school-based gardens can teach kids healthier eating habits biblio/for teachers... · teach kids...

40 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE, VOLUME 54, NUMBER 5

School-based gardens canteach kids healthier eatinghabitsJennifer Morris ❏ Marilyn Briggs ❏ Sheri Zidenberg-Cherr

Fruits and vegetables are impor-tant in a child’s diet because theyprovide the body with vitamins,minerals, fiber and severalphytochemicals necessary forgrowth and development andhealth maintenance. However, arecent study found that only 7% ofchildren aged 2 to 11 consumedthe recommended two servings offruits and three servings of veg-etables each day. A limited num-ber of nutrition education pro-grams have been shown toimprove dietary choices and self-reported health knowledge andbehavior by school-aged children,at least in short-term results. An

innovative approach is needed tomotivate children to develop life-long healthy eating habits. Our re-search shows that incorporatinggardens into the school environ-ment can reinforce nutrition les-sons. Likewise, children whoplant and harvest their own veg-etables are more willing to tasteand even like them. California Su-perintendent of Public InstructionDelaine Eastin has set a goal of “agarden in every school.” As moreof the state's farmland is lost todevelopment, garden activitiescan reinforce good nutrition aswell as teach California studentsabout the value of agriculture.

Current research shows thatchildren’s eating habits are not

consistent with national recommenda-tions (Dennison et al. 1998; Krebs-Smith et al. 1996; McPherson et al.1995; Muñoz et al. 1997; Reynolds etal. 1999). In general, children’s energyintakes are not much higher than inpast years. However, physical activitylevels are lower, average fat intakesare still well above 30% of total calo-ries, and fruit and vegetable consump-tion averages approximately 2.5 serv-ings a day (Bronner 1996; McPhersonet al. 1995).

A recent study found that only 1%of U.S. children met the Food GuidePyramid recommendations for all fivefood groups (Muñoz et al. 1997). An-other study found that only 7% of chil-dren ages 2 to 11 consumed the recom-mended two servings of fruits andthree servings of vegetables each day(Krebs-Smith et al. 1996). Fruits andvegetables are important in a child’sdiet because they provide the bodywith nutrients such as vitamins, min-erals, fiber and phytochemicals thatare necessary for growth and develop-ment and health maintenance. Educa-tors should provide children withways to incorporate more healthfulfoods into their daily diets. A logicalplace to influence the knowledge andhabits of children is in the classroom.

Nutrition education has been de-fined as “any set of learning experi-ences designed to facilitate the volun-tary adoption of eating and othernutrition-related behaviors conduciveto health and well-being” (SNE 1995).However, the term “behavior” does notsolely imply nutrient intake. Nutrition-related behaviors can refer to any ac-tivity related to the effects of nutritioneducation, such as consumption of aspecific food group, food preferences,attitudes toward snack foods, foodsanitation or food preparation tech-niques (Contento et al. 1995a). Nutri-tion education programs should striveto target a variety of health-related be-haviors, not just nutrient intake. Notall school-based nutrition educationprograms are equally successful atpromoting positive behavioral change.While some programs have shownsome degree of success, much work is

One study found that only 1% of U.S. children met the Food Guide Pyramid recommenda-tions for the five major food groups. Gardens, such as this one at Vista Square ElementarySchool in San Diego County, help to teach kids important lessons about nutrition.

Suz

anne

Pai

sley

CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2000 41

still needed to improve children’s nu-trition. The field of nutrition educationis in need of an innovative approach.Incorporating school gardens into thecurriculum is a possible solution, es-pecially in California where agricul-ture is such an important part of ourcommunities.

Components of effectiveprograms

Research shows that for a programto be effective, it must be based onsound theoretical frameworks(Contento et al. 1995a). Modeling aprogram around a specific frameworkallows researchers to target and mea-sure specific behaviors and motivatingactions. A theoretical framework isvaluable because it sets up guidelinesfor developing education lessons and

assessment tools, ensuringthe progression toward com-mon goals.

