By Gabe Bullard
Filed Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 11:45 PM
A study released today by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine names St. Louis Public Schools' lunches the worst in nutritional value out of America's 22 largest school districts. Labels: Schools
The SLPS middle school and high school summer lunch menus feature nutritional sinkholes such as nachos and cheese pizza as entrées Monday through Friday. The elementary school menu has far less cheese, but offers two packages of graham crackers with every lunch this summer.
Several studies have shown a strong relationship between nutrition and learning in children.
Iodine deficiency during early years is associated with reduced cognition and achievement in school-age children. Poorly nourished children have more problems fighting infections. Therefore, they may be sick more often, miss more school, and fail to keep up with classmates.
Undernutrition results in:
In these studies, school-age children who ate breakfast did better on performance tests than children with no breakfast.
In St. Louis schools, 81% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch.
Click here to view SLPS summer lunch menus.
Antonio French contributed to this report.
34 Comments:
I can't believe someone else has not said anything yet so I'm going to...
WE TOLD YOU SO! WE TOLD YOU SO! WE TOLD YOU SO!
8/14/2007 10:44 PM
A friend of mine contracts to do school lunch programs for several parochial schools. His situation's a little different from SLPS, but:
Its a little horse and water. If he provides a "healthy menu" the kids (meaning their parents) won't buy the lunches. It takes about 5 man-hours/day to serve lunch to 150 kids. If he doesn't have a certain weekly volume, he can't pay the help.
The principals (not the parents) have asked for healthier meals, but will not guarantee the volume. But they still want a lunch program, so he serves what the kids will order. Most of the salad & carrots (Eeeeewwwwww! I don't LIKE that!) ends in the garbage bin, while the pizza and chicken nuggets get scarfed down, with a good percentage of kids buying seconds. About 1/3 of the kids will take a piece of fruit.
All the effects of undernutrition listed are clearly a problem when calorie intake is insufficient. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about mis-nutrition, not malnutrition.
As with everything in schools, the parents are the key. If healthy eating is stressed in the home, and the parents tell the kids to eat what's put in front of them at school and not give them cash to buy what they will, healthy eating habits may be formed. Otherwise, no. The best the school lunch program can try to do is get some calories in `em so they stay awake. It begins and ends with the parents.
8/15/2007 12:41 AM
Tom, most of SLPS parents and students (80% qualify) can't afford to refuse the free breakfast and lunches offered them. I'm sure my mom wasn't the only one who said, "If you don't eat what I cook, you don't eat."
Let's just say many of these kids represent a captive audience for a lesson in good nutrition.
8/15/2007 12:59 AM
Have the lunches been provided by the same people for the last 8 years, or so? Were any significant changes made under Roberti, or Williams, or Bourisaw?
Is this something mostly handled by the board--or the superintendent?
8/15/2007 2:06 AM
The elected board as of April, as one of our first orders of business, directed the administration to look at bringing food service back in house. Of course the media spin was that we were union lackeys, but for years those of us who are parents of kids in the SLPS have known about this problem. One of my friends got ahold of the "super fortified donut" they serve for breakfast and compared the ingredients to a can of soda. The result was that if you gave a child a can of soda with a vitamin dissolved in it you were about even with the donut.
One of my children prefers the healthy lunch I pack her about 85% of the time to what is on the menu. Antonio, you are completely right that most of these kids don't have that option, and they deserve better than what they've been getting. Not just better, but more. They serve the same portions to the high schoolers that they serve to the little ones.
As for the elected board's directive? Last I heard, since as of June we've been shut out, is that the same food service we've had will continue this year. After this article, the current board may now go back and look at what we were trying to do, rephrasing it as part of their "fresh start." I'm sure they probably weren't aware of this, since none of them have kids attending the SLPS.
8/15/2007 10:04 AM
When you say bringing the food program back in house---that implies that it used to be in house---now it is outsourced in some way.
Anyone know the chronology regarding that?
8/15/2007 11:44 AM
leith be real. A lot of these kids are lucky if they get a mail at home. Very white and catholic of you. Boy your comments bother me. Did your friends at the district pay you to say this.
8/15/2007 11:51 AM
the problem with this blog is you have people like Tom and Kojoe who know nothing but just talk junk.
kojoe you mean you really don't know?
