Banning Junk Food at Schools Works

According to the first nationwide study on the effects of banning junk food sales at schools, recently published in the journal Pediatrics, there is a correlation between such bans and declining weight gain in children, Good Education reports.

Researchers studied data from 6,300 students in 40 states, measuring each student's weight and height in 2004, upon entering middle school, and again in 2007. They also looked at which children lived in states with anti-junk food laws. Children that lived in states with strong laws banning junk food sales at school gained less weight between fifth and eighth grades than those living in states with weak or nonexistent junk food laws. Furthermore, overweight and obese children were more likely to reach a healthy weight by eighth grade if they lived in anti-junk food states.

According to Good, the differences were not terribly dramatic. They also did not discuss how or if such laws affected younger children or older teens or whether there were other variables that may have been in play. Some states, for example, have much higher obesity rates than others. Since obesity tends to be higher in lower income communities, the results of the study might have been skewed or influenced by the poverty differential between states.

U.S. Heading for Record Whooping Cough Epidemic

There have already been 18,000 cases of whooping in the U.S. this year, more than double the number seen at this point last year. Nine children have already died. At this rate, 2012 will become the worst year for whooping cough since 1959, when near 40,000 cases were reported.

Prior to the era of mass vaccination for Pertussis (whooping cough), the U.S. saw nearly 150,000 cases per year, with as many as 8,000 deaths. However, for the past decade a mass hysteria about vaccines (see here, here and here) has prompted thousands of parents to forgo Pertussis and other vaccinations for their children, causing a sharp rise in infections and preventable deaths. Ironically, a large percentage of these parents come from well-educated, affluent backgrounds.

Religion Makes You Live Longer By Making You Behave?

(Image adapted from Energizr on Flickr)

Back in 2000, psychologist Michael E. McCullough and colleagues published a meta-analysis of several dozen studies indicating a strong correlation between religiosity and lower mortality. For the pious, this seemed to be proof that God had their backs and that their belief was paying off. To the rational minority, this data was a curiosity that begged deeper analysis. What other aspects of these individuals’ lives were also correlating with longevity? Could it be something other than their belief in God that was responsible?

MCullough did not rest on his laurels,. Rather, he did another meta-analysis in 2009 with his colleague Brian Willoughby, this time looking at hundreds of research papers, revealing that religious people are more likely to engage in healthy behaviors, like regularly visiting the doctor or dentist, and they are less likely to smoke, drink, take recreational drugs and engage in risky sex, Michael Shermer reported in this month’s Scientific American. This healthier behavior is clearly the more likely explanation for the longer life span.

Shermer, who writes the monthly Skeptic column for SciAm, went on to suggest that religion reinforces positive behaviors and rewards self-control by providing a tight social network and by promising Heaven and other delayed rewards. However, he suggests that we are all capable of this without belief in God or participation in organized religion. Meditation, for example, can help people exercise greater self-control and change bad habits. Parents and teachers try to reinforce impulse control and delayed gratification for children so that they will focus longer on the task at hand and refrain from disruptive behaviors.

Of course this notion of living a healthier lifestyle seems implausible in light of the high profile examples of religious leaders engaging in promiscuous sex and drunkenness and the Catholic Church’s ban on condoms. It also seems unlikely in light of the fact that the Bible Belt is the most obese region of the country and has among the highest smoking rates.

Nevertheless, let’s assume the data is valid, that most pious people do engage in healthier behaviors like visiting the doctor more regularly.  Does this mean that their religious affiliations are the cause of this health consciousness? Isn’t it possible that religious people are more likely to have health and dental insurance? It would be interesting to examine the data to see if pious people do in fact have better health plans or, for that matter, higher paying jobs. While the latter seems unlikely—we all hear about how religious the poor are—it is possible that the average wealth of religious people is actually higher than it is for the nonreligious, even including the religious poor.

Regardless of one’s religiosity, the biggest influence on one’s health and longevity is wealth and social status (see here, here and here). Being poor and/or black dramatically increases the odds of having a stressful, low-paid highly demanding job, food and housing insecurity, and lack of access to healthcare and leisure time. It also dramatically increases the chances of developing diabetes, cancer, heart disease, hypertension and an early death.

