IsPOD Evaluation Report Spring 2010 by North Carolina Alliance for Athletics, Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (NCAAHPERD)

In-School Prevention of Obesity and In-School PreveD ntis ioenaosfe ObesityDaecnedmbDeris2e0a10se vaplleum aetinotantiR Adoption,EIm one,pao ndrt “Reach” December 2010 Mary Bishop Hall NCAAHPERD/ NC DPH Evaluator

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 EVALUATION.......................................................................................................................................................... 9 ADOPTION ...............................................................................................................................................................10 NC LEAs Adopting SPARK™ and Schools with SPARK™ Training .........................................................................10 NC LEAs ........................................................................................................................................................................... 10 NC K-8 Schools ................................................................................................................................................................ 12

IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................................................................15 NC Physical Education Teachers Implementing SPARK™ ...................................................................................15 REACH .....................................................................................................................................................................17 NC K-8 Students “Reached” by SPARK™ .............................................................................................................17

In-School Prevention of Obesity and Disease

OUTCOMES .......................................................................................................................................................... 22 SURVEY RESULTS .........................................................................................................................................................22 Teacher Surveys..................................................................................................................................................22 Student Surveys ..................................................................................................................................................27 FITNESSGRAM™ RESULTS..............................................................................................................................................32 Body Composition ..............................................................................................................................................32 Aerobic Fitness ...................................................................................................................................................35 Muscular Strength, Endurance, and Flexibility ...................................................................................................37 Lower Back ...................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Abdominal ....................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Upper Body ..................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Flexibility ......................................................................................................................................................................... 42

Adoption, Implementation, and “Reach” December 2010

ANALYSIS OF COMBINED SURVEY AND FITNESSGRAM™ RESULTS ..........................................................................................44 Physical Activity ..................................................................................................................................................44 Nutrition .............................................................................................................................................................46 Screen Time ........................................................................................................................................................46 Analysis By Grade Levels ....................................................................................................................................49 CHALLENGES/RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 53 FITNESSGRAM™ DATA..................................................................................................................................................53 SURVEY DATA .............................................................................................................................................................55 COMMUNICATIONS AND COLLABORATIONS .......................................................................................................................56 APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................................... 59 APPENDIX A PROGRAM GOAL AND OBEJECTIVES................................................................................................................59 APPENDIX B TEACHER TRAINING RECORD .........................................................................................................................61 APPENDIX C NUMBER & PERCENT IF SCHOOLS & STAFF WITH SPARK™ TRAINING ..................................................................69 APPENDIX D STUDENTS "REACHED" BY SPARK™ ..............................................................................................................75 APPENDIX E FITNESSGRAM™ RESPONSE RATE...................................................................................................................80 APPENDIX F COOPER INSTITUTE FITNESSGRAM™ STANDARDS ..............................................................................................84 APPENDIX G ANALYSIS OF FITNESSGRAM™ AND STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS ...........................................................................87

Executive Summary In School Prevention of Obesity and Disease (IsPOD) is a program designed to improve the health and fitness of K-8 public school students in North Carolina by providing physical education (PE) teachers with specialized training and a mechanism for assessing and tracking student fitness levels over time. The four-year program— funded with a grant from the Kate B. Reynolds (KBR) Foundation in fall 2008—is a statewide expansion of a program funded by the North Carolina Health and Wellness Trust Fund (HWTF) from fall 2006 to spring 2008. With IsPOD grant funds, the North Carolina Alliance for Athletics, Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (NCAAHPERD) is providing training in the SPARK™ (Sports, Play and Active Recreation for Kids) curriculum to PE teachers of students in grades K through 8 in all 115 North Carolina school districts, or Local Educational Agencies (LEAs). SPARK™ is a research-based PE program designed to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), improve fitness levels and sport skills, and enhance students’ enjoyment of physical education. As part of IsPOD, school districts are expected to implement SPARK™ and assess student fitness levels for students in grades 3-8. FitnessGram™ software—a program to record and track fitness levels with respect to body composition (BMI), cardiovascular fitness, strength, endurance, and flexibility—is provided during teacher training, along with manuals for its use. Evaluation of the adoption, implementation, and reach of IsPOD from fall 2008 through fall 2010 indicates good progress with program implementation: (1) 72% of all NC LEAs have adopted SPARK™. By the end of Year Three, the adoption rate is expected to rise to 77%. (2) PE teachers from 85% of K-8 schools in LEAs that have adopted SPARK™ and 72% of all NC K-8 schools have received training in SPARK™. In addition, 12% of all NC high schools have received SPARK™ training, although high schools were not specifically targeted for the grant. 2010 NCAAHPERD/NC DPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved. 3

(3) 73% of K-8 PE teachers in the adopting LEAs have received SPARK™ training and 62% of all K-8 PE teachers have received SPARK™ training. IsPOD has trained 2,252 K-8 PE teachers and other school staffs across the state, for a total of 2,432 SPARK™ trained staffs. (4) Student ―reach‖ (the percent of elementary students receiving the benefits of the SPARK™ philosophy and curriculum in their PE classes) is estimated to be 19% to 87% of all K-8 students in the 61 LEAs adopting SPARK™ by spring 2010. Reach for Year Three should improve substantially due to higher reporting of FitnessGram™ data in fall 2010. Program outcomes are based on teacher surveys, student surveys, and FitnessGram™ assessment data submitted in spring 2010. (An addendum to this report with outcomes based on fall 2010 survey and FitnessGram™ data will be issued in March 2011.) These outcomes show: 

Almost all the teachers indicated that they enjoyed SPARK™ training and felt well prepared to implement SPARK™, and 91% of teachers felt the SPARK™ program enhanced their teaching style.



75% or more of teachers observed positive benefits from using SPARK™: improved student skill levels, fewer students ―sitting out‖ during PE, students being more active during PE, and students enjoying PE more.



A large percentage of students are not meeting the Center for Disease Control (CDC) health and nutrition guidelines, which include recommended servings per day of vegetables and dairy/milk, and 60 minutes of daily physical activity.



Students in higher grade levels are engaging in significantly fewer ―healthy‖ habits compared to students in lower grade levels, and in significantly more ―unhealthy‖ habits compared to students in lower grade levels.

Using FitnessGram™, PE teachers submit six fitness measurements for students, including Body Mass Index (BMI) and measures of aerobic/cardiovascular fitness, body 2010 NCAAHPERD/ NC DPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved. 4

strength (core, upper, and lower), and flexibility. FitnessGram™ assessments from more than 82,000 1st-8th graders show: 

43% of these students exceed the ―healthy fitness zone‖ (HFZ) for BMI, indicating that they are at risk for metabolic syndrome. In the IsPOD program, a higher percent of males (44%) than females (42%), and older students (about 44%) than younger students (about 40%), were over the HFZ for BMI. Differences were statistically significant.



Indicators of aerobic and cardiovascular fitness, which are submitted for 4th-8th graders only, show 83% of females and 57% of males (for whom standards are more stringent) are in the healthy fitness zone. A steady and statistically significant decrease in aerobic fitness was observed for both females and males as they progressed from grade 4 to grade 8.

BMI and aerobic capacity, which are linked, provide the best indicators of students’ overall health, identifying students who may be at risk for metabolic syndrome, a group of risk factors that collectively promote and increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Analysis of the spring 2010 FitnessGram™ data shows a steady trend from grades 4 through 8: A progressively higher percent of students are over the HFZ for BMI and under the HFZ for aerobic capacity, showing that students are becoming progressively at risk for metabolic syndrome as they age. Student survey results show that a decrease in the number of PE days/week, a decrease in the amount of daily physical activity, and an increase in daily TV time are contributing to lower cardiovascular fitness levels for students in higher grade levels. Analysis of combined student survey and FitnessGram™ results for students in all grade levels was performed to determine the impact of students’ daily habits (in physical activity, nutrition, and screen time) on their FitnessGram™ measurements. Some of the statistically significant findings show: 

Responses to questions about physical activity were highly correlated with FitnessGram™ measurements. Students who were more active were more 2010 NCAAHPERD/NC DPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved. 5

likely to be in the HFZ for all six fitness measurements compared to students who were not as active. Students who had PE 3 or more days/week were more likely to be in the HFZ for aerobic capacity, flexibility, and lower back strength compared to students who did not. 

Students who ate breakfast 7 days/week, dinner at home 5 or more days/week, and four or more servings of vegetables/day were more likely to be in the HFZ for every FitnessGram™ measurement compared to students who did not.



Students who spent less time watching TV or playing video games were more likely to be in the HFZ for every FitnessGram™ measurement compared to students who had more ―screen time.‖

Although participation in SPARK™ has been high, participation in FitnessGram™ lagged, perhaps due in part to FitnessGram™ software issues. NCAAHPERD has worked to fix problems and improve participation, and plans to encourage and prepare K-2 PE teachers to perform more FitnessGram™ testing and reporting. NCAAHPERD is also adding FitnessGram™ training to its annual ―booster‖ training sessions to encourage teachers expressing discomfort with the online, self-taught FitnessGram™ training. NCAAHPERD staffs have addressed several issues with survey data. The length and frequency of student and teacher surveys may deter participants from completing them, so evaluators are revising surveys for spring 2011. IsPOD relies upon student data from the NC Department of Public Instruction (DPI), some of which was missing or incomplete; NCAAHPERD has worked with DPI to fill in the gaps and to link survey data with student, teacher, and school ID numbers, resulting in a greater understanding of the data and broader research possibilities. NCAAHPERD has approached SAS Institute and the State Center for Health Statistics for support with storage, management, and analysis of FitnessGram™ and survey data as the program grows. The fact that the IsPOD program has reached such a large percentage of districts, schools, and teachers—who participate on a voluntary basis—suggests that districts, 2010 NCAAHPERD/ NC DPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved. 6

schools, and teachers support the program, setting groundwork for sustainability. NCAAPHERD continues to promote sustainability and statewide implementation with ongoing training, support and communication, as well as training opportunities for schools that have not yet adopted SPARKâ&#x201E;˘. Communication of program progress and results to the scientific community and general public through journal publications, press releases, and conference presentations will also promote the sustainability of the program and dissemination of findings; in the remaining years of the grant, emphasis should be on educating a broader audience about the findings of the IsPOD program.

Background In the fall of 2006, the North Carolina North Carolina Alliance for Athletics, Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (NCAAHPERD) applied for and received a $400,000 grant from the Health and Wellness Trust Fund (HWTF) to address health disparities in seven targeted North Carolina (NC) districts from seven NC educational regions. NCAAHPERD provided specialized, research-based physical education training in the SPARK™ (Sports, Play and Active Recreation for Kids) curriculum to students in grades 3 through 8 in the seven targeted districts over a two-year period. SPARK™ is a research-based physical education program, designed to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), improve fitness levels and sport skills, and enhance the enjoyment of physical education among students. During the 2-year HWTF grant period, NCAAHPERD provided training to 395 elementary physical education teachers from 164 schools. In fall 2008, the Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust (KBR) committed over three million dollars to the state-wide expansion of this project over four years, with the objective of making the SPARK™ curriculum and training available to all K-8 elementary schools in all 115 NC local educational agencies (LEAs). The KBR-funded ―In School Prevention of Obesity and Disease‖ (IsPOD) program is designed to improve the health and fitness of North Carolina Kindergarten to 8th grade students by providing PE teachers in schools with specialized physical education training and a mechanism for assessing and tracking student fitness levels over time. In addition, the Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina Foundation awarded a $139,500 one-year grant in 2008-09 to expand the HWTF initiative in the original 7 districts to include the K-2 SPARK™ curricula, provide the latest 3-8 SPARK™ manuals, and begin the development of the ―train the trainer‖ program. The SPARK™ curriculum and training is being provided incrementally to current physical education teachers in the state. Training is offered at one or more of three levels (Grades K-2, 3-5, and 6-8) and includes 8 hours of instruction as well as two complete curriculum manuals. Software, manuals, and training for the FitnessGram™ 2010 NCAAHPERD/ NC DPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved. 8

software; a program to measure fitness levels, such as BMI, strength, endurance, and flexibility, is also provided during the training. In addition to providing training to current NC K-8 physical education teachers, the NCAAHPERD IsPOD staff is providing SPARK™ training to faculty at NC colleges and universities with physical education degree programs. Faculty from these NC colleges and universities can then train future physical education teachers (i.e., students majoring in physical education) in the SPARK™ curriculum, thus creating a sustainable pool of physical education teachers with training in the SPARK™ curriculum.

Evaluation Adoption, Implementation, and “Reach” Program Evaluators are using the ―RE-AIM‖ evaluation model to document and measure the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of the IsPOD program. This evaluation primarily details the ―AIR‖ portions of the evaluation model – the number and percent of NC LEAs that have adopted SPARK™; the number and percent of schools in these LEAs that have received the SPARK™ training; the number and percent of current NC physical education teachers that have received the SPARK™ training; and estimates of the number and percent of NC K-8 students that have been “reached” by SPARK™ in year three of the KBR grant. Appendix A outlines the program goals, objectives, activities and measurable outcomes. Goal One of the IsPOD program is to ―reform the Physical Education program in North Carolina (NC) K-8 schools to better improve the health and fitness of NC children.‖ Objectives developed to obtain this goal include (1) making a researchbased K-8 physical education program available to all NC districts and K-8 schools (adoption), (2) training new and current NC PE teachers in the use of this curriculum (training and implementation), and (3) creating a mechanism for tracking the health and fitness of NC children using this curriculum (“reach”).

ADOPTION NC LEAs Adopting SPARK™ and Schools with SPARK™ Training NC LEAs North Carolina is divided into 115 local educational agencies (LEAs) or school districts among 8 different educational regions (central, north central, south central, north eastern, south eastern, north western, south western, and western). During the HWTF grant (fall 2007 through spring 2008) and the first 3 ½ year of the KBR grant (fall 2008 through fall 2010) 83 of 115 NC LEAs (72%) have adopted SPARK™. Six additional LEAs are scheduled for SPARK™ training in spring 2011, for a projected adoption rate of 77% of the NC LEAs (89 of 115) by the end of grant year three. In addition, 12 LEAs that have already received SPARK™ training (4 from KBR Grant Years 1 and 2, and 8 from fall 2010) are scheduled to receive additional SPARK™ in spring 2011. During the adoption phase the NCAAPHERD IsPOD Director works with the district physical education coordinator to negotiate IsPOD training dates and locations for elementary and middle schools in the district. Each district coordinator receives a packet of information about the IsPOD Program, which includes the IsPOD Fact Sheet, information about SPARK™ and FitnessGram™, explanations of the responsibilities of the district and schools participating in IsPOD and a letter of support from State Superintendent of Education, Dr. June Atkinson. Initially, substitute reimbursement funds were provided for teachers to attend training sessions. Recently, more training sessions have been scheduled during teacher work-days. Although this has eliminated the need to provide substitute reimbursement funds, it has presented more challenges in scheduling training dates to coincide with planned teacher work days. When scheduling training for smaller districts, training sessions are scheduled so that teachers from several districts are included to ensure a minimum of 25 and not more than 40 teachers in attendance at each training session. Once scheduled, IsPOD provides SPARK™ materials for each teacher. Typically, three dates are scheduled for the three levels of training (i.e., K-2, 3-5 and 6-8). 2010 NCAAHPERD/ NC DPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved. 10

After training has been completed, the teachers, the Ambassador, and the trainer complete a SPARK™ evaluation which is submitted to NCAAPHERD. As an incentive for the training, each teacher who completes a training level is offered a year’s free membership in NCAAHPERD. The IsPOD staffs continue to field questions from instructors and provide continuing support and counseling on using the curriculum. The IsPOD staffs also provide leads and assistance in finding funds for equipment for teachers who have been trained. Each K-8 school receiving training receives the FitnessGram™ software program. IsPOD pays the schools’ license fee for FitnessGram™. IsPOD staffs also offer annual refresher training or ―booster‖ sessions, publish a newsletter and produce periodic mailings to keep participating teachers connected. Figure 1 shows the NC LEAS that have received training and the projected implementation plan for the remainder of the grant. In summary, NCAAPHERD’s adoption plan is progressing well with 72% of the NC school districts having adopted SPARK™ through fall 2010 and a projected SPARK™ adoption rate of 77% of the NC LEAs by the end of year three of the KBR grant.

