Category Archives: Nutrition Softwares

Food Service Software, Nutrition Softwares, School Lunch Software

MDE School Nutrition Programs Handout on Grains

National School Lunch Program

The National School Lunch Program is a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day. The program was established under the National School Lunch Act, signed by President Harry Truman in 1946.

National School Lunch Program (NSLP)

NSLP Legislation

NSLP Regulations

NSLP Policies

Guidance and Resources

Offer Versus Serve (OVS) – Updated 2015-2016 Guidance Manual

Tools for Schools – Tools for Schools offers topic-specific policy and resource materials to assist schools in meeting the new nutrition standards. Refer to the latest regulations, find free nutrition education curricula, or get ideas for adding tasty, kid-friendly foods to enhance your school meals program.

  • Nutrition Education and Promotion
  • Recipes and Culinary Techniques for Schools
  • School Nutrition Improvement
  • Policy Guidance

Nutrition Standards for School Meals – The final rule, Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, updated the meal patterns and nutrition standards for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs to align them with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Improvements to the school meal programs, largely based on recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, are expected to enhance the diet and health of school children, and help decrease childhood obesity.

Certification of Compliance – The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act provides an additional 6-cents per lunch reimbursement to school districts that certified to be in compliance with the new meal patterns.

Additional Resources

Related Documents
MDE School Nutrition Programs Handout on Grains PDF icon

Nutrition Softwares

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Early Programs by States

By Gordon W. Gunderson

Early Programs in the United States

In spite of information available from the vast experience and progress made in most of the nations of Europe, school feeding in the United States underwent the same evolution as in Europe, beginning with sporadic food services undertaken by private societies and associations interested in child welfare and education. The Children’s Aid Society of New York initiated a program in 1853, serving meals to students attending the vocational school. However, it did not gain sufficient momentum to convince other organizations or municipalities to do likewise.

There can be no doubt that Poverty, a 1904 book by Robert Hunter, had a strong influence upon the U.S. effort to feed hungry, needy children in school.

Hunter was vitally concerned with hunger, particularly among the children in poor families. ” . . . but the poverty of any family is likely to be most serious at the very time when the children most need nurture, when they are most dependent, and when they are obtaining the only education which they are ever to receive. Guidance and supervision of the parents are impossible because they must work; the nurture is insufficient because there are too many hungry mouths to feed; learning is difficult because hungry stomachs and languid bodies and thin blood are not able to feed the brain. The lack of learning among so many poor children is certainly due, to an important extent, to this cause. There must be thousands -very likely sixty or seventy thousand children-in New York City alone who often arrive at school hungry and unfitted to do well the work required. It is utter folly, from the point of view of learning, to have a compulsory school law which compels children, in that weak physical and mental state which results from poverty, to drag themselves to school and to sit at their desks, day in and day out, for several years, learning little or nothing. If it is a matter of principle in democratic America that every child shall be given a certain amount of instruction, let us render it possible for them to receive it, as monarchial countries have done, by making full and adequate provision for the physical needs of the children who come from the homes of poverty.”

Philadelphia

Toward the turn of the century significant efforts at school feeding were evidenced almost simultaneously in Philadelphia and Boston.

In Philadelphia, the Starr Center Association began serving penny lunches in one school in 1894, later expanding the service to another. Soon a lunch committee was established within the Home and School League, and lunches were extended to include nine schools in the city.

Dr. Cheesman A. Herrick, who was principal of the William Penn High School for Girls when it first opened in 1909, is credited with accomplishing the transfer of responsibilities for operation and support of the lunch program from charitable organizations to the Philadelphia School Board. He requested that a system be established to assure that the lunches served would be based upon sound principles of nutrition and required that the program be under the direction of a home economics graduate. The Board granted his request on an experimental basis and on the condition that the program would be self-supporting. The experiment proved successful, and the following year lunch services were extended to the Southern Manual Training School and later to three additional units.

In the spring of 1912, the School Board established a Department of High School Lunches and- directed that the food services be inaugurated in all the high schools of the city. During all this time the Home and School League had continued operating the feeding program in the nine elementary schools, and continued to do so until May of 1915, when it reported to the Board that the need for a lunch system had been clearly demonstrated and that it could not be successfully operated by an organization outside the school system. As a result, the School Board placed the operation of both high school and elementary lunch programs under the supervision of the Department of High School Lunches and authorized the extension of the program to other elementary schools. Under the Herrick plan, light, heat, cooking gas and the original equipment were supplied by the Board. Otherwise, the program was to be self-supporting.  12

Boston

Early programs in Boston were inaugurated under the auspices of the Women’s Educational and Industrial Union. According to a report of the Union’s activities in 1908, the organization had begun serving hot lunches in September of that year to high schools which were under the supervision of the Boston School Committee. A central kitchen system was used and lunches were transported to the participating schools. There was a school lunch advisory committee which set the policy for the program and actual administration of the program was in the hands of a lunchroom superintendent and a director of school lunches.  13

An experimental program for elementary schools was begun in January 1910, taking the form of a mid-morning lunch prepared by the class in Home Economics three days each week. On two days of each week sandwiches and milk were served. The children ate their meals at their desks, there being no lunchroom in the building.

Before the end of the school year (1909-1910) five additional schools were benefiting from the program, and a total of 2,000 pupils were being served each day, according to a report submitted by Ellen H. Richards in the “Journal of Home Economics” for December 1910. She stated further that “The teachers are unanimous in the belief that the luncheons are helping the children both physically and mentally. They are more attentive and interested in the lessons during the last hour of the morning and the result in their recitations gives the proof.”

Milwaukee

In 1904, the same year that Poverty was published, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, began its efforts at meeting the need when the Women’s School Alliance of Wisconsin began furnishing lunches to children in three centers located in areas where both parents were working and the greatest need was evident. The project was supported by donations from private individuals, churches, societies and clubs. The lunches were prepared in the homes of women who lived near the schools and were willing to cook and serve the meals. Improvement in attendance and scholarship was noted, and six additional centers were in operation by 1910.

The preparation and serving of the lunches had by that time been transferred to the school buildings and a matron was employed at each school. The price of the meal was one cent for children who could pay, and they were served all the soup and rolls they could eat. Those who could not pay received their lunches free. The Alliance recognized the need for establishing additional centers throughout the city, but it was unable to raise the necessary funds for their support. The county board was requested to assume support of the school feeding program, but the proposal failed, it being the contention of the board that such action-would encourage parents to be indolent and shift parental responsibilities to the municipality.  14

School Feeding Supported

In the year following the publication of Hunter’s Poverty, there appeared another, similar publication dealing with poverty and the plight of poverty-stricken families. This was John Spargo’s The Bitter Cry of the Children. Like Hunter, Spargo dwelt extensively upon the misfortunes of children and the effect of malnourishment upon their physical and mental well-being. He estimated, after very careful study, that “not less than 2,000,000 children of school age in the United States are the victims of poverty which denies them common necessities, particularly adequate nourishment…. Such children are in very many cases incapable of successful mental effort, and much of our national expenditure for education is in consequence an absolute waste.”  15

The introduction to The Bitter Cry of the Children was supplied by none other than Robert Hunter, the author of Poverty. In commenting upon Mr. Spargo’s publication, he states, “Few of us sufficiently realize the powerful effect upon life of adequate nutritious food. Few of us ever think of how much it is responsible for our physical and mental advancement or what a force it has been in forwarding our civilized life.” Mr. Spargo’s emphasis upon the importance and appropriateness of feeding the school child is borne out in the following quotations from his book: “To the contention that society, having assumed the responsibility of insisting that every child shall be educated, and providing the means of education, is necessarily bound to assume the responsibility of seeing that they are made fit to receive that education, so far as possible, there does not seem to be any convincing answer. It will be objected that for society to do this would mean the destruction of the responsibility of the parents. That is obviously true. But it is equally true of education itself, the responsibility for which society has assumed. Some individualists there are who contend that society is wrong in doing this, and their opposition to the proposal that it should undertake to provide the children with food is far more logical than that of those who believe that society should assume the responsibility of educating the child, but not that of equipping it with the necessary physical basis for that education.”

