Reform of PE curriculum

floggg

In light of the startling lack of awareness in irish society today about health and fitness, i think the introduction of a revised and examinable PE curriculum would be a great idea.

obviously there would an a certain practical/physical work involved, but it would also involve basic elements of nutrition, biology etc. Just as home economics is now about a lot more than baking cakes, sewing and how to be a good wife, PE could be given some educational value. It could also become a requirement for anybody interested in doing physio, or becoming a dietician or PT (or at least an alternative to doing trad science subjects).

what you all think?

Khannie

I think that would be brilliant tbh. The lack of nutritional awareness in particular shocks me. Everybody knows that exercise is good for them, but it seems that although people know that an oul' breakfast roll isn't the best, people seem ignorant of the damage it's doing in the medium term.

Zamboni

Considering Religion is a bloody Leaving Certificate subject, it astounds me that a far more useful subject like Physical Education is not.

However, if it was to even become an examinable subject you would have to bear in mind that the people currently in charge of any review DOE, PEAI, NCEA, ASTI, TUI etc would predominately have been educated in the food pyramid & cardio school of thought.

Good idea in theory but I just don't envisage a willingness for change.

metamorphosis

Out PE in school consisted of a few min dry stretching and an aul kick of a ball. Invigorating shtuff there it twas!

It's a joke. Reform it into a proper subject with emphasis on practical, nutririon and so on.

Hanley

*boards.ie unhappy - deamands reform of PE curriculem*

*Dept. of Ed. starts to teach kids about how carbs are good, long distance running is what you want, weights will break your back and protein will rape your kidneys*

**boards.ie still not happy*

Zamboni

Hanley wrote: »

protein will rape your kidneys

Would have been a good title for the off topic thread...:)

sickpuppy

I think having PE as subject would have been great a subject many not so hugely academical could enjoy and possibly excel at.
In my school we had one 40 min pe session
and then double games 2 40 min classes together through all years probably more than many other schools have.

itsallaboutheL

sickpuppy wrote: »

I think having PE as subject would have been great a subject many not so hugely academical could enjoy and possibly excel at.
In my school we had one 40 min pe session
and then double games 2 40 min classes together through all years probably more than many other schools have.

My left testicle!!

Have you ever tried to study physiology or myology?? Give me a big dirty business book anyday!!

sickpuppy

Never studied said subjects but had to do bloody religion for 14 years which is of very little benefit to any one.
If something wrong with your bollock see a doctor.

MagicMarker

It's all fun and games until someone loses a bollock.

maxchen

In theory I think it's a great idea, in practice it's hard to know how successful it would be. At primary level it would be hard to put more of an emphasis on it because the curriculum is fairly overloaded as it is, that bein said the basics of nutrition and healthy eating are covered in the SPHE curriculum. A good teacher would link the two explaining what carbs are good for etc The key point being good teacher. Some teachers just take the easy way out thus the reason why nearly everyone's personal experience of PE is of kicking a ball around for 30 or 40 minutes. Even if they tried to put more of an emphasis on it I'm not sure every teacher would bother.
I definatly think it could be incorprated at secondary level possibly as a Junior Cert subject first. If CSPE can be a Junior Cert subject then surely PE can?

MagicMarker

If PE were to be included in the leaving cert then it needs to be taught early on in Primary school.

No point having fitness tests in secondary if the kids are already overweight and riddled with bad eating habits before they even get there.

maxchen

PE is already thought in Primary School just really bad.

itsallaboutheL

MagicMarker wrote: »

If PE were to be included in the leaving cert then it needs to be taught early on in Primary school.

No point having fitness tests in secondary if the kids are already overweight and riddled with bad eating habits before they even get there.

Dude if its to be an exam subject its going to be heavily based on academic knowledge not feckin beep tests!

RacoonQueen

PE is a subject in the UK for A-Levels. They learn a lot of anatomy and physiology and things about muscles, nutrition, etc as well. A lot of stuff you'd learn studying Sports Science or Personal Training. It's a successful subject in the UK and is a required subject for some Uni courses. I assume this book would give a view as to what sort of stuff they cover http://www.humankinetics.com/products/all-products/a-level-physical-education?isbn=9780736033923

MagicMarker

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

Dude if its to be an exam subject its going to be heavily based on academic knowledge not feckin beep tests!

