Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, February 11, 1991 TAG: 9102110275
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Good health is a prerequisite to almost any successful human activity. Without it, a person is hobbled and held back. That's true with any age; it's especially so with children. The sickly infant may survive, only to become the sickly youngster, then the sickly adult. Poor health - and its ally, poor nutrition - can stunt both physical and mental development.
Thus, an unhealthy or malnourished child won't do well in school. The effect is tragic on the child's potential, and costly for the nation. This is not new information, but it has not received enough attention. A recent report tries to arouse America's concern about health's implications for schooling.
Nearly 40 organizations cooperated in the National Health/Education Consortium, co-chaired by former U.S. Sen. Lawton Chiles and businessman William S. Woodside, chairman of the Institute for Educational Leadership.
The report abounds in statistics. Pick a few: In 1989, 2.6 million adolescents (only 71 percent of all 17-year-olds) were graduated from public high schools. In 1972, the year most were born, 3.2 million babies came into the world; "but 247,000 were so small they started life at risk for physical, mental or multiple disabilities; 60,182 died before their first birthday; and others were born profoundly retarded, disabled or seriously ill."
Many of these children will pose a challenge to the nation's educational system; many will fail. Better health care, especially preventive care, could head off problems for youngsters. The nation has developed marvelous medical technology, one reason health-care costs have zoomed.
But it continues to neglect health needs that could be met easily and relatively cheaply: for example, by educating pregnant women on the dangers of smoking, drinking and drug use; making available regular medical checkups for mother and child, and assuring them adequate nutrition at times when their health is most vulnerable.
Society pays a price when those needs are not met. The price is highest where those mothers and children live; local schools and agencies bear the burden, and the cost goes to taxpayers.
Preventive care is not only less expensive; in the long run, it also pays dividends in the form of healthier, livelier, more alert youngsters. They perform much better in school, and in turn stand a much better chance of becoming productive grown-ups.
In his State of the Union address last month, President Bush said his administration wants "an aggressive program of new prevention initiatives . . . to promote a healthier America and to help keep costs from spiraling." It's a good idea. He should follow up on it.
by CNB