should schools require physical education essay

Should Schools Make Physical Education Mandatory?

• Share article

As we touched upon yesterday , after-school sports are on the chopping block for many schools and districts facing budget cuts. But after-school sports aren’t the only endangered physical activity—physical education classes have also been trimmed due to budgetary concerns and an increased focus on test-based accountability.

The American Heart Association recommends a minimum of 150 minutes of physical activity a week for elementary students, and 225 minutes per week for middle school students.

Yet, according to the “2010 Shape of the Nation Report” by the National Association of Sport and Physical Education, only five U.S. states require physical education in every grade K-12 (Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Vermont). Only Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana require the recommended 150+ minutes of physical activity per week for elementary students, and only Alabama, Montana, and Utah require the recommended 225+ minutes per week for junior high and high school students.

Virginia is the latest state to consider making physical education mandatory . The state Senate voted 37-2 yesterday to pass a bill which would require schools to offer at least 150 minutes of physical education weekly for students in kindergarten through 8th grade. (The bill doesn’t mandate high-school PE.)

Currently, according to the “2010 Shape of the Nation”, Virginia mandates physical education in grades K-7 and requires daily recess in elementary school. Elementary students are required to receive 150 minutes per week of physical activity; however, this may be any combination of phys. ed. classes, extra-curricular athletics, or “other programs and physical activities deemed appropriate by the local school board.”

While the health benefits of phys. ed. classes are unquestionable, the budgetary strains and liability concerns are often enough to make states stop short of the AHA’s recommended requirements. This essay from the Journal of Law and Education , titled “School Liability: The Danger of Mandatory Physical Education Classes,” speaks largely to the uncertainty that states face when considering mandatory physical education programs. (The author explains that a school’s liability varies state to state, “depending on which standard of liability the state has adopted.”)

UPDATE, 1/27: The Virginia House Education Committee advanced the mandatory phys. ed. bill yesterday, with a 13-4 vote to send the measure to the House floor.

A version of this news article first appeared in the Schooled in Sports blog.

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Physical education is key to longer, happier lives. Our kids and schools need more of it.

Physical education should be on equal footing with academic classes. it teaches kids persistence, resilience, positive thinking and how to stay healthy..

Spot quiz: What is the only subject in school that engages a child’s mind, body, and spirit, promotes their physical and emotional health, helps them to learn better and cultivates the character they need to become productive adults? And what subject is consistently underfunded, understaffed and underscheduled?

If you answered physical education to both questions, you get an A grade.

At a time when American children are increasingly absorbed in their screens and one-third are overweight , the need for robust physical education is acute. Last month, the federal government updated its recommendations for physical activity for the first time in 10 years. The guidelines now include recommendations for children as young as age 3 , and advise a minimum of 60 minutes per day of moderate to vigorous activity for ages 6-17.  Alas, only one in five teenagers  meets this standard. 

Inactivity has been called “the new smoking,” and the prevalence of obesity and inactivity may well mean children today will  lead shorter lifespans than their parents . Children desperately need to learn the importance of physical fitness, how to achieve it, and how to maintain it. Well-taught physical education keeps students moving and motivated, building their competence and confidence so that they can stay fit over a lifetime.

Funding for PE classes is shockingly low

Alas, just when children need it most, PE has slipped to the bottom of the curricular ladder in all too many school districts. It is profoundly shocking that the median PE budget for American schools is only $764 a year, according to the Society of Health and Physical Educators. In a school of 500 students, that means only $1.50 per child for PE, when total per pupil annual expenditures in our public schools often exceeds $12,000.

This is of special concern in the inner city, where families have few fitness resources outside of school. But it is troubling everywhere, as a perfect storm of circumstances has conspired to minimize activity in children’s lives, not only putting them at risk for life-threatening diseases later on, but depriving them of the mental and cognitive benefits  we know exercise provides. Harvard neuropsychiatrist John Ratey has called exercise “ Miracle-Gro for the brain ,” and hundreds of studies show exercise enhances learning as well as emotional health and social development.

More: Starvation issues in universities? The real college problem is obesity.

Taxing our soda and interfering with our diets won't always result in slimmer waistlines

Body positivity is not an excuse for obesity: Your Say

We are also putting unfit children at financial risk as adults. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have calculated that an  overweight individual’s lifetime medical expenses related to his or her excess weight average $62,331, and lost wages around $93,100, roughly double the costs for a person of healthy weight — and enough money to put a child through college or make a down payment on a house.

Traditionally, schools have been instrumental in supporting children’s health, because they are uniquely positioned to reach the maximum number of children over a 12-year period. They help to ensure students are immunized, provide health screenings, and strive to serve nutritional meals. Physical education is every bit as important as the right shots and eating your vegetables, and yet not one state follows the Centers for Disease Control recommendations for time spent in PE at all grade levels. Some children with the means and desire to play sports get exercise that way, but the reality is that 70 percent of children drop out of organized sports by age 13.

Studies show kids in PE continue healthy habits

By contrast, regular PE class means all children can access the myriad benefits exercise provides until they reach adulthood – and beyond. According to the Physical Activity Council, children who have physical education in school are twice as likely to be active outside PE class and to remain active when they become adults . Correlation does not equate to cause, but it makes sense that children who learn good fitness habits in school will practice them out of school, and that a fit childhood sets a foundation for fitness as an adult.

While I appreciate the competing concerns schools must prioritize today, I believe it is time to make physical education a core subject on equal footing with academic classes. It is well established that children have a right to a quality education, and physical education is a fundamental aspect of that right, giving children the knowledge they need to stay healthy and equipping them for life’s challenges by teaching persistence, resilience, and positive thinking.

Our country boasts one of the highest standards of living in the world. Surely we can find a way to give our kids the gift of physical education and fitness. We did it in the past, when schools rallied behind JFK’s call for a fit nation as “ a vital prerequisite to America’s realization of its full potential ,” and we can do it again today. Indeed, some schools already have, and we can learn from them. All it takes is the will to make it happen, and Americans have always had plenty of that. 

William E. Simon Jr., a former assistant U.S. attorney and the 2002 Republican nominee for governor of California, is co-founder of UCLA Health Sound Body Sound Mind and the author of "Break a Sweat, Change Your Life: The Urgent Need for Physical Education in Schools."

Home — Essay Samples — Education — Studying Process — Physical Education

Essays on Physical Education

Prompt examples for physical education essays, the importance of physical education in schools.

Discuss the significance of including physical education as a part of the school curriculum. How does physical education benefit students' overall development?

Physical Education and Health

Explore the relationship between physical education and students' health. How does regular physical activity in schools contribute to the well-being of students?

The Role of Physical Education Teachers

Examine the responsibilities and impact of physical education teachers. How do they help students develop physical skills and a lifelong love for fitness?

Innovations in Physical Education

Discuss innovative approaches and technologies used in modern physical education programs. How have these innovations improved the learning experience?

Physical Education and Academic Performance

Explore the potential links between physical education and academic success. How does regular physical activity impact students' cognitive abilities and classroom performance?

The Role of Team Sports in Physical Education

Analyze the benefits of incorporating team sports into physical education programs. How do team sports promote cooperation, leadership, and physical fitness?

Physical Education for Special Populations

Discuss the importance of adapting physical education programs for students with special needs. How can inclusive physical education benefit all students?

Challenges and Solutions in Physical Education

Examine the challenges faced by physical education programs, such as limited resources or lack of facilities. What solutions can be implemented to overcome these challenges?

Physical Education and Lifelong Fitness

Explore the role of physical education in promoting lifelong fitness habits. How can physical education programs instill a love for physical activity beyond the school years?

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Physical Education

Discuss methods for assessing the effectiveness of physical education programs. How can schools measure the impact of these programs on students' health and well-being?

Running as a Conduit for Physical and Mental Well-being

Importance of physical education in schools, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Ethics, Education, and Responsible Practices in Running

The benefits of physical education: develop skills & confidence, the importance of physical education to maintain a healthy and happy life, physical education should always be included in the school curriculum, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Benefits of Taking a Physical Education Course During School

The importance of compulsory physical education classes, gender issues in physical education, different types of play as an important part of young children’s development, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Game Play Participation of Amotivated Students During Sport Education

Using videos in teaching physical education, the importance of sports for students, myers v. peel county board of education, the wingate test: peak power output and anaerobic systems in the college-aged population, social, mental, and physical benefits of sports for young adolescents, physical education in school as a tool for motor development, benefits of physical education in school for body development, the importance of physical education: a comprehensive analysis, the impact of physical education on student grades, the sequence of cephalocaudal development, importance of physical education, physical education in schools.

Physical Education is an education which brings improvement in human performance with the help of physical activities.

Physical activities range from simple walking to jogging, running, sprinting, hopping, jumping, climbing, throwing, pushing, pulling, kicking, etc.

Physical education helps students develop physical skills and confidence. It develops fitness and fosters the desire for lifelong participation in physical activity. School curriculum prepares students to become highly proficient in one or more sport and/or fitness activity of their choice.

Relevant topics

• Critical Thinking
• Academic Interests
• Academic Challenges
• Studying Abroad
• School Uniform
• Academic Achievements
• Stem Education
• College Experience
• High School

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Annual Meeting

• Generation Public Health
• Public Health Thank You Day
• Who is public health?
• Climate, Health and Equity
• Racial Equity
• Environmental Health
• Gun Violence
• Health Equity
• All Topics and Issues
• Advocacy for Public Health
• Policy Statements
• American Journal of Public Health
• The Nation's Health
• Fact Sheets
• Reports and Issue Briefs
• Advertising
• Public Health Buyers Guide
• Publications Contacts
• Continuing Education
• Public Health CareerMart
• Internships & Fellowships
• Careers at APHA
• Policy Action Institute
• National Public Health Week
• APHA Calendar
• News Releases
• Social Media
• Brand Guidelines
• Member Sections
• Student Assembly
• Member Perks
• Membership Rates
• Agency Membership
• School-Sponsored Student Membership
• Special Member Savings
• Early-Career Professionals
• Gift Membership
• APHA Your Way
• Member Directory
• Policy Statements and Advocacy >
• Policy Statements >
• Policy Statement Database >

Supporting Physical Education in Schools for All Youth

• Policy Statements and Advocacy
• Policy Statement Database
• Development Process
• Archiving Process
• Proposed Policy Statements
• Date: Oct 26 2021
• Policy Number: 20211

Key Words: Physical Activity, Education, School Health, Obesity

Abstract This policy statement provides scientific evidence that schools are unique places where children should be engaged in physical activity. However, most school policies and programs are not supportive of physical activity in the school day, specifically physical education. Considering that 30.4% of youth are overweight or obese and that 76.8% do not meet the daily physical activity recommendations, and considering the benefits of physical activity with respect to increased ability to concentrate and learn, it is of the utmost importance to incorporate policies and programs that facilitate healthy engagement in physical activity in schools. Marginalized youth from low-income families, communities of color, immigrant communities, and others are disproportionately impacted by lack of supportive policies and programming. This policy statement calls for comprehensive and cooperative actions from the public health community, schools, administrators, researchers, and community members to increase physical activity opportunities through physical education in order to engage youth in at least 60 minutes of physical activity daily.

Relationship to Existing Policy Statements 

• APHA Policy Statement 20137: Improving Health and Wellness through Access to Nature
• APHA Policy Statement 20172: Supporting the Updated National Physical Activity Plan
• APHA Policy Statement 201515: The Role of Health Education Specialists in a Post-Health Reform Environment
• APHA Policy Statement 20079: Building a Public Health Infrastructure for Physical Activity Promotion
• APHA Policy Statement 9709: Promoting Public Health Through Physical Activity
• APHA Policy Statement 20044: Creating Policies on Land Use and Transportation Systems that Promote Public Health
• APHA Policy Statement 20058: Supporting the WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health
• APHA Policy Statement 200619: Urgent Call for a Nationwide Public Health Infrastructure and Action to Reverse the Obesity Epidemic
• APHA Policy Statement 201514: Building Environments and a Public Health Workforce to Support Physical Activity Among Older Adults
• APHA Policy Statement 20121: Supporting the National Physical Activity Plan
• APHA Policy Statement 201415: Support for Social Determinants of Behavioral Health and Pathways for Integrated and Better Public Health

Problem Statement Obesity is an important health issue among children in the United States. According to the 2019 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 16.1% of U.S. youth are overweight and 19.3% are obese.[1] Moreover, racial, socioeconomic, and gender disparities exist in terms of risk factors associated with being overweight or obese. The chronic disease burden is consistent with the disproportionately high percentages of overweight and obese youth in racial minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. According to data from the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 37.7% of Black youth and 38.8% of Hispanic youth are overweight or obese, as compared with just 27.7% of White youth.[2]

P hysical inactivity is a significant risk factor for obesity and other chronic conditions.[3] As the proportion of students who are overweight or obese has increased, so has inactivity. Empirical evidence suggests that physical activity may be used as a standalone strategy to decrease adiposity among children.[4] It is recommended that school-aged children and adolescents (6–17 years of age) engage in 60 minutes of physical activity seven days per week.[5] According to data from the 2019 YRBSS, 76.8% of youth do not meet the recommended amounts of physical activity.[2] The same data set indicates that adolescent girls, in particular, are at a higher risk for being inactive as they age; 84.6% of girls do not meet the physical activity guideline of 60 minutes per day seven days a week, as compared with 69.1% of boys.[2] In addition, inactive youth are more likely to be inactive as adults.[6] Starting physical activity early is essential to prevent inactivity in adulthood and older adulthood.

Physical activity provides benefits beyond physical health. For example, it is associated with a reduced risk for depression.[7] Trends for contemplating and making a plan for suicide are increasing among White, Hispanic, and Black youth, and there are racial and ethnic disparities in terms of mental health challenges among youth.[5] In 2019, 40.0% of Hispanic youth reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, as compared with 36.0% of White youth and 31.5% of Black youth.[5]

In addition to the long-term health benefits of child physical activity, there are numerous academic-related benefits, which the body of evidence continues to expand.[8] Extensive research has demonstrated strong positive correlations between physical activity and higher levels of physical fitness and academic achievement, educational attainment, academic performance, and brain functioning.[8–10] In fact, physical activity participation has both intermediate and long-term benefits with respect to academic performance. Research has shown that, immediately following engagement in physical activity, children have improved concentration on classroom tasks, which may potentially enhance learning.[8]

It is recommended that schools provide 150 minutes of instructional physical education for elementary school children and 225 minutes for middle and high school students per week for the entire school year.[11] However, only Oregon and the District of Columbia have requirements that meet the recommendations for minutes of physical education.[12] Physical education requirements notably decrease after the fifth grade, which aligns with significant decreases in physical activity in youth. Only 8.7% of schools require physical education for 12th grade, as compared with 45.1% of schools for fifth grade.[13]

The lack of universal physical education requirements at all grade levels and the lack of funding dedicated to physical education facilitate inactivity. The median school physical education budget in the United States is just $764 per year,[12] which may further hinder schools from meeting physical education recommendations. Ohinmaa and colleagues suggested that grants, donations, and fundraising account for about half of all funding for school health.[14] Improving physical education policies nationwide has the potential to reduce overall health care costs by $60.5 million within 10 years.[15]

Students who attend physical education in school are two to three times more likely to be physically active outside of school and nearly twice as likely to be active in adulthood.[16] Furthermore, physical education has been shown to be an opportunity for students to gain many of their recommended minutes of physical activity, but many students do not attend or participate in these classes.[13] According to 2019 YRBSS data, about half of high school students attend physical education classes one or more days per week.[2] Therefore, targeting middle and high schools is uniquely important because a significant drop in physical education attendance and physical activity participation occurs between the seventh and 12th grades.[11]

Evidence-Based Strategies to Address the Problem   Youth spend a significant portion of their time at school[17]; therefore, schools are one of the most important places for physical activity interventions.[18] According to the Society of Health and Physical Educators, schools should require physical education for students in kindergarten through grade 12.[19] Specifically, all students within secondary school (which includes middle school and high school) should achieve 225 minutes of physical activity per week, while students in primary school (which includes elementary school) should achieve 150 minutes per week.[19]

Current evidence-based strategies to increase physical activity among youth are described below.

