ASSESSMENT OF CHILDHOOD AND ADOLESCENT OBESITY IN ARKANSAS Year Four (Fall 2006–Spring 2007) Table of Contents Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................................................................1 Innovative School Programs ..................................................................................................................................................................2 Process Update .......................................................................................................................................................................................4 Definition of BMI ..................................................................................................................................................................................4 Participation in Statewide BMI Assessments ........................................................................................................................................5 Table 1 – Statewide Participation in BMI Assessments ................................................................................................................5 Chart 1 – School District Participation Map .................................................................................................................................5 Special Circumstances for Reporting .....................................................................................................................................................6 School Reports .......................................................................................................................................................................................6 School District Reports ..........................................................................................................................................................................6 Statewide Report ....................................................................................................................................................................................7 Overall State Results for 2006–2007 .............................................................................................................................................7 Table 2 – Percentage of Students by Weight Classifications .........................................................................................................7 School District Results ...........................................................................................................................................................................7 Chart 2 – Weight Classification Map by School District ...............................................................................................................8 Moving Forward ....................................................................................................................................................................................9 Appendices ...........................................................................................................................................................................................10 Appendix A: BMI Classifications by School (2006–2007) ........................................................................................................10 Appendix B: BMI Classification by School District (2006–2007) ............................................................................................22 Appendix C: BMI Classification by County (2006–2007) .........................................................................................................26 Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................................................................................28 Executive Summary Over the past three decades, too many children have details statewide student weight classifications and BMI adopted unhealthy eating habits and become physically assessment participation rates for four consecutive years. inactive. Consequently, the rate of obesity among children It also highlights just a few of the many innovative across the country is rising at an alarming rate. Childhood programs educators across the state have implemented obesity is now one of the most urgent health threats to ensure that the students in their care are not only well facing our children and families. In Arkansas, nearly 38 educated but are also learning and practicing healthy percent of our young people are overweight or at risk habits that will last them a lifetime. for overweight. Reversing this epidemic requires the Since 2003, the Arkansas Center for Health coordinated efforts of many key stakeholders, including Improvement (ACHI) has worked with policy-makers policy-makers, food manufacturers, environmental and school personnel to help implement Act 1220 and developers, parents, educators, clinicians and employers. evaluate its effectiveness. BMI data for the 2006–2007 Four years ago, leaders in Arkansas developed a school year show that together we have continued to halt unique and comprehensive approach to address childhood the progression of childhood obesity statewide. Although obesity in public schools and local communities. Among our work in Arkansas has produced positive changes other provisions, Act 1220 of 2003 called for improved in schools and communities across the state, continued access to healthier foods and beverages in schools, the efforts are needed to improve the health of our children creation of local committees to promote physical activity and families. and nutrition and confidential reporting of each student’s body mass index (BMI) to his or her parents. The Arkansas Center for Health Improvement (ACHI) is a nonpartisan, Over the past four years, public schools across the independent health policy center dedicated to improving the health of state have embraced the importance of working with Arkansans. It is jointly supported by the University of Arkansas for families and communities to provide a healthy learning Medical Sciences, the Arkansas Department of Human Services and environment by improving nutrition and finding ways Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield. to increase physical activity. The following report 1 It’s Good for Them, But Will They Eat It? Elementary school menus in Searcy are taste-tested and kid-approved. The taste-test panel at Sidney Deener Elementary Adjusting to Change receives instructions from Searcy Food Service Di- More fruits and vegetables are gaining rector, Charlotte Davis. popularity in Bismarck — and students don’t miss the fried foods. Food service directors throughout the state, like Bismarck’s How do you get children to eat those nutritious, Vicki Hill, take their jobs seriously healthy meals served in the school cafeteria? Charlotte when it comes to providing students Davis, Food Service Director for the Searcy School with healthy, nutritious meals in District, has the answer. She enlists the help of a Nutrition school cafeterias. Council to serve as a taste-testing panel. Making changes in the cafeteria Each of Searcy’s three elementary schools has a panel isn’t always popular. Vicki took made up of two children selected from each of the fourth over the Bismarck School District grade classes. The panel meets once a year to conduct an food service at the same time new Bismarck Food Service official tasting of items under consideration for school requirements mandated by Act 1220 Director, Vicki Hill. menus. were to be implemented. At the This year, 16 healthy, low-fat, whole-grain items time, she received complaints from students and parents including apple-filled pancakes, pizza bagels, lasagna and about her “more fresh fruits and vegetables, less fried food boneless chicken drumsticks, were tested by the fourth approach.” Students wouldn’t eat the vegetables graders. and parents complained their children weren’t getting The young taste-testers sampled each item and enough to eat. completed a score card rating the food as: That was the first year. Two years later, Vicki reports 3 that she often has to prepare more fruits and vegetables Excellent (I love it!) than expected because the middle and high school students 3 Good, Average (It’s OK) who serve themselves are filling their plates. Once the students tried the more nutritious offerings and discovered 3 Poor (I hate it!) they enjoyed them, the complaints turned to praise. Not only has Ms. Hill helped students develop The items that receive high marks from the testers are healthier eating habits, she finished each year with a profit, then included on the cafeteria menus. proving that nutritious meals don’t have to be By providing menus that are not only healthy, but more expensive than less wholesome ones. that also include foods the kids like and will eat, Davis Efforts to create a has raised the school lunch participation rate to more than healthier environment 80 percent. The total lunch program participation average in Bismarck schools are for the state was 69 percent last year. reinforced by limiting on- In addition to taste-testing potential menu items, the campus vending machines Nutrition Council receives menu planning training which to bottled water. Prior to Act they use to help their classmates plan a special cafeteria 1220, the Bismarck cafeteria menu for National Nutrition month each