Redesigning Physical Education: An Equity Agenda in Which Every Child Matters 9781138607842, 9780429466991

Redesigning Physical Education is a bold and innovative manifesto for the fundamental redesign of physical education for

174 25 6MB

English Pages [281] Year 2018

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Redesigning Physical Education: An Equity Agenda in Which Every Child Matters
 9781138607842, 9780429466991

Table of contents :
Redesigning Physical Education- Front Cover
Redesigning Physical Education
Title Page
Copyright Page
List of figures
List of boxes
List of contributors
Foreword by Kathleen Armour
Introduction: From reform and improvement to redesign
A reform and improvement tradition
Redesigned schools and PE for new times
Guidance from two redesign leaders
An equity-oriented redesign agenda
A systems problem: Schoolhouses divided with adverse effects on teachers
Public policy imperatives
An international redesign agenda with cross-boundary lesson-drawing
Rationale, progression, and audience for this book
A clarion call for action facilitated by research and development partnerships
A charge to readers
Toward a redesign agenda: The United States as
a case example
Chapter 1: Physical education in the industrial age school:
An institutional perspective
Industrial age schools and physical education
The standardization impulse
Defining features of the industrial age school
Public policy influences and determinants
The promise, contribution, and perils of teacher education
PE and PETE on auto-pilot: An institutional perspective
Chapter 2: Achieving desirable outcomes at scale in an era of results-based accountability
Important and unique results at scale
The USA report card on children’s physical activity
The PE effect 1: Research reviews
The PE effect 2: Research that taps young people’s preferences and outcomes
The PE effect 3: Models-driven research
Connecting PE program research with research on PE teachers
Unsettling conclusions: A time for bold action
Chapter 3: Redesign as an adaptive problem facilitated by theories
of change
Redesign as an adaptive problem
The import of justifiable theories of change
Connecting theories of change to curriculum designs
Chapter 4: From whole group pedagogy to tailor-made interventions
Intervention frameworks in American schools
Bringing intervention science to PE’s redesign
Four components in intervention practice
Professional ethics and interventions
Summary: The ethical foundation for competent intervention practice
Chapter 5: Research and development to guide and defend redesign
Planning for a research and development framework
Building from strengths: Two research directions
University-school R & D partnerships for simultaneous renewal
Enhancing researchers’ social organization and knowledge orientations
Connecting research to core values and normative visions
International perspectives
Chapter 6: Redesigning physical education in the United States:
A second look
Suboptimal learning environments for students
Suboptimal working conditions for physical educators
Other challenges associated with the status quo
Reconceptualizing physical education in the United States
Moving toward change in the United States
Conclusions and final thoughts
Chapter 7: Redesigning physical education in Canada
Taking stock of PE’s current status in Canada
PE redesign priorities in Canada
Concluding thoughts
Chapter 8: Redesigning physical education in Scotland
The education system in Scotland
Curriculum for excellence
National qualifications in physical education
Responding to external challenges: Motor development in the early years
Responding to external challenges: Mental health and wellbeing in adolescents
Chapter 9: Re-imagination and re-design in physical education:
Implicit and explicit models in England and Wales
The multi-activity model in England and Wales
Health-based PE
Twenty-first-century models
Two new influences
Does PE teacher education need to be re-designed?
Chapter 10: Redesigning physical education in Ireland: Significant
redesign over modest reforms?
Irish school and higher education context
Physical education teacher education policy in Ireland
Teaching and physical education
Overall teacher education and PETE
PETE curriculum
Post-primary school physical education in Ireland
Chapter 11: Redesign of PE in Aotearoa New Zealand
HPE in Aotearoa New Zealand
Characteristics of the re-design
Constraints: Neoliberal policies and their ramifications
Chapter 12: Re-visioning the Australian curriculum for health
and physical education
The emergence of the Australian HPE context
Enduring challenges and issues
A futuristic national curriculum for health and physical education
Shaping the future of HPE
Curricular enactment: Voices from the field
Chapter 13: Redesigning physical education in Italy: The potential
of a network ecosystem
Chapter overview
Redesign rooted in the past: Back to the future of Italian PE
Facilitators, constraints, and barriers for redesign
Too “interesting times”? Time to redesign because every child matters
Research and development for an open source ecosystem
A conclusion for a new start
Summary findings, lessons learned, and
Chapter 14: Agenda-setting: Continuous improvement alongside redesign
Revisiting the American redesign agenda
International agendas: Commonalties, similarities, and uniqueness
An analytical menu for policy planning
The need for a formal systems design: Macro-planning priorities
Collective action for collective impact
Epilogue: Optimism for redesign gained from an autobiographical journey

Citation preview

Routledge Studies in Physical Education and Youth Sport


Redesigning Physical Education

Redesigning Physical Education is a bold and innovative manifesto for the fundamental redesign of physical education for the twenty-first-century world. Aiming at better outcomes for children, better working conditions for teachers, and innovative solutions to the decline of school PE, it calls for a transnational collective action project based on new research frameworks, stressing the fundamental importance of health-enhancing, life-enriching active participation for all children and young people. Action-oriented and evidence-based, the book examines the key challenges driving change, including the equity agenda, institutionalization, outcome and accountability based teaching, and physical activity requirements in schools. With a truly international scope, the text explores perspectives from the USA, Canada, Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, and Italy. This is important reading for students and academics studying and working in physical education, kinesiology, public health, and children’s physical activity. It is also a valuable resource for pediatric exercise specialists, especially sport and exercise psychologists. Hal A. Lawson is Professor of Educational Policy and Leadership, and of Social Welfare at the University at Albany, The State University of New York, USA.

Routledge Studies in Physical Education and Youth Sport Series Editor: David Kirk, University of Strathclyde, UK

The Routledge Studies in Physical Education and Youth Sport series is a forum for the discussion of the latest and most important ideas and issues in physical education, sport, and active leisure for young people across school, club and recreational settings. The series presents the work of the best wellestablished and emerging scholars from around the world, offering a truly international perspective on policy and practice. It aims to enhance our understanding of key challenges, to inform academic debate, and to have a high impact on both policy and practice, and is thus an essential resource for all serious students of physical education and youth sport. Also available in this series: Girls, Gender and Physical Education An Activist Approach Kimberly L. Oliver and David Kirk The Female Tradition in Physical Education ‘Women First’ Revisited David Kirk and Patricia Vertinsky Teacher Socialization in Physical Education New Perspectives Edited by K. Andrew R. Richards and Karen Lux Gaudreault Examination Physical Education Policy, Pedagogies and Possibilities Trent D. Brown and Dawn Penney Digital Technology in Physical Education Global Perspectives Edited by Jeroen Koekoek and Ivo van Hilvoorde Redesigning Physical Education An Equity Agenda in Which Every Child Matters Edited by Hal A. Lawson

Redesigning Physical Education

An Equity Agenda in Which Every Child Matters

Edited by Hal A. Lawson

First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business  2018 selection and editorial matter, Hal A. Lawson; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Hal A. Lawson to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-60784-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-46699-1 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK


List of figures List of boxes List of contributors Foreword by Kathleen Armour Acknowledgements

Introduction: From reform and improvement to redesign

vii viii ix xi xiv 1



Toward a redesign agenda: The United States as a case example


  1 Physical education in the industrial age school: An institutional perspective



  2 Achieving desirable outcomes at scale in an era of results-based accountability 41 HAL A. LAWSON

  3 Redesign as an adaptive problem facilitated by theories of change



  4 From whole group pedagogy to tailor-made interventions



  5 Research and development to guide and defend redesign HAL A. LAWSON


vi Contents PART II

International perspectives


  6 Redesigning physical education in the United States: A second look



  7 Redesigning physical education in Canada



  8 Redesigning physical education in Scotland



  9 Re-imagination and re-design in physical education: Implicit and explicit models in England and Wales



10 Redesigning physical education in Ireland: Significant redesign over modest reforms?



11 Redesign of PE in Aotearoa New Zealand



12 Re-visioning the Australian curriculum for health and physical education



13 Redesigning physical education in Italy: The potential of a network ecosystem




Summary findings, lessons learned, and implications


14 Agenda-setting: Continuous improvement alongside redesign






  2.1   2.2   2.3   2.4   2.5   3.1   3.2   3.3   3.4   3.5   3.6   4.1   5.1   5.2   5.3   5.4 11.1 13.1 13.2

Competing constituencies with diverse goals Four major policy impacts on PE in schools Organizational influences on PE teachers and their programs The sub-optimal reproduction of PE teachers’ work in particular kinds of schools The sub-optimal reproduction of the PE/PETE configuration The social ecology for children’s socialization A life course development progression with cascading effects Variable outcomes derive from sub-optimal conditions An ideal theory of change framework Theory of change improvement cycles The black box problem: A barrier to professional learning and program improvement The improvement-oriented intervention cycle A dual research and development framework Four research orientations and impacts Research and development partnerships with a dual knowledge system Tailor-made PE for different kinds of schools and surrounding ecologies Equality versus equity Pathways from PESS guidelines to local plans and activities with evaluation feedback loop Linking PE governance, organization, and key actions: Regional school office role

43 55 56 57 59 69 70 75 76 77 78 93 109 114 115 116 187 218 219


1.1 Examples of the industrial age school’s influences 28 4.1 Student sub-populations needing interprofessional collaboration 91 5.1 Research and development focused on innovation implementation and scale-up 117


Farid Bardid, University of Strathclyde, UK. Lorraine Cale, Loughborough University, UK. Ben Dyson, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Eimear Enright, University of Queensland, Australia. Tim Fletcher, Brock University, Ontario, Canada. Barrie Gordon, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Kim C. Graber, University of Illinois, USA. Ken Green, University of Chester, UK. Joannie Halas, University of Manitoba, Canada. Jo Harris, Loughborough University, UK. David Kirk, University of Strathclyde, UK. Cara A. Lamb, University of Strathclyde, UK. Dillon Landi, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Jenna Lorusso, Western University, Ontario, Canada. Liliana Leone, Counseling and Evaluation of Social and Health Policies, CEVAS, Rome, Italy. Doune Macdonald, University of Queensland, Australia. Ann MacPhail, University of Limerick, Ireland. Rosalba Marchetti, Italian Ministry of Education, Rome, Italy. Franca Marzocchi, Confederation of Italian Associations of Physical Activity and Sports Graduates, Venice, Italy. Louise McCuaig, University of Queensland, Australia.

x Contributors

John D. Millar, University of Strathclyde, UK. Anna Motta, Italian Ministry of Education, Turin, Italy. Mary O’Sullivan, University of Limerick, Ireland. Melissa Parker, University of Limerick, Ireland. Caterina Pesce, University of Rome “Foro Italico”, Rome, Italy. K. Andrew R. Richards, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, USA. Deborah Tannehill, University of Limerick, Ireland. Thomas J. Templin, University of Michigan, USA. Eishin Teraoka, University of Strathclyde, UK. Phillip D. Tomporowski, University of Georgia, USA. Amelia Mays Woods, University of Illinois, USA.

Foreword Kathleen Armour

Hal Lawson is one of the giants of the academic physical education field. Throughout his career he has argued that physical education should be bolder in its ambitions and braver in its willingness to take responsibility for the outcomes of its programmes. He has campaigned tirelessly for a physical education that meets the needs of young people, particularly those who are least well served. He describes this in the sub-title of this book as ‘an equity agenda in which every child matters’. Hal has long eschewed conventional disciplinary boundaries and this partly explains his interest in developing an expansive agenda for the future of physical education; and this book is certainly expansive. In the acknowledgements, Hal explains that he ‘resides at the boundaries of Physical Education, Kinesiology, Public Health, Social Work, Educational Policy and Leadership, and International and Comparative Education’ and the influence of this multiple positioning is evident in the ambition and design of this book. Hal’s goal has always been to deploy relevant knowledge and research – wherever he finds it – in the interests of children and young people. He is suspicious of professions that drift towards working in their own interests and intolerant of researchers who won’t challenge their preferred theories and methods in order to pursue the higher goal of improving conditions for children and young people. Indeed, one of the design features of this book is that when contacting lead authors for the international chapters in the second section, Hal required them to bring together a team of co-authors in an attempt to avoid the ‘great leader, pet PE model’ syndrome. In the chapters in the first section, Hal ranges authoritatively across topics that provide a history of physical education in the context of today’s policy drivers. He argues that now is the time to finally ditch the ‘factory model’ of education and to move towards more customised forms of physical education that better meet the needs of young people. Hal argues for new physical education designs that are less formulaic and he urges teachers to ‘assess student needs, characteristics, and aspirations and use these data

xii Foreword

in their planning for particular sub-populations’ (which, in an ideal world, would be self-evident). He is unafraid to use terms such as ‘intervention’ to change the way that we think about practice and he urges our profession to learn from other fields and – above all – to ‘do no harm’. In Chapter 5, Hal asks some uncomfortable questions about physical education research. He draws parallels with research and development in industry and other sectors and argues that: ‘A disconnected array of ad hoc studies undertaken by solo researchers is not a pathway for policy and practice impact’. It is difficult to argue against this characterisation of research in our field, particularly in pedagogy, and we could surely reflect further on Hal’s reminder of the need for better organisation amongst researchers and more collective action. In the second section of the book, leading physical education academics from a range of countries offer perspectives on the organisation, design and impact of physical education in their national contexts. In most cases, the authors describe key features of physical education history, policy and practice, outline the philosophies underpinning current designs, and then explain why there is a persisting gap between rhetoric and reality: theory and practice. In all cases, the level of ambition is commendable. In some cases, the philosophies underpinning curriculum design are very persuasive (New Zealand, Australia) and the ‘futures-oriented’ approach in Australia feels different. Yet, there are no examples in these chapters of robust evidence demonstrating that the physical education as described is delivering outcomes consistently and for all children, and certainly not the most disadvantaged. In all cases, the reasons are instructive, and there is considerable common ground. The rationale for radical change is right there. We can conclude from this book that despite best endeavours, the gap between practice as it happens in most schools and practice as conceptualised by physical education academics is as wide as ever. So, Hal leaves us with some bold thinking that might just help us to move forward as a field. Instead of perching uncomfortably in the nexus of sport, education and health, Hal urges us to make a revolutionary claim, own it, and then build new futures for physical education around it. That claim is: Active, healthy lifestyles established during childhood are life-enriching and, if they continue, they are life-extending and perhaps life-saving. Hal argues that ‘a field that claims jurisdiction over these lifestyles, or at least claims the ability to be a key influence, is compelled to deliver on this immense potential’. It has to be worth a try. As you might expect from Hal Lawson, this book is scholarly, accessible and enjoyable; he has never been one to hide behind obscure language and faux theorising. The scope of this book is impressive and the clarity of

Foreword xiii

thought refreshing. Like all of us, Hal has his own preferences, and they are present throughout. Yet, what comes through above all else is an unswerving commitment to children and young people, a strong belief in the potential of physical education, and a vision for a better future if we are able to think differently and act collectively.


Countless people have contributed to my learning and professional development. Colleagues in my international peer networks merit special appreciation, including this book’s chapter authors. Colleagues and students associated with the several universities in which I have worked—the University of Washington, the University of British Columbia, Miami (Ohio) University, the University of Utah, and the University at Albany—can be viewed as “invisible co-authors.” They have invited and compelled me to stretch my imagination, expand my interests, learn new language and theories, and develop new competencies. The late W. Robert Morford and Alan G. Ingham provided guidance, support, and assistance early in my career at the University of Washington— with lasting benefits. The late John I. Goodlad and the educational luminaries he brought to me and other Leadership Associates in the National Network for Educational Renewal have had an indelible impact on my teaching, research, and service. Katharine H. Briar-Lawson, my life partner, opened avenues to social work’s distinctive approaches to children, families, communities, governments, and public policies. Facilitated by external grants, we have visited innovative sites in the US and several nations, enabling us to interview visionary leaders worldwide. Selected insights appear throughout this book. Research and development grants from charitable foundations and governments provided unique opportunities to experiment, listen, and learn as innovations were tested and adapted in real world contexts. I am especially grateful for support provided by the Danforth Foundation, the Ford Foundation, The US Education Department, The US Children’s Bureau, the National Institutes of Health, and three state education departments (Missouri, Ohio, and New York). My international consultations and presentations, especially my work with Dolf van Veen and others associated with The Dutch National Center for Education and Youth Care, kept my gaze outside the United States. These diverse experiences paved the way for me to learn from University at

Acknowledgements xv

Albany colleagues who specialize in international and comparative education. Without their guidance and support, I would not have gained the courage and conviction to take on an international comparative project. These several experiences have been life-enriching and career-changing. I now have a hybrid identity and an enduring need to explore new frontiers. Today, 50 years after I was awarded a specialized Ph.D. degree, I reside at the boundaries of Physical Education, Kinesiology, Public Health, Social Work, Educational Policy and Leadership, and International and Comparative Education. Although I never would recommend such breadth for early career colleagues, circumstances compelled it, and I wouldn’t have it any other way because these experiences have helped me appreciate how and why boundary-crossing and bridge-building priorities are center-stage in the unfolding drama of the twenty-first century, particularly as new social institutions are designed. Several colleagues generously provided reviews of selected chapters, and I need to acknowledge them without assigning shared responsibility. Phil Ward, Phillip Tomporowski, Kathleen Armour, Ken Green, John Evans, and Kevin Richards merit special appreciation. My appreciation extends to David Kirk, the series editor; and also to two anonymous reviewers whose critiques prompted a major revision. Last, but not least, I acknowledge my sons’ profound influence on me and my work. As Michael A. Lawson and Brian A. Lawson have journeyed successfully to adulthood, I have learned with and from them. At the same time, my dedication to other people’s children who have lacked our advantages has grown. This book is for you, Michael and Brian. Pay it forward. Hal A. Lawson

Introduction From reform and improvement to redesign Hal A. Lawson

A reform and improvement tradition Worldwide, two related concepts, reform and improvement, have dominated research, practice, and policy discourses for school physical education (PE) and physical education teacher education (PETE). Both concepts have stimulated timely innovations. School reform and improvement also have dominated discourses for the standardized model for a school. These initiatives have shared two assumptions: (1) The inherited school structure with its special subjects provides the best institutional configuration; and (2) The school system can be perfected, given requisite resources and policy supports. Viewed in this way, reform and improvement are conservative concepts because they yield incremental changes without disrupting institutionalized configurations. This “branding” is not an indictment because conservatism, like tradition (Shils 1981), is a developmental asset under the right conditions. Unfortunately, the benefits of this conserving strategy have been unevenly experienced, both in PE and in schools overall. Enduring sub-optimal conditions for PE teachers and disappointing student outcomes in particular school communities raise questions regarding whether reform and improvement initiatives will suffice. The importance of these questions grows amid rising concern that a standardized school system is not fit for purpose in a fast-changing, global society. School systems challenged by place-based poverty, social exclusion, social isolation, rapid immigration, and cultural diversity add a sense of urgency (Lawson and van Veen 2016). Data from the United States of America (USA) illuminate needs. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, when the de facto income needs for families with children substitute for an obsolete poverty line, 43 percent of all children in the USA are being raised in poverty-challenged family systems! What is more, a growing number of them are concentrated in poverty-challenged rural communities, suburbs, and urban neighborhoods (Sampson 2012; Sharkey and Faber 2014). This new geography helps to explain how and why concentrated poverty and

2  Hal A. Lawson

its correlates are social determinants of health disparities. It also exposes public policy gaps (Lawson 2016) and indicates needs for policy leadership (Lawson 2009; van der Mars 2018). Poverty, associated hardships, and immigrant children whose first language is not English pose formidable challenges to schools founded on three core ideas. All children will come to school ready and able to learn. Children will be fluent in the host nation’s dominant language. Most students will remain in the same school system because their families are strong and supported, enjoy stable housing, and at least one parent is employed. When these conditions are not evident, new school designs are needed, extending to curricular and instructional designs. Toward this end, some new designs for schools emphasize bridge-building with community agencies, neighborhood organizations, local governments, and family systems (Lawson and van Veen 2016; OECD 2107; World Bank 2018). Many focus on young people’s out-of-school time and they necessitate firm partnerships with community agencies, youth sports programs, dance studios, program providers during the summer months, and other providers of opportunities for enjoyable, health-enhancing physical activity. Meanwhile, visionary PE leaders are pioneering research and development initiatives focused on equitable opportunities and better outcomes for heretofore under-served populations. Some prioritize youth development outcomes such as social-emotional learning and development. Others target special sub-populations—for example, adolescent girls. Oliver and Kirk (2015) describe a bold PE innovation for girls, one that transforms their roles from obedient students to activist, empowered participants. Yet, other researchers depart from a teacher-controlled approach. They start with research and clinical assessments of what children and youths enjoy and prefer (e.g., Beni et al. 2016). Programs and pedagogical practices stemming from this approach become more play-like, albeit constrained by the compulsory schooling and required PE programs. Slowly but surely the seeds are being sown for PE’s redesign in tandem with new designs for schools. It is imperative that teachers, teacher educators, and pediatric health, sport, and physical activity leaders take stock of these emergent trends, opportunities, risks, threats, and policy contradictions as they strive for new designs.

Redesigned schools and PE for new times The idea of a one best system dominated the industrial era. The twenty-firstcentury imperative is for nuanced, evidence-based models and programs with embedded mechanisms for evaluation-driven organizational learning and continuous quality improvement. The main design question is, what works for whom, when, where, under what circumstances, at scale, and for how long? Guidance is provided by a growing body of theory and research

Introduction 3

regarding how young people are socialized into active, health-enhancing lifestyles, particularly ones that extend into adulthood. New concepts such as physical literacy, health literacy, and their relations are center stage. The way ahead is complicated, and it is ripe with uncertainties. However, one priority is clear: PE teachers must be prepared to identify, interpret, and respond to important differences involving students, families, schools, and communities. For example, it matters if PE is offered in a rural community with no sport and exercise facilities other than the schools’. It matters if urban neighborhoods are unsafe for children’s active play (Sharkey and Faber 2014). It matters if most of the students are ethnically and racially diverse, while most of the teachers are Caucasian (Cobb 2017; Yeager et al. 2017). It matters if most of the students are immigrants whose first language is not English and whose parents/caregivers struggle to strive to fit in. It matters if children’s families are sedentary and caught up in unhealthy practices. And it matters if students are assigned to special education or are clients in communitybased mental health, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems. These significant differences suggest that, even within the same PE program, learning and developmental experiences will need to be more customized and less formulaic. Three implications follow: (1) One program model (e.g., sport education) will not suffice; (2) Teachers need to assess student needs, characteristics, and aspirations and use these data in their planning for particular sub-populations; and (3) Students must enjoy agency (i.e., “voice and choice”), which necessitates changes in teachers’ role orientations and behaviors (Oliver and Kirk 2015; Ferguson et al. 2015). Although the concept of “intervention” presently is like a foreign language for some PE practitioners, it facilitates redesign, and the timing because schools are implementing response-to-intervention protocols and positive behavior intervention systems. Meanwhile, there is reason to wonder whether the PE profession’s inherited, occupational monopoly over school programs will endure. Emergent challenges start with growing requirements for outcomes-based accountability systems, including ones that proceed with cost-benefit analysis frameworks. Other challenges include increasing competitions from program and service providers other than certified PE teachers (Evans 2014a; Kirk 2017). Alongside challenges are redesign opportunities, including new school configurations that offer conducive conditions for learning, instruction, and health-enhancing performances. For example, afterschool programs and programs offered in community agencies, called school-linked programs in some circles, provide optimal conditions unmatched by some PE programs (Schwanenflugel and Tomporowski 2017). In brief, the challenge is not merely faithful implementation of evidencebased and preferred program models. It necessitates innovative, tailor-made designs facilitated by a new generation of leaders.

4  Hal A. Lawson

An immediate opportunity merits attention because school systems are being transformed to capitalize on it. An inherited model of direction instruction controlled by teachers no longer is the only or indeed the main mechanism for student learning. Learning systems designs, fueled by digital technologies and involving social networks, are fast invading school systems and, as they do, they alter other conventional practices. For example, a digital portfolio for each student replaces the conventional report card.

Guidance from two redesign leaders Two twentieth-century intellectual giants anticipated needs for the redesign of inherited organizations and institutions. Both frameworks have import for PE’s redesign. Planned abandonment with new designs Management guru Peter Drucker (2008) developed a design-oriented, futuristic planning framework named “a theory of planned abandonment.” He claimed that every new design commenced with difficult decisions regarding which past–present practices to eliminate. Expressed in colloquial terms, leaders needed to end some policies and programs before they effectively and efficiently start new ones. Toward this end, he developed a powerful generative question. If we hadn’t inherited it, would we do it this way? Consequential decisions start with a critical analysis of inherited programs and practices. Analysis proceeds with mixture of research evidence, core values, and plans for desirable futures, and it depends on widespread understanding of PE’s history and development, particularly how PE, the school subject, was configured to conform to the industrial age school’s functions as a student sorting machine (Callahan 1964; Spring 1976). A process known as problem-setting provides a vehicle for critical reflection and strategic redesign (Lawson 1984). Also known as agenda-setting, this process is facilitated by alternative frames of reference and new language. Consider, for example, the shift from PE as a school subject to PE as a school program, including connections with community-based offerings, summer sports camps, and afterschool programs. Then the social ecologies for children’s socialization into health-enhancing play, dance, physical activity, and sport can be harmonized and synchronized, marking an end to walled-in PE programs that fail to capitalize on complementary socialization experiences involving peers, families, and communities (see also Beets et al. 2016). Learning systems designs, fueled by digital technologies and facilitated by social networks, are fit for purpose in these new designs. A new model for health promotion known as whole school, whole community, and whole child provides design guidance (Lewallen et al. 2015).

Introduction 5

Comprehensive models like this one may enhance PE’s subject matter centrality and help end the marginal status of PE teachers (Gaudreault et al. 2016). Presently, the significant adults in young people’s lives—parents/caregivers, community professionals, youth sports coaches, summer camp leaders, and dance instructors—are caught in an institutional design trap. When school reform and PE reform are walled-in, family and community resources and social supports are walled-out, and mutually beneficial collaboration among the adults in support of students is constrained. School PE teachers have pivotal roles to play in initiatives structured to bridge school, family and community boundaries, leading efforts to harmonize and synchronize disjointed programs, align the efforts of adult leaders, and minimize contradictory socialization experiences. The timing is right for school–family–community configurations as educators and policy makers come to grips with the realities associated with “anytime, anywhere, anyone learning.” Just as libraries once provided the sole access to books, schools and their PE programs no longer are the sole repository of valuable knowledge, skills, sensitivities, and experiences. The educational game has changed, making research-supported redesign timely. The import of value-committed design science Over 20 years ago, Herbert Simon (1996) laid a companion foundation for this redesign agenda. He developed the idea of design science, and with a special feature. He claimed that it is not value-neutral. It is a value-committed enterprise, which proceeds in two phases. Phase one: Research reviews provide descriptions and, whenever possible, explanations of the status quo. These statements are expressed in “is statements.” Phase two necessitates the identification and operationalization of core values expressed as missions and goals. These “ought statements” are aspirational; they map new directions. The art and science of design proceeds as leaders chart a justifiable course toward a better future. Leaders monitor research-generated “is statements” (the facts), but with a steady gaze on the realization of a more desirable future founded on cherished, core values such as equitable PE programs and outcomes (Lawson 2012). Design science in the post-Simon era emphasizes a special enhancement. To achieve these new designs, leaders generate theories of action, also known as theories of change. Like compasses and maps, these special theories chart the course from “here” (today’s sub-optimal status) to “there” (the better future). Strategic research and development initiatives, typically involving school–family–community–university partnerships, are structured to maximize learning and improvement, facilitate knowledge generation,

6  Hal A. Lawson

and track success. The redesign of PE and PETE proceed simultaneously, benefiting kids and adults committed to their well-being.

An equity-oriented redesign agenda Universal systems of schooling worldwide, different in important respects, share an important value commitment. A child’s demography should not predict their destiny, i.e., the circumstances in which children grow up do not predict where they end up (Deluca et al. 2016). Translated to PE, a child growing up in a sedentary, unhealthy family, one that resides in a community where safety concerns rule out active outdoor play, should be provided with educational opportunities that enable this youngster to escape these influences and enjoy a physically active, health-enhancing lifestyle (Dowling et al. 2014; Evans 2014b). At one time this equity-related commitment was called “equality of opportunity.” In today’s world, “equity” is the preferred concept because policy leaders know that equality is impossible to achieve. Equity, as framed in this book, refers to a standard of fairness applied to young people’s experiences inside and outside of schools—and with special interest in how equitable opportunities enhance their lives, both in the here-and-now and over time (Kretchmar personal communication, 14 January 2018). With equity as the guiding concept, two questions have import for a twenty-first-century agenda announced as “The Redesign of PE.” Do PE programs provide desirable, equitable opportunities for all manner of children? Do these same programs yield desirable, equitable outcomes at scale? Special interest resides in the extent to which presumed, equitable opportunities result in equitable outcomes, both in the here-and-now and over time. Perhaps it is easy to forget how many children and youths are impacted. In 2017, 50.7 million children showed up in American public schools, and another 5.3 million were enrolled in private schools. PE impacts millions of young people, and the same claim holds for other nations. Worldwide, the PE profession’s social responsibility to help and serve all children and youths includes the moral imperative to do no harm (Lawson 1999). If millions of young people are socialized out of health-enhancing, active play, harm reduction strategies and prevention frameworks must be included in the redesign process (Allen-Scott et al. 2014). Selection effects and the need to announce an equity agenda It is tempting to assume that a key phrase in this book’s sub-title—every child matters—is a mainstay in all PE programs. Unfortunately, this ideal has not been realized at scale. Granting conventional PE’s strengths and achievements, selection effects are normative in the USA and also in other nations. Selection effects are evident when inequitable opportunities and outcomes have been documented.

Introduction 7

The search for root causes implicates the industrial age school’s requirements for all subject matter specialties, particularly the policies and practices that sort and label students, together with powerful meta-messages regarding their gifts, talents, shortcomings, and recommended life course developmental trajectories. For example, some are athletes, some are not. Some are dancers, some are not. Some are physically active and healthconscious, others are not. Moral attributions may follow: Some are good students, others are not. Viewed in this way, PE programs provide enticing, equitable opportunities for some students, but not others. It follows that selective programs achieve intended outcomes for some young people, but not others. All such discrepancies between ideal outcomes and real ones help to explain why “every child matters” belongs in this book’s title and must be a centerpiece in redesign initiatives worldwide. Selection effects also are evident in PE teacher recruitment and preparation, and they help to explain PE program selectivity with inequitable outcomes. Physically active young people, many with expansive sports participation backgrounds and some with career goals for sport education and coaching sports teams, are selectively recruited into PETE programs (e.g., Lawson 2017; Richards and Padaruth 2017). Meanwhile, peers with sub-optimal K-12 experiences with PE, and with interests in nontraditional, physical cultural practices (Schilling 2010), are channeled toward other occupations. Such is the silent competition for recruits among the several helping professions (Lawson 1983), and these selection effects help to explain the inter-generational reproduction of PE programs, PETE programs, and their relations. Selectivity by design in the industrial age school In one light, PE’s selectivity is understandable and predictable. After all, industrial age schools were designed to identify and develop special aptitudes, gifts, and talents, especially those relevant to adult roles in each nation’s economy. Several USA educational histories have been organized by the grand narrative of efficient schools serving as societal sorting machines (e.g., Callahan 1964; Spring 1976), and today’s educational policy can be viewed through the same lens—namely, how schools recruit and prepare the workforce for the global economy. Significantly, equitable opportunities are not synonymous with equitable outcomes. Although every young person enjoys equitable access to occupational development pathways for computer scientists, engineers, physicians, teachers, and lawyers, this occupational screening, preparation, and sorting process is structured to sort, classify, and label students in the quest for the best fit between aptitude, personality, and vocation. Selection effects are design features.

8  Hal A. Lawson

Equitable PE opportunities alongside equitable PE outcomes This same equity-oriented lens provides two ways to appreciate and evaluate PE programs for children and youths. The first is benign. Children and youths need equitable opportunity structures to determine whether their favorite, life-enhancing activity or activities will be basketball, soccer, baseball, swimming, gymnastics, bicycling, jogging and running, body-building, dance, skiing, skating, adventure sports, or others. They also need to know the difference between fact and fancy regarding the benefits they stand to derive. And, just as adults develop occupational identities in relation to their chosen careers, physically active young people and adults need opportunities to develop positive identities in relation to their preferred physical activity pursuits. To the extent that PE programs offer structured opportunities for this identity-related, health-enhancing development, they have achieved an important, equityoriented, opportunity outcome. The other equity lens is critical. It involves an evaluation of PE’s special status as a school subject. While core academic subjects in inherited school designs have been charged with “weeding out” and training students for jobs and careers, the main aim for PE surely is to encourage and support all children in a guided pedagogical journey structured to help them discover the joys and benefits of health-enhancing, exercise, sport, dance, and active play. Important in the here-and-now, this aim stretches into adulthood—as expressed in the idea of “carry-over value.” Significantly, this same universal orientation characterizes other school subjects such as art, music, dance, and drama. This commonalty is important because it is a building block for collective redesign. All of these subjects entail embodied learning. All need to be enjoyable. All target longitudinal participation with life-long benefits. Unfortunately, an enduring principle of physical education continues to conspire against this equity-oriented ideal. PE should be conducted in accordance with the policies and practices in vogue and enforced for other academic subjects. When leaders make the decision to stand firm with this principle, PE is stripped of its special status and compromises its universal aims for all children and youths. Externally regulated and regulatory PE, characterized by paper and pencil tests, grades, and the lack of child voice and choice, becomes another cog in the industrial age school, mirroring its standardized curricula, group-processing of students, and vocational sorting machine function. Viewed in this way, variable, inequitable student outcomes in PE are predictable, not anomalous, and the case for PE’s redesign begins with this inescapable reality. Redesign probes yield other key pieces in a complicated PE puzzle.

Introduction 9

A systems problem: Schoolhouses divided with adverse effects on teachers Beyond students, redesign is an imperative when it is not unusual for PE teachers in the same school system to disagree on program outcomes and work at cross-purposes. This problem is compounded when PE teacher educators exclusively advocate for their preferred curriculum model and engage in zero-sum game debates with others who endorse other models (e.g., McEvoy et al. 2017). A divided profession with a fragmented agenda reflects and reinforces an unfortunate situation in the US. This nation and its constituent states lack a comprehensive, coherent, and research-supported system for PE, physical activity, sport, dance, health promotion and education, and active play. To the extent that sub-optimal PE is produced systematically in particular locales, a core principle from improvement science is relevant. See the system that produces the outcomes (Bryk et al. 2015). This principle’s import is illuminated under two conditions: (1) When public policies, community configurations, organizational designs, PE programs, and teachers’ practices yield desirable outcomes at scale; and (2) When sub-optimal outcomes result regularly. In the latter circumstance, systems change is a synonym for redesign. A social institutional challenge When the PE and PETE system is the unit of analysis, attention is directed toward teachers, teacher educators, school systems, and relevant public policies. A key phenomenon of interest is PE teachers’ and PE teacher educators’ recruitment, preparation, workplace induction, and career development (Richards and Gaudreault 2017). Two main ideas are noteworthy. First: What these professionals learn and internalize, as they proceed from aspiring teacher candidates to practicing teachers and perhaps teacher educators, is consequential for children. Teachers’ socialization impacts their role identities, value commitments, professional priorities, and work behaviors. Second: These occupational socialization experiences and work outcomes directly impact children’s experiences and outcomes. Put another way, children’s experiences and the role orientations of two main adult actor systems (teachers and teacher educators) are related and at times inseparable. Special interest resides how occupational socialization is connected to three school- and PE-related institutional orientations and outcomes: Reproduction, reform, and transformation (Lawson 2017). Redesign initiatives necessitate comprehensive understanding of all three; and with the reminder that reproduction is justifiable when equitable outcomes are achieved at scale.

10  Hal A. Lawson

When they are not, needs arise for theoretically sound, research-supported systems interventions that interrupt the systematic reproduction of PE and PETE. All such interventions need to be designed, implemented, evaluated, and continuously improved with teachers, young people, and other key adult stakeholders as partners, and they necessitate an innovative research and development agenda that includes higher education institutions and state/ provincial education agencies. None of this work is easy because PE and PETE uniquely are situated in the interface of three social institutions: Education, sport, and health (Lawson 2017). Some influences are beneficial (e.g., every student is required to complete PE), but some are not. For example, enforced compliance with educational policies forecloses opportunities to reconfigure PE so that it benefits from, and contributes to, a national public health agenda. One effect, called structural ambiguity, is especially noteworthy (Lawson 2017). Teachers and teacher educators contribute to and confront a problem posed by competing constituencies with diverse goals. When these competing voices are added to diverse views inside the profession (Sprake and Walker 2015), “a muddled mission” results (Ward 2016). For example, is PE a feeder system for competitive sports programs? Is it a primary mechanism for anti-obesity initiatives? Is it an attractor that “hooks” students, encouraging them to attend school and engage in learning? Is it a vehicle for social-emotional learning? Is it a mechanism for the social integration of immigrant students, especially those who are English language learners? Can PE be redesigned in service of all of these outcomes? The priorities for outcomes-based accountability systems and cost-benefit analyses in today’s policy environment add weight to related questions. Are there unique, important outcomes that PE programs can achieve systematically? What conditions need to be in place? What public policies are needed? Beyond these immediate design questions, important questions about grand life course developmental issues are implicated, especially as concerns grow about the health care costs associated with obesity, sub-optimal nutrition, and sedentary lifestyles. Are PE’s benefits short term or lifelong? And, if they are lifelong, what designs maximize the probability that today’s PE experiences will influence adult lifestyles? These questions and the systems perspectives they foreshadow are salient when strong historical patterns tend to foreclose alternatives and stifle innovation. A flight metaphor—auto pilot—is an apt when yesterday’s and today’s PE and PETE configurations predict tomorrow’s. Institutional auto pilot for PE, PETE, and their relations is justifiable when public policies are supportive, PE teachers thrive on the job, and desirable, equitable outcomes for children and youths are achieved systematically at scale. When they are not, anti-auto pilot strategies operating under the redesign agenda are needed. Constructively critical analyses akin to those provided in this book, especially ones offering new concepts and providing

Introduction 11

alternative courses of action, are special facilitators for systems change that trends toward institutional reform and perhaps transformation. Expressed colloquially, “one size does not fit all.” The American quest for a one best system Weston’s (1962) history of American PE featured “a battle of competing systems.” The idea of a singular PE was fit for purpose in the industrial age school, which also was founded on the idea of a one best system (Tyack 1974) with special emphasis on mass production efficiencies (Callahan 1964). This idea has not vanished. Internal competition involving alternative PE models helps to account for muddled missions and a lack of outcome clarity and specificity. PE teachers and teacher educators’ occupational socialization mechanisms (e.g., recruitment, teacher education, school induction) reproduce these differences, reinforce conflicts among the field’s leaders, and contribute to public policy incoherence and policy leaders’ confusion. The steady conflation of PE and physical activity remains a core problem. If PE, the school subject, is an activity program the sole purpose of which is to ensure that kids exercise for a certain amount of time every day and each week, then implementation is easier, fewer resources are needed, exercise bouts can be scheduled, and specialist PE teachers’ job descriptions can be changed. In elementary schools, daily walking, jogging, dance, and swimming programs can be implemented, classroom teachers and outside specialists can provide supervision, and elementary school recess does double duty as PE (O’Sullivan 1989). Comparable critical perspectives can be brought to bear on PE in middle schools and high schools (Lau et al. 2017), particularly as research continues to document life course developmental changes (e.g., Craggs et al. 2011; Hivensalo and Lintunen 2011). In contrast, exemplary PE as a learning- and learner-centered experience with research-supported immediate and long-term goals is resource-intensive and time-consuming. Specifically, PE is exemplary when there is firm evidence of measurable learning outcomes achieved via formal curricula, and specially prepared, certified, competent, and caring teachers rely on researchsupported teaching and learning technologies. These formal learning outcomes, both short term and long term, mark the critical difference between PE and generic physical activity. And they cannot be achieved if certain antecedent and co-requisite conditions are not in place, starting with manageable class sizes and compositions, sufficient time in the school schedule, and optimal working conditions for dedicated PE teachers charged with helping young people develop active lifestyles and health-enhancing practices. Arguably, these two program alternatives are not mutually exclusive. Daily physical activity for children’s healthy development facilitates, and can be facilitated by, high quality PE programs. A key design challenge is to harmonize and synchronize them, relying on child and youth socialization

12  Hal A. Lawson

research, including what school programs add uniquely and importantly. Both alternatives necessitate strategies for addressing an enduring problem: Insufficient time during the regular school day (Gamble et al. 2017). A big question remains (Lawson 2014). Who is prepared to lead this policy development agenda, including all that it means and entails for PE teachers’ professional education, role orientations, and working conditions? Companion teacher outcomes: A dual equity imperative Imperatives for equitable opportunities and outcomes start with young people, but they do not end there. They extend to their PE teachers. Unfortunately, conditions in too many school districts conspire against the optimization this dual outcome chain. One of the sad story lines in the history of American PE continues to play out in some school systems. It concerns the marginal status of teachers, which appears to be instrumental in high teacher turnover. Although it is not commonplace to view PE teachers as “victims” in a flawed systems design, teacher socialization research can be marshaled in support of this view (Richards and Gaudreault 2017). For example, if teachers’ job descriptions are flawed, their working conditions are sub-optimal, their class sizes are too large and heterogeneous, the time allocated for classes is insufficient, and teacher preparation programs are not fit for purpose, the redesign of PE cannot be restricted to kids’ experiences and outcomes. Something is fundamentally wrong when early career teachers committed to children give up and leave the profession; or when they become hardened veterans who elevate personal priorities above children’s needs and reproduce sub-optimal programs. In brief, redesign encompasses teachers’ work and workplaces. This work begins in schools, extents to district central offices, and encompasses state/provincial/national educational policy. It depends on a more compelling, convincing framework founded on embodied learning and two literacies. Embodiment, embodied learning, physical literacy, and health literacy Embodiment, embodied learning (Agans et al. 2013; Lerner 2015), and physical literacy (Aspen Institute Project Play 2015; Edwards et al. 2017) are relatively new phenomena of interest. Health literacy is not a newcomer, but it gains new meaning and significance when it is combined with physical literacy and embodied learning. Together, they emphasize the holistic development of children and youths, particularly mind-body interdependence. Center stage in this new developmental science is an inescapable neurophysiological fact. All learning and development are embodied! Put another

Introduction 13

way, every kind of education involves our bodies: “The physical.” However, embodied learning and physical literacy cannot be monopolized. They are all-encompassing concepts that are as central to drama, art, music, and dance as they are to PE. This commonality offers opportunities for intersubject bridge-building.