Improving school-based physical education: According to the Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF),[20] enhanced school-based physical education involves changing the curriculum and coursework for K–12th-grade students to increase the amount of time students spend engaging in moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) during physical education classes. Enhanced school-based physical education is defined as increasing the amount of time students spend completing MVPA during physical education classes to at least 50% of class time.[20] The CPSTF specifically recommended improving physical education teaching strategies by (1) incorporating modified games and substituting sedentary games with active games and (2) including physical education lesson plans that incorporate fitness and circuit training activities.[20]

Lonsdale and colleagues highlighted effective strategies to increase MVPA, which included teacher professional learning focusing on class organization, management, and instruction and supplementing the usual physical education lessons with high-intensity activity (i.e., fitness infusion).[21] A systematic review of 14 studies showed that students who participated in enhanced school-based physical education classes engaged in 24% more MVPA.[21] Also, groups that received enhanced school-based physical education spent on average 53% of their time engaged in MVPA.[21] In addition, Zhou and Wang found that team games were reported to accumulate the most MVPA time, with movement-based activities (such as gymnastics and dance) having the highest amounts of MVPA and knowledge-based activities (i.e., lesson-based instruction) having the lowest amounts.[22] Implementation of enhanced school-based physical education aligns with the Healthy People 2030 objectives, which aim to increase the proportion of adolescents who meet current federal physical activity guidelines for aerobic physical activity and muscle-strengthening activity.[23]

It is important that physical education classes be taught by state‐licensed or state‐certified teachers who are endorsed to teach physical education. In a meta-analytic review, Hollis and colleagues found that youth were engaged in MVPA for an average of 44.8% of lesson time.[24] Low MVPA levels in physical education lessons could be the result of pedagogical characteristics often observed in typical lessons, such as stopping physical activity to provide instruction, observing demonstrations related to the activity, or organizing equipment or student groups.[25] An examination of time allotment in terms of lesson context revealed that 30% of lesson time was spent in game play, 29% in fitness, 20% in classroom management, 9% in knowledge-related activities, and 5% in skill-related activities.[15] Similar results were found in a study by Powell and colleagues in which the average length of physical education lessons was 35.3 minutes, with only 15 minutes of MVPA during physical education.[26] Results further demonstrated that 34% of the lesson was spent standing and 21.7% was spent sitting, with time sitting being directly linked to knowledge attainment.[26] 

In conclusion, a significant proportion of physical education instruction time is spent on classroom management, instruction, and transitional periods. While these periods are necessary, they detract from the overall time youth spend participating in MVPA. It is, therefore, recommended that all physical education courses be taught by qualified individuals who have received formal training in physical education pedagogy. SHAPE America has specifically recommended that physical education be taught by an endorsed state‐licensed or state‐certified teacher.[11] This educational licensure or certification requirement would ensure that the physical education curriculum used in schools is appropriate and maximizes the time students spend engaging in MVPA while also aligning with national and/or state physical education standards for K–12 physical education.[11] 

Increasing the frequency of physical education: Scientific evidence has shown that increasing the frequency of physical education can improve overall physical activity among youth. Research indicates that only 25.9% of high school students attend physical education classes five days per week.[5]  Findings from the School Health Policies and Practices Study showed that less than 4% of elementary and middle schools require physical education or similar activity every day throughout the school year.[18] Moreover, less than 9% of middle schools require physical education at least three days per week.[18] Physical education instruction for high school students decreased from 29.9% in 2017 to 25.9% in 2019.[5]

The benefits of regular physical activity are well documented and include improvements in bone and muscle development, cardiorespiratory fitness, and weight control; reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety; and reduced risks of heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension.[3] Research has demonstrated that physical activity throughout the school day is associated with better school performance.[8] Healthy People 2030 objectives highlight the importance of increased physical activity through improved physical education in both public and private school systems. Specifically, the Educational and Community-Based Programs workgroup aims to increase the proportion of adolescents who participate in daily school-based physical education.[7]

Reduction or removal of waivers, substitutions, and exemptions for physical education: Another important strategy to increase school-based MVPA is the reduction or removal of waivers, substitutions, and exemptions for physical education. According to the Shape of the Nation 2016 report, 30 U.S. states allow student exemptions from physical education classes, and 31 states allow students to substitute activities such as marching band, cheerleading, drill team, or intramural sports for physical education credit.[12] SHAPE America issued a position statement according to which school districts and schools should not allow waivers or exemptions from physical education class time or credit requirements.[11] Specifically, SHAPE firmly asserted that all students should be required to complete physical education courses and that state, district, and school policies should not allow substitutions, waivers, or exemptions for physical education courses, class time, or credit requirements. By allowing waivers, substitutions, and exemptions for physical education, schools and districts eliminate opportunities for students to be active at a time when physical activity levels are at an all-time low among youth.[11] As mentioned, schools offer a unique setting to teach children the value of physical activity as well as a structured, supervised environment in which children can learn the necessary skills to encourage lifelong physical activity.[11]

Culturally tailored physical education: Multiple organizations have reported the need to ensure culturally tailored physical education for all populations, especially marginalized populations such as minority racial, ethnic, and cultural groups; girls and women; refugees; people experiencing homelessness; LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning) populations; and others.[27,28] The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s Guidelines for Policy-Makers on Quality Physical Education stated the need for and importance of providing physical education for minority groups. According to the guidelines, (1) curricula should be flexible and adaptable for all groups, (2) teachers should be professionally qualified and capable of providing physical education for all students, and (3) school policies and practices should provide appropriate infrastructure, faculties, equipment, and teaching material for all students.[28]

Lastly, it is recommended that teachers have access to resources such as community health workers who can provide culturally specific guidance on physical education. Community health workers are particularly effective because of the cultural and linguistic connections they have with the communities they serve.[29] Providing culturally appropriate physical education may increase physical activity,[30] decrease obesity,[31] and improve the overall health of minority groups by increasing social support, promoting healthy lifestyles, and increasing knowledge of disease prevention.[32]

Adaptive physical education: According to the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, children and adolescents with disabilities are more likely to be inactive than those without disabilities.[7] It is recommended that children and adolescents with disabilities still aim to meet the key guideline of 60 minutes of physical activity every day when possible. If youth are unable to participate in the physical activities or durations needed to meet the key guidelines, it is recommended that they be as active as possible and avoid being inactive.[7]

Youth with disabilities should work with health care professionals or physical activity specialists to learn about the types and amounts of physical activity appropriate for them.[7] The Adapted Physical Education National Standards were developed to ensure that physical education for children with disabilities be delivered by a qualified adapted physical educator. According to these standards,  physical education teachers should use sound teaching practices to ensure the inclusion and representation of all skill and ability levels.[33] Specifically, master physical educators should be well prepared to provide knowledge acquisition as well as physical activity opportunities for all abilities to create active and healthy lifestyles for all students. In addition, the standards outline high expectations for a physically active lifestyle. Lastly, it is expected that master physical educators will maintain a stimulating, productive learning environment that holds all students to the highest expectations for a physically active lifestyle.[33]

Conclusion: In conclusion, schools are the ideal and recommended setting for the promotion of physical activity among youth, and physical education is the primary vehicle through which to achieve this objective in schools.[34] Improving the quality and quantity of physical education courses will give youth more opportunities to attain the recommended amount of physical activity each day. Reducing physical education waivers would ensure that youth are not exploiting a loophole in the system. Advocating for culturally tailored physical education and adaptive physical education would foster an inclusive environment in which all children are able to be physically active and healthy.

Opposing Arguments/Evidence  Few would disagree that physical activity and time spent engaged in physical education are important for youth development and overall health. The primary opposing arguments tend to stem from the poorly designed physical education curriculum and the time taken away from other subjects amid increased pressure to raise standards and scores in subjects such as math, science, and English. As a result, time allocated to physical education and the perceived importance of physical education lessons have been reduced.  However, there is a substantial amount of evidence that physical activity can help improve academic achievement, including overall grades and standardized test scores.[34] In a systematic review of 43 articles and 50 studies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) determined that physical activity has a positive impact on cognitive skills, attitudes, and academic achievement.[34] Specifically, physical activity enhanced concentration and attention and improved classroom behavior.[34] The review also showed that increasing time during the school day for physical activity does not appear to take away from overall academic performance.[34]  Therefore, the CDC recommended that schools increase the amount of time students spend in physical education or consider adding components to increase the quality of physical education classes.[34] As highlighted in the evidence-based strategies to improve school-based MVPA, the CPSTF recommended use of enhanced physical education, including improved physical education teaching strategies, by incorporating modified, more active games and physical education lesson plans that involve fitness and circuit training activities.[20]

Alternative Strategies Enhancing, encouraging, and maintaining physical education class duration and quality are vital to the health and well-being of children, particularly in terms of their physical activity behaviors. However, there are several alternative strategies to increase the physical activity of youth that should be considered in conjunction with retaining the importance of physical education.

Before- and after-school physical activity programs: According to the World Health Organization, after-school activities are a key avenue to supplement youth MVPA levels.[35] After-school physical activity could include physical activity clubs, intramural programs, informal play on school grounds, physical activity in school-based before- and after-care programs, and interscholastic sports.[18] Mayorga-Vega and colleagues found that physical activity that took place after school hours achieved 36% of the recommended 60 minutes of MVPA per day.[36] However, adolescents still reported a higher level of MVPA during physical education classes than during school recess and after-school programs.[36]

Only about 26% of the nation’s public and private schools provide access to their physical activity spaces and facilities for all individuals outside of normal school hours. In addition, a steady decline has been observed in provision of access to physical activity facilities during nonschool hours.[37] Therefore, schools can further encourage physical activity by opening up their facilities for community use.[18]

Increasing active transportation to and from school: According to the CPSTF, walking or bicycling to and from school provides children and adolescents with an opportunity to be physically active most days of the week.[38] Interventions such as the Safe Routes to School program could increase active transportation to and from school and reduce pedestrian and bicycle injury rates. However, there is not enough evidence to show that school travel leads to increases in students’ overall daily physical activity.[38]

Recess: Recess is defined as a regularly scheduled period during the school day for physical activity and play that are monitored by trained staff or volunteers.[13] Recess has been directly related to increased physical activity, improved memory, improved attention, improved concentration, decreased classroom disruptive behavior, improved social and emotional development, and academic achievement.[8,39–41] It is recommended that elementary, middle, and high school students have a minimum of 20 minutes of daily recess.[39] The CDC has further recommended that recess and physical education be separate, distinct physical activity opportunities, which creates separate times for skill acquisition (physical education) and active play (recess).[39] Also, the CDC has recommended that schools provide students with adequate, designated, and safe spaces, facilities, equipment, and supplies for both indoor and outdoor recess (e.g., playground markings, physical activity zones, activity cards).[39] Lastly, students should not be excluded from recess for disciplinary reasons or academic performance because such practices promote negative reinforcement.[39]

Classroom-based physical activity: Classroom-based physical activity, including single physical activity sessions, may increase student attention, concentration, and memory; increase motivation and enjoyment of learning; and reduce behavior issues.[8,40] Classroom-based physical activity integration may include physically active lessons, physical activity before a test, physical activity breaks, energizers, brain boosters, and active classrooms (a teaching technique that intentionally blends physical activity into academic lessons to satisfy the learning outcomes of the classroom without sacrificing time spent engaging in physical activity).[8,40,42] Further guidance by the CDC and other national organizations includes providing teachers with ongoing professional development to integrate physical activity into planned academic instruction as a means of reinforcing academic concepts.[40]

Action Steps Increasing physical activity among school-aged children is a vital investment in the health and well-being of youth in the United States. Increasing physical activity at this critical age has the potential to build healthier, happier young adults. Schools should support physical activity through culturally appropriate, high-quality physical education. Schools; local, state, and federal education agencies; public health departments; policymakers; and researchers should address the following objectives relevant to public health priority setting in order to advance school-based physical activity programming and activities:

• Federal agencies should develop national policies on physical education that are consistent with the larger national strategies to increase physical activity among youth.
• Federal and state governments should increase funding for schools to implement high-quality physical education programming
• State and local education departments should improve physical education requirements to provide the opportunity for 60 minutes of MVPA each school day.
• Policymakers at state and local education departments should be made aware of the importance of physical education provided by schools.
• Schools should require that all physical education teachers be appropriately credentialed to deliver culturally appropriate, high-quality physical education.
• Schools should solicit involvement and expertise from state and local public health departments and physical activity researchers on culturally specific, evidence-based strategies to improve school-based physical education.
• Principals and superintendents of schools should develop action plans to improve physical education for all of their students. Youth should have the opportunity to engage in 60 minutes of physical activity during the school day.
• Principals and superintendents should reduce or eliminate policies allowing waivers for physical education. Waivers should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
• Schools and school districts should engage in collaborative efforts to share the results of successfully implemented physical education programs.
• Schools and researchers should collaborate in studying physical activity among diverse youth who have been traditionally understudied and systematically underserved. Furthermore, researchers should be encouraged to develop innovative programs for youth in school settings that promote physical activity for all.
• Greater diversity in programming should be implemented in schools so that youth can be exposed to a variety of activities that those of all abilities and cultures might enjoy.
• Youth, families, community members, and local organizations should advocate to their school districts and legislative bodies for culturally appropriate, high-quality physical education in their local schools.
• Public health departments should partner with and support physical education teachers and programs. This support should include school-based physical activity in community health assessments and community health improvement plans highlighting the importance of physical activity in preventing chronic disease and providing mental and cognitive benefits.

