PE/Recess time mandates

In article 3gYdb.4351$hp5.4163@fed1read04,
"Circe" wrote:

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
Well Dorothy did say - after elementary school that they should ought to
have a choice.

Should middle school children also have the choice of whether or not to take
English or Algebra?

Well, a middle school kid who isn't ready for it shouldn't be taking
Algebra. And a lot of schools have advanced placement classes for the
academically gifted as early as 7th grade.

Besides, you would be hard pressed to prove that ANY team sport is as
essential to future success as math and English! You might be able to
show a correlation between physical health and success (however you want
to measure success) or being physically fit and success. But I doubt
seriously if you could show much of a correlation between hours spent in
PE (the way most schools do it) and being physically fit or healthy --
and even then, I doubt if you could really show causation.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

"Circe" wrote in message
news3%db.4382$hp5.1574@fed1read04...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
Actually, I agree for the most part. And, in fact, what we are being told
in
California is that the emphasis is supposed to be on lifetime physical
fitness activities, with much less emphasis on building athletic skills
and
more on building a healthy lifestyle. I think that's very much to the
good,
although how much you can affect kids' attitudes towards physical fitness
in
200 minutes every 10 days is questionable, IMO.

Notwithstanding, I don't think team sports are harmful and, indeed, I know
plenty of adults who are playing team sports like soccer, volleyball,
tennis, etc. into their 40s, 50s, and even 60s for both fun and fitness.

Oh yeah, I know plenty of adults playing soccer too. They do play
for fun, but fitness? As my doctor said just after my 43rd birthday,
"Exactly what do you think you are trying to prove!" Every game
someone limps off the field to be out for at least the next 3 weeks.
New bruises formed before old ones goaway. Is it really better
for my health, or worse? And I do condition so I can play.
Playing soccer once a week without any running, stretching,
strengthening and limbering in the middle is an absolute disaster
for people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s.

There are some team (contact) sports that people will play
well into their 70s (Yes, there was a 70 year old woman on my
soccer team) but that's not the norm, or even a fair percentage of folks.
Contact sports are very tough on joints, and aging makes injury
recovery slower. I wouldn't plan on using contact sports as your
best bet for lifelong activity.

Maybe they'd be doing it regardless of whether they'd been exposed to it
during their school years, but I don't think exposure during school *hurt*
them.

The problem with teaching many team sports in schools is there is not
enough money to provide the correct equipment for each child. Take
soccer. All you really need is a ball and a few sweaters to mark goals.
But without shinguards you will get bruised shins. Without soccer
shoes you will slide when you miss solid contact with the ball. Without
goalie gloves your fingers will get bruised, and more likely broken, when
they are stepped on. Most contact sports, including basketball, volleyball
and
indoor soccer, it is highly suggested kids wear mouth guards.I have no
problem with kids playing pickup games voluntarily without the proper
equipment. But to require it is just mean. And yes, it does hurt them.
I was shocked that at one time last year there were THREE kids on
crutches in my daughter's 8th grade class due to PE injuries. Any
subject that ends up with kids on crutches, or with broken bones,
or even with bruises, is not a subject that should be required.

And for those kids who ENJOY team sports, NOT playing them during
school hours solely in favor of the "lifetime fitness promotion
activities"
is pretty boring.

Well, going back to your example, to some math is boring. It depends
what the goal of PE is. I think the biggest problem with PE programs
are they have no overall goal in mind, or perhaps the overall goal
is flawed. It can't be teaching real sports without the correct equipment.
It can't be see who is the best runner/basket ball player/swimmer for
recruiting purposes. Is it for lifetime fitness promotion? Then teach
lifetime fitness promotion. Have aerobics and dance and tennis
and biking and running and golf and all those other non-contact
activities that people could really do their whole lives. Or at least
give kids the choice or lifetime fitness promotion, or team sports.

On 29 Sep 2003 10:31:21 -0700, Banty wrote:

That was one advantage of dodgeball actually - unpopular kid as I was, I could
*do* it well enough to not be a target :-) I'm not recommending dodgeball (!)
but there have got to be other ways to have *all* the kids active - Cub Scouts
had a lot of games around that sort of thing, that didn't exercise only the
skilled and/or those who could get close to the ball.

I would love to see PE use the wide games from scouting. There are
lots of games that teach cooperation instead of competition and these
can be very beneficial in getting all the kids active and
participating.