Social cognitive theory.While not used consistently,the model shown to be mosteffective when working withschool-aged children is thesocial cognitive theory (SCT)(Contento et al. 1995b). SCT-based ma-terials focus on three factors that arebelieved to be involved in alteringhealth-related behaviors: personal(e.g., beliefs, values and knowledge);behavioral (e.g., skills needed to com-plete a task and monitoring habits);and environmental (e.g., influences,surroundings, peer modeling and pa-rental support) (Bandura 1986). Pro-grams based on this theory must alterall three of these factors in order to

successfully change an individual’s be-havior. In addition, the SCT acknowl-edges that all three factors are continu-ally interacting and that no singlefactor is influenced without influenc-ing the others. Ultimately, programsbased on the SCT acknowledge thatyoung children are still greatly influ-enced by their surroundings.

Time and intensity. An effectivenutrition education program is morethan just theoretically based. Programs

Clockwise fromleft: A ChulaVista teacheruses gardensin science in-struction; train-ing guides helpteachers toimplementschool-basedgarden pro-grams; the Cali-fornia Depart-ment ofEducation hasproduced usefuleducationalmaterials.

Suz

anne

Pai

sley

Suz

anne

Pai

sley


must be of adequate time and inten-sity. Some professionals have sug-gested that current school-based nutri-tion education programs are oftenunsuccessful because they are short induration. Evidence suggests that ap-proximately 15 hours of instruction areneeded to change an individual’sknowledge and 50 hours to change hisor her behavior (Connell et al. 1985).However, teachers are often unable toprovide that much time for nutritionand health-related topics and must in-tegrate them into other subject areas.In addition, it may also be beneficial toalter the students’ environment to con-tinuously reinforce the material evenwhen it’s not being discussed in class.The level of intensity at which teachersimplement lessons is also correlatedwith program effectiveness. Researchshows that the more time and effort ateacher puts into nutrition lessons, themore beneficial those lessons will be tothe students (Resnicow et al. 1992).The level of energy a teacher putsinto a subject is often reflected instudent knowledge gains and behav-ior improvements.

School involvement. Another fac-tor that increases the effectiveness of anutrition education program is the in-volvement of the entire school com-

munity (Contento et al. 1995b). Stu-dents, teachers, food service workers,custodial staff and school administra-tors, as well as parents and other com-munity members, must all work to-gether to make the school a place thatemphasizes healthy eating habits. Bygetting so many people involved, stu-dents are better able to appreciate theimportance of what they are learning.Food service workers may begin toserve healthier meals showing thatthey too are committed to helping stu-dents choose healthy foods. They mayalso offer cafeteria tours or participatein classroom cooking lessons. The cus-todial staff may get involved by assist-ing with recycling and compostingprojects. Administrators may be ableto allow students more time to eat andenjoy their meals. Parents could get in-volved by asking students what theyare learning about healthy lifestylesand adopting some practices at home.

Community involvement. Finally,the community can get involved by of-fering field trips to local grocery stores,farmer’s markets or farms so childrencan learn where their food comes from.With so many farms scattered through-out the state, California schools have awonderful advantage. It is importantfor children living in California to gain

an appreciation for all that the state’sagriculture has to offer.

Hearty Heart and Home Team

One of the first large-scale nutritioneducation programs was conducted inthe early 1980s and used the HeartyHeart and Friends (HH) educationprogram (Perry et al. 1985). The pro-gram consisted of a 10-week, 20-session,school-based curriculum that encour-aged but did not require parental in-volvement. Sixteen third- and fourth-grade classrooms (eight interventionand eight control) participated in thestudy. The intervention incorporatedthe HH program during the fall, whilethe control classes received theschool’s “standard” nutrition educa-tion curriculum. Outcomes were mea-sured prior to the program and afterits completion 2 months later. The re-sults showed that fruit and vegetableconsumption increased while sugarand salt consumption decreased in theintervention group. In addition, theknowledge, attitudes and behaviors ofthe students improved, as demon-strated by responses to several ques-tionnaires. However, no effort wasmade to determine the long-lasting ef-fects of the program.