New York

Robert Hunter had estimated that there were sixty or seventy thousand school children in New York who were not capable of doing good school work because of malnourishment. As has been previously noted, the situation had no doubt been recognized by the Children’s Aid Society of New York as far back as 1853. In that year they began serving lunches to students at a vocational school. No significant programs in the public schools developed, however, until 1908 when Dr. William H. Maxwell, superintendent of schools, made a special plea in his report to the Board of Education. “Again I appeal to you, in the name of suffering childhood, to establish in each school facilities whereby the pupils may obtain simple wholesome food at cost price.”

A school lunch committee consisting of physicians and social workers was thereupon organized to find out whether a lunch might be self supporting at a 3-cent charge to students. Two schools were selected on a trial basis. Two years later the board authorized expansion of the program to other schools of the city and agreed that the board would pay the cost of equipment and gas and supply the necessary rooms. The cost of food and labor was to be met from the sale of lunches.

During this period height and weight measurements were generally used and recognized as standards in determining nutritional adequacies. Consequently such records were maintained for 143 children for three months in the New York school lunch experiment. Records were also maintained on 81 children who did not participate in the lunch program. It was found that the 143 children had gained 91 pounds 4 ounces, or an average of 10.2 ounces each, while the 81 children gained 17 pounds or an average of 3.4 ounces. In both groups some children had lost weight, but the proportion of those who had lost weight was less among those eating the school lunches than among those who did not. This was considered as proof of the beneficial effects of one good planned meal each day at school.

Until January 1920, lunches in the elementary schools of New York had been supported by volunteer social organizations. In the 1919-20 school year, the Board of Education assumed full responsibility for all programs in Manhattan and the Bronx, and in the following year for all the programs.

Cleveland

Elementary school lunch service began in Cleveland, Ohio, on December 6,1909, when the Cleveland Federation of Women’s Clubs began serving breakfasts to 19 children at the Eagle School. One additional school was added in 1910, and by 1915 meals were being provided for all special classes in the grade schools, excepting the school for the deaf. In total about 710 children were being provided for each day.

School lunch services in Cleveland took on a unique aspect. The Board of Education furnished the equipment and provided the lunchrooms. However, “For crippled and open air children the Federation of Women’s Clubs provides food and at each school employs a woman to prepare it. For the blind, the Society for Promoting the Interests of the Blind takes charge. The committees, in consultation with principal, medical inspector, and supervisor of high school lunches, make out the different menus. The Board of Education contracts with these committees to furnish meals to exceptional children in specified schools at so much per child per day, according to the kind and number of meals supplied. 16

In some schools the meals were served at 10 a.m. and again at 2 p.m., and the children went home for their noon lunch. In other schools the lunches were served at noon. Apparently “open air” children received the two lunches each day, and the noon meal was supplied for the blind and crippled children who did not go home at noon.

The meal generally consisted of “bread and jam and a hot dish, such as beef stew, minced meat with potatoes, thick soup, or macaroni with tomato sauce. A few, on order from the medical inspector, get milk in the morning”.  17

In the summer of 1909, lunchrooms were installed in seven high schools in Cleveland. For 16 years prior to this, lunches had been provided by “lunch wagons” going to the schools or by stores in the vicinity serving hot meals at noon. In some schools the “basket lunches” were served on the school premises by caterers. Even after the installation of lunchrooms and equipment in the seven high schools, the operations in the schools were actually conducted by the former caterers under contract with the Board of Education on a concessionaire basis.

In the contract the Board of Education agreed to furnish all the necessary equipment, as well as heat, light, gas and water, sufficient for the proper maintenance of the lunchrooms, and to replace all equipment rendered useless through natural wear and tear.

In 1914-15 the normal school and all high schools except two were provided with lunch services. This involved a total of 6,715 students. All items served were priced a la carte and a typical “menu” offered a selection from about 15 items, including milk. “In some schools the range of choice is too great, in others too small. In all it is uneven. Vegetable soup is always vegetable soup and the price is 4 cents; but price is the only constant factor, for the materials used vary from school to school. That is, a nickel will buy more food, often of better quality, in one school than it will in another.”  18

Milk was furnished to all schools by one dairy selected by the lunchroom supervisor.

“All other supplies are chosen by the individual concessionaires, who are entirely responsible for the service. In a number of schools they prepare the food themselves, which increases their difficulties for they are frequently interrupted by trades people, by lunchroom helpers asking questions, by stray students who need attention, and by teachers on diet who want beef juice or an eggnog, or by other teachers who have a free hour and want a special meal. Lunch has to be prepared in between these demands and dishes are sometimes ready long before the regular lunch period.”  19

Naturally, concessionaires had no guaranteed, minimum income. During the 1914-15 school year, concessionaire’s profits ranged from $942 in one school to as little as $124 in another. The median for 10 schools was $605. The comments of a survey committee concerning the “Place of Lunch Service in the School System” is worthy of special note: “School lunches meet a natural need of all children. The purpose of the service is to teach children to choose wisely the food they buy. The conduct of school lunches is a business, an art, and a science…. The Superintendent of Lunches should have the same rank as the director of any other special division and be compensated accordingly. She should be subordinate to the educational department, for her work bears a direct relation to all health teaching in the schools and offers an opportunity to teach children the ethics and economies of spending, and various factors affecting the price of school meals and restaurant meals.”  20  In the summary of its findings and recommendations the survey committee states, among other things. “The school lunch division should reach all children; it should provide wholesome and nutritious food for them at cost, train them in sane habits of eating, and teach them to choose wisely what food they buy.”  21

Cincinnati

Almost simultaneously with the installation of lunchrooms in Cleveland. civic and social organizations were preparing for serving penny lunches in at least one school in Cincinnati. Here, again, the school board furnished the equipment, excepting that the very first equipment was paid for from private donations.

Five food items were served every day, two of which were hot foods. Each item was sold for a penny. The following are samples of menu offerings: “1. Hot meat sandwich; baked sweet potato; oranges; candy balls; graham crackers. 2. Hot wieners; rice pudding in cones; candy; bananas; cakes.” The salary of the cook was paid by the Council of Jewish Women. All other costs were met by lunchroom receipts.

St. Louis

In St. Louis, five schools in congested areas of the city were selected for an experiment in school lunch services in October 1911. High schools already had some form of lunch service, but it was decided to expand the services to elementary schools primarily for poorly nourished children and for those children who could not go home at noon. About 900 children were participating in the five centers. At the outset the food was prepared at the Central High School kitchen and transported to the elementary schools. This was found to be excessively costly, however, and after a month’s experience the preparation was transferred to each of the participating schools.

Originally the board purchased the food, but “It was decided, however, that it was illegal to spend public funds for the purchase of food and the board was obliged to abandon the work.”  22  Consequently, the programs were required to be self-supporting aside from the cost of equipment, which was paid by the board.

Chicago

According to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 37, issued in 1921, “Chicago has the most intensive school lunch system in America.” At that time, all the city’s high schools and 60 elementary schools were carrying on school feeding programs as a full responsibility of the Chicago Board of Education. “Most of the high school children attend the lunchroom for part of their meal at least, and in the elementary schools approximately 31,000 children are served daily.”

The program had its beginning in 1910, when the Chicago Board of Education authorized the expenditure of $1,200 to begin an experimental program of serving hot lunches to children in six elementary schools.  23  By 1916, the number of elementary schools participating had grown to 28 and 31 high schools had joined the program.

Los Angeles

Los Angeles had entered upon a fairly substantial program by 1921. The Board of Education sponsored the program in nine high schools, eight intermediate, and 31 elementary schools. The participation in high schools ranged from 450 to 1,800 students per day per school, in the intermediate school 700 to 1,000 per school, and in the elementary system approximately 120 pupils per day per school. The programs in the high schools and intermediate schools were managed by student body associations or by a cafeteria director selected from the Home Economics Department. The elementary schools selected for participation in the program had a high percentage of students needing the noonday lunch because of defective nutrition. The undernourished children were fed at noon and in some cases were given a snack at 10 a.m. Lunches were sold at cost, but were given free to those unable to pay. The deficit in the elementary program was taken care of by the P.T.A. In the high schools and intermediate schools students unable to pay for their lunches were given work in the Home Economics Department or in other areas in the school to pay for their meals.

In a 1918 survey by the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, concerning school lunchroom services in 86 cities having over 50,000 population, it was found that only 25 percent of them provided lunch services in elementary schools, but that 76 percent had some form of lunch services in high schools. In high schools it was found that the noon lunch period was short and students came long distances to school. Some form of meal service was, therefore, considered essential. For the most part, elementary school children lived in the neighborhood of the school and could go home for their noonday meal. Improvement of nutrition was not a part of the consideration. Only five of the cities reporting lunchroom services in high schools indicated that the program had been instituted as a means of overcoming malnutrition among the students.

