E Barmann Paper Final Copy - Northwest Missouri State ... · 61-683 Research Paper Fall 2013...

Backsnack Participant1

COMPARTIVE STUDY OF BACKSNACK PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

AND THE

EFFECTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

By

ELIZABETH BARMANN

Submitted to

Educational Leadership Faculty

Northwest Missouri State University Missouri

Department of Educational Leadership

College of Education and Human Services

Maryville, MO 64468

Submitted in Fulfillment for the Requirements for

61-683 Research Paper

Fall 2013

December 12, 2014


ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to find out if there is a difference in student achievement within

student populations who qualify for the Federal Free and Reduced Lunch Program. Two study

groups were determined: Students who attend schools where the FRLP percentage is above 55%

and do not participate in a weekend backpack program supplying supplemental food; and

Students who attend schools where the FRLP percentage is above 55% and do participate in a

weekend backpack program supplying supplemental food. Two school districts in the State of

Missouri were selected to be a part of the study based upon this criteria. Data from the MAP, the

State of Missouri test given to all students in public schools to measure adequate yearly progress

of student achievement reflecting the norms provided by the federal No Child Left Behind

measures was used. Specific raw data scores from the Communication Arts test at the 3rd grade

level were utilized. Students from each respective school district were divided into two groups:

1) Students who qualified for FRLP and did not receive a weekend backpack; and 2) Students

qualifying for FRLP and receiving a weekend backpack. A comparison study using a t-test was

conducted between the two study groups. This t-test repeated for each of the identified school

districts. While this study is very limited in its scope, the outcome of the study reflects that

there is no significant difference in the two study groups.

Information from Harvesters and the No Kid Hungry program as well as various articles

on hunger in the U.S. public school systems provide other insight into this study. These

organizations have studied the social, emotional and physical effects of students in the classroom

and the improvement shown when qualifying students participate in breakfast, lunch, weekend

backpack and summer food programs. Given the limitations of this study, further research on the


effects of a weekend supplemental food backpack program is recommended to better assess

student achievement.


Introduction Background, Issues and Concerns

Student achievement is greater when basic human needs are met. Many students come to

school on Monday morning very hungry. They have not had enough food to meet their basic

needs over the weekend while they are away from school. While schools provide breakfast and

lunch for qualifying students, these same students often go hungry over the weekend or holidays

when school is not in session. In order for students to achieve in school, they must have their

basic needs met. Many school districts, led by caring staff, administrators and teachers, are

trying to meet these basic needs through many different venues. Many news articles in today’s

media cite teachers and administrators who are going the extra mile, providing from their own

pockets, to be sure that their students who come to school hungry are getting something to eat.

Many teachers have been known to send home “extra” food, or to be sure a student has a chance

to eat as soon as he/she gets to school. Students in need often come early to school or stay after,

especially if they feel safe and cared for in the school environment. From these many examples

of childhood hunger present in our American public schools at this time, an awareness from

community organizations is arising and a response is being formed to meet this very real need.

One such example is based upon research conducted by Harvesters, a non-profit organization

that serves as part of a large food bank network in the northern part of the State of Missouri.

Harvesters, working along other community organizations, such as churches, service groups,

etc., are implementing a weekend backpack program to help provide additional supplemental

food to meet the hunger issues that students face when not in school. Even though the research

has been conducted and reflects many positive student behaviors are effected when additional


food resources are supplied to students, more research is needed to identify the effects on student

academic achievement.

Practice under Investigation

The practice under investigation concerns the availability and distribution of backpacks

filled with food which are sent home with students for consumption over the weekend. The

study assesses two public elementary schools within two different school districts within the

State of Missouri. One of the schools is a rural Northwest Missouri school district which has

more than 55% of their student population qualifying for the federal program of free and reduced

lunch. The second school is within a large suburban school district where over 50% of the

student population meets the criteria for participation in the free and reduced lunch program.