Figure 1 SPARK™ Implementation Plan

NC K-8 Schools NCAAPHERD has kept detailed training records indicating the district training dates; names, schools, and FitnessGram™ IDs of trained staff; and type of training conducted (i.e., K-2, 3-5, or 6-8 training). In addition, NCAAPHERD conducts SPARK™ ―booster‖ training sessions a year after the initial training where trained instructors can receive additional training and support. Appendix B shows NCAAPHERD’s training schedule. When conducting training in a particular district, NCAAPHERD notifies schools in surrounding districts in which training was already conducted of the upcoming training so that any schools that were not able to participate in the initial training have additional opportunities to participate. This also gives teachers that may not have received training in all of the SPARK™ modules (i.e., K-2, 3-5, and 6-8) opportunities to receive the desired training. Table 1 shows the number of districts that have ―adopted‖ SPARK™ during each year of the grant. Table 1 also shows a summary of the total number of K-8 schools in the districts that have adopted SPARK™, and the number and percent of these schools that have received SPARK™ training. Although the KBR grant is providing funds for K-8 SPARK™ training, NCAAPHERD has also included training for high schools when school districts request this. The number and percent of high schools receiving training 2010 NCAAHPERD/ NC DPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved. 12

is also shown in Table 1. Tables 1 through 5 in Appendix C show this data for each of the individual districts for each year of the grant, the NC LEAs that have adopted SPARK™ and the projected implementation plan for the remainder of the KBR grant. The percent of K-8 schools receiving SPARK™ training by KBR Grant Year is shown graphically in Figure 2. As indicated in Table 1 and Figure 2, 85% of the 1,589 NC K-8 public schools in the 83 school districts that have adopted SPARK™ have received training in SPARK™, and 72% of all 1,890 K-8 schools in the state have received SPARK™ training. In addition, 12% of all NC high schools have received SPARK™ training, although high schools were not specifically targeted for the grant. Figure 2 shows that 93% of the K-8 schools from the HWTF Grant have received training in SPARK™. The percent of K-8 schools from KBR Grant Year One, Grant Year Two, and Grant Year Three (fall 2010) that have received training is 86%, 87% and 80%, respectively. The percentage of HWTF Grant K-8 schools trained in SPARK™ is higher than in KBR Grant Years One and Two because the HWTF Grant schools have been involved in the program the longest and have had additional years to receive SPARK™ training. Schools that were not able to receive training during the district adoption year are invited to receive training when it is offered in nearby districts. Thus, the percentages given in Figure 2 will continue to increase during the last 1 ½ years of the KBR Grant as schools in these districts are given additional opportunities to receive training.

Table 1 Number of LEAs “Adopting” SPARK™ and Number of Schools Trained in SPARK™

# of LEAs Adopting SPARK™

Grant Year

# of K-8 Schools in LEAs

Number of K-8 Schools with SPARK™ Training N

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 2011-12 Total Through Fall 2010 Grand Total

Total Number of High Schools

Number of High Schools with SPARK™ Training N

7 32 22 22 6 26 83

175 525 471 418 62 239 1589

162 452 411 333 0 2 1358

93% 86% 87% 80% 0% 1% 85%

59 137 133 111 17 72 440

15 28 12 8 0 0 63

25% 20% 9% 7% 0% 0% 14%

115

1890

1360

72%

529

12%

Figure 2 Percent of K-8 NC Schools Trained in SPARK™

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

0% HWTF LEAs (2007-08)

KBR Year 1 LEAs (2008-09)

KBR Year 2 LEAs (2009-10)

KBR Year 3 LEAs (Fall 2010)

IMPLEMENTATION NC Physical Education Teachers Implementing SPARK™ The NC Department of Public Instruction (NC DPI) provided evaluators with data on the total number of licensed elementary physical education teachers in 2008-10. Table 2 shows the total number of licensed K-8 PE teachers in the 7 HWTF Grant LEAs and the 32 KBR Grant Year One LEAs in 2008-09; and the 22 KBR Year Two LEAs and 22 KBR Grant Year Three Fall 2010 LEAs in 2009-10. Table 2 also shows the number and percent of PE teachers in each of the adopted LEAs that received SPARK™ training during each year of the grant. These percentages are shown graphically in Figure 3. 98% of the HWTF Grant K-8 PE teachers, 80% of the KBR Grant Year One K-8 PE teachers, 72% of the KBR Grant Year Two K-8 PE teachers, and 56% of the KBR Grant Year Three (fall 2010) K-8 PE teachers have received SPARK™ training. For all 83 adopted LEAs combined, 73% of the 3,085 NC K-8 elementary PE teachers have received SPARK™ training. For all 115 NC LEAs 62% of the 3,632 NC K-8 elementary PE teachers have received SPARK™ training. As with the school counts, the percent of PE teachers that have received training is highest for the HWTF Grant Years, because these LEAs adopted SPARK™ in 2007-08 and have had 2 ½ additional years for PE teachers to receive training if they did not receive training during the adoption year. Percentages for KBR Grant Years One, Two, and Three are expected to increase during the last 1 ½ years of the grant. In addition to the training provided to the K-8 PE teachers, NCAAPHERD provides training to district coordinators and other school staffs. Training is also provided to 9-12 PE teachers when LEAs request this. The number of district coordinators, other school staffs, and 9-12 PE teachers trained is also shown in Table 2. As shown, in addition to the 2,252 K-8 physical education teachers trained; 37 school district coordinators, 88 other staffs, and 55 high school PE teachers have been trained in the 83 adopted LEAs for a total of 2,432.

Table 2 Number of Staff Trained in SPARK™ Total Number of K-8 PE Teachers

Grant Year

# K-8 PE Teachers Trained N

# 9-12 # # Other Total PE CoordStaff Staff Teachers inators Trained Trained Trained Trained

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 2011-12 Total Through Fall 2010

353 963 911 858 119 428 3085

347 768 656 479 0 2 2250

98% 80% 72% 56% 0% 0% 73%

1 50 2 2 0 0 55

9 13 10 5 0 0 37

40 28 11 9 0 0 88

397 859 679 495 0 2 2430

Grand Total

3632

2252

62%

2432

Figure 3 Percent of K-8 NC PE Teachers Trained in SPARK™

98% 100%

80%

90% 80%

72%

70%

56%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% HWTF LEAs (2007-08)

KBR Year 1 LEAs (2008-09)

KBR Year 2 LEAs (2009-10)

KBR Year 3 LEAs (Fall 2010)

REACH NC K-8 Students “Reached” by SPARK™ Student ―Reach‖ is the number and percent elementary students receiving the benefits of the SPARK™ philosophy and curriculum in their PE classes. Since not every student responded to the student surveys, lower and upper bounds for student ―reach‖ are being estimated. The upper bound for student ―reach‖ was estimated by assuming that every PE teacher that received SPARK™ training is implementing the SPARK™ philosophy and/or curriculum in the PE classes s/he teaches. This was determined by calculating the Average Daily Membership (ADM) for each SPARK™ trained elementary school in a district and dividing this by the ADM for all the elementary schools in the district. ADM data was downloaded from the NC DPI website http://www.ncpublicschools.org/fbs/accounting/data/. The lower bound for student ―reach‖ was estimated by tabulating the total number of valid FitnessGram™ Student IDs for every elementary school in a district and dividing this by the ADM for all the elementary schools in the district. The assumption for the lower bound estimates is that teachers that entered FitnessGram™ data for their students are, in fact, also implementing the SPARK™ curriculum and/or philosophy. Teacher survey results indicate that, for the most part, teachers that are using FitnessGram™ are also using the SPARK™ curriculum and/or philosophy. ―Reach‖ estimates were determined for the first two years of the KBR Grant using ADM and FitnessGram™ results from spring 2010. New ―reach‖ estimates for KBR Grant Year Three, which should improve substantially, will be determined when the fall 2010 FitnessGram™ data is available. As the response rates from the teacher and student surveys increases, estimates of student ―reach‖ can also be further substantiated. The second column of Table 3 shows the number of elementary schools in the districts that adopted SPARK™ during the HWTF Grant and the first two years of the KBR Grant. (Note: ―reach‖ estimates are based on the number of schools that were ―active‖ 2010 NCAAHPERD/NC DPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved. 17

during the given grant year). The next columns show the number and percent of elementary schools in those districts that submitted FitnessGram™ results and that received the SPARK™ training. From fall 2007 to spring 2010, 82% of all elementary schools in the SPARK™-adopted LEAs received SPARK™ training, whereas only 32% of all elementary schools in those LEAs submitted FitnessGram™ results in spring 2010. Thus, although a large percentage of schools received the SPARK™ training final FitnessGram™ results were only received for about a third of the schools. This is due largely to the challenges encountered in rolling out the FitnessGram™ software that were encountered in 2009-10 that are detailed in the ―Challenges/Recommendations‖ section. Furthermore, student ―reach‖ estimates based on FitnessGram™ results for grades K-2 will be skewed low since K-2 teachers are encouraged, but not required to submit FitnessGram™ measures for K-2 students. The last 4 columns of Table 3 show the estimated ―reach‖ of SPARK™ in spring 2010 based on the number of schools that received SPARK™ training and the number of valid FitnessGram™ student IDs. Assuming all SPARK™ trained schools are implementing SPARK™, as many as 87% of the elementary students in the 61 LEAs that were SPARK™ trained as of spring 2010 are being ―reached‖ by SPARK™. Using the valid number of FitnessGram™ student IDs as a lower bound, as few as 19% of elementary students have been ―reached‖ by SPARK™ as of spring 2010. These upper and lower bounds for student ―reach‖ are shown in Figure 4. Student ―reach‖ estimates are shown by district in the Appendix D tables.

Table 3 Schools and Students “Reached” by SPARK™ and FitnessGram™ SCHOOL “REACH” Grant Year

Total Number of K-8 Schools

# of K-8 Schools Using FitnessGram™

STUDENT “REACH”

# K-8 Schools Receiving SPARK™ Training

Upper Bound ADM (Grades 1-8)

Lower Bound (# of Valid FG IDs)

(Grade 1-8 ADM of Students at SPARK™-Trained Schools)

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

173 540 484

81 156 133

47% 29% 27%

159 439 388

92% 81% 80%

83,482 234,210 232,900

24,584 38,923 38,962

29% 17% 17%

78,911 204,600 197,871

95% 87% 85%

Grand Total

1197

370

31%

986

82%

550,592

102,469

19%

481,382

87%

Figure 4 Lower and Upper Bound for

HWTF LEAs (2007-08)

KBR Year 1 LEAs (2008-09)

17% - 85%

17% - 87%

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

29% - 95%

Percent of NC Elementary Students “Reached” by SPARK™

KBR Year 2 LEAs (2009-10)

Analysis of FitnessGram™ results for spring 2010 show that FitnessGram™, and presumably SPARK™, is being implemented at a much higher rate for elementary grades 3 to 5, compared 6 to 8. As stated previously, although PE teachers for grades K-2 are encouraged to submit FitnessGram™ results for their students, this is not a requirement of the IsPOD program. Table 4 shows the FitnessGram™ Response rates in spring 2010 for the 61 LEAs that had adopted SPARK™. Total percents for each of the grade groups are shown graphically in Figure 5. Whereas grades 3 to 5 have a FitnessGram™ response rate of 35%, the response rate for grades 6 to 8 was only19% (and the response rate for grades 1-2 was only 4%). Presumably, SPARK™ is being implemented at a lower rate for these grade levels also. Questions have been included on the student and teacher surveys for spring 2011 to further investigate why FitnessGram™ and/or SPARK™ are being used less frequently for the lower grade levels.

Table 4 FitnessGram™ Response Rates – Spring 2010 By Grades Levels Grant Year

ADM Grades 1-2

FG Response Rate Grades 1-2 # FG IDs

ADM Grades 3-5

FG Response Rate Grades 3-5 N

All Grades ADM Grades 6-8

FG Response Rate Grades 6-8 N

ADM Grades 1-8

FG Response Rate Grades 1-8 N

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

21,710 59,506 59,765

440 2,815 1,808

2% 5% 3%

32,230 89,404 89,363

16,292 28,570 29,888

51% 32% 33%

29,542 85,300 83,772

7,852 7,538 7,266

27% 9% 9%

83,482 234,210 232,900

24,584 38,923 38,962

29% 17% 17%

Grand Total

140,981

5,063

210,997

74,750

35%

198,614

22,656

11%

550,592

102,469

19%

Figure 5 FitnessGram™ Response Rates – Spring 2010

50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Grades 1-2 Grades 3-5 Grades 6-8

OUTCOMES Summaries and analysis of the spring 2010 survey data and FitnessGram™ results are presented in this section.