Public policy imperatives Public policy redesign also is a priority. Two examples illustrate its importance. Explicit external accountability mechanisms for PE in schools oftentimes are missing at two related levels: the state/provincial level (Big P policy) and the local school district level (Little P). Lacking firm accountability mechanisms that announce this school subject’s purpose and importance, PE teachers oftentimes are marginalized, and PE is a peripheral subject instead of a central priority. Such sub-optimal working conditions help to explain how and why high workforce turnover is persistent problem in PE—and with spillover effects on kids. For example, a student’s sense of attachment to a caring teacher, which facilitates attendance, on-time arrival, and school engagement (Lawson and Lawson 2013), hinges on teacher continuity. An optimal relationship between Big P and Little p policy is not easy to establish or maintain. A recent example in the USA presents a paradoxical policy twist. State standards framed on “one size fits all” assumptions compel PE teachers to teach to the standards in the same ways that classroom teachers “teach to the state/provincial tests.” However, state standards equate to PE program standardization all over again, especially when teachers teach to the standards at the expense of assessment-driven, tailormade pedagogy that responds to student variability. In brief, universal standards may reinforce group processing of students, reproduce selection effects, and encourage teacher routines that depart from optimal, studentcentered pedagogies disseminated in their respective teacher education programs (Ward 2016). The case can be made that public policy has been a kind of Achilles heel for late twentieth century and twenty-first-century PE in the USA. The idea of “policy neglect” is apt. Manifest needs for PE policy experts are increasing as opportunities and imperatives for redesign grow, especially as competition for “the school PE market” grows and becomes formidable. Looking ahead, it is possible to wonder who will prepare and support PE policy specialists. Although national professional associations are the likely candidate, so are colleges and universities (Lawson 2014). In both cases, needs are apparent for the preparation and support of policy change agents, sometimes called “policy entrepreneurs” (Mintrom and Norman 2009; van der Mars 2018).

14  Hal A. Lawson

An international redesign agenda with cross-boundary lesson-drawing International-comparative analyses and resource exchanges are public policy and PE program redesign assets, especially as recognition grows that problems viewed as complicated, wicked and intractable in one part of the world may have been solved by colleagues in other nations. PE/PETE-focused, networked communities of practice are innovation incubators and resource exchange mechanisms, and they facilitate redesign as once-rigid national boundaries are crossed, bridged, and changed. Already globalization, broadly defined, has been instrumental in the grand, shift from school reform and improvement to school redesign. Three examples are noteworthy because each has triggered cross-border investigations into promising policies and practices: (1) The Singapore success story, particularly regarding mathematics curricula and teacher quality initiatives (Goodwin et al. 2017); (2) The Finland Success Story (Darling-Hammond 2010); and (3) International testing regimes (e.g., PISA tests). Although zealous advocates have used these examples as platforms for copycat proposals, savvy leaders have succeeded in making the case that contexts matter—national, state/provincial, local. Instead of wholesale imitation and blind borrowing, they recommend contingent, tailor-made lesson-drawing framed by two generative questions (Schön and Rein 1994). What can leaders in our nation learn from leaders in other nations? And how can these lessons guide redesign initiatives in our home context?

Rationale, progression, and audience for this book These two questions have been instrumental in the development of this book with its explicit redesign title. Three sections provide a coherent structure founded on a developmental progression; and with special interest in the three main audiences. Part I: Toward a redesign agenda Part I focuses on PE, PETE, and Kinesiology in the United States. The main idea here is to present the American PE and PETE challenge as a multifaceted case study, one that combines analysis with innovative proposals for redesign. A chapter written by four American PE leaders (in Section 2) offers a second view with complementary perspectives. Part II: International perspectives The invited chapters in Part II identify, describe, explain, and justify PE’s redesign in other nations. There is inherent selectivity here. With the exception of Italy, all favor English language. This selectivity is not accidental:

Introduction 15

International-comparative analyses in service of redesign are most poignant when the nations enjoy commonalities and similarities. English language PE literature remains in good currency across the globe. Drawing on the American case example provided in Part I, three questions unite these specialized chapters in Part II. Is there a need for a redesign in your nation? What are the main redesign priorities? How should the work commence? Lawson invited the first authors for these Part II chapters and charged them with responsibilities for hand-picking their respective teams. Four assumptions informed this strategy: (1) The field has been plagued by a syndrome described as “great leader, pet PE model,” and this reality cautions against single-authored chapters; (2) Redesign is a collective action project, the demands for which exceed one person’s capacities; (3) Teams would have to grapple with each member’s preferences and perspectives, which meant that they would participate in a mini-redesign process as they completed their charge; and (4) This mini-redesign chapter writing process would be an agenda-setter for the authors, positioning them to lead an expansive redesign agenda in their host nations. Part III: Summary findings, lessons learned, and implications Lawson’s final chapter comprises Part III. It provides key findings, lessons learned, and next phases in the redesign agenda. Whether the agenda is improvement-oriented, as manifested in modest reforms, or boldly oriented toward redesign, the same requirements hold. This work depends on consensus-building, field-wide mobilization, strategic policy change, and steady experimentation coupled with evaluative mechanisms for practice improvements, policy learning and knowledge generation.

A clarion call for action facilitated by research and development partnerships Whether the agenda is framed as continuous improvement or redesign, leaders have access to a remarkable resource as the knowledge explosion continues. The growing number of books and journals, advantageous in many respects, also present challenges. Like the printed encyclopedias of the twentieth century, the best books quickly lose their relevance, and the growing number of journals challenges colleagues to keep pace with knowledge production. A research agenda once-restricted to PE teacher education scholars and a few scholars representing sub-disciplines of Kinesiology now attracts researchers representing nearly every discipline concerned with the human condition. Both discipline-specific and interdisciplinary research are needed (Lawson 2014), and so are research and development (R & D) partnerships.

16  Hal A. Lawson

The social geographic distribution of researchers also is noteworthy. Today’s global research enterprise unites people who work in faraway places, connecting them in scientific and scholarly paradigms, exemplars, segments, and invisible social networks (Lawson, 2009). In the case of American PE, international colleagues are a timely asset because PETE doctoral programs have declined amid worries about faculty members’ commitments to R & D (e.g., Boyce et al. 2015; 2016; Ward 2016). The interpenetration of local and global actors of all kinds—especially researchers—provides a golden opportunity to develop timely and beneficial innovations in service of children, youths, families, schools, and communities—albeit with a reminder. What gets interpreted as “timely” and what counts as “beneficial innovation” will vary by community, state/ province, and host nation.

A charge to readers If this book is useful, share it. If it incites you to write rebuttals, do so. If it moves you to launch R & D partnerships with school districts and community agencies, begin now. If it facilitates connections with leaders in other nations, capitalize on the opportunities for cross-border lesson-drawing, collaborative research and international R & D bridge-building (Lawson 2008). Regardless of how you approach this new agenda, get started—and with a sense of urgency. If today’s PE teachers, PETE researchers and pediatric Kinesiology researchers are unable to figure out new and better ways to improve school-related experiences and outcomes for children and youths, someone else will.

References Agans, J.P., Säfvenbom, R., Davis, J., Bowers, E., and Lerner, R.M., 2013. Positive movement experiences: Approaching the study of athletic participation, exercise, and leisure activity through relational development systems theory and the concept of embodiment. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 45, 261–286. Allen-Scott, L.K., Hatfield, J.M., and McIntyre, L., 2014. A scoping review of unintended harm associated with public health interventions: Towards a typology and an understanding of underlying factors. International Journal of Public Health, 59 1, 3–14. Aspen Institute Project Play, 2015. Physical literacy in the United States: A model, strategic plan, and call to action. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Beets, M.W., Okely, A., Weaver, R., Webster, C., Lubans, D. Brusseau, T., Carson, R., and Cliff, D.P., 2016. The theory of expanded, extended, and enhanced youth physical activity promotion. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13, 120. DOI: 10.11/86/s12966-016-0442-2. Beni, S., Fletcher, T., and Chrónín, N., 2016. Meaningful experiences in physical education and youth sport: A review of the literature. Quest, 69 3, 291–312.

Introduction 17 Boyce, B.A., Lund, J., and O’Neil, K., 2015. PETE doctoral institutions: Programs, faculty and doctoral students. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86, 311–318. Boyce, B.A., Lund, J., and O’Neill, K., 2016. The impact of supply and demand on doctorates. Quest, 68 3, 337–347. Bryk, A.S., Gomez, L, Grunow, A., and LeMahieu, P., 2015. Learning to improve: How America’s schools are getting better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, Callahan, R., 1964. Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cobb, J.S., 2017. Inequality frames: How teachers inhibit color-blind ideology. Sociology of Education, 90 (4), 315–332. Craggs, C., Corder, K., van Sluijs, E., and Griffin, S., 2011. Determinants of change in physical activity in children and adolescents: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 68 6, 645–658. Darling-Hammond, L., 2010. The flat world and education: How American’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press. Deluca, S., Clampett-Lundquist, S., and Edin, K., 2016. Coming of age in the other America. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation. Dowling, F.J., Fitzgerald, H., and Flintoff, A., 2014. Equity and difference in physical education, youth sport, and health: A narrative approach. London: Routledge. Drucker, P.F., 2008. The essential Drucker: The best sixty years of Peter Drucker’s essential writings on management. New York: Collins Business Essentials. Edwards, L.C., Bryant, A., Keegan, R., Morgan, K., and Jones, A., 2017. Definitions, foundations and associations of physical literacy: A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 47, 113–126. Evans, J., 2014a. Neoliberalism and the future for a socio-educative physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 68 5, 545–558. Evans, J., 2014b. Equity and inclusion in physical education PLC. European Physical Education Review, 20 3, 319–334. Ferguson, R., with Phillips, S., Rowley, J., and Friedlander, J., 2015. The influence of teaching: Beyond standardized test scores: Engagement, mindsets, and agency. Cambridge, MA: The Achievement Gap Initiative at Harvard University. Available from: [Accessed 2 December 2015] Gamble, A., Chatfield, S.L., Cormack, M.L., and Hallam, J.S., 2017. Not enough time in the day: A qualitative assessment of in-school physical activity policy as viewed by administrators, teachers, and students. Journal of School Health, 68 1, 21–28. Gaudreault, K.L., Richards, K.A.R., and Woods, A.M., 2016. Understanding the perceived mattering of physical education teachers. Sport, Education and Society, online first. Available from: 16.1271317 [Accessed 2 August 2017]. Goodwin, A.L., Low, A-H., and Darling-Hammond, L., 2017. Empowered educators in Singapore: How high performing systems shape teacher quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

18  Hal A. Lawson Hivensalo, M., and Lintunen, T., 2011. Life-course perspective for physical activity and sports participation. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 8, 13–22. Kirk, D., 2017. Turning outsourcing inside-out? The case of the Mindfulness in Schools Project. Paper presented to the AIESEP World Congress, Guadeloupe, November. Lau, E.Y., Dowda, M., McIver, K, and Pate, R., 2017. Changes in physical activity in the school, afterschool, and evening periods during the transition from elementary to middle school. Journal of School Health, 68 7, 531–537. Lawson, H.A., 1983. Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: The subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 68 3, 3–16. Lawson, H.A., 1984. Problem-setting for physical education and sport. Quest, 68 1, 46–60. Lawson, H.A., 1999. Education for social responsibility: Preconditions in retrospect and prospect. Quest, 51, 116–149. Lawson, H.A., 2008. Crossing borders and changing boundaries to develop innovations that improve outcomes. The Cagigal Lecture, AIESEP World Congress, Sapporo, Japan, January. Lawson, H.A., 2009. Paradigms, exemplars, and social change: Knowledge needs for new program designs and policy research. In L. Housner, M. Metzler, P. Schempp and T. Templin, eds. Historic traditions and future directions of research on teaching and teacher education in physical education. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology of West Virginia University, 249–258. Lawson, H.A., 2012. Realizing the promise to young people: Kinesiology and new institutional designs for school and community programs. Kinesiology Review, 68 1, 76–90. Lawson, H.A., 2014. Investing in leaders and leadership to secure a desirable future. Quest, 68 3, 263–287. Lawson, H.A., 2016. Categories, boundaries, and bridges: The social geography of schools and the need for new institutional designs. Education Sciences, 6, 32. Available from: Lawson, H.A., 2017. Reproductive, reformist, and transformative socialization. In K.A.R. Richards and K.L. Gaudreault, eds. New perspectives on teacher socialization in physical education. New York: Routledge, 243–261. Lawson, H.A., and Van Veen, D., eds. 2016. Developing community schools, community learning centers, extended-service, and multi-service schools: International exemplars for practice, policy, and research. The Hague, NL: Springer International. Lawson, M.A., and Lawson, H.A., 2013. New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 68 3, 432–479. Lerner, R.M., 2015. Promoting positive human development and social justice: Integrating theory, research and application in contemporary developmental science. International Journal of Psychology, 68 3, 165–173. Lewallen, R.C., Hunt, M., Potts-Datema, W., Zaza, S., and Giles, W., 2015. The whole school, whole community, whole child model: A new approach for improving educational attainment and healthy development for students. Journal of School Health, 68 11, 729–739.

Introduction 19 McEvoy, E., Heikinaro-Johansson, P., and MacPhail, A., 2017. Physical education teacher educators’ views regarding the purpose(s) of school physical education. Sport, Education & Society, 68 7, 812–824. Mintrom, M., and Norman, P., 2009. Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. The Policy Studies Journal, 68 4, 649–667. Oliver, K.L. and Kirk, D., 2015. Girls, physical education and gender: An activist perspective. London: Routledge. Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD), 2017. Schools at the crossroads of innovation in cities and regions. Paris: OECD Publishing. O’Sullivan, M., 1989. Failing gym is like failing lunch or recess: Two beginning teachers’ struggle for legitimacy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8, 227–242. Richards, K.A.R., and Gaudreault, K.L., eds. 2017. New perspectives on teacher socialization in physical education. New York: Routledge Richards, K.A.R., and Padaruth, S., 2017. Motivations in pursuing a career in physical education: The rise of a fitness orientation. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 68 4, 40–46. Sampson, R.J., 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schilling, C., 2010. Exploring the society–body–school nexus: Theoretical and methodology issues in the study of body pedagogics. Sport, Education, and Society, 68 2, 151–167. Schön, D.A., and Rein, M., 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books. Schwanenflugel, P.R., and Tomporowski, P.D., eds. 2017. Physical activity and learning after school: The PAL program. New York: Guilford Press. Sharkey, P., and Faber, J., 2014. Where, when, why, and for whom do residential contexts matter? Moving away from dichotomous understanding of neighborhood effects. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 559–579. Shils, E., 1981. Tradition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Simon, H.A., 1996. The sciences of the artificial. 3rd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sprake, A., and Walker, S., 2015. “Blurred lines”: The duty of physical education to establish a unified rationale. European Physical Education Review, 68 3, 394–406. Spring, J., 1976. The sorting machine. London: The Longman Publishing Group. Tyack, D., 1974. The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. van der Mars, H., 2018. Policy development for physical education . . . the last, best chance? Quest. DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2018.1439391, on-line first, 22 March 2018. Ward, P., 2016. Policies, agendas and practices influencing doctoral education in physical education teacher education. Quest, 68, 420–439. Weston, A., 1962. The making of American physical education. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. World Bank. (2018). World development report 2018: Learning to realize education’s promise. Washington, DC: Author. Yeager, D.S., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Hooper, S.Y., and Cohen, G.L., 2017. Loss of institutional trust among racial and ethnic minority adolescents: A consequence of procedural injustice and a cause of life-span outcomes. Child Development, 88, 658–676.

Part I

Toward a redesign agenda The United States as a case example

Chapter 1

Physical education in the industrial age school An institutional perspective Hal A. Lawson

American physical education (PE), the school subject for which colleges and universities prepare teachers, has an intriguing history. Unfortunately, formal histories are told by insiders, circumscribed by PE’s boundaries, and omit the influence of the industrial age school. Meanwhile, physical education teacher education (PETE) and Kinesiology doctoral programs no longer prepare historians. This change, combined with a crowded PETE curriculum, helps to explain why once-required courses called “The History, Philosophy, and Principles of Physical Education” have disappeared. To the extent that succeeding generations of professionals do not understand PE’s historical development, philosopher George Santayana’s warning is apt. Persons who fail to understand history are destined to repeat past mistakes, which means that yesterday’s sub-optimal realities threaten to become today’s and perhaps tomorrow’s. This chapter is structured in response to the need for socially critical historical perspectives. I employ a social institutional lens to tell a short story about PE and teacher education for it (PETE), emphasizing the influence of the industrial age school. I describe how PE’s institutionalization helps to explain endemic conflicts, program variability, and inconsistent outcomes. International readers are invited to use this social-historical lens for evaluations of PE, PETE, and school systems in their host nations. The ensuing analysis is founded on six related claims. (1) The development of American PE cannot be understood apart from the institutionalization of the industrial age school; (2) Granting the benefits of PE’s incorporation, it was accompanied by enduring constraints; (3) Then, as now, these constraints have conspired against the achievement of equitable outcomes for all students; (4) These constraints also have impeded the realization of ideal working conditions for PE teachers; (5) Social institutional arrangements for PE and PETE help to explain the reproduction of sub-optimal policies and program configurations; and (6) Leadership for PE’s redesign offers timely opportunities to change the course of history.

24  Hal A. Lawson

Industrial age schools and physical education Mass public schooling was developed at scale in the USA between 1880 and 1930. One design criterion was especially important. Schooling had to be fit for purpose for millions of people who had fled rigidly stratified, class-based societies in Europe. Center stage in this agenda was the American constitutional promise. Demography will not be destiny. In other words, the circumstances surrounding birth will not determine life chances (Lawson 2012). Inspired by this grand promise, countless adults and entire families viewed America as the land of equal opportunity. However, this aim was merely one among many, and the mechanisms for achieving them differed. Two examples also serve to highlight conflicts. Segregated schools For more than half of the twentieth century, public schools south of the Mason–Dixon line were segregated by race. So were community agencies and even drinking fountains and toilet facilities. Although school segregation and its separate-but-equal doctrine were ruled unconstitutional in 1954 by the US Supreme Court (Brown versus the Topeka Board of Education), de facto segregation continued for decades in some locales. These design issues for schools and PE are not ancient history. However, today’s focus is social geography, i.e., the demographic profiles, school characteristics, and community features of concentrated, race-based and ethnicitybased poverty and accompanying disadvantages (e.g., Reardon and Owens 2014). Whether in urban, suburban, or rural communities, poverty and related disadvantages (e.g., social exclusion and isolation) have a profound impact on PE and schooling, and they are implicated in the social determinants of health disparities. The melting pot instead of the rainbow The industrial age school was charged with the “Americanization” of millions of immigrants. Many arrived in New York City where they were welcomed by the Statue of Liberty as they sailed into port. As immigrants were processed at the entry center at New York’s Ellis Island, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversity was omnipresent. Political and civic leaders were concerned about this diversity. They asked: How do we create one nation of people out of many? They fashioned the industrial age school to achieve social and cultural integration. Leaders often employed a special metaphor to communicate this need and establish common purpose. Schools functioned as a “melting pot.” In formal language, they were mechanisms for cultural assimilation. Cultural accommodation, which is predicated on pluralism and invokes the metaphor of a rainbow, was ruled out. Leaders’ apprehensions about

PE in the industrial age school  25

cultural differences and fears about immigrant-propelled revolution were fueled by labor riots associated with the rise of workers’ unionization. Schools offered a potent mechanism for social control. Taking stock of strategies for social inclusion and integration Issues involving the melting pot versus the rainbow remain salient in today’s world. These issues help to illuminate PE’s cultural orientation; and with the following reminder. Today’s globalization era is hailed as the largest international migration of diverse peoples. What is PE’s role with immigrant children and youths, especially those challenged by poverty and whose first language is not English? Lessons from history are instructive to PE professionals, other educators, and policy leaders. Early twentieth-century immigrants brought with them strong cultural traditions for play and games, together with culturally influenced views of embodiment. The significance of these traditions cannot be over-emphasized. Forms of play, games, sports, and exercise are not just activity preferences. They are identity-markers and cultural traditions! In other words, who people are and what they do often are intertwined when it comes to their preferences for play, games, exercise, dance, and sport. The industrial age school’s PE curriculum with its emphasis on specialized play, games, sport, exercise forms, and embodiment can be evaluated accordingly—and with an historical reminder. Children, youths, and their parents were not offered voice and choice regarding which activities constituted the curriculum because PE was a mechanism for cultural assimilation. It was part and parcel of the industrial age school as a melting pot. It sent a meta-message to children, parents, and other immigrants that being an American entailed learning a particular view of the body and engaging in American-style sports, games, and exercises. This assimilationist orientation was also manifest in PE teachers. Although research has not been conducted into this important area of inquiry, collegeeducated teachers, some of whom completed two-year preparation programs in “normal schools” (teachers’ colleges), were predominantly white, and predictably so because of widespread racial segregation and privileged access to postsecondary education. In brief, this selective institutional arrangement sent a powerful metamessage to immigrant children and parents. Becoming an American meant learning how to play games and sports and to exercise in ways that departed from families’ cultural traditions and those of the sender nation. Americanization via PE thus pitted teachers against immigrant parents with students caught squarely in the middle. It was also during the period between 1880 and 1930 that childhood and the special category known as adolescence were invented (Kett 1977).

26  Hal A. Lawson

This idea of “invented childhood and adolescence” was very important at the time and remains so when adult unemployment problems are evident. In this view, compulsory schooling, protective child labor laws, and the invention of adolescence went hand-in-hand. Teenagers needed to be in school instead of tending the family farm, holding a job, or providing child care for siblings. At the same time, progressive ideals about the importance of play in healthy child and youth development spawned the American play movement (Rainwater 1922). Emergent youth street gangs indicated needs for moral guidance (Boyer 1978) and social regulation (Lawson 1993). Structured, supervised PE-related activities were fit for purpose. Other salient features of the industrial age school Schools were charged with serving as surrogate parents, consistent with the doctrine known as in loco parentis. In this view, educators were positioned alongside parents in the all-important function of socializing succeeding generations of children with special priorities for “Americanizing” immigrant children with diverse cultural traditions. Educational histories by Tyack (1974), Spring (1976), Callahan (1964), and Cohen and Mohl (1979) provide details. Tyack described the development of a one best system with special attention to a gendered workforce—males as administrators and women as teachers. Callahan described the efficiency-driven, assembly-line production system of the age-graded school. Cohen and Mohl described the development of the platoon school, so named because students moved from class to class and from grade level to grade level in cohorts (platoons), mirroring the movement of raw materials on the factory production line. Spring described how schools served as grand student sorting machines, responding to and anticipating an industrial society’s division of labor. Overall, public schools were charged with serving the masses, a mission that stood in stark contrast to elite, private schools for privileged social classes. For this American-style dream to come true, every child had to be treated in the same ways, which implied that schools needed to be structured homogeneously. If only on the surface, sameness—standardization— provided equal opportunity, founded on the belief that uniformity guarded against favoritism and social exclusion.

The standardization impulse Standardization has many meanings. Sometimes it refers to inputs. For example: All children will enter school ready and able to learn. Sometimes it refers to “treatments.” For example, curriculum standards and standardized pedagogy go hand-in-hand.

PE in the industrial age school  27

At other times, standardization refers to the co-requisite conditions for successful schooling. These conditions start with qualified teachers, and they include high quality facilities, co-requisite equipment, enough time for learning, and sufficient fiscal resources. Furthermore, standardization refers to outputs or outcomes—for students, schools, and entire school districts. For example: By the year 2020, all students will graduate from high school and will be college- and careerready without remediation needs. Standards, standardization, and PE The idea of standardized treatment is especially salient to analyses of relations between the industrial age school and PE. The school’s function to develop each student’s specialized gifts and talents is a central theme in this story. Then as now, the rationale was straightforward. Only when curricular and instructional treatments are standardized is it possible to determine fairly and accurately what each student is best prepared to do. Educators thus are charged with assessing and developing each student’s gifts and talents in the here-and-now because all such “aptitudes” have carry-over value. They gain importance when children become adults and seek employment in the industrial age workplace. This industrial age standardization theme opens three lines of analysis. The first focuses on equity and equality. The second links “academic” subject-matter competence, particularly intellectual aptitude and cognitivebehavioral mastery, to students’ vocational pathways. The third is founded on PE’s uniqueness. Equality or equity? Historical analyses of the progressive standardization of the American public school illuminate an important paradox regarding “equality” and its frequent companion, “equity.” Although standardization of treatment (equality of opportunity) is the preferred ideal, teachers as human beings and schools as local organizations rarely achieve equality. The operational standard is equity. It refers to fair and just treatment without favoritism or prejudice, including ready access to available assistance, social supports, resources needed for learning and healthy development, educational opportunity structures, and vocational pathways. An equity lens opens important opportunities to analyze the extent to which all children and their families enjoy a level institutional playing field. Sorting, classifying, and labeling students: Equity issues Framed by the idea that schools are vocational sorting machines (Spring 1976), three ideas from this industrial age school merit analysis. Students are different.

28  Hal A. Lawson

Schools help them identify and develop their respective gifts and talents. As students are helped to learn about their respective gifts and talents, they develop career identities and life plans. Together, these ideas enabled twentiethcentury educators to claim that they provided life adjustment education. Now shift the focus to PE. Ask the same sets of questions about sorting, labeling, classifications, and differential outcomes. Start with the here-and-now and then extend the analysis into the future. A universal perspective founded on equity ideals provides one interpretive frame. While it may be justifiable to accept differential outcomes from other school subjects, PE needs to be exempt. Its outcomes are universal because every child has a body, and every child deserves to be active, healthy, and happy. Unfortunately, this equity ideal is jeopardized when PE is developed and operated “in sync” with the school’s organizational sorting machine. For example, when co-requisite conditions cannot be safeguarded, and there are no input control mechanisms to ensure some homogeneity among children, PE’s standardized treatments for heterogeneous groups invariably will produce inconsistent student outcomes, including unintended and undesirable ones. This problem can be expressed in a simple formula. Unequal student inputs + unequal conditions + standardized curriculum and instruction = variable (unequal) outcomes, including unintended and undesirable ones. Using a sports metaphor, PE will produce winners and losers, and every child does not matter.

Defining features of the industrial age school Guided by historical analysis, other defining features of PE can be identified and evaluated. Box 1.1 presents them.

Box 1.1 Examples of the industrial age school’s influences School reform and effectiveness frameworks advanced by national and state policy are founded on Cartesian mind-body dualism expressed in the name “physical” education. The two main policy drivers are under-specified state curriculum standards and adaptable guidelines regarding the number of minutes of physical activity per day or weekly. Policy leaders, school board members, parents, educators, and other constituencies conflate physical activity-as-process with physical education-as-learning. Owing to the conflation of physical activity, recess, and PE, primary school classroom teachers, not PE specialists, implement programs.

PE in the industrial age school  29

External accountability mechanisms are at best blurry and usually absent—with multiple, sub-optimal effects Competing school, district central office, community, and policy constituencies with their respective expectations and demands encourage program variability. If physical literacy is prioritized, it is presented as PE-specific, compromising plans for curricular bridge-building among drama, art, music, PE, and dance and robbing students of a comprehensive, integrative understanding embodiment, embodied learning, and physical literacy, including connections to health literacy. Children and youths are transformed into students who are subjected to teachers’ curricular preferences, attitudinal and behavioral rules, instruction, and performance evaluations. Like other teachers, PE teachers are expected and required to employ learning and performance evaluations to differentiate students’ attitudes, behaviors, competencies, and achievements, providing data for their respective grades. Teachers’ assessments and tests of students’ cognitive development usually are restricted to rules and techniques for sports and games. Because PE and physical activity are synonymous in school leaders’ views, students are grouped in large, heterogeneous classes, teachers shoulder heavy class loads, and the special needs of identifiable subpopulations cannot be met systematically. Owing to the potent combination of heterogeneous classes, suboptimal scheduling, personal preferences for particular activities and sports coaching, subject matter and role marginality, and isolation, teachers’ pedagogies-in-use frequently depart from preferred pedagogies disseminated in teacher education. Selective, inconsistent curricular enactments combined with variable teacher pedagogies results in favoritism for some students alongside the unintentional, undesirable treatment of others. The technical demands of teaching overshadow and may rule out the moral dimensions of teaching and learning, extending to priorities for educational equity Walled-in, building-centered school reform models in tandem with formal curriculum models with the same boundaries constrain and prevent comprehensive interventions that connect experiences in PE class with out-of-school influences and determinants, including peers and family members. Limited district office and school capacities for physical education and physical activity data systems in tandem with teachers’ role overload and stress conspire against data-driven, tailor-made intervention planning and implementation.

30  Hal A. Lawson

Two qualifications are in order. First, Box 1.1 is an ideal type (Hearn 1975). It is typical because its features derive from empirical observations. It is ideal because it is logically ordered and internally consistent. These two ideal properties enable the ideal type to function as a lens for examining real world phenomena; and with special attention to observations that are paradoxical, contradictory, and ironic. Second, the features are institutionalized, which means that PE constituencies have supported them. The ensuring critique is not an attack on these advocates. To the contrary, this critique is appreciative of PE’s pioneers. Even if their preferences and achievements can be criticized in today’s world, their collective public policy achievement early in the twentieth century— achieving PE as a required school subject—remains a signal achievement. Today’s leaders have much to learn from them. Mind body dualism with industrial age PE Two familiar phases rendered in Latin introduce a selective critique. The first was authored by the French philosopher René Descartes: Cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am.” The second was authored by the Roman poet Juvenal. Mens sana in corpore sano—a sound mind in a healthy body. For most of the twentieth century, PE students had to learn these two phrases in service of a dual perspective: (1) A critique of Descartes’ view; and (2) An endorsement of Juvenal’s slogan. Descartes’ dichotomous framework, known as Cartesian dualism, has been remarkably resistant to change, in part because the industrial age school continues to serve as an institutional carrier for this misleading, dichotomous view of what it means to be human. Even today this Cartesian view paves the way for subject matter prestige hierarchies. The school subjects oriented toward “academically oriented cognitions” and requiring disciplined inquiries by the imagined, separate mind (brain) have higher status than subjects involving the body. Not by coincidence, these school subject differences remain associated with the occupational hierarchy in American society, past and present. Subjects involving “head work” are associated with higher education, including the connection between advanced degrees, high status occupations, and the socio-economic status markers they confer. In contrast, subjects involving “hand work” and the body are associated with manual labor and the skilled trades, formerly called vocational education and now called “career and technical education.” This Cartesian framework provides a dual lens for evaluating PE in the industrial age school. One lens focuses on how the school has influenced and shaped PE, while the other focuses on how PE’s leaders have structured this special subject in accordance with the industrial age school.

PE in the industrial age school  31

(A third possibility, namely how leaders planned to seize the opportunity to use PE to change the industrial age school, apparently lacks substantive historical grounding.) PE leaders’ policy advocacy and program priorities PE was not an institutional victim with little power, authority, and influence regarding Cartesian dualism. To the contrary, PE leaders were active agents in the co-construction of this enduring, pervasive mind–body dualism. Examples start with “physical education.” This name, like other language systems that separate the body from the mind, simultaneously reflects and promotes Cartesian dualism. Early twentieth-century PE leaders developed and promoted the PE name to achieve an important purpose—to gain a subject matter foothold in the industrial age school. Consider examples of their policy claims. PE contrasted with recess for elementary school students. It was not unsupervised play involving the body for all manner of youngsters. PE was not exercise regimes without formal learning outcomes. In contrast to these stereotypes, leaders offered PE as a rational– instrumental school subject. For example, they claimed that PE needed specialist teachers whose special preparation and pedagogical skills enabled the achievement of important outcomes involving the body-in-motion. Although PE leaders diverged on whether physical fitness or other educational outcomes such as character development or sport skill was the top priority, they converged on the importance of physical activity—formally structured exercise forms—as a core component of schooling for American children and youths. Several generations of PE teachers and their professors have learned and promoted this orthodoxy, and the field’s textbooks disseminated and justified it. Notwithstanding enduring divides such as “education through the physical” versus “education of the physical,” leaders jointly promoted a physical education (Lawson and Kretchmar 2017). Just as beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, judgments regarding the consequences of “Cartesian PE” vary. For example, the institutional foothold gained by PE’s leaders in the industrial age school merits appreciation, and the same view extends to the policy supports leaders garnered. On the other hand, it is possible to wonder about PE’s untapped potential. Children and youths as students: Professionals know best Industrial America spawned many human services professions, and each had its special institutional domain (Abbott 1988). It is easy to recognize these professions and their domains because they remain in today’s world. Social workers, physicians, nurses, psychologists, public health

32  Hal A. Lawson

professionals, counselors, teachers, and others are supported by public policies, and they have their respective organizational homes (schools, hospitals, mental health clinics, youth development agencies, and more). Structured and supported by sector-specific categorical policies, these professions often enjoy employment monopolies because they have successfully claimed that their members are experts and deserve the exclusive right to practice (Lawson 2016a). To wit: Only certified teachers can be employed by local school districts. These professions have claimed that everyday people cannot do for themselves what the certified, highly educated professionals offer. In fact, they suggest that everyday people will be worse off and society will have multiple problems unless their expert members enjoy the exclusive right to practice. In this view, only a certified PE teacher can be entrusted with young people’s embodied play, games, dance, sport and exercise because professionals know best what students want and need. In this logic, PE professionals diagnose and prescribe. Students-as-clients need expert help and comply. Power and authority differences are embedded in this relationship, and they are reinforced by special language that provides social distance. Young people in schools are called students. In medical clinics, they are called patients. In social service agencies, they are called clients. In non-profit agencies, they are called consumers and customers. Although the names vary, the game is the same. The system of professions categorizes young people, framing and naming specific needs, problems, and aspirations that necessitate professionals’ interventions. Professionals assess and decide; young people comply and obey. Processing and warehousing students in school bureaucracies Public sector bureaucracies such as schools provide organizational homes for professional–client (teacher–student) interactions structured by scripted roles and formal rules. Mirroring the factory assembly line, the industrial age, public sector bureaucracy is a grand mechanism for processing people (Lipsky 1980). Under certain conditions big bureaucracies compel professionals to engage in student-processing routines because their working conditions preclude people-changing priorities. A well-known teacher lament exemplifies student-processing: “I taught them, but they didn’t learn.” Industrial age inheritances encourage student-processing. For example, age-graded classrooms with separate subjects and specialist teachers are akin to the industrial assembly line. Students move from class to class (subject to subject) with the expectation that they will receive standardized treatment (curriculum and instruction). This curricular production line arrangement is a mainstay within grades, across grades, and across schools. The student is the raw material. It is assumed that age (not developmental stage) is the best system for classification and assignment.

PE in the industrial age school  33

In this metaphor, teachers are assembly line workers, and they are charged with providing standardized treatment to students in their respective production stations—called classrooms, art studios, music rooms, and gymnasia. Teachers’ work is a Herculean challenge because they must cope with large, heterogeneous classes every day; and their school subject is last in a school’s scheduling priorities. Only elementary school generalist teachers have been afforded the luxury of having the same children all day and every day, which helps to explain the longstanding observation that these schools always have been child-centered institutions, while secondary schools have been subject-centered institutions. Not by accident, the language of “children” in elementary schools was then, and continues to be, replaced in secondary schools by the name “students.” This shift in language mirrors one in community health and social services agencies: Young people are called “clients.” In schools and agencies, the impersonal language of “student” and “client” was assumed to provide equitable treatment. Only when teachers viewed and called young people “students” could favoritism and prejudice be prevented as they implemented standardized curriculum and instruction structured to develop and identify students’ gifts and talents, while sorting and labeling students, oftentimes influencing identity development. A second institutional “move” followed suit—with special import for PE. Educational leaders promoted the idea of directed play involving exercise, both as self-justifying (because children need to play) and to achieve other goals and objectives such as self-discipline and behavioral control. This idea of directing children’s play in service of personal and social control fit nicely in the assimilationist agenda. Throughout the twentieth century, when play was a kind of catch-all concept, the inherent contradiction in the idea of “directed play” escaped examination and became self-justifying. Play’s voluntary essence and its intrinsic value (Huizinga 1951) were lost in this instrumental conversion and cooptation. Children’s agency (i.e., voice and choice) also was a casualty, as were the voices and choices of parents and other families. PE structured in this way was part of the regulated life in schools (Lawson 1993). It was structured explicitly for “motor minded students.” Some were not expected to excel in classrooms, but needed to be in school for vocational preparation and sorting (Tyack 1974). Sub-optimal conditions for programs and teachers From the beginning, classroom teachers in industrial age public schools were assigned heavy teaching loads. They had to prepare for many large, heterogeneous classes each day. What Lipsky (1980) called rationing of services—playing favorites—was a predictable, rational response to the sub-optimal working conditions provided by the industrial age school,

34  Hal A. Lawson

and many teachers did so. PE was designed to be an integral part of this industrial age school milieu. In retrospect, this subject might have been configured differently. It might have been based on a holistic view of child and youth development, offering significant amounts of voice and choice (i.e., agency) to young people. Sadly, it was not. PE was structured in conformity with other academic subjects, and PE teachers were expected to assess, evaluate, and grade students in accordance with the standardized model for curriculum and instruction. Primary school classroom teachers instead of PE specialists The idea of teachers with no training in mathematics, science, literacy and language, or civics being systematically assigned to teach any or all of these subjects is unthinkable. It flies in the face of extensive research regarding pedagogical content knowledge and its relations with differentiated instruction and personalized learning. Educational policy leaders, district central office and school leaders, parents, and the lay public never would allow this mismatched teacher assignment because the academic learning these subjects structure are essential to school success, college and careers, and adult well-being. Yet, the assignment of primary school classroom teachers to PE, oftentimes without specialist guidance, assistance, and supports, is a mainstay in the industrial age school. It subjects millions of students to good people (classroom teachers) who nevertheless lack the requisite subject matter expertise and whose jobs make it unlikely that they will remain abreast of relevant theory and research. The unstated side of this familiar primary school scenario is that young children are denied access to expert guidance in service of short-term benefits and long-term health and well-being outcomes. This is policy negligence. It is akin to asking the classroom teachers instead of social workers to address students’ mental health problems. Beyond decrying the policy negligence and commencing or re-invigorating policy advocacy, the search for causes and solutions rests squarely on PE program leaders, however defined. What is it about the design and conduct of PE programs that implicitly permits this negligent policy and sub-optimal practice? Fuzzy accountability and public policy gaps One set of answers to this question can be traced to the absence of firm external accountability requirements. PE in the Cartesian school has been linguistically, culturally, and operationally divorced from the school’s policy-mandated accountabilities. From the beginning PE teachers struggled with the lack of subject matter centrality. Lacking firm accountability

PE in the industrial age school  35

mechanisms grounded in research and with dominant a view that PE was merely an activity period, large heterogeneous classes could be assigned automatically. No wonder that variable PE has been the norm; PE and recess were conflated; and classroom teachers substituted for PE specialists. Confronted with sub-optimal conditions for their work, specialists and classroom teachers may have opted for an approach known as studentprocessing (Lipsky 1980). These people processing strategies are captured in two familiar phrases: (1) Teachers roll out the ball and supervise students’ activity; and (2) Students are kept busy, happy, and on track for good behavior (Placek 1983). While this orientation can be criticized, what else can teachers do when their working conditions are sub-optimal?

Public policy influences and determinants Public policy influences on the industrial age school and PE require special histories. A shorthand version draws attention to three features. The first involves a two-component policy classification (Lawson 2016b). Categorical policy is issue-specific and sector-specific. Sometimes it is referenced as “policy silos” because it is developed with firm boundaries. For example, PE is a separate subject, so policy for it needs to be divorced from policies for other subjects. Similarly, because PE is a school subject, educational policy is the main driver, not public health policy (Lawson 2017). Relational policy is developed for boundary bridging. For example, relational educational policy connects PE to other school subjects, while in governments, relational policy crosses and bridges two or more policy sectors—e.g., educational policy, public health policy, and child welfare policy (Lawson 2016b). The second policy feature oftentimes is presented as “Big P” versus “little p”. Big P policy is enacted by the US Department of Education and state education departments. Little p is enacted by school districts and their constituent schools. It is assumed that Big P heavily influences little p; and vice versa. Policies are said to be aligned and coherent when these policy levels of the education system are oriented in the same direction, and leaders are “on the same page.” Policy learning and improvement are facilitated when formal evaluations accompany implementation. The third feature is called “policy specification” (Fullan 2006). Here, interest resides in the extent to which details are provided for PE’s implementation and improvement. There are no easy answers to this policy question. In fact, Fullan emphasizes a policy problem called “the too tight, too loose dilemma.” Over-specification (too tight) results in excessive regulation, lack of choice, inability to customize, and teachers being treated as implementation puppets. Under-specification (too loose) leaves too much flexibility, risking the essence of what PE offers.

