Dear Editor:
The article, “A New Law on School Fitness Data Faces Obstacles” (New York Times, Sept. 24th, 2011), written by Morgan Smith, reported on increasing rates of obesity in Texas schoolchildren and the state’s effort to enact legislature to collect data and curb these increases. The law in question created Fitnessgrams – a program designed to test all students beginning in third grade on cardiovascular endurance, muscle strength, flexibility, and body composition.
While it allowed researchers to access unidentified individual student data, the new bill simultaneously restricted data collection to only students enrolled in physical education classes. These restrictions on the bill might very well be natural responses to reductions in government funding, but, to this reader, seem almost self-defeating.
As a college student interested in the health of the student population, I wonder if a possible solution might be in setting tests of physical ability – perhaps swimming, running, or weightlifting – as graduation requirements for elementary, middle, and high school. Although it would entail funding, such requirements would create incentives to improve physical education programs, as well as show that the government is interested in the overall health of the student population, not simply its academic vitality.
Sincerely,
Leo Chick
Berkeley, CA 94704
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“If you had an endless source of dollars, of course it’s great data to have,” JoyLynn Occhiuzzi states in the article “A New Law on School Fitness Data Faces Obstacles” (The Texas Tribune, Sept. 24, 2011). While I am not arguing that the data from these tests will be useful, I am questioning why when are the limited funds being allocated with the end goal in mind? Instead of using more than $100,000 on costs associated with the Fitnessgrams (such is the case in Austin, Texas), this large quantity of money can be used to offer more options and make physical activity more attractive to students! Young children may or may not understand the value of daily exercise but like Leo Chick mentioned, running, swimming, and weight lifting might provide a bit more variety to students. I also believe that physical education should be required every semester while students are in elementary, middle, and high school. Nearly 17 % of 10- to 17-year-olds are considered obese, so why decrease the amount of required physical education when students are more at risk?
ReplyDeleteLeo,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the quality of these studies in Texas seems compromised since “Fitnessgrams are required only for students who are already enrolled in physical education classes.” Excluding from the study those students who are not enrolled in physical education classes eliminates the opportunity for comparative analysis between those who are and those who are not. In my opinion, if the state is unable to provide enough funding so that the study can be conducted in full, the money should not be allocated for it at all.
As Leslie proposes, this money could be better spent. Some of the funds not used for the Fitnessgram study could be used to generate posters that advertise the importance of daily exercise and eating right. The government could distribute these to every public school and require that they be hung in classrooms. This poster campaign could complement state-mandated curriculum in all biological and health science courses about the positive effects of exercise and healthy diet.
Furthermore, state law should require P.E. classes not only for elementary school students, but for middle and high school students as well. You have suggested physical fitness tests as a graduation requirement. While this would certainly create incentives if implemented, in reality there might be too much opposition for this to become state law. Instead, I recommend that all students be required to pass physical education, and that a passing grade should be earned based on consistent attendance and participation. Daily exercise in class would likely result in weight loss among the youth, and by participating in sports and athletic games, children would learn through experience that exercise is fun and has a positive influence on how they feel, and they would be more likely to continue exercising in their adult life.
Instituting a cost saving mechanism compromises a lot of the efforts to diminish the rates of obesity in Texas, where 20.4 percent of children are obese. Instead of testing all students, “Fitnessgrams are required only for students who are already enrolled in physical education classes”. Even though money is saved by limiting the amount of data compiled, the data collected will not say much about the health of the students as a whole and where the problems stem from since it does not focus on the students who struggle the most with obesity, which are the students not enrolled in physical education classes. Even though collecting data and administering tests are a good resource because it forces school administrators to be more aware of the health of their students, the money going towards this data does not directly improve the health of students. For example, coordinated health programs, strengthening of physical activity policies, or providing more nutritious meals would directly improve the health of students. I agree with Leslie and Leo that a possible solution could be to provide more money for physical education programs that encourage students to try other activities that they find enjoyable because I feel that students will more likely do things they have a passion for, rather than a mundane exercise they are forced to do. Educating students about the benefits of a healthy lifestyle is also a great investment. By exposing students to fun options that allow them to stay fit and eat healthy, they will more likely develop a healthier lifestyle in the long run. Both academia and health should be essential areas of focus since they equally play an important role in the future of students.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Lee