistertoreceiveFSMsregardlessoftheirparent’sorguardian’ssocio-economiccircumstances.Figure3reportstrendsinregistrationforFSMsforarangeofschooltypessince2006;asforFigure2,dataarepresentedseparatelyforP1-3andP4-7since2015.Figure3:RegistrationforfreeschoolmealsinScotland,bysector,2003-18

In2018,morethanonethirdofpupilsinScottishschoolsregisteredforafreeschoolmeal.TheproportionofpupilsregisteredforFSMsacrossScottishschools(includingprimary,secondaryandspecialschools)hasincreasedby21percentagepointsoverthelastdecade,from16.5%in2006to37.4%in2018,withthebulkofthisincreasereflectingtheintroductionofuniversalprovisionforP1-P3in2015.Otherpointsofnotearetheconsistentlyhigh(andrelativelyhigher)ratesoffreeschoolmealregistrationinspecialschools,comparedtomainstreamschoolsandtheslightlyhigherratesofregistrationisprimaryschools,relativetosecondaryschools(evenpriortothepolicychangein2015).PrimaryschoolpupilsarenowalmostfourtimesaslikelytoberegisteredforFSMsthansecondaryschoolpupils.Registrationhasremainedconstantinsecondaryschoolsinrecentyears.However,registrationhasfallenslightlyforpupilsintheupperstagesofprimaryschoolinrecentyears(19.2%ofP4-P7wereregisteredforFSMsin2015,comparedto17.1%ofP4-P7in2018).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018P1-P3

P4-P7

Primary

Secondary

Special

Total

TotalexcludingP1-P3


6.4–Uptakeoffreeschoolmeals,2006-2018Figure4reportstheuptakeofFSMssince2006fordifferenttypesofschoolinScotland.Thisreferstotheproportionofeligiblepupilswhowerepresentandreceivedafreeschoolmealonschoolcensusday.From2006-2018,atotalof1,552,552FSMswereservedtoregisteredpupilsfromprimary,secondaryandspecialschoolsontheschoolcensusdayinScotland.In2018,overfivetimesasmanyFSMswereservedinprimaryschools(160,582)comparedtosecondaryschools(24,019).AverysmallproportionoftotalFSMsareservedtopupilsattendingspecialschools(3,551).Figure4:Uptakeoffreeschoolmealsamongregisteredpupilsinattendance,inScotland,bysector,2003-18

Onthewhole,uptakeofFSMsamongpupilsinattendanceishigh,rangingfrom72.8%insecondaryschoolsto86.6%inspecialschoolsin2018.ForScotlandasawhole,ahighpointof85%uptakewasregisteredin2014;asharpfallthefollowingyear(to80.1%in2015)hasneverbeenrecovered,andtheratein2018was79.5%.However,thesesummarystatisticsdisguisesectordivergence;since2010,uptakeinspecialschoolshasfallenmarkedly;steadyincreasesinuptakebetween2010and2015forsecondaryschools(66.7%to76.4%),havebeenreversedinrecentyears(now72.8%in2018),althoughcurrentlevelsofuptakearestillmuchhigherthantheywereadecadeago(e.g.64%in2007);andtheslightrecoveryinprimaryschooluptakethatfollowedthemarkeddropinuptakethataccompaniedtheintroductionofuniversalprovisionofFSMsforP1-P3in2015(88.7%in2014,80.5%in2015and82.7%in2016),hasbeenfollowedbyreductionsinuptakeamongpupilsintheupperendofprimaryschool(87.3%uptakein2016,comparedto84.4%uptakein2018).Theseare‘bestcase’statistics.UptakeofFSMsofthoseinattendance,bydefinition,doesnotaccountforthosepupilswhoareentitledtoFSMs,butarenotinattendance(andwhocannotthereforecannotreceiveafreeschoolmeal).TakingthismorecomprehensiveindicatorofthereachofFSMs,leadstoaslightlylesspositiveportrayalofuptake.Adding


thenon-attendingtothenon-presentingofthoseinattendance,thetypicaldailyreachofFSMstothoseregisteredforthemis75.6%forP1-P3,77.3%forP4-P7,77.1%forspecialschoolsand‘only’60.4%forsecondaryschools.Figure5summarisesthedifferencebetweenthetwoindicatorsoffreeschoolmealuptake,i.e.itreportsthepercentagepointdifferencebetweenthetwoindicatorsforeachschooltype.Althoughthereisvolatilityacrosstime,itisclearthatthemorecomprehensiveindicator(accountingfornon-attendingpupils)makesasignificantdifferencetodescriptionsofFSMsuptakeforallbutP1-P3.Figure5:ImpactofabsenceonconsumptionoffreeschoolmealsinScotland,bysector,2006-18(percentagepointdifferencebetweenpupils‘registeredforFSM’andpupils‘registeredforFSMandinattendance’)

6.5-ConclusionInconclusion,themajorityofpupilsinScotlandnowpresentforschoolmeals,followingtheintroductionofuniversalprovisionforP1-3.However,asubstantialproportionofpupilsdonottakeschoolmealsandtrendevidencehighlightssomenegativedirectionoftravel.Amongtheissuesraisedthatareofworthyoffurtherattentionarethefollowing:• Whatfactorsunderpintherecentreductioninthenumberofpupilspresentingfor

schoolmeals–and,inparticular,FSMs?• WhatlessonscanbelearnedfromtheincreaseinfreeschoolmealuptakeinScottish

secondaryschoolsbetween2010and2014?• Shouldgreaterusebymadeofthe‘reach’indicator,ratherthanthe‘uptake’indicator?• Shouldconsiderationbegiventoprovidingtheequivalentofaschoolmealtopupilsin

needwhoarenotattendingschool?


7.AccountingforVariationintheUptakeSchoolMealsinScotland“BothschoolsandlocalauthoritiesreportedthatUFSMhadledtoincreaseduptakeoffreeschoolmealsamongP1–3children.However,levelsofUFSMuptakevariedbetweenschoolsandalsovariedduringtheschoolweekandbetweenschoolterms.”

(McAdam,2016,p.7)

7.1–IntroductionItiswidelyacknowledgedthatschoolmealconsumptionisnotuniformacrossScotland,withthepreviouschapterdemonstratinghowuptakehasvariedovertime,andcontinuestovaryacrossschoolagestage(loweruptakeinsecondaryschools,comparedtoprimaryschools).ThischapterextendsthisanalysisbydrawinguponpublisheddatafromtheannualScottishschoolmealscensustoexploretheimpactofthreefactorsthatcouldalsoaccountforvariationinschoolmealuptakeinScotland,i.e.schoolpopulationsize(6.2),geographicalsetting(6.3)anddeprivationareastatus(6.4).Althoughtimeseriesdataareavailabletotrackchangesforeachthroughtime,onlyacontemporaryanalysisispresentedusingdatafromthelatestschoolmealscensus(publishedinJune2018).7.2–SchoolRollFigure6allowsustoappraisewhetherschoolsizeisassociatedwiththelikelihoodofpupilspresentingforschoolmealsinScottishprimaryschools,whileFigure7doeslikewiseforScottishsecondaryschools.Inthiscontext,schoolrollisanappropriateproxyforschoolsize.Figure6alsodistinguishesbetweenuptakeforthoseyeargroupsforwhichprovisionofafreeschoolmealisuniversal(P1-P3)andthoseforwhicheligibilityisdeterminedbypassportedbenefits(P4-P7).Uptakeofschoolmealsishigherinsmallerschoolsatbothprimaryandsecondarylevels,andinprimaryschoolswhereeligibilityisuniversalandtargeted.Whereprovisionistargetedthedifferencesattheextremesappearsubstantialwith56%ofthosefromthesmallestsecondaryschoolspresentingforschoolmeals,comparedto36%ofthosefromthelargest.Similarly,forP4-P7inprimaryschools,40%ofthoseinthelargestschoolspresentforschoolmeals,comparedto61%ofthoseinthesmallestschools.Significantly,thedifferencesinuptakearemuchlessmarkedwhenschoolmealsarefreetoall;forP1-P3inprimaryschoolsuptakerangesfrom72%inthelargestschoolsto83%inthesmallestschools.Interestingly,thereisananomalyforsecondaryschoolsinthattheverylargestsecondaryschools(1,200pupilsormore)haveslightlyhigherlevelsofuptake,comparedtothenextlargestbandofschools(rollbetween1,100and1,199pupils),


Althoughuptakeisconsistentlyassociatedwithsize,itisimportanttoacknowledgethatthedifferencesaremoreamatterofdegree,ratherthanilk;forexample,themajorityofpupilsinallbuttheverysmallestsecondaryschoolsdonotpresentforschoolmeals,whiletypicallythree-quartersofprimaryschoolpupilsinP1-P3presentforschoolmeals(withratesofuptakeslightlyhigherinsmallerprimaryschools,andslightlylowerinlargerprimaryschools).

Figure6:UptakeofschoolmealsinprimaryschoolsinScotland,byagestageandschoolroll,2018

Figure7:UptakeofschoolmealsinsecondaryschoolsinScotland,byschoolroll,2018

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

<50

50-99

100-149

150-199

200-249

250-299

300-349

350-399

400+

Average

P4-P7

P1-P3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

<200200-399400-499500-599600-699700-799800-899900-999

1,000-1,0991,100-1,199

1,200+Average


7.3–GeographicalSettingFigure5summariseshowgeographicalsettingisrelatedtoschoolmealuptake.Dataarepresentedforfiveschooltypes(special,secondary,allprimary,P4-P7andP1-3)foreachofthesixgeographicalareatypesthataretypicallyusedtodescribegeographicalsettinginScotland(ScottishGovernment,2019).Foreachareatype,foreachschooltype,dataarepresentedonthepercentageofpupilswhopresentforschoolmeals.Themissingbarforspecialschoolsreflectsthattherearenospecialschoolsinremoteruralareas.Figure8:UptakeofschoolmealsinScotland,byurban/ruralstatusandschooltype,2018

Onthewhole,uptakeishigherinrural,comparedtourbanareas.However,andasforschoolroll,differencesarelessmarkedwhenschoolmealsareprovidedasauniversalservice,e.g.forP1-P3pupils,averageuptakeoffreeschoolmealsinremoteruralschoolsis80%,comparedto73%inlargeurbanschools.Moremarkeddifferencesareevidentforsecondaryschools(54%forremoterural,comparedto32%inlargeurbanareas)andupperlevelsofprimaryschools(58%forremoteruralschools,comparedto42%forlargeurbanareas).Urban-ruraldifferencesarelessevidentforspecialschoolswith,forexample,thehighestlevelsofuptakefoundinbothaccessibleruralareasandlargeurbanareas.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

P1-P3

P4-P7

AllPrimary

Secondary

Special

Remoterural

Accessiblerural

Remotetowns

Accessibletowns

Otherurban

Largeurban


7.4–PrevalenceofDeprivationEntitlementtoschoolmealshasbeenusedasaproxyforareapoverty/deprivation.Itisthereforealsousefultoconsiderwhetherschoolmealuptakeisrelatedtotheoverallproportionoftheschoolpopulationthatiseligibleforafreeschoolmeal.NodataarepresentedforPrimary1-3,given100%ofthesepupilsareeligibleforfreeschoolmeals.InFigure9,schoolmealuptakeisdescribedforfourpupilpopulations.First,dataarepresentedforallpupils(whethereligibleforfreeschoolmealsornot)andthenforallpupilseligibleforfreeschoolmeals.Thesedataarestratifiedforsecondaryschoolsandtheupperendofprimaryschool(Primary4-7).Theconcentrationofpupilswhoareeligibleforfreeschoolmealsisdescribedacrossfourbands;fromhighest(22%ormoreofallpupilsinschool)throughtolowest(lessthan6%ofallpupilsinschool).Figure9:UptakeofschoolmealsininScotland,bypercentageofpupilsregisteredforFreeSchoolMealsandschooltype/FSMstatus,2018

Variationsaresmallerandlessconsistentthanthosethatwereevidentforschoolsizeandgeographicalsetting.However,althoughdifferencesareslight,therewouldappeartoadifferencebetweensecondaryandprimaryschools,i.e.insecondaryschools,higherratesofuptakeareevidentinschoolswithfewerpupilsregisteredforFSM,whereasincontrast,inprimaryschools,higherratesofuptakeareevidentinschoolswithmorepupilsregisteredforFSM.Onthewhole,however,differencesareslight,anditwouldappearthattheprevalenceofFSMentitlementhaslittlebearingonschoolmealsuptake.7.5–ConclusionSchoolrollandgeographicalsettingappeartobeassociatedwiththelikelihoodofpupilspresentingforFSMs.Incontrast,theprevalenceofthoseentitledtoFSMamongtheschoolpopulationislesssignificant.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100

P4-P7FSM

P4-P7AllPupils

SecondaryFSM

SecondaryAll

22%orgreater

12%tolessthan22%

6%tolessthan12%

Lessthan6%


8.RegionalTrendsinScotland“…AberrydaywasorganizedbythelocalauthorityeducationdepartmentandschoolmealprovidersinthecountyofAngusintheeastofScotland.…Attendanceforschoolmealsonberrydayincreased35.5%onthepreviousweekandincreasedby47.5%comparedwiththesamedayinthepreviousyear”

(Beattie,2004,p.157)

8.1–IntroductionWenowexploreregionalvariationinschoolmealuptakeacrosslocalauthoritiesinScotlandin2018.This‘localauthority’levelofanalysisisimportantasitisthescaleatwhichservicedeliverydecision-makingismadeinScotland.Furthermore,addedtothepreviouschapter,andtakingcognisanceofthevariablecharacteroflocalauthoritiesinScotland,thisanalysisalsoprovideskeyinsightintothepossiblereasonsforpupilstakingornottakingschoolmeals.Thus,‘regional’time-seriesdataispresentedforthreeissuesfor2006-2018:uptakeofschoolmeals(8.2),registrationforFSMs(8.3),anduptakeofFSMs(8.4).Commentwillfocusontrendsandcontemporarystatus.Insection8.2,theuptakeofschoolmealsfor2006-2018,willbeexplored.8.2–Uptakeofschoolmeals,2006-2018ThenationaltrendsregardinguptakeofschoolmealsinScotlandwaspresentedanddiscussedinChapterSix.Table3summariseskeyaspectsofschoolmealuptakein2018forScottishlocalauthoritiesatfourstages:primary,secondary,P1-P3andP4-P7.Aspreviouslynoted,duetoScottishpolicychangeswithregardstoUFSMsforP1-P3,datahasbeenprovidedfortwoprimaryagerangesinorderthattheuniversalprovisionofFSMsatP1-P3doesnotmisrepresentoveralllevelsofschoolmealuptakeforprimaryschools.Foreachstageofschoolingthetableidentifiesthethreelocalauthoritieswiththehighestuptakeandthosethreewiththelowestuptake,aswellasnotingtheScottishaverage.Table3:UptakeofschoolmealsamongpupilsinattendanceoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,byschooltype,2018 P1-P3 P4-P7 Primary SecondaryHighest ShetlandIsles(94.5%) Inverclyde(77.4%) ShetlandIsles(80.4%) EileananSiar(70.4%)2nd Dum./Gall.(88.4%) OrkneyIsles(74.4%) OrkneyIsles(79.7%) OrkneyIsles(69.4%)3rd OrkneyIsles(87.7%) EileananSiar(73%) EileananSiar(78%) E/Renfrew.(63.1%)ScottishAverage 79.6% 48.5% 61.9% 43.9%3rd EastAyrshire(72.3%) Renfrewshire(35.3%) EastLothian(52.9%) Renfrewshire(33.8%)2nd Clackmannan.(71.9%) EastLothian(34.6%) Renfrewshire(52.6%) N/Lanarkshire(25.8%)Lowest W/Dunbarton(69.6%) Edinburgh(33.1%) Edinburgh(52%) Edinburgh(21.7%)


Attheprimaryschoollevel,ShetlandIsleshasthehighestuptakeat80.4%-fouroutofeveryfiveprimaryschoolpupilsintheShetlandIslespresentsforaschoolmeal.Interestingly,allthreeofthelocalauthoritieswiththehighestlevelsofuptakeinprimaryschoolsareIslandCouncils,withOrkneyIslesandEileannSiarhavinguptakelevelsthatarecomparabletotheShetlandIsles(79.7%and78%respectively).UptakeforthesethreeislandcouncilsissignificantlyhigherthantheScottishaverageof61.9%fortheprimaryschoollevel.Incontrast,EastLothian,RenfrewshireandEdinburghallrecordmuchlowerlevelsofuptakewithjustoveronehalfoftheirprimaryschoolpupilstakingaschoolmealonschoolcensusday.TheislandauthoritiesarestillwellrepresentedinthoselocalauthoritiesthathavethehighestlevelofschoolmealuptakeforbothP1-P3(withuniversalprovision)andP4-P7(withtargetedprovision).Inverclydehasthehighestoveralllevelsofschoolmealuptakeintheupperstagesofprimaryschool.DumfriesandGallowayseemsto‘perform’relativelywellintermsofdeliveringschoolmealswhenitisfreelyavailabletoallintheearlystagesofprimaryschool.Attheotherendofthescale,itisnotablethatevenwhenprovidedasauniversalfreeservice,almostonethirdofP1-P3pupilsinWestDunbartonshiredonotpresentforschoolmeals.EquallynotableisthatthelevelsofschoolmealuptakeintheupperstagesofprimaryschoolinRenfrewshireareaslowasthatwhichisevidentinRenfrewshire’ssecondaryschools(35.3%and33.8%,respectively).However,onthewhole,thereisnogeo-patterningtothoseauthoritieswiththelowestlevelofschoolmealuptakeinprimaryschoolswithbothcityandrural,andlargeandsmallauthoritiesrankedtowardthelowerendofthetable.Movingtosecondaryschools,oncemorerelativelyhigherlevelsofuptakeareevidentforislandauthorities,withbothEileananSiarandOrkneyhavingmorethantwothirdsoftheirsecondaryschoolpupilspresentingforaschoolmealonschoolcensusday(70.4%and69.4%,respectively),whileEastRenfrewshirehasthethirdhighestwith63.1%.Aswithprimaryschooldata,Edinburghhasthelowestuptake(21.7%),withNorthLanarkshire(25.8%)andRenfrewshire(33.8%)alsohavinglowuptake.Ateachage-stagethereissignificantdivergenceamonglocalauthorities.Thepercentagepointrangebetweentheauthoritieswiththehighestandlowestlevelsofuptakeis28.4percentagepointsforprimaryschoolsand48.7percentagepointsforsecondaryschools.Figure10extendsthisanalysisbyprovidingtrenddataontheuptakeofschoolmealsamongprimaryschoolpupilsinselectedlocalauthoritiesinScotlandfrom2015to2018.Thesixauthoritiesrepresentedincludethethreewiththehighestpercentagepointincreaseinprimaryschoolmealuptake(Inverclyde,PerthandKinross,andEastRenfrewshire)andthegreatestpercentagepointdecreaseinprimaryschoolmealuptake(CityofEdinburgh,WestDunbartonshireandFalkirk).NotwithstandingwhatmaybeananomalousestimateforInverclydein2017(giventhatitotherwisewouldsuggestasharprisefrom2016-17andasharpfallfrom2017-2018),itisclearthatdifferenttrajectoriesareevidentacrossScottishlocalauthoritiesinrecentyears.


Figure10:UptakeofschoolmealsamongprimaryschoolpupilsinattendanceoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,2015-2018

Figure11replicatesthetimeseriesanalysisofFigure10forsecondaryschoolsand,giventhatthereisnosignificantchangeinentitlementrules,providesdataforalongerperiod,from2003to2018.Oncemore,dataareprovidedforthethreelocalauthoritieswiththehighestpercentagepointincreaseinsecondaryschoolmealuptake(EastLothian,ClackmannanshireandNah-EileananSiar)andthegreatestpercentagepointdecreaseinsecondaryschoolmealuptake(ShetlandIsles,NorthLanarkshireandRenfrewshire).Figure11:UptakeofschoolmealsamongsecondaryschoolpupilsinattendanceoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,2003-2018

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

2015 2016 2017 2018

Edinburgh,Cityof

WestDunbartonshire

Falkirk

Perth&Kinross

EastRenfrewshire

Inverclyde

Scotland

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

ShetlandIslands

NorthLanarkshire

Renfrewshire

EastLothian

Clackmannanshire

Nah-EileananSiar

Scotland


Figure11hasanerraticnaturewithsharpincreasesandsteepdeclines,particularlyforthetwoislandauthoritiesrepresented.VolatilityseemscharacteristicofNah-EileananSiar,whilethestablehighuptakereportedfortheShetlandIslesseemstohavecollapsedbetween2017and2018.Thesetrenddatahighlightthevalueofsub-nationalanalysis,astheScottishtrendoftenbearslittleresemblancetothatofindividualauthorities.Forexample,whiletheproportionofpupilstakingschoolmealsinNorthLanarkshirehasalmosthalvedovertheperiod(54.7%in2003to25.8%in2018),EastLothianhasincreaseddramatically(28.5%in2003to41.3%in2018).

8.3–Registrationforfreeschoolmeals,2006-2018WenowreplicatetheanalysisoftheprevioussectionfortheregistrationofpupilsforFSMs.Thisdatacomplementsthenationaldataforthesameissue,whichwerereviewedin6.3.Figures12and13presentdataforprimaryandsecondaryschoolsrespectively,withtrendsreportedforboththethreeauthoritieswiththehighestlevelsoffreeschoolmealregistrationin2018,andthethreeauthoritieswiththelowestlevelsoffreeschoolmealregistrationin2018.Figure12:RegistrationforfreeschoolmealsamongprimaryschoolpupilsoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,2006-2018

Figure12illustratestheimpactofsocialpolicyonfreeschoolmealregistration,withtheintroductionofuniversalprovisioninP1-P3in2015leadingtoadramaticincreaseinregistrationsacrossalllocalauthoritiesinScotland.Otherwise,andaswouldbepredicted,thereisanmarkeddifferencebetweentheaffluentandlessaffluentlocalauthoritiesintermsoflow/highregistrationforFSMs.Forexample,threefifthsofprimaryschoolpupilsintheCityofGlasgowCityareregisteredforFSMs(61.1%in2018),comparedtomuchlowerratesofregistrationintheOrkneyIslands,ShetlandIslandsandEileananSiar(44.3%,46.5%and46.6%,respectively).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

OrkneyIslands

ShetlandIslands

Nah-EileananSiar

Scotland

Clackmannanshire

WestDunbartonshire

DundeeCity

GlasgowCity


Figure13replicatestheanalysisofFigure12forsecondaryschoolsinScotland.Onthewhole,thereislittleoverallchangeinregistrationsforScotlandasawholeandforthoseauthoritieswithlowoverallratesofregistrationin2018(Aberdeenshire,ShetlandIslesandPerth&Kinross).Ontheotherhand,afewofthelocalauthoritieswithhighratesofregistrationin2018haveexperiencedquitesignificantincreasesintheproportionofsecondaryschoolpupilswhoareregisteredforFSMs.Forexample,whereasin2006freeschoolmealregistrationsforsecondaryschoolpupilswasbelowtheScottishaverageintheCityofDundee(10.9%,comparedto13.5%forScotlandasawhole),by2018registrationsforFSMsinDundeewasfarinexcessoftheScottishaverage(24.4%,comparedto14.4%).Oncemore,theimportanceoflayeringunderstandingthrougha‘regional’lensisclear.

Figure13:RegistrationforfreeschoolmealsamongsecondaryschoolpupilsoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,2006-2018

8.4–Uptakeoffreeschoolmeals,2006-2018Thefinalanalysisinthisreviewof‘regional’trendsfocusesontheuptakeofFSMs,whichwasfirstreviewedforScotlandasawholein6.4.Table4issimilartoTable3andsummariseskeyaspectsoffreeschoolmealuptakein2018forScottishlocalauthoritiesatfourstages:primary,secondary,P1-P3andP4-P7.Foreachstageofschoolingthetableidentifiesthethreelocalauthoritieswiththehighestuptakeandthosethreewiththelowestuptake,aswellasnotingtheScottishaverage.AcrosslocalauthoritiesinScotland,thereiswidedivergenceintherateofFSMuptake,inparticularforthesecondaryschoolstage(Table4).Uptakeishighestinsomemainlandruralandrelativelyaffluentauthorities,withuptakeintheScottishBordersalmostdoublethatreportedinSouthLanarkshire.Indeed,inSouthLanarkshirein2018–interestinglyalsoapart-ruralandrelativelyaffluentauthority–therearemorepupilswhodonotreceivethe

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

ShetlandIslands

Aberdeenshire

Perth&Kinross

Scotland

WestDunbartonshire

DundeeCity

GlasgowCity


freeschoolmealtowhichtheyareentitledthanthosewhodo.LessthantwothirdsofsecondaryschoolpupilsregisteredforFSMsreceivethismealinbothFifeandRenfrewshire.Table4:UptakeoffreeschoolmealsamongpupilsinattendanceoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,byschooltype,2018 P1-P3 P4-P7 Primary SecondaryHighest ShetlandIsles(94.5%) EileananSiar(96.7%) ShetlandIsles(94.5%) Scot.Borders(94.9%)2nd Dum./Gall.(88.4%) ShetlandIsles(95.2%) Dum./Gall.(87.8%) Angus(93.9%)3rd OrkneyIsles(87.7%) AberdeenCity(90.6%) OrkneyIsles(87.7%) E/Dunbarton.(93.9%)ScottishAverage 79.6% 84.4% 80.5% 72.8%3rd EastAyrshire(72.3%) East/Renfrew.(77.8%) WDun.&Edin(74.7%) Renfrewshire(60.6%)2nd Clackmannan.(71.9%) Highland(76.8%) EastAyrshire(74.6%) Fife(54.7%)Lowest W/Dunbarton(69.6%) Renfrewshire(76.3%) Renfrewshire(73.9%) S/Lanarkshire(48.8%)

Althoughdifferencesarelessdramaticatprimaryschoollevel,theyarestillsubstantialacrosslocalauthorities.Forexample,whereastheuniversalprovisionatP1-P3isreachingvirtuallyallpupilsintheShetlandIsles(94.5%in2018),it‘only’reachesjustovertwo-thirdsofyoungerprimaryschoolpupilsinWestDunbartonshire(69.6%in2018).Interestingly,reachisslightlyhigheratbothendsofthescaleforP4-P7,comparedtoP1-P3,i.e.whenFSMsaretargeted,ratherthanuniversallyprovided.Forexample,theauthoritywiththelowestuptakeofFSMsinScotlandhas69.6%ofpupilspresentinginP1-P3(WestDunbartonshire,asnotedabove),comparedto76.3%forP4-P7(Renfrewshire).Thereisatendencyforauthoritieswiththehighestlevelsoffreeschoolmealuptaketobeisland/rural/affluentincharacter,whereasthereisgreaterdiversityamongthosewithlowestlevelsoffreeschoolmealuptake.Figures14and15presenttimeseriesdataforuptakeofFSMsinprimaryschoolsandsecondaryschools,respectively.Asforschoolmeals(Figure10),thetimeseriesdataforprimaryschoolsisshorter,i.e.afterthechangetouniversalprovisionforP1-P3in2014/15.Longer-termtrenddataispresentedforsecondaryschoolsinFigure15(2003-2018).Foreach,dataarepresentedfortheScottishaverage,thethreeauthoritieswiththehighestpercentagepointincreaseovertheperiod,andthethreeauthoritieswiththegreatestpercentagepointdecreaseovertheperiod.Oncemore,theimportanceofa‘regional’lensisconfirmed.Figure14highlightsdivergentexperiencesamongScottishlocalauthoritiesinrecentyears,withNah-EileananSiarandPerth&KinrossbuckingthegeneraltrendbyavoidingafallinuptakeofFSMs.AlsodivergingfromtheslightfallsintherateoffreeschoolmealuptakeinrecentyearsaretheOrkneyIslesandCityofEdinburgh;however,theirfallsaresignificantlylargerthanthatrecordedforScotlandasawhole.


Figure14:UptakeoffreeschoolmealsamongprimaryschoolpupilsinattendanceoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,2015-2018

Figure15demonstratesthattrendsinfreeschoolmealuptakebetween2003and2018aremuchmorecomplexforsecondaryschools.TheScottishaveragedisguisesthemarkedvariationsacrossthecountryinFSMuptake.Inparticular,withonlyafewcorrections,therehasbeenasteadydecreaseinFSMuptakeinFifesecondaryschoolssince2009.Incontrast,theoppositetrendisevidentinEastDunbartonshire,withsteadyincreasesovertheperiodonlyoccasionallychecked.Indeed,ofthesixauthoritiesrepresentedinFigure15,FSMuptakewaslowestinEastDunbartonshirein2006,buthighestby2018.

Figure15:UptakeoffreeschoolmealsamongsecondaryschoolpupilsinattendanceoncensusdayinScotland,selectedlocalauthorities,2003-2018

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

2015 2016 2017 2018

Edinburgh,Cityof

OrkneyIslands

Falkirk

Scotland

NorthLanarkshire

Perth&Kinross

Nah-EileananSiar

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Perth&Kinross

Fife

ShetlandIslands

Scotland

Inverclyde

NorthAyrshire

EastDunbartonshire


8.5–ConclusionFromthedatapresentedinthischapter,itisclearthatthereisaneedfora‘regional’lensofanalysisifwearetounderstandtherealityoffree/schoolmealuptakeinScotland.Moreparticularly,thesedataraisechallengingquestions,whichwouldbeofinteresttoallwhoareconcernedwithfree/schoolmealuptakeinScotland.Forexample:• WhatcanbelearnedfromtheShetlandIsles(primary)andScottishBorders(secondary)

withtheirveryhighratesofuptakeofFSMsin2018(Table4)?• WhyarefewerthanthreequartersofP1-P3pupilsinEastAyrshire,Clackmannanshire

andWestDunbartonshirepresentingfortheirfreeschoolmealin2018(Table4)?• WhyareratesoffreeschoolmealuptakesolowinSouthLanarkshiresecondaryschools

in2018(Table4)?• Whataccountsforthetrend-buckingincreaseinfreeschoolmealuptakeforNah-

EileananSiarprimaryschoolssincetheintroductionofuniversalprovisionforP1-P3in2015(Figure14)?

• WhataccountsforthesubstantialfallinfreeschoolmealuptakeforFifesecondaryschoolssince2006(Figure15)?

• Whataccountsfortherise,thenfallinfreeschoolmealuptakeforbothInverclydeandPerth&Kinrosssecondaryschoolssince2009/10(Figure15)?

• WhataccountsforthesignificantincreaseinfreeschoolmealuptakeforEastRenfrewshiresecondaryschoolssince2006(Figure15)?


9.LocalFocus:OutliersandissuesforfurtherresearchYouknowIaskedaclassrecently,“Whoallhadabreakfast?”andtherewasonlyabouttwoofthemoutoftwenty

(Classroomteacher,quotedinSpencer,2015,p.30)

9.1–IntroductionTheprimarypurposeofthisreporthasbeentointerprettheexistingevidencebasethathasbeengeneratedbytheschoolmealssectororisreadilyavailabletoit.ThischapterusesdatafromtheScottishGovernment’sannualschoolmealscensustodemonstratethevalueofschool-levelanalysis.Althoughsubstantivepointsofnoteareidentified,thepurposeistobeillustrativeandtoencouragethoseresponsibleforserviceswithintheirschoolandthoseresponsibleforschoolswithinalocalauthoritytomakebetteruseofexistingdata,asameanstodrawattentiontoschoolswhoseexperiencesareworthyoffurtheranalysis.ThreeissuespertainingtotheuptakeofFSMsareconsidered.First,attentionisdrawntotheschoolswiththehighestandlowestuptakeofFSMsinbothprimaryandsecondaryschoolsforeachlocalauthorityinScotland(9.2).Followingthis,long-termtrends(2004-2018)throughtimeareexploredforsecondaryschools,identifyingtheschoolsineachlocalauthorityinScotland,whicharereportedtohavethelargestandsmallestpercentagepointincreaseinuptake(9.3).Finally,thisanalysisisrepeatedforcontemporarytrends(2014-2018),toidentifythefiveschoolswiththehighestincreaseandgreatestdecreaseinuptakeofFSMs(9.4).9.2–LocalVariationinUptakeofFreeSchoolMeals,2018ThespecificfocusofthissectionisuptakeofFSMsamongpupilswhohavebothregisteredforFSMsandwhowereinattendanceonthecensusday.AswasalludedtointheIntroductiontothisreport,thiscanleadtooverestimationofuptake,i.e.notcounting(i)thosepupilswhoareeligible,butwhosefamiliesdonotregisterthem,and(ii)thosepupilswhowerenotinattendanceonthecensusday.TheanalysisaimstodemonstratetherangeofschoolsexperiencewithinlocalauthoritiesinScotland.Analysisispresentedforbothprimaryschools(9.2.1)andsecondaryschools(9.2.2).InadditiontoidentifyingtheschoolwiththehighestuptakeofFSMs(columnB)andlowestuptakeofFSMs(columnC),dataarealsopresentedontheproportionofschoolswithineachlocalauthority,whichhad(i)lessthan75%ofitseligiblepupilsinattendancepresentingfortheirfreeschoolmeal,and(ii)lessthan50%ofitseligiblepupilsinattendancepresentingfortheirfreeschoolmeal.


9.2.1–PrimarySchoolsEverypupilinattendancewhowasentitledtoaFSMalsopresentedforthismealin173primaryschoolsinScotlandontheschoolmealscensusdayin2018(column2ofTable5).InalmosteveryScottishlocalauthority,thereisatleastoneprimaryschoolinwhichatleast90%ofeligiblepupilsinattendancepresentforthismeal(column2inTable5).Ifweconsideruniversaluptaketobeasuccessandassumethatgoodpracticeinschoolsfacilitatethissuccess,thenitshouldberecognisedthatthereislocalexpertiseuponwhichotherscandrawineachlocalauthorityinScotland.Similarly,themajorityofeligiblepupilsinattendanceinallprimaryschoolsin26localauthoritiespresentedfortheirfreeschoolmealonthesurveyday(column5inTable5).Table5:UptakeofFreeSchoolMealsAmongRegisteredPupilsinAttendanceatPrimarySchools,ScottishLocalAuthorities,2018

%SchoolswithFSMUptake

LocalAuthority SchoolwithHighestUptakeFSM SchoolWithLowestUptakeFSMBelow75%

Below50%

Midlothian 2schools(100%) TynewaterPrimarySchool(75.82%) 0.0% 0.0%ShetlandIslands 17schools(100%) SandwickJuniorSchool(74.07%) 4.2% 0.0%Dumfries&Galloway 18schools(100%) CreetownSchool(50%) 4.3% 0.0%Angus 11schools(100%) LanglandPrimarySchool(70.83%) 7.7% 0.0%Falkirk 5schools(100%) LauriestonPrimarySchool(26.67%) 8.0% 1.9%Aberdeenshire 25schools(100%) KininmonthSchool(53.85%) 8.2% 0.0%ScottishBorders 5schools(100%) PhiliphaughComm.Sch.(55.26%) 8.3% 0.0%EastRenfrewshire EagleshamPrimarySchool(98.38%) StMark'sPrimarySchool(68.89%) 8.7% 0.0%Nah-EileananSiar 3schools(100%) BreasceletePrimarySchool(71.43%) 10.0% 0.0%Perth&Kinross 6schools(100%) BlairAthollPrimarySchool(63.16%) 10.4% 0.0%Argyll&Bute 16schools(100%) StColumba'sPrimarySchool(57.69%) 11.8% 0.0%OrkneyIslands 8schools(100%) StromnessPrimarySchool(73.13%) 12.5% 0.0%NorthLanarkshire 2schools(100%) StMary'sPS(Cleland)(46.55%) 19.4% 0.9%Moray GlenlivetPrimarySchool(100%) Milne'sPrimarySchool(60.27%) 20.9% 0.0%GlasgowCity 8schools(100%) CarntynePrimarySchool(42.96%) 21.7% 1.4%SouthLanarkshire 14schools(100%) StBlane'sPrimarySchool(60.5%) 21.8% 0.0%EastDunbartonshire HolyTrinityPrimarySchool(100%) MeadowburnGaelicUnit(55.26%) 23.5% 0.0%SouthAyrshire CairnPrimarySchool(100%) StNinian'sPrimarySchool(58.62%) 26.3% 0.0%WestLothian AddiewellPrimarySchool(94.55%) OurLady'sPrimarySchool(57.78%) 28.4% 0.0%EastLothian 5schools(100%) StoneyhillPrimarySchool(62.35%) 29.4% 0.0%Fife 4schools(100%) CairneyhillPrimandCommSch(55%) 32.6% 0.0%Highland 10schools(100%) CarbostPrimarySchool(50%) 34.3% 0.0%Inverclyde StMichael'sPrimarySchool(98.18%) LadyAlicePrimarySchool(61.9%) 35.0% 0.0%NorthAyrshire 2schools(100%) ShiskinePrimarySchool(63.64%) 36.2% 0.0%AberdeenCity ManorParkSchool(98.1%) SunnybankSchool(48.1%) 36.2% 6.4%Stirling 2schools(100%) CowiePrimarySchool(63.64%) 36.8% 0.0%DundeeCity StFergus'sRCPS(93.83%) DownfieldPrimarySchool(66.38%) 44.1% 0.0%WestDunbartonshire StMartin'sPrimarySchool(100%) KnoxlandPrimarySchool(44.05%) 46.9% 3.1%Edinburgh,Cityof 6schools(100%) SouthMorningsidePS(42.55%) 48.9% 2.3%EastAyrshire StSophia'sPrimarySchool(89.29%) CrosshousePrimarySchool(54.22%) 52.4% 0.0%Renfrewshire WestPrimarySchool(95.93%) StAnne'sPrimarySchool(50.68%) 55.1% 0.0%Clackmannanshire MuckhartPrimarySchool(96.15%) FishcrossPrimarySchool(54.76%) 55.6% 0.0%Note:Excludesschoolsforwhichdataweresupressedtopreserveanonymity(between1and4ofeither(i)pupilseligibleandregisteredforFSM,or(ii)pupilspresentingforFSM


Ontheotherhand,thecontrastbetweentheschoolswiththehighestuptakeofFSM(column2ofTable5)andlowestuptakeofFSM(column3ofTable5)demonstratesthatthereismuchintra-localauthorityvariationacrossschools.Atitsmostextreme,whiletherearefiveprimaryschoolsinFalkirkinwhichalleligiblepupilsinattendancepresentedfortheirFSM,threequartersofeligiblepupilsinattendanceinLauriestonPrimarySchooldidnot.AlistingincolumnCisnotnecessarilyevidenceofaproblemorafailing.However,thoseconcernedtoimproveuptakeofFSMinprimaryschoolswithinlocalauthoritiesshouldbemakingbestuseofthisreadilyavailabledatatoaskquestionsand,onreflection,learnfrombestpracticeandlocaloutliers.9.2.2–SecondarySchoolsTable6replicatesTable5,thistimefocusingonsecondaryschoolsinScotland.Table6:UptakeofFreeSchoolMealsAmongRegisteredPupilsinAttendanceatSecondarySchools,ScottishLocalAuthorities,2018