36  Hal A. Lawson

The policy specification problem provides one way to explain why schoolwide physical activity, recess, and PE are conflated. The variety of configurations bearing the same name (PE), signal a too-loose policy configuration associated with variable outcomes. This policy specification problem also provides a special lens for examining inherited PE and lingering policy environments. From the beginning, state educational policy (Big P) has conflated physical education with physical activity (i.e., exercise regimes and requirements). Big P mandates’ specifications, oftentimes designated as minutes or hours of exercise per day or week, raise issues about learning and instruction. While Big P policy stipulated needs for a specialist PE teacher, the rest was left to local school leaders’ discretion. Local policy “kicked in” when district office and school leaders made local PE decisions. Even today, under-specified, too-loose Big P policy structures help to explain local, little p policy manifested in under-specified, too loose, and highly variable PE. In this inherited view, PE predictably is conflated with physical activity, and the problem called PE’s “muddled mission” (Ward 2016) is structured and reinforced by public policy.

The promise, contribution, and perils of teacher education While the history of physical education has remained under-developed, the history of physical education teacher education (PETE) has been neglected. Today’s analysts must rely on a mixed bag of limited evidence that includes oral traditions, early textbooks, and what can be called “remnant literature” associated with the PE’s progressive development. This literature gives expression to enduring, internal conflicts regarding which “pet model” would become the only model for PE and, in turn, PETE (Weston 1962). Differences among pioneering professors who were trained as physicians, exercise physiologists, and educators recruited from the ranks of school practitioners help to explain differences in their respective preferences. The physicians and physiologists favored physical activity and physical fitness (“education of the physical”), while the educators advocated for activitydriven educational outcomes (“education through the physical”). Alongside these differences were others involving, for example, gymnastics versus sports and games; strenuous exercises for boys versus aesthetic ones for girls; and military-like drills and skills versus those for civilian life. Teacher education professors who had garnered PE teaching experiences relied on their personal experiences in class design and delivery, and the same experiential knowledge was manifest in the early textbooks. Research and theory were conspicuous in their absence, with notable exceptions provided by early versions of motor learning and development, human anatomy, and exercise physiology.

PE in the industrial age school  37

Lacking a research base and one or more guiding theories, and segregated by gender, men’s and women’s PETE programs bore the signatures of their professors, i.e., personal–professional ideologies trumped science. Diverse PETE professors were drivers for a divided profession with diverse goals—a perfect match for diverse policy constituencies, each of which had their own set of competing preferences and diverse goals. Internal conflicts have endured for several generations. Just as beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, manifest differences can be appreciated as strengths, opportunities, constraints, and barriers.

PE and PETE on auto-pilot: An institutional perspective Twentieth-century leaders representing physical education (PE) achieved basic consensus on a core design feature. PE was designed to fit the industrial age school’s structure, functions, cultural apparatus, and operational processes. In full view of the garden variety of programs offered under the PE umbrella, the industrial age school’s imprint was indelible because it structured common features. Today’s PE remains a carrier of this pattern—and with an important reminder. All such lasting, taken-for-granted features of today’s PE/PETE configuration are telltale signs of an important phenomenon. When patterned programs, homogenized roles, standardized relationships, and scripted behaviors are in evidence nationally and internationally, institutionalization is implicated. Institutionalization is evident when one way of organizing and conducting PE, PETE and their joint configuration tends to become the dominant way. Roles, relationships, responsibilities, rules, and operational processes tend to become type-casted and scripted (Berger and Luckmann 1967). Together they help to explain enduring programmatic and behavioral regularities in both PE programs and schools (Sarason 1998). The firmer the institutionalization of the PE/PETE configuration becomes, the more likely it is that scripting and standardization will take hold, which means that presentism and a preoccupation for technical problem-solving will persist. The challenges are especially formidable when certain conditions become entrenched. For example, when individuals and groups struggle in relative isolation; when professional associations do not prioritize and are unable to achieve public policy change; when teachers in the same school system implement entirely different versions of PE; and when the PETE leadership remains a house divided as professors wage internal contests over competing PE models. Taken to the extreme, institutionalized PE/PETE operates on auto-pilot. It reproduces present day programs and practices. All in all, it keeps the field on the same historical–developmental trajectory despite rapid, dramatic societal change (Lawson and Kretchmar 2017).

38  Hal A. Lawson

Assessing and evaluating institutionalized PE/PETE Four keynote features of every social institution facilitate evaluation, perhaps paving the way for improvement and redesign. The late Alan Ingham’s path-breaking work served to identify three of them (A.G. Ingham, personal communication, October 1976). Institutionalized form The institutionalized entity’s form is the first. This feature focuses attention on boundaries and territorial jurisdictions for PE, the school subject for which colleges and universities prepare teachers. PE in the dominant form is fortress-like because teaching and learning are confined to what can be accomplished within the school day. This taken-for-granted feature of American PE/PETE can be contrasted with programs in other nations in which instruction and participation are provided by community-based sports clubs and agencies specializing in exercise and fitness. Other examples also highlight selectivity. Today’s PE/PETE is deliberately divorced from its once-important siblings—health education and recreation. PE/PETE’s variable relationship with Kinesiology is another institutional feature. One more: PE/PETE has foggy relationships with social work, counseling, psychology, nursing, medicine, and public health. In all of these ways, PE/PETE has a special form. Institutionalized content PE/PETE’s content is the second feature. For example, school PE programs in the dominant model are activity-oriented. They consist almost entirely of exercises, sports, games, and dance. Examinations of students’ “cognitive knowledge” typically are limited to rules and techniques for sports and games. Teachers’ professional knowledge, of course, is more comprehensive, but it is selectively filtered toward the implementation and improvement of justifiable activity programs in schools. For example, the curriculum could be structured to emphasize physical activity, sport, dance, and active play as preventive medicine. Institutionalized social relations An institutionalized entity’s social relations provide a third focus for evaluation. Four kinds of social relations are of interest: (1) Relationships among people, especially formal role systems—e.g., students and PE teachers; teachers and parents; teachers and PETE professors; (2) Relationships among subject matter specialties and specialists—e.g., PE teachers’ relationships with science teachers and literacy–language teachers; (3) Relationships with policy leaders; and (4) Relationships with leaders representing other

PE in the industrial age school  39

sector-specific social institutions—health, mental health, child welfare, and juvenile justice (Lawson 2017). Where this last set of social relations is concerned, a reminder is in order. In the main, PE programs have been structured without the direct involvement of parents, family systems, and community-based sport, dance and exercise leaders. This arrangement creates a special set of social relations among these key actors and PE teachers, some of which may be unintentionally adversarial. Misaligned relationships constrain collaborative efforts to benefit youngsters. Outcomes and impacts The fourth feature of every institutionalized configuration is the most important one—namely, the PE/PETE configuration’s outcomes and impacts. What outcomes derive regularly from the institutionalized PE/PETE entity’s form, content, and social relations? More concretely: What are the outcomes for students? For PE teachers? Families? Communities? Policy impacts also are important. Assuming that sub-optimal policy, both Big P and little P, is linked to an inherited, institutionalized PE/PETE configuration, two generative questions are timely and important. Drucker (2008) offered the first one: If we hadn’t inherited this institutional design with its industrial age signature, would we do it this way? A second question follows suit. What policy innovations and program designs promise to yield better student and teacher outcomes at scale? These two questions can be called “generative” because they interrupt institutional auto-pilot, stimulate new ideas, and help launch the redesign agenda. A leadership framework known as a SWOT analysis is a companion facilitator. What strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) in our internal and external environments merit our attention as we plan for improvement and bold redesign? Legendary educator John Dewey (1916; 1997) provided inspiration and motivation for this challenging work, and his warning paves the way for other chapters in this book. “If we teach today’s students as we taught yesterday’s, we rob them of tomorrow” (p. 167).

References Abbott, A., 1988. The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Berger, P., and Luckmann, T., 1967. The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor Books. Boyer, P., 1978. Urban masses and moral order in America, 1820–1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Callahan, R., 1964. Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

40  Hal A. Lawson Cohen, R.D., and Mohl, R.A., 1979. The paradox of progressive education: The Gary plan and urban schooling. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press. Dewey, J., 1916; 1997. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press. Drucker, P.F., 2008. The essential Drucker: The best sixty years of Peter Drucker’s essential writings on management. New York: Collins Business Essentials. Fullan, M., 2006. Turnaround leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Wiley Imprint. Hearn, F., 1975. The dialectical uses of ideal-types. Theory and Society, 2 1, 531–561. Huizinga, J., 1951. Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Kett, J.F., 1977. Rites of passage: Adolescence in America 1790–present. New York: Basic Books. Lawson, H.A., 1993. After the regulated life. Quest, 45, 523–543. Lawson, H.A., 2012. Realizing the promise to young people: Kinesiology and new institutional designs for school and community programs. Kinesiology Review, 1 1, 76–90. Lawson, H.A., 2016a. Stewarding the discipline with cross-boundary leadership. Quest, 68 2, 91–115. Lawson, H.A., 2016b. Categories, boundaries, and bridges: The social geography of schools and the need for new institutional designs. Education Sciences, 6, 32. Available from: [accessed 4 January 2018].. Lawson, H.A., 2017. Reproductive, reformist, and transformative socialization. In K.A.R. Richards and K.L. Gaudreault, eds. New perspectives on teacher socialization in physical education. London and New York: Routledge, 243–261. Lawson, H.A., and Kretchmar, R.S., 2017. A generative synthesis for Kinesiology: Lessons from history and visions for the future. Kinesiology Review, 6, 195–210. Lipsky, M., 1980. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Placek, J.H., 1983. Conceptions of success in teaching: Busy, happy and good? In T.J. Templin and J.K. Olson eds. Teaching in physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 46–56. Rainwater, C., 1922. The play movement in the United States: A study of community recreation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Reardon, S.F., and Owens, A., 2014. Sixty years after Brown: Trends and consequences of school segregation. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 199–218. Sarason, S., 1998. Revisiting the culture of the school and the problem of change. New York: Teachers College Press. Spring, J., 1976. The sorting machine. London: The Longman Publishing Group. Tyack, D., 1974. The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ward, P., 2016. Policies, agendas and practices influencing doctoral education in physical education teacher education. Quest, 68, 420–439. Weston, A., 1962. The making of American physical education. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Chapter 2

Achieving desirable outcomes at scale in an era of results-based accountability Hal A. Lawson

The boundaries between the public sector and the private sector are dissolving as free market economics penetrates governments and shapes public policy. Known as neo-liberalism, this invasion challenges operations for every profession. Alongside its import for physical education (PE) and teacher education (PETE), it is a driver for new designs for schools, including market-based choices (Lawson and van Veen 2016). Two neo-liberal policy requirements merit attention. Results-based accountability systems, also known as outcome-based systems, necessitate rigorous research and evaluations to achieve three goals. Document the achievement of desirable outcomes. Guide practice in schools and teacher education. Justify policy investments in both. Cost-benefit analyses accompany accountability systems and give rise to two questions. Do public policy officials and educational leaders share PE/PETE leaders’ perceptions regarding the importance of school programs and their designated outcomes? Does the PE/PETE configuration provide the best way to achieve desirable outcomes at scale? While outcomes-based accountability systems and cost-benefit analyses are inseparable, the more important priority is for unique, important outcomes, i.e., demonstrated, important results. Debates focused on whether to continue, increase, or end resource allocations are easy to resolve when there is little or no evidence to substantiate claims about the outcomes PE programs achieve; and when designated outcomes are of little consequence to policy officials, politicians, educational leaders, and leaders representing medicine and public health. This chapter thus focuses on unique, important outcomes that are achieved equitably at scale. The focus is on decision-making criteria, processes, and mechanisms. Alternative school designs and contextual features such as student characteristics, school type, and community ecologies recommend justifiable variability. Issues regarding commonalities, similarities, and differences are endemic in every national redesign initiative. Three criteria for PE’s outcomes launch the analysis. Then four lines of three lines of research are brought to bear on outcome-related questions:

42  Hal A. Lawson

(1) School program status research; (2) Research on student preferences and experiences; (3) Research on five program models; and (4) Research on teacher outcomes. This three-component review recommends a redesign framework founded on relationships among student outcomes, teacher outcomes, program features, and school/community characteristics. Public policy impacts and influences remain in the background.

Important and unique results at scale Results-based accountability systems, cost-benefit analyses, and other components in the neo-liberal agenda (e.g., school services out-sourcing) pose risks for PE programs and present employment concerns for teachers. However, this neo-liberal agenda also provides timely shocks to an institutionalized PE/PETE configuration, perhaps stimulating a research and development agenda structured to widen and deepen the evidentiary base for policy and practice. Three criteria are central to this outcomes accountability agenda. The PE/PETE configuration will warrant continuing investments if the results it yields are important, unique, and achieved at scale. Importance The importance of PE’s espoused contributions is not self-evident to the lay public or to policy leaders. Grand claims based on ideologies may have been effective in the twentieth century, but they do not satisfy twenty-firstcentury policy mandates. Consider two disturbing indicators. Why would policy officials and educational leaders assign elementary school classroom teachers primary responsibility for school-based programs for young children? What else explains PE program standards expressed merely in minutes of activity? Complicating matters, the institutionalized PE/PETE configuration resides at the intersection of three social institutions: Education, sport, and health (Lawson 2017). Ideally, harmonious, synergistic relations can be developed among these three institutions, perhaps resulting in nuanced PE program models in the same school system. Presently, no such relations exist at scale, at least in the USA. Programs tend to structured narrowly to achieve just one or two sector-specific purposes as internal contests continue regarding which emphasis (e.g., sport versus public health) is the best one. As Figure 2.1 indicates, state education departments and teacher education programs add to the outcomes-related competition. Two other challenges must be addressed, starting with policy-relevant language. The PE/PETE duo must be presented in language that appeals to and convinces education system leaders—and increasingly public health leaders.

Achieving desirable outcomes at scale  43




State Education Department Policy

Physical Education Teacher Education

Figure 2.1  Competing constituencies with diverse goals

This work is challenging because professional socialization prioritizes the development of specialized discourse systems (McEvilly et al. 2014; Smith 2012), and some were developed for the industrial age school. Moreover, these systems have been developed to be esoteric, which means that they are not easily understood by external constituencies (Lawson 1979). Meanwhile, PETE programs and Kinesiology programs lack public policy researchers. This gap implicates a manifest need. All manner of graduates must be prepared for policy leadership and advocacy (Lawson 2016; van der Mars 2008). The second challenge has two parts. Consensus-based outcome specification is the first. This is a grand challenge because competing models for PE/PETE are the norm (Kirk 2013; Landi et al. 2016; McEvoy et al. 2017). Alternative models are founded on different values, some inherited and others new; and both teachers and teacher educators offer grand, sometimes-competing claims about immediate benefits and lifelong outcomes (Green 2014). This second part concerns the core messages offered to external constituencies. Do these outcomes announce and ensure equity? Are some more important than others? Are all achievable in all manner of schools? Beyond these challenging questions, convincing answers must be provided for two others. What are the returns on investments? What are the costs of elimination? Economic considerations unite these questions and recommend analyses by economists.

44  Hal A. Lawson

Uniqueness Policy leaders searching for more efficient ways to achieve important outcomes need to be convinced that something special is going on; and that the outcomes that derive from PE programs are both valuable and achievable. Still other economic criteria drive some such deliberations. What are the costs of failure, and what are the returns on investments in PE and PETE? The institutional history of PE/PETE is not conducive to the work needing to be done. For starters, economic analyses focused on school PE—as opposed to physical activity broadly defined—are nowhere to be found. Meanwhile, a house divided engenders a variety of outcomes-related claims. Some are incompatible, and others defy measurement (Green 2014). On top of this measurement problem, normative ideals and justifications continue to dominant discussions and publications. For example: PE programs should be oriented toward particular outcomes. If PE teachers were positioned and resourced appropriately, they could do this and that and achieve unique goals. While these normative ideals are important because they help to counter tendencies toward auto-pilot operations, they are weak responses to the powerful tandem of results-based accountability systems and cost-benefit analyses. Green’s (2014) question is apt. What is the PE effect? Other questions follow. Do formal curricula for PE prioritize these outcomes? Is equity a central priority in these outcomes frameworks? Are these curricula founded on research-supported theories of change that map how these outcomes will be achieved? Do PE teachers implement these theories of change with fidelity? Do they systematically evaluate these outcomes? Do they use their data to learn and improve? And, what results obtain when classroom teachers take charge of PE? Turning to the higher education side of the PE/PETE configuration, companion questions merit research-based analysis. For example, do teacher educators emphasize evidence-based policy and practice and conduct research that enhances the profession’s claims? Do teacher educators evaluate the extent to which they are achieved in preservice education programs? What quality assurance mechanisms ensure transfer to diverse school contexts? Leaders for exemplary PE/PETE programs are responsive to these needs. However, issues remain about whether they are outliers. These issues introduce a third criterion. Scalability Educational policy researcher Richard Elmore (1996) popularized the idea of “going to scale” or “scaling-up.” This concept signifies a major departure from a twentieth-century school reform goal—replication.

Achieving desirable outcomes at scale  45

Replication is a cooker-cutter strategy for disseminating and transporting effective models and practices. Repeatedly, it has come up short as a guide for innovation and technology transfer. One reason is predictable: School and district office capacities and local community contexts constrained wholesale innovation transfer (Hatch 2009). As replication has lost currency, scale-up has gained popularity. It retains the idea of program innovation transportability and transfer—and for good reason. Innovations that achieve important, unique outcomes should travel from one place to others. On the other hand, the scale-up concept introduces contingencies and variability. Replication, in this view, is not inherently feasible or desirable, especially as recognition grows that that variable school, school district, and community contexts are consequential for all manner of desirable outcomes. The search is on for descriptions of scalable, important, unique, and adaptable program mechanisms, increasingly called program drivers, which yield desirable outcomes in variable school contexts (Bryk et al. 2015; Knox et al. in press). A review of the research indicates that high quality work needs to be done in a hurry.

The USA report card on children’s physical activity The 2016 report card provides a logical starting point for the research and development agenda that lies ahead (Katzmarzyk et al. 2016). It can be evaluated in three ways. It documents the unsatisfactory state of affairs associated with a blurry national policy agenda for physical activity in schools, families and communities. It is a call to action. It provides the equivalent of a systems map because it identifies components that belong together in ecological planning for children’s health-enhancing, active lifestyles, and it provides an interpretive frame for research findings regarding “selection effects”—i.e., some young people clearly benefit while others do not (Aspen Institute Project Play 2016). Report card indicators, grades, and composite Score The ten indicators on the report card enjoy face validity. In no rank order, the ten indicators and their respective grades are: Overall physical activity levels: Grade D−; Organized sport participation: Grade C; Active play: Grade Incomplete; Active transportation: Grade F; Sedentary behaviors: Grade D−; Family and peers: Grade Incomplete; School: Grade D+; Health-related fitness: Grade D; Community and the built environment: Grade B−; Government strategies and investments: Grade Incomplete. The composite grade was D−, and the same mark was earned in 2014. Does it matter?

46  Hal A. Lawson

Twin findings serve as a convincing answer. In 2016 PE class participation had declined since 2014, and 78.4 percent of American children and youth—a clear majority—did not meet recommended physical activity participation levels (Katzmarzyk et al. 2016, p. S310). While it clearly is unfair and inappropriate to attribute responsibility for this sub-optimal state of affairs to PE teachers and their teacher educators, some such attributions are destined to develop and spread, especially as health care costs escalate and public awareness grows regarding the importance of active lifestyles in preventive medicine. In fact, a new medical concept called exercise deficit disorder has been developed to sound a public health alarm and initiate action (Tomporowski and McCullick 2017). The social ecologies for physical activity, embodiment, and healthy lifestyles Viewed as a whole, the priority areas emphasized in the report card constitute a social ecology for young people’s physical activity. PE programs in schools are just one part of this ecology, albeit a central one. All such ecological frameworks offer several advantages (Lawson 1992; Stokols 1996). To begin with, they can be employed retrospectively to account for variable results from PE programs. For example, family, community, and peer influences simply are too powerful for PE programs to counteract (e.g., Davison et al. 2012; Dowling et al. 2014). Alternatively, this ecological frame can be employed for future planning. For example, school PE programs can be harmonized and synchronized with physical activity and health-related interventions, programs, and services for peers and family system members—with particular reference to place-based facilitators, constraints and barriers. Outcomes-related PE research, both internationally and nationally, indicates needs and opportunities.

The PE effect 1: Research reviews Research reviews completed by European colleagues under Richard Bailey’s leadership are noteworthy. So is Hastie’s (2017) comparative review of the extent to which outcomes prioritized in standards have been documented by research. Together they provide a developing menu of outcomes-related choices. The Bailey-led reviews provide an exemplary opportunity. One review focuses on PE’s contributions to student engagement, educational achievement, and school performance (e.g., Bailey 2006). This kind of review strengthens PE’s inclusion in schools, particularly when PE has import as a prevention mechanism for early school leaving (e.g., Lawson and Lawson 2013).

Achieving desirable outcomes at scale  47

A second review presents PE as an economic investment in workforce development (Bailey et al. 2013). The important combination of education and health is important in this review. Together they enhance human capital development. Other reviews zoom in on PE’s outcomes. (Bailey 2006; 2017; Bailey et al. 2009; Bailey et al. 2013). For example, the Bailey et al. (2009) developed a comprehensive inventory of PE outcomes, and searched for evidence that PE programs systematically achieved one or more of them. Apparently, designated outcomes can be achieved, but not uniformly or at scale (see also Green 2014). In other words, there is evidence of programs’ potential to produce a variety of desirable outcomes, but these effects are contingent and variable. Put differently, no set of desirable outcomes derives automatically from any program. It all depends. “It all depends” has expansive meanings and significance. For example, it calls attention the considerable variability among schools, teachers, young people, programs, and communities. Additionally, it highlights the challenges of determining firm cause-and-effect relationships when socialecological forces, factors and actors other than PE teachers and their programs influence outcomes (Green 2014; Schwanenflugel and Tomporowski 2017). Isolated PE programs developed apart from peer, family, school, and community ecologies always will fight an uphill battle in the quest to achieve equitable outcomes at scale.

The PE effect 2: Research that taps young people’s preferences and outcomes A review completed by Beni, Fletcher, and Chrónín (2016) begins to address a significant research gap. Insufficient research attention has been given to young people’s preferences and expressed outcomes. The Beni et al. findings provide an empirical foundation for the future, albeit with a manifest limitation. This review combines community youth sports and school PE programs—two related, but different phenomena of interest with different social contexts. Children and youths apparently (and predictably) seek and prefer playlike pursuits. Individually and together, study participants say that they prefer social interactions, challenge, motor competence, and personally relevant learning (Beni et al. 2016). This predictable variety recommends advanced analysis, with particular interest in sub-population identification and treatment. The rationale is straightforward: Although some students may endorse and prefer all of these orientations, others will prefer and seek only one or two. As with the program research review, nuance is implicated with needs for finer-grained program designs and pedagogical practices. Teachers’ roles

48  Hal A. Lawson

include assessing individual and group student needs and preferences, offering them a menu of alternatives, helping them set goals and make good decisions, assisting in implementation, and reinforcing their efforts to follow through. These contrasts with industrial age PE are indicators of redesign. Equitable opportunities and outcomes depend on these consequential changes.

The PE effect 3: Models-driven research In the USA, the institutionalized PE/PETE configuration is characterized in part by internal contests waged over alternative models. PETE researchers tend to play the lead roles in these intra-professional contests, some of which are founded on the industrial age school’s assumptions regarding a best curriculum. This pattern is not unique to the United States. Conflicts and competitions are an international phenomenon (Kirk 2013; Landi et al. 2016). In one light these model-driven conflicts and competitions create special challenges. In another, PETE professors’ and PE teachers’ model-based allegiance, pedagogical preferences, and research persistence are assets because theoretically sound, empirically grounded, models are needed in this era of results-oriented accountability systems, and they depend on a critical mass of researchers with an unrelenting focus on a formal model. When the search engine includes international alternatives, several models are available for review, including fitness for life, teaching games for understanding, cooperative learning, comprehensive school health education and promotion, and a model developed specifically for adolescent girls (Oliver and Kirk 2015). The ensuring, summary review showcases five popular models and an emergent one in the USA. They are: (1) Teaching personal and social responsibility; (2) Sport education; (3) SPARK; (4) An emergent physical activity games curriculum; and (5) The multi-activity curriculum. The first four provide evidence of a demonstrable, short-term “PE effect” (Green 2014). Unfortunately, research supports are lacking for the multiactivity curriculum, and little is known about these four models’ long-term effects because model-driven, longitudinal research is rare (King et al. 2002). Teaching personal and social responsibility A fast-growing literature provides empirical warrants and theoretical grounds for teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR). Although this model has import for all manner of social and emotional learning, research indicates that it has special relevance for children and youths who confront life challenges—in schools, homes, and communities. TPSR originated with the pioneering work of Donald Hellison. In contrast to missionaries blinded by advocacy, Hellison and his colleagues prioritized a research and development agenda for the design and continuous improvement TPSR. More than a school curriculum, today’s TPSR increasingly is a signature feature of out-of-school time programs.

Achieving desirable outcomes at scale  49

A review by Hellison and Walsh (2002) summarized lessons learned and charted an empirically based course for the future. More recent reviews strengthen these TPSR outcome claims (Gordon and Doyle 2015; Pozo et al. 2016). Research indicates that demonstrable social and emotional developmental outcomes derive from appropriately implemented TPSR programs, but with an important reminder. These outcomes are not automatic or easy to achieve. Desirable outcomes for students result from specially designed initiatives implemented by dedicated, competent teachers. Companion lines of research on social-emotional competence add weight to TPSR findings and have import for policy platforms for PE’s centrality in school systems. For example, in the near term, children’s social emotional competence is correlated with social, behavioral, and academic outcomes, which are important for school success and healthy development. What is more, social emotional competence during childhood and adolescence predicts positive adult outcomes (Domitrovich et al. 2017). Significantly, PE teachers also change as they implement TPSR. For example, teachers stop viewing youngsters as problem students and delinquents. Like exemplary social workers, these teachers view “problem students” as holistic young people with strengths that outweigh and can compensate for their short-term attitudinal and behavioral challenges. These teacher changes are among TPSR’s co-requisites. Another co-requisite is the development of social settings that are conducive to personalized interactions between teachers and students. Although TPSR researchers have initiated efforts toward public policy in support of TPSR, this agenda is unfinished. Big P and little p initiatives are timely as concerns grow about disengaged students and the grand issue regarding the school-to-prison pipeline. Social emotional competence provides an immediate policy and practice target because it enjoys an impressive research foundation (Domitrovich et al. 2017). Sport education Like TPSR, the sport education model also is associated with an international leader: Daryl Siedentop. Also like TPSR, the sport education model has import for out-of-school time programs, especially afterschool programs and intramural programs. In addition to its relevance to American culture— in which many people have strong affinities for competitive sports—sport education is a good fit for PE teachers. Recruits remain attracted to careers as teachers and coaches because of their personal experiences in and love for sport. Several exemplary research reviews for sport education provide theoretical warrants and empirical justification. Three recent ones are noteworthy because they provide two sets of important details (Araújo et al. 2014; Hastie et al. 2011; Kirk 2013). For example, these reviews describe and explain

50  Hal A. Lawson

inconsistent program effects on students, especially gender differences. They also report sport education’s effects on teachers (e.g., engagement in teaching, beliefs about students), emphasizing the fit between teachers’ reasons for entering the profession and the activities they offer to students. Mirroring the TPSR literature, the sport education research literature increasingly has emphasized the importance of studying implementation mechanisms, together with the co-requisite conditions needed for effectiveness. One of the most important conditions is sufficient time for all that sport-related instruction and competitions entail (Araújo et al. 2014). Like TPSR, time requirements may recommend moving sport education to afterschool settings. Two questions remain. Does sport education in school transfer to sport participation outside of school? Are students attracted to sport education because they already are involved in extra-school, community-based youth sport, or does participation in PE-as-sport education facilitate additional and later-life extra-school, sport participation (Green 2014)? SPARK In contrast to the TPSR and sport education models, the model for Sports, Play, and Active Recreation for Kids (SPARK) is grounded in the special research and development framework provided by public health (McKenzie et al. 2016; Sallis et al. 2012). This framework emphasizes person–environment interactions as well as evidence-based behavioral interventions that are aligned with proximal and distal outcomes for individuals and groups. Training for teachers in support of implementation fidelity is required. The attention to research rigor and empirical details is impressive, and it has resulted in unusual, exemplary program specification, including implementation requirements, timetables and co-requisite resources. School-wide outcomes for kids are among the important findings. For these reasons alone, SPARK responds somewhat uniquely to the demands associated with results-based accountability systems. Issues regarding SPARK are more likely to be raised by PE/PETE insiders holding different core values and program preferences. They apparently oppose the restricted focus of SPARK programs and its incipient behaviorism. SPARK has been designed as an anti-obesity initiative, and this orientation is objectionable to proponents of a multi-activity curriculum. The emergent physical activity games program Consistent with proposals to move PE from the regular school day and the usual challenging conditions, pioneering research and development experts at the University of Georgia have developed a unique, scalable afterschool program, complete with specifications, acceptable adaptations, and descriptions of activity requirements, teacher competencies, and both teacher and

Achieving desirable outcomes at scale  51

student roles and implied behaviors (Schwanenflugel and Tomporowski 2017; Tomporowski, McCullick, and Pesce 2015; Tompowski et al. 2015; Tomporowski and McCullick 2017). Opportunities for academic learning and physical activity participation and learning are joined under the same program umbrella. This redesign includes fine-grained distinctions such as exercise versus physical activity, and teaching games merely for skill development versus the import of games for cognitive development and meta-cognitive advancements. Rigorously specified roles and responsibilities for teachers go hand-in-hand with the selection of physical activity games that invite students’ active engagement and both individual and group problem-solving. Like active participation in project-based learning programs, students are not sedentary as they reflect on their experiences in classrooms. Specially trained teachers learn how to select appropriate games, keep children engaged and activity, and use activity pauses as occasions for students to problem-solve, reflect, and re-engage. In brief, children gain the benefits of regular, structured physical activity in tandem with cognitive and meta-cognitive outcomes that may transfer to classrooms and life! While the rules of the selected games are emphasized, the games are vehicles—tailor-made interventions—for the achievement of desirable cognitive and meta-cognitive outcomes. Last, but not least, this new program has been field-tested in schools serving considerable numbers of children who are eligible for free and reduced lunch, including some who may need academic enrichment, a sense of attachment to a caring adult, additional engaged learning time in academic subjects, and a sense of connection to school (Lawson and Lawson 2013). The prototype for this innovative program is noteworthy because it prioritizes all of these outcomes (Schwanenflugel and Tomporowski 2017). An inherited multi-activity curriculum PE programs in the United States take another important form, and it is sufficiently standardized in its implementation to warrant the status of a model. It is known as the multi-activity curriculum, so-named because it is structured to offer a variety of experiences. An analogy introduces the logic—the cafeteria curriculum. The various activities for PE—sports, dance, fitness activities, adventure pursuits, and more—are like different kinds of food. All may be health-enhancing, and some may have lasting appeal and importance. The main curricular assumptions are as follows. For students to make informed choices in the here-and-now, perhaps in preparation for adult life, they need to experience as many alternatives as possible because most parents and families lack the commitments, capacities, and resources to provide these opportunities. Specialist PE teachers are charged with providing appropriate exposure. Decisions about which activities are offered, when, and at what grade levels typically are delegated to teachers.

52  Hal A. Lawson

Oftentimes, physical activity processes are viewed as self-justifying— apart from whether every student finds a particular “niche” as they are exposed to the activity menu. This is the industrial age school in action— standardized treatment with the same cafeteria offerings to every student on the way to sorting, classifying, and labeling them. As students experience these curricula, they also classify and label themselves, forging activityrelated identities with both short- and long-term import. PE structured in relation to this model is associated with selection effects (Green, 2014). Freely translated, young people who are physically active enjoy and benefit, while peers who are not so predisposed may not (e.g., de la Haye et al. 2011). Appreciating the four research-supported models In contrast to the multi-activity curriculum, TPSR, sport education, SPARK, and the afterschool model are formal models with special boundaries, signature goals, assumptions about learning and behavioral change, and implementation requirements. The effectiveness of each depends on specialized teacher competencies and role orientations, together with co-requisite conditions in schools (e.g., enough time during the school day; necessary equipment). From an outsiders’ perspective, this research-related state of affairs is an achievement because these four models provide an evidence-based menu of choices. This idea of a menu is timely. If the idea of a standardized model no longer holds for schools, surely the same principle applies to PE/PETE. For example, TPSR may be the best fit for an alternative school for youths with multiple challenges, while sport education may fit a rural school system surrounded by a community with no other sports programs. Meanwhile, every model is selective, i.e., it is founded on special assumptions, prioritizes particular values, necessitates antecedent and co-requisite capacities and resources, and directs attention to specialized outcomes at the expense of others. Sport education, for example, proceeds with the idea that all students should have experiences akin to those of athletes on formal sport teams, and it necessitates special equipment, facilities, time, and teachers with specialized pedagogical content knowledge for several sports. PETE programs featuring this model must be designed accordingly, raising questions about which parts of conventional programs get short shrift and which parts are eliminated. Last, but not least, whether it’s sport education, SPARK, teaching games for understanding, TPSR, the innovative afterschool program, the multiactivity curriculum, or another model, the industrial age school’s standardization imprint remains when every child is required to complete the same curriculum and experience its designated pedagogy. Issues involving equitable opportunities and outcomes are unavoidable, and some of these issues extend to teachers’ socialization, working conditions, and outcomes.

Achieving desirable outcomes at scale  53

Connecting PE program research with research on PE teachers Specialized research designs focused narrowly on student and program outcomes are essential. However, the findings are more descriptive than explanatory when they omit consequential relationships among PE program designs and outcomes, student outcomes, and teachers’ orientations, working conditions, and career trajectories. Two lines of research and scholarship have contributed to this relational understanding. One is occupational socialization research (e.g., Richards and Gaudreault 2017), and the newcomer is improvement science (Bryk et al. 2015). Improvement science is action-oriented and provides a solid research and development agenda for analyzing systems patterns and examining variability. Occupational socialization research also can be viewed as systems-oriented because it helps to describe and predict patterns associated with both sub-optimal and exemplary school PE. Examples of such suboptimal variability indicate needs and opportunities for strategic redesign. Framing teacher socialization Nine components structure teachers’ professional socialization: (1) Career attraction mechanisms and recruitment facilitators, which help to explain varying degrees of teacher candidate homogeneity; (2) PETE program socialization mechanisms, including curricular designs, professors’ influences, and identity-development strategies for candidates; (3) The initial organizational socialization of beginning teachers in variable school environments (called induction into teaching); (4) Teachers’ roles, relationships, responsibilities, accountabilities, and status in host schools; (5) The effects of host schools as work organizations on teachers’ work orientations, practice decisions, and student outcomes; (6) On-the-job learning and formal professional development, including whether and how they make a difference in teachers’ work and students’ experiences; (7) Teachers’ career plans and progressions (e.g., retention, career moves, and turnover); (8) The influence of professional associations’ accreditation standards and state education department certification requirements; and (9) Public policy influences on school programs and teachers’ work. Complicated relationships among these components help to explain teacher variability, school PE program differences, and inequitable student opportunities and outcomes (Lawson 2017; Richards and Gaudreault 2017). Policy impacts on PE in schools: The centrality problem and its correlates Stringent external accountability mechanisms developed and enforced by state education departments serve as drivers for a regulatory culture structured to

54  Hal A. Lawson

achieve compliance at scale in all manner of schools. State-specific, curricular standards for every subject are the main mechanism. They are normative guides that ensure what policy officials view as beneficial homogenization in service of quality assurance. Predictably, the academic learning and achievement of students and overall school academic performance measures are the main centerpieces in today’s state standards and accompanying accountability systems. Statelevel performance criteria and data systems stand as evidence, and district central offices must comply with testing programs and report their performances to receive state funding. State-wide PE data systems often are absent. Two meta-messages in this arrangement are clear and unrelenting. What gets measured and evaluated is what matters most, and the educators responsible for what matters most are more important than the ones charged with non-essential duties. In other words, all teachers are members of the same union, and their salaries are structured by standardized scales, but they enjoy variable social status in schools. Particular groups of teachers and their subject matter specialties, sometimes called “core academic subjects,” enjoy higher status than their counterparts. The school subjects that are prioritized in external accountability systems are at the top of the prestige hierarchy because they are deemed “central” to the missions, goals, functions, and daily operations of schools. These realities showcase the importance of a theoretical concept called organizational centrality (Blalock 1982; Grusky 1963). Centrality refers to the spatial positioning of individuals within an organization’s workforce, and it implicates a status hierarchy, including differential power, authority, influence, incentives, and rewards. Role occupants of central positions exert extraordinary influence on organizational effectiveness. Their central roles and strategic action accord them special status, and they usually are first in line for resources, social supports, professional development, and technical assistance. When role occupants of central positions (e.g., teachers of mathematics, science, literacy and language arts) interact with others with comparatively less important positions (e.g., teachers of music, art, drama, and PE), role systems are differentiated. In these configurations, everyone knows that some jobs are viewed as less important (i.e., less “central”), and the teachers who perform them have lower status. Structured by external accountability mechanisms, these interpretations play out in curricular schedules, class sizes and compositions, and teachers’ workloads. Inequities for PE teachers are predictable, and so are sub-optimal practices such as assigning primary school classroom teachers sole responsibility for PE. Policy issues are implicated in this organizational centrality problem. Big P state policy gaps and district level, little p policy needs help to explain how and why PE teachers often struggle and their programs are not ideal. Public policy has not been a good friend of PE teachers and their programs, as Figure 2.2 indicates.

Achieving desirable outcomes at scale  55

PE is Excluded in External Accountability Mechanism

PE has Little or No Organizational Centrality

PE is Last in Line for Organizational Supports & Resources

PE has Low Status in the School’s Subject Matter Hierarchy

Figure 2.2  Four major policy impacts on PE in schools

Role marginality PE teachers’ role marginality derives in part low centrality. Together they explain teachers’ status inequality (e.g., Richards and Hemphill 2017). PE teachers’ role marginalization, in tandem with their social geographic isolation in the architecture of schools, recently has been enhanced by a third framework in which teachers’ meanings and feelings are the phenomenon of interest. Researchers ask if they believe that they and their subject area matter in school contexts (e.g., Gaudreault et al. 2016). Few external accountability requirements for PE other than activity minutes merit attention. When PE is not central to schools’ missions and goals, teachers tend to be feel marginalized and isolated, and they wonder if they and their work matters. And when primary school classroom teachers, not PE specialists, take charge of children’s programs, PE’s sub-optimal status is reinforced. Perceived social support with low centrality and role marginality Once this sub-optimal configuration is illuminated, another organizational concept gains importance. Teachers’ perceived organizational support is the phenomenon of interest (e.g., Kurtessis et al. 2015; Neves and Eisenberger 2014). The main ideas can be summarized as follows. Daily social exchanges in the workplace are instrumental in teachers’ perceptions that their school community values their contributions and cares

56  Hal A. Lawson

about their well-being. To wit: Carson et al. (2016) identified and described the importance of school principals’ support for PE teachers’ job satisfaction and role centrality. All such relevant social exchanges—e.g., between leaders and teachers and between PE teachers with other teachers—are associated with an array of important outcomes. They include access to resources and social supports, trusting relationships, commitments to steward the organization, higher levels of job satisfaction, elevated job performance, and the teachers’ readiness to take calculated risks in service of program innovations. Absent any or all of these essential organizational supports, teachers’ working conditions are sub-optimal, making it difficult to achieve equitable, important, and unique student outcomes at scale. The reproduction of a sub-optimal PE configuration The higher the centrality of the teachers in the accountability apparatus for the school, the more likely they are to perceive and receive organizational supports. So, when PE teachers feel isolated and marginalized and doubt whether they and their subject matter, organizational support problems are illuminated. Organizational support, in turn, is associated with perceived role centrality—which emphasizes PE’s connection to schools’ external accountability mechanisms. Figure 2.3 depicts this pattern. PE teachers’ role orientations obviously are impacted, but there is more to this pattern. For example, there is not enough time in the school day for PE teachers to have the time they need with students (Gamble et al. 2017), and PE specialists are not deemed essential for students’ activity programs. This pattern extends to PE teachers’ emotions, motivations, and role identities (Ashforth 2001)—an area for future research and with twin reminders. Teachers are not cheerful robots who automatically implement evidence-based practices, and their work requires significant emotional





Figure 2.3  Organizational influences on PE teachers and their programs

Achieving desirable outcomes at scale  57

labor (Wilcox and Lawson 2018). Schools-as-work organizations influence their identities, feelings, efficacy, and career planning (e.g., to remain in teaching or leave; to emphasize coaching instead of teaching). Schools’ organizational designs thus merit attention (Wilcox et al. 2017). Research provides just cause to be concerned about teacher socialization overall and particularly schools as work organizations. Weak and missing external accountability mechanisms, subject matter centrality hierarchies, and organizational support systems, and resource allocation systems (money, time, equipment and facilities) in too many schools are not conducive to the development positive occupational self-concepts, and they challenge teachers’ commitments to their subject matter specialty as well as to the school that employs them. Figure 2.4 summarizes a sub-optimal pattern—with implications for redesign. To the extent that such a sub-optimal state of affairs prevails among veteran members of the PE department in a particular school, it produces and reproduces three main effects. First: PE teachers who coach interscholastic athletic teams increasingly invest in this part of their jobs and careers. When this shift in teachers’ occupational self-concept occurs, teaching the student masses becomes a career contingency—part of the job they prefer (coaching) and a set of duties that must be endured (Lawson 1983; Richards






Figure 2.4  The sub-optimal reproduction of PE teachers’ work in particular kinds of schools

58  Hal A. Lawson

and Hemphill 2017). Teacher–coaches and their special athletes may be the winners, but students stuck in required, standardized PE programs that do not respond to their needs, aspirations, and cultural identities are the losers. Second, PE teachers without such investments in coaching are likely to consider one of two exit options. PE teachers with certifications for other subjects may transfer out of PE to classrooms (Innaucci and MacPhail 2017). Alternatively, they may look to leave teaching. In brief, this sub-optimal arrangement “pushes out” teachers, particularly ones with other job skills and opportunities who feel “pulled out” of their jobs and careers. Whether pushed out or pulled out, the seeds are sowed for voluntary turnover, and it does not bode well for young people who need a sense of attachment to at least one caring adult at school in order to attend, arrive on time, and become fully engaged (Lawson and Lawson 2013). The third effect comes into view when new teachers are recruited and employed to replace the ones who have transferred or exited. The PE teachers who remain and the sub-optimal organizational conditions and arrangements surrounding PE oftentimes are instrumental in the organizational socialization of newcomers (Lawson 1989; Richards and Hemphill 2017; Woods et al. 2017). When sub-optimal conditions greet novice teachers, the so-call “wash-out effect” occurs—whereby real-world induction experiences prompt novice teachers to discount and abandon innovations provided in preservice education. All three effects are tangible drivers for the social reproduction of suboptimal working conditions for PE teachers and sub-optimal organizational gardens for PE programs. Mindful of exceptions to this pattern, many of which are attributable to commendable persistence and resilience by novice teachers who have prepared for reality shocks (Richards et al. in press), social reproduction effects are predictable. Figure 2.5 depicts a causal chain for sub-optimal outcomes. While all teachers share responsibility for this undesirable pattern, the main idea with this figure diagram is that it derives from sub-optimal policies in tandem with organizational impediments and job-related constraints. When these problems are structurally induced, chastising teachers is akin to blaming the victim. In fact, these problems are harmful to new and experienced teachers who enter teaching with high standards, strong moral imperatives, and a sense of social responsibility for their work with children and youths. Although few researchers have framed this grand problem as “PE teacher alienation,” this Marxian idea may be salient when the conditions required for teachers’ experiences of professionalism, agency, and efficacy are not provided. Teacher socialization research suggests that when these sub-optimal conditions are omnipresent, they have the potential to become infectious, impacting entire departments in the here-and-now and setting the stage for undesirable turnover and the organizational socialization of newcomers that “washes out” the short-term effects of innovate PETE programs.