Harvesters, a not-for-profit organization partners with schools and organizations to provide these

backpacks to eligible students.

School Policy to be Informed by Study

Do all students who qualify for the free and reduced lunch programs also qualify for the

Backsnack program? If not, what are the reasons that all students receiving assistance during the

school day with food needs do not receive the weekend backpack? Would providing more

backpacks increase student achievement by meeting basic needs while these students are not in

school?

Conceptual Underpinning

Student achievement is less likely when students don’t have their basic human needs met.

One of these needs that is being addressed is that of hunger and proper nutrition. The federal

government has for years operated a program that allows for students who qualify to receive

breakfast and lunch service at no cost or a nominal cost. Students cannot learn if they are


hungry, thus the free or reduced lunch program helps assure that students are able to get this

basic need met, at least during the days they are in attendance of school. The federal program

also offers some assistance during the summer months when schools are not in session.

However, many students struggle with getting enough to eat once they leave school for the

weekend or over holiday times. The not-for-profit organization, Harvesters, as well as other

service programs, have developed a plan to help better meet the needs of these students. The

Backsnack program instituted in 2004 by Harvesters, is one such answer to helping meet the

hunger needs of students. In theory students who receive the backpacks have higher student

achievement than those who do not participate in the backpack program.

Statement of the Problem

The problem addressed in this study is the question as to how to respond to hunger issues

among students in order to improve student achievement.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this research study is to compare the MAP test scores at the 3th grade

level in Communication Arts at schools in two different school districts whose students are at a

school where the eligibility to participate in the free and reduced lunch program provided by

federal funding is at 50% or above, with schools within the district whose students are at a school

where the eligibility to participate in the free and reduced lunch program provided by federal

funding is at 50% or above, but additionally offer the Harvesters “Backsnack” program.

Research Question

Is there a significant difference in MAP test scores at the 3rd grade level in

Communication Arts in schools where students who participate in the free and reduced lunch

program also participate in the Harvesters “Backsnack” program distributed through the school?


Null Hypothesis(es)

There is no significant difference between MAP test scores at the 3rd grade level in

Communication Arts in schools where students participate in the free and reduced lunch program

additionally participate in the Harvesters “Backsnack” program.

Anticipated Benefits of the Study

The anticipated benefits of this study would provide a justification for increased

provision and possibly funding by outside entities to increase the number of schools participating

in the Harvesters “Backsnack” program within schools in the district. If there is a significant

increase in MAP test scores at the 3rd grade level in Communication Arts within schools where

the “Backsnack” program is offered, this would suggest that students who do not have to be

concerned with nutritional needs over the weekend are able to achieve at a higher level than their

peers who do not have their nutritional needs met outside the school.

Definition of Terms

Backsnack program: A backpack supplied with food that is sent home on the weekend with

students who qualify for participation in the Free and Reduced Lunch Program. The program

was founded by Harvesters in 2004.

DESE. Missouri Department of Elementary and Education.

Secondary Feed to Achieve: Funded through Senate Bill 633, West Virginia law that law seeks

to ensure that every student in the State is afforded the opportunity to receive a minimum of two

nutritious meals per day.

Free and Reduced Lunch Program: Founded by Harry Truman in 1946 the National School

Lunch Program. The program has expanded to provide for breakfast, lunch and summer food

assistance to students who qualify based upon household income.


Harvesters: A regional food bank serving a 26-county area of northwestern Missouri and

northeastern Kansas. Harvesters provides food and related household products to more than 620

not-for-profit agencies including emergency food pantries, community kitchens, homeless

shelters, children’s homes and others. They also offer education programs to increase community

awareness of hunger and teach about good nutrition. The main facility is located in Kansas City,

Missouri.

Kids Café Program: Provides free meals and snacks to low-income children through a variety of

community locations where children gather during the afterschool hours—such as Boys and

Girls Clubs, YMCAs, churches or public schools. In addition to providing meals to kids, Kids

Cafes offer a safe place where children can participate in educational, recreational and social

activities under the supervision of trustworthy staff. Kids Cafe programs also offer nutrition

education throughout the school year. Sponsored through No Kids Hungry Campaign.

