physical education steps into the 21st century

Ejournal de la recherche sur l’intervention en éducation physique et sport

Accueil Numéros 27 Physical Education Futures: Can w...

Physical Education Futures: Can we reform physical education in the early 21st Century? 1

As a possible antidote to being trapped in the present tense, this paper draws on an analysis of the present and the past in order to consider the extent to which physical education in its current form may be fit for the 21 st century. I argue that in order to secure middle to longer term futures for some form of physical education in schools, we need radical reform. I offer a models-based approach to physical education that is student-centred, inclusive and motivating as key factors to securing a future. I note that teachers have some difficult decisions to make in terms of risking hard-won achievements for their subject by engaging in radical reform, while failure to reform may lead to demise in the longer term.

Entrées d’index

Keywords: , texte intégral, introduction.

• 1 A version of this paper will be published as Kirk, D. (in press) Physical education for the 21 st ce (...)

1 There has been a relative lack of interest in futures studies among physical educators. This is somewhat paradoxical, on the one hand, given the colourful and dramatic history of the field in schools and colleges (Fletcher, 1984; Kirk, 1992). On the other, we have seen the rapid development of physical culture, including the commercialisation, commodification and technologisation of sport, exercise and active leisure (Kirk, 1999). Arguably, physical educators lack a historical perspective on their field; they are, effectively, trapped in the present tense. One of the symptoms of being trapped in the present tense is the tendency to be astonished by what appear to be unprecedented developments. And a corollary of being trapped in time is being trapped in social space. To what extent do physical education teachers engage in cultural critique and critical pedagogy? Given the growing gap between rich and poor in developed ‘Western’ nations and elsewhere over the past 40 years and a range of attendant social problems that are disfiguring these societies, are teachers able to see the ‘bigger picture’ in which they practice physical education and the contribution they can make to improving the lives of their pupils, particularly those living in poverty? In this paper I consider whether and to what extent physical education might be considered fit for purpose in the 21 st century. In overview, I will ask, does physical education have a future, and relatedly, does physical education have physical cultural legitimacy? I propose a future based on pedagogical models and student-centred physical education. In conclusion, I will ask whether teachers will be likely to participate in the radical reform of their subject.

1. Physical education futures: some scenarios

2 Does physical education have a future? Before we can begin to form a response to this question, we need to decide the period of time we will count as ‘the future’. On the one hand, such has been the rate at which ‘innovations’ have come and gone in physical education during the last decade in England, for example, it is tempting to frame the future in terms of months rather than years. This timeframe is somewhat limiting however if we wish to gain some perspective on and analytical distance from the present. On the other hand, if we frame the future as much longer then twenty years, the speed of technological innovation and the effects of forces as varied as climate change, the economy, the greying population, technology, bioscience, and the so-called obesity crisis, to name just a few, we risk attempting to talk about a world that could be unrecognisable to us. With these considerations in mind, it might be more acceptable to think in terms of short, middle and longer term futures, with the short term over the next three to five years, the longer term around twenty years, and the middle term somewhere in between. Working with these timeframes, we can perhaps provide some reasonably well-grounded responses to the question ‘does physical education have a future?’ If the form of physical education that currently dominates practice (to be discussed next) in many countries around the world remains as it is, my response is that physical education most certainly does have a future in the short term. Through recognition of the importance of physical education to a wide ranging agenda of social ‘goods’ such as citizenship, health enhancement and obesity reduction, and growing the pool of talented sports people, there should be little to no possibility of physical education’s place in the school curriculum being at risk. In the middle term, however, as increasing scrutiny of and accountability for the use of scarce public resources begins to provide genuine evidence of physical education’s current deficiencies, the possibility of a radically different but (for physical educators) unacceptable future may become more likely. Hoffman’s (1987) brilliant satire of a commercialised and commodified future for physical education, in which only those who can afford to pay-to-play receive physical education and the rest are merely supervised in unstructured activity time, may be the most likely middle term scenario. While Hoffman’s ‘impossible dream’ wasn’t realised within his own timeframe, Tinning’s (1992; 2001) successive follow-ups showed that we could well be on our way to this kind of middle term future. If this middle term future is a strong possibility, then the longer term future indeed looks bleak, at least for the survival of physical education as it is currently understood. But then, when we begin to explore the form of physical education that dominates school practice today and its relevance to the 21 st century, we might agree that this longer term future, in which physical education as we know it no longer exists, may be no bad thing.

2. The relevance of today’s physical education to the 21 st century

3 We could respond to this issue with the remark that, far from being relevant to the 21 st century, today’s physical education has been scarcely relevant for at least the last 30 years of the 20 th century. Between the 1920s and the 1950s there was a seismic shift in physical education as it was transformed from a gymnastics-based field of practice to a sports-based field. Due to a complex interplay of forces, ranging from the school timetable and the subject-centred academic curriculum to the sheer number and diversity of physical activities that make up contemporary physical education programmes, a sports-based, multi-activity form of the field emerged, to an extent modified to suit local historical and cultural traditions. In terms of the day-to-day practice of this form of physical education, we might more accurately speak about physical education-as-sport-techniques. This is because the mainstay of the standard length lesson and short units of work is the teaching and learning of the techniques of a wide range of sports. The term technique rather than skill is appropriate to describe this form of physical education since it is the de-contextualised movements of, for example, passing, dribbling and shooting rather than their appropriate, thoughtful application in games and sports that forms the basic stuff of lessons. And since teachers typically work with relatively large groups of 20 or more pupils, within relatively short lessons, and since they are rightly ever-mindful of safety, a directive, command style of teaching predominates. Within this context, all of the research evidence shows that learning progression seldom occurs (eg. Lounsbery and Coker, 2008), and so introductory units of work tend to be taught over and over again (Siedentop, 2002a). This is the dominant form of physical education in schools currently and has been more or less since the 1960s in the UK and, according to the studies collected in Puhse and Gerber’s book (2005), is widespread in many other countries around the world. Despite serious limitations of the subject I have already suggested, physical educators have consistently argued that physical education can provide children and youth with a range of physical, cognitive, affective, social and health benefits (Bailey et al, 2009). Moreover, preparation for lifelong physical activity is viewed as the subject’s raison d’etre . Indeed, physical educators have continued to state this aspiration despite evidence to the contrary, that only a small number are physically active and a much smaller minority continue to play the games and sports that they experienced at school (Kirk, 2002). This sport-technique-based form of physical education has been spectacularly resistant to change. This resistance to change is not due to a shortage of good ideas (Oslin and Mitchell, 2006). There has in fact been a proliferation of genuinely innovative forms of practice, including Sport Education (Siedentop, 1994; Hastie, 2011), Play Practice (Launder, 2001), Physical Literacy (Whitehead, 2010), Personal and Social Responsibility (Hellison and Martinek, 2006), and Health-Based Physical Education (Haerens et al., 2011). In the ‘West’, there has been serious and sustained criticism of physical education-as-sport techniques with arguably little result in terms of radical change (eg. Almond, 1997; Hoffman, 1987; Lawson, 2009; Locke, 1992; O’Sullivan et al, 1994; Penney and Chandler, 2000).

3. Physical culture and cultural legitimacy

4 One way to think about the relevance of the form of school physical education for the 21 st century is to consider some of the changes that have occurred within the broader physical culture of society since the 1950s which legitimate (Williams, 1985) physical education’s place in the curriculum. The field of sport, for example, has become increasingly professionalized, commercialised and commodified. In the 1950s, there were few professional sports, and amateurism retained a stranglehold on sport from beginner to elite levels. Nowadays, in contrast, sport is a big money business, generating billions of pounds of profits for owners, investors and some sportsmen and women. Some sports have changed their rules and formats to suit the televisual media, including cricket, rugby union and field hockey. Billions of pounds more are generated from sports merchandise, including replica sportswear and other paraphernalia. Despite these radical and far-reaching changes to sport and other forms of physical culture such as exercise and active leisure, school physical education is practiced in much the same way as it was in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. So while the physical cultural forms that provide physical education with much of its public legitimacy have altered in tandem with technological advances, the dominant practice in schools is the teaching and learning of introductory-level sports techniques. In this respect we might argue that this form of physical education is now and has been for some time culturally obsolete. The forms of physical culture that gave physical education-as-sport techniques its cultural legitimacy in the 1950s and 1960s, such as amateurism, have now disappeared. On the basis of this argument we might reasonably ask what might be done to address this problem. Could any of the good ideas mentioned earlier provide a means of responding to this conundrum of cultural obsolescence and raised expectations to achieve a range of important outcomes?

4. The role of pedagogical models in the future of physical education

5 The notion of pedagogical models builds on the ground-breaking work of Jewett, Bain and Ennis (1995) on curriculum models and Metzler (2005) on instructional models. Both authors argue for an approach to physical education that is ‘models-based’ (Lund and Tannehill, 2005), in which the curriculum or subject matter (physical activity experiences) and teaching strategies are brought into alignment with distinctive learning outcomes to create a design specification for the creation of school and district level programmes. A good example of a pedagogical model is Sport Education, developed by Daryl Siedentop (1994) and his colleagues during the 1980s and early 1990s. The learning outcomes for Sport Education are the development of competent, literate and enthusiastic sportspersons. In order to achieve these learning outcomes, Siedentop argued that the subject matter of Sport Education is sport, which includes the key features of seasons, record keeping, festivity, a culminating event, persisting groups, and roles in addition to player such as captain, umpire, scorekeeper, equipment officer and so on. Teacher strategies included directive teaching when appropriate, but also more student-centred strategies such peer and reciprocal teaching and problem-solving. Metzler (2005) developed a series of teacher and student benchmarks which can be used to ensure programs designed for specific locales such as individual schools or community sports clubs remain consistent with the key features of the Sport Education model. A problem with the multi-activity, sport-technique-based (‘One Size Fits All’) approach to physical education is that a wide range of cognitive, affective, health, social and motor skill learning outcomes are pursed using the same programmes, typically involving short units of work, focused on techniques, and utilising predominantly a directive teaching strategy. Since the 1950s, we have traditionally sought to achieve a range of arguably incompatible learning outcomes all through this same approach (Siedentop, 2002b). In contrast, a models-based approach seeks to retain this range of legitimate learning outcomes for physical education but to align relevant subject matter and teaching strategies with each set of learning outcomes to create a package or a model for programme design. Each model provides a design specification for local versions of physical education programmes that can cater for the specific needs, interests and circumstances of students and teachers, schools and communities. So long as the local versions of physical education are consistent with the teacher and student benchmarks of each model, we can be sure that children are being given opportunities to achieve worthwhile learning outcomes. A models-based approach could offer middle to long term futures for physical education. There are two main reasons why. First, a models-based approach provides a means for physical education to pursue the wide range of legitimate physical, cognitive and social goals that its proponents have claimed for it for many years (Bailey et al, 2009). Second, by aligning learning outcomes with relevant subject matter and teaching strategies, there is a strong chance that these learning outcomes might be achieved by a majority, if not all, students. In this respect, a critical mass of research on pedagogical models such as Sport Education (Hastie, 2011) and Teaching Games for Understanding (Harvey et al, 2010) has already produced promising results. While pedagogical models that align learning outcomes, subject matter and teaching strategies might provide the possibility of middle to long term futures for physical education, this innovation in itself may not be enough to ensure a future for the field.

5. A focus for change: engaging students in physical education

6 Some physical educators have in the past attempted to establish student-centred forms of physical education, but without any profound or lasting success. Their relative failure is an indication of the power of the teacher-centred multi-activity, sport-technique-based form of physical education to resist change. But there can be no doubt, as we understand more and more about the social psychology of learning, that the ways in which we seek to engage students in physical education is at least as important, and some would argue more so, as the design of pedagogical models. There are two key concepts that must guide any efforts to change physical education to meet the challenges of the early to mid-21 st century, perceived competence and motivation. The phenomena they name are closely linked. Goudas and Biddle (1994) found that perceived competence explained over 60% of variance in internal motivation. While actual competence forms the basis for children’s perceptions from age 9 onwards (Nichols, 1989), based both on past experience and others’ judgements, young people’s perceptions of what they can and cannot do play a critical mediating role in both the level and quality of their engagement in physical activity. Motivation is probably the most studied psychological concept in the physical education literature (Lirrg, 2006). A shared conclusion of research is that students are more likely to persist in learning when their motivation to do so derives from an internal rather than an external source. If the psychologists are correct, then we must consider the pedagogical implications for physical education. It would seem that the traditional approach has not been entirely successful in facilitating internal motivation among generations of students of physical education and, indeed, may have had the opposite effect (Tinning, 2010). One theory suggests that in order to promote internal motivation, young people must be able to fulfil their need for ‘autonomy’. In other words, they must feel that they have a genuine say in the form of physical education they experience, that they have real choices that reflect their individual preferences (Van den Berghe et al., in press). Just how these two concepts of perceived competence and motivation might be applied will depend to a large extent on the form physical education might take. It might be argued that the teacher-centred multi-activity, sport-technique-based form of physical education cannot easily facilitate the development of these key psychological characteristics in young people. Some pedagogical models, such as Sport Education for example, which are explicitly designed for inclusiveness, to reward particular kinds of behaviour, and to offer opportunities for choice and responsibility, might prove more likely to foster perceived competence and motivation.

6. Conclusion: the role of physical education teachers in the radical reform of physical education

7 Physical education teachers in post at the end of the first decade of the 21 st century are heir to a struggle for recognition and status by their predecessors throughout most of the previous century (Kirk, 1992). Recognition as a core curriculum topic in schools, a very popular examination-based subject in some Anglophone senior secondary school systems, a profession of degree-qualified teachers, opportunities to undertake postgraduate studies, parity of remuneration with teachers of other school subjects, and a thriving research field in the university sector each represent major achievements of physical educators over this period. In this context, of apparent success, why would physical education teachers as a professional group choose to radically reform their subject? Indeed, since it is widely understood that there remains to be little agreement about the nature and purposes of physical education (Green, 2008) even though there has been genuine progress might suggest it would be risky to do anything more than defend the status quo . Even though physical education teachers clearly understand that motivation and perceived competence (or in their terms ‘enjoyment’ and ‘self-confidence’, Green, 2000) are of central importance to physical education, and even though they might recognise that the currently dominant form of the field does not deliver the benefits it aspires to, there may nevertheless be little taste for radical reform. Reform is not simply a matter of teachers agreeing to take a models-based approach to physical education. We would also require reform of what Lawson (2009) has described as the ‘Industrial-Age school’, with its attendant lack of organic connection with many young people’s everyday lives. We would also require the reform of physical education teacher education (PETE). It is clear that we have achieved universal degree level qualifications to teach physical education at the expense of our knowledge of the core subject matter of our field, which is physical activity. The challenge here would be to develop what Shulman (1987) describes as teachers’ content knowledge alongside their pedagogical content knowledge and still maintain ‘degree-worthiness’ of PETE programmes. As if reform of the Industrial Age school and PETE programmes wasn’t enough, the radical reform of physical education would also need to account for a range of other challenging developments. For example, in the past 20 to 30 years it has become commonplace for children in many economically advanced countries to have their first experiences of sport in a community rather than a school context. Meanwhile, the majority of specialist teachers of physical education do not meet these children until they enter secondary schools around ages 11 or 12. But by the time most children reach secondary schools their perceived competence and motivation and hence their likely engagement in physical activity has already been formed and there is little that physical educators can do to change these dispositions. Teachers have some very difficult decisions to make about physical education’s future. On the one hand, in order to support radical reform of their subject, they could put at risk the substantial achievements of the past 50 to 100 years. On the other hand, if they do not support radical reform, the middle to longer term future of the field looks bleak. Informed opinion within the research community, however, is that the currently dominant form of the subject makes more enemies than friends of children, does not progress their learning and thus fails to develop their perceived competence and motivation for physical activity, and ultimately fails to achieve the ubiquitous aspiration, common to programmes around the world, of a long-term active lifestyle. How long can this state of affairs continue before this truth about physical education in its current form, that it is failing to meet its own aspirations, is finally obvious to the general public?

Bibliographie

Almond, L. (ed) (1997) Physical Education in Schools , 2 nd edn, London: Kogan Page.

Bailey, R., Armour, K., Kirk, D., Jess, M., Pickup, I., Sandford, R. (2009) ‘The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: an academic review’, Research Papers in Education 24(1), 1-27.

Fletcher, S. (1984) Women First: the female tradition in English physical education 1880-1980 , London: Althone.

Goudas, M. and Biddle, S. (1994) ‘Perceived motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in school physical education classes’, European Journal of Psychology of Education , 9, 237-247.

Green, K. (2000) ‘Exploring the everyday “philosophies” of physical education teachers from a sociological perspective’, Sport, Education and Society , 5: 109-129.

Green, K. (2008) Understanding Physical Education , London: Sage.

Haerens, L., Kirk, D., Cardon, G., and Bourdeauhuji, I. (in press) ‘The development of a pedagogical model for Health-Based Physical Education’, Quest.

Harvey, S., Cushion, C.J., Wegis, H.M. and Massa-Gonzalez, A.D. (2010) ‘Teaching games for understanding in American high-school soccer: a quantitative data analysis using the game performance assessment instrument’, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy , 15, 29-54.

Hastie, P. (2011) ‘A review of research on Sport Education: 2004 to the present’, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy , 16

Hellison, D. and Martinek, T. (2006) ‘Social and individual responsibility programs’, pp. 610-626 in D. Kirk, D. Macdonald and M. O’Sullivan (eds.) The Handbook of Physical Education , London: Sage.

Hoffman, S.J. (1987) ‘Dreaming the impossible dream: the decline and fall of physical education’, in J.A. Massengale (ed.) Trends Toward the Future in Physical Education , Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics.

Jewett, A.E., Bain, L.L., and Ennis, C.D. (1995) The Curriculum Process in Physical Education , (2 nd ed) Madison: Brown.

Kirk, D. (2010) Physical Education Futures, London: Routledge.

Kirk, D. (2002) ‘Quality Physical Education Through Partnerships: A Response to Karel J van Deventer,’ Paper presented to the 12 th Commonwealth International Sport Conference, Manchester, July.

Kirk, D. (1999) ‘Physical culture, physical education and relational analysis’, Sport, Education and Society, 4: 63-73.

Kirk, D. (1992) Defining Physical Education: the social construction of a school subject in postwar Britain , London: Falmer.

Launder, A.G. (2001) Play Practice: the games approach to teaching and coaching sport , Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Lawson, H.A. (2009) ‘Paradigms, exemplars and social change’, Sport, Education and Society , 14: 77-100.

Lirrg, C. (2006) ‘Social psychology and physical education’, pp. 141-162 in D. Kirk, D. Macdonald and M. O’Sullivan (eds.) The Handbook of Physical Education , London: Sage.

Locke, L.F. (1992) ‘Changing secondary school physical education’, Quest , 44: 361- 372.

Lounsbery, M. and Coker, C. (2008) ‘Developing skill-analysis competency in physical education teachers’, Quest , 60: 255-267.

Lund, J. and Tannehill, D. (2005). Standards - Based Physical Education Curriculum Development , Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Metzler, M.W. (2005). Instructional Models for Physical Education, 2 nd edn, Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.

Nichols, J.G. (1989) The Competitive Ethos and Democratic Education , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

O’Sullivan, M., Siedentop, D., and Tannehill, D. (1994) ‘Breaking out: codependency of high school physical education’, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education , 13: 421-428.

Oslin, J. and Mitchell, S. (2006) ‘Game-centred approaches to teaching physical education’, pp. 627-651 in D. Kirk, D. Macdonald and M. O’Sullivan (eds.) The Handbook of Physical Education , London: Sage.

Penney, D. and Chandler, T. (2000) ‘Physical education: what future(s)?’, Sport, Education and Society , 5: 71–87.

Puhse, E. and Gerber, M. (eds) (2005) International Comparison of Physical Education: concepts, problems, prospects , Oxford: Meyer.

Shulman, L. (1987) ‘Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform’, Harvard Education Review , 57: 1-22

Siedentop, D. (2002a) ‘Content knowledge for physical education’, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education , 21: 368-377.

Siedentop, D. (2002b) ‘Junior sport and the evolution of sport cultures’, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education , 21: 392-401.

Siedentop, D. (ed) (1994) Sport Education: quality PE through positive sport experiences , Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Tinning, R. (2010) Pedagogy and Human Movement: theory, practice, research , London: Routledge.

Tinning, R. (2001) ‘The 2001 Senate inquiry: a non-preferred scenario for physical education’, ACHPER National Journal , 48: 14-16.

Tinning, R. (1992) ‘Not so sweet dreams: physical education in the year 2001’, ACHPER National Journal, 138: 24-26.

Van den Berghe, L., Vansteenkiste, M., Cardon, G., Haerens, L. (in press) A review of self-determination in physical education: overview, research gaps and 3 suggestions from a pedagogical and psychological point of view, Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy.

Whitehead, M. (2010, ed) Physical Literacy: throughout the lifecourse , London: Routledge.

Williams, E.A. (1985) ‘Understanding constraints on innovation in physical education’, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 17: 407-413.

1 A version of this paper will be published as Kirk, D. (in press) Physical education for the 21 st century, S. Capel and M. Whitehead (eds.) Debates in Physical Education London: Routledge.

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique.

Professor David Kirk , « Physical Education Futures: Can we reform physical education in the early 21st Century? » ,  eJRIEPS [En ligne], 27 | 2012, mis en ligne le 01 juillet 2012 , consulté le 07 juin 2024 . URL  : http://journals.openedition.org/ejrieps/3222 ; DOI  : https://doi.org/10.4000/ejrieps.3222

Professor David Kirk

Alexander Chair in Physical Education and Sport, University of Bedfordshire

Droits d’auteur

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0 . Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Derniers numéros

• 2023 Hors-série N°6

Numéros en texte intégral

• 2023 52  | 53
• 2022 50  | Hors-série N°5  | 51
• 2021 48  | 49  | Hors-série N° 4
• 2020 Numéro spécial 3  | 46  | 47
• 2019 44  | 45  | Numéro spécial 2  | Hors-série N° 3
• 2018 43  | Numéro spécial 1  | Hors-série N° 2
• 2017 40  | 41  | 42
• 2016 37  | 38  | 39
• 2015 34  | 35  | 36  | Hors-série N° 1
• 2014 31  | 32  | 33
• 2013 28  | 29  | 30
• 2012 25  | 26  | 27
• 2011 22  | 23  | 24
• 2010 19  | 20  | 21
• 2009 16  | 17  | 18
• 2008 13  | 14  | 15
• 2007 11  | 12
• 2006 9  | 10
• 2005 7  | 8

Tous les numéros

• Présentation
• Les comités
• Instructions aux auteur·es

Informations

• Crédits du site
• Politiques de publication

Suivez-nous

Lettres d’information

• La Lettre d’OpenEdition

Affiliations/partenaires

ISSN électronique 2105-0821

Voir la notice dans le catalogue OpenEdition  

Plan du site  – Contact  – Crédits du site  – Flux de syndication

Politique de confidentialité  – Gestion des cookies  – Signaler un problème

Nous adhérons à OpenEdition  – Édité avec Lodel  – Accès réservé

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search

Physical education for healthier, happier, longer and more productive living

The time children and adults all over the world spend engaging in physical activity is decreasing with dire consequences on their health, life expectancy, and ability to perform in the classroom, in society and at work.

In a new publication, Quality Physical Education, Guidelines for Policy Makers , UNESCO urges governments and educational planners to reverse this trend, described by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a pandemic that contributes to the death of 3.2 million people every year, more than twice as many as die of AIDS.

The Guidelines will be released on the occasion of a meeting of UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for Physical Education and Sport (CIGEPS) in Lausanne, Switzerland, (28-30 January).*

UNESCO calls on governments to reverse the decline in physical education (PE) investment that has been observed in recent years in many parts of the world, including some of the wealthiest countries. According to European sources, for example, funding and time allocation for PE in schools has been declining progressively over more than half of the continent, and conditions are not better in North America.

The new publication on PE, produced in partnership with several international and intergovernmental organizations**, advocates quality physical education and training for PE teachers. It highlights the benefits of investing in PE versus the cost of not investing (cf self-explanatory infographics ).

“The stakes are high,” says UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova. “Public investment in physical education is far outweighed by high dividends in health savings and educational objectives. Participation in quality physical education has been shown to instil a positive attitude towards physical activity, to decrease the chances of young people engaging in risky behaviour and to impact positively on academic performance, while providing a platform for wider social inclusion.”

The Guidelines seek to address seven areas of particular concern identified last year in UNESCO’s global review of the state of physical education , namely: 1. Persistent gaps between PE policy and implementation; 2. Continuing deficiencies in curriculum time allocation; 3. Relevance and quality of the PE curriculum; 4. Quality of initial teacher training programmes; 5. Inadequacies in the quality and maintenance of facilities; 6. Continued barriers to equal provision and access for all; 7. Inadequate school-community coordination.

The recommendations to policy-makers and education stake-holders are matched by case studies about programmes, often led by community-based nongovernmental organizations. Success stories in Africa, North and Latin America, Asia and Europe illustrate what can be achieved by quality physical education: young people learn how to plan and monitor progress in reaching a goal they set themselves, with a direct impact on their self-confidence, social skills and ability to perform in the classroom.

While schools alone cannot provide the full daily hour of physical activity recommended for all young people, a well-planned policy should promote PE synergies between formal education and the community. Experiences such as Magic Bus (India) which uses physical activity to help bring school drop outs back to the classroom highlight the potential of such school-leisure coordination.

The publication promotes the concept of “physical literacy,” defined by Canada’s Passport for Life organization of physical and health educators as the ability to move “with competence and confidence in a wide variety of physical activities in multiple environments that benefit the healthy development of the whole person. Competent movers tend to be more successful academically and socially. They understand how to be active for life and are able to transfer competence from one area to another. Physically literate individuals have the skills and confidence to move any way they want. They can show their skills and confidence in lots of different physical activities and environments; and use their skills and confidence to be active and healthy.”

For society to reap the benefit of quality physical education, the guidelines argue, planners must ensure that it is made available as readily to girls as it is to boys, to young people in school and to those who are not.

The Guidelines were produced at the request of UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for Physical Education and Sport (CIGEPS) and participants at the Fifth International Conference of Ministers and Senior Officials Responsible for Physical Education and Sport (Berlin 2013). UNESCO and project partners will proceed to work with a number of countries that will engage in a process of policy revision in this area, as part of UNESCO’s work to support national efforts to adapt their educational systems to today’s needs (see Quality physical education contributes to 21st century education ).

Media contact: Roni Amelan, UNESCO Press Service, r.amelan(at)unesco.org , +33 (0)1 45 68 16 50

Photos are available here: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/multimedia/photos/photo-gallery-quality-physical-education/

* More about the CIGEPS meeting

** The European Commission, the International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education (ICSSPE), the International Olympic Committee (IOC), UNDP, UNICEF, UNOSDP and WHO.

Related items

• Country page: Switzerland

More on this subject

Other recent news

Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and Physical Education to School (2013)

Chapter: 5 approaches to physical education in schools.

Approaches to Physical Education in Schools

Key Messages

•  Because it is guaranteed to reach virtually all children, physical education is the only sure opportunity for nearly all school-age children to access health-enhancing physical activities.

•  High-quality physical education programs are characterized by (1) instruction by certified physical education teachers, (2) a minimum of 150 minutes per week (30 minutes per day) for children in elementary schools and 225 minutes per week (45 minutes per day) for students in middle and high schools, and (3) tangible standards for student achievement and for high school graduation.

•  Students are more physically active on days on which they have physical education.

•  Quality physical education has strong support from both parents and child health professional organizations.

•  Several models and examples demonstrate that physical education scheduled during the school day is feasible on a daily basis.

•  Substantial discrepancies exist in state mandates regarding the time allocated for physical education.

•  Nearly half of school administrators (44 percent) reported cutting significant time from physical education and recess to increase time spent in reading and mathematics since passage of the No Child Left Behind Act.

•  Standardized national-level data on the provision of and participation, performance, and extent of engagement in vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity are insufficient to allow assessment of the current status and trends in physical education in the United States.

•  Systematic research is needed on personal, curricular, and policy barriers to successful physical education.

•  The long-term impact of physical education has been understudied and should be a research priority to support the development of evidence-based policies.

P hysical education is a formal content area of study in schools that is standards based and encompasses assessment based on standards and benchmarks. It is defined in Chapter 1 as “a planned sequential K-12 standards-based program of curricula and instruction designed to develop motor skills, knowledge, and behaviors of healthy active living, physical fitness, sportsmanship, self-efficacy, and emotional intelligence.” As a school subject, physical education is focused on teaching school-aged children the science and methods of physically active, healthful living (NASPE, 2012). It is an avenue for engaging in developmentally appropriate physical activities designed for children to develop their fitness, gross motor skills, and health (Sallis et al., 2003; Robinson and Goodway, 2009; Robinson, 2011). This chapter (1) provides a perspective on physical education in the context of schooling; (2) elaborates on the importance of physical education to child development; (3) describes the consensus on the characteristics of quality physical education programs; (4) reviews current national, state, and local education policies that affect the quality of physical education; and (5) examines barriers to quality physical education and solutions for overcoming them.