The debate about whether religiosity or faith improves one’s health is a red herring. If we really cared about improving health outcomes for all, we would focus on ways to improve the wealth and social status of all. Universal health care, for example, would significantly reduce the rate of preventable deaths in the U.S.

Are Boys and Girls Really That Different (Part II)?

In honor of the one-year anniversary of Modern School, I'm reposting some of my favorite articles from the past year. The following is a a follow up to the quiz in Are Girls and Boys Really All That Different? which I recommend reading first (reposted yesterday)

Same Upbringing, Different Outcomes?

Kids in Gender Specific Costumes, by EpSos.de

Several friends have told me that boys and girls are inherently different from each other. Their evidence was that their own boys and girls came out so differently despite being raised in the same environment and in the same manner.

Even when the same parents raise two children in the “same” house and in the “same” manner, there are always slight differences in both. The furniture, decorations and toys change over time. Parents may be more stressed, confused, or overwhelmed early on, thus influencing how they interact with their first child. Grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, kids at daycare, television, videos, billboards, all broadcast gender images that babies start to pick up almost immediately.

My three-year old son recently explained to me that certain colors were for boys, and others were for girls, despite our best efforts to raise him in a gender neutral manner. Even if no one actually told him that certain colors were for girls or for boys, he certainly could have developed this hypothesis himself from observing people on television, at day care, and in the community. When I asked him what would happen if a child wore the wrong color, he very astutely answered that their feelings might get hurt.

Biological Gender Differences Are Actually Quite Small

Many people believe that girls and boys are innately or genetically different. They accept the sociobiological assumption that biology or DNA is destiny, that traits as complex as gender could have an entirely (or primarily) genetic basis.

This simply is not true.

Numerous factors influence a child’s development, and the role of genetics is actually quite small. There is really only one significant genetic difference between girls and boys (the presence or absence of a Y chromosome), and even this can be ambiguous. For example, a person born with XY chromosomes, but with a damaged SRY gene, will develop female genitalia and grow into a woman.

XY Females, from Wiki Commons

The SRY gene is what confers maleness, turning on the appropriate genes at the appropriate times during development to tell the body to start producing male hormones, testicles or facial hair. Lack of an SRY gene is what causes femaleness. Everyone, therefore, starts out as a female by default until an SRY gene turns on and starts producing male hormones and developing testicles and a penis. In addition to SRY mutations on the Y chromosome, there are over 400 known androgen receptor mutations that can occur on the X chromosome and cause XY individuals to grow into females due to insensitivity to male sex hormones.

 

There are numerous other genetic conditions that can result in ambiguous sexual differentiation. For example, someone who is born XXY has a condition known as Klinefelter’s syndrome and will usually have male genitalia, but may have some feminine secondary characteristics.

Klinefelter's Male from Wiki Commons

Even environmental factors, like pesticides and cosmetics can influence sexual differentiation. Gynecomastia (breast development in males) has been linked to tea tree and lavender oils. There are also numerous anti-androgenic pesticides and industrial chemicals (e.g., phthalates) that may cause gynecomastia, or alter the onset and progression of puberty.

So What Makes Girls and Boys Different?

Genetic factors (XX vs XY) contribute to primary sexual differentiation (development of testes or ovaries) as well as secondary sexual differentiation (development of body hair, voice, breasts and hip size) and play an important role in gender. Sexual differentiation is what most people think about when considering whether a person is male or female.

However, gender is more than what you have between your legs. Gender is the combined effects of sexual differentiation, behavior, social expectations and self-identity. The most obvious illustration of this is transgendered people who feel that they were born into the wrong body. Their gender does not match their biology.

While there is some variability in sexual differentiation (as discussed above), the non-biological influences on gender have considerably more variability. Many of our expectations and assumptions about gender are socially constructed. For example, in our society, it is unusual for men to wear gowns or to walk platonically hand in hand, yet in Morocco these behaviors are both common. Likewise, there is no rule that girls should play only with dolls and boys only with footballs, yet this is how most children are raised in our society, thus reinforcing gender stereotypes and the impression that gender is biologically predetermined.

