1. Meredith Carter April 30, 2008 Honors Senior Research Conference
Promoting Locally Grown Foods in Schools through Developed Classroom Curriculum and Foodservice Educational Tools
Meredith Carter
April 30, 2008
Honors Senior Research Conference

2. Personal Relevance Senior nutrition student Sheep farmer
Intern with MA Dept. of Agricultural Resources
Consultant for MA Farm to School Project

3. Reasons for Sustaining Local Agriculture
Support local farms & farmers
Strengthen local economies
Conserve energy used in transportation, food preparation & storage
Preserve open land
Maintain wildlife habitats
Consume fresh, healthy foods (

4. Farm to School Programs
Objectives:
Support local agriculture
Increase healthy food consumption among students
National Farm to School
1,986 Farm to School programs
38 states have operational programs
8,354 schools served by programs (

5. MA Farm to School Project
Partially supported by MA Dept. of Agricultural Resources
100 public schools, private schools, & colleges serve locally grown food
Serves 50 Massachusetts farms (

6. Agriculture in Massachusetts
6,075 farms
518,517 acres of farmland
$433 million in annual cash receipts
Multitude of products
Fruits & vegetables
Dairy
Aquaculture
Value added products
Nursery (

7. “Massachusetts Harvest for Students Week”
Organized by MA Farm to School
September 24-28, 2007
Objectives:
Assist schools in serving local foods
Raise awareness of benefits to purchasing & serving local foods in schools
Educate students and public on local agriculture, nutrition, & sustainability (

8. Study Objectives Assess Harvest Week activities by evaluating:
Provision, education & marketing of local foods in cafeterias
Developed classroom curriculum

9. Methods: Preliminary Steps
Present project proposal to URI’s Honors Program
Select and enroll participating schools
Receive approval from URI’s Institutional Review Board
Collect Parent Consent Forms & Student Assent Forms

10. Participating Schools
Amvet Boulevard School, North Attleboro
K-5, 400 students, 27 teachers
91% white, 5.5% English not first language
Heath School, Brookline
K-8, 377 students, 35 teachers
70% white, 17.4% English not first language (

11. Methods: Objective #1 - Foodservice
Quantitative Data
Foodservice data sheet
Pre & post-Harvest Week foodservice surveys
Qualitative Data
Foodservice interview questions
Foodservice educational & marketing tools

12. Methods: Objective #2 - Classroom
Pre & post-test student surveys
Classroom curriculum
Two 45-minute lessons
Lesson #1: Locally grown foods vs. non-locally grown foods, food supply
Lesson #2: Benefits to buying locally grown foods

13. Methods: Harvest Week
Administered pre-Harvest Week surveys & interview questions
Served local foods in cafeterias
Displayed foodservice educational tools
Taught two classroom lessons
Administered post-Harvest Week surveys & interview questions

14. Methods: Post-Harvest Week
Testing in Rhode Island
Tested classroom curriculum in one third-grade class
Narragansett Elementary School, Narragansett
Collected IRB approved consent forms
Administered pre & post-test surveys
Taught two classroom lessons
Adjusted to fit Rhode Island agriculture

15. Methods: Data Analysis
Objective #1 - Foodservice
Combined N. Attleboro & Brookline results
Objective #2 - Classroom
Combined MA results
Compared to RI results
Looked for changes in knowledge & attitudes

16. Results Student surveys Foodservice surveys, interviews, data sheets
N. Attleboro - 15 students
Brookline – 15 students
Narragansett – 9 students
Foodservice surveys, interviews, data sheets
N. Attleboro – 5 participants
Brookline – 3 participants
Pre-Harvest Week results only

17. Results: Objective #1 - Foodservice [Quantitative]
N. Attleboro
942 lunches/week
140 fruit servings/day, 100 vegetables servings/day
No cost difference
Consumption was same or greater
Brookline
850 lunches/week
1 serving fruit + 1 serving vegetable/student
Local foods cheaper or equal in price to usual foods
Consumption data unavailable

18. Foodservice Survey: Question #1
Local fruits and vegetables look better than non-local fruits and vegetables.
I don’t know.
Strongly Neither agree Strongly
disagree nor disagree agree

19. Foodservice Survey Results
Pre
(n=8)
Post
(n=5)
Look
4.3
4.6
Taste
4.4
4.5
Preparation
1.3
2.4
Marketing
Difference
3.1
2.5
Cost – Not Important
4.9
4.8
Cost – Important
4.1
4.2
Support
5.0
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)

20. Results: Objective #1 - Foodservice [Qualitative]
Pre-Harvest Week
Excited, supportive, optimistic that students will consume more
Foods believed to be fresher, healthier, brighter in color
Expect students to notice educational & marketing materials
Post-Harvest Week
No significant differences in quality
Few issues with product delivery & shelf life

21. Results: Objective #2 - Classroom
% Like to Go to Farm or Farmers' Mkt. to Buy Food
Pre
Post A
46.7
73.3 B
66.7 N
33.3
A=N. Attleboro; B=Brookline; N=Narragansett

22. Student Survey: Question #2
#2) Fruits and vegetables in the supermarket grow on farms in these places. (You can choose more than one.)
My town Massachusetts New United Around the
England States World

23. Where Food is Produced
MA (n=30)
RI (n=9)
(% correct)
Location
Pre
Post
My Town
36.7
53.3
22.2
33.3
My State
76.7
55.6
100.0
N.E.
20.0
44.4
66.7
U.S.
40.0
70.0
88.9
World
46.7
77.8

24. Foods Grown in State
MA (n=30)
RI (n=9)
(% correct)
Foods
Pre
Post
Strawberries
93.3
66.7
77.8
Corn
90.0
100.0
Oranges
50.0
70.0
44.4
Lobster
3.3
20.0
Cheese
13.3
22.2

25. % Associate Label with Freshness
Pre
Post A
93.3
100.0 B N
88.9

26. % Believe Farms Are Important
Pre
Post A
93.3
100.0 B N

27. Reasons Why Local Farms Are Important
MA (n=30)
RI (n=9)
(% correct)
Reasons
Pre
Post
Jobs
40.0
80.0
0.0
62.5
Open Land
76.7
55.6
Gas
70.0
93.3
44.4
Healthy/Delicious
88.9
75.0

28. Acceptability of Fruits & Vegetables in Schools
Pre
Post A
3.9
4.1 B
3.5
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)

29. Conclusion: Objective #1 - Foodservice
Foodservice staff supportive of local farms
Positively received Harvest Week
No apparent differences in:
Cost
Quality
Consumption
Local foods may require special preparation techniques

30. Conclusion: Objective #2 - Classroom
Students were receptive
Already had appreciation for local agriculture
Student knowledge & attitudes improved with classroom curriculum
Need to reevaluate curriculum
Students already knowledgeable on some topics

31. Conclusion: Overall Locally grown foods popular
Harvest Week appears to be great program
Classroom programs seemed effective
Materials may be used in the future
Foodservice departments very willing to participate

32. Learning Experiences
IRB approval & informed consent critical for studies
Paperwork required to work with young children & school systems
Difficult to work with schools from a distance
Timing of project was challenging
More resources needed for future studies
Publication of research possible

33. Questions?