I remember my first year teaching 7th graders. I had a class that met at 12pm, directly after lunch. The kids were bouncing off the walls ALL THE TIME! It became so bad, my favorite phrase that hour was "did they serve straight sugar at lunch today?" Of course, the kids would always answer yes. Walking through the lunchroom has given me a new perspective on the diets of our students. Pizza, cookies, muffins and sugary drinks dominate the plates. I find it sad, we actually have a chef at our school and I've broadened my horizons by sampling most of his new dishes.
Browns Mill Elementary School in Lithonia, Georgia has been sugar free for ten years. There are no desserts, no soft drinks and kids are actually requesting brocolli! Students spend the first hour of school eating healthy omelets and doing jumping jacks, exercising and dancing. Lunches include low-fat milk, tuna on wheat and peaches for dessert. In the first 6 months discipline incidents decreased by 23%, counseling referrals decreased by 30% and in the first year of reading scores increased by 15%. The sugar ban seems to correlate with better behavior, more focus and officials also saw a reduction in the BMI of some students.
Last week I blogged on the reduction of Physical Education time in schools and feel this issue piggy backs that topic. Students in the article actually responded that they felt the school was engraining healthy eating habits in them. Often times, in some of the poorer communities, school lunch is the best meal a student receives for the day. If it is filled with fried foods and pastries, this not only leads to obesity but can often times leave students feeling lethargic and sleepy leading to them paying less attention in school.
One of my favorite TV programs a few years ago was Shaq's Big Challenge. On the program, Shaq was helping a group of overweight kids to get healthy and eat better. The best part of the show, was when chef Tyler Florence came to the school and showed the kitchen staff how they could prepare a healthy meal for the children for just a couple bucks a day.
I feel it is important kids learn healthy habits from a young age. I feel this is why it is important we give them healthy options for meals and drinks and they be exposed to fitness based activities. I'd like to challenge all you teachers to try to incorporate more movement in your class, even if it is just a few minutes of stretching or jumping jacks and then see if you notice a difference in student behavior and attention.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Do Schools Need More Time For Physical Education?
A recent article in the USA Today really hit home for me. The article wonders whether or not kids are getting enough exercise or should they spend more time in PE class? Should there be a national or state PE curriculum that every school follows to ensure kids are getting the proper amount of exercise time? Would a shift to a more fitness based curriculum be more beneficial vs a traditional curriculum of games/sports? These are questions I'm currently facing in my own teaching this summer as I try to revamp the PE curriculum at my school.
In Illinois, a state that first adopted PE standards in 1915, roughly 21% of students in the age group 10-17 are categorized as obese. Our nation as a whole currently has 1/3 of their children in the age group 2-19 categorized as overweight. We have become a nation of fast food, video games and sedentary lifestyles that have lead to this problem. So...what can we do about it?
My school has a PE program that meets twice a week and only runs through a student's sophomore year. After this, PE is no longer an option for our students. Many times, the 60 minutes of exercise they receive in class is all these students get for the week, especially if they are not in a sport/activity. The other problem we face is the struggle to balance our curriculum between traditional games and a more fitness based curriculum. Personally, I feel fitness based is the wave of the future. When these students reach their 30's and 40's and receive the news they have high blood pressure, type II diabetes, etc., none of them are going to look back on their high school days and say "I remember playing volleyball in PE, maybe I'll join a volleyball league". I feel it is our job to expose them to weight training, yoga, pilates, aerobics, hiking and things they can continue to do as they grow older. The problem, like other programs in education, is funding. Often times schools don't have the appropriate equipment or space to make this happen.
This coming school year, I plan to shift back and forth between traditional games and more fitness related activities. I also plan to incorporate heart rate training for a few different reasons. First ,students are able to see what the act of movement can do to their body. Second, it also gives me some concrete information to grade my students participation in class. People want to push the use of technology in schools and we need this new piece of equipment and that piece but at some point we need to validate the proper care of our best piece of equipment, the human body. If we are not healthy, how can we expect future generations to know how to care for themselves?
In Illinois, a state that first adopted PE standards in 1915, roughly 21% of students in the age group 10-17 are categorized as obese. Our nation as a whole currently has 1/3 of their children in the age group 2-19 categorized as overweight. We have become a nation of fast food, video games and sedentary lifestyles that have lead to this problem. So...what can we do about it?
My school has a PE program that meets twice a week and only runs through a student's sophomore year. After this, PE is no longer an option for our students. Many times, the 60 minutes of exercise they receive in class is all these students get for the week, especially if they are not in a sport/activity. The other problem we face is the struggle to balance our curriculum between traditional games and a more fitness based curriculum. Personally, I feel fitness based is the wave of the future. When these students reach their 30's and 40's and receive the news they have high blood pressure, type II diabetes, etc., none of them are going to look back on their high school days and say "I remember playing volleyball in PE, maybe I'll join a volleyball league". I feel it is our job to expose them to weight training, yoga, pilates, aerobics, hiking and things they can continue to do as they grow older. The problem, like other programs in education, is funding. Often times schools don't have the appropriate equipment or space to make this happen.
