Why PHYSICAL EDUCATION is a Joke and What We Must Do to Change It << 1  2

Character and positive attitudes and values are some of the most important things that children need to learn, and we in physical education have the ideal situation to provide realistic, meaningful learning opportunities in these areas, especially since so much undesirable learning in these areas is taking place in youth sports. Far too many students leave high school believing that it is appropriate to openly disrespect opponents, that it is okay to cheat if you don’t get caught, that trash talk and taunting are appropriate ways to interact with opponents, officials, even teammates and coaches. In physical education we have the opportunity to impact not only the student, but also the school and the community in ways that no other part of the school or curriculum can, even if and when other subject matter teachers or curriculum claim to do so. But we must address these outcomes intentionally, not as an afterthought.

As physical educators we must learn how to structure our curriculum and our lessons to address character, attitudes, and values in a meaningful way. For example, I can keep students in my classes from taunting and calling each other names in my classes when I am nearby, but I cannot teach them not to do it when I am not there. If they have truly learned that doing these things is disrespectful and inappropriate, they will refrain from doing them when I am not near, when they are not in my class, and even when they are not in school. It is my job to help them look at their behaviors and decide how their actions should fit with their beliefs, attitudes, and values, empowering them to decide which behaviors they want to continue and discontinue.

But creating lessons and curriculum designed to get students to address these behaviors is so much more difficult to do than to just play a cooperative game or to teach fitness and skills, and so much harder to assess than achievement of fitness and skills. This is why issues such as fair play and teamwork are most often addressed only superficially (e.g. "teamwork" means working together, there is no “I” in team, "fair" means playing by the rules, etc.). Students come away from these lessons with slogans and little sense of what these mean in terms of what they personally should and should not do, or how it applies to their own values and behavior.

We even teach "teamwork" as meaning everyone gets the ball equally, and that fair play means giving the girls an unfair advantage. Isn't that what coed rules do? Coed rules promote including people in activity, not because it’s the correct game-based (tactical) choice, but rather because of gender differences. Some examples: Girls pass to boys, boys pass to girls no matter who is most open or most capable; boys can’t go into the lane in basketball even though the role the tallest player or best jumper should be playing is that of rebounder. When the least skilled players complain that the boys won’t give them the ball, we solve the wrong problem. The real problem is that the less skilled players don’t know how to get open and stay in their range and the thrower’s range, OR they don’t know their role. In the real world, when we work in groups we play roles (business, sports, family, neighborhood, friends, etc.). It is to learn THOSE aspects of teamwork that we have team games in physical education. Instead of using opportunities to teach about the real meaning of teamwork, we make rules that make a joke of the game and eliminate the possibility of coming to an understanding of how groups really work.

Our teacher preparation programs and our professional publications, including textbooks, need to provide models for teachers to use to address these important affective goals in a meaningful way: lessons and curriculum that are designed to help the students find out what they value and believe, and how their behaviors are or are not consistent with those values and beliefs. For example, many students profess a value for treating others with respect, but their behaviors are inconsistent with that (taunting opponents and officials, making fun of the lesser skilled, etc.). Teachers often make rules that disallow such things, but that is far different from helping students decide for themselves whether those behaviors are ones they want to continue to display. Students most likely learn that those things are not allowed in this teacher’s class, or not allowed in physical education. But is that the goal? What must the lesson or teacher do to get students to confront how taunting may conflict with their professed value for respecting others? (I ask my students to raise a hand if they think people ought to be treated with respect, and then keep their hand in the air if that person also happens to be wearing a striped shirt and a whistle or an opposing team’s jersey.)

Helping students understand how groups really work when there is no "coach" or "teacher" or "law enforcement personnel" to dictate what is appropriate, and what is not, will impact their personal and work lives forever. What is the responsibility of the physical educator to help students “unlearn” the negative things they learn in sport? Who is going to do it if we don’t? (My college students continually tell me that they have had coaches and physical education teachers tell them that if they are not cheating they are not trying hard enough!).

