An official website of the United States government.
The goal of this project was to improve food safety education by controlling or eliminating food borne risks through a food safety public education program for school district decision-makers. Education efforts would also target teachers and parents. <P>
Specific objectives included:
<OL> <LI>
To develop and implement an educational forum for RI school improvement team
members that will increase awareness and understanding of food safety and foodborne risks and
illnesses and serve as a basis for development of sound food safety school policies.
<LI> To develop and implement an educational workshop for school improvement team
members of RI elementary schools as part of a pilot program.
<LI> To develop increased awareness and understanding of food safety and foodborne
risks for parents and teachers through in-service opportunities.
<LI> To development a guidebook that could by used by extension specialists in other
states to help implement food safety policy-making programs in schools.</OL>
Target Audiences: School improvement team members including: parents, elementary school teachers, schoolnurse
teachers, principals, and health teachers. Food service directors were also encouraged to
attend whether or not they were a member of the school improvement team.<P>
Expected Impacts:
The project was expected to impact in the following areas: <UL> <LI>
Improved knowledge and awareness of food safety issues specifically
pertaining to food brought into schools from home preparation.
<LI>
School food safety policy development and subsequent implementation
<LI>
Transfer of information to other states regarding barriers to the development
and implementation school food safety policy
</ul>
Program Addendum and Changes to Original Protocol and Objectives: <BR>
The scope and direction of the original proposal – targeted at school district and statewide
school decision-makers – was modified in response to recommendations made by the project
advisors to individual school-based management. An initial meeting with members of the Southern
Rhode Island Collaborative (SORICO) led to agreement on the issues and that they had been
previously unaware to the potential risks associated with foods prepared at home or in the
classroom. However, the SORICO representatives expressed concern that educating school
principals and members of school board about food safety issues, as originally proposed, would
result in a policy that would result in an immediate and all-encompassing ban on foods brought
from home or made in the classroom. This assessment was based on prior experience with a similar
type of occurrence on an unrelated issue. The SORICO representatives felt that as soon as the
potential for illness and the school’s resulting liability were revealed to administrative officials, the
practice would be eliminated to protect the schools. The ramifications of this issue could be large
and far-reaching and a state mandate would be required to implement the proposal as originally
written. To decrease the likelihood of an all-out ban on the practice of bringing in foods, the
SORICO representatives suggested starting at a lower level with people already knowledgeable
about food safety, allowing these people to develop a plan, and then taking it to the school
authorities for approval. They suggested starting with a smaller, local pilot approach and allowing
the plan to grow slowly. Therefore, it was recommended that an advisory committee be individuals
sympathetic to the overall goal and constructive in their advisory capacity.<BR><BR>
The investigators decided to carry out the grant by providing food safety education materials
to the parents and teachers as recommended. Subsequently, it was discovered, through the advisory
group, that each school in Rhode Island is mandated by the Department of Education to have a
“School Improvement Team”. These teams are composed of faculty, administrators, parents, and
support staff (nurses, psychologists) and, at the high school level, students . The main focus of the
school improvement team is school-specific policy and curriculum or site-based management with
the goal to improve student performance. The mission of the school improvement team seemed to
fit well with objectives of this grant, and it was decided to use this team as a vehicle to disseminate
food safety information and education materials. As this team is also charged with policy making
within its particular school, it could serve as the group targeted for the educational forum as well.
In addition, concern was expressed about legal issues and resulting liability in the case of an
incident – an issue not addressed in the original project proposal.<BR><BR>
Therefore, the objectives were changed to those described above from the original to reflect
the use of school improvement teams rather then district or statewide school decision-maker. In
addition, a pilot-scale workshop would be developed and presented to elementary school
improvement team members that would include potential legal issues regarding food in the
classroom. The scope of the in-service was modified with the offering of manager certification
courses interested teachers and/or parents. Finally, the guide would reflect the “process” in
undertaking a policy-making program with observations made during the program.
Background: While consumers have a heightened concern about food safety and recognize the importance
of bacterial contamination and growth, evidence still continues to show continued mishandling and
storage. There is a tendency for consumers to ignore their own food handling practices as a
contributory factor to food safety hazards. However, this belief not only influences their practices
at home, but in their role as volunteer food service workers as providers of food items to their
children’s school functions. In school settings, food is often used to enhance the learning process.
Parents, guardians and/or teachers provide a variety of cooked items for the children - from safe to
potentially hazardous items. While young children are particularly at risk for foodborne illness, they
are not part of the decisions that allow the use of food in schools. Preventing foodborne illness
requires a multifaceted approach - from education to policy development. However, many
decisions and policies are developed in response to a crisis. An informal survey of several Rhode
Island school district “decision-makers” suggested that not only were there no policies governing
this issue but they recognized the issue only after they were polled. Without the proper education
and information, the issue was not recognized and a policy regarding food brought from home in
classrooms did not exist. The need is not only to develop policy in regard to home prepared foods
brought to schools, but to educate decision-makers and home food handlers as to the food safety
issues.
