THE JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH Devoted to the interests and udvuncement of school health service and instriiction.

VOl. XXXIV APRIL, 1964 No. 4 Your participation by membership is solicited.

LET’S GET THE HEALTH OUT OF SCIENCE LAWRENCE B. O’REILLY, M.A.

Assistant Professor, Health Education, State University College, Cortland, N e w York

Editor’s Note The following article by Professor O’Reilly states very well a point of view

recommending the severance of the relationship between health education and science courses in the curriculum. The Editor would welcome supporting 07 ditfering articles on this controversial subject.

In June of 1962 a study was begun in New York State to determine the extent to which health instruction was being included in the junior high school science curriculum. All public junior and senior high schools in a fourteen county area in or near the geographical center of New York State were chosen for study. Although this region is primarily rural, cities in excess of 100,000 population are included in the sample. Spe- cifically, the counties included in this research a r e Broome Chenango Oneida Seneca Tompkins Cayuga Cortland Onondaga Steuben Yates Chemung Madison Schuyler Tioga

Mechanics of the Investigation Questionnaires were sent to one hundred eighty-seven secondary

schools, and even though postage was not provided for return of the inquiries, seventy-one percent of the schools responded. Many of the returns were from senior high schools which do not include grades 7, 8, and 9. Data from these schools obviously could not be used for the purposes of this study. Sixty-nine responses were received from schools which include the junior high school grades, and i t is with these schools that this research is concerned.

Ten general subject-matter areas were arbitrarily selected for study and each of these was divided into several subtopics which are represen- tative of those commonly included in health courses. The major areas of study are as follows: 1. The Human Body 6. Personal Health 2. Disease and fmmunity 7. Public Health 3. Foods and Nutrition 8. Nuclear Energy 4. Mental Hygiene 9. First Aid 5. Human Growth and Development 10. Consumer Health The participating schools were asked to indicate those topics which were regularly taught as part of the junior high school science program, and in which grade or grades each was included. No effort was made to de-

153

154 THE JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH

termine the degree of emphasis on each of the topics, but future research will hopefully provide data on this aspect of the junior high program. Admittedly, neither the ten major areas nor their respective subdivisions represent all that should be taught, but it was felt that responses to these items would provide valuable insight into the current role of health edu- cation in the science curriculum.

The data clearly suggest several relationships between junior high school health and science and lead to the formulation of several basic assumptions and conclusions, and ultimately to general recommendations for strengthening health instruction in grades 7, S, and 9. In order for the reader to appreciate the basic purpose of this study it is useful to recall certain events of recent historic interest.

Background Information This investigation was indirectly stimulated by the unprecedented con-

cern shown our public school science courses in the period amusingly referred to as the “Era of Post-Sputnik Panic.” Perhaps the reader recalls the historic newspaper headlines of October 4, 1957, when the announcement of the Soviet launching of the first artificial earth satellite (Sputnik I), heralded the “Space Age.” Three months following this dramatic event, the orbit of this man-made moon was entirely within the thin, upper limits of our atmosphere, at which point it slowed rapidly, plunged closer to Earth, and burned into physical oblivion. The term physical oblivion has been chosen for, in spite of the predicted fate of Sputnik I, its influence on science education is as profound today as in 1957 when the United States was jolted into the realization that we were second to the Soviets in the scramble for space supremacy.

During the early years of increased concern for all aspects of American education, but especially science education, this author and countless other science teachers were engaged in a critical evaluation of course content and teaching procedures. But in our haste, we too often submitted to administrative pressures and recommendations of community groups to alter the science courses in our schools. The outcome of this irrational concern appears to be the inclusion of more subject matter of a more sophisticated nature on every grade level. If one were to identify the prevailing philosophy of those advocating radical change in our science curricula, it could be stated quite simply--“As one increases the volume of content in a particular course, and similarly increases the degree of difficulty of this information, the intellectual growth of students cor- respondingly increases.” The efficacy of this approach has been con- sidered by many and it is not the purpose of this paper to pursue this point further.