PHYSICAL EDUCATION IN THE CONTEXT OF SCHOOLING

Physical education became a subject matter in schools (in the form of German and Swedish gymnastics) at the beginning of the 19th century (Hackensmith, 1966). Its role in human health was quickly recognized. By the turn of the 20th century, personal hygiene and exercise for bodily health were incorporated in the physical education curriculum as the major learning outcomes for students (Weston, 1962). The exclusive focus on health, however, was criticized by educator Thomas Wood (1913; Wood and Cassidy, 1930) as too narrow and detrimental to the development of the whole child. The education community subsequently adopted Wood’s inclusive approach to physical education whereby fundamental movements and physical skills for games and sports were incorporated as the major instructional content. During the past 15 years, physical education has once again evolved to connect body movement to its consequences (e.g., physical activity and health), teaching children the science of healthful living and skills needed for an active lifestyle (NASPE, 2004).

Sallis and McKenzie (1991) published a landmark paper stating that physical education is education content using a “comprehensive but physically active approach that involves teaching social, cognitive, and physical skills, and achieving other goals through movement” (p. 126). This perspective is also emphasized by Siedentop (2009), who states that physical education is education through the physical. Sallis and McKenzie (1991) stress two main goals of physical education: (1) prepare children and youth for a lifetime of physical activity and (2) engage them in physical activity during physical education. These goals represent the lifelong benefits of health-enhancing physical education that enable children and adolescents to become active adults throughout their lives.

Physical Education as Part of Education

In institutionalized education, the main goal has been developing children’s cognitive capacity in the sense of learning knowledge in academic disciplines. This goal dictates a learning environment in which seated learning behavior is considered appropriate and effective and is rewarded. Physical education as part of education provides the only opportunity for all children to learn about physical movement and engage in physical activity. As noted, its goal and place in institutionalized education have changed from the original focus on teaching hygiene and health to educating children about the many forms and benefits of physical movement, including sports and exercise. With a dramatic expansion of content beyond the original Swedish and German gymnastics programs of the 19th century, physical education has evolved to become a content

area with diverse learning goals that facilitate the holistic development of children (NASPE, 2004).

To understand physical education as a component of the education system, it is important to know that the education system in the United States does not operate with a centralized curriculum. Learning standards are developed by national professional organizations such as the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) and/or state education agencies rather than by the federal Department of Education; all curricular decisions are made locally by school districts or individual schools in compliance with state standards. Physical education is influenced by this system, which leads to great diversity in policies and curricula. According to NASPE and the American Heart Association (2010), although most states have begun to mandate physical education for both elementary and secondary schools, the number of states that allow waivers/exemptions from or substitutions for physical education increased from 27 and 18 in 2006 to 32 and 30 in 2010, respectively. These expanded waiver and substitution policies (discussed in greater detail later in the chapter) increase the possibility that students will opt out of physical education for nonmedical reasons.

Curriculum Models

Given that curricula are determined at the local level in the United States, encompassing national standards, state standards, and state-adopted textbooks that meet and are aligned with the standards, physical education is taught in many different forms and structures. Various curriculum models are used in instruction, including movement education, sport education, and fitness education. In terms of engagement in physical activity, two perspectives are apparent. First, programs in which fitness education curricula are adopted are effective at increasing in-class physical activity (Lonsdale et al., 2013). Second, in other curriculum models, physical activity is considered a basis for students’ learning skill or knowledge that the lesson is planned for them to learn. A paucity of nationally representative data is available with which to demonstrate the relationship between the actual level of physical activity in which students are engaged and the curriculum models adopted by their schools.

Movement Education

Movement has been a cornerstone of physical education since the 1800s. Early pioneers (Francois Delsarte, Liselott Diem, Rudolf von Laban) focused on a child’s ability to use his or her body for self-expression (Abels and Bridges, 2010). Exemplary works and curriculum descriptions include those by Laban himself (Laban, 1980) and others (e.g., Logsdon et al.,

1984). Over time, however, the approach shifted from concern with the inner attitude of the mover to a focus on the function and application of each movement (Abels and Bridges, 2010). In the 1960s, the intent of movement education was to apply four movement concepts to the three domains of learning (i.e., cognitive, psychomotor, and affective). The four concepts were body (representing the instrument of the action); space (where the body is moving); effort (the quality with which the movement is executed); and relationships (the connections that occur as the body moves—with objects, people, and the environment; Stevens-Smith, 2004). The importance of movement in physical education is evidenced by its inclusion in the first two NASPE standards for K-12 physical education (NASPE, 2004; see Box 5-7 later in this chapter).

These standards emphasize the need for children to know basic movement concepts and be able to perform basic movement patterns. It is imperative for physical educators to foster motor success and to provide children with a basic skill set that builds their movement repertoire, thus allowing them to engage in various forms of games, sports, and other physical activities (see also Chapter 3 ).

Sport Education

One prevalent physical education model is the sport education curriculum designed by Daryl Siedentop (Siedentop, 1994; Siedentop et al., 2011). The goal of the model is to “educate students to be players in the fullest sense and to help them develop as competent, literate, and enthusiastic sportspersons” (2011, p. 4, emphasis in original). The model entails a unique instructional structure featuring sport seasons that are used as the basis for planning and teaching instructional units. Students are organized into sport organizations (teams) and play multiple roles as team managers, coaches, captains, players, referees, statisticians, public relations staff, and others to mimic a professional sports organization. A unit is planned in terms of a sports season, including preseason activity/practice, regular-season competition, playoffs and/or tournaments, championship competition, and a culminating event (e.g., an awards ceremony or sport festivity). Depending on the developmental level of students, the games are simplified or modified to encourage maximum participation. In competition, students play the roles noted above in addition to the role of players. A sport education unit thus is much longer than a conventional physical education unit. Siedentop and colleagues (2011) recommend 20 lessons per unit, so that all important curricular components of the model can be implemented.

Findings from research on the sport education model have been reviewed twice. Wallhead and O’Sullivan (2005) report that evidence is insufficient to support the conclusion that use of the model results in

students’ developing motor skills and fitness and learning relevant knowledge; some evidence suggests that the model leads to stronger team cohesion, more active engagement in lessons, and increased competence in game play. In a more recent review, Hastie and colleagues (2011) report on emerging evidence suggesting that the model leads to improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (only one study) and mixed evidence regarding motor skills development, increased feeling of enjoyment in participation in physical education, increased sense of affiliation with the team and physical education, and positive development of fair-play values. The only study on in-class physical activity using the model showed that it contributed to only 36.6 percent activity at the vigorous- or moderate-intensity levels (Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2005). Hastie and colleagues caution, however, that because only 6 of 38 studies reviewed used an experimental or quasi-experimental design, the findings must be interpreted with extreme caution. The model’s merits in developing motor skills, fitness, and desired physical activity behavior have yet to be determined in studies with more rigorous research designs.

Fitness Education

Instead of focusing exclusively on having children move constantly to log activity time, a new curricular approach emphasizes teaching them the science behind why they need to be physically active in their lives. The curriculum is designed so that the children are engaged in physical activities that demonstrate relevant scientific knowledge. The goal is the development and maintenance of individual student fitness. In contrast with the movement education and sport education models, the underlying premise is that physical activity is essential to a healthy lifestyle and that students’ understanding of fitness and behavior change result from engagement in a fitness education program. The conceptual framework for the model is designed around the health-related components of cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular strength and endurance, and flexibility. A recent meta-analysis (Lonsdale et al., 2013) suggests that physical education curricula that include fitness activities can significantly increase the amount of time spent in vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity.

Several concept-based fitness education curriculum models exist for both the middle school and senior high school levels. They include Fitness for Life: Middle School (Corbin et al., 2007); Personal Fitness for You (Stokes and Schultz, 2002); Get Active! Get Fit! (Stokes and Schultz, 2009); Personal Fitness: Looking Good, Feeling Good (Williams, 2005); and Foundations of Fitness (Rainey and Murray, 2005). Activities in the curriculum are designed for health benefits, and the ultimate goal for the student is to develop a commitment to regular exercise and physical

activity. It is assumed that all children can achieve a health-enhancing level of fitness through regular engagement in vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity.

Randomized controlled studies on the impact of a science-based fitness curriculum in 15 elementary schools showed that, although the curriculum allocated substantial lesson time to learning cognitive knowledge, the students were more motivated to engage in physical activities than students in the 15 control schools experiencing traditional physical education (Chen et al., 2008), and they expended the same amount of calories as their counterparts in the control schools (Chen et al., 2007). Longitudinal data from the study reveal continued knowledge growth in the children that strengthened their understanding of the science behind exercise and active living (Sun et al., 2012). What is unclear, however, is whether the enthusiasm and knowledge gained through the curriculum will translate into the children’s lives outside of physical education to help them become physically active at home.

To incorporate standards and benchmarks into a fitness education model, a committee under the auspices of NASPE (2012) developed the Instructional Framework for Fitness Education in Physical Education. It is suggested that through this proposed comprehensive framework, fitness education be incorporated into the existing physical education curriculum and embedded in the content taught in all instructional units. The entire framework, highlighted in Box 5-1 , can be viewed at http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/publications/upload/Instructional-Framework-for-Fitness-Education-in-PE-2012-2.pdf (accessed February 1, 2013).

Emergence of Active Gaming in Fitness Education

Today, active gaming and cell phone/computer applications are a part of physical activity for both youth and adults. Accordingly, fitness education in school physical education programs is being enhanced through the incorporation of active video games, also known as exergaming. Examples of active gaming programs with accompanying equipment include Konami Dance Dance Revolution (DDR), Nintendo Wii, Gamebikes, Kinect XBOX, Xavix, and Hopsports. These active games have been incorporated into school wellness centers as high-tech methods of increasing student fitness levels to supplement the traditional modes for attaining vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity (Greenberg and Stokes, 2007).

Bailey and McInnis (2011) compared selected active games with treadmill walking and found that each game—DDR, LightSpace (Bug Invasion), Nintendo Wii (Boxing), Cyber Trazer (Goalie Wars), Sportwall, and Xavix (J-Mat)—raised energy expenditure above that measured at rest. Mean metabolic equivalent (MET) values for each game were comparable to or

Instructional Framework for Fitness Education in Physical Education

Technique: Demonstrate competency in techniques needed to perform a variety of moderate to vigorous physical activities.

•  Technique in developing cardiovascular fitness.

• Technique when developing muscle strength and endurance activities.

• Technique in developing flexibility.

• Safety techniques.

Knowledge: Demonstrate understanding of fitness concepts, principles, strategies, and individual differences needed to participate and maintain a health-enhancing level of fitness.

•  Benefits of physical activity/dangers of physical inactivity.

• Basic anatomy and physiology.

• Physiologic responses to physical activity.

• Components of health-related fitness.

• Training principles (overload, specificity, progression) and workout elements.

• Application of the Frequency Intensity Time Type principle. Factors that influence physical activity choices.

Physical activity: Participate regularly in fitness-enhancing physical activity.

•  Physical activity participation (e.g., aerobic, muscle strength and endurance, bone strength, flexibility, enjoyment/social/personal meaning).

• Create an individualized physical activity plan.

• Self-monitor physical activity and adhere to a physical activity plan.

Health-related fitness: Achieve and maintain a health-enhancing level of health-related fitness.

•  Physical fitness assessment (including self-assessment) and analysis.

• Setting goals and create a fitness improvement plan.

• Work to improve fitness components.

• Self-monitor and adjust plan.

• Achieve goals.

Responsible personal and social behaviors: Exhibit responsible personal and social behaviors in physical activity settings.

•  Social interaction/respecting differences.

• Self-management.

• Personal strategies to manage body weight.

• Stress management.

Values and advocates: Value fitness-enhancing physical activity for disease prevention, enjoyment, challenge, self-expression, self-efficacy, and/or social interaction and allocate energies toward the production of healthy environments.

•  Value physical activity.

• Advocacy.

• Fitness careers.

• Occupational fitness needs.

Nutrition: Strive to maintain healthy diet through knowledge, planning, and regular monitoring.

•  Basic nutrition and benefits of a healthy diet.

• Healthy diet recommendations.

• Diet assessment.

• Plan and maintain a healthy diet.

Consumerism: Access and evaluate fitness information, facilities, products, and services.

•  Differentiate between fact and fiction regarding fitness products.

• Make good decisions about consumer products.

SOURCE: NASPE, 2012. Reprinted with permission.

higher than those measured for walking on a treadmill at 3 miles per hour. Graf and colleagues (2009), studying boys and girls aged 10-13, found that both Wii boxing and DDR (level 2) elicited energy expenditure, heart rate, perceived exertion, and ventilatory responses that were comparable to or greater than those elicited by moderate-intensity walking on a treadmill. Similar results were found by Lanningham-Foster and colleagues (2009) among 22 children aged 10-14 and adults in that energy expenditure for both groups increased significantly when playing Wii over that expended during all sedentary activities. Staiano and colleagues (2012) explored factors that motivated overweight and obese African American high school students to play Wii during school-based physical activity opportunities. They found greater and more sustained energy expenditure over time and noted that players’ various intrinsic motivations to play also influenced their level of energy expenditure. Mellecker and McManus (2008) determined that energy expenditure and heart rate were greater during times of active play than in seated play. Fawkner and colleagues (2010) studied 20 high school–age girls and found that dance simulation games provided an opportunity for most subjects to achieve a moderate-intensity level of physical activity. The authors conclude that regular use of the games aids in promoting health through physical activity. Haddock and colleagues (2009) conducted ergometer tests with children aged 7-14 and found increased oxygen consumption and energy expenditure above baseline determinations. Maddison and colleagues (2007), studying children aged 10-14, found that active video game playing led to significant increases in energy expenditure, heart rate, and activity counts in comparison with baseline values. They conclude that playing these games for short time periods is comparable to light- to moderate-intensity conventional modes of exercise, including walking, skipping, and jogging. Mhurchu and colleagues (2008) also conclude that a short-term intervention involving active video games is likely to be an effective means of increasing children’s overall level of physical activity. Additionally, Sit and colleagues (2010), studying the effects of active gaming among 10-year-old children in Hong Kong, found the children to be significantly more physically active while playing interactive games compared with screen-based games.

Exergaming appears to increase acute physical activity among users and is being used in school settings because it is appealing to students. Despite active research in the area of exergaming and physical activity, however, exergaming’s utility for increasing acute and habitual physical activity specifically in the physical education setting has yet to be confirmed. Further, results of studies conducted in nonlaboratory and nonschool settings have been mixed (Baranowski et al., 2008). Moreover, any physical activity changes that do occur may not be sufficient to stimulate physiologic changes. For example, White and colleagues (2009) examined the effects

of Nintendo Wii on physiologic changes. Although energy expenditure was raised above resting values during active gaming, the rise was not significant enough to qualify as part of the daily 60 minutes or more of vigorous-or moderate-intensity exercise recommended for children.

While collecting data on the effects of Nintendo Wii on 11-year-olds in New Zealand, White and colleagues (2009) found that active video games generated higher energy expenditure than both resting and inactive screen watching. They determined, however, that active gaming is a “low-intensity” physical activity. Therefore, it may be helpful in reducing the amount of sedentary behavior, but it should not be used as a replacement for more conventional modes of physical activity. Sun (2012) found that active gaming can increase student motivation to engage in physical activity, but the motivation may decrease as a result of prolonged exposure to the same games. This study also found that exergaming lessons provided less physical activity for children than regular conventional physical education. For inactive children, however, the exergaming environment is conducive to more active participation in the game-based physical activities than in conventional physical education (Fogel et al., 2010). Finally, Sheehan and Katz (2012) found that among school-age children the use of active gaming added to postural stability, an important component of motor skills development.

From the research cited above, as well as ongoing research being conducted by the Health Games Research Project funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, active gaming is promising as a means of providing young children an opportunity to become more physically active and helping them meet the recommended 60 or more minutes of vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity per day. Different types of games may influence energy expenditure differentially, and some may serve solely as motivation. Selected games also appear to hold greater promise for increasing energy expenditure, while others invite youth to be physically active through motivational engagement. The dynamic and evolving field of active gaming is a promising area for future research as more opportunities arise to become physically active throughout the school environment.

Other Innovative Programs

While several evidence-based physical education programs—such as the Coordinated Approach to Child Health (CATCH) and Sports, Play, and Active Recreation for Kids (SPARK)—are being implemented in schools, many innovative programs also have been implemented nationwide that are motivating and contribute to skills attainment while engaging youth in activities that are fun and fitness oriented. These programs include water sports, involving sailing, kayaking, swimming, canoeing, and paddle boarding; adventure activities such as Project Adventure; winter sports, such as

snow skiing and snowshoeing; and extreme sports, such as in-line skating, skateboarding, and cycling.

Differences Among Elementary, Middle, and High Schools

Instructional opportunities vary within and among school levels as a result of discrepancies in state policy mandates. Although the time to be devoted to physical education (e.g., 150 minutes per week for elementary schools and 225 minutes per week for secondary schools) is commonly included in most state mandates, actual time allocation in school schedules is uncertain and often left to the discretion of local education officials.

With respect to content, in both elementary and secondary schools, physical activity is an assumed rather than an intended outcome except in the fitness education model. The goals of skill development and knowledge growth in physical education presumably are accomplished through participation in vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity. Data are lacking, however, to support the claim that physical activity offered to further the attainment of skills and knowledge is of vigorous or moderate intensity and is of sufficient duration for children to reap health benefits.

Children in Nontraditional Schools

Research on physical education, physical activity, and sports opportunities in nontraditional school settings (charter schools, home schools, and correctional facilities) is extremely limited. Two intervention studies focused on charter schools addressed issues with Mexican American children. In the first (Johnston et al., 2010), 10- to 14-year-old children were randomly assigned to either an instructor-led intervention or a self-help intervention for 2 years. The instructor-led intervention was a structured daily opportunity for the students to learn about nutrition and to engage in structured physical activities. The results indicate that the children in the instructor-led intervention lost more weight at the end of the intervention than those in the self-help condition. In the second study (Romero, 2012), 11- to 16-year-old Mexican American children from low-income families participated in a 5-week, 10-lesson, hip-hop dance physical activity intervention. In comparison with data collected prior to the intervention, the children reported greater frequency of vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity, lower perceived community barriers to physical activity, and stronger self-efficacy for physical activity. Collectively, the results of these two studies suggest that a structured physical activity intervention can be effective in enhancing and enriching physical activity opportunities for Mexican American adolescents in charter schools.

Research on physical activity among home-schooled children is also limited. The only study found was published in 2004 (Welk et al., 2004). It describes differences in physical fitness, psychosocial correlates of physical activity, and physical activity between home-schooled children and their public school counterparts aged 9-16. No significant differences were found between the two groups of children on the measures used, but the researchers did note that the home-schooled children tended to be less physically active.

Research on physical education and physical activity in juvenile correction institutions is equally scarce. Munson and colleagues (1985, 1988) conducted studies on the use of physical activity programs as a behavior mediation intervention strategy and compared its impact on juvenile delinquents’ behavior change with that of other intervention strategies. They found that physical activity did not have a stronger impact than other programs on change in delinquent behavior.

Fitness Assessment

All states except Iowa have adopted state standards for physical education. However, the extent to which students achieve the standards is limited since no accountability is required.

An analysis of motor skills competency, strategic knowledge, physical activity, and physical fitness among 180 4th- and 5th-grade children demonstrated that the physical education standards in force were difficult to attain (Erwin and Castelli, 2008). Among the study participants, fewer than a half (47 percent) were deemed motor competent, 77 percent demonstrated adequate progress in knowledge, only 40 percent were in the Healthy Fitness Zone on all five components of the Fitnessgram fitness assessment, and merely 15 percent engaged in 60 or more minutes of physical activity each day. Clearly most of the children failed to meet benchmark measures of performance for this developmental stage. This evidence highlights the need for additional physical activity opportunities within and beyond physical education to enhance opportunities for students to achieve the standards.

Relationships among these student-learning outcomes were further decomposed in a study of 230 children (Castelli and Valley, 2007). The authors determined that aerobic fitness and the number of fitness test scores in the Healthy Fitness Zone were the best predictors of daily engagement in physical activity relative to factors of gender, age, body mass index (BMI), motor skills competency, and knowledge. However, in-class engagement in physical activity was best predicted by aerobic fitness and motor skills competence, suggesting that knowledge and skills should not be overlooked in a balanced physical education curriculum intended to promote lifelong physical activity.

As an untested area, student assessment in physical education has been conducted on many indicators other than learning outcomes. As reported in a seminal study (Hensley and East, 1989), physical education teachers base learning assessment on participation (96 percent), effort (88 percent), attitude (76 percent), sportsmanship (75 percent), dressing out (72 percent), improvement (68 percent), attendance (58 percent), observation of skills (58 percent), knowledge tests (46 percent), skills tests (45 percent), potential (25 percent), and homework (11 percent). These data, while several years old, show that most learning assessments in physical education fail to target relevant learning objectives such as knowledge, skills, and physical activity behavior. The development of teacher-friendly learning assessments consistent with national and/or state standards is sorely needed.

Fitness assessment in the school environment can serve multiple purposes. On the one hand, it can provide both teacher and student with information about the student’s current fitness level relative to a criterion-referenced standard, yield valid information that can serve as the basis for developing a personal fitness or exercise program based on current fitness levels, motivate students to do better to achieve a minimum standard of health-related fitness where deficiencies exist, and possibly assist in the identification of potential future health problems. On the other hand, an overall analysis of student fitness assessments provides valuable data that can enable teachers to assess learner outcomes in the physical education curriculum and assess the present curriculum to determine whether it includes sufficient fitness education to allow students to make fitness gains throughout the school year. Fitness assessment also provides a unique opportunity for schools to track data on students longitudinally. The ultimate goal of assessing student fitness in the school environment should be to educate students on the importance of maintaining a physically active lifestyle throughout the life span.

When administering fitness assessments in the school setting, caution is essential to ensure confidentiality of the results. The results and their interpretation should be shared with students and parents/guardians to have the greatest impact. To ensure the greatest benefits from fitness assessment, NASPE (2010) developed a position statement on “Appropriate Uses of Fitness Measurement.” Table 5-1 outlines appropriate and inappropriate practices related to fitness testing in schools and other educational settings.

When fitness assessment becomes part of a quality physical education program, teaching and learning strategies will guide all students to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to maintain and improve their personal health-related fitness as part of their commitment to lifelong healthy lifestyles. Teachers who incorporate fitness education as a thread throughout all curricula will make the greatest impact in engaging and motivating

TABLE 5-1 Appropriate and Inappropriate Practices Related to Fitness Testing in Schools and Other Educational Settings

students to participate in vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity in order to maintain and/or improve their personal health-related fitness. For example, the development of the Presidential Youth Fitness Program with the use of a criterion-referenced platform provides students with the educational benefits of fitness assessment knowledge (see Box 5-2 ). The emergence of one national fitness assessment, Fitnessgram, along with professional development and recognition protocols, further supports fitness education in the school environment.

Online Physical Education

Online physical education is a growing trend. Fully 59 percent of states allow required physical education credits to be earned through online courses. Only just over half of these states require that the online courses be taught by state-certified physical education teachers. Daum and Buschner (2012) report that, in general, online physical education focuses more on cognitive knowledge than physical skill or physical activity, many online courses fail to meet national standards for learning and physical activity

Presidential Youth Fitness Program

The Presidential Youth Fitness Program, launched in September 2012, is a comprehensive program that provides training and resources to schools for assessing, tracking, and recognizing youth fitness. The program promotes fitness testing as one component of a comprehensive physical education curriculum that emphasizes regular physical activity. The program includes a health-related fitness assessment, professional development, and motivational recognition. A key to the program’s success is helping educators facilitate a quality fitness assessment experience. The Presidential Youth Fitness Program was developed in partnership with the Cooper Institute; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance; and the Amateur Athletic Union.

The implementation of the Presidential Youth Fitness Program aligns with the Institute of Medicine report Fitness Measures and Health Outcomes in Youth, the result of a study whose primary purpose was to evaluate the relationship between fitness components and health and develop recommendations for health-related fitness tests for a national youth survey (IOM, 2012b). The report includes guidance on fitness assessments in the school setting. It confirms that Fitnessgram, used in the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, is a valid, reliable, and feasible tool for use in schools to measure health-related fitness. Use of the Fitnessgram represents a transition from the current test, which focuses on performance rather than health and is based on normative rather than criterion-referenced data, to a criterion-referenced, health-related fitness assessment instrument. Accompanying the assessment, as part of a comprehensive program, are education and training through professional development, awards, and recognition.

SOURCE: Presidential Youth Fitness Program, 2013.

guidelines, and teachers are not concerned about students’ accountability for learning.

Although online courses differ from traditional in-school physical education courses in the delivery of instruction, the standards and benchmarks for these courses must mirror those adopted by each individual state, especially when the course is taken to meet high school graduation requirements.

NASPE (2007a, p. 2) recommends that all physical education programs include “opportunity to learn, meaningful content, appropriate instruction, and student and program assessment.” If an online physical education program meets these standards, it may be just as effective as a face-to-face program. Online physical education can be tailored to each student’s needs, and it helps students learn how to exercise independently. The full NASPE position statement on online physical education can be found at http://www.ncpublic-schools.org/docs/curriculum/healthfulliving/resources/onlinepeguidelines.pdf (accessed February 1, 2013). The physical education policy of one online school, the Florida Virtual School, is presented in Box 5-3 .

Florida Virtual School’s Physical Education Policy

Sections 1001.11(7) and 1003.453(2) of the Florida Statutes require that every school district have a current version of its Physical Education Policy on the district website. This document satisfies that requirement.

Florida law defines “physical education” to mean:

“the development or maintenance of skills related to strength, agility, flexibility, movement, and stamina, including dance; the development of knowledge and skills regarding teamwork and fair play; the development of knowledge and skills regarding nutrition and physical fitness as part of a healthy lifestyle; and the development of positive attitudes regarding sound nutrition and physical activity as a component of personal well-being.

Florida Virtual School [FLVS] courses are designed to develop overall health and well-being through structured learning experiences, appropriate instruction, and meaningful content. FLVS provides a quality Physical Education program in which students can experience success and develop positive attitudes about physical activity so that they can adopt healthy and physically active lifestyles. Programs are flexible to accommodate individual student interests and activity levels in a learning environment that is developmentally appropriate, safe, and supportive.”

SOURCE: Excerpted from FLVS, 2013.

Online physical education provides another option for helping students meet the standards for physical education if they lack room in their schedule for face-to-face classes, need to make up credit, or are just looking for an alternative to the traditional physical education class. On the other hand, online courses may not be a successful mode of instruction for students with poor time management or technology skills. According to Daum and Buschner (2012), online learning is changing the education landscape despite the limited empirical research and conflicting results on its effectiveness in producing student learning. Through a survey involving 45 online high school physical education teachers, the authors found that almost three-fourths of the courses they taught failed to meet the national guideline for secondary schools of 225 minutes of physical education per week. Most of the courses required physical activity 3 days per week, while six courses required no physical activity. The teachers expressed support, hesitation, and even opposition toward online physical education.

Scheduling Decisions

Lesson scheduling is commonly at the discretion of school principals in the United States. The amount of time dedicated to each subject is often mandated by federal or state statutes. Local education agencies or school districts have latitude to make local decisions that go beyond these federal or state mandates. Often the way courses are scheduled to fill the school day is determined by the managerial skills of the administrator making the decisions or is based on a computer program that generates individual teacher schedules.

Successful curriculum change requires supportive scheduling (see Kramer and Keller, 2008, for an example of curriculum reform in mathematics). More research is needed on the effects of scheduling of physical education. In one such attempt designed to examine the impact of content and lesson length on calorie expenditure in middle school physical education, Chen and colleagues (2012) found that a lesson lasting 45-60 minutes with sport skills or fitness exercises as the major content would enable middle school students to expend more calories than either shorter (30-40 minutes) or longer (65-90 minutes) lessons. The evidence from such research can be used to guide allocation of the recommended weekly amount of physical education (150 minutes for elementary schools, 225 minutes for secondary schools) to achieve optimal health benefits for youth. Additional discussion of scheduling is provided later in this chapter in the section on solutions for overcoming the barriers to quality physical education.

IMPORTANCE OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION TO CHILD DEVELOPMENT

As discussed in Chapter 3 , there is a direct correlation between regular participation in physical activity and health in school-age children, suggesting that physical activity provides important benefits directly to the individual child (HHS, 2008). Physical activity during a school day may also be associated with academic benefits ( Chapter 4 ) and children’s social and emotional well-being (HHS, 2008; Chapter 3 ). Physical education, along with other opportunities for physical activity in the school environment (discussed in Chapter 6 ), is important for optimal health and development in school-age children. It may also serve as a preventive measure for adult conditions such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes.

Little has been learned about the short- and long-term effectiveness of physical education in addressing public health issues (Pate et al., 2011). Because the learning objectives of physical education have not included improvement in health status as a direct measure, indirect measures and correlates have been used as surrogates. However, some promising research, such as that conducted by Morgan and colleagues (2007), has demonstrated that students are more physically active on days when they participate in physical education classes. Further, there is no evidence of a compensatory effect such that children having been active during physical education elect not to participate in additional physical activity on that day. Accordingly, quality physical education contributes to a child’s daily accumulation of physical activity and is of particular importance for children who are overweight or who lack access to these opportunities in the home environment (NASPE, 2012).