Survey Results Teacher Surveys In spring 2010, 300 teachers from 44 NC school districts responded to the online IsPOD teacher survey. Of the teacher survey respondents 52% taught students in grades K-2, 32% taught grades 3 to 5, and 14% taught grades 6 to 8. Teachers indicated that middle school students received PE more days per week on average than lower elementary school students, with 81% responding that their 6 th-8th graders had PE 3 or more days per week, whereas only 16% of their K-5th graders had PE 3 or more days per week. Lower elementary PE teachers, however, reported that they used the SPARK™ curriculum more often, with about two-thirds of K-5th grade teachers stating they use the SPARK™ curriculum more than half the time in their PE classes, whereas only about 36% of the 6th-8th grade PE teachers stated they use the SPARK™ curriculum more than half the time in their PE classes. Although middle school PE teachers tended to state they used the SPARK™ curriculum less often than lower elementary PE teachers, PE teachers in middle school and grades 3rd-5th were more likely to state they submit FitnessGram™ reports on more than half their students. Whereas, only 35% of K-2nd grade teachers stated they submit FitnessGram™ reports on more than half their students, over 90% of 3rd-8th grade teachers stated they submit FitnessGram™ reports on more than half their students. These results are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Teacher Survey Results – Spring 2010

Grades

Total

Teach PE 3 or more Days/Week

Total

Use SPARK™ Curriculum More than 50% of Time #

Total

Submit FitnessGram™ Reports on More than 50% of their Students N

K–2 rd th 3 –5 th th 6 –8

638 414 170

99 68 137

16% 16% 81%

627 621 87

418 396 31

67% 64% 36%

389 606 244

138 568 223

35% 94% 91%

Total

1222

304

25%

1335

845

63%

1239

929

75%

Although the percentage of time PE teachers use the SPARK™ curriculum varied somewhat by grade level, most of the teachers for all grade levels appear to be embracing the SPARK™ philosophy. SPARK™ has an inclusive philosophy that encourages student activity from the ―get-go‖ for all students. More than 85% of the teachers indicated that they incorporate the following SPARK™ strategies into their PE classes: activity from the ―get-go; incorporating core classes; voluntarily sharing equipment; individual and small group activities; providing special care to shy, timid, or fearful students; encouraging good sportsmanship and cooperation. Most teachers (69%) indicated that they use dance and group by skill levels in their PE classes, and 56% indicated that they use music. These results are summarized in Table 6 and Figure 6. As a result of using SPARK™ in their PE classes 75% or more of the teachers indicated that they have observed a number of positive benefits such as improved student skill levels, less students sitting out and not participating in PE, students being more active during PE and enjoying PE more. In addition, 91% of the teachers felt that the SPARK™ program had enhanced their teaching style. These outcomes are summarized in Table 7 and Figure 7.

Table 6 Teacher Survey Results – Spring 2010 SPARK™ Strategies used in PE Classes Which SPARK™ strategies do you use in your PE class?

Answered “Yes”

Total

Count

Activity from the "get-go" Small group activities Individual activities Group by skill level Use music Use dance Incorporate core classes Promote cooperation Voluntarily share equipment Show good sportsmanship Provide special care to shy , timid, or fearful students

280 288 280 268 278 271 264 285 270 286 283

Percent

238 279 259 184 155 187 224 284 235 284 266

85% 97% 93% 69% 56% 69% 85% 100% 87% 99% 94%

Figure 6 Teacher Survey Results – Spring 2010 SPARK™ Strategies used in PE Classes

85%

Activitiy from the "Get-Go"

97%

Small Group Activities

93%

Individual Activities 69%

Group by Skill Level

92%

Use Music 69%

Use Dance

85%

Incorporate Core Classes

100%

Promote Cooperation 87%

Voluntarily Share Equipment

99%

Show Good Sportsmanship

94%

Provide Special Care to "shy" students 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Table 7 Teacher Survey Results – Spring 2010 Impact of SPARK™ in PE Classes What have you observed from your use of SPARK™?

Answered “Yes”

Total

Count

Changed or enhanced teaching style Students are more active during PE class Improved student skill levels Students enjoy PE more Less students sitting out, not participating

284 281 300 276 277

Percent

259 250 226 234 212

Figure 7 Teacher Survey Results – Spring 2010 Impact of SPARK™ in PE Classes

91%

Changed or enhanced teaching style

89%

Students are more active during PE class

75%

Improved student skill levels

85%

Students enjoy PE more

77%

Less students sitting out, not participating

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

91% 89% 75% 85% 77%

Lastly, teacher feedback on the SPARK™ training was very positive. Almost all of the teachers indicated that they enjoyed the training, felt well-prepared to implement SPARK™ and intended to implement SPARK™ after the training, and indicated that they felt the SPARK™ training meets the NC standard course of study PE requirements. These results are shown in Table 8 and Figure 8. Table 8 Teacher Survey Results – Spring 2010 SPARK™ Training Feedback From your SPARK™ training do you…

Answered “Yes”

Total

Count

Feel well-prepared to implement SPARK™ Intend to implement SPARK™ Overall, enjoyed SPARK™ training SPARK™ meets NC standard course of study objectives

288 282 286 286

Percent

266 279 279 279

92% 99% 98% 98%

Figure 8 Teacher Survey Results – Spring 2010 SPARK™ Training Feedback

92%

Feel well-prepared to implement SPARK

99%

Intend to implement SPARK

98%

Overall, enjoyed SPARK training

98%

SPARK meets NC standard course of study objectives

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Student Surveys Over 64,000 students from 56 NC schools districts responded to the online IsPOD student survey in spring 2010. Half of the survey respondents were male and half were female. The age and race demographics of the survey respondents are shown in Figure 9. The grade level demographics show a higher percent of 3rd to 5th grade students (67%) responded to the survey compared to 6th to 8th grade students (32%) and less than 1% of the survey respondents were in grades 1 or 2. Most students were white (58%), with about 23% black, 11% Hispanic, and less than 5% multi-racial, Asian, or American Indian. The race demographics for the student survey respondents closely mirror demographics for NC public school students.

Figure 9 Student Survey Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Spring 2010 Demographics Grade Levels

Race

0% 1% 3% 23%

32% 1st - 2nd 3rd - 5th

AMIN ASIA BLCK HISP

58%

11%

6th - 8th 67%

MULT WHTE

The IsPOD Spring 2010 Student Survey consisted of 34 questions including questions about their PE classes (12 questions), their levels of physical activity at school and at home (7 questions), questions about the amount of time they spend watching TV, playing video or computer games (3 questions), questions about their eating habits (7 questions), and questions about their general health (5 questions). Responses to student survey questions were compared to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) health and nutrition guidelines for elementary and middle school students. Student survey results show a large percentage of students are not meeting CDC health and nutrition guidelines. Table 9 shows the CDC exercise and nutrition guidelines for children ages 6-14. The percent of spring 2010 student survey respondents meeting these guidelines are also shown in the table. Most of the surveyed 1st-8th graders (82%) stated they have fruit 3 or more times a day, meeting these guidelines. However, only 50% of surveyed 1st-8th graders met recommended guidelines for vegetable servings per day and 30% or fewer met recommended guidelines for milk consumption and exercise. These results are illustrated in Figure 10. Table 9 Dietary and Physical Activity Recommendations for Children And Percent of IsPOD Spring 2010 Survey Respondents Meeting These Requirements CDC Recommendations

Category Fruit Vegetables Milk/Dairy Physical Activity

% of NC Surveyed Children Meeting CDC Recommendations

3 servings*/day 4 servings*/day 3 cups/day 60 minutes/day

*1 serving = Â˝ cup

82% 50% 26% 30%

Figure 10 Dietary and Physical Activity Recommendations for Children And Percent of IsPOD Spring 2010 Survey Respondents Meeting These Requirements

30%

Physical Activity (60 minutes/day)

26%

Milk/Dairy (3 or more servings/day)

50%

Vegetables (4 or more servings/day)

82%

Fruit (3 or more servings/day)

20%

40%

60%

80% 100%

Not only are a large percentage of students not meeting CDC health and nutrition guidelines, but students are engaging in more ―unhealthy‖ habits and fewer ―healthy‖ habits as they get older. When asked about ―healthy‖ habits such as involvement in extra-curricular activities, eating a daily breakfast, eating dinner at home (versus eating out), and getting sufficient sleep (8 hours per night), student survey results showed that 6th-8th graders were less likely to engage in ―healthy‖ habits compared to 3rd-5th graders. Table 10 and Figure 9 illustrate these results. The differences in the percent of 3rd-5th and 6th-8th engaging in ―healthy‖ habits was found to be statistically significant (alpha=0.05) for each habit.

Table 10 Student Survey Results – Spring 2010 Students Engaging in “Healthy” Habits by Grade Levels rd

Activity

Total

Ate Breakfast 7 days/week Ate Dinner Home >= 5 Days/week Get 8 hours or more of sleep/night Involved in Extracurricular Activities Describe Health as "Very Good" "Excellent"

41,989 41,914 42,401 42,198 42,233

3 –5 Graders

Total

28,267 31,539 34,018 32,592 31,573

67% 75% 80% 77% 75%

6 –8 Graders

20,494 20,517 20,633 20,525 20,544

9,877 14,570 13,271 15,267 13,299

48% 71% 64% 74% 65%

Figure 11 Student Survey Results – Spring 2010 Students Engaging in “Healthy” Habits 3rd-5th Graders

6th-8th Graders

100% 80%

77%

75%

80%

71%

67%

74%

75% 65%

64%

60% 48%

40%

20%

0% Ate Breakfast 7 days/week

Ate Dinner Home >= 5 Days/week

Get 8 hours or more of sleep/night

Involved in Extracurricular Activities

Describe Health as "Very Good" or "Excellent"

Table 11 and Figure 10 show student survey results when asked about ―unhealthy‖ habits. Students were asked the number of times/day they consume sweet beverages, times/week they eat French fries, and hours/day they play video or computer games and watch T.V. The American Pediatric Association (APA) suggested guidelines are 2010 NCAAHPERD/ NC DPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved. 30

that children play computer/video games no more than 2 hours/day; and watch T.V. no more than 2 hours/day on week-days and no more than 3 hours/day on week-ends. For each of the activities in Table 11 the percent of 6th-8th graders engaging in the ―unhealthy‖ activity was statistically significantly higher than the percent of 3rd-5th graders engaging in the activity (alpha = 0.05). Table 11 Student Survey Results – Spring 2010 Students Engaging in “Unhealthy” Habits by Grade Levels rd

Activity

Total

Drink Sweet Beverage >=3 times/day Eat French Fries >= 2 times/week Play Video/Computer Games >= 2 hrs/day Watch TV >= 3 hrs/day on Week-ends Watch TV >= 2 hrs/day on School Days

42,097 42,262 42,345 42,345 42,345

3 –5 Graders

Total

25,741 15,225 17,320 18,364 18,286

61% 36% 41% 43% 43%

20,494 20,563 20,635 20,635 20,635

13,992 8,593 10,228 9,755 10,935

68% 42% 50% 47% 53%

Figure 12 Student Survey Results – Spring 2010 Students Engaging in “Unhealthy” Habits 3rd-5th

6th-8th

100%

80% 68% 61%

60%

53%

50% 42%

41%

43%

47% 43%

36%

40%

20%

0% Drink Sweet Beverage >=3 times/day

Eat French Fries >= 2 times/week

Play Video/Computer Games >= 2 hrs/day on Average

Watch TV >= 3 hrs/day on Weekends

6 –8 Graders

Watch TV >= 2 hrs/day on School Days

FitnessGram™ Results In spring 2010 fitness measurements were obtained from over 82,000 North Carolina 1st – 8th grade students in 370 schools and 42 school districts. This represents 69% of the 61 districts that had been trained in SPARK™ as of spring 2010 and 31% of all the 1195 1st - 8th grade schools in these 61 districts. Fitness results for the 6 FitnessGram™ measurements collected are presented in this section. The researchers and developers of the FitnessGram™ Assessment Tool, The Cooper Institute, developed new FitnessGram™ Standards in September 2010. IsPOD evaluators are applying these new FitnessGram™ standards for all FitnessGram™ data collected (with the exception of PACER results for which new standards were not developed). The FitnessGram™ standards are used to determine whether students of certain genders and ages fall into Healthy Fitness Zones (HFZ). The FitnessGram™ assessments, standards, and healthy fitness zones are discussed in this section. Additional information can be found on the Cooper Institute’s website at http://www.cooperinstitute.org/ourkidshealth/fitnessgram/index.cfm. Appendix F shows the new HFZ Standards for BMI, PACER, Curl-up, Push-Up, Sit-and-Reach, and Trunklift.

Body Composition Spring 2010 IsPOD results from over 82,000 NC 1st-8th grade students show that as many as 43% of North Carolina elementary and middle school students are over the HFZ for BMI, indicating that they are at ―some risk‖ or ―high risk‖ for metabolic disorders. Although FitnessGram™ BMI standards which are criterion-based differ from the CDC BMI standards which are norm-based, almost all students over the FitnessGram™ BMI HFZ are overweight or obese according to CDC guidelines. IsPOD FitnessGram™ spring 2010 results are comparable to conclusions obtained from the North Carolina Nutrition and Physical Activity Surveillance System (NC-NPASS) 2009 report indicating that 46% of NC 12-18 year olds may be overweight or obese. The NC-PASS report is based on results obtained from only 6,854 12-18 year old NC children seen in NC 2010 NCAAHPERD/ NC DPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved. 32

Public Health Sponsored WIC clinics, Child Health Clinics, and some School-Based Health Centers; whereas, the IsPOD program results are based on over 82,000 FitnessGramâ&#x201E;˘ measurements collected on 1st-8th graders throughout North Carolina. Spring 2010 IsPOD results show 55% of females and 52% of males are in the healthy fitness zone (HFZ) for BMI (i.e., neither under- or over-weight). The percent of female and male 1st-8th grade students over the BMI HFZ is 42% and 44%, respectively. The percent of children over the BMI HFZ was shown to increase steadily through the elementary school grade levels indicating that more students are at risk for metabolic disorders as they get older. This increase was found to be statistically significant (alpha =0.05). In addition, a slightly higher percent of males were found to be over the BMI HFZ compared to females. These results are shown in Table 12 and Figure 13.

Table 12 Body Composition Percent of Students Above BMI HFZ Female

Male

Total

Percent Overweight

1 nd 2 rd 3 th 4 th 5 th 6 th 7 8th

937 1175 9670 9624 9396 3528 3315 3174

40% 42% 40% 43% 44% 44% 41% 43%

884 1209 10075 10103 9857 3550 3149 3321

38% 40% 42% 45% 46% 47% 45% 44%

1821 2384 19745 19727 19253 7078 6464 6495

39% 41% 41% 44% 45% 45% 43% 43%

Total

40819

42%

42148

44%

82967

43%

Grade

FitnessGramâ&#x201E;˘ results from 370 NC 1st-8th grade schools in 42 school districts.