8/15/2007 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...
the problem with this blog is you have people like Tom and Kojoe who know nothing but just talk junk.
kojoe you mean you really don't know?
I don't know. My underlying bias is that sometime after Roberti was hired, a change was made in the food program---outsourcing of some sort. But I do not know that---so I asked.
Ms Wessling said the elected board told the administration to look at bringing the program back in house. There must have been reasons.
8/15/2007 1:05 PM
The food contract was "outsourced" by Roberti and Co., eliminating many jobs.
I have only had a child in the district for the last three years, so I can't comment on what it used to be, but the food now is an abomination. It is a hostile act to hand this food to children.
8/15/2007 1:26 PM
What?
When you contract out a public service the quality goes down?
Why, my republican friends told me it would make it better!
Just remember when you privatise public services they gets worse.
The voucer crowd promises a Cadillac education, but what they will deliver will drop the cadi so all you have left is Llac.
8/15/2007 3:20 PM
Your point is taken Antionio, but with a but.
Just because a family is eligible for free or reduced price meals does not mean they're so destitute they can't afford junk food. I speak from first-hand experience.
My point is that Aramark's performance hinges on the contract they have.
Is Aramark evaluated on student satisfaction with the food?
Do they get paid even when kids don't eat what they serve?
The contract ought to be written such that the answers are "no" and "yes". Otherwise, any food quality problem can be solved with a different contract.
Now, The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine whose report you cite is a radical animal rights group — any school lunch with meat, eggs, or milk (in any form) is in their eyes automatically unhealthy. The high-scoring districts are those that serve vegetarian meals. Ten minutes' research would've turned this up.
t
8/15/2007 5:30 PM
Leith, please
8/15/2007 7:14 PM
Tom----I read the article in the pd about how bad slps ranked----then I read what you pointed out about the pcfrm---then i looked it up in wikipedia, found you were right---then I looked up the story I thought i had read in the pd---and it was by Carolyn Tufts, and it mentioned the stuff about pcfrm------and I could swear---the original story was quite a bit different----anybody still have the Tuesday paper?
8/15/2007 8:03 PM
Tom, poor families buy junk food because it is cheaper than milk, cheese, or fresh produce. You don't have to be rich to buy junk food, it's the other way around. A 2 liter of soda for under a dollar, or a gallon of milk for over $2. See? When I have had the good fortune to have grocery cards to help the indigent families I serve in the non-profit I work for, they don't buy junk food. They thank me for the opportunity to buy cheese, meat, oranges, that sort of thing.
And I don't care who sent out the study or what their agenda is. The fact remains that our lunches are not what we should be feeding our children--because, again, a for-profit company can also serve junk cheaper than they can serve quality, just like the shopper in the grocery store.
8/15/2007 8:47 PM
Sullivan should be made to eat those lunches for a year instead of his usual caviar,Pheasant under glass and filet mignon!
8/15/2007 9:57 PM
kjoe:
> I could swear---the original
> story was quite a bit different
I guess you mean it did not mention The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine before and now it does. Maybe Ms. Tufts reads Pub Def — who knows?
Ms. Wessling:
> I don't care who sent out the
> study or what their agenda is.
Of course you don't: its conclusions suit your agenda. I do thank you for making so many of my points for me, especially the point that families (poor or no) don't want to eat what The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine thinks they should eat.
t
8/15/2007 10:38 PM
Ms. Wessling's point about more nourishing food costing more was made with great clarity.
I Wish I could do that.
8/16/2007 2:56 AM
Tom,
Could you help me out by clarifying your points? Going back and reading they seem to sway around, so if I'm missing something please help me out here. What I understood you to say was that schools have no choice but to serve the high fat junky stuff because that's what the kids will eat, and poor people will pick junk food even if healthy food is handed to them. And please show me where I made the point that families don't want to eat what this study says they should.
My point was that the study was irrelevant, really. The parents in this district have been complaining about the nutritional value of these lunches for years. As you said, it begins and ends with the parents. Unfortunately, no one (except the elected board as of April 2007) seemed to care about the parents concerns, but my goodness, a study comes out that gives bad press, and suddenly they are all over it.
