Health: No child left out of the dodgeball game?

[chefencer]

Originally Posted by RoninX

I understand what you are saying here. Parental involvement can be important and certainly desirable but money makes the world go 'round. Study after study shows that student teacher ratio is the most important aspect of a successful school/school system. It can be overcome in some places... but such successes are rare.

I ran a quick search and found nothing but unqualified anecdotal statements to the effect of your own regarding parental involvement in the school system. Do you know of any studies addressing this? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely interested)

I consider the salutary effect of parental involvement in a child's school to be self-evident, but I doubt anyone has done much research on it because it is not amenable to fiscal, regulatory or statutory control. If the parents don't prioritize school enough to make time for it...

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Too often, one sees in the papers about local govt, and the politicians in it, appeal for more freedom since "we know our situation best - descisions should be made by those who are directly affected by it" and cr*p like that.

Let's not forget, at least here in the U.S., that local officials are elected with the least amount of scrutiny and who are most subject to the ripples of vocal minority special interests, since voter turnout to local elections is so poor - "If you choose not to decide, You still have made a choice." (CUE MUSIC: Rush)

However - I don't think the Feds can do things more effectively - let's remember this week in history, Last Year, say, Gulf Coast?
The answer is that people have to take more responsibility for their progeny by participating in school and in the community - by choice - not by fiat. It is a sad fact of our society that while we value children more than ever before, it has not meant a higher value in building a better character, just more emphasis on material things.

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by RoninX

I ran a quick search and found nothing but unqualified anecdotal statements to the effect of your own regarding parental involvement in the school system. Do you know of any studies addressing this? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely interested)

Here's a few taken at random:


http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/proj...gest/meta.html

http://www.parent-institute.com/educ...h/research.php

http://www.nea.org/parents/research-parents.html

http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu6.html

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/fa...tresearch.html



I see that I've ranted on this before:

I thought you guys might be interested in discussing this
http://www.fencing.net/forums/showth...ool#post242261

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

{snip} In many cases, the local pols who have the power over a specific issue (schools, handicap support, etc.) are those who are indefferent to the issue, or in too many cases actively against it.
{snip}

In the US, generally (at least in the States I'm familiar with), local political control over schools is by people elected to solely address school issues. Generally, the position is called a member of a "School Board."

While quality of those elected is extrememely variable, at least you won't have those elected be indifferent to schools. Of course, this can be bad when you get people who feel strongly about courses of actions that turn out to be harmful....

--Philistine

[RoninX]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

The only workable solution, IMNSHO, is that the national level sets more regulations to take away the worst idiocies. One can not regulate forward good sense, but one can regulate away (to a reasonable extent) the worst bad ideas.

Politicians that go national are blander, better funded, and better schmoozers for the most part (in the US). Not necessarily more efficient, intelligent, or better problem solvers. Witness our current government (and the previous one as well to be frank... oh, and the one before that... etc). So your statement rests on shaky ground to begin with (again regarding the US, the case may be different in Sweden). Some of the most innovative, as well as some of the most assinine, programs are initiated at a local level which are then carried to state level- rarely these even become national programs. National programs lower the heights and raise the depths to which an individual program can rise or sink.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by chefencer

One of the points here is that there are working parents who can't afford to put their latchkey kids in, say, fencing...and I wouldn't want my kid running around outside when no one was home. It's not 1956 anymore (nobody tell Inq) and the rules are significantly different.

What happens then, are they locked in the house for 16 hours a day? That just doesn't make sense to me.

[chefencer]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

What happens then, are they locked in the house for 16 hours a day? That just doesn't make sense to me.

Those that I know, the kids are to stay inside and do homework, etc. until somebody gets home. There are, however, kids in my neighborhood who appear to not be under such a restriction, and some of them do skate or play a little ball, but the majority just seem to 'hang' (loiter). I would say considering the world we live in, 16 is probably the youngest that you can do what you want. I walked to my elementary school (back before there were snipers shooting school kids), but I wouldn't be comfortable with a 4th grader doing that today. It sucks, but I (and many other parents) don't feel safe enough to allow otherwise.

