The Folly of a National School Diet: Local Solutions Meet Individual Needs

For better or for worse, federally subsidized school lunches are in our public schools and if we invite government-sponsored meals, then it makes sense they should no doubt be healthy. However Michelle Obama’s 2010 healthy kids’ initiative to fight obesity with improved school lunch program is under scrutiny because the fundamental problem with government-centric approaches to meeting the needs of individuals is the “one size fits all” approach.

Mrs. Obama’s aim to create an environment where kids can have an improved diet is laudable on the surface. So I proceed to examine the merits of a federal school lunch program, and specifically the updated menu requirements, with the assumption of good intent on her part.

High School students are relegated to 850 calories
according to new school lunch regulations through HHFK

 The 2010 Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act (HHFK)  is federally-funded food program authorized by the USDA who has the authority to establish requirements for foods available during the school day in school cafeterias, vending machines and school stores. This upgraded federal lunch program also mandates calorie maximums for school lunches regardless of size, body type or needs of the individual; it is a “one size fits all” approach to setting and improving nutritional standards.

Kids grow at different rates and are different sizes - all with varying energy needs. The attempt to have “hunger free” students in school is hardly the outcome of this program. Some examples of program implementation are also limiting students from receiving additional helpings, even when there’s food left over – which makes no sense when the federal guidelines require vegetables to comprise the largest portion of the lunch. How many people do you know become obese from eating too many vegetables?  Results: our kids are hungry!

High School Athletes need a minimum of
4,200 calories a day according to Nutrition Experts

Consider the high school athlete weighing in at 210 lbs. standing at 6’3” – varsity football linebacker Nick Blohm, at Mukwonago High school in Wisconsin and his classmate weighing in at 95 pounds; they both are limited to the 850 calorie lunch.  Nick is hungry and according to the nutrition experts for athletes, strength and muscle building for someone like Nick would need to consume about 15-20 calories per pound of body weight.  At 210 pounds then, he would need a minimum of 4,200 calories in a day.  However, Nick goes to school, attends eight classes and then heads off to a 3 hour football practice - he will burn upwards of 3,000 before his day at school is done. Even the experts 4,200 calorie guideline does not consider Nicks  metabolism and body needs.  Other factors to consider includes how much of the calories should be made up of carbohydrates, fats and proteins for meeting the individuals metabolic needs.  Some youth burn more calories than others throughout their day.

Students and teachers are noticing a depletion in attention and cognitive abilities under this new program – disruptions to learning because students are “hungry” due to this USDA enforced diet – parodies, protests and letters to state representatives are all an effort of the “people” – our kids and their parents fighting back against this government imposed diet.  The problems with this program go much further than the school cafeteria – it affects us all when it comes to our civil liberties.  Even our kids know this without coaching or the having the discussion of politics and policy – they recognize what is fair and right when compared to what is wrong.  It goes against our basic values human beings – free will.

Bang for the buck or passing the buck to government?

Families who pay for school lunches are paying more for these menus that are not suited to the individual needs  and are also requiring high state subsidies that many of our states cannot afford  therefore putting the financial responsibility to sustain funding for these imposed programs on the taxpayer – us! 

Thirty-nine percent of the nations’ schoolchildren lunch programs are funded by taxpayers – so why then don’t we have the choice to decide how that money is used when it comes to our children, their health and the food they eat?

If that isn’t bad enough the USDA offers bonuses to states that increase their free-lunch rolls (i.e., more people who sign up for free lunch program), which will result in more taxes can be collected from citizens and forcing all students at participating schools to eat taxpayer-funded breakfasts, lunches and snacks regardless of their ability to bring or pay for food – this is how they plan to sustain it. This accounts for 65% of the USDA’s allowable budget for national school lunch program and as costs rise, so will our taxes with no over the agency’s budget – accountability?

Mrs. Obama’s attempt to eradicate childhood obesity believing it to be the greatest “threat to national security” – because our students grow up unable to meet the physical requirements of our armed forces – fails to see that this movement cannot be forced through policy, rising taxes, and her personal ideal/belief that Americans all need to be on a diet!  

Let us be clear. This is a misuse of power, and influence.  President Obama referred to this as a “teachable moment” and yet no education is supported in this effort, but forced onto the American public through policies and regulations led by Michele Obama (whom we did not elect, by the way) – with the use of Taxpayers money.

If the real intent is to help Americans understand that our unhealthy lifestyles are hurting us, than that’s when education as a proactive measure needs to take center stage, rather than reactive, manipulative action that transfers decision making about diet from the home and child to government.  Nutrition education is something offered in hospitals, through doctors or private practices, but it is seldom taught in our schools.  Another important life skill from which our youth could benefit.  Some schools on their own have come up with these programs, but, imagine what could be accomplished if federal government got involved and decided to give schools the financial and policy support they need to actually “teach” how to prepare healthy food, make it taste good, the benefits of good nutrition? Think:

• buying local

• buying fresh

• organic foods

• how to shop

• how to read labels – etc. 

