Diabetes Self-Management Blog

As state and local budgets across the country have been squeezed amid the current economic slump, certain programs in schools have been hit harder than others. One of these is physical education (PE), or gym class, which is often considered not to be essential to the education and academic achievement of students. But as the rate of overweight and obesity in children and youth continues to soar (along with Type 2 diabetes), some states and members of Congress are pushing back against cuts to PE programs — not necessarily, however, in the most direct or effective way.

As noted last week in an article in The Columbus Dispatch, the State of Ohio has announced that starting next year, it will include performance in PE classes as part of its overall scoring of schools, to be mentioned in the state’s “school report cards.” This is ostensibly to hold districts, schools, and teachers accountable for physical education as with other subjects, making sure that students “know the correct way to exercise, understand how games are played, are active outside of school and play well with others,” as the article notes. Seventeen other states have taken a similar approach by scoring PE performance. In Ohio, however, ratings for PE classes won’t count toward a school’s overall academic performance rating, which is based on the proportion of students in a school who meet the state’s educational standards in core subject areas. Furthermore, Ohio, like many other states, doesn’t actually require any specific amount of physical education at the elementary and middle school levels; it only requires one half-unit of PE in high school to graduate. As a result, many school districts in the state have cut back on PE programs.

Earlier this year, the Tacoma, Washington, News Tribune published an article on efforts in Congress to address lagging physical education standards throughout the country. According to the article, a bipartisan group of 84 lawmakers (including one from the area) supports a measure that would require schools to issue annual reports on the amount of physical activity students get in school. According to the plan’s supporters, this would force schools to be accountable to parents when it comes to their children’s fitness. There is, however, another federal approach toward encouraging physical activity in schools that is already in place: the Carol M. White Physical Education program, which will give out $78.8 million in grants this year to help schools support their PE programs. While this program can have a large effect in school districts that win grants, its effect is negligible nationwide. One member of Congress, however, is sponsoring a bill that would effectively require all schools to offer at least 150 minutes of PE class weekly in elementary schools and 225 minutes weekly in middle and high schools, the levels recommended by the National Association for Sport and Physical Education.

The debate over physical education standards comes at a time when the childhood obesity rate in the United States is 17%, with more than a third of 6- to 19-year-olds overweight, according to the News Tribune article. And if the findings of a recent analysis of 63 studies are correct, the long-term effects of childhood obesity may be worse than most people imagined. Published last week in the journal BMJ, the analysis found that obese children and teens had significantly higher blood pressure and higher blood levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, along with thickening of the heart muscle — all indicating an increased risk of cardiovascular disease at a young age.

What do you think — should Congress, or individual states, try to encourage more PE class in schools? Should either one set minimum standards for the amount of time students spend in PE classes? In evaluating schools, should states treat PE just like other classes, and take student performance into account when rating a school’s success? Should PE teachers be evaluated based on the fitness or health of their students? Should schools treat individual students’ fitness levels as seriously as they treat academic performance? Leave a comment below!

POST A COMMENT       
  

Comments
  1. the question to be asked is,”Why did Physical Education stop in schools?” When I was growing up it was a part of life in school, there were certain exercises that had to be learned and practiced, and most of all there was time out of the class room to remove tensions and stress. Something or someone caused schools to stop this practice, was it costs prohibitive, teachers have to be involved and get paid? Was it because there was a loss of importance in the tracking of students efforts? Was it an imposed needs for more class room efforts that made physical efforts less important than learning efforts? I think there has to be a balance. In the workforce today there is a rising push for employees to balance their work efforts and the need to spend time in the gym or some other kind of activity to keep their bodies in shape as well as relive stress and tension that are harmful to the overall health of the body. We only get one chance to get it right and if the numbers on childhood obesity and diabetes are correct, then we need to start making changes immediately. Find out why it stopped!!

    Posted by tmo |
  2. tmo: Bang on. As 30+ years as T2 ad finally got mess arrested ( i.e. stop rot); human animal was designed to burn energy by physical effort. Crucial one does.

    Back in early days I did not care for PE but today that effort is crucial to my better health. Lets hope folks listen and take your comments seriously.

    Posted by jim snell |
  3. According to the plan’s supporters, this would force schools to be accountable to parents when it comes to their children’s fitness.

    Posted by Donna Crabtree |

Post a Comment

Note: All comments are moderated and there may be a delay in the publication of your comment. Please be on-topic and appropriate. Do not disclose personal information. Be respectful of other posters. Only post information that is correct and true to your knowledge. When referencing information that is not based on personal experience, please provide links to your sources. All commenters are considered to be nonmedical professionals unless explicitly stated otherwise. Promotion of your own or someone else's business or competing site is not allowed: Sharing links to sites that are relevant to the topic at hand is permitted, but advertising is not. Once submitted, comments cannot be modified or deleted by their authors. Comments that don't follow the guidelines above may be deleted without warning. Such actions are at the sole discretion of DiabetesSelfManagement.com. Comments are moderated Monday through Friday by the editors of DiabetesSelfManagement.com. The moderators are employees of Madavor Media, LLC., and do not report any conflicts of interest. A privacy policy setting forth our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of certain information relating to you and your use of this Web site can be found here. For more information, please read our Terms and Conditions.


Flashpoints
Potatoes: Good or Bad? (10/20/14)
Sandwich Trouble (10/15/14)
Soda Surrender? (10/08/14)
Marketing to Kids (10/01/14)

 

 

Disclaimer of Medical Advice: You understand that the blog posts and comments to such blog posts (whether posted by us, our agents or bloggers, or by users) do not constitute medical advice or recommendation of any kind, and you should not rely on any information contained in such posts or comments to replace consultations with your qualified health care professionals to meet your individual needs. The opinions and other information contained in the blog posts and comments do not reflect the opinions or positions of the Site Proprietor.