Farm to School Needs Assessment by Taiga Press

page 3-4 page 5-6 page 7 page 8 page 9 page 10 page 11 page 12 page 13 page 14 page 15 page 16-17 page 18 page 19

What is Farm to School? About Food Roots Tillamook School District #9 District Food System Research & Methods Teachers & Administrators Overview Liberty & South Prairie East & Jr. High High School & TOPS Students East Jr. High High School Discussion of Findings Recommendations

As the nation struggles with concerns over childhood obesity, childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s access to healthy food, and a lack of awareness about our food system, Farm to School (FTS) programs aim to promote education in schools about food issues, encourage community involvement, and support mental and physical wellness among students. Farm to School refers to healthy food-related initiatives that include sourcing school cafeteria food from local, statewide, and regional producers; hands-on food exploration in school gardens; informative visits to local farms; interactive cooking classes; and integrating food-centered education into the core academic curriculum (USDA n.d.). Programs cultivate an appreciation for fresh fruits and vegetables in K-12 students, grounded in educating children about growing techniques and the health benefits of local food. Creating a nutritional foodscape that extends beyond the school cafeteria has the power to reinforce healthful eating habits and promote alternative pedagogy. Yet, integrating local food into the school environment is no easy task. School nutrition and FTS policies tailored to a specific school must account for the vast complexities of every facet of their food system (Nelson and Breda 2013). Awareness of the cultural and socially embedded context is especially relevant for rural, agricultural schools and communities as they struggle with a unique set of barriers to instituting FTS programs. When civic engagement and collective efforts act as the link between food production and consumption, FTS programs have the power to help revive rural economies and communities (Bagdonis et al. 2009). If civic engagement drives participation in FTS, the actors involved begin to naturally frame their schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s problems and potential solutions within their local context. 3

Little research has been done on how FTS programs may tap into the strong community values of rural areas, particularly within agrarian communities that still rely economically on networks of family farms and thriving local businesses. The widespread appeal of FTS initiatives may be seen in how they positively affect students’ eating habits—both within the school environment and at home—as well as play a role in strengthening community food security (Colasanti et al. 2012). Rural schools win too: FTS programming often meets core curriculum standards, exposes rural students to agricultural education, and increases participation in school meal programs (Vogt and Kaiser 2008). Rural schools are also better poised to address hunger seen in lower income students, as they are generally smaller and are more aware of individual student needs. Thus, successful FTS initiatives survive because of social relationships between crucial actors of the local food system. A quantitative look at the actors involved in FTS programs has been well documented by the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA). In 2011-12, the USDA conducted its first Farm to School Census. The census surveyed over 13,000 schools and found that 43 percent reported already having a Farm to School program while 13 percent vowed to start one (USDA: n.d.a). These findings were slightly higher in Oregon, where 68 percent of schools said they were already engaged in FTS programming and 9 percent said they hoped to be within the coming year (USDA: n.d.b). With FTS programming, the risk of “one size fits all” approach constructed at the federal level removes the project from the socially embedded local context, no longer accounting for the nuances of environment, diet, and lifestyles within specific regions, counties, or even individual schools. Rather than focus on the national level, the emphasis should be on localized eating patterns, the health of a school or district’s student population, and an analysis of the confounding factors that could lead to measurable outcomes (Mikkelsen and Ohri-Vachaspati 2013). This needs assessment will assess the interest in and desire for a FTS program by the students and staff of one such rural agricultural setting, Tillamook School District #9, in an attempt to better inform the selection of geographically, financially, and culturally appropriate FTS initiatives.

According to the USDA Farm to School (FTS) Survey conducted in 2012, 68% of Oregon Schools said they were already engaged in FTS activities and another 9% planned to start FTS programs within the following year.

