Trash Good Eating Guide: The New Canteen

As regular readers will know, the past few years has seen the rebuilding and refurbishment of Hampstead School. In the process of this rebuilding, Hampstead School brought catering ‘in house’, which in doing so led to a redesign of the canteen and kitchen, with new equipment and furnishings such as cookers, tables, chairs, cash machines etc.

Refurbishment of the catering system has led to the school being able to finally make lunches Halal as the new cooking facilities are not contaminated with non-permitted foods, as the kitchen in the old school was. This, of course, had long been called for by many Muslim students and parents. Having implied that the School, Caterlink and Head have responded to the concerns of parents and students it must be mentioned that had the rebuild not taken place it is highly unlikely that school meals would have become Halal; one can assume that this change has been implemented more out of convenience rather than genuine concern for students' demands.

After the Easter Break this year (It took you 3 months to write this? – Ed.) the Head delivered an assembly to the whole school, year group by year group. While this naturally included much of the regular drivel about upcoming exams and the need to do well in them, the key note of the assembly was to inform students of changes to the catering system and lunches. The Head talked of how bringing catering in-house, away from Caterlink, allowed the 'chefs' to be more creative in their cooking and introduce a wider meal variety with a new menu. He also went on to talk about the aforementioned point on Halal meals. The main talking point of this assembly, however, was the cost of this new set up. The Headteacher highly emphasised to students that the cost of these changes was £50,000 in order to make some sort of point about not littering or breaking chairs – that sort of stuff. Now, the cost of this new catering system raises a number of issues, most notably why students need to know this and the question of value for money.

Firstly, why did the Head feel the need to make a point to students – including Y7s who have no sense of finance larger than the 50p they spend on Sainsbury’s cookie they bought off of a Y9 at break – about the cost of this refurbishment? Presumably, it was in order to dissuade students from being careless with litter and damaging furniture. Groaning on about how much was spent on something does not make students any more respectful; if anything, it increases their resentment in the face of a humblebrag.

Secondly, this new catering system does not – at face value – seem worth the £50k. The new canteen contains a nasty red, black and white colour scheme painted onto tables with tacky benches to sit on. It also boasts higher tables and stools alike to a McDonald’s, with the Head doubling up as Ronald most days. Again, tacky. The new canteen essentially tries to model an American open-plan start-up company office. As such, one could argue the stools and taller tables offer the perfect opportunity for any student to tie a noose to the lights and jump like any good Facebook or Google employee.

What can be assumed is that much of the £50k was spent on new kitchen equipment (ovens, stoves, sinks etc.) and serving systems such as the fridges for cold foods and computer systems for payment (although these often don’t work as seen when a Y7 on their first day was denied lunch because of a system failure which refused to recognise their account). However, including costs of furniture, the price seems highly excessive. Furthermore, students have not seen much change in the quality or variation of food served. Cheap looking baguettes and stale cakes are still served. As for jelly, this writer has personally not seen any at all (audible gasp). This new system is poor value for money when the school already faces budget cuts across the board. Money could be much better spent elsewhere instead.

While, of course, a new canteen and kitchen was always going to be needed as the school was rebuilt, the new catering setup is a failure on multiple levels. It is not value for money, the refurbishments are poor, and food has not improved. Unfortunately, it's not the first time that the school have squandered large sums of cash whilst budgets are being squeezed: despite the Head proclaiming a few years ago that the Education reforms might mean cutting classes and increasing class sizes, the Trash reported that the school still spent £55,000 - supposedly a canteen's worth of money - on 'Attendance', as well as countless thousands of pounds on needless and expensive marketing campaigns (see Trash passim ad nauseum).

When you return to the hellhole in September, just bring your own Sam's takeaway which will go cold by Period 2 instead.

Trash Rating:  ☆☆☆☆☆