<P>
Project Design and Implementation:
An advisory group was formed and the RI Department of Education(RIDE)/Office of School
Improvement provided the project directors with mailing lists for RI elementary schools. A 3-hour
workshop was developed and offered during the afternoon which included presentations by the URI
food safety specialist, the Chief, RI Department of Health, a liability attorney and the URI Director
of Safety and Risk Management. Information focused on school food safety issues from potential
school food safety hazards to liability concerns and solutions and an example of policy
development/implementation at URI. Confirmation correspondence was sent to each speaker
acknowledging their willingness to participate. A dinner break was offered at each workshop and
time was allowed for group discussions, questions and recommendations. While there was preregistration,
there was no fee and on-site registration was allowed.<P>
Two workshops were offered – March 15, 2000 and November 15, 2000. Information
regarding the workshop and registration was sent to the principals and school improvement team
chairs at 260 elementary and/or middle schools (all schools with grades K-6). The second forum
also included an additional mailing of information to presidents of PTO/PTA at each school.<P>
Prior to implementation of the first workshop, the project directors met with school
improvement team members from each of the interested schools to delineate the issues, discuss the
purpose of the workshop and to make potential participants aware of available resources. In
addition, those who responded to the first school food safety forum were also given an opportunity
to sign up a maximum 20 teachers and/or parents for participation in a manager certification course
that would be funded by the grant. The first workshop also offered $100. stipend toward the
purchase of food safety-related materials for each school that sent school improvement team
representatives. In addition, follow-up meetings were offered and scheduled for those individuals
interested in further discussions and guidance in policy development. The second workshop did not
offer these incentives for participation.<P>
There was follow-up correspondence with each of the workshop participants prior to and
after the event for both workshops. Finally, an instructional guide as to the process of
implementing a school food safety policy program was developed containing examples of all
correspondence.<P>
Evaluation Methodology:
Using a 5-point scale (1 = not applicable and 5 = extremely useful), participants of both
workshops were asked to evaluate the 3-hour workshop as to its overall usefulness as well as the
usefulness of the information presented by the individual speakers. The evaluations also included an
assessment by the participants as to the estimated timeframe for implementation of some schoolbased
food safety policy. For each workshop there was a 3-month follow-up survey sent to each
participant in an effort to assess the status of policy development and its difficulties. Finally, there
was a one-year follow-up survey was also distributed to those individuals that attended the first
workshop.<P>
Accomplishments and Results:
An advisory committee was assembled and based on their recommendations the objectives
were modified to target school-specific food safety policy development rather then district or
statewide policy efforts. Two workshops were completed that impacted 33 participants and
reflected 16 different schools from across the state ( representatives from one school attended both
workshops and the RIDE School Improvement Team Director attended the first workshop). The
first forum had representatives from 8 schools, while the second had participants from 9 schools.
Of those that responded to the workshop evaluation (16 out of 20 and 6 out of 13 for workshops one
and two respectively), over 95% rated the workshop as very or extremely useful. Of particular
interest was the presentation by the liability attorney as to the legal ramifications of food safety
policy relating to food brought from home. The presentations on food safety issues and liabilities
was rated as very or extremely useful by all workshop participants and information presented
regarding policy development was rated as very or extremely useful by 82% of the attendees. When
asked when some kind of school food safety policy might be implemented at their schools, of the 22
responding, 45% indicated within six months, 41% indicated within one year, and 14% were
unsure. Of the nine participants that responded to the 3-month follow-up survey, most had shared
the information with their colleagues or school improvement team members but none had begun
working on a draft policy – although five had plans to do so. One school already had a policy – no
food was to brought into school - and the workshops participants were hoping to get that policy
relaxed using the information presented. However, all thought that policy development and
implementation would be very difficult and that major roadblocks included other priorities, statewide
mandates/initiatives, awareness, need for assistance in policy development, unsure of where to
start, and the need for administrative support. The one-year follow-up had three respondents and
none had drafted policy although there was an effort by one school to rewrite the restrictive policy
currently in place.
One follow-up meeting was scheduled, however only one person attended. In addition, there
were no registrations for the free manager certification course.
Finally an instructional guide as to the process of school food safety policy development
was completed and is part of this report. <P>
Conclusions and Future Direction:
Of 260 schools contacted multiple times, only 16 school had representatives at two
workshops. While it was clear that all those who attended the workshops saw a need to address
school-related food safety issues, it clearly was not a priority. Subsequent evaluation efforts
resulted in comments relating to the need for district-wide and “central office” support. With other
state and federal mandates and the requirements for standards-based education, food safety policy
development and awareness has an uphill battle. Incentives did not appear to impact attendance.
The directors have been in contact with the RI school-nurse teachers association and hope to revisit
the workshop with this group a the target audience.