Food Roots advocates for food system change in Tillamook County by creating lasting and durable relationships with members of the local community. It aims to increase access to healthy food, empower individuals, and promote self-reliance. Community support is expressed through the following key projects: Farm to School Program Overseen by the annual Food Corps service member, Food Rootsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Farm to School Program has helped to build and manage 12 school gardens throughout the county, including the Tillamook Jr. High School Learning Garden & Hoophouse, as well as the East Elementary School Garden. The gardens facilitate outdoor exploration and education on planting, growing, and harvesting food. Schools use these outdoor classrooms to

supplement or enhance the existing curriculum. The garden at the Jr. High also hosts an after school program called Root Troop where students get to meet farmers, cook with the produce they grow, and apply their understanding of horticulture in a garden setting on a weekly basis. Education and Outreach Food Roots engages in educational programs that extend beyond the scope of the Farm to School Program. The organization holds a Youth Summer Gardening Program, gardens with pre-kindergarten students at Tillamook Bay Child Care Center, and works with the Teen Parent Program at the Tillamook Options Program (TOPS). By extending programs to the summer months, Foot Roots is able to support yearlong food production that integrates cooking and entrepreneurial training into young peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;gardening and farming experiences. 5

Community Development Beyond the school district, Food Roots also turns its attention to the community by providing highly accessible information about the county’s foodways. In 2008, Food Roots organized a Community Food Assessment (CFA) for Tillamook County in order to better understand ways to ensure lasting positive food system change in the region. They also work directly with local farmers to increase access to farmers’ markets for low income populations. Economic and Micro-enterprise Development These programs provide entrepreneurs seeking to start or support their small-scale food businesses with training, technical assistance, and networking opportunities. Micro-enterprise initiatives in the form of Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) act as a matched savings program for smallbusiness start-ups. Food Roots also publishes the annual North Coast Food Guide in conjunction with the organization North Coast Food Web which informs readers where they may purchase local food in their communities. In addition, the Food Roots Farm Table market stand serves as an incubator for entrepreneurs to test out their products at the Tillamook Farmer’s Market. 6

Tillamook School District #9 serves almost 2000 students at six schools including Liberty Elementary (K-1), South Prairie Elementary (2-3), East Elementary (4-6), Tillamook Jr. High (7-8), Tillamook High School (9-12), and the Tillamook Options Program, or TOPS (7-12). The district’s mission is “to prepare our students with academic, artistic, professional-technical, and social skills necessary to become positive contributors to a changing world, by providing a high-quality curriculum, a well-trained staff, well-maintained facilities and a variety of extracurricular activities” (Tillamook School District #9) through strong partnerships with the local community. Students in the district test above national averages and many students graduate to continue their education at either universities or community colleges. Central Tillamook County’s School District #9 draws students from a wide spectrum of socioeconomic backgrounds. As of 2014 the district has not adopted a comprehensive strategy to implement an FTS program, nor is there uniformity in terms of which schools receive external funding for FTS projects such as a school gardens or culinary classes. The existing Farm to School ventureshave appeared as a result of individual efforts at a few of the schools. While THS offers agriculture and food science electives, few curriculum-based opportunities exist for students interested in agriculture and horticulture to gain hands-on experience in farming and gardening, engage in food-related income generating activities, or apply their understanding of food science beyond the classroom environment.