The Baby X Experiment

The original Baby X experiment was conducted by Dr. Phylis Katz, et al, at the City University of New York (CUNY) in 1975, with a single baby girl, dressed in a yellow jumpsuit. There were three toys in the room: a football, a doll, and a teething ring. She was introduced to some adults as a girl. Others were told she was a boy. Some were not given any clues about her actual gender.

The experiment was repeated in 1980 using infants of both genders. Both studies had similar results. When told that the baby was a girl, adults tended to give the baby a doll to play with. When told the baby was a boy, they were more likely to give the baby a football to play with. When the baby’s gender was not specified, the adults tried to guess, using stereotypes like “She is friendly, and female infants smile more,” or “she is a girl because girls are more satisfied and accepting.”

Gender and Sociobiology

The popularity of sociobiological thinking is understandable with all the hype about the Human Genome project and shows like CSI, which have made DNA and Genetics seem sexy and hot. Sociobiology has also been intellectually legitimized and self-promoted by prominent and well-respected scientists like E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins. However, it is also a scientifically flawed oversimplification of social phenomena that has been abused throughout history by eugenicists, Nazis and other racists and supremacists.

The basic idea goes like this: All phenotypes (traits) are caused by proteins, which are synthesized based on genetic instructions. This is also known as the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. Over the past ten years, mounting evidence has shown the central dogma to be a gross overgeneralization. As educators, we know that the phenotype of academic success is not based solely on a child’s intelligence, but also on socioeconomic factors that can influence cognitive and social development, health, resilience and motivation. Even intelligence is not based entirely on genetics. No gene for intelligence has been identified. Malnutrition, exposure to certain drugs and chemicals in utero and pollution can all play a role in cognitive development.

Despite the protestations of the sociobiologists, children’s color preferences in clothing are influenced by social factors, and cannot be reduced to purely biological or genetic causes. This is true for many of their likes and dislikes, communication patterns, what they want to be when they grow up, and numerous other behaviors that typify maleness and femaleness.

Many parents agonize over whether to allow their little boy to experiment with feminine clothing and cooking, or their little girl to be tough and play sports, out of fear that they will be bullied (or because of their own homophobia). However, a more fundamental issue is whether or not we teach our children to be resilient, self-confident, and accepting of others, especially those who do not fit our stereotypes.

See Are Girls and Boys Really All That Different (Part I)

Abuse Bowl Hoax

Image by Combined Media

The Super Bowl is barely 24 hours away, and people across the country, even other parts of the world, are all gearing up for a marathon of beer, Velveeta topped Fritos, endless commercials (and, oh yeah,  probably a little head banging good ‘ole ‘Merican football, too). And many are also bracing for that annual orgy of misogynistic violence that accompanies it.

Or are they?

Domestic violence is a serious problem. Thousands of children are killed by their parents each year and it is a cause of death and terror for many women and some men. However, the notion that violence against women skyrockets during the Super Bowl is just plain bogus.  The hoax started in 1993, when a group of women called a press conference before the Super Bowl presenting data from a study done at Old Dominion that showed incidents of domestic violence jumped 40% after games won by the Redskins during the 1988-89 season. After this, psychologists, doctors and shelter workers started coming out of the woodwork with their own evidence to support these claims. The hoax was so convincing that NBC ran public service announcements during the Super Bowl warning men that they could face prison for attacking their wives. It was ultimately exposed as a hoax when the Washington Post tried to follow up on the studies.

Despite the exposure, it is still believed by many and continues to be expressed during the lead up to this current Super Bowl. The belief is so ubiquitous that it spread to Europe during the 2010 World Cup.

The basic premise, that men get so pumped up on booze, adrenaline and testosterone during a big sporting event that they lose their shit more easily than other times of the year, certainly has an appeal to it, especially if you subscribe to the notion that testosterone and alcohol are the causes of patriarchy and violence and that football is the epitome of violence. However, this reductionist and sociobiological sleight of hand let’s men (and women) too easily off the hook. If it is testosterone, stimulated by violent knuckleheads bashing each other’s brains in on T.V., then men aren’t really to blame for their actions. If true, you would expect massive beatings after each boxing match, hockey game and traffic snarl up, too.