Prior to the actual beginnings of this research it was presumed by many science educators that the efforts and recommendations of several organized groups (e.g., Physical Science Study Commit,tee, American Institute of Biological Sciences, Chemistry Study Group) and active individuals, who were instrumental in revamping and, to some extent, revitalizing upper secondary school science teaching, had indirectly in- fluenced the junior high school. It appeared obvious that much of the material formerly taught in “pre-Sputnik” biology, chemistry, and physics

THE JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH 155

had been discarded in favor of newer concepts and approaches. It was felt that some of the older subject-matter had “filtered” through the grades with much of it becoming enmeshed in the curricula of the junior high school. There was little doubt that junior high science had become more intensified as the “hand-me-down” concepts and understandings of the high school sciences had been incorporated in an already ambitious general science program. If this situation currently exists, is it not reasonable to assume that general science must, of necessity, modify itself by de-emphasizing or even eliminating areas of the curriculum for which it had previously been responsible? An attempt is made in this investiga- tion to discover whether or not health instruction continues to be included in the general sciences.

At this point it is appropriate to examine the New York State’s policies regarding health teaching in junior high schools. The following selection is from a regulation of the New York State Commissioner of Education:

“In addition to continued health guidance in the junior high school grades, provision shall also be made for approved health and safety teaching either as part of a broad science program or as a separate course.”

“Health and safety education shall be required for all pupils in the junior and senior high school grades and shall be taught by teachers with approved preparation.”

It is apparent that this regulation may be interpreted in at least two dif- ferent ways. That is, schools may either offer a specijic health course taught by qualified health educators or others with limited background in health, or schools may incorporate health and safety instruction in other science-oriented subject areas such as home economics (food science) or, more commonly, general science. The question of paramount im- portance to those interested in health education is-Are those schools which integrate health and safety teaching in general science doing an adequate job, especially in view of the recent changes in the content and emphasis in science education?

Preliminary Data Responses from the sixty-nine qualifying schools (those including

grades 7, 8, and 9) clearly indicated that 5.5% (4 schools) required a health course for all junior high school students. One may generalize, at least from these data, that health courses are virtually nonexistent in the junior high schools of New York State. If this is, in fact, the present situation, what percentage of the schools allow students to continue through grades 10, 11, and 12, without ever having studied a health course?

Approximately 60% of the schools stated that all of their students must study (as a high school graduation requirement) either a health course or another course (biology, homemaking, etc.) which, in their judgment., included sufficient health instruction to satisfy the somewhat ambiguous state health teaching regulations. The remaining 40% of the sixty-nine schools reported that providing their students continued in the same school system, they would not study a high school health course, as such courses were not offered in their school programs.

The regulation continues-

- _-. THE JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH

. .. ~ ~

156 ~~ ~

To facilitate the tabulation and presentation oi data, eacsl-i whool has

1. Eq (equivalent Schools: Those schools or school systems which require for high school graduation (42 total) either a separate health course or another course which is considered (by that particular school or system) to be the “legal equivalent” of a health course. The designation “Eq” has been selected because the majority of schools in this category offered the “legal equivalent” and not a separate health course.

Those schools or school systems (27 total) which do not require (for high school graduation) a health course or any other course which is specifically struc- tured to meet state health teaching regulations.

heen designated as one of two basic types:

2. LYr (no t required) Schools:

I .

2.

3.

4.

J .

6.

7 .

8.

9.

10.

1 1 .

Major F ind ings Most public high school graduates in New York State are not required to study a health course in either junior or senior high school. Those school systems which do not offer health courses in high school (Nr schools) make an obvious attempt to integrate more health instruction on the junior high school level. Health instruction in most schools receives more emphasis i n grade nine than in either grade seven or eight. Of the ten major areas of inquiry, the “human body” was moit consistently included in general science instruction. Instruction concerning human reproduction is not commonly included in junior high school science. Communicable diseases, immunization. and body defenses are dis- cussed more frequently than chronic disease concepts. In the area of “foods and nutrition”, more d o o l s include infor- mation about types of nutrients, the function of nutrients and avitaminosis, than concepts relating to weight control and the school lunch program.

