h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Following Jamie Oliver's assault on our school meals service, tens of local authorities have closed their school meals service. Hundreds of others are struggling to survive. Typically, an authority that used to serve over eleven thousand meals a day is now serving eight thousand, and finding it difficult to make ends meet.

In addition to the JO Effect, the number of children on-roll in our primary schools is falling, as the most recent baby boom passes through to our secondary schools. In the past, the primary schools have subsidised the secondaries, as they catered for the greatest number of children. Now it's time for the pay-back, but the secondary schools have been given control of their own budgets, and are taking their catering in-house, and the extra money to be made is not flowing back into the school meals service. This also is taking its toll on school meals.

Not many people know that many local authorities take a portion of the 'dinner money' gathered from parents, and pass the remainder on to the school meals service. They do not *subsidise* school meals, as you might expect, they take a cut of their budget for other purposes! This is commonplace.

School meals provide a healthy diet, at the request of parents and government health advisers. And so it should be. But *parents* feed their children four or five meals for every one they eat in school. And they continue to feed children with the highly-flavoured junk food - salt, sugar, 'E-number additives'... - the TV adverts tell them they want. Denied the use of these flavourings and colourings, school meals look and taste boring by comparison.

So now school meals is fighting for its life in many areas of the country. Their primary problems are Jamie Oliver and falling rolls, neither of which they are to blame for.

Do we want a school meals service? Do we value it enough to fight for it, and support it?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I have a connection to school meals, although I am not employed in that area myself. This makes me biased, I suppose, but perhaps also a little better informed than many people? Judge for yourself.

I don't understand what you mean when you talk about the Jamie Oliver effect - wasn't his whole campaign about insiting that there should be at least some nutritional value in the food kids get at school? And to try and get increased funding for school meals (including training for the people that cook them)?

The practical effect of the JO 'initiative' was that parents understood school meals to be so poor in quality that they took their children off school dinners.

The school meals in my area have *exceeded* the criteria that JO set for some years, but no-one seems to realise this. There *were* school meals services that were not performing, as JO publicised so widely. But it is always the case for a service provided throughout the country that some areas will perform better than others, and therefore some will always fall short of the ideal.

BTW, did you know that the area JO pounced on lost £40,000 trying to implement his 'improvements' (which the kids didn't want - they stopped eating his food as soon as the cameras left), and this bill was met by local rate-payers?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I'm guessing a side effect of not being able to feed the children slop is that your expenses go up considerably.

I guess school meals are normally priced at about £2-£3 (assuming you're not just going for a snack). Most of the places of comparable price are fast food. Still, I didn't watch the series, but I'm pretty sure part of Jamie's drive is to demonstrate that you can eat healthily fairly cheaply and still have it quick with stuff like omelette, stir fry, simple pasta salads etc. (my examples, not Jamie's as far as I know).

Oh, simulpost (sort of), and I second guessed wrong. Hmm, that's interesting, I hadn't heard of schools that served good food before. I suppose it doesn't make such a good story.

School meals biggest problem, if they can weather the JO storm, is that children eat turkey twizzlers at home, and visit McDonald's regularly. The *taste* of school meals, given their minimal use of added salt and sugar, and non-use of unhealthy flavourings and colourings, cannot compete with the processed food that parents are still feeding their children. School meals *are* (comparatively) bland, but this is the reason why, and it's a Very Good Reason.

The price of a school meal is less than a cup of coffee at Debenhams. And don't forget that both the school meals service and Debenhams restaurant operate in exactly the same commercial environment, with the same overheads, etc.

Bottom line: with the best of intentions, JO may have single-handedly destroyed our school meals service because he was ignorant (i.e. uninformed) of the full facts. And the children of our poorest homes only get (got? ) one good (school) meal a day. Thanks, Jamie!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

The school meals service varies considerably from area to area & school to school. Some are totally in-house, serving freshly prepared, tasty, nutritional meals. Others use re-heatable pre-prepared dishes, some merely sandwiches and so on.

Primary schools are more likely to have a set meal (other than a vegetarian option) whereas secondary schools tend to go for a cafeteria choice style. The latter can also vary considerably in quality.

