NABMSE Submission to the OIreachtas on School Meals Scheme
Submission by the National Association for Boards of Management of Special Education (NABMSE)
Joint Oireachtas Committee
Department of Education and Youth
1. Introduction and Expertise
1.1 The National Association for Boards of Management of Special Education (NABMSE) represents Boards of Management of special schools and of primary and post-primary mainstream schools with special classes. Our members govern schools educating children and young people aged 4–18 with a wide range of special educational needs, including intellectual disabilities, autism, physical disabilities, and social, emotional and behavioural needs.
1.2 The welfare and wellbeing of pupils is a core statutory responsibility of Boards of Management. Nutrition, mealtime routines and safe access to food are particularly significant for pupils with additional needs, including those with Feeding and Eating Disorders (FEDS), medical conditions, sensory sensitivities and complex dietary requirements.
2. Context: The School Meals Programme
2.1 The School Meals Programme has been in existence since 1914 and has played a longstanding role in addressing disadvantage and supporting pupil wellbeing. NABMSE welcomed the announcement in Budget 2025 extending the Hot School Meals Scheme to all remaining primary schools.
2.2 NABMSE has consistently raised concerns regarding the capacity of the current model to meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs. These concerns align with established evidence in school nutrition and inclusion policy that shows uptake, wellbeing and value for money are directly affected by the appropriateness and flexibility of food provision. These concerns include the management of Feeding and Eating Disorders (FEDS), allergies, texture modification, hydration needs, and the absence of integrated therapeutic supports such as Speech and Language Therapy (SLT), dietetics and nursing input.
3. Impact of the Programme
3.1 Special Schools
3.1.1 Where hot meals are available, special schools report clear benefits for pupil health, regulation and engagement. Uptake is high where meals are flexible and appropriate to individual need.
3.1.2 A significant number of special schools are unable to access the scheme in practice due to difficulties sourcing providers. The eTenders process is administratively complex, and providers frequently decline to tender, citing lack of commercial viability. This has resulted in delays of several months in some schools, during which no hot meals were provided.
3.1.3 Special schools require highly individualised meals. Set menus and bulk cooking models used in mainstream schools are often unsuitable. Orders frequently require modification such as blending or softening of food, additional portions, or allergy management, resulting in increased food and labour costs.
3.1.4 Special schools are not included in the DEIS programme and therefore receive no funding for break-time snacks or drinks. This presents a particular challenge where pupils are on medication that increases appetite or thirst.
3.1.5 Schools report that onsite or nearby kitchens are critical to ensuring quality, flexibility and food safety. Where appropriate kitchen facilities exist, outcomes are notably improved.
3.2 Mainstream Primary and Post-Primary Schools with Special Classes
3.2.1 In mainstream settings, the School Meals Programme has improved access to nutritious food, reduced reliance on junk food and sugary drinks, and contributed to improved behaviour, concentration and engagement, particularly in the afternoons.
3.2.2 At post-primary level, the procurement process is lengthy and resource-intensive. Tender Response Documents are substantial, and their evaluation requires significant time and expertise, often necessitating external advice. This places a considerable administrative burden on school management.
3.2.3 Schools that actively monitor invoicing, uptake and quality report stronger accountability and value for money, including the return of unspent public funds where uptake is lower than projected.
3.3 Provider Perspective
3.3.1 Providers report that to break even in a special school, daily participation numbers are often required that exceed the enrolment of many small special schools. This is a key reason for limited provider engagement.
3.3.2 Providers incur substantially higher costs in special schools due to labour-intensive service, individualised preparation, dietary compliance and food modification. Estimates indicate that food costs alone may be up to 50 per cent higher per pupil than in mainstream settings.
3.3.3 Providers indicate that training school-based staff to assist with food service, under provider supervision, could significantly enhance feasibility and quality.
3.3.4 Providers emphasise that cooking from scratch in a local or onsite kitchen is essential to ensuring quality, flexibility and safety.
3.4 Parent Perspective
3.4.1 Parents of children with autism and sensory needs report that rigid menus can result in children being unable to eat provided meals, even where requested adaptations are minimal.
3.4.2 In the absence of staff support to adjust meals, pupils may go without food, leading to distress and exclusion. This undermines student voice and can highlight difference rather than inclusion.
4. Sustainability and System Gaps
4.1 Therapeutic Supports
Students with Feeding and Eating Disorders require integrated supports. Difficulties with eating may arise from physical, sensory, medical or anxiety-related causes. Schools require access to dietitians, Speech and Language Therapists and nursing input through the In-School and other Therapy models.
4.2 Funding Model
The current per-pupil funding rate does not reflect the true cost of provision in special schools, nor does it account for the absence of DEIS-type supports for snacks and drinks. Evidence from comparable school meal systems indicates that funding models linked to actual uptake and responsiveness achieve better nutritional outcomes and lower waste than flat or fully drawn-down allocations.
4.3 Procurement and Scale
Small special schools are structurally disadvantaged under the current model. There is no mechanism to facilitate cooperation between neighbouring schools or shared kitchen provision.
4.4 Staffing and Capacity
Meal distribution, checking and supervision are labour-intensive and place additional pressure on already constrained staffing resources in special schools.
4.5 Oversight and Accountability
There is inconsistency in invoicing, monitoring and auditing of providers. Strong oversight has been shown to improve quality, value for money and student outcomes.
4.6 Pastoral Dimension
Where relationships between schools and catering staff are strong, catering personnel become an extension of the school’s pastoral team, supporting student wellbeing, trust and routine.
4.7 Sustainability and Food Waste
Evidence from schools indicates that where meals do not align with pupils’ sensory preferences, cultural expectations or individual needs, uptake decreases and food waste increases. Pupils with additional sensory or communication needs are particularly affected when choice and feedback mechanisms are limited. Schools also report that, when account is taken of food costs, packaging, transport and staff time for preparation and distribution, simpler food prepared onsite by a dedicated staff member can be both more cost-effective and more acceptable to pupils. International and national school nutrition research consistently shows that student involvement in menu planning within healthy eating guidelines leads to higher uptake, reduced waste and better nutritional outcomes. Conversely, models where funding is drawn down in full by providers regardless of uptake remove incentives to respond to student voice, adapt provision or minimise waste. This approach undermines sustainability objectives, weakens accountability for public funding and conflicts with whole-school approaches to environmental responsibility and wellbeing.
5. Consultation
5.1 NABMSE would welcome structured engagement with the Joint Committee and relevant Departments to review and refine the School Meals Programme so that it is equitable, sustainable and inclusive of pupils with special educational needs.
6. Summary of Recommendations
6.1 Introduce a higher, ring-fenced per-pupil funding rate for special schools reflecting higher food, labour and compliance costs.
6.2 Extend DEIS-equivalent supports to special schools, including funding for break-time snacks and drinks.
6.3 Expand the In-School Therapy Programme to include dietitians and Speech and Language Therapists for students with Feeding and Eating Disorders.
6.4 Enable cooperative and hub-and-spoke models allowing larger schools or central kitchens to support smaller neighbouring schools.
6.5 Simplify and provide additional support for procurement processes, particularly for special schools.
6.6 Strengthen oversight and auditing of providers through consistent invoicing and monitoring standards.
6.7 Recognise and support the pastoral role of catering staff within school communities through training and partnership models.
6.8 Embed student voice and parental engagement as core principles of the School Meals Programme.
6.9 Ensure funding and payment models incentivise uptake, responsiveness and sustainability, including mechanisms that link payment to actual participation, support onsite or local preparation where appropriate, and require active food waste reduction strategies.
Submission date: January 2026