Achieving desirable outcomes at scale  59

A Variety of Programs Offered by Different kinds of Schools Produce Variable & Competing Subjective Warrants & Role Preferences Among Recruits

A Variety of PETE Programs + Variable Student Inputs = Variable Novice Teacher Role Orientations, Model Preferences & Actions

Perceived Role Marginality, Isolation, Role Conflict, Role Overload, & Emotional Labor Encourage a Custodial Orientation with Student Favoritism

Variable, Sub-optimal Induction Programs for New Teachers Bring “Reality Shocks” that Often “Wash Out” PETE Program Effects

Figure 2.5  The sub-optimal reproduction of the PE/PETE configuration

Unsettling conclusions: A time for bold action The preceding analysis may have taken readers to uncharted territory. In contrast to the dominant literature, which focuses on students, program features, and preparation programs, this analysis also has emphasized public policy, schools as work organizations, the work of PE teachers, and both strengths and shortcomings in PETE programs. Three conclusions are warranted. Together they indicate needs for collective action in the quest for beneficial, collective impact. First: Suitably designed PE models with their respective theoretical warrants and empirical justifications are available and provide important guidance. Together, they provide a menu of alternatives for school practice, research and development improvements, and policy advocacy. They also illuminate important choices for schools, teacher education, and their relations. For example, should teachers in the same middle school implement just one model or several? How many models can teacher education programs emphasize and help disseminate?

60  Hal A. Lawson

Second: Model-specific theory and research invariably raises issues about the wholesale applicability and utility of any one of them for diverse students and schools. Impressive implementation and outcomes-oriented research also signals inter-school differences. A generic, substantial body of research that documents inter-school and inter-district differences raises issues about whether every school offers conducive conditions for any of these PE models (e.g., Wilcox et al. 2017). In the USA manifest differences between vulnerable children and families and privileged counterparts extend to the schools they attend and their residential communities, highlighting two recommendations. Ensure a goodness of fit between a PE model and the host organizational and community contexts and plan on capacity-building and policy advocacy in school systems with sub-optimal PE trajectories and unsupportive policies. Third: Sub-optimal conditions, programs and policies illuminate an unsettling, complicated pattern. Better outcomes for students will not be achieved at scale absent better outcomes for PE teachers. Better outcomes for PE teachers will not be achieved at scale without improvements in the teachers’ working conditions, social supports and resources, implicating improvements in schools-as-work organizations. In fact, undesirable turnover among teachers will continue until the work of teaching PE is enhanced, and all such undesirable, preventable teacher turnover will impair program quality and influence the recruitment of future teachers. School and district office leaders will not provide these better conditions, social supports, and resources until such time as they, public policy officials, and other influential constituencies are provided with compelling, theoretically sound and evidence-based frameworks for PE. Unique, important outcomes achieved at scale are centerpieces. While PETE researchers have much to offer to this complicated agenda, it extends beyond their capacities and achievements. In brief, this multicomponent agenda entails systems change, which depends on a map of the several parts of the system as well as identification of key leverage points where the work can begin. It requires the faithful implementation of research-supported, theoretically sound policies, programs, and practices, albeit with adaptive integration in response to diverse people, school and district contexts, and communities. Measurable outcomes—unique, important, and achievable at scale—are important, and they must be tailor-made for specific school communities. More than an implementation challenge, this systems agenda presents needs and opportunities for redesign.

References Araújo, R., Isabel, M., and Hastie, P., 2014. Review of status of learning in research on sport education: Future research and practice. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 13 4, 846–858.

Achieving desirable outcomes at scale  61 Ashforth, B.E., 2001. Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Aspen Institute Project Play. 2016. State of play 2016: Trends and developments. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Bailey, R., 2006. Physical education and sport in schools: A review of benefits and outcomes. Journal of School Health, 76 8, 397–401. Bailey, R., 2017. Sport, physical activity and educational achievement – towards an explanatory model. Sport in Society, 20 7, 768–788. Bailey, R., Armour, K., Kirk, D., Jess, M. Pickup, I., Sandford, R., and the BERA PE and Sport Pedagogy Special Interest Group, 2009. The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: An academic review. Research Papers in Education, 24 1, 1–27. Bailey, R., Hillman, C., Arent, S., and Petitpas, A., 2013. Physical activity: An underestimated investment in human capital? Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 10, 289–308. Beni, S., Fletcher, T., and Chrónín, N., (2016). Meaningful experiences in physical education and youth sport: A review of the literature. Quest, 69 3, 291–312. Blalock, H., 1982. Occupational discrimination: Some theoretical observations. Social Problems, 9, 240–247. Bryk, A.S., Gomez, L, Grunow, A., and LeMahieu, P., 2015. Learning to improve: How America’s schools are getting better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Carson, R.L., Richards, K.A.R., Hemphill, M.A., and Templin, T., 2016. Exploring the job satisfaction of late career secondary physical education teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35, 284–289. Davison, K., Lawson, H., and Coatsworth, D., 2012. The family-centered action model of intervention layout and implementation (FAMILI): The example of childhood obesity. Health Promotion Practice, 13 4, 454–461. de la Haye, K., Robing, G., Mohr, P., and Wilson, C., 2011. How physical activity shapes, and is shaped by, adolescent friendships. Social Science & Medicine, 73, 719–728. Domitrovich, C.E., Durlak, J.A., Staley, K.C., and Weissberg, R.P., 2017. Socialemotional competence: An essential factor for promoting positive adjustment and reducing risk in school children. Child Development, 88 2, 408–416. Dowling, F.J., Fitzgerald, H., and Flintoff, A., 2014. Equity and difference in physical education, youth sport, and health: A narrative approach. London: Routledge. Elmore, R., 1996. Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66 1, 1–26. Gamble, A., Chatfield, S., Cormack, M., and Hallam, J., 2017. Not enough time in the day: A qualitative assessment of in-school physical activity policy as viewed by administrators, teachers, and students. Journal of School Health, 87 1, 21–28. Gaudreault, K.L., Richards, K.A.R., and Woods, A.M., 2016. Understanding the perceived mattering of physical education teachers. Sport, Education and Society, on-line first. Available from: 2016.1271317 [Accessed 2 August 2017]. Gordon, B., and Doyle, S., 2015. Teaching personal and social responsibility and transfer of learning: Opportunities and challenges for teachers and coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34 1, 152–161.

62  Hal A. Lawson Green, K., 2014. Mission impossible? Reflecting upon the relationship between physical education, youth sport, and lifelong participation. Sport, Education and Society, 19 4, 357–375. Grusky, O., 1963. The effects of formal structure on managerial recruitment: Study of baseball organization. Sociometry, 26, 345–353. Hastie, P.A., 2017. Revisiting the national physical education content standards: What do we really know about our achievement of the physically educated/literate person? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 36, 3–9. Hastie, P.A., Martinez de Ojeda, D., and Luquin, A.C., 2011. A review of research on sport education: 2004 to the present. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16 2, 103–132. Hatch, T., 2009. Managing to change: How schools can survive (and sometimes thrive) in turbulent times. New York: Teachers College Press. Hellison, D., and Walsh, D., 2002. Responsibility-based youth programs evaluation: Investigating the investigations. Quest, 54 4, 292–307. Innaucci, C., and MacPhail, A., 2017. The effects of individual dispositions and workplace factors on the lives and careers of physical education teachers: Twelve years on from graduation. Sport, Education, and Society. Available from: www.tand [Accessed 3 July 2017]. Katzmarzyk, P.T., Denstel, K., Beals, K., Bolling, C. Wright, C., Crouter, S., McKenzie, T.L., Pate, R.R., Saelens, B.E., Staiano, A.E., Stanish, H.I., and Sisson, S.B., 2016. Results from the United States of America’s 2016 report card on physical activity for children and youth. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 13 2, S307–S313. King, A.C., Stokols, D., Talen, E., Brassington, G., and Killingsworth, R., 2002. Theoretical approaches to the promotion of physical activity: Forging a transdisciplinary paradigm. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23 2S, 15–25. Kirk, D., 2013. Educational value and models-based practice in physical education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45 9, 973–986. Knox, V., Hill, C., and Berlin, B., (Forthcoming). Can evidence-based policy ameliorate the nation’s social problems. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Kurtessis, J.N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M., Buffardi, L., Stewart, K., and Adis, C., 2015. Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, on-line first. Available from www. [Accessed 27 July 2017]. Landi, D., Fitzpatrick, K., and McGlashan, H., 2016. Models based practices in physical education: A sociocritical reflection. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35 4, 400–411. Lawson, H.A., 1979. Paths toward professionalization. Quest, 31 2, 231–243. Lawson, H.A., 1983. Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: Entry into schools, teachers’ role orientations, and longevity in teaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 3 1, 3–15. Lawson, H.A., 1989. From rookie to veteran: Workplace conditions in physical education and induction into the profession. In T. Templin and P. Schempp, eds. Socialization into physical education: Learning to teach. Indianapolis, IN: Benchmark Press, 145–164.

Achieving desirable outcomes at scale  63 Lawson, H.A., 1992. Toward a socio-ecological conception of health. Quest, 44, 105–121. Lawson, H.A., 2016. Categories, boundaries, and bridges: The social geography of schools and the need for new institutional designs. Education Sciences, 6, 32. Available from: [Accessed 4 January 2018]. Lawson, H.A., 2017. Reproductive, reformist, and transformative socialization. In K.A.R. Richards and K.L. Gaudreault, eds. New perspectives on teacher socialization in physical education. New York: Routledge, 243–261. Lawson, H.A., and Van Veen, D., eds. 2016. Developing community schools, community learning centers, extended-service, and multi-service schools: International exemplars for practice, policy, and research. The Hague, NL: Springer International. Lawson, M.A., and Lawson, H.A., 2013. New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83 3, 432–479. McEvilly, N., Verheul, M., Atencio, M., and Jess, M., 2014. Physical education for health and wellbeing: A discourse analysis of Scottish physical education curricular documentation. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35 2, 278–293. McEvoy, E., Heikinaro-Johansson, P., and MacPhail, A., 2017. Physical education teacher educators’ views regarding the purpose(s) of school physical education. Sport, Education & Society, 22 7, 812–824. McKenzie, T.L., Sallis, J.F., Rosengard, P.R., and Ballard, K., 2016. The SPARK Programs: A public health model of physical education research and dissemination. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35, 381–389. Neves, P., and Eisenberger, R., 2014. Perceived organizational support and risk taking. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29 2, 187–205. Oliver, K.L., and Kirk, D., 2016. Towards an activist approach to research and advocacy for girls and physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21 3, 313–327. Pozo, P., Grao-Cruces, A., and Pérez-Ordás, R., 2016. Teaching personal and social responsibility model-based programmes in physical education: A systematic review. European Physical Education Review, September, 1–20. Richards, K.A.R., and Gaudreault, K.L., eds., 2017. New perspectives on teacher socialization in physical education. New York: Routledge. Richards, K.A.R., and Hemphill, M., 2017. Using role theory to understand the experiences of physical education teachers: Toward role socialization theory. In K.A.R. Richards and K.L. Gaudreault, eds. New perspectives on teacher socialization in physical education. New York: Routledge, 137–161. Richards, K.A.R., Gaudreault, K.L., and Woods, A.M., (Forthcoming). Personal accomplishment, resilience, and perceived mattering as inhibitors of physical educators’ perceptions of marginalization and isolation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. Sallis, J.F., McKenzie, T.L., Beets, A.M., Beghle, A., Erwin, H., and Lee, S., 2012. Physical education’s role in public health: Steps forward and backward over 20 Years and HOPE for the future. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83 2, 125–135. Schwanenflugel, P.R., and Tomporowski, P.D., eds. 2017. Physical activity and learning after school: The PAL program. New York: Guilford Press.

64  Hal A. Lawson Smith, W., 2012. Changing the logic of practice: (Re)drawing boundaries, (re)defining fields. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17 3, 251–262. Stokols, D., 1996. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10 4, 282–298. Tomporowski, P.D., and McCullick, B.A., 2017. The development of physical activity games: Theory and research overview. In P.R. Schwanenflugel and P.D. Tomporowski, eds. Physical activity and learning after school: The PAL program. New York: Guilford Press, 37–46. Tomprorowski, P.D., McCullick, B.A., and Pesce, C., 2015. Enhancing children’s cognition with physical activity games. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Tomporowski, P.D., McCullick, B., Pendleton, D.M., and Pesce, C., 2015. Exercise and children’s cognition: The role of exercise and a place for metacognition. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4, 47–55. van der Mars, H.,2018. Policy development for physical education . . . the last, best chance? Quest. DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2018.1439391 on-line first, 22 March 2018. Wilcox, K.C., and Lawson, H.A. (2018). Teachers’ agency, efficacy, engagement, and emotional resilience during policy innovation implementation. Journal of Educational Change, on-line first. Available from: 10.1007%2Fs10833-017-9313-0 [Accessed 22 February 2018]. Wilcox, K.C., Lawson, H.A., and Angelis, J. with Durand, F., Schiller, K, Gregory, K., and Zuckerman, S., 2017. Innovation in odds-beating schools: Exemplars of getting better at getting better. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Woods, A.M., Gentry, C., and Graber, K., 2017. Research on physical education teachers’ career stages and socialization. In K.A.R. Richards and K.L. Gaudreault, eds. New perspectives on teacher socialization in physical education. New York: Routledge, 81–97.

Chapter 3

Redesign as an adaptive problem facilitated by theories of change Hal A. Lawson

Every advocate for the redesign of physical education (PE) confronts an important challenge. Can s/he avoid the temptation to offer a preferred solution? Many cannot because they are competitors in an international curriculum game (Kirk 2013). Although advocates remain convinced that their model should be the clear-cut winner, it never works out this way. Competition continues unabated because the PE/PETE community, both in America and worldwide, lacks mechanisms for consensus-building and compromise. Leaders for the new science of improvement call this tendency “solutionitis” (Bryk et al. 2015). It is contagious and problematic, as Schön (1983) warned nearly four decades ago. He indicated that professionals from all walks of life tended to view human needs and aspirations as narrow, technical problems; and more particularly, in terms amenable to their preferred solutions. Schön (1983) also offered a solid strategy. Do not start with problemsolving with preferred solutions as the driver. Begin with problem setting (Lawson 1984), also known as agenda-setting. Schön’s rationale remains in good currency. Service to students and society’s members hinges on accurate naming and framing of variable needs, complex problems, and timely opportunities because only then can practicing professionals develop tailor-made solutions. When solutions are not matched to assessed needs, problems, and opportunities, and professionals’ preferences drive programs and practices, beneficial outcomes are not achieved at scale. In fact, professionals inadvertently may cause harm (Allen-Scott et al. 2014). Agenda-setting thus is an important priority, and this chapter is structured to address it. Readers expecting the customary advocacy for one model will be disappointed because the redesign agenda is presented as an adaptive problem without easy answers and defying simple, ready-made solutions. Theories of change, also known as theories of action, facilitate adaptive problem-setting and solving. They also illuminate consequential choices— for example, whether PE’s outcome chains extend outside the school’s walls

66  Hal A. Lawson

and beyond the school day and stretch into adulthood. If so, then agendasetting starts with school experiences, but also incorporates social ecological factors such as peers, families, and neighborhood features because all influence children’s socialization into active, health-enhancing lifestyles (Lawson 1992; Stokols 1996).

Redesign as an adaptive problem PE’s redesign qualifies an adaptive problem because there are no easy or permanent answers (Heifetz et al. 2009). Significantly, the progressive redesign of schools worldwide also qualifies as an adaptive problem (Lawson and van Veen 2016), and it presents opportunities to customize PE for particular kinds of schools. Sport education, for example, may be a good for a specialized career academy, while a teaching personal and social responsibility may enhance a community school that prioritizes social and emotional learning. Alternatively, in some schools both models are needed, along with one or more others. PE’s redesign agenda hinges on the quality of the questions leaders ask and the strategies they employ to address them. The best questions are comprehensive, enjoy policy relevance, and have generative effects, i.e., they give rise to other questions. Nine generative questions set the stage for empirically based theories of change. Physical activity or physical education? The first generative question is rooted in the history of PE, and it gains expression in three ways. Is school PE a self-justifying exercise or physical activity program structured to get students out of their seats and moving? Or, is PE structured by special learning outcomes with immediate value and long-term importance? Apart from learning outcomes, does PE yield demonstrable health outcomes (Pate et al. 2011)? Although the case can be made that these two questions are not mutually exclusive, the contrasts they provide have endured for decades. Answers are manifested in part in Big P policy decisions in state education departments and especially in little p policy in school districts. For example, answers to these questions help to explain local decisions regarding PE time allocations, scheduling priorities, class sizes and composition; whether participation in interscholastic sports or a regular engagement in a community-based dance program or a youth sports program enables a student to opt out; and whether primary school classroom teachers can be assigned sole responsibility for PE. Instrumental outcomes, particularly ones deemed unique and important, weigh heavily in these determinations, but so does intrinsic value. Personal enjoyment gained through pleasurable movement activity is especially

Redesign as an adaptive problem  67

important in the quest to achieve short-term outcomes and long-term benefits (Agans et al. 2013). This enjoyment outcome illuminates the essence of play (Huizinga 1951)—genuine choice and considerable freedom. However, PE as intrinsically rewarding play contrasts with the logic of the industrial age school, including tests, grades and scripted student roles, raising an important question. What is gained when a student earns an “A” but hates PE and resists exercise (McElroy 2002)? A comprehensive answer includes every student’s future role as a public policy actor. Standardized PE or nuanced, customized designs? If standardized, “one size fits all” PE does offer equitable opportunities and outcomes, another generative question arises. What works for which population(s), under what circumstances, when, where, how, and why? This complicated question provides twin reminders. Young people differ in significant ways, but the age-graded industrial school with its standardization impulse was not structured to accommodate and emphasize diversity or yield equitable outcomes. When the agenda moves from standardization to diversity, equity, and intrinsic value, five priorities are added to the redesign agenda. All have import for practice, teacher education, and theory of change development. •• •• •• •• ••

Collect and use assessment data to identify sub-populations of students. Help students understand the meaning and significance of these data. Use data to develop customized learning plans and tailor-made experiences, affording students choices. Take advantage of digital age learning systems and technologies, including their centrality in students’ social networks. Evaluate to learn, improvement, and generate practice- and policyrelevant knowledge.

Stand-alone school PE or the social ecologies for child and youth socialization? When research on children’s socialization into active, health-enhancing lifestyles provides the guide, agenda-setting is not restricted to intra-school PE. It incorporates child and youth participation in exercise, sport, and active play in homes and communities (e.g., Evans and Davies 2010; Green 2014; King et al. 2002). In brief, this agenda-setting necessitates assessments of children’s social ecologies—and with special emphasis on what is known about the variety of influences on children’s socialization and participation; and how best to harmonize and synchronize them. This social-ecological framework retains a focus on direct PE strategies for individual and group learning and behavioral change, but it also entails new relationships with

68  Hal A. Lawson

families and community leaders as well as new environmental designs for physical activity (e.g., bike paths, walking trails, playgrounds). Four imperatives derive from this social-ecological framework. First: Do not assume ecological contexts are merely a backdrop for young people’s socialization and participation. Instead, expect that significant others (e.g., parents, peers, youth sport coaches, dance teachers) and children’s social environments are powerful socialization and participation influences. In other words, look for and prioritize mutually influential relations between young people, significant others, and social environments, expecting that they are consequential in what and how they learn and develop, indeed whether they will engage in exercise, sport, and active play, both today and in the future (Agans et al. 2013, p. 267). The second imperative follows from the first. Firmly connect schoolbased strategies for individual and group learning and behavior change to family-driven pursuits, community-based program, special summer camps, and environmental designs (King et al. 2002; Stokols 1996). Third: Follow the lead of innovative school systems by relying less on teacher-controlled direction instruction and seizing timely opportunities for digitally facilitated learning systems. Social networks, especially peer social networks offer abundant, unique opportunities for young people’s engagement, particularly in peer governed social networks. Fourth: Beware standardization and fidelity to one model because variability among children, families, schools, and communities is the norm. For example, young people from privileged families who reside in high income communities typically have access to exercise, sport, and active play opportunities outside of school. In contrast, young people who grow up in families challenged by poverty may rely on PE for equitable opportunities to learn and participate. Social geographic influences also matter (Lawson 2016). For example, sport, dance and exercise programs and facilities may be plentiful in urban and suburban communities, while in rural communities the school is the main hub, and PE teachers have widespread importance. Figure 3.1 provides a basic depiction for a social-ecological framework. It announces that PE is just one of many socialization agents, and it may not be the most important one. This framework also signals needs and opportunities to harmonize and synchronize fractured programs and services, disconnected leaders, and sector-specific public policies (e.g., for public health, recreation, education, and mental health).

Proximal outcomes or distal outcomes? The industrial age school was founded in part of claims regarding life adjustment education. The generative question about distal outcomes remains. What is the PE effect (Green 2014)?

Redesign as an adaptive problem  69






Figure 3.1  The social ecology for children’s socialization

Other questions follow. Have teachers prioritized relationships between short-term (proximal) outcomes and distal ones that stretch into adulthood? If so, how is this relationship operationalized in school district policy and practice? If not, why not? Concern about longitudinal effects is timely. The American physical activity report card, summarized in the previous chapter, presents discouraging, but consistent research findings regarding how participation declines as young people enter adolescence, particularly girls. In this life course developmental framework, elementary PE for young children paves the way for more desirable outcomes for teenagers who later become working adults and reach their golden years with considerable vitality because they have remained committed to active, health-enhancing lifestyles. This strategy has a formal name—cascading effects (Agans et al. 2013; Weiner et al. 2012). Figure 3.2 provides a simple, but important depiction for this consequential planning and decision-making in service of PE’s redesign. Knowledge of sport rules alone or health-related literacy? Students apparently lack knowledge and understanding regarding what it means to be healthy, active, and physically fit, including how to stay this way.

70  Hal A. Lawson

Late Life: Successful Aging Adulthood: Work-Leisure Relations

Adolescence: PE & Extra-Socialization 2 Childhood: PE & Extra-Socialization1

Figure 3.2  A life course development progression with cascading effects

This problem is compounded when nutrition is bracketed by health education’s subject matter boundaries, and specialist teachers do not integrate their respective pedagogies. Students’ stunning lack of knowledge is a clarion call to action (Harris et al. 2016; Placek et al. 2001). Lacking the ability to differentiate between fact and fancy, young people are vulnerable to the latest exercise fables and fads and are robbed of an identity-related, navigational compass for how best to stay active across the lifecycle. When students and their social ecologies are the phenomenon of interest, and life course developmental trajectories are prioritized, there is no automatic or defensible divide between health literacy and physical literacy. An exclusive focus on physical literacy and physical fitness or a new priority for cognitive and meta-cognitive outcomes? A path-breaking line of research and development (R & D) presents opportunities to think, plan, and act more expansively, particularly in schools with firm priorities for academic learning and achievement. Physical activity games, suitably selected, implemented with fidelity, and enhanced by teachers’ expert guidance have the potential to contribute to children’s cognitive development (Tomporowski, McCullick, and Pesce 2015; Tomporowski

Redesign as an adaptive problem  71

and McCullick 2017). Specifically, this physical activity games program has the potential to enhance children’s “executive function”—i.e., their abilities to set goals, persist in their achievement, and gain some of physical activity’s known benefits for brain development. What is more, when children are provided with expert guidance from teachers, they also may gain meta-cognitive benefits—the ability to reflect on how they think about problems, including the ability to shift their cognitive frames from just one perspective to one or more others. Significantly, this new model is not classroom-based. It entails active learning in and through specially selected and structured physical activity games. On the other hand, the contributions to children’s cognition and meta-cognitive abilities may contribute to their academic learning in classrooms insofar as pedagogy also proceeds with an emphasis on children’s executive function and their meta-cognitive abilities. Last, but not least, this activity-based games curriculum keeps children moving, which means that daily needs for physical activity and cognitive development needs are met simultaneously. Suitably designed programs, guided by this model, thus can achieve physical literacy and some measure of physical fitness alongside cognitive outcomes—but with a reminder. This expansive outcome connection hinges on teachers’ understanding of and faithful implementation of the formal program framework (e.g., Tomporowski and McCullick 2017). What outcomes matter most and whose interests do they serve? American PE resides at the intersection of three social institutions: Education, Health, and Sport (Lawson 2017). Each institutional sector is structured by specialized policies. Each is home to influential constituencies, including some with diverse views and competing goals. The American PE/PETE establishment, broadly defined, is a special constituency. It might be viewed as bridging these three institutional sectors. Alternatively, it privileges one sector’s perspectives and preferences at the expense of others. A third alternative: It needs to be viewed as unique and influential. This theoretical framing packs a powerful punch when the focus turns to PE program outcomes. Whose interests, needs and preferences matter most? Young peoples? PE teachers? Coaches for competitive teams? Youth development advocates? Public health experts? The medical community? Educational policy leaders? School officials? Dance advocates? Others with vested interests in PE? Once these influential constituencies with their respective outcome preferences are the object of attention, an important finding emerges. While all programs are manageable and pedagogies are elastic, no program design is

72  Hal A. Lawson

a panacea for such a broad array of interests, needs, and expectations. In brief, what PE teachers might do and achieve is not the same as what PE must emphasize and accomplish. One of the main challenges also is a timely opportunity. Operationalize and achieve important, unique outcomes that enhance attendance, school and classroom engagement, cognitive development, and social-emotional learning (including mental health)—all of which enhance PE’s organizational centrality in the education system—but do so without compromising students’ needs, interests, enjoyment, health and well-being via physical activity, sport, dance, and active play. Conventional curriculum designs rarely offer this guidance. Are new, important outcomes available and achievable? Afterschool program leaders are pioneering new directions, testing innovative programs and learning systems, and achieving important outcomes (Schwanenflugel and Tomporowski 2017). So are visionary leaders for summer youth sports camps which achieve multiple outcomes (e.g., Anderson-Butcher et al. 2014). The redesign of schools is especially noteworthy, and the core design question has import for PE. What are schools for, i.e., for what outcomes should educators be held accountable? The conventional answer is well known: Academic learning and achievement with a premium placed on subject matter knowledge deemed essential for productive adult roles and overall well-being. But there are other answers, and many emphasize child and youth well-being, operationalized as social emotional learning and development (references) or positive mental health. How does PE fit in? Two answers are apparent, and both have import for theory of change development. One is generic: Embodied learning in PE contributes to, and is framed by, holistic child development (elementary schools), positive youth development (secondary schools), and both cognitive development and socialemotional learning and development for all levels of schooling (Lawson and van Veen 2016). The second answer enhances the first. PE is one of the most important contributors to young people’s holistic understanding of the meaning and significance of positive, health-enhancing engagement in exercise, sport, and active play. Here, learning outcomes bridge and transcend Cartesian divides between mind and body. In other words, embodied PE learning unites skill development and active play with emotional regulation and cognitive development (Schwanenflugel and Tomporowski 2017). And when this learning is paired with the development of health literacy, students gain the ability to make solid choices regarding their health, lifestyles, and exercise, sport, and active play (Harris et al. 2016; Placek et al. 2001). What is more,

Redesign as an adaptive problem  73

specially configured summer programs have the potential to capitalize on young people’s interests in sports and active play to develop positive life course developmental plans, including aspirations for college and careers (Anderson-Butcher et al. 2014). School-specific outcomes or holistic child and youth development? School-specific outcomes-based planning typically is structured in two ways. One is exclusively PE-oriented, while the other includes PE’s contributions to school outcomes such as attendance, engagement, cognitive functions (e.g., goal-setting), and academic achievement (e.g., Bailey 2017; Schwanenflugel and Tomporowski 2017). Although these two frameworks are not mutually exclusive, they structure consequential choices, and they also implicate special resource needs, curricular configurations, and teacher competencies and behavior. Meanwhile, questions remain regarding whether PE experiences and outcomes are restricted to young people’s roles, responsibilities, and relationships as students or whether holistic child development and positive youth development (PYD) expand the range of outcome priorities (e.g., Curran and Wexler 2017; Wright and Li 2009). Here too, consequential choices are involved. For example, PYD emphasizes youth leadership development, perhaps extending to peer support systems (Brown 2013; Sokol and Fisher 2016). In turn, youth leadership and peer support networks provide health-enhancing social connections—an important process outcome when the adverse impacts of social isolation are inspected (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2015). Overall, PE programs structured to achieve PYD and holistic child development outcomes shift teachers’ roles, provide more voice and choice for young people, and necessitate planning beyond the school day and outside the school’s walls.

The import of justifiable theories of change Together, these nine generative questions illuminate needs for structural guidance in service of PE’s redesign. Theories of change, also known as theories of action (Argyris and Schön 1996), provide a tested strategy (see also Mason and Barnes 2007). In fact, they are emphasized in the planning toolkit developed by the Physical Activity Task Force (2017). Theories of change typically are presented in figure diagrams. They provide what amounts to a conceptual map and an operational compass for the important journey from “here” (today’s affairs) to “there” (a more desirable future). The components are called “drivers” in improvement science (Bryk et al. 2015), and they are causally connected in theory of change figure diagrams.

74  Hal A. Lawson

The best theories of change are grounded in solid theory and relevant research, which provide the foundation for solid cause-and-effect reasoning. However, theories of change differ from basic scientific theories developed for basic understanding. Although theories of change draw on this understanding, they are action-oriented. They focus on “how best questions” for effective, appropriate policies and practices that systematically yield desirable outcomes. Action-oriented theories of change are structured by formal propositions stated as “if this, then that” and “when this, then that.” To wit: “When we provide students with genuine choices, we can expect the following outcomes.” Alternatively: “If we encounter conditions x, y, and z in our local school ecology, we should emphasize Q in order to achieve desirable results.” A primitive example is instructive. Baseline assessments selection of tailor-made PE drivers for cognitive, behavioral, and affective change the achievement of desirable outcomes. Theories of change can be narrow and short-term, or they can offer a longitudinal perspective. For example, an expansive theory of change connects proximal outcomes from an elementary PE program that is tailor-made for a sub-population of fifth grade girls in a rural school, to these girls’ active lifestyles as middle-aged women in this same community. It matters that girls and women are the target population, and the theory of change includes explicit recognition that they reside in a rural community with its affordances, constraints, and barriers. The best theories of change are nuanced in this way. Another example: Howie and Pate (2012) developed a model for the relationship among physical activity, cognitive function and academic achievement. They offered a figure diagram that provides a structural framework for a theory of change. It sets the stage for more detailed theories of change that depict the specific program mechanisms for achieving designated outcomes. Considerable work remains to be done on identification of key drivers for proximal and distal outcomes, especially how they act and interact in the lives of children and youths and play out in elementary, middle, and secondary schools lodged in rural, suburban, and urban communities. For example, consider the programmatic differences resulting from one or more of the following drivers: Enjoyment; skill development; physical fitness; social-emotional development; the social inclusion and integration of immigrant students; and student agency, i.e., students enjoy choices. Are they inherently compatible? In what ways does each influence the others? What co-requisite conditions need to be in place? Theories of change depend on provisional answers to these complicated questions. In every case, theory and research provide guidance, the context matters, and student characteristics are center stage. In every case, PE teachers are key designers, not implementation puppets, and they need to learn how to develop, evaluate, and improve their respective theories of change.

Redesign as an adaptive problem  75

Theories of change for undesirable outcomes Ideally, theories of change provide maps and compasses toward desirable outcomes. However, there is another way. Theories of change can be formulated for sub-optimal results. “Draconian theories of change” help set the stage for three important decisions, while remaining mindful of variable social ecologies: (1) What to stop doing; (2) What to keep doing; and (3) What to start doing. Two examples justify this three-component claim. The formula accompanying standardized PE in the industrial age school, presented in chapter 1, is one example. Unequal student inputs + unequal conditions + standardized curriculum and instruction = variable outcomes, including unintended and undesirable ones. The second example also draws on theory and research regarding undesirable outcomes. Develop a solid theory of change for mass-producing sedentary youngsters who are or become obese, face peer ridicule and perhaps bullying, and contract life-shortening lifestyle diseases. No doubt peer, family, school, and community influences will weigh heavily in all such determinations. This second approach for a sub-optimal theory of change assists in the identification of sub-populations of students at risk of sedentary lifestyles, video screen addictions, health problems, social exclusion, school engagement, and other undesirable outcomes. Sub-population differences offer the potential for better theories of change which yield desirable outcomes. Figure 3.3 illustrates this idea of sub-optimal theories of change. In this figure some young people learn and benefit, but others do not as PE functions effectively as a sorting machine.

Unrealized Necessary Conditions for Success at Scale: Time, Resources, etc.

Large, Heterogeneous Classes with Heavy Teaching Loads & Additional Responsibilities (coaching, clubs)

Curriculum & Instruction as “People Processing” (Busy, Happy & Good) with Rationing to Favorite Students

Immediate Process Outcomes: Physical Activity for All & Learning-driven Enjoyment for Some

Figure 3.3  Variable outcomes derive from sub-optimal conditions

Variable, Distal Outcomes: Success, Incomplete Socialization, Inadvertent Harms

76  Hal A. Lawson

Required Working Conditions for Success at Scale

Child/youth Assessments: Identities, Goals, Needs

Tailor-made Interventions for Individuals & Peer Sub population

Child/youth: Process & Product Outcomes

Companion Outcomes: Teacher, School, Parent/Family

Figure 3.4  An ideal theory of change framework

Figure 3.4 presents a contrasting theory of change for desirable outcomes. Co-requisite conditions are established; and when teachers do the right things, at the right times and for the right reasons, twin outcomes are achieved. PE teachers’ work is facilitated as students’ learning and performance proceed. Continuous improvement via theories of change Theories of change can originate on a policy and program drawing board and then someone can take them to practice. Alternatively, they can be derived from today’s programs or school, family, and community partnerships (Lawson et al. 2007). The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. For example, when targeted evaluations of PE programs indicate that they fail to achieve desirable outcomes at scale, sub-optimal theories of change are implicated. Once these imperfect theories of change are made explicit, they are ready to be improved or replaced. Work on replacement theories of change begins on the drawing board. Once these espoused, idealized theories are moved into practice, they are ready to be evaluated anew—and with the expectation there will be differences among what people espouse, what they implement, and the results they achieve (Argyris and Schön 1996). Evaluative mechanisms for learning, knowledge generation, and continuous improvement again set the stage for the next improvement cycle. Professionals learn from their practice as

Redesign as an adaptive problem  77

they practice (Schön 1983), particularly when they are committed to the development of student agency (Ferguson et al. 2015) and enable students to make informed choices (Oliver and Kirk 2015). This work is non-stop, which is to say the exemplary practice is dynamic and adaptive. Figure 3.5 depicts approach to theory of change development and continuous improvement. It indicates this theory of change process is iterative and recursive (i.e., PE professionals systematically reflect on what worked and what did not). Getting inside the black box of practice Explicit, testable theories of change offer another advantage. They help to prevent a formidable barrier to evaluation-driven learning, knowledge generation, and continuous improvement known as the “the black box problem” (Astbury and Leeuw 2010). Figure 3.6 provides a simple depiction. The black box problem can be characterized as follows. PE professionals know something about the student inputs when they complete baseline assessments, and they also have knowledge about the outputs or outcomes





Figure 3.5  Theory of change improvement cycles


78  Hal A. Lawson

INPUTS: We have baseline data derived from student assessments, and we have f irm, ambitious plans to do good things with and for our students



Because we have not specified the key program drivers, and we have not done process evaluations which include student’s views of what they want and need, we don’t know what happened, how, and why.

Our evaluation data indicate inconsistent results. Although some students learned and performed as planned, others did not, and our attitude surveys indicate that some now hate PE

Figure 3.6  The black box problem: A barrier to professional learning and program improvement

when they evaluate their initiatives. What they do not know is how and why what they did, combined with what students prioritized, interpreted, and experienced, amounted to a formula for producing the outcomes they have achieved, both desirable and undesirable. In this analogy, life in the gym and on playing fields is like life inside a box that is painted black. No one can look inside. And if no one knows what’s inside, i.e., what happened to whom, when, where, how, and why, and especially how diverse students experienced it in all variable ways, there is no way to learn, improve, and generate knowledge for future policy and practice. When the black box problem prevails, sub-optimal processes and results become intractable because it is difficult to detect errors, correct flaws, and embark on continuous improvement. In colloquial terms, what you see today probably is what you’ll get tomorrow. Theories of change provide a remedy. A consequential choice: Forward designs and backward designs Just as every journey into new territory is influenced by the point of departure, every theory of change bears the signature of how it originated, the outcomes toward which it was directed, and who did the design. Leaders have a choice. They can launch theory of change development based on PE inheritances in the dominant model of the public school, or they can start from fresh perspective provided by Drucker’s (2008) question. If we hadn’t inherited today’s PE, would we do it this way?

Redesign as an adaptive problem  79

Forward designs Theory of change development based on inheritances proceeds with a forward design strategy. That is, theory development starts with at least partial acceptance of past-present PE/PETE realities. People with vested interests in this institutionalized configuration, chief among them PE teachers and PE teacher educators, may be likely to proceed with this agenda. Grounded in the status quo, this improvement-oriented strategy takes established PE programs in schools and companion teacher education programs as facilitators. Here, theory of change development is easier because so much is in place, and advocates and supporters are available who have vested interests in the today’s inherited configuration. However, these same facilitators can be viewed as constraints because today’s configurations persuade professionals that more dramatic alternatives are unnecessary. Why prioritize redesign and work on new theories of change if you are satisfied with the status quo? Backward mapping from desirable outcomes The backward design strategy is more innovative and may be revolutionary. Instead of starting with inherited programs as “givens” and coping with the constraints and barriers, this second theory of change strategy starts with questions regarding unique, important, and equitable outcomes. What are the desirable outcomes we should prioritize and seek, both short-term (proximal, during schooling) and long-term (distal, extending to adulthood)? What does the research offer in this regard? What theoretical frameworks provide direction and guidance? This backward design strategy also invokes a different knowledge base. Instead of relying exclusively on an inherited, PE-specific knowledge base, redesign specialists ask a powerful, two-part generative question. What do we know about how identifiable sub-populations of children and youths are best socialized into physical active lifestyles, and what does it take to sustain these lifestyles across the life course? Answers to this question then are brought to bear on theories of change for PE programs, holding promise for bold reforms and transformative designs. Connecting the two strategies Because the redesign of PE is an adaptive problem-solving experiment, and variability among students, schools, families and communities is the norm, both forward design and backward design theory-of-change strategies are useful and legitimate. A key generative question serves to unite them. What works for which population(s), under what circumstances, when, where, how, why and for how long? Founded on core values, informed by practical experiences, and guided by theory and research, this framework

80  Hal A. Lawson

offers the prospect of multiple theories of change that are fit for purpose, given outcome preferences, population characteristics, school designs, and community features.

