I was merely responding to you calling these men "trivia." Pull your head out. Just because I believe that we should fix the broken academic system in this country before anything else, that makes me anti-athlete? I guess it's easy to assume that somebody was roughed up by football players when you don't know them or their history. If you don't think that what I said is true about athletes skating then I suggest you keep the blinders on. It is a much easier existence. No, you're right. they'd just be excluded from graduating. This could create a huge equal protection problem under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. That's my point, sorry you couldn't see it. Not at all. If you want to revise health classes to give good and accurate information, then there's no problem. What is absurd is having a physical test as a requirement for graduation. There is a difference between learning the information and performing physically. How exactly did I contradict myself again?
Every poster in this thread is talking about fixing the system. Get over your persecution complex. You haven't made a point yet. You have thrown out 'i'd sue' and 'equal protection.' Graduation is not a 'right.' If it were everyone who flunked out would sue under 'equal protection.' You'd have as successful a time suing for an obese person as for a lazy one. If the law says every student has to meet a certain fitness criteria for graduation, what would be your equal protection argument? The law could, if necessary, provide a sliding scale for percentage or proportional improvement. Instead of a hard number the goal could be a certain amount of improvement. Again you say its 'absurd' to have a physical requirement, but you give no REASON. This is like a Monty Python skit. Stop saying it is absurd and tell us why. It would be good for kids health. Why would it be bad? We are literally about saving kids lives and increasing their quality of life. And you may be right about your unique curriculum. I guess you could have someone TALK about exercise, without any program to actually get the students to exercise. If you wanted. But that would be worthless.
Exactly when did I claim to be persecuted? Are you actually READING this stuff? I can't believe I have to spell this out. The claim would be that this law is specifically tailored to have a disparate impact on a certain class of students. In this case, the obese. THAT is a prima facie case for Equal Protection. Not only that, but since obesity has been termed a disease (I don't really buy that it is a disease, but the experts have said it so I'll use it) you run a grave risk of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Since this is an arm of the government I'm sure there would be a multitude of section 1983 civil rights actions. You have given no alternatives for the subclass of students who are medically unable to meet the standards. THAT is what makes this absurd. Since when is equipping students with the information so they can forge a lifestyle they CHOOSE (this is still the USA, right?) worthless? I am not saying that fitness is not important. What I am saying is that it is MORE important to worry about why Johnny can't read than it is to worry about why Johnny can't do 10 pull ups. The class with the information NEEDS to be REAL and the test scores quantifiable. Much of kinesiology is classroom based. Why should not the course in high schools? I think that PE is an integral part of high school life, but don't set physical standards that some kids will not reach just to get a high school diploma. To do so would be to doom these kids to economic hardship. Don't create a caste system based on whether a guy can do pull ups, or run the 40 under a certain time. A good friend of mine growing up was very fit all throught school. But he had a developmental problem that resulted in him being short and having a lack of upper body strength. He'd NEVER be able to accomplish pull ups. So instead of having received a bachelor's degree and a good job he would have been bringing down $6 an hour flipping burgers because he couldn't get his diploma. Not smart. Is he obese? No. In fact he probably weighs less than 150 pounds. He's about 5'7" or so. No matter what criteria you set, there will be some kids who through no fault of their own won't be able to make it. That's the problem here. You can read this and be flippant and condescending all you want to (you do it so well). I have made my position clear. I have given you reasons and numerous examples. You, on the other hand, have done little other than attempt to be insulting and inflammatory. I ran track in school and threw discus. When I graduated I was in pretty good shape. I fell out of shape in the following decade and am starting to get back into shape. So how would your requirement have helped me? I think that a REAL health class teaching good information on living a healthy lifestyle would have been so much more useful. I really hope that you read this and offer some real discourse rather than backhanded jabs and flippant comments. Maybe I expect too much.