I infer from your response that you feel my "agenda" on healthy lunches is somehow bad, because I and other SLPS parents want healthy lunches for the kids and this study (promoted by a group you find bad) concurs with the parents that our school meals need improvement. So then, I infer that you feel the meals the SLPS has been serving are appropriate. If you feel that way, that's fine. I'd be curious to know if you have kids eating it. I do represent all the parents so if some like the lunches, I'd be interested to know it. All I hear are complaints.
Thanks~
8/16/2007 9:46 AM
> schools have no choice
I didn't say that at all. Nowhere. The school has a choice: the caterer may not.
What I said is that at least one school caterer is incented to serve what the great majority of kids willingly eat because their parents and the school administration want it that way, and the contract terms offered him is the evidence of this. I said that the behavior of the caterer is dictated by the contract its handed. It does not take a PhD in economics or even a JD to figure this out.
I asked about the contract terms handed Aramark so we can tell whether your bloviating about evil for-profit companies means anything at all. Without the contract we can't say who's responsible for what.
> And please show me where I made
> the point that families don't
> want to eat what this study says
> they should.
Thank you for your request for clarification.
"They thank me for the opportunity to buy cheese, meat..."
They did not thank you for the opportunity to buy oatmeal, rice, beans, lentils; the kind of thing The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine thinks they should eat. Plus you mentioned milk, whose only nutritional advantage according to The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is as a calcium source, and there's no need to enslave cows to have a calcium source. Let the kids drink soy milk or eat broccoli to get their calcium, and let Flossie go free! Not that any of these foods are bad, but it isn't what they want, and you yourself have shown it.
"The elected board as of April, as one of our first orders of business, directed the administration to look at bringing food service back in house."
I don't think your healthy lunch agenda is about healthy lunches. If it were about healthy lunches, you would have as one of your first orders of business, directed the administration to look at providing healthy lunches. Instead, you directed the administration to look at a particular organizational design. I think your "healthy lunch" agenda is about bringing food service back in house where unaccountability rules.
That's my inference.
t
8/16/2007 12:25 PM
Tom,
Thanks for clarifying so I can in turn clarify that your inference on my agenda is incorrect. I want inhouse so there is accountability--we can adjust the lunches to the needs of our students and not worry about making a profit out of it, we can just worry about what is good nutritionally. I understand you want to believe the worst of me as an elected board member, but you are wrong. I don't believe we've ever met, but you seem quite comfortable announcing what you believe my concerns and priorities to be. If you ask me what they are, I will tell you. If you prefer to simply believe the worst to suit your own agenda, then there's not much left for me to say.
I notice you only mentioned the cheese and meat-I also mentioned oranges, which you left out as that didn't suit your particular agenda. I didn't feel I needed to list out every piece of produce my clients buy with their vouchers, but I assure you that fresh fruits and vegetables are certainly among them. Those are expensive-I find myself not buying them even when I want to and know my kids need them, solely due to cost. I mentioned a meat, a dairy and a produce item as representative of the foods many low-income families find they cannot afford on a regular basis.
You didn't answer whether you have children eating these lunches.
So much talk about agendas. Can't everyone just agree that we should care that our kids eat nutritionally and well so they can learn and grow up to have good lives?
8/16/2007 4:05 PM
How about this?
Health classes are put back into the curriculum, limited at first (because of limited time and resources) that focus on the individual student's dietary needs. Part of the curriculum would be to analyze your body type, etc. and develop a diet to suit your needs. Some students are overweight, some are training for sports, some need additional calories, etc...
Then limit the number of times a student can eat certain items and require them to eat other, healthier foods. An example might be...if a student eats a certain number of portions of fruits/vegetables...allow him or her to choose their next entree. (or something)
Something along these lines, I am obviously not a nutritionist.
If the food service ever gets their computerized system in place this could theoretically be handled by swiping the students lunch card. Of course, it could always be done cheaper and simpler (but less effectively) on a volunteer paper and pencil basis in which the student brings their "card" to the lunchroom with them. Whatever.
You could also MANDATE participation as a condition for receiving free lunches (breakfasts). This would eliminate the poor people only eat junk food argument.
8/16/2007 5:55 PM
something else...
A problem with my idea is that I don't think Aramark is currently offering the choices needed...I know they are not in my school.
In order to be successful a variety of choices needs to be available. But if the diets are "regulated", a more accurate count of needed food would be (theoretically) available...maybe.
