Imagine that as a young and desperately poor Mexican man, you had made the dangerous and illegal journey to California to work in the fields with other migrants. There, you performed stoop labor, picking lettuce and bell peppers and table grapes; what made such an existence bearable was the dream of a better life. You met a woman and had a child with her, and because that child was born in the U.S., he was made a citizen of this great country. He will lead a life entirely different from yours; he will be educated. Now that child is about to begin middle school in the American city whose name is synonymous with higher learning, as it is the home of one of the greatest universities in the world: Berkeley. On the first day of sixth grade, the boy walks though the imposing double doors of his new school, stows his backpack, and then heads out to the field, where he stoops under a hot sun and begins to pick lettuce.

This is the opening paragraph to Caitlin Flanagan‘s new essay, “How school gardens are cheating our most vulnerable students.” Her thoughtful and provocative writing was recently published in the  The Atlantic, an American magazine that focuses on politics, the economy and cultural trends. As you might expect, this article caught me by surprise. How (and why) would she make the case against school gardens?! Well, to tell you the truth, she makes an interesting argument. I don’t completely agree with her but I think she has some valid points.

Let me begin with a summary of her context and main arguments. Flanagan lives in Berkeley, California – home to the local food movement and its generous benefactor and prominent spokesperson, Alice Waters. Unlike the rest of the nation, California is flooded with “edible school yard” programs, which are ostensibly gardens at schools. Flanagan provides this statistic to emphasize the popularity of this garden program, “by 2002, 2,000 of the state’s 9,000 schools had a garden, and by 2008 that number had risen to 3,849, and it continues to grow.” At the same time, she points out that Hispanics makeup 49% of the student population in California schools.

By now most people recognize that this large Hispanic population is due in large part to the agriculture industry in California. There’s a reason why the rest of the country gets summertime produce year-round. Immigrant labor is clearly exploited to construct this multi-billion dollar industry. So, on the one hand, Flanagan’s argument is that most of the students in California’s public schools are Hispanic and most of these students come from families that work all day (or have worked) in the sweltering fields, orchards and vineyards. Thus, why would they want their children to go to school and harvest foods? Isn’t going to school about gaining the knowledge and skills to go to college, argues Flanagan.

Another important issue is the disproportionate graduation rates, let alone access to careers that will support an individual for life. For example, in California Hispanic and African American students pale in comparison to Whites and Asians in literacy and math skills. If these populations are obviously at risk of graduating and going to college, why are they subject to planting vegetables throughout the year?

To summarize, Flanagan claims that although school garden programs intend on improving the access to healthy foods for urban youth, they also impact the quality of the education these student receive. In today’s world students must have coursework in reading, writing and arithmetic; this is what colleges want and such skills will enable students to compete in the “real world.” Consequently, she believes that these school garden programs adversely affect the very population they intend to help.

My response to her various arguments are varied. On the one hand, I do believe that as a culture, even as a nation, we have completely lost touch with food – what it is, where it comes from and how to use it. This knowledge is cultural, it is passed down from one generation to the next. Sadly, our American way of life does not have time for this knowledge. Our fast-passed, work work work lives tend to neglect the importance of growing and/or consuming whole foods. I would make the counter point, that

a) statistically, children of immigrants are more likely to face obesity, type 2 diabetes or heart disease. Studies have shown that new immigrants eat like they did in their own country and do not rely on processed foods, thus maintaining a healthy way of life. Their children on the other hand, are more likely to assimilate into our unhealthy way of life. Therefore, it is important for youth to learn these skills before they graduate because, once assimilated, no one will teach them thereafter.

b) in general, the test-focused curriculum offered in pubic schools, especially in California, is truly awful. Is it better for students to spend all year training for a test that measures very little, or should schools attempt to integrate general academic studies into a school garden program? Flanagan notes that school reform in America is manic. It’s very common for our schools to pick up one idea, ride it for a couple years and then drop it; only to pick up another reform model.

Is the school garden program the best? Maybe, maybe not. I think the interdisciplinary model it offers is really exciting and has great potential. It does lack the serious academic focus, but again this is just middle school! I would also argue that Flanagan’s craze against this garden program seems to reinforce the mindless “teach to the test” culture our schools currently inhabit.

As education in this nation grows more obsessed with standardized testing, it is inevitable that we will lose touch with any notion of a liberal arts education. Sure, upper-middle class kids are “well-rounded” because they have the resources for numerous extracurricular activities. Schools with strong test scores tend to be schools with more resources, i.e. technology, smaller teacher to student ratio, textbooks or educational materials, etc. These students will do just fine. They’ll pass high school, go to college and get a job.

But all those families who lack the resources to afford after-school soccer practice, swimming lessons, studying abroad, or foreign language lessons, etc. where should they go to experience new opportunities? If schools don’t offer gardens (most do not), and continue to emphasize math, science and literacy, what sort of extracurricular opportunities will these youth experience?

In the end, I’d rather live in a society where young people study the world – its cultures, history, art and food – rather than learn how to recite multiplication and periodic tables. I believe that public schools have the responsibility to promote critical thought. This goal is far more attainable when students interact with their world, rather than when they mesmerize it one day and forget it the next.

Related posts:

1. Food Activists Hate Critique
2. Cooking Class Takes New Direction
3. School Gardens are All the Rage – Resources to Join the Movement
4. “From Soil to Stovetop” – A Success!
5. Food Corps

Tags: Food Politics, Gardening, local food movement