At the Garden Gate: Community Building Through Food: Revisiting the Critique of “Food, Folk and Fun” in Multicultural Education

See Pringle (2003) and Schlosser (2005), also Nestle (2007). The conversations in the popular press regarding school lunches would also appear to be informed by issues of “food security” related to recent outbreaks of E. coli and other pathogens in the food supply over the last several years.

For an example of an article addressing most of these issues see Belkin (2006).

Robinson (2006).

Ibid.

Funds of knowledge are the assumed intellectual and social resources that minority families have in their homes and communities which maintain their dignity, sense of self and survival. See Gonzalez et al. (2005).

Sleeter and Grant (2003) write of the importance of using “school menus to reflect and include diverse groups” (p. 196), as part of a social reconstructionist practice in schools.

Sleeter and Grant (2003).

Sleeter and Grant (2003) describe the goal of Teaching the Exceptional and the Culturally Different as “equip[ping] students with the cognitive skills, concepts, information, language and values required by American society in order to hold a job and function within the society’s existing institutions and culture,” (39). They describe the goals of the Humans Relations Approach as “directed toward helping students communicate with, accept, and get along with people who are different from themselves; reducing or eliminating stereotypes that students have about people and helping students feel good about themselves and about groups of which they are members, without putting others down in the process,” (80–81). They describe Single Group Studies approach as working to “empower oppressed groups” by providing a “more accurate version of American history by including groups that have been left out,” (114–115). Education That is Multicultural and Social Reconstructionist “prepares future citizens to reconstruct society so that it better serves the interests of all groups of people, especially those who are of color, poor, female, gay, lesbian, transsexual, disabled or any combination of these,” (196).

Sleeter and Grant (2003), p. 110.

Golnick and Chinn (2004), p. 324.

Nieto (2004), p. xxvii.

Nukaga (2008), pp. 343–344.

Ibid, p. 348.

Ibid, p. 374. In her study Nukaga defined “dry food” as that which is “mass consumed.” Dry food was contrasted with “wet food” which was “homemade,” (p. 344).

See the work of the Green Guerillas at www.​guerilla-griots.​org.

Sleeter and Grant (2003), p. 179.

Ibid, p. 214.

Nieto (2004), p. 115.

Ibid, p. 115.

Sleeter and Grant (2003), p. 206.

Ibid, p. 212.

I want to thank Prof. William Camp of Cornell University for an insightful conversation on the longer view of these topics in the context of the history of Agricultural Education in the United States.

See the words of Principal Angela Tuck from Edgewood Elementary, “They need to see that I’m concerned about what goes into their bodies as well as their minds.” In “Elementary Eating,” by Snyder (2005).

See Haskins (2005).

The Seattle Sun Times (2005).

See Gonzalez et al. (2005).

Simmons (2009).

Schipen (2006).

Ibid.

Clark (2007).

See Simmons (2009).

Matlock (2006), p. D1.

Ibid, p. D1.

Williams (2008).

Clark (2007), p. A1.

Clark (2006), p. B1.

Goldsmith (2005).

Damrosch (2005), p. H08.

Lee (2007), p. 1E.

Oster (2007), p. N-1.

Pappano (2003), p. B9.

Torpei (2004), p. F-01.

See for example, Shiva (2000).