Mental hygiene concepts are rarely a part of tlic genera! sviencc curriculum. Fluoridation and air pollution, two current community health concerns, receive less emphasis than water supply, sewage tfis- posal, and other environmental health topics. There is a rather surprising absence of consideration of consumer health issues in the science curriculum. First aid and safety instruction, unlike other areas of health instruction are most often taught in the eighth grade, rather than in grade 7 or grade 9.

T H E JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH 157 ~-

FIGURE I. *PERCENTAOES OF SCHOOLS TEACHING SUBTOPICS ON SPECIFIC GRADE LEVELS (Eq Schools)

___. _-

GRADE

7 8 9

THE HUMAN BODY x Digestion 61 54 75 x Circulation 54 57 75 x Respiration 62 59 70 x The Senses 57 50 70 x Nervous System 42 44 74 x Endocrine System 18 38 68 x Body Temperature 53 48 61

Teeth 60 37 43 x Human Reproduction 8 21 43 x Excretory System 29 39 64

TOPICS INCLUDED

DISEASES & IMMUNITY x Contagious Disease x Immunity x Chronic Diseases x Heart Disease x Cancer x Disease Transmission x Insect Vectors x Body Defenses

FOODS AND NUTRITION x Basic Food Groups

Value of Food x Types of Nutrients x Uses of Vitamins x Deficiency Disease

Food Selection x Weight Control

School Lunch Program

MENTAL HYGIENE x Teen-Parent Relations x Dating-Going Steady x Personality Develop. x Problem Solving x Planning for Future x Mental Illness x Psychosomatic Ills x Maturity (types, etc.)

38 57 67 33 53 63 15 29 46 17 26 51 20 37 55 29 43 64 15 34 53 41 45 66

GRADE

7 8 9 TOPICS INCLUDED --

__ _-______- -- HUMAN GROWTH & DEVEL. x Normal Growth 25 21 34 x Factors Affecting 18 18 28 x Sex Implications 6 10 17

PERSONAL HYGIENE Care of skin 48 34 30 Cosmetics 23 16 13 Care, Select./Clothes 26 17 11 Posture 49 34 29 Exercise, Rest, Sleep 64 34 35 Grooming 35 21 18

PUBLIC HEALTH x Community Water Supply 49 43 65 x Individual Water Supply 41 42 59 x Public Sewage Systems 34 38 56 x Fluoridation 27 33 43 x Septic Tanks, cesspools 26 38 54 x Stream Contamination 41 41 54 x Air Pollution 37 31 51 x Insect & Pest Control 40 46 51 x Public Health Depts. 14 23 26

61 44 68 NUCLEARENERQY 64 43 63 x Types of radiation 11 38 78 58 45 67 x Fusion & Fission 12 38 77

x BioEffects/Radiation 8 26 68 58 47 67 54 45 65 55 34 53 34 23 40 14 3 13

5 G 12 0 3 8 8 15 19

17 23 27 6 10 20 8 15 32 3 8 18 8 15 20

x Radiationin Agri., Indust. 7 20 58 x Fallout Shelters 10 23 54 x Types of Shielding 6 19 52

FIRST AID AND SAFETY Artificial Resp. 30 47 39 Home Safety 37 47 38 School Safety 34 41 31 Control of bleeding 31 51 38 Wounds 23 40 36 Shock 21 40 32 Bandaging 10 23 18

x CONSUMER HEALTH 1 2 7

*Figures apply to only those schools indicating subtopic inclusions xIndicates those subtopics most often taiight in grade 9.