While the overly simplistic premise of the claim should have drawn more skepticism and investigation, the claim appealed to people on several levels and was thus more valuable as an unsubstantiated claim than as an exposed myth. The media, for example, thrive on claims like this. Violence sells, even if the violent images are fabricated. The morbid obsession with violence trumps reason and critical thinking. Furthermore, as a puritanical society, people love stories that allow them to wag their fingers at the bad guys who sully their mothers, sisters and daughters. A similar dynamic was at play when the entire nation became hysterical over satanic child molesters at daycares, resulting in many arrests of innocent people.

It’s not just that Americans can’t or won’t think for themselves. The football hoax fit right into a more generalized misperception about domestic violence that is perpetuated by the highest levels of the U.S. government. "The facts are clear," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "Intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45." Yet, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice Department’s own data, the leading causes of death for African-American women between the ages 15–45 are cancer, heart disease, unintentional injuries such as car accidents, and HIV disease. Nevertheless, Holder’s claims remain on the DOJ website, perpetuating the racist myth that all African American women are in violent dysfunctional relationships.

Of course none of this is to say that football is a particularly safe or healthy pastime or that violence against women is an insignificant matter. Football is a relatively dangerous sport, but not as dangerous as war, which the U.S. engages in with almost as much frivolity as a sporting event. And domestic violence is still a serious problem in our culture that is often downplayed or trivialized, rather than discussed honestly and critically.

Super Bowl Fridge by mrpbody33

However, I the most common act of abuse that occurs during Super Bowl Sunday is that of overindulgence in unhealthy food and drink, slothfulness and indolence, all forms of abuse that I enjoy myself now and then and wish I could enjoy more often.

Epidemic of Youth Homelessness

Protesting Youth Homelessness (Image by LarrybobSF)

Over 21,000 students in Washington State were homeless in 2009-2010. This represents a 5% increase from the previous year and a 56.5% increase from 2005-2006, according to a recent report from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The number of students living in motels was up by 12%, and those living with friends and relatives increased by 9%. Actual numbers are probably much higher due to the difficulty in accurately acquiring this data and the fact that many families hide their homelessness due to the stigma that is attached to being homeless.

The data for Washington are appalling, but not unique. One out of every 50 American children (1.5 million) are homeless. However, most of these live in one of 11 states. Washington is far from the worst, ranking 25^th in the number of homeless children. The 10 states with the greatest percentages of homeless youth (in worsening order) are: California, Mississippi, Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, Louisiana, New Mexico, Arkansas, Georgia, and Texas. In California, more than 200,000 teens between the ages of 12 and 17 are homeless on an any given night, with only 1,000 shelter beds available for teens. Homeless youth are often turned away or harassed at adult homeless shelters.

How serious is this problem?

Image by Shrued

Homeless children are twice as likely to experience hunger as other children. They are twice as likely as middle class children to have moderate to severe health problems. About 50% have anxiety and/or depression, which is not surprising considering that 42% of homeless youth who live on their own have been abused, while 25% have witnessed violence. Needless to say, this has a profound effect on their academic success, resulting in a doubling of the likelihood that they will have to repeat a grade in school, get expelled or drop out.

How does 2011-2012 Shape Up for Homeless Youth?

Many states, Washington included, are slashing programs that assist poor families and children in order to cut their budget deficits. In Washington, the governor wants to eliminate pre-school assistance for more than 1000 poor children, health benefits for 27,000 poor children, cut Basic Health Plan that covers 66,000 low income residents.

Study Finds High Toxin Levels in Pregnant Women

Image by Justin Marty

A new study by the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) has found over 40 toxins in the blood and urine of pregnant women. Many of the toxins have been banned in the U.S. since the 1970s, before many of the women were even born, indicating just how pervasive they are in the environment. Others are found in common household products, cooking utensils, beauty aids and processed food.

The study was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives and is the first that actually counted the number of toxic chemicals in the bodies of pregnant women. 163 chemicals were studied and 43 of them were found in nearly every one of the 268 women tested.

The researchers also looked at non-pregnant women and found even higher levels for some chemicals, suggesting that pregnant women may be exercising greater precaution in what they eat and use in their homes. Nevertheless, even at the relatively low levels found in the women, many of these chemicals can have serious consequences for their babies, increasing the risk of birth defects, cancer, cognitive impairment and possibly even obesity.