This study was later enhanced byadding a formal parental componentand a 1-year follow-up (Luepker et al.1988; Perry et al. 1989; Perry et al.1985). In addition to the HH program,the authors introduced a home-basedprogram called Home Team (HT). Ma-terials were sent directly to the hometo be completed by the children andparents. HH and HT were equivalentin content and duration (5 weeks).Thirty-two schools participated in thestudy and were randomly placed intoone of the following groups: HH only,HT only, HH & HT, or control (no pro-gram). Only third-grade students par-ticipated at each school. Data were col-lected before and after the interventionas well as 1 year later.

The results indicated a high rate ofparticipation in both the HH and HTprograms. Improvements in knowl-edge scores at the HH only and HH &HT groups were significantly greaterthan improvements in the controlgroup at the time of the post-test.

According to social cognitive theory, school-aged children will change health-relatedbehaviors if instruction includes personal, behavioral and environmental influences. AtPenngrove Elementary School, third-graders work their garden.


While not consistently significant, stu-dents involved in the HT program(both alone or in combination with theHH program) did tend to have lowerfat intakes following the interventionas shown by 24-hour food consump-tion records. This trend diminished bythe 1-year follow-up. The authors con-cluded that parental involvement wasfeasible and that adding such a com-ponent to a classroom-based nutritioneducation program may initiatechanges in the child’s dietary patterns.

Know Your Body program

There is concern that some of thevariation in results obtained from nu-trition education programs is due tothe level of teacher implementationrather than the program itself. Tostudy this further, Resnicow and col-leagues assessed the feasibility ofimplementing the Know Your Body(KYB) program into the curriculum atfive schools (Resnicow et al. 1992).KYB is an example of a nutrition edu-cation program that aimed to posi-tively influence student health choicesthrough schoolwide activities and en-vironmental modifications.

The study population consisted ofstudents in grades one through four,predominantly of lower socioeco-nomic status. Prior to the start, partici-pating teachers received 1 to 2 days oftraining. The intervention consisted ofin-class curriculum (one lesson perweek for the entire year) as well aswhole-school activities, includingsalad bars, fresh fruits and vegetables(e.g., changes in cafeteria environ-ment). Teacher implementation was de-termined by responses to a self-reportedquestionnaire and ratings by a headteacher and project coordinator (teach-ers were rated as “low,” “medium” or“high” implementers).

Results suggested a dose-responserelationship between teacher implemen-tation and several measured indices.The students of high-implementationteachers improved their total plasma-cholesterol levels, systolic blood pres-sure, intake of vegetables, and healthknowledge as compared to students oflow-implementation teachers. It isclear that the intensity at which ateacher implements lessons is re-

flected in studentimprovements.

Trial for Cardiovas-cular Health

With all of thisknowledge, several in-vestigators designedyet another nutritioneducation program,the Child and Adoles-cent Trial for Cardio-vascular Health(CATCH) (Luepker etal. 1996). CATCH isone of the largest andmost intensive school-based health educationprograms to date, with96 public schools atfour sites across thecountry participating.The schools were ran-domly assigned to ei-ther an intervention orcontrol group. The stu-dents at the interven-tion schools were ex-posed to activities inschool and at home.The school activitiesincluded modifications to the schoolmeal programs and time spent inphysical activity as well as classroomlessons throughout the year.

Results indicated a significant im-provement in the health-knowledgescores of the students in the interven-tion group as compared to those in thecontrol group. No significant differ-ences were seen in total blood choles-terol levels or systolic blood pressurebetween the two groups. However, fatintake was significantly lower and thetime engaged in moderate to vigorousphysical activity was significantlyhigher among students at the interven-tion sites.

