The Rebirth of PE By Dr.

Minica Lynn Sanderson

 The Problem Barney and Deutsch (2009) asserted PE has been and is continuously

marginalized as an academic subject by parents and administrators because its perceived to lack academic rigor. Bailey and colleagues (2009) offered a possible reason for this; According to their research, PE has its place in education but it has no substantial effect on academic achievement or academic assessments. According to Lux (2010), this point is furthered made by possibly demeaning comments made on a regular basis by staff members, which have attributed to the implicit belief of PE being less valuable than other subjects. Examples of these insidious comments are the misnomer of gym as opposed to PE class and the referencing to playing in PE as opposed to learning in PE. Physical educators have several challenges they must face working in a marginalized discipline. According to Whipp, Tan, and Yeo (2007), in addition to the discipline being viewed as academically unimportant, physical educators are isolated within the schools from other educators, and there is little support or collaborative efforts made outside of the PE department. PE is viewed as just gym with no real academic value, simply a break from core subjects to allow students to expel energy through play (Lux, 2010; Sheehy, 2006). According to research, this ideology stems from elementary school where students may have participated in PE classes as little as once per month (Wangsness & Simpson, 2007). In situations where the gymnasium was used for events and assemblies, PE classes were cancelled and students were not given the opportunity to make up the missed class that added to reduced time in PE classes (Lux, 2010; Wangsness &

 Simpson, 2007). At the elementary school level, some students who misbehaved were excluded from PE as a form of punishment. PE Waivers and Exemptions

PE is faced with defending its value or risking program cuts (Anonymous, 2011). In 1995, the Illinois General Assembly passed a law allowing school districts to file a petition to the Illinois State Board of Education requesting a waiver or modification for the PE requirement existing in the Illinois School Code (Thomas, 2004). According to the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (2006), all students in grades K through 12 should participate in PE daily without the allowance of substitutions, waivers, or exemptions. However, those who support the waiver have expressed the waiver is a viable option for those (a) who are unable to obtain a qualified PE teacher, (b) who lack the facilities and space required to have adequate PE classes, (c) who lack the funds necessary to obtain a physical educator or supplies needed to have adequate PE classes, (d) who need to focus more on core subjects because of the demand to increase scores on the standardized assessments, or (e) who suggested extracurricular activities are allowed to substitute for PE requirements because of the physical component associated with the specific activity (Rockford Board of Education, 2004). According to Hughes (2009), some schools allow waivers for PE to grant students the flexibility to take other courses of interest such as band and Junior Reserve Officers Training Corp (JROTC). Adding Reading and Writing to PE In efforts to bring academic value to traditional PE programs, many administrators have mandated reading and writing skills be taught in non-core subjects.

 According to Crayton (personal communication, September 15, 2009), the need to read and write in every subject stems from NCLB and standardized assessment scores in

reading. Crayton suggested every department needed to be held accountable for a subject area on high-stakes tests, including social science, fine arts, JROTC, and PE to properly address college readiness standards. Some PE teachers have embraced this idea on their own and have added reading and other core subjects into the PE curriculum. Vail (2006) reported PE teachers who are incorporating academic lessons into their classes daily as well as core teachers adding physical activities into their lessons are acknowledging the connection between concentration, improved academics, and PE. According to Colvin and Rayburn (2007), some PE teachers have teamed up with librarians to encourage reading and research. It may be necessary to require all physical educators to redesign their programs if they have not do so already to highlight and implement reading and writing (Lux, 2010). Unfortunately, the anticipated pushback from PE teachers operating under the old regime, have made this latter option undesirable (Colvin & Rayburn, 2007). Faced with such situations, administrators have continued to question the value of PE and its ability to keep up with the needs of todays academic requirements (Lux, 2010). The Future of PE According to Rink, Jones, Kirby, Mitchell, and Doutis (2007), PE isnt valued because there is no uniform method to measure academic outcomes. Seigel (2006) concluded to retain PE programs would require a proven positive relationship between PE and significant, measurable academic growth especially in the areas of reading and writing. Prusak et al (2011, p. 40) posed these questions:

 1. Are physical educators properly trained to address the needs of todays student? 2. Have physical educators chosen coaching and an over-emphasis on sports skills over student learning, student activity, and student health? 3. Have physical educators failed to address their own health and wellness issues resulting in overweight-ness and sedentary lifestyles trickling down to their students? 4. Are physical educators resistant to developing more efficient and effective programs simply because they are accustomed to the way things were in the past? Constantinou (2008) stated physical educators need to be advocates for PE at the grassroots and state level. Sheehy (2006) added regular talks between PE teachers and stakeholders can assist with communicating expectations of the discipline as well as

understanding the importance and relevance of PE to education. Lynn (2007) added there must be a revision to PE curricula. This revision needs to include significant student learning outcomes and increased accountability for PE teachers. According to Morgan and Hansen (2008) several things must be in place to ensure proper revisions of a quality PE program because of the possible variance in performance of the PE teacher. Deglau and Barnes (2009) suggested PE teachers (a) engage in trainings leading to teaching todays student by engaging and valuing every student, (b) incorporate modern technology and team building skills, and (c) take hold of challenges, successes, and the impetus for lifelong fitness. Goodweiler, Hensley, and Finn (2009) suggested even with the aforementioned changes, without a standard PE

 curriculum and with the inconsistency of program quality across the nation, it is difficult to determine the true academic value of PE. Summary PE has been the center of many debates as it relates to its academic relevance to

the high school curriculum. As noted previously, we must focus on the preservation of PE courses by revising current PE curricula, especially those programs not adding to the academic growth of children through reading and writing in a measurable manner. There must be tangible evidence of PEs academic value. Without it, there is a risk of even more schools obtaining PE waivers. Thus far, over 50% of the schools in the US have been granted PE waivers (Thomas, 2004). According to research, if PE is to survive these critical times, physical educators and supporters of PE must work to strengthen the quality of PE programs by meeting national standards and producing measurable results on high-stakes tests (Anonymous, 2009).

 References Alexander, K. (2009, August 15). Districts won't switch graduation requirements yet. Austin American Statesman, p. B3. Anonymous. (2009). In light of the editorial in the May/June 2009 JOPERD, how can individual practitioners address the loss of physical education programs? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80(8), 10-11. Anonymous. (2011). What are the most effective and ineffective ways of advocating for physical education and physical activity? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 82(4), 53-56. Bailey, R., Armour, K., Kirk, D., Jess, M., Pickup, I., & Sanford, R. (2009). The educational benefits claimed for physical education and sport: An academic review. Research Papers in Education, 24(1), 1-27. Barney, D., & Deutsch, J. (2009). Elementary classroom teachers attitudes and perspectives of elementary physical education. Physical Educator, 66(3), 114-123. Colvin, V., & Rayburn, S. (2007). Read all about it: Physical educators and librarians team up in elementary schools. Strategies, 20(3), 26-30. Constantinou, P. (2008). Utilizing your state AHPERD conference to increase advocacy efforts in your state. Strategies, 22(2), 37-37. Deglau, D., & Barnes, D. (2009). Meeting the needs of urban youths in Columbus City schools. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80(8), 41-45. Goodweiler, C., Hensley, L. D., & Finn, K. J. (2009). Value of daily physical education questioned! Journal of Research 4(2), 6-9. Hughes, B. (2009). City schools going less physical. United States, Washington: McClatchyTribune Information Services. Lux, K. M. (2010). How to raise the status of physical education at your school. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 81(8), 40-42, 56. Lynn, S. (2007). The case for daily physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 78(5), 18-21. Morgan, P. J., & Hansen, V. (2008). 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, 79(4), 506-516.

 National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2006). Opposing substitution and waiver/exemptions for required physical education [Position paper]. Reston, VA: NASPE. Prusak, K., Graser, S., Pennington, T., Zanandrea, M., Wilkinson, C., & Hager, R. (2011). A critical look at physical education and what must be done to address obesity issues. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 82(4), 39-46.

Rink, J., Jones, L., Kirby, K., Mitchell, M., & Doutis, P. (2007). Teachers perceptions of a physical education statewide assessment program. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78(3), 204-215. Rockford Board of Education. (2004). Special meeting of the Rockford Board of Education [meeting minutes]. Retrieved from http://webs.rps205.com/ district/files/91F89661FF3F4D14B4BE4C9A444138C2.pdf Sheehy, D. (2006). Parents perceptions of their childs 5th grade physical education program. Physical Educator, 63(1), 30-37. Sherman, C., Tran, C., & Alves, Y. (2010). Elementary school classroom teacher delivered physical education: costs, benefits, and barrier. Physical Educator, 67(1), 2-17. Siegel, D. (2006). Physical fitness and academic achievement. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 77(2), 9. Thomas, D. (2004). The physical education waiver process. Taking on childhood obesity in Chicago. Presented at the Consortium to Lower Obesity in Chicago Children in Chicago, Illinois. Wangsness, L., & Simpson, A. (2007, May 30). Lack of physical education weighs heavily on many; lawmakers consider new requirements. Boston Globe, p. A1. Whipp, P., Tan. G., & Yeo, P. (2007). Experienced physical education teachers reaching their use-by date: Powerless and disrespected. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78(3), 487-499. Vail, K. (2006). Is physical fitness raising grades? The Education Digest, 71(8), 13.