Rural Schools

Nationally, rural schools had a special problem in attempting to establish warm noonday lunches for their pupils. Almost without exception there was no room available for setting up a kitchen and dining area. Children came to school from long distances, and their lunches at noon consisted mainly of cold sandwiches, many of them of questionable nutritive value.

Efforts were made beginning in the early 1900’s to provide some means of warming certain foods brought from home or to prepare a hot food of some kind at school as a supplement to the foods brought from home. Public funds for such purposes were generally not available. But many ingenious teachers devised plans for preparing soups or similar hot dishes from meats and vegetables brought to school by pupils as a donation for the general use of all. Students took turns in helping to prepare the foods before the morning session began. Such dishes were cooked in a large kettle set on top of the stove which also heated the school room. In Wisconsin, an extensive program known as “the pint jar method” was used in heating foods brought from home. Students were encouraged to bring such items as soups, macaroni, cocoa, etc. in a pint jar. The pint jars were set into a bucket of water on top of the room heater or stove, and by lunch time such foods would be piping hot. Much stress was placed upon the importance of students receiving some hot food at school each day to supplement the cold sandwiches (sometimes frozen solid by the time the student reached school).

County home demonstration agents of the University Extension Service were extremely helpful to rural schools in devising plans for providing some supplementary hot foods and in drawing up lists of suggested “menus” in advance.

Parent-Teacher Associations became increasingly concerned and active in the school lunch movement, and supported activities through donations of funds and equipment. Pots, pans, cooking utensils, portable ovens, and domestic type ranges were often donated by the associations or even by individual families. Such assistance was invaluable in getting the program started in many rural and village schools.

In 1914 the Pinellas County (Florida) health officer, decided to experiment at the school to see what results would come out of a program which would provide each child with a half pint of milk a day. To get the program started a large white cow was placed on the playground with posters and other material to explain what was being attempted. Amid this setting the children were served their milk. The health officer was so impressed with the results that he suggested they serve a bowl of soup to the children with the milk.

A group of mothers and the principal planned and carried out the project serving the children a hot bowl of soup with crackers and one-half pint of milk. The meat and some of the potatoes were donated by the mothers. They also furnished the utensils, and the principal supplied the vegetables grown in the school garden.

Under these varied means of support -by philanthropic organizations, school-oriented associations, school district boards, and individuals-the school lunch program continued to expand, gaining momentum during the decade of the 1920’s. It was estimated that by 1981 there were 64,500 cafeterias in operation throughout the country in addition to perhaps 11,500 smaller units serving a single hot dish daily.

The depression years of the 1930’s deepened the concern over hunger and malnourishment among school children, and many States and municipalities adopted legislation, some of them including appropriations, to enable schools to serve noonday meal to their children. 24

Footnotes

12  Emma Smedley, The School Lunch: Its Organization and Management in Philadelphia, Smedley, 1920.
13  Marion Cronan, The School Lunch, Peoria, Illinois, Charles A. Bennett, Inc., 1962.
14  Mrs. Duane Mowry, Pennv Lunches in Milwaukee Schools, American City 4 (6), p. 283-288.
15  John Spargo. The Bitter Cry of the Children, Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1906, p.117.
16  Alice C. Bouhton, Household Arts and School Lunches, Cleveland Education Survey 1915, pp. 121-122.
17  Ibid., P. 126.
18  Alice C. Boughton, Household Arts and School Lunches, Cleveland Education Survey 1915, pp. 145-146.
19  Ibid., p. 151.
20  Alice C. Boughton, Household Arts and School Lunches, Cleveland Education Survey l915, p. 162.
21  The findings and recommendation in the report contain no reference to provision of meals to children who were unable to pay.
22  Department of Interior, Bureau of Education Bulletin No 37, 1921, p. 24.
23  School Feeding in the United States, FDPB, P&MA, USDA, June 1947.
24  Howard L. Briggs, and Constance C. Hart, From basket Lunches to Cafeterias-A Story of Progress, Nation’s Schools, 8:51-5, 1931.

Nutrition Softwares, School Lunch Software, Software for Cafeteria

The National School Lunch Program is a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions

Programs

National School Lunch Program (NSLP)

The National School Lunch Program is a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day. The program was established under the National School Lunch Act, signed by President Harry Truman in 1946.

School Breakfast Program (SBP)

The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides cash assistance to States to operate nonprofit breakfast programs in schools and residential childcare institutions. The program is administered at the Federal level by FNS. State education agencies administer the SBP at the State level, and local school food authorities operate it in schools.

After School Snack Program (ASSP)

The National School Lunch Program offers cash reimbursement to help schools serve snacks to children in afterschool activities aimed at promoting the health and well being of children and youth in our communities.

Special Milk Program

Begun in 1955, the Special Milk Program is administered at the Federal level by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through its Food and Nutrition Service, formerly the Food and Consumer Service. The Special Milk Program (SMP) provides milk to children in schools and childcare institutions that do not participate in other Federal child nutrition meal service programs. The program reimburses schools for the milk they serve.

Schools in the National School Lunch or School Breakfast Programs may also participate in the SMP to provide milk to children in half-day pre-kindergarten and kindergarten programs where children do not have access to the school meal programs.

Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Program

The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) provides all children in participating schools with a variety of free fresh fruits and vegetables throughout the school day. It is an effective and creative way of introducing fresh fruits and vegetables as healthy snack options. The FFVP also encourages schools to develop partnerships at the State and local level for support in implementing and operating the program.

Summer Nutrition Opportunities

There are three summer nutrition program opportunities from which SFAs may select to offer meals to students during the summer months and/or other vacation periods.

For more information and resources on the various programs click on a program title below:

Food Service Software, Nutrition Softwares

Children Not Eating Veggies Despite Healthy School Lunch Program

A new paper reported that the healthy lunch program implemented in U.S. schools has not drove children to increase their consumption of fruits and vegetables as projected.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) launched the National School Lunch Program with the aim of increasing the intake of fruits and vegetables (FV) of school kids. Through this program, kids were required to choose FVs for their lunch as part of the reimbursable school meal; however, researchers found that the program has been surrounded by numerous negative concerns such as the rising number of school food waste.

The researchers from the University of Vermont Burlington and University of California performed the study by initially conducting 10 school visits and observing about 498 lunch trays before the program was put into action. After a year of program implementation, the researchers then visited 11 schools and observed 944 trays, utilizing the verified dietary assessment tools. For each school visit and observation, the researchers selected pupils in the third, fourth and fifth grade and assigned them with a number. They then took digital photos of the students’ lunch trays before and after eating, after which the researchers tried to quantify what has been consumed and has been dump in the trash.

The findings of the study, published in Public Health Reports, show that more kids chose FVs in larger portions when it was mandated by the program compared to when it was still optional. However, the consumption of FVs slightly decreased when it was required compared to when the program was not yet in place. In numbers, the results can be translated as 29 percent more children took FVs when the program started, 13 percent less consumption of FVs were noted after the requirement and 56 percent more food was thrown away.

“The basic question we wanted to explore was: does requiring a child to select a fruit or vegetable actually correspond with consumption,” says Sarah A. Amin, the lead author of the study from the University of Vermont Burlington. As per the study results, the answer to this query is clearly no, she adds.

Although the study was conducted in only two schools in the Northeast area and cannot generalized the entire country, the study results may still provide valuable insights into the decision-making body that is tasked to reauthorize the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.

The authors recommend giving the children more time as they will eventually learn how to eat right. Exposures should be increased through school programs and encouragement in the home setting. Schools may devise other ways to encourage children to eat more FVs such as serving sliced instead of whole fruit. “We can’t give up hope yet,” Amin closed.

Photo: US Department of Agriculture | Flickr

Cafeteria Software, Nutrition Softwares, School Lunch Software, Software for Cafeteria

Segregated Charter Schools Evoke Separate But Equal Era in U.S.

