Senator
Gillibrand took a quick break from life in DC this week to head back to the
State of New York to push for her initiative called the Fitness Integrated into
Teaching Kids Act (FIT Kids Act). The bill seeks to amend the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to reauthorize and amend the Carol M. White
Physical Education Program (congress.gov). The goal of this legislation is to
provide grant funding to school districts to improve physical education
programing and to initiate, expand, and improve physical education programs for
kindergarten through twelfth grade students. In the United States, childhood
obesity is an epidemic. Physical activity can lower obesity risks and the
diseases associated with it. While the Department of Health and Human Services
recommends that children complete 60 minutes of activity a day, many children
do not meet that standard. The FIT Kids Act would allow school districts to
invest in programs to help students meet this recommendation and help students
create the skills for a healthy lifestyle.
While this bill is applicable to
schools nationwide, Senator Gillibrand took the week to visit elementary
schools in Western New York, where about 34.4 percent of kids are obese or
overweight (wgrz.com). The Senator even led a gym class at one of the schools
(you can even watch a video of it on Youtube!) In class, we focus on the idea
of the two congresses and how it is important for representatives to pay
attention to their constituents. Senator Gillibrand however did not travel to
her home state to talk to adults but rather to meet with children. Nonetheless,
there was plenty of local media coverage. This is a community issue, but
Gillibrand focused on talking with the children of her home state. Still, I do
not think Senator Gillibrand was visiting schools in order to gain votes since
her term ends in 2019. In Public Health Policy, Professor Borick said that if
someone wants legislation to pass, you should target children. Because who
would say no to children?
The interesting aspect about this
legislation is that the FIT Kids Act is a part of the overall education bill
that passed the Senate, but it is not included in the House version
(wxxinews.org). Maybe it is because Gillibrand and other Democrats in support
of the bill believe that it would not pass in the House? GOP members in
Congress have threatened to shutdown the federal government over funding for
Planned Parenthood. If they are willing to shutdown the government over a group
that provides women’s health care, then what would stop them from shutting the
government down over funding for children’s health?
3 comments:
Any idea about the opposition to this program? It is simply a matter of government funding versus austerity? I'd be interested to hear about potential opposition to this bill, in both the House and the Senate.
I would be interested to see how the bill is framed in terms of discourse around 'obesity' and weight. There is an emerging body of research that shows that living a healthy lifestyle (as measured by blood pressure, pulse, other vitals) is more key to one's overall health than just hitting a benchmark weight or BMI (which have been widely criticized). So when the article states that "34.4 percent of kids are obese or overweight", is this really capturing their true health or just using these measures to inflate the 'epidemic' at hand. This is not to say that the bill's core feature of expanding physical education is bad—quite the opposite, excercise is obviously very important to one's health—but perhaps the measures used are flawed and, frankly, outdated. There have also been studies that demonstrate people working toward better health through healthy eating and exercise, without worrying about weight management, are more likely to successfully reach this goal. I wonder, though, how this sort of progressive, non-weight-focused approach would go over politically? Would it gain support or would people stick to common assumptions about weight? (Just to provide some substance to the studies I'm briefly mentioning- a good keystone work is Linda Bacon's "Health at Every Size" and related works)
Towards the ed of your analysis of the FIT proposal you mentioned the government shutdown. I find it so interesting how deeply the possible government shutdown is linked to so many issues, something I think worth deeper exploration. What I find interesting about it, is that even as the impending shutdown looms over Congress, members are still responsible for their duel roles in Congress. Of course, members of Congress are expected to fulfill their duties as law makers, and a government shutdown would be doing the exact opposite. Ideally, members of Congress would all be able to sit together and find a solution that would prevent the shutdown (but we all know that likely won't happen this week). In large, that is because polarization of members is so strong and neither side is very willing to compromise. But it might also be a result of the Two Congresses. After all, the two roles of members is what has made Congress so polarized. But further more it prevents members from devoting unlimited time to the lawmaking process. Some members, like Gellibrand, are spending this time in their home districts. They can't reasonably be criticized for this because after all, they are doing their job.
Post a Comment