In today's world, we spend most of our time competing. From an early
age, we are told that only the best students get into the really good
universities and that when we graduate, that only the best will land
the job of their dreams. We use the phrase “get ahead” interchangeably
with “succeed”. So when it comes time to play, it should not come as a
surprise that many people choose not to participate in competitive
sports. They simply need a break from the pressure and stress of
competition. In their precious leisure time, they want to play with
their friends as partners, not rivals. Just a few changes in scoring
and rules can make the game fun for the whole group.

Here are some ideas for using traditional equipment but getting
everyone involved and cooperating.

http://www.coopsports.com/

The Second Cooperative Sports & Games Book by Terry Orlick
should be required reading for PE teachers, imho.




--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:59:32 -0700, "Circe" wrote:
I don't understand why it is considered so horribly unfair for some kids
to
suffer through PE because they don't have good athletic skills when some
of
the kids who excel at athletics are not very good at academic subjects
but
are expected to suffer through them anyway. I don't believe it hurts
children to recognize that we all have different talents and excel at
different things. If a child doesn't excel in PE, chances are that he
excels
in something else. It all balances out. The TRICK is in ensuring that
each
child's talents are RECOGNIZED and EXPRESSED in some way in school. And
THAT
may well be the part that's missing for a lot of kids: school gives them
no
reason to believe they're good at anything.

But the problem is that with the way PE is structured, it encourages
abuse of the kids who are not good at sports. Sports is not the only
way to be physically fit and it's not even the primary way for most
adults.

I simply disagree. I don't think PE is *structured* to encourage abuse of
less talented children any more than I think academic courses are structured
to do so. Does it happen? Sure. But it can happen in *any* subject matter in
school. I remember kids being made fun of because they didn't read aloud
very smoothly. Does that mean we should all have stopped learning to read?

A good teacher, whatever the subject, does not tolerate abuse or ridicule
during class. Such a teacher also makes a point of noticing what each child
does well--the child who isn't the fastest runner on the soccer field may be
a good ball skills or vice versa. There's no reason that sports, by
definition, *must* be humiliating for those who are less skillful.

Who cares if anyone ever learns how to play a team sport if
they despise it? PE is supposed to be about being active and you
don't have to play sports to be active and healthy.

I agree. I still don't see how one can determine whether one despises team
sports unless one tries them. I *thought* I didn't like team sports until I
learned to play water polo, which I loved. That was in college. I think the
idea that children know by the second or third grade that they despise *all*
possible forms of team sport without even having tried half of them is
ludicrous.

I'll ask again: WHY is it more objectionable to engage in a physical
activity you despise than an academic activity you despise?
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"She rose her eyebrows at Toby" -- from "O' Artful Death", by Sarah Stewart
Taylor

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 08:33:18 -0700, "Circe" wrote:

Physical education is just as important as academic education.

Yes, but competitive sports are not.

Exposure to many different types of physical activity gives children
the best opportunity to find a sport/athletic activity they enjoy and
can engage in for the rest of their lives.

Be realistic. How many people engage in competitive sports as
adults anyway? Very, very few. Lots watch. A few play pickup
games. A few play professionally. If you want a child to be active
as an adult, teach him something that will fit with his adult life
style. Biking, hiking, individual sports like swimming and tennis
are all better choices for adult life.

Especially for children of poor families who cannot afford to enroll
them in extracurricular programs,

The schools in poorer neighborhoods often have plenty of *free*
sports programs after school and so do many park districts.

And sports are simply NOT the be all and end all of physical
health and activity.

school-based PE programs are the *only* place they can learn about
and experience sports/athetic activities.

Really? I guess you never saw the poor kids playing soccer in Brazil
or the inner city street Basketball players. If kids want to play
these games they *will* find a way to play.

And for them,

My dd would have chosen dance. I would have chosen
swimming and perhaps soccer or basketball. My son would
have chosen any team sports other than swimming. Others
might choose marching band or individual sports like tennis
or ice skating or karate or aerobics. All of these require a
good level of physical activity and can be used to promote
healthy bodies.

But you can't choose *any* of these without knowing which one you
like. And you can't know which one you like without trying it.

But most of us did know by 2nd or 3rd grade which sports we enjoyed
and which ones we were never going to like. It's not rocket science
to determine this.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article TJZdb.4368$hp5.2078@fed1read04,
"Circe" wrote:
Have you been paying ANY attention to the obesity statistics in the US?
A
full two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese and a full third of
children are! Seems to me that physical education and physical activity
are
more important than EVER.

