Arizona Bans Junk Food Sales in schools
- 04-26-2005, 10:33 PM
Arizona Bans Junk Food Sales in schools
Arizona bans junk food sales in schools.
- 04-27-2005, 11:36 AM
04-28-2005, 01:42 AM
04-28-2005, 02:11 AM
06-23-2005, 02:12 AM
06-23-2005, 02:52 AM
06-23-2005, 10:11 AM
I hope so. Should be mandatory at all schools, and should be taken seriously too. In retrospect a lot of schools don't seem to integrate PE very well into the cirriculum. It could be tied to health and biology classes easily and they could all work together to educate, but they don't. I know if my school and teachers had made PE as interesting as they made English and Math I may have avoided some stupid decisions in my life. I mean, what the hell was the deal with square dancing in PE? How is anyone supposed to take that seriously? One of my old PE teachers thought that sports participation should have been mandatory for all kids who were physically able to participate. I don't think he was too far off the mark, but the cost of it would have destroyed the idea if anyone suggested it.Originally Posted by moklepaul
06-23-2005, 10:17 AM
Wasn't half the board just complaining that NJ passed a similar law?
Well what good does that do? When do most kids get most fat? High school. This bill is a waste of time, even more so because there is as much junk in the lunch food they serve as a main course as in the desserts and sodas. Start cooking real food for the kids and serving 100% juices and we'll have a real beginning of a solution.In a compromise, high schools were exempted from the ban
06-23-2005, 01:37 PM
Good to hear people want this since I'm a PE teacher. If you want PE for 4 years in your state than the best thing is to get teachers and parents united to put pressure on the state super intendent to make changes. There is also plenty of evidence that shows kids who have PE classes do better academically.Originally Posted by Matthew D
BTW, the focus should be making PE mandatory from elementary school through high school. In California (where I teach PE) we don't make PE mandatory for elementary school kids. What happens when these kids reach middle school is that they struggle like hell because they're not used to a structured PE class.
I would also like to add that states should tougher on PE teachers. Too many PE teachers run un-organized programs and just "roll out the balls and let 'em play". I have actually been criticized at a school I used to teach for giving assignments to my students on heart rate, weight training, and assignments on certain activities. These teachers get away with baby sitting instead of teaching because A) They want to kick back and drink coffee on the job B) Many schools do not care about PE so they'll let the teachers do whatever they want.
06-23-2005, 02:36 PM
Yup, and I was one of them. It won't keep kids healthy so more laws will be 'needed' to reach that goal, and the snowball begins. But as long as your going to be involved in a cluster **** you might as well try and make someone cum.Originally Posted by Brooklyn
06-23-2005, 03:27 PM
Originally Posted by Iron Warrior
I see the same thing at some of the schools in our area, I am in biology/science so I am all for having some intergration of the subjects and I HATE the roll out the balls PE classes.. waste of time and to many times, you have too many kids just sitting around watching things and not doing anything
06-23-2005, 05:27 PM
What would be your take on my old teacher's view: mandatory sports involvment? I don't think he meant every kid needed to play for the school team, but that some kind of structured league should exist within the school itself of rotating sports all year, and all kids capable of participating had to participate.Originally Posted by Iron Warrior
06-23-2005, 07:19 PM
06-23-2005, 07:46 PM
That would be a great program. The program would have to take away the competitive focus in order to thrive among non-athletes because it takes the fun away and one thing PE research and youth sport research shows that is a major factor in a kids decision to drop out from sports. There is plenty of research that shows kids who learn to lead a healthy lifestyle at a young age will lead a healthy lifestyle as an adult. By healthy lifestyle most teachers mean that one is engaged in moderate to vigorous physical activity 40 minutes a day, 5 days a week, does not use drugs, and follows a healthy diet.Originally Posted by CDB
I also like the message you send to parents and students with a program like that because it shows the school is concerned with the health of its (Hey CDB, notice I used "its" appropriately ) students. After all, what the hell does it matter if you can be an academic genius but you're going to have a poor quality of life because you're so fat you'll die at 50 from the complications of obesity, which are preventable.
Unfortunately, a program like this is hard to do. Running a sports league of 1,000+ would be difficult at my school. All of our PE teachers also coach after school so I doubt we would have the time or energy to participate in a program like that. I would also have some safety concerns because watching over 45 students at once is tough enough for me which means you would need at least 1 PE teacher for every 45 students.