Why not?

injured365

If PE was a Leaving Cert subject it would be optional so those with no interest in it would be under no obligation to do it. The only problem with that would be for many students PE is the only bit of physical activity they partake in. Although PE is rarely, if ever, strenous in the slightest, little is still slightly better than none.

Having said that, I was lucky enough that my PE teachers, had a real interest in fitness. More than once our 80 min of PE invovled a small weights workout or else a 20-30 min run. It was also where i really introduced to intervals. Nothing like running intervals in the cold wet winter months around a waterlogged pitch.

Roper

I used to think it should be an exam subject before I started to work with exam age kids. Will it become one? No, definitely not and I'm glad too.

Kids are overloaded and the last thing they need is another compulsory exam for one, secondly, what kind of message does it send out when you must pass the thing you're supposed to be enjoying. The way forward is not to frog march tubby kids to the sports hall because they might fail, the way forward is to encourage kids to find something they enjoy doing and to encourage that.

We can all sit behind our comfortable keyboards and piss and moan about how kids these days are this and that and how terrible your PE was (mine was pretty awful), but at the end of the day making some sort of compulsory fitness programme actually defeats one to the purposes of PE which is fun and enjoyment.

Also I love the hatred of the food pyramid. I think the problem is far from turning that upside down and is in fact to prevent the prevalance of fast food in kid's diets. If kids stuck to the food pyramid, flawed as it is, two of our great future killers would be solved- diabetes and obesity.

Chucky the tree

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why not?

It's extremely unfair and discriminates against people who are big. Also I'd of hated if I had to spend my hour PE time in a bloddy class learning about body parts and diet, give me an hour of rugby or soccer anyday.

MagicMarker

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It's extremely unfair and discriminates against people who are big. Also I'd of hated if I had to spend my hour PE time in a bloddy class learning about body parts and diet, give me an hour of rugby or soccer anyday.

The/my idea is to promote healthy eating and regular exercise to prevent anyone from getting big in the first place.

A physical test is no more discriminatory to overweight people as a written test is to stupid people.

itsallaboutheL

MagicMarker wrote: »

The/my idea is to promote healthy eating and regular exercise to prevent anyone from getting big in the first place.

A physical test is no more discriminatory to overweight people as a written test is to stupid people.

The Leaving Certificate is primarily an academic test get over it!!

MagicMarker

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

The Leaving Certificate is primarily an academic test get over it!!

My apologies, I was under the impression that this thread was intended to discuss a REFORM to the PE curriculum, forgive me for putting forth my opinion.

I'll leave you all to it.

itsallaboutheL

MagicMarker wrote: »

My apologies, I was under the impression that this thread was intended to discuss a REFORM to the PE curriculum, forgive me for putting forth my opinion.

I'll leave you all to it.

Yes and in your Reformation of it you want it to be an exam subject, i'm saying that despite the best of intentions any examinable subject is going to remain theory based...

the get over it comes across a bit harsh, i apologise it wasn't my intention

Chucky the tree

MagicMarker wrote: »

The/my idea is to promote healthy eating and regular exercise to prevent anyone from getting big in the first place.

A physical test is no more discriminatory to overweight people as a written test is to stupid people.

I wouldn't call any front row rugby player unfit or someone who doesn't get regular excercise. Bodybuilders would be the same, they might be able to lift and **** load and I wouldn't call them unfit but they'd stand no chance at a bleep test.

floggg

Roper wrote: »

I used to think it should be an exam subject before I started to work with exam age kids. Will it become one? No, definitely not and I'm glad too.

Kids are overloaded and the last thing they need is another compulsory exam for one, secondly, what kind of message does it send out when you must pass the thing you're supposed to be enjoying.

I agree to an extent, sadly it is the only physical exercise some kids get. it is true that we do need to get kids more involved in a sport. However, i don't think forcing a relunctant kid to do a bit of mild exercise once a week who has little or no interest in it is a reason not to offer a course to other kids who have a major interest in it and would like to learn more.

Also, in my school at least, PE stopped being compulsory after the junior cert, so surely it would be possible to keep a "everybody in" approach until the JC and for the LC offer the advanced course to those with an interest.

Roper wrote: »

The way forward is not to frog march tubby kids to the sports hall because they might fail, the way forward is to encourage kids to find something they enjoy doing and to encourage that.