Unlike other physical activity in school (e.g., intramural or extramural sports), physical education represents the only time and place for every child to learn knowledge and skills related to physical activity and to be physically active during the school day. It also is currently the only time and place for all children to engage in vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity safely because of the structured and specialist-supervised instructional environment. It is expected that children will use the skills and knowledge learned in physical education in other physical activity opportunities in school, such as active recess, active transportation, and intramural sports. For these reasons, physical education programming has been identified as the foundation on which multicomponent or coordinated approaches incorporating other physical activity opportunities can be designed and promoted.

Coordinated approaches in one form or another have existed since the early 1900s, but it was not until the 21st century that physical education was acknowledged as the foundation for these approaches. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2010), the National Association

of State Boards of Education (NASBE; 2012), and NASPE (2004, 2010) all support this view because physical education provides students with the tools needed to establish and maintain a physically active lifestyle throughout their life span. As discussed in Chapter 3 , research on motor skills development has provided evidence linking physical skill proficiency levels to participation in physical activity and fitness (Stodden et al., 2008, 2009). Exercise psychology research also has identified children’s perceived skill competence as a correlate of their motivation for participation in physical activity (Sallis et al., 2000). When school-based multicomponent interventions include physical activities experienced in physical education that are enjoyable and developmentally appropriate, such coordinated efforts are plausible and likely to be effective in producing health benefits (Corbin, 2002). Accordingly, two of the Healthy People 2020 (Healthy People 2020, 2010) objectives for physical activity in youth relate to physical education: “PA-4: Increase the proportion of the Nation’s public and private schools that require daily physical education for all students ” and “PA-5: Increase the proportion of adolescents who participate in daily school physical education.” 1

The importance of physical education to the physical, cognitive, and social aspects of child development has been acknowledged by many federal, state, and local health and education agencies. Many private entities throughout the country likewise have offered their support and recommendations for strengthening physical education. For example, the Institute of Medicine (2012a), in its report Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation , points to the need to strengthen physical education to ensure that all children engage in 60 minutes or more of physical activity per school day. Similarly, the National Physical Activity Plan (2010), developed by a group of national organizations at the forefront of public health and physical activity, comprises a comprehensive set of policies, programs, and initiatives aimed at increasing physical activity in all segments of schools. The plan is intended to create a national culture that supports physically active lifestyles so that its vision that “one day, all Americans will be physically active and they will live, work, and play in environments that facilitate regular physical activity” can be realized. To accomplish this ultimate goal, the plan calls for improvement in the quantity and quality of physical education for students from prekindergarten through 12th grade through significant policy initiatives at the federal and state levels that guide and fund physical education and other physical activity programs. Specifically, the plan prescribes seven specific tactics presented in Box 5-4 .

_________________________

1 Available online at http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/pdfs/PhysicalActivity.pdf (accessed February 1, 2013).

Medical professional associations, such as the American Cancer Society (ACS), American Diabetes Association (ADA), and American Heart Association (AHA), have long acknowledged the importance of physical education and have endorsed policies designed to strengthen it. A position statement on physical education from the ACS Cancer Action Network, ADA, and AHA (2012) calls for support for quality physical education and endorses including physical education as an important part of a student’s comprehensive, well-rounded education program because of its positive impact on lifelong health and well-being. Further, physical education policy should make quality the priority while also aiming to increase the amount of time physical education is offered in schools.

Recently, private-sector organizations—such as the NFL through its Play60 program—have been joining efforts to ensure that youth meet the guideline of at least 60 minutes of vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity per day. One such initiative is Nike’s (2012) Designed to Move: A Physical Activity Action Agenda , a framework for improving access to physical activity for all American children in schools. Although the framework does not focus exclusively on physical education, it does imply the important role of physical education in the action agenda (see Box 5-5 ).

Finally, in response to First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move initiative, the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) launched the Let’s Move In School initiative, which takes a holistic approach to the promotion of physical activity in schools. The purpose of the initiative is to help elementary and secondary schools launch the Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program (CSPAP), which is focused on strengthening physical education and promoting all opportunities for physical activity in school. The CSPAP in any given school is intended to accomplish two goals: (1) “provide a variety of school-based physical activity opportunities that enable all students to participate in at least 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity each day” and (2) “provide coordination among the CSPAP components to maximize understanding, application, and practice of the knowledge and skills learned in physical education so that all students will be fully physically educated and well-equipped for a lifetime of physical activity” (AAHPERD, 2012). The five CSPAP components, considered vital for developing a physically educated and physically active child, are physical education, physical activity during school, physical activity before and after school, staff involvement, and family and community involvement (AAHPERD, 2012). Schools are allowed to implement all or selected components.

An AAHPERD (2011) survey indicated that 16 percent of elementary schools, 13 percent of middle schools, and 6 percent of high schools (from a self-responding nationwide sample, not drawn systematically) had implemented a CSPAP since the program was launched. Although most schools

National Physical Activity Plan: Strategy 2

The National Physical Activity Plan’s Strategy 2 is as follows:

Strategy 2: Develop and implement state and school district policies requiring school accountability for the quality and quantity of physical education and physical activity programs.

1. Advocate for binding requirements for PreK-12 standards-based physical education that address state standards, curriculum time, class size, and employment of certified, highly qualified physical education teachers in accordance with national standards and guidelines, such as those published by the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE).

2. Advocate for local, state and national standards that emphasize provision of high levels of physical activity in physical education (e.g., 50 percent of class time in vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity).

sampled (90 percent) provided physical education, the percentage declined through middle school and high school, such that only 44 percent of high schools provided physical education to seniors. In most schools (92 percent), classes were taught by teachers certified to teach physical education.

More than 76 percent of elementary schools provided daily recess for children, and 31 percent had instituted a policy prohibiting teachers from withholding children from participating in recess for disciplinary reasons. In 56 percent of elementary schools that had implemented a CSPAP, physical activity was encouraged between lessons/classes; in 44 percent it was integrated into academic lessons; and in 43 percent the school day started with physical activity programs.

The percentage of schools that offered intramural sports clubs to at least 25 percent of students declined from 62 percent of middle schools to

3. Enact federal legislation, such as the FIT Kids Act, to require school accountability for the quality and quantity of physical education and physical activity programs.

4. Provide local, state, and national funding to ensure that schools have the resources (e.g., facilities, equipment, appropriately trained staff) to provide high-quality physical education and activity programming. Designate the largest portion of funding for schools that are underresourced. Work with states to identify areas of greatest need.

5. Develop and implement state-level policies that require school districts to report on the quality and quantity of physical education and physical activity programs.

6. Develop and implement a measurement and reporting system to determine the progress of states toward meeting this strategy. Include in this measurement and reporting system data to monitor the benefits and adaptations made or needed for children with disabilities.

7. Require school districts to annually collect, monitor, and track students’ health-related fitness data, including body mass index.

SOURCE: National Physical Activity Plan, 2010.

50 percent of high school for males, and from 53 to 40 percent, respectively, for females. Interscholastic sports were offered in 89 percent of high schools. Among them, approximately 70 percent involved at least 25 percent of the male student population participating and 58 percent involved at least 25 percent of the female student population participating. Sixty-five percent of high schools had “cut” policies, which could limit the enrollment of students in interscholastic sports.

CHARACTERISTICS OF QUALITY PHYSICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

As noted, a high-quality physical education program can help youth meet the guideline of at least 60 minutes of vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity per day. This increase in physical activity should be bal-

Nike’s Designed to Move: A Physical Activity Action Agenda

1. Universal access: Design programs that are effective for every child, including those who face the most barriers to participating in physical activity.

2. Age appropriate: Physical activities and tasks that are systematically designed for a child’s physical, social, and emotional development, as well as his or her physical and emotional safety, are a non-negotiable component of good program design.

3. Dosage and duration: Maximum benefit for school-aged children and adolescents comes from group-based activity for at least 60 minutes per day that allows for increased mastery and skill level over time.

4. Fun: Create early positive experiences that keep students coming back for more, and let them have a say in what “fun” actually is.

5. Incentives and motivation: Focus on the “personal best” versus winning or losing.

6. Feedback to kids: Successful programs build group and individual goal setting and feedback into programs.

7. Teaching, coaching, and mentorship: Teachers of physical education, coaches, and mentors can make or break the experience for students. They should be prepared through proper training and included in stakeholder conversations. A well-trained physical activity workforce shares a common commitment and principles that promote physical activity among children. Great leaders create positive experiences and influence all learners.

SOURCE: Excerpted from Nike, 2012.

anced with appropriate attention to skill development and to national education standards for quality physical education (see Box 5-6 ). In a recent literature review, Bassett and colleagues (2013) found that physical education contributes to children achieving an average of 23 minutes of vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity daily. However, the time spent in vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity could be increased by 6 minutes if the physical education curriculum were to incorporate a standardized curriculum such as SPARK (discussed in detail below) (Bassett et al., 2013). Thus, it is possible for physical education to contribute to youth meeting at least half (30 minutes) of their daily requirement for vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity. To help children grow holistically, however, physical education needs to achieve other learning goals when children are active. To this end, physical education programs must possess the quality characteristics specified by NASPE (2007b, 2009b,c) (see Box 5-6 ). Designing and implementing a physical education program with these characteristics in mind should ensure that the time and curricular materials of the program enable students to achieve the goals of becoming knowledgeable exercisers and skillful movers who value and adopt a physically active, healthy lifestyle.

Findings from research on effective physical education support these characteristics as the benchmarks for quality programs. In an attempt to understand what effective physical education looks like, Castelli and Rink (2003) conducted a mixed-methods comparison of 62 physical education programs in which a high percentage of students achieved the state physical education learning standards with programs whose students did not achieve the standards. Comprehensive data derived from student performance, teacher surveys, and onsite observations demonstrated that highly effective physical education programs were housed in cohesive, long-standing departments that experienced more facilitators (e.g., positive policy, supportive administration) than inhibitors (e.g., marginalized status as a subject matter within the school). Further, effective programs made curricular changes prior to the enactment of state-level policy, while ineffective programs waited to make changes until they were told to do so. The teachers in ineffective programs had misconceptions about student performance and, in general, lower expectations of student performance and behavior.

Examples of Evidence-Based Physical Education Curricular Programs

Two large-scale intervention studies—SPARK and CATCH—are discussed in this section as examples of how programs can be structured to increase vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity in physical education classes.

NASPE’s Characteristics of a High-Quality Physical Education Program

Opportunity to learn

• All students are required to take physical education.
• Instructional periods total 150 minutes per week (elementary schools) and 225 minutes per week (middle and secondary schools).
• Physical education class size is consistent with that of other subject areas.
• A qualified physical education specialist provides a developmentally appropriate program.
• Equipment and facilities are adequate and safe.

Meaningful content

• A written, sequential curriculum for grades PreK-12 is based on state and/or national standards for physical education.
• Instruction in a variety of motor skills is designed to enhance the physical, mental, and social/emotional development of every child.
• Fitness education and assessment are designed to help children understand, improve, and/or maintain physical well-being.
• Curriculum fosters the development of cognitive concepts about motor skill and fitness.
• Opportunities are provided to improve emerging social and cooperative skills and gain a multicultural perspective.
• Curriculum promotes regular amounts of appropriate physical activity now and throughout life.

The aim of SPARK, a research-based curriculum, is to improve the health, fitness, and physical activity levels of youth by creating, implementing, and evaluating programs that promote lifelong wellness. Each SPARK program “fosters environmental and behavioral change by providing a coordinated package of highly active curriculum, on-site teacher training, extensive follow-up support, and content-matched equipment focused on the development of healthy lifestyles, motor skills and movement knowledge, and social and personal skills” (SPARK, 2013).

Appropriate instruction

• Full inclusion of all students.
• Maximum practice opportunities for class activities.
• Well-designed lessons that facilitate student learning.
• Out-of-school assignments that support learning and practice.
• Physical activity not assigned or withheld as punishment.
• Regular assessment to monitor and reinforce student learning.

Student and program assessment

• Assessment is an ongoing, vital part of the physical education program.
• Formative and summative assessments of student progress are conducted.
• Student assessments are aligned with state/national physical education standards and the written physical education curriculum.
• Assessment of program elements that support quality physical education is conducted.
• Stakeholders periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the total physical education program.

SOURCE: Adapted from NASPE, 2009c.

Research supports the use of SPARK as a platform for improving the quality of physical activity instruction in schools. The SPARK curriculum has demonstrated the ability to improve student activity levels, increase the number of minutes of vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity for students, and provide sustainable and positive change in a school district (Myers-Schieffer and Thomas, 2012). In one study, researchers found that “the children were positive about this specific curriculum. This is gratifying because one of the goals of the program was to engender positive feeling

in the students toward physical activity” (McKenzie et al., 1994, p. 213). In another study, a SPARK intervention is credited with exposing students to an increase in motor skills drills, which in turn led to a higher level of manipulative motor skills acquisition (McKenzie et al., 1998). As a result of improved activity levels, students who participated in the SPARK curriculum improved their times in the 1-mile run and sit-up tests (Sallis et al., 1997). Finally, System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time (SOFIT) classroom observations revealed that students in SPARK classes increased their time spent in vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity per class from 17.8 to up to 40.2 minutes compared with students in non-SPARK classes, who engaged in 17.8 minutes of vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity per class. Teachers involved in the SPARK intervention offered increased levels of fitness promotion and provided students with an increased amount of general instruction and increased minutes of attention per week (McKenzie et al., 1997; Myers-Schieffer and Thomas, 2012).

The CATCH program teaches children in grades K-8 how to be healthy throughout their lifetimes through a coordinated approach that involves engaging the community, families, and educators to work together. The goal of CATCH is to impact children’s health behaviors positively, improve the school health environment, and influence and change school health policies and practices in order to reduce and eliminate health risk factors and risk-related behaviors of students (Perry et al., 1990). CATCH significantly increases the physical activity levels of students during physical education class and provides a wide range of learning experiences for students of all abilities.

CATCH began as a clinical trial from 1991 to 1994 in four regional sites: Tulane University in New Orleans; the University of California, San Diego; the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis; and the University of Texas in Houston. The participants were elementary school children in grades 3 through 5 and included children from multiethnic backgrounds. Upon completion of the main trial, CATCH had succeeded in producing positive and lasting changes in children’s behaviors, including decreasing fat consumption and increasing physical activity (Luepker et al., 1996). The changes were maintained for 3 years postintervention (Nader et al., 1999).

National Standards

Because physical education is part of the curriculum in schools, its quality should be judged only by whether and to what extent children have learned and benefited from it. In a landmark document on learning goals, Moving into the Future: National Standards for Physical Education , NASPE (2004) proposes six student learning standards specifying both conceptual and behavioral characteristics that a physically educated person must pos-

sess and display (see Box 5-7 ). These characteristics encompass knowledge, skill, behavior, and confidence critical to the development and maintenance of health and to the enjoyment of a physically active, healthful lifestyle.

Certified Physical Education Specialists as the Main Teaching Force

If standards are the gauge for quality, teachers make the difference in a particular school in terms of the extent to which students can achieve the standards. Research has made clear that certified physical education specialists can provide more and longer opportunities for students to meet physical activity guidelines compared with classroom teachers trained to teach physical education (McKenzie et al., 2001). Moreover, when teachers are taught strategies to encourage vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity in physical education class, a significant increase in physical activity can be expected (Lonsdale et al., 2013). The role of certified physical

Standards for a Physically Educated Person

education specialists in health-enhancing physical education has become increasingly critical (McKenzie, 2007). The evidence is unequivocal regarding the need for a continued effort to train physical education specialists and the need for schools to continue to employ them as the main teaching force designing and implementing health-enhancing physical education programs to the fullest extent.

Aside from serving as the instructional leader for physical education, physical education specialists can serve as expert resources for classroom teachers in the implementation of classroom physical activity breaks and recess (discussed in detail in Chapter 6 ). Their expertise in age-appropriate physical activity helps ensure that students are participating in activities that are fun and engaging. Additionally, as the catalyst for a healthy school environment, the physical education specialist can assist in the design and delivery of intramural programs provided before and after school, as well as serve as a community outreach specialist for onsite activity partnerships. For physical education specialists interested in a more formal role as a physical activity leader at their school, NASPE has developed a director of physical activity certification program.

It is a commonly held notion of society that to maintain the quality of education, schools should hire teachers certified to teach in the subject matter areas in which they are licensed. Unfortunately, in the United States, not all physical education classes are taught by certified physical education specialists. Indeed, 68 percent of elementary schools allow classroom teachers (generalists) to teach physical education (NASPE, 2012). Certification or licensure of middle/junior high school and high school physical education teachers is required in only 82 percent and 90 percent of states (NASPE, 2012), respectively. Only 37 states (72 percent) have a requirement for professional development and continuing education hours/credit for physical education teachers to maintain or renew their certification, with renewal time ranging from 3 to 5 years (NASPE, 2012). Twenty-eight states (55 percent) allow temporary/emergency certificates to teach physical education that are valid for 1 to 3 years (NASPE, 2012). The basic requirements for emergency certification include a bachelor’s degree in teaching or in any area except physical education. Only 31 states (60 percent) support physical education teachers going through the national board certification process, and only New York requires each school district to have a licensed physical education specialist serving as a physical education coordinator (NASPE, 2012).

Preservice Education for Teachers

Teaching physical education to children effectively and safely requires specific knowledge about children and their physical/mental development,

body composition (anatomy) and functions (physiology and biomechanics), and motor skills development and acquisition. In addition, teaching physical education requires substantial knowledge and skill in pedagogy—the science and art of teaching. Box 5-8 lists the NASPE standards for beginning physical education teachers who have completed a bachelor’s teacher training program and those who have completed advanced (master’s-level) training.

These standards are accompanied by measurement rubrics (unacceptable, acceptable, and target, with target being exemplary) developed jointly by NASPE and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) for evaluating physical education teacher education programs across the country (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). NCATE identified a total of 133 physical education teacher education programs as “nationally recognized.” The committee was unable to determine how many programs nationwide have met the minimum standards (not at the nationally recognized level) or locate reliable information on the total number of physical education teacher education programs. A Web search using the term “physical education” resulted in two different but relatively reliable statistics: 720 (College Board, 2013) and 1,945 (Peterson’s, 2013). But the data sources did not distinguish between physical education teaching majors and other kinesiology concentrations (e.g., sports medicine, exercise physiology/fitness). Statistics on the number of physical education teacher education programs and their quality based on the NASPE standards are needed.

The current wave of effort to curb physical inactivity among youth has begun to influence teacher education programs. According to a national survey study (Kulinna et al., 2010), current teacher candidates believe that helping K-12 students become physically active and fit is the first priority of physical education, followed by helping them actualize their own goals, develop motor skills, and become responsible. These data appear to suggest that physical education teacher education programs are beginning to turn from a traditionally sports- and skills-centered model to a more comprehensive, physical activity– and health-centered model. This change is important in that the role of both current and future physical education teachers extends beyond merely teaching their classes to advancing public health goals (McKenzie, 2007).

In many universities, however, teacher education programs in physical education have either been reduced or eliminated because of the decline in physical education requirements, which has resulted in a decrease in the number of physical education teachers being employed. Concomitantly, physical education teacher education programs are experiencing an unprecedented crisis. A recent report indicates that, in school year 2008-2009, only 23 doctorate-granting kinesiology departments offered doctoral programs

National Association for Sport and Physical Education Standards for Beginning Physical Education Teachers

Initial Standards

1. Scientific and theoretical knowledge: Physical education teacher candidates know and apply discipline-specific scientific and theoretical concepts critical to the development of physically educated individuals.

2. Skill-based and fitness-based competence: Physical education teacher candidates are physically educated individuals with the knowledge and skills necessary to demonstrate competent movement performance and health-enhancing fitness as delineated in the NASPE K-12 standards.

3. Planning and implementation: Physical education teacher candidates plan and implement developmentally appropriate learning experiences aligned with local, state, and national standards to address the diverse needs of all students.

4. Instructional delivery and management: Physical education teacher candidates use effective communication and pedagogical skills and strategies to enhance student engagement and learning.

that were training future teacher educators (Boyce and Rikard, 2011a). A total of 140 doctoral students were receiving training offered by 114 professors (including part-time), and 11 percent of those professors were planning to retire. Boyce and Rikard (2011a) report that in the past 13 years, 479 doctoral students graduated as physical education teacher educators—36.8 each year on average—89 percent of whom were able to find positions in colleges and universities. During the same period, 61 positions were open, only 39 of which were filled (64 percent), with an applicant pool of 38 candidates with earned degrees and 13 who completed the doctoral course-work but did not complete the dissertation research (Boyce and Rikard, 2011b). Clearly there is a shortage of physical education teacher educators

5. Impact on student learning: Physical education teacher candidates use assessments and reflection to foster student learning and inform decisions about instruction.

6. Professionalism: Physical education teacher candidates demonstrate dispositions essential to becoming effective professionals.

Advanced Standards

1. Professional knowledge: Advanced physical education teacher candidates come to understand disciplinary content knowledge, the application of content knowledge to teaching physical education, and modes of inquiry that form the bases for physical education programs and instruction.

2. Professional practice: Advanced physical education teacher candidates (AC) use content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to design and conduct appropriate learning experiences that facilitate and enhance the growth of learners.

3. Professional leadership: Advanced physical education teacher candidates are continuous, collaborative learners who further their own professional development and use their abilities to contribute to the profession.

SOURCE: Excerpted from NASPE, 2009a.

in higher education institutions. Because of a lack of national tracking data on physical education graduates, the extent to which the teacher educator shortage has impacted and will impact the need to supply quality physical education teachers to the nation is unclear.

Professional Development

In all educational settings, professional development for teachers and administrators is a continuous process of acquiring new knowledge and skills that relate to an educator’s profession or academic subject area, job responsibilities, or work environment. Professional development is essential for improving classroom instruction and student achievement (Ball and

Cohen, 1999; Cohen and Hill, 2000). Through a variety of delivery methods, professional development activities may include credit or noncredit courses, classroom or online venues, workshops, seminars, teleconferences, and webinars, with the ultimate goal of improving the delivery of instruction to enhance student achievement.

Yoon and colleagues (2007) assert that a strong link exists among professional development, teacher learning and practice, and student achievement. Figure 5-1 , which aligns with the research on effective professional development (Kennedy, 1998; Loucks-Horsley and Matsumoto, 1999; Cohen and Hill, 2000; Garet et al., 2001; Fishman et al., 2003; Guskey and Sparks, 2004), illustrates how (1) professional development enhances teacher knowledge and skills, (2) better knowledge and skills improve classroom teaching, and (3) improved teaching raises student achievement.

The most impactful statement of government policy on the preparation and professional development of teachers was the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Whitehurst, 2002), known as the No Child Left Behind Act. While Title I of the act places highly qualified teachers in the classroom, Title II addresses the same goal by funding professional development for teachers. The importance of quality professional development is well documented in the act.

Professional development, according to the No Child Left Behind Act, should be offered to improve teachers’ knowledge of the subject matter they teach, strengthen their classroom management skills, advance their understanding and implementation of effective teaching strategies, and build their capabilities to address disparities in education. The act states that high-quality professional development programs should have the characteristics listed in Box 5-9 .

Although there is a substantial literature on professional development, only a few high-quality studies relate teachers’ professional development experiences to student outcomes. Recommendations for high-quality professional development tend to emphasize the importance of

FIGURE 5-1 Logic model of the impact of professional development on student achievement.

Characteristics of a High-Quality Professional Development Program

1. It is sustained, intensive, and content-focused to have a positive and lasting impact on classroom instruction and teacher performance.

2. It is aligned with and directly related to state academic content standards, student achievement standards, and assessments.

3. It improves and increases teachers’ knowledge of the subjects they teach.

4. It advances teachers’ understanding of effective instructional strategies founded on scientifically based research.

5. It is regularly evaluated for effects on teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Intensive and focused in-service training.

SOURCE: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110, 115 stat. 1425 (2002).

intense, content-focused experiences, as well as opportunities for peer collaboration and structured induction experiences for new teachers. Wiley and Yoon (1995) and Kennedy (1998) suggest that teaching practice and student achievement are likely to improve when professional development is focused on academic content and curriculum that are aligned with standards-based reform.

Kulinna (2012) used Guskey and Sparks’ (2004) Model of Teacher Change to determine whether students’ physical activity and BMI changed after their teacher underwent a 1-year professional development program. Significant increases in students’ physical activity levels were found, but no significant changes in BMI. Looking at the effect of professional development on changes in behavior among physical education teachers, Martin and colleagues (2008) found that, following a variety of professional development experiences and follow-up sessions, teachers showed increases in their efficacy in attaining motor skills objectives, physical activity and fitness knowledge objectives, and personal and social objectives. These

results lend support to the value of professional development in enhancing teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy for teaching the curriculum. McCaughtry and colleagues (2006) explored the factors that make teacher professional development successful and what success might mean in terms of teachers’ instructional practices and feelings about change. Results indicated that after teachers completed professional development the resources they gained enabled them to improve their instruction by teaching more content, maximizing student learning opportunities, teaching diverse learners, teaching to development, and increasing classroom safety.

Learning Forward (formerly known as the National Staff Development Council) provides research-based guidelines to assist districts in aligning local professional development programs with qualitative standards. Its Standards for Professional Learning were revised in 2011 and are guided by the relationship between professional learning and student results (see Box 5-10 ). According to Learning Forward (2012):

• When professional learning is standards based, it has greater potential to change what educators know, are able to do, and believe.

• When educators’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions change, they have a broader repertoire of effective strategies to use in adapting their practices to meet performance expectations and students’ learning needs.

• When educator practices improve, students have a greater likelihood of achieving results.

• When student results improve, the cycle repeats for continuous improvement.

• Professional learning standards provide a foundation on which to design professional learning experiences at the district or school level that will assist educators in acquiring the necessary knowledge, skills, and tools.

As a recognized means of providing physical education teachers with the tools necessary to enhance student achievement, quality professional development should be provided on a regular basis with follow-up support, along with a method for determining its effectiveness in meeting both curricular and pedagogical standards. Furthermore, to enhance the fitness achievement of students, school-based professional development should provide instruction on the integration of fitness testing into a curriculum and should include training in protocols, the interpretation and communication of results, and the setting and achievement of fitness goals and recommendations for developing healthy living habits for both students and their parents (IOM, 2012a).

Standards for Professional Learning

Learning communities: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all students occurs within learning communities committed to continuous improvement, collective responsibility, and goal alignment.

Leadership: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all students requires skillful leaders who develop capacity, advocate, and create support systems for professional learning.

Resources: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all students requires prioritizing, monitoring, and coordinating resources for educator learning.

Data: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all students uses a variety of sources and types of student, educator, and system data to plan, assess, and evaluate professional learning.

Learning designs: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all students integrates theories, research, and models of human learning to achieve its intended outcomes.

Implementation: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all students applies research on change and sustains support for implementation of professional learning for long-term change.

Outcomes: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all students aligns its outcomes with educator performance and student curriculum standards.

SOURCE: Learning Forward, 2012.

POLICIES THAT AFFECT THE QUALITY OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION

Instructional opportunities for physical activity and physical education are mandated by most states. In comparison with data prior to 2006, more states have developed mandates for physical education at both the elementary and secondary school levels. However, most mandates lack a specified time allocation that ensures meeting the NASPE recommendation of 150 and 225 minutes per week for elementary and secondary schools, respectively (McCullick et al., 2012), despite the fact that physical education has been considered a cornerstone for developing schoolwide multicomponent interventions to address the issue of physical inactivity in schools. Some obstacles to the implementation of quality physical activity are listed in Box 5-11 .

According to Title IX of the No Child Left Behind Act (Part A Sec 9101-11), core academic subjects include “English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, eco-

Obstacles to Implementation of Quality Physical Education

1. Class periods dedicated to physical education are declining at all school levels.

2. Existing discrepancies between policy and implementation with respect to specific time allocation contribute to a reduction in actual instructional time for physical education.

3. There is a potential shortage of physical education specialists to influence the design and maintenance of quality physical education programs.

4. Reductions in active learning time and opportunities in physical education contribute to potential student underachievement on national standards.

5. Disparities may exist in instructional opportunities for children in nontraditional learning settings.

nomics, arts, history, and geography.” If physical education were designated as a core academic subject, it would receive much-needed policy attention that would enhance its overall quality with respect to content offerings, instruction, and accountability. In support of the inclusion of physical education as a core subject, Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) reintroduced the Promoting Health for Youth Skills in Classrooms and Life (PHYSICAL) Act on February 27, 2013, to support and encourage the health and well-being of elementary and secondary school students.

With physical education not being considered a core subject, and amid growing concern regarding the increase in childhood obesity and physical inactivity, several national studies and reports have emphasized the importance of implementing state statutes, laws, and regulations both mandating time requirements for physical education and monitoring compliance. Yet although several national governmental, nongovernmental, private industry, and public health organizations have recommended specific day and time/minute requirements for physical education, no standardized state policy has emerged.

