When London’s mayor pledged to fund free school meals for every primary pupil in the capital, the policy was sold as a powerful tool to narrow the attainment gap and ease the cost‑of‑living squeeze on families. But a new evaluation suggests the academic benefits may be far more modest than many had hoped. Analysis of the first year of the city‑wide rollout finds no clear overall boost to test scores, challenging assumptions that worldwide free lunches would quickly translate into higher attainment. As town halls consider whether they can afford to keep the offer going, the findings raise uncomfortable questions about what free school meals can – and cannot – deliver in the classroom.
Methodology and findings behind the London universal free school meals evaluation
The study drew on a blend of administrative datasets and school-level intelligence to test whether giving every primary pupil in London a free hot meal shifted the dial on learning. Researchers compared outcomes in participating boroughs with statistically similar areas elsewhere in England over the same period, using a quasi-experimental design and extensive controls for prior attainment, deprivation and special educational needs. They also layered in qualitative evidence from headteachers, governors and catering leads to understand how the policy played out in classrooms and canteens. Data sources included:
- National Pupil Database for attainment, absence and demographics
- School census returns to track meal uptake and roll changes
- Local authority finance data on implementation costs and pressures
- Interviews and focus groups with staff and families for on-the-ground insight
| Measure | Observed change | Researcher verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Key stage 2 attainment | Minimal, not notable | No academic boost |
| Attendance | Slight uptick | Marginal improvement |
| Meal uptake | Sharp rise | Policy delivered as intended |
| Per-pupil cost | Higher than forecast | Budget risk flagged |
What the analysis did show was a clear reduction in stigma for previously means-tested pupils and more consistent nutrition for children whose families were struggling with food prices. Yet the results also highlighted practical constraints: crowded timetables limiting lunch breaks, patchy dining space and stretched kitchen staff all diluted any potential learning gains. In interviews, leaders reported benefits that do not show up on league tables, including calmer afternoons and fewer behaviour flashpoints. The evaluators concluded that while universal meals improved equity and well-being, they were not a shortcut to higher test scores without parallel investment in teaching, staffing and the wider school day.
Why expanded free school meals did not translate into higher attainment
Researchers suggest that, while more pupils sat down to a hot lunch, several other forces diluted any potential academic payoff. Classrooms were still grappling with post-pandemic disruption, staffing gaps and funding pressures that arguably have a far stronger and more immediate impact on test scores than what’s on the plate. In many schools,the rollout focused on logistics – kitchens,schedules,payment systems – rather than pairing nutrition support with targeted teaching interventions. As one headteacher put it, “you can’t measure a better lunch against a maths curriculum we’re struggling to staff”.
- Multiple reforms hitting schools simultaneously blurred the impact of the meals policy.
- Short evaluation window likely missed longer-term cognitive and health benefits.
- Variation in take-up across boroughs reduced the strength of any measurable effect.
- Persistent inequality in housing, health and income overshadowed gains at lunchtime.
| Factor | Impact on attainment |
|---|---|
| Improved nutrition | Subtle, long-term; hard to detect in one year’s data |
| Teaching quality | Immediate and substantial; unchanged by meals offer |
| Pupil absence | Remained high in some areas, limiting any classroom benefit |
| Home surroundings | Continued to shape study habits and exam readiness |
Evaluation teams also caution that national benchmarks are a blunt instrument for judging a welfare-led policy. Test scores capture a snapshot of performance, but they rarely reflect quieter gains such as better concentration in afternoon lessons, calmer dining halls or the easing of stigma for low-income pupils. Nor do they account for families redirecting saved lunch money towards heating, rent or books – changes that may take years to register in exam data. In this light, the flat attainment figures say less about failure and more about the limits of expecting a single, universal benefit scheme to counter deep-rooted structural disadvantage on its own.
Unseen benefits nutrition stigma and wellbeing impacts beyond test scores
While headline figures focus on grades, a universal meal at midday quietly reshapes the school day in other ways. Shared eating routines can reduce the social divide between pupils who pay and those who do not, easing stigma that frequently enough keeps children from claiming support they’re entitled to.Teachers in some London primaries report calmer afternoons, fewer complaints of headaches or hunger, and greater readiness to participate in group work. Behind these observations is a simple reality: children who are not worried about the contents of their lunch tray-or who is watching them queue for it-are more likely to focus on friendships, learning and play.
There is also emerging evidence that nutrition,routine and belonging intersect in ways that don’t show up in exam data. Improved diet quality can support concentration, mood regulation and attendance, notably for pupils living with food insecurity. A school dining hall where everyone sits down for the same meal can become a protective space, normalising help rather than labelling it. These softer outcomes can be difficult to quantify, but they shape classroom dynamics and pupil wellbeing in the long term.
- Reduced stigma: no visible distinction between pupils receiving support and those who are not.
- Emotional stability: regular, nutritious meals help smooth energy dips and irritability.
- Social cohesion: shared mealtimes foster conversations across friendship and year-group lines.
- Attendance support: families under financial pressure have one less reason to keep children at home.
| Aspect | Before expansion | After expansion |
|---|---|---|
| Pupil lunchtime experience | Mixed, some opting out | More inclusive and uniform |
| Stigma around support | Often visible and felt | Partly blurred by universality |
| Afternoon classroom climate | Patchy focus, low energy | Reports of calmer, steadier engagement |
Policy lessons for governments designing future free school meal expansions
Researchers argue that the real gains from universal meals may lie less in test scores and more in health, attendance and equity. Ministers weighing new rollouts are being urged to build evaluations that capture this wider picture from the outset, rather than chase narrow attainment jumps alone.That means tracking a broader mix of indicators – from BMI and iron levels to lateness, behaviour incidents and parental work patterns – and publishing them in clear dashboards.It also means recognising that food is only one piece of the attainment puzzle. Without investment in teaching quality, early intervention and SEND support, a hot lunch is unlikely to move the dial on grades.
- Design for equity – target resources at schools with entrenched poverty and high food insecurity.
- Integrate services – align catering with health checks, breakfast clubs and holiday provision.
- Back the workforce – fund training, kitchens and staffing so quality doesn’t suffer.
- Plan long term – commit to multi‑year funding to avoid cliff edges that disrupt families.
| Policy focus | Risk if ignored |
|---|---|
| Nutrition standards | Calories up,learning unchanged |
| Stigma-free access | Low take-up among poorest pupils |
| Robust evaluation | Policy judged on anecdotes |
| School capacity | Overstretched kitchens and queues |
Key Takeaways
As ministers weigh up the future of universal provision,the findings add a note of caution to a debate often dominated by politics rather than hard data. Free meals may still play a vital role in tackling hunger, easing pressure on families and improving pupils’ daily experience of school. But, for now, the evidence from London suggests they are no silver bullet for raising attainment.
With budget pressures mounting and calls growing for wider roll-out, the key question is no longer just whether we can afford to expand free lunches – but what else must sit alongside them if policymakers are serious about closing the achievement gap.