Further research is needed to deter-mine the long-term effects of such aprogram. In addition, efforts must bemade to control for the level of teacherimplementation when evaluating nu-trition education programs. While thepotential value of multifaceted nutri-tion education programs withinschools has been demonstrated,schools still must grapple with how to

get high levels of student, teacher,school, parent and community in-volvement and implementation innonstudy settings.

The Gimme 5 program

The final two programs focus spe-cifically on increasing children’s fruitand vegetable consumption. Onestudy conducted by Domel and col-leagues (1993) reported on the devel-opment and evaluation of the Gimme5 program. This program was de-signed to increase fruit and vegetableconsumption among fourth- and fifth-grade students. Data was collected infood diaries as well as knowledge andpreference questionnaires before andafter the intervention. Classroomteachers taught all lessons after par-ticipating in a training program. Fol-lowing the intervention, the change innutrition-knowledge scores was sig-

More than 1,800 California schools (out ofabout 8,500 total) have gardens, and nearly allmay have at least one by 2025. A UC 4-H re-search project is evaluating the role of schoolgardens in education, including at CesarChavez Elementary School in San Francisco.

Suz

anne

Pai

sley


nificantly greater at the interventionsite than the control site.

Results from the food diariesshowed no significant difference in to-tal fruit and vegetable intake betweenthe intervention and control sites.However, the intervention group in-creased consumption of fruit, whilethe control group increased their con-sumption of vegetables. French-friedpotatoes were the vegetable recordedas most often consumed by bothgroups. Lastly, the program resultedin improved preferences — one indica-tor of dietary behavior — for fruit andvegetable snacks at the interventionsite. This change in preference, how-ever, did not account for changes inconsumption. In this specific study,there was no association between theconsumption patterns of children andthe exposure to a short-term nutritioneducation program.

The 5-A-Day Power Plus

The goal of improving children’sfruit and vegetable intake was revis-ited with a more intensive nutritioneducation program called the 5-A-DayPower Plus program. This programwas multifaceted and implemented infourth-grade classrooms at 20 schoolsin St. Paul, Minn. (Perry et al. 1998). It

consisted of in-class, behavior-basedlessons with two lessons taught eachweek for eight weeks; a parental com-ponent, with information and foodsent home; involvement of the school’sfood service staff; and participation bythe local agricultural industry, whichprovided additional fruits and veg-etables for the program. After theschools were matched, they were ran-domly assigned into either the inter-vention or control group. Measure-ments included 24-hour dietaryrecalls, lunchroom observations, ahealth behavior questionnaire and aparental questionnaire.

Results from the 24-hour recalls andlunchroom observations indicated anincrease in the consumption of fruitsand a decrease in intake of fats by stu-dents at the intervention sites. Thehealth behavior questionnaireshowed an improvement in students’self-reported ability to ask for or con-sume fruits and vegetables within theintervention group. The parental ques-tionnaire showed an increased aware-ness of the 5-A-Day program by theparents of students at the interventionsite. In conclusion, this program re-sulted in an improvement in fruit in-take and self-reported health knowl-edge and behavior by the children

involved. This program was highly in-tense, involving collaboration at a va-riety of levels inside and outside theschool environment. Unfortunatelythese intensive programs, while gener-ally successful, are often unrealistic forindividual teachers to bring into theirown classrooms.

Garden-enhanced education

Despite what we know about thecomponents of a successful nutritioneducation program, not all show con-sistent long-term success. As a result,many educators are aware that nutri-tion education is in need of an innova-tive approach. We believe that addinga vegetable garden to a nutrition cur-riculum is an innovative approach thatmeets the needs of California.