Analysis of State Statutes and Administrative Codes

In the United States, school policies on curriculum and school-based activities are determined by local education agencies according to state laws governing educational activities. Decisions about what to teach, who will teach it, and what level of resources will be provided are made by the state, county or district, and school administration. To better understand the status of state statutes, administrative codes, and policies impacting physical education in schools, the committee analyzed NASBE’s State School Health Policy Database (NASBE, 2012; www.nasbe.org/healthy_schools [accessed February 1, 2013]). Of importance to this analysis is the distinction made between state statutes and administrative codes, which accords with the definition proffered by Perna and colleagues (2012): “At the state level, the 2 primary official public policy levers referred to as ‘codified law’ used for developing school-based physical education policy are 1) statutory laws (laws enacted by the given State legislature); and 2) administrative laws (rule and regulations by state executive branch agencies, such as the Department of Education)” (p. 1594). A second point to note is that in descriptions of physical education graduation requirements, it is impossible to differentiate among “credit,” “Carnegie unit,” and “course” so as to determine the exact time requirements for graduation.

Using the NASBE database, the committee performed an overall analysis of policies on physical education and physical activity of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The analysis revealed that 45 states (88 percent) mandate physical education; 22 states (23 percent) require it

with mandatory minutes, while 25 states (49 percent) have no mandatory minutes and 4 (0.07 percent) leave the required number of minutes up to local decision makers. A majority of states allow for waivers or substitutions for physical education (see the discussion below). Fitness assessment is required in 15 states (29 percent), and other curricular assessments are required in 4 states (0.07 percent). Twenty-six states (53 percent) require physical education grades to be included in a student’s grade point average. Forty-three states (84 percent) require some degree of physical education for high school graduation, with a range of 0.5 to 3.75 credits. One state (0.02 percent) requires K-12 physical education but does not require 4 years of physical education for high school graduation.

Although no federal policies requiring physical education presently exist, the above evidence shows that the majority of states require physical education. However, the number of days and time required vary greatly by state and local school district, as does the amount of physical education required for high school graduation. Given the reduced time for physical activity in school through recess, and absent the implementation of stronger policies, schools have not only the opportunity but also the responsibility to nurture in youth the skills, knowledge, and confidence to develop and maintain a healthy lifestyle. The consensus among states indicated by the mandates for physical education summarized above, together with the discrepancies in specific policies, may suggest the need for general guidelines or a federal-level mandate that can serve to guide a collective effort to address the prevalence of childhood inactivity and obesity.

Policies That Support Physical Education

In addition to policies that directly require offering physical education in schools, other policies support physical education opportunities in schools. In 2004 the U.S. government issued a mandate, under the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, requiring school districts that receive funds under this act to establish local school wellness policies. These policies were to include provisions for physical activity and healthy eating, thus expanding schools’ responsibility for providing physical activity to school-age children. The enactment of this mandates made schools “the central element in a community system that ensures that students participate in enough physical activity to develop healthy lifestyles” (Pate et al., 2006, p. 1215). Several government agencies and organizations have recommended embedding a specific number of days and minutes of physical education into each school’s or district’s wellness policy. Although school districts are required to include goals for physical activity in their local school wellness policies, they are not required to address physical education specifically.

Policies That Hinder Physical Education

Some policies have contributed to the substantial reduction in the opportunities for school-age children to be physically active, such as by shortening or eliminating physical education classes. These reductions can be attributed to budget cuts and increased pressure for schools to meet academic standards imposed by the federal government.

No Child Left Behind Act

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires that states develop assessment and accountability measures to verify performance improvements in the subject areas of reading and mathematics (P.L. No. 107-110, Section 115). Specifically, federal funding is now dependent on schools making adequate progress in reading and mathematics. No Child Left Behind requires all public schools receiving federal funding to administer statewide standardized annual tests for all students. Schools that receive Title I funding through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 must make adequate yearly progress in test scores (e.g., each year 5th graders must do better on standardized tests than the previous year’s 5th graders). If required improvements are not made, schools are penalized through decreased funding. If a school produces poor results for 2 consecutive years, improvement plans must be developed for the school. If a school does not make adequate progress for 5 consecutive years, a full restructuring of the school is mandated.

Under the act, physical education, music, and art are considered “nonessential” subjects and are not a main focus of the school learning environment. In response to the act, schools have devoted more time in the school day to instruction in reading and mathematics. Since the act was passed, 62 percent of elementary schools and 20 percent of middle schools have increased instructional time in reading/language arts and mathematics (Center on Education Policy, 2008). Unfortunately, 44 percent of school administrators reported that these increases in instructional time for reading and mathematics were achieved at the expense of time devoted to physical education, recess, art, music, and other subjects (Center on Education Policy, 2007, 2008) (see Table 5-2 ).

The emphasis on high-stakes testing and pressure for academic achievement in the core subjects has had unintended consequences for other subjects throughout the school day. In developing master schedules, school site administrators have been forced to make difficult decisions regarding the allotment of time for “nonessential” subjects. The average reduction in instructional time in these “nonessential” subjects has been 145 minutes per week. As discussed earlier, however, no evidence suggests that physical education and physical activity have a negative effect on student achievement

TABLE 5-2 Changes in Time Allocation in Elementary Schools Since 2001-2002

SOURCE: Center on Education Policy, 2007, District Survey, item 19 (revised Tables IT-2A, IT-16, and IT-17).

or academic outcomes (CDC, 2010). On the contrary, positive academic-related outcomes (e.g., improved on-task classroom behavior, cognitive development, academic performance) have been associated with physical education and physical activity (see Chapter 4 ).

The Center on Education Policy (2007) conducted an analysis of 2006-2007 survey data from 349 school districts on the amount of time devoted to specific subjects to determine the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act. Shifts in instructional time toward English language arts and mathematics and away from other subjects were relatively large in a majority of school districts that made these types of changes. Sixty-two percent of districts reported increasing time in elementary schools in English language arts and/or mathematics since 2001-2002. A higher proportion of urban districts (76 percent) than rural districts (54 percent) reported such increases.

Districts that increased instructional time for English language arts and/or mathematics did so by 43 percent on average. Districts that also reduced instructional time in other subjects reported total reductions of 32 percent, on average. Eight of 10 districts that reported increasing time for English language arts did so by at least 75 minutes per week, and more than half (54 percent) did so by 150 minutes or more per week. Among districts that reported adding time for mathematics, 63 percent added at least 75 minutes per week, and 19 percent added 150 minutes or more per week.

Most districts that increased time for English language arts or mathematics also reported substantial cuts in time for other subjects or periods, including social studies, science, art and music, physical education, recess,

and lunch. Among the districts that reported both increasing time for English language arts or mathematics and reducing time in other subjects, 72 percent indicated that they reduced the time for one or more of these other subjects by a total of at least 75 minutes per week. For example, more than half (53 percent) of these districts cut instructional time by at least 75 minutes per week in social studies, and the same percentage (53 percent) cut time by at least 75 minutes per week in science (Center on Education Policy, 2007).

Districts that reported an increase in instructional time for elementary school English language arts spent an average of 378 minutes per week on this subject before No Child Left Behind was enacted. After the act became law, they spent 520 minutes per week. The average increase for English language arts was 141 minutes per week, or a 47 percent increase over the level prior to the act (Center on Education Policy, 2007; see district survey items 18 and 19 in Table IT-18A). Table 5-3 shows the specific amounts of time cut from various subjects in districts that reported decreases.

Districts with at least one school identified as “in need of improvement” under the act were far more likely than districts not in need of improvement to decrease time in certain subjects so as to devote more time to English language arts and mathematics (78 versus 57 percent). For example, 51 percent of districts with a school in need of improvement reported decreased time in social studies, compared with 31 percent of districts with no school in need of improvement (Center on Education Policy, 2007).

TABLE 5-3 Time Cut from Subjects or Periods in Districts Reporting Decreases in Instructional Time

NOTE: * = sample size too small to allow reporting of data on minutes per week; NCLB = No Child Left Behind. SOURCE: Center on Education Policy, 2007, District Survey items 18 and 19 (Table IT-18B).

Exemptions from Physical Education Requirements

The 2012 Shape of the Nation Report includes documentation of the multiple reasons students may be exempt from physical education classes. Thirty-three states permit school districts or schools to allow students to substitute other activities for physical education. The most common substitutions are Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC), inter-scholastic sports, marching band, cheerleading, and community sports. Twenty-eight states allow schools and school districts to grant exemptions/waivers from physical education time or credit requirements. Reasons for exemptions/waivers include health, physical disability, religious belief, and early graduation; six states leave the reasons to the local schools or school districts. Although it would seem reasonable that some substitution programs such as JROTC or cheerleading might accrue physical activity comparable to that from physical education, these programs do not necessarily offer students opportunities to learn the knowledge and skills needed for lifelong participation in health-enhancing physical activities. Research on the impact of exemptions/waivers from physical education is lacking. No evidence currently exists showing that students receive any portion of the recommended 60 minutes or more of vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity through substituted activities sanctioned by their schools.

BARRIERS TO QUALITY PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SOLUTIONS

Barriers other than the policies detailed above hinder efforts to improve and maintain high-quality physical education. This section reviews these barriers, along with some solutions for overcoming them.

Morgan and Hanson (2008) classify barriers that hinder schools from implementing quality physical education programs as either institutional (outside the teacher’s control) or teacher related (arising from teacher behavior). Table 5-4 lists institutional and teacher-related as well as student-related barriers identified by various authors.

Dwyer and colleagues (2003) examined Toronto teachers’ perspectives on why children were not engaged in daily physical education. They identified three categories of barriers: lower priority for physical education relative to other subjects, lack of performance measures for physical activity, and lack of sufficient infrastructure. Jenkinson and Benson (2010) surveyed 270 secondary school physical education teachers in Victoria, Australia, and asked them to rank order the barriers they perceived to providing quality physical education. The results are shown in Table 5-5 . The institutional

TABLE 5-4 Barriers to the Delivery of Physical Education and Physical Activity Programs to Primary and Secondary School Students

NOTES: PA = physical activity; PE = physical education; sport = sport education. SOURCES: a Barroso et al., 2005; b Boyle et al., 2008; c Dagkas and Stathi, 2007; d DeCorby et al., 2005; e Dwyer et al., 2003; f Dwyer et al., 2006; g Morgan and Bourke, 2005; h Morgan and Hansen, 2008; i Mowling et al., 2004; j Salvy et al., 2009; k Sherar et al., 2009; l Xiang et al., 2002.

TABLE 5-5 Physical Education Teachers’ Ranking of Barriers to Providing Quality Physical Education (PE) in Victorian State Secondary Schools

NOTE: I = institutional barrier; SD = standard deviation. SOURCE: Jenkinson and Benson, 2010.

barriers listed in this table are similar to those identified for U.S. schools in Table 5-4 .

Jenkinson and Benson (2010) also presented teachers with a list of barriers to student participation in physical education and physical activity in three categories: institutional, teacher-related, and student-related. The teachers were asked to rank the top five barriers they perceived. Results are presented in Table 5-6 .

Finally, Gallo and colleagues (2006) found that the greatest process barriers to assessing students in physical education were grading students on skill levels and abilities; time constraints; class size; and record keeping, especially when assessing students on skills, cognitive knowledge, and fitness.

Two key barriers to physical education identified in the studies summarized above are staffing and funding. These barriers reflect a lack of support structure in schools for quality physical education.

TABLE 5-6 Perceived Barriers to Student Participation in Physical Education and Physical Activity in Victorian State Secondary Schools: Physical Education Teachers’ Ranking (from most [“5”] to least [“1”] influential)

NOTE: a Ranking = based on most frequently ranked as number 1 barrier; b I = institutional barrier, T = teacher-related barrier, S = student-related barrier; c PE = physical education; d PA = physical activity; e Sport = sport education. SOURCE: Jenkinson and Benson, 2010.

As noted earlier in this chapter, physical education is short staffed. State mandates have placed pressure on schools to preserve instructional resources for the high-stakes tested core subject areas at the expense of non-core subjects. For example, when a state mandates a maximum class size of 20 students per teacher in all core subjects, with noncompliance resulting in some form of penalty, an elementary school with an average of 25 students per teacher is forced to hire additional teachers in these subjects to meet the state mandate. Consequently, the school must shrink its teaching force in noncore subjects, such as physical education, to balance its budget. If noncore classes are to be preserved, their class sizes must increase, with fewer teachers serving more students. As a result, it becomes difficult to implement a quality program, and physical education teachers perceive their programs as being undervalued.

According to the Government Accountability Office report K-12 Education: School-Based Physical Education and Sports Programs (GAO, 2012), school officials cite budget cuts and inadequate facilities as major challenges to providing physical education opportunities for students. Budget cuts have affected schools’ ability to hire physical education teachers, maintain appropriate class sizes, and purchase sufficient equipment. As noted earlier, lack of equipment and limited access to facilities are cited as top barriers in the study by Jenkinson and Benson (2010) (see Tables 5-5 and 5-6 ). Limited budgets have a negative impact on a school’s ability to purchase enough physical education equipment to engage all students in increasingly large class sizes and cause physical education teachers to abandon quality evidence-based physical education programs and resort to large-group games and “throw out the ball” activities. Students disengaged as a result of such practices may prefer sedentary activities to more active lifestyles. A NASPE (2009a) survey found that the median physical education budget for physical education programs nationally was $764 per school ($460 per elementary school, $900 per middle school, and $1,370 per high school).

Solutions for Overcoming the Barriers

For many adolescents who have few opportunities to be active outside of the school day, quality physical education becomes the only option for physical activity. For students in large urban communities, physical education classes serve as a safe environment in which to be physically active under adult supervision in a structured environment. For students with dis-

abilities in particular, physical education classes are one of the only outlets for physical activity. For these reasons, it is crucial to overcome the above barriers to quality physical education. Some school districts have found ways to do so and provide robust physical education programs.

The barrier of limited time during the school day can be overcome through creative scheduling that makes use of every minute of the day in a constructive manner. For example, Miami-Dade County Public Schools is the fourth largest school district in the United States, in a large urban minority-majority community with large budgetary shortfalls and attention in schools being diverted to academic requirements. Yet the district has always had daily physical education in its elementary schools taught by a certified physical education teacher. This is accomplished by scheduling physical education during the classroom teacher’s planning time. In addition, students receive school board–mandated recess for either 20 minutes two times per week or 15 minutes three times per week. Figures 5-2 and 5-3 show examples of elementary school teacher schedules that demonstrate how 150 minutes of time for physical education can be incorporated successfully into any master schedule.

Other positive examples, identified in the report Physical Education Matters (San Diego State University, 2007), include successful case studies from low-resource California schools. The report acknowledges, however, that advancing such opportunities will require policy changes at the state, district, and local levels. These changes include securing grant funds with which to implement high-tech physical education wellness centers, staff commitment to professional development, administrative support, physical education being made a priority, community support, use of certified physical education teachers, and district support. Identifying the need to reform physical education guided by evidence-based findings, the report concludes that (1) curriculum matters, (2) class size matters, (3) qualified teachers matter, (4) professional development matters, and (5) physical environment matters. If programs are to excel and students are to achieve, delivery of the curriculum must be activity based; class sizes must be commensurate with those for other subject areas; highly qualified physical education specialists, as opposed to classroom teachers, must be hired to deliver instruction; professional development in activity-focused physical education must be delivered; and school physical education facilities, such as playing fields and indoor gym space and equipment, must be available.

A separate report, Physical Education Matters: Success Stories from California Low Resource Schools That Have Achieved Excellent Physical Education Programs (San Diego State University, 2007), notes that when funding from a variety of grant resources, including federal funding, became available, schools were able to transition to high-quality programs using innovative instructional strategies. Those strategies included well-

FIGURE 5-2 Example of a schedule demonstrating time for 150 minutes per week of physical education. NOTE: Sample is taken from a teacher schedule in a traditional elementary school. SOURCE: Large Urban Public School District, Miami-Dade County Public Schools.

ness centers and active gaming, which engaged students in becoming more physically active. Administrative support was found to be a key factor in turning programs around, along with staff commitment and professional development. Having certified physical education teachers and making physical education a priority in the schools were other key factors. External factors further strengthened programs, including having school district support, having a physical education coordinator, and using state standards to provide accountability. Additional ways to overcome the barriers to quality physical education include scheduling time for physical education, ensuring reasonable class size, providing nontraditional physical education activities, making classes more active and fun for all students, and acknowledging the importance of role modeling and personal investment and involvement in participation in physical activity among staff.

Still another way to overcome the barriers to quality physical education is to assist administrative decision makers and policy makers in understand-

FIGURE 5-3 Example of a schedule demonstrating time for 150 minutes per week of physical education. NOTES: Sample is taken from a teacher schedule in a combination special education and disabilities (SPED)/Spanish-language elementary class. PE = physical education; S.S. = social studies. SOURCE: Large Urban Public School District, Miami-Dade County Public Schools.

ing the correlation between physical education and academic achievement (see Chapter 4 ). The report Active Education: Physical Education, Physical Activity and Academic Performance by Active Living Research (Trost, 2009) cites evidence that “children who are physically active and fit tend to perform better in the classroom and that daily physical education does not adversely affect academic performance. Schools can provide outstanding learning environments while improving children’s health through physical education.” The findings reported include the following (p. 6):

• “In some cases, more time in physical education leads to improved grades and standardized test scores.”
• “Physically active and fit children tend to have better academic achievement.”
• “Evidence links higher levels of physical fitness with better school attendance and fewer disciplinary problems.”
• “There are several possible mechanisms by which physical education and regular physical activity may improve academic achievement, including enhanced concentration skills and classroom behavior.”
• “Additional research is needed to determine the impact of physical activity on academic performance among those children who are at highest risk for obesity in the United States, including black, Latino, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Asian-American and Pacific Islander children, as well as children living in lower-income communities.”

Physical education is a formal content area of study in schools, it is standards based, and it encompasses assessment according to standards and benchmarks. Select curriculum-based physical education programs have been described in this chapter to show the potential of high-quality physical education in developing children into active adults. Such models provide the only opportunity for all school-age children to access health-enhancing physical activities. Curriculum models for physical education programs include movement education, which emphasizes the importance of fundamental motor skills competence as a prerequisite for engagement in physical activity throughout the life span; sport education, which emphasizes helping students become skillful players in lifetime sports of their choosing; and fitness education, which imparts physical fitness concepts to students, including the benefits and scientific principles of exercise, with the goal of developing and maintaining individual fitness and positive lifestyle change. The emergence of a technology-focused fitness education curriculum and the new Presidential Youth Fitness Program offer further motivational opportunities for students to engage in lifelong physical activities.

Because quality physical education programs are standards based and assessed, they are characterized by (1) instruction by certified physical education teachers, (2) a minimum of 150 minutes per week for elementary schools and 225 minutes per week for middle and high schools, and (3) tangible standards for student achievement and for high school graduation. Quality professional development programs are an essential component for both novice and veteran teachers to ensure the continued delivery of quality physical education.

An analysis of datasets from NASPE, NASBE, and Bridging the Gap reveals that the implementation of supportive physical education policies varies from state to state and from school to school. Since passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, several studies and reports have identi-

fied a decline in physical education resulting from the shifting of time to academic subjects. Because physical education is not a high-stakes tested content area, the implementation of supportive policies often is hindered by other education priorities. Although the above analysis indicates that 30 states (74.5 percent) mandate physical education, most policies do not require specific amounts of instructional time, and more than half allow for waivers or exemptions. In addition, an unintended consequence of the No Child Left Behind Act has been disparities in access to physical education and physical activity opportunities during the school day for Hispanic students and those of lower socioeconomic status. In high school, relying on students to elect physical education after meeting the minimum required credit hours (one credit in all states but one) appears to be unfruitful.

Strengthening of school physical education has received support from the public, health agencies, and parents. Parents recently surveyed expressed favorable views of physical education. Specifically:

• A majority of parents (54-84 percent) believe that physical education is at least as important as other academic subjects (CDC, 2010).
• Ninety-one percent believe that there should be more physical education in schools (Harvard School of Public Health, 2003).
• Seventy-six percent think that more school physical education could help control or prevent childhood obesity (NASPE, 2009a).
• Ninety-five percent believe that regular daily physical activity helps children do better academically and should be a part of the school curriculum for all students in grades K-12 (NASPE, 2003).

Additionally, many public and private organizations have proposed initiatives aimed at developing a comprehensive school-based strategy centered on curriculum physical education. As the largest institution where children spend more than half of their waking hours on school days, schools can play a pivotal role in increasing students’ physical activity levels by providing access for all to quality physical education, along with physical activities throughout the school environment, the subject of Chapter 7 .

AAHPERD (American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance). 2011. 2011 Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program (CSPAP) survey report. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

AAHPERD. 2012. Let’s move in school . www.aahperd.org/letsmoveinschool (accessed April 15, 2012).

Abels, K. W., and J. M. Bridges. 2010. Teaching movement education: Foundations for active lifestyles . Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.

ACS (American Cancer Society) CAN (Cancer Action Network), ADA (American Diabetes Association), and AHA (American Heart Association). 2012. Physical education in schools—both quality and quantity are important: A statement on physical education from the American Cancer Society and Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), the American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the American Heart Association (AHA). Dallas, TX: AHA.

Bailey, B., and K. McInnis. 2011. Energy cost of exergaming: A comparison of the energy cost of 6 forms of exergaming. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 165(7):597.

Ball, D. L., and D. K. Cohen. 1999. Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional development. In Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice, Jossey-Bass education series, edited by L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes. San Francisco, CA: ERIC. Pp. 30-32.

Baranowski, T., R. Buday, D. I. Thompson, and J. Baranowski. 2008. Playing for real: Video games and stories for health-related behavior change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 34(1):74-82.

Barroso, C. S., C. McCullum-Gomez, D. M. Hoelscher, S. H. Kelder, and N. G. Murray. 2005. Self-reported barriers to quality physical education by physical education specialists in Texas. Journal of School Health 75(8):313-319.

Bassett, D. R., E. C. Fitzhugh, G. W. Heath, P. C. Erwin, G. M. Frederick, D. L. Wolff, W. A. Welch, and A. B. Stout. 2013. Estimated energy expenditures for school-based policies and active living. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 44(2):108-113.

Boyce, B., and G. L. Rikard. 2011a. Characteristics of PETE doctoral level institutions: Descriptions of programs, faculty and doctoral students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 30(2):103-115.

Boyce, B., and G. L. Rikard. 2011b. A comparison of supply and demand for PETE professionals in higher education in the United States. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 30(2):116-128.

Boyle, S. E., G. L. Jones, and S. J. Walters. 2008. Physical activity among adolescents and barriers to delivering physical education in Cornwall and Lancashire, UK: A qualitative study of heads of P.E. and heads of schools. BMC Public Health 8(1):273.

Castelli, D., and J. E. Rink. 2003. A comparison of high and low performing secondary physical education programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 22(5):512.

Castelli, D. M., and J. A. Valley. 2007. The relationship of physical fitness and motor competence to physical activity. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 26(4):358-374.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2010. The association between school based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Center on Education Policy. 2007. Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

Center on Education Policy. 2008. A call to restructure restructuring: Lessons from the No Child Left Behind Act in five states. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

Chen, A., R. Martin, H. Sun, and C. D. Ennis. 2007. Is in-class physical activity at risk in constructivist physical education? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 78(5):500-509.

Chen, A., R. Martin, C. D. Ennis, and H. Sun. 2008. Content specificity of expectancy beliefs and task values in elementary physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 79(2):195-208.

Chen, A., H. Sun, X. Zhu, and C. D. Ennis. 2012. Influences of personal and lesson factors on caloric expenditure in physical education. Journal of Sport and Health Science 1(1):49-56.

Cohen, D., and H. Hill. 2000. Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. The Teachers College Record 102(2):294-343.

College Board. 2013. College search . https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/college-search (accessed March 18, 2013).

Corbin, C. B. 2002. Physical activity for everyone: What every physical educator should know about promoting lifelong physical activity. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21(2):128-144.

Corbin, C., G. Le Masurier, and D. Lambdin. 2007. Fitness for life: Middle school . Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Dagkas, S., and A. Stathi. 2007. Exploring social and environmental factors affecting adolescents’ participation in physical activity. European Physical Education Review 13(3):369-384.

Daum, D. N., and C. Buschner. 2012. The status of high school online physical education in the United States. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 31(1):86-100.

DeCorby, K., J. Halas, S. Dixon, L. Wintrup, and H. Janzen. 2005. Classroom teachers and the challenges of delivering quality physical education. Journal of Educational Research 98(4):208-221.

Dwyer, J. J., K. R. Allison, M. Barrera, B. Hansen, E. Goldenberg, and M. A. Boutilier. 2003. Teachers’ perspective on barriers to implementing physical activity curriculum guidelines for school children in Toronto. Canadian Journal of Public Health 94(6):448-452.

Erwin, H. E., and D. M. Castelli. 2008. National physical education standards: A summary of student performance and its correlates. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 79(4):495-505.

Fawkner, S. G., A. Niven, A. G. Thin, M. J. MacDonald, and J. R. Oakes. 2010. Adolescent girls’ energy expenditure during dance simulation active computer gaming. Journal of Sports Sciences 28(1):61-65.

Fishman, B. J., R. W. Marx, S. Best, and R. T. Tal. 2003. Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education 19(6):643-658.

FLVS (Florida Virtual School). 2013. Florida Virtual School physical education policy . http://www.flvs.net/myFLVS/student-handbook/Pages/Policies/PEPolicy.aspx (accessed March 13, 2013).

Fogel, V. A., R. G. Miltenberger, R. Graves, and S. Koehler. 2010. The effects of exergaming on physical activity among inactive children in a physical education classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 43(4):591-600.

Gallo, A. M., D. A. Sheehy, K. Patton, and L. Griffin. 2006. Assessment benefits and barriers: What are you committed to? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 77(8):46-50.

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2012. K-12: School-based physical education and sports programs. Washington, DC: GAO.

Garet, M. S., A. C. Porter, L. Desimone, B. F. Birman, and K. S. Yoon. 2001. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal 38(4):915-945.

Graf, D. L., L. V. Pratt, C. N. Hester, and K. R. Short. 2009. Playing active video games increases energy expenditure in children. Pediatrics 124(2):534-540.

Greenberg, J., and R. Stokes. 2007. Developing school site wellness centers . Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

Guskey, T., and D. Sparks. 2004. Linking professional development to improvements in student learning. In Research linking teacher preparation and student performance: Teacher education yearbook , Vol. XII, edited by E. M. Guyton and J. R. Dangel. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Pp. 233-247. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/rel_2007033.pdf (accessed April 1, 2013).

Hackensmith, C. W. 1966. History of physical education . New York: Harper & Row.

Haddock, B. L., S. R. Siegel, and L. D. Wikin. 2009. The addition of a video game to stationary cycling: The impact on energy expenditure in overweight children. Open Sports Sciences Journal 2:42.

Hastie, P. A., D. M. de Ojeda, and A. C. Luquin. 2011. A review of research on sport education: 2004 to the present. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 16(2):103-132.

Healthy People 2020. 2010. Healthy People 2020: Physical activity objectives . http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicid=33 (accessed March 14, 2013).

Hensley, L., and W. East. 1989. Testing and grading in the psychomotor domain. Measurement concepts in physical education and exercise science. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 2008. Physical activity guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: HHS.

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2012a. Accelerating progress in obesity prevention: Solving the weight of the nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

IOM. 2012b. Fitness measures and health outcomes in youth . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Jenkinson, K. A., and A. C. Benson. 2010. Barriers to providing physical education and physical activity in Victorian state secondary schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 35(8):1.

Johnston, C. A., C. Tyler, B. K. McFarlin, W. S. C. Poston, C. K. Haddock, R. S. Reeves, and J. P. Foreyt. 2010. Effects of a school-based weight maintenance program for Mexican-American children: Results at 2 years. Obesity 18(3):542-547.

Kennedy, M. 1998. Form and substance of inservice teacher education. Research Monograph No. 13. Madison: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin.

Kramer, S. L., and R. Keller. 2008. An existence proof: Successful joint implementation of the IMP curriculum and a 4 × 4 block schedule at a suburban U.S. high school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 39(1):2-8.

Kulinna, P. H. 2012. Increasing physical activity: A comprehensive professional development effort. Biomedical Human Kinetics 4:6-11.

Kulinna, P. H., T. Brusseau, M. Ferry, and D. Cothran. 2010. Preservice teachers’ belief systems toward curricular outcomes for physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 81(2):189-198.

Laban, R. 1980. The mastery of movement . Plymouth: Macdonald & Evans.

Lanningham-Foster, L., R. C. Foster, S. K. McCrady, T. B. Jensen, N. Mitre, and J. A. Levine. 2009. Activity promoting games and increased energy expenditure. Journal of Pediatrics 154(6):819.

Learning Forward. 2012. Standards for professional learning: Standards list . http://www.learningforward.org/standards/standards-list#.UUhuMKK7mXw (accessed March 19, 2013).

Logsdon, B., K. Barrett, and B. Logsdon. 1984. Movement—the content of physical education. Physical Education for Children 295-355.

Lonsdale, C., R. R. Rosenkranz, L. R. Peralta, A. Bennie, P. Fahey, and D. R. Lubans. 2013. A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions designed to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in school physical education lessons. Preventive Medicine 56(2):152-161.

Loucks-Horsley, S., and C. Matsumoto. 2010. Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics 99(5):258-271.