%SchoolswithFSMUptake

LocalAuthority SchoolwithHighestUptakeFSM SchoolWithLowestUptakeFSMBelow75%

Below50%

Angus 3schools(100%) ArbroathHighSchool(77.66%) 0.0% 0.0%Clackmannanshire AlvaAcademy(97.33%) AlloaAcademy(80.17%) 0.0% 0.0%Nah-EileananSiar SgoilLionacleit(100%) TheNicolsonInstitute(90.91%) 0.0% 0.0%ScottishBorders 5schools(100%) GalashielsAcademy(83.18%) 0.0% 0.0%WestDunbartonshire 3schools(100%) DumbartonAcademy(72%) 12.5% 0.0%Argyll&Bute 2schools(100%) HermitageAcademy(58.51%) 14.3% 0.0%EastDunbartonshire 3schools(100%) TurnbullHighSchool(70.27%) 14.3% 0.0%NorthAyrshire 2schools(100%) LargsAcademy(50.62%) 22.2% 0.0%DundeeCity CraigieHighSchool(100%) BaldragonAcademy(64.37%) 25.0% 0.0%Falkirk 3schools(100%) LarbertHighSchool(64.29%) 25.0% 0.0%Inverclyde InverclydeAcademy(98.4%) StColumba'sHighSchool(63.75%) 25.0% 0.0%WestLothian TheJamesYoungHS(97.03%) BathgateAcademy(42.24%) 27.3% 9.1%EastRenfrewshire 3schools(100%) MearnsCastleHighSchool(70.97%) 28.6% 0.0%OrkneyIslands SandayCommunitySchool(100%) StromnessAcademy(69.23%) 33.3% 0.0%Edinburgh,Cityof 5schools(100%) BoroughmuirHighSchool(45%) 34.8% 10.5%Highland 4schools(100%) FortroseAcademy(54.29%) 36.0% 0.0%Aberdeenshire 2schools(100%) TurriffAcademy(49.15%) 37.5% 6.3%Stirling DunblaneHighSchool(100%) StirlingHighSchool(57.14%) 42.9% 0.0%Midlothian DalkeithHighSchool(100%) LasswadeHighSchool(59.69%) 50.0% 0.0%ShetlandIslands 2schools(100%) AndersonHighSchool(39.47%) 50.0% 25.0%EastAyrshire GrangeAcademy(88.14%) StewartonAcademy(24%) 55.6% 22.2%GlasgowCity 2schools(100%) BellahoustonAcademy(41.97%) 60.7% 7.1%AberdeenCity CultsAcademy(96.3%) TorryAcademy(47.27%) 61.5% 15.4%Moray ElginAcademy(100%) KeithGrammarSchool(43.75%) 62.5% 12.5%Renfrewshire GryffeHighSchool(82.05%) StAndrew'sAcademy(36.87%) 63.6% 18.2%Dumfries&Galloway 2schools(100%) StJoseph'sCollege(51.02% 66.7% 0.0%EastLothian MusselburghGrammarSch(89.13%) NorthBerwickHighSchool(61.29%) 66.7% 0.0%NorthLanarkshire CalderheadHighSchool(100%) DalzielHighSchool(46.91%) 72.7% 4.5%SouthAyrshire MarrCollege(87.27%) PrestwickAcademy(56.3%) 75.0% 0.0%Perth&Kinross CrieffHighSchool(92.31%) PerthGrammarSchool(47.62%) 75.0% 12.5%SouthLanarkshire CalderglenHighSchool(77/78%) HolyCrossHighSchool(29.91%) 94.1% 70.6%Fife LochgellyHighSchool(67.59%) MadrasCollege(27.06%) 100.0 33.3%


EverypupilinattendancewhowasentitledtoaFSMalsopresentedforthismealin48secondaryschoolsinScotlandontheschoolmealscensusdayin2018(column2ofTable6).Oncemore,inthevastmajorityofScottishlocalauthorities,thereisatleastonesecondaryschoolinwhichatleast90%ofeligiblepupilsinattendancepresentforthismeal(column2inTable5).Asforprimaryschools,itshouldberecognisedthatthereislocalexpertiseuponwhichotherscandrawintermsoffacilitatingFSMamongsecondaryschoolpupilsineachlocalauthorityinScotland.Ontheotherhand,thereismoreevidenceofmoreschoolswithlowratesofuptakeofFSMamongeligiblepupilsinScottishsecondaryschools.Atitsmostextreme,fewerthanoneinfoursuchpupilsinStewartonAcademy(EastAyrshire)presentedfortheirFSMontheschoolmealscensusdayin2018.Similarly,itisreportedthatthemajorityofeligiblepupilsdidnotpresentfortheirFSMinthemajorityofsecondaryschoolsinSouthLanarkshire,whileinFife,theveryhighestuptakeofFSMinasecondaryschoolwasinLochgellyHighSchool,where‘only’68%ofpupilspresentedfortheirmeal.Oncemore,itshouldbestressedthatthesedataalonearenotindicativeofaproblemorafailing.However,theyraisequestionsthatshouldbeasked.ThewidevariationinratesofFSMuptakeacrosssecondaryschoolsinScotlandisworthyofmoresystematicanalysis,atboththelocalandthenationallevel.9.3–LocalVariationinUptakeofFreeSchoolMealsbyRegisteredPupilsinAttendanceinSecondarySchools,2004-2018inthissection,thepoint-in-timeanalysisoftheprevioussection(9.2)isextendedforsecondaryschoolstoconsiderlong-termchangesintheproportionofeligiblepupilswhopresentedforFSMontheschoolmealscensussurveyday.DataarepresentedforeachlocalauthorityinScotlandandforschoolsthathavebeenopenfrom2004through2018,inclusive.Foreach,thereisapositivehighlight(column2identifiesthesecondaryschoolthathadthegreatestpercentagepointincreaseineligiblepupilspresentingfortheirFSM),alowlight(column3identifiesthesecondaryschoolwhichhasthegreatestreductioninthepercentageofeligiblepupilsinattendancewhopresentedforFSMs)andasummarystatistic(column4reportsthepercentageofsecondaryschoolswhichreportafallintheproportionofeligiblepupilspresentingfortheirFSM).Table7powerfullydemonstratesthediversityofexperiencebothacrosslocalauthoritiesandwithinthem,withregardstoeligiblesecondaryschoolpupilspresentingfortheirFSM.Atoneextreme,thereisClackmannanshireinwhichnosecondaryschoolhasrecordedareductioninthepercentageofeligiblepupilspresentedforFSMbetween2004and2018.Indeed,its‘poorest’performancewasa21%percentagepointincreaseineligiblepupilspresentingforFSMsinLornshillAcademy.ThepositivechangeinLornshillAcademythroughtimewashigherthantheverybestchangereportedinnineotherlocalauthoritiesinScotland.Attheotherextreme,allsecondaryschoolsinPerth&Kinross,FifeandOrkneyIsleshaverecordedapercentagepointdecreaseintheeligiblesecondaryschoolpupilspresentingforFSMsbetween2004and2018.


Table7:ChangeinUptakeofFreeSchoolMealsAmongRegisteredPupilsinAttendanceatSecondarySchools,ScottishLocalAuthorities,2014-2018

LocalAuthoritySchoolwithHighestIncreaseinUptakeofFSMs

SchoolWithLowestIncrease/GreatestDecreaseinUptakeofFSMs

PercentageofSchools

RecordingaPercentagePointFall

Clackmannanshire AlvaAcademy(+40.19%) LornshillAcademy(+20.77%) 0.0%Midlothian DalkeithHighSchool(+42.86%) LasswadeHighSchool(+2.28%) 0.0%EastRenfrewshire WilliamwoodHighSchool(+33.33%) BarrheadHighSchool(-9.88%) 14.3%EastDunbartonshire StNinian'sHighSchool(+59.93%) TurnbullHighSchool(-29.73%) 14.3%Argyll&Bute ObanHigh(+36.36%) RothesayAcademy(-4.35%) 16.7%DundeeCity MorganAcademy+(38.56%) BaldragonAcademy(-6.0%) 16.7%ScottishBorders PeeblesHighSchool(+44.44%) GalashielsAcademy(-6.82%) 22.2%NorthAyrshire KilwinningAcademy(+35.0%) LargsAcademy(-34.72%) 28.6%Inverclyde PortGlasgow(+42.82%) StColumba'sHighSchool(-19.56%) 33.3%Angus Webster'sHighSchool(+21.93%) ArbroathHighSchool(-22.34%) 33.3%WestLothian TheJamesYoungHS(+30.0%) BathgateAcademy(-28.21%) 45.5%Nah-EileananSiar SgoilLionacleit(Nochange) TheNicolsonInstitute(-9.09%) 50.0%WestDunbartonshire OurLadyandStPatrick'sHS(16.06%) DumbartonAcademy(-23.06%) 50.0%Highland GairlochHighSchool(+47.37%) PlocktonAcademy(-26.44%) 54.2%Stirling DunblaneHighSchool(+33.33%) WallaceHighSchool(-18.41%) 57.1%GlasgowCity LochendCommunityHS(+61.12%) LourdesSecondarySchool(-53.23%) 59.3%Falkirk BraesHighSchool(+26.72%) LarbertHighSchool(-33.9%) 62.5%Moray ElginAcademy(+22.72%) SpeysideHighSchool(-34.03%) 62.5%Edinburgh,Cityof BalernoCommunityHS(+35.23%) RoyalHighSchool(-27.88%) 63.9%SouthLanarkshire CathkinHighSchool(+21.18%) HolyCrossHighSchool(-47.66%) 64.3%EastLothian MusselburghGrammarSch(+15.08%) KnoxAcademy(-17.95%) 66.7%ShetlandIslands SandwickJuniorHS(Nochange) AndersonHighSchool(-40.53%) 66.7%Renfrewshire GryffeHighSchool(+37.93%) StAndrew'sAcademy(-36.95%) 70.0%NorthLanarkshire BellshillAcademy(+31.37%) DalzielHighSchool(-51.42%) 75.0%Aberdeenshire PorthlethenAcademy(+22.58%) WesthillAcademy(-50.0%) 80.0%Dumfries&Galloway LockerbieAcademy(+6.25%) WallaceHall(-38.30%) 84.6%SouthAyrshire MarrCollege(+34.26%) BelmontAcademy(-32.55%) 87.5%EastAyrshire LoudounAcademy(+16.19%) StewartonAcademy(-76.0%) 88.9%AberdeenCity CultsAcademy(+46.3%) HarlawAcademy(-47.94%) 90.0%Perth&Kinross BlairgowrieHighSchool(-0.68%) PerthGrammarSchool(-48.61%) 100.0%Fife GlenrothesHighSchool(-6.79%) WaidAcademy(-54.55%) 100.0%OrkneyIslands KirkwallGrammarSchool(-18.84%) StromnessAcademy(-30.77%) 100.0%Note:Excludesschoolsforwhichdataweresupressedtopreserveanonymity(between1and4ofeither(i)pupilseligibleandregisteredforFSM,or(ii)pupilspresentingforFSM.Onlyconsidersschoolsthatwereopenbetween2004and2018.

Asstrikingasthedifferencesamonglocalauthorities,therearedramaticdifferencesamongsecondaryschoolswithinindividuallocalauthorities.Forexample,whiletherewasa31percentagepointincreaseinBellshillAcademy,withinthesameauthority(NorthLanarkshire),therewasa51%decreaseinDalzielHighSchool.Otherlocalauthoritieswithparticularlymarkedlong-termtrenddifferencesamongitssecondaryschoolsincludeAberdeenCity,SouthAyrshire,Aberdeenshire,Renfrewshire,NorthAyrshire,Clackmannanshire,EastDunbartonshire,Highland,Glasgow,Falkirk,Moray,EdinburghandWestLothian.Oncemore,thekeypointisthatthesedataraisequestionsthatshouldbeanswered.Thewidevariationinlong-termtrendsratesofFSMuptakeacrosssecondaryschoolsinScotlandisworthyofmoresystematicanalysis,atboththelocalandthenationallevel.


9.4–RecentChangeinUptakeofFreeSchoolMealsbyRegisteredPupilsinAttendanceinSecondarySchools,2014-2018–FocusonOutliersLongtermtrends–suchasthosediscussedintheprevioussection(9.3)–emphasisethepossibilityoftransformativechangeandalternativepasts/futures.Equallyusefulisafocusonshort-termtrends,notleastbecausethosewithresponsibilityforschoolleadershipandschoolmealsservicesarehighlylikelytorelatetothesedata.Inthissection,wesummarisetheoutliersamongsecondaryschoolsinScotland–Figure16reportstrendsforthosesecondaryschoolswiththegreatestpercentagepointincreasesbetween2014and2018inthepercentageofeligiblepupilsinattendancewhopresentforFSMs(9.2.1),whileFigure17reportsthesameforschoolswiththegreatestpercentagepointdecreases.9.4.1–MostImprovedUptakeThefiveschoolswiththegreatestpercentagepointincreasesbetween2014and2018ineligiblesecondaryschoolpupilspresentingforFSMsarespreadacrossfourScottishlocalauthorities.However,fromthedataalone,itwouldappearthattherearedifferentexperiencestoshareamongtheseschools.Figure16:SecondarySchoolsWiththeGreatestPercentagePointIncreaseintheUptakeofFreeSchoolMealsAmongRegisteredPupilsinAttendance,ScottishLocalAuthorities,2014-2018

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

%UptakeofFSM

registeredpupilsinattendance

HazelheadAcademy(Aberdeen)

GolspieHighSchool(Highland)

LoudounAcademy(EastAyrshire)

DalkeithHighSchool(Midlothian)

CultsAcademy(Aberdeen)


UnliketheotherschoolsinFigure16,LoudounAcademystillhasasignificantproportionofitseligiblepupilswhoarenotpresentingforFSM(22%in2018);however,therehasbeenaremarkabletransformationinuptakeinrecentyears,withyear-on-yearincreasesintheproportionofeligiblepupilsinattendancepresenting.Inashortspaceoftime,uptakehasbeenreversedfromaclearmajorityofeligiblepupilsinattendancenotpresentingforFSMin2014(69%)tothemajoritypresentingforFSMin2018(78%).Incontrast,CultsAcademyhassustainedalmostuniversaluptakesinceatransformativeshiftbetween2014and2015;ratesofuptakeatbothGolspieHighSchoolandHazelheadAcademyhaveincreasedsignificantlyovertheperiod,althoughthereissomeyear-on-yearvolatility;whileasteadierpaceofchangeinDalkeithHighSchoolculminatedinuniversaluptakein2018.Clearly,thereareparticularschool-levelexperiencesthatareworthyoffurtheranalysis.9.4.2–HighestRatesofDeclineFigure17complementsFigure16,thistimefocusingonthoseschoolswiththegreatestpercentagepointdecreasesinFSMpresentationamongeligiblepupilsinattendance.Figure17:SecondarySchoolsWiththeGreatestPercentagePointDecreaseintheUptakeofFreeSchoolMealsAmongRegisteredPupilsinAttendance,ScottishLocalAuthorities,2014-2018

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

%UptakeofFSM

registered

pup

ilsinatten

dance

HolyCrossHighSchool(SouthLanarkshire)

BathgateAcademy(WestLothian)

WesthillAcademy(Aberdeenshire)

StThomasofAquinasHighSchool(Edinburgh)

StonelawHighSchool(SouthLanarkshire)


NotwithstandingsomevolatilityinStThomasofAquinasHighSchooland,inparticular,WesthillAcademyandBathgateAcademy,thedominantcharacteristicamongthoseschoolsreportingthegreatestfallinthepercentageofeligiblepupilsinattendancepresentingforFSMisevidenceofasingleyearinwhichuptakefelldramatically–mostnotable,between2014and2015forHolyCrossHighSchoolandStThomasofAquinasHighSchool,between2017and2018forbothBathgateAcademyandStonelawHighSchool,andexceptionallybetween2014and2015andthenagainbetween2016and2017forWesthillAcademy.Inthecaseofschoolsreportingnegativetrends,itwouldappeartobeworthwhiletoexaminepossibletriggereventsthatleadtodramaticandtransformativeshiftsinratesofFSMuptake.9.5–ConclusionTheobjectiveofthissectionwastodemonstratetheutilityofschool-levelanalysis,particularlywithinlocalauthorities.Itisunhelpfulandtoocrudetodrawfirmconclusionsfrompoint-in-timedataaloneandtrenddataalonefromtheannualschoolmealscensusinScotland.However,itisclearthatdivergentexperiencesandtrendsamongschoolsraisequestionsthatshouldbeansweredanddrawattentiontoissuesthatwouldbeworthyofinvestigation.Theanalysisinthischapterhasbeenindicative;thereremainsscopetoextendthetrendanalysistoprimaryschools,toextendtheanalysistopupilswhoarenoteligibleforFSMsand,ofcourse,tocomplementtheappraisalofpublishedwithschool-levelexaminationoftheunderlyingprocessesthataregeneratingtheseoutcomes.


10.ACriticalReviewoftheEvidenceBase“Integraltothisagendamustbeanunderstandingofhoweducationandschoolstructures,policiesandpracticesaffectchildrenandyoungpeoplefromlowincomehouseholdsandwheredifficultiesandfinancialbarrierstoparticipationexistthroughouttheschoolday.Understandingmoreaboutthisfromchildren’sperspectivescansupportschoolstopoverty-prooftheirpoliciesandpracticessothatconditionsarerightforallchildrenandyoungpeopletolearnandtoachieve”

(Spencer,2015,p.5)10.1–IntroductionThepurposeofthischapteristwofold:itaims(i)toevaluatetheinformationsourcesthatwereusedwithinthisreport,and(ii)toconsiderthewiderutilityoftheevidencebase.Thefourmaininformationsourcesusedinthisreportareeachconsideredinturn,startingwithareviewoftheannualschoolmealscensusinScottishschools(10.2),beforemovingontoperformanceindicatorsthatareroutinelycollectedbyAPSE(10.3),ad-hocsurveyandserviceprovisionresearchthathasbeenadministeredbyAssistFM(10.4)andfieldobservationsbyGCUstudents(10.5).10.2–AnnualSchoolMealsCensusinScotlandSince2003,aschoolmealscensushasbeenconductedineachstate-fundedprimary,secondaryandspecialschoolinScotland.In2012,thefocusofthecensuswasbroadenedandthecensusonschoolmealsbecamepartofahealthylivingcensus,whichalsocollectedinformationonphysicaleducationinScotland.Notwithstandingsomerecentadditionstotheinformationcollected-toensurethattheutilityofthecensusisoptimisedfollowingtheextensionofprovisionofFSMstoallchildreninP1-P3inScotland-ithasprovidedastableestimateofschoolmealconsumptioninScottishschoolssinceitsinception.Aswasoutlinedin1.4,theinformationcanbeusedtoprovidearangeofestimatespertainingtoschoolmealsinScotland.Dataarepublishedforindividualschools,whichpermitsaggregationbyschoolage-stage,schoolcommunityprofile,geographyandadministrativearea.TheScottishGovernmentpublishesanannualreportthatsummarisesregistrationandconsumption,trackschangesthroughtime,andexploresvariationacrossschools.Chapters6,7and8ofthisreporthavedrawnfromthesedata,whilechapter9hasgleanednewinsightfromschool-levelanalysis.Datacollectionproceduresanddataprocessingisrobust,beingundertakentothestandardrequiredintheNationalStatisticsCodeofPractice.Thereportsarepublicdocumentsthatarefreefrompoliticalbias.Thisandthestablenatureofdatacollectionpermitanationalunderstandingtobegainedofboththecontemporarysituationandtrendspertainingtofreeschoolmealregistration,schoolmealconsumptionandfreeschoolmealconsumptionacrossScotland.However,therearelimitationstothesedatathatshouldbeacknowledged.


