Comments on: Are We Failing Gym Or Is Gym Failing Us? http://gothamschools.org/2012/06/11/are-we-failing-gym-or-is-gym-failing-us/ Sat, 25 May 2013 21:21:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Natalie Dawe http://gothamschools.org/2012/06/11/are-we-failing-gym-or-is-gym-failing-us/comment-page-1/#comment-374020 Natalie Dawe Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:36:00 +0000 http://gothamschools.org/?p=85070#comment-374020 Thank you for such a thoughtful contribution to the discussion around improving physical education.  I am an intern with the NYC Strategic Alliance for Health, and this summer I am focusing on efforts to reform PE for students in the city.  I wanted to offer some points of clarification around what Chicago is doing in terms of PE. 
 
In 1997, the Chicago Board of Education filed a waiver from the state’s daily PE mandate (section 27-6 of the IL School Code requires PE for all students in grades K-12).  The Chicago Board of Ed’s waiver pertained only to students in 11th and 12th grade.  The waiver was submitted following the General Assembly’s determination that the Chicago public schools were suffering an “educational crisis” (105 ILCS 5/34-3.3), and therefore was done in connection with a program instituted by the Chicago Board of Ed to improve academic performance in the City’s high schools (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-supreme-court/1132198.html). So in fact, the waiver was not submitted in order to “allow students more time to take classes that interest them or perhaps get their permit and learn to drive without having to attend after-school or weekend classes.”  By limiting the number of years of mandated PE, the Chicago Board of Ed acted with the intention of improving academic achievement.  With fewer years of required PE, the Board of Ed could increase the number of years required for math, science, and foreign language.
 
The waiver was granted, which made PE mandatory for 9th and 10th grade students only.  As an interesting tangent, plaintiffs including two PE teachers employed by the Chicago Board of Ed, the Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1, parents of two students who attended public high school in Chicago, and several others, sought a declaratory judgment that section 2-3.25g of the IL School Code (105 ILCS 5/2-3.25g) was invalid and that the waiver obtained by the Chicago Board of Ed pursuant to the statute was “void and without legal effect.”  Plaintiffs further asked that the circuit court enjoin defendants from “approving, adopting, or enforcing” the waiver of the PE requirement for students in grades 9 through 12.  The plaintiffs won (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-supreme-court/1132198.html).  But this decision was appealed by the defendants and in 2000, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the ruling, which meant the waiver stood.
 
This brings us to today.  Chicago Public Schools and the Chicago Teachers Union have recognized it is important to keep PE in the school day for all high school students (9th through 12th grade).  So important, in fact, that in November 2011, CPS and the Chicago Teachers Union came to an agreement about lengthening the school day by 90 minutes. This will allow PE programs to be reintegrated into the school day for 11th and 12th grade students (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/physical-education-progra_n_1084889.html). 
 
This is one of many solutions to the challenges you raised in your article.  Once again, thank you for adding your unique perspective to the discussion on PE, and I invite you and those who share your concerns about the state of PE in New York City to contact us if they are interested in continuing the conversation and momentum for reform (http://www.gethealthyharlem.org/nycsafh/).

Natalie Dawe, Reform PE Campaign Intern, NYC Strategic Alliance for Health

Mariela Salazar, Community Organizer for Reform PE Campaign, mariela@nycsafh.org

Javier Lopez, Director of NYC Strategic Alliance for Health, jlopez@nycsafh.org

]]> By: aquatics http://gothamschools.org/2012/06/11/are-we-failing-gym-or-is-gym-failing-us/comment-page-1/#comment-373390 aquatics Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:49:00 +0000 http://gothamschools.org/?p=85070#comment-373390 NYC has not been in compliance for PE in most of its schools since I started teaching in 1984.  Why?  Mainly because most principals and administrators do not see the value, don’t consider it “important” (because currently there is no high stakes testing in PE) and because most schools do not have the facilities needed to handle the high numbers of students.  What was done at CSI probably started as a way to “make things work”.  It was probably decided by someone who was not a certified PE teacher (Every PE teacher I know can recite the state regs for minutes, scheduling etc.), but,rather, someone who was in charge of scheduling. 
As for Physical Best:  That is not a “stand alone” curriculum, but rather should be used as part of a comprehensive curriculum which should also include team and individual sports, strength training appropriate for girls and boys, active lifestyle activities such as dance, pilates, yoga, cardio-type classes such as zumba or cardio-kickboxing etc, and when possible,. aquatics. Unfortunately, many schools, including those in suburban and rural areas, do not have the facilities necessary to provide a well-rounded, interesting curriculum that encourages an active lifestyle.  For years PE got the scraps when it came time to order equipment, update facilities etc.  We are paying the price.  It is not unusual in many areas of NY to  find PE classes with over 40 students. You have many schools which schedule 2 or 3 or 4 classes in one gym – that cant be divided into seperate learning stations causing little or no teaching/learning and major safety concerns for the teachers and students who are there.
Teachers throughout the state fight this uphill battle every day.  It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next year or so as the new teacher evaluation system come into play.  How will these teachers show growth in their students using a non-existing curriculum?  Unfortunately, there will have to be some time devoted (and money spent) to update curriculum in NYC and other districts across the state because this wasn’t deemed necessary when funding was available. 
The article is correct when it says that the state doesn not have a set curriculum. There are 3 main standards with performance indicators for each.  It is the responsibility of the inidividual districts to devise their curriculm to meet those standards.  Since facilities, school size, and regional interests need to be taken into account when devising the curriculum, it would not be appropriate for the state to have a “one size fits all” curriculum.  Could you imagine requiring students to learn to ski in Coney Island or requiring all schools to provide an aquatics program – even if they have no pool?  When you understand the Standards, you can understand that a quite rigorous curriculum is expected. 

]]>