Connecting theories of change to curriculum designs The idea of plural theories of change is a game-changer. It lays the foundation for an inclusive, equity-oriented agenda characterized as “unity founded on diversity.” If this theory of change concept is new to most PE teachers and veteran teacher educators, they will need guidance and professional development supports. How can they be assisted in making firm connections between the concepts and language they received in teacher education (e.g., curriculum, pedagogy, instruction) and the idea of a theory of change? A simple translation facilitates this learning and lays the foundation for policy and practice shifts. A curriculum, enacted in teachers’ practices called “pedagogy” and “instruction” and structured by school and district office policies, is a theory of change. Reflect on this claim. A curriculum design is formalized in a map, which begins in preschool and ends with high school graduation. Like solid theories of change, many curriculum designs commence a backward design process. This work begins with grand outcomes (goals and objectives) at high school graduation and extends back in the school’s feeder pattern to preschool or kindergarten. The best curriculum maps provide scope and sequence charts, enabling teachers at each grade level to build on what other teachers emphasized in earlier grades. All such curriculum decisions involve cause-and-effect relations, implicating implicit theories of change that can be improved by explicit designations and testing. For example: “If we emphasize a particular gross motor skill development at the fourth grade, it will facilitate fine motor skills for ballet in the seventh grade.” Alternatively, “when we emphasize teaching games for understanding in our elementary schools, we are paving the way for sport education in our high school.” Emergent curricular innovations also can be developed, improved, and evaluated with a theory of change framework. Two are especially noteworthy because their redesign features are incipient drivers for comprehensive, social-institutional change worldwide. Both stand to benefit from theories of change developed for PE’s redesign. Digital age learning, instruction, and performance configurations A familiar slogan introduces the first one: “Anytime, anywhere, anyone learning.” In brief, technology-assisted and -driven schooling and PE is an idea whose time has come (Casey et al. 2017). In this innovative framework,

Redesign as an adaptive problem  81

a standardized teaching paradigm is being replaced by a customized learning paradigm. This design starts with schools, but it is not limited to the school day; or restricted to what teachers prefer and prioritize; or bracketed by the building’s walls. This new design encompasses and promotes influential social networks and the development of inter-generational learning eco-systems. This digital age curricular configuration lays a foundation for a bold prediction. The future of learning is not the same as the future of schooling (City et al. 2012). It follows that the future of school PE is not the same as the future of learning, instruction, engagement, and performance in enjoyable, health-enhancing physical activity, sport, dance, and active play. These consequential differences may serve as catalysts for the development of comprehensive theories of change which showcase and justify PE’s central role. Identity-based curricula Young people’s orientations, decisions and participation patterns are not merely what they do; they reflect and announce who they are! In brief, a young person’s decision to learn and participate (or not) in exercise, sport, dance, and active play is inseparable from their self-styled, identities (Oyersman 2015), extending to who they want to become (possible selves) and conditioned by the kind of person they do not want to be (avoidant selves). Identity-development rarely occurs in a social vacuum. Peer sub-cultures form, dissolve, and re-form around identity development and activity preferences, extending to the full range of physical cultural practices involving young people’s bodies (Schilling 2010) as well as behavioral decisions regarding nutrition, smoking, and substance abuse overall. PE teachers have major roles to play the development of young people’s identities and the enhancement of their mental health overall. However, these roles necessitate a new theory of change, one that is holistic, provides an integrative approach to embodied learning, and joins instruction (pedagogy) with counseling. Owing to teachers’ counseling and guidance, perhaps aided by peer group influences, students come to appreciate the salience of the learning activity when they are able to see how it fits who they are and want to become; when the learning activity offers opportunities to prevent “an avoidant self” (e.g., an obese person subject to peer ridicule); and when they are provided with customized learning challenges, which push them to higher levels without perceived threats to their self-efficacy. Curricular progressions for young people founded on these identityrelated features start in late elementary school and proceed with the expectation that identity-related and participation-focused dynamics may change during adolescence (Tanti et al. 2011). They necessitate innovative, empirically based theories of change that connect developmental psychology,

82  Hal A. Lawson

social work, sociology, and counseling—and with the reminder that pedagogy, broadly defined, already draws on these disciplines. Proposals for selfdetermination theory and research as a core driver for PE (Jang et al. 2016) fit squarely with an identity development curriculum.

Summary Research-supported theories of change offer several advantages. Together, they enrich conventional concepts of curriculum, instruction, and pedagogy. The import of theories of change is especially apparent under four conditions: (1) When theory of change development and evaluation are like keys that unlock PE’s black box and help to specify the consequential drivers for outcomes, both desirable and undesirable; (2) When decisions must be made about the causal relationships between proximal and distal outcomes, and social-ecological planning is required; (3) When curricular innovations are developed and evaluated; and (4) When PE is enhanced by intervention frameworks—as described in the next chapter.

References Agans, J.P. Säfvenbom, R., Davis, J., Bowers, E., and Lerner, R.M., 2013. Positive movement experiences: Approaching the study of athletic participation, exercise, and leisure activity through relational development systems theory and the concept of embodiment. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 45, 261–286. Allen-Scott, L.K., Hatfield, J.M., and McIntyre, L., 2014. A scoping review of unintended harm associated with public health interventions: towards a typology and an understanding of underlying factors. International Journal of Public Health, 59 1, 3–14. Anderson-Butcher, D., Riley, A., Iachini, A., and Wade-Mdivanian, R., 2014. Maximizing youth experiences in community sport settings: The design and impact of the LIFE Sports Camp. Journal of Sport Management, 28 (2), 236–249. Argyris, C., and Schön, D., 1996. Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Astbury, B., and Leeuw, F., 2010. Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31 3, 363–381. Bailey, R., 2017. Sport, physical activity and educational achievement – towards an explanatory model. Sport in Society, 20 7, 768–788. Brown, R.B., 2013. Adolescents, organized activities, and peers: Knowledge gained and knowledge needed. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 140, 77–96. Bryk, A.S., Gomez, L, Grunow, A., and LeMahieu, P., 2015. Learning to improve: How America’s schools are getting better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Casey, A., Goodyear, V., and Armour, K., 2017. Rethinking the relationship between pedagogy, technology, and learning in health and physical education. Sport, Education, and Society, 22 2, 288–304.

Redesign as an adaptive problem  83 City, E.A., Elmore, R.F., and Lynch, D., 2012. Redefining education: The future of learning is not the future of schooling. In J. Mehta, R. Schwartz, and F. Hess, eds. The futures of school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 151–176. Curran, T., and Wexler, L., 2017. School-based positive youth development: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of School Health, 87 1, 71–79. Drucker, P.F., 2008. The essential Drucker: The best sixty years of Peter Drucker’s essential writings on management. New York: Collins Business Essentials. Evans, J., and Davies, B., 2010. Family, class, and embodiment: Why school physical education makes so little difference to post-school participation patterns in physical activity. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23 7, 765–784. Ferguson, R., with Phillips, S., Rowley, J., and Friedlander, J., 2015. The influence of teaching: Beyond standardized test scores: Engagement, mindsets, and agency. Cambridge, MA: The Achievement Gap Initiative at Harvard University. Available from: [Accessed 2 December 2015]. Green, K., 2014. Mission impossible? Reflecting upon the relationship between physical education, youth sport, and lifelong participation. Sport, Education and Society, 19 4, 357–375. Harris, J., Cale, L., Duncombe, R., and Musson, H., 2016. Young people’s knowledge and understanding of health, fitness, and physical activity: Issues, divides and dilemmas. Sport, Education and Society, on-line first. Available from: [Accessed 3 September, 2017]. Heifetz, R., Linsky, M., and Grashow, A., 2009. The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Holt-Lunstad, J., Robles, T., and Sbarra, D., 2015. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10 2, 227–237. Howie, E.K., and Pate, R.R., 2012. Physical activity and academic achievement in children: An historical perspective. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 1 3, 160–169. Huizinga, J., 1951. Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Jang, H., Reeve, J., and Halusic, M., 2016. A new autonomy-supportive way of teaching that increases conceptual learning: teaching in students’ preferred ways. The Journal of Experimental Education, 102, 588–600. King, A.C., Stokols, D., Talen, E., Brassington, G., and Killingsworth, R., 2002. Theoretical approaches to the promotion of physical activity: Forging a transdisciplinary paradigm. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23 2S, 15–25. Kirk, D., 2013. Educational value and models-based practice in physical education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45 9, 973–986. Lawson, H.A., 1984. Problem-setting for physical education and sport. Quest, 36 1, 46–60. Lawson, H.A., 1992. Toward a socio-ecological conception of health. Quest, 44, 105–121.

84  Hal A. Lawson Lawson, H.A. 2016. Categories, boundaries, and bridges: The social geography of schools and the need for new institutional designs. Education Sciences, 6, 32. Available from: [Accessed January 4, 2018]. Lawson, H.A., 2017. Reproductive, reformist, and transformative socialization. In K.A.R. Richards and K.L. Gaudreault, eds. New perspectives on teacher socialization in physical education. New York: Routledge, 243–261. Lawson, H.A., Claiborne, N., Hardiman, E., and Austin, S., 2007. Deriving theories of change from successful community development partnerships for youths: Implications for school improvement. American Journal of Education, 114, 1–40. Lawson, H.A., and Van Veen, D., eds. 2016. Developing community schools, community learning centers, extended-service, and multi-service schools: International exemplars for practice, policy, and research. The Hague, NL: Springer International. Mason, P., and Barnes, M., 2007. Constructing theories of change: Methods and sources. Evaluation, 13 2, 151–170. McElroy, M., 2002. Resistance to exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers. Oliver, K.L., and Kirk, D., 2015. Girls, physical education and gender: An activist perspective. London: Routledge. Oyersman, D., 2015. Pathways to success through identity-based motivation. New York: Oxford University Press. Pate, R.R., O’Neill, J., and McIver, K., 2011. Physical activity and health: Does physical education matter? Quest, 63 1, 19–35. Physical Activity Task Force, 2017. A prescription for a physically active culture. Available from: [Accessed 15 December, 2017]. Placek, J.H., Griffin, P., Dodds, P., Raymond, C., Termino, F., and James, A., 2001. Middle school students’ conceptions of fitness: The long road to healthy lifestyles. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 314–323. Schön, D., 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schilling, C., 2010. Exploring the society-body-school nexus: Theoretical and methodology issues in the study of body pedagogics. Sport, Education, and Society, 15 2, 151–167. Schwanenflugel, P.R., and Tomporowski, P.D., eds. 2017. Physical activity and learning after school: The PAL program. New York: Guilford Press. Sokol, R. and Fisher, E., 2016. Peer support for the hardly reached: A systematic review. American Journal of Public Health, 106 7, e1–e8. Stokols, D., 1996. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10 4, 282–298. Tanti, C., Stukas, A., Halloran, M., and Foddy, M., 2011. Social identity change: Shifts in social identity during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 555–567. Tomporowski, P.D., McCullick, B.A., and Pesce, C., 2015. Enhancing children’s cognition with physical activity games. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Tomporowski, P.D., and McCullick, B.A., 2017. The development of physical activity games: Theory and research overview. In P.R. Schwanenflugel and P.D. Tomporowski, eds. Physical activity and learning after school: The PAL program. New York: Guilford Press, 37–46.

Redesign as an adaptive problem  85 Weiner, B., Lewis, M.A., Clauser, S.B., and Stitzenberg, K.B., 2012. In search of synergy: Strategies for combining interventions at multiple levels. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 44, 24–41. Wright, P.M., and Li, W., 2009. Exploring the relevance of positive youth development in urban physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14 3, 241–251.

Chapter 4

From whole group pedagogy to tailor-made interventions Hal A. Lawson

Intervention science enhances research-supported theories of change for the achievement of important, unique outcomes at scale. Intervention science makes practice data-informed, customized, and evidence-based. Because other professions rely on intervention rationale and language, intervention science offers another benefit. It enables mutually beneficial, interprofessional collaboration—a practical necessity when students have co-occurring and interlocking needs and other professionals are helping them. The ensuing analysis is structured to justify these bold claims. It begins with the generative idea that curricula, instruction, and pedagogy are interventions, albeit masked in the language of the education profession. Once this connection is made, opportunities open for path-breaking innovations. These opportunities extend to teacher education and its relations with other professional education programs focusing on programs and services for children, youth, and families. Additional opportunities accompany the progressive development of the robust, interdisciplinary research and development agenda described in the next chapter.

Intervention frameworks in American schools Recommended school policy and practice for core academic subjects and teacher education for them offer a golden opportunity. Longstanding education-specific language and concepts such as pedagogy, teaching, and instruction are enriched and replaced by a potent, interdisciplinary concept: Intervention. A burgeoning area of research, policy, and practice known as intervention science provides guidance (Fixsen et al. 2005; Gaglio et al. 2013; Wandersman 2009; Yeager and Walton 2011). Two interventions for school policy and practice (e.g., Burkhardt and Hébert 2017) signal that the time is right for PE and PETE to follow suit. Response-to-intervention Response-to-intervention (RTI) is an evidence-based practice framework implemented in school districts across America, and it has gained considerable

Group pedagogy to tailor-made interventions  87

traction in state education department policy. The main idea is deceptively simple. Teachers’ continuous assessments of students’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral needs are recurrent drivers for teacher-directed pedagogies, student engagement strategies, and student support services—all of which are framed and named as interventions. RTI practice is iterative and recursive. First, teachers assess. Then they use the data to plan and implement a learning-focused intervention. Then they assess again and use the fresh data to intervene anew. Each instructional intervention iteration is data-driven and tailor-made for individuals or homogeneous groups. Teachers are held accountable for this systemic RTI process, and students are the beneficiaries. Records are kept in district-wide, digital age data systems. User-friendly data systems enable the development of personalized, digital portfolios for every student. Most of all, these data systems are accessible by every teacher, which means they can follow a student’s trajectory from grade to grade and plan developmental progressions which are fit for purpose. Curricular maps with grade-specific outcomes provide a guiding intervention structure for teachers and students alike. These maps also facilitate vertical articulation (grade-to-grade, intra-subject relationships) and horizontal articulation (e.g., PE’s curricular relationships with art, music, drama, science, etc.). The best maps can be called evidence-guided theories of change. Although no system is perfect, this comprehensive RTI system enhances coherence and continuity for students and teachers alike, while helping to prevent a recurrent problem in age-graded schools. When teachers lack access to individualized data profiles, they may work at cross-purposes, especially when they implement mass production pedagogies. While some students benefit, others are over-challenged, and still others are bored, disengaged, and unhappy. Inequitable opportunities and outcomes follow. Positive behavior intervention systems Positive behavior intervention systems (PBIS) are school-wide and district-wide frameworks for students’ social and emotional learning and development. They are manifested in explicit behavioral norms and rules that are posted throughout school buildings. For example, “don’t touch other students” and “be kind and considerate.” Students learn these rules and their accompanying roles and responsibilities, which extend to students helping other students. Meanwhile, educators work with parents and community organization leaders to promote the same norms and rules homes and community organizations. When the several adults in young people’s lives share standards for positive attitudes and desirable behavior, students’ outcomes improve because significant others do not work at cross purposes. PBIS, implemented with fidelity, is a core component in theories of change to enhance school climate, reduce suspensions and expulsions, and create

88  Hal A. Lawson

classroom conditions conducive to learning readiness, student engagement, and academic achievement. PBIS, brought to gymnasia, playgrounds, and playing fields offers the same affordances and an additional advantage. For example, what used to be called “sportsmanship” (sic), i.e., the ethics of fair play in sports and games, can be dovetailed with PBIS norms and rules, opening opportunities for PE interventions focused on social emotional learning outcomes, which increasingly are central priorities school-wide (e.g., Yeager 2017). PBIS also is an ideal framework for behavioral norms in locker rooms. Together, PBIS and RTI provide a powerful combination. They respond to redesign questions regarding educators must do in order to optimize conditions in schools, classrooms, gymnasia, and playing fields (Nagaoka et al. 2016). They also present opportunities for PE teachers to join forces with other professionals. Physical activity interventions in schools Owing primarily to the efforts of Kinesiology and public health professionals, intervention language and frameworks are in play in schools worldwide (e.g., Atkin et al. 2011; Demetriou and Höner 2012; McGoey et al. 2015; Mura et al. 2015; Naylor et al. 2015; Tomporowski et al. 2015). Differences are apparent. For example, some interventionists equate PE and physical activity, while others focus on the achievement of health-related fitness. Others recommend a firm distinction between exercise primarily in service of physical fitness and physical activity in service of multiple outcomes, especially cognitive and meta-cognitive ones (Tomporowski and McCullick 2017). Language matters in intervention science. It enables precise specification of the phenomenon of interest (e.g., a new course, an entire program, a special out-of-school time opportunity). Absent such precision, intervention transport and scale-up are impeded, which means that students and teachers are robbed of opportunities to achieve the benefits. Intervention science, viewed comprehensively, cross-walks with what all manner of exercise and sport professionals know about exercise prescription. There must be a solid match between a participant’s performance goal and the exercise prescription. The frequency, intensity, and duration of the training, which some intervention scientists call “dosage,” must be tailormade for each goal. Framed by these twin variables, PE programs-as-interventions can be viewed as a dose-response system. “Low-dose PE” is operative when teachers lack sufficient time, confront too many students grouped without rhyme and reason, cannot or do not collect and rely on personalized assessment data, and are compelled to implement curricula that deny students’ voice and choice, which reduces the match between a child’s goal and the PE intervention.

Group pedagogy to tailor-made interventions  89

Low-dose PE systematically yields inconsistent outcomes in every domain—skill development, physical fitness, social-emotional learning, and health literacy. It also reflects and reinforces sub-optimal working conditions for teachers, especially for teachers who have not been prepared for, or are committed to, data-informed, evidence-based, and theoretically sound intervention practice. Every such low-dose PE program that does not achieve important outcomes at scale sends Big P and little p policy signals. PE remains at the margins, and sub-optimal PE is reproduced systematically. Too many new teachers ripe with potential discover that their working conditions discourage implementation of what they know and are committed to do in service of equitable opportunities and outcomes. Every child does not matter.

Bringing intervention science to PE’s redesign The immense potential of the intervention science starts with the root meaning of intervention. It derives from the Latin word intervenire, which means to “come between.” Every school subject with designated outcomes can be viewed in this way. A school subject, as an intervention, “comes between” students at the pedagogical baseline and the desirable outcomes structured for each class and every grade level. It follows that PE is an intervention when something or someone must be added to a student’s present status or condition to safeguard and improve desirable outcomes. Two related assumptions are noteworthy. Professionals’ interventions are needed to reduce risk, prevent harm, and yield desirable outcomes. At the same time, strengths-based and identity-oriented, interventions help young people achieve goals and develop capacities for selfdetermination (Jang et al. 2016; Zhang and Solmon 2013). Equating pedagogy, alternatively curriculum and instruction, with the intervention concept does not imply “the medicalization of PE,” nor does it pose “de-humanization threats” to teachers and students. The gains in rigor translate to benefits for teachers, students, and schools, particularly when promising practices need to be scaled up in the same school and transported to others with like needs and characteristics. Teachers, in particular, are encouraged to think and plan in a special way—namely, how they and their practices “come between” students at baseline and the outcomes students gain from their interactions with teachers and each other. The idea of intervention systems is especially noteworthy. It enables classification systems with import for preservice education, school practice, and policy advocacy. Interventions for people Owing to the psychology’s popularity, interventions tend to be associated with therapies for people who may be treated as individuals, groups,

90  Hal A. Lawson

and families. Three presenting conditions typically invite and necessitate these people-focused interventions. All are evident in schools. The RTI protocol for schools provides the most common example. Teachers and student support professionals collect assessment data. These data indicate risks, pinpoint problems, and perhaps predict dangers—such as the lethal combination of physical inactivity and obesity. Alternatively, there are no manifest risks and dangers because students are active and apparently healthy. Mindful that today’s status does not guarantee tomorrow’s, child and youth well-being must be maintained, and maintenance depends on initiatives—interventions—that safeguard it. PE as active, healthy lifestyle maintenance is one such intervention. A third condition is especially relevant to PE. Students aspire to achieve new goals, but they are unlikely to achieve them on their own. Their teachers are among the best people to provide help and guidance. Once teachers have completed assessments riveted on young people’s goals and aspirations, the stage is set for tailor-made interventions that respond to what students want and need. When there is a good match between what a child wants and needs and what the teacher offers, intervention effectiveness is lubricated and desirable outcomes can be achieved. Here, students enjoy agency—voice and choice—in ways that respond to their uniqueness (Oliver and Kirk 2015), and PE becomes child- and youth-centered, manifesting positive youth development principles. Child- and youth-centered PE offers another special enhancement, one best presented as a contrast. In the conventional view of response-tointervention, interventions are mainly teacher-directed and controlled. In contrast, PE’s interventions can be framed as parts of a self-help regime initiated with late middle school students and intensified with high school students, enabling adolescents to develop competencies for independent decision-making for their exercise, sport, and active play. Proposals for bringing self-determination theory to PE can be appreciated in this way, (e.g., Zhang and Solmon 2013), and so can frameworks for students’ identity development (Oyersman 2015). In fact, when students are placed in the intervention driver’s seat, PE becomes an adaptive experience. This dynamic frame corresponds to research indicating that young people’s psycho-social orientations and needs evolve as they grow, develop and mature (Dishman et al. 2017). Single-focus and complex interventions Interventions can be single-focus—for example, exclusively for PE. Alter­ natively, they can facilitate collaboration among PE teachers, communitybased exercise and sport professionals, leaders of summer sport and dance camps, and other specialized professionals such as social workers, juvenile

Group pedagogy to tailor-made interventions  91

justice representatives, counselors, school psychologists, and special education teachers. Where extra-school professionals are involved, boundary-crossing and bridge-building interventions are needed, starting with school–community partnerships that provide homes for interprofessional collaboration (Lawson and van Veen 2016). More concretely, PE interventions are holistic to the extent that they proceed outside the school’s walls, beyond the school day, and are connected to other exercise, sport, dance, health and active play interventions in families and communities. These boundary-crossing and bridge-building interventions also offer long-term benefits. They are centerpieces in holistic theories of change that feature PE’s role in, and contributions toward, life course development in diverse social-ecological contexts (e.g., Agans et al. 2013; Green 2014; Halfon et al. 2014; Smith 2012; Timo et al. 2016). Holistic, comprehensive interventions also are needed when students’ presenting needs (e.g., mental health challenges; substance abuse challenges) transcend PE teachers’ competencies. Box 4.1 offers examples of important sub-populations known to many student support professionals and community-based health and social service providers. PE teachers cannot be expected to work alone, and inherited ideas of “adapted physical education” are not fit for purpose.

Box 4.1 Student sub-populations needing interprofessional collaboration •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Students who have been abused and neglected, especially ones in foster care. Homeless students Students whose mothers have been victims of domestic violence Students in the juvenile justice system Gang-involved students Students in the mental health system Students in the public health system, particularly those with environmentally induced conditions such as asthma and maladies associated with unsafe drinking water Students whose families have moved repeatedly because of housing stress and parental income shortfalls, forcing them to change schools frequently Students with food insecurities Students who reside in violent neighborhoods (continued)

92  Hal A. Lawson

(continued) •• ••

•• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Students with substance abuse challenges, especially those also challenged by depression Students coping with stressful, unanticipated, and traumatic life course developmental events such as the death of a parent, suicide in the family system, being witness to a murder, or their parents’ divorce Students who are bullied, intimidated, and victimized, both inside and outside of school Culturally diverse, immigrant students who experience social exclusion and social isolation, particularly those whose first language is not English Students from mother-headed, single parent family systems Head-start eligible kids who did not attend preschool and entered kindergarten late Students who lack a medical home and a dental home Students with inadequate, unreliable, and unsafe transportation to school Misclassified students of color assigned to the special education system Students with traumatic brain injuries and special learning needs Gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender students Obese students, particularly adolescent girls who typically experience hurtful and harmful ridicule at school Students with sub-optimal reading ability at the end of grade three Students with histories of regular behavioral referrals, suspensions, and expulsions Students who are chronically absent and tardy Students with an incarcerated parent Students who are being raised by grandparents

Multiple, co-occurring needs must be addressed simultaneously by two or more professionals, oftentimes organized in interprofessional teams. In brief, interprofessional team collaboration requires PE teachers to collaborate with social workers, counselors, health educators, and psychologists (Lawson and van Veen 2016), and teams must be supported by interorganizational partnerships involving schools and community agencies (Kolbe et al. 2015). Interprofessional education and training for PE teachers and other professionals is a practical necessity—and with a reminder. Absent these crossboundary relationships among the several professionals in a child’s life, they

Group pedagogy to tailor-made interventions  93

are likely to work at cross-purposes, with students caught squarely in the middle. Conflicting interventions structured by specialized professionals bar the way to the achievement of desirable outcomes in PE, other school subjects, entire school systems and community agencies. The lens provided by intervention science provides one way to illuminate these needs and reframe them as opportunities for redesign.

Four components in intervention practice Intervention practice has four interactive components: (1) A theory of the problem (i.e., what needs, problems, and aspirations must be addressed and why); (2) A theory of intervention (i.e., how best to proceed); (3) A theory of implementation (i.e., how to move from the drawing board to practice); and (4) A theory of evaluation-driven continuous improvement. Figure 4.1 depicts their relationship with simpler language. The theory of the problem Inherited PE multi-activity, “exposure curricula” qualify as interventions, but four characteristics indicate that they are primitive ones. They proceed with large group teaching strategies. There are no systematic student assessments.





Figure 4.1  The improvement-oriented intervention cycle

94  Hal A. Lawson

Evidence-based practice is conspicuously absent. And the real story behind these programs may be that teachers opt for them because they are convenient and efficient when sub-optimal working conditions prevail. When this situation obtains, two intervention-related flaws tend to be evident. Diagnostic stereotyping is apparent, i.e., diverse students are viewed and treated as if they were homogeneous. In turn, teachers are methodbound, i.e., they rely exclusively on one instructional strategy, typically one they prefer or have deemed feasible under the circumstances. Method-bound teachers who proceed with diagnostic stereotyping excuse themselves from completing assessments and using the data for tailor-made interventions. They also make decisions for students, denying them voice and choice. When physical education professionals elect to adopt and implement intervention science, they prevent important practice problems such as diagnostic stereotyping. It begins with determinations of the theory of the problem, expressed colloquially in a three-part question. What’s wrong that needs to be fixed, what’s good and right that needs to strengthened, and how do needs, strengths, and aspirations translate into practice goals? Answers to these questions depend on valid and reliable assessments. Student assessment data in combination with deliberate strategies which give students voice and choice (Oliver and Kirk 2015), enable teachers to pinpoint needs, strengths, and aspirations, which give rise to goals and objectives for practice. This is RTI brought to PE. School-wide assessment data provide another entrée to intervention planning, while potentially illuminating PE’s uniqueness and providing a pathway away from subject matter marginality toward organizational centrality. For example, PE, structured purposefully as an intervention, has the potential to facilitate student engagement and, by extension, improve attendance and on-time arrival (Lawson and Lawson 2013). Alternatively, for schools prioritizing the social inclusion and integration of multi-ethnic immigrant students, many of whom are challenged by poverty, social exclusion and social isolation, PE’s sports and games are evidence-based interventions when they are guided by the mechanisms prioritized in inter-group contact theory (Pettigrew et al. 2011; see also McNeely et al. 2017). A third intervention alternative: PE in high schools can be aligned with and make unique contributions to school-wide social and emotional learning programs (Yeager 2017). PE interventions configured in response to students with histories of adversity, trauma, and behavioral challenges are especially timely (Chafouleas et al. 2016), and so are ones for vulnerable, disenfranchised and potentially alienated students (McEvoy et al. 2016; Sandford et al. 2006). To summarize: No one PE program model, no single PE intervention, will systematically yield multiple, desirable outcomes at scale. Strategic, informed

Group pedagogy to tailor-made interventions  95

choices must be made about goals, objectives, and outcomes and with special attention to research that specifies each intervention’s essential drivers for desirable cognitive, affective, and behavioral change. The initial priority is to identify, describe, and explain a presenting problem or need’s antecedents, causes, correlates, and likely outcomes. Then it must be operationalized for action. What exactly is the need or problem requiring intervention? How can this priority be defined and delimited? What are its causes and correlates? What are its antecedents and consequences? What data inform answers to these questions? What can a PE teacher reasonably and justifiably be expected to do? What research is available as a decision-making resource? Must PE teachers collaborate with other professionals? Can the child be helped without companion efforts with families? As answers enable progress toward specifying the theory of the problem, opportunities open for intervention selection. The theory of intervention: A tailor-made choice Ideally, research-supported interventions are available for each presenting need, problem, opportunity, and aspiration. A consequential choice must be made: The intervention needs to be tailor-made for the problem and the student(s). Sometimes a specialized, research-supported intervention promises to achieve multiple outcomes. Unfortunately, gaps between research and practice are omnipresent, which means that available interventions must be modified and new interventions must be designed. With both new and existing interventions, the key is to establish a solid fit, which entails gaining correspondence between the preferred PE intervention and the student need, problem, opportunity, or aspiration. Figure 4.1 illustrates this connection. The rationale for this nuanced intervention approach is grounded in scientific understanding of the importance of three related factors (aka “variables”). The first is population demography, i.e., the characteristics of the young people needing to be helped and served and including sub-population differences (e.g., all African-American teenage girls). The second is family and organizational ecologies, including both internal and external ecologies that account for their differences, similarities and commonalties. The third is social geography: The socially constructed and constituted particularities of place (e.g., neighborhood, town or city; state or province). Together they form a powerful triad (Lawson 2013). The upshot is that what amounts to “one size fits all interventions,” i.e., ones assumed to be generalizable and readily transferable, probably will not yield desirable results. Standardized PE curricula with whole group pedagogies, viewed as interventions, provide a case in point. Variability among student sub-populations makes it unlikely that desirable outcomes will be achieved systematically at scale because sub-population differences matter.

96  Hal A. Lawson

For example, the needs, interests, and aspirations of, adolescent girls (as a special target population), differ from those of chronically absent students who are at risk of dropping out, students in special education, newly immigrated young people whose first language is not English, and students whose families are challenged by poverty, social exclusion and social isolation. One size fits all curriculum and instruction is destined to be selective and sub-optimal. Intervention science provides a solution. When desirable results are not achieved, existing interventions can be adapted and new ones developed, perhaps as others are abandoned as the search for evidence-based alternatives commences. Some interventions have more research supports and better theoretical grounding than others. Like product warranties for consumer products, these interventions’ theoretical and empirical warrants amount to assurances that, if all of the required terms and conditions for their use are met, and if they are implemented with fidelity (integrity), the good results promised have the highest probability of being achieved. Such is the rationale for today’s policy mandates and practice models described variously as evidence-based, empirically guided, research-supported, and theoretically-sound (Wilcox et al. 2017). The PE/PETE community must take notice. Fortunately, frameworks are available to guide intervention decisionmaking. Getting to Outcomes (GTO), for example, prioritizes the identification of interventions with supportive evidence, also helping teachers and other professionals ensure that their intervention(s) match students’ presenting needs and problems (Wandersman 2009). GTO’s formal protocol also scaffolds planning, enables systematic decision-making, and provides the reminder that every intervention’s efficiency and effectiveness hinges in part on establishing conducive conditions, providing social supports, and allocating resources properly. The theory of implementation: Fidelity in practice Every intervention’s potential benefits depend on its faithful implementation. Implementation fidelity, also known as implementation integrity, requires disciplined inquiry (Wandersman 2009), and with a reminder. The goodness of fit between a problem and the best intervention for it on the drawing board often gets compromised in the often-messy and uncontrollable worlds of practice. This familiar discrepancy illuminates the importance of the “product warranties” for every specialized intervention. Expressed colloquially, “if you want this intervention to work as planned, then here’s what you must do; and make sure you have established the conditions needed for you to succeed.” Necessary conditions start with teachers who know what they are doing with the intervention, and they include sufficient time, opportunities to provide kids with contingent feedback, continuous

Group pedagogy to tailor-made interventions  97

assessments that yield data regarding progress, and shared decision-making with students in service of a good fit. This rationale introduces the theory of implementation. It refers to the process for moving the intervention from the drawing board into practice. With a growing number of established interventions, implementation is structured by formal protocols and with firm specifications of the conditions needing to be in place and the resources needed. The best ones are accompanied by training, technical assistance, and trouble-shooting manuals developed with due recognition that adopters often have to learn new skills and adopt a different mindset, while “unlearning” others. Easy to write and talk about, implementation has proven to be an immensely challenging process, especially when the intervention being implemented amounts to a significant practice and policy innovation. Inevitably practitioners’ work schedules and preferences also emerge as confounding factors, and the same can be said of organizational structures, routines, and climates. To wit, an intervention for young people’s exercise may require “dosage” that amounts to three times a week, for at least 90 minutes and with sufficient intensity, and staggered in an every-other-day configuration. When PE is last in line for curricular scheduling, and these time blocks cannot be established, teachers must make adjustments. However, they run the risk of changing the intervention as they proceed with implementation, which helps to explain why they may have a low probability of achieving this intervention’s designated outcomes. This example signals that important questions must be addressed with all manner of interventions. What are the permissible degrees of freedom as the intervention is implemented? In other words, how much adaptation is permissible? How much discretion, even autonomy, can be given to teachers? At what point does a teacher’s adaptation in fact change the intervention? Every redesign proposal thus requires implementation assistance, supports, and resources for dedicated teachers who must learn and adjust even as they unlearn the things being complemented and replaced. And all such intervention guidance hinges in part on teachers who are able to get inside the black box of practice and make important determinations about program and outcomes drivers. The theory of evaluation and improvement Granting the benefits of implementation science and the importance of solid warrants for the intervention(s) being implemented, Murphy’s Law applies— if something can go wrong, it will. In other words, scientific knowledge and understanding are important structural and operational guides, but they are not guarantees. Errors—mismatches between intention and action— routinely occur, especially so when a bold innovation such as redesigned PE is implemented in an industrial age school (Fixsen et al. 2012).

98  Hal A. Lawson

Two evaluation-driven, continuous quality improvement mechanisms are essential components in intervention science: (1) Teachers’ action research (Mills 2018); and (2) Formal PE program evaluation mechanisms. Together, they facilitate practice-based knowledge generation and four related kinds of learning: Student, staff, organizational, and policy-related (Knapp et al. 2014). Absent intervention learning and improvement mechanisms, the old saying to the effect that “practice makes perfect” does not hold. Instead, “practice makes permanent,” and ethical principles for right conduct in service of young people’s outcomes are jeopardized.

Professional ethics and interventions All helping professions are founded on altruistic ideals and promises to society’s members that they will rely on specialized theory and research, extending to evidence-supported interventions (Lawson 1979). Their reliance on the potent combination of service ideals, theory, and research helps to explain why they are entrusted with occupational privileges and monopolies. The school-based monopoly for PE teachers is an important example. Nine ethical principles for “right conduct” have import for every specialized profession because they are founded on solid theory and research about the necessary conditions for desirable cognitive, behavioral, and affective change. Strip away these conditions, and desirable outcomes are less likely to be achieved. Unfortunately, these principles appear to have gotten short shrift in PE, PETE, Kinesiology, and generic teacher education for all school subjects. No wonder: The industrial age school is an institutional sorting machine that was not founded on these ideals and intervention science was not foundational for teachers’ work. The redesign of schools, many of which prioritize personalized learning designs, provide a golden opportunity to emphasize the ethical obligations of professions and highlight the ways in which PE can be uniquely designed and implemented. The first two principles give life to altruistic ideals to serve people and society. Elevate the needs, priorities, and interests of the person(s) you are serving above professional self-interest (e.g., money, prestige). The second follows logically: Do no harm. In contrast to this ideal, iatrogenic effects are in evidence when professionals’ interventions unintentionally, inadvertently and unexpectedly cause harm in the name of service. Possible harms can be classified as physical, psychosocial, economic, cultural, and environmental (Allen-Scott et al. 2014), and safeguards include harm prevention and reduction strategies (Ibid) as well as error-detection and correction strategies (e.g., Argyris and Schön 1996). The third, fourth, and fifth principles are structured to prevent unintentional harms. Third: Rely on assessment data to ensure that interventions are tailor-made for individuals, groups, and teams. Fourth: Ensure

Group pedagogy to tailor-made interventions  99

that every intervention is research-supported and theoretically sound. Fifth: Monitor progress and evaluate outcomes as the intervention is implemented and make adjustments as needed and gaining knowledge that can be used in the future (Schön 1983). These three principles safeguard professionals’ interventions and prevent three sub-optimal practices. The first two were introduced earlier: (1) Diagnostic stereotyping (whereby consequential differences among individuals and groups are glossed over and ignored, enabling self-serving professionals to standardize treatment even when manifest diversity recommends differentiation and personalization); (2) Goal displacement (whereby a preferred intervention or method becomes a self-serving goal). The third can be called “autobiographical imperialism.” For example, consider the method-bound, single-sport teacher who confesses that “basketball turned my life around, and it has universal applicability to others.” All three sub-optimal practices have the potential to cause harm in the name of service. The sixth principle is especially important in democratic societies that emphasize personal freedoms, self-determination and privacy rights. The principle of least intrusive intervention is founded on the idea that people in need of assistance are not puppets or cheerful robots. They want and need to exercise choices regarding the interventions designed and implemented in service of their wishes and well-being. Ethically informed intervention planning and decision-making proceed accordingly, and they are framed by the seventh and eighth ethical principles. Obtain informed consent as needed and required. And then: Give people voice and choice, starting with goal-setting and extending to intervention selection, timetables for implementation, and evaluation-driven continuous quality improvement. This latter ethical principle is founded on empirically grounded motivation theories, especially identity-based motivation theory (Oyersman 2015), self-determination theory (Zhang and Solmon 2013), and empowerment theory (Jurkowski et al. 2014). Exemplary PE practice with adolescent girls proceeds in the same way (Oliver and Kirk 2015). All emphasize rights to self-determination, and all progressively move people from initial dependence on professionals with needs for extrinsic motivation to self-determination driven by intrinsic motivation as people achieve their goals and solidify their personal identities. The ninth principle emphasizes contextual factors. At any given point in their lives, young people experience multiple interventions, whether in schools, families, community agencies, and homes. When helping professionals are directing these interventions, a lack of communication and coordination causes intervention collisions and contradictions. When these circumstances prevail, even the best interventions may be rendered suboptimal, resulting in disappointing outcomes and perhaps unintentional harms.

100  Hal A. Lawson

The ninth principle is a preventive mechanism. Whenever and wherever possible, join forces with other professionals in order to coordinate, synchronize, and harmonize multiple interventions directed at the same, individual, group, or team. Clearly, this last principle is important when PE teachers take stock of student’s social ecologies, aiming to harmonize and synchronize the several key actors who need to work together on the behalf of young people, particularly vulnerable kids.

Summary: The ethical foundation for competent intervention practice PE’s status as a specialized school subject and the occupational monopoly granted to PE teachers are founded on twin promises (Lawson 1979). One is the profession’s pledge to rely on theory and research in the quest to achieve important, unique outcomes, and the other is the pledge to elevate young people’s needs, interests, and outcomes above self-interest. These two promises go handin-hand. Perhaps invisibly, they inspire public trust in the profession’s espoused commitments to help, serve and support all manner of children and youths. When the nine ethical principles for PE professional practice are viewed in this way, they comprise a specialized evaluative framework against which to compare routine practice in schools, extending to PETE programs. To what extent are these nine principles manifest in every day practice in schools? To what extent are they emphasized in PETE programs? Are they showcased in public policy proposals? Ethical obligations serve as a reminder that intervention science is not merely a technical undertaking. When they are joined, competent practice is evident. Teachers and community professionals do the right things, at the correct time(s), for justifiable reasons, and achieve better outcomes for children and youths. Professionals’ work is more rewarding, and positive outcomes for children and youths, suitably publicized, become public policy assets. Thus, intervention science, framed by justifiable theories of change, offers guidance for institutional designs, policy configurations, program designs, teachers’ practices, and students’ experiences. In contrast to the industrial age school’s standardized prescriptions for curriculum and instruction, intervention science recommends customized programs with opportunities for personalized learning, including considerable student “voice and choice.” These innovative features help to define an equity-oriented agenda in which every child matters.

References Agans, J.P. Säfvenbom, R., Davis, J., Bowers, E., and Lerner, R.M., 2013. Positive movement experiences: Approaching the study of athletic participation, exercise, and leisure activity through relational development systems theory and the concept of embodiment. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 45, 261–286.