But, these choices should be available anyway and would make the food service outsourcing a little more palatable.
8/16/2007 6:08 PM
"poor families buy junk food because it is cheaper than milk, cheese, or fresh produce. You don't have to be rich to buy junk food, it's the other way around. A 2 liter of soda for under a dollar, or a gallon of milk for over $2."
Yes but water is free and it's much healthier than soda (and possibly healthier than milk too depending on who you believe).
8/16/2007 6:57 PM
> your inference on my
> agenda is incorrect.
ipse dixit.
I have learned over the years to watch what politicians do as well as listen to what they say. Even the unpaid ones.
> we can adjust the lunches to
> the needs of our students and
> not worry about making a profit
> out of it, we can just worry
> about what is good
> nutritionally.
Yes, yes of course; this is entirely impossible now. Why didn't I think of it? I am such a fool. We all agree on what is good nutritionally, and if we do things your way we don't have to worry about a budget either, just like in the good old days:
In FY 2002-3, the District’s food service division accumulated a net loss of $2.6 million and ended the year in a fund balance deficit of ($3.2 million). Losses continued in FY 2003-4
I just know the food was absolutely terrific back then — lots of nutritious fresh veggies and low-fat expertly seasoned entrees were eagerly devoured by all the hungry little children who were most grateful to have it. That's why it cost so much! Yes indeed, let's bring it all back in-house right away. For the children.
Ahem. By my reckoning, the arrangement you describe is precisely one where accountability is avoided entirely. Its deja vu all over again, and this is what I observe you working to accomplish. A marvellous side effect is several hundred political supporters (i.e. school district emloyees) for future campaigns. Profits are not always measured in cash.
This said, I don't think the worst of you personally. I think you're trapped in your GooGoo/activist/advocate worldview. I myself hold that Subsidiarity is the most important principle of social organization, and the school district having restaurant operations violates it in spades.
If good nutrition is what you want from in-school meal programs, get agreement on what that means at least among the board members and tell the administration to deliver it on the best terms they can. Don't tell them how to deliver it. Incessant political meddling is how the district got to be such a mess.
t
8/16/2007 7:13 PM
Tom, you said:
"If good nutrition is what you want from in-school meal programs,"
OF COURSE that is what we should want! What do you mean IF?
Dont YOU want good nutrition from in-school lunch programs?
8/16/2007 7:37 PM
This is from a former secretary to the Director of Food and Nutrition Services when it was inhouse.
Roberti and Karen Marsal dissolved the division that had won awards nationwide for providing both healthy, balanced, and tasteful meals. Certified nutritionists ran the program and worked in collaboration with Missouri School Food Services and the USDA.
Out of all the companies bidding for the contract when it was being outsourced, Aramark was the worst according to the reports of the director and nutritionists.
Public service is geared toward public welfare; privatization is geared toward profit. Aramark has needed subsidizing by the Saint Louis Public Schools, while the in-house Food and Nutrition Services brought over a million dollars a year into the school district that helped the district in other areas.
Aramark serves junk food; while the previous service provided nutritious meals meeting USDA standards.
The director was Doris M. Layman, who served as a cafeteria nutritionist, an administrative nutritionist, and then as director for 40 years. She gave priority to balanced nutrition and appealing food, thinking it was also important to educate children on eating well.
William Robert and Karen Marsal destroyed an exemplary program.
Tom Leith, I sometimes agree with you, but in this regard, you are totally incorrect and inaccurate about the subject and regarding your unfounded accusations toward the elected board.
Blame privatization of public service. Profit first and to heck with children.
I know whereof I speak. Dr. Charles R. Brown, Superintendent or CEO of Wellston and a DESE employee will verify what I have written.
8/16/2007 9:26 PM
Sorry if I am posting too much but this really bites my ass. The report Tom Leith cites by William Roberti is the last straw. This report is a PR piece and I can't think of a more despicable attempt to justify making a profit at the expense of children.
The inaccuracies and twisted logic that has been used to support the rape, yes rape, of the SLPS is inexcusable (and beyond defending) and ANYONE who has the FIRST CLUE about what really happened (and continues to happen in some cases) in the SLPS would not even DREAM of denying the devestation caused by, or defending the actions of, Roberti & Co.