I also think you are right here - if secondary school PE is to remain as a purely "physical" type course, it should nevertheless be reformed to introduce a far greater range of sports and activities than is currently on offer. Again, maybe it was just my school, but PE invariably boiled down to a mix of soccer, gaelic football and basketball, with about 2 runs thrown into my 5 years of secondary school PE. Not once did we even do hurling or handball, even though they are national sports!

At least in primary school we did a range of sports like olympic handball, unihockey, and the like.

I do think there is a sport out there for everybody, its just the way PE is thought, most kids have no hope of finding it!

Julesie

I 100% agree that there is room for reform.

In my opinion "Education" is about preparing kids for living happy, healthy and successful lives after they have finished sitting whatever arbitrary exams we have set them.

I can see no reason why an "Activity" time can not be incorporated into the school schedule to ensure kids get a minimum level of physical exertion. In addition a nutrition/physiology/fitness theory examinable class should be also included. Perhaps compulsory until junior cert to ensure everybody has the fundamentals and then optional for leaving cert for those with a real interest.

The entire education system needs reform though to allow this to happen. Someone needs to do a serious cost/benefit analysis on the time spent on each class as it stands. How I spent 13 years exposed to daily Irish lessons and emerged barely able to string a sentence together (and got a B+ at Honours!) is really an indictment of the level of teaching of it. Having said that though even if I was the world's most fluent Gaelic speaker perhaps that time would have been better served on other more practical subjects.


/end rant

Roper

Julesie wrote: »

I 100% agree that there is room for reform.

In my opinion "Education" is about preparing kids for living happy, healthy and successful lives after they have finished sitting whatever arbitrary exams we have set them.

Your sentence is just as arbitrary as the exams you're criticising. What does that really mean?

I can see no reason why an "Activity" time can not be incorporated into the school schedule to ensure kids get a minimum level of physical exertion.

So, you mean PE then?

In addition a nutrition/physiology/fitness theory examinable class should be also included. Perhaps compulsory until junior cert to ensure everybody has the fundamentals and then optional for leaving cert for those with a real interest.

To what end? To create a nation of superkids? To create future employees for the not-quite-burgeoning fitness industry? The nutrition aspect already exists in CSPE as does basic fitness.

The entire education system needs reform though to allow this to happen. Someone needs to do a serious cost/benefit analysis on the time spent on each class as it stands. How I spent 13 years exposed to daily Irish lessons and emerged barely able to string a sentence together (and got a B+ at Honours!) is really an indictment of the level of teaching of it. Having said that though even if I was the world's most fluent Gaelic speaker perhaps that time would have been better served on other more practical subjects.

I agree. I think Irish should be taught as a conversational language with less emphasis on grammar, although this would irritate many Irish speakers, but getting rid of everyone's favourite "if I was in government I would..." subject is not going to make our children fitter.

However, i don't think forcing a relunctant kid to do a bit of mild exercise once a week who has little or no interest in it is a reason not to offer a course to other kids who have a major interest in it and would like to learn more.

There are plenty of opportunities for kids to go on and educate themselves formally or informally after and during school. A good PE programme is all that is required.

Also, in my school at least, PE stopped being compulsory after the junior cert, so surely it would be possible to keep a "everybody in" approach until the JC and for the LC offer the advanced course to those with an interest.

Between myself, my wife and our friends, I am aware of or have worked in dozens of schools, and I have never even heard of one that does not have PE for 5th and 6th year. That is a genuine disgrace.

Again, maybe it was just my school, but PE invariably boiled down to a mix of soccer, gaelic football and basketball, with about 2 runs thrown into my 5 years of secondary school PE. Not once did we even do hurling or handball, even though they are national sports!

Well that would have been my experience having gone to school in the 90s. But it's not the experience I have of working with schools in the 21st century. Most schools adopt the best programme they can with the resources they have. As well as the usual suspects, I've seen tag rugby, boxing, martial arts, circuit training, weightlifting and lots of other sports being played. This is with the majority of schools rather than the minority.

floggg

Roper wrote: »

So, you mean PE then?To what end? To create a nation of superkids? To create future employees for the not-quite-burgeoning fitness industry? The nutrition aspect already exists in CSPE as does basic fitness.

Didn't actually know that was in CSPE - back when i did (which was only 2001) it was a complete joke of a subject - my JC exam involved me colouring in a poster. I reckon my B was down to me only having a red and blue pen!

