School Meal Count Me in Month was not solely about serving up more lunches; it was also about designing scalable solutions with the potential for nationwide replication. A crucial goal was learning how schools and councils could best run similar interventions in the future. We explored the nuances of our delivery methods and scalability through school visits, surveys and workshops with multiple stakeholders aiming to uncover successes, challenges, and potential solutions for future initiatives.

Communication is key

During the initial School Meals, Count Me In Month pilot in Torfaen in October 2023, communication relied primarily on parent emails and school posters. Two-thirds of surveyed parents reported being aware of SMCMIM beforehand; however, most parents we spoke to at school gates couldn't explain what it involved or its purpose. Parental understanding was crucial as they were required to opt out if they wanted their child to eat a packed lunch. So during Caerphilly's January 2024 pilot, we employed additional reminder emails and banners outside schools. While surveyed Caerphilly parents only showed a modest increase in awareness – 67% reported being aware of SMCMIM beforehand – one week into the intervention they exhibited improved understanding during informal school gate conversations, with the majority of parents we spoke to clearly articulating what was being asked of them during SMCMIM. This may have contributed to the slightly greater impact on school meal uptake observed in Caerphilly schools.

As part of this pilot, there were also some great examples of schools taking it upon themselves to engage pupils in the SMCMIM, which may have contributed to its success. For instance, Garnteg Primary School in Torfaen initiated a competitive element between classes — the winner having the highest number of school meal eaters and Deri Primary School in Caerphilly invited their head boy to talk about the initiative in a school assembly.

Many parents did not engage with the opt-out process

Many parents did not engage with the initiative at all; not opting their child out of school meals, yet still sending packed lunches. In these pilots, there were no repercussions to this; where possible children were encouraged to try a school meal but they were not required to do so. A particular challenge to encouraging more children to eat a school meal – having bought a packed lunch but not opt-ed out – was the need for up-to-date information on allergies for all children. Future similar initiatives should aim to ensure this information has been comprehensively collected beforehand.

It is possible this lack of compliance from many parents would be short-lived if schools made a permanent switch to opt-out (rather than just for a month). Parents would have more time to adjust and schools more opportunity to follow up with non-complying parents – the majority of parents we surveyed supported a permanent shift to an opt-out process for ordering school meals (73% in Torfaen and 80% in Caerphilly). Nevertheless, those considering opt-out school meals should think carefully about how to ensure parent compliance.

Food waste was only a short-term issue

Initial concerns about potential food waste in kitchens overestimating meal needs only materialised in the short term. Catering teams swiftly adjusted their daily SMCMIM expectations, minimising waste after week one.

The optimal design of the opt-out process remains unclear

As part of SMCMIM, parents were required to actively opt out if they did not want their child to eat a school meal. Avoiding additional burden on school staff, opt-out requests went directly to council catering teams. In Torfaen, opting out required parents to call or email the council office. Caerphilly streamlined this through an online form. Reactions to the opt-out mechanism from parents were mixed, with approximately a third of parents either not aware or not using the opt-out mechanism. However, those that did use it, were generally satisfied with the process.

A key question was whether to allow parents to opt out of school meals for specific days or commit families to packed lunches or school meals for the duration of SMCMIM. Committing pupils to school meals for the whole month could nudge them towards more frequent school meals, increasing uptake. However, it risked parents opting out entirely if their child disliked a day's menu.

We settled on allowing daily opt-outs without explicit advertisement that this was an option. Parents appreciated this flexibility for days their children disliked the menu. However, some were confused about whether it was possible due to a lack of clear communication. Allowing opting out on specific days also complicated the councils' meal planning and meant that parents often opted out last minute, forcing councils to frequently recheck numbers and straining resources.

A joined-up approach to school meals is critical

Key to the success of SMCMIM was the strong collaboration between schools, councils and Nesta. While school leaders led the day-to-day engagement with parents, they valued communicating the council's support and Nesta's independent voice explaining why increasing school meal uptake was important.

Regular video calls between schools, Nesta and the council enabled streamlined coordination and rapid issue resolution. Schools valued resources like email templates and posters being provided by Nesta and the councils, suggesting a shared resource toolkit for schools could help scale such initiatives in the future.

The most resource-intensive element of SMCMIM was the taster sessions for parents and children. Taster sessions were run after school or during after-school events that parents and pupils would already be attending. Councils visited dinner halls too, offering samples to packed lunch eaters. These were only possible through the councils' dedicated work.

Listening to parents and pupils could drive improvements to the school food offer

Understanding the needs and preferences of customers – in this case, pupils and their parents – is crucial when designing any service; school meals included. Beyond evaluating SMCMIM's effectiveness and potential improvements, our regular interactions with parents and children offered invaluable insights into their desires and concerns regarding school meals. Though generally satisfied with the offer, they appreciated having a platform to share their thoughts and often expressed a desire for more opportunities to provide input and feedback on the food.

Furthermore, a secondary benefit of opt-out school meals was in opening up a direct communication channel between parents and the council, allowing them to voice any concerns or questions about school meals; a welcomed benefit for both parties. Future endeavours to enhance the school meal experience should actively involve parents and children in the design and feedback processes.