158 THE JOURNAL O F SCHOOL HEALTH

FIQURE 11. FREQUENCY OF TOPIC I~CLUSIONS IN THE GENERAL SCIENCE CURRICULUM OF 42 EQ AND 27 NR SCHOOLS IN THE AREA OF THE “HUMAN BOI)Y”

SCHOOLS ~ _ _ _ ~- -

EQ (48) TOTAL NR (27) %TAL SUB-TOPICS

No. % No. % Digestion Circulation Respiration The Senses Nervous System Endocrine System Body Ternpraturc Teeth Human Reproduction Excretory Systein

40 95 26 96 40 95 27 100 40 95 27 100 39 93 26 96 37 88 24 89 3 i 88 22 81 36 86 27 100 _. ..

35 83 25 93 25 48 20 74 35 83 27 100

___-

The frequency with which digestion, circulation, respiration, etc. are taught in general science is indicative of the popularity of human biology in general science. This tendency to teach anatomy and physiology does not, however, apply to the subject of human reproduction. There are several possible explanations for this failure, but, whatever the reasons, the fact remains that pre-adolescents have a sincere interest in and need for instruction in this area and they do not receive it in the usual general sciences.

Instruction emphasis is often placed on topics which, by themselves, represent a limited approach to contemporary health concerns. For ex- ample, the problem of overweight is commonly omitted and dietary deficieney diseases receive greater emphasis. Similarly, the negative aspects of mental illness are discussed in more schools than the meliorative concepts involved in preserving one’s mental and emotional well-being. In this author’s opinion, these examples of narrow health education perspectives and/or approaches, while better than none, do not provide a full appreciation of the fundamental health issues which so profoundly affect our lives.

Instruction regarding communicable diseases is more commonly a part of general sciences than is the subject of chronic illnesses. This finding is further indication of the limited attention given health topics. One can- not disagree that continued education and preventive medicine have been largely responsible for decreased mortality rates from communicable diseases. In fact, this is ample justification for continuing communicable disease instruction on all educational levels. When one consults mor- tality tables and uses current death rates as one of several criteria for planning the content of health instruction, one finds that of the ten leading causes of death in the United States (all ages) the only diseases of a com- municable nature are influenza and pneumonia. As a matter of fact, the number of deaths due to these two conditions must be combined in order to rank them collectively as one of the top ten killers in the country. The three leading causes of mortality are heart disease, cancer, apoplexy, all chronic or degenerative in nature. If the criterion of mortality is one that is useful in planning part of the health program, why then is instruction about chronic illness so inadequate in general science? Many

THE JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH 159

feel that inasmuch as the chronic diseases are maladies of the aged, they are not sufficiently “meaningful” to adolescents to warrant inclusion in the curriculum. This however is not the case, for the United States Public Health Service reported in 1956 that cancer, a chronic disease, and rheumatic fever, a disease which often leads to chronic cardiac dis- orders, ranked among the top five killers in the age-group 5-14 years.

Further indication that science teachers are not doing the health teach- ing job they are often credited with is apparent in the data received on nutrition. Instruction about weight control was omitted by 50% of the schools, and less than 30% of the schools utilized the School Lunch Program for teaching nutrition. Within these two instructional areas it is possible to teach modern nutritional concepts in an interesting and effective manner. However, it is always easier to teach factual material than to concern oneself with the type of education resulting in the develop- ment of desirable health attitudes and behavior, the end-products of effective health education. Essentially, this i s what is being done to health education in the science curriculum. Health education is not merely the acquisition of factual knowledge; i t involves motivating individuals to accept the responsibility for their own health as evidenced by their positive health behavior.

In spite of the fact that deficiency diseases no longer constitute a threat to our “overfed” population, more than 85% of the “Eq” schools reported teaching about deficiency diseases and over 90% taught about the uses of vitamins. One would agree that these concepts are important, but the effective manner of teaching them is through developing an understanding of wise selection of foods, based on the Basic Four food groups. By omitting instruction regarding these food groups, more than 85% of the schools admitted in fact, that they are not presenting this aspect of nutrition in an effective manner. Hopefully, schools would devote more time to food selection and thereby eliminate, except for its historical or international interest, instruction about deficiency diseases. Time devoted to nutrition in general science is more meaningful to stu- dents if the instruction is related, in some manner, to the student himself. For example, how is complexion, physical growth, and general dexterity affected by the foods one eats? Is there any relationship between dis- position or performance and the practice of “missing” breakfast or other meals? To facilitate effective instruction of this type, it is essential that the teacher be adequately prepared in health education.

