| Author |
Message |
    
Jem
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 2:41 pm: |     |
You're welcome.
Yes, I can. |
Manley
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 7:59 pm: | |
My comment on physical education is my belief that physical activity and learning go together.
Besides health,there are secondary affects to elementary physical education.Teamwork, self discipline, conflict resolution skills, getting along with others, and feeling good about themselves are just a few.
I can see it now,the new physical education school in the district will be opening in the fall.P.E. five times a week, organic food in the cafeteria,students speed walking to the bathrooms, kids doing "old fashion" playing during recess.
The PTA will sponsor a "get fit"program for parents.On Saturdays in the spring,our read and run program will start.Everyone is expected to be there.
Math "steal the bacon" games will be coming this winter.Our fourth grade class trip will be a nature walk with snowshoes,at High Point State Park.
Our fifth grade project on the physical hardships the Lewis and Clark expedition encountered will be displayed in the auditorium.
The kindergarten kids played Run to the number and letters in the gym this week.
Our test scores have gone up,school days lost from illness have gone down.
A gym teachers dream school.Do you think it can work? |
Nohero
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 8:20 pm: | |
Mike - Your "gym teacher" school is no crazier than any other "demonstration" the district has been trying. 
If you are running this year, good luck. A lot of us may not exactly agree with everything you say, but it may not be a bad idea to have someone on the independent side as a member of the BOE. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 11:21 pm: | |
Manley, where can I sign up? 
Bacata |
Fringe
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 8:30 am: | |
Readers have noted a typing error in the two year comparison of Columbia High School's October 1999 (1999-2000 school year) & October 1998 MEAN performance on the Grade 11 High School Proficiency Test in READING, MATHEMATICS, and WRITING with those of the 49 other districts in SO-M's socio-economic grouping (District Factor Group I) that have high schools the rankings would be:
* READING -
1998 - SO-M MEAN = 381.8; DFG I MEAN = 405.1
SO-M Rank = 49th of 49 districts
1999 - SO-M MEAN = 375.1; DFG I MEAN = 406.5.
SO-M Rank = 49th of 49 districts
* MATHEMATICS -
1998 - SO-M MEAN = 400.8; DFG I MEAN = 434.7
SO-M Rank = 49th of 49 districts
1999 - SO-M MEAN = 406 ; DFG I MEAN = 433.5
SO-M Rank = 49th of 49 districts
* WRITING
1998 - SO-M MEAN = 380.5; DFG I MEAN = 392.9
SO-M Rank = 47th of 49 districts
1999 - SO-M MEAN = 366.6 ; DFG I MEAN = 376.2.
SO-M Rank = 44th of 49 districts
* PERCENT PASSING (all 3 sections - first attempt)
1998 - SO-M = 75.9% ; DFG I = 92.4%
SO-M Rank = 49th of 49 districts
1999 - SO-M = 78.2% ; DFG I = 91.2%.
SO-M Rank = 49th of 49 districts
If Columbia's performance were compared with the 36 (including SO-M) districts in DFG GH (the next lowest socio-economic grouping) with high
schools, the rankings would be:
* READING -
1998 - SO-M MEAN = 381.8; DFG GH MEAN = 390.9
SO-M Rank = 28th of 36 districts
1999 - SO-M MEAN = 375.1; DFG GH MEAN = 390.1
SO-M Rank = 33rd of 36 districts
* MATHEMATICS -
1998 - SO-M MEAN = 400.8; DFG GH MEAN = 417.8
SO-M Rank = 29th of 36 districts
1999 - SO-M MEAN = 406 ; DFG GH MEAN = 415.4
SO-M Rank = 28th of 36 districts
* WRITING
1998 - SO-M MEAN = 380.5; DFG GH MEAN = 380.3
SO-M Rank = 14th of 36 districts
1999 - SO-M MEAN = 366.6 ; DFG GH MEAN = 361.7
SO-M Rank = 12th of 36 districts
* PERCENT PASSING (all 3 sections - first attempt)
1998 - SO-M = 75.9%; DFG GH = 86.8%
SO-M Rank = 33rd of 36 districts
1999 - SO-M = 78.2% ; DFG GH = 84.5%.
SO-M Rank = 32nd of 36 districts
Data taken from the "October 1999 Grade 11 High School Proficiency Test (HSPT 11) State Summary" and "October 1998 Grade 11 High School Proficiency Test (HSPT 11) State Summary"published by the NJ StateDepartment of Education.
The State Summary provides only the MEAN score for the three areas tested for each school and district. Prior to 1998, the State Summary included the percentage of the schools and districts' scores in 5 ranges (100-249; 250-299, 300-349, 350-399, & 400-500). Data for the DFGs is still provided in this manner, but now only the school/district has its data.
Past analysis of this data has shown that the distribution of Columbia's scores is not bi-polar but more normal with a "fat tail" towards the low end of the scores.
JTL |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 11:00 am: | |
Gee,thanks Fringe. This means we are the worst in all categories, by far. Light years away from near DFG sighting.
Maybe the students need more than exercise, such as tried and true curricula.
