According to the ‘Evaluation of Universal Infant Free School Meals’, published today by the Education Policy Institute (EPI), the UIFSM policy, introduced in September 2014, has led to a 'rapid increase' in school meal take-up from an estimated 38 per cent in 2013-14 to 80 per cent in 2015-16 (based on Office of National Statistics data).
However, the introduction of the policy has also had a negative impact on some schools’ Pupil Premium funding. Nearly a third of the school leaders (31 per cent) surveyed by the EPI reported a drop in the number of parents whose children are eligible for the Pupil Premium registering for free school meals since universal infant free school meals (UIFSM) came in.
Following the introduction of UIFSM, there is no longer a direct financial benefit for parents registering their children for free school meals, whereas schools still gain funding from them doing so.
One senior leader said that the money they gain through UIFSM, they have lost in Pupil Premium payments.
The evaluation, which is based upon a survey of senior leaders in 327 schools, a survey of 508 parents, individual visits to schools and analysis of previous research, examines UIFSM’s potential educational, social and health effects; how the policy has been implemented in schools; perceptions of its outcomes; and estimates the costs of the policy.
Key findings include:
- Schools and caterers have incurred significant costs and have made many revisions to the delivery of food to implement UIFSM.
- The policy has had significant financial benefits for parents, who save an average of 50 minutes not having to make packed lunches and £10 each week.
- UIFSM has often supported, or been a catalyst for, wider efforts to improve the profile of healthy eating in a school, better engage parents and pupils, and develop the school food curriculum;
- Some, though generally less than half, of the school and parent/carer respondents to surveys perceived positive impacts in the short term on educational, social and health outcomes, but such effects were not tested for statistically in this evaluation.
While the evaluation finds that the value of financial and time savings for families are greater than the cost of the policy to schools, it suggests delivering lunches on a budget is a challenge, and, if inflation rises in the future and Government funding rates remain the same, wider benefits of the policy could be undermined.
Peter Sellen, chief economist at the Education Policy Institute (EPI), said, ‘UIFSM has delivered a rapid increase in school meal take-up over a short period of time – with a considerable amount of money spent on kitchens, facilities, and staffing to enable this. The policy has also delivered financial benefits and time savings for parents, and while it is too early to detect whether the policy has had an impact on educational and health outcomes, some schools and parents have perceived benefits for children’s readiness for learning, the profile of health eating in schools, and children’s eating habits.
‘However, not all schools have reported this, and considering the high public cost of the policy it is important that they and their caterers can deliver school lunches in a cost-effective way that supports education and health. The variety of approaches being taken suggests there may be room for some to learn from the experiences of others. The Government should ensure the policy does not create an increasing financial risk to schools in the face of potential cost inflation, and should consider how to ensure pupils who are eligible are registered for the Pupil Premium.’
Sector comments
Commenting on the EPI evaluation, Labour's shadow education secretary Angela Rayner said, 'This report highlights the importance of ensuring that every child has a healthy meal at school. The evidence shows that universal school meals can improve academic attainment and children’s health, while making it easier for parents to make ends meet and ending the stigma faced by too many children.
'The next Labour government will introduce universal free school meals in all primary schools, ensuring that no children goes hungry and helping them all to reach their full potential.'
Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT said, 'The findings of the Education Policy Institute report on Universal Infant Free School Meals (FSM) show some benefits for the most vulnerable children in our schools, such as improved ‘readiness for learning’, better nutrition, and savings in time and money for families on low income.
'However, almost a third (31 per cent) of school leaders questioned said that take up of FSM for Pupil Premium purposes had decreased, which is highly concerning. Too many children are still missing out on their entitlement. The burden is on parents to come forward to register for Pupil Premium and for schools to coax families into admitting they need help.
'The answer to getting this help to our most vulnerable pupils is obvious: the Government and local authorities have the eligibility data, it just needs to be shared with schools, we would like to see the government allow automatic registration for Pupil Premium. Automatically registering children for the Pupil Premium would have a huge impact on equality of opportunity, so that all children, whatever their background and wherever they live, have the same chance of an excellent education.'
Dr Mary Bousted, joint general secretary of the National Education Union (NEU), said, 'This report clearly shows the benefits that free school meals bring to children and their families when schools are properly funded and supported to deliver them.
‘The NEU believes that this programme should remain in place with sufficient funding to ensure that no child has to go through the whole day without a proper meal. No one can dispute the benefits and no one can suggest that hunger is not a problem in schools for children who might slip through the FSM net. The Government should also go further and extend universal free school meal provision to all primary-age children.'
The Department for Education has been contacted for a response.