Luepker, R. V., C. L. Perry, S. M. McKinlay, P. R. Nader, G. S. Parcel, E. J. Stone, L. S. Webber, J. P. Elder, H. A. Feldman, C. C. Johnson, S. H. Kelder, M. Wu, and CATCH Collaborative Group. 1996. Outcomes of a field trial to improve children’s dietary patterns and physical activity. The child and adolescent trial for cardiovascular health. CATCH collaborative group. Journal of the American Medical Association 275(10):768-776.

Maddison, R., C. N. Mhurchu, A. Jull, Y. Jiang, H. Prapavessis, and A. Rodgers. 2007. Energy expended playing video console games: An opportunity to increase children’s physical activity? Pediatric Exercise Science 19(3):334.

Martin, J. J., N. Mccaughtry, P. Hodges-Kulinna, and D. Cothran. 2008. The influences of professional development on teachers’ self-efficacy toward educational change. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 13(2):171-190.

McCaughtry, N., J. Martin, P. H. Kulinna, and D. Cothran. 2006. What makes teacher professional development work? The influence of instructional resources on change in physical education. Journal of In-Service Education 32(2):221-235.

McCullick, B. A., T. Baker, P. D. Tomporowski, T. J. Templin, K. Lux, and T. Isaac. 2012. An analysis of state physical education policies. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 31(2):200-210.

McKenzie, T. L. 2007. The preparation of physical educators: A public health perspective. Quest 59(4):346-357.

McKenzie, T. L., J. E. Alcaraz, and J. F. Sallis. 1994. Assessing children’s liking for activity units in an elementary school physical education curriculum. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 13(3):206-215.

McKenzie, T. L., J. F. Sallis, B. Kolody, and F. N. Faucette. 1997. Long-term effects of a physical education curriculum and staff development program: SPARK. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 68:280-291.

McKenzie, T. L., J. E. Alcaraz, J. F. Sallis, and E. Faucette. 1998. Effects of a physical education program on children’s manipulative skills. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 17:327-341.

McKenzie, T. L., E. J. Stone, H. A. Feldman, J. N. Epping, M. Yang, P. K. Strikmiller, L. A. Lytle, and G. S. Parcel. 2001. Effects of the catch physical education intervention: Teacher type and lesson location. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 21(2):101-109.

Mellecker, R. R., and A. M. McManus. 2008. Energy expenditure and cardiovascular responses to seated and active gaming in children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 162(9):886.

Mhurchu, C. N., R. Maddison, Y. Jiang, A. Jull, H. Prapavessis, and A. Rodgers. 2008. Couch potatoes to jumping beans: A pilot study of the effect of active video games on physical activity in children. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 5(1):8.

Morgan, C. F., A. Beighle, and R. R. Pangrazi. 2007. What are the contributory and compensatory relationships between physical education and physical activity in children? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 78(5):407-412.

Morgan, P., and S. Bourke. 2008. Non-specialist teachers’ confidence to teach PE: The nature and influence of personal school experiences in PE. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 13(1):1-29.

Morgan, P. J., and V. Hansen. 2008. Classroom teachers’ perceptions of the impact of barriers to teaching physical education on the quality of physical education programs. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 79(4):506-516.

Mowling, C. M., S. J. Brock, K. K. Eiler, and M. E. Rudisill. 2004. Student motivation in physical education breaking down barriers. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 75(6):40-45.

Munson, W. W. 1988. Effects of leisure education versus physical activity or informal discussion on behaviorally disordered youth offenders. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 5(4):305-317.

Munson, W. W., S. B. Baker, and H. M. Lundegren. 1985. Strength training and leisure counseling as treatment for institutionalized juvenile delinquents. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 2(1):65-75.

Myers-Schieffer, T., and K. T. Thomas. 2012. Fifteen years of promise in school-based interventions: A meta-analysis. Kinesiology Reviews 1:155-169.

Nader, P. R., E. J. Stone, L. A. Lytle, C. L. Perry, S. K. Osganian, S. Kelder, L. S. Webber, J. P. Elder, D. Montgomery, H. A. Feldman, M. Wu, C. Johnson, G. S. Parcel, and R. V. Luepker. 1999. Three-year maintenance of improved diet and physical activity: The CATCH cohort. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 153(7):695-704.

NASBE (National Association of State Boards of Education). 2012. State School Health Policy Database. http://www.nasbe.org/healthy_schools/hs (accessed May 1, 2013).

NASPE (National Association for Sport and Physical Education). 2003. Parents’ view of children’s health and fitness: A summary of results. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

NASPE. 2004. Physical activity for children: A statement of guidelines for children ages 5-12. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

NASPE. 2004. Moving into the future: National standards for physical education. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

NASPE. 2007a. Initial guidelines for online physical education: Position paper. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

NASPE. 2007b. Position statement: What constitutes a highly qualified physical education teacher. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

NASPE. 2009a. Physical education trends in our nation’s schools: A survey of practicing K-12 physical education teachers. Port Washington, NY: Roslow Research Group.

NASPE. 2009b. School physical education program checklist—how does your program rate? Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

NASPE. 2009c. NASPE resource brief: Quality physical education. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

NASPE. 2010. Opportunity to learn: Guidelines for elementary, middle, and high school physical education. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

NASPE. 2012. Instructional framework for fitness education in physical education. Guidance document. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

NASPE and AHA. 2010. Shape of the nation report: Status of physical education in the USA. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

National Physical Activity Plan. 2010. National Physical Activity Plan. Columbia, SC: The National Physical Activity Plan. http://www.nationalactivityplan.org (accessed February 1, 2013).

Nike. 2012. Designed to move: A physical activity agenda. Beaverton, OR: Nike.

Parker, M. B., and M. Curtner-Smith. 2005. Health-related fitness in sport education and multi-activity teaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(1):1-18.

Pate, R. R., M. G. Davis, T. N. Robinson, E. J. Stone, T. L. McKenzie, and J. C. Young. 2006. Promoting physical activity in children and youth: A leadership role for schools. A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism (Physical Activity Committee) in collaboration with the Councils on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young and Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation 114(11):1214-1224.

Pate, R. R., J. A. Mitchell, W. Byun, and M. Dowda. 2011. Sedentary behaviour in youth. British Journal of Sports Medicine 45(11):906-913.

Perna, F. M., A. Oh, J. F. Chriqui, L. C. Mâsse, A. A. Atienza, L. Nebeling, T. Agurs-Collins, R. P. Moser, and K. W. Dodd. 2012. The association of state law to physical education time allocation in US public schools. American Journal of Public Health 102(8):1594-1599.

Perry, C. L., E. J. Stone, G. S. Parcel, R. C. Ellison, P. R. Nader, L. S. Webber, and R. V. Luepker. 1990. School-based cardiovascular health promotion: The Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH). Journal of School Health 60(8):406-413.

Peterson’s. 2013. Physical education colleges . http://www.petersons.com/college-search/SearchResults.aspx?q=%22physical%20education%22&c=UG (accessed March 18, 2013).

Presidential Youth Fitness Program. 2013. Presidential Youth Fitness Program: Promoting health and activity for America’s youth . http://www.presidentialyouthfitnessprogram.org/index.shtml (accessed March 1, 2013).

Rainey, D. L., and T. D. Murray. 2005. Foundations of personal fitness . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Robinson, L. E. 2011. Effect of a mastery climate motor program on object control skills and perceived physical competence in preschoolers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 82(2):355-359.

Robinson, L. E., and J. D. Goodway. 2009. Instructional climates in preschool children who are at risk. Part I: Object-control skill development. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 80(3):533-542.

Romero, A. J. 2012. A pilot test of the Latin active hip hop intervention to increase physical activity among low-income Mexican-American adolescents. American Journal of Health Promotion 26(4):208-211.

Sallis, J. F., and T. L. McKenzie. 1991. Physical education’s role in public health. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 62(2):124-137.

Sallis, J. F., T. L. McKenzie, J. E. Alcaraz, B. Kolody, N. Faucette, and M. F. Hovell. 1997. The effects of a 2-year physical education program (SPARK) on physical activity and fitness in elementary school students: Sports, play and active recreation for kids. American Journal of Public Health 87(8):1328-1334.

Sallis, J. F., J. J. Prochaska, and W. C. Taylor. 2000. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 32(5):963-975.

Sallis, J. F., T. L. McKenzie, T. L. Conway, J. P. Elder, J. J. Prochaska, M. Brown, M. M. Zive, S. J. Marshall, and J. E. Alcaraz. 2003. Environmental interventions for eating and physical activity: A randomized controlled trial in middle schools. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 24(3):209-217.

Salvy, S.-J., J. N. Roemmich, J. C. Bowker, N. D. Romero, P. J. Stadler, and L. H. Epstein. 2009. Effect of peers and friends on youth physical activity and motivation to be physically active. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 34(2):217-225.

San Diego State University. 2007. Physical education matters: Success stories from California low resource schools that have achieved excellent P.E. programs. Los Angeles: The California Endowment.

San Diego State University. 2008. Physical education matters: A full report from The California Endowment . Los Angeles, CA: The California Endowment.

Sheehan, D. P., and L. Katz. 2012. The impact of a six week exergaming curriculum on balance with grade three school children using Wii Fit Plus. International Journal of Computer Science in Sport 11(3):5-22.

Sherar, L. B., N. C. Gyurcsik, M. L. Humbert, R. F. Dyck, S. Fowler-Kerry, and A. Baxter-Jones. 2009. Activity and barriers in girls (8-16 years old) based on grade and maturity status. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 41(1):87.

Siedentop, D. L. 1994. Sport education: Quality PE through positive sport experiences . Chicago, IL: Human Kinetics.

Siedentop, D. L. 2009. Introduction to physical education, fitness, and sport . 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Siedentop, D. L., P. A. Hastie, and H. Van der Mars. 2011. Complete guide to sport education . Chicago, IL: Human Kinetics.

Sit, C. H., J. W. Lam, and T. L. McKenzie. 2010. Children’s use of electronic games: Choices of game mode and challenge levels. International Journal of Pediatrics [epub ahead of print].

SPARK (Sports, Play, and Active Recreation for Kids). 2013. What is SPARK? http://www.sparkpe.org/what-is-spark (accessed March 14, 2013).

Staiano, A., A. Abraham, and S. Calvert. 2012. Motivating effects of cooperative exergame play for overweight and obese adolescents. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 6(4):812.

Stevens-Smith, D. 2004. Teaching spatial awareness to children. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 75(6):52.

Stodden, D. F., J. D. Goodway, S. J. Langendorfer, M. A. Roberton, M. E. Rudisill, C. Garcia, and L. E. Garcia. 2008. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest 60(2):290-306.

Stodden, D., S. Langendorfer, and M. A. Roberton. 2009. The association between motor skill competence and physical fitness in young adults. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 80(2):223-229.

Stokes, R., and S. Schultz. 2002. Personal fitness for you Winston-Salem, NC: Hunter Textbooks.

Stokes, R., and S. L. Schultz. 2009. Get active! Get fit! Winston-Salem, NC: Hunter Textbooks.

Sun, H. 2012. Exergaming impact on physical activity and interest in elementary school children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 83(2):212-220.

Sun, H., A. Chen, X. Zhu, and C. D. Ennis. 2012. Curriculum matters: Learning science-based fitness knowledge in constructivist physical education. Elementary School Journal 113(2):215-229.

Trost, S. 2009. Active education: Physical education, physical activity and academic performance. San Diego, CA: Active Living Research, San Diego State University.

Wallhead, T., and M. O’Sullivan. 2005. Sport education: Physical education for the new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(2):181-210.

Welk, G. J., J. A. Schaben, and M. Shelley. 2004. Physical activity and physical fitness in children schooled at home and children attending public schools. Pediatric Exercise Science 16(4):310-323.

Weston, A. 1962. The making of American physical education . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

White, K., A. E. Kilding, and G. Schofield. 2009. Energy expenditure and enjoyment during Nintendo ® Wii active video games: How do they compare to other sedentary and physical activities? New Zealand: AUT University, Center for Physical Activity and Nutrition (CPAN).

Whitehurst, G. J. 2002 (March 5). Research on teacher preparation and professional development: A paper presented at the White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers . Washington, DC.

Wiley, D. E., and B. Yoon. 1995. Teacher reports on opportunity to learn: Analyses of the 1993 California Learning Assessment System (CLAS). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17(3):355-370.

Williams, C. S. 2005. Personal fitness: Looking good/feeling good. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Wood, T. D. 1913. The ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (part 1) . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Wood, T. D., and R. F. Cassidy. 1930. The new physical education: A program of naturalized activities for education toward citizenship . New York: Macmillan.

Xiang, P., S. Lowry, and R. McBride. 2002. The impact of a field-based elementary physical education methods course on preservice classroom teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21:145-161.

Yoon, K. S., T. Duncan, S. W.-Y. Lee, B. Scarloss, and K. Shapley. 2007. Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues and Answers Report, REL 2007, No. 033. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs (accessed April 1, 2013).

This page intentionally left blank.

Physical inactivity is a key determinant of health across the lifespan. A lack of activity increases the risk of heart disease, colon and breast cancer, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, osteoporosis, anxiety and depression and others diseases. Emerging literature has suggested that in terms of mortality, the global population health burden of physical inactivity approaches that of cigarette smoking. The prevalence and substantial disease risk associated with physical inactivity has been described as a pandemic.

The prevalence, health impact, and evidence of changeability all have resulted in calls for action to increase physical activity across the lifespan. In response to the need to find ways to make physical activity a health priority for youth, the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Physical Activity and Physical Education in the School Environment was formed. Its purpose was to review the current status of physical activity and physical education in the school environment, including before, during, and after school, and examine the influences of physical activity and physical education on the short and long term physical, cognitive and brain, and psychosocial health and development of children and adolescents.

Educating the Student Body makes recommendations about approaches for strengthening and improving programs and policies for physical activity and physical education in the school environment. This report lays out a set of guiding principles to guide its work on these tasks. These included: recognizing the benefits of instilling life-long physical activity habits in children; the value of using systems thinking in improving physical activity and physical education in the school environment; the recognition of current disparities in opportunities and the need to achieve equity in physical activity and physical education; the importance of considering all types of school environments; the need to take into consideration the diversity of students as recommendations are developed.

This report will be of interest to local and national policymakers, school officials, teachers, and the education community, researchers, professional organizations, and parents interested in physical activity, physical education, and health for school-aged children and adolescents.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Sign in to save searches and organize your favorite content.
• Not registered? Sign up

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search
• Next Article

Chapter 1: 21st Century Physical Education in the United States: Introduction to the Special Issue

Click name to view affiliation

• Get Citation Alerts

Purchase article

Student 1 year online subscription, 1 year online subscription, student 2 year online subscription, 2 year online subscription.

By purchasing this content you agree and accept the terms and conditions

In this chapter, we examine the system of physical education with a Janus-like perspective. We focus on examining and learning from the past as we anticipate what society, school systems, and the physical education system might look like in the future. Drawing on futuristic scenarios developed for this special journal issue, we ask a timely, pivotal question. What does all of this mean for the future of the field of physical education, including its school programs, teacher education programs, doctoral programs, and salient public policies? The several chapters in this special issue can be viewed as a response to this question—and with a delimited focus on the unique context of the United States. This chapter is structured to provide an overall context for these other contributions. It includes a discussion of relevant theories provided in this special issue and a representative summary of the other articles. Selectivity is apparent and unavoidable in every article, and it can be viewed variously as a strength or limitation.

* Ward is with The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. Lawson is with the University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY, USA. van der Mars is with Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ, USA. Mitchell is with the Graduate School, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

Related Articles

Article sections.

• Gaining Guidance From Futurists
• A Systems Perspective in This Special Issue
• Action-Oriented, Scenario Planning With an Enhanced Ecological Framework
• Neoliberalism
• Alternatives
• Theoretical Orientations
• Chapter Progression and Overview

Ad-Hoc Program Viability Review Committee at California State University San Marcos . ( 2015 , January 21 ). CSUSM, Academic Senate , pp.  22 – 24 . Retrieved from https://www.csusm.edu/senate/documents/2015/1-draft_as_agenda_4.8.15.pdf

• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development . ( n.d. ). Whole school, whole community, whole child . Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/programs/learning-and-health/wscc-model.aspx

Berger , P.L. , & Luckmann , T. ( 1976 ). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge . Garden City, NY : Anchor Books .

Bronfenbrenner , U. ( 2009 ). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .

Bryk , A.S. , Gomez , L.M. , Grunow , A. , & LeMahieu , P.G. ( 2015 ). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better . Cambridge, MA : Harvard Education Press .

Cochran-Smith , M. , Barnatt , J. , Lahann , R. , Shakman , K. , & Terrell , D. ( 2009 ). Teacher education for social justice: Critiquing the critiques . In W. Ayers , T. Quinn , & D. Stovall (Eds.), The handbook of social justice in education (pp.  625 – 639 ). Philadelphia, PA : Taylor & Francis Group .

Drucker , P.F. ( 2008 ). The essential Drucker: The best sixty years of Peter Drucker’s essential writings on management . New York, NY : Collins Business Essentials .

Evans , J. , & Davies , B. ( 2015 ). Neoliberal freedoms, privatization and the future of physical education . Sport, Education and Society, 20 ( 1 ), 10 – 26 . doi:10.1080/13573322.2014.918878

Goodlad , J. ( 1994 ). Common schools for the common weal: Reconciling self-Interest with the common good . In J. Goodlad & P. Keating (Eds.), Access to knowledge: The continuing agenda for our nation’s schools (pp.  1 – 21 ). New York, NY : College Entrance Examination Board .

Goodlad , J.I. , Mantle-Bromley , C. , & Goodlad , S.J. ( 2004 ). Education for everyone . San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass .

Green , L. ( 2008 ). Making research relevant: If it is an evidence-based practice, where’s the practice based evidence? Family Practice, 25, i20 – i24 . PubMed ID: 18794201 doi:10.1093/fampra/cmn055

Kirk , D. ( 2020 ). Precarity, critical pedagogy and physical education . London, UK : Routledge .

Lawson , H.A. ( 1983a ). Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: Entry into schools, teachers’ role orientations, and longevity in teaching (part 2) . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 3 ( 1 ), 3 – 15 . doi:10.1123/jtpe.3.1.3

Lawson , H.A. ( 1983b ). Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: The subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education (part 1) . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2 ( 3 ), 3 – 16 . doi:10.1123/jtpe.2.3.3

Lawson , H. ( 1992 ). Toward a socio-ecological conception of health . Quest, 44 ( 1 ), 105 – 121 . doi:10.1080/00336297.1992.10484044

Lawson , H.A. ( 2020a ). The physical education system as a consequential social determinant . Quest, 72 ( 1 ), 72 – 84 . doi:10.1080/00336297.2019.1627224

Lawson , H.A. ( 2020b ). Professional socialization, mode 2 knowledge, and the neo-liberal syndrome . Quest, 72 ( 2 ), 185 – 207 . doi:10.1080/00336297.2020.1730199

Long , C. ( 2017 ). When physical education is cut, who picks up the slack? Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2017/03/28/cuts-to-physical-education/

Macdonald , D. ( 2014 ). Is global neo-liberalism shaping the future of physical education? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19, 494 – 499 . doi:10.1080/17408989.2014.920496

MacPhail , A. , & Lawson , H.A. ( 2020 ). School physical education and teacher education: Collaborative redesign for the 21st Century . New York, NY and London, UK : Routledge International .

Matas , A. ( 2020 ). Canton City Schools cuts teachers, administrators . Retrieved from https://www.cantonrep.com/news/20200519/canton-city-schools-cuts-teachers-administrators

Moore , J. ( 2016 ). Behavior analytic pragmatism . The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 37 ( 3/4 ), 219 – 245 . Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44631771

Richards , K.A.R. , Templin , T. , & Graber , K. ( 2014 ). The socialization of teachers in physical education: Review and recommendations for future works . Kinesiology Review, 3, 113 – 134 .

Rogers , M. , Sims , M. , Bird , J. , & Elliott , S. ( 2020 ). Organisational narratives vs the lived neoliberal reality . Australian University Review, 62, 26 – 40 .

Rorty , R. ( 1991 ). Objectivity, relativism, and truth: Philosophical Papers . Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press .

Sallis , J.F. , Owen , N. , & Fisher , E.B. ( 2008 ). Ecological models of health behavior . In K. Glanz , B.K. Rimer , & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education, theory, research, and practice ( 4th ed. ). San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass .

Schön , D.A. ( 1983 ). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . New York, NY : Basic Books .

Siedentop , D. , & Locke , L. ( 1997 ) Making a difference for physical education; what professors and practitioners must build together . Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68 ( 4 ), 25 – 33 . doi:10.1080/07303084.1997.10604923

Sleeter , C.E. ( 2001 ). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness . Journal of Teacher Education, 52 ( 2 ), 94 – 106 . doi:10.1177/0022487101052002002

Sperka , L. , & Enright , E. ( 2018 ). The outsourcing of health and physical education: A scoping review . European Physical Education Review, 24 ( 3 ), 349 – 371 . doi:10.1177/1356336X17699430

Stroh , D.P. ( 2015 ). Systems thinking for social change: A practical guide to solving complex problems, avoiding unintended consequences, and achieving lasting results . Hartford, VT : Chelsea Green Publishing .

Walton-Fisette , J. , Richards , K.A.R. , Centeio , E.E. , Pennington , T.R. , & Hopper , T. ( 2019 ). Exploring future research in physical education: Espousing a social justice perspective . Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 90 ( 4 ), 440 – 451 . PubMed ID: 31188074 doi:10.1080/02701367.2019.1615606

Ward , P. ( 2019 ). The teacher pipeline for PETE: Context, pressure points and responses . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 38 ( 1 ), 4 – 13 . doi:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0008

Zeichner , K. ( 2006 ). Reflections of a university teacher educator on the future of college and university-based teacher education . Journal of Teacher Education, 57 ( 3 ), 326 – 340 . doi:10.1177/0022487105285893

Article Metrics

• Phillip Ward
• Hal A. Lawson
• Hans van der Mars
• Murray F. Mitchell

Google Scholar

© 2024 Human Kinetics

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|185.66.14.236]
• 185.66.14.236

Character limit 500 /500

Chapter 1: 21st century physical education in the United States: Introduction to the special issue

Research output : Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

In this chapter, we examine the system of physical education with a Janus-like perspective. We focus on examining and learning from the past as we anticipate what society, school systems, and the physical education system might look like in the future. Drawing on futuristic scenarios developed for this special journal issue, we ask a timely, pivotal question. What does all of this mean for the future of the field of physical education, including its school programs, teacher education programs, doctoral programs, and salient public policies? The several chapters in this special issue can be viewed as a response to this question—and with a delimited focus on the unique context of the United States. This chapter is structured to provide an overall context for these other contributions. It includes a discussion of relevant theories provided in this special issue and a representative summary of the other articles. Selectivity is apparent and unavoidable in every article, and it can be viewed variously as a strength or limitation.

• Future forecasting
• Higher education
• Neoliberalism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

• Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
• Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Access to Document

• 10.1123/JTPE.2020-0239

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Physical Education and Training Medicine & Life Sciences 100%
• physical education Social Sciences 69%
• Teacher Training Medicine & Life Sciences 39%
• School Teachers Medicine & Life Sciences 36%
• school program Social Sciences 28%
• Public Policy Medicine & Life Sciences 28%
• school system Social Sciences 25%
• education system Social Sciences 21%

T1 - Chapter 1

T2 - 21st century physical education in the United States: Introduction to the special issue

AU - Ward, Phillip

AU - van der Mars, Hans

AU - Lawson, Hal A.

AU - Mitchell, Murray F.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Human Kinetics, Inc.

PY - 2021/7

Y1 - 2021/7

N2 - In this chapter, we examine the system of physical education with a Janus-like perspective. We focus on examining and learning from the past as we anticipate what society, school systems, and the physical education system might look like in the future. Drawing on futuristic scenarios developed for this special journal issue, we ask a timely, pivotal question. What does all of this mean for the future of the field of physical education, including its school programs, teacher education programs, doctoral programs, and salient public policies? The several chapters in this special issue can be viewed as a response to this question—and with a delimited focus on the unique context of the United States. This chapter is structured to provide an overall context for these other contributions. It includes a discussion of relevant theories provided in this special issue and a representative summary of the other articles. Selectivity is apparent and unavoidable in every article, and it can be viewed variously as a strength or limitation.

AB - In this chapter, we examine the system of physical education with a Janus-like perspective. We focus on examining and learning from the past as we anticipate what society, school systems, and the physical education system might look like in the future. Drawing on futuristic scenarios developed for this special journal issue, we ask a timely, pivotal question. What does all of this mean for the future of the field of physical education, including its school programs, teacher education programs, doctoral programs, and salient public policies? The several chapters in this special issue can be viewed as a response to this question—and with a delimited focus on the unique context of the United States. This chapter is structured to provide an overall context for these other contributions. It includes a discussion of relevant theories provided in this special issue and a representative summary of the other articles. Selectivity is apparent and unavoidable in every article, and it can be viewed variously as a strength or limitation.

KW - Future forecasting

KW - Higher education

KW - Neoliberalism

KW - Schools

KW - System

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85111522267&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85111522267&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1123/JTPE.2020-0239

DO - 10.1123/JTPE.2020-0239

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85111522267

SN - 0273-5024

JO - Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

JF - Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

Physical education is for life (part 1) redefining school physical education for the 21st century

Journal article

https://repository.canterbury.ac.uk/item/96619/physical-education-is-for-life-part-1-redefining-school-physical-education-for-the-21st-century

Related outputs

A Model for Effective Learning in Competition: A Pedagogical Tool to Enhance Enjoyment and Perceptions of Competency in Physical Education Lessons for Young Children.

An evaluation of the reliability of the pictorial scale of Perceived water competence and its relationship with actual water competence

The power of play: Building a creative Britain

Becoming physical education: the ontological shift to complexity

Connecting through movement: children’s mental health week.

A plan for play - An Eye View Series report

Accessible resistance movement experiences for elementary students and educators, being true to our ‘why’: positioning healthy active lifestyles at the core of physical education.

Physical play - How do we inspire and motivate young children to be physically active through play? An international analysis of twelve countries’ national early years curriculum policies and practices for physical activity and physical play

Early childhood educator training: The value of educating educators on movement, play and physical literacy development - A three country case study.

Wheels up: Spiral progression pedagogy towards creative movers using wheels

Physical education in early childhood education: Gueseditorial

Student experiences of learning how to teach primary physical education during the Covid-19 pandemic

Encouraging children and women into sport, discussion section in 'the wake up call' bbc radio kent.

Making the impossible, possible. Lessons learnt to ensure embodied physical education teacher education within COVID-19 times and beyond, regardless of the learning medium

The visions and voices of physical education teachers - part 4

The impact of COVID-19 on the physical development of reception aged children

Face and content validity of the pictorial scale of perceived water competence in young children

Young children's actual and perceived physical activity levels within the primary school setting, making a wave of difference in water awareness and competence through primary physical education teacher education, the forgotten age phase of healthy lifestyle promotion the call for targeted physical activity and nutrition education for older adolescents, early years assessment - english perspective, the forgotten age phase of healthy lifestyle promotion, 'seeing clearly now.' teacher preparation and continuing professional development for including children with visual impairment in physical education, a physical education content analysis of the university primary education course offering, 'wheelie good' a novel approach to implementing wheels related activity aiesep into elementary education through spiral curriculum progression.

The forgotten age group: The need for targeted physical activity and healthy lifestyle promotion for older adolescents

It’s come home, but will it stay home.

The forgotten age phase of healthy lifestyle promotion? A preliminary study to examine the potential call for targeted physical activity and nutrition education for older adolescents

Primary pre-service teachers back in the physical education bubble.

The call to make PE core within Initial Teacher Education. A response to the House of Lords Committee report

Chapter 13 - placing an importance on health and physical activity.

Aqualusa Revista Lusofona de Desportos Aquaticos

The water song, the complexities of emergent leadership using a whole school autonomy development physical education approach, developing student autonomy through and beyond developmentally appropriate resistance, an international comparison.

A real thirst?

‘eyes wide open’ – sharing ways in which to include visually impaired children within pe, the impact of the pandemic on children with disabilities, seeing how to include visually impaired children. an exploration into key stage 2 teachers' confidence levels.

The COVID generation: a Mental health pandemic in the making. The impact on mental health of children and young people during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

The health and wellbeing of children in the early years

Differences between young children's actual, self-perceived and parent-perceived aquatic skills

The things we think and do not say - the future of physical education and sport

Sport and physical activity during the first 10 years of life in ireland and the uk.

Children's perceived and actual physical activity levels within the elementary school setting

Preliminary face validation of the pictorial scale of perceived aquatic competence, health education, what does it mean, an international comparison and analysis of sport and physical activity during first 10 years of life in uk and ireland, aiesep connect 3 early years.

The influence of siblings on young children's understanding of fluid intake

Pictorial scale of perceived water competence (PSPWC) testing manual Version 1.2

'In the wake of a pandemic': dietary patterns and impact on child health after COVID-19

Emerging dietary patterns: impact on child health

Mentoring for physical education.

Continuing to provide the education in physical education - experiences of the Physical Education Teacher Education Network

Teachers' perceptions and understanding of children's fluid intake

UK Perspectives: physical education teacher education

Pictorial scale of perceived water competence (PSPWC) testing manual

Healthy families: the present and future role of the supermarket

Helping children find their inner brave.