Looking beyond the school district to the community, statistics on food security and health in Tillamook County are particularly concerning. In 2011, the county reported more than 32 percent of children under 18 living in households considered food insecure while 34 percent of children are obese. Only 52 percent of students eligible to participate in supplemental nutrition programs such as SNAP are actually enrolled, raising concerns about student hunger. In the 2012-2013 school year, 62 percent of students in Tillamook County were eligible for the National Free or Reduced School Lunch Program. However, this percentage does not indicate the actual number of students participating in the program, as many chose not to register because they are unaware of the program or do not want the stigma associated with it (Food Roots 2011). These numbers highlight the importance of understanding the local context when assessing socioeconomic and cultural barriers to implementing FTS programs. When asked about the external barriers to Farm to School implementation in Tillamook School District #9, Randy Schild, superintendent, feels that cost and budget act as the primary inhibitors. In addition, finding local or regional suppliers with high enough yields presents yet another obstacle: “We do not have big crops in the county outside of dairy, so it is hard to buy local. Tillamook [Creamery] doesn’t bottle their milk, so we can’t even buy it from them.” He would be interested in implementing a district-wide FTS program as long as the price was right and the financial resources were there to sustain it. The district’s food service budget currently operates on a “break even” policy. “The goal is that food service will pay for itself through what they get in reimbursements” Schild said. The subsidies provided by the national government for students on free and reduced lunch and the district covers the cost of District #9’s food program budget. In response to integrating more food from existing school gardens into the school cafeterias, Randy Schild agreed this would be desirable and would not be in conflict with the district’s food service provider, Sodexo. Three of the six schools in the district curretnly have gardens (East, Jr. High, and TOPS) that donate a majority of their food to the county food bank. Another challenge the superintendant saw to implementing a FTS program in the district was the limited output such a program would entail, as well as the existing agricultural environment in the community. “Many kids live and work on farms,” he claimed. “Most of them are farming on a high level already and are already doing summer jobs in agriculture.” Schild also suggested that not only funding is needed to run a FTS program, but the district would have to hire a full time employee to oversee its initiatives: “We are certainly open to any Food Roots program if they can find the staff member who is willing to work on the program enough to help feed our kids and look at how this could be feasible.” Marla Hawley, the Food Service Coordinator for the district, spoke of additional challenges to implementing a FTS program in the district. She emphasized that she tries to buy as close to home as possible when she selects products through the provider Duck Produce. She works for Sodexo: a contract management company that facilitates food purchasing for large institutions such as school districts, hospitals, and universities at a cheaper price. Despite these more corporate-level sourcing habits, Hawley was enthusiastic about introducing school garden produce to the cafeteria. Like Mr. Schild, she also saw local scale of production as one of the barriers to FTS implementation: could school gardens or local producers really meet the school’s needs? The farmers would have to commit upfront to being able to sign a year-supply contract, as well as meet strict school safety and health standards.

Introducing a FTS school program in a district that seeks to break even on its food spending budget promotes a challenge to implementation. If sustainable funding sources could be allocated from outside the district, it appears that sourcing more directly from local farmers is indeed an option—as long as they can meet school mandated health standards and supply quotas.

The goal of the needs assessment was to establish each school’s extent of interest in facilitating a Farm to School program. In an attempt to understand the unique needs of each school, surveys were distributed to as many students, teachers, and school administrators throughout the district as possible. In total, 598 surveys from six schools were completed over the course of four months. Surveys for both staff and students were generally distributed by administrators of each schools. The project researcher spoke directly with school principals to establish a working definition of a Farm to School program and explain the project aims in greater detail. The teacher and administrator surveys that were administered by the researcher were usually distributed during staff meetings, ensuring that a majority of staff was present. However, surveys were also administered to teachers and administrators at three of the six schools without the presence of the researcher. The researcher did not administer any of the student surveys. In total, 78 of the roughly 250 full and part-time employees of the district were surveyed. Note that the total number of employees includes district employees beyond the scope of the research, such as food service and district office personnel. Data was collected from as many staff and students from each school as possible. Students at three schools— Tillamook High School, Tillamook Jr. High, and East Elementary—were also surveyed, representing the voices of 520 of the nearly 2,000 students in the district. Students below the fourth grade level were not surveyed based on their level of comprehension of FTS programs. Surveys consisted of open- and close-ended questions, primarily those using a Likert scale to gauge the degree of interest in FTS programming. Each survey was tailored based on the audience: while staff surveys were consistent, every school surveyed had different formats but contained the same general questions. Basic demographic data such as grade, age, gender, and lunch habit were asked. Additional questions concerned which types of programming students would like to see (if any) at their school, students’ perceptions of school cafeteria food quality, their willingness to invest time volunteering for a FTS program, and the infrastructural barriers they saw to FTS implementation at their school. All student surveys were administered by teachers during the same school period to ensure no student was surveyed twice. Written instructions for teachers and students accompanied the surveys. All participants retained the ability to remain anonymous. 9

Teachers/Admin surveyed: THS 31 (40%) TOPS 8 (10%) JR High 17 (22%) East 8 (10%) South Prairie 7 (9%) Liberty 7 (9%) Total: 78 (100%)

Overall, teachers and administrators throughout the district appear receptive to the idea of implementing Farm to School programs. Of the 78 surveyed, 14% were administrators and 86% were teachers. The staff represented all subjects and disciplines.

