Jewish World Review April 1, 2002 / 20 Nisan, 5762
Debra J. Saunders
Schools, yes; fat police, no
"Dear parent or Guardian," the letter from the Hollister School District begins. "This year, your student was measured and weighed." The letter then lists the student's height, weight, body mass index and the weight percentile in which he or she falls. Other schools in California, and schools in Pennsylvania and Florida, are sending out similar letters -- to tell parents that their kids are, well, fat.
An irate parent, who had received such a letter, called Lee Rodgers on KSFO radio's morning show to complain. The father was enraged that the school district warned him that his 5-foot-4-inch daughter, who weighs 160 pounds, "is heavier than 95 out of 100 children."
Her dad told me he was shocked. "She's not a rail, but she's not carrying a paunch or anything. She's just a healthy 13-year-old girl," he said. She plays team sports. She's getting taller. He never told his daughter about the letter because: "That's grief that she doesn't need. She's got enough angst being a teen-ager."
Hollister School District Superintendent Tom Andrade figured that the irate parent must be the one parent who complained last year. It's funny how you can call a school district on an issue that has driven parents wild, and administrators answer that no parents complained, or only one parent complained.
No surprise: This was a different irate dad.
Hollister School District nurse Anita Gallardo explained the program by saying: "Our goal is to identify potential problems that can impact learning, and impact current and future health." She added that that's no easy task with only two nurses serving 6,000 students.
Gallardo said that the district has seen "a large influx of diabetic students," and noted the correlation between obesity and Type 2 diabetes.
Last year, she said, 19 percent of Hollister district students were overweight -- that is, they were in the 95th percentile or higher -- while the number of students deemed too thin -- in the thinnest 5 percent -- has ranged from 1 percent to 3 percent. Nationally, the percentage of overweight children is up.
The purpose of the letters, Gallardo explained, is to prompt families to take their children to a doctor. This is important, she said, because children who are "obese" when entering adolescence are four times more likely to be obese when they are adults.
(Note that she said "obese," not overweight. In the Hollister girl's case, if she were 14 pounds lighter, or three inches taller, the body mass index table would not have judged her as overweight. An extra 16 pounds would have made her obese.)
The district clearly means well, but here's why those letters are a bad idea.
One, most parents know if their kids are overweight. They don't need to be told.
Two, girls especially have a hard enough time dealing with impossible body images -- whether they come from Barbie or Sports Illustrated.
Three, children have different body types. And some children experience a weight gain as their bodies change. They thin out as they grow taller.
Four, being a little heavy doesn't mean that you're unhealthy, especially if you exercise.
Five, the letters target not just obese students, but also overweight students. If school nurses decided to have a discreet word with the parents of morbidly obese students, they'd be within their rights -- because the child's health may be in danger. But writing to families about their children being overweight, when that judgment is based on incomplete statistics, well, that's just wrong.
Six, schools are supposed to teach kids academics.
You have to wonder if some schools are sending out Dear Parent of a Fat Kid letters in order to intimidate parents by telling them that they're failing as parents. Some parents will get angry, but others will be too ashamed to complain if their chunky kids, say, aren't reading at their grade level.
It's ironic. After all those years of teachers complaining that low test scores can wound a child's self-esteem, school districts are sending out letters commenting on something as sensitive (and transient) as students' weight. Low
Comment JWR contributor Debra J. Saunders's column by clicking here.
03/25/02: The government-induced doctor shortage
03/22/02: Conservative hypocrisy on school drug testing?
03/20/02: And now, about Russell Yates . . .
03/18/02: Bush isn't worried about alienating loyalist voters
03/13/02: No exit strategy
03/11/02: Simon hits the big time
03/06/02: He got away
03/01/02: Mary, Luke, Paul, John and Noah
02/25/02: These are good days for veep
02/21/02: Dirty bill for a dirty mess
02/19/02: Score one for Greta
02/15/02: Dose of justice needed here
02/08/02: Sunshine all around
02/04/02: Does citizenship matter?
02/01/02: End the coverup
01/30/02: Try this for "troubling"
01/25/02: Camp X-ray or Club Med?
01/23/02: Let's stop the deluge of porn e-mail
01/21/02: No 'Little Boy Lost'
01/16/02: Son of Supercar
01/12/02: Beware the European view of the death penalty
01/09/02: Other people's children
01/07/02: It doesn't fly
01/03/02: Going from the Atlantic City Boardwalk to Berkeley
12/31/01: In America, punishment should fit the crime
12/28/01: What I'd like to see in 2002
12/24/01: Don't heckle ink monopolists
12/21/01: Mumia finds safety in numbers
12/19/01 The self-help PBS shopping network
12/17/01 Caught on tape
12/14/01 Know when to hold 'em
12/10/01 Old friends
12/06/01 I read the news today, oh boy
12/03/01 It's not cricket
11/28/01 Admissions and omissions
11/26/01 Guns and abayas
11/21/01 Depraved minds think alike
11/19/01 Guilty, a la carte
11/14/01 Interpreting the entrails of Election 2000
11/12/01 Life and liberty
11/09/01 Safety is as safety does
11/07/01 More hot air on global warming
11/05/01 Bumped Pakistani's molehill
11/01/01 Freedom snuffed out
10/29/01 Give war a chance
10/26/01 Airline bill needs liftoff
10/22/01 The Riordan Principle
10/19/01 Before America gets tired of the war on terrorism
10/17/01 Patriot games
10/15/01 I was a 'McCainiac,' and I have seen the light
10/12/01 University of Censorship's fall semester
10/11/01 Poor little rich boy, Osama
10/07/01 Don't feed Israel to the beast
10/05/01: bin Laden is not our Frankenstein monster
10/04/01: Where no man has gone before
09/26/01: Who's bloodthirsty?
