Schools are increasingly surrogates for the home in raising children. Once the purview of the “Three R’s”schools are now expected to functionally raise our children. Teachers are expected to instill a sense of morals and a social ethos in students. They are expected to teach students to live with discipline, to have a solid work ethic and to be organized. They are expected to teach students about their bodies and responsible use of them. They are expected to teach students to understand their place in history and the modern world, and to shape the future through informed and reasoned decisions. They are expected to lay the groundwork for promising careers. In short, teachers are expected to produce model citizens, not uncommonly in the absence of such models in the home or neighborhood. And teachers are expected to do this for all children who enter the school doors, with their efforts compressed between constant pressure from student families on the one hand, and increasingly demanding testing and regulation enforcement on the other. The job of a teacher has always been difficult, but is remarkably — almost impossibly — demanding in the current social climate.

Now Sen. Joseph Carter is asking that Georgia schools become the nutritionists of our children. His Senate Bill 506 proposes that the height and weight of students be evaluated twice each school year, and that the “minimum instruction” in physical education, as outlined in the Official Code of Georgia, be established in schools. But the bill further proposes that schools provide their student body-size data to the state for a determination of the “health status” of the school. The bill proposes that schools in which progress is made (in student body size and implementation of physical education programs) be rewarded for their progress, and that those that fail to do so be designated as “unhealthy school zones” or a similar appellation.

Senator Carter obviously has good intentions regarding a timely and important topic, but at what point do we decide that families bear some responsibility for the growth and welfare of their children? And why do we need to add yet another nurturing burden to our already overburdened school systems? In the past, schools required physical education classes, and routinely had recesses to allow physical activity and mental respite. However, the additional demands placed on our schools for academic performance and proxy parenting have led to elimination of anything that might interfere with this more-expansive mission, including physical education programs and recesses.

I can understand why teachers balk at the idea of reinstating recesses and physical education. Reinstating these activities would deprive them of already-limited time in the classroom that is critical for covering material mandated by state and federal programs. Failure to meet particular standards of performance in several criteria can carry very significant consequences for the individual teacher as well as the school. Are we now to start punishing school systems because their students don’t meet some state-established guideline of health?

It seems highly unreasonable to me to place additional burdens on our schools and teachers by compelling them to be entirely responsible for the health of our children. Under the Senate Bill, schools would suffer public consequences of ill-health in their students, whereas parents would not, making the schools solely responsible. Perhaps we could begin punishing the parents of unhealthy children by rescinding or reducing tax breaks for such children? Perhaps the better question is whether our government should even be inserting itself into the private health of its citizens and compelling good health through public institutions.

I am completely in favor of Senator Carter’s intent, and agree that returning physical education to schools would be a good thing. However, reinstating physical education programs is not simply a matter of forcing physical education back into schools, and applying yet more pressure to schools to meet excessive expectations. The solution requires a larger re-evaluation of our expectation of the schools’ role and of our own commitment to education and educators — and to our own children. And frankly, that would be a good thing.



John Ruberson

Tifton