Do you think that Jamie Oliver has really had such an adverse effect? I suspect that in schools where the meals were already good, parents would know this & wouldn't take much notice. Others will prefer a cheap, no fuss option anyway, regardless of the quality.

Certainly I think we should ensure that schools are able to continue to serve meals, but I've no thoughts how best to do this.

Primary schools currently offer a choice every day, including a vegetarian option. AIUI, government guidelines require this.



I *know* that this is the case. Anyone with access to the 'trade' can confirm this. The effect has been catastrophic in many cases, and those school meals services that haven't already closed are struggling to cope with the loss of their customers. A 30% loss of sales is typical. Hours and jobs are being cut across the country, to try to make ends meet.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Anyway we can't blame Jamie Oliver for pointing out how bad the system was. We can only blaim those responsible for creating that situation.

But, but, but...!

My point is that the situation JO 'pointed out' didn't exist in the majority of cases. Yes, there were (and are) some under-performing school meals services, but most provide the (genuinely) healthy food that the government, parents and schools have demanded. And they have been devastated by JO's well-meant () misinformation.

My local area was apparently considered by the JO program for inclusion, but the meals were too good to support the theme they were seeking to create.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I think you would have to put this one down to parent idiocy, rather than JO.

As far as I am aware, he didn't say the whole country was in the same situation, he just took on some case studies.

You can't blame him for identifying the problem, even if it was only a partial problem. If people are stupid enough to extrapolate what they see on the TV over their own or their children's experience, then they probably deserve what they get.

sprout

Sorry if this seems like we're labouring a point P-C, but wasn't one of Jo's big problems that the areas that were failing were those who could afford to least, ie the schools that were serving the worst meals were serving them to the kids from the poorest backgrounds?

I do a lot of work with inner-city school kids here in Manchester and when they visit the Uni they will not eat the healthy food put on for them by the Uni (free for them, at considerable cost to us) and insist on visiting fast food outlets. All they get in school and at home is junk and there are serious health issues because of it and the issue needed raising. When I was still at school, my school lunch was often the only decent meal I got in a day, I'm lucky it was of high quality.

I'd be surprised if the down-turn wasn't only temporary, kids and parents will realise that the food is good quality already, or that it has been improved and go back to them.

I didn't know about the funding of school meals though - that was interesting to learn

AFAIK, most school meals providers cover both poor and prosperous areas, so this reasoning wouldn't apply. I wonder if there are boroughs - maybe in London? - where the whole area is (comparatively) poor?



I have been describing the primary school meals system. The vast majority of secondary schools offer a self-service 'restaurant' system, as secondary school pupils are considered old enough to decide for themselves what they want to eat. And (surprise! ) many of them decide on 'fast food' (i.e. junk food).



I wonder how many parents know that a proportion of what they pay is used to pay for the kids who have 'free' school meals...? That element of the payment is also deducted before the school meals service sees it.

Most (primary) school meals cost around £1.45 today, for a main course, dessert and a drink. That's what the parents pay. The school meals service gets something in the region of £1.20 (different areas of the country vary), and breaks its back to put around 45p of this on the plate, which I think is quite an achievement.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

(no beef here, not in the UK School System)

Quite frankly I'm surprised that no parents have jumped all over this thread. I think it's fairly patronising so far - my kids eat healhy food at home, and (if they were in a school system where they ate at school) I would make sure that what was on offer was compatble with my values not some bean counter's agenda.

Actually here they get a breakfast break and we give the Gruesomes veggies and things like that. Many kids take sweets and pop.

Have you ever seen a kids' party? Little prim faced, pole up their backsides "hates sweets" kids are dropped off by their home-knitted müsli eating parents - and make a bee line for the sweeties, chips and burgers. Kids who are allowed most things in moderation, or as a treat, tend to eat a good mix of veggies & dips and some of the less "healthy" things. It is entirely possible (but I'll concede, not probable) that the kids who go for burgers & chips at lunchtime are eating brown rice tian at home.

Any school meal service which has suffered as a result of JO's well meaning campaign needs to get back out there and convince the parents that they need not worry. I'm not callous, I am genuinely sorry if anyone has lost their job because of it.