Figure 13 Body Composition Percent of Students Above BMI HFZ Female

Male

Percent Above HFZ

50%

45%

40%

35%

30% 1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

Grade

7th

8th

Aerobic Fitness Aerobic or cardiovascular fitness is an important indicator of overall health. Research indicates that good aerobic or cardiovascular health is associated with reduced risks of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, some forms of cancer, and other health problems in adults. FitnessGram™ provides three different measures of aerobic capacity (PACER, one-mile run, and the walk test). Schools districts can utilize all of these measures for aerobic fitness; however, the only requirement for the IsPOD program is PACER. PACER (Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run) is a multi-stage fitness test that progresses in intensity. The objective in administering the PACER is to run as long as possible back and forth across a 20-meter space at a specified pace that gets progressively faster each minute. A 15-meter version of the PACER can also be performed for schools with smaller facilities. PACER provides a measure of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max). Although children in grades K-3 are encouraged to participate in the PACER, The Cooper Institute does not recommend having lap count standards and has not developed HFZ values for children ages 9 and under. The HFZ values for the 20-meter PACER for children ages 10 and over are shown in Table 2 in Appendix F. New FitnessGram™ standards were not developed for PACER, in fall 2010 as they were for the other fitness measurements. Rather, in the future FitnessGram™ will be using a different measure of aerobic capacity that is based on the PACER results and BMI measurements combined. Evaluators are consulting with the Cooper Institute to obtain the formulas for converting PACER measurements to the VO2 Max measurements which will be used to measure aerobic capacity in the future. Although BMI FitnessGram™ results were obtained for over 82,000 NC 1st-8th grade students, PACER results were only submitted for about 55,000 1st-8th graders (and about 39,000 4th-8th graders). PACER results for 4th-8th graders show 83% of females and 57% of males are in the healthy fitness zone. As indicated in Table 2 in Appendix F the PACER FitnessGram™ standards for males are more stringent than for females. However, results from spring 2010 showed a steady decrease in aerobic fitness for both females and males for grades 4th through 8th. This decrease in aerobic fitness for 2010 NCAAHPERD/NC DPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved. 35

higher grade levels was found to be statistically significant (alpha=0.05). These results are given in Table 13 and Figure 14.

Table 13 Aerobic Fitness – Spring 2010 Percent of Students In PACER HFZ Female Grade

Male

Total

% in HFZ

4 th 5 th 6 th 7 th 8

6952 6569 1882 1787 1774

95% 82% 77% 68% 58%

7321 6994 1936 1825 1908

61% 58% 54% 50% 52%

14273 13563 3818 3612 3682

78% 70% 65% 59% 55%

Total

18964

83%

19984

57%

38948

70%

FitnessGram™ results from 370 NC 1st-8th grade schools in 42 school districts.

Figure 14 Aerobic Fitness – Spring 2010 Percent of Students In PACER HFZ Female

Male

100%

Percent in HFZ

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 4th

5th

6th

7th

Grade

8th

Muscular Strength, Endurance, and Flexibility FitnessGram™ has the capability to track student fitness in 8 fitness assessment areas with regards to muscular strength, endurance, and flexibility to determine overall musculoskeletal system health. The IsPOD program has chosen to focus on four primary indicators of musculoskeletal health measures: Curl-up, Push-Up, Sit and Reach, and Trunk Lift. These fitness measures were chosen because they provide an overall measure of abdominal (core) strength and endurance; upper body strength and endurance; and flexibility of the lower back, hamstring, and hip-flexor muscles which are indicators of a healthy well-functioning back. In addition, these FitnessGram™ measures are ones that can be performed with standard tools and equipment that are available to most schools (e.g., a floor mat, box, and ruler).

Lower Back The Trunk Extensor strength and flexibility activity or ―Trunk Lift‖ provides a measure of lower back strength, flexibility, and alignment, which is important for maintaining a healthy back. The Trunk Lift is performed by having the student lie on a mat facedown, toes pointed, and hands flat under the thighs. The student lifts the upper body off the floor using the muscles of the back, in a very slow and controlled manner, with the head in a straight alignment with the spine, to a maximum height of 12 inches. The student holds this position until the tester can measure the distance from the floor to the student’s chin. This measurement is the FitnessGram™ assessment value. Trunk Lift HFZ values are given in Table 6 in Appendix F. FitnessGram™ assessments obtained for almost 85,000 NC 1st-8th grade students showed 84% met healthy fitness zone ―healthy back‖ standards in spring 2010. Results show that overall a higher percent of females met HFZ standards compared to males with 86% of females and 82% of males in the HFZ. The percent of students in the HFZ was found to decrease significantly (alpha=0.05) for both males and females after grade 3.

Table 14 Lower Back Fitness Percent of Students In Trunk Lift HFZ Female Grade

Male

Total

% in HFZ

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th

744 1063 10281 10205 9821 3438 3231 3136

91% 91% 93% 84% 81% 83% 82% 84%

746 1056 10608 10688 10336 3361 3086 3161

88% 92% 91% 80% 77% 79% 77% 79%

1490 2119 20889 20893 20157 6799 6317 6297

90% 91% 92% 82% 79% 81% 79% 81%

Total

41919

86%

43042

82%

84961

84%

FitnessGramâ&#x201E;˘ results from 370 NC 1st-8th grade schools in 42 school districts.

Figure 15 Lower Back Fitness Percent of Students In Trunk Lift HFZ Female

Male

100% 95%

Percent in HFZ

90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

Grade

7th

8th

Abdominal The Curl-Up provides a measure of abdominal strength and endurance or ―core strength‖. The Curl-Up is done in the supine position on a mat, with the knees flexed, feet flat on the floor, arms straight and parallel to the trunk, and palms faced down. Students curl-up slowly and then return to the supine position. Curl-Ups should be slow and controlled at about 20 curl-ups per minute. The goal is to complete as many curlups as possible up to a maximum of 75. Table 3 in Appendix F gives the HFZ values for Curl-Ups. FitnessGram™ Curl-Up results were obtained for over 94,000 1st -8th grade students in spring 2010, with 82% of assessed students in the healthy fitness zone. Results show that more than 78% of male and female students maintain abdominal healthy fitness zone standards throughout elementary school with core strength fitness levels improving in middle school. Curl-up fitness levels for 6th-8th grade middle school students were found to be statistically higher compared to 1st-5th grade students (alpha = 0.05). Table 15 Abdominal Fitness – Spring 2010 Percent of Students In Curl-Up Lift HFZ Female Grade

Male

Total

% in HFZ

1 nd 2 rd 3 th 4 th 5 th 6 th 7 th 8

917 1260 11285 11221 10865 3857 3477 3402

83% 78% 82% 80% 78% 86% 86% 84%

879 1300 11683 11729 11370 3895 3427 3448

84% 79% 82% 81% 80% 87% 87% 88%

1796 2560 22968 22950 22235 7752 6904 6850

84% 79% 82% 80% 79% 86% 86% 86%

Total

46284

81%

47731

82%

94015

82%

FitnessGram™ results from 370 NC 1st-8th grade schools in 42 school districts.

Figure 16 Abdominal Fitness – Spring 2010 Percent of Students In Curl-Up Lift HFZ Female

Male

90%

Percent in HFZ

85%

80%

75%

70% 1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

Grade

Upper Body The Push-Up provides a measure of strength and endurance of the upper body muscles. The Push-Up assessment required for the IsPOD Program is the 90o push-up with the elbow angle at 90o, legs straight, and toes tucked under. The FitnessGram™ test objective is to complete as many 90o push-ups as possible at a steady and rhythmic pace. Table 5 in Appendix F gives the HFZ values for Push-Ups. Over 75,000 FitnessGram™ results were submitted for push-ups in spring 2010. FitnessGram™ results for push-ups show that a statistically significant higher percent of males were in the healthy fitness zone (68%) compared to females (57%). Spring 2010 results also show a statistically significant increase in the percent of both males and females in the HFZ for push-ups for 6th-8th graders compared to1st-5th graders.

Table 16 Upper Body – Spring 2010 Percent of Students In Push-Up Lift HFZ Female

Male

Total

Grade

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th

% in HFZ

627 935 9157 9129 8900 3092 2768 2696

50% 48% 56% 52% 52% 68% 69% 68%

592 924 9527 9510 9309 3165 2742 2811

63% 62% 70% 68% 66% 72% 72% 70%

1219 1859 18684 18639 18209 6257 5510 5507

56% 55% 63% 60% 59% 70% 71% 69%

75884

63%

Total 37304 57% 38580 68% FitnessGram™ results from 370 NC 1st-8th grade schools in 42 school districts

Figure 17 Upper Body Percent of Students In Push-Up Lift HFZ Female

Male

4th

5th

80%

75%

Percent in HFZ

70%

65%

60%

55%

50%

45%

40% 1st

2nd

3rd

Grade

6th

7th

8th

Flexibility The Sit-and-Reach activity provides a measure of flexibility, predominantly of the hamstring muscles. The back-saver Sit-and-Reach assessment, which involves performing measurements on the left and right sides, is required for the IsPOD program. To perform the Sit-and-Reach a wooden box (approximately 12‖ high) and yardstick are needed. The yardstick is taped to the top of the box with the 9-inch mark at the edge and the ―zero‖ end facing the student. The student sits on the floor facing the box with one leg fully extended and the foot flat against the side of the box. The other leg is bent with the sole of the foot flat on the floor. With palms down the student reaches directly forward (back straight and head up) over the yardstick four times and holds the position of the fourth reach for at least one second. The inch on the yardstick the student reaches is the FitnessGram™ measurement. This activity is repeated on the other side and both left and right FitnessGram™ measurements are recorded. To be in the Healthy Fitness Zone students must reach the HFZ criteria for both the left and right sides. Table 6 in Appendix F shows the HFZ values for Sit-and-Reach. FitnessGram™ measurements obtained for the Sit-and-Reach activity showed more variability between schools and districts than other FitnessGram™ measurements. Given that the Sit-and-Reach activity is not as commonly performed and assessed as some of the other FitnessGram™ activities such as curl-ups and push-ups that most PE teachers are familiar with, it is possible that PE teachers at various schools are not consistently collecting these measurements in the manner described in the manuals. IsPOD trainers have been providing additional training and support in how to collect FG measurements so that measurements reported are accurate and consistent About 65% of both males and females met sit-and-reach HFZ flexibility standards, with spring 2010 results showing student flexibility highest in grade 3, decreasing from grades 3 through 6, and then increasing again in middle school.

Table 17 Flexibility – Spring 2010 Percent of Students In Sit-and-Reach HFZ Female Grade

Male

Total

% in HFZ

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th

702 922 6371 6229 6219 2371 2197 2131

66% 68% 70% 69% 62% 58% 66% 66%

664 935 6681 6596 6558 2445 2134 2247

64% 66% 69% 65% 62% 58% 65% 67%

1366 1857 13052 12825 12777 4816 4331 4378

65% 67% 69% 67% 62% 58% 65% 67%

Total

27142

66%

28260

65%

55402

65%

Based on FitnessGram™ Results for 370 North Carolina K-8 Schools in 61 School districts

Figure 18 Flexibility – Spring 2010 Percent of Students In Sit-and-Reach HFZ Female

Male

90% 85%

Percent in HFZ

80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

Grade

7th

8th

Analysis of Combined Survey and FitnessGram™ Results Spring 2010 survey results (64,556 responses) were merged with spring 2010 FitnessGram™ results (102,736 students), resulting in 38,175 matched merged records. Student Survey responses to questions regarding students’ physical activity, nutrition, screen time, and general health were analyzed to determine the impact their daily habits have on their FitnessGram™ measurements. Student responses to these questions were also analyzed by grade. These results are presented in this section.

Physical Activity Students were asked how many days per week they have PE, the length of their PE classes, and the amount of time they are physically active in their PE classes. They were also asked how many days a week they get 60 minutes or more or physical activity, and the amount of time on school days and week-ends that they get physical activity. Student responses to questions regarding their physical activity were highly correlated with results from their FitnessGram™ measurements. Table 18 shows a summary of results. Appendix G shows complete tables and results. As indicated in Table 18 the following were found to be statistically significant: 

Students active 60 minutes/day for 7 days/week were more likely to be in the HFZ for BMI, PACER, Curl-up, Push-up, Sit and Reach, and Trunk Lift.



Students that had PE 3 or more days/week were more likely to be in the HFZ for PACER, Sit and Reach, and Trunk Lift compared to students that did not.



Students that were physically active in their PE classes for more than 20 minutes/class were more likely to be in the HFZ for PACER, Curl-up, Push-up, Sit and Reach, and Trunk Lift compared to students that did not.



Students that were active 60 minutes or more per day on school days and on week-ends were more likely to be in the HFZ for BMI, PACER, Curl-up, Pushup, and Trunk Lift compared to students that did not. 2010 NCAAHPERD/NCDPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved.

Table 18 Impact of Physical Activity On Healthy Fitness Zone Measurements

PERCENT in HEALTHY FITNESS ZONE Fitness Measurement BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

Have PE 3 or More Days per Week Yes

55%

54%

82% 83%

Stat. P-Value

Active in PE Class > 20 Minutes Yes

0.0562

55%

65%

< 0.0001

78%

86%

1.0000

84%

58%

64%

1.0000

66%

57%

84%

78%

Stat. P-Value

Active 60 Minutes/Day 7 Days/Week Yes

0.4987

58%

53%

77%

0.0647

84%

81%

< 0.0001

86%

61%

56%

< 0.0001

64%

61%

< 0.0001

83%

81%

Stat. P-Value

Active 60 Minutes/Day on School Days Yes

< 0.0001

56%

53%

76%

< 0.0001

80%

82%

< 0.0001

86%

65%

58%

< 0.0001

0.0032

66%

62%

0.0012

84%

82%

P-Value

Stat.. PValue

Yes

< 0.0001

56%

51%

< 0.0001

77%

< 0.0001

80%

74%

< 0.0001

82%

< 0.0001

85%

80%

< 0.0001

64%

57%

< 0.0001

63%

53%

< 0.0001

64%

63%

0.1809

64%

63%

0.0471

< 0.0001

84%

82%

< 0.0001

83%

81%

< 0.0001

Stat.

Active 60 Minutes/Day on School Days

Nutrition Student survey questions about nutrition included average daily servings of fruit, vegetables, and milk; and days per week they ate breakfast and had dinner at home. Appendix G shows complete tables and results. Table 19 shows the impact student nutrition has on fitness measurements and the following statistically significant findings: 

Students that had breakfast 7 days/week, dinner at home 5 or more days/week, and 4 or more servings of vegetables/day were more likely to be in the HFZ for every FitnessGram™ measurement compared to students that did not.



Students that had 3 or more servings of fruit daily were more likely to be in the HFZ for PACER, Curl-up, Push-Up, Sit-and-Reach, and Trunk Lift compared to students that did not.



Students that had 3 or more servings of dairy per day were more likely to be in the HFZ for BMI, PACER, Curl-up, Push-Up, and Trunk Lift compared to students that did not.

Screen Time Three survey questions related to ―screen time‖ – average hours/day spent watching TV on week-days and week-ends; and average hours/day spent playing video and/or computer games. Results in Table 20 show these statistically significant findings: 

Students that watched TV less than 2 hours/day on week-days were more likely to be in the HFZ for every FitnessGram™ measurement.



Students that watched TV less than 3 hours/day on week-ends were more likely to be in the HFZ for every FitnessGram™ measurement.



Students that played computer or video games less than 2 hours/day were more likely to be in the HFZ for every FitnessGram™ measurement compared to students that did not.

