Teachers and the School Lunch Programme

By James Milnes Gaskell

EXAMS and graduations are over. Good teachers feel proud of the efforts they have made, and the results their students have achieved.

I get the impression that teachers may not have fully understood the assistance that the school lunch programme can provide in elevating the ability and motivation of their pupils. This is not speculation. It is demonstrated in a number of studies.

It was reported in the UK Observer in 2007 that two years after Hull City Council offered free nutritionally balanced lunches to all children in primary and special schools, those children who ate the healthy school meals instead of packed lunches, performed better in tests, were less disruptive and concentrated longer in the classroom. This study of 24,000 pupils, of whom 15,600 opted for the healthy meals while 8,400 went on with packed lunches, confirmed the theory that transforming a child’s diet improves how they learn and behave.
 
Professor Colquhoun, in charge of the study, said, “There has been a significant impact in all areas of children’s schooling: from behaviour, social relationships, health and learning. Children were more relaxed, more alert, more calm and less irritable.” 

These conclusions are adopted by other responsible Authorities, for example The Massachusetts Public Health Association states: “Good health is one key to academic success. Research (they do not specify) shows clear links between good nutrition and better performance by students in the classroom. When students are properly nourished their standardised test scores go up and they have lower levels of anxiety, hyperactivity, depression and psychological and social dysfunction. They have longer attention spans and less irritability and fatigue, enabling them to concentrate better in the classroom. They are less likely to be absent due to illness…”

Perhaps the most relevant study, because it was so large and so dramatic and definite in its results, was that made of New York City Public Schools between 1978/79 and 1982/83. This involved 803 schools and a round total of one million children.

In the Spring of 1979 the New York City (NYC) schools ranked in the 39th percentile on Standardised Achievement Test (SAT) scores given nationwide. That means that 61% of the nation’s schools scored higher. NYC schools had been in the lower half for years. However, for the years of the study they went from 11% below the average to 5% above it. Why?

In late 1979 the NYC Board of Education made changes in their lunch and breakfast programme.  They decreed a reduction in sugar (which would reduce dependence on prepackaged foods) and they banned two artificial food colourings. One must presume, although the report is not specific, that ‘real food’ fruit, veg, meat and fish replaced some of the prepackaged factory industrial foods. In the next set of achievement tests the school averaged in 47th percentile. A colossal increase! Over the next three years they implemented other changes. They eliminated artificial flavouring and colouring and banned two particular food preservatives. By year 1982/83, the schools had risen to the 54th percentile. This was an unprecedented, incredible rise of 16%.

Upon analysis further remarkable facts emerged.

Before the changes, the more school meals (at that stage unimproved and containing artificial colourings, flavourings and preservatives and more sugar) the children ate, the worse their scores.  But after the changes this reversed so that the more school meals the children ate, the better they did academically.

What the researchers also found, and this is of high importance, was that the improvement was not uniform. Not all children made a 16% improvement. That was the average. It was the lowest achievers that improved most. In 1979, before the dietary changes, 12.4% of the one million children were performing two or more grades below standard. These were the ‘learning disabled’ and ‘repeat failure’ students. By the end of 1983 only 4.9% were in that category. Thus 7.5% of a million children (12.4 - 4.9), 75,000, were no longer learning disabled low achievers, with all that that meant for their future, but had become able to perform at the level appropriate for their age.  These were the children that no other method had helped. The researchers stated that no other school district could be identified which reported such a large gain above the rest of the nation so quickly in a large population.

Parents want the best for their children. Teachers are proud when their charges do well. Children want to do well. Politicians hope for good results, and for a student body interested in their academic progress and not in a drift towards crime because society seems to have little to offer.

It is clear that nutritious school meals have a critical role. Provided the teachers, cooks and parents understand this and work at it effectively, we also should start to see improvements.  There is no opting out of it for teachers. They are a respected and important body and we depend on each and every one of them to take up the banner with enthusiasm. And if there is extra work, then cheerfully and gladly to accept it in the manifest best interests of those they serve, the school children of Nevis.