FIGURE 111. PERCENTAGES OF SCHOOLS TEACHING SPECIFIC MENTAL HEALTH TOPICS (EQ AND NR SCHOOLS)

EQ’S (42) NR’S (27) TOPICS

No. % No. %

Teen-Parent ReIations 6 14 9 33 Dating-Going Steady 2 5 5 19 Personality Development 12 29 13 48 Problem Solving 15 36 18 67 Planning for t h e Future 8 19 11 ii Mental Illness 18 43 14 52 Psychosomatic Illness 8 19 12 44 Maturity (types, etc.) 11 26 10 37

160 THE JOURKAI, O F SCHOOL I3EALTH

The data on mental health clearly indicate the frequency with which schools include this topic in the curricula. According to Figure 11, the sub-topic “mental illness” was more commonly taught than any other mental health topic. There is no question that emphasis on this negative aspect of mental hygiene proves interesting and somewhat fascinating to adolescents, but its value in promoting positive mental health is negligible. In the author’s experience as a teacher of both health and general science, it was apparent that student interest reached an apex whenever we dwelled on the abnormal, the unusual, or the gruesome aspects of most any sub- ject. The effective health teacher is cognizant of student interests and capitalizes on them by introducing important, but less interesting concepts during the moments that student interest is at a high point.

Figure 111 further illustrates that many mental health subtopics are frequently excluded from the science curriculum. For years educators have realized that early and middle adolescents have a desperate need for and interest in becoming more familiar with personality development, understanding what i t means to be mature, how to get along with others, and why many of their attitudes, likes and dislikes, and beliefs have de- veloped as they have. At this point it is once again obvious that in order to devote sufficient attention to these and other health topics, one re- quires special preparation and adequate classroom time to devote to his students. Science education cannot devote enough time to mental hygiene instruction.

Dr. John S. Sinacore conducted a study of secondary schools in Suffolk County, New York and drew essentially the same conclusions as have been drawn from this present research. One segment of Dr. Sinacore’s study is especially significant and deserves mention a t this point. In his exami- nation of the units of study in General Science, Home Economics, and Social Studies in grades 7, 8, and 9, Dr. Sinacore discovered the following percentages of schools devoting the recommended (state syllabus) time to each of several units of work:’

HEALTH UNITS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SCHOOLS INCLUDING E.mi TOPIC

1. Health Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2. Personal Appearance.. 53 3. Nutrition. 86 4. Exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 5. Rest and Recreation.. 0 6. Dental Health.. 13 7. Special Senses.. 20 8. Alcohol, Tobacco, and Narcotics. . . . . . 26

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. Healthful School Environment. 13 11. Health in t.he Home.. . . . . . . . . . 53 12. Community Health.. 20 13. Disease Prevention and Control.. 53 14. Safety.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 15. First Aid.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

’Sinncore, John S., “An Evnlii:ition of Ihe Hraltli ’reaching Progxtrns of the. Secondary Schools of Suffolk County, Long Islnnd. New York,” Doctoral Disseita- tion, 1956, New York University.

T H E JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH 161

A final indication of the fate of health education in grades 7, 8, and 9 is apparent, upon examination of the relationship between grade level and instruction. It is somewhat alarming to note (Figure I) that teach topic indicated by an asterisk is most jrquerct ly taught in the ninth grade science curriculum. For those students on the “academic track”, earth science would, in all likelihood, be elected rather than another year of general science. Furthermore, these college-bound students, in most instances, continue with their academic programs studying biology, chemistry, physics, and perhaps more advanced sciences. What this amounts to is that these students will have little health instruction except for the minimal amounts received through “equivalency” in other subjects.