Below is a list of some of the 43 chemicals found in the majority of the women along with their likely sources and potential health consequences:

• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) used to be used to insulate high voltage transformers

  

  PCBs, Massachusetts Dept. Environmental Protection

  and capacitors. They were used as flame retardants, plasticizers and mineral oils. Most PCB manufacturing in the U.S. was done by Monsanto. Production was banned in the U.S. in 1979. High exposure can cause skin and liver damage, cancer or death. They can also cause cognitive impairment and neurological damage to children. PCBs both inhibit and mimic the female hormone estradiol, contributing to their mutagenic effects.

• Organochlorine pesticides are a group of chemicals used primarily as insecticides, and include chemicals like DDT, which has been banned for decades in the U.S. However, because they break down very slowly in the environment they continue to contaminate our food supply. These chemicals have been linked to cancer, as well as liver, kidney and neurological damage.
• Polybrominated diphenyl ethers are a class of banned flamed retardants that are chemically similar to PCBs. While this class of chemicals has been banned in some states (California, 2006), similar toxic flame retardants continue to be used and are actually required by law as a flame retardant in the foam of furniture and mattresses, and as insulation in electrical devices. Therefore, all Americans are continually exposed to these chemicals, many of which are known carcinogens. They can also leach into the food supply. A study in Canada found them in salmon, beef, cheese and butter. According to the EPA, they can cause thyroid, liver and neurological damage and reduce fertility.
• Bisphenol A is used to line canned foods and to make some plastics and epoxy resins. It is an endocrine disrupter that may cause neurological damage and cause mutations. It is not yet clear what health effects can be attributed to the substance. However, several preliminary studies suggest that it may have negative effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human expo­sure levels.
• Phthalates are used to soften plastics, especially PVC, but have also been used as a coating for pills, as lubricants and in eye shadow, nail polish and hairspray. This class of chemicals also causes hormone disruption and has been linked to premature puberty in girls. Some scientists believe there is a link between neonatal phthalate exposure and undescended testis in boys, though link has not yet been confirmed. Phthalates have also been linked to obesity.



Second Hand Smoke, by hsufehmi

• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are a common class of chemicals found in smoke and are be produced by cigarettes, campfires, barbecues, candles, incense and plug-in air fresheners. Even when women avoid smoking during pregnancy, exposure can still occur from these other sources as well as from the secondhand smoke of friends, family and neighbors. Shockingly, recent research suggests that even third-hand smoke (residues that stick to walls and furniture and slowly desorb over time to enter the ambient air of a room) can persist in building for years after all smoking has ceased. Not surprisingly, third hand smoke also contains a host of toxic and carcinogenic compounds.In one study, researchers examined the homes of smokers who had moved out and that had remained empty for several months before nonsmoking renters moved in. Not only did they find higher levels of third hand smoke on the walls compared with nonsmoking homes, but the new nonsmoking renters had elevated levels of nicotine in their bodies.

The good news is that our exposures to many of these substances can be significantly reduced. For example, exposure to Bisphenol A can be minimized by avoiding the use of plastic bottles and aluminum cans made with the substance. And exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons can be reduced by avoiding smoke, especially tobacco smoke, but also candles, incense and air fresheners.

Lunch Law Lards Commodity Food Producers, Does Little to Fight Obesity

Image by fsgm

On Monday, President Obama signed the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, providing an additional $4.5 billion to the school lunch program over the next ten years. Obama praised the bill as a rare example of bipartisan cooperation, which should have alerted everyone that it was really just a big giveaway to corporate America.

The bill’s supporters believe that it will provide kids with more access to whole grains and fresh fruits and vegetables. It allows the USDA to set nutritional standards for all food, whether in cafeterias or vending machines, paving the way for the ultimate elimination of candy and other junk food at schools. It will also expand free school meals to an additional 115,000 low income students.

Much Ado About Nothing

Chidorian

While these are all good things, they are unlikely to happen. The legislation only provides a paltry six cent increase for each meal served, just enough to spread a few whole grains decoratively around students’ plates. Schools will be allowed to raise prices for students who can afford it, but there is no guarantee that students will be willing to pay more for a plate of “healthy” food, especially if it is still mass produced and heavily processed swill. Even if the more privileged students do pay more, schools still won’t be able to afford to hire sufficient cooks to prepare fresh meals on site, and will continue to rely on a few underpaid servers to hand out prefabricated meals produced by corporate giants like Sodexo and Marriott.