MAP testing: Missouri Assessment Program. The Missouri statewide test that measures Annual

Yearly Progress in accord with No Child Left Behind.

No Kid Hungry Campaign: A movement to connect kids in need with nutritious food and

teaches their families how to cook healthy, affordable meals. The campaign also engages the

public to make ending child hunger a national priority. Sponsored by Share Our Strengths.

Share Our Strengths: Grassroots movement founded in 1984 on Capital Hill. It has grown into a

nationally recognized movement that is working to rid the United States of childhood hunger.

The not-for-profit organization has been a leader in research and creative solutions to meet the

needs of today’s hungry children.

SNAP. Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. SNAP offers nutrition assistance to

millions of eligible, low-income individuals and families and provides economic benefits to


communities. SNAP is the largest program in the domestic hunger safety net. The Food and

Nutrition Service works with State agencies, nutrition educators, and neighborhood and faith-

based organizations to ensure that those eligible for nutrition assistance can make informed

decisions about applying for the program and can access benefits. FNS also works with State

partners and the retail community to improve program administration and ensure program

integrity. (USDA, SNAP, 2014)

Summary

In summary, the purpose of the study is to find additional ways to combat hunger that

may contribute to an effect on increased student achievement. The study attempts to address

whether the Harvesters Backsnack program assists in raising the student achievement level of

3rd graders on Communication Arts MAP testing at two school districts within the State of

Missouri.


REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Many of our students are coming to school hungry; and, the numbers are increasing.

Even though the recent reported economic upswing is underway, the benefits have yet to trickle

down to many of those in lower social economic situations. According to a 2013 survey

conducted by the No Kid Hungry organization, 73% of teachers and 87% of principals responded

that they regularly know there are children in their rooms and buildings who are too hungry to

learn. The participation in the classroom becomes a struggle with the student not having basic

needs met. Those teachers who become aware of this situation are also trying to help a little in

the classroom as it is reported that many spend an average of $40 per month for snacks to ward

off the hunger. (Klein, 2013, para. 2) “One-fifth of U.S. children struggle with hunger. And the

faces of those hungry children are familiar to most of us. They're kids we see living in our

neighborhoods, playing on our Little League teams, and trying to learn in our classrooms.”

(Felling, 2013, para.5). “Today, more than 46 million Americans—15 percent of the

population—live below the poverty line of $23,050 for a family of four. Of those, 20.4 million

live in "deep poverty" (income of less than $11,500 a year for a family of four). Poverty coupled

with financial setbacks like unemployment, medical emergencies, or other crises means that

more than 50 million people in this country struggle to afford enough nutritious food regularly

throughout the year (Coleman-Jensen, Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2012; DeNavas-Walt, Proctor,

& Smith, 2012).” (Felling, 2013, para. 56)

Currently, in place to attempt to take care of the perceived need of hunger in our schools,

is the National School Lunch Program, a federally assisted meal program operating in public and


nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides nutritionally

balanced, low-cost or free lunches to qualifying children each school day. The program was

established under the National School Lunch Act, signed by President Harry Truman in 1946.

(USDA, NSLP, 2014) School lunch programs have been around for a long time. The number of

students who qualify for the free and reduced lunch program is continuing to grow across our

nation. According to the most recent research conducted by Share Our Strength, an organization

that grew from a grass roots efforts founded in 1984, and now a well-established not-for-profit

focusing on ending childhood hunger in America, there are over 21 million children participating

in the public school free and reduced lunch program. (Share Our Strengths Teacher Report,

2013) While this program has been effective in students getting a meal during lunch time, what

the current research is showing is that children are coming to school hungry, and therefore, are

often distracted, restless, unfocused, or have actual physical ailments, such as headaches and

stomachaches. Often important instructional time is being lost because teachers have to deal

with the physical or behavioral issues that are stemming from hungry children. (Felling, 2013)