John Hechinger
December 22, 2011 — 10:31 AM IST
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Hmong Charter School
Students run under a mural depicting ancient Hmong leader Chi You and the Hmong flight from Vietnam during gym class at the Hmong College Prep Academy on Dec. 14, 2011 in St Paul, Minn. Photographer: Craig Lassig/Bloomberg
Don’t Miss Out — Follow Bloomberg On
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Reddit
Share on Google+
E-mail

At Dugsi Academy, a public school in St. Paul, Minnesota, girls wearing traditional Muslim headscarves and flowing ankle-length skirts study Arabic and Somali. The charter school educates “East African children in the Twin Cities,” its website says. Every student is black.

At Twin Cities German Immersion School, another St. Paul charter, children gather under a map of “Deutschland,” study with interns from Germany, Austria and Switzerland and learn to dance the waltz. Ninety percent of its students are white.

Six decades after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down “separate but equal” schools for blacks and whites, segregation is growing because of charter schools, privately run public schools that educate 1.8 million U.S. children. While charter-school leaders say programs targeting ethnic groups enrich education, they are isolating low-achievers and damaging diversity, said Myron Orfield, a lawyer and demographer.

“It feels like the Deep South in the days of Jim Crow segregation,” said Orfield, who directs the University of Minnesota Law School’s Institute on Race & Poverty. “When you see an all-white school and an all-black school in the same neighborhood in this day and age, it’s shocking.”

Charter schools are more segregated than traditional public schools, according to a 2010 report by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles. Researchers studied 40 states, the District of Columbia, and 39 metropolitan areas. In particular, higher percentages of charter-school students attend what the report called “racially isolated” schools, where 90 percent or more students are from disadvantaged minority groups.
Charter-School Birthplace

In Minnesota, the birthplace of the U.S. charter-school movement, the divide is more than black and white.

St. Paul’s Hmong College Prep Academy, 99 percent Asian-American in the past school year, immerses students “in the rich heritage that defines Hmong culture.” Its Academia Cesar Chavez School — 93 percent Hispanic — promises bilingual education “by advocating Latino cultural values in an environment of familia and community.” Minneapolis’s Four Directions Charter School, 94 percent Native American, black and Hispanic, promotes “lifelong learning for American Indian students.”

Charter schools, which select children through lotteries, are open to all who apply, said Abdulkadir Osman, Dugsi’s executive director.

“Some people call it segregation,” Osman said. “This is the parent’s choice. They can go anywhere they want. We are offering families something unique.”
Nobody ‘Forced’

That’s a “significant difference” between Minnesota charters and segregated schools in the 1950s South, said Joe Nathan, director of the Center for School Change at Macalester College in St. Paul.

“Nobody is being forced to go to these schools,” said Nathan, who helped write Minnesota’s 1991 charter-school law.

Ever since Horace Mann crusaded for free universal education in the 19th century, public schools have been hailed as the U.S. institutions that bring together people of disparate backgrounds.

The atomization of charter schools coincides with growing U.S. diversity. Americans of other races will outnumber whites by 2042, the Census Bureau projects.

Even after a divided Supreme Court in 2007 ruled that schools couldn’t consider race in making pupil assignments to integrate schools, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy urged districts to find other ways to fight “de facto resegregation” and “racial isolation.”

“The nation’s schools strive to teach that our strength comes from people of different races, creeds, and cultures uniting in commitment to the freedom of all,” Kennedy wrote.
Diverse Workplaces

Citing Kennedy’s words, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Attorney General Eric Holder this month called for schools — including charters — to combat growing segregation.

Along with breeding “educational inequity,” racially-divided schools deny children the experiences they need to succeed in an increasingly diverse workplace, Duncan said in announcing voluntary guidelines for schools.

Charter schools may specialize in serving a single culture as long as they have open admissions, and there’s no evidence of discrimination, said Russlynn Ali, assistant education secretary for civil rights.

The education department is encouraging charter schools to promote diversity. Charters could expand recruiting and consider lotteries that give extra weight to disadvantaged groups, such as families living in low-income neighborhoods or children who speak English as a second language, Ali said in a phone interview.
Immigrant Magnet

Minnesota, 85 percent white, is a case study of the nation’s growing diversity. Since the 1970s, Minneapolis and St. Paul have become a magnet for Hmong refugees, who fought alongside Americans in the Vietnam War. In the 1990s, Somalis sought refuge from civil war.

St. Paul, where the nation’s first charter school opened in 1992, is 16 percent black, 10 percent Hispanic and 15 percent Asian-American, according to the U.S Census Bureau.

Charter schools should be similarly diverse, recommended a 1988 report that provided the groundwork for Minnesota’s charter-school law.

“We envision the creation of schools which, by design, would invite a dynamic mix of students by race and ability levels,” the Citizens League, a St. Paul-based nonprofit public-policy group, wrote in the report.
‘Great Failure’

Instead, in the 2009-2010 school year, three quarters of the Minneapolis and St. Paul region’s 127 charter schools were “highly segregated,” according to the University of Minnesota Law School’s race institute. Forty-four percent of schools were 80 percent or more non-white, and 32 percent, mostly white.

“It’s been a great failure that the most segregated schools in Minnesota are charter schools,” said Mindy Greiling, a state representative who lobbied for the charter-school law when she was a member of a suburban school board in the 1980s. “It breaks my heart.”

Segregation is typical nationwide. Seventy percent of black charter-school students across the country attended “racially isolated” schools, twice as many as the share in traditional public schools, according to the report from the Civil Rights Project at UCLA.

Half of all Latino charter-school students went to these intensely segregated schools, the study found. In the West and the South, the two most racially diverse regions of the country, “charters serve as havens for white flight from public schools,” the report said.
Hmong Roots

They also serve as havens for minority students who need extra help, said leaders of Minnesota charter schools.

Christianna Hang, founder of Hmong College Prep Academy, said she designed the school so children, mostly first-generation Americans, didn’t feel adrift in public schools as she did when she arrived in the U.S. in 1980.

In the Hmong academy’s central hallway, a tapestry depicts families living in Laos, fleeing the Vietnam War and arriving in America. The school’s roughly 700 students, in grades kindergarten through 12th grade, learn Hmong.

“I came here for my parents as much as for me,” said Mai Chee Xiong, a 17-year-old senior. “I was very Americanized. I wanted to be able to speak with them in our language, and I wanted to understand my roots.”

In the 2009-2010 school year, 26 percent of Hmong Academy students met or exceeded standards on state math exams, while 30 percent did so in reading. About half passed those tests in the St. Paul Public School District.
Harvard Banners

To raise expectations, classrooms adopt colleges, hanging banners from Harvard University, Yale University and Dartmouth College over their doors.

“If we don’t do something to help these kids, they will get lost,” Hang said. “If they drop out of school, they will never become productive citizens, and there’s no way they will achieve the American dream.”

Dugsi Academy, the school for East Africans, and Twin Cities German Immersion School make for some of St. Paul’s sharpest contrasts.

Until this school year, the two schools were neighbors, across a busy commercial thoroughfare in a racially diverse neighborhood. At different times of the day, the kids used a city playground in front of the German school for recess. Dugsi has since moved three miles away, across a highway from the Hmong academy.

The German Immersion School is a bright, airy former factory with exposed brick and high ceilings.
Fluent German

“Eva, was ist das?” kindergarten teacher Elena Heindl asked one morning earlier this month as she pointed a red flashlight to letters, eliciting the name of each one in German.

To succeed at the school, students must be fluent in German to enroll, unless they enter before second or third grade, Julie Elias, a parent, told prospective families on a tour this month.

“You can’t just move into the neighborhood if you want to go to our school,” Elias said. The school is legally required to take anyone picked in its lottery, though it counsels parents against enrolling in older grades without German knowledge, said Annika Fjelstad, its director.

The school, which includes many families with one parent who speaks German or that have German relatives, holds special events at the Germanic-American Institute in a $1.3 million St. Paul house with a ballroom. Children like to call the institute “our school’s mansion,” said Chris Weimholt, another parent giving the tour.
No Buses

In the 2009-2010 school year, 87 percent of children at the German school passed state math tests and 84 percent did so in reading, according to the Minnesota Department of Education. Fifteen percent qualify for the federal free or reduced lunch program, compared with 71 percent in St. Paul. The school doesn’t offer bus transportation, so most parents drive, often carpooling, Elias said.

The language requirement and lack of transportation prevents poor families from attending, said Greiling, the state legislator, who has toured the school.

“A regular public school could never have that kind of bar,” she said. “It seems an odd thing that this would be legal.”