The pathetic six cents per meal subsidy will only be provided to schools that implement the new stricter nutrition guidelines. Considering that schools were already losing money on federally subsidized school lunches, even when resorting to prefabricated corporate factory foods, how will an additional six cents allow them to provide fresh fruits and vegetables? It’s unlikely that many schools will take advantage of the new program without making cuts elsewhere.

In my school district, the food is so horrendous that few students were buying it. However, our district had negotiated a deal with Marriott guaranteeing them a profit, which they weren’t making, obligating the school district to pay the difference. In an attempt to save themselves money, the district required schools to implement a brunch period, forcing us to change our bell schedules and cut several minutes of instructional time from each class, in hopes that kids would purchase more.

Robbing Peter to Pay for Paul?

Half the funding for the lunch bill is set to come from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which will provide kids a few cents more per meal at school, while reducing the amount of food stamps their parents would get to feed them at home. President Obama promised to replace the money taken from SNAP from some yet unspecified source. However, in this time of budget slashing and Republican rancor, he is unlikely to make good on this promise. If he fails to secure the funding, school may become the only place where poor kids get to eat. At home they can watch their parents starve.

Opening the Larder to Corporate Plunder

Both the First Lady’s organization, Let’s Move, and the new federal lunch law, were heavily backed by the largest food processing and factory farming groups in the country who hoped to win some of the $4.5 billion of taxpayer dollars allocated in the new legislation. Simply signing on as a supporter is great PR, as it allows these companies look like cheerleaders for children’s health while they continue to push their heavily salted, larded and sugared junk. The tactic is known as “cause marketing.” Joan Chow, chief marketing officer of ConAgra, a big supporter (and potential beneficiary) of the bill, said “We’ve found that consumers feel better about brands that they believe in.”

The biggest benefit to food corporations, however, is that the USDA has 18 months to determine the final nutrition standards, giving their lobbyists plenty of time to haggle, manipulate and massage the new rules to their liking.

Sodexo picket by SEIU Local 1

The school lunch program was already big business, even before this legislation. The largest supplier of school lunches, Sodexo, made more than $1 billion in profits last year, an 8.1% increase over the year before, much of it from school lunches. The new bill virtually ensures that more federal bucks will pass their way. Despite their huge profits, many Sodexo employees made only $7.50 per hour, qualifying them for SNAP (if there is any of it left), and making their kids eligible for free school lunches. Additionally, two-thirds of their non-managerial employees lack health coverage.

Other supporters of the legislation included the American Fruit and Vegetable Processors and Growers Coalition, ConAgra, Domino’s Pizza, International Dairy Foods Association, Mars Inc., Nestle USA, Coca-Cola, and Tyson Foods.

Fighting Obesity?

Proponents, especially the First Lady, claimed that the bill would fight obesity, a laughable notion considering the bill does nothing to increase kids’ physical activity during the school day. On the contrary, schools across the country have been reducing physical education due to budget cuts and the need to provide more academic support classes to help kids pass their numerous state and federal standardized exams. If the First Lady and congress truly care about making schools healthier, they need to abolish NCLB and provide sufficient funding so schools can retain PE teachers and provide students with at least 30 minutes of aerobic exercise daily.

The bill also fails to address why kids today are eating so much junk food. It’s not just that parents and schools are ignorant or irresponsible. The fact is that junk food is much cheaper and easier to obtain by overworked, stressed out parents. One reason for this is that government subsidies make it much more profitable to process corn and other commodity foods into unhealthy products that are much cheaper than healthier alternatives.

The Big Ag Deception

In reality, it is an illusion. That 2 liter bottle of coke seems like a good deal, but it is artificially cheap because the high fructose corn syrup came from subsidized corn, paid for out of our tax dollars. We are actually paying twice for that coke, once in the form of a smaller paycheck and again when we actually purchase the bottle at the am/pm.

A more expedient strategy for reducing obesity is to end the subsidies for big factory farms. As long as we subsidize corn and other commodity foods, growers and processers will be encouraged to produce highly processed, sugary, salty and fatty foods. The money saved could be used to help pay for healthier school lunches.

