Physical education: time to stand up
Whether your semantics is that physical education contributes to the development of the physically literate or physically educated individual and community, the curriculum challenge has always been what to teach and how to teach it. For the teacher in any given school, and especially primary schools, the force acting against achievement of the challenge is adequate provision of curriculum time to be able to develop the physically educated/physically literate child and then adolescent. While a key question for teachers is to how to fill the allocated curriculum time, research has shown us that learning takes time, and while a 'master teacher' can achieve a stronger learning effect because of their deep understanding of content, pedagogy and learner behaviour, than a 'proficient' teacher, volume of dedicated deliberate 'practice' is needed to reach competent levels of movement performance across a range of movement forms.
There are strong indications that young people today are less movement capable than previous generations Research also tells us that young people are less active and less 'fit' than previous generations (for example, see the Kids Health Alliance Global Report Cards) Evidence is also emerging that young people who participate in a variety of sports and other types of movement experiences may attain better academic outcomes (see Physical Activity and Performance at School: A Systematic Review). The association between movement ability and health and well-being of youth is also indicated in the literature (Pill, 2007).
In Australia, while we do not have physical education in crises, in terms of ensuring the status of the subject, as Health and Physical Education is a required learning area (see Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians). However, the requirement comes without a time mandate. The often cited 'crowded curriculum' and pressure, real or perceived, to do well in the national standardised literacy and numeracy tests (NAPLAN), means that particularly in primary schools there is often hardly any time given to physical education. Furthermore, in most states of Australia, primary schools are staffed by curriculum 'generalists' who also have responsibility for physical education, and they may have limited curriculum study in this area in their tertiary teacher training. Consequently, many primary school teachers are insufficiently prepared to teach PE (McMahon & Dinan-Thompson, 2014; Pill, 2007) and time indications, such as the minimum of 80 hours to deliver the AC:HPE (see Draft Shape of the AC: HPE for this time indication) are not being met (Curry, 2012). Those of us who identify as 'physical educators' should be concerned about these situations as the nature and quality of physical education programs in schools depends on the teachers who make the curriculum decisions.
Historically, there is evidence that many non-specialist PE teachers lack the confidence in addition to the curriculum knowledge to teach PE well (Morgan & Bourke, 2008). Like any subject, a teacher who is more skilled will have more effect on learning than one who is less skilled. Specialist PE teachers are likely to also have higher perceived pedagogical self efficacy in PE (Breslin et al., 2012) It is therefore reasonable to debate whether there is the need for specialist PE teachers in primary schools. The specialist teacher has arguably a greater content and pedagogical understanding of the field, and therefore will think differently about 'what to do' with the time available for PE, and 'how to do it'. It is also reasonable to debate whether PE needs a national assessment system like NAPLAN on fundamental movement skill attainment, as what is assessed is generally what teachers, students and parents value. However, unless schools supply adequate curriculum time, the 'type' of teacher is largely irrelevant, as is assessment, as insufficient volume of opportunity will be provided to enable the physically educated/physically literate child and then adolescent to emerge.
In my now 30 years of PE teaching, eighteen 'in the classroom' and now twelve in 'teacher education', the 'peak times' for primary PE occurred in the daily PE movement of the early 1990's when schools were persuaded to start each day with 20-30 minutes of physical activity in addition to the curriculum time physical education class/es; and during 2004-2007 when school funding was linked to a requirement to include a minimum of 120 minutes of physical activity in curriculum time (which also coincided with a national 'Active Australia' campaign). While in Australia we do not have a 'crises' in physical education in that the subject is on the verge of elimination from the curriculum (that battle was fought and 'won' in the early 1990's: for those interested, see The 1992 Australian Senate inquiry into physical and sport education: representations of the field), the problems with quality of teaching (especially in many primary schools), resourcing, and securing adequate time allocation, remain. If any other subject had a 'D' on one of their key learning outcomes on an international report (in this case, movement skills on the Physical Activity for Children and Young People 2016 Report card) I feel it would be declared a 'national crises' in the media, and the teachers of the subject themselves would be 'up in arms' trying to secure more time and resources to deliver on their curriculum expectations. However, despite a growing population and more children in schools, membership of the peak association for Health and Physical Education in Australia (ACHPER) has been low and stagnant for a decade. The low numbers of HPE/PE teachers with membership of the professional organisation seeking to represent their interests and the needs of the curriculum area compromises the arguments the professional association makes when meeting with government.
It is my belief that continuing to leave the status quo whereby physical education (and school sport) provision is left to the individual primary school and teacher will continue to ensure that up to 50% of children (as indicated in the 2016 report card) leave primary schools without the movement ability that underpins their perceived ability and confidence to choose to be physically active as adolescents and adults. I believe a nationally consistent mandated minimum time requirement needs to be agreed, and enforced. If this means tied funding such as occurred between 2004-2007, then this mechanism should be used as a lever to ensure schools and teachers act appropriately to teach and resource physical education with the necessary curriculum time and teaching quality to ensure physical education/physical literacy development can actually occur for children in primary schools. However, unless physical education teachers become more politically active and even 'bolshie' about the subject I fear ten years from now we will be making the same calls as made in 1992 and in the 2009 Independent Sport Panel: Future of Sport Report about adequate resourcing and teacher quality to ensure young people achieve the volume of physical education needed to develop the movement competence that provides the confidence to choose to be physically active.
The evidence is compelling that a majority of young people now reach secondary school without consistent coordination and control of fundamental movement skills nor the ability to link those skills into effective movement sequences to be successful players in games and modified sport. How are these children passing Year 5/6 physical education? When they get to secondary school - how are they passing Year 7/8 physical education? The students must be being assessed against something other than the curriculum standard for movement and participation. Now if physical education teachers (that includes the generalist clssroom teacher taking PE for their class) are not taking subject assessment seriously, how can we expect the subject to be taken seriously by students and parents? Imagine the conversations that might start if many students started failing PE on their school report cards ...which we might suggest should be the case already occuring by the lack of movement competency attainment indicated by the research informing reports like the Global Physical Activity Report Card.