You could eliminate curricula advisors, all of ours proving through our achievements that they are failures. Hire gym teachers.
The major curriculum publishers will provide guidance for free. No need for curriculum coordinators at 80 - 110k salaries.
Scholastic will do it for its traditional English curriculum.
That was known in district in the mid 90's, and disregarded.
So, you have vested financial interests, denying responsibility, and no one challenging them from within the edumass.
Taxes spiral upwards, (where I live), scores downwards.
Excelsior. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 10:58 pm: | |
What in the world could it mean that we do so much better in writing than reading?
am i reading this right? did we improve in every category except reading? |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 12:07 am: | |
Quote:My comment on physical education is my belief that physical activity and learning go together. Besides health,there are secondary affects to elementary physical education.Teamwork, self discipline, conflict resolution skills, getting along with others, and feeling good about themselves are just a few.
Believe what you like, Mr. Manley, but for many children, phys. ed. is an opportunity to feel excluded, self-conscious, and awkward, to be teased, abused and humiliated not only by their more athletically adept classmates but also by their gym teachers.
Kids should have plenty of opportunities for physical activity, but to subject them to mandatory P.E. every day is a good way to make school a significantly unpleasant experience for some of them.
BTW, you should look up the difference between "affect" and "effect." |
Manley
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 6:11 am: | |
Curmudgeon:
Sorry, you never experienced the joy of Physical Education in my class. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 8:33 am: | |
Curmudgeon,
usually i wish i had written your posts myself. You usually speak for me much more eloquently than i speak for myself, and so i am trying to take you very seriously on this.
But the sentiment you express is just so sad. I'm sorry you feel that way about PE.
Lots of kids, particularly girls, often express the same feelings you describe, but about math. Should we remove that from the required list also? |
Alidah
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 9:19 pm: | |
An aside--are teams still chosen the same way? That is, would I still be the last one chosen? Ugh that was horrible.
What about remedial gym? Does SO-M offer that equally humiliating alternative? I don't think I ever recovered from that one. |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 9:29 pm: | |
Melidere, thanks for your kind words.
There are many differences between math and P.E., not least of which is that math is an academic subject. Arithmetic is a learned skill. Speed, strength, agility, and eye-hand coordination are not. Numerical skills are required to get through life. You can live quite a fulfilling life without knowing how to climb a rope or do a jumping jack (why would ANYONE want to do a jumping jack?). |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 12:23 pm: | |
so you are making the case that academic subjects are a more important life skill than physical exercise?
You can get through life without exercise..and you can get through life without numerical skills.
The quality of life is another question. It is lessened without either one.
you speak of pe like it is a competition. You must have had some atrocious teachers (and they are out there in math, too.) PE should be about the joy of keeping your body fit...and the enhanced quality of life, the increased sharpness of mind, that accompanies that.
OTOH, i think that math is a joyful subject too. I understand that many, if not most, don't agree with me. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 12:24 pm: | |
alidah,
they do still offer the humiliating experience of remedial math. |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 5:02 pm: | |
better to just fail?
or better to have a better curriculum?
and, maybe, some kids are just going to be better at math or athletics, or science, or music, than others, no matter what.
Just like real life.
Some will be disappointed, some will excel, mistakes will be made, not all teachers will be good;
just like life.
why hide from reality.
Chin-ups anyone?
DWM |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 11:21 pm: | |
Try getting through life unable to do addition or subtraction...
We're born with the innate ability to walk, run, carry things, etc. It's entirely natural for us. If I'd never set foot inside a gymnasium I'd still be able to lace on a pair of Reeboks and go out for a pleasant stroll or a 20 mile run. Math isn't like that. If you don't study it, you'll never know how to do it. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 8:51 am: | |
I think that is a real weak argument, curmudgeon. I suspect that even an uneducated peasant mother figures out that if she has five people in the family, she needs five plates on the table, and if one doesn't show up she only needs four.
All by herself.
Clearly, exercise is *not* something that comes totally naturally to us, or we have found a way to 'undo' nature's call, because this country is getting more and more out of shape and obese as we get further and further from an agrarian society where exercise was 'built' into the lifestyle. The damage is huge, and the human cost is absolutely immeasurable. We have an unbearable amount of eating disorders in young people (i had a neighbor with a 14 year old anorexic and it isn't a fun thing to watch) as they try to accomodate a world where the fat content of foods is high and the amount of exercise they get is low.
20% of talk show topics has to be surrounding weight issues.
We are living LOTS longer and the quality of the end of our lives is completely dependent on the care we take from the beginning to keep in shape.
But the most important thing is the way exercise enables learning. It's just crystal clear. My brother coaches and his athletic kids are almost always straight 'a' students in the younger grades. ('dumb jock' phenomena is another kettle of fish and more common at the high school and college levels)
I'm sorry for your miserable experiences with it, curmudgeon, but a heavier emphasis on exercise in our schools would produce better learners and higher scores. Of that, i have no doubt.
Maybe it isn't cost effective, but i am not at all sure how you put a price on a lifetime of healthy living. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page