Another effective solution is to heavily tax junk foods, like we do tobacco. This would not only bring in revenues that could be used to improve the quality of school lunches, but it would also reduce consumption of junk food outside of school, with much greater impact on obesity. Higher taxes mean higher prices, forcing people to think twice about their purchases. The tobacco tax has been particularly effective at reducing consumption by children and a junk food tax would likely have a similar effect.

Seasonal Affective Pedagogue Disorder

Depression Drags You Down, by Ianuiop

As winter break approaches, teachers across the land begin to fall into a seasonal funk that is unique to teaching and distinct from the more generalized depression afflicting the rest of the country that results from relentless familial obligations, winter colds and flu, financial woes, seasonal affective disorder and overdoes of Christmas commercialism.

This peculiar teacher malaise is caused by the weariness of toiling for months to keep kids engaged, stimulated and well-behaved, combined with ongoing harassment by parents, politicians and pundits, and the sad realization that, despite all the hard work, we still have large numbers of failing students. For those unfortunate enough to teach in districts where finals occur after winter break, there is the added bummer of knowing that some kids will fail because of family vacations that extend past the end of the semester.

By the end of spring we are exhausted, but at least we can look forward to the long summer vacation ahead. Additionally, by second semester, many of the students who failed first semester have figured out how to do their work, or dropped the class, so the total number of Fs is lower. Spring is also graduation time. Students are more excited and optimistic. I receive my most positive feedback in the spring, when students and parents thank me for sticking with them and ask me to sign their yearbooks. I’ll never forget my first year teaching, when one boy introduced me to his father on graduation day, explaining that he would be the first in his family to graduate from high school, and then attributed it all to my confidence in him. 

The Bowl Curve

I suspect that Seasonal Affective Pedagogue Syndrome is more common in low income and low-performing schools, which tend to have a disproportionate number of students who begin the year without many of the prerequisite skills necessary to succeed at their grade level (e.g., reading, math, organization). As a result, they often fail to complete assignments and do poorly on exams, thus bringing down class averages to depressing lows. I have so many of these students that my class statistics (both overall, and for any given exam) more closely resemble lopsided bowls than traditional bell curves, with more students earning Ds and Fs than As, Bs and Cs.

The really sad thing about the bowl curve phenomenon is not just that there are so many Ds and Fs in one class or school, which is depressing itself, but the deplorable social conditions that contribute to it. The majority of my students who fail are reading below grade level. Most of them are low income. Many of them haven’t the slightest idea how to behave academically, routinely showing up without pens, their binders chaotically stuffed with random papers. Some have GPAs of less than 1.0 by the time they are seniors. Many are homeless, or have one or both parents looking for work, or in the hospital, or in jail, or deported, or dead. I have Iraqi refugees and students who’ve lost parents in the war.

It’s really quite remarkable that some of these kids make it to school at all. For others, it’s the only sane and structured part of their day.

Student Malaise

It’s not just the teachers and disadvantaged youth who suffer this seasonal depression. Even privileged students are burned out from all the homework, projects and testing. Many have tuned out by December. Frustrated, I went to a colleague for support. “I’ve been reviewing for finals with my students, but no one seems to know the answer to anything anymore, not even topics we covered yesterday.”

My colleague told me not to take it personally, that it was just the time of the year, and that we’re all experiencing the same thing. She told me she got so frustrated that she told her class, “I’m not going to stand here and ruin my voice asking review questions if you won’t take the trouble to think or look up the answers.”

Nevertheless, the problem seems worse this year than in previous years. I suspect that the economy has something to do with it. We have far more unemployed parents than usual. The stresses of living in poverty or even in a struggling middle class family can have profound effects on children. Worried parents, arguments over finances, privation and sacrifices, all cause stress and can affect children’s sleeping and eating habits, cortisol levels, immunity, and ability to concentrate in class.

On A Bright Note

Attendance is up and tardies are down, so at least my kids are making it to class. Very few kids have been rude to me this semester and interactions with self-entitled parents have been minimal, which has kept my stress levels low. Best of all, I will soon have two weeks to eat, read, relax and pee when I want to, unencumbered by bells and regulations.