Young children's understanding of fluid intake

Physical activity recommendations for early childhood: an international analysis of ten different countries’ current national physical activity policies and practices for those under the age of 5.

Understanding and perceived fluid intake of children in England and Ireland

A case study of how daily physical activity initiatives of occupational therapy were used to help physical movements for a child with dyspraxia

The complexity of young children's physical education

4 and 5 year olds' understanding of fluid intake within England

The A, B, Cs of physical activity, play and motor learning

#Greatcoaching within sport

International comparison of children’s knowledge, barriers and reported fluid intake across the school day.

#balanceforbetter within sport, iron girl – patronising or inclusive.

Mental health through movement

OECD future of education 2030: making physical education dynamic and inclusive for 2030 international curriculum analysis

The adoption of daily mile as an active mile initiative: the children’s and teachers’ voices.

Exploring the use of e-portfolios in higher education coaching programs

Supporting children inside and out with physical activity, beyond jonny’s story: a whole class physical activity intervention, how physically active are boys and girls are during playtimes in primary school.

Castle’s competition model for building confidence and competence in action

‘Elite athlete to disabled athlete to adaptive athlete. ’how coaches and teachers can help support the road to recovery

'Drive to drink!'

The impact of wellbeing on the physical activities of occupational therapy (OT) for a child with dyspraxia

Are you ready? physical readiness is there a mismatch in understanding and knowledge?

Early years symposium: physical readiness and physical curiosity

The future of education and skills: education 2030: the future we want

In search of the feeling of ‘belonging’ in Higher Education: undergraduate students transition into Higher Education

What is the impact of wellbeing on the physical activities of occupational therapy for a child with dyspraxia?

What’s even possible? how physical active are our 21st century children?

What’s even possible how physical active are our 21st century children (aiesep).

Physical activity and self-esteem. Jonny's story (AIESEP)

Physical development, health and well-being. AIESEP

Physical development, health and well-being., physical activity and self esteem, jonny's story.

Walk it, like you talk it.

Can break times (recess) help children's physical activity levels?

What is being healthy within UK primary school setting?

Using basic biomechanics to support observation, assessment and progression of learning

Beyond Jonny's story

The opportunities and challenges for teachers to consider how physically active boys and girls are during recess in elementary school

'Becoming' a disabled athlete

Young children’s physical activity levels in primary (elementary) schools: what impact does physical education lessons have for young children?

We need more female role models in sport to inspire the next generation, chapter 14 - planning physical education in the national curriculum.

Physical activity and mental health of school-aged children andadolescents: A rapid review

Mastering primary physical education, supporting physical development, health and well-being through the use of outdoor environments.

Benefits of swimming for young children

Walking the talk? Teachers’ and early years’ practitioners’ perceptions and confidence in delivering the UK Physical Activity Guidelines within the curriculum for young children

What really matters to freshers? An evaluation of first year student experience of transition into university

How learning in sport and sporting communities can be applied to online and blended learning and teaching in h.e., walking the talk thinking and acting - teachers’ and practitioners’ perceptions about physical activity, health and well-being, do they ‘walk the talk’, walking the talk thinking and acting – teachers' and practitioners' perceptions about physical activity, health and well-being, do they 'walk the talk', chapter 7 – an introduction to physical education, physical education planning.

Physical activity and self-esteem: ‘Jonny’s story’

Can break times help children's physical activity, experiences of blended learning and support mechanisms, experiences of blended learning, responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society, the use of technology in recording physical activity levels of primary aged children, the effect of hemparesis on sitting to standing.

The contribution of the primary school setting and physical education lessons to children's physical activity levels

Science in physical education or physical education in science, initial teacher education in the south east. opportunities and challenges for enhancing public health content, primary school pilot case study on physical education’s contribution to physical activity levels, the contribution of physical education lessons to physical activity levels of primary aged children, using technologies to support in physical education lessons: primary education trainee teachers' views, physical activity levels of infant and junior school children. do physical education lessons contribute to physical activity levels, what happens in physical education of primary aged children, beyond the fridge freezer, do physical education lessons increase physical activity levels of primary aged children - preliminary findings, do physical education lessons contribute to children's physical activity levels, a critical reflection of the opportunities and challenges of integrating the every child matters (ecm) agenda into teaching physical education (pe), cpow the superhero method for inspiring learning in literacy, are boys more physically active than girls during a primary school day, an introduction to physical education, placing an importance on health and physical activity, the use of technology in promoting physical activity of primary aged children, using accelerometers and qwizdom to measure the physical activity levels of primary aged children, is physical education more than just being physically active, ensuring all children - including a child with adhd - can access physical education, primary school case study on physical education's contribution to physical activity levels, defining the specialist teacher of primary physical education.

Physical Activities and Their Relation to Physical Education: A 200-Year Perspective and Future Challenges

Submitted by Suzanne Lundvall and Peter Schantz.

The Sport Journal normally doesn’t publish articles that have appeared in other publications previously, but the entry below is an exception to this rule. We at The Sport Journal feel the views expressed in this article are important enough to republish for our valued readers.

Abstract In this macrolevel overview, a model of the multiplicity of the field of bodily movement cultures is initially presented. The model is then used to illuminate how different bodily movement practices emerged over time, became embedded, remained, faded, or disappeared in the world’s oldest physical education teacher education (PETE) program. Through this continuity and discontinuity of practices, five distinct phases are identified, although sometimes intertwined, and their contextual background is described. The first phase is characterized by the establishment of Ling gymnastics from the early 19th century and by its fall in the 20th century. The next phase started in the late 19th century and dealt with the introduction of sports and outdoor life. During a third phase, sports became the dominating movement practice. The fourth phase is related to the rise and fall of a separate female gymnastics culture during the 20th century. The fifth phase is characterized by the introduction of everyday life physical activities at the beginning of the new millennium. The overview is followed by reflections on the future content of bodily movement practices and sought-after values in PETE and physical education in the school system.

Introduction The content of physical education (PE) programs in schools for children and young people is under debate globally. This is not new. PE has had an ongoing battle concerning how to gain the greatest and longest benefits for mind and body since it was established at the beginning of the 19th century (Pfister, 2003). These conflicts have been noted between cultures and nations, representing different points of view about the legitimate agenda of physical education, but conflicts have also been noted within nations and educational institutions (Kirk, 2010; Korsgaard, 1989; Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003; Morgan, 2006; Pfister, 2003; Schantz, 2009; Schantz & Nilsson, 1990). In the authors’ view, good reasons exist to continue this debate in our time. For this purpose, a model of the multiplicity of the field of physical activity cultures is presented. It is offered as a supportive and clarifying structure for identifying, discussing, and making future PE content decisions.

To illuminate these issues, the model is used in a macrolevel overview, illustrating changes in values and practices within the oldest still existing physical education teacher education (PETE) program in the world, that is, The Royal Gymnastic Central Institute (GCI), now named The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences (GIH). Apart from studies based on empirical data from this PETE institution, the overview also makes use of international literature on physical culture and health.

Thus, this article focuses on PETE, a less examined area when it comes to how new concepts of bodily movement practices have emerged, become embedded in programs and local practices, remained, faded, or disappeared because they were not “legitimate” or were of less value or for other reasons (e.g., Annerstedt, 1991; Fernandez, 2009; Kirk & Macdonald, 2001; Kirk, Macdonald, & Tinning, 1997; Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003). Proceeding from these basic concepts, the final aim of this article is to reflect and discuss the present-day situation in relation to principles for bodily movement practices and sought-after values for PETE. This discussion will include tensions and disagreements on content issues and future challenges for PETE and school PE.

Theoretical Framework The theoretical departure point is inspired by the work of Bourdieu. The analytical focus has been placed on how deliberate forms of bodily movement practices in the studied PETE program came to be defined and regulated through meaning-making principles or the logic of practices (Bourdieu, 1984, 1990; Engström, 2008). Over time, the chosen bodily movement practices have created tensions in terms of power and control over what has been seen as legitimate in the educational sector of physical activity and body culture. This departure point also makes it possible to study how aspects of investment and intrinsic values have been put forward and have been related to views on body and health.

The Educational Field of Physical Activity Practices: A Model A model has been developed to illustrate the multiplicity of different forms of deliberate bodily movement practices with distinctly different meaning-making principles (logic of practices; Figure 1). It also considers the construction of gender. It is based on a similar model first described by Schantz and Nilsson (1990) and relates to an educational context in Sweden. However, it can also be easily adjusted to conditions in other countries. The different principles for bodily movement practices are spatially oriented in the model in relation to the rationality underpinning each practice. Sport activities, based on the logic of competition, are placed in the traditionally male-dominated domain. Aesthetic and expressive forms of physical activities, such as artistic forms of dance, are placed in the traditionally female-dominated domain. Ling gymnastics, fitness gymnastics, play, outdoor life, and everyday life physical activities are placed in a traditionally gender-neutral position in the middle of the model. None of these forms of movement practices are underpinned by measurement/competition or driven by aesthetics and expressiveness. Enhancement of different physical qualities through physical training can support the conduct of all movement practices in the model. Basic forms of physical training are therefore placed at the bottom of the model, with arrows signaling their possible supportive nature for all other movement practices. Physical activities that are related to different types of professions are not given a place in this model.

Continuity and Discontinuity of Bodily Movement Practices Over Time A general description is given below of how the model can be used to illuminate the relative amount of time devoted to different movement practices during different time periods. In this way, a flow of continuity and discontinuity emerges. Different distinct phases are noted. This primarily visual description is followed by a text elaborating contextual factors of importance for understanding the changes described.

From 1813 to 1900, Ling gymnastics was developed and dominated the movement practices, and a fundamental principle was the schooling of body and character (Figure 2). From 1900 to 1960, sports were gradually introduced and thereby the logic of competition. PETE also started to involve outdoor life with the main goal of experiencing nature. For this purpose, physical activities such as orienteering and skiing became part of the educational program. Female PETE education developed a gymnastics discourse of its own, with influences from dance, rhythmic, and aesthetics. Thus, different and gender-related dimensions of movement practices became represented. Alongside this, new forms of physical training, particularly circuit training and aerobic conditioning, were brought in and signaled a logic of training solely for an investment value (Figure 3). During the period from 1960 to 1980, the elements of Ling gymnastics generally faded away but left a space for fitness gymnastics, and at the beginning, this was divided for men and women. Sport dominated as a movement practice, and fitness training within the area of gymnastics increased. The position for outdoor life activities remained stable (Figure 4). From 1980 to 2000 the separate female gymnastic discourse ended as an unintended consequence of a coeducational reform. Sport as a movement practice dominated and became the primary rationale for PETE. Fitness gymnastics was available for male and female students.Outdoor life held its position (Figure 5). From 2000 and onward, everyday life physical activity emerged with its fundamental principle of an investment value in health. In other ways, there was no fundamental change compared to the previous period (Figure 6).

Figure 2. Bodily movement practice in PETE from 1813 to 1900. Ling gymnastics was developed and established. It represented the content in male and female PETE (where female PETE was established in 1864; cf. Drakenberg et al., 1913). This is indicated by the gray field, which signifies teaching time allocation to this specific bodily movement practice.

Figure 3. Bodily movement practices in PETE from 1900 to 1960. Male and female gymnastics, indicated as boxes with horizontal and diagonal lines, respectively, developed in different directions. In the 1950s, new forms of physical training appeared. The sizes of the gray fields represent an approximate relative balance between time allocated to different physical activity practices at the latter part of the time period (cf. Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003; Tolgfors, 1979). The years indicated as the beginning and end of the period should be read as approximate indications of time.

Figure 4. Bodily movement practices in PETE from 1960 to 1980, with a shift toward more time being allocated for sports and a gradual shift away from Ling gymnastics toward fitness gymnastics (cf. Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003; Tolgfors, 1979). For general comments on the construction of the figure, see Figure 3.

Figure 5. Bodily movement practices in PETE from 1980 to 2000 differ from the previous practices (see Figure 4) in that the coeducational reform led to the termination of the separate female gymnastics culture (cf. Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003; Schantz & Nilsson, 1990). For general comments on the construction of the figure, s ee Figure 3.

Figure 6. Bodily movement practices in PETE in the 21st century. A dimension of “everyday life physical activity” was introduced during this period (Idrottshögskolan, 2002, 2003). The other movement practices remained the same compared to the previous phase, with one exception: The time alotted to “basic forms of physical training” was reduced; see Figure 5 (cf. Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003, 2012). For general comments on the construction of the figure, see Figure 3.

Contexts of Emergence, Continuity, and Discontinuity of Bodily Movement Practices

Emergence of PETE in Sweden The early 19th century was a time open for new concepts about the training of the body. This process, which was connected to the Enlightenment and the growing importance of rational and acting, as well as the faith in scientific thinking, made it possible for new concepts and ideals to develop, including a specific exercise culture of physical education (Pfister, 2003). The institutional setting for Swedish gymnastics came about when Per Henrik Ling was given permission to establish the Royal Gymnastic Central Institute (GCI, today GIH) in 1813. This was also the starting point for the emergence of PETE in Sweden. Ling wanted to provide a system on a theoretical basis and resting on philanthropical ideas, “the philosophy of nature,” inspired by Rousseau and GutsMuths, where the intellect could be developed through the senses and action. The other basis for his system was that it was intended to rest on the “laws of the human organism” and on knowledge gained from studies of the human body. His thinking resulted in certain ideas about the execution of movements and schooling of the body, which were tightly linked to Lings’ ethical and aesthetic ideals and to perspectives of health regarded as a wholeness.

Ling aimed to develop a gymnastics system with four subdisciplines: pedagogical, medical, military, and aesthetic gymnastics. Hence, Swedish gymnastics came to be seen not only as a system for the purpose of educating the whole body, but also as a cure for the sick. Aesthetic gymnastics “whereby one expresses the inner self: thoughts and emotions” (Ling, 1840/1979, p.50) was subjected to only minor developmental attempts.

This article focuses on pedagogical gymnastics, which was defined as the means “whereby one learns to master one’s own body” (Ling, 1840/1979, p. 52). To correctly cultivate the human body, according to Ling (1840/1979, p. 54), required an elaborate system of different to promote the ability for movement control and competence. These movements were determined in detail with regard to starting and final positions, as well as the trajectory and rhythm of such movements. The system included a well-reasoned progression from easy to more complicated movements. The movements could be executed as freestanding exercises, without support, or as exercises supported by gymnastics apparatus, but all movements are based on the above-mentioned central aspects. This form of pedagogical gymnastics also had a statuesque aim (i.e., to develop a harmonious and symmetric body with good posture). Competition was not the aim or the medium of this specific movement practice, and it was not included in the praxeology (Lindroth, 1993/1994, 2004; Ling, 1840/1979; Ljunggren, 2000; Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003).

From early on, Ling stated that women should be included in this form of bodily exercise, in a feminine type of gymnastics. However, this type of gymnastics was never developed by Per Henrik Ling himself, but rather was developed later through the work of his son, Hjalmar Ling, who gave examples of simple forms of gymnastics for female students (Lindroth, 2004; Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003). Throughout the first 100 years at GCI, the teacher training of male and female students, in both theory and practice, was focused on gymnastics, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Tensions and Conflicts Around Ling Gymnastics In the early 1900s, the scientific basis of the Ling gymnastic system was strongly questioned. This critique was primarily based on scientific studies of a specific movement that was claimed by the Ling gymnasts to enlarge the vital capacity and thereby improve oxygen uptake (Lindhard, 1926; Schantz, 2009; Söderberg, 1996). At GCI there had been, until the early 20th century, surprisingly small-scale efforts to increase the scientific understanding of Ling gymnastics in terms of their own knowledge production (cf. Lindroth, 2004). From the early 20th century there was, however, a clear ambition in this respect. A proposal to establish professorships in physiology, anatomy, histology, psychology, and pedagogics, as well as three in pedagogical gymnastics, was put forward in 1910. However, in those days the national government and parliament made such decisions, and not until 1938 was a decision made to establish a professorship in the physiology of bodily movements and hygiene (Schantz, 2009). In spite of this tension created by the accusation of a nonscientific bodily movement practice, Ling gymnastics kept its position as the main body exercise system into about the middle of the 20th century in combined 9-year elementary and junior high schools in Sweden (Lundquist Wanneberg, 2004) as well as in other countries (Kirk, 2010). One explanation for this long survival was its strong institutionalization, represented by the GCI, and its existing views on body, health, and physical culture, which constituted a strong health and hygiene discourse aimed at defeating, for example, infectious diseases and crooked bodily postures, and at strengthening character through education (Bonde, 2006; Palmblad & Eriksson, 1995). This health and hygiene discourse and the tight relationship between pedagogic and physiotherapeutic gymnastics gave legitimacy to Swedish gymnastics. Furthermore, this type of bodily exercise also encompassed PE for girls, which, over the years, led to a strong female PETE culture. From a societal perspective, this suited the task of PE well. The alternatives for bodily exercise and the training of girls’ bodies were few in number at that time (Carli, 2004; Kirk, 2010; Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003). Furthermore, from the point of view of scientific legitimacy, there were no alternatives to Ling gymnastics. Thus, sports, for example, could not compete with Ling gymnastics in this respect.

From Gymnastics to Sports: The Process of Sportification of PETE During the first half of the 20th century, sport with its logic of competition was introduced as part of the bodily movement culture at GCI and expanded gradually to become an equal part of the PETE training practice as compared to Ling gymnastics. When Ling gymnastics rapidly lost its dominating position from the 1950s to 1960s, sports overtook that role (cf. Figures 3 and 4). From the mid-1960s, the study hours for courses in sport disciplines started to outnumber those for gymnastics (Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003). To understand these changes in physical practices in PETE, it is important to understand how sport as a physical culture spread during the 19th and 20th centuries in Sweden and globally. A vast amount of literature has described how the rise of organized sports took off in such an emphatic way. Undoubtedly, there is, as Pfister (2003) notes, “a connection between the rise of sport and the adoption of values, standards and structures of industrialization—including rationality, technological progress, the abstract organization of time and an economy aimed at accumulation of capital” (p. 71). Linked to these societal processes was also the reformation of the public school systems, which required a system for the changing ideals of manliness, where the idealization of fair play, together with an appreciation of individual achievement, competitive in character, represented values to be sought after (Mangan, 1981a, 1981b). The average man was considered superior to the average woman, with women being seen as weaker and lacking potential (Pfister, 2003; Wright, 1996). Darwinism also played an important role in forming the sports ideology: the application of Darwin’s theory of natural selection as an argument for maintaining a strong defense for the survival of the fittest, which was to be achieved by means of persistent athletic exercises and competitions (Sandblad, 1985).

In Sweden, the breakthrough for the establishment of the sports movement occurred when the first sports organization became government financed (1913) and a part of the nation’s social and moral program (cf. Lindroth, 2004). As support grew during the first decades of the 20th century, sport was taken on by PETE as well as in PE in schools. The fundamental principle of Ling gymnastics thereby became less exclusive, appeared to be of less value, and was less sought after. The representatives of Ling gymnastics were surprised that sport, which had earlier been for the upper classes, was suddenly available to the wider masses (Lindroth, 2004).

The spread of sport after World War II was also accompanied by influences of a type of physical training—circuit training—originally emerging from military training. These influences brought in new principles concerning how the training of the body was to be planned and executed (Morgan & Adamson, 1961). Effective training during short periods of time, possible to be executed in small spaces, was in many ways revolutionary compared to the more complicated exercise programs in gymnastics. The emergence of exercise science (cf. Åstrand & Rodahl, 1970), not the least with regard to aerobic conditioning, gave sport and fitness training further legitimacy at GCI (Schantz, 2009). At first, the principles of training represented by circuit training were implemented as part of male gymnastic training (Figure 3).

Alongside the sportification process, the female branch of Ling gymnastics challenged its traditional practice from the beginning of the 20th century and was influenced by an elaborated theory of body and rhythm and the concept of effort saving (Laine, 1989). Initially, these influences, involving breaking with the stiff traditional floor-standing gymnastics, met opposition and resistance (Forsman & Moberg, 1990; Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003). But it was not possible to stop this development and changing of “logic” to aesthetics because it could be justified as being in line with Ling’s intentions concerning the aesthetic branch of his system (see Figure 3). Another process that demonstrated elasticity in the application of the principles of Ling was the development of PE and children’s gymnastics toward a more natural and child centered way of moving, away from drill and command (Falk, 1903, 1913).

The nature of female gymnastics embodied values of emotions and how to put one’s soul into the movements, to liberate the body, and to provide space for self-education (Carli, 2004; Laine, 1989; Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003). The performing of movements was characterized by sensitiveness, adaptability, body awareness, and expression—the feeling of the movement. This type of body training, based on what today is called a subjective experiencing of the body (body-as-subject), provided cultural, physical, and symbolic capital that did not challenge the existing ideals of the female body at that time. Both of the above-mentioned processes must be acknowledged as mechanisms for understanding the long survival of Swedish gymnastics in the PETE programs and in school PE. The corresponding development of the male Ling gymnastics was not the case (Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003).

The popularity and success of the spread of sports is both easy and not easy to understand. With regard to former principles for the education of body and mind, it is interesting how sport, with its meaning-making principles of competition and specialization of skills, with the training of the body as an objective, could fit in so easily and replace the old virtues of the training of the body, regarding health as wholeness, without the dualism of body and soul.

The introduction of outdoor life in PETE from 1900 to 1960 (Figure 3) can be understood in relation to the organization phase of outdoor life in the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. It reflects a need for new identities due to both the great demographic changes with the strong urbanization processes during this period and also the concomitant nationalism and strong surge for new national identities. In this identification process, love of nature as well as skiing emerged as strong parts of the identity profile for Swedes (cf. Sandell & Sörlin, 2008).

From Two-Gender Specific PETE Cultures to One: A Merging With Consequences During the 1970s political striving for equal rights and employment in Sweden led to questioning of the organization of gender-separated PETE programs. Suddenly old ideals stood beside new ones. The process of integration of the male and female PETE cultures as well as the sportification process of bodily movement practices led not only to a new gender order and a loss of the female gymnastics culture, but also to a marginalization of the female PE pedagogical culture (Carli, 2004; Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003; Schantz & Nilsson, 1990; cf. Figures 4 and 5). For corresponding changes in other countries, see Kirk (2010), Wright (1996), and O’Sullivan, Bush, and Gehring (2002). Furthermore, the time allotted to courses in gymnastics decreased substantially after the coeducation reform in 1977 (Lundvall & Meckbach, 2003). The long tradition of female PETE culture, together with school PE steering documents, prevented a total termination. Courses in dance, music, and movement remained as minor parts of the coeducational PETE study program, but were aimed more at fitness gymnastics, such as workouts and aerobics (Figure 5). Former practices with their fundamental principles of aesthetics became simplified.

At GCI–GIH, the total amount of practical courses went from being the major portion of the study programs during the early 20th century to becoming more peripheral, from taking up 80% of the total study time in the 1920s to less than 15% about 90 years later (Lundvall & Meckbach, 2012; Tolgfors, 1979). A parallel academization process of PETE took place in general, and globally, after the 1970s (e.g., see Kirk, 2010; Kirk et al., 1997; Tinning, 2010).

Everyday Life Physical Activity as Bodily Movement Practice: Disagreements in Modern Time During the late 20th century, new and other practices of physical activity started to be demanded. Recommended amounts and levels of physical activity were distributed in 1996 by the U.S. Surgeon General (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996). This way of thinking about children’s and young peoples’ needs for physical activity bore some resemblance to former medical arguments for the prevention of disease and for the curing of the sick that started nearly 200 years earlier.

Everyday life physical activity as a way of thinking gradually became established in society around the beginning of the 21st century, originally taken on by stakeholders in public health, actors outside the field of PETE, and academic disciplines related to sports (Ainsworth, 2005; McKenzie, Alcaraz, Sallis, & Faucette, 1998; Morgan, 2000). This thinking signaled that children and adolescents need to learn how to become and stay physically active in everyday life (McKenna & Riddoch, 2003; Smith & Biddle, 2008; Trost, 2006). Changes in society had led to a focus on physical inactivity among the population. This scenario developed even though there had never before been so many opportunities for participation in organized sports. An outspoken fear of to what physically inactive lifestyles could lead among young people (including reports of obesity crises) was strongly communicated (World Health Organization, 2002). Once again, the question of how physical exercise could contribute to the health of a nation’s citizens came up on the political agenda.

The sought-after legitimatizing educational values and logic of practices behind this new way of thinking have not been clearly communicated so far. The rationale behind the emphasis on everyday life physical activity has given rise to criticism. Educational sociologists point out that school PE cannot only be driven by a medical risk discourse, or a pathogenic and/or normative way of thinking of physical activity and health (Gard & Wright, 2001, 2006; Kirk, 2010). Physical education is much more: It is about physical self-esteem, body awareness and abilities, personal and social development, questions of democracy, as well as critical aspects of health and health communication (Evans, 2004; Evans, Davies, & Wright, 2004; Macdonald & Hay, 2010; Siedentop, 2009). This can perhaps explain to some extent why PETE educators have shown a cautious attitude toward how the thinking about everyday life physical activity has been exposed and how it has been attempted to be implemented. It is too early to describe with any certainty how and what the construction of knowledge around everyday life physical activity will represent in terms of new or renewed bodily movement practices in the area of PETE in general and globally.

The first compulsory course in everyday life physical activity at GIH was started in 2004 in two transdisciplinary courses (Idrottshögskolan, 2002, 2003), which were demanded in a teacher education reform (Figure 6). These dimensions of human movement were introduced in a context of physical activity, public health, and sustainable development (Schantz, 2002, 2006; Schantz & Lundvall, forthcoming). Hence, it is possible to state that learning sports as the predominant bodily movement practice in PETE programs and school PE has been challenged.

Post-Overview Reflections In this article, a model clarifying the multiplicity of fundamental principles and dimensions of bodily movement practices in a specific, but for the development of PETE, central setting in Sweden has been presented. The model has been used to illustrate the continuity and discontinuity of movement practices. Thereafter, mechanisms and contextual backgrounds to these changes over time have been described.

Although national and cultural differences in how countries organize their PETE programs and school PE exist, there are reasons to believe that the similarities of the development described outnumber the differences. The scheme of continuity and discontinuity stimulates a discussion about what values have been gained, what has been lost, and what possible values have not been introduced as part of PETE.

The introduction of new physical activity logics in PETE has sometimes been dependent not only on the meaningfulness of a certain logic but also on power relations. The introduction of sport is such an example. Furthermore, there are also examples of dramatic changes that have taken place without being desired or planned for intentionally. The rapid decline of female gymnastics at the beginning of the 1980s as a result of the introduction of coeducation is an example. Furthermore, Ling gymnastics faded away after World War II and, with that, faded the principles of movement practices aimed at dimensions such as general body awareness, posture, and ability to maintain motor control. Again, these consequences were not foreseen.

Another lesson is that such unforeseen consequences can be difficult to handle in terms of compensatory pedagogic actions. The values of the female gymnastics and the Ling gymnastics were dependent on strong framing cultures that had been developed over long periods of time, and indeed, the creation of new cultures fostering the best values of those previous cultures is difficult to achieve. Therefore, as a memento, it is suggested that, before changing the content of PETE, one should try to create different scenarios to counteract the possibility that that decision may lead to unforeseen effects.

The overview also makes it clear that the dimension of movement practices connected to different forms of artistic dance have been left out in PETE. This exclusion has, with few exceptions (Schantz & Nilsson, 1990), not been an issue that has been discussed. Indeed, most likely, this would not have been the case if it had been a traditionally male-dominated domain of physical activity. Among these gender issues is also that females taking up different forms of traditionally male-dominated sports is appraised positively, whereas attempts in the opposite direction are generally few in number or entirely absent and lack clear support in the currently governing mind-sets within PETE.

The existence of a multiplicity of logic of movement practices in the field of physical activity points to distinct values of each of the fundamental principles underlying these practices. In line with this, the interaction between different kinds of movement practices and the individual enlarges his/her points of reference in relation to body, movement, and mind.

With such a view constituting a rationale for different physical activities in PETE, one can ask what balances in time allocation are reasonable for attaining a goal of widening the personal experiences and securing “breadth” as an educative value of its own. This takes into account that most of the PE students of today have a strong personal experience in sports, whereas their experience with other physical activity cultures is meager (Brun Sundblad, Meckbach, Lundvall, & Nilsson, 2010). They have what Bourdieu would call a strongly developed taste for sport, forming part of a strong sport habitus (Bourdieu, 1984; Engström, 2008).

Another dimension of reflection on the PETE content deals with what PE contents in schools may be important for adult behavioral patterns of physical activity. Not much cross-sectional or longitudinal research exists on those issues, but there are indications that socializing into sport activities might not effectively foster physically active lifestyles among adults. Instead, schooling into a broad movement repertoire, as well as experiences of outdoor life, appears to be more effective in this respect (Engström, 2008).

