Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:45:20 -0400

From: "Kimberly M. Coleman" <kimcolem@SIU.EDU>

Subject: STATS ASSISTANCE NEEDED

** Become Part of the Solution-AAHE

**

** Support the HEDIR With Your Gift

**

I am in desperate need of someone who has a strong biostat background and a reasonable familiarity with health behavior theory to help me complete my dissertation. Specifically, someone who can assist me with multivariate regression analyses (willing to run the multiple regression analyses for 6 hypotheses using SPSS) AND schedule a phone conference meeting (or two) with me immediately. I WILL PAY THIS PERSON (we can discuss a "per hour" fee)!

Unfortunately, I have exhausted my knowledge of multiple regression analyses and have been left on my own to figure out how to do what needs to be done. If anyone is interested or wants more information before making a decision, I can be contacted via email, at my office number below, or my cell phone (618-201-5440). Thank you for your consideration.

Thanks!

- Kim

Kimberly M. Coleman, Ph.D. (cand.), MPH, CHES Assistant Professor of Community Health Department of Health & Kinesiology College of Health & Human Services Georgia Southern University Statesboro, GA 30461 kcoleman@georgiasouthern.edu Direct Line: 912-486-7666 Main Office: 912.681-0200

Fax: 912.681.0381

**

** The HEDIR Bulletin Board

**

** The HEDIR is Supported by Paid Advertising

**

**

------------------------------

#527

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:52:36 -0400

From: Michaela Conley <michaela@HPCAREER.NET>

Subject: Paid Ad: Grad Assistantship at SIU

** Become Part of the Solution-AAHE

**

** Support the HEDIR With Your Gift

**

*Graduate Assistantship Opportunity for August 2006*

*Southern Illinois University Carbondale, *

*Coordinated School Health Program Assistant*

The health education program at Southern Illinois University Carbondale has one graduate assistantship available at the master's or doctoral level available for January, 2006. The assistantship is an excellent opportunity for someone interested in working with school districts in planning and developing coordinated school health programs. A description of the position is included below. The assistantship, funded by Southern Illinois Healthcare (SIH) includes a $1200 (masters)/$ 1302

*SIH Job Description*: Building upon previous SIH Community Benefits efforts in coordinated school health (CSHP), the Graduate Assistant, under the supervision of the the SIH School Health Specialist will work to with schools and community agencies to promote CSHP.

**

** The HEDIR Bulletin Board

**

** The HEDIR is Supported by Paid Advertising

**

**

------------------------------

#528

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:33:30 -0400

From: Jim Bogden <jimb@NASBE.ORG>

Subject: Smokefree cities and meetings

** Become Part of the Solution-AAHE

**

** Support the HEDIR With Your Gift

**

The Council of the District of Columbia recently passed a clean indoor air law that takes effect January 1, 2007. Similar to the comprehensive laws in 11 states, DC's law includes restaurants and bars (but not U.S. Congress buildings).

The grassroots advocacy organization Smokefree DC pulled every lever we could think of to convince the city's leaders to do the right thing. One thing that really helped was when the American Public Health Association (APHA) passed a resolution in November 2004 to negotiate future contracts for its Annual Meetings in smokefree cities. APHA's huge convention is worth $20 million to a city, which is enough to catch the attention of business leaders. And we made sure APHA's resolution came to their attention. Just last week at a candidates' forum, one of the Council members who voted for the smokefree workplace law cited the threat to DC's convention business as a reason for her vote.

Note that the Westin hotel chain is also 100% smokefree. If you stay at any other chain, be sure to mention to the desk clerk that you will steer your business to a Marriott or Westin in your future travels. Write it on the comment card in your room.

Jim Bogden

Smokefree DC

-----------------------------

------------------------------

#529

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:15:31 EDT

From: Valerie Scotella <Staywell2002@AOL.COM>

Subject: Re: HEDIR-L Digest - 27 Jul 2006 to 28 Jul 2006 (#2006-158)

** Become Part of the Solution-AAHE

**

** Support the HEDIR With Your Gift

**

Dear Michael:

Thank you kindly for your response. It is very enlightening to discuss this topic which is obviously still at issue here in this open forum style. This issue has generated positive feedback and I hope this feedback continues in this same vein to the point of perhaps making a difference in the future of HEALTH EDUCATION.

I wish to add some more considerations to this ongoing discussion, if I may:

When we speak of undergraduate (UG) Public Health (PH) major programs, we obviously speak of a very different program of course work than when we speak of graduate level (masters level--ML)course work in either the PH or the

Education (ED) fields. If completion of either a UG program or a ML program were

one and the same amount of information, having an advanced degree would mean nothing in the real world.