Thecollectionofinformationonasingleschoolday(theschoolcensusdayistypicallyinJanuary/February),couldintroducesystematicbiastotheresults.First,schoolsknowinadvancewhendatacollectionisscheduled,whichleavesopenthepossibilityofpromotionsbeingusedorencouragementbeingmadetoheightenuptakeofschoolmeals(freeorpaid)onthecensusday.Second,itisunknownwhetherthereisa‘dayoftheweek’effect,i.e.whetherthelikelihoodofpupilspresentingforschoolmealsvariesacrossparticulardaysoftheweek.Thepossibilitythatthecensusdaymaybeanatypicaldayoftheweekcannotbeascertainedasdataoncensusdayarenotpublished.Similarly,althoughthestabilityofconductingtheschoolmealscensusatthesametimeoftheyearheightensreliabilityacrossyears,itimpliesthattheschoolmealscensusisnotwellplacedtoaccountforseasonality,e.g.thepossibilitythatpupilsmaybemoremotivatedtopartakeofaschoollunchbeyondtheschoolgateassummer/endoftheschoolyearapproaches.Second,althoughschool-levelinformationcanbeusedtolayertheanalysis,andalthoughinformationonregistrationandconsumptionisavailableaccordingtowhetherthepupiliseligibleforafreeschoolmeal,otherkeyinformationaboutthepupilpopulationisnotcollectedandthereforecannotbefactoredintotheanalysis.Thus,itisunclearwhetherboysandgirlsareequallylikelytopresentforschoolmeals,orwhetheruptakeisconsistentacrossyeargroups;thefieldobservationsinAnnex2wouldsuggestnot.Third,followingtheintroductionofuniversalfreeprovisionforallP1-P3pupilsin2015,theutilityofusingentitlementtoFSMsasaproxymeasureforschoolconcentrationofsocio-economicdeprivationorpovertyhasbeencompromised.Theattractionofusingfreeschoolmealeligibilityinthiswayreflectsthatentitlementisdeterminedonthebasisofdefinedbenefits(referto2.2.4a).AlthoughstatisticsonentitlementforpupilsintheP4-P7stagewaspublishedinthe2018census,localenhancementsuchasGlasgowextendingentitlementtoallP4pupilsforschoolyear2018/9,willreducetheutilityofthesedatainthefutureforScotlandasawhole.Similarly,itisworthnotingthatonehalfofalllocalauthoritiesreportedthattheyprovideFSMstoallpupilsinsomeoftheirspecialschools;otherlocalinitiativeshavealsoextendedFSMstosomesecondaryschoolpupilswhodonotmeetthenationalcriteria.Theselimittheusabilityofsomeofthedataasaneffectiveproxymeasureforsocio-economicdeprivation.Ontheotherhand,iflimitationsareacknowledgedandtakenintoaccountinanalysis,thesedataonFSMscanprovideusefulinsights.ThecensusprovidesasnapshotofFSMuptakeandregistration,whichinadditiontobeingofinterestinitsownright,canbelinkedtootherdatasetsinordertoexplorerelationshipswithwiderissuesofinterest,suchasacademicperformanceandhealthoutcomes.10.3–APSE’SPerformanceIndicatorsforEducationCateringinScotlandAPSEcollatesdatafrommemberorganisationsacrosstheUKandthenaggregatesthesefornationalregions(Wales,NorthernIrelandandScotland)andthreeEnglishregions(Central,NorthernandSouthern).All32localauthoritiesinScotlandaremembersofanAPSEperformancenetwork.CateringisoneofthefifteenserviceareasthatAPSEreviews.


TheprocessadministeredbyAPSEforcollectingcateringdataisrobust,whichfulfilsAuditCommissioncriteria,hasbeenusedbygovernmentbodiessuchasAuditScotland,andhasbeenindependentlyvalidatedbytheUniversityofBirmingham.Thisinvolves(i)aworkinggroupofpractitionersreviewingand,asnecessary,revisingdatatobecollectedthatyear;(ii)APSEdistributingstandardisedspreadsheetstomemberswithin-builtvalidationtoensureconsistentdatacollection;and(iii)datacheckingbyAPSEonreceiptofmembers’spreadsheets.APSEproducesarangeofreports,whichenablelocalauthoritymemberstobenchmarkandunderstandtheirperformanceincontext.Theseincludeperformanceindicatorstandingstables,directionoftravelreportsandbestpracticecasestudies.Memberauthoritiescan,onrequest,accessdatainotherformats.APSEalsopublishesasummaryreportforspecificserviceareas,eachofwhichprovideskeydata,keyfindingsandsomedetailedanalysis.Thesummarycateringreportfor2016/17compriseddatafrom20Scottishlocalauthorities,asnotalllocalauthoritiesprovidedataforeveryservicearea.TheparticularindicatorofmostinterestforArePupilBeingServed?isuptakeofschoolmeals;intheAPSEsummaryreport,thisispresentedasanaverage,withhighestandlowestfiguresforthecurrentyear.Insomecases,theaverageisgivenforacrossseveralyears,withthedatanotbrokendowninfurtherdetail.Onthewhole,thesummaryAPSEreportforcateringisacrediblesourceofinformationregardingschoolmealsacrosstheUK.Moregenerally,theAPSEdatahasthepotentialtobethedefinitivesourceofrobustinformationforthesectorinScotland.However,themainlimitationliesbeyondAPSE’scontrol.Asnotedaboveandforexample,only20ofthe32localauthoritiesinScotlandprovidedcateringdatain2016/17.Althoughmemberauthoritiescanaccessthedatafromparticipatingauthoritiesinordertomakemeaningfulcomparison(forexample,inordertomakeinformedcommentontherepresentativenessoftheAPSEScottishsample),itwouldbearichersourceofinsightforschoolmeals/cateringinScotlandasawholeifmoreofthenon-participatinglocalauthoritiespresentedtheirdatatoAPSE.Onbalance,asitstands,itiswithoutquestionausefulstartingpointforanalysisandcomparison,particularlysoforindividualmemberauthoritieswhoprovidecateringdata.10.4-Ad-hocResearchbyASSISTFM10.4.1–ASSISTFM2018SurveyofLocalExpertsinEducationCateringinScotlandIn2018,AssistFMconductedasurveyamongstkeycontactsfromselectedlocalauthoritiesinScotland.Thequestionnaireaskedrespondentsaboutschoolmealsmarketingwithineachlocalauthorityandcomprisedbothclosedandopen-endedquestions.Resultswerepresentedintheformofauser-friendlyspreadsheet.ThedatagatheredbyASSISTFMisusefulinthatitprovidesinsightintolocalauthoritypractices,whichcomplementsothertypesofdatathatarealreadyavailable.Forexample,mostoftheauthoritiessurveyedprovidedayearinwhichtheybegantheirbrandedlunchprogrammes.Thedataisalsovaluableinthatitcanvasseskeyinformantsonwhateach


respectivecouncilfoundtobethemostchallengingaspectofprovidingschoolmeals.Areasforimprovementareclearlyidentified.Furthermore,thelocalauthoritiesthattookpartinthissurveyarebroadlyrepresentativeofScotlandasawhole.Overall,thedatacontainedintheASSISTFMreportisvaluable,especiallyifusedinconjunctionwithotherstatisticsrelatingtoschoolmealsinScotland.Thedataaddsinsightintolocalauthoritiesschoolmealprogrammes,aswellasidentifyingissuesthatshouldbeaddressed.Itprovidesabasisforimprovingthesystemsandinitiatives,whichshapetheprovisionofchildren’sschoolmealsinScotland.10.4.2–ASSISTFMMarketingSurveysinSelectedScottishLocalAuthoritiesFrom2011to2016,ASSISTFMcommissionedTaylorMcKenzietoadministermarketingsurveysinsecondaryschoolsinsixlocalauthoritiesinScotland.ThisquestionnairefocusedonthepupilexperienceandaskedthepupilsabouttheimplementationoftheHungry4successprogrammesintheirschool.Resultswerepresentedinanessaystylereport,withsupplementarycommentary.Thekeyfindingsfromthisworkarere-presentedinAnnex4ofthisreport.Firstandforemost,thesedataarevaluableastheycanvasstheopinionsofchildren,theserviceusers.Mostsignificantly,thesurveyscollecteddatathatenabledabetterunderstandingoftheproblemsthatpresentandreasonsthatunderliechildren’sdecision-making.Thecollectionofthesedataacrossschoolsandacrosslocalauthoritiesaddsanextralayertotheanalysis.Thescaleofsurveyreturnsinstilsadegreeofconfidenceintheresults.However,cautionisurgedinplacingtoomuchstoreinthesesurveyfindings.Noinformationisprovidedonhowthesurveyswereadministered,whichisakeyfactorindeterminingthemannerinwhichpupilsengaged.Likewise,noindicationisgivenonresponseratesortherespondentprofile,whichmakesitdifficulttodeterminewhethertheresultsarerepresentativeofthepupilpopulationasawhole.Thelevelofanalysisisdescriptive,withnoopportunitytakentoexplorewhethertherearekeydifferencesamongthepupilpopulation.Italsonowseveralyearssincesomeofthesesurveyswereadministeredandthecontemporaryvalueofthesedatamaybeopentoquestion.InconclusiontheASSISTFMMarketingsurveys,addressimportantissuesanddirectlycanvassthepupilvoice.Althoughpotentiallyarichdatasource,considerablecautionmustbeurgedinusingthesedatatoinformfuturedecision-making.10.5–FieldObservationsbyGCUStudentsAnnex2reportstencasestudiesoftheoutofschoollunchtimefoodenvironment.ThesearebasedonfieldworkobservationsmadebyGCUstudentsintheautumnof2018,witheachthemedonthedominantissuethatemergedfromthefieldwork.Theycomplementthedataonschoolmealsprovidedinthemainbodyofthereportbyexploringthecompetingattractionsthatliebeyondtheschoolgate.


Degree-levelBASocialSciencesstudentsonworkplacementattheScottishPovertyandInequalityResearchUnitconductedthefieldworkindependently.Priortothefieldwork,studentsweretrainedandbecamefamiliarwiththekeyissuespertainingtoschoolmealsinScotland.Afieldworkplanwassubmittedbyeachstudent/researcherinadvanceandrevisedfollowingfeedbackfromProfessorMcKendrick.Thereportsincludedinthisreportarethefourthiteration;theinitialdraftwasrevisedfollowingfeedbackfromProfessorMcKendrick.SPIRUResearchers(JillMarchbankandTraceyHughes)editedtheseredrafts,beforebeingfinalisedforthisreportbyProfessorMcKendrick.Thesecasestudiesareimpressions,drawnbystudentstypicallyontheschoolthattheythemselvesattendedasapupil.TheyshedinsightintotheattractionsoftheoutofschoolfoodenvironmentandtheproblemsthatitpresentsforthoseconcernedtopromoteschoolmealsinScotland.However,theyarebasedonasingleday’sfieldworkobservation,withallthelimitationsthatthisentails.


11.WhatNext?SomeConcludingThoughts“Asasocietyweexpect–anddemand-thatschoolsprovideeverystudentwiththeresourcesnecessaryforlearning-books,adesk,aqualifiedteacher,asafelearningenvironment.Ofcourse,themostbasicandfundamentalresourcethateverychildneedsinordertolearnisnourishmentforthebrainandbody-anadequateandhealthydietthatsupportslearningandkeepsthechildhealthy.”

(LevinandHewins,2014,p.390)

11.1–OverviewAssistFMtaskedustoreviewtheevidencebasetobetterunderstandtherealitiesandtrendspertainingtotheuptakeofFSMsinScotland.WedrewfromAssistFM’sresearchandevaluationwork,undertookarapidreviewofkeyliteratureandcompletedobservationalfieldcasestudiesoftheoutofschoolfoodenvironmentfortenschoolsinwestcentralScotland.Here,wesummarisethekeyfindingsunderthreeheadings:11.2-Whatdidweknowattheoutset?Althoughbothappliedandacademicresearch-basedknowledgeonfreeschoolsmealsinScotlandisunder-developed,theknowledgebasehasaccumulatedthroughtime.Socialpolicyandpublichealthagenda.Schoolmealsaremorethanthemeanstoprovideeverydaysustenancetochildren;sincetheMillennium,theScottishGovernmenthaspromotedschoolmealsinScotlandasapublichealthinterventionand,morerecently,asananti-povertyintervention.

Changingnatureofschoolsandsociety.Therationaleforprovidingschoolmealsin21stCenturyScotlandissimilartothatwhichunderpinnedtheSchoolMealsActinEdwardianScotland,buttheservicenowoperatesinamarkedlydifferentandrapidlychangingcontext;impactingonthecontemporaryserviceinclude,budgetarypressuresonlocalauthorities,lessoftheschooldaysetasideforlunchtime;controloftheschoolestatenotalwaysrestingwithinthepublicsector/schoolmanagement;greaterawarenessofpublichealthandenvironmentalissues;aconcernwithmeasuringperformance;andagreaterconcerntoviewchildrenasactiveagentswiththerighttoexpresstheirviewsonmattersthatconcernthem.

Scottishgovernmentevidencebase.Theannualschoolmealscensushas,since2003,collecteddataonschoolmeals(uptake),andFSMs(uptake,reachandregistration)allowingstakeholderstobetterunderstandcontemporaryservicereachandtrendsthroughtime.

Anengagedsector.Atalllevels,stakeholdershaveshownawillingnesstoinnovateandtoengageindebatestoimprovetheschoolmealsservice.AssistFM,astheleadingbodyforspecialistsworkinginthesector,hasbeenattheforefrontofthesedebatesandinnovations.

70 ArePupilsBeingServed?

Policycanhavepositiveimpact.TheintroductionofuniversalentitlementtoFSMstoallP1-3pupilsinJanuary2015resultedinastep-changeleadingtoanincreaseintheoverallrateofschoolmealsuptakeinScottishprimaryschools.

11.3-Whatdowenowknowbetter?ThisresearchhasaddednewinsightintokeyissuespertainingtoschoolmealsinScotland.However,theprimarycontributionofthisreporthasbeentore-analyseandreflectonadisparatecollectionofsector-generatedknowledgeonfreeschoolsthathasnotbeendisseminatedtoawideraudience.Here,weconsiderwhatwenowknowbetterintermsofsubstantiveknowledge(11.3.1)andtheresearchbasethatunderpinsthis(11.3.2).11.3.1-Whatdowenowknowbetterandwhathavewelearned?

Bignumbersandbigimpact.Onatypicalschoolday,almost350,000schoolmealsareservedinScotland;themajorityofschoolpupilsinScotlandpresentforaschoolmealeveryday(51%).Morespecifically,onatypicalday,themajorityofpupilsregisteredforFSMsinprimary,secondaryandspecialschoolstypicallypresentforthismeal(76%,60%and77%,respectively).Notfarshortof100,000schoolmealsperdayareservedtopupilswhoareentitledtoafreeschoolmealonaccountoftheirfamilybeingeligibleforsocialsecurity.

Universalprovisiondoesnothaveauniversalreach.ItwasalreadywidelyknownthatuptakeofFSMswashigherinprimarythansecondaryschools,andthatwithineachschoolage-stage,uptakewashigherinsmallerschoolsandschoolsservingareasthatweremoreruralincharacter.Aswellaspresentingtheevidencebasetoconfirmwhatwaswidelyperceived/experienced,thisreportalso(i)notesthecomplexityoftheassociationbetweendeprivationareastatusanduptake,withhigherFSMuptakeassociatedwithprimaryschoolswithgreaterFSMregistration,whereashigherFSMuptakeisassociatedwithsecondaryschoolswithlowerFSMregistration;(ii)themarkeddifferencesinuptakeacrosslocalauthorities;and(iii)themarkeddifferencesincontemporaryuptakeandtrendsacrossindividualschoolsinScotland.

Apluralityofalignmentsandpriorities.Itisclearthatthereisnotalignmentofprioritiesamongkeystakeholders.Theaspirationsoftheschoolcateringservicetoincreasereachanduptakeofschoolmealsdoesnotalwaysalignwithschoolmanagement;indeed,someschoolmanagementrejectsomeofthepracticalstepsrequiredtoachievethis(e.g.preventingfoodpurchasedoutsidebeingconsumedinschooldininghalls;introducingstaggeredlunchbreakstoextendcapacity,etc.).Furthermore,therightsofpupils(particularlyseniorpupils)tochoosewhatandwheretoconsumefoodatlunchtime–whichissupportedbymanyschoolmanagersandpupilsalike–maynotalwaysbeconducivetomaximisinguptakeofschoolmeals.

Averageexperiencesandtrendsarenotuniversallyexperienced.Scotland’sexperienceisnotonethatisuniversallysharedacrossitsschools.Althoughpatternsandtrendscanbediscerned,itisimportanttotakeintoaccounttheuniqueandparticularcontextwithinwhicheachschoolmealsserviceoperates.

ArePupilsBeingServed? 71

Lunchtimeisasocialtime-spaceforyoungpeople.Theobservational,surveyandfocusgroupinterviewevidencewithyoungpeopleattesttotheimportanceoffactorsotherthanfoodinshapingthelunchtimechoicesandexperiencesofsecondaryschoolpupils.Providingopportunitiestobewithfriendsandtobeindependentofthe‘schoolenvironment’arekeyconsiderationsforthesepupils.

11.3.2-Criticalreflectionsontheevidencebase

Schoolmealscensus.TheannualschoolmealscensusisanexcellentresourcethathashelpedtobetterunderstandthediverseexperiencesacrossScotland.However,therearemanysignificantlimitationswiththesedata,whichimplythatsupplementaryanalysisisrequirediftherealityofschoolmealuptakeistobebetterunderstood.Ofparticularnote:(i)theencouragingintroductionoflocalinterventionstoextendfreeschoolmealentitlementinrecentyearsiscompromisingtheutilityofthecensusasastableindicatorofchangethroughtime;(ii)thelackofdisaggregation,notablybyyeargroupandgender,limitsourunderstandingofwhopresentsforschoolmealsandthereasonsforsodoing;(iii)thewelcomeflexibilitythatisexercisedinallowingschoolmealentitlementtobeusedtopurchasemid-morningsnacks,introducessomeuncertaintyinthedegreetowhichthedatacanbeusedtoestimateconsumptionoflunchtimefoodinschool;(iv)theapproachisunabletoaccounttoascertainwhetherthereisaseasonaleffect(aggregationofweathereffects),whichmakesthispoint-in-timeestimate(January/Februaryeveryyear)problematic;and(v)considerationofissuespertainingtothefactthatlocalauthoritygrantfundingispartlybasedonthesedata.

Outofschoolfoodenvironment.Observationalfieldworkandsurveys/interviewswithpupils,schoolmanagementandcateringprofessionalsallattesttotheimportanceoftheout-of-schoolenvironmentin‘pulling’secondaryschoolspupilsawayfromschoolsatlunchtime.Atpresent,thisevidenceisimpressionisticandanecdotal;thereisaneedtounderstandmorepreciselytheimpactoftheoutofschoolenvironmentonschoolmeals.

Theimpactofservicedelivery.Theevidencebaseontheimpactofservice-ledchangesisanecdotal,impressionisticandsuperficial.Ifbestpracticeistobeascertained,sharedandadoptedacrossthesector,thereisaneedtoinvestinmorerobustevaluation.

Canvassingtheperspectivesandexperiencesofkeystakeholders.AssistFMhascommissionedmarketresearch,whichhasengagedcateringprofessionals,schoolmanagementandschoolpupils.However,muchofthisworkisnowdatedandtheresearchdesignisinsufficientlyrobusttoinformdecision-making.Thereisaneedforhighqualityresearchwithallstakeholders(whichwouldalsoincludeparentsandsuppliers)tobetterunderstandthecontemporaryschoolmealexperienceinScotland.

Schoolcateringestate.Thereisgrowinganecdotalevidencethatschoolredevelopmenthasreducedthecapacitytodeliverschoolmealsatlunchtime.Thereisalsoanecdotalevidenceofvariablepracticeinusingschoolspacebeyondadedicated‘lunchspace’.Asforservicedelivery,thereisaneedformostsystematicappraisalofthecapacityoftheschoolestateanddescriptionofthewayinwhichthespacesofschoolsarebeingusedinconjunctionwithschoolmealsprovision.

72 ArePupilsBeingServed?

11.4-Whatneedstohappennow?Mucheffortisbeinginvestedwithinthesectorinexploringissuespertainingtoschoolmeals.Althoughitcouldbearguedthatthereisscopetoincreasetheamountofeffortbeinginvestedintobetterunderstandingtheschoolmealsservice,thekeypriorityisimprovingthequalityofwhatisbeinggeneratedinordertobefit-for-purposetoinformthefuturedevelopmentofpolicyandpractice.Outlieranalysis.Sector-ledanalysisofschooloutliers–bothforScotlandasawhole,amongschooltypes,andwithinlocalauthorities–shouldbeprioritisedinorderthatthesectorcanlearnfromschoolswithatypicalexperiences,bothpositiveandnegative.

