Earlier this week came the anticipated release of the School Accountability Reports, and we learned:
The annual December ratings, officially known as the School Accountability Reports, or SARs, are based on the already released results of state exams given the previous spring – and they’ve been flat for years.
That’s funny. You might think the problems of lagging student performance and the achievement gap had been solved. At least if you read the headline story that came out of yesterday’s State Board meeting:
After a hearing and discussion lasting more than an hour, the State Board of Education Wednesday approved regulations that set nutritional standards for beverages sold and distributed in Colorado’s schools.
Members voted 7-0 to expand the proposed regulations and ban sale of diet soda in high schools. The original language proposed by Department of Education staff included only sugared sodas in the ban.
The new rules set different beverage restrictions and portion sizes for elementary, middle and high schools. Sports drinks and non-sugared teas will be allowed in high schools.
The board had little room for maneuver, given that Senate Bill 08-129, passed by the 2008 legislature, set fairly detailed standards for what the board regulations should say. The regulations proposed by staff were the minimum required by the law.
The juxtaposition of these two stories in the same week made me chuckle. Some believe the great need for public education is to be the nutrition nanny. Others of us think public education should be focused more on serving the needs of the public (students, families, businesses, and other taxpaying citizens) to help produce a more educated populace. What does a state ban on Johnny and Suzie’s ability to buy a Pepsi at school teach them about personal responsibility, for example?
It isn’t the State Board’s fault. As Todd Engdahl’s story indicates, the Republican majority would not have passed it if they had their druthers. They just had to implement rules for the bill passed on the other side of Colfax.
At least some Board members had fun with it. It was an odd tag-team performance by vice chair Bob Schaffer and Democrat Evie Hudak (in her swansong meeting) that added diet sodas to the ban. While Hudak appeared to be a true believer in the idea, this observer was left to wonder if Schaffer wasn’t angling to impose the full burden of the Democrats’ ban on those complicit with the action. Who knows?
The unanimously-approved amendment, “To the greatest extent possible beverage products will be Colorado-produced products,” demonstrated how little seriousness the issue was given, and how little it deserved.
So can we get back to our regularly scheduled school reform broadcasting? No one likes their soda flat, but we should be even less satisfied when student achievement is flat.
Popularity: 2% [?]
School Success with Soda Standard
Last week, the State Board of Education unanimously passed a rule to require healthy beverages in school, as directed by a new state law. While the rule was recently trivialized in a piece in this publication by Ben DeGrow, state health and education advocates have widely hailed this rule for what I agree it is – an excellent first step in improving child health, learning and behavior outcomes, with long-term, positive fiscal implications.
Fortunately, state policymakers and the beverage industry get it as well. The legislature wisely set minimum standards agreed to by the beverage companies themselves, recognizing that by avoiding sugar, caffeine, and phosphoric acid in their drinks, students will be healthier, more alert, and thus have a greater ability to succeed in school. And because school is where students eat one or two meals on a daily basis, buy snacks and drinks, and have opportunities for physical activity, it is imperative that state and local policies foster student wellness.
Although school districts have made some strides in this area, few of them have established requirements for school drinks as the new law and rule have done. In this context, the state in its public role legitimately took responsibility to provide for student health.
About a quarter of kids in Colorado are overweight or obese, which leads to serious negative health outcomes, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, and low self-esteem. Good child health is a right, as well as a cost-effective strategy for our future, clearly and directly serving the needs of the public.
Instead of mocking the issue of child wellness and nutrition, thoughtful advocates are constructively focusing on strengthening student health, such as better nutrition and physical activity in public schools. With increasing recognition that child health affects key long-term outcomes for our economy, education and the well being of our children and state, school nutrition policies are beginning to gain the seriousness they deserve.
The State Board of Education’s enhanced rule is a great first step in this movement.