U.S. schools' next big problem: The cost of teacher obesity

Michael J. Petrilli / May 29, 2008

The childhood obesity epidemic has lately been much in the news. Last week, the Washington Post ran an extensive series about it, and this week the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the number of overweight youngsters may have reached a plateau. (A high plateau--in 2006, fully 16 percent of children were "obese," and another 16 percent were significantly overweight. That adds up to one kid in three.)

In all such pieces, the media could not help but focus on schools and their role in solving the problem. The media--and the public--always seem to think that schools should fix whatever is the social crisis du jour. This illustrates a fundamental lack of respect (or, perhaps, appreciation) for schools' primary mission: to develop the intellectual and academic capabilities of their charges.

In this case, however, the media's focus on schools overlooked a separate and at least equally consequential (and closely related) problem that should be a major concern of school systems: the teacher obesity epidemic. That's because the health insurance costs associated with treating overweight teachers and other school staff are taking a major bite out of public education budgets. I estimate that these costs come to at least $2.5 billion annually--more than Maine spends on its entire k-12 system in a year.

This calculation assumes that the obesity rate among people who work in k-12 education is the same as that for the population as

» Continued

U.S. schools' next big problem: The cost of teacher obesity

Rheewind on school funding

Eric Osberg / May 29, 2008

Why is District of Columbia schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, the darling of education reformers (usually including us), eliminating one of the few promising features that greeted her in the D.C. public school system? Is she a control freak, even when she shouldn't be?

Rhee plans to scrap D.C.'s weighted student formula (WSF), which was put in place in 1998 by then-Superintendent Arlene Ackerman to encourage equity in school funding, combined with greater budgetary transparency and school-level autonomy.  Rhee's decision is no mere "budget formula change," as a Washington Post headline would have us believe. WSF is a comprehensive reform and a profoundly important one. By developing school-level budgets based on per-pupil funding amounts that vary with students' needs, WSF is efficient, fair, and transparent. District-centered models (such as Rhee plans to reimpose) are not. They control funding from the central office and allocate teachers and other resources to schools based on arcane staffing formulas, political considerations, or the whims of bureaucrats. They sap control and autonomy from principals--especially ironic in this instance as Rhee is also firing weak school leaders and scouting all over the place for strong ones.

WSF bases its funding levels on the students that each school serves. A pupil from a disadvantaged background, for example, brings more dollars--actual dollars, not dollars in the form of staff members, etc.--to his school. Needier schools get more cash and can spend it on staff, on services,

» Continued

Rheewind on school funding

Obama on offense

May 29, 2008

Yesterday, Barack Obama decided to capitalize on John McCain's total, no-caveats embrace of No Child Left Behind. The Illinois Senator, speaking at the Mapleton Expeditionary School for the Arts: "I believe it's time to lead a new era of mutual responsibility in education... This starts with fixing the broken promises of No Child Left Behind." Obama went on to say that he believed in higher standards, believed in putting quality teachers in every classroom, believed in closing the achievement gap, but that he didn't believe that NCLB's current iteration did those things well. It's the safest bet in Vegas that most Americans agree with him. John McCain's team responded by criticizing Obama's Senate record. "While in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has never spearheaded education reforms, which despite his lofty rhetoric, demonstrates his weak leadership on an issue that is critical to the economic strength of our country," said McCain's spokesman. That's it? Sheesh.

"Obama tours Colorado school, touts education plans," by Judith Kohler, Associated Press, May 28, 2008

"Obama Wonks It Up in Education Speech," by Karl Vick, Washington Post Online, May 28, 2008

» Continued

Obama on offense

That's bull, Durham

May 29, 2008

Durham, North Carolina, allows its public-school students a variety of educational choices: pupils in the district have been free to apply for any open spot at any public school. But now, it seems, that wise policy may be changed. The Raleigh News & Observer reports that a new school board proposal "would grant transfers only to students seeking certain academic programs or those who have extenuating circumstances, such as a sibling or parent at another school, or child-care arrangements in another school's attendance zone." Are you a parent who simply prefers one Durham public school to another? Tough tobacco. Board members say they're concerned about overcrowding. But they're also (and probably more) worried that the district's transfer policy causes some schools to enroll student bodies that aren't ethnically diverse, or that it, according to Board Chairman Minnie Forte-Brown, leads to "pockets of excellence" throughout the system. (Excellence? We must rid ourselves of it!) Durham is moving in the wrong direction, and if it does eventually begin plucking from schools students who explicitly picked them, the district may realize its folly when the phones start ringing.

"Durham schools rethink transfers," by Samiha Khanna, Raleigh News & Observer, May 23, 2008

» Continued

That's bull, Durham

More blood on China's hands

May 29, 2008

It is wrong to condemn children to bad schools. But it is dastardly to teach them in unsafe, shoddily-constructed buildings. The Chinese authorities are, it seems, quite guilty of the latter offense. Of the 61,000 people whose lives were ended by the recent earthquakes in Sichuan Province, over 10,000 were children crushed while attending class. The four-story Xinjian Primary School, for example, was completely destroyed; hundreds of students perished when the building's walls toppled. The New York Times showed photographs of Xinjian's wreckage to six engineering and earthquake experts, each of whom independently concluded that the school's columns had inadequate steel reinforcements and that its walls and floors "did not appear to be securely joined together." Meanwhile, neighboring buildings, properly constructed, survived the quake. Corruption and lax enforcement of codes are to blame. China has done much for which it should be ashamed. Add the brazen neglect of schoolchildren to the list. Open the Olympics with a view of thousands of small coffins as well as pictures of tortured Tibetans.

"Chinese Are Left to Ask Why Schools Crumbled," by Jim Yardley, New York Times, May 25, 2008

» Continued

More blood on China's hands

Cut-score cacophony

May 29, 2008

Yet another example of a state backing away from high standards. A committee, composed largely of Georgia teachers, included challenging new questions in the state's sixth- and seventh-grade social studies exams. Then, Georgia's Board of Education raised by nine points the score needed to pass those tests. Then, 70 to 80 percent of Georgia's kids failed them. The state knew in 2007, after scoring pilot questions, that tens of thousands of pupils would likely bomb the exams, but it nonetheless allowed testing to go forward, apparently because officials wanted to uphold rigid academic standards. (Imagine that.) Now comes the backlash. "This is atrocious and unforgivable," said seventh-grade educator Jason Adams. "This is the kind of thing where a heads-up to teachers would have been nice." (Heads-up, Mr. Adams! Your students aren't learning much about social studies.) State superintendent Kathy Cox heard the complaints, bowed to pressure, and dumped the social studies results, blaming them, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, on "a vague curriculum and imprecise direction for teachers." Deafening now is the din from state and district officials who argue about what, exactly, could have caused such all-around low scores. An obvious point is rarely, if ever, mentioned: Perhaps students in Georgia simply don't know much history? Perhaps the problem lies not in the standards or the tests, but in the classrooms?

"State foresaw test problems," by Heather Vogell, Laura Diamond, and Alan Judd, Atlanta