School health education is generally regarded as instructional programs for stu dents. Such programs have limited impact, especially when the social environment is inconsistent with instructional messages. A study of Oregon school districts reveals that some school personnel have gone beyond curricula in their school education programs. Exemplary districts addressed noninstructional issues, most notably staff de velopment programs and food service offerings. In doing so, they have changed not only the social context of the schools, but their ability to directly influence a greater number of Health Objectives for the Nation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Parcel G.: Theoretical models for application in school health education research . J School Health54:39-49, 1984.
2.
Becker M.The tyranny of health promotion. Public Health Review14:15-25, 1986.
3.
Allegrante J. : Potential uses and misuses of education in health promotion and disease prevention. Teach Coll Rec2:2-8, 1984.
4.
McAlister A. : Social and environmental influences on health behavior. Health Ed Q8:25-31, 1981.
5.
Tritsch L.: Personal interview, 1985.
6.
Education Commission of the States: Recommendations for School Health Education: A Handbook for State Policymakers. Denver, CO, 1981.
7.
Iverson D., Kolbe L.: Evolution of the national disease prevention and health promotion strategy: Establishing a role for the schools. J School Health5:294-302, 1983.
8.
Stevens N.: School Health Promotion: A Study of Exemplary Districts. EugeneUniversity of Oregon, 1985 .
9.
Behrens R.: Reducing Smoking at the Workplace. Washington, DC, Washington Business Group on Health, 1985.
10.
Becker M.: Tyranny of health promotion. Public Health Rev14:15-25, 1986.
