Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 05/21/2006 5:41:21 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Primary schoolchildren are to be weighed regularly and their parents told if they are too fat under a Government drive to reduce obesity.
Children aged four to 10 in England will be put on the scales this term to help prepare an obesity "map". From next year, parents of any obese four- to 10-year-old can expect a letter telling them that their child faces long-term health problems unless they live a healthier life.
Yesterday, the Department of Health rejected suggestions that the Government was "policing" the size of children and increasing the risk that some children could be stigmatised or bullied if they were identified as being obese. A spokesman said tackling childhood obesity needed to be taken very seriously.
According to current trends, it is set to become the greatest cause of death in the UK. Obesity has trebled over the last 20 years, and a health survey in England in 2001 found that around 24 million adults in England were overweight.
It is rising among children too. In the past 10 years it has doubled in six-year-olds (to 8.5 per cent) and trebled among 15-year-olds (to 15 per cent).
The National Audit Office says that by 2010 the cost of treating obesity and related illnesses in England will be £3.6 billion. The tests will be carried out with children wearing "light clothes".
Parents can refuse permission for their child to be tested and can ask not to be sent the results next year.
Caroline Flint, the junior health minister, believes that parents are the "first and foremost" influence on their children and have a key role to play in tackling obesity.
Nah, they'll just tax the pants off of parents that have fat kids or don't pass required PT tests. After that they will take them away, but not before they collect every dime of tax they can.
Oh, the horrors of second hand grease.
In NYS, at least, teachers, coaches, doctors, nurses, anyone dealing with children, are all REQUIRED to report cases of suspected abuse. No concern about getting sued on that one. They face more serious charges if they don't.
And besides, who needs a scale to determine if the kid is obese? Any child that heavy is pretty obvious and I'd guess it's not a secret to the parents either.
This is not comparable to starving a child either, which is real abuse. A fat child is irresponsible in most of the cases I've seen but not abuse the way beating or starving a child is. What next? What does the government mean to do with all the parents of these obese kids? What's the point of monitering them?
I don't want the government running my life for me and making my decisions, thank you.
ping
Are you the sister I never had???????
All kidding aside, the most I have ever wieghed in at "officially" was 165 on June 29, 1998.........Jax was born July 2nd. All docs would prefer I weigh 135, but I average 120-125, so as long as I stay above the 120 mark the docs are happy.
I'm for bed now - but am leaving this thread open for a further response t you in the morning regarding the teasing and bullying comment you made.
Exactly. I remember exactly the same from my 'infants'' school in England in the 1950s. I don't remember that any apocalyptic consequences resulted from the practice then. It's possible to read to much into these things.
Ping-a-ling.
It's here now. I recieved a paper from my boys' school awhile ago, that stated their weight, and what percentile they fit in.
And I live in a rural school dictrict, in a SMALL town.
Just follow the taunts of "Fatty, Fatty, two by four..."
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
That is so true, Mears.
I remember a particularly terrible incident when I was a freshman in high school.
There was a girl in my class who was very short and very wide, and a wonderful, funny person.
The gym teacher decided that we each had to work our way between the rungs of a ladder, I suppose to determine whether we met the Fuehrer's weight standard.
The sight of this poor girl getting stuck in the ladder rungs while howls of laughter rang out is as vivid in my mind today as it was when it happened.
It was one of the cruelest things I'd ever witnessed.
How about we judge people by their character rather than their appearance?
We'd all be lot better off.
Sad,isn't it?
When I was teaching there was a first grade boy who weighed 85 lbs.He never got chosen by the other little ones as a partner for anything,academic ot athletic.He received no valentines. I'll never forget him and that was many years ago.
The constant barrage of "warnings" about obesity in children will demonise them,the way smokers have been demonised.
I still remeber that little boy's name fifty years later as you remember the incident with the girl.
A friend of mine volunteers at the Nature Center in one of the local parks. They do projects for home schoolers all the time. Some of them sound a lot neater than any I ever got in school. They're currently hatching butterflies and mapping the migration paths of Monarch butterflies.
There are a lot of resources for home schoolers now.
There certainly are lots of resources for home-schooled children today and they seem to be just playing and having fun while they are learning.
The only nature thing I had in public school (many,many years ago) was the milk weed pods and pussy willows the teachers would bring in every year.
I agree that the schools can be too intrusive. I sure don't like the way they have decided that they are the ones to teach values to the kids.
And I think they can contribute to bullying of kids if they publicly label some as obese and others as skinny.
But I don't have a real problem with weigh-ins. Some kids can hide their problems from their parents - anorexia and pregnancies are two things that come to mind. Those things happen at shockingly young ages now. Any clue a parent can get should be welcomed.
I don't remember having any nature things in school. Some teachers would bring in plants and things, but they weren't part of a lesson.
I'm really impressed with some of the projects the park volunteers come up with to teach the kids. And the kids love it. Walking along the river or chasing through fields looking for stuff beats sitting at a desk listening to the teacher.
Aha! Lol! That explains why my ds covers his nose and mouth with his shirt & makes gagging noises OUTSIDE if there is a lit cigarette within 20 feet. It's really more sad than funny. Schools are teaching that second hand smoke kills and children are taking it too seriously. SOME things are good...we live in FL and the school has gotten my daughter to wear sunscreen without the arguments, I bought her a timer for brushing her teeth and she uses it (I believe, b/c the school's 'second opinion' backs me up on 2-3 minutes). I have to add that we do have a great to excellent school system overall. We just attended an event at their school...We are still in the "One nation under God" part of the country....nice to be reassured :-)
My g-grandmother was 5'11"+, other than that, the women on my Mothers side tend more to be shorter than 'average'. The women on my dad's side tend more to be shorter than 'average'. EVERYONE on my husband's side tends to be short for their age&sex. This is genetics... I am not surprised that my children are short for their age. Their BMI is in line with normal because unhealthy drinks and food are a treat rather than a 'regular snack/meal'. Sodas and chips are an easy way out to give snacks and are all too often much too available in homes. It's not a rare occurance to see 'the fat family' at the local store. I don't understand people that don't want better for their children. The parents likely suffered taunting and abuse as children because of their weight (and their parents' lack of control). Why don't they provide better so that their children don't have to live that way?? I try to keep my bad habits away from my children... Unhealthy chips, cookies, ice cream etc. are for after they are in bed. It costs extra to buy low fat, low sugar, 'healthy' junk food that they get on weekends. (Sugar DOES effect their behavior - I wish I had the moment I realized it 100% on video)
Did you grow up in Illinois? We had this when I was growing up, too.
You're right that genetics make a big difference. But I think that most of us can tell if a child is naturally small (or large), or is very under- or overweight.
I do think most parents do want the best for their children, but some of them are awfully ignorant about good nutrition. Schools used to teach courses on nutrition, but I don't think that's so common anymore.
My neighbor has absolute proof that sugar affects behavior. She has 10 grandchildren under the age of 7. They are usually very well-behaved children. A couple of months ago, they had a birthday party that they taped. The kids, who normally don't get sweets, all had cake, ice cream and sodas. They went nuts - you can see on the video when the "sugar rush" kicked in. :-)
I sometimes wonder if many of the kids who are drugged with things like Ritalin are really just victims of a bad diet. I think it would be nice if we could find a way to educate parents so that kids get good nutrition, but my anti-big gov't tendencies make it hard. Schools seem to be the least intrusive way to do it, and now that we have schools pushing Ritalin, etc., maybe looking at diet first isn't too far to go.
I grew up in PA. If this was common in both PA and IL, it probably was in most states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.