Schoolandlocalauthorityreflection.TheSPIRUanalysisprovidesschoolsandlocalauthoritieswiththemeanstobetterunderstandhowtheirexperiencecomparestoothersinScotland.Itwouldbeprudentforthosewithresponsibilityforcateringinschoolstoreflectontheirstanding,relativetoothers.

Morerobustanalysisofuptake.Theclaimstounderstandingmadeonthebasisoftheschoolmealscensusdataalone,arecompromisedbytheuncertaintiesovertheimpactofthewaysinwhichthesedataarecollected.Seriousconsiderationneedstobegiventolayeringthecoredatawithcomplementaryanalysis.

Clarificationofpurposeandre-alignmentofaction.Thereisaneedtomaptheconcernsandperspectivesofstakeholderstoreachasharedcollectivepositiononwhatactionsshouldbetakentoaddresscommonpriorities.

Robustevaluationandsharingofschool-levelpractice.Notwithstandingtheimportanceofschool-levelcontexts,thereisanurgentneedtoconsiderthewayinwhichthelessonsforrobustevaluationofbestpracticecanbesharedeffectivelyacrossallstakeholdersinthesector.


Annex1–ReferencesANDERSEN,S.S.,VASSARD,D.,HAVN,L.N.,DAMSGAARD,C.T.,BILTOFT-JENSEN,A.,&HOLM,L.,2016.

Measuringtheimpactofclassmatesonchildren’slikingofschoolmeals.FoodQualityandPreference,52,87-95.

BBCNEWS,2015.FreeSchoolMealsforPrimaryOnetoThreePupilsinScotland[online].BBCNews.[viewed05February2019].Availablefrom:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-30671988

BBCNEWS,2019.GlasgowCityCouncilAgreesFreeSchoolMealsforP4children[online].BBCNews.[viewed05January2019].Availablefrom:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-43141802.

BEATTIEK,&GILMOREG.2016.,Uptakeandfactorsimpactingondemandforschoolmeals.ResearchBulletinNo.6.Belfast:PublicHealthAgency.[viewed31July2019].Availablefrom:https://www.publichealth.hscni.net/publications/food-school-evaluation

CHAMBERS,S.,DUNDAS,R.,&TORSNEY,B.2016.,Schoolandlocalauthoritycharacteristicsassociatedwithtake-upoffreeschoolmealsinScottishsecondaryschools,2014.ContemporarySocialScience,11(1),52-63.

CHILDPOVERTYACTIONGROUP,2016.,AbolishingHungerAmongChildrenintheUK.[online]CPAG.[viewed17January2019].Availablefrom:http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/CPAG-Poverty153-abolishing-hunger-Winter2016.pdf.

CHILDRENS&YOUNGPEOPLE’SCOMMISSIONERSCOTLAND,2017.,HolidayHungerisaHumanRightsIssue–Scotland'sChildrenHavetheRighttoFood[online]CYPCC.[viewed03February2019].Availablefrom:https://www.cypcs.org.uk/news/in-the-news/holiday-hunger-is-a-human-rights-issue-scotlands-children-have-the-right-to-food

CLEGG,N.,2013.Freeschoollunchforeverychildininfantschool.PressReleasefromDepartmentforEducationandDeputyPrimeMinister’sOffice,17thSeptember2013.[viewed31July2019].Availablefrom:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-school-lunch-for-every-child-in-infant-school.

CPAG&BYC,2019.GoingHungry?YoungPeople’sExperiencesofFreeSchoolMeals[online].ChildPovertyActionGroupandBritishYouthCouncil.[viewed05February2019].Availablefrom:http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/Going%20Hungry%20young%20peoples%20experiences%20of%20Free%20School%20Meals.pdf

CPAG,2019.FreeSchoolMeals[online].ChildPovertyActionGroupinScotland.[viewed05February2019].Availablefrom:http://www.cpag.org.uk/scotland/school-meals

CPAG,2019.TheCostoftheSchoolDay.Glasgow:ChildPovertyActionGroupinScotland.[viewed04February2019].Availablefrom:https://glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=30824&p=0

CRAIG,P.WIMBUSH,E.BEATON,M.KATIKIREDDI,V.JEPSON,R.WILLIAMS,A.&CRAIG,N.,2014.EvaluabilityAssessmentofFreeSchoolMealsforP1-3SchoolchildreninScotland.UnpublishedReport.

DEEDS,C.,2015.FoodforThought:HowFoodInsecurityAffectsaChild’sEducation[online].AmericanYouthPolicyForum.[viewed03February2019].Availablefrom:https://www.aypf.org/blog/food-for-thought-how-food-insecurity-affects-a-childs-education/

EADIE,D.,FORD,A.,STEAD,M.,CHAMBERS,S.,BOYDELL,N.,MOORE,L.&ANDERSON,A.,2016.ProcessEvaluationoftheImplementationofUniversalFreeSchoolMeals:ResearchwithParents.NHSHealthScotland,Edinburgh.


ELLIS,S.,THOMPSON,I.,MCNICHOLL,J.,&THOMSON,J.2016.,Studentteachers’perceptionsoftheeffectsofpovertyonlearners’educationalattainmentandwell-being:perspectivesfromEnglandandScotland.JournalofEducationforTeaching,42(4),483-499.

EVANS,C.&HARPER,C.,2009.AhistoryandreviewofschoolmealstandardsintheUK.JournalofHumanNutritionandDietetics,22(2),pp.89-99.

FORD,A.,EADIE,D.&STEAD,M.,2015.ProcessEvaluationoftheImplementationofUniversalFreeSchoolMeals:ResearchwithParents.NHSHealthScotland,Edinburgh.

FOSTER,D.,2018.‘HolidayHungerShouldbetheShameofthisGovernmentanditisn’t.[online]TheGuardian.[viewed03February2019].Availablefrom:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/25/holiday-hunger-shame-government-childrens-clubs

GORARD,S.,2012.Whoiseligibleforfreeschoolmeals?CharacterisingfreeschoolmealsasameasureofdisadvantageinEngland.BritishEducationalResearchJournal,38(6),1003–1017.

HOLFORD,A.,2015.Take-upoffreeschoolmeals:Priceeffectsandpeereffects.Economica,82(328),976–993

HOMER,K.,2010.SchoolDinnersoraPackedLunch?[online].TheGuardian.[viewed04February2019].Availablefrom:https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2010/sep/01/school-dinner-lunchbox

HORTON,H.,2017.AHugeWasteofMoney’:JeremyCorbyn’s#freeschoolmealsPolicySplitsBritain–WheredoyouStand?[online].TheTelegraph.[viewed05February2019].Availablefrom:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/06/huge-waste-money-jeremy-corbyns-freeschoolmeals-policy-splits/

HUNTER,C.,2019,FreeSchoolMealstobeMadeAvailabletoallPupilsinGlasgowPrimarySchools[online].GlasgowLiveOnline,26thFebruary2019.[viewed31July2019].Availablefrom:https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/free-school-meals-made-available-15886474

JAMES,J.,2012.PeerEffectsinFreeSchoolMeals:Informationorstigma?EuropeanUniversityInstitute.[viewed05February2019].Availablefrom:http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/22560

JONES,C.,2018.TacklingChildhoodObesity:ASharedProblem[online].Ofsted.[viewed05February2019].Availablefrom:https://educationinspection.blog.gov.uk/2018/07/18/tackling-childhood-obesity-a-shared-problem/

JYOTI,D.F.,FRONGILLO,E.A.&JONES,S.J.,2005.Foodinsecurityaffectsschoolchildren’sacademicperformance,weightgainandsocialskills.TheJournalofNutrition.135(12),pp.2831-2839.[viewed03February2019].Availablefrom:https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/135/12/2831/4669915

KELLOGGS,2013.,ALostEducation:TheRealityofHungerintheClassroom.CorporateResponsibilityReport.Manchester:Kelloggs.[viewed15January2019].Availablefrom:https://www.kelloggs.co.uk/content/dam/europe/kelloggs_gb/pdf/R2_Kellogg_A_Lost_Education.pdf[Accessed15Jan.2019].

KIERZENKOWSKI,R.,MACHLICA,G.&FULOP,G.,2018.TheUKproductivitypuzzlethroughthemagnifyingglass:Asectoralperspective,OECDEconomicsDepartmentWorkingPapers,No.1496,OECDPublishing,Paris.[viewed30July2019].Availablefrom:https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/e704ee28-en.pdf?expires=1564590490&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=8873644A3D3028932B77C68904B7A093

LUCAS,P.,PATTERSON,E.,SACKS,G.,BILLICH,N.,&EVANS,C.,2017.Preschoolandschoolmealpolicies:anoverviewofwhatweknowaboutregulation,implementation,andimpactondietintheUK,Sweden,andAustralia.Nutrients.9(7),736-755.


MACDIARMID,J.,LOE,J.,CRAIG,L.,MASSON,L.,HOLMES,B.,&MCNEILL,G.,2009.Mealandsnackingpatternsofschool-agedchildreninScotland.EuropeanJournalofClinicalNutrition.63,1297-1304.

MACEWAN,M.,2018.BasicIncome–FirstStepsinScotlandandWhereAreWeNow?LGIUOnline.[viewedon31July2019].Availablefrom:https://www.lgiuscotland.org.uk/2018/03/21/basic-income-first-steps-in-scotland-where-are-we-now/

MCCAINS,2019.Schools[online].McCains.[viewedon05February2019].Availablefrom:https://www.mccainfoodservice.co.uk/sectors/schools

MCKIE,R.,2008.HowtheMythofFoodMilesHurtsthePlanet.[online]TheGuardian.[viewedon04February2019].Availablefrom:https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/mar/23/food.ethicalliving

MILNE,R.G.,&GIBB,K.,2016.Usingeconomicanalysistoincreasecivicengagement.ContemporarySocialScience.11(1),79-91.

MONTEMAGGI,F.E.,BULLIVANT,S.,&GLACKIN,M.,2016.TheTake-upofFreeSchoolMealsinCatholicSchoolsinEnglandandWales.CatholicResearchForumReportsNumber2.London:StMary’sUniversityTwickenham,[viewed15August2019].Availablefrom:https://www.stmarys.ac.uk/research/centres/benedict-xvi/docs/free-school-meal-report.pdf

MORELLI,C.,SEAMAN,P.,&MORELLI,C.,2010.Devolutionasapolicycrucible:Thecaseofuniversalfreeschoolmeals.Poverty&PublicPolicy.2(1),139-161.

NORRIS,C.,CLAPHAM,M.,DAVIDSON,I.,&WYNESS,L.,2016.Schoolmealcontributiontonutrientintakeamongst11-14yearoldScottishschoolchildren.ECNutrition.4(2),825-835.

NORTHAYRSHIRECOUNCIL,2018.AnnualPerformanceReport2017/18[online].Irvine:NorthAyrshireCouncil.[viewed16December2018].Availablefrom:https://www.north-ayrshire.gov.uk/Documents/CorporateServices/ChiefExecutive/PolicyandPerformance/annual-performance-report-2017-18.pdf

OBESITYACTIONSCOTLAND,2017.SchoolMealsinScotland:Transformingafeedingcultureintoaneatingculture[online].Glasgow:ObesityActionScotland.[viewed14December2018].Availablefrom:http://www.obesityactionscotland.org/media/1109/school-mealstransforming-a-feeding-culture-into-an-eating-culture.pdf

OFSTED,2018.Obesity,HealthyEatingandPhysicalActivityinPrimarySchools[online].Ofsted.[viewed05February2019].Availablefrom:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/726114/Obesity__healthy_eating_and_physical_activity_in_primary_schools_170718.pdf

PAINTER,A.,COOKE,J.,BURBRIDGE,I.&AHMED,A.,2019.ABasicIncomeforScotland.Edinburgh:RSAActionandResearchCentre.[viewed31July2019].Availablefrom:https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/rsa-a-basic-income-for-scotland.pdf

RONA,R.,&CHINN,S.,1989.Schoolmeals,schoolmilkandheightofprimaryschoolchildreninEnglandandScotlandintheeighties.JournalofEpidemiologyandCommunityHealth.43(1),66–71.

SAHOTA,P.,WOODWARD,J.,MOLINARI,R.,&PIKE,J.,2014.Factorsinfluencingtake-upoffreeschoolmealsinprimary-andsecondary-schoolchildreninEngland,PublicHealthNutrition.17(6),1271–1279

SCOTTISHCONSUMERCOUNCIL,2011.FoodinSchoolsConferenceReport.Glasgow.[viewed31July2019].Availablefrom:https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090724140728/http://scotcons.demonweb.co.uk/publications/reports/reports01/rp11food.pdf

SCOTTISHGOVERNMENT,2003.HungryforSuccess-AWholeSchoolApproachtoSchoolMealsinScotland.Edinburgh:ScottishGovernment.


SCOTTISHGOVERNMENT,2006.HungryforSuccess[online].ScottishGovernment.[viewedon04February2019].Availablefrom:https://www2.gov.scot/Publications/2003/02/16273/17574

SCOTTISHGOVERNMENT,2008.HealthyEatinginSchools:AGuidetoImplementingtheNutritionalRequirementsforFoodandDrinksinSchools(Scotland)Regulations2008[online].ScottishGovernment.[viewed05February2019].Availablefrom:https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/guidance/2008/09/healthy-eating-schools-guide-implementing-nutritional-requirements-food-drink-schools/documents/0065394-pdf/0065394-pdf/govscot%3Adocument

SCOTTISHGOVERNMENT,2015.HealthandWellBeinginSchools.Edinburgh:ScottishGovernment.SCOTTISHGOVERNMENT,2018.SchoolMeals[online].ScottishGovernment.[viewed05February

2019].Availablefrom:https://www.mygov.scot/school-meals/SCOTTISHGOVERNMENT,2018a.SchoolMealsDataset2018.[viewed31July2019].Availablefrom:

https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/School-Education/SchoolMealsDatasets/schmeals2018

SCOTTISHGOVERNMENT,2018b.EveryChild,EveryChance:TacklingChildPovertyDeliveryPlan2018-2022[online].ScottishGovernment.[viewed04February2019].Availablefrom:https://www.gov.scot/publications/child-chance-tackling-child-poverty-delivery-plan-2018-22/pages/5/

SCOTTISHGOVERNMENT,2019,DefiningScotlandByRurality.[online]ScottishGovernmentonLine.[viewed31July2019].Availablefrom:https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/About/Methodology/UrbanRuralClassification

SCOTTISHGOVERNMENT,2019.FoodandDrinkEducation.Edinburgh:ScottishGovernment.SEAMAN,C.&MOSS,J.,2006.Generatingeffectivechangeinschoolmeals:acasestudy,Nutrition&

FoodScience.36(5),305-314SNP,2016.,FreeSchoolMealsPutsEqualityatHeartofSNPAgenda[online].SNPOnline.[viewed4

February2019].Availablefrom:https://www.snp.org/free-school-meals-puts-equality/STEWART,J.,2001.ThecampaignforschoolmealsinEdwardianScotland.InLawrence,J.and

Starkey,P.,eds.ChildWelfareandSocialActionintheNineteenthandTwentiethCenturies:InternationalPerspectives.LiverpoolUniversityPress.174-191.

THEACCOUNTSCOMMISSION,2019.LocalGovernmentinScotland.ChallengesandPerformance2019.Edinburgh:AuditScotland.[viewed31July2019].Availablefrom:https://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/uploads/docs/report/2019/nr_190321_local_government_performance.pdf

THECHILDREN’SSOCIETY,2012.FairandSquare:FreeSchoolMealsforallChildreninPoverty[online].TheChildren’sSociety.[viewed03February2019].Availablefrom:https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/what-you-can-do/campaign-change/fair-and-square-free-school-meals-all-children-poverty

VIDINOVA,N.,2018.FirmpromisestoinvestigateclaimschildrenarebeingservedsubstandardfoodinDundeeschools.TheCourier.28February.[viewed14December2018].Availablefrom:https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/dundee/608236/firm-promises-investigate-claims-children-served-substandard-food-dundee-schools/

WALING,M.,OLAFSDOTTIR,A.S.,LAGSTRÖM,H.,WERGEDAHL,H.,JONSSON,B.,OLSSON,C.&HÖRNELL,A.,2016.Schoolmealprovision,health,andcognitivefunctioninaNordicsetting–theProMeal-study:descriptionofmethodologyandtheNordiccontext.Food&NutritionResearch.60(1),30468.

WILLS,W.J.,DANESI,G.,&KAPETANAKI,A.B.,2015.TheInfluenceofDeprivationandtheFoodEnvironmentonFoodandDrinkPurchasedbySecondarySchoolPupilsBeyondtheSchoolGate.ReportforFoodStandardsScotland.


WORLDFOODSUMMIT,1996.InFAO,2006.FoodSecurity[online].FAO.[viewed3February2019].Availablefrom:http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/faoitaly/documents/pdf/pdf_Food_Security_Cocept_Note.pdf


Annex2–OntheStreetCaseStudies

IntroductionWhatfollowsaretencasestudiesofkeyissuesthatpertaintotheout-of-schoolfoodenvironmentfortensecondaryschoolsinwest-centralScotland.

CaseStudy1:AwetweatherlunchtimeinWiilliamwoodLocalAuthority:EastRenfrewshireCouncilWilliamwoodHighSchoolissituatedinthevillageofWaterfootinEastRenfrewshire.Privatehousingandsomefarmlandsurroundtheschool.ThemajorityofresidentialpropertiesinEastRenfrewshireareprivatelyownedwithsmallpocketsofcouncilandsocialhousing.Williamwoodrankedinthe‘topfive’ofScottishpublicschoolsintheSundayTimesSchoolGuide2019.TheschoolhandbookhasclearinstructionsregardingFSMs.S1pupilsarenotallowedtogooutoftheschoolgroundsatlunchtimeandsomusttakepackedlunchesorpresentforschoolmeals.Thecafeteriaoperateswithaswipecardsystemandisavailabletoallpupils.TheschoolwebsiteinformsthatpupilsbringingpackedlunchestoschoolcanusethecanteenorTheStreet(aninsidecommunalarea)toeattheirlunch.However,itisunclearifpupilsreturningtotheschoolwithfoodboughtoutsideofitatlunchtimecaneatthisfoodinsidetheschool.Thewebsiteencouragespupilstoremainintheschoolandtotryschoollunches,stressingthattheschoolprovidesasafediningenvironment.Theexternalcompetitioniswithina15minutewalkfromtheschoolgates.Inonedirectionthereisabakeryandaconveniencestore,andintheoppositedirectionanotherbakery,Co-opandfishandchipshop.Notablythefishandchipshopordinarilyoffersalunchtimedealforpupils,butwasclosedonthedayofobservationsoitwasnotpossibletoascertainhowwidelythisisusedbypupils.Onthedayofobservationtheweatherwaspoorandthismayhavedeterredsomepupilsfromleavingtheschoolatlunchtime.Thesmallgroupswhodidventureoutvisitedthebakeryfirst,withmanythenchoosingtheCo-optobuysnackssuchascrispsandchocolate.OnlytwopupilsusedtheCo-optopurchasesandwichesandpastapots,whichseemedtobethehealthiestfoodpurchasedoutofschool.Allpupils,excepttwogirls,werein5thor6thyear,whichwasidentifiablebythestyleoftheirblazers.Itwasnotedthatallpupilswerewellbehaved.