Recent knowledge highlights that, in relation to physical activity, one has to take into account the multiplicity and complexity of young peoples’ lives. Context and social interaction play a central role. Children and adolescents are social actors that navigate in the landscape that surrounds physical movement culture. More attention has to be given to how the “healthy citizen” is constructed. What does it mean to live on the countryside, to live in inner cities, or to have the gym or the sport club as the social place for physical activities? In what ways does the place create meanings and relations? And for whom? Which physical activities are included or excluded (Wright & Macdonald, 2011; Thedin Jakobsson, in press)? According to current reports and research studies on school PE in Sweden, students learn sports but not about health and how to take responsibility for healthy physically active lifestyles (Lundvall & Meckbach, 2008; Quennerstedt, Öhman, & Ericson, 2008; Skolinspektionen, 2010). These issues have also been highlighted globally (Hardman & Green, 2011; Green, 2008; Pühse & Gerber, 2005)

New scenarios concerning health, well-being, and illness, including rising numbers of school students experiencing stress and forms of psychological unhealthiness (Folkhälsoinstitutet, 2011), migration, economic recessions, growing segregation among social classes, and an uneven distribution of access to physical activity and health knowledge, have continued to challenge the stability of health among societies’ citizens. The overview relates the content matter of PETE over time to influences of different societal contexts. From this perspective, the relation of physical activity in PETE to major current societal challenges, such as the obesity and type 2 diabetes epidemics, as well as issues related to sustainable development (cf. Schantz & Lundvall, forthcoming) and globalization, are examples of matters that deserve to be thought through and discussed in much more depth than what appears to be the case in most PETE institutions and countries at present.

References 1. Ainsworth, B. (2005). Movement, mobility and public health. Quest , 57, 12–23. 2. Annerstedt, C. (1991). Idrottslärarna och idrottsämnet [The PE teachers and the subject of PE] (Doctoral dissertation). Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Åstrand, P.-O., & Rodahl, K. (1970). Textbook of physiology: Physiological bases of exercise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 4. Bonde, H. (2006). Gymnastics and politics. Niels Bukh and male esthetics. Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen, Museum of Tusculanum. 5. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of judgement of taste. London, England: Routledge. 6. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. 7. Brun Sundblad, G., Meckbach, J., Lundvall, S., & Nilsson, J. (2010). Orka hela vägen. Upplevd hälsa, idrotts- och träningsbakgrund bland studenter på en fysiskt inriktad yrkesutbildning. Lärarstudenter GIH 2008, delrapport 1: 2009 [Managing all the way. Self-reported health, sports and training background of students in physical activity-related higher education programs. Teacher students, GIH 2008, partial report 1:2009]. Stockholm, Sweden: Gymnastik- och idrottshögskolan. 8. Carli, B. (2004). The making and breaking of the female culture. The history of Swedish physical education ‘in a different voice’ (Doctoral dissertation). Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden. 9. Drakenberg, S., Hjort, C., Nerman, E., Levin, A., & Svalling, E. (1913). Kungliga Gymnastiska Centralinstitutets historia 1813–1913, utgiven av dess lärarkollegium med anledning av institutets 100-års dag [The history of the Royal Gymnastics Central Institute 1813-1913, published by its academic council on the occasion of the Institute’s 100th anniversary]. Stockholm, Sweden: Kungliga Gymnastiska Centralinstitutet. 10. Engström, L.-M. (2008). Who is physically active? Cultural capital and sports participation from adolescence to middle age—A 38-year follow-up study. S ports Pedagogy and Physical Education , 13(4), 319–343. 11. Evans, J. (2004). Making a difference? Education and ‘ability’ in physical education. European Physical Education Review , 10, 95–108. 12. Evans, J., Davies, B., & Wright, J. (2004). Body knowledge and control: Studies in the sociology of physical education and health. London, England: Routledge. 13. Falk, E. (1903). Friskgymnastik I: anteckningar från skilda källor [Pedagogical gymnastics I: notes from different sources]. Stockholm, Sweden: Palmquist AB. 14. Falk, E. (1913). Gymnastikfrågan vid Stockholms folkskolor [The question of pedagogical gymnastics in Stockholm’s elementary schools]. Stockholm, Sweden: Palmquists AB. 15. Fernandez, I. L. (2009). The social, political and economic contetxs to the evolution of Spanish physical educationalists (1874–1992). International Journal of History in Sport , 26(11), 1630–1658. 16. Folkhälsoinsititutet. (2011). Barns och ungas hälsa. Kunskapsunderlag för Folkhälsopolitisk rapport [Health of children and young people: A knowledge base for public health policy report] (Delrapport: R 2011:14). Östersund, Sweden: Folkhälsoinsititutet. 17. Forsman, C., & Moberg, K. (1990). Rytmikens inträde i den svenska gymnastiken [The introduction of rhythmics in Swedish gymnastics]. Idrottslärarlinjen 1990:6 [Physical education teacher program 1990:6]. Stockholm, Sweden: Gymnastik- och idrottshögskolan. 18. Gard, M., & Wright, J. (2001). Managing uncertainty. Obesity discourse and physical education in a risk society. Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(6), 535–549. 19. Gard, M., & Wright, J. (2006). The obesity crises . London, England: Routledge. 20. Green, K. (2008). Understanding physical education. London, England: Sage. 21. Hardman, K., & Green, K. (2011). Contemporary issues in physical education. Maidenhead, England: Meyer & Meyer Sport. 22. Idrottshögskolan, Lärarutbildningsnämnden. (2002). Kursplan för “Hälsa och miljö I, 5 p”, fastställd 2002-06-14 [Curriculum for Health and Environment I, 5 credits, determined in 2002-06-14]. Stockholm, Sweden: Idrottshögskolan. 23. Idrottshögskolan, Lärarutbildningsnämnden. (2003). Kursplan för “Hälsa och miljö II, 5 p”, fastställd 2003-03-26 [Curriculum for Health and Environment II, 5 credits, determined in 2003-03-26]. Stockholm, Sweden: Idrottshögskolan. 24. Kirk, D. (2010). Physical education futures. London, England: Routledge. 25. Kirk, D., & Macdonald, D. (2001). The social construction of PETE in higher education: Towards a research agenda. Quest , 53, 440–556. 26. Kirk, D., Macdonald, D., & Tinning, R. (1997). The social construction of pedagogic discourse in physical education teacher education in Australia. Curriculum Studies , 8(2), 271–298. 27. Korsgaard, O. (1989). Fighting for life: From Ling and Grundtvig to Nordic visions of body culture. Scandinavian Journal of Sports Sciences, 11 (1), 3–7. 28. Laine, L. (1989). In search of a physical culture for women – Women’s movement and culture in everyday life; Elli Björstén’s heritage today. Scandinavian Journal of Sports Sciences, 11(1), 15–27. 29. Lindhard, J. (1926). Über den Einfluss einiger gymnastischen Stellungen auf den Brustkast [On the effect of some gymnastic positions on the thorax]. Skandinavische Archiv für Physiologie, 47, 188–261. 30. Lindroth, J. (1993/1994). The history of Ling gymnastics in Sweden. A research study. Stadion, 19/20, 164–177. 31. Lindroth, J. (2004). Ling – från storhet till upplösning i svensk gymnastikhistoria 1800–1950 [Ling – from grandness to decline in Swedish history of gymnastics]. Eslöv, Sweden: Brutus Östlings bokförlag Symposion. 32. Ling, P. H. (1979). Gymnastikens allmänna grunder [The general foundation of gymnastics] (Facsimile ed.). Stockholm, Sweden: Svenska Gymnastikförbundet. (Original work published 1840) 33. Ljunggren, J. (2000). The masculine road through modernity: Ling gymnastics and male socialisation in nineteenth-century Sweden. In A. Mangan (Ed.), Making European masculinities: Sport, Europe, gender. European Sports History Review, 2, 86–111. 34. Lundquist Wanneberg, P. (2004). Kroppens medborgarfostran. Kropp, klass och genus i skolans fysiska fostran 1919–1962 [The schooling of the body. Body, class and gender] (Doctoral dissertation). Stockholm, Sweden, Stockholm University. 35. Lundvall, S., & Meckbach, J. (2003). Ett ämne i rörelse – gymnastik för kvinnor och män i lärarutbildningen vid Gymnastiska Centralinstitutet/Gymnastik- och idrottshögskolan under åren 1944–1992 [A subject in motion – gymnastics in the PETE program at the Royal Central Institute of Gymnastics/GIH during the period 1944–1992] (Doctoral dissertation). Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. 36. Lundvall, S., & Meckbach, J. (2008). Mind the gap – Physical education and health and the frame factor theory as a tool for analysing educational settings. Physical Education and Sports Pedagogy , 13(4), 345–364. 37. Lundvall, S., & Meckbach, J. (2012). Från gymnastikdirektör till lärare i idrott och hälsa. In H. Larsson & J. Meckbach (Eds), Idrottsdidaktiska utmaningar [Didactic challenges in sports pedagogy] (pp. 250–265). Stockholm, Sweden: Liber Förlag. 38. Macdonald, D., & Hay, P. (2010). Evidence for the social construction of ability in physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 15 (1), 1–18. 39. Mangan, J. A. (1981a). Athleticism in Victorian and Edwardian public schools. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 40. Mangan, J. A. (1981b). Social Darwinism, sport and English upper class education. Stadion, 7 (1), 93–116. 41. McKenna, J., & Riddoch, C. (2003). Perspectives on health and exercise. New York, NY: Palgrave. 42. McKenzie, T. L., Alcaraz, J. E., Sallis, J. F., & Faucette, F. N. (1998). Effects on of a physical education program on childrens’ manipulative skills. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 327–341. 43. Morgan, J. M. (2006). Philosophy and physical education. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The handbook in physical education (pp. 97–108). London, England: Sage. 44. Morgan, R. E., & Adamson, G. T. (1961). Circuit training (2nd ed.). London, England: Bell. 45. Morgan, W. P. (2000). Prescription of physical activity: A paradigm shift. Quest , 53, 366–382. 46. O’Sullivan, M., Bush, K., & Gehring, M. (2002). Gender equity and physical education: A USA perspective. In D. Penney (Ed.), Gender and physical education: Contemporary issues and future directions (pp. 163–189). London, England: Routledge. 47. Palmblad, E., & Eriksson, B. E. (1995). Kropp och politik: Hälsoupplysningen som samhällspegel från 30-tal till 90-tal [Body and politics: The health enlightenment from the 1930s to the 1990s as a mirror of society]. Stockholm, Sweden: Carlssons. 48. Pfister, G. (2003). Cultural confrontations: German Turnen, Swedish gymnastics and English sport – European diversity in physical activities from a historical perspective. Culture, Sport, Society, 6 (1), 61–91. 49. Pühse, U., & Gerber, M. (2005). International comparison of physical education: Concepts, problems, prospects. Aachen, Germany: Mayer & Mayer. 50. Quennerstedt, M., Öhman, M., & Ericson, C. (2008). Physical education in Sweden: A national evaluation. Education-line. Retrieved from htt://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/ 51. Sandblad, H. (1985). Olympia och Valhalla: Idéhistoriska aspekter av den moderna idrottsrörelsens framväxt. Stockholm: Almkvist och Wicksell. 52. Sandell, K., & Sörlin, S. (2008). Friluftshistoria: Från ”härdande friluftsliv” till ekoturism och miljöpedagogi [The history of outdoor life: From ‘strengthening outdoor life’ to eco tourism and environmental pedagogy]. Stockholm, Sweden: Carlssons. 53. Schantz, P. (2002, September). Environment, sustainability and the agenda for physical education. International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education (ICSSPE) Bulletin, 36 , 8–9. 54. Schantz, P. (2006). Rörelse, hälsa och miljö: Utmaningar i en ny tid [Movement, health and environment – challenges in a new time]. Svensk Idrottsforskning, 3 , 4–7. 55. Schantz, P. (2009). Om Lindhardskolan och dess betydelse i ett svensk perspektiv [The Lindhard school and its influence from a Swedish perspective]. In A. Lykke Poulsen, E. Trangbæck, 56. K. Jørgensen, & N. Nordsborg (Eds.), Forskning i bevaegelse: Et nytt forskningsfelt I et 100-årigt perspektiv [Research in human movement: A new research field in a 100-year perspective] (pp. 137–167). Köpenhamn, Denmark: Museum Tusculanums Forlag, Köpenhamns Universitet. 57. Schantz, P., & Lundvall, S. (forthcoming). Changing perspectives on physical education in Sweden: Implementing dimensions of public health and sustainable development. In M.- K. Chin & C. R. Edginton (Eds.), Physical education and health: Global perspectives and best practice. Urbana, IL: Sagamore. 58. Schantz, P. G., & Nilsson, J. (1990). Skolans kroppsövningar i obalans: Tillför en konstnärlig dimension [Imbalance in the school’s physical exercises – add an artistic dimension]. Tidskrift i Gymnastik, 6, 10–17. 59. Siedentop, D. L. (2009). National plan for physical activity: Educational sector. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 6 (2), 168–180. 60. Skolinspektionen. (2010). Mycket idrott och lite hälsa. Skolinspektionens rapport från den flygande tillsynen i idrott och hälsa [Lot of sports and little health. Report from the flying inspection of the Swedish Schools Inspectorate] (Report 2010:2037). Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Schools Inspectorate. 61. Smith, A., & Biddle, S. (2008). Youth physical activity and sedentary behavior challenges and solutions. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 62. Söderberg, B. (1996). P.H. Ling i gungning. En strid på 1940-talet om Linggymnastikens förflutna [P.H. Ling under attack. A battle during the 1940s concerning the past of Ling gymnastics]. In J. Lindroth, Idrott, Historia och Samhälle, Svenska Idrottshistoriska föreningens årsskrift [The annual publication of the Swedish Sports History Association]. SVIF-Nytt, 4, 100–117. 63. Thedin Jakobsson, B. (in press). What makes teenagers continue? A salutogenic approach to understanding youth participation in Swedish club sports. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 64. Tinning, R. (2010). Pedagogy and human movement: Theory, practice and research. London, England: Routledge. 65. Tolgfors, B. (1979). Historik över GIH-utbildningarnas historia under senaste 50-årsperioden [History of GIH – the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences’ educational programs during the last 50-year period]. Tidskrift i Gymnastik, 9, 323–330. 66. Trost, S. (2006). Public health and physical education. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The handbook in physical education. London, England: Sage. 67. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Physical activity and health. A report of the Surgeon General (Executive summary). Washington, DC: Author. 68. World Health Organization. (2002). How much physical activity needed to improve and maintain health? Retrieved from www.who.int/hpr/physactiv/pa.hoe.much.html/ 69. Wright, J. (1996). Mapping discourses of physical education: Articulating a female tradition. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28 (3), 331–351. 70. Wright, J., & Macdonald, D. (2011). Young people, physical activity and the everyday. London, England: Routledge.

Share this:

Share this article, choose your platform.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Physical Education’s Role in Public Health: Steps Forward and Backward Over 20 Years and HOPE for the Future

The 1991 paper, “Physical Education’s Role in Public Health” described the importance of physical education in addressing public health problems. On its 20th anniversary, this article reviews accomplishments in improving the health impact of physical education and identifies areas lacking progress. Major accomplishments include development of evidence-based programs, documentation of health and academic benefits of physical education, and acceptance of physical education as a public health resource. Additional work is needed to evaluate the uptake of evidence-based programs, improve national surveillance of physical education quantity and quality, establish stronger policies supporting active physical education, and achieve wide acceptance of public health goals within the physical education field. These opportunities constitute an agenda for actualizing the promise of Health-Optimizing Physical Education before the next 20-year anniversary.

In 1991, Sallis and McKenzie (1991) published, “Physical Education’s Role in Public Health” in Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, with the goal of forging a productive relationship between the physical education and public health fields. At that time, public health interest in physical activity was increasing rapidly due to the steady stream of research on the numerous and substantial health effects, but there had been limited recognition of physical education’s potential contribution as a mechanism to increase physical activity and improve overall health. Physical education, a school curricular subject over the past 100 years, has a number of goals, including providing students with the knowledge, skills, abilities, and confidence to be physically active throughout their lifetime. Although the multiple goals of physical education were being discussed 20 years ago, calls to maximize the public health impact of physical education were not prominent.

Subsequently, the Sallis and McKenzie (1991) paper has become one of the most cited in the history of Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , with 115 citations by 2005 ( Cardinal & Thomas 2005 ) and 427 citations according to Google Scholar (2012) by May 2012. This paper has played an important role in defining the public health importance of physical education. On the 20th anniversary of the paper’s publication, it is fitting to consider the progress both physical education and public health have made toward the goals proposed in it. The purpose of the present paper is to reflect on the rationale and goals of the 1991 paper and to highlight related developments in evidence, practice, and policy that are consistent or inconsistent with optimizing the public health impact of physical education.

Goals Outlined in 1991

The 1991 paper provided a health-related rationale for physical education by summarizing evidence on the prevalence and health effects of physical activity in youth, although the data were limited at the time. Nevertheless, a rationale was proposed for altering the goals of physical education from multiple cognitive, social, and physical skill objectives ( Pate & Hohn, 1994 ) to become more focused and aligned with public health needs. The paper challenged physical educators to “adopt a new role and pursue a public health goal for school physical education” (p. 133). Although everyone is in favor of “quality physical education,” the definition depends on one’s perspective. Consistent with the health orientation described in 1991, providing physical activity during physical education is the major indicator of physical education quality, because doing physical activity has so many well documented health benefits. To be explicit, health-related physical education is not just about providing students with physically active classes. A comprehensive but physically active approach involves teaching social, cognitive, and physical skills, and achieving other goals through movement. This approach is true to the historical origins of physical education as “educating through the physical.” As long as additional goals are achieved while students are active, students gain health benefits. Defining physical education “quality” is a continuing debate, but our recommendation—from 1991 to the present—is that any definition should prioritize highly active classes.

Two main goals of “health-related physical education” (as coined in 1991) were to (a) prepare youth for a lifetime of physical activity, and (b) provide them with physical activity during physical education classes. The former goal represented the optimistic scenario for longterm benefit in which children exposed to high quality, health-enhancing physical education would be prepared to continue an active lifestyle as they enter adulthood. This goal, xalthough important and health-related, is difficult to evaluate and has limited evidence to support its validity ( Trudeau, Laurencelle, Tremblay, Rajic, & Shephard, 1999 ). However, it has been adopted widely within the profession and is included in the National Association for Sport and Physical Education ( NASPE, 2004 ) physical education standards. The second goal represented an immediate, tangible outcome from participating in physical education. The health rationale for emphasizing high levels of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) during classes is that (a) physical education is the only required program that theoretically provides MVPA to virtually all students, and (b) immediate health benefits accrue when MVPA is provided. The second goal has been operationalized as students spending 50% of physical education time being physically active ( U.S. Public Health Service, 1991 ). Progress toward wide achievement of this benchmark has been slow. We believe the goals proposed in 1991 remain valid; however, we now believe emphasis should be placed on ensuring students are active in physical education class, because we have good evidence it is possible to achieve and beneficial to students. It remains a research challenge to demonstrate which physical education approaches are effective in increasing regular physical activity into adulthood.

Now, after 20 years of progress in some areas but not others, the context for physical education and key questions about how to advance physical education and public health are much different from those in 1991. The present paper identifies these questions and discusses important progress made as well as areas of stagnation in health-related physical education. Because physical education remains the primary societal institution for promoting physical activity among youth ( Payne & Morrow, 2009 ), and improvements can help respond to some of the new century’s most pressing health problems, it is worthwhile to take stock of successes and make recommendations for accelerating progress. To this end, we present two perspectives by taking liberty with an often posed philosophical question and asking, “Is the gym half empty or half full?”

The Gym Is Half Full: Progress During the Past 20 Years

The context and perceived need for physical education have changed dramatically. In 1991, the childhood obesity epidemic was underway, but it was not nationally or globally recognized. Recently, obesity was identified as the biggest health threat to U.S. children ( Koplan, Liverman, & Kraak, 2005 ). Additional physical health, mental health, social health, and academic benefits of physical activity during youth have been further documented, resulting in the first official U.S. government guidelines ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2008 ). One of the most positive developments of the past 20 years has been a transformation in the nature and quality of evidence about physical activity in physical education and multiple outcomes of health- related physical education. Based largely on major studies funded by the National Institutes of Health, systematic reviews by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services concluded that “enhanced” physical education is an evidence-based physical activity promotion approach ( Kahn et al., 2002 ), defined as having more active classes or more time in physical education than comparison or control conditions.

Support for Physical Education Outside the Profession

Prior to Sallis and McKenzie’s 1991 article, recommendations for MVPA in physical education were rare, appearing perhaps first in Healthy People health promotion and disease prevention objectives ( U.S. Public Health Service, 1991 ). Since then, numerous public health groups have called for schools to be more proactive in promoting physically active lifestyles to contribute to prevention and control of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease risk. Common goals are to increase the number of school districts that require daily physical education for all students and ensure high activity levels during physical education classes. Recommendations and guidelines have been issued by the American Heart Association ( Pate et al., 2006 ), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC, 1997 , 2010b ), Partnership for Prevention (2008) , Institute of Medicine ( Koplan et al., 2005 ), American Academy of Pediatrics (2006 ), and USDHHS (2000 , 2008). The potential for physical education to contribute to chronic disease prevention is illustrated by findings that it can provide up to 18% of a child’s recommended daily physical activity ( Morgan, Beighle, & Pangrazi, 2007 ). Although Healthy People (USDHHS, 1991) recommended that students be active at least 50% of each physical education lesson in 1991, this did not immediately translate into practice (NASPE did not adopt a similar recommendation until about 2005; NASPE, 2009 ).

Evidence-Based Physical Education Programs

In the past two decades, evidence-based physical education curricula and programs designed to achieve multiple goals (e.g., student-acquired fitness, knowledge, motor skills) while ensuring student activity has been developed and rigorously evaluated in elementary, middle, and high school settings. Sports, Play and Active Recreation for Kids (SPARK), a health-optimizing physical education curriculum and staff-development program, showed significant increases in MVPA and energy expenditure during elementary school physical education ( Sallis et al., 1997 ). Improvements in fitness, sports skills, academic achievement, and teaching quality were also documented ( McKenzie, Sallis, & Rosengard, 2009 ). The Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH) is a comprehensive elementary school physical activity and nutrition program evaluated in a major multisite study. The physical education component focused on children’s enjoyment of and participation in MVPA during physical education classes. Results indicated that MVPA during CATCH increased by 39% and surpassed the 50% MVPA guideline, compared to a 23% increase for the controls ( McKenzie et al., 1996 ). Middle School Physical Activity and Nutrition (M-SPAN) intervention focused on increasing teacher awareness of the need for active, health-related physical education; designing and implementing active physical education curricula; and developing class management and instructional skills. M-SPAN resulted in students spending approximately 3 min more (an increase of 18%) engaged in MVPA per lesson without increasing lesson length ( McKenzie et al., 2004 ). Both SPARK and CATCH are implemented in many states, school districts, and individual schools ( Owen, Glanz, Sallis, & Kelder, 2006 ). This demonstrates the demand for “active” physical education programs and the feasibility of widespread implementation.

Other evidence-based physical education programs have been developed and evaluated at the secondary level, such as the Trial of Activity for Adolescent Girls (TAAG) middle school program ( Webber et al., 2008 ) and the Lifetime Education for Activity Program (LEAP) high school program ( Pate et al., 2007 ), both targeting girls. Results were promising (e.g., in LEAP, intervention girls participated in more bouts of vigorous activity than control girls), but these programs have not been widely disseminated. Researchers have also examined the impact of conceptual physical education (i.e., focused on student competence and enjoyment of physically active lifestyles) on future physical activity participation of high school graduates. Dale and Corbin (2000) found that a significantly greater proportion of boys who were exposed to conceptual physical education in ninth grade reported engaging in vigorous physical activity 1 year after graduation than those in traditional physical education. In 2004, due to growing evidence from physical education interventions and programs, NASPE (2004) published the national standards for physical education, which provide a framework for physical education coordinators and teachers in developing curriculum, lessons, and student assessment plans.

Physical Education-Based Physical Activity and Academic Achievement

The past 20 years have brought an increased effort to emphasize the value of physical education for health and as a mechanism to improve academic performance. In 2010, CDC released a comprehensive report on the association between physical activity and academic performance ( CDC, 2010a ). Of the 14 studies described in the report, 11 found at least one positive association between physical education and academic outcomes, such as standardized test scores, grades, or teacher ratings of student behavior. Increasing students’ time in physical education either had a positive association or no association with academic performance. Importantly, increased physical education time did not have a negative effect on academic outcomes, despite students spending less time in classes focused on core academic topics. There is consistent evidence from other research reviews that physical activity and fitness are positively associated with various academic outcomes ( Basch, 2010 ; Fedewa & Ahn, 2011 ; Trost & Van der Mars, 2010 ), supporting a conclusion that physical education and other physical activity programs can contribute to schools’ primary academic mission.

Federal Support for School-Based Physical Education

Throughout the last two decades, federal support for and commitment to physical education there has increased, especially in the public health sector. Beginning in 1992, the CDC has funded state education agencies to partner with state health departments to increase physical activity and healthy eating and prevent tobacco use among young people. Currently, the CDC funds 22 states and 1 tribal government through this program. In 2001, Congress authorized the U.S. Department of Education to administer the Physical Education for Progress program as part of Title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Now titled the Carol M. White Physical Education Program (PEP), it provides grants to local education agencies and community-based organizations to initiate, expand, and improve physical education for students K-12. In 2011, PEP included many requirements that can strengthen grantees’ physical education programs.

In February 2010, the First Lady of the United States launched the Let’s Move initiative to solve the epidemic of childhood obesity within a generation ( Let’s Move, 2012 ). Within 1 year of the initiative’s launch, several efforts were underway to engage schools, communities, cities, towns, faith-based institutions, and individuals in the fight against childhood obesity. Also in 2010, the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity (2010) published an action plan titled, Solving the Problem of Childhood Obesity Within a Generation. The chapter on physical activity focuses heavily on actions schools can and should take to increase youth physical activity and improve physical education.

As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the USDHHS developed the Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) initiative focusing on conducting evidence-based clinical and community prevention and wellness strategies that deliver specific, measurable outcomes to reduce chronic disease. One strategy identified in the CPPW was daily physical education ( CDC, 2012a ). In 2011, the CDC announced the Community Transformation Grant (CTG) program ( CDC, 2012b ) that will support communities to implement, disseminate, and evaluate evidence-based community-preventive health activities to reduce chronic disease risks and rates, address health disparities, and develop a stronger base for effective programs. The CTG includes an emphasis on school-based physical education. The President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition (PCFSN) is a catalyst for developing, disseminating, and promoting information and resources on physical activity and sports programs for Americans of all ages and abilities. Following the 1996 Surgeon General’s Report on Physical Activity and Health ( USDHHS, 1996 ), the PCFSN added the Presidential Active Lifestyle Award to the President’s Challenge program, a presidential recognition program for physical activity and fitness for use in physical education settings.

In 2006, the CDC released the Physical Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (PECAT; CDC, 2006 ), a tool designed to analyze and revise written physical education curricula or develop new written curricula. The PECAT uses the national physical education standards as a framework ( NASPE, 2004 ) and assists school districts and schools in determining whether their physical education curricula align with national standards and best practices.

Various federal agencies have adopted policies related to physical education. As part of the Child Nutrition and Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children Reauthorization Act of 2004 ( 108th Congress, 2004 ), school districts participating in the federal school meals program are required to have local wellness policies. These policies need to address nutrition education and guidelines while promoting physical activity. In 2010, the U.S. Congress passed the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (S. 3307), which included requirements for implementing local school wellness policy and reporting ( 111th Congress, 2010 ). Physical activity requirements remained the same.

A U.S. national health objective for 50% of MVPA in physical education classes has been a part of the Healthy People documents since at least 1991 ( U.S. Public Health Service, 1991 ) and was reaffirmed for Healthy People 2010 ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000 ). The objective was evidence that the U.S. Public Health Service determined physical education classes should be active most of the time, and the objective justified public health actions. However, the recently released Healthy People 2020 (USDHHS, 2010) did not have an objective for 50% of MVPA in physical education classes. This appears to be a step backward for efforts to promote more physically active physical education. Although it was not announced why the objective was dropped, a likely reason was the lack of data to measure progress. In a clear indication that the U.S. Public Health Service is still pursuing more physically active physical education classes, the CDC recently affirmed a 50% MVPA recommendation for physical education classes ( CDC, 2010b ).

State Support for School-Based Physical Education

State-level physical education policies (or lack thereof) can have an impact on how much physical education is provided. According to the 2010 Shape of the Nation Survey ( NASPE, 2010 ), 42 states mandated elementary school physical education; 39 mandated middle school physical education; and 45 mandated high school physical education. However, only four states specified time requirements for the amount of physical education to be taught at all grade levels, 28 states permitted school districts or schools to allow students to substitute other activities for their required physical education, and 26 states granted exemptions/waivers regarding physical education. However, nearly all states (49) had physical education standards. State-level policies play a role in establishing strong standards for physical education teacher qualifications and professional development. In 2010, 39 states required elementary school physical education teachers to be certified/licensed; 42 states had this requirement for middle school physical education; and 46 states required it for high school physical education. Finally, 41 states required professional development to main tain/renew physical education teacher certification/licensure, but most did not provide the funding for teachers to participate.

A study of state physical education legislation documented a dramatic increase from 2001 to 2007, with a total of 781 bills introduced and 162 enacted ( Eyler et al., 2010 ). A promising trend is that some bills specify evidence-based elements, defined as minutes of physical education, physical activity in physical education, teacher certification, and environmental support, such as facilities and equipment. Time in physical education was by far the most common evidence-based element in the bills ( n = 178), and physical activity during physical education was the least common element (n = 43). As of 2007, 11 states had laws designed to increase physical activity during physical education classes. From a public health viewpoint, this is an important advance toward ensuring physical education classes provide physical activity for students, but it is disturbing that this appears to have the lowest priority.