Furthermore, the students who are not in the academic program generally study a full year of general science in the 9th grade. As they continue through their program they invariably encounter either a sim- plified and health-oriented biology course, a specific health course, or some other related discipline designed to satisfy state health teaching require- ments. Thus, a most unfortunate combination of circumstances is ap- parent- an unqualified teacher presenting outdated, repetitious material in an ineffective manner.

Major Conclusions 1.

2.

3.

Nearly all junior high schools consider general science to be a reasonable substitute for health education. In general, the schools involved in this research are doing an in- adequate job of health teaching via general science. The health teaching regulations of the Commissioner of Education, no matter how liberally interpreted, are not being carried out in most junior high schools. Most general science teachers have neither the time nor the back- ground to engage effectively in health education. It is impossible to satisfy the requirements of health education and/or science education in the same course, as the result is dilu- tion of both disciplines.

4.

5.

Future Developments We ha1 e acknowledged the fact that general science education is in a

“st:tte of flux” in New York State, and that recent trends are a reflection of innumerable forces acting within schools, local communities, the state, and the nation. As a result of significant progress in the development of elementary school science programs in many school systems, experimentation with new course3 of study a t the senior high school level, and the impact of projects originating a t the national level, the science program in Grade? 7, 8, and 9 is undergoing rapid change.”2

At, the present time, in New York State, science education is being scrutinized, and educational leaders in Albany and elsewhere are in the process of recommending changes. The current revision of general sci- ence began rnrly in 1961, and prcmmably was initiated by a joint effort

“Science in Grades 7, 8, and 9 is in transition.

2“Science 7 , 8, 9 (Experimental Syllabus) Part I, The Vniversity of the State of New York, Bureau of Secondary Curriculum Development, Albany, 1962, p. 1 ,

of the Bureau of Secondary Curriculum Development and science educa- tion personnel in Albany. Individuals from these groups conducted a series of discussions with educators throughout the state and agreed on several generaIizat,ions, some of which are as follows:

1. The needless repetit,ion of content inherent in many former and present ‘(general” science courses should be avoided.

( I

3. Much greater emphasis should be placed upon “teaching in depth”.

5. Emphasis should be shifted from mere accumulat,ion of €actual knowledge toward the understaftding of scientific principles. A careful evaluation of the training necessary for more effec- tive junior high school science teaching should be made.”3

The experimental program is “intended to provide a basic framework within which local schools can develop new program^."^ Several dif- ferent sequences are suggested for grades 7, 8, and 9, but in each case several major ‘(blocks” of subject matter are included, two of which appear to be a deliberate attempt to satisfy the health teaching require- ments in the junior high school. Figure 4 has been selected as representa- tive of “revisionist” thinking in Albany which, in the writer’s opinion, is not the least bit encouraging t o those interested in improving the junior high school health program.

7.

FIGURE IV “BLOCK A-‘rAKINQ CARE OF OURSELVES

Understaading how we learn perception memory reason action

fundamental system structures hlaintaining health body syslcrns involvcs undcrstanding

cells tissues organs glands

fnndainental system functions perception-senses protection-skin support-skeleton locomotion-muscle response-nervc acquiring oxygen-] espirntion distributing fluids-circiilation feeding cells-digcstion eliminating wastes-excretion

Developing beneficial patterns of behavior inborn automatic behavior acquired automatic behavior

mental health-narcotics and drugs”6

31bid., 3. *Ibid., p. 1.

163 - THE JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH

1.

2.

3. 4.

5 .

6. 7.

8.

This representative “block” of biologically-oriented topics (Fig. 4) is intended to satisfy New York State junior high school health teaching regulations. In no way does it represent the kinds of health concepts that should be a part of the junior high school’s program. It has a definite place in the science curriculum, but this is not to say that it resembles health education. The title of this “block” of factual material is, Taking Care of Ourselves, but one has difficulty identifying a single topic which is primarily designed to improve a student’s care for himself. This “experimental block” would be more appropriately entitled, “The Human Organism: Its Structure and Function.” Those who are responsible for the development of this unit (quite obviously not health educators) , undoubtedly believe that healthier living is an incidental outcome of instruction concerning anatomy and physiology.