A recent survey, undertaken by the No Kid Hungry Campaign, sponsored by Share Our

Strengths, reflects that teachers are becoming more aware that many of the problems they see

daily in the classroom may be contributed from hunger. “Child hunger is a serious problem that

negatively affected my students’ self-esteem, ability to learn, and behavior,” Princess Moss, an

elementary school teacher from Virginia and National Education Association Executive

Committee member, says. “I would always keep snacks in my class for students that were

hungry and who were having trouble concentrating during instructional time.” (Parker, 2013,

para.2) Many teachers have tried to respond out of their own pocketbooks. “Teachers spend $37


a month of their own money buying food for hungry students. That’s $300 a school year or

roughly five tanks of gas.” (Parker, 2013, para.1) “One teacher explained her wake-up call: I

often see children in my classroom who seem sleepy and unfocused. I usually asked them, ‘What

time did you go to bed last night?’ One day, I realized many of these kids were hungry, not tired.

Now I ask, ‘What time did you last eat something?’" (Felling, 2013, para.13-14)

“When students are hungry and distracted, they’re not learning,” said U.S. Secretary of

the Department of Education Arne Duncan who joined Share Our Strength at a panel discussion

in Hyattsville, Maryland., to release the survey findings. “To set kids up for academic success,

we must make sure they’re getting the healthy food they need at breakfast and lunch so they can

concentrate in the classroom throughout the day.” (NEA HIN, 2010, para. 5). “Research backs

these observations. Children experiencing hunger are more likely to be hyperactive, absent and

tardy, in addition to having behavioral and attention problems, compared with other

children.[1] They have lower math scores, and are more likely to have to repeat a grade.[2] And

these struggles continue from elementary school into junior high and high school. Teens

experiencing hunger are more likely to be suspended from school and have difficulties working

with other students. [3]” (Keeping You Informed, 2013, para. 9)

The No Kid Hungry Campaign survey that polled nationwide over 1,000 K-8 public

school teachers’ reports that three out of five teachers see children who are coming to school

hungry. “School meals plan an important role in making sure that, even in tough times kids still

get the healthy food they need. Nine out of ten teachers agree that school breakfast is especially

important for academic achievement. Teachers “credit breakfast with increased concentration

(95%), better academic performance (89%) and better behavior in the classroom (73%). Health


is also a major factor, with four in five saying breakfast prevents head and stomachaches, leading

to healthier students. Teachers also say that students who eat breakfast are less likely to be tardy

or absent (56%).” (NEA, HIN, 2010, para. 15)

In April of 2013, West Virginia lawmakers recently passed the Feed to Achieve Act

(SB633). The goal of this legislation is to provide every school age child with breakfast and

lunch with no cost to families. West Virginia reports a rate of child poverty that is twice as high

as the national average. Student achievement reflects the real problem as 79% of all 8th graders

are below proficient in math, and 73% of 4th graders are not proficient in reading. “I think we’re

the only state that has state law that mandates breakfast, which is one of the best things to get on

a nutrition program in decades,” said Rick Goff, executive director of the Office of Child

Nutrition at the state Department of Education. (Mays, para. 3)

The shortage of breakfast programs is moving in the right direction with more states and

communities investing in participation. There are other challenges though, one of which is

reflected during the times when school is not in session. Where do hungry children eat in the

summertime when school is not in session? And perhaps more importantly, what do they eat?

Are they making healthy choices when the meals aren’t planned and provided for them? What

happens on the weekends when children are home without access to prepared meals?

One response to this challenge is the Harvesters’ BackSnack program. Since its inception

in 2004, Harvesters’ BackSnack program has grown from 30 students to 18,210 students in

2012-2013. For the 2013-2014 school year, Harvesters will provide backpacks filled with

nutritious, child-friendly food to 19,255 children every week. (Harvesters, para 1)


Harvesters’ BackSnack program provides a weekly backpack filled with nutritious, child-

friendly food for schoolchildren to take home over the weekend. More than 100,000 children in

Harvesters' service area receive free and reduced-price school meals during the week, and many

of those are at risk of hunger on weekends.

