Tim Harford at the Financial Times writes about Jamie Oliver’s campaign for better school lunches:
What caught the attention of Michele Belot and Jonathan James, though, was the way Oliver’s project had been implemented. Belot and James – economists at Nuffield College, Oxford, and at the University of Essex respectively – noted that the campaign had created a near-perfect experiment. The chef had convinced Greenwich’s council and schools to change menus to fit his scheme; he mobilised resources, provided equipment and trained dinner ladies. Other London boroughs with similar demographics received none of these advantages – and indeed, because the programme wasn’t broadcast until after the project was well under way, probably knew little about it. The result was a credible pilot project. It wasn’t quite up to the gold standard of a randomised trial, but it wasn’t far off.
Their answer – a provisional one, since they are still refining the research – is that feeding primary school kids less fat, sugar and salt, and more fruit and vegetables, has a surprisingly large effect. Authorised absences, the best available proxy for illness, fell by 15 per cent in Greenwich, relative to schools in similar London boroughs. And relative to other boroughs, the proportion of children reaching Level Four in English rose by four and a half percentage points (more than six per cent), while the proportion of children achieving Level Five in Science rose by six points, or almost 20 per cent. There is some uncertainty about these numbers: they could be substantially smaller or larger. There is not much that can be said with confidence about scores in other subjects, or other achievement levels – although the academic benefits of the Greenwich lunches appear to be positive, if tentatively so, in almost every case.
The first thing Anne Tolley did when she became Minister of Education was put junk food back in school cafeterias.
Er, the first thing she did was *let schools* put junk food back in their cafeterias.
If the schools believe healthy food will improve results, they’re perfectly entitled to choose to restrict fatty sugary foods from their cafeterias.
Comment by Rick Rowling — November 12, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
Policy should be driven by real data (pref. obtained through good testing methods)
Too much of is is still driven by ‘common sense’.
Common sense is a rubbish way of developing policy.
Common sense will tell you the earth is flat and the sun goes around it.
We need to do better than that.
We need to do what works. But that doesn’t mean implementing half the policy either.
If Jamie Oliver’s ideas are working then implement them all, not just the easy bits.
I’m guessing he went to the trouble of developing really good menus and making sure they were cheap enough etc.
It is important to look at the whole result of the experiment and then implement it properly.
Okay, not going to happen to school lunches soon, I know, but the principle is correct.
Comment by Roger Parkinson — November 12, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
If the schools believe healthy food will improve results, they’re perfectly entitled to choose to restrict fatty sugary foods from their cafeterias.
Schools outsource their cafetarias (selling food is not their core competence) and the companies that run them can always make more profit from junk food.
Policy should be driven by real data (pref. obtained through good testing methods)
One of the economist bloggers wrote about this recently:
One of the most remarkable things to me abouta lot of human activities and about government initiatives in particular is how little constrained they are by empirical analysis. You would think that you’d want to test technologies to see if they worked before spending money to deploy them. You’d think that you’d want to see whether, historically, new highway construction has led to reduced congestion before building highways with the goal of reducing congestion. You’d think that you’d want to see whether a no tolerance approach to drug activity had at any point reduced drug use or crime before locking up a huge portion of the population. You’d think you’d want to see whether production of ethanol led to reduced emissions before spending billions to subsidise ethanol.
I understand that politics often underlies the decision to ignore empirical warnings, but this still seems odd to me. In general, legislators show some respect for CBO costing of a bill. Why is there no parallel respect for investigations into whether various policy proposals are actually going to work?
Comment by danylmc — November 12, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
Schools outsource their cafetarias (selling food is not their core competence) and the companies that run them can always make more profit from junk food.
Sure, but surely there’s nothing to stop them specifying what food the company provides?
Comment by gazzaj — November 12, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
Sure, gazzaj, but that’s not the way it works in practice, is it? I suppose one thing that could be said is that the more levels of decision making you create, the more less likely it is for them to be made at the top.
It may be ‘nanny state’, but surely it’s more of a collective action problem. I don’t really care about the rights of children to get a pie for lunch, or of parents to feed their kids whatever crap they want. And I can’t see, five years down the track after such a policy had been implemented, anyone seriously feeling anything more than nostalgia for the days when tuck shops meant donuts and sausage rolls.
Comment by James — November 12, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
“If the schools believe healthy food will improve results, they’re perfectly entitled to choose to restrict fatty sugary foods from their cafeterias.”
Yeah! Schools should able to make their own decisions, not be dictated to from some “Ministry”. Imagine if this “Ministry” suddenly dictated exactly what students would be tested on! And called it some kind of “national standard”! That would be outrag… **JohnStewartFakeVoiceInEarThingy** I’m sorry? They’ve just done that? Same Minister huh? Really? Well… YEAH!
Comment by garethw — November 12, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
although our schools are quite different from those in England where they provide cooked lunches. Here, I think, in most schools lunches are left up to the kids are their parents.
I’m not that convinced one way or the other over banning junk food from schools. I wouldn’t have reveresed the ban but the effect of such a ban might not be all that much.
