314-882-5669
There has been some news coming out of Illinois this morning that leads me to wonder who informs the politicians in our communities. State Representative Ron Sandack (R-Downers Grove) is proposing a bill (HB1330) that would eliminate a state mandate and allow local leaders to decide how much physical education is offered in their schools.
Mr. Sandack states:
“I think a lot of people would have expected the childhood obesity rate to drop once daily PE was mandated in our schools,” said Sandack. “We just haven’t seen it. The childhood obesity rate is still unacceptably high, and there has been no proof that daily PE has changed the trend in Illinois.”
Well, Mr. Sandack, I have some news for you. Quality mandated physical education doesn’t necessarily equate with the elimination of obesity, but it does equate with a great deal of physical competence and understanding. Have you assessed the students pre and post mandate in these areas? Thought so. PE teachers can’t control what food children and youth are served at home or at school and to judge the effectiveness of a physical education program based on obesity rates is illogical. If the mandate’s success is being evaluated based on obesity levels, it exemplifies that Mr. Sandack is not well enough versed with this topic to make recommendations such as this.
The purpose of quality physical education, according to the new National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) standards, is to develop physically literate people. Physically literate individuals have the competence and confidence to be physically active in diverse environments (land, snow, ice, water), and choose to be physically active because they understand it’s good for their health. Moreover, physically literate people use their understanding of healthy living to do well onto others and their community.
Cutting mandated PE at the state level allows local decision makers to implement policy while ignoring the science around what we know related to physical activity and health (physical, emotional, social). Obviously decreasing obesity rates is a noble pursuit, but it’s a pursuit that requires a coordinated, longitudinal and comprehensive approach, which includes mandated physical education as a core component.
Mr. Sandack states that he is not arguing the benefits of physical activity, yet he is suggesting to remove mandate which provides students with a much needed opportunity to move. Science tells us physical activity makes us less depressed, less anxious, and more ready to learn. It also tells us physical activity decreases the onset of many diseases, and increases memory and retention. Quality physical education programs support students with the skills to become competent movers, and the education as to how, why, and where they can transfer these skills to their life outside of school and post K-12 education.
Society doesn’t just need to decrease obesity rates, it also needs to ensure that students who grow up to be engineers who insist on building bridges with walking and biking lanes. It needs future developers to insist a new neighborhood has sidewalks. It needs future coffee shop owners to refuse to hang signs that state no skateboarding on the premises. Society also needs future legislators to reverse laws that punish youth from riding their bikes on a sidewalk if the street next to the sidewalk is unsafe for them to use active modes of transportation.
The K-12 years are critical in students’ whole body development. The 21st century learner has many more distractions and challenges surrounding physical activity than those in the past. Infrastructure and policy has forced children and youth into a bubble they didn’t ask to live in. Many students in our schools live in neighborhoods unsafe for outdoor physical activity. Many others live in underfunded schools and are testing below benchmarks for literacy and numeracy. In removing this mandate, local decision makers will find themselves in a position to further decrease students’ physical activity opportunities. Just as importantly, it will strip students from the opportunity to understand how to become independent in taking care of their own health and why it is so important for them to do so. Politicians can throw around “career and college ready” all they want, but how about the readiness to have a healthy quality of life?
Mr. Sandack doesn’t think the current state mandate is working. I suggest that he take time to properly evaluate the impact of the mandate and, if he feels inspired to make a recommendation, that he consider one which takes a more comprehensive school approach to supporting students’ health in addition to allocated physical education time. One that doesn’t serve pizza and Cinnamon Toast Crunch cereal for breakfast to those on free and reduced lunch, and one that celebrates physical activity as part of quality physical education, as well as as during recess, in the classroom, and during before and after school extra curricular experiences.
I can’t help but wonder that if Mr. Sandack truly doesn’t intend to decrease physical education in Illinois schools, why he would suggest a bill such as this one in the first place? Perhaps a new 21st century curriculum is needed to support the specialists delivering the programs in Illinois? One wouldn’t suggest removal of a literacy mandate at the state level because not all students are reading books at their leisure, so how the heck can one claim it is necessary to remove a mandate that is in place to serve kids’ health? America needs a healthier country and this rogue proposal ignores this fact.