[If you are screaming loudly at this point, please relax and read on,...]

Most of you will agree then that a UG degree program does not equal a ML program in any discipline. Otherwise, completing a ML program would be seen as a huge waste of time and money so it is really not relevant to consider the

statement(s) made that one can be as effective of a teacher (ED program) or as a PH Educator whether they have achieved a BS or a Masters degree.

There are obvious inherent disparities between these levels of education* in any field as it should be.

When a person graduates from an accredited school of Ed*, this 4 year UG program is supposed to include all one needs to learn to be a "teacher" in about

2 of those years of schooling if you consider that approximately 1/2 of any UG level degree program, 2 years or so of course time is spent learning the same general ed requirements as many other UG programs. Building on this, if the resultant degree is a BA (usually given to ED majors) instead of a BS degree (as in certain other major fields of study like Engineering, Business Administration, etc), perhaps those graduates obtaining BS degrees are already more qualified to teach than those who have obtained BA degrees.

But let's not get into this aspect of the debate right now,...

The only additional requirement in an UG ED degree program (regardless of the BA/BS delineation)that is not present in the UG HP/HEd program, aside from the ed theory classes, is that of the student teaching (ST)requirement an ED graduate has to complete. One might think this requirement could easily be incorporated into any undergrad HEd program, if these programs were to be retooled to make the graduates of both of these programs equally capable of teaching HEd classes (and hence equally capable of obtaining teaching certificates or endorsements in their fields of specialty) as grads of any Ed program.

This retooling/refinement of the current undergrad HEd programs may become a real consideration in the future if these same HEd undergrad programs are to continue to remain attractive to those UG students who are searching for a UG program wherein they could actually teach when they finish school or perhaps, in the reverse, to any of the ED majors who wish to specialize in teaching HEd classes.

It also makes one consider the possibility that at least at the UG level, since a CHES certification is not required to teach in either field, perhaps incorporating a ST requirement into its certification process might be an easier place to add such a requirement than at the university level but, as I am neither a CHES employee nor a university administrator, I may be way off base in this assumption.

Regardless, if this is the vortex of disparity between these 2 UG programs, perhaps by infusing this requirement into the undergrad HP/HEd programs, or at least into the CHES certification program requirements, we could approximate if not match the student teaching requirements for endorsement/certification of the UG ED programs. If ST were to be added to the CHES requirements, it would also add significant value to actually obtaining/acquiring this type of certification, don't you think?

In a perfect world, we could snap our fingers and immediately make these changes occur across the board in both programs. Once done, the concern about having teaching requirements for HEds once they complete a Masters degree would then seem moot because assumably, they would have already completed this course work and student teaching at the UG level. The playing field between the

2 UG level programs would have already have been leveled.

COOL!

However, when one chooses to go back to school* for a Masters degree in PH HEd/HP, as they are not required to have an undergrad degree in either PH or in ED, there still needs to be a ST requirement in addition to an infusion of ED theory classes into the ML HEd programs in order to ensure all graduates with MPH degrees can actually be certified/endorsed to teach HEd classes with not only the same abilities and certifications as the UG ED majors (or if the UG PH programs are eventually changed to include these classes as well, as I am humbly suggesting we consider doing), but with even greater information/capabilities/skills etc as a direct result of the ML curriculum.

Or rather, if the CHES certification process included the ST requirements, a CHES certification could then make all educators teaching HEd classes approximately identically prepared in both ED theory and in ST requirements, regardless of whether or not they obtained an UG degree in HEd or in ED. Then, those gaining CHES certification seemingly could be considered to be even more capable and competent to teach HEd classes than non-CHES certified teachers.

Of course, this is assuming that teacher certifications/endorsements would actually be granted following completion of CHES certification.

The debate continues,....

**

** The HEDIR Bulletin Board

**

** The HEDIR is Supported by Paid Advertising

**

**

------------------------------

#530

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:36:05 -0500

From: "David A. Birch" <dabirch@SIU.EDU>

Subject: Accreditation Discussion

** Become Part of the Solution-AAHE

**

** Support the HEDIR With Your Gift

**

Dear Colleagues,

On behalf of the National Transition Task Force on Accreditation in Health Education, we appreciate the thoughts expressed in the recent HEDIR dialogue regarding accreditation. We view this type of discussion as a logical outcome of the Dallas conference and a positive sign of increased interest in quality assurance efforts for the health education profession.

To promote the most informed and accurate discussion possible, we would like to clarify several issues raised during the past several days and present some information that may be useful in future consideration of this issue.