Our colleges must do a better job of helping the teacher education candidates value physical education. Teachers who believe that what they are doing is important (not a joke) aren’t tempted to just throw out the ball or have "free days" for 20 to 80% of their classes. I know I am probably preaching to the choir here, because the people who are reading this already care about physical education and value it. However, a large number of practitioners do not. We have a very difficult time finding cooperating teachers for our practicum and student teaching placements because so few physical educators provide quality programs in K-12 schools; programs that aren’t totally spent in the weight room or free play at the secondary level, and ones that are more than just free play days or games at the elementary level.

An example of something that college programs could do to better prepare their candidates for addressing the affective outcomes in a more meaningful way occurs at our college. One of the program requirements is an activity class called Nontraditional Team Sports, in which we model a curriculum designed around the affective outcomes identified in this essay. Required for all HPER majors, and an elective in the general education requirements for the rest of the student body, the syllabus identifies two outcomes. The affective outcome (responsible group membership, respect, responsibility, fair play, etc.) is addressed through daily journal entries. We play without officials so that students have to take responsibility for their behavior, and that of their teammates and opponents, as well as the game rules. We ask the students to play by the motto used by the New Games Movement: “Play Hard, Play Fair, Nobody Hurt.” That is the only class “rule.” The journals students keep are real, reflective, and provide authentic learning opportunities. The students write about topics that are meaningful to them. Physical fitness is the second outcome of the course and provides the basis for choosing all of the activities included in the course.

I would like to report that our graduates all become model teachers but I cannot. Like other new teachers, the support or resistance they get from their colleagues and administrators when they get their first positions plays a big role in who they finally become as professionals. But I can say that many principals have told me that they prefer our graduates when accepting student teachers and when hiring new teachers.

In conclusion, many people in many places do not take physical education seriously, and all too often this perception is deserved. I have argued forcefully for physical education to do more to address the affective goals that are usually ascribed to all areas of the educational program (and therefore to no one specifically). Physical educators have a unique opportunity in this all important area. Although I have used a lot of different terms when addressing affective learning, they could be summed up in one - citizenship. However, the precise wording and lists are not the key issue.

The issue is that we will continue to be perceived as a joke as long as we fail to value what we do, as long as we are unable to justify it beyond our profession, and as long as we are unresponsive to the sensibilities of our constituencies. We will never get them to believe that everyone needs to be highly skilled in every activity. Sadly, the public’s value for fitness will continue to grow until fitness becomes all that physical education is. Many of our teachers and programs are already accepting this role. Elementary schools are settling for “continuous activity” as the main and sometimes only goal for most or all lessons. Some secondary schools are adopting weight training for the entire curriculum. We see numerous articles in the popular press extolling the public physical education programs’ purchase of Wii and treadmills and other exercise equipment.

Our students need much more from physical education than fitness. We don’t need physical education teachers to develop student fitness. The local Gold’s Gym or armed services drill instructors could be contracted much less expensively to do this job. We can’t continue to offer programs and curriculums that are bogus, emphasizing development of physical skills that people can live very well without. I do teach fitness and skills. They are important, but as a means to becoming healthy and as a means to feeling competent, which in turn leads to continued participation. Developing this disposition toward leading a healthy lifestyle is important. It is NOT bogus. And it’s not a joke.

When I have presented ideas like those addressed in this essay to college educators, I get responses like, “Some people just don’t get it.” (Comment made by one of the acknowledged leaders of the profession at a curriculum conference opening session in the 1990’s.) In contrast, when I present a view of the value of nontraditional Team Sports to public audiences, I’m frequently asked “Where were you when I was in junior high?” This is physical education they can believe in and support, and the kind of physical education they wish their children could experience.

What do you think? Should affective skills be the primary goal of public school physical education? Dr. Hedlund presents a strong case for caution in an excessive focus on skills and fitness. Given the time limitations we face what is a realistic and achievable approach? How can we get the public to take what we do seriously? Please share your thoughts on the NASPE Forum.

download this article in Word

<< 1  2