1 / 19

Living School and Daily Physical Activity Partners for Life?

Living School and Daily Physical Activity Partners for Life? Results of a Research Study Funded by The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario Martin Shain S.J.D. OPHEA Research Consultant PARC Conference 2007. Questions:

milo
Download Presentation

Living School and Daily Physical Activity Partners for Life?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Living School and Daily Physical Activity Partners for Life? Results of a Research Study Funded by The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario Martin Shain S.J.D. OPHEA Research Consultant PARC Conference 2007

  2. Questions: • How are schools doing with regard to implementation • of Daily Physical Activity [DPA]? • Do Living Schools have an advantage? • 13 Living Schools • 10 Matched Comparison Schools • Interviews with Principals • Surveys of Students in Living Schools

  3. Definitions of “Moderate and Vigourous” Activity and “Daily Physical Activity”[M of E] DPA means engaging in 20 minutes of moderate to vigourous activity for 20 minutes every school day Moderate physical activity causes some increase in breathing and/or heart rate, but not enough to prevent an individual from carrying on a conversation comfortably during the activity. Examples given are brisk walking and recreational dancing. Vigorous physical activity increases the breathing and heart rates. This type of activity may cause puffing so that talking is possible but the ability to carry on a conversation is limited. Examples given are jogging and dancing.

  4. Living School is: • An application of Comprehensive School Health Promotion theory • So….. • it approaches health from a systems perspective, meaning…. • it deals with the school environment of the student as well as with • the student as an individual • Environment is both physical and psychosocial • Essentially, Living School involves modifications • to how the school is run and how education is done

  5. Living School is • Based on thinking about physical, mental and social health • as interdependent • Based on thinking that good health and capacity to learn are • closely linked • Participative – students, teachers, parents, partners are involved • in planning and carrying out plans to promote health • Strong on personal choice about health and supporting that choice with good information about health • Strong on respect and fairness as the basis for a code of conduct • Strong on school as a community in itself and as part of the • broader community

  6. Meeting the DPA criterion: • Vigourous to Moderate Physical Activity • for 20 minutes a day in school time • What principals said in Spring 2006 • 62% of Living Schools are on target for this Fall • 20% of Comparison Schools are on target for this Fall • So… it looks as though Living Schools may have an initial advantage

  7. On the whole: Living Schools appear more likely to • Involve students in planning and executing DPA • Train generalist and specialist teachers to run DPA

  8. But all schools (Living and Comparison) complain of • Stress on teachers • Lack of time in the timetable

  9. How Living School supports DPA • LS inspires enormous creativity with regard to how to achieve DPA • for all: this is partly a result of the highly participative philosophy • of LS which means that students, teachers, parents and partners • are all involved in trying to make the process work for everyone, • including the so-called hard to reach. • “LS laid down the necessary infrastructure for DPA in that • it root-feeds the health culture of the school. • Without this, DPA is like a graft that may or may not take.”

  10. Some problems identified • Problem with DPA is that it sets priorities from a remote perspective • when the school may in any given year have others, such as safety and nutrition. • In contrast, LS allows a school to follow its priorities as set by its main stakeholders, particularly parents. • It is respectful of an “hierarchy of needs” approach to health: • Feed them • Keep them safe • Get them active if there’s time

  11. Some Concerns Common To Most Schools • “The Bystander Problem” • “Big Bodies and No Showers”: comfort and safety issues • Living Schools appear to do better at solving these problems, • but… are there outer limits to DPA inclusiveness? • Question whether it is realistic to expect 100% participation • The bystander group can be as large as 15% • This proportion varies according to school

  12. The Student Survey 2006 • Repeat of key questions from 2004 and 2005 • Allows us to track progress over this time span • 557 students in Grade 8 mostly between 12 and 15 • 11 of the original 15 Living Schools

  13. Meeting the DPA criterion: • Vigourous to Moderate Physical Activity • for 20 minutes a day in school time • 80% achievement: 3 schools • 70% achievement: 1 school • 60% achievement: 6 schools • 40% achievement: 1 school

  14. Meeting the DPA criterion: • Vigourous to Moderate Physical Activity • for 20 minutes a day outside school • 100% achievement: 2 schools • 90% achievement: 1 school • 80% achievement: 6 schools • 60% achievement: 3 schools • This result suggests that Living Schools are promoting a desire to be • even more active outside school than in. • The next chart confirms this……

  15. Patterns of Change 2004-2005-2006 Self-Rated Health +66% Stable (low) + 45% Enthusiasm +98% Stable (high) +34% Play Sense of Belonging Grades +55% +46% +53% 90% Sense of Fairness and Safety = Stable correlation from 2004-2006

  16. Living Schools appear to be creating a situation in which students • want to be active in school and even more so out of school • This motivation is connected to how the school is run • When students feel a sense of school belonging, that they are safe and that they are fairly treated, a climate is created in which efforts to increase their activity levels are more likely to succeed • This climate also creates a more effective learning environment • in that grades improve • Overall students feel better in themselves • This appears to be a progressive process in most Living Schools

  17. What’s in the future? • Tackling “The Bystander Problem” • Even though Living Schools do quite well with regard to involving • this group [which is probably not one group, but several], more needs to be done, since Bystanders are by definition at higher risk for later health problems. • Dealing with comfort and anxiety issues may be one way to start • Getting to DPA through other issues (e.g. critical media literacy) may • be another: CML appeals to the “outsider” perspective: bystanders often lack voice or need a vehicle for its expression

  18. What’s in the future? Living School is a concept that links Comprehensive School Health Promotion and Comprehensive Workplace Health Promotion The health of students and the health of staff are probably closely linked. We need to find out much more about this connection

  19. Final Thoughts Living School is a model application of Comprehensive School Health Promotiontheory As such, it works directly on physical health issues but also indirectly through mental health gains Mental health gains (sense of belonging, sense of justice sense of coherence, self-acceptance) appear to be foundations for sustainable physical activity among kids in Living Schools Mental health gains may be a prerequisite for some kids to become more physically active

More Related