Roper wrote: »

I agree. I think Irish should be taught as a conversational language with less emphasis on grammar, although this would irritate many Irish speakers, but getting rid of everyone's favourite "if I was in government I would..." subject is not going to make our children fitter.

Off topic, but i don't know if it would offend irish speakers. I live with a few gaelgoirs, and they are all for promoting conversational irish, and will openly admit to not having the best grammar.

But the irish is another debate we won't get into here.

Roper wrote: »

Between myself, my wife and our friends, I am aware of or have worked in dozens of schools, and I have never even heard of one that does not have PE for 5th and 6th year. That is a genuine disgrace.

I never said they didn't have a PE program, i just said it was not complusory. A lot of people (ok, the girls) chose not to do it, and just got "study time" (gossip time) instead.

Roper wrote: »

Well that would have been my experience having gone to school in the 90s. But it's not the experience I have of working with schools in the 21st century. Most schools adopt the best programme they can with the resources they have. As well as the usual suspects, I've seen tag rugby, boxing, martial arts, circuit training, weightlifting and lots of other sports being played. This is with the majority of schools rather than the minority.

Very glad to hear that.

We never got any where near that though! Although i forgot to add rounders and swimming to the mix in my list above.

lizzyvera

Fantastic idea. Too many people drop their hobbies in 6th year, and it would keep sporty people doing what they love and excel at.
Music has higher grades than average, but that is because the average music lover spends a few hours a day practicing, which is more than the average Chemistry lover does. It would be the same for P.E.

They should keep the standard PE class for everyone, no exam. But for people who choose to do it as a LC sports science subject, they could have an extra 2-3 classes per week on sports science and nutrition with higher fitness requirements (you could consider that part of your homework), which would be examined as a practical.

I'm studying pharmacology in college so I do a good bit of physiology, it could be just as academic and applicable to real life as biology. I also knew some people who would have loved it, and hated school in general. It could keep a few people going.

Julesie

Roper wrote: »

Your sentence is just as arbitrary as the exams you're criticising. What does that really mean?

It means that our education system (much like every other nation's, I'll admit) is very much geared towards the "do what is needed pass the exam and get into college" culture. I think that this can be at the expense of developing well rounded individuals especially for those that do not go on to 3rd level. Obviously this is just my own theory (no data to back it up) so feel free to dismiss it as you wish.

Roper wrote: »

So, you mean PE then?

Well yes you can call that activity class PE. I just used the term "Activity" to differentiate the physical activity bit from the more theoretical classroom based side of things, I had proposed.

Roper wrote: »

To what end? To create a nation of superkids? To create future employees for the not-quite-burgeoning fitness industry? The nutrition aspect already exists in CSPE as does basic fitness.

As I said in my post I would only be proposing that it is compulsory to Junior Cert, purely to provide the fundamentals. I think there is plenty that could fill a curriculum of a 1hr weekly class that would be of use to the general population. Also, not wishing to undermine my own idea but CSPE certainly didn't create a nation of politicians from my generation. There could well have been a change to CSPE since my days but 10 years ago there was no fitness component that I was aware of

Roper wrote: »

There are plenty of opportunities for kids to go on and educate themselves formally or informally after and during school. A good PE programme is all that is required.

But surely that is true of any subject. The internet alone provides plenty of opportunities to read up on anything but that does not equate to a well educated population. The current level of health/fitness information in the general population amounts to little more than a bad mixture of antiquated, outdated and superceded scientific findings coupled with biased information on whatever fad is currently being marketed as a quick fix.

The point of the more theory based class would be to remove the excuse of ignorance for those that will not go and seek out this information of their own accord. I'm not naive enough to think that this alone would create a generation of super-fitties but it would only be an improvement on the present situation

Chris89

Roper wrote: »

Your sentence is just as arbitrary as the exams you're criticising. What does that really mean?

So, you mean PE then?To what end? To create a nation of superkids? To create future employees for the not-quite-burgeoning fitness industry? The nutrition aspect already exists in CSPE as does basic fitness.

I agree. I think Irish should be taught as a conversational language with less emphasis on grammar, although this would irritate many Irish speakers, but getting rid of everyone's favourite "if I was in government I would..." subject is not going to make our children fitter.

There are plenty of opportunities for kids to go on and educate themselves formally or informally after and during school. A good PE programme is all that is required.
Between myself, my wife and our friends, I am aware of or have worked in dozens of schools, and I have never even heard of one that does not have PE for 5th and 6th year. That is a genuine disgrace.