09/26/01: What's to understand?
09/20/01: Barbara Lee's line in the sand
09/14/01: You gotta love this country
09/13/01: ENTER TERROR
09/11/01: You can't clone ethics
09/06/01: NOW's goal: equal rights for women without equal responsibility
08/30/01: What's love got to do with it?
08/24/01: A clean, well-lighted place for junkies
08/20/01: Bush should stand up for justice
08/08/01: Don't give Peace (Dept). a chance
08/03/01: Lose a kid, pass a law
08/01/01: Welcome to France, killers
07/30/01: Why it's easy being green (in Europe)
07/26/01: If disabled means expendable
07/23/01: Condit should not resign
07/18/01: Feinstein should learn her limit
07/16/01: A drought of common sense
07/13/01: The catalog has no clothes
07/05/01: It's Bush against the planet
07/03/01: The man who would be guv
06/29/01: Wheeled, wired and free
06/27/01: O, fearful new world
06/25/01: End HMO horrors
06/21/01: Either they're dishonest or clueless
06/18/01: Freedom is a puff of smoke
06/15/01: In praise of going heavy: Yes, you can take it all
06/13/01: McVeigh: 'Unbowed' maybe, but dead for sure
06/11/01: Gumby strikes back
06/08/01: Los Angeles' last white mayor?
06/07/01: Kids will be kids, media will be media
06/04/01: Draw a line in the sand
05/30/01: Just don't call him a moderate
05/29/01: Operation: Beat up on civil rights
05/24/01: Of puppies, kittens and huge credit-card debts
05/22/01: Bush needs an energy tinkerbell
05/18/01: Divided we stand, united they fall
05/16/01: Big Bench backs might over right
05/15/01: Close SUV loophole
05/11/01: Kill the test, welcome failure
05/09/01: DA mayor's disappointing legacy
05/07/01: If it ain't broken ...
05/03/01: They shoot civilians, don't they?
04/30/01: Executions are not for prime time
04/12/01: White House and the green myth
04/10/01: The perjurer as celeb
04/04/01: Bush bashers don't know squat
04/02/01: Drugging our oldsters
03/30/01: Robert Lee Massie exercises his death wish
03/28/01: Cheney's nuclear reactor
03/26/01: Where California and Mexico meet
03/16/01: Boy's sentence was no accident
03/14/01: Soft money, hard reform
03/12/01: Banks, big credit lines and consumer bankruptcy
03/09/01: Free speech dies in Berkeley
03/02/01: When rats have rights
02/28/01: Move a frog, go to jail?
02/26/01: They knew they'd get away with it
02/20/01: How Dems define tax fairness
02/16/01: The jackpot casino Carmel tribe?
02/14/01: You can fight school success
02/12/01: Hannibal -- with guts this time
02/08/01: A family of jailbirds
02/05/01: Reality's most demeaning TV moments
02/01/01: Justice for the non-Rich
01/26/01: Hail to the chiefs of D.C. opinion
01/24/01: A day of mud and monuments
01/22/01: Diversity, division, de-lovely D.C.
01/19/01: Parties agree: Give back the money
01/17/01: Get tough with the oil companies, or forget pumping more Alaskan crude
01/15/01: Mineta better pray that no attending confirmation senator has ever driven to San Jose during rush hour
01/12/01: Europeans should look in the mirror
01/10/01: Dems' reasons for dissin' Dubya's picks
01/08/01: Jerry, curb your guru
01/03/01: A foe of Hitler and friend of Keating
12/28/00: Nice people think nice thoughts
12/26/00: The Clinton years: Epilogue
12/21/00: 'Tis the season to free nonviolent drug offenders
12/18/00: A golden opportunity is squandered
12/15/00: You can take the 24 years, good son
12/13/00: Court of law vs. court of public opinion
12/08/00: A salvo in the war on the war on drugs
12/06/00: Don't cry, Butterfly: Big trees make great decks
12/04/00: Florida: Don't do as Romans did
11/30/00: Special City's hotel parking ticket
11/27/00: No means yes, yes means more than yes
11/22/00: The bench, the ballot and fairness
11/20/00: Mendocino, how green is your ballot?
© 2000, Creators Syndicate