This coming school year, I plan to shift back and forth between traditional games and more fitness related activities. I also plan to incorporate heart rate training for a few different reasons. First ,students are able to see what the act of movement can do to their body. Second, it also gives me some concrete information to grade my students participation in class. People want to push the use of technology in schools and we need this new piece of equipment and that piece but at some point we need to validate the proper care of our best piece of equipment, the human body. If we are not healthy, how can we expect future generations to know how to care for themselves?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
California Seeks Shift Toward Digital Textbooks
As a state that is among leaders in education reform, California seems to be trendsetters for the rest of the country. Recently, as a way to battle a $24 billion state budget deficit, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has asked the states 6 million public schools to look into whether or not they could use more digital resources that are free. Potentially, this could save the state millions of dollars that could then be used to hire more teachers and reduce class size.
The Education Commission of the State views the plan as one of the most ambitious in the nation. As an outsider, the plan seems to be solid but a few flaws are worth noting. First of all, the plan does not replace textbooks in the classroom, it supplements the textbooks they are buying and continuing to buy. Another problem stems from the fact that California public schools received a D- for its use of technology and is only able to provide on average one computer for every four students. How do four students share one computer to look at online resources? For those of us that have used computers in the classroom, I think we'd agree that sometimes it is hard for two students to share. Another problem that could arise is computer access at home. If a student does not have internet access or a computer at home, how do we expect them to use these resources for learning outside of school?
This coming school year, my school will be using online textbooks for our US History course. We are ordering two classroom sets to cover the rooms that the subject will be taught in and that is it. We are doing this because in a year or two we will become a school in which each student has their own lap top. The move to online textbooks will save us money and will also save on wear and tear of the textbooks we buy, hopefully resulting in a longer shelf life for the books. If a student does not need the book, it is stored on the shelves in the teachers room rather than abused in a locker, car or wherever else kids store their textbooks.
In conclusion, I think a shift to online textbooks is a great thing but schools must be prepared. I'm not 100% convinced California schools are ready for this. Currently, the state ranks 49th out of 50 in technology in their schools. It appears that the poor computer to student ratio could lead to problems in the classroom. If they are already buying textbooks, will they really be saving any money? Could the need to update technology end up costing schools more in the long run?
The Education Commission of the State views the plan as one of the most ambitious in the nation. As an outsider, the plan seems to be solid but a few flaws are worth noting. First of all, the plan does not replace textbooks in the classroom, it supplements the textbooks they are buying and continuing to buy. Another problem stems from the fact that California public schools received a D- for its use of technology and is only able to provide on average one computer for every four students. How do four students share one computer to look at online resources? For those of us that have used computers in the classroom, I think we'd agree that sometimes it is hard for two students to share. Another problem that could arise is computer access at home. If a student does not have internet access or a computer at home, how do we expect them to use these resources for learning outside of school?
This coming school year, my school will be using online textbooks for our US History course. We are ordering two classroom sets to cover the rooms that the subject will be taught in and that is it. We are doing this because in a year or two we will become a school in which each student has their own lap top. The move to online textbooks will save us money and will also save on wear and tear of the textbooks we buy, hopefully resulting in a longer shelf life for the books. If a student does not need the book, it is stored on the shelves in the teachers room rather than abused in a locker, car or wherever else kids store their textbooks.
In conclusion, I think a shift to online textbooks is a great thing but schools must be prepared. I'm not 100% convinced California schools are ready for this. Currently, the state ranks 49th out of 50 in technology in their schools. It appears that the poor computer to student ratio could lead to problems in the classroom. If they are already buying textbooks, will they really be saving any money? Could the need to update technology end up costing schools more in the long run?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Is a Longer School Year Beneficial?
Is 180 days the right amount to be in school? Would extra days spent learning help students lacking in basic skills catch up to their classmates that are ahead of them? These are questions, as educators, we all tend to struggle with. About 1,000 schools are currently experimenting with a longer school day and year with mixed results. Students attend school from 7:30am-5pm, 11 months out of the year. Schools experimenting with this new extended schedule are primarily urban schools that are trying to close the academic gap with their counterparts.
"Poorer students need extra time to compete with middle-class students" says Sociology professor Karl Alexander "the key is using the time wisely". This rings true for any academic situation. How many hours get wasted by teachers and students during the year when we plan poorly or have disruptions we have to deal with in our individual classrooms. Some of it we can't help, but certain situations are within our control. The key to closing the gap with many of these under performing schools is funding and using time and resources to the best of our ability. Marc Mannella, CEO of the Philadelphia Charter School says he made a longer school year mandatory because students were joining the KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) 2-3 grade levels lower than their current grade. The push towards longer school years reminds me a lot of what Head Start was originally intended to accomplish.
