hburgnews.com

Comment from marcus
Time: January 17, 2008, 1:15 pm

Faith Hecht gave me the information and also asked that we contact the committee members:
“Without significant noise from the constituency, this bill is unlikely to move up the chain. You can contact each of the subcommittee members to voice your concerns and express your support for this measure. For your convenience, here are the names and email addresses for the members of the House of Delegates Education Committee’s Standards of Quality Subcommittee:
Chairman: L. Scott Lingamfelter (R, 31st District) DelSLingamfelter@house.state.va.us
Members: Kenneth C. Alexander (D, 89th) DelKAlexander@house.state.va.us
Charles W. Carrico, Sr. (R, 5th) DelCCarrico@house.state.va.us
Mark L. Cole (R, 88th) DelMCole@house.state.va.us
Anne B. Crockett-Stark (R, 6th) DelACrockett-Stark@house.state.va.us
Jeffrey M. Frederick (R, 52nd) DelJFrederick@house.state.va.us
Phillip A. Hamilton (R, 93rd) DelPHamilton@house.state.va.us
Jennifer L. McClellan (D, 71st) DelJMcClellan@house.state.va.us
Thomas Davis Rust (R, 86th) DelTRust@house.state.va.us
Onzlee Ware (D, 11th) DelOWare@house.state.va.us
Delegate John O’Bannon is the co-sponsor of HB 242. His email address is DelJOBannon@house.state.va.us.”
If you’re interested in learning more you can contact Faith at: faith@sportsbackers.org.

Comment from Gxeremio
Time: January 17, 2008, 1:37 pm

As a teacher I’m not crazy about this bill. It seems to me that PE classes are best geared towards two groups: students who need them and students who want them.

There are a lot of students who get plenty of enjoyable physical activity from after-school sports and would prefer to take other classes during their school day. On reading the bill, I see there is actually a loophole for that group which is an improvement.

The practical effects of this bill that I see as negative are reduced time for other electives, reduced time for core classes, mandated cost increases (for hiring and space needs) for schools with younger and older students who don’t currently have PE 30 minutes a day, confusion for schools with block scheduling (like HHS, which only has 4 courses a semester - are 2 of 8 courses during the year going to be PE so they get it “every week”?), a reduction in recess (unstructured play time is important), and just generally that this seems like a “solution in search of a problem” - if the target is childhood obesity or need for play or something else, it should be more specifically addressed. I am having a hard time finding research that links increased PE classes with reduced childhood obesity rates.

Comment from MAW
Time: January 17, 2008, 2:37 pm

I would much rather see an overhaul of the school lunch program. Stop serving “fast food”.

I don’t see a problem with increased physical activity at the elementary level. I think that’s where it would be most effective.

Why not offer a before or after school program for those who are interested or in need in middle and high school? Physical education majors could conduct the classes for credit.

Comment from David Miller
Time: January 17, 2008, 2:49 pm

I would simply like to see bills that involve education be sponsored by a school district that needs or has implemented said changes to solve said problem.

Comment from marcus
Time: January 22, 2008, 8:45 pm

Dave - that’s a good point. It might be something great we could pose to SRI. As I understand it they are creating a position specifically to help our local community. From what I hear the person is very interested in helping with youth interest.

I would love to see the results of different programs nationally and their effectiveness (better diet, more exercise, better sports programs, etc).