References 1. Fryar CD, Carroll MD, Afful J. Prevalence of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity among children and adolescents aged 2–19 years: United States, 1963–1965 through 2017–2018. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity-child-17-18/overweight-obesity-child-H.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey Questionnaire. Available at: www.cdc.gov/yrbs. Accessed October 20, 2021.  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity at a glance. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/dnpao.htm. Accessed October 20, 2021. 4. Laframboise MA, Degraauw C. The effects of aerobic physical activity on adiposity in school-aged children and youth: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Can Chiropractic Assoc. 2011;55(4):256–268. 5. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. High School YRBS 2019. Available at: https://nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline/App/QuestionsOrLocations.aspx?CategoryId=C06. Accessed October 20, 2021. 6. Lounassalo I, Salin K, Kankaanpaa A, et al. Distinct trajectories of physical activity and related factors during the life course in the general population: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1.   7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical activity guidelines for Americans. Available at: https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021. 8. Castelli DM, Glowacki E, Barcelona JM, Calvert HG, Hwang J. Active education: growing evidence on physical activity and academic performance. Available at: https://activelivingresearch.org/sites/activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_ActiveEducation_Jan2015.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021. 9. Kari JT, Pehkonen J, Hutri-Kähönen N, Raitakari OT, Tammelin TH. Longitudinal associations between physical activity and educational outcomes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49(11):2158–2166. 10. Kohl HW, Cook HD. Physical activity, fitness, and physical education: effects on academic performance. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201501/. Accessed October 20, 2021. 11. Society of Health and Physical Educators. The essential components of physical education. Available at: https://www.shapeamerica.org/uploads/pdfs/TheEssentialComponentsOfPhysicalEducation.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021. 12. Society of Health and Physical Educators (2016). 2016 shape of the nation: status of physical education in the U.S. Available at: https://www.shapeamerica.org//advocacy/son/2016/upload/Shape-of-the-Nation-2016_web.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021. 13. Springboard to Active Schools. Keep recess in schools. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/physicalactivity/pdf/Recess_Data_Brief_CDC_Logo_FINAL_191106.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021. 14. Ohinmaa A, Langille JL, Jamieson S, Whitby C, Veugelers PJ. Costs of implementing and maintaining comprehensive school health: the case of the Annapolis Valley Health Promoting Schools program. Can J Public Health. 2011;102(6):451–454. 15. Barrett JL, Gortmaker SL, Long MW, et al. Cost effectiveness of an elementary school active physical education policy. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(1):148–159. 16. Physical Activity Council. (2017). 2017 participation report. Available at: http://s3.amazonaws.com/ustaassets/assets/822/15/papc_study.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021. 17. Synder TD, de Brey C, Dillow SA. Digest of education statistics. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED580954.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021. 18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School Health Policies and Practices Study, 2014. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/shpps/pdf/shpps-results_2016.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021. 19. Society of Health and Physical Educators. A-Z of social justice physical education. Available at: https://www.shapeamerica.org/uploads/pdfs/2020/publications/joperd/The-A%E2%80%93Z-of-Social%20Justice-Physical-Education-P1.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021.  20. Community Preventive Services Task Force. Annual report to Congress: 2013. Available at: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/content/tffrs-physical-activity-interventions-increase-active-travel-school. Accessed October 20, 2021. 21. Lonsdale C, Rosenkranz R, Peralta L, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions designed to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in school physical activity lessons. Prev Med. 2013;56:152–161. 22. Zhou Y, Wang L. (2019). Correlates of physical activity of students in secondary school physical education: a systematic review of literature. BioMed Res Int. 2019;2019:4563484.   23. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2030 physical activity objectives. Available at: https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/physical-activity. Accessed October 20, 2021. 24. Hollis JL, Sutherland R, Williams AJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels in secondary school physical education lessons. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):52.   25. Fairclough SJ, Stratton G. A review of physical activity levels during elementary school physical education. J Teach Phys Educ. 2006;25(2):240–258.   26. Powell E, Woodfield LA, Nevill AM, Powell AJ, Myers TD. ‘We have to wait in a queue for our turn quite a bit’: examining children’s physical activity during primary physical education lessons. Euro Phys Educ Rev. 2019;25(4):929–948. 27. Society of Health and Physical Educators. National PE standards. Available at: https://www.shapeamerica.org/standards/pe/. Accessed October 20, 2021.  28. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Guidelines for policy makers: quality physical education. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/inclusivepolicylab/sites/default/files/learning/document/2017/1/231101E.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021. 29. Haughton J, Ayala G, Burke K, Elder J, Montanez J, Arrendondo E. Community health workers promoting physical activity. J Ambul Care Manage. 2015;38(4):309–320. 30. Hovell MF, Mulvihill MM, Buono MJ, et al. Culturally tailored aerobic exercise intervention for low-income Latinas. Am J Health Promotion. 2008;22(3):155–163. 31. Falbe J, Cadiz AA, Tantoco NK, Thompson HR, Madsen KA. Active and healthy families: a randomized controlled trial of a culturally tailored obesity intervention for Latino children. Acad Pediatr. 2015;15(4):386–395.   32. Joo JY, Liu MF. Culturally tailored interventions for ethnic minorities: A scoping review. Nurs Open. 2021;8(5):2078–2090. 33. APENS. Adapted Physical Education National Standards. Available at: https://apens.org/national_standard.html. Accessed October 20, 2021. 34. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The association between school based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/health_and_academics/pdf/pa-pe_paper.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021.  35. World Health Organization. School policy framework: implementation of the WHO global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. Available at: https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/SPF-en-2008.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021.  36. Mayorga-Vega D, Saldias MP, Viciana J. Comparison of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels between physical education, school recess and after-school time in secondary school students: an accelerometer-based study. Kinesiology. 2017;49(2):242–251.   37. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020. Physical activity objectives. Available at: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/physical-activity/objectives. Accessed October 20, 2021.  38. Community Guide. Physical activity: interventions to increase active travel to school. Available at: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/content/tffrs-physical-activity-interventions-increase-active-travel-school. Accessed October 20, 2021.  39. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Society of Health and Physical Educators. Strategies for recess in schools. Available at: https://www.shapeamerica.org/uploads/pdfs/recess/SchoolRecessStrategies.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021.  40. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Strategies for classroom physical activity in schools. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/physicalactivity/pdf/classroompastrategies_508.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2021. 41. Zavacky F, Michael SL. Keeping recess in schools. J Phys Educ Recreation Dance. 2017;88(5):46–53.   42. Bedard C, St. John L, Bremer E, Graham JD, Cairney J. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of physically active classrooms on educational and enjoyment outcomes in school age children. PLoS One. 2019;14(6):1–19.

• What is public health
• Topics and Issues
• Policies and Advocacy
• Publications
• Professional Development
• Events and Meetings
• News and Media
• APHA Communities
• Privacy Policy

2024 © American Public Health Association

Physical Education is just as important as any other school subject

Lecturer in Physical Education, University of Central Lancashire

Senior Lecturer in PE and Sports Studies, University of Central Lancashire

Disclosure statement

Andrew Sprake is affiliated with the North Western Counties Physical Education Association and FIEP in a voluntary capacity.

Clive Palmer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Central Lancashire provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

• Bahasa Indonesia

Physical Education (PE) is often viewed as a marginal subject within the curriculum. And many secondary schools actively reduce PE time to make way for what are deemed more “serious” or “important” subjects.

Research from the Youth Sport Trust shows that 38% of English secondary schools have cut timetabled PE for 14- to 16-year-olds. One of the main reasons for this is the increased pressure to produce exam results . Much of the time pupils would usually spend in PE lessons is now spent receiving extra tutoring on topics other than PE.

Despite these cuts, however, PE is still championed for its potential to promote health and encourage lifelong physical activity. This is an important issue given that over 30% of year six pupils are classed as “overweight” or “obese” according to the latest government figures .

PE is also praised for its contribution to improved psychological health , for helping to nurture social and moral development – as well as supporting cognitive and academic performance .

The Association for Physical Education maintains that high quality PE fosters the physical, moral, social, emotional, cultural and intellectual development of pupils. But the many aims for PE – such as health promotion, skills development as well as a focus on social and moral issues – has resulted in confusion about the subject and has done little to further the educational experiences in practice. In fact, it has been argued that PE offers more entertainment than education .

Not intellectual enough

A waste of time and a bit of entertainment, or vitally important to the education and development of a child – which is it?

Part of the problem seems to be that PE is often viewed as an opportunity for pupils to be active and to enjoy themselves. Or in some cases, as a form of stress relief and to serve as a break from traditional learning.

Clearly, these areas are valuable for pupils’ general well-being and there is a growing evidence base to suggest that physical activity has the potential to support learning more broadly . But the role of PE is not merely to prop up and support pupils’ learning in other subjects. Instead, it should provide meaningful learning experiences within the subject itself.

What PE seemingly lacks in comparison to all other subjects is a platform on which pupils’ learning can be communicated and evidenced with clarity and rigour. And while PE is often marginalised to make way for more valuable or academic subjects, it seems the intellectual and academic value of PE itself is largely overlooked.

The potential of PE

PE, sport and physical culture each offer a unique platform on which to explore a multitude of holistic learning opportunities. For instance, the ethical or moral controversies in sport can give teachers a range of educational stimuli for debate, reasoning and critical thinking.

The Sports Monograph is a recent project we worked on, which invited learners to collaborate and share their opinions and experiences about sport and what it means to them. The project included primary and secondary school pupils, as well as undergraduate and postgraduate students, who were all supported by their teachers and lecturers.

As part of the project, not only were the pupils recognised for their written contributions at school awards evenings, but unlike in traditional PE, their work left a trail of learning evidence and intellectual engagement – which the schools recognised and celebrated. PE was effectively standing shoulder to shoulder with other subjects in the curriculum as a valuable educational endeavour, with written evidence to support the claim. These pupils now have publications that are being used to teach undergraduate students at the University of Central Lancashire.

Future health

The spiralling downtrend of PE time in secondary schools is a major cause for concern and it would seem that PE is in urgent need of an overhaul. But while the future of PE may be uncertain, there are certainly many opportunities for cross-curricular links and integrative learning in PE.

A recent project, for instance, explored the link between cycling and wider conceptual learning. Similarly, another recent study explored the physical aspects of learning across all curriculum areas, simply through setting up a tent .

The role that PE can play as part of the wider academic curriculum seems to be, at best understated, and at worst, completely overlooked. Activities like the ones raised here could help to broaden the educational potential of PE, encourage more pupils to engage with the subject and strengthen the place of PE as a unique and valuable educational pursuit. The opportunities are there, but PE must be ready to grasp them and let the pupils write about their sporting passions to reflect what they are said to be learning.

• Physical education

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Operations Manager

Senior Education Technologist

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

• Skip to Nav
• Skip to Main
• Skip to Footer

Why PE matters for student academics and wellness right now

Please try again

This story about PE teachers was produced by The Hechinger Report , a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter .

Amanda Amtmanis, an elementary physical education instructor in Middletown, Connecticut, handed out cards with QR codes to a class of third graders, and told them to start running.

The kids sprinted off around the baseball field in a light drizzle, but by the end of the first lap, a fifth of a mile, many were winded and walking. They paused to scan the cards, which track their mileage, on their teacher’s iPad and got some encouragement from an electronic coach — “Way to run your socks off!” or “Leave it all on the track!”

A boy in a red Nike shirt surged ahead, telling Amtmanis his goal was to run 5 miles. “Whoa, look at Dominic!” another boy exclaimed.

“We don’t need to compare ourselves to others,” Amtmanis reminded him.

The third graders finished a third lap, alternating running and walking, and were about to start on a scavenger hunt when the rain picked up, forcing them inside. Amtmanis thanked her students for their willingness to adjust — a skill many of them have practiced far more often than running these past 18 months.

The full impact of the pandemic on kids’ health and fitness won’t be known for some time. But it’s already caused at least a short-term spike in childhood obesity Rates of overweight and obesity in 5- through 11-year-olds rose nearly 10 percentage points in the first few months of 2020.

Amtmanis’ “mileage club,” which tracks students’ running, both in and out of school, and rewards them with Pokémon cards when they hit certain targets, is an example of how PE teachers around the country are trying to get kids back in shape.

But inclement weather isn’t the only thing PE teachers are up against as they confront what might be called “physical learning loss.” Physical education as a discipline has long fought to be taken as seriously as its academic counterparts. Even before the pandemic, fewer than half the states set any minimum amount of time for students to participate in physical education, according to the Society of Health and Physical Educators (SHAPE), which represents PE and health instructors.

Now, as schools scramble to help kids catch up academically, there are signs that PE is taking a back seat to the core subjects yet again. In some California schools, administrators are shifting instructional minutes from PE to academic subjects — or canceling class altogether so PE teachers can sub for classroom teachers; in others, they’re growing class sizes in the gym, so they can shrink them in the classroom.

Meanwhile, innovative instructors like Amtmanis, who has worked in her district for more than 20 years, are struggling to get their ideas off the ground. Over the summer, the principal of Macdonough Elementary, one of two schools where Amtmanis teaches, approved her request to participate in another running program called The Daily Mile, in which kids walk or run 15 minutes a day during school hours.

Daily running breaks “boost attentiveness, which has positive effects on academics,” Amtmanis argued.

But two weeks into the school year, not a single teacher had bought into the idea.

“The issue is their packed schedule,” Amtmanis said.

Last year, many schools conducted gym class remotely, with students joining in from their bedrooms and living rooms.

The online format presented several challenges. Many students lacked the equipment, space, or parental support to participate fully. And many instructors grappled with how to teach and assess motor skills and teamwork online.

Though instructors found creative ways to keep students moving — substituting rolled-up socks for balls, and “disguising fitness” in scavenger hunts and beat-the-teacher challenges — they still fretted that online gym wasn’t giving students the same benefits as in-person classes.

Compounding their concern was the fact that many students were also missing out on recess and extracurricular sports.

In a March 2021 survey conducted by the Cooper Institute, maker of the popular FitnessGram assessments, close to half the PE teachers and school and district administrators responding said their students were “significantly less” physically active during their schools’ closure than before it.

Schools that reopened last year faced their own set of challenges, including bans on shared equipment that made even a simple game of catch impossible. Schools that were open for in-person learning were also much more likely to cut back on PE instructional time, or eliminate it altogether, the survey found.

The consequences of these reductions in physical activity are hard to quantify, especially since many schools suspended fitness testing during the pandemic and have yet to resume it, but some PE teachers say they’re seeing more kids with locomotor delays and weaker stamina than normal.

“The second graders are like first graders, and some are even like kindergarteners,” said Robin Richardson, an elementary PE instructor in Kentucky. They can jump and hop, she said, but they can’t leap. They’re exhausted after 20 seconds of jumping jacks.

An unusually high number of Richardson’s first graders can’t skip or do windmills. Some lack the spatial awareness that’s essential to group games.

“They don’t know how to move without running into each other,” she said.

Other instructors are seeing an increase in cognitive issues, such as difficulty paying attention or following directions, particularly among kids who remained remote for most or all of last year.

Kyle Bragg, an elementary PE instructor in Arizona, has seen kids sitting with their backs to him, staring off into space when he’s talking. “I say ‘Knees, please,’ so they spin around to face me,” he said.

And some PE teachers say their students’ social-emotional skills have suffered more than their gross motor skills. “They forgot how to share; how to be nice to each other; how to relate to each other,” said Donn Tobin, an elementary PE instructor in New York.

PE has a key role to play in boosting those skills, which affect how kids interact in other classes, said Will Potter, an elementary PE teacher in California.

“We’re uniquely situated to handle the social-emotional needs that came out of the pandemic, in a way classroom teachers are not,” Potter said.

Amtmanis, for her part, worries about her students’ mental health. She sees the little signs of strain daily — the kid who got upset because he couldn’t pick his group, for example, and the one who was distressed that his Mileage Club card had gotten mixed up in the front office.

“Their emotional reserves are low,” she said.

Yet not all instructors are reporting drops in their students’ fitness and skill development. Teachers in some middle- and upper-income districts said they haven’t noticed much of a change at all. In some communities, families seemed to spend more time outdoors.

“We saw the skyrocketing sale of bicycles, we saw families going for walks,” said Dianne Wilson-Graham, executive director of the California Physical Education and Health Project.

But in Title I schools like Macdonough, where more than half the students are low-income, some kids didn’t even have access to a safe place to exercise or play during school closures.

“Not only are they not in soccer leagues, but sometimes they don’t even have a park,” Amtmanis said.

Amtmanis came up with the idea of doing the Daily Mile after spring fitness tests revealed drops in her students’ strength, flexibility and endurance.

But many schools still aren’t sure how much physical learning loss their students have experienced as a result of the pandemic. Most schools pressed pause on fitness testing last year, and some elementary-school instructors are reluctant to restart it. They say the tests aren’t valid with young children, even in ordinary times, and argue the time they take could be better spent on Covid catch-up.

Andjelka Pavlovic, director of research and education for the Cooper Institute, said its tests are scientifically proven to be valid for students who are 10 and up, or roughly starting in fourth grade.

Fitness testing requirements vary by state, county or even district. Some states specify how often students must be tested; others leave it largely to the teacher.

Bragg, the Arizona teacher, said he has put testing “on the backburner” because “right now it’s not at the forefront of what’s important.”

Richardson said she is avoiding testing because she doesn’t want to use up precious instructional time or demoralize her students. “I want my kids to enjoy movement,” she said. If they perform poorly on the tests, “they may not feel as strong.”

In Connecticut, where schools are required to test fourth graders’ fitness annually, Amtmanis approached testing cautiously last year. She didn’t want to embarrass her students, so she made it into a series of games.

Instead of Sit-and-Reach, they had a “flexibility contest,” in which kids broke into teams for tag then had to perform stretches if they were tagged. She measured the distances stretched with curling ribbon, tied the ribbons together, and attached a balloon to the end. The team whose balloon soared the highest won fidget putty.

Pushups became a Bingo game, with the center space representing pushups.

“My goal was to get through it without ever using the words ‘fitness” or ‘testing,’” she said.

As the pandemic drags on, some instructors are taking a similar approach to fitness remediation and acceleration.

Bragg likes a warmup called “ Touch Spots ,” in which first graders listen as the instructor reads off the name of a color, then run and touch a corresponding dot on the floor. It works on reaction time, cardiovascular endurance, spatial awareness and sequencing — but the kids don’t know that.

“Students are having so much fun that they don’t realize how much fitness they are doing,” Bragg said.

Differentiation — tailoring instruction to meet individual students’ needs — has become even more essential, with former remote learners often lagging behind their in-person peers, Bragg said.

When playing catch, for example, he offers his students different sized balls — the smaller ones are more challenging.

Potter, the California teacher, spent the first two weeks of school teaching his students how to connect with their partners, stressing the importance of eye contact and body language.