Uh, no. First, being obese does not qualify you under the ADA. Nice try. Second, the law would be applied to all students. You must meet 'X' requirement for fitness. If this was not viable under the EP clauses then there would not currently be grades given for PE, would there? Third, unless you have a medical condition (as I already mentioned) like a thyroid problem, you don't have a medical excuse to be fat. If you do have a legitimate medical issue then of course an alternative would be needed. But that is not the case for MOST of the kids. Fourth, I DID specifically show how the law could allow for improvement without going beyond reasonable improvement expectations (with a sliding proportional scale based on rate of improvement instead of a hard number on tests). Oh, 'don't create a caste system?' Aren't we being a little melodramatic? Its entirely possible that out of 100% of the obese kids in school, 10% have legit medical concerns. Its also possible that up to the rest of the 90% could be motivated to reduce their problem if it were attached to a quanitifable criteria. I start with the assumption that the main foil of obesity is diet and exercise, and that stuffing your face with too much food, and sitting on your ass are things anyone can correct. And I would imagine that most parents would take notice of the new emphasis and MIGHT even examine the nutritional value of thier own menus. In the end you still have this illusion that raising the physical aspects of the curriculum changes in some way the other parts of the curriculum. Can you only think about one issue at a time? Why can't legislation that tackles both 'Johnny reading' and 'Johnny being fat' happen at the same time? Again, it is not a zero sum game so all your talk about 'reading' is a red herring that begs the question of whether more stringent physical requirements are necessary. If that is your main argument then a sliding scale idea takes care of that. How far is far How high is high You never know until you try That's from a Special Olympics song. If those kids can get out and exercise, I see no reason Pudgy the French Fries Pig can't get out and do it.
And who's the arbitor of this, you? It IS a caste system...if you really think about it. Fat kid can't graduate from high school. His earning potential is basically capped at a low level at that point. How does that not artificially set up a stratification based on physical fitness? I really don't know why you have a problem with people choosing their own way of life. If people want to be fat and die young that is their perrogative. There's really nothing that you, I or anybody else can do about it. I have advocated taking steps to make sure that these kids are equipped with the information and know how should they choose to live a healthy lifestyle. You can tax junk food and cause fat kids to not graduate high school. You will simply not change the fact that some people will still live an unhealthy lifestyle. We may not like it, but I'm not ready to yank somebody's high school diploma for it. You are...how authoritarian of you. LOL....yeah...sure. If you think that MOST parents that have kids in the school systems today even ASK about ANYTHING their kids are doing, then you're living in a fantasyland. According to several people I know who work in the public school system one of the big problems is that parents don't care. They are too busy trying to acquire things or they just don't want to be bothered. It IS a zero sum game in this little place I call reality where school systems are strapped for cash. Who's gonna pick up the tab for more and better equipment, better coaches, etc.? Let's increase property taxes...they're not high enough. Anyway you slice it this is a bad idea if not downright illegal. It's not my fault that you can't see it and that you decide to get condescending when somebody sets forth a proposition that you don't understand. You've bored me...I'm done. End of my involvement in this thread. I'll just walk away knowing that this will never be passed...kinda like the soda tax that has been bantered about for a decade or so. Thank God.
I don't want to be childish, but in the current context, I'll let it slide. I just want to point out that it was you Refman that cast the first stone. Brian Kagy called you on it. You made an apology and then continued your condescending comments (without using the "M" word). If you want to be taken seriously, drop some of the sarcasm.
Perhaps you're right Doctor. I don't really intend to be sarcastic. I simply find this notion to be incredulous. The mission statement of the Texas public school system is to EDUCATE the children of Texas. Does that include education as to healthful living? Sure, I've agreed to that at many times. That does NOT include requiring physical performance for graduation. I have also pointed out the legal problems inherent with such a system and that was met with disparaging remarks regarding my professional prowess. I hate to inject reality into this thread, but we are talking about a financially strapped system. I'd rather spend the limited resources on making sure that kids are getting the education they need in order to succeeed at a vocation or in college.
Does that mean you believe that traditional PE classes where students traditionally run and play various games/sports should not be part of the standard public school's curriculum? If not, shouldn't these classes at the very least push these students to reach goals throughout the course of the class rather than simply show up in the proper gym clothes and participate to receive credit? IMO you are taking the article way too seriously. I don't believe that it should be taken for face value. I mean has anyone in this thread actually agreed with the author's "idea" of making it a requirement for students to do 10 pull-ups in order to graduate?? I don't recall anyone going to that extreme, so I don't understand why you keep harping on that one point, Ref.