But, I have only very rarely heard an English (I only have experience of Sheffield and Mansfield) kid say "oh mum, we had this really great lunch at school today..."

the Gruesomes' dad is a , howeve, and we eat all sorts of stuff that other people don't. So I could be biased.

As far as my pesonal knowledge goes - they are. But who would a typical parent believe, someone standing in front of them who clearly knows what they're talking about, ... or someone off the TV?

I'm sorry if you've found my comments condescending, and I apologise for giving that impression. I am privy to the working of school meals in our area, and of the school catering industry in general, and I know that what I have said is accurate. Perhaps I could've presented better what I know.



Me too. I was hoping they might.



I would be surprised to hear of even one service that has not been significantly damaged by this 'well-meant' campaign. I know there is *so much* that JO and his team didn't find out. As a result, the service they 'tried to help' has been badly damaged, terminally in some cases (and it's not over yet).

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

no, I'm because I do understand where you're coming from and I was unnecessarily agressive.



More fool parents, IMO, who turn away from good school meals. I think it's important to get proper food into children at lunchtime with a lighter meal in the evening. I know that I just don't have time to do a cooked meal in the evening (even if I wanted to) and if I were in the UK I'd bite their hands off.

But then, I'm old enough,ugly enough and gobby enough to make sure that the school in question did offer good food.

Thanks partly to my and partly to my parents (who introduced me and my bro to an astounding variety of food when we were small) my Gruesomes are pretty adventurous and healthy eaters.

I'm embarassed, almost, to admit that their favourite food is spinach, closely followed by broccoli!

Have you thought about contacting JO to voice your concerns? I didn't see most of the programme, and I don't know him, but he seems like the sort of chap who would listen.

oh and yes, I agree. A lot of people would believe the chap off the TV - when it's JO. I feel now that it is probably a good idea to get him involved in the renaisance (sp?) of school meals

Thank God, someone who shares my views about Muesli. What would make people put such a thing in their mouths?

Of course, the point you miss is that whether or not there are *some* or indeed *many* services that provide a decent meal for kids, what JO was put the mater fimly on the map.

It was clear from what he was doing that kids were better behaved on a proper diet, and that in amny of the cases he highlighted, basic food education is so lacking that neither child or parent were capable of making and *informed* decision.

And as many people on this thread have said, this is really down to the parents, not JO. If as you say, they will listen to a bloke of the box rather than the guy in front of them who works, whose fault is that? Is that JO's or is that the fault of a society which has created a cult of celebrity and has spent so long trivializing knowledge that many no longer trust anybody in 'authority'.

I.e. who's to blame? I'm not sure that's important. Our kids are not eating as they should, c.f. child obesity etc. School meals are in the vanguard of trying to improve matters. The end result of JO's assault has been to seriously damage the only real initiative in place to make things better. Whether he meant to or not. [Remember: good school meals make for bad (low ratings) TV! ]

Of course there are individual parents whose children eat well, and have a good understanding of what good food is, and why they should eat it. But they are in a tiny minority, according to the local knowledge I have. Most parents want the school meals service to fix their child's diet/food problems for them. Sadly this is not possible without the parents also playing their part.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<>

Sorry, but the concept that very few adults understand proper nutrution and those that do don't pass this knowledge onto their children seems to be the first issue.

Individual parents whose children eat well???

And they are they tiny minority???

Jaysus heckity - it's not that hard to GET is it? Two servings of fresh veg, a couple pieces of fruit a day, etc. And make sure your kid gets out there to do some sport, not just sit in front of the tv or the computer.

So, how did the UK get to this sorry state in which - presumably - most parents don't understand what a proper balanced diet is?

To me that's just stuff and nonsense. EVERYBODY knows you should eat a certain amount of fresh fruit and veg every day to maintain one's health. That some people choose to ignore this very obvious fact is another matter. That some parents cannot be bothered to feed their kids properly does come down to the parent's responsibility. Or do they think that the possibly one nutritional meal their kids get at school will make up for their own irresponsibility as parents?


az