If you doubt me, PLEASE come visit my school for 1 week (day) and I am confident you will see the light.
8/16/2007 9:56 PM
Please understand I do not defend Aramark except to the extent they perform on their contract. I do not defend the terms of their contract. I do not defend every decision of the elected-board-before-last.
What I have seen here is that animal rights activists and some others attack the lunch menu on a number of grounds. Some of the others attack "profit" as well, and do not recognize that political influence is a form of profit. Or maybe they do and hope the rest of us don't. Its hard to say.
> Aramark has needed subsidizing
> by the Saint Louis Public
> Schools
What does this mean? Has SLPS paid Aramark more than the contract called for? Where can I find it reported? Who is accountable for it? In any case, if it has happened, it must end.
> Aramark serves junk food
Clearly. So put out an RFP for what the board (either one or both) want to serve. If they want to, they can crib Ms. Layman's universally-recognized wonderful menus from 2002 — put them right in the RFP. The level of detail go all the way down to portion sizes by grade level. See who bids what. Aramark will have some advantage in this since they have an assembled work force. C'est la vie.
Ms. Layman and her proteges should be encouraged to spin up a company and bid as well. Or if that's too much she could bid on a consulting contract to design a performance auditing program for the board to hand the admnistration for implementation — they'll need that regardless of the organizational design they choose, and the state auditor complained that there wasn't one in place. That would be a terrific legacy she could leave behind after 40 years. But she can't do both!
Keeping in mind its core competency, if the administration wants to bid (i.e. bring the catering function in-house), let them bid so long as they properly cost-out the program including termination costs since they will be borne by the district. Every so many years there should be another RFP to keep everybody honest.
Jim, I like you and I think your heart's in the right place, but ask not for whom the knee jerks, it jerks for thee.
t
8/17/2007 10:27 AM
Tom, you're too obstinate and contrary to convince. Roberti's figures of what the in-house Food and Nutrition Services lost was falsified by Roberti et al in order to do what they wanted to do. Someone suggested there is a blood relationship between Roberti and the owner of Aramark.
Layman and her nutritionists were salaried parties. They cannot bid on someone because they were in public service, not for-profit enterprise. They were not parties of wealth.
It was reported at a Board meeting earlier this year that Aramark needed approx. $725,000 extra than their contract called for.
Please be real.
8/17/2007 6:59 PM
Hi Tom,
Part of our disagreement(?) on things is that I feel the term "political influence as a form of profit" should not even be spoken in the same discussion as one of school lunches...or in discussions about education at all. You continue to make those connections.
Please people, if you insist upon talking business, don't mix it with EDUCATION. Educating children is the farthest thing from business and that is where many of us part company.
Sorry...good business practices run contrary, in most cases, to good education practices.
8/17/2007 9:54 PM
I think you should blame the diet issues on Veronica O'Brien. I hear she feeds her kids too much food.
8/17/2007 11:22 PM
(Tom, I do realize that business is a necessary part of educating children. My knee-jerk reactions have always come when "good business" (or politics) is used to justify harming learning...this is what happened with Aramark)
You are right that if the district wants a quality food program they should spell it out and be willing to pay for it.
8/18/2007 7:05 AM
Mr. Leith,
I am not a politician and don't give a damn about sucking up to people so they will give me money for future campaigns (who ever said there would be any?). I stand for what I stand for, and if they like it they can support me, and if they don't they won't. I was elected to improve student achievement, not to protect corruption or mediocrity.
School boards were never meant to be political machines and the fact that some have perverted them to be such is a shame. You are completely correct that a Board is supposed to set policy and let the lowest person on totem pole who is responsible for it take care of it. Micromanagement from the top is a big part of why we got into this mess. We asked for a report on how bringing food service back in-house could be done. We didn't jump in and start doing it, which would have been way out of bounds. Maybe what we did was out of bounds, as you think it was. I hope we get the chance to do better if we have done wrong.
You know the old statement "I know pornography when I see it?" Well, come look at these lunches and I bet you'll know they aren't nutritionally adequate, even without getting complete agreement on what is.
All your insinuations are that I would sell out the kids eating the SLPS lunches for political and personal gain. That is a horrible thing to say, and if you're going to say it then don't think saying you don't think the worst of me personally makes it any less horrible.
8/28/2007 11:07 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home