The current issue of Atlantic magazine has a fascinating essay by Caitlin Flanagan who criticizes the “school garden” movement launched by restaurateur/food “guru” Alice Waters. (*1)
The whole school-gardening thing has bugged me, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on why, until I read this essay. And then I started nodding my head. Yep, that’s the problem. Yep.
In the interest of fairness, of course, I also direct you to a thoughtful, smart rebuttal at the website Civil Eats. And make sure there to read the comments. I think the essayist at Civil Eats (an Iowa chef named Kurt Michael Friese) makes good points.
But I also think his own critique smooshes the dividing line between Flanagan’s critique of the garden movement with his own critique of the current educational system in the United States. He’dve been better off sticking to one topic. In any case, both essays are worth reading.
Although, cough cough, both of course manage to take a fairly tiny part of the “food debate” and inflate it into Something Monumental. In the general scheme of things, Waters’ idea is fairly small potatoes (no pun intended). Still, it’s indicative of the extent to which there is a debate and there is conflict about food in America that such a seemingly small matter can take on a life of its own.
____________
*1: Full disclosure at the outset: I’m not a big fan of Waters, if only because of what I think of as nearly narcissistic hypocrisy on her part. She claims to care about food, nutrition, etc. But according to everything I’ve ever heard and read, including an adulatory biography (*2) that came out a few years ago, waste is no problem with her. If a bunch of spinach, for example, is not perfect — and I do mean perfect — it gets tossed. Not just the bad leaves; the entire bunch. Hello? I mean, I could see not serving squished leaves on a plate when the restaurant is charging $30 for the plate of salad, but to toss the entire bunch? Hello??
*2: The biography, written by Thomas McNamee, is quite good: well-written and researched, lively, engaging. But it does lean toward the adulatory, so much so that the irony of Waters’ attitude toward wasting food is lost on McNamee. Still, it’s a good book and I recommend it.
Hi Maureen,I noted that the Atlantic article does not indicate how much time children spend in the garden, but it certainly makes it sound like the poor children are living in some sort of agrarian poor house that Dickens might describe. I don’t know what the reality is, partly because i’m too lazy to look it up and partly because there is no similar program where i live to compare it with (public schools are done by the time one can seriously garden here).I also don’t know what the proponents of school gardening think is an appropriate amount of time to dedicate to school gardens, and i pay no attention to Ms. Waters at all.But given the economic reality of America, very few of these children will actually better their socio-economic situation by really cracking the books. The private sector hasn’t created a job in a decade now; recent college graduates are looking at massive unemployment numbers; and the jobs generally available can be done by trained monkeys.Which is not to say that education should not be primarily reading, writing and arithmetic. It should be and it should be rigorous, but the Atlantic article really makes it seem like a recently wonderful public education has been ruined by school gardening programs…and i doubt that’s the case. In fact, it would seem that having a working garden would be an excellent tool for teaching in science classes: plant biology, dissection, ecology, bug collecting, etc.As one who’s been in front of a classroom, i can say authoritatively that children don’t do terribly well when chained to their desks. It is also true that the quality of education is in direct relation to the quality of teachers. A good teacher will find a host of “teachable moments” in a “prop” like a school garden.Just so i’m clear: i do not think that a public education should focus on gardening to the detriment of traditional subject matter. But i have to wonder if Ms. Flanagen is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Oh, great comments, Lex (as always). I have to agree with your last point especially: it probably is the molehill/mountain thing. Although it’s possible that Flanagan (like me) finds Waters so annoying that she can’t resist the opportunity.The sad thing is that a future American economy ought not dwindle to jobs monkeys can do. But if we don’t at least try to foster a solid educational system, we may end up with a vicious cycle: the economy, as you say, hasn’t exactly fostered jobs based on intellectual effort, but if we concede that point, then, well, we end up with a future economy that creates no jobs or none that “matter.”Which brings to mind a conversation my husband and I had the other day — but I think that needs its own blog entry.