[MikeHarm]

I'm not sure that the trend towards youth becoming obese is reversible in the US. They're drinking soda instead of water, switching to videogames for recreation is almost universal, and the adults are putting in a lot of laws harassing kids who are outdoors doing stuff. Like saying they get arrested if they're out at a certain hour wether they were causing any trouble or not or saying they can't do things that are good exercise like skateboarding in public areas. Also the anti smoking campaign has to boost the pounds a bit even though its better having the weight than the cigarettes.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by chefencer

Those that I know, the kids are to stay inside and do homework, etc. until somebody gets home. There are, however, kids in my neighborhood who appear to not be under such a restriction, and some of them do skate or play a little ball, but the majority just seem to 'hang' (loiter). I would say considering the world we live in, 16 is probably the youngest that you can do what you want. I walked to my elementary school (back before there were snipers shooting school kids), but I wouldn't be comfortable with a 4th grader doing that today. It sucks, but I (and many other parents) don't feel safe enough to allow otherwise.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. There are 24 hours in a day. There isn't a single one in there when the child can do any sort of athletic activity?

It's like I said before, parents are making too many excuses and no one's calling them on it. It's not that it's easy for every parent to get their child some exercise that doesn't put them alone on the street, but it's part of their repsonsibility.

[chefencer]

Originally Posted by chefencer

...The answer is that people have to take more responsibility for their progeny by participating in school and in the community - by choice - not by fiat. It is a sad fact of our society that while we value children more than ever before, it has not meant a higher value in building a better character, just more emphasis on material things.

Mr. B: I agree that parents are responsible for their kids, I'm merely pointing out that: 1) The sedentary lives of children are more difficult to avoid than in previous times, as the "run and play" option is not always safe; B) Newton's first law of motion is also applicable to human action (objects at rest...) and the likelihood of physical activity is inversely proportional to the time/effort required by parents; iii) It is especially difficult for those families that can not financially suplement their childrens' activities as these are the ones who rely even more on the public school system (i.e. they are more affected by the cuts in Phys-Ed.);

We can't change people's parenting styles/skills, but we Do pay for what their kids do at school, and we can have a voice as to how that money is Spent. I can't say if cutting P.E./recess is going to increase test scores, but it sure ain't going to help anybody's weight.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by chefencer

We can't change people's parenting styles/skills, but we Do pay for what their kids do at school, and we can have a voice as to how that money is Spent. I can't say if cutting P.E./recess is going to increase test scores, but it sure ain't going to help anybody's weight.

1. At least over here, politicians do their darndest to try to change parenting styles and skills, and the are quite open about it also. Furthermore, I´d say that they are reasonably sucessful in it also.
2. Why do we not hear the US. Armed forces wailing to high heaven about this??? A nation of computer-gamers who have no phys.ed - what worse recipe for concocting a population utterly unfit for the rigors of boot camp??? Over here, generals have weighed in when reductions in phys.ed time has been suggested. Luckily, no one has suggested, much less carried out, recess abolition. :shudder:


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Dev]

I think that sort of thing is less of a concern in a civilization with an all-volunteer armed forces. As there hasn't been compulsory military service in the U.S. for quite some time, volunteering carries with it the implicit assumption that the volunteer knows what he/she is getting him/herself into. That said, there are still standards to be met, and at the moment they're being lowered--the U.S. is having trouble getting anyone into the military now that they know they'll go directly to Iraq (probably without passing "Go" or collecting $200).

Does Sweden have compulsory service for young people? I know other European countries, like Denmark, do.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by chefencer

Mr. B: I agree that parents are responsible for their kids, I'm merely pointing out that: 1) The sedentary lives of children are more difficult to avoid than in previous times, as the "run and play" option is not always safe; B) Newton's first law of motion is also applicable to human action (objects at rest...) and the likelihood of physical activity is inversely proportional to the time/effort required by parents; iii) It is especially difficult for those families that can not financially suplement their childrens' activities as these are the ones who rely even more on the public school system (i.e. they are more affected by the cuts in Phys-Ed.);

We can't change people's parenting styles/skills, but we Do pay for what their kids do at school, and we can have a voice as to how that money is Spent. I can't say if cutting P.E./recess is going to increase test scores, but it sure ain't going to help anybody's weight.

It's true, I suppose. I just don't like the mindset that seems to be common nowadays that implies that schools, not parents, are the major factor in charge of a child's entire life.