“When you’re on Zoom, you look at the camera to make eye contact,” he said. “It’s a very different environment.”

Bragg reminds his students how to include kids who are standing on the sidelines, modeling excited body language and tone of voice. Lately, he’s noticed that kids who were remote last year are being excluded from groups.

“Social interaction needs to be practiced, just like how to throw a ball,” he said.

Richardson, the Kentucky PE teacher, is trying to build up her students’ stamina gradually, through progressively longer intervals of exercise.

But she works in a school with pods, so she sees each group of kids for five consecutive days, every third week. The two weeks in between, she has to hope that teachers will provide recess and “movement breaks.” She’s trying to get them to give kids breaks “when they get glassy-eyed and frustrated.”

Recently, Richardson was at a staff training session at which depleted teachers were “popping candy in the back.” When she raised her hand and requested a break in the training, her colleagues cheered. She told them to remember how they felt when their students return to the building.

“I always say, ‘If your bum is numb, your brain is the same,’” she said.

Convincing classroom teachers to set aside more time for movement can be challenging, though. As students return from months of online learning, teachers are under enormous pressure to get them caught up academically.

Kate Cox, an elementary and middle-school PE teacher in California, wishes schools would “realize what they’re missing when they cut PE because of learning loss in other areas.” Physical education is “readying their minds and bodies to be more successful in other areas,” Cox said.

Terri Drain, the president of SHAPE, argued that schools fail students when they treat physical learning loss as less serious than its academic counterpart.

“In the primary grades, children develop fundamental motor skills, such as throwing, catching, running, kicking and jumping,” she said. Unless schools commit to helping kids catch up, “the impacts of this ‘missed learning’ will be lifelong.”

In Connecticut, Amtmanis hasn’t given up on convincing teachers to carve out time for the Daily Mile. She recently sent them a list of suggestions on how to fit 15 minutes of running into the day, including by incorporating it as an active transition between academic blocks.

“While it may seem like there aren’t minutes to spare,” she wrote, “the energizing effect of the active transition should result in more on-task behavior and more efficient working.”

In the meantime, Amtmanis plans to keep using the mileage club to motivate her students to run and to monitor their progress.

“I don’t want to call attention to the fact that not everyone is fit,” she said. “This is an unobtrusive way to keep the data.”

Why we should make physical education mandatory for every teen

This article was published more than 1 year ago. Some information may no longer be current.

Josh Fullan is the director of Maximum City, a national education and engagement organization.

Here’s a grim consideration: today’s Canadian teenagers may have some of the lowest physical activity levels of any peer group in history.

In a study of more than 10,000 Ontario families that I led between the spring and early summer of last year, just 2.8 per cent of youth aged 12 to 17 met the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology’s guidelines for physical activity and recommendations for outdoor play. Almost a third went through the week without ever achieving the optimal daily hour of energetic physical activity – the kind of sweaty movement that gets the heart pumping and packs maximum health benefits, including peak brain performance.

Part of this trend is a hangover from the COVID-19 pandemic, but much of it predates that first pestilential spring. After all, Ontario is home to more than 600,000 high school students who are required to earn a grand total of one Health and Physical Education credit for their diploma. In practical terms, this means a student can take a physical education class in the first semester of grade nine then never take one again, which is exactly what many do. Sports programs can fill the activity gap, but only for some.

It would be easy to thus conclude that students simply aren’t interested in physical education, or fall into old tropes about lazy adolescents sloughing off what’s good for them. The twin bogeymen of video games and social media are surely to blame, too. But the truth is more complex. Systems set priorities and values. In our schools, this top-down approach can lead to a narrow focus on achievement in numeracy, literacy, and science at the expense of other competencies, including the physical; show me your diploma requirements, and I’ll tell you what the school system values.

So for too many high school students, crafting a course calendar is a zero-sum game. Taking physical education might mean having to miss out on an elective they are passionate about, or forgoing a credit required for post-secondary pursuits. Students might also worry about how a low grade in physical education might affect their overall average. Those with body-image or self-esteem issues will avoid it, too. None of these pressures align with what needs to be a goal of every teenager: getting exercise for health’s sake on the road to building an active lifestyle .

There is a false paradigm here, however: that gym class and good grades are mutually antagonistic. In fact, research has shown that physical activity is a ballast for academic performance, not an anchor. The Naperville Zero Hour study, highlighted in Harvard psychiatrist John Ratey’s book Spark , details how the Illinois school district leveraged early morning aerobic exercise into top academic test scores, not to mention happier, more engaged students. Closer to home, some schools have adopted their own daily physical activity programs for secondary students; provinces like British Columbia and Manitoba require more than the single physical education credit to graduate.

Recently, schools have taken more responsibility for the well-being of students, a seemingly complementary focus partly driven by the alarming increase in student mental health concerns and by a deeper understanding that learning doesn’t flourish without purpose and belonging. Yet the potential of this new focus is wasted without connecting the dots between physical and mental health.

Physical activity has been shown to increase a sense of self-efficacy and reduce depression, anxiety, stress, loss of control – the very challenges many young folks are struggling with. Whether we are emerging from the pandemic or entering a new wave, the greatest act of care that schools can provide might be to ensure that students all participate in physical activity, so they can see the benefits themselves.

Making physical education classes mandatory is one way to do so. Another way is to make physical activity the responsibility of the entire school by incorporating movement into active school travel and various classes: neighbourhood walks in the social sciences, say, or dance and improv in drama class. Parents should be active with their kids, too, and encourage them. It is also important that schools don’t grade all physical activity: Make it skill-building and developmental as appropriate, but remove the stakes – or, as they did in Naperville, assess students based on effort.

Our schools need to teach fitness, not sports; they need to ensure every teenager gets a minimum daily amount of quality physical activity, preferably early in the day. They need to make it social and inclusive. Above all, they should show students what they value by telling them why it is a priority: because the best evidence says physical activity supports their learning, health, and happiness like nothing else we know of.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today .

Report an editorial error

Report a technical issue

Editorial code of conduct

Follow related authors and topics

• Toronto District School Board Follow You must be logged in to follow. Log In Create free account

Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following .

Interact with The Globe

Physical Education In Schools Should Be Compulsory

Should Physical Education in schools be compulsory?

All the Yes points:

Participation in sport promotes health., physical education is an important part of holistic schooling., school sport is about discovering gifts., the quest for national sporting achievement begins in schools., without school support, sports will collapse., sports encompasses life choices., if not forced to exercise in youth, many will never think to do it in adulthood., sport helps to forge character., participation in sport promotes a healthy lifestyle, physical education helps to forge skills that will prove invaluable in later life, schools can punish students who do not participate in the classes with further pe lessons, all the no points:, individuals should have the right to control their own bodies, students should have the right to choose which subjects they complete at school, compulsory physical education risks unnecessary and costly injury, physical education is best taught to selected groups, sport is a waste of school time and resources, yes because….

Participation in sport promotes health. Government is, or should be, concerned with the health of its citizens. Encouraging physical activity in the young through compulsory PE fights child obesity and contributes to forming lifelong habits of exercise. This doesn’t have to be through traditional team sports; increasingly schools are able to offer exercise in the form of swimming, gymnastics, dance, weight training, use of a multigym, aerobics, etc.

No because…

Students should be allowed a choice. Lots of children don’t want to do this. If their parents agree, why should they be forced to (or forced to lie in producing a sick note)? It is different from any other lesson – it is about what one does with one’s body. In any case, it is a red herring to say that PE makes any serious difference to people’s health. There are plenty of more effective ways of ensuring a healthy population than pushing children round a freezing sports pitch once a week; not least would be addressing the disgusting diets our young have today, and encouraging walking or cycling to school rather than total reliance on the car.

Physical Education is an important part of holistic schooling. PE is an aspect of school being about more than just book learning – it is about educating the whole person, a holistic education that betters us in an all-round sense, rather than a merely academic experience. Some aspects of physical education are vital for future wellbeing, e.g. being able to swim, learning to lift heavy weights safely. Arguments about cost seem petty when compared to this aim – and also misguided, since PE departments would continue to exist to serve those that chose to study PE voluntarily, even if the subject were no longer to be compulsory. Arguments about the size of classes may well be correct, but these suggest better funding for PE rather than abandonment of the commitment to public health.

Sport is a waste of school time and resources. One or two PE lessons a week make very little difference to an individual’s health – but a huge difference to a school’s budget. It creates a whole extra department in schools, wasting a great deal of money and time that could be better spent on academic lessons. It also requires schools buildings to be surrounded by a large amount of land for playing fields, making it prohibitively expensive to build new schools in urban areas. The quality of teaching is low, as students are taught in huge classes. On the other hand, the quality of teaching and of equipment goes up if there are fewer (but keener) students taking the subject. Frankly, given the average current pupil-teacher ration, the subject is not merely without positive purpose – it may be dangerous to students who are normally not properly supervised.

School sport is about discovering gifts. If not driven by PE, many in society wouldn’t find out that they had a talent for a sport, or even that they enjoyed it. Once experienced, sport can be enjoyed for life, while for some it will provide the possibility of a college scholarship and even a career. Individuals are not humiliated in PE – if they are, the schools concerned should be brought to task just as they would be with regard to humiliation of students in any subject. Rather, as UNESCO says, the student should be helped to fulfil a level of attainment in sport that corresponds to his gifts.

Students can ‘discover’ these delights outside of school, without ‘discovering’ the bullying that comes with PE more than with any other lesson. They are more likely to obtain specialist coaching at sports clubs. Furthermore, for every child that ‘discovers a gift,’ there are many that suffer. PE is unique, in that ‘failure’ in its lessons involves physical humiliation. This is bad for children and especially bad for adolescents, who have more than enough body issues without this.

The quest for national sporting achievement begins in schools. If we don’t have compulsory PE, it is much harder to pick out athletes to represent our country on a wider stage. Even with a ‘sports academy’ model run along Australian lines, it’s much easier to find suitable individuals with a full sports program in every school. State education is not just about aiding the individual – it’s also about the state getting a good return on its investment – in a well-educated populace to drive business and entrepreneurialism etc. This applies equally in sports, too.

Schools aren’t supposed to be about fostering achievers for the state – that smacks of Stalinism. Schools should be tailored to the individual – if the individual student doesn’t want to participate in sports, they shouldn’t have to. If we allowed such national aims to be considered in schools, would we consent to humiliation of those that did badly in maths lessons, to encourage their achievement in maths (and thus business skills?) Of course not. But we allow that in PE.

Without school support, sports will collapse. If full classes aren’t made up, then team activities will end by sheer lack of numbers, no matter if several very talented individuals are at the school (or even potentially talented – they’ll never know without the program). If voluntary take-up of sport in schools is too low, then schools will shut down PE programmes so that there is no choice at all. Not everyone is academic: why deprive those talented sports students of their one chance to shine?

Forcing children that don’t want to play to make up teams in order to allow others to shine smacks of rigid education from a bygone era. In any case, in an increasingly litigious age, a compulsory rather than voluntary sports program is a liability. More and more schools are avoiding the very team games (e.g. rugby, soccer, hockey, football) the proposition discusses here, due to the (realistic) fear of lawsuits.

Sport is different to, say Latin – it encompasses life choices (most importantly, a concern for physical fitness, but also working in a team etc) that ought to be encouraged in all students. Extra classes for interested students can take place separately, and often do in the form of fixtures with other schools, championships etc. Sport shouldn’t be seen as an alternative to academia, an either/or – it should be a part of every student’s life in addition to their other studies. If the opposition is correct about the heavy workload involved in schools, then students are that much more likely not to choose PE in an environment where it is voluntary, and the quality of our children’s health will be even worse. Much better to keep being healthy compulsory, and reform the pressures elsewhere in the curriculum.

Successful sporting nations like Australia realise that sports, like any other specialised subjects, are best taught to selected groups that display both talent and interest in the field – forcing all to compete holds back the able and punishes the less able. The right way to go is to liberate those that don’t want to participate, and allow those that are extremely keen to go to academies that focus their talents more efficiently than a regular school ever could. Furthermore, our children are burdened enough in schools already, especially at the older end of the system, with multiple examinations. PE simply adds, needlessly, to this hectic schedule.

If not forced to exercise in youth, many will never think to do it in adulthood. This is no idle question: obesity in the UK is rising rapidly. Individuals have no right to ‘choice’ about this: they’re being compelled to attend school, to take the lessons the state says they should take. The state doesn’t just impose a curricular compulsion, since physical attendance is forced – so there’s nothing unique in principle about enforced PE. Indeed, what can be more important as an aim for our schools than to encourage public health? It is in recognition of that fact, that in 1978 UNESCO recognised PE as ‘as essential element of lifelong education.’ If PE is made voluntary, it seems obvious that many students – against their long term interests, and the long term interests of society – will choose not to. That will damage this essential element of education, and damage public health. It is true that the health of society is not perfect even with compulsory PE – but how much worse might it be without it?

We acknowledge the right of individuals (or their parents) to control their own bodies – when they have an operation, where they go, what they do. Why is this any different? This discussion should be held in the real world: students actually aren’t compelled to attend PE classes, as ‘sick notes’ are produced with alarming regularity by parents complicit in their child’s wish to avoid this lesson. The aim of ‘compulsory PE’ isn’t being fulfilled at present in any case, and greater efforts to enforce it will only result in more deceit, or children missing school for the entire day – or, in the most extreme cases, being withdrawn from state education by parents unwilling to allow their children to be forced into something they don’t wish to do. Instead, we should simply abandon the whole exercise and allow PE to become voluntary. The UNESCO charter stresses the right to PE, and was addressed to nations that failed to provide it at all – it was not meant to suggest that individuals should be compelled to do it in nations that do.

Sport helps to forge character. Playing team sports builds character and encourages students to work with others. It teaches children how to win and lose with good grace and builds a strong school spirit through competition with other institutions. It is often the experience of playing on a team together which builds the strongest friendships at school, which endure for years afterwards.

Many say the same benefits derive from the common endurance of prison… In particular, injuries sustained through school sport and the psychological trauma of being bullied for sporting ineptitude can mark people for years after they have left school. Teamwork can be better developed through music, drama, community projects, etc. without the need to encourage an ultra-competitive ethos.

Participation in sport promotes health. The effect on self-esteem and well-being as a product of sport can only be experienced by certain children if forced by their schools to first participate. A recent report to the European Parliament declared ‘physical education is a springboard for involvement in sport and physical activities throughout life’[1]. Government is, or should be, concerned with the health of its citizens. Encouraging physical activity in the young through compulsory PE fights child obesity and contributes to forming lifelong habits of exercise. This doesn’t have to be through traditional team sports; increasingly schools are able to offer exercise in the form of swimming, gymnastics, dance, weight training, use of a multi-gym, aerobics, etc [1] Hardman, K. (2007). Current situation and prospects for physical education in the European Union. European Parliament

It is a red herring to say that PE makes any serious difference to people’s health. There are plenty of more effective ways of ensuring a healthy population than pushing children round a freezing sports pitch once a week; not least would be addressing the disgusting diets our young have today, and encouraging walking or cycling to school rather than total reliance on the car. Both methods would involve promoting a healthy lifestyle without forcing the participation in unpopular physical education classes that do little for one’s education.

Physical education helps to forge character and the mutual respect required to succeed in an adult environment. Playing team sports builds character and encourages students to work with others, as they would be expected to do in most business or sporting environments. Sport teaches children how to win and lose with good grace and builds a strong school spirit through competition with other institutions. It is invaluable to imbue with children the delicate balance between a competitive rivalry that encourages effort and, on the other hand, losing the fairness and respect required to enjoy sport. It is often the experience of playing on a team together which builds the strongest friendships at school, which endure for years afterwards. As was noted in a report to the European Parliament, ‘PE…helps children learn to respect and value their own bodies and abilities, and those of others'[1]. Compulsory physical education is the only means by which all children can be forced to appreciate such advantages. [1]Hardman, K. (2007). Current situation and prospects for physical education in the European Union. European Parliament.