BackSnack is a partnership between Harvesters, a participating school and a local

community partner—usually a corporate, civic or religious organization. Harvesters provides the

food and the backpacks. The local community partners help facilitate picking up the BackSnack

food kits from Harvesters and distributing them to the schools. School principals and/or

counselors determine which children receive BackSnacks at each school (para 1 & 2 Harvesters -

https://www.harvesters.org/Learn/Harvesters-Programs/Feeding-Children). A donation of $250

provides a weekly BackSnack for one child for an entire school year. Harvesters feeds 97,150

children a year through our network of pantries, food kitchens and shelters. Besides the

BackSnacks Harvesters’ provides they also have a Kids Cafe program issuing more than 296,000

summer and after-school meals (Harvesters, para. 2).

In order to validate the effectiveness of the BackSnack program, Harvesters hired the

UMKC Midwest Center for Nonprofit Leadership to evaluate the impact of the program. Two

groups of stakeholders – children and school personnel – were surveyed to determine whether

nutritious food impacts program participants in seven key areas: grades, school attendance,

behavior, self-esteem, responsibility, social skills and health. (Harvesters, para. 2) The surveys

were completed by stakeholders in October 2012 and again in April 2013. The initial survey and

post survey asked identical questions, so answers could be easily compared. (Harvesters, para. 3)

The post survey additionally asked children if they share any of the food with other family


members, if they participate in any other programs offered by Harvesters, and the post survey

offered space for children to write or draw about their experience with the BackSnack program.

(Harvesters, para. 4)

Results from this evaluation and three previous ones consistently show Harvesters’

BackSnack program is achieving its intended objectives, and has a significant positive impact on

children who participate. (Harvesters, para. 5)

Data from the studies show the following:

• Grades improved in all four subject areas studied—math, science, social studies

and English. Increase in student achievement ranged from 12 percent in science to

22 percent in English.

• Children reported it was easier to work without help, to understand their

teachers and to understand their homework after participating in BackSnack.

Test results from schools confirm this data. (p. 2 - Harvesters’ BackSnack

Program Weekend meals for hungry children)

While much progress has been made on the federal, state and local levels to provide for

the needs of hungry children in our schools, there is still a significant gap. In order to meet the

basic need of hunger that exists within the United States there is more work that needs to be

done. Many children who do qualify for the free and reduced lunch program do not have the

opportunity to take supplemental food supplies, such as that provided by the Harvesters’

BackSnack program, home for the weekend nor have access to summer programs due to issues

such as transportation and location of food sites. There is also a need for more awareness by

local communities. While much good work has been accomplished, ongoing assessment is

needed to guide teachers, parents, schools and community organizations to analyze the hunger


situation within the local area and work towards creating partnerships that can make a significant

impact on relieving or even eliminating these real hunger issues. In order to build strong and

sustainable communities for the future, the basic need of hunger must be addressed in our

schools so that the students of today may become the leaders of the future.


RESEARCH METHODS

Research design.

The research conducted a quantitative study to determine if there was a difference in

student achievement on the Communication Arts portion of the MAP test at the third grade level.

The independent variable being tested is the status of students who qualify for the free and

reduced lunch program divided into two respective groups, students who receive a weekend

BackSnack, and students who do not receive a backpack for the weekend. The dependent

variable tested was the Communication arts scores from the MAP of these third grade students.

If there is a significant difference found in scores based on those students receiving a

weekend BackSnack, school administrators should be informed and consider the additional

provision of weekend food supply through programs such as BackSnack for more students who

are eligible for the free and reduced lunch program.

Study group description.