Table 19 Impact of Nutrition On Healthy Fitness Zone Measurements

PERCENT in HEALTHY FITNESS ZONE Fitness Measurement BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

3 or More Servings Fruit per Day Yes

55%

54%

79% 84%

Stat. P-Value

4 or More Servings Vegetables Per Day Yes

0.3366

56%

53%

72%

< 0.0001

81%

79%

< 0.0001

85%

61%

53%

< 0.0001

64%

61%

83%

79%

Stat. P-Value

3 or More Servings Dairy per Day Yes

< 0.0001

56%

54%

75%

< 0.0001

80%

82%

< 0.0001

84%

62%

58%

< 0.0001

0.0003

65%

62%

< 0.0001

84%

82%

Stat. P-Value

Have Breakfast 7 Days per Week Yes

0.0001

58%

48%

77%

0.0002

82%

83%

0.0055

85%

63%

59%

< 0.0001

63%

< 0.0001

84%

82%

P-Value

Stat.. PValue

Yes

< 0.0001

56%

50%

< 0.0001

71%

< 0.0001

79%

74%

< 0.0001

81%

< 0.0001

84%

80%

< 0.0001

62%

55%

< 0.0001

62%

55%

< 0.0001

0.5223

65%

61%

< 0.0001

64%

62%

0.0288

< 0.0001

83%

81%

< 0.0001

83%

82%

0.0063

Stat.

Have Dinner at Home 5 or More Days per Week

Table 20 Impact of Screen Time On Healthy Fitness Zone Measurements

Fitness Measurement

PERCENT in HEALTHY FITNESS ZONE Watch TV 2 or more hours on School Days

Stat.

Watch TV 3 or more hours on Week-ends

P-Value

BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

Yes

51%

58%

72%

Stat. P-Value

Yes

< 0.0001

51%

57%

83%

< 0.0001

73%

81%

85%

< 0.0001

56%

63%

< 0.0001

62%

65%

81%

84%

Play Computer or Video Games 2 or more hours per day

Stat. P-Value

Yes

< 0.0001

52%

56%

< 0.0001

82%

< 0.0001

71%

83%

< 0.0001

81%

85%

< 0.0001

81%

85%

< 0.0001

56%

63%

< 0.0001

58%

62%

< 0.0001

62%

64%

0.0007

61%

65%

< 0.0001

81%

84%

< 0.0001

80%

84%

< 0.0001

Analysis By Grade Levels Several notable trends were detected with regards to student PACER results by grade level. PACER results provide a measure of cardiovascular fitness. The percent of students in the HFZ for cardiovascular fitness was found to decrease significantly for higher grades compared to lower grades. Student survey results show that a decrease in the number of PE days per week, a decrease in the amount of daily physical activity, and an increase in daily TV time is contributing to a decrease in cardiovascular fitness for the higher grade levels. These results are illustrated in Figures 19, 20, and 21, respectively. Figure 19 shows the percent of students in the PACER HFZ by grade level. The data in Figure 19 is further broken down by students that have PE 3 or more days per week versus students that have PE fewer than 3 days per week. Figure 20 also shows the percent of students in the PACER HFZ by grade level. However, Figure 20 is further broken down by students that get 60 minutes of physical activity for 7 days a week, versus those who get 60 minutes of physical activity for fewer than 7 days a week. Lastly, Figure 21 shows the percent of students in the PACER HFZ by grade level, with the data further broken down by students that watch TV 2 or more hours per day, versus those that watch TV fewer than 2 hrs per day. These figures illustrate how a decrease in student physical activity for the higher grade levels is contributing to lower cardiovascular fitness levels for these students in higher grade levels.

Figure 19 Percent of Students in the PACER HFZ By Grade Level PE 3 or More Days/Week and PE Fewer Than 3 Days/Week

pe >= 3 day/s week 100%

pe < 3 days/week

98%96%

Percent in Cardio HFZ

90% 79%77%

80%

72% 70%

70% 60%

50%48%

50%

49% 42%

46%44%

40%

30% 20% 10% 0%

Grade

Figure 20 Percent of Students in the PACER HFZ By Grade Level Active 60 Minutes/Day 7 Days/Week and Less Than 7 Days/Week

Active 60 minutes/day 7 days/week

100%

98%98%

90%

Percent in Cardio HFZ

Active 60 minutes/day < 7 days/week

83% 77%

80%

78% 69%

70% 59% 60%

58% 51%

45%

50%

38%

40%

42%

30% 20% 10% 0%

Grade

Figure 21 Percent of Students in the PACER HFZ By Grade Level TV Less than 2 Hours/Day and 2 or More Hours/Day

TV < 2 hrs/day

100%

98%98%

90%

Percent in Cardio HFZ

TV >= 2 hrs/day

82% 75%

80%

77% 66%

70%

57%

60%

50% 50%

41%

45% 41%

40%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Grade

Challenges/Recommendations With a project the size and scope of the IsPOD program, a number of challenges are to be expected. Program coordinators have done an exceptional job of addressing challenges and in developing action plans for moving forward, as discussed below. Additional recommendations are also provided.

FitnessGram™ Data NCAAHPERD has encountered a number of challenges in rolling out FitnessGram™ software, which have had an impact on the IsPOD program: 1. FitnessGram™ testing was developed primarily for grades 3-12. While testing can be performed for grades K-2, special instructions and procedures must be followed. IsPOD encourages FitnessGram™ testing and reporting for grades K2, but requires it only for grades 3-8. The impact on the program has been a substantially lower response rate for grades K-2 compared to grades 3-8. (This is similar to NC end-of-grade testing, required beginning in 3rd grade, although preliminary testing is performed in many schools for grades K-2). The intent moving forward is to encourage and prepare K-2 students and PE teachers to perform more FitnessGram™ testing and reporting, thus increasing the response rates for these grade levels. This will help detect student fitness needs at an earlier age. 2. FitnessGram™ software was upgraded from Version 8 (a PC-based software) to Version 9 (a web-based software) in spring 2010. FitnessGram™ implementation was hampered by limited availability of working copies of the new 9.0 software, resulting in submittals of both Version 8 and Version 9 data, and issues with Version 9 caused it to malfunction or function only part of the time. These problems were compounded by some schools’ web-security blocking; older, incompatible versions of Internet Explorer; and limited access to computer 2010 NCAAHPERD/NC DPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved. 53

labs. NCAAHPERD staffs instructed schools with computer problems to record student assessments on hard copy, and NCAAHPERD facilitated input of these data. The result, however, was that FitnessGram™ data were not received for a number of schools that reportedly performed assessments. NCAAHPERD’s frequent communication and good rapport with teachers has lessened their frustration with these problems and probably minimized the impact on the program. Staffs at NCAAHPERD continue to work diligently with the Human Kinetics FitnessGram™ developers to address software problems, and a significantly higher FitnessGram™ response rate is expected for fall 2010 data. 3. NC DPI is dependent on each LEA and its school to provide up-to-date information on student class enrollment. Often, schools do not report PE class assignments, only homeroom class assignments. NCAAHPERD is one of the first organizations to be given secure access to these data and is the first to request this information for PE class assignments. Numerous requested DPI data extracts were found to be incomplete, incorrect, or missing. NCAAHPERD staffs manually corrected PE teacher class lists and continue to collaborate with NC DPI to resolve these issues for future DPI data extracts. 4. Teacher training with FitnessGram™ 9.0 was limited to self-taught, online webinars, PowerPoint presentations on the web, and fact sheets showing steps in entering data. Training materials are provided to each SPARK™-trained school, including a CD showing how to administer and record each of the six required tests. IsPOD staffs have set up a FitnessGram™ ―Help Desk‖ site and an ―FAQ‖ site on their website to help schools with FitnessGram™ assessment and reporting. In addition, IsPOD staffs have provided several on-site instructional presentations and hosted a seminar at the NCAAHPERD annual conference on how to perform and report FitnessGram™ assessments. Feedback on these presentations has been positive. Evidence suggests that a number of teachers feel intimidated and uncomfortable using the self-taught FitnessGram™ training, or are reluctant to do so. NCAAHPERD is addressing

this by incorporating FitnessGram™ assessment and reporting training into its annual ―booster‖ training sessions. 5. FitnessGram™ implemented new HFZ (health fitness zone) standards in fall 2010, which are being retroactively applied to previously collected data. Other FitnessGram™ issues—all successfully resolved—include FitnessGram™ not accepting Kindergarten-level data (a ―character‖ field), FitnessGram™ software allowing teachers to enter duplicate student records, and FitnessGram™ not retaining student records over time.

Survey Data As the IsPOD program continues to reach more teachers and students, NCAAHPERD staffs have addressed several issues arising with the survey data: 1. Prior to spring 2010, teacher and student survey data were not linked to teacher and student ID numbers. Beginning in spring 2010 all teacher and student surveys are linked to the student ID numbers obtained from NC DPI. The same issues encountered with extracting student data from the NC DPI database for use with FitnessGram™ apply to the survey data. Having student and teacher survey data linked to LEA ID numbers, school ID numbers, and student ID numbers, however, results in a greater understanding of the data and broader research possibilities since student survey data can now be merged with FitnessGram™ results. 2. As with the online submittal of FitnessGram™ results, some schools have encountered issues with online submittal of survey results due to web-security blocking issues, older versions of Internet Explorer, and limited access to computer labs. Hard-copy survey versions can be emailed to the schools encountering these issues; however, the program must factor in time and resources for receiving hard-copy survey results and entering this data.

3. IRBS regulations mandate that the teacher and student surveys be voluntary. Teachers and students are notified that their participation is voluntary, which will continue to affect the survey response rates. 4. The length and frequency (twice yearly) of the student and teacher surveys may be deterring some participants from completing them; evaluators are revising the surveys for spring 2011. The current student survey consists of 33 multiplechoice questions addressing students’ enjoyment of PE classes, the amount and types of physical activity (in school and at home), screen time (computer/video time), and food, drink, and health habits. The teacher survey consists of 61 multiple-choice and open-ended questions: 18 questions about their assessment and use of SPARK™, 3 questions about their use of FitnessGram™, 21 questions about school policy (including days and hours of PE time), 7 questions about the availability and condition of PE equipment, 5 questions for teachers of students with physical disabilities, and 7 questions about additional duties, such as coaching. For spring 2011, the teacher survey will be broken into two separate surveys, a shorter survey required for the IsPOD program gathering teacher feedback on SPARK™ and FitnessGram™ training and implementation, and an optional ―Healthy Schools‖ survey that will assist NCAAHPERD in advocating for PE and health programs in schools. Evaluators are conducting focus groups with students and teachers in February 2011 to ensure appropriate survey length and that participants interpret questions as evaluators intended.

Communications and Collaborations Ongoing and timely communications and collaborations between NCAAHPERD, KBR, FitnessGram™ developer Human Kinetics, NC DPI, the State Center for Health Statistics, program evaluators, LEA coordinators, and PE teachers have been critical to the success of IsPOD thus far, and will be crucial for continued success. Avenues of communication initiated by NCAAHPERD, and plans and suggestions for ongoing collaborations to help ensure the sustainability of the program, are detailed in this section. 2010 NCAAHPERD/ NC DPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved. 56

NCAAHPERD has established good rapport with PE district coordinators and teachers, endeavoring to be a strong advocate for PE teachers, to promote and support health and fitness programs in schools, and to maintain a voice in public and political forums to support teachers’ mission. PE teachers appear to understand and appreciate that NCAAHPERD advocates for them, appear to be embracing the SPARK™ philosophy, and have been patient with the difficulties encountered in rolling out the FitnessGram™ software. Several PE teachers commented at the NCAAHPERD convention that district and FitnessGram™ reports are validating the need for PE teachers and providing concrete data that teachers can show their supervisors to illustrate the need for health, wellness, and physical education programs in schools. NCAAHPERD maintains ongoing communications with PE teachers through newsletters, an online IsPOD ―Help Desk,‖ and email ―blasts.‖ Participation in the IsPOD program continues to be voluntary. Other than CEUs (continuing education units) for participating in SPARK™ training and a free annual NCAAHPERD membership for submitting surveys and FitnessGram™ assessments, teachers have not been given any mandates or incentives for participating in IsPOD. The fact that the IsPOD program has reached such a large percentage of districts, schools, and teachers on a voluntary basis suggests that districts, schools, and teachers support the program, thus setting the groundwork for sustainability. Although participation in SPARK™ has been high, participation in FitnessGram™ has lagged, perhaps due in part to FitnessGram™ software issues that are being addressed. House Bill 1757, which passed in July 2010 and will become effective in fall 2011, mandates fitness testing in all NC K-8 schools. If FitnessGram™ is approved by the legislature and/or NC DPI as the preferred utility for recording and tracking student fitness levels, ongoing and effective collaborations between NCAAHPERD, FitnessGram™ developer Human Kinetics, and NC DPI will be critical in sustaining the program. Consideration must also be given to the long-term storage and management of the data being collected. Currently, the IsPOD survey and FitnessGram™ data are being cleaned and managed by one statistician at the State Center for Health Statistics. As the program continues to expand, the storage, management, and analysis of the 2010 NCAAHPERD/NC DPH IsPOD Evaluation All rights reserved. 57

data should be performed by collaborative team of statisticians and data analysts. NCAAHPERD has approached SAS Institute and the State Center for Health Statistics requesting additional support in this area. This will continue to be a need and consideration as the program expands. Lastly, communication of program progress and results to the scientific community and general public through journal publications, press releases, and conference presentations will promote the sustainability of the program and dissemination of findings. In the remaining years of the grant, emphasis should be placed on educating a broader audience regarding the findings of the IsPOD program.

Appendix A Goal and Objectives

IsPOD Goal One Grant Objectives and Measureable Outcomes

Reform the physical education program in North Carolina K-8 schools.