Only through proactive and deliberate education can we really influence the changes we want in our communities.  Sweeping policies and one-size fits all approach misses the opportunity to reach these kids and their parents. 

Help people come to appreciate the big “why”: Why whole foods are better for all aspects of life instead of processed food.

Local solutions have multiple benefits

Motivating our children to make better choices is really the only way we can influence and sustain the kinds of changes we want people to have.  Motivation requires genuine education. And genuine education includes families, their children and the communities we live in.  Approaching healthy lifestyles is something we have to work on in our communities and branch out from there. 

With BeMoneySmartUSA offering Farmers Markets as part of our program to teach and influence youth, we offer the opportunity for youth to be around healthy food, the farmers who grow it and the vendors who prepare it.  In this environment they have the opportunity to make choices based on their experience and even better choices through the education and knowledge they develop as a result of being in this environment.

Youth work with local Farmers to "earn while
they learn" at the BMSUSA Farmers Markets

The students go to work to earn a wage, this wage gives them choices and independence. As teens they make food choices on their own all the time. The added benefit of earning a wage in a community event like the Farmers Markets, they have the opportunity to learn where food comes from the benefits of it and engage with the farmers/vendors who grow and/or make it – it opens them up to the food, tastes and health benefits.  Through repetition of this process, proactive influence gradually changes their mind and palate. 

It is always better to educate others by allowing them to make choices. Give youth the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and experience to make their own decisions.  This is truly the only way we can influence and sustain the kind of changes she’s talking about.

In my years of teaching and business development, I also learned that improving cognitive abilities in our children when it comes to their school work, takes more than improving their food habits, but it also takes school programs that inspire a creative classroom, opportunities for social interaction, environments where students can talk, share and listen, independent reading, stimulating projects that require innovation, planning and of course exercise!  As important as food, exercise is the number one contributing influence for people to make the conscience effort to eat healthy.  In fact, according to Dr. Pillay (researcher CalTech), you can actually train your body to respond to food cues through regular exercise for a duration of at least six months to move away from the bad food choices to the better ones.  

What do you think? 

Is the Prosperity of our Youth at Risk? The Creativity Crisis

A recent Psychology Today article by Peter Gray, Ph.D., Freedom to Learn: The roles of play and curiosity as foundations for learning, articulates well the crisis and opportunity before us with regard to the disconnect between our current education culture and what it takes to prosper in a networked, global economy.

This article also speaks to the fundamental reason why BeMoneySmartUSA was founded:  to help our youth think for themselves and apply their own creative leadership capacity as entrepreneurs.

Gray suggests that our education system, and to a large extent, our culture of child rearing, has slowly deteriorated into a state where we are suppressing the freedom our children require in order to be creative.  He sites a study by Kyung Hee Kim (The Creativity Crisis:  The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 285-295.) which points to the decline of creativity among youth as it relates to a measure called “Creative Elaboration”.

Creative Elaboration addresses the ability to take an idea and expand or elaborate on it in an interesting or novel way. And this creative capacity is important in the modern economy that requires relationship building, problem solving, and capitalizing on opportunities in a very dynamic, global environment.

The main explanation for the “creativity crisis” is that our education system emphasizes standardized testing (where there is only one right answer, and this is not true in the real world).

Gray also explains that free play time is very important, and has been systematically reduced as more and more children are hemmed in by tight schedules of activities defined by adults, for adults.

But we don’t need an article or a study to tell us this, do we?

From my personal experience as a mother, a teacher and an entrepreneur, I can say with certainty that our children are not being raised to think for themselves and apply their creative ideas and talent. Rather, our system of education trains them to follow directions and memorize details for a test that does not translate to real world situations.

I witness routinely in our BeMoneySmartUSA workshops teens that have been trained to parrot what they are told by their instructors. These are incredibly bright youth, who when asked to solve a problem or offer an approach to an opportunity, often offer a blank stare.  Eventually, when we do enough exercises, these same students are actively contributing and collaborating, but it was not their first inclination by a long stretch.

As parents and educators we need to ask ourselves:

• Do we allow our children to be bored or fail at something? Are they allowed to explore interests without a qualifier tied to some expected outcome (a trophy, a course credit, a ranking, another line item on the childhood resume)? 
• Is the amount of homework issued helping them to learn, or creating a burden robbing them of free play?
•  Is our instruction mostly teacher-led, rather than student-led?
•  Do we only offer one path to an “A”?
•  Are we looking for opportunities that inspire students to be creative?
•   Have we become task masters, stifling creativity?
•   Do we understand that intrinsic motivation involves opportunities to make money, be a part of something larger than themselves, and make a difference?

We need to think hard about these types of questions because they have real consequences for this generation and our future.  Prosperity requires individuals to apply their capacity to think and other talents in ways that add value, solve problems, or seize opportunities to change the world for the better. And by the same token, financial solvency and independence requires every individual to take responsibility for their relationship with the money earned, and with the people and organizations they trust with their money.

What do you think?