Physical education undermines one’s character as much as it strengthens and forges it. For every future athlete who grows in stature as he becomes comfortable in a team environment, there are a number of academic students who are forced weekly to cope with the brutality and criticisms of others more gifted at specific sports. Values like respect are not taught on a football field, any glance at a professional football match leads inexorably to that conclusion. Furthermore, learning about teamwork and co-operation no longer requires hours spent playing sport; they can be taught just as accurately and effectively in a classroom through music, drama, community projects, etc. without the need to encourage an ultra-competitive ethos.

Compulsory PE lessons can be treated in the same manner an ordinary educational class is treated; if the student refuses to participate and therefore does not do their work, they are punished with extra work of that same class. In this case, that would necessitate added physical education exercises at a later date or immediately after the class. The excuse that the student does not wish to participate in the class should be seen as no different to if it were stated during a maths or English class, where it would not be accepted. The fact that physical education is qualitatively different to those classes is irrespective; once deemed a compulsory subject, and therefore beneficial, it must be accepted and completed.

The intention of advocating a healthy lifestyle and sports is lost if there is a punishment attached to the class. Furthermore, to expect all students to participate in a class that is so overtly embarrassing to the weaker athletes is almost state-sanctioned bullying. In a maths class, the working and answers of the weakest students are not paraded in front of the class for all to see, and if they try to stop this, kept behind for extra work. It is demonstrably unfair to ask students, fragile about their appearance as it is, to compete physically with classmates. It should be encouraged, but maintain voluntary for those who wish to do so. The others can still be taught about healthy living and exercise without being dragged into physical exertion.

We acknowledge the right of individuals (or their parents) to control their own bodies – when they have an operation, where they go, what they do. Why is this any different? This discussion should be held in the real world: students actually aren’t compelled to attend PE classes, as ‘sick notes’ are produced with alarming regularity by parents complicit in their child’s wish to avoid this lesson. The aim of ‘compulsory PE’ isn’t being fulfilled at present in any case, and greater efforts to enforce it will only result in more deceit, or children missing school for the entire day – or, in the most extreme cases, being withdrawn from state education by parents unwilling to allow their children to be forced into something they don’t wish to do. Instead, we should simply abandon the whole exercise and allow PE to become voluntary. The UNESCO charter stresses the right to PE, and was addressed to nations that failed to provide it at all – it was not meant to suggest that individuals should be compelled to do it in nations that do[1]. [1] UNESCO. (1945, November 16). Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Retrieved May 18, 2011.

If not forced to exercise in youth, many will never think to do it in adulthood. This is no idle question: obesity in the UK is rising rapidly and Dr. David Haslam believes schools are part of the problem[1]. Individuals have no right to ‘choice’ about this: they’re being compelled to attend school, to take the lessons the state says they should take. The state doesn’t just impose a curricular compulsion, since physical attendance is forced – so there’s nothing unique in principle about enforced PE. Indeed, what can be more important as an aim for our schools than to encourage public health? It is in recognition of that fact, that in 1978 UNESCO recognised PE as ‘as essential element of lifelong education.’ [2] If PE is made voluntary, it seems obvious that many students – against their long term interests, and the long term interests of society – will choose not to. That will damage this essential element of education, and damage public health. It is true that the health of society is not perfect even with compulsory PE – but how much worse might it be without it? [1] Batty, D. (2008, February 21). Schools make children more obese, leading doctor says. Retrieved May 18, 2011 [2] UNESCO. (1978, November 21). International Charter of Physical Education and Sport. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Students should be allowed a choice with relation to their school subjects, including physical education. Children know, often from early ages, what they want to do with their life from what subjects they enjoy and those they don’t. Lots of children don’t want to do physical education; it is different from any other lesson – it is about what one does with one’s body. For those not confident about their bodies, why should they be forced to go through the embarrassment and stress of a PE class when they could be spending the time most constructively and happily in a classroom? Furthermore, and on the flip side, those who do enjoy PE will still be able to take the class and in an environment surrounded by those who feel similarly. Athletes will no longer be held back by those who force teachers to re-iterate instructions or rules.

Students, unaware of the subjects that will most benefit them in the competitive work environment, have no such right to choose all their subjects at school. Many schools offer students a restricted right to choose subjects at school, but only those which offer comparative advantages. Certain subjects like, in the Western world, English, maths, science and physical education, are not voluntary because they offer advantages to all that form a foundation necessary to excel in other areas. If students were given the right to choose all their subjects, few would do the more difficult subjects like science and maths that, whilst requiring more effort, are more rewarding for society as a whole, and the students themselves.

A compulsory rather than voluntary sports program is a risk for both students and schools. More and more schools are avoiding team games (e.g. rugby, soccer, hockey, football) for the (realistic) fear of lawsuits when injuries and disputes occur. In one example, a defendant was awarded £100,000 by the school of a student who tackled dangerously and caused both neck and ligament injuries to his opponent opponent[1]. Furthermore, injuries sustained through school sport and the psychological trauma of being bullied for sporting ineptitude can mark people for years after they have left school. Furthermore, psychological injuries occur to those who would not otherwise do sport if not forced, these injuries tend to be the longest and most damaging. Voluntary physical education would avoid such traumatic episodes. [1]BBC News (2001, August 8). Rugby injury wins £100,000 damages. Retrieved May 18, 2011.

Compulsory physical education does not risk unnecessary and costly injury. Injuries that occur in physical education are firstly more advisable than injuries that occur in the classroom or playground for PE teachers tend to be trained in first-aid. Furthermore, the psychological bullying occurring in physical education classes is only a small subset of bullying that is rife among schools as a whole. The prowess, or lack of it, that leads to bullying in PE classes is no different to the lack of ‘prowess’ in looks, or name, or spelling that will drive bullying in other educational environments.

Successful sporting nations realise that sports, like any other specialised subjects, are best taught to selected groups that display both talent and interest in the field – forcing all to compete holds back the able and punishes the less able. The right way to go is to liberate those that don’t want to participate, and allow those that are extremely keen to go to academies that focus their talents more efficiently than a regular school ever could. Furthermore, our children are burdened enough in schools already, especially at the older end of the system, with multiple examinations. PE simply adds, needlessly, to this hectic schedule.

Sport is different to, say Latin – it encompasses life choices (most importantly, a concern for physical fitness, but also working in a team etc.) that ought to be encouraged in all students. As Ken Hardman argues, ‘physical education makes a unique contribution to the education of all pupils’[1]. Extra classes for interested students can take place separately, and often do in the form of fixtures with other schools, championships etc. Sport shouldn’t be seen as an alternative to academia, an either/or – it should be a part of every student’s life in addition to their other studies. If the opposition is correct about the heavy workload involved in schools, then students are that much more likely not to choose PE in an environment where it is voluntary, and the quality of our children’s health will be even worse. Much better to keep being healthy compulsory, and reform the pressures elsewhere in the curriculum. [1] Hardman, K. (2007). Current situation and prospects for physical education in the European Union. European Parliament.

Sport is a waste of school time and resources. One or two PE lessons a week make very little difference to an individual’s health– but a huge difference to a school’s budget. It creates a whole extra department in schools, wasting a great deal of money and time that could be better spent on academic lessons[1] It also requires schools buildings to be surrounded by a large amount of land for playing fields, making it prohibitively expensive to build new schools in urban areas. The quality of teaching is low, as students are taught in huge classes. On the other hand, the quality of teaching and of equipment goes up if there are fewer (but keener) students taking the subject. One Californian student asked to comment stated PE ‘doesn’t help me in any way…it’s really a waste of time. I don’t learn anything here.’[2] [1] Active Living Research. (2007). Active Education: Physical Education, Physical Activity and Academic Performance. San Diego. [2] Marshall, J., & Hardman, K. (2000). The State and Status of Physical Education in Schools in International Context. European Physical Education Review, 203-229.

Physical Education is an important part of holistic schooling. PE is an aspect of school being about more than just book learning – it is about educating the whole person, a holistic education that betters us in an all-round sense, rather than a merely academic experience. Some aspects of physical education are vital for future wellbeing, e.g. being able to swim, learning to lift heavy weights safely. Furthermore, ‘kids who are more physically active tend to perform better academically’[1]. Arguments about cost seem petty when compared to this aim – and also misguided, since PE departments would continue to exist to serve those that chose to study PE voluntarily, even if the subject were no longer to be compulsory. Arguments about the size of classes may well be correct, but these suggest better funding for PE rather than abandonment of the commitment to public health. [1] Active Living Research. (2007). Active Education: Physical Education, Physical Activity and Academic Performance. San Diego.

In the P.E. class, when the student is not good at P.E., some students could get bullied. Because in some schools, the person who is good at P.E., is the most popular person. But, if the student is not good at P.E., they could get bullied and that could make a trauma. That can make a mental disease.

PE Is humiliating as well as unnecessary, Now I´m not an expert on this topic, but isn´t Hauling around a heavy backpack all day enough?

wow, just how lazy are you…

“Knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind…” as quoted by famous American writer Sylvia Plath. I think this quote justifies my point of argument that physical education should not at all be compulsory in school….

physical education in school is not at all compulsory for it is a total waste of time for those children who are not at all interested ….. and therefore spontaneously put no effort in it. It is better if it is made an elective issue as this will not only save the time of those who are interested in other school extra- curricular activities but also make the ones who are efficient in it…

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Committee on Physical Activity and Physical Education in the School Environment; Food and Nutrition Board; Institute of Medicine; Kohl HW III, Cook HD, editors. Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and Physical Education to School. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2013 Oct 30.

Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and Physical Education to School.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

5 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.

Physical 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).

Standards for a Physically Educated Person. SOURCE: NASPE, 2004.

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).

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 (more...)

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 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 (more...)

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 .

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 (more...)

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 ).

Nike's Designed to Move: A Physical Activity Action Agenda. Universal access: Design programs that are effective for every child, including those who face the most barriers to participating in physical activity. Age appropriate: Physical activities and (more...)

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 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 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 balanced 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.

NASPE's Characteristics of a High-Quality Physical Education Program. 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).

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.

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 ).

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 possess 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 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.

National Association for Sport and Physical Education Standards for Beginning Physical Education Teachers. Scientific and theoretical knowledge: Physical education teacher candidates know and apply discipline-specific scientific and theoretical concepts (more...)

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 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 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.

Logic model of the impact of professional development on 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 .

Characteristics of a High-Quality Professional Development Program. It is sustained, intensive, and content-focused to have a positive and lasting impact on classroom instruction and teacher performance. It is aligned with and directly related to state (more...)

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 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) :

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 (more...)

• 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 ).

• 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 .

Obstacles to Implementation of Quality Physical Education. Class periods dedicated to physical education are declining at all school levels. Existing discrepancies between policy and implementation with respect to specific time allocation contribute to (more...)

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, economics, 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 ).

Changes in Time Allocation in Elementary Schools Since 2001–2002.

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 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.

Time Cut from Subjects or Periods in Districts Reporting Decreases in Instructional Time.

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 ).

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.

Barriers to the Delivery of Physical Education and Physical Activity Programs to Primary and Secondary School Students.

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

Physical Education Teachers' Ranking of Barriers to Providing Quality Physical Education (PE) in Victorian State Secondary Schools.

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 .

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).

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.

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 disabilities 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.

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.

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; (more...)