The German program doesn’t have buses because they would cost $100,000 a year, too heavy a burden for an expanding school of 274 that wants to maintain classes of 20 students, Fjelstad said. An immersion school can’t take kids who aren’t fluent after early grades, she said.

In February, the school formed an “inclusivity” task force to find ways to make the school more reflective of the community, Fjelstad said. The school will try to improve recruiting through its relationship with community organizations, such as a neighboring YMCA, she said.
International View

The school offers a different kind of diversity, said Weimholt, a nurse whose grandfather emigrated from Germany after World War I. “It doesn’t look diverse by skin color. But families straddle two different continents. The school truly has an international perspective.”

So does Dugsi Academy. Children learn Arabic and Somali along with English and traditional academic subjects. A caller last month heard no English on a school voice mail.

One morning in late November, a sixth-grade social-studies class discussed immigration with 28-year-old Khaleefah Abdallah, who himself fled Somalia 12 years ago. The boys wore jeans and sweatshirts. The girls sported hijabs, or traditional Muslim head coverings with skirts or long pants.
‘Melting Pot’

Abdallah asked his class about the idea of the American “melting pot:” immigrants assimilating into U.S. culture. He suggested another metaphor, a “salad bowl,” where people from different backgrounds mix while retaining their own identity.

“I agree with the salad bowl,” Fadumo Ahmed, 12, dressed in a black hijab and sneakers with pink laces, told the class. “We all come from different places, but we still want to keep our culture.”

Students shared stories of the challenge of co-existing in mainstream America.

Ahmed Hassan, 12, complained about a boy on a city playground who made fun of the long traditional robe he wore one Friday.

“He told me it looked like a skirt,” Hassan said. Abdallah told the class that, under the U.S. constitution, Americans have the freedom to express themselves through their clothing.
Test Scores

Dugsi, a low-slung red-brick building in an office park, has about 300 students in kindergarten through eighth grade. Almost all qualify for federal free or reduced lunches, according to the state. Only 19 percent passed state math exams in the 2009-2010 school year, while 40 percent did so in reading.

The school’s test scores reflect families’ backgrounds. said Osman, the Dugsi director and a former employee of the U.S. Embassy in Somalia, who emigrated to the U.S. in 1993. Parents work as cab drivers, nurses and grocers, Osman said. Many had no formal schooling.

It would be better if one day Somali students could go to school with children from other backgrounds, Osman said.

“That’s the beauty of America — Latinos, Caucasians, African-Americans and Native Americans, all together in the same building, eating lunch and in the same classrooms,” Osman said. “It would be something wonderful. That’s what I’m thinking of for my own kids and grandchildren.”

Customer Satisfaction, Nutrition Softwares, Software for Cafeteria

Grand Tasting Area In My Community > Diabetes EXPOs > Minneapolis EXPO

Grand Tasting Area

Diabetes Education and Novo - 195x77

The Grand Tasting Area is a multi-layered world class sampling of appealing diabetes-friendly foods created and served by Novo Nordisk Diabetes Education Program Celebrity Chefs: Chef Tiffany Derry, Chef Rory Schepisi, Chef Doreen Colondres, and Chef Dana Herbert. Each chef will be paired with a Novo Nordisk Diabetes Educator delivering educational focused on healthy eating and meal planning. Healthy eating does not have to be boring but vibrant, full of life and flavor! Groups will be admitted into the Grand Tasting Area every 15 minutes from 11:00am – 1:30pm.

Meet the Chefs

Chef Tiffany Derry

Chef Tiffany

With humble beginnings in hospitality, Tiffany Derry has fired up the culinary scene from Dallas, Texas, where she built her TD Concepts brand and company from the ground up. Tiffany found a love of cooking at an early age and later graduated from The Art Institute of Houston, Texas. She went on to become a national spokesperson for the school and a sought-after sous chef at several regionally acclaimed restaurants. Tiffany’s natural ability in the kitchen and her colorful personality made her an obvious choice for Bravo’s “Top Chef,” where she was voted fan favorite in Season 7. This recognition earned her a spot as a contestant on “Top Chef All-Stars,” where she made it to the final-four round. With a personal family connection to diabetes, Tiffany has also made it her mission to educate people about healthy lifestyles and portion control. She has worked tirelessly to revamp the Dallas School Districts lunch program with more nutritious options. In blending nutrition with flavor, Tiffany stands by one rule in her kitchen, “make it taste good or forget it!”

Chef Rory Schepisi

Chef Rory

A New Jersey native with a big city attitude, Rory grew up surrounded by family in the restaurant business. At just 16, she decided to make cooking her career and enrolled in the Culinary Institute of America. After making a splash with her first restaurant at age 20, Rory consulted for establishments nationwide, gaining recognition in the process. While embracing the bicoastal lifestyle, Rory was offered the unique opportunity to join the reality TV program “Popularity Contest” on Country Music Television, which transplanted her to a small town in America’s heartland. Her experience on the show inspired her to permanently relocate to Vega, Texas, and start her successful restaurant, Boot Hill Saloon & Grill, which has since become a favorite among locals and visitors alike. Her accolades include reaching the final round on “The Next Food Network Star,” hosting her weekly cooking segment on NBC’s Texas affiliate and appearing on The Today Show as a featured chef. A perfect blend of Southern charm mixed with Yankee sass, Rory adds a healthy twist to her down-home style of cooking. Grab a fork – Rory is in the kitchen!

Chef Doreen Colondres

Chef Doreen

Born into a family of cooks, Doreen Colondres’ family kitchen was the epicenter of her childhood. She developed a passion for local, fresh food and merging classic flavors with new ingredients. When life took her to Miami, Doreen found she was never far from the kitchen, cooking for friends and entertaining. In fact, Doreen wanted to convince the world that “The Kitchen Doesn’t Bite” and launched her website of the same name. A leading figure in today’s “Cocina Latina” movement and an expert in a range of Hispanic cooking, Doreen is determined to revolutionize the way the world approaches food, cooking, and eating habits. As a fresh food advocate with a passion to educate, Doreen’s easy approach and vibrant personality have helped her become a “people’s chef.” When Doreen isn’t experimenting in the kitchen, she’s either traveling abroad consulting for international companies, or is on-air hosting cooking shows on Fox’s Utilisima Network. Her mission is to show others that Hispanic food is flavorful and diverse, and that cooking is relaxing, healthy, and most importantly fun!

Chef Dana Herbert

Chef Dana

Chef Dana Herbert was introduced to cooking and pastry making while studying for a culinary degree at Johnson and Wales University. He operates an award-winning custom bakery “Desserts by Dana” in his home-state of Delaware, where he dishes up sweet and savory treats. Affectionately called “Delaware’s King of Cakes” by local fans, Dana was challenged to join TLC’s “Cake Boss: Next Great Baker” flagship series in 2010-2011. Dana took the show by storm, bringing flavor and color to life in his cakes on television, and ultimately won the show. His big win caught the attention of the James Beard Celebrity Chef Tour, where he came on board as a celebrity chef and gained recognition for his culinary creations. He has since been featured on a number of different shows and has authored A Sweet and Savory Union to showcase his love of blurring the lines of sweet and savory. Dana comes to Diabetes Academy with not only a passion for food, but also the sensibility and insight that life is all about moderation.

