Should we be Concerned about Increased Public Support for Physical Education’s Mission?

In case you missed it, there was what appears good news for school physical education and its mission this fall. Here’s a sampling:

According to a CDC report, the worrying perceptions many of us have had of ongoing program and position cuts and declining support for K-12 physical education were wrong. In the recently released 2012 School Health Policies and Practices Study (SHPPS), a 10% increase was reported in the percentage of school districts requiring elementary school physical education over the past 12 years.

At the middle school level there was almost a doubling of the percentage of states providing lesson plans and tools for evaluating students’ progress. And nationwide there was a 20% increase in districts adopting policies requiring schools to follow national, state, or district PE standards.

In Madison Wisconsin a Republican legislator has authored a bill proposing to increase PE requirements for students in grades K-8. Concerned about the three billion-dollar annual healthcare costs related to obesity, this bill would add 30 to 45 minutes of daily physical activity for students in K-8 not enrolled in a “gym” class. Similarly focused on countering worsening obesity, Healthy U an anti-obesity initiative funded by insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield but implemented through the YMCA is expanding into New Jersey schools.

In welcoming leaders from the National Foundation for Governors Fitness Councils (NFGFC) to a ribbon-cutting ceremony at state-of-the-art school fitness centers, Delaware Governor Jack Markell, wrote that “healthy children learn better and have a greater chance to reach their potential.” Governor Markell would undoubtedly be pleased at the increasing amount of evidence tying children’s health to academic performance. According to PBS, a recent study from the University of Illinois found that “fitter kids learn more effectively,” findings similarly supported by a study of nearly 12,000 schoolchildren in Nebraska.

And if all this news wasn’t exciting enough, it was also announced that a Brooklyn New York charter high school is making physical activity and sports the cornerstone of its curriculum. Students start the school day with three hours in teams and with assigned “coaches.” Founder and Principal Jai Nanda explained that, “we need to recognize that a full education requires the kids are active.” Presumably, similar thoughts were on the minds of school district officials in Milwaukee Wisconsin who planned to reintroduce physical education, arts, and music to its schools after the prior budget cuts eliminated them.

While these and similar stories are encouraging, there’s an underlying worrying theme. It concerns the muddled relationship between physical education and physical activity. Several years ago NASPE attempted to distinguish key differences. Today, to more and more people it appears these differences are irrelevant. Of concern is the growing tendency for funding entities and decision-makers to focus mostly on doing physical activity to children. In Wisconsin, Delaware, and even the Brooklyn charter school there’s little mention of educating students with the skills and knowledge to lead healthy lifestyles, but rather the simplistic pursuit of getting them physically active. In other words, never mind teaching them how to fish, let’s just feed them daily!

Almost a century ago, in discussing the types of physical activities that should be taught in schools, physical educator Clarke Hetherington distinguished between drill-type activities (read into this calisthenics and conditioning activities) and play. He ruefully observed that children don’t spontaneously run to the playground in their free time to pursue drills. Fast-forward to today and Hetherington’s point is worth reflection. Unfortunately, well-meaning, obesity-solving adult physical activity advocates don’t seem to understand what it takes to motivate children to be physically active. It would help if they took a step back and thought about their own childhood.

None of us as children chose to be physically active or play games and sports because we were worried about our health or wanted to improve our math and reading scores. It’s simple. Watch a baby! Children start out physically active not for ulterior motives but simply for the joy that play and movement brings to their lives. Sadly, the environment in which we live today (for which adults are largely responsible), conditions youngsters to be sedentary.

People who want to get today’s children to be more physically active and enjoy the many benefits, are headed in the wrong direction if they think the answer is exercise programs and fitness centers. Sure this may work for some but not the vast majority of youngsters. To motivate our students to be physically active we have to introduce them to activities that bring them joy. That make them smile. That give them confidence in themselves. That motivate them to want to be active rather than be sedentary. In doing this we need to consider individual differences. And this is where physical education comes in.

In quality physical education programs students are introduced to a wide variety of movement experiences including different physical activities, dance, and sports by professionally trained teachers. Physically educating students is vastly different from simply providing physical activity. If we wanted to create a world in which all children appreciated music would we introduce them to only one musical genre or instrument? Of course not! And it makes just as little sense to force children into narrowly prescribed primarily fitness focused physical activity programs. But as we see that’s what’s happening. Whose fault is it? It’s easy to blame others but maybe all of us who teach physical education are guilty of not doing enough to differentiate between physical activity and physical education?

From a professional perspective this is worrisome. Schools are now more willing to contract with organizations such as the YMCA and private companies to organize physical activity in schools. How long before schools recognize the potential huge financial savings of outside contracting? What then for the physical education teaching profession? In respect to news of increased public support for getting kids more active, those of us in the physical education profession should probably be careful about what we wish for.