CaseStudy2:HowdolocalretailersrespondtothedemandsofpupilsfromAllSaintsRCSecondarySchoolatlunchtime?LocalAuthority:GlasgowCityCouncilAllSaintsisasecondaryschoolinBarmullochinthenortheastofGlasgow.Theschoolhasa‘FuelZone’,whichoffersarangeofhealthylunchoptions,aswellasvegetarianandhalalfood.Notfarfromtheschool,aboutafiveminutewalkaway,arearowofshops,comprisingasandwichshop,PostOffice(whichoffersarangeofconfectionaryandinstantnoodles),andaSpar.Anice-creamvanalsoparksclosetotheschoolandasnackvanislocateda10-minutewalkaway.Attheoppositeendoftheschool,thereisacommunitycentrewithasmallcafé,whichisalsoa10-minutewalkaway.Manyofthepupilswholefttheschoolatlunchtimevisitedtherowofshops.Themostpopularfoodspurchasedbypupilsinthesandwichshopwerebreakfastrolls,otherfilledrollsandchips,orchipswithcurrysauce/gravy.Afewgirlspurchasedsaladrolls.However,themostpopularchoicewaschips.Thesandwichshopwassobusyitwasvirtuallyinaccessiblewithinfifteenminutesofthelunchtimebell.Thiscouldexplainwhygroupsofpupilsleftwithnothingmorethanapacketofcrispsandabottleoffizzyjuicefromtheshopnextdoor.Pupilsonlyhave40minutesforlunchandmaynotwanttospendasignificantamountoftimewaitinginaqueueforfood.Tomanagethenumberofpupils,thesandwichshophasa‘trafficmanagement’systeminplace;ordersaretakenatonesideoftheshop,withpupilsbeinggivenacolouredtickettoredeemattheothersideoncetheirfoodisready.However,theseticketsarenotnumbered(inorderofpurchase)whichmeansthatpupilsdonotnecessarilyreceivetheirfoodinorderofpurchase.Thissystemappearstoencourageboisterousbehaviour,asthosewhoaremoreforthrightaremorelikelytoreceivetheirfoodfirst.ThePostOfficeandSparalsohavesystemsinplacetorespondeffectivelytolunchtimedemands.Bothshopshavetubsofnoodlessittingoutwiththelidsalreadypeeledopen;allthepupilshavetodoisfillupthetubwithhotwaterfromthenearbyurnandthenpay.However,theshopschargepupilsforuseofthesefacilities,aswellasforadditionalextras,suchasasturdierplasticforkthantheonegivenwiththenoodles.Asmallernumberofpupils,mostlyseniorboys,preferredtowalktothesnackvanforburgersandbreakfastrolls.Theice-creamvanwaspopularamongpupilsfromthelowerschoolwhowaitedtopurchaseconfectionary,mainlygumsandcrisps.Onlyafewpupilsfrequentedthecommunitycentrecafé,perhapsbecauseitsoldverysimilarfoodtothesandwichshop,butwasfurtheraway.Thisfieldworkwascarriedouton29thOctober2018atlunchtime(between1300-1345).ItwascarriedoutbyanexpupilofAllSaintswho

alsolivesnearbytheshopsthattheschoolpupilsattend.Pupilswereobservedfromacarparkednearby.Thelocalvendorswerealso

approachedafterthefieldworkforadditionalinformation.


CaseStudy3:LunchtimespecialsandfastfoodprovetootemptingforpupilsofStNinian’sHighSchoolLocalAuthority:EastDunbartonshireCouncilSt Ninian’s High School is located in the heart of Kirkintilloch, East Dunbartonshire,approximately200yardsfromthetown’sMainStreet.Theschoolaccommodates800pupilsand,duetotheschoolcatchmentarea,pupilscomefromadiverserangeofsocio-economicbackgrounds. In line with the Scottish Government’s ‘Hungry for Success’ initiative, StNinian’s schoolmealsaim toprovidebalancedandhealthyoptions, lowon sugarand saltwithmenus rotating on a three-week cycle. Confectionary products have been removedfromthemenuandthevolumeof fizzy/carbonateddrinksavailable forpupils topurchasehasbeensubstantiallyreduced.Apricelistofvariouslunchoptionscanbefoundonlineviathe school handbook. The food on offer includes baguettes, Paninis, salads, and bakedpotatoes. However,therearemanyfoodoutletslocatedashortdistancefromtheschool,whicharemuchfrequentedbypupils.Themostvisitedproviders–allofwhicharesituatedonthelowerMainStreet–areGreggs,Subway,SanMarco(chipshop),Dominos,Majella’s(café)andTesco.In particular, SanMarco andGreggswere often frequented. SanMarco offers lunchtimespecials specifically for school children, e.g. £1.00 for chips and cheese or small sausagesuppers.Anoverwhelmingmajorityofcustomerswereboyswhoweremainlybuyingchips.AtGreggs, the ratioofboys togirlswasmoreevenlysplit;pies, sausage rollsandpastrieswere more popular among the boys, whereas the girls were more likely to purchasesandwiches. The duty manager confirmed this observation by commenting that girls,disproportionately to boys, tended to purchase packaged fruit and salad bowls from thestore.Thecafé,Majellas,wasthethirdbusiestoutlet.Theyofferedarangeofoptionssuchasnoodles,sausagerolls,soup,hotdogsandpieswiththemanagerremarkingthatallfoodis oven cooked and that nothingwas fried. Once again,wherewhat is considered to behealthierfoodisoffered,thenumberofgirlsfarexceedsthenumberofboys.Despite offering a two-topping pizza for £1.99 – a lunchtime special for school pupils –Dominoswasnotbusy. Similarly, Subwaydidnotattractagreatdealof custom; the fewwhodidgo thereweremainlygirls (where theycouldbuyacoldsandwichandcookie for£2.00).ProximityandvarietyappeartoplayapartinattractingpupilstofoodprovidersontheMainStreet.Morespecifically,thevalueformoneyofferedthroughlunchtimespecialsandmealdeals appeared to be very tempting for the pupils of St Ninian’s High School. Themostnotableandinterestingdynamicwasthedifferenceinconsumptionbetweenboysandgirls,withgirlsfavouringthehealthieroptions.ObservationsweremadeonKirkintillochMainStreetonFriday2ndNovember2018between12:25and13:10.Asalocalresidentthearea

wasfamiliarandeasilyaccessible


CaseStudy4:Patrollingoutofschoolbehaviour–butnotfoodconsumption–onthestreetsaroundClevedenSecondarySchoolLocalAuthority:GlasgowCityCouncilClevedenSecondarySchoolissituatedonClevedenRoadinKelvindale,inthewestendofGlasgow.Lessthan400yardsfromtheschool,anumberofshopsareopenatlunchtimesandavailablefortheschoolpupils.TheseshopsincludeSpar,Subway,ChickenPalace,ClevedenDeli,GoldenBuckandLondis.ThereisaTescosupermarketjustoveronemileaway.However,asthepupilsonlyreceive40minutesforlunch,theTescosdoesnotseemtobeusedasalunchdestination.Firstyearpupilsarenotpermittedtoleavetheschoolduringlunchtime.Theyeargroupsthatlefttheschooltendedtobebetweensecondandfourthyears,withonlyafewfifthandsixthyearpupilsobserved.Additionally,boysweremorelikelythangirlstoleavetheschoolatlunchtime.ThemostfrequentlyvisitedshopsbypupilswereSpar/Subway(withtheSubwaylocatedinsidetheSpar)andtheChickenPalace-withitsqueuesstretchingoutintothestreetforthemajorityofthelunchperiod.Themostpopularpurchasesweredonnermeatandchips,meatballsubwaysandwiches,andburgers,withcrispsandbottlesoffizzyjuicealsocommonlypurchased.Theoptionschosenbystudentsattheseoutletsaregenerallyunderstoodtobelesshealthythanthoseservedintheschool.TheGoldenBuckoffersacheaplunchtimemenutoenticethepupilstoeatthere.Forexample,saltandchillchickenwithrice,chipsandsauceispricedat£3.70duringtheschoollunchbreak,whereassaltandchillichickenaloneusuallycosts£5.20.TheGoldenBuckappearedtobethethirdmostfrequentlyvisitedfoodoutletduringlunchperiod.Behaviourwaslessorderlyinthisestablishment,withpupilsobservedwritingrisquécommentonthelunchtimemenuinthisoutlet,inordertomaketheirpeerslaughand‘showoff’totheirfriends.Thefoodpurchasesbypupilsdidnotappeartovarybyyeargroup.However,foodchoicesvariedbygender.Femalestendedtopick‘healthier’options,suchasachickensalad,sandwichesandwater,althoughtheywerealsonotaversetobuyinglesshealthyoptions.Interestingly,thestreetwheretheseshopsarelocatedispatrolledbyapoliceofficerduringthelunchperiod.Theofficerwasobservedtellingpupilsoffforlittering–andpromotingtheuseofbins.Attheendoflunch,thepoliceofficerwasalsoseentovisiteachshoptoensurethatnobadbehaviourhadoccurred.Itwasinterestingtoobservethatinsteadofensuringpupilsstaywithintheschoolgroundsforlunch,theschoolandlocalcommunity(evidentthroughthepresenceofthepoliceofficer)focusedoncontrollingbehaviouroutsideofschoolduringthelunchperiod,presumablyinordertominimiseanti-socialbehaviourforthebenefitoflocalresidentsandshopowners.


CaseStudy5:DoesthedashforfastfoodleavelearninglaggingbehindforthepupilsofHolyrood?LocalAuthority:GlasgowCityCouncilHolyroodSecondarySchool,onthesouthsideofGlasgow,isthelargestschoolinScotlandandoneofthelargestinEuropewithover2000pupils.AlthoughaCatholicfaithschool,Holyroodliesattheheartofamulticulturalareaandisculturallyinclusiveasitwelcomespupilsfromalldenominations.Pupilshavereadyaccesstoawiderangeoflunchtimeprovidersoutofschool,althoughpupilsonlyhaveonehour’slunchbreak.Byfocussingonthetimeittakespupilstobuytheirlunch,eatitandgetbacktoschool,thiscasestudyspeculatesonpotentiallearningimpact,asaresultoftheirlunchtimetravels.Aroundone-fifthofthepupilsarefirstyears,whomustremainwithintheschoolgroundsduringthelunchhour.ManyoptionsareavailabletopupilsviaFuelZone,including,freshbaguettes,bakedpotatoes,burgers,curries,pastaandtraditionalhotmeals.Furthermore,HolyroodhasaSchoolNutritionActionGroup(SNAG),whichconsistsofstudentandstaffrepresentativeswhoworktogethertopromotehealthandwell-beingacrosstheschool.Forexample,SNAGintroducedanawardsystemencouragingpupilstochoosehealthyoptionsandfoodsfromavarietyofcultures.Despitetheseeffortstoimproveschoollunches,thevastmajorityofpupilsbeyondS1tendtoheadforapreferredoff-campusdestinationduringthelunchperiod.Pupilstendtoheadinoneoftwodirections:towardsAitkenheadRoadorCathcartRoad.OntheAitkenheadRoadside,thequickestandeasiestdestinationforthepupilstoaccessappearstobetheAsdainToryglen(afiveminutewalk).ThetakeawayshopsatKingsParkarealittlefurtheraway(atenminutewalk).Accessingtheseoutletsmeanthatthepupilscancomfortablypurchasetheirlunch,eatitandgetbacktoschoolintimeforthenextlesson.ItisnotsoquicktoaccessthepreferredeateriesonCathcartRoad.Althoughatitsclosestpointtotheschoolexit,thereareeateriesthatthepupilscanaccessjustasquicklyasthethoseonAitkenheadRoad,manyattemptmuchlongerjourneys.SomepupilsheadstraightforCrosshillstationinordertocatchatraintonearbystationswheretheycantheybuytheirlunchatDominos(inMountFlorida)orMcDonaldsandKFC(nearQueensParkstation).Ononesurveyday,forty-eightpupilswereobservedmakingthisjourney.Twenty-threepupilsreturnedbytrainwithtwentyminutestospare,elevenwithtenminutestospare,andeightpupilscamebackaroundtenminuteslateafterlunch.However,thereweresixpupilsunaccountedfor.Althoughitmayonlyapplytoaminorityofpupils,thetimeittakesforsometotravelandbuytheirlunch,eatitandmakeitbackintimefortheirnextlessonmaypresentproblems,i.e.digestiveissues,behaviouralproblemsandclassdisruption,whichmayresultfrompupilsreturninglatebackfromlunch.Theauthor’schildrenwerepupilsatHolyrood,whichmeanthewasalreadyfamiliarwiththelayoutoftheschoolandthesurrounding

areas.Observationsweremadeonthe5thNovember2018duringtheschoollunchhour(1.10pm-2pm).


CaseStudy6:CongregatingonthestreetatHyndlandLocalAuthority:GlasgowCityCouncilHyndlandSecondarySchool,foundedin1912,islocatedinthewestendofGlasgowintheconstituencyofGlasgowNorth.Itoperatesa‘FuelZone’wherepaymentforschoolfoodisbyswipecardthatcanbetoppedupbyparentsonline;childreneligibleforFSMshavetheircardcrediteddailytothevalueof£1.70andmayaddtothisamountthemselveswithcash.Hyndlandisaconservationareacharacterizedbyredsandstonetenementsandarangeofretailoutlets.Severaloftheseselltake-awayfood,collectivelyofferingawiderangeofoptions.Itwasclearthatthosepupilswholeavetheschoolatlunchtimetendtoseparateintogroupsofboysorgroupsofgirls.Intermsoffood,thepreferenceofthemajorityofpupilsappearedtobePablo’sFishandChipShoporthepizzeriabesideit.Largequeuesformedwhilstaround80pupilsremainonthestreetintheimmediatevicinityoftheseoutlets.Publicseatingisatapremiumsomanypupilschosetostandnearby.Itisunclearifthepupilsaremerelysocializingoriftheyarewaitingforthequeuestosubsidesotheycanthenmakepurchases.Amajorityofgirls,seeminglyundeterredbythecoldweather,remainoutsideeatingfilledrolls.Fromobservation,themealofchoiceischipsorarollandchipswithaminorityorderinganotheritemsuchasfishwithchipsorpizza.


CaseStudy7:IstemptationtoomuchforpupilsofCardinalNewmanHighSchool?LocalAuthority:NorthLanarkshireCouncilCardinalNewmanHighSchoolislocatedashortwalkingdistanceawayfromtheMainStreetofBellshillinNorthLanarkshire.Theschoolrollisjustinexcessof1000pupils.Accordingtotheschoolwebsite,hotandcoldschoolmealdealsareavailablefor£2.05aspartofachoiceofthreemenusthatrotatethroughouttheweek.Althoughthereisacommonapproachacrossthewholeauthority,oncepermontheachschoolcanpresentitsownthemedfoodday.Althoughtheschooloffersarangeofnutritionallyattractiveoptionsataffordableprices,alargeproportionofpupilsstillchoosetoeatelsewhere.Iobservedthatthecloseproximityofthefastfoodoutletstotheschoolappearstobeamajorpullfactorforstudentsandthatthemajorityofpupilsoutwiththeschoolatlunchtimewereboys.TheMainStreetofBellshill,whichiseasilyaccessiblefromtheschool,comprisesarowoffastfoodoutletsincludingGreggs,Subway,achipshop,aconveniencestoreandadeli.Eachindividualshophadaqueueofpupilsstretchingbeyondeachentrance,althoughthedeliwastheleastbusywithschoolpupils.ThegirlsmainlywenttoSubway,withonlyoneboybeingobservedthere.Subwayoffersstudentsacoldsandwichmealdealfor£1.99orahotonefor£2.99.ThemostpopulardestinationseemedtobeGreggs,whichofferspupilsafreecakeorsausagerollwitha£3sandwichmealdeal;evenso,mostofthepupilswerebuyingsausagerollsorsteakbakes.LessaccessibleisthelocalMcDonalds,whichislocatedattheothersideofdualcarriageway,requiringthepupilstonegotiateaverybusyroundaboutfromwhichtrafficconnectstothecarriagewaybelow.ThemajorityofpupilspurchasingfromMcDonaldswereboyswhowererecklesscrossingtheroadenroute.Themajorityofpupilswhowereobservedsmokingweregirls.Thiscouldpossiblybeoneoftheirreasonsforthemleavingtheschoolpremisesinthefirstplace(assmokingisprohibitedonschoolgrounds).


CaseStudy8:ThegenderdivideatSaintPetersLocalAuthority:WestDunbartonshireCouncilSaintPetertheApostleHighSchoolislocatedinthebusyneighbourhoodofDrumry,tothenorthofClydebank(WestDunbartonshire).Despitetheschool’srelativelyisolatedlocationandpoorroadconnectionstothecentralshoppingareainthetown,itissurroundedbymanyshopsandfast-foodrestaurants,whichthepupilscanreadilyaccesswhentheyleavetheschoolgrounds.Mostpupilscomefromsurroundingneighbourhoods,givingtheschoolamixedsocialprofile.Theschoolwebsitedoesnotprovidedetailsofthelunchoptionsthatareonoffer.Intheschoolhandbook,thereisabriefmentionofFreeSchoolMealEntitlementandhowmoreinformationonthiscouldbefoundontheLocalAuthoritywebsite.Thiscasestudymakesreferencetofiveareas(consistingofeightfoodoutlets)thatpupilstendedtofrequentinlargenumbers.Thefirstareaoffocusislocated25mfromtheschool’sgateandconsistsoftwofoodoutlets,anice-creamvanandafishandchipvan.Thesewerebyfarthebusiestlunchtimelocationswithperhapsasmanyas150-200pupilsvisitingintotal.Althoughpupilsofallageswereobserved,thereappearedtobeagenderdivide.Forexample,atthefishandchipvanthereweretwoseparatequeues–oneforeachgender.Similarly,atthestartoflunchbreak,theice-creamvanhadonequeue,primarilyconsistingofboys,andasthisqueuecleared,girlswouldbegintoformaqueue.Bytheendofthelunchperiod,roughlyequalnumbersoffemalesandmaleshadvisitedeachvan.Anotherthreeareashadsixfoodoutletsincloseproximitytooneanother.ThesewerethedelicatessenandSpar,theKilbowiecaféandanotherSpar,theChipshopandCo-op.Theselunchspotswerebetween100-150mawayfromtheschoolgroundsandeachoftheselocationshadapproximately75-100pupilsvisitduringthelunchperiod.Thisgroupconsistedprimarilyofyoungermales(around80%).ThefinalareathatwasvisitedwasfurtherawayatClydebankshoppingcentre(approximately1.2kmaway),withthekeyattractionsbeingGreggsandSubway.Despitethisdistance,around50pupilsvisitedthislocationforlunch.Whilstsomepupilswalkedtothecentre,theclearmajorityofpupilswereobserveddisembarkingthebusthatrunspasttheschool.Evenfewerpupilswereobservedwalkingbacktoschool,withmostpupilsgettingthesamebusback.However,threegroupsoffourorfivesenior,malepupilssharedataxithattheyhiredfromanearbyrank.Itisinterestingtonotethedifferencesingenderatthevariousfoodoutlets,mostnotablyattheice-creamvanandfishandchipvan.TheareaconsistingofGreggsandSubwayalsosuggeststhelengthspupilsarewillingtogoto,particularlymalepupils,toacquireunhealthyfood,despite(healthyand)cheaperalternativesbeingavailablewithintheschool.Theauthorwasaformerpupiloftheschool.Observationswerecarriedoutbetweenthe22ndandthe26thofOctober2018,duringthe

hoursof12.35and1.20(thepupil’slunchperiod).Ipaidparticularattentiontopupilnumbers,aswellasageandthegender


CaseStudy9:LunchtimeintheparkatTrinityLocalAuthority:EdinburghCityCouncilTrinityAcademyissituatedinthenorthofEdinburgh.Theschoolisattheheartofaquiet,middleclasssuburbanneighbourhoodandenjoysthebenefitofVictoriaParklocatedopposite.ThecatchmentalsoincludespartsofthemoretraditionallyworkingclassareaofLeith.AlthoughtheschoolwebsitepromotesthequalityofschoolmealsatTrinity,itdoesnotmentionFSMsorhowtoclaimthem.PaymentisbytheonlineParentPayfacilityorbyaweekly,monthlyortermlycheque,whichusefullyallowsparentstotopuptheirchild’sswipecard.Parentsalsohavetheoptionofcheckingtheitemsthattheirchildispurchasing.Thereisnomentionofwhetherthechildrencantopthecardupthemselvesorifthecardcanbetoppedupdaily,whichmaybeusefultothosefamilieswhosefinancesareinsecure.Theschoolhandbookappearsonlytobeavailablebydownloadingadedicatedschoolapp;thismaycontainmoreinformationaboutschoolmealsatTrinity.Severalfoodanddrinkoutletsareadjacenttotheschoolandthepark.ClosetothemainentranceonCraighallRoadisasmallbutbusySainsburysstorefromwhichaqueueofpupilsextendsintothestreetatlunchtime.ThereisalsoanewsagentandabakerynearbyatNewhavenHarbour.Furtheronisa24hrAsdaofferingmealdeals,aswellastheextensiverangeofproductsthatischaracteristicofasuperstore.OnNewhavenRoadtherearealsotwodelis,Ollie’sCaféandTheMulberryBush,bothofwhichtargetpupilswithspeciallunchtimeprices.Thedelisweresellingboxesofchipsfor£1andcansofjuicefor50passpecialofferstoschoolpupils.Similarly,thelocalbakerysellspiesandpastriesfor£1andAsdaofferswholeboxesofdonutsandbakedgoodsforpricesthatstartatlessthan£1.Italsosellspre-cookedchickenwingsfor£1.50,withtheAsdacafésellingpizzaslicesat£1.50andjacketpotatoesfrom£1.Apartfromthepotentialsavingstobemadebypurchasingfoodoutwithschool,thepupilsalsousetheopportunitytosocialisewiththeirpeersawayfromthescrutinyofschoolstaff.Indeed,manypupilswereobservedeatinghomemadepackedlunchesoutsidethebakeryorinthepark.Moreagainwereintheparkeatingonlycrispsanddrinkingjuice,andsomewereplayingfootballontheAstroturfandwerenotobservedtoconsumeanyfoodordrink.Ofthoseseentobeeating,thechoicesweremoreakintoasnackthanamiddaymeal.Anumberofpupilswereobservedsmoking,whichwouldnotbepermittedonschoolgrounds.Itispossiblethatontheobservationdaythegoodweatherencouragedmorepupilstoeatoutdoorsthanatothertimes.