Surveillance of Physical Education Quantity and Quality

In 1991, virtually nothing was known about the quantity and quality of physical education on a national basis. To date, surveillance data provided by CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS; CDC, 2010c ) are the best available data pertaining to the quantity of physical education. These biannual, nationally representative, student-reported surveys show that the percentage of high school students who attended physical education classes one or more days in an average week did not change significantly from 1991 to 2009 (48.9% to 56.4%). Meanwhile, the percentage of high school students who attended physical education classes daily decreased across YRBSS survey years 1991–1995 (41.6–25.4%) and then did not change significantly across YRBSS survey years 1995–2009 (25.4–33.3%). CDC’s 2006 School Health Policies and Programs Study (SHPPS; Lee, Burgeson, Fulton, & Spain, 2007 ) of school administrators, physical education coordinators, and physical education teachers revealed that only 4% of elementary schools provided all students (first-fifth grades) physical education daily or at least for 150 min per week for the entire year ( Lee, Burgeson, Fulton, & Spain, 2007 ). These two data sets provide valuable data on trends in physical education exposure and policies, but YRBSS only covers high school and neither study quantifies physical activity provided in physical education classes. In addition to the YRBSS and SHPPS surveillance systems, several research studies (e.g., McKenzie et al., 1995 ; McKenzie et al., 2006 ; Nader, 2003 ) provided baseline data pertaining to components of physical education quality (i.e., physical activity levels, lesson content, and teacher behavior) prior to interventions in schools. Though these studies used rigorous direct observation methods, they cannot substitute for a national study of the state of physical education in the United States that documents activity levels in physical education.

The Gym is Half Empty: Areas for Improvement for the Next 20 Years

Reduced physical education time.

Increased emphasis of schools on improving standardized test scores has been a barrier to advancing physical education practices and policies. Federal funding is now dependent on schools making adequate progress in reading and mathematics, and the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law created an environment in which physical education, music, and art are viewed as “nonessential.” Since the passing of NCLB in 2002, 62% of elementary schools and 20% of middle schools increased instructional time allocated to reading/language arts and math. Among those schools, 44% of administrators reported cutting time from one or more of social studies, science, art and music, physical education, and recess ( Center on Educational Policy, 2008 ). The average reduction in instructional time to these subjects was 145 min/week. More recent severe budget cuts in many states may have further eroded funding and support for physical education, because it remains a “non-core” subject.

Defining and Measuring Physical Education Quality

Since the 1991 article, numerous guidelines for quality physical education and measurement tools have been created. However, due to the diversity of views on what constitutes quality physical education (i.e., goals, curriculum, instruction, MVPA) a comprehensive tool has yet to be widely adopted. NASPE (2004) has developed standards for quality physical education, but they are not entirely consistent with guidelines from health agencies ( CDC, 2010b ; Koplan et al., 2005 ; Pate et al., 2006 ). The NASPE standards were written mainly for an education audience and though they encourage physical activity, they do not specify the amount of physical activity that should be in physical education classes or stress that the other goals should be achieved through active instruction. The guidelines from health agencies, such as American Heart Association, CDC, and the Institute of Medicine are focused on maximizing physical activity in physical education to combat obesity and chronic diseases, and the guidelines do not adequately consider what is required to achieve policy and practice change within the education field. Thus, education and health officials need to work together more closely to achieve the goals of both fields.

To assess physical activity during physical education lessons, objective measures, such as accelerometers, pedometers, heart rate monitors, and direct observation, are widely used in research. Guidelines for pedometer steps correspond to 50% MVPA time during physical education classes ( Scruggs, 2007 ), and the System for Observing fitness Instruction Time observational system ( McKenzie, Sallis, & Nader, 1991 ) assesses activity time directly and has been used in many large studies of physical education. All these measures have demonstrated validity, but they require expertise and expense and are not used widely in physical education practice or for national surveillance.

In their review of physical activity accrued during elementary physical education, Fairclough and Stratton (2006) found that students were active an average of 37% of a 34-min lesson, based on objective MVPA measures. This equates to approximately 13 min of physical activity per lesson. There was no mention of frequency of lessons per week. A similar review for secondary physical education showed 27–47% of lesson time engaged in physical activity, depending on the measurement method ( Fairclough & Stratton, 2005 ). The latter review did not provide lesson length. The available data on objective measures of physical activity in physical education raise alarms about the quality of physical education instruction and missed opportunities to improve children’s health. These data also provide a strong rationale for a national study of physical education practice using objective measures. It would be useful for such a study to include physical activity and other components of quality physical education, such as class size, teacher certification and training, school environment, and school policies.

Dissemination of Evidence-Based Physical Education Programs

Although dissemination of evidence-based physical education programs is clearly in the “gym half full” category, there are important limitations that should be remedied. One is that there is no consensus on criteria for deciding which programs should be disseminated. One criterion is replication, which is the reproducibility of an intervention’s effects across multiple studies, commonly with different sample characteristics and settings ( Cook & Campbell, 1979 ). In the physical activity field, single large-scale studies are conducted, and some programs with positive findings are subsequently disseminated. Examples of this paradigm can be seen in CATCH, SPARK, LEAP, and TAAG, which were large and expensive studies; It is difficult to imagine that funders would be enthusiastic about supporting replications ( Easley, Madden, & Dunn, 2000 ), except perhaps for studies that targeted schools in high-need communities (e.g., Coleman et al., 2005 ) or evaluated more cost-effective implementation models. However, in other prevention fields (e.g., substance abuse, violence, mental health), replication is a necessary step of the research process ( Flay et al., 2005 ), with a minimum of two studies from independent investigative teams needed to confirm an intervention approach is ready for dissemination ( Flay et al., 2005 ). Putting a higher priority on studies that replicate, extend to different populations, or refine effective programs could create a cycle of continuous innovation that builds on prior investments. It is justified to continue studying programs with an important public health impact, such as physical education.

Another major gap in evidence is evaluation of the dissemination process. These evaluations have been rare for evidence-based physical education programs, but there are opportunities to evaluate the many schools that have adopted the programs as “natural experiments.” Such studies could examine cost-benefit ratios, compare different models of implementation, and examine factors that lead to better sustainability. A program on dissemination of physical education programs could advance science while improving practice. The National Institutes of Health (2011) recently established an office of Dissemination and Implementation Research, and multiple institutes are calling for studies in these areas. Thus, funding is available to support dissemination and implementation research on evidence-based physical education.

Adoption of Evidence-Based Practices

The extent to which evidence-based physical education programs have been adopted and implemented with fidelity is unknown. There are no known sources of information regarding how many programs (defined as programs with documented positive outcomes, at least with MVPA, published in peer-reviewed journals) are currently in use across the United States. For programs that have been adopted, it is not known how well they are implemented. The absence of such data makes it difficult to determine whether effective interventions are having an impact on students as intended. A recent study found that adopting evidence-based physical education programming was hindered by the number of physical education specialists, budget limitations, unwillingness to allocate time for physical education, and a low priority for physical education ( Lounsbery, McKenzie, Trost, & Smith, 2011 ). Thus, there are serious barriers to the adoption of evidence-based physical education practices.

Although SPARK, M-SPAN, and CATCH programs are being disseminated, there is no ongoing evaluation of dissemination quality or outcomes. However, limited data suggest there are improvements over “usual practice.” For example, an independently conducted survey of SPARK trained teachers up to 4 years after training indicated that almost 80% were still using SPARK, and SPARK users conducted about one more physical education class per week than nonusers ( Dowda, Sallis, McKenzie, Rosengard, & Kohl, 2005 ). In an evaluation of CATCH dissemination in Texas, physical education specialists reported up to 65% of classes were CATCH activities and/or based on CATCH philosophy ( Hoelscher et al., 2001 ). Also, when different investigators implemented CATCH in a low-income city, the results were favorable ( Coleman et al., 2005 ). These studies provide encouragement that evidence-based physical education is being disseminated somewhat effectively, but a national study could determine the prevalence of use, further document barriers, identify schools that are evaluating innovative approaches, and help identify methods to improve adoption, implementation, and sustainability.

Education Has Not Adopted Public Health Goals

It appears the physical education field has not fully embraced the public health goals set forth in 1991. Many in the field emphasize that physical education is more than physical activity, is an academic discipline, and should include motor learning, sport skills, social development, and other worthy outcomes. However, there is still no consensus that physical education should meet its other goals while ensuring students are physically active during class. To illustrate this point, Kulinna (2008) described multiple curricular models being used in physical education, all focusing on different outcomes. Years ago, Pate and Hohn (1994) complained that multiple goals created a “muddled mission” for physical education, and this lack of focus appeared to be preventing a consensus around meeting students’ health needs. Despite an emphasis on developing and adopting physical education standards at the local, state, and national levels, few of these are enforced (i.e., lack of accountability), and meeting the standards often requires additional resources for equipment, professional development, and staffing that have not been provided. Though standards can contribute to a higher priority for physical education within education departments, they are often not consistent with health goals. For example, standards are not systematically evidence-based and have not been evaluated prior to adoption (e.g., what is the impact of implementing standards on physical education outcomes, including MVPA?). Most standards do not specify how much MVPA must be provided during class, and some contain many knowledge goals that could lead to physical education classes being less active. Because of the varying definitions of “quality physical education,” some policies to improve physical education could have negative impacts on physical activity engagement while meeting other goals.

Over the past 20 years, stronger working relationships between public health and education professionals have developed, with many examples at the federal, state, and local levels. These alliances probably contributed to recent statewide policies that support or require specific amounts of physical activity in physical education ( Fedewa & Ahn, 2011 ). Federal, state, and local policy makers develop, implement, and evaluate physical education policies that conceivably could achieve both health and education goals. However, state and federal policies, such as the requirement for local wellness policies, do not appear to have been sufficient to substantially improve physical education implementation ( Belansky et al., 2009 ), although the lack of surveillance makes it difficult to reach a definitive conclusion.

Conclusions and Recommendations

We want to replace the “health-related physical education” term we introduced in 1991 with “health- optimizing physical education” or HOPE. We propose defining HOPE as physical education that encompasses curriculum and lessons focused on health-related physical activity and fitness; keeps students active for at least 50% of class time; engages all students, regardless of physical ability; and significantly contributes to students’ overall physical activity participation, thereby improving their health. The need for HOPE has grown dramatically over the past 20 years, with the obesity epidemic, evidence that most youth are not meeting physical activity guidelines, and erosion of physical education practices. The new term signifies that the epidemics of childhood obesity and diabetes have created a new urgency for providing more physical activity to all children, which many get only through physical education. Because physical education can have important public health effects, we encourage the field to take responsibility for ensuring that it has optimal health effects. HOPE does not mean abandoning all other physical education goals, but ensuring that health goals are primary. HOPE is part of the century old evolution of a proud physical education tradition that seeks to provide students with the knowledge, skills, abilities, and confidence to be physically active for life. HOPE means that other important physical education goals are achieved through physical activity. There are many paths to HOPE.

The health crisis emboldens us to recommend that education and public health professionals work together with policy makers to optimize the contribution of physical education to health. An excellent start toward achieving these goals would be to implement the U.S. National Physical Activity Plan’s (2010) “education sector” strategies ( Seidentop, 2009 ). These strategies were developed by an interdisciplinary group that included physical education, education, and health professionals. We encourage all physical education curriculum writers to embrace HOPE concepts, generate creative approaches to meeting HOPE goals, and pursue program evaluation so they can become evidence-based HOPE. We have evidence from multiple large studies that HOPE can improve physical activity and academic outcomes ( CDC, 2010a , 2010b ; Fedewa & Ahn, 2011 ; McKenzie et al., 1996 ; McKenzie et al, 2004 ; McKenzie, Sallis, & Rosengard, 2009 ; Pate et al, 2007 ; Sallis et al., 1997 ). Although thousands of schools across the United States are using evidence-based physical education, most are not. Although many public health groups have embraced HOPE, few education groups have. The failure of public health and education groups to work together sufficiently to implement increased physical activity within physical education is hurting children’s health.

Our goals for achieving HOPE for all children well before 20 more years pass are

• — Federal, state, and local policy makers develop, implement, and evaluate physical education policies that ensure children have daily, active physical education that achieves both health and education goals.
• — Conduct periodic national studies of physical education classes using objective measures to assess MVPA during physical education. Studies should assess teacher behavior in physical education classes, curricula, teacher preparation, facilities, and equipment. Such studies could identify disparities in physical education quality and quantity and document favorable and unfavorable trends.
• — Develop low-cost and feasible methods for teachers to accurately assess MVPA in their classes so they have immediate feedback and data for reporting to district and state officials.
• — Provide grants or incentives to encourage districts and schools to implement evidence-based physical education programs (or evaluate innovative approaches to promoting MVPA in physical education).
• — Prioritize funding, training, and equipment for HOPE in low-resource districts and schools where there is likely greater room for improvement and students are often at the highest health risk.
• — Identify funds to support adopting, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating evidence-based physical education programs in schools K-12. Because HOPE improves health, it is reasonable for some funding of physical education improvement to come from public health agencies.
• — Revise physical education undergraduate and graduate courses to reflect contemporary health needs, and prepare teachers to implement evidence-based HOPE.

Acknowledgments

James Sallis and Thomas McKenzie receive royalties from SPARK Programs of School Specialty, Inc., which markets SPARK and M-SPAN programs. McKenzie was also a contributor to the CATCH and TAAG physical education programs. James Sallis’s contributions were supported in part by Active Living Research, a program of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors thank James R. Morrow, Jr., Michael Metzler, and Hans van der Mars for their thoughtful and helpful comments on an earlier draft. At the time of this study, the first author was with San Diego State University.

• 108th Congress. (2004, June 30). Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 . P.L. 108–265, Sec. 204.
• 111th Congress. (2010, June 13). Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 . P.L.111–296, S. 3307.
• American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness and Council on School Health. (2006). Active healthy living: Prevention of childhood obesity through increased physical activity . Pediatrics , 117 , 1834–1842. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Basch CE (2010). Healthier students are better learners: A missing link in school reforms to close the achievement gap Equity matters: Research review no. 6 . NewYork: Teachers College, Columbia University. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Belansky E, Cutforth N, Delong E, Ross C, Scarbro S, Gilbert L,...Marshall JA (2009). Early impact of the federally mandated local wellness policy on physical activity in rural, low income elementary schools in Colorado . Journal of Public Health Policy , 30 , S141–S160. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cardinal BJ, & Thomas JR (2005). The 75th anniversary of Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport: An analysis of status and contributions . Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 76 ( Suppl. 2 ), 122–134. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Center on Educational Policy. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. A report in the series From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 5 of the No Child Left Behind Act . Center on Educational Policy . Retrieved April 19, 2009, from http://www.cep-dc.org/
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997). Guidelines for school and community programs to promote lifelong physical activity among young people . Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review , 46 ( No. RR-6 ). [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006). Physical Education Curriculum Analysis Tool . Atlanta, GA: Author. [ Google Scholar ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010a). Association between school-based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance . Atlanta, GA: Author. [ Google Scholar ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010b). Strategies to improve the quality of physical education . Atlanta, GA: Author; Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/physicalactivity/pdf/quality_pe.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010c). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2009 . Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report , 59 ( SS-5 ). [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). How much physical activity do children need? Atlanta, GA: Author. [ Google Scholar ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012a). Communities putting prevention to work . Retrieved May 15, 2012, from www.cdc.gov/CommunitiesPuttingPreventiontoWork/
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012b). Community transformation grants . Retrieved May 15, 2012, from www.cdc.gov/communitytransformation/
• Coleman KJ, Tiller CL, Sanchez MA, Heath EM, Sy O, Milliken G, & Dzewaltowski DA (2005). Prevention of the epidemic increase in child risk of overweight in low income schools: The El Paso Coordinated Approach to Child Health . Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine , 159 , 217–224. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook T, & Campbell D (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings . Florence, KY: Cengage Learning. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dale D, & Corbin CB (2000). Physical activity participation of high school graduates following exposure to conceptual or traditional physical education . Research (Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 71 , 61–68. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dowda MC, Sallis JF, McKenzie TL, Rosengard PR, & Kohl HW (2005). Evaluating the sustainability of SPARK physical education: A case study of translating research into practice . Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 76 , 11–19. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Easley RW, Madden CS, & Dunn MG (2000). Conducting marketing science: The role of replication in the research process . Journal of Business Research , 48 , 83–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eyler AA, Brownson RC, Aytur SA, Cradock AL, Doescher M, Evenson KR,...Schmid TL (2010). Examination of trends and evidence-based elements in state physical education legislation: A content analysis . Journal of School Health , 80 , 326–332. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fairclough S, & Stratton G (2005). Physical activity levels in middle and high school physical education: A review . Pediatric Exercise Science , 17 , 217–236. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fairclough S, & Stratton G (2006). A review of physical activity levels during elementary school physical education . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education , 25 , 239–257. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fedewa AL, & Ahn S (2011). The effects of physical activity and physical fitness on children’s achievement and cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis . Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 82 , 521–535. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flay BR, Biglan A, Boruch RF, Castro FG, Gottfredson Kellam, S.,..Ji P (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination . Prevention Science , 6 , 151–175. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Google Scholar. (2012). Retrieved May 15, 2012, from www.googlescholar.com
• Hoelscher DM, Kelder SH, Murray N, Cribb P, Conroy J, & Parcel G (2001). Dissemination and adoption of the child and adolescent trial for cardiovascular health (CATCH): A case study in Texas . Journal of Public Health Management and Practice , 7 , 90–100. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahn EB, Ramsey LT, Brownson RC, Heath GW, Howze EH, Powell KE,...Corso P (2002). The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity: A systematic review . American Journal of Preventive Medicine 22 ( Suppl. 4 ), 73–107. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koplan JP, Liverman CT, & Kraak VI (2005). Preventing childhood obesity: Health in the balance . Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kulinna P (2008). Models for curriculum and pedagogy in elementary school physical education . Elementary School Journal , 108 , 219–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee SM, Burgeson CR, Fulton JE, & Spain CG (2007). Physical education and physical activity: Results from the school health policies and programs study 2006 . Journal of School Health , 77 , 435–463. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Let’s Move! (2012). Retrieved May 12, 2012, from www.letsmove.gov/
• Lounsbery MAF, McKenzie TL, Trost SG, & Smith NJ (2011). Facilitators and barriers to adopting evidence-based physical education in elementary schools . Journal of Physical Activity & Health , 8 ( Suppl. 1 ), S17–S25. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKenzie TL, Catellier DJ, Conway T, Lytle LA, Grieser M, Webber LA, . . . Elder JP (2006). Girls’ activity levels and lesson contexts in middle school PE: TAAG baseline . Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise , 38 , 1229–1235. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKenzie TL, Feldman H, Woods SE, Romero KA, Dahlstrom V, Stone EJ,...Harsha DW (1995). Children’s activity levels and lesson context during third-grade physical education . Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 66 , 184–193. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKenzie TL, Nader PR, Strikmiller PK, Yang M, Stone EJ, Perry CL,...Kelder SH (1996). School physical education: Effect of the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health . Preventive Medicine , 25 , 423–431. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKenzie TL, Sallis JF, & Nader PR (1991). SOFIT: System for observing fitness instruction time . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education , 11 , 195–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKenzie TL, Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Conway TL, Marshall SJ, & Rosengard P (2004). Evaluation of a two-year middle-school physical education intervention: M-SPAN . Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise , 36 , 1382–1388. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKenzie TL, Sallis JF, & Rosengard P (2009). Beyond the stucco tower: Design, development, and dissemination of the SPARK physical education programs . Quest , 61 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan CF, Beighle A, & Pangrazi RP (2007). What are the contributory and compensatory relationships between physical education and physical activity in children? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 78 , 407–412. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nader PR (2003). Frequency and intensity of activity of third-grade children in physical education . Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine , 157 , 185–190. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2004). Moving into the future: National standards for physical education . Reston, VA: Author. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2009). Appropriate instructional practice guidelines for elementary school physical education (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: Author. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2010). Shape of the nation report . Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institutes of Health. (2011). Dissemination and implementation . Retrieved May 12, 2012, from obssr.od.nih.gov/scientific_areas/translation/dissemination_and_implementation/index.aspx
• Owen N, Glanz K, Sallis JF, & Kelder SH (2006). Evidence-based approaches to dissemination and diffusion of physical activity interventions . American JournalofPreventive Medicine , 31 ( Suppl. 4 ), S35–S44. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Partnership for Prevention. (2008). School-based physical education: Working with schools to increase physical activity among children and adolescents in physical education classes—An action guide The community health promotion handbook: Action guides to improve community health . Washington, DC: Partnership for Prevention. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pate RR, Davis MG, Robinson TN, Stone EJ, McKenzie TL, & Young JC (2006). Promoting physical activity in children and youth: A leadership role for schools: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism (Physical Activity Committee) in collaboration with the Councils on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young and Cardiovascular Nursing . Circulation , 114 , 1214–1224. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pate RR, & Hohn RC (1994). Introduction: A contemporary mission for physical education In Pate RR & Hohn RC (Eds.), Health and fitness through physical education (pp. 1–8). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pate RR, Saunders R, Dishman RK, Addy C, Dowda M, & Ward DS (2007). Long-term effects of a physical activity intervention in high school girls . America,n Journal of Preventive Medicine , 33 , 276–280. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Payne VG, & Morrow JR Jr. (2009). School physical education as a viable change agent to increase youth physical activity . The President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Research Digest , 10 ( 2 ), 1–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sallis JF, & McKenzie TL (1991). Physical education’s role in public health . Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 62 , 124–137. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sallis JF, McKenzie TL, Alcaraz JE, Kolody B, Faucette N, & Hovell MF (1997). The effects of a 2-year physical education program (SPARK) on physical activity and fitness in elementary school students . American Journal of Public Health , 87 , 1328–1334. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scruggs PW (2007). Middle school physical education physical activity quantification: A pedometer steps/min guideline . Research (Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 78 , 284–292. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siedentop DL (2009). National plan for physical activity: Education sector . Journal of Physical Activity and Health , 6 ( Suppl. 2 ), S168–S180. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trost SG, & van der Mars H (2010). Why we should not cut P.E . Educational Leadership , 67 , 60–65. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trudeau F, Laurencelle L, Tremblay J, Rajic J, & Shephard RJ (1999). Daily primary school physical education: Effects on physical activity during adult life . Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise , 31 , 111–117. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Physical activity and health: A report ofthe Surgeon General . Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Healthy people 2010 (Conference edition, in two volumes) . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). 2008 physical activity guidelines for Americans . Washington DC: Author; Retrieved April 20, 2011, from http://www.health.gov/PAGuidelines/ [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Healthy people 2020 . Washington, DC: Author; Retrieved May 12, 2012, from www.healthypeople.gov/2020/ [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. National Physical Activity Plan. (2010). Retrieved May 12, 2012, from http://physicalactivityplan.org/theplan.php
• U.S. Public Health Service. (1991). Healthy people 2000. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 91–50212 . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webber LS, Catellier DJ, Lytle LA, Murray DM, Pratt CA, Young DR,...Pate RR (2008). Promoting physical activity in middle school girls: Trial of Activity for Adolescent Girls . American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 34 , 173–184. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity. (2010). Solving the problem of childhood obesity within a generation: A report to the President . Washington, DC: Author. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Physical Education and 21st Century Learning

Physical education is the ideal setting to support a 21st Century learner

Tagged in: Physical and Health Education , Physical Literacy , Teaching

By Amanda Stanec   |   November 15, 2013

Lately, individuals have been asking for support. It seems as though physical educators are being asked to highlight connections between physical education, physical literacy , and 21st century learning. Since I love my Twitter Professional Learning Network (PLN) I wanted to respond in a way that was useful. This, unsurprisingly, needed more than Twitter’s 140 character allotment.

What are 21st Century Learning Skills?

All content areas should allow students opportunity to grow competent in:

• Risk Taking
• Collaboration Skills
• Critical Thinking
• Communication
• Civic Responsibility

Curriculum should be developed with the above skills in mind and teachers should plan, implement and assess activities gained in addition to the development of these skills. Of course, as students age, the complexity of both the content, skills and their range of application (and evaluation) increase.

“Okay, Amanda, but you still haven’t made your case for PE…”

Not only are these 21st Century Learner skills important, they are natural skills to foster in physical activity settings such as physical education. In physical education, the aim is to foster physical literacy in learners. Every administrator should understand the differences in the following definitions. As well, it is our job, as physical educators, to make sure that they do.

Physical Activity - exercise, sports, games, fitness, etc. Physical activity should occur throughout a lifespan. A combination of strength and cardiovascular activity is great for health and disease prevention. Cardiovascular activity is optimal when at moderate to vigorous intensities for at least 30-60 minutes more days than not . There are specific recommendations for different ages but this is just a brief summary.

Physical Education - a subject in school where students are taught a curriculum developed to support students in growing as physically literate people.

Physical Literacy (definition taken from here )

Individuals who are physically literate move with competence and confidence in a wide variety of physical activities in multiple environments that benefit the healthy development of the whole person.

• Physically literate individuals consistently develop the motivation and ability to understand, communicate, apply, and analyze different forms of movement.
• They are able to demonstrate a variety of movements confidently, competently, creatively and strategically across a wide range of health-related physical activities.
• These skills enable individuals to make healthy, active choices that are both beneficial to and respectful of their whole self, others, and their environment.

Physical Inactivity: A 21st Century Health Problem

Research has shown that one of the biggest health problems of the 21st century is physical inactivity. Not obesity ( although that does lead to many health problems ), but physical inactivity (re: You can be very thin and still have health problems due to physical inactivity ). That’s why we should always focus on health prevention and avoid the “I just want to fit into this outfit” mentality. Physical inactivity increases disease, inflammation, and certainly stress (among others).

Physical Education and 21st Century Learners

Why physical education is so important in the 21st century?

Research concludes that physical education leads to increases in academic performance or no change in academic performance. In other words, physical activity received during physical education classes does not hinder academic achievement in other content areas. Additional positive associations between physical activity and academic performance have been determined (Ratey and Hagerman 2008; Tremblay, Inman and Willms 2000).

We know that physical activity leads to great physical health benefit. We understand that it doesn’t hinder academic achievement and has been found to enhance it. Personally, I’m shocked that we even have to defend the discipline. But, if we must, let us explore the area of mental health.

You see, sometimes, we forget the positive associations between physical activity and mental resiliency. Youth who engage in physical activity demonstrate lower rates of anxiety and depression. As well, as physical activity levels of among youth increase depression levels decrease (Kirkcaldy, Shephard and Siefen 2002; Sallis, Prochaska and Taylor 2000). To me, even if academic achievement and physical health weren’t enhanced due to physical activity - I would advocate for it. To me, any subject that supports students’ in feeling empowered and happier about life - through participation in physical activity - belongs in 21st century schools.

To be clear...

There is a health crisis on our hands - physical inactivity . This is one of the main health concerns in the 21st century.

Physical activity at moderate to vigorous intensities exists in quality physical education programs developed with physical literacy as their foundation. ( Whew, I dare you to say this sentence five times fast while walking backwards... ). For more specific information related to what quality physical education is visit this past post .

In my humble opinion, physical education is the ideal setting to support a 21st century learner .

Here, they are able to:

• Collaborate (with a partner, small group, large group and in a variety of settings)
• Take Risks (learn new skills, skill combinations, etc. that can directly impact their health in a positive way)
• Think Creatively and Critically (in planning, participating, and evaluating practice and performance)
• Communicate (Effectively using verbal and non-verbal communication skills in authentic physically active settings)
• Demonstrate Civic Responsibility (for their health, for supporting the community in healthy living initiatives, service learning options, etc.)

All content areas in school are important if we want to develop the whole child. I’m not going to say that other subjects aren’t important - because they are. In fact, an upcoming blog is how to integrate other content areas into physical education to support our wonderful classroom colleague and our capable students. I’m simply pointing out that physical education is an ideal location to foster 21st century learning - while also helping to reverse the insane amounts of physical inactivity that exists in this 21st century society. In doing so, we’ll have students not only prepared for the global community they are being raised in, they will be prepared to live life to its fullest potential. ( And...I didn’t even talk about how much money it would save taxpayers! ) I agree that learners should be developing the 21st century skills listed in this post. I also feel that their physical literacy is every bit as important as the 21st century skills skills. Whether we approach it from health prevention, economics, or happiness - the conclusion is the same. Physical literacy matters....and, it is indeed developed in 21st century physical education spaces that deliver innovative curriculum.

So there you have it, my two cents. Please add to the comments below to further strengthen this conversation so that our amazing PE professional learning network via Twitter, etc. has more information to share with their administration.

How about you? Have you informed your administrators or PETE students about how physical literacy development in quality PE is key to the development of 21st century skills?

How do you foster 21st century skills currently in your PE classes, sport practices or PE teacher education programs?

Pingback: evolvED PhysEd – The evolvED PROJECT ()

Pingback: 21st Century Learning In Physical Education – alldailyneeds ()

Pingback: 21st Century Learner Physical Education – alldailyneeds ()

Similar Articles