The study group consists of two accredited school districts in the State of Missouri. The

first school district lies in the Northwestern part of the state and is very rural in nature. The

district population as of the DESE report card of 2014 is 442. The ethnicity of the 442 students

is quite homogenous with 95.5% of the population reporting as White; <1% Black; and <1%

Hispanic. Of the total number of enrolled students 60.6% qualify for the Free and Reduced

Lunch Program and 24.7% of households within the district receive Food Stamps. The average

family income is $27, 823 as of 2014. Twenty-two percent of the population under the age of 18

live in a single family home. The adult unemployment rate is at 7.1% and 11% of under 18 year

of age population live in poverty. (DESE, 2014)


The second school district in the study group is within the greater Kansas City area and is

comprised of both urban and suburban areas. The district population as of the DESE report card

of 2014 is 19,199. The ethnicity of these students is varied with less than 1% of students

reporting to be of Asian descent; 12.2% Black; 12.7% Hispanic; <1 Indian; and 63.6% of the

population reporting as White. Of the total number of enrolled students 49.6% qualify for the

Free and Reduced Lunch Program and 24.9% of households within the district receive Food

Stamps. The average family income is $43,622 as of 2014. Nearly thirty percent of the

population under the age of 18 live in a single family home. The adult unemployment rate is at

8.8% and 11.1% of under 18 year of age population live in poverty.

Third grade students from these two selected school districts who have reported a free

and reduced lunch level of above forty-nine percent from the 2013 school year were selected as

the group to be evaluated.

Data collection and instrumentation.

Data from teachers and administrators from these two selected Missouri school districts

was collected to identify raw scores of third grade students on the Communication Arts MAP test

from the 2013 school year as well as the numbers from the DESE website.

Statistical analysis methods.

A t-test was conducted to find if there is a significant difference in Communication Arts

MAP test scores based on participation in the BackSnack program. The source was broken into

two categories: students who qualify for free and reduced lunch program and students who

qualify for participation in the BackSnack program. The mean, mean D, t-test, df, and p-value

were concluded from this test. The Alpha level was set at 0.25 to test the null hypothesis: There

is no difference in test scores of third grade students who participate in the BackSnack program


and third grade students who qualify for the free and reduced lunch program but do not receive a

BackSnack on the Communication Arts Missouri Assessment Program exam.


FINDINGS

A t-test was conducted to discover whether there was a difference in performance on the

2013 Communication Arts MAP test based on students participation in the BackSnack program.

The following tables, graphs, and charts will show the results based on the statistical raw data

collected from the two selected Missouri school districts.

Figure 1

District FRLP % Food Stamps

Average Yearly Family Salary

Children in single parent home

Adult Unemployment rate

% Children living in poverty <18

#1 60.6 24.7 $27,823 22.6 7.1 11

#2 49.6 24.9 43,662 25.9 8.8 11.1

State MO 50 37.4 $41,040 32.6 9.6 20.2

Figure 1 shows a table that defines shared characteristics which reflect variables that

directly affect student qualification for the Free and Reduced Lunch Program. The first column

identifies the two school districts that were evaluated in the study as well as the comparable

analysis for the State of Missouri as a whole. The second column identifies the percentage of the

number of the student population participating in the FRLP. The third column shows the

percentage of the household populations within the district who also participate in the USDA

Food Stamp program. Column four provides information on the annual yearly household salary

of the identified groups. The fifth column shows the percentage of children under 18 years of

age who are living within a single family home. The final two columns indicate the percentage

of the adult population over 18 who are unemployed; and the percentage of children under the

age of 18 who are living in poverty.


Chart 1

Chart 1 reflects raw data from school district #1. The x-axis shows the range of scores of third

grade students Communication Arts MAP scores. The y-axis defines the student group with #1

being students who qualify for participation in the FRLP and #2 identifying those students who

qualify for the NSLP but also receive a weekend backpack with food supplies. The raw data was

collected from administration sources at the first selected school district. The scores from all

students who qualify for the FRLP ranged from 609 to 700, with the mean score being 651.13

The range of scores for students who participated in the BackSnack program was 635 to 672 with

the mean score being 651 thus creating a Mean Difference of .13. The standard deviation is

20.77.