– See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/in-my-community/diabetes-expos/minneapolis/grand-tasting-area.html#sthash.a3udpfYv.dpuf

Food Service Software, Nutrition Softwares, School Lunch Software

COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION STANDARDS FOR NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH AND BREAKFAST PROGRAMS

VIRGINIA A. STALLINGS (Chair),

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania

KAREN WEBER CULLEN,

Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, TX

ROSEMARY DEDERICHS,

Minneapolis Public Schools, Special School District No. 1, MN

MARY KAY FOX,

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Cambridge, MA

LISA HARNACK,

Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, MN

GAIL G. HARRISON,

School of Public Health, Center for Health Policy Research, University of California, Los Angeles

MARY ARLINDA HILL,

Jackson Public Schools, MS

HELEN H. JENSEN,

Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames

RONALD E. KLEINMAN,

Massachusetts General Hospital for Children, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

GEORGE P. McCABE,

College of Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

SUZANNE P. MURPHY,

Cancer Research Center of Hawaii, University of Hawaii, Honolulu

ANGELA M. ODOMS-YOUNG,

Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition, University of Illinois at Chicago, IL

YEONHWA PARK,

Department of Food Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

MARY JO TUCKWELL,

inTEAM Associates, Ashland, WI

Study Staff

CHRISTINE TAYLOR, Study Director

SHEILA MOATS, Associate Program Officer

JULIA HOGLUND, Research Associate

HEATHER BREINER, Program Associate

CAROL WEST SUITOR, Consultant Subject Matter Expert and Writer

ANTON BANDY, Financial Officer

GERALDINE KENNEDO, Administrative Assistant,

Food and Nutrition Board

LINDA D. MEYERS, Director,

Food and Nutrition Board

Customer Satisfaction, Food Service Software, Nutrition Softwares

Associations Between School Meals Offered Through the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program and Fruit and Vegetable Intake Among Ethnically Diverse, Low-Income Children

Ramona Robinson-O’Brien, PhD, RD, Assistant Professor,a Teri Burgess-Champoux, PhD, RD, LD, Lecturer,b Jess Haines, PhD, MHScRD, Instructor,c Peter J. Hannan, MStat, Senior Research Fellow,d and Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, PhD, MPH, RD, Professore
Author information ► Copyright and License information ►
The publisher’s final edited version of this article is available at J Sch Health
See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence in support of the health benefits associated with fruit and vegetable (FV) intake, national data indicate that FV consumption among school-aged children is below recommended levels, particularly among low-income children. School meals offered through the School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program can provide an important contribution to child FV intake. This study examines the proportion of fruits and vegetables consumed from school meals programs among ethnically diverse, low socioeconomic status children.

METHODS

Participants (n = 103) included fourth to sixth grade boys and girls from 4 urban elementary schools in St. Paul, Minnesota serving primarily low-income populations. Research staff interviewed children during school hours and recorded dietary intake via 24-hour recall. Analysis included descriptive statistics using cross tabulations and means.

RESULTS

Average reported mean (SD) daily FV intake was 3.6 (2.5) servings, with 80% of children consuming fewer than 5 daily servings of FV. On average, children consumed over half of their daily FV intake within school. Children with low FV intake (<5 FV servings daily) consumed a higher proportion of their daily intake at school than children with higher FV intake (≥5 FV servings daily) (39% vs 59%; p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Child FV intake is below recommended levels. School meals provide an important contribution to the daily FV intake among ethnically diverse, low socioeconomic status children, particularly among those with the lowest FV intake. School meals programs promoting FV intake within the school environment may provide an opportunity to encourage increased FV consumption.

Keywords: child nutrition, fruit and vegetable intake, school cafeteria, 24-hour recall

Despite the evidence in support of the health benefits associated with fruit and vegetable (FV) intake,1 national data indicate that FV consumption of school-aged children is below recommended levels.2 The dietary goals identified by Healthy People 2010 include increasing the proportion of youth who consume ≥2 daily servings of fruit and ≥3 daily servings of vegetables.3 Based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data (1999–2000), the estimated mean daily intake of fruits and vegetables among boys and girls aged 9–13 years was 3.7 servings and only 18% to 20% of children in this age group consumed 5 or more daily servings of fruits and vegetables.2 Furthermore, youth from families with low socioeconomic status are likely to consume the fewest daily servings of fruits and vegetables.4 Based on Consumer Expenditure Survey data (1991 and 2000), per person FV expenditures were significantly less for low-income households compared to other households; $3.59 per capita per week versus $5.02, respectively.5

Although reported student satisfaction with breakfast and lunch could be improved,6 school meals provide an important contribution to the daily FV intake among ethnically diverse, low socioeconomic status children. School meals offered through the School Breakfast Program (SBP)7 and the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)8 make fruits and vegetables available to children from low-income households at a free or reduced rate. In 2006, the NSLP provided nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunch to more than 30 million school children.8 It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that the NSLP and SBP are a particularly important source of nutrients for school-age children from low-income families and state that the nutrition goals of the NSLP and SBP should be supported and extended through school wellness policies that enable students to develop lifelong healthful eating habits.9 In three school-based interventions, the lunch meal accounted for approximately 15% to 30% of the total daily intake of fruits and vegetables among school-aged children.10–12 Recent research conducted by the Food and Nutrition Service of the United States Department of Agriculture suggests that elementary school participants in the NSLP were more likely than nonparticipants to consume fruit juice at breakfast and consume at least 1 vegetable at lunch.6 This study provides further examination of the importance of school meals within a specific population believed to be at increased risk for inadequate intake of fruits and vegetables. This investigation examines the contribution of NSLP and SBP to FV intake between male and female fourth to sixth grade students using data from an ethnically diverse, primarily low-income sample of public elementary school children within an urban area in the United States.

The aim of this study examines associations between child daily FV intake and location of eating occasion (school vs nonschool) in a sample of ethnically diverse, low socioeconomic status, fourth to sixth grade students. The following research questions were addressed in this study: (1) What is the total daily FV intake in this population; (2) What proportion of the daily FV intake is consumed at school; (3) Does FV intake differ by gender, race, age, or weight status?; and (4) What role do school meals play in contributing to FV intake among those with the lowest FV intake?

METHODS

Study Population and Design

The study population for these analyses included 103 children (78 females, 25 males) in fourth to sixth grade (ages 9–12) from 4 urban elementary schools in St. Paul, Minnesota, serving primarily low-income populations who participated in an evaluation of the Ready. Set. ACTION! (RSA) program, a theater-based intervention aimed at obesity prevention.13 The present investigation utilizes baseline data collected prior to the intervention. Approximately 90% of the students at each school qualify for free or reduced school lunch.14 Nearly, all (102 of the 103 participants) consumed the school lunch provided by the NSLP while a smaller proportion (61 of the 103 participants) consumed school breakfast. The mean (SD) age of the male and female children included in these analyses was 10.5 (1.1) and 10.2 (1.1) years, respectively. The child self-reported ethnic distribution was as follows: African-American 53% (n = 55), Asian/Hmong 12% (n = 12), White 8% (n = 8), Hispanic 3% (n = 3), and mixed/other 24% (n = 25). Written consent was obtained from parents or primary caregivers for their child to participate in the study. The study population included a sizable proportion of overweight students with 56% of males and 36% of females with body mass index (BMI) ≥85th percentile for age and gender. The children also signed a written assent form.

Assessment of Dietary Intake

Dietary intake was assessed using a 1-day 24-hour dietary recall collected by research staff using Nutrition Data System for Research (NDS-R) on Tuesday—Friday to ensure that only weekday eating patterns were recorded. Dietary recalls were utilized to obtain a record of the type and number of foods and beverages consumed by participants during a complete 24-hour period (from midnight to midnight) for the day preceding the interview. Dietary interviewers trained by the Nutrition Coordinating Center (NCC) used NDS-R dietary data collection computer software to obtain 24-hour dietary recalls from participants via face-to-face interviews utilizing a standardized multiple-pass approach in which NDS-R displays computer prompts to assist interviewers in following a consistent, systematic approach. Interviews were conducted during the school day and took 30–45 minutes to complete. Participants were shown standardized food portion models to assist in estimating amounts of food consumed.

The school meals program provides children with opportunities to eat school breakfast, lunch, and snacks at school. The 24-hour recall data were analyzed using the NDS-R software, version 2006 (University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN). Servings of fruits, vegetables, and total fruits and vegetables were calculated using the food group serving count system based on the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. A summed score was created for total FV servings.

Fruit Intake Measure

Fruit servings are defined per the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 as 1 medium apple, banana, orange or pear; ½ cup of chopped, cooked, or canned fruit; ¼ cup of dried fruit or ½ cup of fruit juice. Fruit servings include fruit and juice consumed separately (plain) and in fruit salad, but did not include fried fruits.

Vegetable Intake Measure

Vegetable servings are defined per the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 as 1 cup of raw leafy vegetables, ½ cup of other cooked or raw vegetables, or ½ cup of vegetable juice. Vegetable servings include vegetables and vegetable juice consumed separately (plain) and in recipes containing vegetables, eg, stew, soup, lasagna, pizza, salad, casseroles, and commercial entrees, but did not include fried vegetables such as french fries.