Frequently I whitness the pre-school wave of AGS girls sweeping up K’Rd denuding dairy shelves of anything with fat and/or sugar. Whatever they sell at the school is pretty much irrelevant.
Comment by Neil — November 12, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
AGGS not AGS
wrong spelling and wrong thread.
Comment by Neil — November 12, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
Wow Danyl a big fail in terms of useful comparisons. First of all Anne Tolley did not put any food anywhere. She removed a ban, and left it to each school.
But more importantly you don’t realise the hige difference between NZ and UK schools. There is no provided lunch in NZ schools. Students either bring lunch from home (which most do) or buy it – either in the school grounds or outside.
What Oliver has done in the UK is change the food served up to students in ding halls. Now that is miles different from dictating what food can be sold in a tuck shop.
Also note that Oliver’s campaign has not been based on the Government forcing schools – they have chosen to run with his menu – the choice that Anne Tolley supports and you are against.
So in summary you got pretty much every aspect wrong in trying to compare Jamie Oliver’s work and what Anne Tolley has done.
Comment by dpf — November 12, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
oh please dpf, Oliver wants his campagin to be mandatory.
Comment by Chris — November 12, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
Back when Wayne Mapp was given the silly hat of “political correctness eradicator”, dpf voluntarily donned the leash of the faithful truffle hound and feverishly set about unearthing choice examples for his master’s attention. Mapp, possibly feeling that his background in international law destined him for higher things, opted to go quiet until the yapping had died down. Let’s hope that the gormless Tolley is more appreciative.
Comment by joe W — November 13, 2009 @ 12:47 am
Oh, come on, DPF. You hate it because it is a great comparison.
Yeah, better shoot this one down before anyone realises how stupid Tolley is. Oh, wait…
Comment by Zoo Neeland — November 13, 2009 @ 11:56 am
dpf is such a busy little national party staffer placing his misleading government spin on blogs everywhere I see, but after all he is paid well to do it.
Oliver’s food project was interesting, especially the fervour he has to do something about childrens’ diet. Just goes to show what motivated people with a bit of clout can achieve if they stay away from the pro-government prats and political morons.
Comment by Richard — November 13, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
actually dpf the article Danyl quotes suggests strongly that feeding kids good food leads to positive educational and health outcomes.
What you say may have some truth, in that not all NZ kids buy food at tuck shops (the ones that regularly do are more likely to be the disadvantaged ones whose parents do not care enough to provide decent food for them), but this is not a justification for allowing crappy food to be sold at schools.
School is where eating habits are formed, as the first time kids are given some autonomy over what they eat. Nutrition is an important element of the huge national problems of obesity and child poverty and I just can’t see an upside to making junk food more available to children.
Comment by nommopilot — November 13, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
feeding kids good food leads to positive educational and health outcomes.
We all know that SMASHING the teachers unions is the only real way to improve educational outcomes . . .
Comment by danylmc — November 13, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
We all know that SMASHING the teachers unions is the only real way to improve educational outcomes
If you’re not part of the solution, Danyl, then you must be part of the problem.
Comment by Phil — November 13, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
“We all know that SMASHING the teachers unions is the only real way to improve educational outcomes . . .”
perhaps they can get Judith Collins to CRUSH them when she has a free minute?
Comment by nommopilot — November 13, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
but after all he is paid well to do it.
By whoooom?
Comment by StephenR — November 14, 2009 @ 9:08 am
By whoooom?
The GRWC, of course. Or the crab-people.
Comment by George Darroch — November 14, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
George made me cough my lunch…
Comment by Clunking Fist — November 16, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
The Mole-men were first on my list…
Comment by StephenR — November 16, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
So dpf, would you endorse booze, fags and porn being sold in our schools?
(I seem to recall a private school a few years ago wanting to have a bar in the 7th form common room there)
Comment by millsy — November 16, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
would you endorse booze, fags and porn being sold in our schools?
I’ll take the liberty of answering on behalf of the broad-right… which may or may not include DPF.
No, we wouldn’t endorse a school selling those items. However I would point out that it is ultimately the right/prerogative of the school itself to choose whether or not those things were appropriate.
Perhaps a better comparison would be the sale of condom’s?
Comment by Phil — November 16, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
First of all I despair that anyone would compare a meat pie to booze, fags or porn. The zealotry of some amazes me.
Secondly I note that it is illegal to sell booze, fags or porn to under 18 year olds, so the comparison is a nonsense.
A better comparison would be should a school library stock (for example) Lady Chatterly’s Lover. The zealots would claim the kids must be preotected and the Government should ban the book. I would say it is an issue for each school as to what they stock, so long as it is legal.
Comment by dpf — November 17, 2009 @ 7:38 am
There are plenty of 18 year olds at school. Way to dodge the question.
Comment by mjl — November 17, 2009 @ 7:47 am
“Perhaps a better comparison would be the sale of condom’s?”
Condoms are available free at school, from the student PSSP representatives.
Comment by Pat — November 17, 2009 @ 9:06 am
Lady Chatterly’s Lover
The headline: Education System in Crisis would then take on a whole new meaning…
Comment by Phil — November 17, 2009 @ 9:08 am