There are strong indications that young people today are less movement capable than previous generations Research also tells us that young people are less active and less 'fit' than previous generations (for example, see the Kids Health Alliance Global Report Cards) Evidence is also emerging that young people who participate in a variety of sports and other types of movement experiences may attain better academic outcomes (see Physical Activity and Performance at School: A Systematic Review). The association between movement ability and health and well-being of youth is also indicated in the literature (Pill, 2007).
In Australia, while we do not have physical education in crises, in terms of ensuring the status of the subject, as Health and Physical Education is a required learning area (see Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians). However, the requirement comes without a time mandate. The often cited 'crowded curriculum' and pressure, real or perceived, to do well in the national standardised literacy and numeracy tests (NAPLAN), means that particularly in primary schools there is often hardly any time given to physical education. Furthermore, in most states of Australia, primary schools are staffed by curriculum 'generalists' who also have responsibility for physical education, and they may have limited curriculum study in this area in their tertiary teacher training. Consequently, many primary school teachers are insufficiently prepared to teach PE (McMahon & Dinan-Thompson, 2014; Pill, 2007) and time indications, such as the minimum of 80 hours to deliver the AC:HPE (see Draft Shape of the AC: HPE for this time indication) are not being met (Curry, 2012). Those of us who identify as 'physical educators' should be concerned about these situations as the nature and quality of physical education programs in schools depends on the teachers who make the curriculum decisions.
Historically, there is evidence that many non-specialist PE teachers lack the confidence in addition to the curriculum knowledge to teach PE well (Morgan & Bourke, 2008). Like any subject, a teacher who is more skilled will have more effect on learning than one who is less skilled. Specialist PE teachers are likely to also have higher perceived pedagogical self efficacy in PE (Breslin et al., 2012) It is therefore reasonable to debate whether there is the need for specialist PE teachers in primary schools. The specialist teacher has arguably a greater content and pedagogical understanding of the field, and therefore will think differently about 'what to do' with the time available for PE, and 'how to do it'. It is also reasonable to debate whether PE needs a national assessment system like NAPLAN on fundamental movement skill attainment, as what is assessed is generally what teachers, students and parents value. However, unless schools supply adequate curriculum time, the 'type' of teacher is largely irrelevant, as is assessment, as insufficient volume of opportunity will be provided to enable the physically educated/physically literate child and then adolescent to emerge.
In my now 30 years of PE teaching, eighteen 'in the classroom' and now twelve in 'teacher education', the 'peak times' for primary PE occurred in the daily PE movement of the early 1990's when schools were persuaded to start each day with 20-30 minutes of physical activity in addition to the curriculum time physical education class/es; and during 2004-2007 when school funding was linked to a requirement to include a minimum of 120 minutes of physical activity in curriculum time (which also coincided with a national 'Active Australia' campaign). While in Australia we do not have a 'crises' in physical education in that the subject is on the verge of elimination from the curriculum (that battle was fought and 'won' in the early 1990's: for those interested, see The 1992 Australian Senate inquiry into physical and sport education: representations of the field), the problems with quality of teaching (especially in many primary schools), resourcing, and securing adequate time allocation, remain. If any other subject had a 'D' on one of their key learning outcomes on an international report (in this case, movement skills on the Physical Activity for Children and Young People 2016 Report card) I feel it would be declared a 'national crises' in the media, and the teachers of the subject themselves would be 'up in arms' trying to secure more time and resources to deliver on their curriculum expectations. However, despite a growing population and more children in schools, membership of the peak association for Health and Physical Education in Australia (ACHPER) has been low and stagnant for a decade. The low numbers of HPE/PE teachers with membership of the professional organisation seeking to represent their interests and the needs of the curriculum area compromises the arguments the professional association makes when meeting with government.
It is my belief that continuing to leave the status quo whereby physical education (and school sport) provision is left to the individual primary school and teacher will continue to ensure that up to 50% of children (as indicated in the 2016 report card) leave primary schools without the movement ability that underpins their perceived ability and confidence to choose to be physically active as adolescents and adults. I believe a nationally consistent mandated minimum time requirement needs to be agreed, and enforced. If this means tied funding such as occurred between 2004-2007, then this mechanism should be used as a lever to ensure schools and teachers act appropriately to teach and resource physical education with the necessary curriculum time and teaching quality to ensure physical education/physical literacy development can actually occur for children in primary schools. However, unless physical education teachers become more politically active and even 'bolshie' about the subject I fear ten years from now we will be making the same calls as made in 1992 and in the 2009 Independent Sport Panel: Future of Sport Report about adequate resourcing and teacher quality to ensure young people achieve the volume of physical education needed to develop the movement competence that provides the confidence to choose to be physically active.
The evidence is compelling that a majority of young people now reach secondary school without consistent coordination and control of fundamental movement skills nor the ability to link those skills into effective movement sequences to be successful players in games and modified sport. How are these children passing Year 5/6 physical education? When they get to secondary school - how are they passing Year 7/8 physical education? The students must be being assessed against something other than the curriculum standard for movement and participation. Now if physical education teachers (that includes the generalist clssroom teacher taking PE for their class) are not taking subject assessment seriously, how can we expect the subject to be taken seriously by students and parents? Imagine the conversations that might start if many students started failing PE on their school report cards ...which we might suggest should be the case already occuring by the lack of movement competency attainment indicated by the research informing reports like the Global Physical Activity Report Card.
Comments
Post a Comment