| Wellness
Legislation Can Benefit Physical Education
As the U.S. population grows heavier, and new science comes to
light about the importance of proper exercise and diet required
to maintain a healthy lifestyle, school districts are coming under
increasing pressure to do more to promote health among the student
body.1
Are you aware that by the first day of the 2006-07 school year
all US school districts that receive federal funding for their meal
programs - pretty much every district - must enact a wellness
policy? This requirement was signed into law by President Bush
on June 30, 2004, as part of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization
Act. By participating in the formulation of these policies, American
physical educators have a rare opportunity to impact school district
attitudes towards children's physical activity and nutrition.
Several states, including my own (Washington), passed legislation
requiring school districts to create a wellness policy a year in
advance of the federal requirement. Over the past few months, the
State's 296 school boards - including the one I serve on - have
been debating the content of this policy. It’s been a learning
experience that might interest you, and assist as you develop your
own policies.
First, it's important to understand that federal mandates - especially
unfunded ones - are almost always unpopular with local school boards.
According to the US Constitution, public education is a local (state)
responsibility and school boards do not like "outside"
interference.
Second, it's common for the elected citizens who serve on school
boards to disagree about the role and responsibilities of public
education. Some members believe that schools should focus solely
on providing a quality academic experience. They are opposed to
schools becoming more and more like public service agencies. Others
argue that education should prepare students for life, and point
out that life involves more than just academic preparation.
Our board included members that shared these differing opinions.
One member argued that health was a parent responsibility, and that
school boards should limit themselves to hiring good teachers and
good administrators who will ensure that we reach our academic goals.
This federal mandate, it was argued, was one more example of unwarranted
liberal influence on government policy.
In addressing this member's concerns, we began with a discussion
of the role of education. It quickly became clear that our personal
philosophies were unlikely to change. Instead, a point was made
that regardless of whether or not health was a parental or school
responsibility, if schools failed to address children's health issues
districts would inevitably fail in their academic mission. Simply
stated, unhealthy children do not perform well academically. And
certainly it's hard to disagree with the logic that if children
miss school because of poor health, they will not do well in class.
One of the mistakes I've observed, when any group tries to influence
a school board, is a failure to focus on costs and academics. School
boards, first and foremost, have a fiscal responsibility and a limited
budget. About 80% of the entire budget is spent on salaries, leaving
only 20% for everything else. Ideas presented to Boards, that have
a cost but no revenue sources, are problematical.
One of the challenges to be aware of when developing a new wellness
policy is the policy's impact on revenue. To improve nutrition in
schools there obviously needs to be a change in meals and in student
access to calorie rich, but nutritionally deficient, foods and drinks.
Food service directors worry that changes in food choices will result
in students rejecting school meals - potentially impacting income
and staffing. Student activity organizers worry about the implications
of removing soft drinks and snacks from vending machines - the primary
source of activity funding in many schools. If school board attitudes
towards these challenges are to be changed - leading to improved
policies - examples of successful solutions implemented in other
districts need to be presented.
While national recognition of the likely social and financial costs
of the growing youth health crisis may have inspired this federal
"wellness" legislation, I believe that physical educators
may be wise to focus more on evidence of the positive relationship
between physical activity, health, and nutrition and academic performance.
A key point needs to be emphasized: It's not just that unhealthy
kids don't do well in school, but rather that healthier students
do better academically. Fitness levels and academic scores of more
than 300,000 students were shown to be positively related on the
2004 California
Standards Test, and a positive mind-body relationship continues
to be supported by researchers in the area of "brain-based
learning."
Learning to move, and moving to learn, is a concept that physical
educators need to continually promote. Schools that reduce or eliminate
physical education do not achieve higher academic scores. And perhaps
more importantly, schools that engage their students in more frequent
physical education do not show lower academic scores.
But physical educators also need to think more creatively about
ways to increase their students' physical activity outside of physical
education. Physical educators need to be proactive in showing school
boards the many ways that schools can meet the physical activity
guidelines for young people: At least 60 minutes of moderate intensity
physical activity, daily.2
As the new school year begins, if you're not already involved,
volunteer to help craft your school district's new wellness policy.
Don't miss this great opportunity to create policy3 that will likely
have a long-lasting effect on both your physical education program
and on the health of our nation's youth.
Steve Jefferies, Publisher
PELINKS4U
references
|