Well that would have been my experience having gone to school in the 90s. But it's not the experience I have of working with schools in the 21st century. Most schools adopt the best programme they can with the resources they have. As well as the usual suspects, I've seen tag rugby, boxing, martial arts, circuit training, weightlifting and lots of other sports being played. This is with the majority of schools rather than the minority.

Do you mean sphe? cspe is civics social and political education.

+1 for reform. all the fat nerds getting their 600 points these days is a bit sick. obviously theres some skinny nerds. but i doubt any of them can snatch bodyweight.

itsallaboutheL

Chris89 wrote: »

Do you mean sphe? cspe is civics social and political education.

+1 for reform. all the fat nerds getting their 600 points these days is a bit sick. obviously theres some skinny nerds. but i doubt any of them can snatch bodyweight.

LOL

Roper

As Chris has pointed out, I've mixed up my acronyms.

Julesie wrote: »

It means that our education system (much like every other nation's, I'll admit) is very much geared towards the "do what is needed pass the exam and get into college" culture. I think that this can be at the expense of developing well rounded individuals especially for those that do not go on to 3rd level. Obviously this is just my own theory (no data to back it up) so feel free to dismiss it as you wish.

Well every examination process is arbitrary. It is a shame that education is points based but my point is that without a viable alternative, all of our best choices lie in getting the current system to work well.

Well yes you can call that activity class PE. I just used the term "Activity" to differentiate the physical activity bit from the more theoretical classroom based side of things, I had proposed.

I mixed myself up and meant to say sphe. But what you're suggesting is already done.

As I said in my post I would only be proposing that it is compulsory to Junior Cert, purely to provide the fundamentals. I think there is plenty that could fill a curriculum of a 1hr weekly class that would be of use to the general population. Also, not wishing to undermine my own idea but CSPE certainly didn't create a nation of politicians from my generation. There could well have been a change to CSPE since my days but 10 years ago there was no fitness component that I was aware of

My point exactly. CSPE is not intended to create politicians, just people with a basic sense of civic duty. Choosing to exercise that sense by voting or running is a choice after that, and judging by the voter turnouts among young people, people don't utilise that. There is no reason to think that any reformed, graded physical education will produce any better results than we're seeing right now.

But surely that is true of any subject. The internet alone provides plenty of opportunities to read up on anything but that does not equate to a well educated population. The current level of health/fitness information in the general population amounts to little more than a bad mixture of antiquated, outdated and superceded scientific findings coupled with biased information on whatever fad is currently being marketed as a quick fix.

So who is going to decide what should be taught? We've already established in this topic that people will disagree with whatever is taught on some level.

The point of the more theory based class would be to remove the excuse of ignorance for those that will not go and seek out this information of their own accord. I'm not naive enough to think that this alone would create a generation of super-fitties but it would only be an improvement on the present situation

i don't see that the problem is in schooling. By and large, schools have good policies on lunches, sports, health education etc.

It's easy to blame state institutions, but how much can the state educate it's kids if the right message isn't getting through in therest of their lives? I'm not just talking about parenting, I mean media, advertising etc.

Chris89

I would say primary schools have a good policy for lunches, I know mine did anyway. and there was a lot of activites etc.

But unless you go to a secondary school with a sucessful rugby team ( in my experience anyway ) then there is absoloutley no focus on general health or wellbeing.

injured365

While there is a need for greater awareness among teens about health and physical activity, I feel unless there is some incentive (leaving cert points is the only real option) for students to study it, few parents will appreciate them sending 2/3 hours a week learning information that will not benefit them towards their leaving cert.

The problem is that this will have to involve a theory or practical exams, as such PE would more than likely not be compulsory. As such the majority of people studying it would be those already involved and interested in health and physical activity.

The problem is really trying to find a way to make it all inclusive as well as beneficial to study academically

Roper

Yeah sooner or later it all comes down to the parents. I don't know of a single parent who isn't concerned about their kids health, but once we go in to Joe Duffy mode it's all about the parents and how negligent they are.