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 wellness 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 understanding 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 identified 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 Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program (CSPAP) survey report. Reston, VA: AAHPERD; 2011.
• AAHPERD. Let's move in school. 2012. [April 15, 2012]. www ​.aahperd.org/letsmoveinschool .
• Abels KW, Bridges JM. Teaching movement education: Foundations for active lifestyles. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers; 2010.
• ACS (American Cancer Society) CAN (Cancer Action Network), ADA (American Diabetes Association), and AHA (American Heart Association). 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; 2012.
• Bailey B, McInnis K. Energy cost of exergaming: A comparison of the energy cost of 6 forms of exergaming. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2011; 165 (7):597. [ PubMed : 21383255 ]
• Ball DL, Cohen DK. Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional development. In: Darling-Hammond L, Sykes G, editors. In Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice, San Francisco, CA: ERIC; 1999. pp. 30–32. (Jossey-Bass education series).
• Baranowski T, Buday R, Thompson DI, Baranowski J. Playing for real: Video games and stories for health-related behavior change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2008; 34 (1):74–82. [ PMC free article : PMC2189579 ] [ PubMed : 18083454 ]
• Barroso CS, McCullum-Gomez C, Hoelscher DM, Kelder SH, Murray NG. Self-reported barriers to quality physical education by physical education specialists in Texas. Journal of School Health. 2005; 75 (8):313–319. [ PubMed : 16179081 ]
• Bassett DR, Fitzhugh EC, Heath GW, Erwin PC, Frederick GM, Wolff DL, Welch WA, Stout AB. Estimated energy expenditures for school-based policies and active living. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2013; 44 (2):108–113. [ PubMed : 23332325 ]
• Boyce B, Rikard GL. Characteristics of PETE doctoral level institutions: Descriptions of programs, faculty and doctoral students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2011a; 30 (2):103–115.
• Boyce B, Rikard GL. A comparison of supply and demand for PETE professionals in higher education in the United States. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2011b; 30 (2):116–128.
• Boyle SE, Jones GL, Walters SJ. 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. 2008; 8 (1):273. [ PMC free article : PMC2518562 ] [ PubMed : 18673562 ]
• Castelli D, Rink JE. A comparison of high and low performing secondary physical education programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2003; 22 (5):512.
• Castelli DM, Valley JA. The relationship of physical fitness and motor competence to physical activity. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2007; 26 (4):358–374.
• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 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; 2010.
• Center on Education Policy. Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy; 2007.
• Center on Education Policy. A call to restructure restructuring: Lessons from the No Child Left Behind Act in five states. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy; 2008.
• Chen A, Martin R, Sun H, Ennis CD. Is in-class physical activity at risk in constructivist physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2007; 78 (5):500–509. [ PMC free article : PMC4477689 ] [ PubMed : 18274221 ]
• Chen A, Martin R, Ennis CD, Sun H. Content specificity of expectancy beliefs and task values in elementary physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2008; 79 (2):195–208. [ PMC free article : PMC4477638 ] [ PubMed : 18664044 ]
• Chen A, Sun H, Zhu X, Ennis CD. Influences of personal and lesson factors on caloric expenditure in physical education. Journal of Sport and Health Science. 2012; 1 (1):49–56.
• Cohen D, Hill H. Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. The Teachers College Record. 2000; 102 (2):294–343.
• College Board. College search. 2013. [March 18, 2013]. https://bigfuture ​.collegeboard ​.org/college-search .
• Corbin CB. Physical activity for everyone: What every physical educator should know about promoting lifelong physical activity. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2002; 21 (2):128–144.
• Corbin C, Le Masurier G, Lambdin D. Fitness for life: Middle school. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2007.
• Dagkas S, Stathi A. Exploring social and environmental factors affecting adolescents' participation in physical activity. European Physical Education Review. 2007; 13 (3):369–384.
• Daum DN, Buschner C. The status of high school online physical education in the United States. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2012; 31 (1):86–100.
• DeCorby K, Halas J, Dixon S, Wintrup L, Janzen H. Classroom teachers and the challenges of delivering quality physical education. Journal of Educational Research. 2005; 98 (4):208–221.
• Dwyer JJ, Allison KR, Barrera M, Hansen B, Goldenberg E, Boutilier MA. Teachers' perspective on barriers to implementing physical activity curriculum guidelines for school children in Toronto. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 2003; 94 (6):448–452. [ PMC free article : PMC6980039 ] [ PubMed : 14700245 ]
• Erwin HE, Castelli DM. National physical education standards: A summary of student performance and its correlates. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2008; 79 (4):495–505. [ PubMed : 19177951 ]
• Fawkner SG, Niven A, Thin AG, MacDonald MJ, Oakes JR. Adolescent girls' energy expenditure during dance simulation active computer gaming. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2010; 28 (1):61–65. [ PubMed : 20013462 ]
• Fishman BJ, Marx RW, Best S, Tal RT. Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2003; 19 (6):643–658.
• FLVS (Florida Virtual School). Florida Virtual School physical education policy. 2013. [March 13, 2013]. http://www ​.flvs.net/myFLVS ​/student-handbook ​/Pages/Policies/PEPolicy.aspx .
• Fogel VA, Miltenberger RG, Graves R, Koehler S. The effects of exergaming on physical activity among inactive children in a physical education classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2010; 43 (4):591–600. [ PMC free article : PMC2998252 ] [ PubMed : 21541146 ]
• Gallo AM, Sheehy DA, Patton K, Griffin L. Assessment benefits and barriers: What are you committed to. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2006; 77 (8):46–50.
• GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). K-12: School-based physical education and sports programs. Washington, DC: GAO; 2012.
• Garet MS, Porter AC, Desimone L, Birman BF, Yoon KS. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal. 2001; 38 (4):915–945.
• Graf DL, Pratt LV, Hester CN, Short KR. Playing active video games increases energy expenditure in children. Pediatrics. 2009; 124 (2):534–540. [ PMC free article : PMC8329994 ] [ PubMed : 19596737 ]
• Greenberg J, Stokes R. Developing school site wellness centers. Reston, VA: AAHPERD; 2007.
• Guskey T, Sparks D. Linking professional development to improvements in student learning. Guyton EM, Dangel JR, editors. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt; 2004. [April 1, 2013]. pp. 233–247. (In Research linking teacher preparation and student performance: Teacher education yearbook, Vol. XII). http://ies ​.ed.gov/ncee ​/edlabs/regions/southwest ​/pdf/rel_2007033.pdf .
• Hackensmith CW. History of physical education. New York: Harper & Row; 1966.
• Haddock BL, Siegel SR, Wikin LD. The addition of a video game to stationary cycling: The impact on energy expenditure in overweight children. Open Sports Sciences Journal. 2009; 2 :42. [ PMC free article : PMC2784676 ] [ PubMed : 19946380 ]
• Hastie PA, de Ojeda DM, Luquin AC. A review of research on sport education: 2004 to the present. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2011; 16 (2):103–132.
• Healthy People 2020. Healthy People 2020: Physical activity objectives. 2010. [March 14, 2013]. http://www ​.healthypeople ​.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020 ​/overview.aspx?topicid=33 .
• Hensley L, East W. Measurement concepts in physical education and exercise science. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1989. Testing and grading in the psychomotor domain.
• HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Physical activity guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: HHS; 2008.
• IOM (Institute of Medicine). Accelerating progress in obesity prevention: Solving the weight of the nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012a. [ PMC free article : PMC3648752 ] [ PubMed : 22983849 ]
• IOM. Fitness measures and health outcomes in youth. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012b. [ PubMed : 25187939 ]
• Jenkinson KA, Benson AC. Barriers to providing physical education and physical activity in Victorian state secondary schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2010; 35 (8):1.
• Johnston CA, Tyler C, McFarlin BK, Poston WSC, Haddock CK, Reeves RS, Foreyt JP. Effects of a school-based weight maintenance program for Mexican-American children: Results at 2 years. Obesity. 2010; 18 (3):542–547. [ PubMed : 19661957 ]
• Kennedy M. Form and substance of inservice teacher education. Madison: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin; 1998. (Research Monograph No. 13).
• Kramer SL, Keller R. 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. 2008; 39 (1):2–8.
• Kulinna PH. Increasing physical activity: A comprehensive professional development effort. Biomedical Human Kinetics. 2012; 4 :6–11.
• Kulinna PH, Brusseau T, Ferry M, Cothran D. Preservice teachers' belief systems toward curricular outcomes for physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2010; 81 (2):189–198. [ PubMed : 20527304 ]
• Laban R. The mastery of movement. Plymouth: Macdonald & Evans; 1980.
• Lanningham-Foster L, Foster RC, McCrady SK, Jensen TB, Mitre N, Levine JA. Activity promoting games and increased energy expenditure. Journal of Pediatrics. 2009; 154 (6):819. [ PMC free article : PMC2683894 ] [ PubMed : 19324368 ]
• Learning Forward. Standards for professional learning: Standards list. 2012. [March 19, 2013]. http://www ​.learningforward ​.org/standards/standards-list# ​.UUhuMKK7mXw .
• Logsdon B, Barrett K, Logsdon B. Physical Education for Children. 1984. Movement—the content of physical education; pp. 295–355.
• Lonsdale C, Rosenkranz RR, Peralta LR, Bennie A, Fahey P, Lubans DR. A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions designed to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in school physical education lessons. Preventive Medicine. 2013; 56 (2):152–161. [ PubMed : 23246641 ]
• Loucks-Horsley S, Matsumoto C. Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics. 2010; 99 (5):258–271.
• Luepker RV, Perry CL, McKinlay SM, Nader PR, Parcel GS, Stone EJ, Webber LS, Elder JP, Feldman HA, Johnson CC, Kelder SH, Wu M. CATCH Collaborative Group. 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. 1996; 275 (10):768–776. [ PubMed : 8598593 ]
• Maddison R, Mhurchu CN, Jull A, Jiang Y, Prapavessis H, Rodgers A. Energy expended playing video console games: An opportunity to increase children's physical activity. Pediatric Exercise Science. 2007; 19 (3):334. [ PubMed : 18019591 ]
• Martin JJ, Mccaughtry N, Hodges-Kulinna P, Cothran D. The influences of professional development on teachers' self-efficacy toward educational change. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2008; 13 (2):171–190.
• McCaughtry N, Martin J, Kulinna PH, Cothran D. What makes teacher professional development work? The influence of instructional resources on change in physical education. Journal of In-Service Education. 2006; 32 (2):221–235.
• McCullick BA, Baker T, Tomporowski PD, Templin TJ, Lux K, Isaac T. An analysis of state physical education policies. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2012; 31 (2):200–210.
• McKenzie TL. The preparation of physical educators: A public health perspective. Quest. 2007; 59 (4):346–357.
• McKenzie TL, Alcaraz JE, Sallis JF. Assessing children's liking for activity units in an elementary school physical education curriculum. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 1994; 13 (3):206–215.
• McKenzie TL, Sallis JF, Kolody B, Faucette FN. Long-term effects of a physical education curriculum and staff development program: SPARK. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 1997; 68 :280–291. [ PubMed : 9421840 ]
• McKenzie TL, Alcaraz JE, Sallis JF, Faucette E. Effects of a physical education program on children's manipulative skills. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 1998; 17 :327–341.
• McKenzie TL, Stone EJ, Feldman HA, Epping JN, Yang M, Strikmiller PK, Lytle LA, Parcel GS. Effects of the catch physical education intervention: Teacher type and lesson location. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2001; 21 (2):101–109. [ PubMed : 11457629 ]
• Mellecker RR, McManus AM. Energy expenditure and cardiovascular responses to seated and active gaming in children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2008; 162 (9):886. [ PubMed : 18762609 ]
• Mhurchu CN, Maddison R, Jiang Y, Jull A, Prapavessis H, Rodgers A. 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. 2008; 5 (1):8. [ PMC free article : PMC2254648 ] [ PubMed : 18257911 ]
• Morgan CF, Beighle A, Pangrazi RR. What are the contributory and compensatory relationships between physical education and physical activity in children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2007; 78 (5):407–412. [ PubMed : 18274212 ]
• Morgan P, Bourke S. Non-specialist teachers' confidence to teach PE: The nature and influence of personal school experiences in PE. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2008; 13 (1):1–29.
• Morgan PJ, Hansen V. 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. 2008; 79 (4):506–516. [ PubMed : 19177952 ]
• Mowling CM, Brock SJ, Eiler KK, Rudisill ME. Student motivation in physical education breaking down barriers. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2004; 75 (6):40–45.
• Munson WW. Effects of leisure education versus physical activity or informal discussion on behaviorally disordered youth offenders. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. 1988; 5 (4):305–317.
• Munson WW, Baker SB, Lundegren HM. Strength training and leisure counseling as treatment for institutionalized juvenile delinquents. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. 1985; 2 (1):65–75.
• Myers-Schieffer T, Thomas KT. Fifteen years of promise in school-based interventions: A meta-analysis. Kinesiology Reviews. 2012; 1 :155–169.
• Nader PR, Stone EJ, Lytle LA, Perry CL, Osganian SK, Kelder S, Webber LS, Elder JP, Montgomery D, Feldman HA, Wu M, Johnson C, Parcel GS, Luepker RV. Three-year maintenance of improved diet and physical activity: The CATCH cohort. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 1999; 153 (7):695–704. [ PubMed : 10401802 ]
• NASBE (National Association of State Boards of Education). State School Health Policy Database. 2012. [May 1, 2013]. http://www ​.nasbe.org/healthy_schools/hs .
• NASPE (National Association for Sport and Physical Education). Parents' view of children's health and fitness: A summary of results. Reston, VA: AAHPERD; 2003.
• NASPE. Physical activity for children: A statement of guidelines for children ages 5-12. Reston, VA: AAHPERD; 2004.
• NASPE. Moving into the future: National standards for physical education. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2004.
• NASPE. Initial guidelines for online physical education: Position paper. Reston, VA: AAHPERD; 2007a.
• NASPE. Position statement: What constitutes a highly qualified physical education teacher. Reston, VA: AAHPERD; 2007b.
• NASPE. Physical education trends in our nation's schools: A survey of practicing K-12 physical education teachers. Port Washington, NY: Roslow Research Group; 2009a.
• NASPE. School physical education program checklist—how does your program rate. Reston, VA: AAHPERD; 2009b.
• NASPE. NASPE resource brief: Quality physical education. Reston, VA: AAHPERD; 2009c.
• NASPE. Opportunity to learn: Guidelines for elementary, middle, and high school physical education. Reston, VA: AAHPERD; 2010.
• NASPE. Instructional framework for fitness education in physical education. Guidance document. Reston, VA: AAHPERD; 2012.
• NASPE and AHA. Shape of the nation report: Status of physical education in the USA. Reston, VA: AAHPERD; 2010.
• National Physical Activity Plan. National Physical Activity Plan. Columbia, SC: The National Physical Activity Plan; 2010. [February 1, 2013]. http://www ​.nationalactivityplan.org .
• Nike. Designed to move: A physical activity agenda. Beaverton, OR: Nike; 2012.
• Parker MB, Curtner-Smith M. Health-related fitness in sport education and multi-activity teaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2005; 10 (1):1–18.
• Pate RR, Davis MG, Robinson TN, Stone EJ, McKenzie TL, Young JC. 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. 2006; 114 (11):1214–1224. [ PubMed : 16908770 ]
• Pate RR, Mitchell JA, Byun W, Dowda M. Sedentary behaviour in youth. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2011; 45 (11):906–913. [ PubMed : 21836174 ]
• Perna FM, Oh A, Chriqui JF, Mâsse LC, Atienza AA, Nebeling L, Agurs-Collins T, Moser RP, Dodd KW. The association of state law to physical education time allocation in US public schools. American Journal of Public Health. 2012; 102 (8):1594–1599. [ PMC free article : PMC3464828 ] [ PubMed : 22594746 ]
• Perry CL, Stone EJ, Parcel GS, Ellison RC, Nader PR, Webber LS, Luepker RV. School-based cardiovascular health promotion: The Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH). Journal of School Health. 1990; 60 (8):406–413. [ PubMed : 2255198 ]
• Peterson's. Physical education colleges. 2013. [March 18, 2013]. http://www ​.petersons ​.com/college-search/SearchResults ​.aspx?q= ​%22physical%20education%22&c=UG .
• Presidential Youth Fitness Program. Presidential Youth Fitness Program: Promoting health and activity for America's youth. 2013. [March 1, 2013]. http://www ​.presidentialyouthfitnessprogram.org/index.shtml .
• Rainey DL, Murray TD. Foundations of personal fitness. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005.
• Robinson LE. Effect of a mastery climate motor program on object control skills and perceived physical competence in preschoolers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2011; 82 (2):355–359. [ PubMed : 21699116 ]
• Robinson LE, Goodway JD. Instructional climates in preschool children who are at risk. Part I: Object-control skill development. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2009; 80 (3):533–542. [ PubMed : 19791639 ]
• Romero AJ. 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. 2012; 26 (4):208–211. [ PubMed : 22375569 ]
• Sallis JF, McKenzie TL. Physical education's role in public health. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 1991; 62 (2):124–137. [ PubMed : 1925034 ]
• Sallis JF, McKenzie TL, Alcaraz JE, Kolody B, Faucette N, Hovell MF. 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. 1997; 87 (8):1328–1334. [ PMC free article : PMC1381094 ] [ PubMed : 9279269 ]
• Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2000; 32 (5):963–975. [ PubMed : 10795788 ]
• Sallis JF, McKenzie TL, Conway TL, Elder JP, Prochaska JJ, Brown M, Zive MM, Marshall SJ, Alcaraz JE. Environmental interventions for eating and physical activity: A randomized controlled trial in middle schools. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2003; 24 (3):209–217. [ PubMed : 12657338 ]
• Salvy SJ, Roemmich JN, Bowker JC, Romero ND, Stadler PJ, Epstein LH. Effect of peers and friends on youth physical activity and motivation to be physically active. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 2009; 34 (2):217–225. [ PMC free article : PMC3202936 ] [ PubMed : 18617572 ]
• San Diego State University. Physical education matters: Success stories from California low resource schools that have achieved excellent P.E. programs. Los Angeles: The California Endowment; 2007.
• San Diego State University. Physical education matters: A full report from The California Endowment. Los Angeles, CA: The California Endowment; 2008.
• Sheehan DP, Katz L. 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. 2012; 11 (3):5–22.
• Sherar LB, Gyurcsik NC, Humbert ML, Dyck RF, Fowler-Kerry S, Baxter-Jones A. Activity and barriers in girls (8–16 years old) based on grade and maturity status. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2009; 41 (1):87. [ PubMed : 19092703 ]
• Siedentop DL. Sport education: Quality PE through positive sport experiences. Chicago, IL: Human Kinetics; 1994.
• Siedentop DL. Introduction to physical education, fitness, and sport. 8th. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009.
• Siedentop DL, Hastie PA, Van der Mars H. Complete guide to sport education. Chicago, IL: Human Kinetics; 2011.
• Sit CH, Lam JW, McKenzie TL. International Journal of Pediatrics. 2010. Children's use of electronic games: Choices of game mode and challenge levels. epub ahead of print. [ PMC free article : PMC2905688 ] [ PubMed : 20652069 ]
• SPARK (Sports, Play, and Active Recreation for Kids). What is SPARK. 2013. [March 14, 2013]. http://www ​.sparkpe.org/what-is-spark .
• Staiano A, Abraham A, Calvert S. Motivating effects of cooperative exergame play for overweight and obese adolescents. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2012; 6 (4):812. [ PMC free article : PMC3440152 ] [ PubMed : 22920807 ]
• Stevens-Smith D. Teaching spatial awareness to children. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2004; 75 (6):52.
• Stodden DF, Goodway JD, Langendorfer SJ, Roberton MA, Rudisill ME, Garcia C, Garcia LE. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest. 2008; 60 (2):290–306.
• Stodden D, Langendorfer S, Roberton MA. The association between motor skill competence and physical fitness in young adults. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2009; 80 (2):223–229. [ PubMed : 19650387 ]
• Stokes R, Schultz S. Personal fitness for you. Winston-Salem, NC: Hunter Textbooks; 2002.
• Stokes R, Schultz SL. Get active! Get fit! Winston-Salem, NC: Hunter Textbooks; 2009.
• Sun H. Exergaming impact on physical activity and interest in elementary school children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2012; 83 (2):212–220. [ PubMed : 22808707 ]
• Sun H, Chen A, Zhu X, Ennis CD. Curriculum matters: Learning science-based fitness knowledge in constructivist physical education. Elementary School Journal. 2012; 113 (2):215–229. [ PMC free article : PMC4530802 ] [ PubMed : 26269659 ]
• Trost S. Active education: Physical education, physical activity and academic performance. San Diego, CA: Active Living Research, San Diego State University; 2009.
• Wallhead T, O'Sullivan M. Sport education: Physical education for the new millennium. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2005; 10 (2):181–210.
• Welk GJ, Schaben JA, Shelley M. Physical activity and physical fitness in children schooled at home and children attending public schools. Pediatric Exercise Science. 2004; 16 (4):310–323.
• Weston A. The making of American physical education. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1962.
• White K, Kilding AE, Schofield G. 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); 2009.
• Whitehurst GJ. Research on teacher preparation and professional development; A paper presented at the White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers; Washington, DC. Mar 5, 2002.
• Wiley DE, Yoon B. Teacher reports on opportunity to learn: Analyses of the 1993 California Learning Assessment System (CLAS). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1995; 17 (3):355–370.
• Williams CS. Personal fitness: Looking good/feeling good. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt; 2005.
• Wood TD. The ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (part 1). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1913.
• Wood TD, Cassidy RF. The new physical education: A program of naturalized activities for education toward citizenship. New York: Macmillan; 1930.
• Xiang P, Lowry S, McBride R. The impact of a field-based elementary physical education methods course on preservice classroom teachers' beliefs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2002; 21 :145–161.
• Yoon KS, Duncan T, Lee SWY, Scarloss B, Shapley K. Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest; 2007. [April 1, 2013]. (Issues and Answers Report, REL 2007, No. 033). http://ies ​.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs .

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

• Cite this Page Committee on Physical Activity and Physical Education in the School Environment; Food and Nutrition Board; Institute of Medicine; Kohl HW III, Cook HD, editors. Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and Physical Education to School. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2013 Oct 30. 5, Approaches to Physical Education in Schools.
• PDF version of this title (4.4M)

In this Page

Related information.

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Approaches to Physical Education in Schools - Educating the Student Body Approaches to Physical Education in Schools - Educating the Student Body

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

The Pros and Cons of Mandatory Gym Class in Public Schools

Gym class is invariably portrayed on the silver screen as a time of awkwardness and embarrassment when kids have to climb ropes and do a certain number of push-ups in a minute’s time. However, gym class is much different now, and it is not surprising that today’s students and parents are questioning why it’s even a mandatory part of the day. After all, according to an MSNBC investigation, researchers have found that the average high school gym class only keeps students physically active for an average of 16 minutes! In a class period that is about 45 minutes long, that isn’t a lot of active time. In today’s educational climate in which standardized test performance in core subjects carries a significant amount of weight with regard to teacher and school evaluations, “wasting” all that time doing nothing in PE is something districts cannot afford. As such, PE classes have been cut so students can spend more time in core classes.

Supporters of mandatory gym programs contend that physical education classes have a wide range of benefits. According to the National Association for Sport and Physical Education , physical education classes help children develop fine and gross motor skills, learn cooperation and teamwork, reduce stress, and improve self-confidence and self-esteem. Furthermore, supporters argue that public schools have a responsibility to encourage children to enjoy a healthy and active lifestyle – especially as a rising number of young Americans are obese. Activities that promote muscular strength, cardiovascular endurance, and flexibility, they argue, can help reverse the trend of American

children gaining weight.

Subsequently, some school leaders are left without a clear answer in the debate. Should fitness classes be required to fulfill a school’s curriculum requirements?

This video looks into the question of whether or not physical education should remain in public schools.

Are Physical Education Programs Really Fit?

Further expounding on the issue, MSNBC also analyzes a major study of physical education programs conducted by Cornell University. The study, based on information from 37,000 high school students’ responses to surveys from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reveals that most students do not believe gym class is effective. This has led nearly all states to create and pass new bills to reform public schools’ fitness education programs.

Unfortunately, while many states have increased the time students spend in gym class, Cornell's study found that adding 200 more minutes of time to gym class each week did not produce substantial changes. Even by adding 200 more weekly minutes, the studies showed that boys generally engaged in only 7.5 minutes of more activity per day, while girls only participated in activity 8 additional minutes each week.

Attempting to explain these disappointing results, Cornell's lead professor of policy analysis and management asserts, “The rest of the extra gym time is likely spent being sedentary — most likely standing around idly while playing sports like softball or volleyball that don’t require constant movement.” Cornell’s results hit a familiar nerve, as a study of fitness classes in Texas elementary schools also found that the majority of students spent the class time inactive; specifically, the data suggested that students were only engaging in exercise or movement for approximately 3 minutes during the entire class period.

As reported in USA Today , what would benefit children more is periods of rigorous physical activity that make them break a sweat. High-energy games like tag and dodgeball are great examples of activities that have little downtime. At a minimum, elementary-aged children should get 30 minutes of moderate exercise a day. Middle school and high school students should get 45 minutes of exercise a day. And about half of that time should be spent in activities like those mentioned above that get the heart racing.

Should Schools Discontinue Gym Classes?

Despite the results, the lead professor of the Cornell study does not necessarily believe that gym classes should be banned in public schools, arguing, “We’re not saying schools should get rid of (physical education),” but “there has to be a meaningful change in the curriculum.”

While many of the nation's gym classes may not be performing at peak levels, supporters of fitness education aim to spotlight the potential of reform, as well as the accomplishments many public schools have achieved.

In examining the changing policies of fitness education, it is important to understand how gym classes in public schools could be modernized. While running laps and doing jumping jacks used to be a staple of many physical education classes, many schools have diversified their options to reflect a more modern take on gym class. Schools offer instruction in traditional team sports and games like flag football and red rover, but also emphasize healthy eating habits, and the benefits of lifting weights and offer unique experiences from bowling to fly-fishing to kayaking. By offering more intriguing physical activities for students, many public schools are reporting positive feedback from both their students and community members.

Many physical education leaders are arguing for a complete paradigm shift in the area of fitness and wellness instruction. Elizabeth Spletzer, a highly experienced fitness instructor currently coordinating the University of Minnesota's Physical Education Teacher Licensor program, strives to teach future fitness teachers the diverse learning benefits that children gain from physical activity. Instead of seeing gym class as only a physical activity, reformists like Spletzer want others to understand the psychosocial benefits of exercise, including improved self-esteem , better behavior and decreased instances of depression and stress. There are academic benefits as well. According to a report by the New York Times , students who are physically active have better attention and focus, improved problem-solving abilities, better working memory, and a general improvement in both reading and math scores. In fact, the academic benefits students gain from physical activity during the school day appear to outweigh the benefits of increasing class time in subjects such as reading and math.

While schools debate the future of physical education, one fact remains certain: gym class will never look the same again!

Questions? Contact us on Facebook. @publicschoolreview

More Articles

• Our Content
• Success Stories
• Schedule A Demo
• Login / Register

Should Physical Education Be Required?

• Doug Curtin
• September 8, 2022
• New & Noteworthy , Professional Development

Schools have a lot to cover and only so much time. So should physical education be required? Suppose the big-picture goal of education is to equip students with a robust set of skills and knowledge to live successful lives. In that case, a quality physical education program should be a staple of any comprehensive educational system.

Free Download! P.E Teachers Resource Pack

Our Resource Pack is full of lessons, videos, workouts, and ideas to help you expand your course offerings, inspire students, and wow your admins!

Arguments Against Physical Education in Schools

To thoroughly explore the question “should physical education be required” let’s start with the arguments against PE. Because there is certainly no shortage of physical education critics.

Arguments against physical education in schools cite embarrassment, teasing, and bullying as major criticisms of why mandatory physical education in schools is bad. Much of this criticism comes from outdated stereotypes of “gym class.” The old school term “gym class” usually elicits images of rolling out the balls and playing dodgeball.

Physical education teachers have long tried to leave the term and memories of “gym class” behind them and spotlight their quality physical education programs. PE programs now boast a comprehensive approach to introducing students to different forms of physical fitness, health, and wellness. The long-term goal is to help students pursue happy and healthy lifestyles.

But even as PE classes have evolved, the arguments against physical education in schools have persisted:

• “Physical education classes take up valuable school time that could be otherwise dedicated to math, science, or other core subjects.”
• “It is unfair to have graded PE classes because it disproportionately hurts GPAs of un-athletic students.”
• “Students can do physical activity outside of school; they don’t need PE classes.”
• “There are still too many opportunities for bullying or teasing to occur within PE class.”

Why Should PE Be Required?

It is important to note that the question is, “why should PHYSICAL EDUCATION be required in schools?” Notice the bolded and capitalized word PHYSICAL EDUCATION. 

The reason for this emphasis is we are not just talking about physical activity. Physical activity defined by Shape is “any bodily movement that results in energy expenditure.” And while physical activity is an essential concept in physical education, it is far from capturing everything a quality physical education program encapsulates.

Instead, Shape outlines physical education as “an academic subject that provides a planned, sequential, K-12 standards-based program of curricula and instruction designed to develop motor skills, knowledge and behaviors for healthy, active living, physical fitness, sportsmanship, self-efficacy, and emotional intelligence.”

Physical education is backed by national standards, like other core subjects. It empowers elementary school, middle school, and high school students to build up a wide variety of tools to live healthy lifestyles. This important delineation helps us to move past the stereotypes of “gym class” and better evaluate the question, “Should pe be required?”

Past the wide range of skills, knowledge, and behaviors developed, physical education and physical activity have proven to improve physical health , academic performance, and mental health. We owe it to our kids to provide ample opportunity to explore physical fitness and health through physical education classes.

Is Physical Education Required? A Loaded Question

While there are national physical education standards, there are no national requirements for physical education programs across the country. Instead, each state sets its own specific outlines and requirements.

There are three categories that states typically fall under for outlining physical education requirements: 

• Nonspecific Requirement (Requires PE but does not specify frequency or duration requirements)
• Specific Requirement (Requires PE on a specific frequency, duration, or both)

Not surprisingly, the laws and requirements have an impact. Piekarz-Porter, et al. are quoted saying, “Studies have shown that students in states with laws specifying PE time requirements have increased PE attendance and time spent in PE and that state laws and district policies can influence district-level PE practices, particularly those governing the frequency and duration of PE.”

As a result of the varying requirements, many elementary school physical education programs only meet once a week throughout the school year. Or worse, at the middle and high school level, many schools only require one semester of physical education to graduate. After that, students can completely stop taking physical education unless they opt-in via an elective. This falls drastically short of the recommended physical activity and physical education recommendations. 

But even in states with loose requirements, some school districts have solidified their requirements to promote physical education throughout K-12 education. Let’s take a closer look at one.

Ready to WOW your Admins?

Schedule a 15-Minute demo to learn how PE teachers are ushering in a new age of Physical Education with Fitness and Technology!

Canton High School Spotlight – Should Physical Education Be Required In High School?

Massachusetts is a state that has a nonspecific physical education requirement. The law states that “Physical education shall be taught as a required subject in all grades for all students in the public schools for the purpose of promoting the physical well-being of students.”

The state used to have specific requirements but did away with them a few decades ago. As a result, every school district has a different interpretation of the law. Many districts require only weekly PE and then transition to only one or two semesters at the high school level.

Canton High School in Massachusetts has gone in the opposite direction. Canton boasts a 4-year high school PE requirement to complement the larger K-12 wellness initiative. At the high school level, Canton breaks it down by grade level:

• Freshmen Year – Experience Education and Health Class (problem-solving, collaboration, leadership, etc.)
• Sophomore Year – Personal Wellness (Fundamentals of fitness, yoga, mobility, and regular physical activity)
• Junior & Senior Year – Choice (Yoga, Zumba, Team Sports, Walking For Life, and much more).

In following this structure, Canton blends physical education being required while also opening up to a more choice (elective-like) model for junior and senior years. The result is that students not only have to take physical education but also want to be there. Check out the complete case study on how Canton has evolved their wellness and physical education classes and incorporated a variety of high school pe lesson plans.  

Should Physical Education Be Required? Final Thoughts

Yes! Physical education should be a staple of every school districts K-12 plan. We are failing our young people without a focus on health and wellness through physical education. Elementary school students through high school students reap substantial health benefits from regular physical activity. And as stated earlier, PE class is about more than just physical activity, but the vast array of healthy lifestyle skills that they build over their time in a physical education program.

It should not be the sole burden of physical education teachers to solve the problem of sedentary students, childhood obesity, and other physical and mental health problems. But consistent and quality physical education can be a significant step to moving in the right direction.

We continuously see leaders and key stakeholders acknowledge the importance of PE but fail to take action. Should physical education be required isn’t a tricky question to answer. Physical education will support our children during their time as students and continue to leave a lasting impact as they head into adulthood.

States can and should make clear physical education requirements. But, on top of that, they should make dedicated time throughout the K-12 educational system to solidify the importance of physical education. Yes, this might mean altering the school day, but it will be worth the investment for academic achievement, physical health, and the total picture of our students.

Free Download!

Get the p.e teacher's resource pack.

Share this article:

Recent Posts

Lifetime Fitness Activities

Off Season Basketball Workouts For High School Athletes

Spin Bike Workouts For Beginners

Interested if plt4m can work at your school.

At this HS, PE students can choose from a range of fitness activities - options like weightlifting, yoga, boxing, pilates, and bootcamp. Encouraging exploration & choice, it empowers them with the skills and confidence for a lifetime of health & wellness.

Student Choice in PE Leads To School-Wide Success

How does a school increase the motivation and excitement around physical education? Hutsonville does it by empowering student choice!

How does a high school Physical Education department transition from primarily a games-based program to a more fitness-focused curriculum?

Fitness-Focused Phys Ed At Hammond Central

After obtaining a grant to invest in curriculum and technology, Hammond Central has seen success with fitness-focused phys ed!

get.plt4m.com

With SEL playing a more prominent role in the crafting of physical education curriculum, how do you go about addressing mental health by way of emotion?

Lesson Plans On Emotions For Middle and High School Students

We discuss the importance of teaching social-emotional development in middle and high schools and provide 3 sample lesson plans on emotions.

How did one high school place students, with their own personal goals and choices, at the center of the approach to Physical Education?

Student-Centered Strength And Fitness Classes

Littlestown High School in Pennsylvania is seeing the positive results of student-centered learning in Strength and Fitness classes.

#SHAPECleveland TODAY at 3:15pm HCC Room 1 In #Pursuit of Better. @PLT4M @FocusedFitness2 @IHTSpirit Tech tools in #physicaleducation Make them work for your students! #PLT4M #IHTSpirit #FocusedFitness #qualitype

How does a High School create a year-round strength and conditioning program that addresses the complete picture of multi-sport athletes, to the benefit of all?

Total Athletic Development at Denmark High School

Denmark High School supports student-athletes total athletic development via year-round strength and conditioning. See how.

Keeping Physical Education in Schools Essay

Introduction, physical education aids in significant health benefits, physical education improves academic performance, physical education is not hard to maintain.

Physical education is a process geared towards physical development through exercise instructions which one applies to achieve a healthy lifestyle. These exercises range from sports, games, dance, aerobics and other gymnastic programs. Both quality and quantity of physical education programs are important in schools in forming an all-rounded student.

Schools should incorporate effective physical education programs for all learners on a daily basis to ensure fitness in the students. Young children require creative exercises to avoid boredom, and the trainers should involve the children in coming up with the programs to ensure that their ideas are incorporated in the regimen. This will make the physical exercises fun to carry out.

Apart from participating in the physical education programs, the students need to be taught on the importance of the various exercises so that they inculcate the culture of physical fitness into their life-time fitness programs.

Most health experts recommend an average of one hour of moderate to strenuous exercises for school going children (Marion, 2009). Physical education is an important activity in the public schools and should be allowed to remain an integral part of the curriculum.

Physical education is an important aspect of a child’s comprehensive growth process. The incorporation of the program into the school curriculum will impact positively the school children and help them adopt the activities taught as an integral part of their endeavor to lead a healthy lifestyle.

Regular physical activities have been found to result in healthier life with lowered risk of preventable conditions such as high blood pressure, some forms of cancers and diabetes. Physical exercises on a regular basis lead to a better cardiovascular endurance and also lower blood pressure to normal homeostatic levels.

With the emergence of new modern forms of entertainment such as computer games, play stations and internet based games, many children have neglected the physically demanding entertainment programs. This has increased the number of those with cases of child obesity to epidemic levels in America and other European countries (Marx & Wooley, 1998).

It would be advisable to incorporate a culture of involvement in physical exercises in young children to avert such disasters as chronic, cardiovascular diseases and disabilities. Many studies have shown that exercise helps greatly reduce unnecessary body fat and a corresponding increase in lean muscle mass which being elements of good health.