There are many potential benefits tothe inclusion of a vegetable gardenwithin a classroom setting. A gardenenhances the modeling of the programaround the SCT. Gardening not onlyprovides opportunities to improve stu-dent knowledge and skills related tohealthy eating, but it also significantlyenhances their awareness of the envi-ronment. Vegetable gardens providecontinuous visual reinforcement of nu-trition lessons, even on days when nu-trition is not being taught. Anotherbenefit is the increased availabilityand accessibility of fresh fruits andvegetables. If the garden producesenough, foods can be served as part ofschool lunch for the whole school toenjoy.

Gardens also provide students withhands-on experience throughout thegrowing, harvesting and preparationof common and uncommon foods.This allows the students to get in-volved in the process of preparingtheir own foods. In addition, gardensprovide a wonderful opportunity forfood service staff, parents and commu-nity members to become involved.Garden activities can teach studentsmore about the value of the agricul-tural land in their community andwhere their food comes from. Theycan be used to teach a variety of sub-jects, including math, language arts,science, social science, and health.Nonetheless, very few well-designedstudies had been conducted to deter-

While many kids are “couch potatoes,” schools can play a role in encouraging healthierlifestyles. In Parlier, kids get some exercise at the city pool.

Jack

Kel

ly C

lark


mine the effect of gardening on thehealth-related behaviors of children.

Gardens and diet. Our researchgroup recently investigated the hy-pothesis that combining the harvest ofa vegetable garden with nutrition les-sons would have a greater effect onchildren’s dietary behaviors than nu-trition lessons alone. We conducted apilot study to evaluate the initial feasi-bility of implementing and evaluatinga garden-enhanced nutrition educa-tion program within a school setting(Morris et al. [in press]). This studywas conducted with first-graders froma control (n = 49) and intervention site(n = 48). Students at the interventionsite were exposed to several nutritionlessons throughout the school year incombination with fall and spring veg-etable gardens, while the control sitereceived no formal nutrition or gar-dening education. Results showed asignificant improvement in willing-ness to taste vegetables among stu-dents at the intervention site. We con-cluded that it is possible to implementand evaluate such a program withinschool-year constraints.

Once we determined the feasibility,we developed a more comprehensivenutrition education curriculum de-signed to improve the nutritionknowledge and vegetable preferencesof all elementary school-aged children.Vegetable preferences were chosen asa predictor of food intake becausepreference must be changed in orderto improve overall consumption pat-terns. The curriculum was developedaround the SCT and consisted of ninenutrition lessons with complementarygardening activities. Following eachlesson, students were sent home witha family newsletter to encourage pa-rental involvement and discussion.The curriculum lessons were designedwith standards for the core subject ar-eas in mind, to assist in the teaching ofmath, science, language arts and othersubjects. The lessons were repeatedlyfield-tested in several fourth- andfifth-grade classrooms and reviseduntil no further changes were neces-sary. We also developed a nutrition-knowledge questionnaire consistingof 30 multiple-choice questions, anda vegetable-preference survey that gave

students the opportunity to taste andrate six different vegetables on a five-point scale.

The formal evaluation of the cur-riculum took place within a NorthernCalifornia school district (Morris andZidenberg-Cherr, unpublished data).Fourth-grade students (n = 215) fromthree different schools participated inthis study. One school was designatedas the control site and received no for-mal nutrition or gardening education(CO). Another school was designatedas the classroom-based nutrition edu-cation site and received only the in-class nutrition lessons (NL). The thirdschool was designated as the garden-based nutrition education site and re-ceived both the in-class nutrition les-sons and the garden activities (NG).

Students at all three sites completedboth the nutrition-knowledge ques-tionnaire and the vegetable-preferencesurvey before and after the interven-tion, and 6 months later. Following theintervention, nutrition-knowledgescores at the NL and NG sites weregreater than those at the CO site.These improvements were still evident6 months later. Student preferences forcarrots and broccoli were higher at theNL and NG sites than the CO site,while preferences for zucchini andsnow peas were higher only at theNG site. Most improvements at theNG site were retained at the 6-monthfollow-up.

