Physical Education classes have gotten bigger over the course of the pandemic.  The powers that be knowingly placed too many kids within too small an area. Wildly, there is this underlying assumption that whatever is asked of PE and the PE teacher will be OK.  Though COVID has highlighted the vast chasm between PE and the rest of campus, the many effects of the virus will not be the emphasis of this article.  Instead, I will attempt to cast a light on the larger, more long-term tendency that is crippling Physical Education — the fact that anyone, at any time is haphazardly added to the class roster.  There is no cohesion of who, which means there is no cohesion of what.

Classes are filled by available space, and there is ALWAYS space available in PE

Recently, an article surfaced exposing the culture of body shaming and disordered eating at the University of Oregon (OU), one of the most prestigious track and field programs in the NCAA. The female athletes interviewed discussed how the coaching staff used DEXA scans, which measures one’s bone density and body fat percentages, to determine their training programs (Goe, 2021). The Director of Track and Field, Robert Johnson stated, “Track is nothing but numbers. A good mathematician probably could be a good track coach” (Goe, 2021). Johnson’s perspective showcases society’s obsession with the objective experience defined by the numerical outcome. By solely allowing the numbers on the DEXA scan results to dictate one’s training, the human element is being completely ignored. However, practices like using DEXA scans and other objective measures to enhance performance are defended because of the “win-at-all-costs” culture plaguing sports. Johnson has won a lot; 14 NCAA national championships and multiple Olympians have emerged from UO’s program. Some people believe that if an athlete wants to be the best, aspire to be an Olympian, then the experiences of the UO athletes is “the price one has to pay” to be the best. Though, when is sacrificing one’s wellbeing worth the risk?

The “win-at-all-costs” culture is driven by money, power, and success, which makes coaches, athletes, and administrations focus on one part of the experience – winning. And if a team is not winning, then changes on the roster occur and coaches are fired; new coaches are hired but only given a couple of years to build a winning culture, otherwise, they are fired, and the vicious cycle continues. The athletes ultimately suffer the consequences of the cycle. The athletes know, feel, and learn to believe (if they do not already before college), that the only aspect of sport they should care about is winning. For many teams, success is not about the athlete’s personal growth and journey, but whether they won or were part of a winning team. Thus, the objective experience seems to be the only part of their collegiate athlete experience that is discussed and emphasized.

As practitioners of physical activity, the best way we can provide, promote, and program physical activity that all populations will understand and embrace, is to have clear, concise, and consistent definitions of physical activity and related terms.  Unfortunately, our approach is not clear, concise, or consistent as illustrated by the disparity between the “physical activity economy” valued at $828.2 billion US dollars globally and the 35% percent of the world population that participates in recreational physical activities (The Global Wellness Institute, 2021).

Part of the confusion getting people to be physically active is we have so many definitions or inconsistencies among definitions, for the terms, we try to get people to embrace. For example, Tremblay et al (2017), as part of the Sedentary Behavior Research Network conducted a literature review and subsequent interviews to identify existing definitions of terms used in sedentary behavior research and to suggest consensus definitions for each term. Definitions they found for sedentary behavior, for example, ranged from having a MET value between one and 1.5 METS, to 1-1.8 METS, to less than 2 METS, and included either activities of any kind, sitting or lying activities, or non-upright activities (Tremblay et al, 2017). These subtle distinctions are important as the definitions may or may not relate appropriately to certain populations, such as those that cannot yet sit or stand or have difficulty sitting or standing.

The awarding of participation trophies is a highly controversial topic. The argument between simply giving awards for participation, compared to giving to only the high achievers, has sparked much conversation. On one hand, people believe that participation trophies are great for rewarding participation and improving athlete attendance. On the other side, it is believed children become less motivated, less resilient, and unable to handle failure or criticism when they receive a trophy for simply showing up (Diller, 2011).

Benefits
A benefit of awarding participation trophies is they encourage children to keep showing up for practices and games. Their attendance in a sport or activity means they are involved with others and are being active. Attendance is an important aspect of many areas in a person’s life such as schooling, sports, family, and jobs. A person is unlikely to be successful by simply showing up, but it is a great starting point and will often lead to more success. Furthermore, an athlete’s attendance in a sport or activity means they are involved with others and being active.