- Two task forces, with broad membership of various professional preparation programs and organizations (including NCHEC and CNHEO), have provided leadership for the coordinated accreditation effort. The first group, the National Task Force on Accreditation in Health Education (2001-2004), developed seven recommendations for implementing a coordinated accreditation system in health education. To continue the momentum, this Task Force also recommended that progress toward implementation of the recommendations be led by a subsequent task force, the National Transition Task Force on Accreditation in Health Education (2004-present). This second task force organized the Dallas Conference held in February, 2006.

- The initiation of the accreditation effort was based on numerous recommendations from the profession including reports such as The Health Education Profession in the Twenty-First Century: Setting the Stage (National Commission for Health Education Credentialing & Coalition of National Health Education Organizations, 1995), Health Education in the 21st Century: A White Paper (Gielen, McDonald & Auld, , 1998), and Recreating Health Professional Practice for a New Century (Pew Health Commission, 1998). Additionally, recommendations to strengthen both professional preparation and quality assurance for the field were identified in the CNHEO report, The Health Education Profession in the 21st

Century: Progress Report 1995-2001, which resulted from the CNHEO meeting in Atlanta in 2001.

- These task forces have been supported by SOPHE and AAHE, as a service to the profession in concert with the aforementioned 2001 CNHEO report. In both instances, care was taken to ensure broad input from a wide range of

stakeholders: Members have included practitioners, university faculty members from small and large programs, programs within and outside schools of public health and colleges of education, public and private institutions, government agencies, and representation from SABPAC, CEPH, NCATE and NCHEC.

- Throughout the process, input has been provided to the Task Force from professionals in diverse settings through two national surveys (of academics and practitioners), numerous presentations at national conferences (e.g. AAHE, SOPHE, DHPE, APHA) and a specific call for public comments (Fall 2004). Moreover, a specific website was established for this project to request comments on the draft recommendations and to ensure timely communication to the field (wwww.healthedaccred.org). Several articles also have been published in peer-reviewed journals documenting the project and related recommendations.

- A CNHEO representative, Ellen Capwell, has actively participated in both task force meetings and calls. She has diligently shared this information with all CNHEO representatives on various calls over the 6-year period.

- The original task force made a series of recommendations, which were endorsed by the AAHE Board of Directors and SOPHE Board of Trustees as project funders. While some of the recommendations were in the purview of SOPHE and AAHE to address (e.g. supporting an implementation task force), others are beyond SOPHE and AAHE's control (e.g. individual certification, CEPH accreditation). Whether these organizations chose to adopt or move forward with the recommendations will be the decisions of these groups'

governing Boards.

- Related to the discussion of eligibility for the CHES exam, the specific recommendation from the Task Force is that "only graduates from accredited programs should be eligible for CHES certification." The decision for how individuals are certified is and, will be, determined by NCHEC.

A central premise of this decade-long is that having a coordinated accreditation process in place that is linked to individual certification will provide for quality assurance in professional preparation in health education at both the institutional and individual levels. Such quality assurance is vital to the continued development, maturity and recognition of health education and will benefit both the profession and the general public.

A detailed report of the original task force including specific recommendations is presented in both the Nov/Dec, 2004 issue of the American Journal of Health Education, and the December, 2004 issue of Health Education & Behavior.

We invite you to visit the Accreditation webpage

Sincerely,

David Birch and Kathleen Roe, Co-Chairs, National Transition Task Force on Accreditation in Health Education Elaine Auld, Executive Director, SOPHE Becky Smith, Executive Director, AAHE

**

** The HEDIR Bulletin Board

**

** The HEDIR is Supported by Paid Advertising

**

**

------------------------------

#531

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:40:33 -0500

From: Jody Ruth Steinhardt <jody.steinhardt@VERIZON.NET>

Subject: Re: Accreditation Discussion

** Become Part of the Solution-AAHE

**

** Support the HEDIR With Your Gift

**

David,

Thank you for the clarification. I am quite relieved to know that decisions regarding eligibility for CHES appropriately rests in the hands of NCHEC.

Jody

>From: "David A. Birch" <dabirch@SIU.EDU>

>Date: 2006/07/31 Mon PM 07:36:05 CDT

>To: HEDIR-L@LISTSERV.SIU.EDU

>Subject: Accreditation Discussion

>** Become Part of the Solution-AAHE

>**

>** Support the HEDIR With Your Gift

>**

>

>Dear Colleagues,

>

>On behalf of the National Transition Task Force on Accreditation in

>Health Education, we appreciate the thoughts expressed in the recent

>HEDIR dialogue regarding accreditation. We view this type of

>discussion as a logical outcome of the Dallas conference and a positive

>sign of increased interest in quality assurance efforts for the health education profession.