Assessment of BMI

Height and weight measures were assessed by trained research staff using standardized equipment and procedures.15 Age and sex-specific BMI z-scores were calculated based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts, which are age and sex specific.16

DATA ANALYSIS

Descriptively we present the mean intake of fruit, of vegetables, and of fruit and vegetables combined as servings per day (mean and standard deviation) in total and as the proportion of the total eaten at school. These data are then stratified separately by gender, race, age, and weight status. A final stratification contrasts those with the highest FV intake of ≥5 fruits and vegetables per day versus those consuming less than 5 daily FV servings. The cutoff of 5 servings per day was based on the dietary goals identified by Healthy People 2010 which include increasing the proportion of youth who consume ≥2 daily servings of fruit and ≥3 daily servings of vegetables.3 At present, some government-led campaigns no longer specifically promote the consumption of 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per day, and instead focus on a “more is better” message.17

The focus is on the proportion of healthful intake coming from the school meals program, and how this differs across personal characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, age, weight status) and intake. Analysis of variance was used to generate p-values. The inclusion of p-values for differences in the combined FV intake is primarily used to direct attention to aspects of the data of greater interest, first of differences in daily intake, and secondly in differences of the proportions attributed to the school meals program, rather than for strict statistical testing. Note that in calculating the mean proportion, individual proportions are weighted equally, not by the amount of intake per individual. For example, a participant with a low total intake of fruits and vegetables may have a high proportion coming from the school meals program. SAS Version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) was used for all analyses.

RESULTS

Daily FV servings consumed by fourth to sixth grade children are shown in Table 1. Average reported mean (SD) daily FV intake was 3.6 (2.5) servings. Children consumed over half of their daily FV intake within school (54%). Daily FV intake among males (3.0 servings) was lower than FV intake among females (3.7 servings). The observed proportion of daily FV consumed at school among males and females were 64% and 51%, respectively (p = 0.09). Of 103 children, 82 (80%) consumed fewer than 5 daily servings of FV. When compared to children with higher FV intake (≥5 FV servings daily), children with lower FV intake (<5 FV servings daily) consumed a higher proportion of their daily intake at school (34% vs 59%) (p = .002). In this small dataset, daily FV intake and proportion of FV consumed at school did not differ statistically by gender, race, age, or weight status.

Table 1

Daily Fruit and Vegetable Servings Consumed by Fourth to Sixth Grade Children and Proportion Consumed at School (N = 103)

DISCUSSION

The primary aim of this study was to examine the cross-sectional associations between child FV intake and location of eating occasion for ethnically diverse, low socioeconomic status school-aged children. Findings suggest that for this population, the school meals program provided an important contribution to overall daily FV intake. The majority of participants reported low FV intake, with only 20% consuming ≥5 FV servings per day. Study participants consumed≥more than half of the daily FV intake at school. The school meals program appears to be particularly important for students with the lowest level of FV intake. Participants with the lowest daily FV intake consumed a significantly greater proportion of FV at school than students with the highest daily FV intake.

Findings indicating low levels of FV intake among children in this study are consistent with national data which indicate that boys and girls ages 9–13 consume 3.7 FV servings/day and only 18% to 20% of children in this age group consume 5 or more daily servings of fruits and vegetables.2 Children in this study consumed greater than 50% of their daily FV intake within the school setting. Previous studies have reported that the lunch meal accounted for an approximate range of 15% to 30% of the total daily FV intake.10–12 School meals offered through the SBP7 and the NSLP8 may provide an important opportunity for increased FV consumption. Previous research suggests that participants in SBP were more likely than nonparticipants to consume 100% fruit juice or some type of fruit for breakfast, compared with nonparticipants.6 Furthermore, about half of all NSLP participants consumed at least one vegetable at lunch, compared with 23% of nonparticipants; however, this pattern was primarily driven by increases in the consumption of potato foods, such as french fries and tater tots.6 The vegetable measure utilized in this investigation excludes fried vegetables (eg, french fries), and yet accounts for 44% of the daily vegetable intake among study participants.

The findings from this study, in conjunction with previous research6 underscore the importance of the School Meals Program for all children, but particularly for children from low-income families. School meals may have the greatest impact on the FV intake for children who may not have a high level of home FV availability and accessibility4,18,19 or exposure to parental modeling of FV intake.4,19–22 This issue becomes of even greater importance during hard economic times when families are making difficult decisions about how best to allocate financial resources. Some families may perceive fruits and vegetables as a costly option when compared to other more energy dense foods. A major strength of this study is the specific focus on children from low-income and ethnically diverse backgrounds who participated in the School Meals Program and who may be at greatest risk for low FV intake.

Limitations

Dietary intake was assessed using 24-hour recall data collected by research staff; however, it was limited to a single day and did not include direct observation. Furthermore, FV servings were somewhat lower than the self-reported daily FV intake reported in a companion survey completed by the children.23 This may have been due in part to the exclusion of fried potatoes from the vegetable 24-hour recall measure, or to bias due to self-report. Finally, because this study utilized a small convenience sample and did not control for a variety of possible confounding variables, we are unable to make generalizations beyond the population measured. A larger sample size may have provided additional insight into associations among participants with differing demographic characteristics and FV intake.

Conclusions

The majority of children consumed fewer than 5 daily servings of fruits and vegetables. School meals provided an important contribution to the daily FV intake among ethnically diverse, low socioeconomic status children, particularly among those with the lowest FV intake. School meals programs promoting FV intake within the school environment may provide an opportunity to encourage increased FV consumption.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH

The findings from this study support previous research indicating that school breakfast and school lunch make an important contribution to overall dietary intake of youth. Promoting nutrition education messages within the classroom and cafeteria and providing students with multiple opportunities to select fruits and vegetables at school lunch and school breakfast may lead to increased FV consumption long-term and assist in reducing childhood obesity and food insecurity.

Research results support and encourage the ongoing efforts of school administrators, educators, and school food service personnel to embrace the tremendous opportunity to expand and enhance programs promoting increases in intake of fruits and vegetables.

Schools are an ideal venue to promote improvements in FV preferences and increased FV consumption among elementary-aged children. In the past decade, a wide variety of school-based, multicomponent interventions have been developed to promote increased FV intake among elementary school children.11,12,24–26 Future research should involve continued investigation of the most effective intervention strategies aimed at promoting increased FV intake among school-aged children.

Policies and strategies designed to promote and strengthen school meals programs should be encouraged and supported. Recent legislation has prompted a review of the impact of school meals on nutritional intake of youth,27 thus it is an ideal time to consider opportunities to strengthen the school meals program.

Given the positive impact that the school meals program may have on the dietary intake of children we need to also examine dietary intake outside of the school year and promote alternative programs to parents to sustain the FV intake of children year-round. A greater emphasis on establishing school-home partnerships may further contribute to the promotion of health-enhancing habits among youth.

Acknowledgments

Human Subjects Approval Statement This study was approved by the University of Minnesota’s institutional review board and the Saint Paul Schools Research Committee.

This study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and by the National Institutes of Health. The first author’s time was supported a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC.