As one of those statistics, I take a different lesson: our approach to
PE has been an abysmal failure, if the intent was to increase the health
of the nation. We need to seriously reconsider how we are doing it, NOT
just try to do more of the same.

Ah, but the PE requirements have been going *down* over the course of my
lifetime while childhood (not just adult) obesity has been rising. If you
could show me that obesity was rising while the requirements for PE were
going up, I might agree that there was a correlation, but I just don't see
it.

In addition, we're talking about *vastly* higher rates of childhood obesity
these days than in the past. That seems to me to argue for *more* time for
physical activity during school hours rather than less, since it seems
fairly apparent that too many kids are not getting enough physical activity
during after school hours than they once did. The risks of carrying obesity
from childhood into adulthood are much greater than the risks of becoming
obese in adulthood. Far better, then, to do what we can to prevent/reduce
childhood obesity and let the adults fend for themselves.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"She rose her eyebrows at Toby" -- from "O' Artful Death", by Sarah Stewart
Taylor

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:12:19 -0700, "Circe" wrote:

Have you been paying ANY attention to the obesity statistics in the US? A
full two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese and a full third of
children are! Seems to me that physical education and physical activity are
more important than EVER.

But TEAM SPORTs isn't going to help.

Most people cannot fit team sports into their adult life. Physical
activity has absolutely nothing to do with playing these sports.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:43:35 -0700, "Circe" wrote:

And for those kids who ENJOY team sports, NOT playing them during
school hours solely in favor of the "lifetime fitness promotion activities"
is pretty boring.

They can play on the after school teams. Why bore everyone else
for their sake?


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In article %gYdb.4352$hp5.2274@fed1read04,
"Circe" wrote:

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:22:25 -0500, "Donna Metler"

wrote:

It really depends on the curriculum. My district uses the SPARK
curriculum
for PE, which emphasizes life skills, and includes quite a bit of dance.
In
fact, since I am an Orff specialist, PE and I plan together, because
often
her movement objectives and mine match, so they may learn some of the
steps
in PE, then use them with a song they're singing with me, to create a new
line dance (which both classes would do in the gym, where they have some
space).

And my son who loves team sports would have hated this.

Why can't they have a choice instead of trying to make all
kids do the same things?

I object to PE on the grounds that different kids have different
interests and abilities and should be able to choose the
activity that suits them best after elementary school when they
have been exposed to all the different choices.

Should they also have the choice about whether to learn math or reading, on
the grounds that different kids have different interests and abilities?
After all, some kids are never going to be that great at math and many will
never enjoy it, so why bother with that part of the curriculum at all?

I'm actually *stunned* that some people think kids ought to have the
*choice* of whether or not to engage in certain types of physical education
because "they might not be good at it, they might not like it, and they
might be ridiculed". That's true of EVERY, SINGLE academic subject we
require children to learn in school, yet I don't hear ANYONE suggesting that
kids be given the choice of whether or not to learn those subjects.

Physical education is just as important as academic education. Exposure to
many different types of physical activity gives children the best
opportunity to find a sport/athletic activity they enjoy and can engage in
for the rest of their lives. Especially for children of poor families who
cannot afford to enroll them in extracurricular programs, school-based PE
programs are the *only* place they can learn about and experience
sports/athetic activities. And for them,

I think you misunderstand: I'm not saying they shouldn't do it because
they might not be good at it, might not like it and might be ridiculed".
I'm saying PE was a collosal waste of time if it was supposed to teach
me anything other than to hate sports.

ALL I got out of most of PE was humiliation and fear. I learned to hate
being physically active, and to avoid sports at all costs. I passed the
classes, so obviously I learned something.

And I don't see it being any better for my daughters.

I am saying that the way PE is done needs to change radically, and one
option would certainly be to offer more specific choices -- like we do
in fine and applied arts. All kids have to take them, but they don't
all have to take survey courses covering everything. They can select
which ones to pursue further, to follow their interests and their
talents. Why can't PE be more like that? A requirement that every kid
has to take a certain number of credits, but a variety of courses
available.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:34:42 -0500, "Donna Metler"
wrote:

Our PE classes at the elementary level are one class at a time, so there are
never more students in PE than there would be in the classroom (usually
15-25, depending on grade, possibly as many as 30). The PE teachers can do a
much better job of teaching social skills in this sort of setting. This is a
change from when I was in elementary school and the whole grade went to PE
at one time.

Well, this does make a difference since the larger classes are
uncontrollable, imho.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits