Journal of Education and Learning; Vol. 1, No. 1; 2012
ISSN 1927-5250 E-ISSN 1927-5269 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
Dianne C. Thomson1 & Lorayne Robertson1
1 Faculty of Education, Institute of Technology, University of Ontario, Oshawa, Canada
Correspondence: Dianne C. Thomson, Faculty of Education, Institute of Technology, University of Ontario, Oshawa, ON, L1G 4R7, Canada. E-mail: Dianne.Thomson@uoit.ca
Received: April 11, 2012 Accepted: May 10, 2012 Published: June 1, 2012
doi:10.5539/jel.v1n1p129 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jel.v1n1p129
Health curriculum policy development in Canada is a provincial and territorial responsibility that addresses the national agenda of health promotion. Each curriculum policy reflects philosophies about health. This study investigates the health education models found in the research literature and compares them with those used in Health curriculum policies for Grades 49 across Canada using a policy analysis framework developed by the authors. This study is also intended to establish the degree of curriculum coherence (Beane, 1995) and knowledge mobilization (Levin, 2008) around health priorities for children and adolescents. Findings show inconsistencies among policies and between philosophies and student outcomes. The most common policy model is that of interactive level of health literacy, positing students as informed recipients of health care and responsible decision makers. This analysis is offered as a catalyst for national dialogue on health education policy coherence.
Keywords: critical health literacy, health curriculum, democratic education
Current health discourse often centres on the obesity crisis (Wright, 2009) and draws a simplistic equation between health and weight. In this equation, weight is seen both as a determinant of health, as well as its outcome. A new report on obesity by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) takes a more complex view however, acknowledging an association between obesity and health but clarifying that it is neither simple nor direct and also that there are multiple factors linked to obesity (PHAC, 2011a, p.27). Some factors that can be managed or acted upon are classified as proximal or immediate, such as physical activity and diet while others are considered to be distal factors, such as community, socioeconomics, and the environment.
An earlier PHAC report (2003) provides evidence that there are many determinants of healthnot just diet and exercise. PHAC identifies ten key determinants of health: income and social status; social support networks; education and literacy; employment/working conditions; social and physical environments; personal health practices/coping skills; healthy child development; biology/genetic endowment; health services; gender, and culture. Often these broader determinants of health are ignored in a dominant global discourse claiming that health is threatened by an obesity epidemic (Wright, 2009). This focus on the individuals responsibility has become a driving force behind imperatives for food and exercise regulation in schools. Rich (2011) finds that many surveillance practices have emerged in British schools as a result of this moral discourse, such as snack regulation, lunch box inspections, and measuring of activity and weight. She raises concerns about the emergence of a new right ideology (p.68) based on a mediated thin ideal. Good health has come to represent good virtue (Rich, Holroyd & Evans, 2004). Rich concludes that students current understandings of health are overwhelmingly becoming anchored in the global imperatives that equate weight with health rather than the recognition of multiple determinants. Similarly Fullagar (2002) poses the same question in Australia where she argues that a significant shift in Australian health policy is occurring where leisure and recreation have been co-opted to the moral imperative for exercise, instead of recognizing them as individual choice and enjoyable. …