When asked about their degree of interest in FTS programming, 71% of teachers and administrators expressed some, moderate, or considerable levels of interest. Staff were given the following list of FTS initiatives to rank in order of appropriateness and feasibility for their school: Regular sourcing of Oregon-grown food for school meals; Local Lunch Days (one meal a month that is entirely comprised of Oregon-grown food in season); school garden exploration as an after-school program; school garden exploration as part of the academic curriculum; volunteer-led school garden mentoring program (older students mentoring younger students at partner schools on gardening and agricultural practices); Tasting Tables (occasional opportunities for students to taste food grown in school gardens); and income-generating activity for students (opportunities for students to sell the food they grow in school gardens). Of these choices, the presence of Oregon-grown food in the school cafeteria and having school garden exploration after school were most highly ranked. However, it is impossible to gauge accurate percentages on this question, as many staff allowed multiple initiatives to share their first choice selection. The least amount of interest was seen in respect to having students engage in farm-related income generating activities. This might be due to the fact that many students, as the superintendent mentioned, already work in agriculture. It is also interesting to note that the top choices for initiatives require very little direct involvement from staff, highlighting some of the barriers which will be discussed in the following pages. At 50%, the highest ranked outcome was the opportunity for hands-on experience that garden-based education afforded. However, it is interesting to note this counters the outcome of the above ranking. Again, it appears district staff see value in experience based learning but do not see themselves as the providers of this resource. When asked about the food at the school cafeteria, it is important to note that 35% of teachers and administrators admitted to never having purchased the food. Without support of food service at their schools, the staff directly sends a message to students about how they view the quality of the food. In addition, when asked who they saw most fit to implement FTS programs, the largest response rates for involvement were for students (57%), Food Roots (38%), and local food providers (33%). It is clear teachers feel their role in FTS implementation should be limited. This finding correlates with staff responses to the amount of hours they could allot per week to FTS projects: 90% did not envision spending more than two hours of their time each week to help. Also, 54% of staff felt that integrating FTS programs into the school curriculum would be very or somewhat difficult. Key individuals for each school were pointed out as potential leaders of FTS implementation. However, each school faced unique challenges, thus a warranting a further exploration of each schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs. 10

Teachers and administrators at Liberty Elementary, which serves kindergarten and first graders, felt that one of the major infrastructural barriers was that the school day did not allow space for FTS programming. One teacher even mentioned “finding the time to include it in our curriculum to do it justice” as a major concern. Teachers also saw time outside of the school as an issue, questioning who would run the program across the seasons in an after-school capacity or over the summer months. Teachers surveyed questioned the amount of sustained participation FTS programs would garner at Liberty—not just from students, but from staff and parent volunteers. “We have some garden space but not much. We also do not have much parent involvement so the teacher would need to be willing to put in more effort” another staff member noted. Based on the responses, there appears to be interest in integrating more garden-based education at Liberty but doubts as to whether or not a staff member will be able to spearhead this project. Farm to School implementation at Liberty would heavily rely on a district or school-based employee whose sole job was to oversee the garden and develop educational after-school programs for Liberty students. Barriers: 1. Finding time in the curriculum and outside of school 2. Someone to take care of the garden throughout the year, including the summer 3. Sustained participation Suggestions from teachers and admin: 1. Materials to use in health program about Oregon food 2. Guest speakers, such as farmers 3. Garden parties