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Communication Arts Scores

#1 = Non‐BackSnack Participants #2 = BackSnack Participants

School District #1


Table 1

t-Test Analysis Results for School District #1

Source Mean Mean D t-Test df p-value

Non-Backsnack (22) 651.13

BackSnacks (4) 651 0.13 0.01 25 0.99

Note: Significant when p<=0.25

The above table shows the results of the first of the two Missouri school districts chosen

for this study to determine if there is a difference between students who participate in the FRLP

(Non-BackSnack Participants and those qualifying for this program but also receiving additional

food supplements over the weekend through the Harvesters BackSnack program (BackSnack

Participants). The number of Non-Backsnack participants was 22. The number of those

receiving BackSnacks was 4. The MAP Communication Arts test scores were used from the

2013 school year for third grade students at this selected school. The mean score of the Non-

BackSnack students from school district #1 was 651.13 and the mean score of the BackSnack

students was 651. The Mean D, or difference between the two groups, was 0.13. The t-test

result was 0.01 and the df was 25. The null hypothesis states that there is not a significant

difference in MAP scores based on the students’ participation in the BackSnack program. This

null hypothesis was not rejected because the p-value, 0.99, is higher than the alpha level, 0.25.

This small study shows that the student participation in the BackSnack program does not

significantly impact the state standardized test scores in the Communication Arts content area.


There is not a significant difference between students from school #1 who participate in the

BackSnack program compared to those other Non-BackSnack students at the same grade level.

Chart 2

Chart 2 reveals the raw data from school district #2. The x-axis shows the range of

scores of third grade students Communication Arts MAP scores. The y-axis defines the student

group with #1 being students who qualify for participation in the FRLP but do not receive a

backpack for the weekend (Non-BackSnack participants). The second plot points identify those

students who qualify for the FRLP but also receive a weekend backpack with food supplies

(BackSnack participants). The raw data was collected from administration sources at the second

selected school district. The scores from all students who qualify for the FRLP ranged from 574

to 716, with the mean score being 648.29. The range of scores for students who participated in

the BackSnack program was 582 to 716 with the mean score being 644.53 thus creating a Mean

Difference of 3.76. Another interesting observation from this information reveals that both the

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Communications Arts Scores

#1 = Non‐BackSnack participants #2 = BackSnack participants

School District #2


top score of 716 and the lowest score of 582 are within the BackSnack participant group. The

standard deviation is 30.07.

Table 2

t-Test Analysis Results for School District #2

Source Mean Mean D t-Test df p-value

Non-BackSnack (50) 648.29

BackSnack (16) 644.53 3.76 0.44 66 0.66

Note: Significant when p<=0.25

Table 2 shows the results of the second Missouri school district represented in this study

to determine if there is a difference between students who participate in the FRLP and those

qualifying for this program but also receive additional food supplements over the weekend

through the Harvesters BackSnack program. The number of Non-BackSnack participants was

50, while 16 students participated in the program. The MAP Communication Arts test scores

were used from the 2013 school year of third grade students at this school. The mean of the

students from school district #2 qualifying for the FRLP was 648.29 and the mean of the students

participating in the BackSnack program was 644.53. The Mean D, or difference between the two

groups, was 3.76. The t-test result was 0.44 and the df was 66. The null hypothesis states that

there is not a significant difference in MAP scores based on the students’ participation in the

BackSnack program. This null hypothesis was not rejected because the p-value, 0.66, is higher

than the alpha level, 0.25. This shows that the student participation in the BackSnack program


does not significantly impact the state standardized test scores in the Communication Arts

content area. There is not a significant difference between students from the second school in

the study group who participate in the BackSnack program compared to those other students at

the same grade level who also qualify for the Free and Reduced Lunch Program.