Group pedagogy to tailor-made interventions  101 Allen-Scott, L.K., Hatfield, J.M., and McIntyre, L., 2012. A scoping review of unintended harm associated with public health interventions: Towards a typology and an understanding of underlying factors. International Journal of Public Health, 59 1, 3–14. Argyris, C., and Schön, D., 1996. Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Atkin, A.J., Gorely, T., Biddle, S., Cavill, N., and Foster, C., 2011. Interventions to promote physical activity in young people conducted in the hours immediately after school: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18, 176–187. Burkhardt, V.L., and Hébert, C.L., 2017. Response-to-intervention and continuous school improvement: How to design, implement, monitor, and evaluate a schoolwide prevention system. New York: Routledge. Chafouleas, S.M., Johnson, A., Overstreet, S., and Santos, N., 2016. Toward a blueprint for trauma-informed services in schools. School Mental Health, 8, 144–162. Demetriou, Y., and Höner, O., 2012. Physical activity interventions in the school setting: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 186–196. Dishman, R.K., Dowda, M., McIver, K., Saunders, R., and Pate, R., 2017. Naturallyoccurring changes in social-cognitive factors modify change in physical activity during adolescence. PLoS ONE, 12 (2). Available from: plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172040 [Accessed 30 June 2017]. Fixsen, D., Blasé, K., and Van Dyke, M., 2012. From ghost systems to host systems via transformation zones: Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education & Great Cities Summit. Fixsen, D.L., Naoom, S.F., Blase, K.A., Friedman, R.M., and Wallace, F., 2005. Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. FMHI Publication #231.Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute & The National Implementation Research Network. Gaglio, B., Shoup, J.A., and Glasgow, R., 2013. The RE-AIM framework: A systematic review over time. American Journal of Public Health, 103 6, E38–E46. Green, K., 2014. Mission impossible? Reflecting upon the relationship between physical education, youth sport, and lifelong participation. Sport, Education and Society, 19 4, 357–375. Halfon, N., Larson, K., Lu, M., Tullis, E., and Russ, S., 2014. Lifecourse health development: Past present, and future. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 18, 344–365. Jang, H., Reeve, J., and Halusic, M., 2016. A new autonomy-supportive way of teaching that increases conceptual learning: teaching in students’ preferred ways. The Journal of Experimental Education, 102, 588–600. Jurkowski, J.M., Lawson, H.A., Green Mills, L.L., Wilner III, P.G., and Davison, K.K., 2014. The empowerment of low-income parents engaged in a childhood obesity intervention. Family & Community Health, 37 2, 104–118. Knapp, M.S., Copland, M.A., Honig, M.I., Plecki, M.L., and Portin, B.S., 2014. Practicing and supporting learning-focused leadership in schools and districts. New York: Routledge. Kolbe, L.J., Allensworth, D., Potts-Datema, W., and White, D., 2015. What we have learned from collaborative partnerships to concomitantly improve both education and health? Journal of School Health, 85 11, 766–774.

102  Hal A. Lawson Lawson, H.A., 1979. Paths toward professionalization. Quest, 31 2, 231–243. Lawson, H.A., 2013. Three generations of partnerships for P-16 pipeline configurations and cradle-to-career education Systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 88 5, 637–656. Lawson, M.A., and Lawson, H.A., 2013. New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83 3, 432–479. Lawson, H.A., and van Veen, D., eds. 2016. Developing community schools, community learning centers, extended-service, and multi-service schools: International exemplars for practice, policy, and research. The Hague, NL: Springer International. McEvoy, E., MacPhail, A., and Enright, E., 2016. Physical activity experiences of young people in an area of disadvantage: “there’s nothing there for big kids, like us.” Sport, Education and Society, 21 8, 1161–1175. McGoey, T., Root, Z., Bruner, M., and Law, B., 2015. Evaluation of physical activity interventions in youth via the reach, efficacy/effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework: A systematic review of randomized and non-randomized trials. Preventive Medicine, 76, 58–67. McNeely, C.A., Morland, L., Doty, B., Meschke, L., Awad, S., Husain, A., and Nashwan, A., 2017. How schools can promote healthy development for newly arrived immigrant and refugee adolescents: Research priorities. Journal of School Health, 87 2, 121–132. Mills, G.E., 2018. Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. 6th edition. New York: Pearson. Mura, G., Rocha, N., Helmich, I., Budde, H., Machado, S. Wegner, M., Nardi, A.E., Arias-Carrión, O., Vellante, M., Baum, A., Guicciardi, M., Patten, S.B., and Carta, M.G., 2015. Physical activity interventions in schools for improving lifestyle in European counties. Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health, 11 Suppl 1:M5, 77–101. Nagaoka, J., Farrington, C., Ehrlich, S., and Heath, R with Johnson, D., Dickson, S, Turner, A., Mayo, A., and Hayes, K., 2016. Foundations for young adult success: A developmental framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. Available for download at: https://consortium. [Accessed 2 September, 2016] Naylor, P-J., Nettlefold, L., Race, D., Hoy, C., Ashe, M., Higgins, J., and McKay, H., 2015. Implementation of school based physical activity interventions: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine, 72, 95–115. Oliver, K.L., and Kirk, D., 2015. Girls, physical education and gender: An activist perspective. London: Routledge. Oyersman, D., 2015. Pathways to success through identity-based motivation. New York: Oxford University Press. Pettigrew, T.F., Tropp, L., Wagner, U., and Christ, C., 2011. Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35 3, 271–280. Sandford, R.A., Armour, K.M., and Warmington, P.S., 2006. Re-engaging disaffected youth through physical activity programmes. British Educational Research Journal, 32 2, 251–271.

Group pedagogy to tailor-made interventions  103 Schön, D., 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Smith, W., 2012. Changing the logic of practice: (Re)drawing boundaries, (re)defining fields. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17 3, 251–262. Timo, J., Sami, Y-P, Anthony, W., and Jarmo, L., 2016. Perceived physical competence towards physical activity, and motivation and enjoyment in physical education as longitudinal predictors of adolescents’ self-reported physical activity. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 19, 750–754. Tomporowski, P.D. and McCullick, B.A. 2017. The development of physical activity games: Theory and research overview. In P.R. Schwanenflugel and P.D. Tomporowski (Eds.), Physical activity and learning after school: The PAL program. New York: Guilford Press, 37–46. Tomporowski, P.D., McCullick, B.A., and Pesce, C., 2015. Enhancing children’s cognition with physical activity games. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Wandersman, A., 2009. Four keys to success (theory, implementation, evaluation, and resource/system support): High hopes and challenges in participation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43 1/2, 3–21. Wilcox, K.C., Lawson, H.A., and Angelis, J. with Durand, F., Schiller, K, Gregory, K., and Zuckerman, S., 2017. Innovation in odds-beating schools: Exemplars of getting better at getting better. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Yeager, D.S., 2017. Social and emotional learning programs for adolescents. The Future of Children, 27 1, 73–89. Yeager, D.S. and Walton, G.M. 2011. Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81 2, 267–301. Zhang, T., and Solmon, M., 2013. Integrating self-determination theory with the social ecological model to understand students’ physical activity behaviors. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6 1, 54–76.

Chapter 5

Research and development to guide and defend redesign Hal A. Lawson

Private sector companies redesign products to enhance market position, improve profit, and ensure survival. To minimize risks and maximize the probability of success, they rely on research and development (R & D) to design, test, and improve innovations. Innovations must be transportable, adaptable, and useful. When R & D operations demonstrate these affordances, companies develop product warranties—assurances that the innovation will deliver on its promises if the prerequisite and co-requisite conditions are met. Leaders proceed cautiously because false promises are fatal to their company’s reputation and survival. The redesign of American physical education (PE) and teacher education (PETE) also necessitates strategic R & D in service of transportable, adaptable, and user-friendly innovations. Product warranties—theoretically sound, research supported guarantees—are essential. The timing is ripe because governmental agencies and school districts are prioritizing research-supported policies and evidence-based practices, and the PE profession needs solid justifications to support program investments and teachers’ appointments. However, PE’s R & D cannot be a private sector replica. Private sector initiatives are profit-oriented, while PE’s aim is service. Private sector firms typically focus on just one product, while PE’s R & D involves program alternatives. Private sector companies have their own labs and scientists, while PE mainly relies on universities and professors. Every PE-related, R & D framework must do double duty. It must provide evidentiary mechanisms that guard against impending competitions, and it must yield a knowledge base that guides redesign. Both functions require a critical mass of researchers. Unfortunately, USA research documents diminishing numbers of PETE faculty members and doctoral students (Boyce et al. 2015 and 2016; Bulger et al. 2016; Ward et al. 2011). Fortunately, researchers representing Kinesiology, public health, health education and promotion, medicine, and psychology have launched R & D agendas focused on school-related, physical activity.

Research and development to guide redesign  105

These developments raise two questions. Who are the researchers for PE’s R & D? How might they be organized for collective action? The first question illuminates increasing needs and opportunities for interdisciplinary R & D, while the second recommends complex partnerships among universities, schools, and state education departments. Research structured to defend and improve PE can proceed in tandem with pioneering work in service of redesign.

Planning for a research and development framework All new R & D design projects begin with practical questions. Who? What? How? Why? Whose needs, interests, and priorities are served? How will R & D make a positive difference? The “who question” is especially timely, important, and consequential in the United States. Thirty years ago, the question “who’s in charge of PE” was a rhetorical one. The automatic answer was PE teachers in partnership with PE teacher educators. Those days are gone, and they will not return. On the other hand, the inherited PE/PETE configuration has endured because it has delivered on some of its promises, and it has more to offer. The development of Kinesiology and selective mergers with PETE is another asset, albeit under-developed. Accelerating interdisciplinary research, especially with public health partners, is another asset. Meanwhile, health educators, public health specialists, nurses and physicians, psychologists and social workers bring specialized preparation and unique competence for R & D focused on young people’s exercise, sport, dance, and active play in and around schools. A competitive environment is evident. Funding incentives from USA governments and charitable foundations, particularly those focused on health disparities, childhood obesity, and behavioral health, fuel the competition for the right to decide and provide whatever PE is destined to become. In this competitive environment, outcome omissions and shortfalls associated with the PE/PETE establishment are like invitations to attempt takeovers. PE-focused, defensive claims depend on solid research derived from real world prototypes. Comprehensive R & D is a practical necessity.

Building from strengths: Two research directions R & D for PE’s redesign can be founded on twin pillars: Reform-asimprovement and bold redesign. Each is a viable alternative. When they are connected and the researchers associated with each learn and improve together, R & D is comprehensive and yields a menu of evidence-based theories of change, better program designs, and innovative interventions.

106  Hal A. Lawson

Reform-as-improvement The inherited PE/PETE configuration is the centerpiece in a reform-asimprovement component. It is founded on three assumptions. First: Today’s PE programs in some schools yield desirable outcomes. Second: New kinds of schools (e.g., charters, magnets, community schools) are a good fit for one or more of today’s dominant PE models (e.g., sport education; SPARK), so the R & D challenge is to refine and defend these models. Third, the majority of PE teachers and teacher educators have firm value commitments to, and competency sets developed for, today’s models and teachers’ roles and responsibilities. Many are unlikely to commit to a redesign agenda. Although it may be tempting to conclude that the present status of research, most of which has been conducted by PE teacher educators, is fit for purpose, a critical review yields a contrary conclusion. For example, many studies are small-scale, exploratory, and descriptive. Needs remain to describe, explain, and predict how particular outcomes derived from interaction patterns among key program drivers such as a student-centered curriculum, homogeneous classes, gender-differentiated experiences, teacher-directed instruction, and digital technologies for self-directed learning and social network participation. Ten other needs merit attention: (1) The need for conceptual clarity and precision, starting with better operational definitions and distinctions between voluntary school sports and required PE; (2) Detailed descriptions of the variable school and community contexts for PE programs; (3) Detailed descriptions of PE time allocations, class sizes, equipment and facilities, and teachers’ work orientations; (4) Precise monitoring of engaged learning time and physical activity time—with measures indexed against process outcomes and proximal learning and performance outcomes; (5) Investigations structured to determine whether and how PE teachers collect and use assessment data and rely on research; (6) Descriptions and explanations of Big P and little p policy influences and determinants; (7) Descriptions and explanations of PE program model scale-up; (8) Descriptions and explanations of PE offered during out-of-school time, particularly in after school configurations; (9) Longitudinal research focused on distal outcomes; and (10) Research focused on unintended, undesirable outcomes, both shortterm and long-term (Allen-Scott et al. 2014). Together, these research needs signal needs for a critical mass of improvement-oriented researchers organized and mobilized for collective action. Improvement science’s six guiding principles (Bryk et al. 2015) offer structural guidance. ••

Make the work problem-specific and user-centered. This principle starts with a single question: “What specifically is the problem we are trying to solve?” It enlivens a co-development orientation in which key participants such as teachers, teacher educators, and other key stakeholders are engaged early and often.

Research and development to guide redesign  107






Variation in performance is the core problem to address. The critical issue is not what works, but rather what works, for whom and under what set of conditions. Aiming to advance efficacy and effectiveness reliably at scale, contextual differences also must be taken into account. We cannot improve at scale what we cannot measure. Embed measures of key outcomes and processes to track all changes and determine whether they result in demonstrable improvements. Because we intervene in complex organizations and variable community contexts, anticipate unintended consequences and measure them. Anchor practice improvement in disciplined inquiry. Engage rapid cycles of Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) to learn fast, fail fast, and improve quickly. That failures may occur is not the problem; that we fail to learn from them is. Accelerate improvements through networked communities. Develop social networks of experts addressing the same priorities. We can accomplish more together than even the best of us can accomplish alone. For example, this book’s emphasis on national and international social R & D frameworks can be appreciated accordingly, especially when needs for a comprehensive, coherent, and aligned system are presented. See the system that produces the current outcomes. It is difficult to improve what you do not fully understand. Determine how local conditions, in concert with Big P and little p policies, shape work processes. Make your hypotheses for improvement public, clear, and testable.

This last principle has special relevance to the USA because this nation lacks an overall systems design. The absence of a big picture map, together with a lack of alignment and coherence in programs and services, amounts to a sub-optimal system, albeit an implicit and unexamined one. This implicit “non-system” is implicated in the recurrent reproduction of sub-optimal outcomes, and this is why a formal, aligned, and coherent system is a main priority in redesign R & D. Bold redesign alongside improvement science Redesign research necessitates a shift from an exclusive concern with technical questions regarding student learning, instruction, and curricular progressions for inherited programs to first-order questions of desirable outcomes, including justifiable theories of change and empirically based models and strategies for achieving them. Three kinds of outcomes need to be prioritized; and with special attention to their relationships: process outcomes (e.g., getting students active in schools); proximal (short-term) learning outcomes; and distal outcomes, i.e., cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes that stretch into adulthood. In the quest to achieve these three kinds of outcomes, redesign leaders need to start by addressing several important questions.

108  Hal A. Lawson

•• •• •• •• ••

•• •• ••

What do we know about how children and youths are socialized into active, health-enhancing lifestyles? Who are the main socializing agents (e.g., teachers, parents, peers, family members, youth sport coaches), and how can their respective efforts be harmonized, and synchronized? In what ways can PE teachers and other physical activity and sport leaders engage and support these several socializing agents, benefiting students? Under what conditions is PE best offered in afterschool configurations? In community agency settings? In special summer camp experiences? Assuming that schools are centerpieces, what school-community configurations optimize diverse students’ learning conditions and performance experiences, and what are the roles and responsibilities of PE teachers? How can school PE be coordinated and dovetailed with the offerings of child- and youth-serving organizations (e.g., community-based youth sports programs; programs for creative movement and dance)? How can PE’s redesign contribute to the attendance, engagement, cognitive development, and school completion of presently-disengaged students? Under what conditions should community-based health, mental health, and social service professionals assume joint responsibility for students’ physical education experiences?

Research capacities for these aspects of a redesign agenda are in evidence in Kinesiology departments (by whatever name) and public health R & D units. Where Kinesiology is concerned, the research of sport and exercise psychologists, motor development and control specialists, sport sociologists, and pediatric exercise physiologists can be marshaled in support of this R & D agenda, and it will be stronger if it includes interdisciplinary researchers already involved in school physical activity and PE. Once these diverse researchers are unified in a strategic, aligned, and coherent R & D framework, the stage is set for an integrated, interdisciplinary pediatric sport, exercise, and health science, including research teams (Lawson 2016). Such a comprehensive research framework offers guidance for PE’s redesign, prominently extending to children’s life course development into adulthood and with special attention to the social determinants of health and physical activity disparities. An equity agenda depends on such a framework. Complementary pillars with collaborative R & D Improvement-oriented research and redesign research belong together, and their contributions will be maximized if R & D frameworks facilitate mutuallybeneficial interactions. Commonalities provide a starting point.

Research and development to guide redesign  109

For example, every initiative for young children’s learning depends on pedagogy (Tinning 2010). Every initiative focused on children’s socialization into health-enhancing, active lifestyles draws on salient theory and research from pediatric exercise, sport, and health science. The two orientations go hand in hand. One derives from the inherited PE/PETE configuration (pedagogy), while the other is enabled by Kinesiology and its relations with public health, health promotion, medicine and psychology. Figure 5.1 depicts this dual configuration and emphasizes priorities for interactive development. As with all ideal frameworks, planning on the drawing board is the easier part of the work. R & D partnerships are needed to iron out the details and facilitate interaction.

University-school R & D partnerships for simultaneous renewal Goodlad (1998) described and justified university-school partnerships for simultaneous renewal. Simultaneous renewal merits attention. Renewal is not the same as reform or redesign. It refers to evaluative mechanisms and interactions that guard against “auto pilot” operations. Embedded evaluations enable learning and facilitate knowledge generation and dissemination, and inform policy. While some R & D partnerships








Figure 5.1  A dual research and development framework

110  Hal A. Lawson

stimulate redesign, in a renewal framework, a reaffirmation of the status quo remains a viable outcome. Simultaneous renewal depicts a dynamic, interactive R & D partnership between P-12 schools and higher education’s schools, colleges, and departments of education. The rationale is compelling. Change teachers’ preservice education programs without companion changes in P-12 schools, and real-world experience may “wash out” the effects of innovative professional education. Alternatively, change P-12 schools without companion changes in preservice education, and every new graduate may need additional education and training. Proposals for simultaneous renewal partnerships also can be brought to bear on researchers’ social organization, knowledge orientations, and mechanisms for their continuing professional development and adaptive learning (Kochanek et al. 2015; Lawson 2009; 2013). The timing is right in the USA as researchers grapple with enduring issues regarding how best to develop evidence-based policy and research-supported practice knowledge, especially as recognition grows that replication—wholesale transfer of programs and practices—is neither desirable or feasible (Knox et al. in press). R & D viewed in this way is an adaptive problem and a collective action project. It starts with explicit recognition that researchers’ knowledge orientations differ, and so do their purposes for doing research. One way to begin is by connecting knowledge development, dissemination and utilization pathways. From laboratory research in the disciplines to practice in the professions Some researchers rely exclusively on methodologies associated with laboratory science and its imperatives for controlled investigation in support of theory articulation. Examples abound in Kinesiology and arts and sciences disciplines. Scholars call their research “basic” or “pure” because they generate it without an eye toward immediate application, even though many privately may wager that, sooner or later, practical pay-offs will derive their collective endeavor. The knowledge these researchers generate can be characterized as theoretical, analytical, and understanding-oriented. In a formal R & D system, these basic researchers are connected to the work of applied researchers. Applied researchers draw on analytical, understanding-oriented theories with the intent of developing actionoriented interventions with practical import. These applied R & D scientists proceed in two stages. They start with efficacy trials under semi-controlled laboratory-like settings with students and perhaps teachers, exercise leaders, and coaches. These laboratory-like experiments set the stage for effectiveness trials in schools and community agencies. The question is, do interventions tested

Research and development to guide redesign  111

under laboratory-like situations (efficacy trials) transfer to real world settings (effectiveness research)? Once an affirmative answer is provided, researchers are able to address implementation requirements, relying on a specialty known as implementation science (e.g., Kroelinger et al. 2014). Design-based research in real world settings Inherent limitations in the above-described, R & D model have been instrumental in the search for alternatives. For example, it requires an unusual amount of patience because definitive, transferable innovations take time as basic researchers and applied researchers to do their parts. Impatience with this process has been accompanied by growing awareness of other limitations. For example, analytical-theoretical knowledge is highly specialized and depends on experts who know how to apply it. In contrast, practice is holistic and depends on teachers’ orientations, competencies, and working conditions. More fundamentally, the dominant model is predicated on the idea that scientific knowledge is generalizable, or at least enables warranted assertions about every situation. This worldview minimizes and even discounts the importance of variability among students and among family, school, and community settings (Lawson 1985). For these reasons leaders in the educational research community are emphasizing innovative R & D partnerships (Coburn and Peneul 2016). Two research innovations are showcased: Improvement science (Bryk et al. 2015) and design-based research in real world settings (Peneul et al. 2011). In contrast to basic theories predicated on the idea of “study first, act later,” these embedded R & D projects recommend innovating strategically, studying the consequences, and deciding whether to test and improve some more or go to scale. Teachers, community professionals, and researchers collaborate, co-generating knowledge and improving practice and policy in the process (Greenhalgh et al. 2016). As these practice-embedded projects advance, researchers recognize describe and seek to explain the dynamics associated key program drivers. With special attention to contextual variability, R & D teams focus innovative drivers’ adaptability and continuing refinement in diverse practice contexts (Knox et al. in press). Two kinds of knowledge facilitated by boundary-crossers and bridge-builders R & D partnerships for simultaneous renewal enable the development of two kinds of knowledge (Nowotny et al. 2003), and both have import for policy and practice. Mode 1 knowledge generated in ivory tower-like research centers is theoretical, analytical, and specialized. Mode 2 knowledge generated in real world settings is action-oriented, holistic, adaptable, and immediately useful (Lawson 1985).

112  Hal A. Lawson

Mode 1 knowledge and Mode 2 knowledge are not mutually exclusive. Relations among them and the researchers who generate them are ripe with potential for research improvements, policy and practice. Bridge-building in service of knowledge enrichment, integration, and dissemination necessitates knowledge brokers—for example, teacher educators with strong backgrounds in pediatric exercise science and exercise scientists who understand school-based and school-linked PE. The preparation of specialized knowledge brokers who also play key intermediary roles in simultaneous renewal R & D partnerships is an urgent priority. To maximize the benefits of both kinds of knowledge, R & D partnerships must have three kinds of boundary-crossing and bridge-building specialists: (1) School professionals, especially teachers; (2) Researchers; and (3) State education department leaders.

Enhancing researchers’ social organization and knowledge orientations The fact remains that R & D partnership systems are hollow unless they enjoy a critical mass of talented researchers. Two R & D innovations hold promise. International networks Cross-border, international-comparative research networks, both PE/PETEspecific and interdisciplinary, are a promising innovation. Leading international journals focused on PE and PETE signal opportunities—for example, The European Physical Education Review, Sport, Education and Society, The Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, and Quest. Unfortunately, questions remain about international leadership for research-focused collective action as well as sustainable mechanisms for cross-border knowledge development and exchanges. At least one professional and scholarly association must sponsor this work. A likely alternative is the International Association for Physical Education in Higher Education (Association Internationale des Écoles Supérieures d’Éducation Physique). Research teams Interdisciplinary team science offers a second alternative (Bulger et al. 2016; Lawson 2016). While interdisciplinary configurations may have been ruled out in the twentieth-century model for PE/PETE in the industrial age school, they appear to be fit for purpose in the twenty-first century, and they provide a timely response to a research capacity shortfall in PETE programs. The implications for researchers’ social organization and doctoral preparation are profound.

Research and development to guide redesign  113

Prioritizing researchers’ social organization and research questions Science is a peer-governed enterprise, and it is facilitated when researchers are organized for collective action. Unfortunately, the social organization of PE and Kinesiology researchers has received short shrift. The development of these researchers’ questions provides one vantage point. Presently, researchers appear to rely on one or more of eight sources: (1) Personal value-commitments to a particular PE model; (2) tradition; (3) an academic discipline or sub-discipline; (4) theory; (5) practice; (6) policy; (7) funders’ priorities; and (8) biography. These sources are not mutually exclusive, and they may change over time. Unfortunately, this approach to research questions and researchers’ social organization exacts a toll on the knowledge base for policy, practice, and professional education. A disconnected array of ad hoc studies undertaken by solo researchers is not a pathway for policy and practice impact, and it runs counter to the idea of science as a peer-governed, collective enterprise which progresses via replication and extension studies. One remedy is to use Kuhn’s (1996) pioneering analysis of science and scientists as a springboard for the social organization and mobilization of researchers. In this collective action framework, researchers are influenced and governed by their paradigmatic affiliations, the specialized research exemplars they prefer, the sub-specialties or segments they comprise, and the often-invisible networks they form (Lawson 2009). Many American PE researchers can be appreciated in this way. For example, colleagues firmly wedded to a research agenda focused on a formal PE model such as sport education and SPARK are connected to colleagues worldwide with the same agenda. The key advantage of this social organization framework is that it focuses attention on two R & D priorities. The first is whether there are enough researchers—a critical mass of them—to advance knowledge development in specialized areas. The second is whether and how they are networked via collective action mechanisms. Figure 5.2 provides a meso-level depiction of the untapped opportunities. The four kinds of research presented signal opportunities to organize researchers for collective action and facilitate practice- and policy-focused research reviews. Four research purposes structure the agenda. Three are grounded in pastpresent reality: To defend, improve, and redesign PE. The fourth purpose signals a need for strategic searches into uncharted territory. These pioneering initiatives nominate researchers as scholarly pioneers. In this framework, research can be reproductive (supportive of the status quo), reformist, or transformative for redesign (Lawson 2017).

114  Hal A. Lawson






Figure 5.2  Four research orientations and impacts

Two kinds of PE models as R & D priorities Figure 5.3 provides a second R & D building block. It provides a big picture, macro-level depiction—a special ideal-type (Hearn 1975). It is founded on interdisciplinary research and the never-ending quest for empirically grounded theories of change. It also is tailor-made for the dual knowledge pathways that drive simultaneous renewal partnerships, i.e., from the bench to the trench and from variable contexts for practice to the scientific bench. Models for PE derive from scientific theory regarding children’s socialization and its connections to life course development. For example, relational-developmental theory emphasizes person-environment interactions and illuminates the importance of socialization factors, actors, and contexts over time (Agans et al. 2013; Overton and Lerner 2014). Life course health development theory (LCHD) guides model development and research designs for PE’s distal outcomes. It is hailed as the foundation for America’s third health revolution (Halfon et al. 2014). Public health sanitation was the first revolution, and it was followed by medicine’s disease and cure model. LCHD’s focus on well-being over the life course, including the new field of epigenetics, is revolutionary because it prioritizes heredity-environment interactions, especially malleable ones—starting with the social determinants of health and physical activity disparities. The overall strategy mirrors private sector R & D because these PE models are developed on the theoretical drawing board before they are ready for

Research and development to guide redesign  115

Basic Research

Applied Research:

Applied Research:

Eff icacy Trials

Effectiveness Trials

Research Dissemination & Translations

Boundary-crossing and Bridge-building Intermediaries: Teachers, Researchers, Policy Leaders Mechanisms for Evidence-guided, Simultaneous Renewal and Improvement Discipline-Specif ic and Interdisciplinary Research Partnership Networks for Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Learning, Professional Development and Capacity-building in Service of Redesign and Continuous Improvement

ResearchSupported Theories of Change

Model Building for Testing & Scale-up

Derived Interventions for Subpopulations

Redesign Experiments in Real World Contexts

Figure 5.3  Research and development partnerships with a dual knowledge system

testing and continuous improvement. Once model components are mapped and their causal relationships specified, applied researchers take over, starting with efficacy trials and followed by effectiveness testing in real-world settings. The overall aim is to produce innovations that can be described by a cluster of adjectives: Transportable, useful, scalable, sustainable, theoretically sound, and research-supported. Implementation science needs to be harnessed in service of this agenda. Models of PE derive from real work practice, and they are facilitated by design-based research and development in schools, homes, and community agencies. In contrast to models for PE, implementation is less of an issue because these models already are operating in practice. Many of these models showcase the visionary leadership of practicing PE teachers, working alone or in a special collaboration with a university researcher. In contrast to researchers dictating PE’s redesign, teachers play leading roles. Figure 5.4 ambitiously connects these models for and models of PE with two other priorities. The first is especially important in the United States because it connects PE with interscholastic athletics programs, intramural sports programs, and perhaps community-based youth sports programs. Today’s fragmented system stands to benefit from all such attempts at coherence and alignment. The other priority is the inseparable relationship between alternative designs for schools, including alternative curricula and the increasing impact

116  Hal A. Lawson








Figure 5.4  Tailor-made PE for different kinds of schools and surrounding ecologies

of diverse family, community, and public policy contexts. R & D in service of PE’s redesign simply must be context-specific and –responsive. Figure 5.4 is structured accordingly. These several alternatives are not mutually exclusive, and they undoubtedly are more suggestive than definitive. Perhaps their chief benefit as to serve as reminders of what it will take to mount, improve and sustain a strategic R & D agenda in support of PE’s redesign with an unwavering aim for better, more equitable outcomes for both students and PE teachers. Model diffusion, dissemination and scale-up Box 5.1 provides what amounts to a finishing touch on this exploratory R & D framework. It identifies the research, development, and evaluation needs associated with an innovation’s diffusion and dissemination into variable school, community, and state policy contexts (McDonald et al. 2009; Lawson and van Veen 2016). R & D initiatives directed in this way hold promise for the equivalent of the private sector’s consumer product warranties. In the case of PE’s redesigns, these assurances are offered as theoretically sound, research supported claims regarding the desirable outcomes achieved—when the antecedent conditions and requirements are in place.

Research and development to guide redesign  117

Box 5.1 Research and development focused on innovation implementation and scale-up The justification challenge: Assembling and integrating research-based, theoretically sound evidence in support of the new design’s transportability, adaptability, and reliability regarding desirable outcomes (process, learning-oriented, distal). The mindset challenge: Helping diverse people to prioritize different and better outcomes and appreciate the difference PE’s redesign will make. The emotional challenge: Providing emotional supports, especially grief and loss supports for teachers who must modify and give up cherished work orientations and practices The competency challenge: Providing high-impact, adult-friendly professional development to develop co-requisite professional competencies The fidelity challenge: Balancing model integrity and local adaptation. The teaching and learning challenge: Teaching and learning the design. The ownership challenge: Instilling shared ownership of the design. The organizational capacity challenge: Developing co-requisite data systems and, all in all, readying schools and community agencies for what PE’s redesign entails and requires. The communication challenge: Effectively communicating the comparative advantages and known benefits across contexts. The feedback challenge: Using targeted evaluations in new settings to improve the design. The resource challenge: Obtaining and maintaining co-requisite resources and supports. The political challenge: Negotiating the politics of local adoption and adaptation, while initiating Big P and little p policy advocacy. The redesign dissemination and diffusion challenge: Collaborating with professional associations to gain resources and supports for rapid implementation and continuous quality improvement.

118  Hal A. Lawson

Connecting research to core values and normative visions Strategic, high impact R & D is essential to reform-improvement proposals and bold redesign. However, research is just one of two launching points (Lawson 2012). After all, research yields empirical, “is statements” about past-present reality. Core values and normative visions are also essential. Ideals for what “ought to be” or “what should be” are normative statements. Normative visions are rooted in core values (e.g., to serve children and youths), moral imperatives (e.g., to provide equitable opportunities), and ethical obligations (e.g., do no harm). In this view, professionals’ preferences and convenience never can be allowed to substitute for young people’s healthy development and well-being. Thus, normative visions, core values and ethical obligations are centerpieces in R & D—and with an important reminder. When research findings alone drive practice, the status quo is reinforced. In contrast, when research documents gaps between targeted outcomes and achieved ones, normative visions and core values come into play, and initiatives called “improvement” and “redesign” are launched to realize them. Framed in this way, the idea of value-committed R & D does not threaten scientific rigor. R & D partnerships in service of central core values such as equity and justice are a modern expression of Sir Francis Bacon’s view of science in service of humankind.

References Agans, J.P., Säfvenbom, R., Davis, J., Bowers, E., and Lerner, R.M., 2013. Positive movement experiences: Approaching the study of athletic participation, exercise, and leisure activity through relational development systems theory and the concept of embodiment. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 45, 261–286. Allen-Scott, L.K., Hatfield, J.M., and McIntyre, L., 2014. A scoping review of unintended harm associated with public health interventions: towards a typology and an understanding of underlying factors. International Journal of Public Health, 59 1, 3–14. Boyce, B.A., Lund, J., and O’Neil, K., 2015. PETE doctoral institutions: Programs, faculty and doctoral students. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86, 311–318. Boyce, B.A., Lund, J., and O’Neill, K., 2016. The impact of supply and demand on doctorates. Quest, 68 3, 337–347. Bryk, A.S., Gomez, L., Grunow, A., and LeMahieu, P., 2015. Learning to improve: How America’s schools are getting better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, Bulger, S.M., Hannon, J.C., and Jones, E., 2016. Stepping off the dance floor for a view from the balcony: Observations for physical education teacher education programs in interesting times. Quest, 68 4, 475–490.

Research and development to guide redesign  119 Coburn, C.E., and Penuel, W.R., 2016. Research-practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45 1, 48–54. Goodlad, J.I., 1998. Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. New York: Wiley. Greenhalgh, T., Jackson, C., Shaw, S., and Janamiam, T., 2016. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: Literature review and case study. The Milbank Quarterly, 94 2, 393–429. Halfon, N., Larson, K., Lu, M., Tullis, E., and Russ, S., 2014. Lifecourse health development: Past present, and future. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 18, 344–365. Hearn, F., 1975. The dialectical uses of ideal-types. Theory and Society, 2 1, 531–561. Knox, V., Hill, C., and Berlin, B., (Forthcoming). Can evidence-based policy ameliorate the nation’s social problems. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Kochanek, J.R., Scholz, C., and Garcia, A.N., 2015. Mapping the collaborative research process. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 23, 121. Available from: [Accessed 3 June 2017]. Kroelinger, C.D., Rankin, K., Chambers, D., Dize Roux, A., Hughes, K., and Grigorescu, V., 2014. Using principles of complex systems thinking and implementation science to enhance maternal and child health program planning and delivery. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 18, 1560–1564. Kuhn, T.K., 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions. Second edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lawson, H.A., 1985. Knowledge for work in the physical education profession. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2 1, 9–24. Lawson, H.A., 2009. Paradigms, exemplars, and social change. Sport, Education, and Society. 14 1, 97–119. Lawson, H.A., 2012. Realizing the promise to young people: Kinesiology and new institutional designs for school and community programs. Kinesiology Review, 1 1, 76–90. Lawson, H.A., 2013. Three generations of partnerships for P-16 pipeline configurations and cradle-to-career education Systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 88 5, 637–656. Lawson, H.A., 2016. Stewarding the discipline with cross-boundary leadership. Quest, 68 2, 91–115. Lawson, H.A., 2017. Reproductive, reformist, and transformative socialization. In K.A.R. Richards and K.L. Gaudreault (Eds.) New perspectives on teacher socialization in physical education. New York: Routledge, 243–261. Lawson, H.A., and Van Veen, D., 2016. Developing community schools, community learning centers, extended-service, and multi-service schools: International exemplars for practice, policy, and research. The Hague, NL: Springer International. McDonald, J., Klein, E., and Riordan, M., 2009. Going to scale with new school designs: Reinventing high school. New York: Teachers College Press. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M., 2003. ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194. Overton, W.F., and Lerner, R.M., 2014. Fundamental concepts and methods in developmental science: A relational perspective. Research in Human Development, 11, 63–75.

120  Hal A. Lawson Peneul, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Cheng, B.H., and Sabelli, N., 2011. Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40 7, 331–337. Tinning, R., 2010. Pedagogy and human movement: Theory, practice, research. London: Routledge. Ward, P., Parker, M., Sutherland, S., and Sinclair, C., 2011. A critical examination of the curriculum of PETE doctoral programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 145–156.

Part II

International perspectives

Chapter 6

Redesigning physical education in the United States A second look K. Andrew R. Richards Thomas J. Templin Amelia Mays Woods Kim C. Graber We approach this chapter with the goal of providing additional perspectives about the redesign of physical education (PE) in the United States (US). Although we assume a critical approach in our analysis by highlighting the challenges faced by physical educators and the shortcomings of some PE programs, we do not intend to discount the many high-quality PE programs in the US schools (e.g., Prusak et al. 2010). Some of these programs and the teachers who lead them have inspired our recommendations.

Suboptimal learning environments for students Problems associated with the outdated arrangement of the industrial age modeling of schooling are at the crux of Lawson’s arguments. Born from the need to homogenize, control, and socialize youth into prevailing cultural norms of the US, the industrial age model of schooling gave rise to the “one-size-fits-all” model of PE that persists today. While this normative arrangement may work for some children, the generalized nature of the instructional model that characterizes many schools creates problems for others. Despite curricular and scholarly advancements over the past two decades, as well as pockets of evidence of exemplary programming in the US (e.g., Prusak et al. 2010), many youth do not find their PE curriculum relevant, and some come to abhor physical activity because of negative PE experiences. This is particularly true when PE is taught in ways that depart from recommended pedagogical practice and privilege students with athletic prowess, while marginalizing the less skilled (Evans 2014). Using the dual socialization perspective that examines the experiences of both teachers and students, which Lawson also emphasizes, this situation has three major consequences. First, some youth develop an aversion to PE. When this occurs, PE falls short of its hallmark goal to help youth develop and maintain a health-enhancing level of physical activity (Society of Health and Physical Educators [SHAPE] America 2014). In turn, the inability to

124  Richards, Templin, Woods, and Graber

achieve this immediate goal has long-term consequences, as inactive children are likely to become sedentary adults (Gordon-Larsen et al. 2004). Second, rather than recruiting prospective professionals into our field, some PE teachers may end up discouraging students who do not have backgrounds in athletics from becoming teachers (Woods et al. 2016). When only athletes pursue careers in PE, recruits lack diversity and are unlikely to challenge existing norms (O’Neil and Richards 2018), and the profession reproduces itself when it attracts and retains only those students whose beliefs align with the version of PE they experienced (Lacey 1977). Third, teachers’ perspectives developed during formative stages are difficult to alter later in life. For example, when recruits enter physical education teacher education (PETE) programs, they may resist new ideas, even those that reflect best practices and evidence-based knowledge (Richards et al. 2014). The same tendency may endure when these recruits become teachers in our nation’s schools and continue to emphasize their prior experiences over the needs and interests of the children they serve.

Suboptimal working conditions for physical educators The realities of working in suboptimal conditions developed through the industrial age school cannot be overstated (Kougioumtzis et al. 2011). The purpose, goals, and role of PE vary, and are socially constructed and contextually bound to particular school environments (Richards 2015). Although PE may occupy an elevated status position in some schools, it is often viewed as marginal to the central purpose of schooling (Laureano et al. 2014). This marginalization can be traced to the societal division of labor whereby white-collar, mental pursuits are afforded higher status than blue-collar, physical work (Schempp et al. 1993). “Physical” education connotes blue-color status. The marginal status of PE results in other subjects receiving higher priority for resources (e.g., curricular time, space, and equipment), and intangible rewards such as respect and prestige. As a result, physical educators are challenged with suboptimal working conditions, and some receive explicit and implicit messages that PE is less important than other subject areas (Fejgin et al. 1995). In addition, PE teachers are often discouraged from evaluating students’ performance, and using these data to assign a letter grade. This departure from standard practice in other subject areas creates misunderstandings and contributes to marginalization. For example, O’Sullivan (1989) noted that administrators and parents may resist student evaluation and believe that “failing gym is like failing lunch or recess” (p. 235). Subject matter and teacher marginalization has other undesirable impacts. For example, PE teachers who have internalized their marginal status may adopt the view that their primary function is to support other subjects

Redesigning American physical education  125

(Gaudreault et al. 2016). Teachers adopting this view may emphasize the association between physical activity and academic performance (Castelli et al. 2007) at the expense of PE’s unique contributions to children’s health, skill development, and physical activity. Suboptimal working conditions may also have adverse effects on PE teachers. While some physical educators persist in their quests to provide quality learning experiences for their students and better working conditions for themselves (e.g., Prusak et al. 2010), these assertive teachers may encounter social reprisal when arguing against the status quo. This could include strong messages directing them to adjust to their home school environments if they expect to remain employed. All such sub-optimal working conditions may cause some teachers to become disillusioned, especially when they experience stress and burnout. One result is especially unfortunate: Exemplary PE teachers who face great social challenges leave the school and perhaps the teaching profession all together (Carson et al. 2011).

Other challenges associated with the status quo As Lawson notes, heath, physical activity, sport, and physical literacy are not the sole province of PE. Other public and private entities are increasingly concerned with physical activity and health, and their growing presence in many school communities challenges the status of PE as a required school subject. Significantly, there is a growing trend to allow students who participate in interscholastic athletics, marching band, cheerleading, and junior reserve officer training corps to opt out of PE or complete PE requirements online. At the root of these challenges is the profession’s inability to define and justify quality PE programs founded on research and recommended practices such as the collection and use of assessment data and development of coherent, research-based curricula. Other school subject matter areas provide a revealing contrast. Their leaders have structured and progressive curricula that are connected to state and national assessments to determine students’ mastery of content. In mathematics, for example, a relatively agreed upon sequence of coursework progressively leads students toward more challenging content. Algebra I precedes algebra II, and both must be completed before calculus and trigonometry. Realistically, PE programs pale in comparison. While the most recent version of the SHAPE America (2014) national standards includes gradelevel outcomes, significant PE program diversity remains the norm. One reason was referenced earlier: PE curricular decisions are based on teachers’ preferences and experiences rather than the assessed needs and interests of students (Ferry and McCaughtry 2013). Although pedagogical models such as sport education and adventure education hold promise for meeting the needs and interests of identifiable groups of children (Kirk 2013), several factors conspire against automatic

126  Richards, Templin, Woods, and Graber

implementation with fidelity. For example, teachers are unlikely to adopt and implement any model that does not align with their beliefs or specialized training and competencies. Teachers’ perceptions of the fit between a particular model and their host school environment also influence adoption decisions (Curtner-Smith et al. 2008). Perhaps above all, teachers’ preferences and competencies predictably are instrumental in their decisions regarding formal model adoption and implementation. Once they have become experts in a model such as sport education—which can be traced to their preservice education—their practice is restricted to it rather than responsive to students’ needs. When pedagogical choices are made based solely on teachers’ interests and background experiences rather than formal assessment of student needs, PE becomes a teacher-centered enterprise. Predictable selectivity follows. In some cases, teachers may prefer to teach only subjects that they coach. In other cases, teachers select content and pedagogies in line with what they experienced as children and later in their teacher education programs. When considered in this light, marginalized teachers charged with leadership for a misunderstood and underappreciated subject have considerable autonomy in the design and conduct of their programs, with few formal mechanisms in place to hold them accountable to their students.

