“New technologies such as computers and gaming systems
have also increased the quantity of choices for sedentary entertainment. At the
same time, many American children now live in a physical environment that
discourages physical activity,” (Clark, 2011). This is from “The Effect of
Low-cost Incentives on Active Transportation to School Rates among Elementary
School Students,” a research article with a focus on a certain age demographic.
Elementary schools are often targeted for active transportation (AT) programs,
so research information geared towards young children is plentiful. However,
one of the age demographics that often get overlooked when it comes to AT
outreach is high school students.
According to the
National Household Travel Survey, in 2009, 62.1% of high school students
traveled to school by car, a percentage that is only 8-11% higher than their
younger counterparts in elementary and middle school (McDonald et al, 2011). High
school students can be vital in shifting communities from being car-centric to
AT-centric. They are the perfect role models for younger kids and are also the
next wave of soon-to-be adults commuting to college and/or to work. But how do
you convince high school students that AT is “cooler” than driving a car? There
are two ways to possibly aid the transition to AT in older children: matching
education incentives with AT goals and changing community attitudes towards
activities such as skateboarding.
First, let’s think
about what’s on the minds of many high school students: what to do after high
school. Perhaps implementing a program that connects students with scholarship
opportunities at public Oregon universities and community colleges could be an
effective way to motivate high school students to re-think their commutes to
school. The program/challenge would be available to all high school students in
the state of Oregon and the students could log their commutes in a way similar
to the system employed with the Bike to PSU Challenge (Bike to PSU, 2013). Prizes
and summer opportunities, such as camps or internships, could be awarded to challenge
winners that are freshmen, sophomores, or juniors, and winners that are seniors
could have the option to compete for the scholarships. Both sets of scholarship
applications (one for universities and one for community colleges) would
require essays, and the university scholarship application would have a minimum
GPA requirement. The only other requirement to compete for the scholarships,
prizes and summer programs would be a certain amount of active transportation “commute
to school” miles/hours logged. Not only would this mixture incentivize students
to become more aware of the environmental and health consequences of traveling
strictly by car and help to change those habits, but it might also motivate
students academically.
Scholarship
incentive programs have received some criticism. However, some research suggests
that they can be effective. For example,
Kenyan schools involved in a program that provided scholarships for school fees
and supplies to female students who received a certain test score or higher showed
that not only did the test scores improve for the females who reached the test
score goal, but even those who were ineligible to compete for the scholarships
(males) or who did not reach the goal showed significant academic improvement
(Kremer et al, 2005). While this may not be the same situation, it’s possible
that similar results can be expected.
In order to help pave the way to active transportation
in high schools, schools must re-evaluate how they view often-marginalized
activities, such as BMX biking, rollerblading and, most of all, skateboarding. More
and more, skateboarding is becoming a regular form of transportation among both
children and adults, but often the local government’s view of it is taking
longer to evolve (Ostendorff & Burgess, 2011). According to “On the Edge: A
Tale of Skaters and Urban Governance,” “…rather than acknowledging the loose, often unstructured but
rarely undisciplined practices of skating, and instead of countenancing
creative accommodations of these practices, urban managers—and especially those
removed from social services—tend to reduce the problem of skating to a problem
of managing young people in public spaces which sometimes reduces to a problem with
young people per
se,” (Stratford,
2002). The extreme division between people of authority and skateboarders has
possibly contributed to the former deeming certain behaviors by skateboarders
as “irresponsible” in schools and public areas. The bans and limitations on
these activities discourage many students from being involved in something
healthy, or has punished and/or negatively labeled them if they are. However,
by encouraging activities like skateboarding through the AT challenge, some of
that division, animosity and fear can be counteracted.
