...

Topics and polls that cover the overall marching band activity

Moderators: Trumpet Man 05, malletphreak, Hostrauser, instrumental director

Post Reply
vore
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 4510
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 10:54 pm
Location: Southern California

...

Post by vore » Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:21 pm

...
Last edited by vore on Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Educators are teachers who have taken an easy subject and made it difficult."

User avatar
Chapagne
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: So. CA

Re: Marching PE - AB 351 update for April 15

Post by Chapagne » Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:35 am

I hope you have all been contacting your State Assemblypersons to tell them to vote for AB 351. Email is nice, but a snailmail letter shows your are really serious about it. I couldn't find text to cut and paste...so here's mine for you to use!


I am writing to urge you to support and vote for AB 351. This bill provides high schoolers with more opportunities to meet the state’s physical education requirement by counting participation in interscholastic athletic programs, marching band, drill team and JROTC toward meeting the PE instructional minutes requirement. This legislation would provide formal recognition of these rigorous fitness regiments that are critical to student’ educational experiences.

Some may argue that traditional PE classes will help students stay in better shape, but they probably haven’t been to any marching band rehearsals in the last few years. That is where my background lies. This time of year, marching bands are quiet, but in the summer and fall (they have many hours of rehearsals and performances per week. No traditional PE class mandates student exercise in the summer, but marching band does.

A study in the San Diego Unified School District found that students in marching band improved by 10% in their FITNESSGRAM test of physical fitness between 7th and 9th grade. Students who were not in band only improved 1%. This suggests there is definitely a causal relationship between being in marching band and physical fitness.

Additionally, students in marching band are typically college-bound. They must take many courses to qualify for the college of their choice. Why force them to double-up on PE, when their time could be spent taking the courses necessary for UC admission?

Thank you for your time and I hope to see your “yes” vote on the record for AB 351.
"The conductor of an orchestra doesn't make a sound. He depends for his power on his ability to make other people powerful." - Benjamin Zander

User avatar
Chapagne
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: So. CA

Re: Marching PE - AB 351 update for April 15

Post by Chapagne » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:51 pm

I figured PE folk would be against this bill, but what I didn't expect was people opposing it because they want ROTC out of schools. There are some pretty well-written tirades against AB 351 out there. Just sayin', folks. Get off your duffs and write your Assemblyperson!
"The conductor of an orchestra doesn't make a sound. He depends for his power on his ability to make other people powerful." - Benjamin Zander

User avatar
seanrj
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 484
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:10 pm
Location: Chino, CA
Contact:

Re: Marching PE - AB 351 update for April 15

Post by seanrj » Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:40 pm

Why the PE people are against it makes no sense to me, because it does not put PE jobs at risk. The number of PE positions for the school should be determined by the number of students enrolled at the school, not necessarily enrolled in the "PE" classes.

If that is not the case, then that is something they should negotiate as a matter of compromising and getting behind the bill.

About the JROTC haters, they are the same anti-military groups that seem to forget that they would not be able to state their anti-military ideology and views WITHOUT the freedoms that have been protected time and again by the military...

FREEDOM is not FREE; it has been continuously protected by those who have bravely stepped forward and volunteered for service, sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of this country.

User avatar
Chapagne
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 641
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: So. CA

Re: Marching PE - AB 351 update for April 15

Post by Chapagne » Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:00 am

About the JROTC haters, they are the same anti-military groups that seem to forget that they would not be able to state their anti-military ideology and views WITHOUT the freedoms that have been protected time and again by the military...

FREEDOM is not FREE; it has been continuously protected by those who have bravely stepped forward and volunteered for service, sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of this country.
People who are against AB 351 for the JROTC reason will be completely unswayed by your statements and they aren't who we should be talking to. The only person you need to convince is your State Assemblyperson. Written your letter yet?
"The conductor of an orchestra doesn't make a sound. He depends for his power on his ability to make other people powerful." - Benjamin Zander

Post Reply