One thing we do at our school is to keep the weight room open for 1 hour after school. The weigh room is available to non-athletes as well as athletes during that time, after that it's athletes only. The good thing about this is that the kids can be active whether it rains or not.
06-23-2005, 08:28 PM
I believe if I remember correctly, Thomas Jefferson took you same point of view on sports and education IW
06-23-2005, 08:33 PM
Junk food is banned in my house and since I have my kids in private school they don't allow junk their either. I'm all for it but dosen't that infringe on your civil rights? Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to eat garbage.
06-23-2005, 10:21 PM
Well they didn't actually ban junk food, they just won't sell it. I would like to see schools take it even further and stop serving crap in the cafeteria. The kids from low income families who get free lunch have no other option besides the pizza or cheeseburgers that many schools serve routinely.Originally Posted by DR X
06-23-2005, 10:43 PM
Not in and of itself. The freedom to do something doesn't mean the ability to do it. They're still free to eat junk, fewer people are facilitating that behavior. The problem arises when the people who make the law see it doesn't achieve their ultimate goal of fit and healthy kids, and decide to take it further.Originally Posted by DR X
06-23-2005, 11:41 PM
The problem is that high schools were exempted from the Arizona ban. Where do you think most kids eat the most junk? Big, fat hungry teenagers sucking down soda, cupcakes and donuts like a garbage disposal. Freedom isn't free, and one thing we have to learn is that we won't have much freedom if we have a nation of fatasses to defend and preserve us. A man I very seldom have agreed with is John Ashcroft, but after 9/11 he stated, "We cannot do everything we once did because lives now depend on us doing a few things very well." Sure, America didn't listen, but he was, for a short and fleeting moment, correct. This country was built by those who were tired, poor and hungry, not the overindulgent and slovenly obese. They built McDonalds.
06-24-2005, 12:09 AM
06-24-2005, 10:29 AM
Ashcroft is not someone I like or agree with often. However, his statement was intended to promote the idea that America has been, as a whole, so well off for so long that we have taken things for granted. Security, defense, patriotic support of your country. These things do not come from just waving flags and shopping, "Or else THEY win!!"Explain more how you think he was correct?
Better education is necessary to ensure that tomorrow's leaders understand the signifigance of these things. Part of better education is teaching children not to eat a bunch of junk, lest they become fatter, lazier slobs than their parents. If your mother gave you nothing but good, wholesome, quality food to eat and every time she turned around grandma was giving you candy, which are you more likely to develop a taste for? The schools should not be that liberal-thinking grandma.
If it's not bad enough that for breakfast most kids eat cereals like Frosted Flakes which are essentially nothing but sugared sugar flakes, and suck down 10% juice, 90% corn syrup drinks like Hi-C and Hawaian Punch all day, the least the schools can do as the "en loco parentis" guardians they are supposed to be is do what parents and guardians are supposed to do and make the proper nutritional choices for them, just as they should also make the right choices for them in the classroom. How is it that schools are expected to be responsible for anything bad that happens to children during the school day but we don't extend that to what the kids are eating? Saying, "Aaah, they're kids, let them eat what they want," is how we got into this mess. American adults have a 61% obesity rate. How many of you want to bet that their problems may have started somewhere between K-12? Good, mandatory physcial education programs combined with proper nutrition education backed up by a solid lunch program. It's the least we can do to ensure the future of this country.
06-24-2005, 12:10 PM
I do agree with that statement B, good post also... and if you get into most of the schools down south, we are not liberal thinking gradma's more like a granddad that will do all he can to help you but he will bust that behind when you slip out of line
06-24-2005, 12:32 PM
the only other time we had such a high priority on PE was during WWII because the European kids were in much better shape when compared to American kids. The mentality was the same as yours, which I agree with. We are also spending $93 BILLION a year treating obesity.Originally Posted by Brooklyn
06-24-2005, 12:52 PM
IW, same could be said about science education also.. it does become a priority until something bad happens or we get left in the dust. Right now we are falling way behind in the number of students are going into the "pure" research side of science and that will hurt in the future.
06-24-2005, 12:55 PM
Yeah it sucks, that's why I'm in favor of a proactive approach to most things.Originally Posted by Matthew D
Similar Forum Threads
- By triceptor in forum SHR Show ArchivesReplies: 0Last Post: 11-08-2012, 03:43 PM
- By adzy in forum Weight LossReplies: 8Last Post: 08-07-2005, 08:15 PM
- By sicosico in forum AnabolicsReplies: 3Last Post: 08-13-2003, 06:41 PM