I was volunteering on a recent 5th
grade bike ride with the Bicycle Transportation Alliance at Sunnyside Environmental
School. Shortly before the ride, while sitting out on the playground waiting
for the students, a group of 8th graders wearing helmets and
carrying skateboards came outside, went into a shed and dragged out a skateboard
rail. For a few minutes, I waited for an adult to come and put a stop to their
game, but no one did. In fact, at one point, one of the teachers borrowed a
skateboard and did a couple of tricks. I was stunned. This was never allowed at
my school. Yet, I didn’t perceive their activity as dangerous; rather, I came
away with an impression of children being safe and active, and having a good
time. Sunnyside had figured it out: Don’t prohibit activities like
skateboarding; encourage them, and establish supports to make them safe and fun.
Implementing
a program like this, along with revamping society’s stance on certain
marginalized pursuits, would require a great deal of participation from several
entities. However, by partnering with the Bicycle Transportation Alliance,
Oregon universities and community colleges, the Oregon Community Foundation
(OregonCF, 2013), legislators and politicians, and possibly reaching out to
sport-related businesses, such as Nike or REI, it could revolutionize the
education and public health of Oregon’s youth and provide a successful model
for other communities to follow.
References:
Source for Picture: http://api.ning.com/files/O5r7rv7zPQgNqBPa4q*XDIIB6CkY-n4Rxk08Ij6LftxtQ9iSamyI4FhCmyRshvHpEsNo9a2vHVQfNEpPSCkUwnJtllFwiju2/signs.png
Clark, Sheila G.J. “The Effect of
Low-cost Incentives on Active Transportation to School Rates among Elementary
School Students.” University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 2011. Print.
McDonald, NC, AL Brown, LM
Marchetti, and MS Pedroso. "U.s. School Travel, 2009 An Assessment of
Trends." American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 41.2 (2011):
146-51. Print.
Bike to PSU Challenge: http://biketopsu.com. 2013. Web.
Ostendorff, Jon and Burgess,
Joel. “Skateboarders aim to flip commuter bans.” USA Today. January 4, 2011. Web. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-01-04-skateboards04_ST_N.htm?csp=34money
Stratford, Elaine. "On the
Edge: a Tale of Skaters and Urban Governance." Social & Cultural
Geography. 3.2 (2002): 193-206. Print.
Oregon Community Foundation-Grants & Scholarships, Oregon Community Foundation. 2013. Web. http://www.oregoncf.org/grants-scholarships/scholarships
Very interesting op-ed! Growing up in suburban Chicago many students resorted to the bus or getting rides from parents or friends of parents up until 8th grade. Then once driving was an option many shifted to driving alone or with a group of friends. However, very few walked and the schools were not supportive of bicycling to school.
ReplyDeleteWhen crossing busy, higher speeds roads, and lack of connectivity is an issue how do you encourage kids to travel to school by active transport? This is especially true in suburban settings. In addition, parents are often very protective and do their kids a disservice by driving them and not allowing them to walk or bike, which is important for growth. I'm curious how the programs vary by rural, suburban, and urban areas.
That's a really good point Brett. I think it would take a lot of education and outreach to convince some parents. For example, according to the NHTSA (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeopleAllVictims.aspx), there were 4751 traffic-related deaths for people age 20 and younger in 2011; 3,410 of those were ages 16-20 and this jump right at 16 leads me to believe that these deaths were mostly people in cars. There's also the issue of the ever-increasing number of teen deaths and severe illnesses due to lack of exercise. The idea that driving is (in general) "safer" is something that needs to be discussed and put into perspective.
ReplyDeleteI grew up in Springfield, OR and while the main roads are not all that safe for kids just starting out in active transportation, there is enough connectivity with the low-traffic neighborhood roads to schools to provide students with a safe commute. However, this is definitely not the case everywhere and there would have to be a great deal of effort put into establishing safe routes, providing maps of these routes to students, encouraging group commutes (possibly with a supervising teacher, BTA instructor or parent), working with parents and local officials to raise awareness and a multitude of other things. Hopefully at some point the "strength in numbers" effect would kick in and the idea that AT is dangerous wouldn't be such a prevalent concern for parents.