REFERENCES

1. Van Duyn MA, Pivonka E. Overview of the health benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption for the dietetics professional: selected literature. J Am Diet Assoc. 2000;100(12):1511–1521. [PubMed]
2. Guenther PM, Dodd KW, Reedy J, Krebs-Smith SM. Most Americans eat much less than recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106(9):1371–1379. [PubMed]
3. Healthy People 2010 . Understanding and Improving Health. 2nd ed US Department of Health and Human Services; US Government Printing Office; Washington, DC: 2000.
4. Rasmussen M, Krolner R, Klepp KI, et al. Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among children and adolescents: a review of the literature. Part I: quantitative studies. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006;3:22. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Blisard N, Stewart H, Jolliffe D. Low-Income Household’s Expenditures on Fruits and Vegetables. US Department of Agriculture; Economic Research Service; Washington, DC: 2004. [Accessed July 27, 2010]. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AER833/.
6. Gordon A, Fox M, Clark M, et al. School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-III: Vol. II: Student Participation and Dietary Intakes. US Department of Agriculture; Food and Nutrition Service; Office of Research; Nutrition and Analysis; Alexandria, VA: 2007.
7. USDA [Accessed June 20, 2008];School Breakfast Program. Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/breakfast/.
8. USDA [Accessed June 20, 2008];National School Lunch Program. Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/.
9. Pilant VB. Position of the American Dietetic Association: local support for nutrition integrity in schools. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106(1):122–133. [PubMed]
10. Bere E, Veierod MB, Bjelland M, Klepp KI. Outcome and process evaluation of a Norwegian school-randomized fruit and vegetable intervention: Fruits and Vegetables Make the Marks (FVMM) Health Educ Res. 2006;21(2):258–267. [PubMed]
11. Cullen KW, Watson K, Baranowski T, Baranowski JH, Zakeri I. Squire’s Quest: intervention changes occurred at lunch and snack meals. Appetite. 2005;45(2):148–151. [PubMed]
12. Perry CL, Bishop DB, Taylor G, et al. Changing fruit and vegetable consumption among children: the 5-a-Day Power Plus program in St. Paul, Minnesota. Am J Public Health. 1998;88(4):603–609. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Neumark-Sztainer D, Haines J, Robinson-O’Brien R, et al. `Ready. Set. ACTION!’ A theater-based obesity prevention program for children: a feasibility study. Health Educ Res. 2008;11 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Minnesota Department of Education [Accessed March 2006];School and District Statistics. Available at: http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Data/Data_Downloads/School_and_District/Schooland_District_Statistics/index.html.
15. Lohman T, Roche A, Martorell R. Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. Human Kinetics Books; Champaign, IL: 1988.
16. Kuczmarski RJ, Ogden CL, Grummer-Strawn LM, et al. CDC growth charts: United States. Adv Data. 2000;(314):1–27. [PubMed]
17. [Accessed July 27, 2010];Fruits and Veggies, More Matters. Available at: www.fruitsandveggiesmorematters.org.
18. Cullen KW, Baranowski T, Owens E, Marsh T, Rittenberry L, de Moor C. Availability, accessibility, and preferences for fruit, 100% fruit juice, and vegetables influence children’s dietary behavior. Health Educ Behav. 2003;30(5):615–626. [PubMed]
19. van der Horst K, Oenema A, Ferreira I, et al. A systematic review of environmental correlates of obesity-related dietary behaviors in youth. Health Educ Res. 2007;22(2):203–226. [PubMed]
20. Cooke LJ, Wardle J, Gibson EL, Sapochnik M, Sheiham A, Lawson M. Demographic, familial and trait predictors of fruit and vegetable consumption by pre-school children. Public Health Nutr. 2004;7(2):295–302. [PubMed]
21. Fisher JO, Mitchell DC, Smiciklas-Wright H, Birch LL. Parental influences on young girls’ fruit and vegetable, micronutrient, and fat intakes. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002;102(1):58–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Hanson NI, Neumark-Sztainer D, Eisenberg ME, Story M, Wall M. Associations between parental report of the home food environment and adolescent intakes of fruits, vegetables and dairy foods. Public Health Nutr. 2005;8(1):77–85. [PubMed]
23. Robinson-O’Brien R, Neumark-Sztainer D, Hannan P, Burgess-Champoux T, Haines J. Fruits and vegetables at home: child and parent perceptions. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2009;41(5):360–364. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Weber Cullen K, Baranowski T, Rittenberry L, et al. Socioen-vironmental influences on children’s fruit, juice and vegetable consumption as reported by parents: reliability and validity of measures. Public Health Nutr. 2000;3(3):345–356. [PubMed]
25. Reynolds KD, Franklin FA, Binkley D, et al. Increasing the fruit and vegetable consumption of fourth-graders: results from the high 5 project. Prev Med. 2000;30(4):309–319. [PubMed]
26. Perry CL, Bishop DB, Taylor GL, et al. A randomized school trial of environmental strategies to encourage fruit and vegetable consumption among children. Health Educ Behav. 2004;31(1):65–76. [PubMed]
27. Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 [Accessed February 1, 2007];2004 Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/TN/Healthy/108-265.pdf. [PubMed]
Nutrition Softwares, School Lunch Software, Software for Cafeteria

Cafeteria software helps schools curb food waste

Wordware’s School Lunch Software, Point of sale software can help cut down on wasted food.

Wasted food is a significant problem for food service establishments, especially public school cafeterias. Food can only be left out for a certain amount of time and excess is tossed. Plate waste is also an issue, as students take more than they often eat. While donating the extra to food banks seems to be one option, legal and health considerations make that infeasible.

Those at some of the nation’s largest school districts have sought to tackle the problem. Teresa Wantabe discusses the situation at Los Angeles Unified and the steps administration has taken in a Los Angeles Times article. The nation’s second-largest school system, Los Angeles Unified serves 650,000 meals a day. However, food waste is a real problem for the district.

“Students throw out at least $100,000 worth of food a day — and probably far more, according to estimates by David Binkle, the district’s food services director,” writes Wantabe. “That amounts to $18 million a year — based on a conservative estimate of 10% food waste — which Binkle says would be far better spent on higher-quality items, such as strawberries or watermelon.”

California schools are not the only districts struggling with wasted food. Forty-percent of all of the lunches served in Boston Public Schools are wasted. Moreover, it’s a problem that extends beyond schools. Nationwide, the annual cost of food waste is more than $1 billion.

While food waste is an issue that affects many service establishments, it is particularly pronounced at schools. They are also in the greatest need of solutions, as they meet new government health and nutrition regulations. New guidelines, for example, require that cafeterias serve fresh produce and fruit. Yet, this can be expensive and much of it is being wasted.

According to Cornell University and Brigham Young University’s 2013 research of 15 Utah schools, extra produce, including fruits and vegetables, costs school districts $5.4 million each day. However, $3.8 million of it is being tossed out into the trash.

Cafeteria point of sale software can help schools cut down on wasted food. Food cost calculation software can also help administrators figure out costs and make the best use of their food and nutrition budget.

by Food Service Solutions

Nutrition Softwares, School Lunch Software

California experiments with local school lunch program

School lunch nutrition affects many aspects of a community. It’s an incredibly important subject, as it relates to children’s health and habits for the long term. Now, a new program in California is seeking to incorporate more locally grown foods onto students’ plates, and it’s part of a larger state-wide push to promote healthy eating and local agriculture, Maya Escobar of NPR’s Marketplace reports.

Given the large number of school lunches California serves annually—560 million to be exact—how will districts pay for it?

California is a state that grows a lot of its food, so the program makes sense. So far, fifteen districts across the state have signed on as partners, including Los Angeles and San Diego. “Yet the large-scale change is starting small,” Escobar explains.

“What we like to call a bite-sized implementation strategy,” says Zenobia Barlow, co-founder of the Center for Ecoliteracy. “By institutional purchasing, we’re going to trigger demand that will result in greater production of sustainably grown and sustainably produced food.”

However, there are real budgetary challenges, particularly since school lunch must abide by federal requirements and adhere to a strict budget. For instance, entrees always need to include a serving of protein and a serving of grain.

Moreover, as Alexandra Emmott, Oakland Unified School District’s “farm-to-school supervisor” explains, each entree must not exceed a budget of 60 cents. Fruits or vegetables are allocated 20 cents each, and milk gets 25 cents.

Last year, the Oakland Unified School District’s (OUSD) Nutrition Services (OUSD) launched the “California Thursdays” school lunch program. Its success has set a model for other school districts across the country to follow, Viji Sundaram of New America Media explains.

The premise of the program is to have special meals on Thursdays. A California Thursdays dish costs more than the average meal, as the district pays 40 cents for a locally sourced and antibiotic-free chicken leg. There is another challenge: High-schoolers need two drumsticks to meet USDA protein requirements, in turn putting the entree over budget, Emmott tells Escobar of Marketplace.

Luckily, there are ways to offset that extra cost, such as replacing the second piece of meat with red beans and rice, for example. This allows the entree to meet, but not exceed the price point, Emmott says. It does involve some creativity, but it is doable, she affirms.

As Emmott explains, locally sourced food is a trend catching on in different regions of the country, including the Northeast and Midwest.

“I talked to folks in Maine who were sourcing local proteins up there, even fish,” Emmott says. “So there are districts all across the country who are starting to do this.”

The Midwest is also jumping on board the local food push. Last month, Minnesota Thursdays started its own local lunch program for students in the Twin Cities.

How have students responded? With student’s mark of approval, a program has a much greater chance of success.

Oakland 17-year-old student Ayana Edgerly says “the food is way better in the cafeteria on Thursdays.” During the summer, Edgerly was part of the peer taste-tests program run by the Center for Ecoliteracy. As part of the program, students were asked to try and rate dishes in terms of taste and appearance, and also asked whether they would get in a lunch line for the particular meal—the true test of whether a food will be successful.

As districts consider implementing programs such as these, it is critical that they have the cost calculation solutions to assist them. Cafeteria software and food cost calculation tools enable districts to serve their students healthy food and remain on budget.