As schools aim to achieve high academic success, they should also focus on improving the welfare of the learners by encouraging healthy lifestyles which is achievable through physical activities and healthy diets. Physically fit learners have low incidences of depression, anxiety and also show high levels of self-esteem as well as improved socialization ability in comparison to their peers (Carlie, 2011).

According to research carried out by Active Living Research group, on how policies and environmental factors affect the performance of learners in schools, the less the time is allocated for physical education, the lower the academic performance is recorded. All schools under the study which had comprehensive exercise and physical training programs had a better performance in academics even with less instruction time in class work.

There is a wide range of exercise models learners can use that do not require expensive facilities. For instance, learners can involve in activities such as aerobics, running and playing. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) needs to be reviewed to ensure learners have adequate time for exercise as opposed to long hours in classwork (University of Michigan Health System, 2011).

The NCLB completely failed to capture the importance of exercise in the general development of school going children. The anticipated improvement in academics has not been realized. This has been attributed to academic fatigue and decreased physical fitness in children among other factors, which always improve concentration capacity.

A controlled exercise program by adults or trained instructors ensures the school going children carry out their exercises in well protected environments and only according to outlined guidelines.

As numerous studies have shown a link between good academic performance and exercising, schools should strive to invest in physical education. Furthermore, many talents in children such as football skills and athletics prowess are discovered through these programs (Stewart, &Mars, 2010).

Apart from the improved academic performance, physical education contributes to developing responsible citizens. Many studies have indicated a drop in cases of indiscipline in children involved in physical fitness programs in comparison to those who do not.

Drug abuse is also rampant among idle students as compared to those who take part in exercise programs. The benefits accrued from physical activity go beyond academic performance and positive results have been recorded in psychosocial component of life, too (University of Michigan Health System, 2011).

The No Child Left behind Act (NCLB) is one of the reasons the physical education program has received little attention. This has in turn resulted in higher rates of obesity in the country with the government spending billions of dollars to counter obesity-related complications in school going children. It is estimated that by 2018, the United States will have spent up to $344 billion to counter obesity related complications.

This constitutes about twenty one percent of the health sector’s budgets. This can be effectively avoided by investing in physical education among the school going children who make up the greatest percentage of obesity cases. Ironically it would only cost $ 500, 000 to reintroduce the physical education programs in schools.

Schools facing budgetary constraints to purchase physical education facilities could easily overcome this challenge by soliciting for funds from well wishers or organize fund raisers (Marion, 2009). The government needs to allocate funds for physical education in schools in addition to constituting legislation that would make physical education as part of the curriculum.

In the United States, deaths arising from poor diet and inactivity hit the 300,000 mark annually. Studies indicated that this problem begins in early childhood and adolescents stages of life. This is the time most people are schooling and, therefore, investing in physical education as an integral part of the curriculum, would have tremendous impact on changing the lifestyles of millions of American citizens.

The government should prioritize in areas of creating awareness among school going children, teachers, parents and guardians to inculcate a culture of healthy living among all people. The government should also involve medical and physical fitness experts in formulating policies and making recommendations regarding physical education programs in schools.

As has been indicated by the united states department of health and human services, physical activeness would lead to lowered expenditures by the government in matters health since the benefits accrued from it reduce the risks of disease incidences.

In one swing, a constant physical activity which is apparently an enjoyable experience has numerous health benefits that only a fool can ignore. Improved strength and endurance, controlled weight, healthy bones and muscles, reduced anxiety and stress as well as improved self-esteem, maintenance of low levels of cholesterol and blood pressure (Marx & Wooley, 1998).

The benefits associated with physical activities surpass the disadvantages. From improved health to improved academic performance and the improved socialization powers, the advantages of physical education are limitless. It is the prerogative of the parents and guardians to ensure that the children involve in responsible physical activities and remove the fear of injuries or time wasting from the element of physical education.

It is wrong to presume that for effective physical fitness, one has to own state of the art facilities as there are many forms of physical exercises. To also assume that for better academic performance, a learner requires long study hours is wrong and as the old adage goes “All work without play makes Jack a dull boy”

The importance of physical education can not be underestimated. There is a need to ensure both quality and quantity of physical education in school programs. The government should also formulate policies and legislation geared towards promotion of physical fitness. Guidelines given by expatriate bodies should be followed since their advice is based on reliable studies.

For instance, the American Heart Association and the National Association of State Boards of Education recommend no less than two hours of physical education each week. The government ought to offer training techniques to instructors and post them to all schools.

In addition it should avail any necessary facilities to ensure successful physical training programs. Owing to the reluctance displayed by both school administrations and the learners themselves in matters of physical education, the government could make it compulsory and examinable.

Carlie, D. (2011). Physical Education (P.E.). Education/Budget Cuts . Web.

Marion, S.C. (2009). OTL: PE Left Behind . Web.

Marx, E. & Wooley, S. (1998). Health Is Academic: A Guide to Coordinated School Health Programs. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Stewart, G.T.&Mars, H. (2010). Why We Should Not Cut P.E. Educational Leadership . 67(4). pp.60-65.

University of Michigan Health System (2011). Gym gone but not forgotten? Parents want more physical activity at school for kids. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 6). Keeping Physical Education in Schools. https://ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-physical-education-in-schools/

"Keeping Physical Education in Schools." IvyPanda , 6 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-physical-education-in-schools/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Keeping Physical Education in Schools'. 6 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Keeping Physical Education in Schools." February 6, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-physical-education-in-schools/.

1. IvyPanda . "Keeping Physical Education in Schools." February 6, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-physical-education-in-schools/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Keeping Physical Education in Schools." February 6, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/keeping-physical-education-in-schools/.

• Fitness and Health Terms Definition
• Healthcare Issues: LA Fitness for Students and Healthy Living Through Fitness Programs
• Externalities Environment and Analysis for Australian Fitness Industry
• Academic Achievement and Physical Fitness
• Marketing program for a health and fitness club
• Business Plan for Star Fitness Center
• Budget for a Health and Fitness Program
• The True Fitness Company's Interventions in Singapore
• Fitness and Health Workforce Programs
• The Brain Fitness Exercises
• Career and Technical Education
• Patterns and Trends and Theoretical Frameworks in Education
• Gender and Education: Australian Single-Sex Schools
• Education Theories: Designing Goals
• Education Studies: Research Design

Poll finds lack of physical education in public schools a concern of parents

Almost seven in 10 parents say their child’s school does not provide daily physical education even though experts recommend 150 to 225 minutes per school week

For immediate release: December 2, 2013

Princeton, N.J. – In a time of heightened worries that U.S. public schools do not give enough emphasis to math and English, a new poll released today finds that many parents are concerned about inadequate levels of physical education . NPR/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) polled 1,368 parents of public school children in grades K-12 on a range of issues around education and health in the their child’s school. One in four parents (25%) said their child’s school gives too little emphasis to physical education, compared with  one in seven who say the same thing about reading and writing (14%) or math (15%).

In addition, about three in 10 parents (28%) give a low grade (C, D or F) to their child’s school on providing enough time for physical education, while almost seven in 10 parents (68%) report that their child’s school does not provide daily physical education classes, a recommendation included in CDC guidelines for schools. Just under two in 10 parents (18%) give a low grade to their child’s school on providing quality facilities for physical exercise, like playgrounds, ball fields, or basketball courts.

“In a period with a significant public debate about the content of educational reform, it is significant that many parents feel that more physical education is needed in the schools,” said Robert Blendon , Richard L. Menschel Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at HSPH.

These concerns expressed by some parents are shared by experts in childhood health.

“Experts recommend that high school and middle school students get 225 minutes of physical education per week during the school year, but in fact many don’t get that much,” said Dwayne Proctor, who directs the childhood obesity team at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). “Parents should let their state boards of education and their local school districts know that they want more PE for their kids, and encourage state and local policymakers to provide the necessary resources for full implementation.”

Currently, less than half of youths meet the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommendation of at least 60 minutes of daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. This increases youths’ health risks and can jeopardize their well-being throughout their lives. Physical activity is also critical to children’s cognitive development and academic success.

NPR delves into the poll results with a series of reports airing this week and also available at NPR.org. Pieces from the NPR Science and National Desks explore schools’ efforts to address student health needs, including the effectiveness of later start times on the performance of sleep-deprived adolescents, reducing education-related stresses children face, allowing enough time for lunch, improving math and science classes, and career readiness.

Earlier this year the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, titled Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and Physical Education to School , which concluded that schools can and should play a major role in both encouraging and providing opportunities for children and teens to be more active.

This poll underscores the need for many of the actions recommended by the IOM report, including:

• School districts should provide high-quality physical education, equal to 150 minutes per week for elementary school students and 225 minutes per week for middle and high school students.
• Students should engage in additional vigorous or moderately intense physical activity throughout the school day through recess, dedicated classroom activities, and other opportunities.
• Additional opportunities for physical activity before and after school hours should be accessible to all students.

The poll also found that a substantial number of parents in the United States do not believe the nation’s schools are sufficiently preparing students for future careers. Almost a third of parents (31%) responded that they do not believe their children’s schools are sufficiently teaching professional conduct and a work ethic, and 29% do think the schools are helping them to choose areas of study that will lead to a good job.

“In today’s knowledge economy, education paves a path to a good job, and a good job leads to better health by improving access to medical care and the resources to live in healthier neighborhoods,” said Proctor. “Schools need to provide not only the right curriculum, but also help students develop the skills they will need to succeed in work and life.”

View the report .

Methodology

The poll from which these results are taken is part of an ongoing series of surveys developed by researchers at the Harvard Opinion Research Program (HORP) at the Harvard School of Public Health in partnership with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and NPR. The Education and Health in Schools poll asked questions on a range of education and health issues. This release focuses on several key findings on health in schools.  The research team consists of the following members at each institution: Harvard School of Public Health: Robert J. Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis and Executive Director of HORP; John M. Benson, Research Scientist and Managing Director of HORP; Kathleen J. Weldon, Research and Administrative Manager. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Fred Mann, Associate Vice President, Communications; Carolyn Miller, Senior Program Officer, Research and Evaluation; and Ari Kramer, Communications Officer. NPR: Anne Gudenkauf, Senior Supervising Editor, Science Desk; Joe Neel, Deputy Senior Supervising Editor, Science Desk; Steve Drummond, Senior Supervising Editor, National Desk; Vickie Walton-James, Deputy Senior Supervising Editor, National Desk; Cindy Johnston, Senior Editor, National Desk; Lynette Clementson, Senior Supervising Editor, Morning Edition; Matt Thompson, Editorial Product Manager.

Interviews were conducted via telephone (including both landline and cell phone) by SSRS of Media (PA), August 6 – September 8, 2013, among a nationally representative sample of 1368 adults who said they were one of the people in their household most knowledgeable about the education of the children in the household who attended a public school or public charter school in grades K-12 during the school year ending in May or June 2013. The interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. The margin of error for total respondents is +/-3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Possible sources of non-sampling error include non-response bias, as well as question wording and ordering effects. Non-response in telephone surveys produces some known biases in survey-derived estimates because participation tends to vary for different subgroups of the population. To compensate for these known biases and for variations in probability of selection, sample data are weighted by landline/cell phone use, homeownership, Census region, number of adults in the household, the demographics of a randomly selected child who attended a public school or public charter school in grades K-12 during the school year ending in May or June 2013 (sex, age, grade in school, and race/ethnicity), and the number of such children in the household. Other techniques, including random-digit dialing and replicate subsamples are used to ensure that the sample is representative.

For more information:

Todd Datz 617.432.8413 [email protected]

photo: iStockphoto.com

# # # The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation focuses on the pressing health and health care issues facing our country. As the nation’s largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to improving the health and health care of all Americans, the Foundation works with a diverse group of organizations and individuals to identify solutions and achieve comprehensive, meaningful and timely change. For 40 years the Foundation has brought experience, commitment, and a rigorous, balanced approach to the problems that affect the health and health care of those it serves. When it comes to helping Americans lead healthier lives and get the care they need, the Foundation expects to make a difference in your lifetime. For more information, visit www.rwjf.org . Follow the Foundation on Twitter www.rwjf.org/twitter or Facebook www.rwjf.org/facebook .

Harvard School of Public Health is dedicated to advancing the public’s health through learning, discovery and communication. More than 400 faculty members are engaged in teaching and training the 1,000-plus student body in a broad spectrum of disciplines crucial to the health and well-being of individuals and populations around the world. Programs and projects range from the molecular biology of AIDS vaccines to the epidemiology of cancer; from risk analysis to violence prevention; from maternal and children’s health to quality of care measurement; from health care management to international health and human rights.

NPR is an award-winning, multimedia news organization and an influential force in American life. In collaboration with more than 900 independent public radio stations nationwide, NPR strives to create a more informed public – one challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas and cultures. NPR reaches a growing audience of 27 million listeners weekly; to find local stations and broadcast times for NPR programs, visit www.npr.org/stations

Physical Education

Physical education is the foundation of a Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program. 1, 2 It is an academic subject characterized by a planned, sequential K–12 curriculum (course of study) that is based on the national standards for physical education. 2–4 Physical education provides cognitive content and instruction designed to develop motor skills, knowledge, and behaviors for physical activity and physical fitness. 2–4 Supporting schools to establish physical education daily can provide students with the ability and confidence to be physically active for a lifetime. 2–4

There are many benefits of physical education in schools. When students get physical education, they can 5-7 :

• Increase their level of physical activity.
• Improve their grades and standardized test scores.
• Stay on-task in the classroom.

Increased time spent in physical education does not negatively affect students’ academic achievement.

Strengthen Physical Education in Schools [PDF – 437 KB] —This data brief defines physical education, provides a snapshot of current physical education practices in the United States, and highlights ways to improve physical education through national guidance and practical strategies and resources. This was developed by Springboard to Active Schools in collaboration with CDC.

Secular Changes in Physical Education Attendance Among U.S. High School Students, YRBS 1991–2013

The Secular Changes in Physical Education Attendance Among U.S. High School Students report [PDF – 3 MB] explains the secular changes (long-term trends) in physical education attendance among US high school students over the past two decades. Between 1991 and 2013, US high school students’ participation in school-based physical education classes remained stable, but at a level much lower than the national recommendation of daily physical education. In order to maximize the benefits of physical education, the adoption of policies and programs aimed at increasing participation in physical education among all US students should be prioritized. Download the report for detailed, nationwide findings.

Physical Education Analysis Tool (PECAT)

The  Physical Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (PECAT) [PDF – 6 MB] is a self-assessment and planning guide developed by CDC. It is designed to help school districts and schools conduct clear, complete, and consistent analyses of physical education curricula, based upon national physical education standards.

Visit our PECAT page  to learn more about how schools can use this tool.

• CDC Monitoring Student Fitness Levels1 [PDF – 1.64 MB]
• CDC Ideas for Parents: Physical Education [PDF – 2 MB]
• SHAPE America: The Essential Components of Physical Education (2015) [PDF – 391 KB]
• SHAPE America: Appropriate Instructional Practice Guidelines for Elementary, Middle School, and High School Physical Education [PDF – 675 KB]
• SHAPE America: National Standards and Grade-Level Outcomes for K–12 Physical Education 2014
• SHAPE America: National Standards for K–12 Physical Education (2013)
• SHAPE America Resources
• Youth Compendium of Physical Activities for Physical Education Teachers (2018) [PDF – 145 KB]
• Social Emotional Learning Policies and Physical Education
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A Guide for Developing Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programs . Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2013.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School health guidelines to promote healthy eating and physical activity. MMWR . 2011;60(RR05):1–76.
• Institute of Medicine. Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and Physical Education to School . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013. Retrieved from  http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18314&page=R1 .
• SHAPE America. T he Essential Components of Physical Education . Reston, VA: SHAPE America; 2015. Retrieved from   http://www.shapeamerica.org/upload/TheEssentialComponentsOfPhysicalEducation.pdf  [PDF – 392 KB].
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Association Between School-Based Physical Activity, Including Physical Education, and Academic Performance . Atlanta, GA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health and Academic Achievement. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2014.
• Michael SL, Merlo C, Basch C, et al. Critical connections: health and academics . Journal of School Health . 2015;85(11):740–758.

Healthy Youth

To receive email updates about this page, enter your email address:

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.