Goal One

Objective

Measureable Outcomes and Outputs

1.1.1

1.1

Make a research-based K-8 physical education program designed to improve children's health and fitness available to NC counties, schools, teachers, and students

1.1.2

1.1.3

1.1.4 1.2.1

1.2.2 1.2

Create a sustainable physical education program in NC schools

1.2.3

1.2.4

1.3

Create a mechanism for tracking the health and fitness of NC children

1.3.1 1.3.2

All 115 NC counties will be introduced to the SPARK™ curriculum by the end of the grant period Document the number of K-8 schools in each NC school district that have received training in SPARK™ and have adopted SPARK™ Document the number of NC physical education teachers in each NC school that have received training in SPARK™ and have implemented SPARK™ Document the number NC K-8 students that have been “reached” by SPARK™. 4 to 6 trainers will be trained in the SPARK™ curriculum and provide training to school districts Document number and type of SPARK™ training received by NC PE Teachers through IsPOD grant Document number NC colleges/universities with physical fitness programs that have faculty receiving SPARK™ training through IsPOD grant Document number of college students majoring in physical education that receive SPARK™ training through IsPOD grant Document use of FitnessGram™ software through IsPOD grant Document the number of schools and teachers using FitnessGram™ software

Appendix B NCAAPHERD Training Records

NCAAPHERD IsPOD Training Schedule

2006-2008

Grant Year

County Name

Number of Schools Trained

DUPLIN COUNTY

DURHAM COUNTY

IREDELLSTATESVILLE

JACKSON COUNTY

MACON COUNTY

ROBESON COUNTY

UNION COUNTY

SPARK™ K-2

SPARK™ 3-5

Training Date 03/27/09

Number Trained 23

08/19/08

08/18/08

08/20/08

10/17/08

08/22/08

SPARK™ 6-8

Training Date 04/20/07 08/19/08 04/24/07

Number Trained 22 18 26

Training Date 04/19/07 08/20/08 04/26/07

Number Trained 26 22 17

06/10/08 04/04/08 04/17/07 06/11/07 03/28/08 06/11/07 03/28/08 06/08/07 02/18/08 06/13/07 02/18/08

25 20 23 10 9 8 8 16 25 24 24

08/19/08 04/04/08 04/17/07 06/11/07 03/28/08 06/11/07

23 18 10 8 8 5

06/08/07 02/18/08 06/13/08 08/22/08

15 14 34 38

NCAAPHERD IsPOD Training Schedule (continued)

2008-2009

Grant Year

County Name

Number of Schools Trained

ALLEGHANY COUNTY ASHE COUNTY ASHEVILLE CITY

3 4 7

Training Number Training Number Training Number Training Date Trained Date Trained Date Trained Date 08/19/09 6 01/29/09 6 01/30/09 6 08/19/09 3 01/29/09 4 01/30/09 5 10/21/08 4 08/18/08 5 02/25/09 1

AVERY COUNTY BRUNSWICK COUNTY BUNCOMBE COUNTY CABARRUS COUNTY

8 13 31 27

08/19/08 12/05/08 10/21/08 09/11/09

2 11 25 17

01/29/09 08/22/08 08/18/08 10/17/08

1 12 22 20

01/30/09 01/26/09 02/25/09 02/10/09

0 9 18 29

CALDWELL COUNTY CARTERET COUNTY CHAPEL HILL-CARR CRAVEN COUNTY DARE COUNTY FORSYTH COUNTY GASTON COUNTY HAYWOOD COUNTY HENDERSON COUNTY

21 14 13 20 8 59 42 12

08/19/09 12/11/08 12/03/08 10/13/08 12/03/08 08/20/09 08/18/09 10/21/08

14 18 16 14 3 48 10 9

01/29/09 11/05/08 09/29/08 08/20/08 10/17/08 11/04/08 08/10/09 08/18/08

15 18 14 18 4 41 20 9

01/30/09 01/14/09 10/23/09

7 13 15

02/16/09 11/04/08 11/14/08 02/25/09

10/30/09

01/08/09

01/09/09

SPARK™ K-2

SPARK™ 3-5

SPARK™ 6-8

SPARK™ 9-12 Number Trained

02/09/09

6 44 25 8

02/09/09 11/03/09

3 33

02/09/09

NCAAPHERD IsPOD Training Schedule (continued)

2008-2009

Grant Year

County Name

Number of Schools Trained

JONES COUNTY KANNAPOLIS CITY LENOIR COUNTY

5 7 16

Training Number Training Number Training Number Training Date Trained Date Trained Date Trained Date 12/11/08 0 11/05/08 0 01/14/09 5 09/11/09 4 10/17/08 5 02/10/09 5 02/09/09 12/05/08 9 10/17/08 8 02/16/09 9

MONTGOMERY MOORE COUNTY NEW HANOVER ONSLOW COUNTY

7 18 33 26

12/09/08 12/09/08 12/05/08 10/13/08

5 10 22 18

12/10/08 12/10/08 08/22/08 08/20/08

5 10 24 23

01/14/09 01/14/09 01/26/09 01/14/09

6 15 18 16

ORANGE COUNTY PAMLICO COUNTY PENDER COUNTY PERSON COUNTY RUTHERFORD COUNTY SCOTLAND COUNTY STANLY COUNTY WATAUGA COUNTY WILSON COUNTY

10 3 11 9

12/03/08 12/11/08 12/05/08 12/03/08

8 1 5 6

09/29/08 11/05/08 08/22/08 09/29/08

6 1 2 9

10/23/09 01/14/09 01/26/09 10/23/09

5 3 1 3

13 13 19 8 19

08/18/09 12/09/08 09/11/09 08/19/09 12/05/08

11 6 11 10 11

01/08/09 12/10/08 10/17/08 01/29/09 10/17/08

12 7 8 12 11

01/09/09 01/14/09 02/10/09 01/30/09 02/16/09

11 7 12 9 10

SPARK™ K-2

SPARK™ 3-5

SPARK™ 6-8

SPARK™ 9-12 Number Trained 3

02/09/09

NCAAPHERD IsPOD Training Schedule (continued)

2009-2010

Grant Year

County Name

Number of Schools Trained

BEAUFORT COUNTY BERTIE COUNTY CAMDEN COUNTY

SPARK™ K-2

SPARK™ 3-5

SPARK™ 6-8

10 8 2

Training Date 09/17/09 09/17/09 09/17/09

Number Trained 3 1 1

Training Date 09/18/09 09/18/09 09/18/09

Number Trained 7 1 1

Training Date 01/20/10 01/20/10 01/20/10

Number Trained 7 2 3

CATAWBA COUNTY CUMBERLAND COUNTY CURRITUCK COUNTY DAVIE COUNTY

08/10/09

08/11/09

72 7 10

08/18/09 09/17/09 08/19/09

43 7 6

09/25/09 09/18/09 08/20/09

29 7 6

02/15/10 01/20/10

2 6

EDENTON/CHOWAN GATES COUNTY GUILFORD COUNTY HERTFORD COUNTY HYDE COUNTY LINCOLN COUNTY MARTIN COUNTY MECKLENBURG COUNTY NASH-ROCKY MOUNT NORTHAMPTON COUNTY PASQUOTANK COUNTY PERQUIMANS COUNTY ROWAN-SALISBURY

3 4 91 4 3 18 8

09/17/09 09/17/09 06/14/10 09/17/09 09/17/09 08/19/09 09/17/09

1 3 2 2 1 8 4

09/18/09 09/18/09 08/21/09 09/18/09 09/18/09 08/20/09 09/18/09

1 3 81 3 1 9 4

01/20/10 01/20/10 08/23/10 01/20/10 01/20/10

0 0

01/20/10

115 22

09/28/09 08/19/09

89 18

08/19/09 08/20/09

115 18

08/20/09 01/20/10

73 21

09/17/09

09/18/09

01/20/10

09/17/09

09/18/09

01/20/10

3 27

09/17/09 08/19/09

2 11

09/18/09 08/20/09

4 12

01/20/10 01/22/10

0 0

Grant Year

County Name

Number of Schools Trained

TYRRELL COUNTY

SPARK™ K-2 Training Date 09/17/09

Number Trained 1

SPARK™ 3-5 Training Date 09/18/09

Number Trained 1

SPARK™ 6-8 Training Date 01/20/10

Number Trained 1

NCAAPHERD IsPOD Training Schedule (continued)

Fall 2010

Grant Year

County Name ALAMANCEBURLINGTON CHATHAM COUNTY CHEROKEE CENTRAL CHEROKEE COUNTY CLEVELAND COUNTY GRAHAM COUNTY HICKORY CITY SCHOOLS JOHNSTON COUNTY MADISON COUNTY MCDOWELL COUNTY MITCHELL COUNTY RANDOLPH COUNTY ROCKINGHAM COUNTY STOKES COUNTY SURRY COUNTY SWAIN COUNTY THOMASVILLE CITY TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY

Number of Schools Trained

SPARK™ K-2 Training Date

Number Trained

SPARK™ 3-5 Training Date

Number Trained

8/20/2010

8/20/2010 8/20/2010 8/20/2010 10/5/2010 8/20/2010

SPARK™ 6-8 Training Date

Number Trained

10 1 7 20 2

8/20/2010 8/23/2010 8/23/2010 10/5/2010 8/23/2010

5 1 6 14 5

1/25/2010

30 5 8 7 16

8/19/2010 8/9/2010 8/9/2010 8/9/2010 8/20/2010

27 4 6 5 15

8/19/2010 8/9/2010 8/9/2010 8/9/2010 8/20/2010

15 5 9 3 1

8/18/2010

11 11 3 2

9/21/2010 9/21/2010 8/20/2010 8/20/2010

12 11 5 3

8/23/2010

18 10 1 6 23 2

8/23/2010 8/23/2010 10/4/2010 8/23/2010

8/23/2010

1 7 18 2

WAKE COUNTY

103

WAYNE COUNTY

108 42

3 7/6/2010, 8/19/2010 8/19/2010

40 27

Grant Year

County Name WILKES COUNTY YADKIN COUNTY YANCEY COUNTY SCHOOLS

Number of Schools Trained 16 3 8

SPARK™ K-2 Training Date 8/18/2010

Number Trained 19

SPARK™ 3-5

SPARK™ 6-8

Training Date 8/19/2010 9/21/2010

Number Trained 19 3

Training Date 8/19/2010 9/21/2010

Number Trained 14 3

8/9/2010

Appendix C Number and Percent of Schools & Staff with SPARKâ&#x201E;˘ Training

Table 1 - Original HWTF LEAs Adopted SPARK™ in 2006-08: N = 7 LEAs Number of Schools Trained in SPARK™

LEAs LEA

SCHOOLS LEA ID

Total # of K-8 Schoolsa.

# of K-8 Schools with SPARK™ Training N

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DUPLIN DURHAM IREDELL JACKSON MACON ROBESON* UNION TOTAL

310 320 490 500 560 780 900

12 41 29 7 11 34 41 175

12 40 27 6 8 32 37 162

Total Number of High Schoolsa.

% 100% 98% 93% 86% 73% 94% 90% 93%

STAFF # of High Schools with SPARK™ Training N

6 13 11 4 5 7 13 59

1 3 5 1 3 0 2 15

Total Number of K-8 PE Teachers

% 17% 23% 45% 25% 60% 0% 15% 25%

35 66 64 17 18 61 92 353

# of K-8 PE Teachers Trained N 35 66 64 12 18 60 92 347

* = Addditional training scheduled for spring 2011 a. Alternative, charter, exceptional, hospital, and vocational schools not included in count of total K-8 schools.

% 100% 100% 100% 71% 100% 98% 100% 98%

# of 9-12 PE Teachers Trained

# of LEA Coordinators Trained

# of Other Staff Trained

Total # of Staff Trained

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

0 1 2 1 2 1 2 9

4 6 11 0 4 0 15 40

39 73 78 13 24 61 109 397

Table 2 – KBR Grant Year One LEAs Adopted SPARK™ in 2008-09: N = 32 LEAs Number of Schools Trained in SPARK™

LEAs LEA

SCHOOLS # of K-8 Schools with SPARK™ Training

LEA ID

Total # of K-8 Schoolsa.

030 050 111 060 100 110 130 140 160 681 250 280 340 360 440 450 520 132 540 620 630 650 670 680 690 710 730 810 830 840 950 980

3 4 6 7 15 31 27 20 13 14 20 8 61 44 12 18 5 7 13 8 21 33 28 10 3 12 9 13 13 18 8 21

3 4 6 6 13 30 23 18 13 13 15 6 57 34 11 17 1 5 13 8 17 28 25 10 3 8 9 13 10 9 8 16

% 100% 100% 100% 86% 87% 97% 85% 90% 100% 93% 75% 75% 93% 77% 92% 94% 20% 71% 100% 100% 81% 85% 89% 100% 100% 67% 100% 100% 77% 50% 100% 76%

1 1 2 1 5 7 9 5 3 3 5 3 17 11 3 6 1 1 5 2 4 6 7 2 1 4 1 4 7 5 1 4

525

452

86%

137

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

ALLEGHANY ASHE ASHEVILLE CITY AVERY BRUNSWICK BUNCOMBE CABARRUS* CALDWELL CARTERET CHAPEL HILL CRAVEN DARE FORSYTH GASTON HAYWOOD HENDERSON JONES KANNAPOLIS LENOIR MONTGOMERY MOORE NEW HANOVER ONSLOW ORANGE PAMLICO PENDER PERSON RUTHERFORD* SCOTLAND STANLY WATAUGA WILSON TOTAL

Total Number of High Schoolsa.

STAFF # of High Schools with SPARK™ Training N % 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 20% 2 29% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 33% 12 71% 1 9% 0 0% 1 17% 0 0% 1 100% 1 20% 1 50% 4 100% 1 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 20% 1 100% 0 0%

20%

Total Number of K-8 PE Teachers

# of K-8 PE Teachers Trained N

# of 9-12 PE Teachers Trained

# of LEA Coordinators Trained

# of Other Staff Trained

Total # of Staff Trained

5 8 8 9 32 73 62 32 36 43 40 16 122 65 27 38 6 13 19 14 26 48 42 15 5 14 19 27 22 27 14 36

5 6 8 8 20 48 57 22 32 30 19 16 102 65 18 29 2 9 19 13 26 44 38 13 5 8 12 27 16 15 14 22

% 100% 75% 100% 89% 63% 66% 92% 69% 89% 70% 48% 100% 84% 100% 67% 76% 33% 69% 100% 93% 100% 92% 90% 87% 100% 57% 63% 100% 73% 56% 100% 61%

0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0

6 6 8 8 20 53 57 22 34 30 19 21 129 71 18 29 2 12 23 14 46 49 38 13 5 8 12 30 16 16 22 22

963

768

80%

859

* = Addditional training scheduled for spring 2011 a. Alternative, charter, exceptional, hospital, and vocational schools not included in count of total K-8 schools..

Table 3 – KBR Grant Year Two LEAs Adopted SPARK™ in 2009-10: N = 22 LEAs Number of Schools Trained in SPARK™

LEAs LEA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

BEAUFORT BERTIE CAMDEN CATAWBA* CUMBERLAND CURRITUCK DAVIE EDENTON/CHOWAN GATES GUILFORD HERTFORD HYDE LINCOLN MARTIN MECKLENBURG NASH-ROCKY MT NORTHAMPTON PASQUOTANK PERQUIMANS ROANOKE RAPIDS ROWAN-SALISBUR TYRRELL

TOTAL

SCHOOLS LEA ID

070 080 150 180 260 270 300 210 370 410 460 480 550 580 600 640 660 700 720 421 800 890

Total # of K-8 Schoolsa.

# of K-8 Schools with SPARK™ Training

Total Number of High Schoolsa.