While most people want to claim a longer school year is beneficial, some areas have noticed mixed results. For example, the Miami-Dade school district tested a similar program for three years in 39 of their under performing schools and claimed higher rates of student and teacher burnout, as well as a higher rate of abscences when the summer first started. Another problem that arose from the extended school year was the feeling of punishment by students that were performing just fine in school.
While a longer school year seems like it could be the answer to academic short comings, it may not be. I think a better solution would be increased funding and training to educators in under performing schools. If you work on something for extended hours but you are not doing it right or don't have the right tools, it doesn't matter. Somehow, we need to have all public schools caught up to each other in the resources they have. The article today on military funded public schools, offered some great insight to the structure and discipline needed in some of these schools that are lacking in academic performance.
"Poorer students need extra time to compete with middle-class students" says Sociology professor Karl Alexander "the key is using the time wisely". This rings true for any academic situation. How many hours get wasted by teachers and students during the year when we plan poorly or have disruptions we have to deal with in our individual classrooms. Some of it we can't help, but certain situations are within our control. The key to closing the gap with many of these under performing schools is funding and using time and resources to the best of our ability. Marc Mannella, CEO of the Philadelphia Charter School says he made a longer school year mandatory because students were joining the KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) 2-3 grade levels lower than their current grade. The push towards longer school years reminds me a lot of what Head Start was originally intended to accomplish.
While most people want to claim a longer school year is beneficial, some areas have noticed mixed results. For example, the Miami-Dade school district tested a similar program for three years in 39 of their under performing schools and claimed higher rates of student and teacher burnout, as well as a higher rate of abscences when the summer first started. Another problem that arose from the extended school year was the feeling of punishment by students that were performing just fine in school.
While a longer school year seems like it could be the answer to academic short comings, it may not be. I think a better solution would be increased funding and training to educators in under performing schools. If you work on something for extended hours but you are not doing it right or don't have the right tools, it doesn't matter. Somehow, we need to have all public schools caught up to each other in the resources they have. The article today on military funded public schools, offered some great insight to the structure and discipline needed in some of these schools that are lacking in academic performance.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
How Important is Math Anway?
This is the question not even the state of Minnesota seems to be able to answer correctly. It seems state educators felt the math exam juniors had to pass to graduate was too difficult. The solution? How about we have them not take it.
In a country that seems to lag behind others in the world in terms of math proficiency, this seems to be sending the wrong message to our students. The test itself did not even need to be passed to graduate. As long as you were up to par in all other areas of academia, you could fail the math test three times and then be allowed to graduate.
The world economy is currently shrinking while our population continues to increase rapidly. What this means is our students will face even more competition for jobs. Not only will they face competition from people within our own country but people throughout the world. Math is a subject based on building blocks. If students can't pass a basic proficiency test after the 11th grade, how do they expect to make it through college and have the necessary math skills to compete in the global economy.
Very few of us have our careers mapped out in high school. At the time, we may see no need for math or any other subject at the time. However, math is not just important in the work force, we use it every day. Understanding math may have helped some people who are currently in trouble with mortgage problems. I want to build a deck for my house, math helps me figure out how much materials I need. Math helps us understand how interest compounds on credit cards, hopefully before we are in credit card debt. In the grocery store, math helps us understand which size cereal box is the best value for our money. While these are simple examples, I feel they are relevant to us understanding how important math is.
In conclusion, putting this test off is sending the wrong message to our students. We should be challenging teachers to come up with better methods for teaching math to their students. We should be challenging students to score higher on math exams. If we don't push ourselves to find out how good we can become at something, we will never know. By the way, how hard is this exam? Find out here!
In a country that seems to lag behind others in the world in terms of math proficiency, this seems to be sending the wrong message to our students. The test itself did not even need to be passed to graduate. As long as you were up to par in all other areas of academia, you could fail the math test three times and then be allowed to graduate.
The world economy is currently shrinking while our population continues to increase rapidly. What this means is our students will face even more competition for jobs. Not only will they face competition from people within our own country but people throughout the world. Math is a subject based on building blocks. If students can't pass a basic proficiency test after the 11th grade, how do they expect to make it through college and have the necessary math skills to compete in the global economy.
Very few of us have our careers mapped out in high school. At the time, we may see no need for math or any other subject at the time. However, math is not just important in the work force, we use it every day. Understanding math may have helped some people who are currently in trouble with mortgage problems. I want to build a deck for my house, math helps me figure out how much materials I need. Math helps us understand how interest compounds on credit cards, hopefully before we are in credit card debt. In the grocery store, math helps us understand which size cereal box is the best value for our money. While these are simple examples, I feel they are relevant to us understanding how important math is.
In conclusion, putting this test off is sending the wrong message to our students. We should be challenging teachers to come up with better methods for teaching math to their students. We should be challenging students to score higher on math exams. If we don't push ourselves to find out how good we can become at something, we will never know. By the way, how hard is this exam? Find out here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