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The outcomes of this study show that there is very little significant difference in third grade

students who qualify for the Federal Free and Reduced Lunch Program and do not receive a

weekend backpack of supplemental food and those who qualify for FRLP but do bring a

backpack of food home for the weekend. The t-test results from this 2013 data reflect a p-value

of 0.99 for the first school district selected and a 0.66 p-value for the second identified district.

These reported findings are both significantly higher than the set p-value of 0.25; therefore, the

null hypothesis is not rejected.

While research provided by organizations such as Harvesters and No Kid Hungry program point

to the significant contribution that the BackSnack program makes to many aspects of student

success in school, this study is not able to quantify the difference in student achievement

between those who qualify for the Federal Free and Reduced Lunch Program and do not receive

a weekend backpack and those who take home a backpack with food supplies for the weekend.

Even though the current research provided by Harvesters and other organizations attempting to

combat childhood hunger shows a strong improvement in student social, emotional, and physical

behaviors in the classroom, further studies are recommended to see if this additional food supply

to students can also impact improvement in student achievement.

Researchers and school personnel may wish to give more attention and analysis to the process by

which students are selected for the Harvesters BackSnack and other weekend backpack

programs. This study shows that the number of weekend backpacks actually available to

students who show a great need for food assistance during the school day is very limited. In the


first selected school district, in the identified third grade group, only four backpacks are available

while 28 students qualified for the free and reduced lunch program. In the second school district

identified, a mere 17 weekend backpacks with food supplies are accessible while 69 students

qualify for the FRLP. These numbers also indicate a substantial need to expand the number of

backpacks made available for qualifying students. In both identified school district communities

the percentage of children under 18 years of age living in poverty is about 11, with a quarter of

both districts populations relying upon the USDA Food Stamp program (SNAP) to supplement

the family income for food needs. This again reflects the great need for children of school age to

have additional support to meet the basic needs of hunger.

It is recommended that in order to both enable students to function at their best to achieve in a

school setting in all aspects – academically, socially, emotionally and physically - that further

research is conducted. It is also highly recommended that administrators, teachers and other

school personnel who are aware of this very real and essential issue continue to let the public

know of the needs of these students. Perhaps through working together, communities,

philanthropic organizations, YMCA’s, churches, individuals and other entities can together work

towards providing the basic needs of these students.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. District Information. November, 2014.

http://mcds.dese.mo.gov/quickfacts/SitePages/DistrictInfo.aspx

Felling, Christy. 2013, May. Vol. 70, No 8, “Hungry Kids: The Solvable Crisis. Educational

Leadership. ASCD. Pp. 56-60.

Harvesters, the Food Community Network. 2013.

http://www.harvesters.org/Learn/Harvesters-Programs/Feeding-Children

Klein, Rebecca. 2013, August 27. The Huffington Post. You’ll be Shocked How

Many Kids are Too Hungry to Learn in Class.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/child-hunger-in-america/

Mays, Mackenzie. 2013, August. Feed to Achieve: Students will see change in breakfast as

first phase of new law is implemented. West Virginia Gazette.

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201308080113

National Education Association Health Information Network. 2010. Educator Resources.

http://www.neahin.org/educator-resources/

Parker, Suzy. 2013, August 27. Half of Teachers Report Hunger Is a Serious Problem in

Their Classrooms.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/08/27/child-hunger-school-breakfasts

Share Our Strength Teachers Report. 2013. No Kid Hungry.

http://www.nokidhungry.org/pdfs/NKH_TeachersReport_2013.pdf

Texas Hunger Initiative. 2013. Hunger in the Classroom. Keeping You Informed.

http://texashunger.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/hunger-in-the-classroom

USDA. National School Lunch Program. October, 2014.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-nslp

USDA. Supplemental National Assistance Program. 2014.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

Date post:	25-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

E Barmann Paper Final Copy - Northwest Missouri State ... · 61-683 Research Paper Fall 2013...

Documents