CaseStudy10:OptiontoheatuptheirownlunchesLocalAuthority:SouthAyrshireCouncilPrestwickAcademyisinPrestwick,acoastaltownthatborderswiththelargertownofAyrinSouthAyrshire.PrestwickAcademy’swebsiteinformsthatafreshlypreparedsetlunchcosts£2.25.Furtherlinksrevealmenus,oneofwhichincludessnacksanddrinksatlowerprices.InformationonhowtoclaimFSMsisnotavailable.Noteworthyisaletterfromtheheadteacherencouragingpupilstomakehealthymealchoiceswithintheschool.Anincentivethatranfromthestartoftheschoolyearuntil31stAugust2018,gaveallS1pupilsavouchertotryaschoolmealforfree,inabidtoencouragethemtoremaininschoolandchoosethehealthyoptionsavailable.Itisnotpossiblefromthewebsitetoascertainifthisinitiativewassuccessful.Incloseproximitytotheschoolisarangeofretailoutletsincluding:Greggs,MamaMia’sChipShop,KebabHouse,JBrownNewsagents,TescoExpress,PicnicBasketandTaste.Interestingly,duringschoollunchtimeBryson’sGarageprovidesfacilitiessuchaskettlesandmicrowaves,whichpupilscanusetoheatuptheirownlunch.ThemajorityofthepupilsusingthevariousfoodoutletswerebetweenS1andS4,thiscanbeclearlyobserved,asuniformsofS5andS6aredifferenttothoseoftheloweryeargroups.Thepopularmealchoiceswerepizza,chipsandcheese,kebabmeatandchips.

ConclusionItisclearthattheoutofschoolfoodenvironmentispopularamongmanysecondaryschoolpupilsatlunchtime.Privatesectorprovidersoftenofferthefoodstuffsthatarenotavailablewithinschools.Theyalsoorganisetheirservicetomanagethehighturnover,withticketingsystemsandprovidingequipment(kettlesandmicrowaves)andconsumables(strongerplasticforks)toencourageconsumption.Someofthewaysinwhichtheseservicesareprovided(orutilised)aregenderedfornodeterminingreasons,e.g.theseparateboysandgirlsqueues,andthesequencedqueuesofboys,thengirlsatthevansinWestDunbartonshire.Recognitiontoomustbegiventotheattractionsoftheoutofschoolenvironmentthatextendbeyondthefoodprovided.Lunchtimeisasocialtime-space,inwhichfriendshipgroups(typicallybyageandgender)meetandinteract.Itprovidesanopportunityfordesiredactivitythatisnotpermittedinschool(e.g.smoking)andforactivityforwhichspacesoutsideofschoolmaybebettersuited(e.g.playingfootballintheparkbesideTrinityHighinEdinburgh).


Annex3–IntheSchoolCaseStudies

IntroductionWhatfollowsaresummaryreportsfromresearchundertakenonbehalfofAssistFMinsixScottishlocalauthoritiessince2011.Beforehand,someofthekeyfindingsaresummarisedacrossfourtables,whicharedrawnuponinthecasestudiesthatfollow.Theoriginalworkwasundertakentoinformmarketingstrategiesthatcouldthereafterbedeployedtoencouragemoresecondaryschoolpupilstopresentforschoolmeals.Althoughdesignedtoachievethisend,andnotwithstandingthelimitationsintheresearchdesign(10.4.2),theworkenablesustobetterunderstandtheperspectivesofyoungpeopleandseniorstaffwithineachschoolcommunity.Theoriginalreportsvaryincontent.Noreportprovidescomprehensivecoverageofallsecondaryschoolswithinitslocalauthority.Here,weprovideasinglepagesummaryofthemostpertinentpointsforeachlocalauthority.


Table8:Frequencywithwhichpresentedforschooldinners

Never

Occasionally

Once/week

Twice/weekly

Thrice/weekly

Four

times/w

eekly

Daily

Dumfries&Galloway StranraerAcademy 34 14 6 4 3 10 29WallaceHall 5 13 0 13 5 10 55DumfriesHigh 14 13 0 9 2 9 53Annan 28 28 4 6 4 7 17Inverclyde GreenockAcademy 18 10 2 6 6 10 48InverclydeAcademy 35 39 2 10 4 2 8GourockAcademy 25 19 2 6 10 6 31PortGlasgowAcademy 12 33 7 2 15 4 25StStephensAcademy 18 5 4 5 8 12 48NorthAyrshire KilwinningAcademy 44 34 7 5 5 3 7AuchenharvieAcad. 29 19 4 6 10 14 18ArdrossanAcademy 25 20 10 5 16 6 15StMatthewsAcademy 24 24 9 3 6 15 21GarnockAcademy 18 19 5 7 8 7 31IrvineRoyalAcademy 27 24 2 0 12 7 27LargsAcademy 6 6 4 12 8 29 31GreenwoodAcademy 15 28 17 11 7 7 13Note:Cellsindicatethepercentageofpupilswhoindicatethisasthefrequencywithwhichtheypresentedforschoolmeals.Themostcommonfrequencyineachschoolishighlighted(boldanddarkgreyhighlighting).Issuespertainingtothequalityofthesedataarediscussedinchapter10ofthisreport.


Table9:Pupils’mainreasonfornoteatingschoolmeals

Don’tlikefood

Meetfriends

Liketogoout

Diningroom

Poorfood Waiting Other

Dumfries&Galloway StranraerAcademy 21 14 10 11 13 32 /WallaceHall 6 15 13 8 6 52 /DumfriesHigh 16 12 12 12 15 31 /Annan 21 33 22 7 7 9 /Inverclyde GreenockAcademy 17 11 3 13 10 38 7InverclydeAcademy 18 20 14 5 10 18 17GourockAcademy 10 15 14 11 9 19 20PortGlasgowAcademy 22 19 15 10 4 12 17StStephensAcademy 28 16 10 3 9 18 15NorthAyrshire KilwinningAcademy 18 12 12 9 14 20 12AuchenharvieAcad. 20 11 20 4 11 23 7ArdrossanAcademy 20 11 18 8 13 16 14StMatthewsAcademy 13 15 19 13 6 31 4GarnockAcademy 20 7 9 4 6 37 18IrvineRoyalAcademy 22 22 10 7 5 25 10LargsAcademy 5 7 16 21 2 46 9GreenwoodAcademy 16 9 9 6 8 35 14Note:Cellsindicatethepercentageofpupilswhoindicatethefactorasthemainreason.Themostimportantreasonineachschoolishighlighted(boldanddarkgreyhighlighting).Issuespertainingtothequalityofthesedataarediscussedinchapter10ofthisreport.


Table10:Pupilevaluationsofthecontemporaryschooldiningenvironment

Service Variety Healthy Quality Waiting Environ. PriceDumfries&Galloway StranraerAcademy 3.58 2.86 3.47 2.79 2.16 2.75 2.60WallaceHall 3.95 3.26 3.69 3.49 1.88 2.51 3.02DumfriesHigh 3.75 3.02 3.20 3.11 3.01 2.52 2.53Annan 4.00 3.45 3.76 3.45 3.23 3.41 3.32Inverclyde GreenockAcademy 3.44 3.48 3.63 3.39 2.33 2.86 3.08InverclydeAcademy 2.65 2.28 3.47 2.59 2.22 3.07 3.04GourockAcademy 3.22 3.08 3.21 3.02 2.81 2.57 2.70PortGlasgowAcademy 2.78 3.76 3.21 3.07 2.40 2.68 2.33StStephensAcademy 3.35 3.41 3.59 3.09 2.32 3.14 2.83NorthAyrshire KilwinningAcademy 3.08 2.80 3.28 2.88 1.74 2.86 3.06AuchenharvieAcad. 3.55 3.00 3.61 3.13 2.29 3.94 3.26ArdrossanAcademy 3.17 2.50 3.03 2.59 2.14 3.18 3.08StMatthewsAcademy 3.08 3.39 3.12 3.66 2.22 2.86 3.01GarnockAcademy 3.03 2.82 2.74 2.92 2.16 2.69 2.65IrvineRoyalAcademy 3.33 3.35 3.52 3.03 2.64 3.10 2.93LargsAcademy 4.21 3.51 3.54 3.82 2.53 3.16 3.43GreenwoodAcademy 3.00 2.93 3.27 2.76 1.86 2.65 2.70Note:Cellsaretheaverageratingonascaleof1(low)to5(high)bypupilssurveyed.Highestrating(boldanddarkgreyhighlighting)andlowestrating(boldandlightgreyhighlighted)areindicatedforeachcriterion.Issuespertainingtothequalityofthesedataarediscussedinchapter10ofthisreport.


Table11:Pupilevaluationsoftheextenttowhichfactorscouldimproveuptakeofschoolmealsintheirschool

Plasma

screen

Larger

men

u

More

choices

Lower

prices

Split

spen

d

Better

décor

Improve

seating

Prize

draw

s

Faster

service

Rewards

Inverclyde GreenockAcademy 3.56 3.57 3.92 3.76 2.98 3.10 3.70 2.93 3.51 2.60InverclydeAcademy 3.45 3.78 4.02 3.90 3.40 2.88 3.11 3.40 3.65 2.52GourockAcademy 3.26 3.64 3.72 3.85 3.52 3.15 3.73 3.04 3.54 2.91PortGlasgowAcademy 4.61 4.00 4.10 3.95 4.00 3.93 4.01 3.56 4.00 3.91StStephensAcademy 3.64 3.42 3.71 3.79 3.39 3.24 3.40 3.16 3.63 2.95NorthAyrshire KilwinningAcademy 3.05 3.52 3.62 3.83 3.34 2.87 2.96 2.31 4.36 2.58AuchenharvieAcad. 3.57 3.53 3.76 3.74 3.99 2.63 3.51 3.18 4.02 3.10ArdrossanAcademy 3.62 3.65 4.35 4.15 3.61 3.24 3.57 2.65 3.47 2.35StMatthewsAcademy 3.70 3.55 3.16 3.93 4.02 3.41 3.61 2.96 4.36 2.83GarnockAcademy 3.87 3.75 4.01 4.01 3.95 3.51 3.48 3.27 4.02 2.58IrvineRoyalAcademy 3.79 3.55 3.95 3.64 3.54 3.25 3.00 3.23 4.08 2.64LargsAcademy 4.20 4.13 4.24 4.18 3.97 3.24 3.87 2.97 4.43 3.10GreenwoodAcademy 3.03 3.80 3.90 3.90 3.45 3.12 3.89 2.88 4.33 2.78Note:Cellsaretheaverageratingonascaleof1(low)to5(high)bypupilssurveyed.Thecriterionratedmosthighlyineachschoolishighlighted.Issuespertainingtothequalityofthesedataarediscussedinchapter10ofthisreport.


CaseStudy1:DumfriesandGallowayAsbackgroundworkforthepreparationofamarketingstrategy,TotalizeMediaconductedresearchin2011insixschools.ThisinvolvedaninterviewwithstaffresponsiblefortheserviceacrosstheCouncil,interviewswithCateringManagersinthesixschoolsvisitedandsurveyresultsfrompupilsinfouroftheseschools.Anypertinentpointsabouttheorganisationofschoolmealsprovision?• ThesixteenschoolsinDumfries&Gallowaywereclassifiedintothreegroupsonaccountof

schoolmealuptake.Atthetimeoftheresearch,planswereinplacetoprovideadeli-stylemenuinschoolswithallbutthehighestlevelofuptake,inordertoreducewasteandstaffhours.A-classschoolswithhighuptakeweretomaintainathree-weekmenucycle,withgreaterchoice.

• SchoolmealsbrandingislesswidelyusedinPPPschools.• Noschoolshaveastaggeredlunchhour,• Thepracticesof(i)allowingpupilstotakefoodoutofdiningareas(ii)pre-ordering,and(iii)

permittingpupilstobringexternallypurchasedfoodintoschool,varyacrossschools.• Noschoolhassufficientseatingforallpupils;atCastleDouglasthereare50seatsfor576pupils.• Inallschools,pupilsentitledtoFSMscanusetheirallocationduringthemid-morningbreak• Mid-morningbreakuptakebyfreemealspupilsisnotincludedinthelunchtimetake-upfigures.• Lunchtimehasreducedinrecentyears.• TotalizemediaconcludethattheschoolsarefallingshortofthestandardssetinH4S.Whatisthoughttoworkwellbytheserviceproviders?• Atsomeschoolsfirstyearpupilshaveaccessbeforeothergroups,whichisthoughttohelpwith

flowandturnover.• IntroducingcashtillsatStranraeristhoughttohaveincreaseduptakeamongpupilsWhatisthoughttoworklesswellbytheserviceproviders?• Prefectswhoarenottrainedtosupervisethelunchhourmightbeadisincentiveastheyarevery

strict.• Pupilsarethoughtnottounderstandthemealdealsystem.• Thecostofschoolfood(£1.80foramealdeal)isthoughttobeinexcessofthemoneythatsome

pupilsbringtoschoolforfood,forcingthemtogooutside.• Inoneschoolitisestimatedthattherehasbeenasignificantfallinuptakefollowingthe

implementationoftheHealthandNutritionAct• ThecashlessonlysystemisthoughttobeadisincentiveWhatdopupilsthink?• Pupilevaluationsvariedmarkedlyacrossschools;oftheseven‘diningenvironment’elements

rated,servicewasthemostfavourablyratedineachschoolandwaitingtimestheleastfavourablyratedinmostschools(Table7).

• WaitingtimeswerealsolistedasthemainreasonfornoteatingschoolmealsbyslightlymorethanonehalfofpupilsinWallaceHall(Table6).

• Thefrequencywithwhichpupilsusedschooldinnersvariedmarkedlyacrossschools(Table5).• Themajorityofpupilsineachschoolwouldliketopaywithcash.


CaseStudy2:InverclydeAsCaseStudy1,asbackgroundworkforthepreparationofamarketingstrategy,TotalizeMediaconductedresearchinfiveofInverclyde’ssevenschoolsin2011.ThisinvolvedaninterviewwithCateringstaffandadministeringasurveywithpupilsintheschoolsvisited.Anypertinentpointsabouttheorganisationofschoolmealsprovision?• Noschoolmealsbranding• Noschoolshaveapre-ordersystem• Allschoolsuseacashlesssystem• Thepracticesofallowingpupilstotakefoodoutvaryacrossschools.• Noschoolhassufficientseatingforallpupils;atPortGlasgowthereare20seatsfor458pupils.• Inallschools,pupilsentitledtoFSMscanusetheirallocationduringthemid-morningbreak• Schoolsreportedadayoftheweekeffect,withservicebeingreportedtobebusieroncertain

days(typicallyMondayandThursday).• Schoolsreportedthattheweatherhadasignificantimpactonuptake• Notaffordingpurchasesthatarenotforthefullmealdealisthoughttoreducefootfall.• TotalizeMediaconcludethattheschoolsarefallingshortofthestandardssetinH4S.• Theverydifferentcontexts–intermsofoutofschoolfoodenvironment,schoolestateandinthe

socio-economicmixinschools–isthoughttoleadtoverydifferentchallengesandexperiencesacrosssecondaryschoolsinInverclyde.

• Inadditiontonothavingenoughseats,itisobservedthatthelayoutofseatingdoesnotenablepeergroupstohavesufficientspacetocongregate–withbeingabletomeetfriendsnotedasanimportantreasonforsomefornoteatingschoolmeals.

Whatisthoughttoworklesswellbytheserviceproviders?• Notsellingfizzydrinksisthoughttoencouragepupilstoconsumeelsewhere.• ThecashlessonlysystemisthoughttobeadisincentiveWhatdopupilsthink?• Pupilevaluationswerebroadlycomparableacrossschools,withthe‘healthiness’ofthefood

beinggenerallyhighlyrated.Bywayofexception,thevarietyoffoodwashighlyratedinStStephens,butpoorlyratedinInverclyde(Table7).

• Themainreasonfornoteatingschoolmealsvariedacrossschools–awiderangeoffactorswerenotedinInverclyde,food-relatedconcernsweremoreprevalentinGreenockandStStephens,whilewaitingtimeswasmoreofanissueinGreenockAcademy(Table6).

• Thefrequencywithwhichpupilsusedschooldinnersvariedmarkedlyacrossschools(Table5),withInverclydeAcademycharacterisedbylowuse(35%neverand39%occasional),incontrasttoStStephen’s(10%fourtimes/weekand48%daily).

• Pupilswereoftenstronglyinfavourofparticulardevelopmentstoencourageuptakeofschoolmeals,withplasmascreensbeingstronglyratedinPortGlasgow.Morechoicewasalsoconsideredanattractiveincentiveforuptakeacrossallschools.(Table8).


CaseStudy3:NorthAyrshireAsCaseStudy1,theresearchwasundertakenasbackgroundworkforthepreparationofamarketingstrategy;TotalizeMediaconductedresearchineightofNorthAyrshire’snineschoolsin2011.Thisinvolvedaninterviewwithseniorstaff,threefocusgroupswithpupilsandsurveyresearchineightschools(pupilsintheislandschoolwerenotsurveyed).Anypertinentpointsabouttheorganisationofschoolmealsprovision?• Headteachers,citinginsufficientdemand,didnotfavourstaggeredlunchhours.• Thepracticesof(i)allowingpupilstotakefoodoutand(ii)permittingpupilstobringexternally

purchasedfoodintoschool,varyacrossschools.• Noschoolhasclosetotheequivalentofoneseatperpupil;atGreenwoodthereare280seatsfor

1610pupils,with450takinglunch.However,noconcernwasexpressedthatthiswasinsufficient.

