Co-creating an Inclusive and Caring National School Food Program in Canada: Parent and Teacher Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study of parent/caregiver and educator perspectives of current and future School Food Programs (SFPs) was conducted in partnership with investigators from McMaster University, University of Saskatchewan, and the University of Toronto and the Coalition for Healthy School Food. The main goal of the study was to understand the preferences, barriers, and facilitators for elementary schools and students to participate in a future national SFP. An online survey was conducted in February-June 2024. It was promoted through Facebook and the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board’s (HWDSB) electronic bulletin board to parents/caregivers who have students attending public or Catholic elementary schools (K to 8) in the City of Hamilton or Peel Region. Focus group discussions with parents were conducted in May and June 2024 and five individual interviews with educators employed by the HWDSB were done in April-June 2024. Key Findings: A high proportion of parents/caregivers are willing to participate in a future national school food program (96%) and would be willing to pay some amount for it (77%). The main potential barriers identified were: affordability/cost/accessibility; child food preferences/food waste; time/supervision/organization; food safety and dietary needs/restrictions; as well as food quality and variety. While parents did not agree on how a program should be funded (e.g. free or cost-shared through parent donations to subsidize needier families), they insisted that the food should be healthy, fresh, and diverse enough to accommodate dietary restrictions. Many believed a new SFP could create a more mindful, community environment for student meals and they thought an SFP could be connected to curriculum about food systems and the environment. Their concerns about implementing the program focused on the lack of infrastructure and staff support in schools, and the potential for the program to contribute to excess food waste and litter through single-use containers and cutlery. Teachers interviewed expressed concern about the current poor quality and low quantity of food brought from home to school, which they perceive as getting worse in recent years. Teachers noted that some students regularly bring very little food to school. While they appreciated the Student Nutrition Program, they are concerned that it has been declining in quantity and does not meet their students’ current needs. They are hopeful that a future national SFP could improve the nutritional quality of the food students eat, especially those in food-insecure households, and enhance the learning environment in their classrooms. Teachers voiced similar concerns to parents about the logistical challenges of implementing such a program and emphasized the need for sufficient support staff beyond teachers and volunteers to keep a national SFP sustainable. A series of recommendations flow from a synthesis of these findings and appear at the end of this report.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".