Look, pretty much every parent I know is fighting an uphill battle to try to get their kids to eat healthy foods and exercise. They're fighting xboxes, PS3s, McDonalds, BK, Tescos (as an interesting experiment, go into a Tescos in a middle class area and then a lower class area and see what's on their "special offer" shelves) and they're losing. the blame game is just moaning pointlessly, the structure exists, it just needs to be used and encouraged.

injured365

Roper wrote: »

Yeah sooner or later it all comes down to the parents. I don't know of a single parent who isn't concerned about their kids health, but once we go in to Joe Duffy mode it's all about the parents and how negligent they are.

Look, pretty much every parent I know is fighting an uphill battle to try to get their kids to eat healthy foods and exercise. They're fighting xboxes, PS3s, McDonalds, BK, Tescos (as an interesting experiment, go into a Tescos in a middle class area and then a lower class area and see what's on their "special offer" shelves) and they're losing. the blame game is just moaning pointlessly, the structure exists, it just needs to be used and encouraged.

Im not saying parents are not concerned about their childrens health, I just feel for 5/6th year, parents will put the leaving cert ahead of everything else including anything more than basic health. To have their children spending time studying something that will not be relevant towards the leaving cert is not something many parents could appreciate.

Although it never seemed to be a problem for the hours i wasted with religion

floggg

Roper wrote: »

Yeah sooner or later it all comes down to the parents. I don't know of a single parent who isn't concerned about their kids health, but once we go in to Joe Duffy mode it's all about the parents and how negligent they are.

Look, pretty much every parent I know is fighting an uphill battle to try to get their kids to eat healthy foods and exercise. They're fighting xboxes, PS3s, McDonalds, BK, Tescos (as an interesting experiment, go into a Tescos in a middle class area and then a lower class area and see what's on their "special offer" shelves) and they're losing. the blame game is just moaning pointlessly, the structure exists, it just needs to be used and encouraged.

I disagree to an extent. Not saying that it is all the parents fault, but who, if not the parents, will be responsible for their childs diet and exercise? At young child does not know enough to decide what is best for him, so its the parents job to make decisions for them, to be a good influence and role model and to encourage healthy habits. Those habits rub off on the child and define what type of person they will be.

For young children, their diet, past times and exercise will generally all be dictated by what their parents do or do not permit them to do. Most 10 year olds do not have enough income to buy their own xbox, its their parents who buy it. While i am not saying deprive your child of computer games, you can set boundaries to its use, and control what they do and do not play.

With diet, you can hardly blame mcdonalds if your kid is fat it you buy him the happy meal. If its the parents who cook/buy food for their child, they should take responsibility for what they eat. And those eating habits that the child develops as an earlier age will follow on into adulthood.

Simialrly, i imagine children's parents who actively encourage and take part in sporting activities are more likely to grow up to be interested in sport, than those who don't.

E.g., EileenG recently said in her well thread how her kids are all so proud of her that she is so fit and active, and how she has taken time to educate them on diet and nutrition etc - that sort of positive influence rubs of on the child, and i imagine those children will grow up to be fit and healthy adults.

On the other extreme, if EileenG was a couch potato who only ate takeaway food, i would wager good money at least half her kids would be fat and unhealthy.

Roper

My point is that it is really really easy to point the "I blame the parent's" finger when you're single and childless. There are a lot of influences on kids these days because they are exposed to a lot of different things at a very early age through the multiple media they watch and learn from. Sometimes just getting your kid to eat ANYTHING is a real chore, so getting them up and ready to go out the door to school while you and your partner get ready for work is a real hassle. If they only have Coco Pops that morning, it's better than giving them nothing and nobody is late for school and work because it doesn't take them an hour to eat. Every parent I know has great intentions, really, and they all put some of it into practise, but there are a lot of other pressures besides eating.

I doubt anyone here had a perfect diet when they were a kid, my favourite cereal was Sugar Puffs and we would beg for Angel Delight for dessert, lovely radioactive goo that it was. I think the difference between us and others was that we had a mostly good diet of meat and two veg, stews, more stew, a decent Sunday roast, stew and stew.

Money Shot

Roper wrote: »

Sometimes just getting your kid to eat ANYTHING is a real chore, so getting them up and ready to go out the door to school while you and your partner get ready for work is a real hassle. If they only have Coco Pops that morning, it's better than giving them nothing and nobody is late for school and work because it doesn't take them an hour to eat. Every parent I know has great intentions, really, and they all put some of it into practise, but there are a lot of other pressures besides eating.