STAFF # of High Schools with SPARK™ Training N

Total Number of K-8 PE Teachers

# of K-8 PE Teachers Trained N

# of 9-12 PE Teachers Trained

# of LEA Coordinators Trained

# of Other Staff Trained

Total # of Staff Trained

9 5 3 21 69 8 9 3 4 91 4 3 18 9 143 22 6 9 3 3 27 2

9 2 3 20 61 8 6 2 3 85 4 1 10 4 135 19 2 9 3 2 21 2

100% 40% 100% 95% 88% 100% 67% 67% 75% 93% 100% 33% 56% 44% 94% 86% 33% 100% 100% 67% 78% 100%

4 3 2 6 14 2 2 1 1 28 3 3 4 3 36 5 3 2 1 1 7 2

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50%

17 8 7 34 118 10 20 5 7 251 7 4 31 16 232 40 8 16 3 7 67 3

13 3 7 28 103 10 6 2 3 141 4 1 12 4 211 40 2 14 3 2 45 2

76% 38% 100% 82% 87% 100% 30% 40% 43% 56% 57% 25% 39% 25% 91% 100% 25% 88% 100% 29% 67% 67%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

13 3 9 30 103 14 6 2 3 150 4 1 12 4 215 40 2 14 5 2 45 2

471

411

87%

133

911

656

72%

679

* = Addditional training scheduled for spring 2011 a. Alternative, charter, exceptional, hospital, and vocational schools not included in count of total K-8 schools..

Table 4 – KBR Grant Year Three LEAs Adopted SPARK™ in 2010-11: N = 22 LEAs Fall 2010, N= 6 LEAs Spring 2011 Number of Schools Trained in SPARK™

LEAs LEA

SCHOOLS LEA ID

Total # of K-8 Schoolsa.

# of K-8 Schools with SPARK™ Training N

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

ALAMANCE* CHATHAM* CHEROKEE CLEVELAND GRAHAM HICKORY CITY* JOHNSTON MADISON MCDOWELL MITCHELL RANDOLPH* ROCKINGHAM STOKES* SURRY* SWAIN THOMASVILLE TRANSYLVANIA WAKE* WAYNE WILKES YADKIN* YANCEY TOTAL

10 190 200 230 380 181 510 570 590 610 760 790 850 860 870 292 880 920 960 970 990 995

27 13 9 23 2 8 34 5 10 7 24 20 14 15 4 3 6 135 24 17 10 8 418

1 2 3 4 5 6

BURKE ELKIN CITY GREENE MOUNT AIRY NEWTON PITT TOTAL

120 861 400 862 182 740

21 2 3 3 4 29 62

18 10 6 23 2 2 30 5 8 7 16 20 11 11 3 2 6 103 23 16 3 8 333

67% 77% 67% 100% 100% 25% 88% 100% 80% 100% 67% 100% 79% 73% 75% 67% 100% 76% 96% 94% 30% 100% 80%

Total Number of High Schoolsa. 7 3 4 6 1 2 10 2 4 2 7 5 4 4 2 1 2 24 10 6 4 1 111

STAFF # of High Schools with SPARK™ Training N

% 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 8

Total Number of K-8 PE Teachers

0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 0% 25% 0% 7%

55 20 16 45 7 11 69 8 20 7 46 34 27 26 6 7 13 323 59 33 15 11 858

# of K-8 PE Teachers Trained N

23 10 8 33 5 2 39 8 9 7 16 31 12 11 6 3 9 148 52 33 3 11 479

42% 50% 50% 73% 71% 18% 57% 100% 45% 100% 35% 91% 44% 42% 100% 43% 69% 46% 88% 100% 20% 100% 56%

# of 9-12 PE Teachers Trained

# of LEA Coordinators Trained

# of Other Staff Trained

Total # of Staff Trained

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 9

23 11 8 33 5 2 39 9 9 9 16 32 12 12 9 3 10 150 54 33 3 13 495

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TRAINING SCHEDULED FOR SPRING 2011: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5 1 2 1 2 6 17

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

38 7 6 5 8 55 119

* = Addditional training scheduled for spring 2011 a. Alternative and Exceptional schools with ADM < 100, Charter, and Vocational schools not included.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Table 5 – KBR Grant Year Four LEAs Scheduled to Adopt SPARK™ in 2011-12: N = 26 LEAs

LEAs LEA

SCHOOLS LEA ID

Total # of K-8 Schoolsa.

# of K-8 Schools with SPARK™ Training N

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ALEXANDER ANSON ASHEBORO BLADEN CASWELL CLAY CLINTON CITY COLUMBUS DAVIDSON EDGECOMBE FRANKLIN GRANVILLE HALIFAX HARNETT HOKE COUNTY LEE COUNTY LEXINGTON MOORESVILLE POLK RICHMOND SAMPSON VANCE WARREN WASHINGTON WELDON CITY WHITEVILLE TOTAL

20 40 761 90 170 220 821 240 290 330 350 390 420 430 470 530 291 491 750 770 820 910 930 940 422 241

9 7 7 11 5 2 4 15 24 10 11 12 10 22 10 10 5 6 5 13 13 13 5 4 3 3 239

% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Total Number of High Schoolsa. 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 5 7 4 4 8 2 4 2 3 1 1 2 3 5 3 3 2 2 1 72

STAFF # of High Schools with SPARK™ Training N

% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total Number of K-8 PE Teachers 17 15 9 14 12 4 5 17 60 15 21 16 6 63 20 21 8 11 11 17 23 22 6 8 3 4 428

* = Addditional training scheduled for spring 2011 a. Alternative, charter, exceptional, hospital, and vocational schools not included in count of total K-8 schools..

# of K-8 PE Teachers Trained N

% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

# of 9-12 PE Teachers Trained

# of LEA Coordinators Trained

# of Other Staff Trained

Total # of Staff Trained

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 15 9 14 12 4 5 17 60 15 21 16 6 63 20 21 8 11 11 17 23 22 6 8 3 4 428

Appendix D Students “Reached” By SPARK™

Table 1 - Original HWTF LEAs STUDENTS “REACHED” BY SPARK™

LEAs LEA

LEA ID

Total # of K-8 Schoolsa.

# of K-8 Schools Using FG

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DUPLIN DURHAM IREDELL JACKSON MACON ROBESON* UNION TOTAL

“REACH”

SCHOOLS

310 320 490 500 560 780 900

12 41 28 7 10 34 41 173

% 4 9 26 4 4 4 30 81

33% 22% 93% 57% 40% 12% 73% 47%

# of K-8 Schools with SPARK™ Training N

12 40 25 5 8 32 37 159

100% 98% 89% 71% 80% 94% 90% 92%

ADM Grades 1-8

5842 19724 13136 2326 2665 14875 24914 83482

LOWER BOUND Number of Valid FG IDs 1472 1828 9887 1218 571 510 9098 24584

% 25% 9% 75% 52% 21% 3% 37% 29%

UPPER BOUND ADM of SPARK™ Students 5842 19200 12165 1926 2420 14528 22830 78911

% 100% 97% 93% 83% 91% 98% 92% 95%

Table 2 – KBR Grant Year One LEAs STUDENTS “REACHED” BY SPARK™

LEAs LEA

LEA ID

Total # of K-8 Schoolsa.

# of K-8 Schools Using FG

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

“REACH”

SCHOOLS

030 050 111 060 100 110 130 140 160 681 250 280 340 360 440 450 520 132 540 620 630 650 670 680 690 710 730 810 830 840 950 980

3 4 7 8 15 31 26 21 14 16 20 9 66 45 12 18 5 7 13 9 19 33 28 11 3 12 9 14 14 19 8 21

1 3 1 2 3 13 3 3 2 0 3 4 36 0 4 2 0 7 4 2 12 0 13 4 0 5 6 11 1 5 5 1

540

156

33% 75% 14% 25% 20% 42% 12% 14% 14% 0% 15% 44% 55% 0% 33% 11% 0% 100% 31% 22% 63% 0% 46% 36% 0% 42% 67% 79% 7% 26% 63% 5% 29%

# of K-8 Schools with SPARK™ Training N

ADM Grades 1-8

925 2068 2235 1378 7474 15809 17699 7992 5059 7128 9203 2934 32483 19566 4823 8446 694 3328 5573 2766 7609 14744 15167 4403 748 5055 3151 5565 3998 5676 2617 7894

Number of Valid FG IDs 134 978 157 244 599 4246 1232 415 166 0 250 806 9611 0 794 168 0 1427 939 395 3673 0 3185 1074 0 1631 1428 2733 318 876 1293 151

234210

38923

% 3 4 6 3 13 29 23 18 13 12 15 6 57 30 11 17 1 5 12 8 16 28 25 10 3 7 9 13 10 9 8 15

439

100% 100% 86% 38% 87% 94% 88% 86% 93% 75% 75% 67% 86% 67% 92% 94% 20% 71% 92% 89% 84% 85% 89% 91% 100% 58% 100% 93% 71% 47% 100% 71% 81%

LOWER BOUND

% 14% 47% 7% 18% 8% 27% 7% 5% 3% 0% 3% 27% 30% 0% 16% 2% 0% 43% 17% 14% 48% 0% 21% 24% 0% 32% 45% 49% 8% 15% 49% 2% 17%

UPPER BOUND ADM of SPARK™ Students 925 2068 2206 422 6676 14655 17371 6568 5055 6106 5994 2174 31410 15206 4358 8039 115 2707 5383 2756 6643 12889 13159 4401 748 2978 3151 5540 3389 3005 2617 5886

204600

% 100% 100% 99% 31% 89% 93% 98% 82% 100% 86% 65% 74% 97% 78% 90% 95% 17% 81% 97% 100% 87% 87% 87% 100% 100% 59% 100% 100% 85% 53% 100% 75% 87%

Table 3 – KBR Grant Year Two LEAs STUDENTS “REACHED” BY SPARK™

LEAs LEA

LEA ID

# of K-8 Schools Using FG

Total # of K-8 Schoolsa.

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

“REACH”

SCHOOLS

070 080 150 180 260 270 300 210 370 410 460 480 550 580 600 640 660 700 720 421 800 890

10 6 3 22 72 8 10 3 4 94 4 3 19 10 142 22 6 10 3 3 28 2 484

0 1 1 0 7 1 4 0 1 42 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133

% 0% 17% 33% 0% 10% 13% 40% 0% 25% 45% 0% 0% 0% 0% 54% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 27%

# of K-8 Schools with SPARK™ Training N

9 2 2 20 61 8 6 2 3 67 4 1 10 4 133 19 2 9 3 2 19 2 388

90% 33% 67% 91% 85% 100% 60% 67% 75% 71% 100% 33% 53% 40% 94% 86% 33% 90% 100% 67% 68% 100% 80%

ADM Grades 1-8

4428 1738 1202 10592 32225 2427 4181 1422 1163 43963 1909 366 7312 2465 85452 10805 1532 3767 1085 1802 12707 357 232900

LOWER BOUND Number of Valid FG IDs 0 76 22 0 1812 78 1236 0 209 9934 0 0 0 0 25595 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38962

% 0% 4% 2% 0% 6% 3% 30% 0% 18% 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17%

UPPER BOUND ADM of SPARK™ Students 4422 894 763 9947 30439 2427 2597 896 695 29064 1909 171 3523 1325 81779 10242 611 3741 1085 1224 9760 357 197871

% 100% 51% 63% 94% 94% 100% 62% 63% 60% 66% 100% 47% 48% 54% 96% 95% 40% 99% 100% 68% 77% 100% 85%

Appendix E FitnessGramâ&#x201E;˘ Response Rates

Table 1 - Original HWTF LEAs Adopted SPARK™ in 2006-08: N = 7 LEAs Number of Schools Trained in SPARK™

FITNESSGRAM™ RESPONSE RATES

LEAs LEA

LEA ID

ADM Grades 1-2

# Valid FG IDs Grades 1-2 N

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DUPLIN DURHAM IREDELL JACKSON MACON ROBESON* UNION TOTAL

310 320 490 500 560 780 900

1540 5428 3267 596 655 3839 6385 21710

373 67 0 0 0 0 0 440

AMD Grades 3-5

% 24% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%

# Valid FG IDs Grades 3-5 N

2209 7752 4975 896 1021 5784 9593 32230

845 1761 5196 627 571 510 6782 16292

ADM Grades 6-8

% 38% 23% 104% 70% 56% 9% 71% 51%

2093 6544 4894 834 989 5252 8936 29542

# Valid FG IDs Grades 6-8 N

254 0 4691 591 0 0 2316 7852

12% 0% 96% 71% 0% 0% 26% 27%

ADM Grades 1-8 5842 19724 13136 2326 2665 14875 24914 83482

# Valid FG IDs Grades 1-8 N

1472 1828 9887 1218 571 510 9098 24584

25% 9% 75% 52% 21% 3% 37% 29%

Table 2 – KBR Grant Year One LEAs FitnessGram™ Response Rates

FITNESSGRAM™ RESPONSE RATES

LEAs LEA

LEA ID

ADM Grades 1-2

# Valid FG IDs Grades 1-2 N

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

030 050 111 060 100 110 130 140 160 681 250 280 340 360 440 450 520 132 540 620 630 650 670 680 690 710 730 810 830 840 950 980

215 503 652 341 1886 3885 4598 1924 1150 1790 2423 737 8532 4799 1245 2219 162 932 1330 703 1826 3853 3981 1126 186 1270 852 1330 1017 1420 654 1965 59506

33 0 0 58 0 498 240 0 0 0 15 0 23 0 110 0 0 0 141 215 7 0 54 226 0 304 489 276 126 0 0 0 2815

AMD Grades 3-5

% 15% 0% 0% 17% 0% 13% 5% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 11% 31% 0% 0% 1% 20% 0% 24% 57% 21% 12% 0% 0% 0% 5%

# Valid FG IDs Grades 3-5 N

367 781 896 516 2817 6107 6716 3023 1913 2642 3571 1095 12517 7517 1784 3199 278 1266 2141 1103 2872 5675 5869 1620 259 1900 1196 2139 1478 2134 943 3070 89404

56 540 157 186 599 2043 992 167 113 0 235 626 9238 0 684 0 0 951 798 180 1928 0 3131 722 0 1194 939 1446 192 679 623 151 28570

ADM Grades 6-8

% 15% 69% 18% 36% 21% 33% 15% 6% 6% 0% 7% 57% 74% 0% 38% 0% 0% 75% 37% 16% 67% 0% 53% 45% 0% 63% 79% 68% 13% 32% 66% 5% 32%

343 784 687 521 2771 5817 6385 3045 1996 2696 3209 1102 11434 7250 1794 3028 254 1130 2102 960 2911 5216 5317 1657 303 1885 1103 2096 1503 2122 1020 2859 85300

# Valid FG IDs Grades 6-8 N

45 438 0 0 0 1705 0 248 53 0 0 180 350 0 0 168 0 476 0 0 1738 0 0 126 0 133 0 1011 0 197 670 0 7538

13% 56% 0% 0% 0% 29% 0% 8% 3% 0% 0% 16% 3% 0% 0% 6% 0% 42% 0% 0% 60% 0% 0% 8% 0% 7% 0% 48% 0% 9% 66% 0% 9%

ADM Grades 1-8

# Valid FG IDs Grades 1-8 N

925 2068 2235 1378 7474 15809 17699 7992 5059 7128 9203 2934 32483 19566 4823 8446 694 3328 5573 2766 7609 14744 15167 4403 748 5055 3151 5565 3998 5676 2617 7894 234210