• Lunchtimewassettobereducedinseveralschools.• TotalizeMediaconcludethattheschoolsarefallingshortofthestandardssetinH4S.Whatisthoughttoworkwellbytheserviceproviders?• Schoolmealsbrandingand‘mimicking’retailoutletsisthoughttobehelpful• Atsomeschoolspre-ordersystemsarethoughttoworkwell.• Seatingyeargroupsseparatelyisthoughttowork,withsomeschoolsseparatingS1/2,andothers

providingseparatespaceforseniorpupils.• Seatingisnotperceivedtobeaproblem.• Thequalityofserviceprovided-staff,productandenvironment–isconsideredtobeastrengthWhatisthoughttoworklesswellbytheserviceproviders?• Concernwasexpressedoverpackagingwaste,particularlygiventheschool’seco-schoolstatus.• Thegovernmentrestrictionsonfoodstandardswerereportedbyoneseniorschoolstaffmember

tobethemaindisincentivetopupilseatinginschool.Whatdopupilsthink?• Therevalunitforthecashlesssystemwascriticised(particularlyfortimetakentouse),with

pupilsexpressingthattheywouldratherusecash.• Pupilswelcometheconceptofacoffeebar.• Waitingtimeswasacknowledgedasamajordisincentive,aswerethedifficultiesinbeingableto

sitalongsidefriends.• Litteringwasaccepted,withsomeexpressingtheopinionthatitwas‘notcool’toputwastein

bins.• Someconcernwasexpressedatthewayinwhichtheservicewasoperated.• Pupilevaluationsvariedmarkedlyacrossschools;oftheseven‘diningenvironment’elements

rated,servicewashighlyratedinmostschoolsandwaitingtimestheleastfavourablyratedinmostschools,withparticularlylowratingsinKilwinningandGreenwood(Table7).

• Waitingtimeswasthemostcommonmainreasonfornoteatingschoolmealsinmostschools(theexceptionwasAuchenharviewheremorereportedthatthey“didnotlikethefood”(Table6).

• Thefrequencywithwhichpupilsusedschooldinnersvariedmarkedlyacrossschools(Table5),althoughnon-usewasparticularhighinKilwinningAcademy(44%neverused).


CaseStudy4:RenfrewshireAsCaseStudy1,theresearchwasundertakenasbackgroundworkforthepreparationofamarketingstrategy,TotalizeMediaconductedresearchinRenfrewshireschoolsin2011.Noinformationisprovidedontheworkundertaken,althoughextractsarepresented,fromwhichthissummaryhasbeendeveloped.Anypertinentpointsabouttheorganisationofschoolmealsprovision?• Theoutofschoolenvironmentdiffersmarkedlyacrossschools,impactingonthelikelihoodof

pupilspresentingforschoolmeals.• Similarly,thediningenvironmentvariesacrossschools.• Howpupilsspendvariesacrossschools,withmealdealsbeingmorecommoninsomeschools

(e.g.RenfrewshireHigh),whereasindividualitempurchaseismorecommoninothers(e.g.Castlehead).

• Thepracticesofallowingpupilstotakefoodoutofhallsvaryacrossschools;wherepermitted,thisisreportedtoreducethepressureonspaceintheschooldininghall.

• Itissuggestedthatschoolmealuptakedirectlyreflectstheproportionofseatsthatareavailabletopupils(with,forexample,highuptake/highproportionofseatsperpupilinCastleheadandlowuptake/lowproportionofseatsperpupilinPaisleyGrammar);however,thisconclusionisnotstrictlyaccurateandthereareanomalies,e.g.uptakeishighinGryffe(49%),despitehavingalowproportionofseatsperpupil(22%).

• Thereductionoflunchtimehasexacerbatedtheproblemsindeliveringschoolmeals.• Headteachersarenotkeentostaggerschoollunchhours.• Itisreportedthattheguidelinesarebeing‘stretched’insomeschools.• Concernisexpressedthatthemanagementandoperationoftheserviceisnottothesame

standardascommercialoperators.• ItisnotedthatthecostoftheschoolmealishigherthanmostotherareasinScotland(at£2.30,

twicethecostofwhatamealcostsinGlasgow,forexample).Whatdopupilsthink?• Pupilsexpressedtheopinionthatthecostofschoolfoodwastoohigh.• Pupilsarereportedasbeingcriticaloftheambianceintheschooldiningenvironment.• Asenseofinjusticeisreportedbythosepresentingforschoolmeals,asthosewhobringpacked

lunchesareabletosecurealunchspacebeforethem.• Thereismuchuncertaintyamongpupilsastowhatthemealdealcomprises.• Foodproductisratedwellandisnotthoughttobethemainreasonwhypupilseatoutofschool;

ratherpeerpressure,price,wantingtogetoutofschoolandtheschooldininghallbeingtoobusyascitedasthe‘push’factors.

• Pupilsaredissatisfiedattherange,sizeandtypeofdrinksonoffer.


CaseStudy5:StirlingIn2015,StirlingCounciladoptedforanoriginalandparticipativeapproachwhenreviewingtheirowncateringbrandasitreacheditstenyearanniversary.ADragon’sDenprojectwasorganisedinwhichpupilspresentedabusinesscasefortheirproposedchangestotheoperation.Anypertinentpointsabouttheorganisationofschoolmealsprovision?• Althoughtheexistingbrandwasrecognised(Fresh),itdidnotresonatewiththepupils.• Thekitchenareasareconsideredtobetoosmalltoallowthecateringservicetoadequately

meettheneedsofschoolpupils.WhatisthoughttoworklesswellbytheTotalizewhenreflectingontheprovisioninStirling?• Itissuggestedthatitwouldbebettertotryanddevelop/presentthediningroomspaceasa

uniquespace,ratherthanadiningroomwithinaschool.• Similarly,itissuggestedthatthereisaneedtotreatthepupilsascustomersandtodeliverthe

customer/diningexperiencethattheywouldexperiencebeyondtheschoolgate.• Theinconsistenciesinpermissionsgiventopresentingpostersandpromotionalmaterialare

noted,suchthatthecateringserviceisunabletoadequatelypromoteitsoffer.• Itisconsideredthatsomeschoolrules/operationalpractices(e.g.forbiddingchildrenfrom

takingfoodoutsidediningareas)iscounter-productiveandadisincentivetopotentialpupilcustomers.

Whatdopupilsthink?• Manyoftherecommendationsmadebythepupilsconcernedimprovingthefoodoffer,e.g.

introducingaGelatostand,abakerystand,andofferingawiderrangeofpizzas,pastaandsalad/fruit.

• Concernswereexpressedataspectsofdiningroomenvironment,withproblemsobservedincluding(i)diningspaceswereunattractive;(ii)lackofseatinginrelationtoschoolroll;

• ItwasnotedthatbrandingwaslesprominentandwidespreadinPPPschools.


CaseStudy6:HighlandAsCaseStudy1,theresearchwasundertakenin2016asbackgroundworkforthepreparationofaschoolcateringbrand.Noresearchreportisavailable,withthiscasestudybeingdevelopedfromsummaryfindingsthatwereavailableinanunpublishedresearchreport.Thisfieldworkinvolvedfocusgroupsinthreeschoolsandsurveysinthediningareasofall28secondaryschools.Anypertinentpointsabouttheorganisationofschoolmealsprovision?• ManyoftheissuesthatwerereportedandobservedarecommontootherschoolsinScotland.• Therurallocationofmanyoftheseschoolsmeanthat,outsideofthelargerurbansettlements

(FortWilliam,Inverness,ThursoandWick),theschoolshavelittledirectcompetitionoutoftheschoolgate.

• Thepromotionofthebrandislessthanoptimal.• Thereiswidevarietyinthenatureandsizeofspacesthatareavailableforschooldining.Whatisthoughttoworklesswellbytheserviceproviders?• Althoughtheserviceisbranded(SmartCafé)manystaffobservedthatitwasalittledated.Whatdopupilsthink?• Thecashlesssystemwascriticised,particularlyonaccountofthefactthatitdidnotallow

studentstoreceivechange.Pupilsexpressedapreferenceforacashsystem.• Thecostofschoolmealswerecriticised,withrecentpriceincreasesbeingreportedasmakingit

evenmoreattractivetoconsumeoutofschool,wherethefoodischeaper.• Concernwasexpressedatthequalityoffood,lackofchoice,presentationandportionsize.

Pupilsinoneschool(Nairn)notedthatfoodwasbetterunderapreviousheadcook.• Criticismwasalsolevelledattheservice,withstaffcriticisedfornotbeingpupilfriendly.• Fingerfood,ratherthanafullmeal,wasoftenwhatthepupilswanted.Thiswasakeyreasonfor

consumingoutofschool(evenmoresothantheabsenceoffizzydrinksintheschool).• Seatingwasaproblemforsomepupils,whoexpressedadesiretosittogetherwiththeirfriends

atlunchtime.• Althoughwaitingtimewasnotedasaproblem,otherissues(notedabove)weredeemedtobe

moreimportant.

ConclusionNotwithstandingtheneedtobecautiousindrawingconclusions,waitingtimeswerecommonlyheldtobeaproblem.Somestrategiesintroducedtoattendtowideragendas–cashlesssystems(tacklingstigma),healthyfoodswithnofizzysoftdrinks(healthyfood)–arereportedtobesignificantdisincentivestoschoolmealuptake.Thereisconsiderablevariationinpracticeandrulesacrossschools,evenwithinthesamelocalauthority.


Annex4–LocalServiceDevelopmentCaseStudies

ReflectiveCommentaryWhatfollowsarefivecasestudiesofsomeofthewaysinwhichlocalauthoritieshaverespondedtothechallengesthatpertaintoprovidingschoolmealsinScotlandinrecentyears.Itisclearthatlocalauthoritiescan,andare,deployinganumberofstrategiestoencouragemorepupilstopresentforschoolmeals.Thesestrategiesaresometimescomprisedbywiderchangesbeyondthecontroloftheschoolmealscateringservice(e.g.introductionoflocalexternalcompetition,reductionindininghallcapacitywithchangestotheschoolestate,etc.).Mostsuccessisachievedwhentheactionsofschoolleadershipandcateringservicealign,e.g.whenrulesareimposedtorestrictaccesstotheoutofschoolfoodenvironment.However,itisclearthatimprovingthefortunesoftheschoolmealserviceisbothpossibleanddoesnotnecessarilyrequirepunitivemeasures.


CaseStudy1:ReversingthedeclineinschoolmealsconsumptioninDumfriesandGallowayBetween2003and2010,thefallintheproportionofsecondaryschoolpupilsinDumfriesandGallowaypresentingforschoolmealswasthegreatestinScotland(from61.6%in2003to28.2%in2010).However,from2010to2018,theincreaseintheproportionofitssecondaryschoolpupilswhopresentforschoolmealshasbeenthegreatestinScotland(backupto52%in2018).Notwithstandingthatprogresshasstalledinrecentyears(therehasbeennooverallincreasefrom2015-2018),thefollowingtablesummarisesthelocalinitiativesthatwereimplementedfollowingtherecruitmentofaCateringDevelopmentOfficer.Itwouldappearthattheseinitiativeshavearrestedthedeclineinschoolmealsconsumptionthatcouldbeattributedtotheintroductionofcashlesscatering,fullimplementationofHungryforSuccessandchangesinfoodofferingthatfollowedadherencetonutritionallegislation.Title DateIntroducedCateringdevelopmentgroupsintroduced 2007/08Developedalocalwholeschoolapproach 2008Introducedthemedays 2008Re-introducedcashatpointofsale 2009AppointedP1-3FSMimplementationofficer 2009CreatedAuditandInspectionofficerposts 2009DevelopedCaféDGbrand(inthemoodforfood) 2009/10DirectdebitpaymentsintroducedtoLockerbie/AnnanAcademy 2009/10Setunitspecifickeyperformanceindicatorsbasedon£/perhour 2009/10Seasonalmenus 2010Developedandimplementedsecondaryschoolcateringmarketingstrategy 2010AnnualtrainingdayintroducedforCateringManagers 2011Linkedmarketingstrategywithkeysuppliersi.e.pastaking,subcentral 2011Introducedareaspecificteamplansandactionplans 2012CateringandFacilitiesdevelopmentofficersintroduced 2012Introducedonlinecustomersurveys 2012Introducedsimplifiedpricingsalesmixconcept(mealdeal) 2013Introducedonlinepaymentsintosecondaryschools 2013IntroducedSchoolMealsImplementationAssistants 2014SchoolCookoftheYearlaunched 2015P1-3FSM 2015Launcheddedicatedschoolmealswebsite 2015Introducedstaffrecognitionscheme–MadeaDifference 2015DevelopedProvenanceBrand–NaturallyD&G 2015WeeDeeGeeCartoon/Whiteboardanimationtopromoteschoolmeals 2015Nurserymeals 2016Developedparenteveningdisplayboards 2016Introducedacateringfocusedmanagementstructurei.e.provenancedevelopmentchef,cateringimprovementandefficiencyofficer,hospitalitymanager

2016/17

Cateringmanagertrainingbook 2017Multiskillingworkbook 2017Radiocampaigns On-going


CaseStudy2:Workinghardtopreventlossofbusinesstoout-of-schoolprivateprovidersinSouthLanarkshireFigure16showsthatatrendofsteadyincreaseintheproportionofsecondaryschoolpupilsinSouthLanarkshirepresentingforschoolmealsbetween2008and2010/11,wasfollowed,forallpupils,withafewyearsofstability(2010-2014)thenaslightdecreaseinrecentyears(2014-2018)and,forpupilseligibleforFSMs,asteadydecreaseinuptakesince2012.Presently,aroundone-halfofsecondaryschoolpupilspresentforschoolmealsinSouthLanarkshire;in2018,itwastheonlyauthorityinschoolwithaminorityofeligiblepupilsinattendancepresentingforFSMs.Figure18:SecondaryschooluptakeofschoolmealsinSouthLanarkshireoncensusday,2003-18

Theevidenceismixed.Forexample,thespikeinFSMuptakein2010couldbeattributedtotwointerventions(writingtoparentstoexplainthattheirchildrenwerenotusingtheirallowanceandallowingeligiblechildrentousetheirallowanceatthemorningbreak).Likewise,thehighlevelsofoveralluptake(SouthLanarkshireisconsistentlywellabovetheScottishaverageforoveralluptake)canbeattributedtomanyinitiativesthathavebeenintroduced,includingintroducingpre-orderingfacilities,introducingmobileunitsandvansinschoolsserving‘healthyoptions’,deliveringmarketingtrainingtocateringstaff,modernisingdiningareasandaddingmenuscreens,strengtheningbrandingandmarketingandconsultingwithstakeholders.Nevertheless,therehasbeenarecentincreaseinexternalcompetitionfromprivatelyoperatedfoodvans,leisurecentrecafesandfastfoodoutlets.Forexample,in2016therewerethreeschoolsthathadaprivatelyoperatedvanlocatedoutside,butin2017thishadincreasedtotwelveoftheauthority’sseventeensecondaryschools.Locallawsarenotbeingusedtochallengethethreatpresentedbyprivateoperatorswhoseofferingisnotconsistentwiththewiththewidersocialagendasthatarebeingpursuedthroughschoolfood.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

EligibleforFSM AllPupils


CaseStudy3:HiddenhandsshapingtheexperienceofschoolmealsuptakelocallyinArgyllandButeUptakeofFSMsinArgyllandButeisconsistentlyabovetheScottishaverage(85.3%,comparedto72.8%forScotlandin2018),althoughasrecentlyas2010proportionatelymorepupilsinScotlandpresentedforFSMsthaninArgyllandBute.Ontheotherhand,levelsofuptakeforallpupilstendtohoveraroundtheScottishaverage(46.2%,comparedto43.9%in2018).Indeed,trendevidencepointstoasharpdivergencesince2010inexperienceaccordingtoeligibility,tothepointwherethereisnowasubstantialdifferenceinuptakebetweenpupilseligibleforFSMsandthosewhoarenot.Thereasonsforthesedivergentexperiencesareworthyoffurtheranalysis.Figure19:SecondaryschooluptakeofschoolmealsinArgyll&Buteoncensusday,2003-18

However,itisalsoimportanttofocusonlocalcircumstance:• Newschoolopeningsin2008and2009reduceddininghallsizesandkitchencapacity

significantly).FurthernewschoolsopeningsinObanandCampbeltownin2018hasmeantthelossofdedicateddininghallsandtheintroductionof‘atriumspaces’,whicharetoosmalltoseatallpupils.

• AWaitroseopenedupnearHermitageAcademyinHelensburghin2012.Thishadadramaticandadverseimpactonschoolmealuptake,whichdroppedby50%overnight.

Ontheotherhand,developmentsarenotall‘negative’,someofwhichhavebeenintroducedbynewHeadTeachersinDunoonGrammarSchoolandHermitageAcademy.• Youngerpupilsbeingpreventedfromleavingtheschoolcampusatlunchtimes.• Pupilsbeingpreventedfromtaxi-inginfastfoodtake-away.• Introductionof‘coffeebarrel’outdoorservicepoints.• Introductionofpre-orderingandquickcollectionfor‘grabandgo’meals.

0102030405060708090100

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018



CaseStudy4:MultipleStrategiestoMaximiseUptakeintheScottishBordersUptakeofFSMsishigherintheScottishBordersthaninanyotherlocalauthorityinScotland(94.9%,comparedto72.8%forScotlandin2018).Ontheotherhand,theuptakeofschoolmealsforallpupilsfallsfarshortofthisleveland,untilrecently,wasbelowtheScottishaverage.Figure20:SecondaryschooluptakeofschoolmealsinScot.Bordersoncensusday,2003-18

AwideanddiverserangeofstrategieshasbeendeployedtoencourageschoolmealuptakeintheScottishBorders,including:• Introducingthe‘streetfood’concepttoallsecondaryschools• Cuttingqueuesbyintroducingperipheralunits• Introducingareducedcalorietraybakerange• Rebrandingfoodinsecondaryschools• EnsuringthateveryschoolmealconsumedinaScottishBordersschoolismadefromlocal

productionunitsorCPUs• Providingfreesaladpotsinallsecondaryschools• Limitingthecostofteato50p(includingspecialityteas).• Usingpricepromotionstoencouragehealthierchoices• Introducingacashlesssysteminallsecondaryschools• Introducednewrecipes(includingapizzaandpastasaucewithfivevegetables)• Sourcingitemswithreducedfatsandlowercalories• Upskillingstaff• Assigningamemberofthecateringmanagementteamtoworkwithschoolstakeholders

(management,kitchenstaffandpupils)todriveimprovements• Undertakingregularpupil/parentconsultationevents• Supportingpupilstoenternationalcompetitionspertainingtoschoolfood

0102030405060708090100

2003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018



CaseStudy5:PerformanceindicatorforNorthAyrshireNorthAyrshireCouncilholdsitselftoaccountbymeasuringCouncilperformanceonfivepriorityareas,oneofwhichis‘supportingallourpeopletostaysafe,healthyandactive’.Twooftheperformanceindicatorsforthisprioritypertaintoschoolmeals,i.e.uptakeofschoolmealsforsecondaryschools(reportedas73.38%inthe2017/18performancereport(NorthAyrshireCouncil,2018)anduptakeofschoolmealsforprimaryschools(reportedas85.52%for2017/18).AscanbeseenfromFigure19,NorthAyrshiregoesbeyondtheuseofacensusdaytobetterunderstandtherealitiesofschoolmealconsumptionacrossNorthAyrshire–thisisparticularlysignificant,giventhatthecensusdaydataseemtounderestimateschoolmealuptake.Figure21:UptakeofschoolmealsinNorthAyrshireoncensusday,2003-18

Notwithstandingthefallinuptakeforprimaryschoolsthatwasreportedinthecensusdaydatabetween2017and2018,uptakeinNorthAyrshirehasbeenhigherthantheScottishaverageforbothprimaryandsecondaryschoolsinrecentyears,ratesthatcouldbeattributedtoactionssuchas:• Regularmarketingthroughleafletstargetedatparents• Engagingusersandparentsatparents’nights,schoolCouncilmeetingsandclassforums• PromotingGoldfoodforlifewithparentsandlocalcouncillors.EncouraginghealthylivingthroughschoolmealsconsumptionisconsistentwiththeaspirationofNorthAyrshiretobeachild-centredcouncil.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Primary:P1-P3,FSM

Primary:P4-P7,FSM

Primary:P4-P7,All

PrimaryAll:EligibleforFSM

Primary:All

Secondary:EligibleforFSM

SecondaryAll