Reconceptualizing physical education in the United States Considering the current suboptimal conditions in which PE teachers currently work, and the consequences associated with those conditions, two related goals provide a viable solution and mark the way toward redesign: (a) create better learning environments using student-centered pedagogies; and (b) create better working conditions for teachers. Creating better learning environments for students The SHAPE America (2014) national standards and various state standards that provide specific guidance at the state level, represent what the profession’s leaders generally believe students should learn in K-12 PE classes. To achieve these standards, the PE learning environment must be structured to facilitate student learning and motivation, particularly if PE teachers intend to help students develop a physically active lifestyle that transitions into adulthood (Richards and Levesque-Bristol 2014). Grounded in self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan 2008), LevesqueBristol, Sell, and Zimmerman (2006) established the integrative model for learning and motivation (IMLM), and it holds promise for student-centered learning in K-12 PE. On the one hand, when teachers’ perspectives and needs are prioritized over students, as is the case when traditional, didactic

Redesigning American physical education  127

pedagogies are implemented, the learning climate is said to be teachercentered (Schaefer and Zygmont 2003). Here, the teacher makes all key instructional decisions, including the content covered, how practice tasks are arranged and students grouped, and methods used to deliver feedback and evaluate student learning. On the other hand, Richards and Levesque-Bristol (2014) note that a student-centered learning environment “is characterized by high levels of student engagement and empowerment so that students become central to the learning process” (p. 44). When the learning environment is studentcentered, the three basic psychological needs of autonomy (freedom to make choices and exercise voice), competence (success that builds selfefficacy), and relatedness (feelings of connection to others) are more likely to be satisfied (Levesque-Bristol et al. 2006). Satisfaction of the these three needs is linked to more self-determined forms of motivation, and when students’ motivation is self-determined, they are more likely to learn at deeper levels and choose to participate in activities outside of class (Deci and Ryan 2008). As a result, PE programs structured and operated in this way have greater relevance to students and enhance the likelihood of learning and continued participation in physical activity outside of class (Richards and Levesque-Bristol 2014). A student-centered approach also encourages teachers to know students on a personal level; understanding their interests, strengths, and weaknesses; and working with them to create culturally relevant learning experiences. Student-centeredness, however, requires teachers to relinquish some control in the gymnasium. This does not imply that students make all of the decisions. Rather, they are encouraged to express their opinions about content as teachers provide them with choices within a defined structure (Wahl-Alexander and Curtner-Smith 2015). Physical educators also provide students with opportunities to connect with one another, develop a sense of competence, and exercise their sense of agency by intentionally structuring learning tasks. For example, within a basketball unit, three stations can be set up in the gymnasium: one for competitive game play, a second for recreational game play, and a third for skill development. Students self-select the station that is best suited for their goals and current skill level, and instructed that they can change stations at any point during the lesson. This arrangement supports student autonomy by providing choice, but not at the expense of pedagogical structure because the teacher provides the menu of options from which students choose. In a fitness unit, students may choose their physical activity (e.g., race walking, elliptical, treadmill), an accountability measure (e.g., perceived exertion, pedometer, accelerometer), and exercise context (e.g., self, partner, or small group). The teacher establishes the physical activity duration, provides guidance, and actively designs the learning environment.

128  Richards, Templin, Woods, and Graber

Creating better working conditions for teachers Teacher socialization research indicates that the knowledge and skills learned during teacher education do not always transfer to the workplace due, in part, to how school cultures operate (Blankenship and Coleman 2009). Physical educators need and deserve better working conditions in order to develop and sustain optimal, student-centered learning environments. More concretely, teachers need sufficient equipment, appropriate facilities, and adequate time to plan, implement lessons, and assess student learning. PE classes should mirror the size of other school classes (e.g., 20–30 students) and be scheduled on a daily basis for at least 45 minutes. Facilities and equipment should facilitate a range of curricular offerings in a way that allows all students to be active and involved in lessons. This includes appropriate indoor spaces, such as a gymnasium that is specific for PE, and a large, well-maintained, and safe (e.g., fenced-in, away from the road) outdoor field space. These working conditions align with national recommendations (US Department of Health and Human Services 2010). Most of all, these conditions enable teachers to individualize lessons and create the aforementioned student-centered learning environment. Functionally, PE must be recognized as a meaningful and important component of a holistic education for a twenty-first-century school system. This implies a break from the inheritances of industrial age PE, particularly mind– body dualism (Lawson and Kretchmar 2017). It necessitates the promotion of PE to a legitimate, bona fide subject alongside more traditional subjects such as language arts, mathematics, and science. This legitimization of PE should include recognition of the value that PE provides as a discipline in its own right rather than tethering that value to the role that PE plays in increasing academic performance in other subject areas. To return to a claim offered earlier: Legitimizing PE solely for the benefits it provides to other subjects is just another manifestation of marginalization (Gaudreault et al. 2016). Improving the structural and functional working conditions of PE teachers has the potential to create a cascading effect. Hypothetically, if teachers have high job satisfaction, they will be energized to improve the quality of their instruction, and the quality of PE will likely improve. Those who are highly satisfied with their careers may actively encourage students to view PE as a viable career path, which ultimately leads to development of subjective theories that are more in line with quality practices. Further, individuals who do not enter PETE, but had positive experiences in PE as children, may reflect on those experiences with enjoyment and serve as advocates for the discipline in community and policy contexts.

Moving toward change in the United States The type of systems-level change advocated in the previous section is not the kind of change that can occur overnight (Fullan 2007). It requires a cultural

Redesigning American physical education  129

shift in the way in which both schools and physical education programs are viewed, and it involves the coordination of efforts by policymakers, school administrators, teachers, teacher educators, and families. Among other things, it involves public buy-in to the importance of PE in the US school system. Physical education must be conceptualized as more than just a token subject that occupies a space during the school day, as a break for elementary classroom teachers, or as a way to get children active and increase academic performance in other subjects (Gaudreault et al. 2016). It must be viewed as a critical component of education, one that has equal status with other subjects in school. Since this type of change requires a long-term agenda and may seem daunting, it makes sense to focus on immediate, achievable priorities and branch outward from there. The structural changes to teachers working conditions, for example, are the type of changes that require policy intervention at the federal, state, and local levels (Lounsbery 2017). These critically important policy-level changes are slow to move because they are embedded in a fluid and crowded public sphere and require support from constituents (Houlihan 2002). Mindful of these unavoidable constraints, teachers and teacher educator have key roles to play as policy actors in support of this important public policy agenda. The profession should continue to explore ways to better equip teachers to cope with the challenges they face in the current model of schooling and help them develop the skills necessary for successfully advocating for new policies. For example, functional changes can be influenced at the local level through targeted advocacy initiatives. Resources in support of this policy work are available (e.g., Housner 1996), and there is promising evidence that targeted initiatives within particular school environments can be effective (Lux and McCullick 2011). Part of the challenge rests in the interrelated missions of enhancing the quality of PE instruction provided in schools and the preparation of PE teachers to work in school environments that may offer suboptimal working conditions. If school PE is changed without concurrent changes to teacher education, neophyte teachers will not be prepared to work in the environments they will enter. Similarly, if teacher education changes, but those changes are not supported in school PE, lessons learned during PETE are likely to be washed out (Blankenship and Coleman 2009). Thus, teacher education and ongoing professional development should be targets of reform. The teacher change literature has much to offer in this regard, and suggests that change is also most effective when teachers are conceptualized as partners in the professional development process (Patton et al. 2013). Evidence also indicates that change is most likely when teachers are engaged through professional learning communities, when professional development occurs over time and in a supportive environment, and when they can see the benefits of change in their work with students (Armour and Yelling 2007).

130  Richards, Templin, Woods, and Graber

While some change can be facilitated at the individual teacher level, an emergent line of research (Prusak et al. 2010) provides further insight into how change can be achieved in a more systematic sense. The factors that had allowed one school district to develop a high-quality PE program included (a) a common, mandated curriculum, (b) a full-time district coordinator dedicated to removing barriers and addressing the concerns of PE teachers, (c) an ongoing partnership with a local university, and (d) monthly PE-focused professional development for all teachers. Using a people-first approach, the success of the program was also connected to getting the right teachers in place and developing strategies for successfully overcoming barriers through focused action. This approach reinforces the importance and viability of developing micro-level, local advocacy initiatives to increase the status and visibility of PE. Related to teacher education, we believe that program curricula need to go beyond emphasizing only the knowledge and skills required to teach effectively so to also address preservice teachers’ subjective theories of PE and preparation for life in schools. Toward this end, teacher educators should bear in mind that socialization is a dialectical process (Schempp and Graber 1992), and that preservice teachers can exercise their sense of agency and resist the influence of teacher educators (Graber 1991). Therefore, teacher educators need to recognize that many students enter PETE with misconceptions about the role and purpose of PE, and seek to dialogue about these misconceptions. Some evidence indicates that this is best accomplished during field-based teacher education that promotes continuous reflection through constructivist-oriented teaching strategies including case-based learning, autobiographical essay writing, and group discussion (Richards et al. 2013).

Conclusions and final thoughts Celebrating the success of exemplary PE programming seems premature when thousands of existing programs require improvement. Problems are apparent when students are socialized out of physically active lifestyles, and recruits in PETE programs reproduce rather than challenge prevailing practices that yield sub-optimal results. Program redesign is imperative in the US, and developing strategies offer hope. Enhancing PE teachers’ working conditions with special reference to socializing and supporting novice teachers, and creating student-centered learning environments that engage and support the greatest number of children and youth are critical to success. Finally, local, state, and national champions for change are needed to support and guide redesign initiatives. Professional organizations dedicated to physical education (e.g., SHAPE America) have key roles to play, as do legislators, school administrators, parents, and community members. Viewed in this way, the US redesign agenda is simultaneously local, state, national, and even international.

Redesigning American physical education  131

References Armour, K. and Yelling, M., 2007. Effective professional development for physical education teachers: The role of informal, collaborative learning. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26, 177–200. Blankenship, B. T. and Coleman, M. M., 2009. An examination of “wash out” and workplace conditions of beginning physical education teachers. Physical Educator, 66, 97–111. Carson, R. L., Plemmons, S., Templin, J. T. and Weiss, H. M., 2011. “You are who you are”: A mixed-method study of affectivity and emotional regulation in curbing teacher burnout. In: Reevy, G. M. and Frydenberg, E. eds. Research on stress and coping in education: Vol. 6. Personality, stress, and coping: Implications for education. Charolette, NC: Information Age Publishing, 239–265. Castelli, D., Hillman, C. H., Buck, S. M. and Erwin, H. E., 2007. Physical fitness and academic achievement in third- and fifth-grade students. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 239–252. Curtner-Smith, M., Hastie, P. and Kinchin, G. D., 2008. Influence of occupational socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education. Sport, Education and Society, 13, 97–117. Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M., 2008. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49, 182–185. Evans, J., 2014. Equity and inclusion in physical education PLC. European Physical Education review, 20, 319–334. Fejgin, N., Ephraty, V. and Ben-Sira, D., 1995. Work environment and burnout of physical education teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 64–78. Ferry, M. and McCaughtry, N., 2013. Secondary physical educators and sport content: A love affair. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 32, 375–393. Fullan, M., 2007. The new meaning of educational change. 4th ed. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gaudreault, K. L., Richards, K. A. R. and Woods, A. M., 2016. Understanding the perceived mattering of physical education teachers. Sport, Education and Society. Online first. Doi: Available from: [Accessed 5 April 2018]. Gordon-Larsen, P., Nelson, M. C. and Popkin, B. M., 2004. Longitudinal physical activity and sedentary behavior trends: Adolescence to adulthood. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 27, 277–283. Graber, K., 1991. Studentship in preservice teacher education: A qualitative study of undergraduates in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 41–51. Houlihan, B., 2002. Sporting excellence, school and sports development: The policies of crowded policy spaces. European Physical Education Review, 6 (2), 171–194. Housner, L., 1996. Innovation and change in physical education. In: Silverman, S. J. and Ennis, C. eds. Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 367–390. Kirk, D., 2013. Educational value and models-based instruction. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45, 973–986.

132  Richards, Templin, Woods, and Graber Kougioumtzis, K., Patriksson, G. and Stråhlman, O., 2011. Physical education teachers’ professionalization: A review of occupational power and professional control. European Physical Education Review, 17, 111–129. Lacey, C., 1977. The socialization of teachers. London: Methuen. Laureano, J., Konukman, F., Gümüşdağ, H., Erdoğan, S., Yu, J. and Çekin, R., 2014. Effects of marginalization on school physical education programs: A literature review. Physical Culture and Sport: Studies and Research, 64, 29–40. Lawson, H. A. and Kretchmar, R. S., 2017. A generative synthesis for kinesiology: Lessons from history and visions for the future. Kinesiology Review, 6, 195–210. Levesque-Bristol, C., Sell, G. R. and Zimmerman, J. A., 2006. A theory-based integrative model for learning and motivation in higher education. In: ChadwickBlossey, S. and Robertson, D. R. eds. To Improve the Academy. Boston, MA: Anker, 86–103. Lounsbery, M. A. F., 2017. School physical activity: Policy matters. Kinesiology Review, 6, 51–59. Lux, K. and McCullick, B. A., 2011. How one exceptional teacher navigated her working environment as the teacher of a marginal subject. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 358–374. O’Neil, K. and Richards, K. A. R., 2018. Breaking from traditionalism: Strategies for the recruitment of physical education teachers. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 89 2, 34–41. O’Sullivan, M., 1989. Failing gym is like failing lunch or recess: Two beginning teachers’ struggle for legitimacy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8, 227–242. Patton, K., Parker, M. and Pratt, E., 2013. Meaningful learning in professional development: Teaching without telling. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 32, 441–459. Prusak, K. A., Pennington, T., Graser, S. V., Beighle, A. and Morgan, C. F., 2010. Systematic success in physical education: The east valley phenomenon. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29, 85–106. Richards, K. A. R., 2015. Role socialization theory: The sociopolitical realities of teaching physical education. European Physical Education Review, 21, 379–393. Richards, K. A. R. and Levesque-Bristol, C., 2014. Student learning and motivation in physical education. Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators, 27 2, 43–46. Richards, K. A. R., Templin, T. J. and Gaudreault, K. L., 2013. Understanding the realities of school life: Recommendations for the preparation of physical education teachers. Quest, 65, 442–457. Richards, K. A. R., Templin, T. J. and Graber, K., 2014. The socialization of teachers in physical education: Review and recommendations for future works. Kinesiology Review, 3, 113–134. Schaefer, K. M. and Zygmont, D., 2003. Analyzing the teaching style of nursing faculty: Does it promote a student-centered or teacher-centered learning environment? Nursing Education Perspectives, 24, 238–245. Schempp, P. G. and Graber, K., 1992. Teacher socialization from a dialectical perspective: Pretraining through induction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 329–348. Schempp, P. G., Sparkes, A. and Templin, T. J., 1993. The micropolitics of teacher induction. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 447–472.

Redesigning American physical education  133 Society of Health and Physical Educators America, 2014. National standards and grade-level outcomes for K-12 physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. US Department of Health and Human Services, 2010. Healthy people 2020. Washington, DC: Author. Wahl-Alexander, Z. and Curtner-Smith, M., 2015. Influence of negotiations between preservice teachers and pupils on instruction within multiactivity and sport education units. Sport, Education and Society, 20, 838–854. Woods, A. M., Richards, K. A. R. and Ayers, S. F., 2016. All in: Teachers’ and college faculty’s roles in recruiting future physical educators. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 87 4, 18–23.

Chapter 7

Redesigning physical education in Canada Tim Fletcher Jenna Lorusso Joannie Halas

Proposals for PE’s redesign are worthy of consideration in Canada. Mirroring Lawson’s analysis, Canadian redesign priorities include the takenfor-granted history of the Industrial Age school and its sustained influence; the need for a varied set of models or approaches that are based on the diverse needs of young people and the contexts in which they are situated; and supports for teachers and other policy actors who will be tasked with implementing redesign proposals. Beyond these commonalities, the redesign of Canadian PE must be context-specific. Constrained by word limits, we provide a provisional analysis, emphasizing selected strengths and challenges that have particular relevance for the Canadian context. Specifically, we take our position in response to the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC 2015), which was established to document stories of Indian Residential School (IRS) survivors and address the harmful legacies of this colonial system. The TRC’s 94 Calls to Action toward reconciliation with Indigenous Canadians includes directives for education, health, and sport. Mindful that we are white PE teacher educators with a colonial settler heritage, we respectfully adopt an Indigenous perspective of relationality (Wilson 2008). This perspective recognizes the interconnectedness of all things, including our relationships with ourselves, each other, our ideas (i.e., policies, programs, practices), and the cosmos (i.e., body, mind, heart and spirit). In brief, when we discuss redesign we think holistically. For example, we consider how big P and little p policies impact PE programs, practices, teachers, and teacher educators, which ultimately connects them to students’ emotional, physical, cognitive, and spiritual experiences.

Taking stock of PE’s current status in Canada The Canadian context is both intriguing and challenging. For example, education is governed by Canada’s ten provinces and three territories, while on reserve education for Indigenous students is governed by local First Nations, Métis and Inuit (FNMI) authorities. The intention of this complicated governance structure is to ensure that curricular outcomes are

Redesigning physical education in Canada  135

tied to the particular needs of young people in each distinct region. In this chapter, we draw primarily on our PE and teacher education (PETE) experiences in the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, while acknowledging the diversity of PE in Canada, including in francophone communities. PE curricula, accountability, and implementation in Canada At the curricular level the provinces/territories are arguably more alike than different, due, in part, to policy transfer across jurisdictions. For example, three territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut) use their neighboring provinces’ curricula, while Prince Edward Island has reproduced and adapted both Saskatchewan’s and Ontario’s PE curricula. Moreover, recent curricular content analyses indicate that few primary/elementary PE learning outcomes are unique to any particular province (Kilborn et al. 2016). As with all subject areas in Canada, PE is highly specified with inherent accountability mechanisms. This means each province/territory produces fairly detailed curriculum documents that include intended learning outcomes to be assessed and evaluated by teachers. These same documents provide accountability structures for teachers and students regarding progression from one grade to the next (Kilborn et al. 2016). If redesign is an imperative only when there is little or no agreement on curricular outcomes, the existing curricular uniformity presents an agenda more suited for continuous reform and quality improvement. However, redesign is the appropriate frame when attention turns to the delivery mechanisms for achieving context-specific, learning outcomes. For example, only a few provinces provide designated PE specialists and adequate time in the K-12 curriculum for students to access quality PE experiences. This lack of resources and support for implementation significantly influences students’ abilities to progress in their learning and thus represents an area in which redesign is needed. A PE lens on educational priorities and progress in Canada Notwithstanding challenges related to FNMI education, a generally positive perception about Canada’s education system(s) prevails. In provincial schools, teachers are well respected, highly trained (including many opportunities for ongoing professional learning), and well compensated (Campbell 2017). Reforms are ongoing and, in some cases, could be considered as examples of redesign. In Ontario, many students are reaching or surpassing achievement standards on areas of the curriculum deemed important by certain stakeholders (ibid.). This strength may be a by-product of the recent prioritization of what Lawson describes as a learning-oriented and identity development curriculum, with the key learning outcomes addressing identity, equity, engagement, and well-being.

136  Fletcher, Lorusso, and Halas

While a focus on equity is a rhetorical strength of Canada’s espoused educational policies and programs, this does not always match the realities in schools and PETE programs. As Lawson mentioned, PE can do good or harm, and there is evidence of both occurring in Canada (Mandigo and Lathrop 2014). In brief, Canadians still have a long way to go on many fronts, especially with regard to Indigenous students and the educational gaps they experience. For example, the TRC’s (2015) eighth Call to Action seeks to eliminate the discrepancies in federal funding between FNMI children educated on and off reserve. Children growing up in their home communities on reserve often attend underfunded FNMI schools, significantly impacting the quality and cultural relevance of PE in those contexts (Halas et al. 2012). Inequitable graduation rates for Indigenous and other marginalized youth (e.g., Blacks) are also evident (Shen 2017), which has implications for who goes on to study PE in higher education. Sports and PE in the IRS contributed to experiences of harm because they were used as tools of assimilation, character development, and disease prevention that stood in stark contrast to the ways Indigenous people engaged in movement and healthy living (Forsyth 2013). Physical cultural practices that were land-based and purposeful were replaced by physical training, calisthenics, mass gymnastics, and competitive sports commonly found in the PE curricula of public schools (ibid). A strategic priority of the colonial project, the IRS system was one aspect of many federal policies that have contributed to abject health disparities between Indigenous and nonIndigenous Canadians (Daschuk 2013). When considering innovative policy and curricula structured to achieve outcomes of identity, equity, engagement, and well-being, a radical Canadian redesign agenda results, particularly in schools that serve Indigenous students or young people from other marginalized groups. However, it remains to be seen if PE teacher educators and leaders have the political will and/or the policy savvy to engage with and convince educational decision-makers to commit to an equity agenda. Few PE leaders have been prepared to initiate cross-sector policy work.

PE redesign priorities in Canada Among the several targets for redesign, three are timely and important: (1) identity and equity, (2) well-being, and (3) implementation at the nexus of policy, ethics, and culture. 1 Identity/equity Equity-oriented PE for all students has not been achieved in Canada. Teaching and learning within PE in Canada remains entrenched within heteronormative cultures of whiteness that affirm the identities of the

Redesigning physical education in Canada  137

majority culture while excluding and/or diminishing cultures of Indigenous peoples and other minorities (Douglas and Halas 2013; Sykes 2011). Given that Indigenous, immigrant, “newcomer,” and refugee students comprise the fastest growing demographic in Canada (Statistics Canada 2017), this aspect of the redesign agenda is urgent. Clearly, there is a pressing need for greater diversity in the pedagogies used in PE, and PETE programs need to better prepare teachers to develop anti-racist and intercultural practices, and the confidence to engage respectfully, effectively, and affirmatively with diverse groups. To this end, three constraints are redesign priorities. First, predominantly white PE teachers and teacher educators do not feel they have the expertise, time or comfort levels to teach about race, whiteness, and Indigenous issues (e.g., see Douglas and Halas 2013), nor do they feel confident to teach about sexual and gender diversity (Cohen et al. 2012). A second constraint is that undergraduate PETE students are primarily white and do not represent the increasingly diverse communities where they may eventually teach (Douglas and Halas 2013). To compound this matter, PETE curricula lack attention to issues of race and sexual diversity, with both of these issues identified as the least covered in the curriculum (Douglas and Halas 2013). Constraints always reveal facilitators. Regarding the relationship PE/PETE has with Indigenous communities, the Calls to Action (TRC CA) in Canada’s TRC Final Report (2015) offer ethically driven support for Canadian physical educators to renew relationships with Indigenous peoples in bold, transformative ways. Four specific TRC CA (in italics) align with calls for redesign in PE: ••



Provision of sufficient funding to close identified educational achievement gaps including educational attainment levels and success rates, which is necessary for FNMI students to: access quality and culturally relevant PE programs, graduate high school, and enter into post-secondary PE degree programs (TRC CA #10: i, ii; #11); Develop culturally appropriate curricula to introduce Indigenous practices into mainstream PE curricular content. Traditional Indigenous games, activities, song, dance, and land-based curriculum and practices are examples of the curricula that require the hiring of Indigenous scholars and educators. Recently, this call to action has been taken up in the form of several job advertisements for Indigenous scholars in Canadian PETE programs, with the University of Manitoba setting a leading example (TRC CA #10: iii); Identify that teacher education needs to build student capacity for intercultural understanding, empathy, and mutual respect while providing the necessary funding to post-secondary institutions to educate teachers on how to integrate Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods into classrooms. The introduction of Indigenous ways of knowing along

138  Fletcher, Lorusso, and Halas


with anti-racist pedagogies are two measures for achieving these goals (TRC CA #62: ii–iv); Physical activity is to be promoted as a fundamental element of health and well-being and barriers to sports participation are to be reduced along with . . . stable funding for, and access to, community sports programs that reflect the diverse cultures and traditional sporting activities of Aboriginal peoples and programs for coaches, trainers, and sports officials that are culturally relevant for Aboriginal peoples. Implementation depends on dedicated recruitment and retention policies that allow increased numbers of Indigenous youth to pursue post-secondary studies in PE, and increased links between PETE programs and Indigenous communities to develop Indigenous-led and determined collaborative initiatives related to sport, PE, and physical activity (TRC CA #87–89).

In response to the TRC CA, the Physical and Health Education Canada Research Council (PHECRC) passed a motion calling upon the Canadian Council of Physical Education and Kinesiology Administrators (CCUPEKA), the organization that accredits undergraduate PE and Kinesiology programs, to commit to the following initiatives that are proportional to promising redesign: (a) establish clear targets for the recruitment and retention of Indigenous and racialized minority scholars and students, with plans to ensure their success in the academy; (b) include required courses addressing colonization, race, whiteness, and diversity; and (c) provide professional development workshops related to anti-racism, cultures of whiteness, and Indigeneity for faculty, staff, and students. If CCUPEKA member institutions adopt the above measures—which we and others support (Shen 2017)— more inclusive and socially just versions of Canadian PE may be possible, standing as exemplars of redesign. 2 Well-being Significant attention has been paid to students’ well-being in Canada. Although well-being is a holistic concept, slippage in policy and practice has reduced concerns of well-being to measurable indicators of physical and mental health. For example, the annual ParticipACTION Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth (2016) cites metrics from moderate to vigorous physical activity levels in PE to screen time to active transport to and from school. Other outlets continue to note increases in levels of anxiety and depression. Two concepts, physical literacy and health literacy, have been used as a proxy for well-being in Canadian PE policy and practice. Each merits attention in the redesign agenda. Physical literacy Physical literacy (Whitehead 2001) is in use as a conceptual tool to guide big P policy decisions across several sectors. For example, physical literacy

Redesigning physical education in Canada  139

frames much of the mission of professional organizations such as Physical and Health Education (PHE) Canada and Sport for Life Canada, which serve PE teachers and youth sport coaches, respectively. Moreover, several recently revised provincial curriculum documents in British Columbia, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island use physical literacy as the conceptual framework to guide teachers’ pedagogical decision-making. Physical literacy and its holistic philosophy has been a catalyst for increased appreciation for Indigenous and Eastern approaches to movement (e.g., traditional and land-based activities, Tai Chi, yoga) which attend to mindfulness, spirituality, and wellness, and “alternative” PE content, such as Zumba, circus, and outdoor pursuits, all of which are now being taught in many schools. Physical literacy has also been subject to some of the interpretive and implementation challenges noted by Lawson. For example, educational scholars aligned with Whitehead’s (2001) holistic definition of physical literacy, recognizing the embodied experience of movement across the lifespan. In contrast, sport scholars prioritized motor skill development and the contribution of physical literacy to long-term athlete development, while public health scholars view physical literacy as a measurable entity aligned with heightened physical activity levels and synonymous with fundamental movement skills. All such competing approaches to physical literacy diminish its ability to serve as a helpful tool to promote children’s holistic experiences of and relationship to embodied movement. However, a promising development has import for PE’s redesign. Bridges have been built across sectors as evidenced by Canada’s Physical Literacy Consensus Statement (2015). This initiative brought together stakeholders from education, sport, public health, and recreation to agree upon a definition of physical literacy that could be readily understood, adapted, and applied in practice by policy actors such as teachers, coaches, and recreational leaders. Similar bridge-building efforts are evident at the scholarly level (e.g., Dudley et al. 2017). This work, along with a healthy dialogue regarding the scientific rigor of applications and assessments of physical literacy (e.g., Robinson and Randall 2017) holds promise, particularly in terms of establishing accountability structures for the application of practices implemented in the name of physical literacy and extended to enacted policy. The unfulfilled promise is that more young people will have PE experiences that are holistic and diverse, extending from experiences in school to a rich, meaningful life. Health literacy Like physical literacy, the concept of health literacy, and health education more broadly, is becoming increasingly prominent across Canada. Although health literacy is arguably a more recent and less institutionalized development than its physical counterpart, it is already associated with a number of prominent initiatives to connect and integrate these initiatives. It can be

140  Fletcher, Lorusso, and Halas

argued that Canadian physical educators have a professional responsibility to attend to health literacy in redesign because PE and health education are represented as a single (or combined) subject area in three of Canada’s ten provincial/ territorial curricula. Even when health and PE are separate in policy, they are connected in practice. Health literacy currently frames part of the vision for organizations such as PHE Canada and some recently revised provincial PE and health curricula (e.g., Ontario). In PHE Canada’s 2017–2020 Strategic Plan, the term health occupies a prominent discursive position. For example, the front page of the document has a banner/subtitle reading Healthy Schools. Healthy Children. Healthy Communities (p. 1). What is more, the term health precedes reference to the term physical in the vision statement (and in some of the discussion of literacies); and in the Advocates and Activists section the organization states its desire to “increase public awareness of the relationship between health and education” (p. 8; PHE Canada 2017). Given this discourse it is not surprising that PHE Canada’s two most recent initiatives are health-focused. They include the creation of a Healthy School Communities National Forum (held first in 2015 and again in 2017), and the release of the resource Teach Resiliency: Equipping Teachers to Promote Positive Mental Health (launched in May 2017). It is noteworthy that most PE teachers and teacher educators have not been involved in this aforementioned Forum or resource development. At least two stakeholder groups, who might be simplistically categorized as health educators and physical educators, appear to be operating like two ships passing in the night. This separation was evident in Schaefer and Lorusso’s (2017) analysis of published research by Canadian PE and health education scholars. No authors of the health education articles analyzed were members of the PHECRC. Physical literacy, health literacy, and redesign The health literacy and physical literacy developments in Canada offer an important opportunity for PE/PETE redesign. Before these health literacy initiatives become institutionalized as the exclusive territory of health educators, PE teachers and teacher educators must ensure the initiatives are holistic and include the physical domain as appropriate. This bridgebuilding, unifying action is a moral obligation on behalf of children. It probably necessitates the invitation of health educators to the PHECRC or physical educators to attend the Healthy Schools National Forum. Either way, PE stakeholders must get involved; if not for the important cause of holistic education, then at least for the continued relevancy of Canada’s PE profession in service of the nation’s children.

Redesigning physical education in Canada  141

3 The nexus of policy, ethics, and culture All such policy shifts depend in part on curricular renewal and the oftenstifling politics associated with it (Kilborn et al. 2016). In particular, there is tremendous dependence on policy actors (including teachers) and the ways cultural and ethical facilitators and constraints interact to influence implementation. In Canada these actors primarily include the generalist and specialist teachers of PE and the PE teacher educators responsible for interpreting policy and enacting it. Like Lawson, we claim that redesign will be easier to carry out if change-agents are driven by moral imperatives, ethical obligations, and social responsibilities. With some notable exceptions (such as Manitoba), generalist classroom teachers are responsible for teaching PE, particularly at the primary/ elementary level. On one hand, generalists tend to have less time, as well as low levels of knowledge and confidence for teaching PE, which serves as a barrier to their ability to implement PE curricula effectively. On the other hand, what could be construed as a lack of commitment to particular versions of PE may mean generalists are open to new and innovative approaches to PE (Fletcher 2012). When redesign is the priority, generalist teachers may be positioned as (perhaps) unlikely allies who are willing to disrupt traditional versions of PE and embrace those of the future. Alternatively, provinces with specialists in place may lead regional redesign efforts in promising ways. For example, Manitoba has a strong history of policy and curricular innovation and implementation that has been driven by designated PE specialists and held accountable through rigorous evaluation, such as the mandated Grade 11/12 PE policy that recognizes out-of-school physical activity for PE credit (Hobin et al. 2017). Yet, at the same time, physical educators in Atlantic Canada “are largely satisfied with the state of physical education with . . . little-to-no perceived need for internal reform” (Robinson and Randall 2016a, p. 1). Such variable scenarios reinforce our claims about the diversity of PE in Canada. Mindful of this diversity, we are encouraged by any and all efforts to challenge the culture of “this is as good as it gets” thinking. Be it generalists, specialists, or a combination of the two, the moving target for PE remains the health and education of all children, especially those who have been ignored, excluded, or marginalized by our pedagogies. We are optimistic that the redesign initiatives related to identity/equity, that is, the destabilization of whiteness in PE in Canada, are likely to see progress given the ethical policy facilitation provided by the TRC (2015). Here, success will require relationship building that leads to respectful collaboration with Indigenous peoples and communities. With regard to wellbeing, and in particular health literacy/health education, the bridge-building

142  Fletcher, Lorusso, and Halas

redesign that is still required for some initiatives currently lacks a similar ethically informed policy facilitator. Perhaps the bridging work done in the name of physical literacy in Canada may serve as a useful exemplar because it indicates that there are many leaders in our communities who are willing and able to act as facilitators. All such promising initiatives are tied to public policies; arguably an area that PE leaders need to prioritize. Meeting the diverse needs of young people across Canada requires big P thinking that enables and rewards context-specific, little p actions designed to achieve equitable outcomes. Physical educators of all kinds simply must become policy-literate advocates for programs and practices that serve all young people and dedicate themselves to build relationships with and for the increasingly diverse population that defines Canada.

Concluding thoughts One of the benefits we authors have derived from this project is a better appreciation of the body of context-specific policy analyses and descriptive works produced by the community of PE/PETE scholars in Canada, including critical discourses related to diversity in Canadian PE textbooks (e.g., Robinson and Randall 2016b). These scholarly works have allowed us to make several evidence-based justifications for our redesign proposals, but also to identify avenues that warrant further attention. Lawson’s call for design science in PE/PETE research offers a helpful map to follow, aiming to generate data that enables phased-in “is statements” (descriptive research reviews, such as enrolment data, that explain the status quo) and “ought statements” (identification and operationalization of core values expressed as mission statements and goals) to be made. For example, our analysis highlights the need for demographic enrolment data of Canadian PE/PETE degree programs, as well as data that tracks graduates’ employment placement/rates. These data will be critical to: (a) address equity targets for prospective and practicing PE teachers and teacher educators; (b) hold PE/PETE stakeholders in Canada accountable to their commitment to reconciliation and relationship building with Indigenous peoples; and (c) combat situations where administrators have used the lack of data as license to make unsubstantiated statements to justify undergraduate PE program closures and/or faculty name changes that marginalize PE and its educative aims (e.g., Smith and Côté 2017). The many strengths in Canadian PE/PETE provide a foundation for our calls for change, both reformist and transformative. When we describe an unfinished agenda and identify important needs and opportunities (e.g., connecting physical literacy and health literacy; responding to Indigenous, LGBTQ and other marginalized youth), we aim to disrupt the tendency to take inherited systems for granted.

Redesigning physical education in Canada  143

Successful policies, programs, and practices provide hope that all young people will feel they belong in PE, that their identities and experiences will be affirmed in ways that facilitate powerful learning and long term goals for healthy development. To this end, strengths-based, context-specific selfreflection and continuous evaluation, facilitated by research and founded on core values, are ethical imperatives for policy and practice leaders in Canada and beyond.

References Campbell, C., 2017. Developing teachers’ professional learning: Canadian evidence and experiences in a world of educational improvement. Canadian Journal of Education, 40 2, 1–33. Canada’s physical literacy consensus statement, 2015. Available from http://physical [Accessed 1 November 2017] Cohen, J. N., Byers, E. S., and Sears, H. A., 2012. Factors affecting Canadian teachers’ willingness to teach sexual health education. Sex Education, 12 3, 299–316. Daschuk, J., 2013. Clearing the plains: Disease, politics of starvation, and the loss of Aboriginal life. Regina, SK: University of Regina Press. Douglas, D., and Halas, J., 2013. The wages of whiteness: Confronting the nature of ivory tower racism and the implications for physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 18 4, 453–474. Dudley, D., Cairney, J., Wainwright, N., Kriellaars, D., and Mitchell, D., 2017. Critical considerations for physical literacy policy in public health, recreation, sport, and education agencies. Quest, 69 4, 436–452. Fletcher, T., 2012. Experiences and identities: Pre-service elementary classroom teachers being and becoming teachers of physical education. European Physical Education Review, 18 3, 380–395. Forsyth, J., 2013. Bodies of meaning: Sports and games at Canadian residential schools. In J. Forsyth and A. Giles, eds. Aboriginal peoples and sport in Canada: Historical foundations and contemporary issues. Vancouver: UBC Press, 15–34. Halas, J., McRae, H., and Carpenter, A., 2012. The quality and cultural relevance of physical education for Aboriginal youth: Challenges and opportunities. In J. Forsyth and A. Giles, eds. Red and white: Aboriginal peoples and sport in Canada. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 182–205. Hobin, E., Erickson, T., Comte, M., Zuo, F., Pasha, S., Murnaghan, D., Manske, S., Casey, C., Griffith, J., and McGavock, J., 2017. Examining the impact of a provincewide physical education policy on secondary students’ physical activity as a natural experiment. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14 98, 1–15. Kilborn, M., Lorusso, J., and Francis, N., 2016. An analysis of Canadian physical education curricula. European Physical Education Review, 22 1, 23–46. Mandigo, J., and Lathrop, A., 2014. The relevance of physical literacy in the development of physical education curriculum and pedagogy in Canada. In M.-K. Chin and C. R. Edginton, eds. Physical education and health: Global perspectives and best practice. Urbana, IL: Sagamore, 93–106.

144  Fletcher, Lorusso, and Halas ParticipACTION, 2016. Are Canadian kids too tired to move? The 2016 ParticipACTION Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth. Toronto: Author. PHE Canada, 2017. 2017–2020 Strategic plan: Healthy schools. Healthy children. Healthy communities. Available from: tegic_plan_final_en_web.pdf [Accessed 31 October 2017] Robinson, D. B., and Randall, L., 2016a. Smooth sailing or stormy seas? Atlantic Canadian physical educators on the state and future of physical education. Canadian Journal of Education, 39 1, 1–31. Robinson, D., and Randall, L., eds. 2016b. Physical education and social justice: Critical reflections and pedagogies for change. Toronto: Women’s Press. Robinson, D. B., and Randall, L., 2017. Marking physical literacy or missing the mark on physical literacy? A conceptual critique of Canada’s Physical Literacy Assessment Instruments. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 21 1, 40–55. Schaefer, L., and Lorusso, J. R., 2017. An analysis of five years of published research on physical and health education by scholars in Canada (2010–2015). Paper presented at the Physical and Health Education Canada Research Council Forum – St. John’s, NL. Shen, A., 2017. Canadian universities commit to progress on equity, diversity and inclusion. University Affairs. Available from: news-article/canadian-universities-commit-progress-equity-diversity-inclusion/ [Accessed 1 December 2017] Smith, G., and Côté, J., 2017. Closure of the bachelor of physical & health education (BPHE) programs. Available from: [Accessed 4 November 2017] Statistics Canada, 2017. Aboriginal peoples in Canada: Key results from the 2016 census. Available from: [Accessed 27 October 2017] Sykes, H., 2011. Queer bodies: Sexualities, genders, and fatness in physical education. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015. Honouring the truth. Reconciling the future. Summary of Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Available from: 2015/Honouring_the_Truth_Reconciling_for_the_Future_July_23_2015.pdf [Accessed 1 August 2017] Whitehead, M., 2001. The concept of physical literacy. European Journal of Physical Education, 6 2, 127–138. Wilson, S., 2008. Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Halifax, NS: Fernwood.

Chapter 8

Redesigning physical education in Scotland David Kirk Farid Bardid Cara A. Lamb John D. Millar Eishin Teraoka Introduction Physical education (PE) has a firmly established place in Scottish schools as evidenced by several key indicators: (1) Inclusion in the ‘core curriculum’ since the early 1970s; (2) A national examination (‘certificated’) of PE, lending it the same status as other senior high school subjects for university entrance; (3) Specialist PE teachers, originating with founding of the Dunfermline College of Physical Education (for women) in 1906 and then the Scottish School of Physical Education (for men) in 1932; (4) Professional support for specialist teachers (e.g. newly graduating teachers gain access to Masters level qualifications with government funding and PE teachers enjoy parity of pay and promotion prospects with teachers of other school subjects); and (5) PE teacher education programmes attract many more qualified applicants than can be offered places, resulting in an oversupply of PE teachers. Given this description of the situation in Scotland, and with Lawson’s Introduction as an evaluative framework, it might be tempting to conclude that the status quo is justifiable and incremental improvements, not radical redesign, comprise the agenda in Scotland. Indeed, advocates of appreciative inquiry (e.g., Enright et al. 2014) can find much to rejoice about, including McMillan (2017) who challenged ‘unfair’ accounts of teachers’ practices. Appearances, however, can be deceptive. Although there is much to celebrate about PE in Scottish schools, teachers would be hard-pressed to provide evidence, beyond their personal observations, of pupils’ learning during the broad general education (BGE) phase for ages three-15. Moreover, PE teachers’ professional socialization and working conditions are not ideal. Novice teachers are as likely as teachers from other countries to experience the ‘wash-out effect’ of any radical reform impulses they might harbor due to the reality shock of the first two years of employment (Thorburn and Gray 2010). Recruits’ subjective warrant (Dewar and Lawson 1984) for PE teaching remains as powerful in today’s Scotland as it did in the United States during the early 1980s. A love of sport, a desire to work with people, and being outdoors are key components.