134 978 157 244 599 4246 1232 415 166 0 250 806 9611 0 794 168 0 1427 939 395 3673 0 3185 1074 0 1631 1428 2733 318 876 1293 151 38923

% 14% 47% 7% 18% 8% 27% 7% 5% 3% 0% 3% 27% 30% 0% 16% 2% 0% 43% 17% 14% 48% 0% 21% 24% 0% 32% 45% 49% 8% 15% 49% 2% 17%

Table 3 – KBR Grant Year Two LEAs Adopted SPARK™ in 2009-10: N = 22 LEAs Number of Schools Trained in SPARK™

FITNESSGRAM™ RESPONSE RATES

LEAs LEA

LEA ID

ADM Grades 1-2

# Valid FG IDs Grades 1-2 N

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

070 080 150 180 260 270 300 210 370 410 460 480 550 580 600 640 660 700 720 421 800 890

1106 394 304 2585 8152 553 1030 359 266 10990 522 99 1804 608 22749 2724 385 989 278 519 3260 89 59765

0 20 22 0 518 0 388 0 67 183 0 0 0 0 610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1808

AMD Grades 3-5

% 0% 5% 7% 0% 6% 0% 38% 0% 25% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

# Valid FG IDs Grades 3-5 N

1724 654 437 4050 12316 958 1567 537 429 16686 728 130 2773 986 33145 4155 631 1488 407 705 4708 149 89363

0 56 0 0 1294 58 848 0 142 9751 0 0 0 0 17739 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29888

ADM Grades 6-8

% 0% 9% 0% 0% 11% 6% 54% 0% 33% 58% 0% 0% 0% 0% 54% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33%

# Valid FG IDs Grades 6-8

1598 690 461 3957 11757 916 1584 526 468 16287 659 137 2735 871 29558 3926 516 1290 400 578 4739 119 83772

0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7266

ADM Grades 1-8

% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9%

4428 1738 1202 10592 32225 2427 4181 1422 1163 43963 1909 366 7312 2465 85452 10805 1532 3767 1085 1802 12707 357 232900

# Valid FG IDs Grades 1-8 N

0 76 22 0 1812 78 1236 0 209 9934 0 0 0 0 25595 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38962

0% 4% 2% 0% 6% 3% 30% 0% 18% 23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17%

Appendix F Cooper Institute FitnessGramâ&#x201E;˘ Standards

Table 1 BMI Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ) Values Boys

Girls Age 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 > 17

Below HFZ

In HFZ

Over HFZ

Below HFZ

In HFZ

Over HFZ

< 13.5 < 13.4 < 13.4 < 13.5 < 13.7 < 14.0 < 14.4 < 14.8 < 15.3 < 15.8 < 16.3 < 16.8 < 17.2 < 17.5

13.6 - 16.7 13.5 – 17.0 13.5 – 17.5 13.6 – 18.2 13.8 – 18.9 14.1 – 19.5 14.5 – 20.4 14.9 – 21.2 15.4 – 22.0 15.9 – 22.8 16.4 – 23.5 16.9 – 24.1 17.3 – 24.6 17.6 – 25.1

>16.8 > 17.1 > 17.6 > 18.3 > 19.0 > 19.6 > 20.5 > 21.3 > 22.1 > 22.9 > 23.6 > 24.2 > 24.7 > 25.2

< 13.8 < 13.7 < 13.7 < 13.8 < 14.0 < 14.2 < 14.5 < 15.0 < 15.4 < 16.0 < 16.5 < 17.1 < 17.7 < 18.2

13.9 - 16.7 13.8 – 16.9 13.8 – 17.3 13.9 – 17.8 14.1 – 18.5 14.3 – 18.9 14.6 – 19.7 15.1 – 20.5 15.5 – 21.3 16.1 – 22.1 16.6 – 22.9 17.2 – 23.7 17.8 – 24.4 18.3 – 25.1

>16.8 > 17.0 > 17.4 > 17.9 > 18.6 > 19.0 > 19.8 > 20.6 > 21.4 > 22.2 > 23.0 > 23.8 > 24.5 > 25.2

Table 2 20 Meter PACER Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ) Values In HFZ Age 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 > 17

Girls

Boys

>7 > 15 > 15 > 23 > 23 > 32 > 32 > 41 > 41

> 23 > 23 > 32 > 41 > 41 > 51 > 61 > 61 > 72

Table 3 Trunk Lift Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ) Values In HFZ Age 5-9 > 10

Girls

Boys

> 6” > 9”

Table 4 Curl-Up Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ) Values In HFZ Age 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 > 14

Girls

Boys

>2 >2 >4 >6 >9 > 12 > 15 > 18 > 18 > 18

>2 >2 >4 >6 >9 > 12 > 15 > 18 > 21 > 24

Table 5 o

90 Push-Up Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ) Values In HFZ Age 5-6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > 16

Girls

Boys

>3 >4 >5 >6 >7 >7 >7 >7 >7 >7 >7

>3 >4 >5 >6 >7 >8 > 10 > 12 > 14 > 16 > 18

Table 6 Sit-and-Reach Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ) Values In HFZ Age 5 - 10 11 - 14 > 15

Girls

Boys

> 9” > 10” > 12”

> 8” > 8” > 8”

Appendix G Analysis of FitnessGramâ&#x201E;˘ and Student Survey Results

SCREEN TIME Watch TV 2 or More Hours During Week-Days Percent in Healthy Fitness Zone

Watch TV >= 2 Hrs/Day on School Days Watch TV < 2 Hrs/Day on School Days

83%

90%

Percent in HFZ

80% 70% 60%

81%85%

81%84%

72% 63%

56%

58%

51%

Fitness Measurement

Watch TV >= 2 Hrs/Day on School Days

Watch TV < 2 Hrs/Day on School Days

62%65%

P-Value

50%

Total

13459 9415 15197 11992 9461 14282

51% 72% 81% 56% 62% 81%

16775 11689 18996 14785 11681 17694

58% 83% 85% 63% 65% 84%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Watch TV 3 or More Hours During WeekEnds

BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

Watch TV < 3 Hrs/Day on Week-Ends

82%

90%

60%

84% 81%

73%

80% 70%

85% 81% 63% 56%

57% 51%

< 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Percent in Healthy Fitness Zone

Watch TV >= 3 Hrs/Day on Week-ends

Percent in HFZ

ChiSquared Test

Fitness Measurement

62%64%

Watch TV >= 3 Hrs/Day on Week-Ends

Watch TV < 3 Hrs/Day On Week-Ends

ChiSquared Test P-Value

50%

Total

13271 9151 14935 11837 9245 14029

51% 73% 81% 56% 62% 81%

17007 11970 19293 14952 11884 17989

57% 82% 85% 63% 64% 84%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Play Video/Computer Games 2 or More Hours/Day

BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

Percent in Healthy Fitness Zone

Play Video/Computers >= 2 Hrs/Day Play Video/Computers <2 Hrs/Day

83%

90%

Percent in HFZ

60%

84% 80%

Fitness Measurement

71%

80% 70%

85% 81%

56% 52%

62% 58%

< 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0007 < 0.0001

Plays Video/Computers >= 2 Hrs/Day

Plays Video/Computer < 2 Hrs/Day

65% 61%

ChiSquared Test P-Value

50%

Total

12543 8759 14233 11299 8737 13281

52% 71% 81% 58% 61% 80%

17687 12338 19953 15465 12377 18694

56% 83% 85% 62% 65% 84%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

< 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Have PE 3 or More Days/Week PE >= 3 Days/Wk

82%

90%

Percent in Healthy Fitness Zone

PE < 3 Days/Wk

86% 83%

84% 78%

Fitness Measurement

Percent in HFZ

80% 65%

70%

64% 58%

55%54%

60%

66%

30% 20%

Active in PE 20 Minutes or More Each Class Active in PE > 20 Minutes

90%

78%77%

Total

P-Value

22494 16501 25451 20097 14883 23760

55% 82% 83% 58% 66% 84%

8022 4846 9080 6932 6413 8523

54% 65% 86% 64% 57% 78%

0.0562 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Percent in Healthy Fitness Zone

84% 81%

83%81%

61% 56%

70% 55%55%

60%

BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

Active in PE <= 20 Minutes

Fitness Measurement

80%

Percent in HFZ

ChiSquared Test

40%

64% 61%

50%

Active in PE > 20 Minutes/Class

Active in PE 20 Minutes or Less Per Class

ChiSquared Test

Total

P-Value

24794 17501 28224 22076 17581 26313

55% 78% 84% 61% 64% 83%

5612 3759 6185 4869 3647 5860

55% 77% 81% 56% 61% 81%

0.4987 0.0647 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0032 0.0012

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Active 60 Minutes/Day for 7 Days/Week Active 60 Minutes/Day

100%

BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

Not Active 60 Minutes/Day

86%

84%

82%

Percent in Healthy Fitness Zone 82%

76%

80%

58%

Fitness Measurement

66%

65%

Percent in HFZ

Have PE Less Than 3 Days/Week

57%

50%

10%

60%

Have PE 3 or More Days/Week

62% 58%

53%

Active 60 Minutes/Day for 7 Days/Week

Active 60 Minutes/Day for < 7 Days/Week

ChiSquared Test P-Value

40%

20%

BMI

PACER

CurlUp

PushUP

Sit and Reach

TrunkLift

BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

Total

9738 6817 10934 8568 6843 10187

58% 84% 86% 65% 66% 84%

20550 14338 23317 18257 14328 21841

53% 76% 82% 58% 62% 82%

< 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ( Continued) Active 60 Minutes or More Each School Day Active 60 Minutes/Day at School

Percent in Healthy Fitness Zone

Not Active 60 Minutes/Day at School

100% 86% 80%

84%

82%

77%

80%

Percent in HFZ

64%

Active < 60 Minutes/Day on School Days

ChiSquared Test

64% 63% 57%

56%

60%

Fitness Measurement

Active >=60 Minutes/Day on School Days

53%

40%

20%

Active 60 Minutes or More on Week-end DaysPushUPSit and ReachTrunkLift BMI PACER CurlUp

BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

Total

P-Value

12348 8498 13901 10822 8854 12906

56% 80% 86% 64% 64% 84%

17886 12604 20283 15947 12260 19055

53% 77% 82% 57% 63% 82%

< 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.1809 < 0.0001

Active 60 Minutes/Day on Week-ends

90%

80%

85% 80%

Percent in HFZ

56% 51%

Fitness Measurement

Active in PE > 20 Minutes/Class

Active in PE 20 Minutes or Less Per Class

ChiSquared Test

64%63%

63%

70% 60%

83% 81%

74%

80%

Percent in Healthy Fitness Zone

Not Active 60 Minutes/Day on Week-ends

53%

Total

P-Value

20456 14235 23054 17903 14096 21541

56% 80% 85% 63% 64% 83%

9774 6877 11133 8861 7011 10425

51% 74% 80% 53% 63% 81%

< 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0471 < 0.0001

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% BMI

PACER

CurlUp

PushUP

Sit and Reach

TrunkLift

BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

NUTRITION 3 or More Servings of Fruit/Day 3 or more servings Fruit/Day

84%

90% 79% 80%

83% 79%

79%

72%

70%

Percent in HFZ

Percent in Healthy Fitness Zone

Less than 3 servings Fruit/Day

53%

40% 30%

10%

4 or More Servings of Vegetables/Day 0%

BMI

PACER

CurlUp

4 or more servings Vegetables/Day

90%

81% 75%

80%

Percent in HFZ

Sit and Reach

TrunkLift

BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

Total

P-Value

24898 17285 28183 22014 17377 26352

55% 79% 84% 61% 64% 83%

5337 3805 6015 4778 3737 5640

54% 72% 79% 53% 61% 79%

0.3366 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0003 < 0.0001

Percent in Healthy Fitness Zone

Less than 4 servings Vegetables/Day

84%82%

62% 58%

56% 53%

60%

PushUP

85% 82%

70%

Fitness Measurement

65% 62%

50%

Have 4 or More Servings Vegetables Per Day

Have Less than 4 Servings Vegetables per Day

ChiSquared Test

Total

P-Value

15158 10345 17085 13238 10617 16002

56% 81% 85% 62% 65% 84%

14952 10668 16962 13424 10400 15844

53% 75% 82% 58% 62% 82%

< 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

40% 30% 20% 10%

3 or More Servings of Milk/Day 0%

BMI

PACER

CurlUp

3 or more servings Milk/Day

PushUP

Sit and Reach

TrunkLift

BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

Less than 3 servings Milk/Day

100%

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY 84% 83%

80%

Percent in Healthy Fitness Zone 84%

82%

77%

80% 63% 63%

63%

Percent in HFZ

ChiSquared Test

50%

20%

60%

Have Less than 3 Servings Fruit per Day

64% 61%

61% 55%54%

60%

Fitness Measurement

Have 3 or More Servings Fruit Per Day

59%

Have PE 3 or More Days/Week 56%

Fitness Measurement

Have 3 or More Servings Milk Per Day

Have Less than 3 Servings Milk per Day

54%

ChiSquared Test P-Value

Total

8346 5955 9527 7469 5908 8918

56% 80% 84% 63% 63% 84%

21881 15137 24656 19273 15192 23056

54% 77% 83% 59% 63% 82%

40%

20%

0% BMI

PACER

CurlUp

PushUP

Sit and Reach

TrunkLift

BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

0.0001 0.0002 0.0055 < 0.0001 0.5223 < 0.0001

NUTRITION (Continued) Ate Breakfast 7 Days/Week Breakfast 7 Days/Week

90%

82%

80%

85% 81%

83% 81%

71%

70%

Percent in HFZ

Percent in Healthy Fitness Zone

Breakfast < 7 Days/Week

55%

60%

Ate Breakfast 7 Days/Week

48%

Total

P-Value

19416 13675 21993 17110 13601 20604

58% 82% 85% 62% 65% 83%

10656 7287 12004 9483 7396 11190

48% 71% 81% 55% 61% 81%

< 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

Ate Dinner at Home 5 or More Days/Week 0%

BMI

PACER

CurlUp

Dinner at Home >= 5 Days/Week

90%

79% 74%

80%

60%

PushUP

Sit and Reach

Percent in Healthy Fitness Zone

83%82%

Fitness Measurement

64%62%

62% 56%

TrunkLift

BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift

Dinner at Home < 5 Days/Weeks

84% 80%

70%

Percent in HFZ

Ate Breakfast 7 Days/Week

65% 61%

62% 58%

Fitness Measurement

ChiSquared Test

55%

50%

Ate Dinner at Home 5 or More Days/Week

Ate Dinner at Home < 5 Days/Week

ChiSquared Test

Total

P-Value

22471 15599 25345 19760 15573 23670

56% 79% 84% 62% 64% 83%

7537 5327 8579 6817 5369 8056

50% 74% 80% 55% 62% 82%

< 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0288 0.0063

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% BMI

PACER

CurlUp

PushUP

Sit and Reach

TrunkLift

BMI PACER Curl Up Push Up Sit and Reach Trunk Lift