So true. You can control what a baby eats to a large extent, but things become very difficult once they are aware that there are other sources of food available in the world at large and they have no problem testing the theory that if I wait long enough it will come to me.
It's difficult, and you may have to give treats to get them to eat some of the good stuff. Obviously, it's the responsibility of the parents, but it's definitely a lot more complicated than showing a good example and just buying the right foods. Besides, kids need to enjoy life and have fun, and eating crap is a part of that for kids. It's finding the right balance is where the challange is for a parent.

floggg

Roper wrote: »

My point is that it is really really easy to point the "I blame the parent's" finger when you're single and childless. There are a lot of influences on kids these days because they are exposed to a lot of different things at a very early age through the multiple media they watch and learn from. Sometimes just getting your kid to eat ANYTHING is a real chore, so getting them up and ready to go out the door to school while you and your partner get ready for work is a real hassle. If they only have Coco Pops that morning, it's better than giving them nothing and nobody is late for school and work because it doesn't take them an hour to eat. Every parent I know has great intentions, really, and they all put some of it into practise, but there are a lot of other pressures besides eating.

I doubt anyone here had a perfect diet when they were a kid, my favourite cereal was Sugar Puffs and we would beg for Angel Delight for dessert, lovely radioactive goo that it was. I think the difference between us and others was that we had a mostly good diet of meat and two veg, stews, more stew, a decent Sunday roast, stew and stew.

Again, i'm not saying i disagree entirely, i do know it is hard to raise kids, but i still think that parents do need to make a stand at a certain point. For example on cereals, sure kids will go for the sugary oness if they are there, but if you don't buy them, they won't eat them.

I used the EileenG example specifically to show that with the right approach, parents can influence their children's diets positively, regardless of whats on special offer in tesco. Lets face it, it s not the kids who do the weekly shopping, and if you don't give them the money for it, they can't buy themselves a big mac.

Kids tend to follow their parents lead. If you were to analyse any family, you would find that the vast majority of a child's personality traits and mannerism is derived in one way or another from the influence of their parents, whether its a reaction to or an adoption of their parents behaviour.

floggg

Money Shot wrote: »

So true. You can control what a baby eats to a large extent, but things become very difficult once they are aware that there are other sources of food available in the world at large and they have no problem testing the theory that if I wait long enough it will come to me.
It's difficult, and you may have to give treats to get them to eat some of the good stuff. Obviously, it's the responsibility of the parents, but it's definitely a lot more complicated than showing a good example and just buying the right foods. Besides, kids need to enjoy life and have fun, and eating crap is a part of that for kids. It's finding the right balance is where the challange is for a parent.

Look, i am not a parent (or at least i hope i am not) and don't intend on being one for a good while yet. however, i do know that when i do have kids, i will never blame a computer console, eminem or mcdonalds for anything that goes wrong with my kids.

Maybe i am just old fashioned, but do you think that our grandparents had to coax our parents into eating their veg, or doing what they were told? Hell no. i am not saying smack the childhood out of your kid if they even look sideways, but you should be firm enough to able to refuse them something you believe to be bad for them, while also encouraging to do what you think is right.
Kids don't like doing homework, brushing their teeth or going to mass, but most parents get to do all three without having to bribe them , i don't see why they can't take a similar approach with nutrition.

gaeilgegrinds

Many parents send us in notes saying their children do not have to do P.E. What are we supposed to do? They get detention, they do it. Repeat the following week. Some kids do not want to exercise and will not under any circumstance. And generally they are the ones who should be.

byhookorbycrook

Primary schools do not have the power to implement "healthy lunches", it is a suggestion only. Parents can give children all kinds of junk for lunch and the school is powerless.

DES have put a fab primary PE curriculum in place, gymnastics, lovely-if you have a hall, a teacher confident enough to do gymnastics and the equipment to do it. Likewise aquatics, parents end up paying for pool, bus and instructors. Dance- try it in winter in a freezing cold yard sometime...

nicola09

Yeah completely agree with OP! PE is a bit of a joke really, it's more of an exercise in who can create the most elaborate excuses to avoid doing it than actual exercise! In my school, PE wasn't compulsory in 5th or 6th year, easy to avoid in TY and minimal in Junior Cycle. I have no interest in sport but would have liked to have done PE to avoid Leaving Cert related obesity...!:D Isn't it kind of illegal to not do any PE? Maybe that's just UK?