For example, last year I was in highschool, there was a crusade to stop junk food. Some of the measures (no more french fries) were reasonable. Some (no more bagels) were ridiculous. Fat kids don't come from a bagel once a week in school, they come from a bag of Doritos every night when they came home. The same goes for excercise. Honestly, if kids are only getting the excercise provided in school, they're going to have problems whether it's 2 hours a week or zero.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Dev

I think that sort of thing is less of a concern in a civilization with an all-volunteer armed forces. As there hasn't been compulsory military service in the U.S. for quite some time, volunteering carries with it the implicit assumption that the volunteer knows what he/she is getting him/herself into. That said, there are still standards to be met, and at the moment they're being lowered--the U.S. is having trouble getting anyone into the military now that they know they'll go directly to Iraq (probably without passing "Go" or collecting $200).

Does Sweden have compulsory service for young people? I know other European countries, like Denmark, do.

Sorta, kinda.

Every male has to go to a compulsory one-day checkup where one is subjected to various IQ and other metal tests, strength tests, cardiovascular bike test, interviews, pee-in-a-cup, etc. This requirement has been in place for a long time, and it is enforced for all but very few (mental hospital inmates, cripples, etc.) It is done when the male is 17-18 years.

The test results (and to a small degree the individual wishes) are then the basis for what, if any, placement in the draft one gets. For those who are candidates for special placements (submarine, flight, rangers, etc) there will be a new set of more stringent tests later on. For the great majority of those who get a military placement the placement will be an ordinary army foot soldier, though. For those that get military placements the military service is compulsory. It is 9-11 months long, frequently located in another part of the country, and is paid some 10$ (or so, don´t know the correct figure) per day. In theory, those who have done military service should come back for mandatory refresher (about a month long) 1-3 times before they turn 47, and age out of the military system.

Previously, almost all males got a military placement, and thus were required to do service. However, since 15 years or so (ZZ, fyll i detaljerna här) the percentage of each year class which actually has to do service has decreased drastically. (the % of the budget which goes to defence is always decreasing, and the military is gearing towards more weaponry, less people compared to the previous "peasant-army".) Nowadays, much less than half of each year class does service, but they still do not get any real money for their trouble. However, since there still are enough guys who *want* to run around in the forest with a submachine gun, and the fact that Sweden has not been in war since 1814, this has not led to any noticeable friction between those who do service and the rest.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Zilverzmurfen]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Sorta, kinda.

A few corrections:

1. Males are called for the 'check-up' anytime between a the ages of 18-24, but usually around 18-20. Women will not be called but are very welcome to apply for check-up/service.

All physical tests are identical for men and women and there are also no positions specially 'adjusted' for women. Thus, doing military service in Sweden is a completely equal process.

2. Conscription time depends on what 'position' you're assigned. This currently varies between 7-15 months.

3. The daily pay is about 10 USD and after fulfilling the entire service he or she will get an 'education bonus' equaling the day pay multiplied with the number of days serviced. Additionally, anyone doing more than 400 days will get an extra 'long time' bonus of 10 800 SEK (~1 518 USD).


The swedish conscription system is currently undergoing a great change, parallell to the Armed Forces re-organisation.

As per from now on the conscripts will do two 'semesters' of service (totalling 11 months) with a third, voluntary, semester aimed at doing international service. During the third semester the soldier will be a contracted Armed Forces employee and will receive monthly salary accordingly.

[RoninX]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Here's a few taken at random:

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/proj...gest/meta.html

http://www.parent-institute.com/educ...h/research.php

http://www.nea.org/parents/research-parents.html

http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu6.html

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/fa...tresearch.html



I see that I've ranted on this before:

I thought you guys might be interested in discussing this
http://www.fencing.net/forums/showth...ool#post242261

Thanks for the links. I'm glad to see there is some research being done on this. Unfortunately the results are pretty mild and predicatable. The running themes from the sites studies are:

1) Unsolicited parental support is substantially more effective than that achieved through parental support "programs".

2) Time intensive parental support is more effective than briefer interaction

3) Parental Expectations were a larger factor than actual parental participation (though not all the studies addressed this distinction).

4) The most commonly cited effective means of involvement? Reading to your children... which of course is immensely important - but only carries them so far.

Again, I certainly believe that children should be held to high standards for academic achievement and parental support should willingly be available. However, to me, these studies show that the time and money spent on these programs would have a greater affect if used to reduce class sizes and engage students within the classroom - or gym.

[chefencer]

Exercise Helps Students in the Classroom

I'm stupefied! Who knew! Can everyone please forward this story to their school board? *Dudgeon!!!*

Oh, and it seems A Better Breakfast Can Boost a Child's Brainpower...