What happens when students of all economic backgrounds are exposed to a school-based obesity prevention intervention that included dietary, curricula, and physical activity components? How does this intervention impacted body mass index (BMI) percentiles and academic performance among low-income elementary school children?
Well, its been done for two consecutive years involving 5,488 students of which 48% were Hispanic. Think about simplicity of the intervention: helping students understand their eating habits, promote healthier choices and increased physical activity. This in itself is a worthy effort to pursue by any school who serves free and reduced lunches. But when one adds the outcomes from this study in is inexplainable why such an intervention is not mandated on a national level.
What researcher, Danielle Hollard and her team from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine found is astonishing:
1) Obese children experienced a drop in their Body Mass Index (BMI) - probably expected
2) Regular students maintained their healthy BMI's -probably expected
3) Significant increases in math scores were experienced during both years of the study - surprising!
4) Improvement in math scores occured in both Hispanic and White students - surprising!
5) Higher readings scores were experienced as well for both years but not as high as math scores - surprising!
It is therefore possible to have a regular school program that impacts both the health and academic performance of students. Furthermore it makes the healthy body / healthy mind connection yet again. How many more of these studies are needed to make the same point?
Visit http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/AJPH.2009.165746v1 to see the complete study.
Michael Cordier
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Motives for Getting Involved in Education
Perhaps the most politicized public forum in any community is the typical school district. The appointment of the Superintendent is determined by party lines and that tone cascade to the lowest levels when it comes to career development. But the refrain continues that "it is all for the kids". Hypocrisy! Here is what Rick Hess had to say on his Blog 'Straight Up'. I believe he has a point and a good one.
It's time to banish the phrase, "It's for the kids," (that's "IFTK" for those of you keeping score at home) from the edu-discourse, along with its insipid cousins like "it's all about kids," "just for the kids," and "we're in it for the kids." Actually, it's way past time.
Two things recently reminded how much I loathe IFTK. One was a terrific little essay penned by my old mentor, Harvard University's Dick Elmore. The other, which I'll take up tomorrow, was AFT President Randi Weingarten's painful interview recently on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show.
Elmore bracingly terms "We're in it for the kids" a "monument to self-deception." He argues, "Public schools, and the institutions that surround them, surely rank among the most self-interested institutions in American society"--with school boards "training beds" for would-be politicians, superintendents sketching grandiose visions and then fleeing for cushier positions, and unions sacrificing student interests in the name of teacher job security.
"It's for the kids" is a phrase that encourages obfuscation and posturing. It allows self-interest to hide behind self-righteousness and vapid sentiment. It also imposes real costs.
First, the rhetoric of "it's for the kids" makes it easy for serious disagreements about policy or practice to devolve into name-calling and questions of motive. If I'm "in it for the kids" and you oppose my stance on teacher licensure, desegregation, charter schooling, or merit pay, it can be easy for me to assert (and maybe even assume) that you're not in it for the kids. This fuels ad hominem attacks and makes it more difficult to find workable solutions.
And, honestly, I can't see why motive much matters. I couldn't care less whether my doctor loves me; I just care whether she's any good at her job. If someone is in it for the kids, for the adoring news coverage, or for a buck, all I really care about is whether they deliver. If they do, terrific. If they don't, their noble motives don't matter.
'It's for the Kids' Needs to Go
Two things recently reminded how much I loathe IFTK. One was a terrific little essay penned by my old mentor, Harvard University's Dick Elmore. The other, which I'll take up tomorrow, was AFT President Randi Weingarten's painful interview recently on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show.
Elmore bracingly terms "We're in it for the kids" a "monument to self-deception." He argues, "Public schools, and the institutions that surround them, surely rank among the most self-interested institutions in American society"--with school boards "training beds" for would-be politicians, superintendents sketching grandiose visions and then fleeing for cushier positions, and unions sacrificing student interests in the name of teacher job security.
"It's for the kids" is a phrase that encourages obfuscation and posturing. It allows self-interest to hide behind self-righteousness and vapid sentiment. It also imposes real costs.
First, the rhetoric of "it's for the kids" makes it easy for serious disagreements about policy or practice to devolve into name-calling and questions of motive. If I'm "in it for the kids" and you oppose my stance on teacher licensure, desegregation, charter schooling, or merit pay, it can be easy for me to assert (and maybe even assume) that you're not in it for the kids. This fuels ad hominem attacks and makes it more difficult to find workable solutions.
And, honestly, I can't see why motive much matters. I couldn't care less whether my doctor loves me; I just care whether she's any good at her job. If someone is in it for the kids, for the adoring news coverage, or for a buck, all I really care about is whether they deliver. If they do, terrific. If they don't, their noble motives don't matter.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Is Winning Everything?
A poll from Darien Conn., wherein over 800 students in sixth to eight grades who particpated in junior football and basketball were targeted, the crucial question were asked, "Why do you play sports?"
Turned out the answer were quite simple. Not to one day play in the Super Bowl, not even to win - but for fun! While parents dream big it seems as if the children focus on small stuff, like having FUN.
The single page questionaire asked to rank 11 reasons why children participates in sports. Options such as 'to have fun' and 'to make friends' were added to more serious options such as 'to win' and 'to earn college scholarships'. From the mound of data gathered, researcher Peter Barston found a striking pattern. No matter how he categorized the responses, the most important reason youngsters gave for playing sports was the same: to have fun. That was the top response from football and basketball players, from boys and from girls, and from players in each grade from fourth to eighth.
In fact, the response from male basketball players were 95% and from females 98% listing 'fun' as the most important reason for participation.
The preliminary findings are not far from what the Michigan State researchers Martha Ewing and Vern Seefeldt concluded in 1989. Their study of 28,000 boys and girls around the country asked, Why do you play sports? The top answer then was “fun,” followed by “to do something I’m good at” and “to improve my skills.” “Winning” did not crack the top 10.
All this is a good sign and a strong message to parents: Back off on the winning at all costs theory!
Michael Cordier
Source: EdWeek - Mark Hyman 1/30/10
Turned out the answer were quite simple. Not to one day play in the Super Bowl, not even to win - but for fun! While parents dream big it seems as if the children focus on small stuff, like having FUN.
The single page questionaire asked to rank 11 reasons why children participates in sports. Options such as 'to have fun' and 'to make friends' were added to more serious options such as 'to win' and 'to earn college scholarships'. From the mound of data gathered, researcher Peter Barston found a striking pattern. No matter how he categorized the responses, the most important reason youngsters gave for playing sports was the same: to have fun. That was the top response from football and basketball players, from boys and from girls, and from players in each grade from fourth to eighth.
In fact, the response from male basketball players were 95% and from females 98% listing 'fun' as the most important reason for participation.
The preliminary findings are not far from what the Michigan State researchers Martha Ewing and Vern Seefeldt concluded in 1989. Their study of 28,000 boys and girls around the country asked, Why do you play sports? The top answer then was “fun,” followed by “to do something I’m good at” and “to improve my skills.” “Winning” did not crack the top 10.
All this is a good sign and a strong message to parents: Back off on the winning at all costs theory!
Michael Cordier
Source: EdWeek - Mark Hyman 1/30/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)