>

>To promote the most informed and accurate discussion possible, we would

>like to clarify several issues raised during the past several days and

>present some information that may be useful in future consideration of

>this issue.

>

>- Two task forces, with broad membership of various professional

>preparation programs and organizations (including NCHEC and CNHEO),

>have provided leadership for the coordinated accreditation effort. The

>first group, the National Task Force on Accreditation in Health

>Education (2001-2004), developed seven recommendations for implementing

>a coordinated accreditation system in health education. To continue

>the momentum, this Task Force also recommended that progress toward

>implementation of the recommendations be led by a subsequent task

>force, the National Transition Task Force on Accreditation in Health

>Education (2004-present). This second task force organized the Dallas Conference held in February, 2006.

>

>- The initiation of the accreditation effort was based on numerous

>recommendations from the profession including reports such as The

>Health Education Profession in the Twenty-First Century: Setting the

>Stage (National Commission for Health Education Credentialing &

>Coalition of National Health Education Organizations, 1995), Health

>Education in the 21st Century: A White Paper (Gielen, McDonald & Auld,

>, 1998), and Recreating Health Professional Practice for a New Century

>(Pew Health Commission, 1998). Additionally, recommendations to

>strengthen both professional preparation and quality assurance for the

>field were identified in the CNHEO report, The Health Education

>Profession in the 21st

>Century: Progress Report 1995-2001, which resulted from the CNHEO

>meeting in Atlanta in 2001.

>

>- These task forces have been supported by SOPHE and AAHE, as a service

>to the profession in concert with the aforementioned 2001 CNHEO report.

>In both instances, care was taken to ensure broad input from a wide

>range of

>stakeholders: Members have included practitioners, university faculty

>members from small and large programs, programs within and outside

>schools of public health and colleges of education, public and private

>institutions, government agencies, and representation from SABPAC,

>CEPH, NCATE and NCHEC.

>

>- Throughout the process, input has been provided to the Task Force

>from professionals in diverse settings through two national surveys (of

>academics and practitioners), numerous presentations at national

>conferences (e.g. AAHE, SOPHE, DHPE, APHA) and a specific call for

>public comments (Fall 2004). Moreover, a specific website was

>established for this project to request comments on the draft

>recommendations and to ensure timely communication to the field

>(wwww.healthedaccred.org). Several articles also have been published

>in peer-reviewed journals documenting the project and related recommendations.

>

>- A CNHEO representative, Ellen Capwell, has actively participated in

>both task force meetings and calls. She has diligently shared this

>information with all CNHEO representatives on various calls over the 6-year period.

>

>- The original task force made a series of recommendations, which were

>endorsed by the AAHE Board of Directors and SOPHE Board of Trustees as

>project funders. While some of the recommendations were in the purview

>of SOPHE and AAHE to address (e.g. supporting an implementation task

>force), others are beyond SOPHE and AAHE's control (e.g. individual

>certification, CEPH accreditation). Whether these organizations chose

>to adopt or move forward with the recommendations will be the decisions of these groups'

>governing Boards.

>

>- Related to the discussion of eligibility for the CHES exam, the

>specific recommendation from the Task Force is that "only graduates

>from accredited programs should be eligible for CHES certification."

>The decision for how individuals are certified is and, will be, determined by NCHEC.

>

>A central premise of this decade-long is that having a coordinated

>accreditation process in place that is linked to individual

>certification will provide for quality assurance in professional

>preparation in health education at both the institutional and

>individual levels. Such quality assurance is vital to the continued

>development, maturity and recognition of health education and will

>benefit both the profession and the general public.

>

>A detailed report of the original task force including specific

>recommendations is presented in both the Nov/Dec, 2004 issue of the

>American Journal of Health Education, and the December, 2004 issue of

>Health Education & Behavior.

>

>We invite you to visit the Accreditation webpage

>background information on this project. Presentations from the Dallas

>meeting will be posted there shortly.

>

>Sincerely,

>

>David Birch and Kathleen Roe, Co-Chairs, National Transition Task Force

>on Accreditation in Health Education Elaine Auld, Executive Director,

>SOPHE Becky Smith, Executive Director, AAHE

>

>**

>** The HEDIR Bulletin Board

>**

>** The HEDIR is Supported by Paid Advertising

>**

>**

**

** The HEDIR Bulletin Board

**

** The HEDIR is Supported by Paid Advertising

**

**

------------------------------