National Health Education Week–Day 1

I have recently been made aware, by a fellow colleague in North Carolina, that there have been reports of the death of school health education ( http://hedir.org ). Upon review of this recently archived webinar and accompanying draft memo, I find reports of its death to be greatly exaggerated. (To paraphrase Mark Twain). Contrary to Mark Kittleson’s view, I find that school health education is very much alive. I feel that it is essential to provide my personal perspective and one voice for those health educators and those interested in school health and work with and within schools to continually enhance it.

A great number of States across the nation provide school health education, and are actively working at the State and local level, with national governmental and non-governmental organizations and community partners to improve it. I have great respect for my colleagues in Maine, and for their school health programs, however, there are many others who deserve recognition. One picture of the state of school health education across the nation is revealed by the School Health Profiles reports: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/profiles/index.htm . In New York State, I am confident that the nationally recognized institutions of higher education who have health education programs produce well-prepared health educators who get jobs in both school and community settings. Additionally, a large number of teachers who are certified in Health, Physical Education or both, continue to provide health education in schools throughout New York State and are supported by a statewide professional organization. I am confident that there are other such examples nationally. While there is much work to be done in order to improve school health education national, State, and local level, this does not warrant mass professional exodus from this constant learning space. The fact that graduates of a particular school health preparation program cannot find jobs in the area of school health may speak more about the state of the school health education preparation program than it does about the state of health education in modern day schools.

There may be important differences in the culture, history, and “institutions of schools” as compared to varied community settings as it relates to health education. It would be useful if health education majors developed a greater understanding of these earlier on in their preparation. However, I can find no reason why a “health education preparation program” cannot prepare its candidates for practice in both settings. I believe that the art and science of teaching in a health education context can bring students closer to learning’s many ends, irrespective of setting. In terms of the many possible ends to which health education programs can be constructed, whether in a school or community setting, I see little difference in the professional pedagogical knowledge and skill required to foster them. Perhaps the intent of Mark’s presentation was to declare the death of the separate and distinct school health preparation program and not the death of school health education. – these have different implications.

I believe that health and physical education are inextricably linked conceptually and pedagogically at the level of teaching and learning and its many ends. While there may be unique pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and some unique learning outcomes in each of these curricular areas, there is also much overlap. Teaching and learning for health ends in modern day schools requires health educators with interdisciplinary understanding. The school setting has clear barriers and many political challenges, but there is also great opportunity. The needs of youth and the values of the community should drive health education in the school setting and this may be a combination of State and locally determined empirical and value-based decisions. Such efforts need not be further fragmented by the struggles associated with academic vocationalism in higher education. It is worth noting that Mark calls for all health educators to step out of the box when it comes to technology, but not when it comes to interdisciplinary efforts at teaching and learning in schools. Perhaps it is easier to develop a pod-cast than to develop a physical or elementary educator.

I agree with Mark’s call to embrace technology in teaching and learning, but I reject his techno-centric rationale, and the notion that this should be done in place of the school experience. As R.E. Clark, as written and researched in-depth, it is the design of instruction, the pedagogy enacted, rather than the technology itself that is responsible for learning effects. My point is that the benefits of technology come from its social uses between learners and experienced others and the “digital space” in which such technology use exists. The features and affordances of technology then, cut across the physical boundaries between school, home, and community. Podcasts don’t guide instructional experiences; teachers do. Health education through a technology-based medium should exist in conjunction with, not be pit against the school experience and there is no good reason why a health educator cannot foster good learning in all of these learning spaces.

I know that others may disagree with my particular perspectives here and I hope others who identify with school health education will provide their voice to these issues as well.

Respectfully submitted,
Owen Donovan