Staff at South Prairie Elementary, which serves second and third graders of the district, saw time as the most prominent barrier to FTS adoption and implementation at their school. Every single staff member mentioned it as an obstacle. Many also felt that participation in a FTS program might be better suited as an after-school activity as oppose to trying to integrate it into already determined coursework: “We don’t have the time to plan the curriculum. It might even be difficult to have time for students to participate unless it was after school” one teacher mentioned. Another felt that having FTS in a supplementary capacity was more ideal: “The OSU Ag. in the classroom programs have been beneficial—particularly when local farmers come into the classroom and talk to students about what they do.” This suggests that trying to integrate a garden-based curriculum within the school hours might not be feasible for South Prairie staff. However, teachers and admin were open to the idea of having local food in their school, especially if they were not responsible for the operation of this program. Barriers: 1. Time, which was mentioned by every single teacher 2. Participation would be best if programs were after school Suggestions: 1. Daily healthy snacks 2. Education about agriculture in the classroom

Administrators and teachers at East Elementary (46th grade) also saw time and curriculum as barriers to implementing a FTS program during the school day. One teacher noted: “It is quite difficult to add curriculum components to the regular school day. After school programs are a better option.”The staff did not offer up suggestions regarding additional ideas for FTS implementation. As East Elementary already has a garden and benefits from Food Roots FTS programming, perhaps this impacted staff responses to the survey. Barriers: 1. Regimented curriculum prevents programs from happening during the school day 2. Time

The same concerns shared by East Elementary staff were evident at the Jr. High level (7-8th grade), which also has a garden. Time was cited as an overwhelming barrier on the qualitative component of the survey. Additional barriers were the new statewide standard core curriculum the teachers were attempting to figure out. One teacher said, “I think this is great, but I am lacking the extra time to make this partnership happen in my classroom.” It is important to remember that school staff may not be adverse to FTS implementation; rather, they

simply lack the time in their busy schedules to follow through with such a commitment. Staff also had difficulty envisioning how FTS would be implemented based on the core curriculum: “Besides Health (which is only 12 weeks long), I don’t see another area to add it too. If it was a separate class, maybe then…” Some teachers thought FTS could be integrated into the science classes: “We would have to figure out a way for the time Farm to School program to cover a lot of science standards.” In addition, funding for FTS programs was a repeated concern of staff. As the Jr. High is already poised for gardenbased education because of their school garden and Food Roots programming, hearing that the staff saw the benefits of such a program acts as a propeller for continued intervention. Barriers: 1. Time 2. New state standards 3. Funding Suggestions: 1. Farm or processing site field trips 2. Community connections via the farmers’ market 3. Integrate a work sample with 7th graders in the plant unit to get kids into the hoop house

Staff at Tillamook High School shared many of the concerns expressed by other teachers in the district. Time continually came up, as well as feeling overloaded by the new state curriculum standards. However, teachers also noted that implementation might be hard given the culture and participation levels of the staff. One administrator felt a barrier to FTS was “mostly just people resisting change, lacking the will to do something different.” When trying to imagine ways to integrate FTS into the curriculum, one staff member said: “This would be a great elective course. How would we pay for the teacher? We need a teacher who would be passionate about this to make it work.” Cost, year-round management, and getting all staff on board were also listed as major impediments to implementation. The apathy expressed by High School staff versus other grade levels may have something to do with the increase demands placed on them in regard to course planning and grading. It appears many high school staff were especially stretched thin, hinting at the need for an outsider to orchestrate an successful FTS programming. However, staff still identified key individuals among them, especially instructors of agriculture and food science, whom they envisioned might be able to integrate garden education into the curriculum. Barriers: 1. Time 2. Overloaded on curriculum and standards 3. Lack of staff 4. Resistant to change 5. Cost, especially of fresh food 6. Need greenhouse for Fall and Winter Suggestions: 1. Nutritional programs tied to food science class 2. Info from local producers and visits to local farms 3. Cooking, meal planning, and methods of food preservation education 4. Coordinate within existing departments and classes like the Agriculture Program