We conclude that this garden-enhanced nutrition education cur-riculum is an effective tool for im-proving the nutrition knowledge andvegetable preferences of elementaryschool-aged children. Additional workis needed to assess the effect of such acurriculum on the fruit and vegetableintake patterns of children.

Future in focus: Implications fornutrition education

Educating children about nutritionis critical for dietary behavior patternsto improve. Many education programshave attempted to incorporate nutri-tion into a comprehensive schoolhealth program. Some have observedchanges in knowledge and only a lim-ited number of programs have re-sulted in behavioral changes.

The California Department of Edu-cation and the California Departmentof Health Services report, Building In-frastructures for Coordinated SchoolHealth: A California Blueprint, proposesa framework for implementing coordi-nated school health and is consistentwith the Centers for Disease Controlrecommendations in the Fit, Healthyand Ready to Learn policy guide(CDHS/CDE 2000; NASBE 2000). TheCDE’s Nutrition Services Division isimplementing nutrition educationthrough SHAPE (Shaping Health asPartners in Education) California. TheCalifornia Children’s 5 a Day and Cali-fornia Project LEAN from the Depart-ment of Health Services has developed

Gardening not onlyprovides opportunities toimprove student knowl-edge and skills related tohealthy eating, but it alsosignificantly enhancestheir awareness of theenvironment. Vegetablegardens provide continu-ous visual reinforcementof nutrition lessons, evenon days when nutrition isnot being taught.

and is implementing programs for up-per elementary and high school stu-dents. Realistically, nutrition educa-tion will have to be integrated intoother subject areas in order to be con-sistent with the current standard-based educational framework.

There are several benefits of addingfruit and vegetable gardens to theclassroom curriculum. As shown byour research, children who plant andharvest their own vegetables are morewilling to taste and even like themthan children who did not participate.With all of the fast food options avail-


able, children find it increasing diffi-cult to eat five servings of fruits andvegetables every day.

California Superintendent of PublicInstruction Delaine Eastin has set agoal of “a garden in every school.”She, along with many others, has longrecognized the value gardens have ineducation. Currently over 1,800schools (out of about 8,500) have a gar-den and we anticipate that by 2025close to every school will have a gar-den. The California Department ofEducation implements nutrition edu-cation in part through their garden-enhanced nutrition education projects.UC plays an active role in meeting oneof the key challenges to incorporatinggarden-based learning into nutritioneducation — teacher training. Specifi-cally, the UC Davis Children’s Gardenprogram provides workshops forteachers on specific garden-relatedtopics. Research conducted by UC aca-demics is essential for the promotionand implementation of nutrition edu-cation in K–12 education. For effectivepolicy recommendations to be made,key stakeholders such as the state Leg-islature must be made aware of theimpact that such programs can haveon children’s health-related behaviorsand academic achievement.

Teaching the importance of agricul-ture is especially important to the chil-dren of California. Every year morefarmland is developed, leaving less

land on whichto grow food.Today’s chil-dren will bevoters andpolicy-makersin 2025, andthey must un-derstand theimportance ofconservingfarmland.School-basedgardens pro-vide wonder-ful opportuni-

ties to teach children about sustainablefood systems and improved food secu-rity, both of which will become in-creasingly important as the state’spopulation increases.

Gardens may be the key to success-ful nutrition education programs, notjust in California but across the nation.Much research work is still needed,but the results to date imply signifi-cant long-term benefits for the healthand well-being of our children.

J. Morris was doctoral student in Depart-ment of Nutrition, UC Davis; M. Briggsis Assistant Superintendent of Public In-struction, California Department of Edu-cation; and S. Zidenberg-Cherr is Nutri-tion Science Specialist, Department ofNutrition, UC Davis.

ReferencesBandura A. 1986. Social Foundations of

Thought and Action: A Social CognitiveTheory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,Inc. 240 p.