Science is the foundation of health instruction and the health teacher’s essential challenge involves the utilization of student knowledge acquired in science courses. Competent health educators meet this challenge by helping their studenb to understand and appreciate how different factors influence the functioning of the human organism and motivating their students to practice those health behaviors which will serve to maintain their individual and collective well-being and happiness. This is the essential difference between health and science education. Typically, while the science teacher is dwelling on the chemical and mechanical process of digestion, the health teacher and his students are concerned with the more practical aspects of digestion, some of which might be-

The extent to which emotional responses, smoking prior to meals, haste in eating, etc., affect the digestive process. The relationships between foods, their preparation, and the effi- ciency and rate of digestion. The nature of digestive disorders and how one may avoid them. The question of self-medication for constipation, indigestion, and other common digestive ailments. The pros and cons of between-meal snacks, eating before bedtime, and regularity of one’s meal schedule. The relationship between appetite, exercise, and fatigue. The nature and development of individual food likes and dislikes and their relationship to health. The bases for and the consequences of common fads and fallacies.

The task of the health educator does not, as previously indicated, terminate with the impartation of knowledge to students. As a con- sequence of newly acquired knowledge, student behavior will ideally be altered as a result of the health teachers efforts.

Recommendations *l. Ideally, as a minimum requirement, a %-unit course, specifically

in health, should be required of all junior high school students. *A %-unit course would involve two or three class meetings each week for an

entire school year, or four or five class meetings each week for one-half of the year.

164

12.

3.

4.

45.

The junior high school health course should be followed by an additional $+unit or, more appropriately, a 1-unit hcalth course, to be studied by all students in grades 10, 11 or 12, with course credit applicable toward graduation. All health courses should be taught by individuals with approved preparation (certification) in health educat,ion. A qualified person should be selected in each school system to serve as coordinator of the school health program. If it becomes necessary, in view of the shortage of qualified health teachers, to combine health instruction with science and/ or other courses, it is further recommended that- a. All teachers involved in this type of instruction be required

to take approved course work to provide a minimal prcpara- tion for health education.

b. Health instruction be engaged in regular classrooms, adequately equipped, and in classes comparable in size to those in any other subject-matter area.

Recently a group of general science teachers who had been made re- sponsible for health instruction in the science curricula in their respective schools, studied a course entitled, “Health Topics for General Science Teachers”, offered a t State University College, Cortland, New York. As they progressed in this course, these science educators commented that they had never realized what health teaching involves. As a matter of fact, a t the conclusion of the course, the participants, without exception, indicated that health could best be taught by those with undergraduate or graduate preparation in health education and furthermore, that if sci- ence teachers were expected to do a minimal health teaching job, their backgrounds must include formal course work in health education. Ob- viously, there is no better testimonial than this.

* * * * *

STANDARDS FOR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS JOHN H. SHAW, Ph.D.

The Report of the Committee on Health Problem in Physical Education and Athletics of the

American School Healtla Associatio~z

The following material taken from Part I1 of the so-called “Alley Report” officially known as Standards for Junior High School Athletics’ is excerpted here so that American School Health Association members may know what the report recommends. Following the rccommcndation is a short statement on its significance and the official Association action taken on the report a t Kansas City in 1963.

tA I-tinit course meets four or five days each week for the entire school year. $During 1955-56, there were 363 teachers assigned in 757 school districts of

Only 32% (117

‘Standurds f o r Junior High School Athletics, American Associat.ion for Health,

New York State to teach separat,e health courses in grades 7-9. 1.cnchers) were ccrt.ificd by t h St,at,c Echication Dcp:ivtment, :M henltli teachers.

Physical Education and Recreation, Washington, D. C . , 1963.