TOPS faces a set of incredibly unique barriers for FTS implementation. The school serves roughly 55 kids from 7-12th grade. While TOPS has an impressive garden project managed by a staff member, the students are unable to enjoy the fruits of their labor due to the lack of a cafeteria or kitchen staff to prep meals. Despite having a commercial kitchen for coursework on hospitality and culinary skills, students rarely used products from the garden in this space. Administrators blamed the strictness of the Sodexo contract, as well as a lack in funds. “Food service seems to be very controlled with very little wiggle room. We seem to answer to a ‘higher power’ ” one teacher noted. Despite having a staff member who devoted effort to garden education, TOPS struggles with having students support the program over the summer break. Another teacher saw that between her many obligations, there wasn’t enough time for her to extend FTS initiatives beyond the garden level. “That’s one of the problems: [the] need to attract and hire someone highly qualified to devote to this task, not lean on already busy teachers” she pointed out. TOPS is well positioned to integrate garden education into the curriculum. TOPS teachers saw many avenues through which to include education on the food system: “Students working in the gardens and tying agriculture to science, health, and government classes.” An administrator also suggested allowing students from other schools to join in the efforts of maintaining their garden. “I think there is opportunity at TOPS to include our lower grades and meet Food Roots goals at one site (ours) instead of running 3-4 gardens,” she explained. This potential collaborative effort might take the stress off of a limited number of people willing to spearhead a FTS project. Barriers: 1. No kitchen or kitchen staff to prep 2. Sodexo contract 3. Funding 4. Curriculum standards 5. Timing and organizing Suggestions: 1. More local food in lunches 2. Integrate FTS into science curriculum 3. Serving the food grown in the garden 4. Farmers’ markets

Despite being asked similar questions, students of each school were given different surveys depending on their grade level. Both the High School and Jr. High surveys contained open-ended questions while the students of East Elementary had only close-ended questions to answer. In regard to students of East Elementary lunch purchasing habits, 67% of students who responded to the question buy their lunch at school as opposed to 33% who bring their lunch from home. The following is a breakdown of the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; interest in various FTS programs:

In response to which programs might be best to implement for East Elementary based on the student feedback, it appears preference lends toward having local or garden-grown food available in the cafeteria is higher than garden-based education. Overall, students who responded that they were either maybe or definitely interested in participating in a FTS program was at an encouraging 78%. 14

Students at Tillamook Jr. High School also expressed interest in FTS programming that was further clarified by their responses to open-ended questions. From the breakdown of percentages, Jr. High students appear to have a less clear idea of the kinds of projects they would like to see under FTS initiatives. Tasting Tables were awarded the highest affirmative ‘Yes’ at 40%. This project would be easy to orchestrate, given the fact that the Jr. High already has a highly

functioning garden. Instead of donating food to the food bank, Food Roots’ program Root Troop could host Tasting Tables on a monthly basis throughout the growing season. As students were also highly interested in having time during school to engage in garden exploration, perhaps a more holistic garden curriculum program at the Jr. High has potential. Overall, 58% of the Jr. High students surveyed were interested in participating in a FTS project. Some of the key barriers to implementation students discussed in the open-ended responses focused on the limits of funding, time, and space. Students appeared to share similar concerns with teachers and administrators: “I think we are busy all day with classes, so we don’t have time for extra classes” one student noted. Students also saw the weather and seasons as problematic to yearlong implementation of a FTS program, especially for gardens. Interestingly, students also pointed out that not all students might be on board for participating in such a program: “Some of the challenges are [that] some kids don’t want to work; they want it handed to them.”While schools may never be able to elicit participation from all students, working toward programs that reach the majority of students remains the best course of action. Challenges: 1. Money/budget 2. Not enough time 3. Not enough space 4. Seasons; weather 5. Not enough participation from students 6. Not all kids would like it

Suggestions: 1. Able to eat food from the garden: harvesting and making 2. Optional class to learn about farming 3. More fruit choices; fresh meat 4. In general, students would like to see healthier food in the cafeteria

Tillamook’s farming culture was most evident in the High School survey responses. When adding the categories of some, moderate, and considerable interest together, the cumulative percentages of students’ responses are featured in the table below:

Overall, 52% of students had “some” to “considerable” interest in having FTS programs at their school. Note that students at the high school level were more interested in food-related FTS initiatives than garden initiatives. This may be because the school already has a strong agricultural program that incorporates hands on education into the curriculum. However, multiple students mentioned in their qualitative feedback that they would like to see after school clubs and FTS programs that focused on animals (in particular cows). This comes at no great surprise, as a primary industry in the county is dairy farming. High schoolers also noted many distinct challenges beyond funding, time, and sustained participation. Many pointed out that students, in general, lacked any desire to organize. They also questioned the role that food companies, like Sodexo, were playing in the process. This level of critical thought suggests interest in deeper food system issues—material that could easily be factored into course curriculum. Yet, many more high school students had positive suggestions for ways to fit a FTS program to their local context. Many noted the benefits of IGAs and direct markets: “Teach students how they can benefit by owning and operating a garden. Farmer’s market sales = good!” a student said. Concerns for health were much more pronounced at this level than at the Jr. High or Elementary. This suggests students might be receptive to health-based education, whether within or beyond the classroom. In addition, culinary courses were highlighted as something multiple students would be interested in.

Challenges: 1. Funding 2. Food provider influence 3. Finding people to commit to participating 4. No motivation from students or staff, as well as a lack of interest and effort to organize it 5. Space for a garden Suggestions: 1. Healthier food at lunch, including real meat 2. More locally-produced foods 3. An after school club 4. Focus on raising animals, especially cows 5. Cooking program and being able to cook with food they grow 6. Local gardens/farm tours 7. Business component

Quotes from student surveys: “A lot of extracurricular activities already take place. Students are very busy” “Some of the views I see as a challenge would be opinions and votes against this. A farm to school program would be a good idea, so are sustainable foods” “I love the idea of mentoring and the school garden” “Honestly, having vegetables and fruits rather than calorie filled foods would help”

While these results hardly broach the wealth of analysis the data has to offer, they have elucidated the perceptions of students and staff in ways that promote positive program recommendations for both Food Roots and the school district. Based on the cumulative percentages of interest expressed by students at all three schools in the proposed FTS initiatives, stakeholders should pursue programming that first and foremost focuses on offering locally-sourced, healthier food options over implementing school gardens or any kind of income-generating initiatives. This is not to say that students did not express interest in gardens as well, but the majority of students would benefit most from changes to where the district sources ingredients for its school lunches (or at least initiatives that integrate garden-grown food into the cafeteria). An analysis of a correlation matrix of these percentages also points to a strong connection between students’ interest in sourcing more Oregon-grown food for school meals, “Local Lunches,” and “Tasting Tables.” This suggests that, funding dependent, perhaps two or three of these initiatives should be pursued in tandem with one another, as they are complimentary in the students’ eyes. No barrier was more evident than time constraints placed on both teachers and students. As curriculum is heavily dictated by common core standards, integrating food and garden exploration into classes may be futile, especially at the high school level. A significant amount of students expressed interest in garden education, but whether or not this happens within the classroom or beyond depended on the school. It is encouraging to see that despite the lack of time, some tudents and teachers expressed interest in helping to facilitate FTS programs. However, teachers were adamant that they could not go it alone. Stronger coalitions both within the schools—between students and teachers, teachers and administrators—and among Food Roots, the district, community volunteers, and the schools has the potential to result in sharing responsibilities in ways that meet every actors’ time constraints. 18

While significant findings were presented, additional research questions would benefit from a more mixedmethod approach. Qualitative, open-ended, in-depth interviews should be conducted with participants to explain incongruence found in individual responses and elaborate on the few open-ended questions asked on the survey. One question in particular that arose concerns studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; involvement in other agricultural activities or clubs such as 4-H, and whether or not that positively or negatively affected their interest in certain FTS initiatives. Additionally, holding focus groups would encourage interesting dialogue among students and staff and potentially uncover the motivation behind studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; interest in having local food in cafeterias over school garden projects. The research was limited by the researcherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to be in Tillamook consistently enough to administer the surveys herself. If she had been able to personally administer the surveys, perhaps the students would not have found certain parts as confusing as they did. Further research should compare the responses of students and staff to those of parents, school nutrition personnel, and local food providers, whom were unfortunately not surveyed in this project. Associational and difference comparisons between groups has the potential to highlight additional ways forward for Food Roots and the Tillamook School District to improve access to and knowledge about local food through more comprehensive, individualized Farm to School programs.