Bronner YL. 1996. Nutritional status out-comes for children: Ethnic, cultural and envi-ronmental contexts. J Am Diet Assoc96(9):891-900, 3

[CDHS/CDE] California Department ofHealth Services and California Department ofEducation’s School Health Connections.2000. Building Infrastructures for CoordinatedSchool Health: A California Blueprint January10 p.

Connell DB, Turner RR, Mason EF. 1985.Summary of findings of the school healtheducation evaluation: Health promotion effec-tiveness, implementation and costs. J SchHealth 55(8):316-21.

Contento I, Balch GI, Bronner YL, et al.1995a. Theoretical frameworks or models fornutrition education. J Nutr Educ 27(6):287-90.

Contento I, Balch GI, Bronner YL, et al.1995b. Nutrition education for school-agedchildren. J Nutr Educ 27(6):298-311.

Dennison BA, Rockwell HL, Baker SL.1998. Fruit and vegetable intake in youngchildren. J Am Coll Nutr 17(4):371-8.

Domel SB, Baranowski T, Davis H, et al.1993. Development and evaluation of aschool intervention to increase fruit and veg-etable consumption among fourth- and fifth-grade students. J Nutr Educ 25(6):345-9.

Krebs-Smith SM, Cook A, Subar AF, et al.1996. Fruit and vegetable intakes of childrenand adolescents in the United States. ArchPediatr Adolesc Med 150(1):81-6.

Luepker RV, Perry CL, McKinlay SM, etal. 1996. Outcomes of a field trial to improvechildren’s dietary patterns and physical activ-ity: The Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardio-vascular Health. JAMA 275(10):768-76.

Luepker RV, Perry CL, Murray DM, MullisR. 1988. Hypertension prevention through nu-trition education in youth: A school-basedprogram involving parents. Health Psychol7(Suppl.):233-45.

McPherson RS, Montgomery DH,Nichaman MZ. 1995. Nutritional status of chil-dren: What do we know? J Nutr Educ27(5):225-34.

Morris JL, Neustadter A, Zidenberg-CherrS. (In press). Determining the feasibility andeffectiveness of a garden-enhanced nutritioneducation program with first-grade schoolchildren. Cal Ag.

Muñoz KA, Krebs-Smith SM, Ballard-Barbash R, Cleveland LE. 1997. Food intakesof U.S. children and adolescents comparedwith recommendations. Pediatrics100(3):323-9.

[NASBE ] National Association of StateBoards of Education. 2000. Fit, Healthy, andReady to Learn: A School Health PolicyGuide January. 19 p.

Perry CL, Bishop DB, Taylor G, et al.1998. Changing fruit and vegetable consump-tion among children: The 5-a-Day Power Plusprogram in St. Paul, MN. Am J Public Health88(4):603-9.

Perry CL, Luepker RV, Murray DM, et al.1989. Parent involvement with children’shealth promotion: A 1-year follow-up of theMinnesota Home Team. Health Educ Q16(2):171-80.

Perry CL, Mullis RM, Maile MC. 1985.Modifying the eating behavior of young chil-dren. J Sch Health 55(10):399-402.

Resnicow K, Cohn L, Reinhardt J, et al.1992. A 3-year evaluation of the Know YourBody program in inner-city school children.Health Educ Q 19(4):463-80.

Reynolds KD, Baranowski T, Bishop DB,et al. 1999. Patterns in child and adolescentconsumption of fruit and vegetables: Effectsof gender and ethnicity across four sites. JAm Coll Nutr 18(3):248-54.

[SNE] Society for Nutrition Education.1995. Joint position of SNE, American Di-etetic Association and American School FoodService Association: School-based nutritionprograms and services. J Nutr Educ27(6):58-61.

Research is demonstrating that childrenwho grow their own food at school aremore willing to taste, and even enjoy,healthy fruits and vegetables.

Suz

anne

Pai

sley

school-based gardens can teach kids healthier eating habits biblio/for teachers... · teach kids...

Documents