146  Kirk, Bardid, Lamb, Millar, and Teraoka

Meanwhile, external challenges loom. Children aged three to six years, particularly those living in multiple deprivation, are at risk of motor development delay (Goodway and Rudisill 1997). They are unlikely to be supported optimally in practicing and developing their motor skills because specialist expertise in movement and PE is lacking, especially in early childhood education and primary education. What is more, PE teachers may not be well equipped to provide the education needed by children with mental health problems (Teraoka et al. 2017). The multi-activity curriculum and its subject matter organizing principle remain influential within the wider configuration of physical education-assport techniques (Teraoka et al. 2017; Thorburn and Gray 2010). This institutionalized form limits what might be achieved within the BGE (preschool to middle school) and senior (high school) phases of pupils’ school careers. It shapes PE thought and practice at all levels of school and higher education, making it difficult for new initiatives to take root. On the other hand, the relative professional freedom of PE teachers in Scotland enables local responses to global problems such as physical inactivity, precarity, and poor mental health among young people. As such, and echoing Lawson, we propose key principles for PE redesign in Scottish schools. All optimize the educational benefits to pupils, whilst supporting teachers in their professional work and development. We view this agenda as systems change undertaken in Scotland’s policy context.

The education system in Scotland From the beginning, Scotland has had its own systems for Education, Finance and the Law. The Education system has retained this independence, and Acts of Parliament specific to Scotland are required to introduce new legislation. Thirty-two local authorities are charged with operating schools and employing teachers, while remaining in compliance with national policy. At the age of five, children begin primary school, which they attend for seven years. At the age of 12, they move to secondary school for a further four years, with an optional two years of senior high school. Early Years provision, known as early childhood education and preschool in other nations, is also available for children under five years of age. It also is operated by the local authorities. At the ages 15/16 and 17/18, young people take the first and second set of national exams, the latter of which permit matriculation to higher education. It should be noted that individuals can leave school at the age of 16 (Smith 2013). PE is configured in accordance with this context. It is a required subject at all levels of the school system up to age 16, with provision for approximately two hours per week. In primary school, generally classroom teachers teach PE. However, some larger primary schools employ a specialist

Redesigning physical education in Scotland  147

physical PE, and ‘Active Schools’ coordinators also offer support for additional physical activity and sport provision. In secondary schools, only specialist teachers teach PE.

Curriculum for excellence Scotland’s national school curriculum, Curriculum for Excellence (CfE), was implemented in 2010 to provide learners with opportunities to develop knowledge, skills and attributes for life, learning and work (Scottish Government 2009). This purpose is encapsulated in CfE’s ‘four capacities’: successful learners, responsible citizens, effective contributors and confident individuals. Two phases provide structure: (1) broad general education (BGE), which is the compulsory phase of schooling; and (2) the senior phase, where pupils can gain national qualifications for positive leaver destinations beyond secondary school. In the BGE phase, learning is organized into eight curricular areas. PE is located in the area of Health and Wellbeing (HWB), which covers mental, emotional, social and physical aspects. Significantly, HWB is a core learning area within the curriculum along with literacy and numeracy, and it is the responsibility of all teachers (Scottish Executive 2006). Each curricular area has a set of experiences and outcomes underpinning curriculum planning. PE experiences and outcomes are set alongside those for physical activity and sport. Benchmarks further clarify these experiences and outcomes and support teachers in assessment of pupil learning (Education Scotland 2017). Table 8.1 provides a summary.

Table 8.1  An example of an experience and outcome of health and wellbeing with corresponding benchmarks Experience and outcome

Benchmarks to support practitioner’s professional judgment

I am developing the skills to lead and recognize strengths of group members, including myself. I contribute to groups and teams through my knowledge of individual strengths, group tactics, and strategies. (HWB 3-23a)

Demonstrates self-reliance and self-worth through engaging in challenging tasks. Demonstrates the value of positive relationships while working and learning with others. Constructs/co-constructs criteria to evaluate personal and group performance. Self-assesses and acts as a peer assessor to provide constructive feedback to modify/ enhance performance. Takes the initiative to celebrate, value and build on achievements as part of the learning journey.

148  Kirk, Bardid, Lamb, Millar, and Teraoka

The statements in Table 8.1 fall under the category ‘Personal Qualities’ in the curriculum documentation. All may contribute to four domains of learning (physical, social, cognitive and affective), although such a comprehensive contribution depends on teachers’ enactment of these learning outcomes. Significantly, these organizing statements provide teachers with professional freedom to challenge the status-quo at a time when appropriate. However, and despite reports of good pedagogical practices by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education, a traditional skill-focused and teacherdirected approach continues to dominate PE in Scotland (Thorburn and Gray 2010). The influence of this traditional approach on learners’ perceptions of competence is evident in the persisting dichotomy of ‘sporty’ and ‘non-sporty’ identities (Mitchell, Gay and Inchley 2015). In light of the holistic framework and purpose of the CfE, this standardized type of teaching approach is not the best choice. In Building the Curriculum 1, the following is written about learning and teaching in HWB: “Acquiring skills, knowledge and understanding about health and wellbeing, however, is not enough. The aim is that young people should develop a commitment to promoting their own health and wellbeing throughout their lives” (Scottish Executive 2006, p. 10). If obtaining skills, knowledge and understanding is insufficient, would a skill-focused programme be the best interpretation of the present curriculum? Redesign may therefore be plausible, if not desirable, but with manifest challenges. For example, although it may seem possible to challenge the status quo by simply providing teachers more professional freedom, teachers are also known to engage in ‘acts of curriculum maintenance’ (Lawson 1988). Thorburn and Gray (2010) suggest that, in order to promote real change, it may be important to work with teachers in the reform of their fundamental beliefs about teaching, learning and curriculum.

National qualifications in physical education Pupils are offered PE in Scottish secondary schools as a high-stakes assessment-based subject leading to the award of national certificates. These senior phase certificates open up post-school learning and career opportunities, including university entrance. Certificated PE is on a par with other school subjects. The examination-based curriculum was first introduced to Scottish secondary education in 1999, bringing together subject qualifications into one multilevel framework for pupils (Bryce 2003). In 2014, a further wave of reform established national qualifications for pupils ages 15–18 years (National 4, 5 and Higher certificates) in an attempt to improve transition from the BGE phase into certification, and to increase attainment levels across curricular areas (Thorburn 2017). The 2014 initiatives posed significant challenges for teachers and included major changes to course content, structure and assessment. Currently,

Redesigning physical education in Scotland  149

National 5, taken around age 16, is formally assessed through a pupil-focused portfolio. Pupils are assessed in two practical activities within schools, with grading accuracy and consistency quality-assured through external verification. This process involves highly credible teaching staff visiting schools, observations of a selection of practical performances, and crosschecking against SQA certified standards that the school is accurate in its assessment. The current Higher certificate, taken at age 17 or 18, involves practical assessment in one physical activity and one summative written examination of 90 minutes. The examination challenges pupils to describe, explain, evaluate and analyse different forms of data collection methods, intervention approaches to improve personal performance and evaluation tools. For National 5 and Higher courses, students currently receive five timetabled classes of 50 minutes per week. Two involve classroom-based ‘theoretical’ lessons. When Thorburn (1999) asked pupils if they ‘were doing real PE today’ as they did classroom-based work, s/he discovered that pupils’ engagement was invariably poorer compared to practice-based sessions. Later, Thorburn and Collins (2006) found that pupils preferred physical activity lessons with follow-up homework tasks to classroom-based lessons with no homework tasks. This research indicates a discrepancy between pupils’ preferences and mandated requirements. Even so, many teachers would support the argument that specific contact time for classroom-based topics is required to further pupils’ understanding of PE content, particularly at Higher level (Thorburn 2017). The SQA (2014) states that the Higher course of PE supports pupils’ development of a range of complex skills in challenging contexts as well as their ability to analyze r personal performance and apply this knowledge to improve it. More recently, formal assessment for national certificates has become a priority. Teachers hold certificated PE in high regard, but several tensions have limited its overall impact, in particular the expectation that teachers deliver a curriculum constructed by agents and agencies external to the school environment. While many teachers do not necessarily wish to be involved in the curriculum development process, they express a desire to receive appropriate training and resources from central agencies (MacPhail 2007). PE teachers are particularly performance-proud and want to be seen to be strong practitioners in the senior phase of schooling. However, the BGE phase complicates their work. This phase remains the fundamental focus for all teaching staff. Through effective learning and teaching senior phase uptake and quality of pupil performance should naturally follow. Leaders anticipated challenges. Early in the development of certificated PE, Brewer (2003) warned that physical educators should be wary of becoming ‘trapped by certification’ to the detriment of the BGE phase. Thorburn’s (2017) recent “insider reflections” suggest this may already have happened.

150  Kirk, Bardid, Lamb, Millar, and Teraoka

Responding to external challenges: Motor development in the early years Jess and Collins (2003) noted that the PE of young children in Scotland had become a topic of public interest as the twenty-first century dawned. Unlike many other countries, they claimed that specialist PE teachers were in primary schools in many parts of Scotland, supported by ‘Active Schools’ coordinators within a Sport Scotland/Youth Sport Trust initiative. This special situation contrasts with the more common one in other nations. In these nations the generalist classroom teacher has responsibility for PE and is often unprepared for this task. It was in this context that Jess and colleagues at the University of Edinburgh developed the Basic Moves programme, a fundamental movement skills intervention for pre-school and lower primary age children focused on locomotor and object control skills. This ambitious programme of pupil learning, underpinned by a “dynamic, non-linear and emergent” pedagogy (Thorburn and Gray 2010, p. 42), and teacher professional development, remains a special innovation. Jess and Collins (2003, p. 115) emphasized the importance of data collection, starting with early years education and continuing thereafter. “It is crucial that evidence from projects of this nature is available to influence the on-going debate that will help the PE profession identify the best way forward in the future.” Unfortunately, Jess and colleagues apparently have not heeded their own recommendation for data collection and published research. In the ensuing years, they have emphasized teacher professional learning (e.g., Jess et al. 2014). While this focus is important, evidence of the effects of the programme on young people is required in order to inform and maintain public and political interest and debate. Despite public recognition of the importance of young children’s movement experiences and a favourable and supportive professional environment, this initiative appears to have made limited progress. This situation is unfortunate, since the issue has not gone away. Writing in 2010, Thorburn and Gray (2010 p. 34) noted: “There has been some acknowledgment within Scottish education that many pupils have poor movement skills.” What tends not to be acknowledged within this cadre of writing in Scotland is that some pupils, especially ones living in areas with multiple deprivation, have comparatively greater needs for fundamental motor skills programmes in the early years. In fact, motor development delay (MDD) is one important risk factor for children living in poverty (Goodway and Rudisill 1997), and it is associated with sub-optimal outcomes. Young children who experience delay in their motor development are more likely to be adversely affected in terms of motor learning and cognitive functioning by the end of primary school and beyond (Lopes et al. 2013; Piek et al. 2008). Left unaddressed, delayed

Redesigning physical education in Scotland  151

motor development in early childhood results in a reduced capacity to engage fully in physical activity and an increased risk of long-term poor health outcomes. MDD becomes a barrier to leading a physically active and healthy life (Stodden et al. 2008). PE’s aims and outcomes can be framed accordingly. It has been well established that fundamental motor skills do not develop naturally in children, for example through free play, and need to be fostered in an appropriately structured environment (Gallahue et al., 2012). Despite Jess and Collins’ (2003) positive appraisal of the resources available to primary schools in Scotland for early years movement programmes, it would appear that targeted initiatives in schools serving children living in multiple deprivation are required as part of PE’s improvement and redesign. A recent report on the Active Schools programme in one region of Scotland reveals that ‘funding and resources’ and ‘fragility of staff and volunteering team’ remains key challenges to the effectiveness of such programmes (Active Schools South Ayrshire 2017).

Responding to external challenges: Mental health and wellbeing in adolescents In the past decade, researchers in PE have focused their attention on the affective domain of health, especially in adolescents. The affective domain refers to individuals’ psychological and emotional wellbeing. The CfE provides several benchmarks of learning outcomes in the affective domain. One of these is Personal Qualities, encompassing motivation, confidence and self-esteem, determination and resilience, responsibility and leadership, respect and tolerance, and communication (Education Scotland 2017). These affective attributes are recognized increasingly as important learning outcomes of PE (Thorburn 2018). Despite this recognition, important work remains. Reports suggest that mental wellbeing has declined among Scottish young people over time (Black and Martin 2015). According to the Health Behaviour in Schoolaged Children (HBSC) survey in 2014, the percentage of children with at least two psychological complaints (e.g., difficulty sleeping; feeling nervous) in the previous week had increased since 2006 (Cosma et al. 2016). Additionally, Cosma et al. (2017) investigated the relationship between mental wellbeing and bullying victimization among Scottish adolescents using the HBSC survey data between 1994 and 2014. They found that bullied children were less likely to feel happy and confident, with bullying victimization rates increasing during that 20-year period. While learning outcomes in affective domain have previously been viewed as by-products of PE, pedagogical models such as Sport Education and Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility have focused specifically

152  Kirk, Bardid, Lamb, Millar, and Teraoka

on affective benefits (Kirk in press). Recent research offers important details about program drivers. For example, Mitchell, Gray and Inchley (2015) conducted a longitudinal qualitative study focusing on the change of Scottish girls from disengagement to engagement in PE. They found that providing a choice of activity promoted students’ feelings of autonomy since the students can choose activities in which they felt competent, a finding amplified by Oliver and Kirk (2015). Because mental health issues among young people have been a growing concern in Scotland, these findings regarding PE’s affective benefits are timely. So too is Quennerstedt’s (2008) proposal that physical educators adopt a salutogenic approach. From this perspective, PE can promote health through developing motor skills, social interactions, empowerment and enjoyment. It is not only how long or how often adolescents are physically active that is important to their health. It is also a matter of what they do with the activity to understand the meaning within movement (Standal 2015). In this view, a redesign challenge and opportunity in Scotland is the development of ‘pedagogies of affect’ predicated on the idea that affective learning is not merely a PE program by-product. It is as a central educational outcome.

Conclusion There is much to celebrate about the situation of PE in Scotland. It is a core aspect of the national CfE, with a legislated requirement for a minimum of two hours per week for each young person during the BGE phase. Additionally, in senior school, PE is offered within the diet of high-stakes examination subjects where it enjoys parity of esteem with other more traditional school subjects. There is a clear case to be made for PE’s contribution to the development of motor competence among younger children living in multiple deprivation, and to the mental health and wellbeing of adolescents. Even with this positive situation, a case can be made for the redesign of PE. We conclude with two points to illustrate how even in apparently favorable situations, redesign may be necessary, possible and desirable. The first builds on a distinctive strength—namely, the professional freedom available to teachers to interpret and implement the CfE as appropriate and beneficial for their pupils. However, this freedom depends on teachers’ skills and capacities to respond to global issues such as physical inactivity, childhood obesity and health and wellbeing for all in ways that fit their local contexts. The risk is that freedom and autonomy translate to teacher isolation. A wealth of curriculum innovation literature indicates that teachers working in isolation rarely realize the full range of benefits. Thus, one of the key redesign principles for PE in Scotland must be support through what Day and Townsend (2009) call ‘networked learning communities’. Membership of such communities may vary according to locale and circumstances, but

Redesigning physical education in Scotland  153

would involve some mix of key stakeholders such as teachers, pupils, parent organizations, policy makers, teacher professional associations, and university researchers. A second redesign principle accompanies the recommendation for networked learning communities. It is founded on importance of the routine data collection and use as well are regular recording and reporting of evidence regarding the educational benefits of PE programmes. In Scotland, important co-requisites are in place. For example, the national certificate programme in senior high school produces highly formalized records of pupil learning, and so there is a ready-made opportunity for evidence gathering. The challenge for teachers and researchers is to exploit this opportunity, using it as a facilitator for collaboration. At the other end of the school, the Basic Moves initiative in the early years and primary schools provides an example of what appears to be a missed opportunity to generate evidence of pupils’ learning. This invaluable evidence that might inform teacher judgement and school planning as well as public opinion and public policy. Taxpayers generously support school PE in Scotland, with teachers’ annual recurrent salary bill in excess of £80 million pounds per year. With this level of public investment, redesign should be a central component of a process of ongoing and sustainable curriculum renewal, with the explicit purpose of supporting all young people to learn to value the physically active life.

References Active Schools South Ayrshire, 2017. Evaluation report. wp-content/uploads/2017/07/AS_Survey_v1.pdf. [Accessed 8 January 2018]. Black, C., and Martin, C., 2015. Mental health and wellbeing among adolescents in Scotland: profile and trends, [Accessed 6 November 2017]. Brewer, B., 2003. Physical education and sport, in: T.G.K. Bryce and W.M. Humes, eds. Scottish education. Second edition: Post-devolution, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 588–592. Bryce, T., 2003. Could do better? Assessment in Scottish schools, in: T.G.K. Bryce and W.M. Humes, eds. Scottish education. Second edition: Post-devolution, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 709–720. Cosma, A., Rhodes, G., Currie, C., and Inchley, J., 2016. Mental and emotional well-being in Scottish adolescents, [Accessed 6 November 2017]. Cosma, A., Whitehead, R., Neville, F., Currie, D., and Inchley, J., 2017. Trends in bullying victimization in Scottish adolescents 1994–2014: changing associations with mental well-being, International Journal of Public Health, 62 6, 1–8. Day, C. and Townsend, C., 2009. Practitioner action research: Building and sustaining success through networked learning communities, in S.E. Noffke and B. Somekh, eds. Handbook of Educational Action Research, London: Sage, 178–189.

154  Kirk, Bardid, Lamb, Millar, and Teraoka Dewar, A.M.K. and Lawson, H.A., 1984. The subjective warrant and recruitment into physical education, Quest 36, 15–25. Education Scotland, 2017. Benchmarks physical education. March 2017. https:// PDF.pdf. [Accessed 6 November 2017]. Enright, E., Hill, J., Stanford, R. and Gard, M., 2014. Looking beyond what’s broken: Towards an appreciative research agenda for physical education and sport pedagogy, Sport, Education and Society, 19 7, 912–926. Gallahue, D.L., Ozmun, J.C., and Goodway, J.D., 2012. Understanding motor development: Infants, children, adolescents, adults, 7th ed. New York: McGrawHill. Goodway, J.D. and Rudisill, M.E., 1997. Perceived physical competence and actual motor skill competence of African American preschool children, Adapted Physical Acitivty Quarterly, 14, 314–326. Jess, M. and Collins, D., 2003. Primary physical education in Scotland: The future in the making, European Journal of Physical Education, 8 2, 103–118. Jess, M., Keay, J. and Carse, N., 2014. Primary physical education: A complex learning journey for children and teachers, Sport, Education and Society, 21 7, 1018–1035. Kirk, D., (Forthcoming). School physical education, young people and social media: Pedagogical strategies for health and wellbeing, in V. Goodyear and K. Armour, eds. Young People, Social Media, Health and Wellbeing. London: Routledge. Lawson, H.A., 1988. Occupational socialization, cultural studies and the physical education curriculum, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 265–288. Lopes, L., Santos, R., Pereira, B. and Lopes, V.P., 2013. Associations between gross motor coordination and academic achievement in elementary school children, Human Movement Science, 32 1, 9–20. MacPhail, A., 2007. Teachers’ views on the construction, management and delivery of an externally prescribed physical education curriculum: Higher grade physical education, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 12 1, 43–60. McMillan, P., 2017. Understanding physical education teachers’ day-to-day practice: Challenging the ‘unfair’ picture, in M. Thorburn, ed. Transformative learning and teaching in physical education, London: Routledge, 159–175. Mitchell, F., Gray, S. and Inchley, J., 2015. ‘This choice thing really works . . .’ Changes in experiences and engagement of adolescent girls in physical education classes, during a school-based physical activity programme, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20 6, 593–611. Mitchell, F., Inchley, J., Fleming, J. and Currie, C., 2015. A socio-ecological approach to understanding adolescent girls’ engagement and experiences in the PE environment: A case study design, Graduate Journal of Sport, Exercise and Physical Education Research, 3, 44–62. Oliver, K.L. and Kirk, D., 2015. Girls, Gender and Physical Education: An Activist Approach, London: Routledge. Piek, J.P., Dawson, L., Smith, L.M. and Gasson, N., 2008. The role of early fine and gross motor development on later motor and cognitive ability, Human Movement Science, 27 5, 668–681. Quennerstedt, M., 2008. Exploring the relation between physical activity and health—a salutogenic approach to physical education, Sport, Education and Society, 13 3, 267–283.

Redesigning physical education in Scotland  155 Scottish Executive, 2006. A curriculum for excellence: Building the curriculum 1: The contribution of curricular areas. pdf. [Accessed 11 November 2017]. Scottish Government, 2009. Curriculum for excellence: Building the curriculum 4: Skills for learning, skills for life and skills for work. Documents/btc4.pdf. [Accessed 9 November 2017]. Scottish Qualifications Authority, 2017. National 5 and higher course report 2017, Dalkeith: Scottish Qualifications Authority. Scottish Qualifications Authority, 2014. Higher physical education course specification, Dalkeith: Scottish Qualifications Authority. Smith, I., 2013. Education provision: An overview, in T.G.K. Bryce, W.M. Humes, D. Gillies and A. Kennedy, eds. Scottish Education Fourth Edition: Referendum, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 13–27. Standal, O.F., 2015. Phenomenology and pedagogy in physical education, London: Routledge. Stodden, D.F., Goodway, J.D., Langendorfer, S.J., Robeston, M.A. Rudisill, M.E., Garcia, C. and Garcia, L.E., 2008. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship, Quest, 60 2, 290–306. Teraoka, E., Bardid, F. and Kirk, D., 2017. Young people’s affective development in physical education contexts. Paper presented to the Scottish Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of West of Scotland, November. Thorburn, M., 1999. ‘Is it real physical education today?’ Knowledge and understanding in Standard Grade, Higher Grade and Higher Still Physical Education, Scottish Journal of Physical Education, 27 1, 19–29. Thorburn, M. 2017. ‘When an old cricketer leaves the crease’: bittersweet reflections on examination awards in physical education, Sport, Education and Society, DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2017.1401533. Thorburn, M., 2018. ed. Wellbeing, education and contemporary schooling, London: Routledge. Thorburn, M. and Collins, D., 2006. The effects of an integrated curriculum model on student learning and attainment, European Physical Education Review, 12 1, 31–50. Thorburn, M. and Gray, S., 2010. Physical education: Picking up the baton, Edinburgh: Dunedin.

Chapter 9

Re-imagination and re-design in physical education Implicit and explicit models in England and Wales Ken Green Lorraine Cale Jo Harris Introduction Two questions provide our point of departure. Does physical education (PE) achieve desirable outcomes for the majority of youngsters who experience it? and, as a corollary, does it need to be ‘re-imagined’ and ‘re-designed’? The answer to both questions depends on what the outcomes for PE are taken to be. In our view, a domain assumption in the PE subject-community (or, at least, amongst academics, teacher educators and teachers) is that a central goal of PE is to encourage more (young) people to be habitually engaged with sport and physical recreation. Put another way, students should become lifelong participants who engage in health-related physical activity and enhance their ‘health’. The process of ‘re-imagining’ and ‘re-designing’ usually begins with model constructions. These depictions provide ‘blueprints’ of what PE should look like, often in terms of the content and delivery (i.e., teaching and organisation). Models involve theories about the ways in which youngsters learn and are best taught the subject matter of PE, the sequencing of activities, tasks and forms of assessment, and benchmarks for assessing a model’s implementation (Metzler 2011). Formal models stem from one person’s or several designers’ imagination. What we call ‘implicit models’ also can emerge, incidentally, in custom and practice. These have been particularly significant in PE. This chapter focuses primarily on models explicitly intended to ‘re-imagine’ and ‘re-design’ PE in response to identified shortcomings with the subject and in an effort to ‘fix’ particular issues. For example, despite growing concerns over young people’s sedentary lifestyles, robust evidence that PE has had any significant impact on physical activity levels is lacking (Trost 2006; Green 2014). Reflecting this view, McKenzie and Lounsbery (2009) have referred to school PE as “the pill not taken” (p. 223). We return to this point later. We begin with a critique the sport technique-based ‘multi-activity model’

Re-design in England and Wales  157

(Kirk 2006; 2013) that dominated PE in England and Wales during the late twentieth century.

The multi-activity model in England and Wales The multi-activity PE model emerged from the twin pillars of post-World War II PE in England and Wales: public school games of the second half of the nineteenth century and elementary school ‘gym’ from the turn of the nineteenth/twentieth centuries. Traditional PE is characterised by content revolving around games and physical exercise (in the form of gymnastics). Content delivery is based on a direct, formal, teacher-centred style/approach, one that Mosston and Ashworth (2002) classified as a command style. This multi-activity sport-based model amounted to a de facto national curriculum from the 1970s onwards. It became codified in the first National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE) for England and Wales in 1992. The perceived relevance of the multi-activity model has been underlined, implicitly or explicitly, in every subsequent iteration of the NCPE (1995, 1999, 2007, 2013). Today, the multi-activity model of PE in England and Wales continues to revolve around various ‘activity areas’, such as games, athletic activities, swimming, dance, and outdoor and adventurous activities. Games remain dominant. Meanwhile, an implicit model has resulted from PE teachers supplementing the ‘traditional games’ and gymnastics with a variety of newer games, sports and forms of physical recreation believed to be more in keeping with youth lifestyles and enhancing the probability that they will engage youngsters, particularly at the end of compulsory schooling when they may drop-off or drop-out from sport. Despite PE teachers’ enduring beliefs that the conventional multi-activity model can be a crucial intermediary in enhancing young people’s engagement with physically active recreation in their leisure and, in the longer term over the life-course, the evidence demonstrating any ‘PE effect’ on youngsters’ habitual engagement with sport is sparse (Green 2014). Indeed, after substantial growth in the 1980s, coinciding with, and partially explained by substantial growth in indoor sport and leisure facilities in the UK, sports participation plateaued in the mid-1990s and has flat-lined ever since. A recent House of Commons report, for example, revealed no significant change in 16-25 year olds’ sport participation between 2007/8 and 2015/16 (Audickas 2017). In this vein, Gerdin and Pringle (2015, p. 211) observed that PE “results in little skill learning, typically fails to produce a lifelong love of physical activity, has negligible impact on student health and can produce student disaffection”. Nevertheless, the multi-activity sport-based model influences PE teachers’ ideologies and persists in PE practice as a “common-sense consensus” (Kirk 1988; 2010).

158  Green, Cale, and Harris

Health-based PE Toward the end of the twentieth century, concerns were raised about the inability/ineffectiveness of the traditional model of PE and its recent variant, the multi-activity model. Concerns regarding young people’s sport participation and physical activity levels were coupled with claims regarding a health/obesity ‘crisis’. Together these concerns were instrumental in the development of a health-oriented PE model in England and Wales. Whilst many terms have been coined for this model, it is most commonly referred to as ‘health-related exercise’ (HRE) (Harris 2000) or ‘health-based physical education’ (HBPE) (Haerens et al. 2011). To all intents and purposes, HRE amounted to a contemporary variation of the ‘biomedical model’ (Johns 2010), one that was preventative rather than restorative. This new model was the twentieth century equivalent of elementary school physical training in gym and drill of a century earlier (Kirk 1992). In this new model, PE teachers were charged with developing pupils’ knowledge and understanding of the impact of exercise on health, as well as the skills and predispositions necessary to carry it out. This mission has been built into the NCPE, and HRE has remained an all-pervasive theme therein. In secondary schools in England and Wales, HRE has been organised and expressed in a variety of ways. A combined approach involving focused units of work in PE, integration through the traditional and other activity areas, and delivery areas across other areas of the curriculum has been commonplace (Cale and Harris 2009). In practice, however, the HRE model has been found wanting on several fronts. Research has highlighted the prevalence of some overly simplistic, inaccurate and potentially damaging practices in PE lessons (Cale and Harris 2009; Harris and Cale 2018), including narrow, limited and often instrumental interpretations and outcomes of HRE (Alfrey et al. 2012; Harris and Leggett 2015; Puhse et al. 2011) attributable to teachers’ limited knowledge and understanding (Alfrey et al. 2012; Armour and Harris 2013; Hastie and Mesquita 2017). Implementation of the HRE curriculum also has posed challenges. Although HRE gained a foothold in PE curricula, it has not undermined the pre-eminence of sport in PE curricula and teachers’ practice. In recognition of this shortcoming and others, there have been calls for alternative pedagogies, methods or models to effectively teach this area (Armour and Harris 2013; Haerens et al. 2011). Whilst there is evidence from numerous reviews (see Cale, 2017) that school-based physical activity programmes which include PE as a key component can be effective and provide positive outcomes for young people (e.g. improvements in physical activity, knowledge and attitudes), clear limitations to what HRE (and multi-activity models) can achieve merit attention. For example, most programmes have not influenced physical activity out of school

Re-design in England and Wales  159

(Cale 2017) and survey research suggests little or no changes in long-term involvement in sport and/or physical activity (Sport England 2015/16; 2017). Thus both the multi-activity and HRE models have characterized the practice of PE as preferred by teachers. That said, the HRE model has remained prominent in the ideologies of PE academics as well as teachers. In this regard, the incorporation of the HRE model into multi-activity (but games-dominated) PE curricula represents small degrees of change alongside considerable continuity. On a more positive note, other surveys indicate that the majority of pupils enjoy and see the health benefits of PE (Sport Wales 2015), which implies continuing efforts to address known limitations and constraints are worthwhile. Additionally, it is important to recognise the complexities involved in changing physical activity behaviour, taking stock of numerous factors within and beyond PE (and schools) that influence young people’s physical activity and health (Cale and Harris 2013). In brief, whilst PE may make a contribution to young people’s physical activity it cannot, by itself, address their needs (Fox et al. 2004; McKenzie and Lounsbery 2009), nor can it ensure that they engage in sufficient physical activity for health. Consequently, Cale and Harris (2013) highlight the importance of high quality teaching and providing positive, meaningful and relevant PE and physical activity experiences for young people.

Twenty-first-century models In the twenty-first century, new models of PE have come to the fore alongside the multi-activity curriculum. Four merit attention. Teaching games for understanding In the early 1980s, when interest in HRE was burgeoning, academics such as David Bunker and Rod Thorpe offered critical reflections regarding the games element of traditional PE. The target of their ire was the way in which games tended to be taught. Manifest limitations were illuminated by Bunker and Thorpe’s (1982) Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model and, later, Teaching Games for Understanding-Game Sense (TGfU-GS) (Stolz and Pill 2014). For example, many children were not achieving success in games-based PE because teachers emphasized performance in games overall and games skills in particular. Consequently, the majority of youngsters left school knowing and understanding very little about games and were, effectively, ‘locked out’ of sport. In effect, the content of PE (skills in traditional games) combined with its delivery (largely didactic) resulted in teacher-dependent youngsters who, whether or not they were able to perform games skills, possessed “inflexible techniques and poor decision-making capacity” in games (Almond 2013).

160  Green, Cale, and Harris

Bunker and Thorpe’s (1982) solution to the ‘problem’ was to focus on the principles underpinning games (e.g. attack and defence and ways of approaching each). They emphasized action-oriented learning facilitated by playing games, rather than merely practising techniques. They also emphasized a developmental progression by which children could gain confidence in, want to learn about, and understand games. Unlike the multi-activity model, the TGfU model appears to have had limited impact on PE curricular content and delivery. Although the TGfU approach and its subsequent variations have captured the interest of PE academics (e.g., Oslin and Mitchell 2006), this approach has “passed by practitioners without any major effect” (Almond 2010, p. vii). Indeed, the considerable teacher knowledge and tactical understanding TGfU requires has reportedly prohibited many teachers who lacked pedagogical content knowledge from using it? (Oslin and Mitchell 2006). Despite the recent development of “a more robust and sophisticated version of the TGfU model” (Kirk and MacPhail 2002, p. 177) in the form of ‘situated learning’ and other related variations on the TGfU theme (Oslin and Mitchell 2006), games teaching remains resolutely traditional, emphasizing skill development and sports performance. Changing activity preferences also need to be taken into account in explanations of the lack of popularity and limited carry-over of games participation into adulthood. For instance, the Active Lives Survey (Sport England 2017) listed just three games activities (football, badminton and tennis) in the top 15 sports participated in; and only 2–5% of adults take part at least approximately twice a month. By contrast, running and fitness classes are three times as popular. In view of the aforementioned PE models, a look ahead is in order. What is the status of recent re-design models? Sport education One element of the TGfU model found re-incarnation within Siedentop’s (1994) Sport Education model. This element was the conviction that traditional PE was failing to educate those involved with games at all levels, from player, through coach, to spectator – and at a time when games (and sport) were fast becoming staples of the leisure and entertainment industries. In brief, sport could be seen as a ‘valued cultural practice’ (McNamee 2009). It followed that PE should focus on the culture of sport, initiating young people into the “rituals, values and traditions of a sport” (Siedentop 1994, p. 7) – its customs and conventions – as well as the skills and practicalities. The Sport Education model is, therefore, designed to provide authentic, educationally rich sport experiences in the context of PE (Hastie and Mesquita 2017). According to Siedentop (1994, p. 4), Sport Education

Re-design in England and Wales  161

involved helping youngsters to “develop as competent, literate, and enthusiastic sportspeople”. In terms of format, short ‘blocks’ or ‘units’ (of several lessons) were to be replaced by term- or even year-long ‘seasons’ within which students would experience the various roles involved in a particular sport: from player through to coach and referee/umpire to manager, supporter and so forth. In terms of delivery, Sport Education encouraged a deliberate shift from the traditional teacher-centred and didactic approach to more student-centred guided-discovery and problem-solving approaches (Kirk 2013), a shift that proved difficult for some teachers (Kinchin 2006). Despite a growing body of research revealing positive teacher and pupil responses and outcomes from Sport Education (Hastie et al. 2011; Kinchin 2006) in England and Wales evidence of widespread, planned, progressive and sustained adoption is lacking. Indeed, Kinchin (2006) reports how much of the Sport Education research has focused on individual units of work and highlights the lack of longitudinal research on the sustainability of the model and its outcomes across series of units. Anecdotally, it seems that Sport Education does not extend to any great extent much beyond the network of schools linked (usually for teacher training purposes) to universities whose teacher trainers champion this and/ or other such models of PE. Thus, while Sport Education may have taken hold at the level of academe, it has not done so at the level of PE practice (Penney et al. 2002). In fact, some of the same challenges faced by HRE and TGfU, especially teacher knowledge and commitments, apply equally to Sport Education. Additionally, researchers have reported misconceptions about the model and some teacher disinterest (McCaughtry et al. 2004). More recently, two additional models have begun to take root in England and Wales: (1) Physical Literacy/Fundamental Movement Skills (Whitehead 2010); and (2) Co-operative Learning models (Dyson and Casey 2012; Goodyear et al. 2012). Physical literacy/fundamental movement skills Although, as Kirk (2013) observes, this new model amounts to a justificatory argument in search of a suitable pedagogical model rather than a fully-developed blueprint for PE in its own right, Margaret Whitehead’s Physical Literacy ( stands out as a nascent model of current ‘re-imagining’ and ‘re-design’, among PE academics at least. Physical Literacy involves “the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to maintain physical activity throughout the life-course” (Whitehead 2010, pp. 11–12). Subsequently, the Fundamental Movement Skills (FMS) model has emerged as a branch of Physical Literacy. FMS are grouped into locomotor

162  Green, Cale, and Harris

(e.g. running, dodging, jumping, hopping, and skipping), stability (e.g. balancing, turning or rotating, and landing) and manipulative (e.g. throwing and catching) skills. Whilst Whitehead (2010) sees physical literacy as a ‘journey’ with different age-related stages through which individual journeys pass – spanning from preschool through to the older adult years – both ‘models’ are particularly relevant to primary schools, especially as PE attempts to put in place the physical building blocks for ongoing sporting and exercise habits. Cooperative learning As a variation on the Sport Education model, Cooperative Learning (Dyson and Casey 2012; Goodyear et al. 2012) also takes issue with the traditional way in which PE is said to be taught: i.e. teacher-centred approaches with a primary focus on sports skills and performance. Cooperative Learning characteristically involves working in ‘learning teams’ such that while participating in different roles, students help each other to learn. As well as aiming at what might be termed ‘personal and social education’, Co-operative Learning is also believed to sow the seeds for greater participation in sport and physical exercise by down-playing or even temporarily removing the physical dimension of PE in order to bring about a positive effect on the likelihood of longer-term engagement in PE (Goodyear et al. 2012). Although it may be too early to form a judgement on effectiveness, a recent review of literature suggests Cooperative Learning can achieve positive outcomes, predominantly in the physical, cognitive and social domains (Casey and Goodyear 2015) and is, therefore, worth doing (Casey 2017). However, these successes are restricted to initial instructional units (Casey and Goodyear 2015) or one-off interventions, and there is still little indication that either of these approaches – Physical Literacy/FMS or Co-operative Learning – have caught on much beyond devotees: i.e. at the level of day-to-day practice in PE. That said, both have potential to do so and there is growing anecdotal evidence of experimentation with various forms of FMS and Cooperative Learning in schools in England and Wales. Like earlier ‘re-designs’, the more recent models of PE outlined above are alternative responses to the alleged shortcomings of the traditional multiactivity sport-based model implicit in the PE curricula of secondary schools (as well, to a large extent, primary schools) across England and its former empire (Kirk 1992). All are examples of ‘re-designs’ with a paradoxical status. While these models have been prominent at conferences and in journals, they have yet to permeate on any scale or really influence and impact the everyday ‘philosophies’ and practices of PE teachers across England and Wales. Why haven’t they? Various issues with implementing models generally have been identified in the literature, especially teachers’ commitments and knowledge

Re-design in England and Wales  163

(see Casey 2017; McCaughtry et al. 2014). Suffice to say that implementation depends on teacher change and teacher learning, indicating that implementation is complex, takes time and requires support (Bechtel and O’Sullivan 2007).

Two new influences As promising re-design models continue to evolve and develop, two processes are underway to varying degrees in the schools of England and Wales. Both are tantamount to implicit models of PE and show signs of surreptitiously changing, even transforming, the subject in practice. We call them ‘academization’ and ‘sportization’. The former is manifest in the growth of an academic model of PE (often referred to as ‘examinable PE’). The second takes the form of a de facto re-emphasis on the traditional PE model of sport and games. Examinable PE Some ‘re-designs’ are happenchance rather than strategic. Examinable PE is one. What started as a piecemeal and reactive development in the 1980s, expanded and became widespread in the 1990s. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, it was considered by some to constitute a ‘new orthodoxy’ in PE (Reid 1996), at least at the upper-secondary level, where physical educationalists increasingly assumed examinable PE to be an essential component of contemporary PE provision. The evident growth of examinable PE was a consequence of PE teachers seizing upon opportunities to bolster their occupational and ‘professional’ standing in secondary schools – a process given further impetus by neoliberal educational policies that created market competition not only between schools but also between subjects within schools. Thus, “the introduction of significant elements of propositional knowledge into [PE] (taught in a fashion more typical of the classroom than the gymnasium) . . . culminating in examinations” (McNamee 2005, p. 5), and the attendant academicization of PE, has become arguably the most striking and significant (at least partial) ‘re-design’ of school PE – internationally (Brown and Penney 2017) as well as in England and Wales and the UK. A manifest tension merits analysis: examinable PE seems at odds with the physical nature of the subject. Indeed, examinable PE is also reportedly impacting on the PE curriculum for younger secondary school students with a trend towards schools selecting to cover examination content earlier in an attempt to improve exam results (Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) 2017). For some, the rapid growth and expansion of examinable PE lends weight to the claim that ‘normal’ (practical) PE is in the process of being marginalised, and even ultimately eliminated, from the secondary school curriculum.

164  Green, Cale, and Harris

This ‘new orthodoxy’ at the level of PE teaching implies that PE has, to all intents and purposes, joined other school subjects on the academic ‘treadmill’ (Dore 1997). In the process, PE has become more like other (academic) subjects and, correspondingly, less like conventional or traditional PE with a nearly exclusive emphasis on students’ movement and performance. This hints at the transformation of PE rather than mere change, but at what expense? The same question applies to another implicit model, introduced by the phrase “the sportization of PE”. The sportization of PE ‘Sportization’ is shorthand for a process by which sport becomes prominent in the justification for and the practice of PE. In extreme form, it represents the de facto transformation of PE into school sport. This is a transformation from something nominally focused upon education to something essentially focused upon sport in both leisure or recreational and high performance forms. In this new framework, educational outcomes are purely incidental. An initial phase of sportization within PE can be traced back to the emergence and development of games in the Victorian public schools (Kirk 1992). A second phase took the form of the establishment of games, and sport generally, alongside gymnastic-type activities as the two staples of secondary school PE in the second half of the twentieth century. Recent developments in England and Wales suggest a third phase of sportization may be underway. This one which finds expression in the widespread and normalized (Smith 2013) use of sports coaches in the delivery of curricular and extra-curricular PE at both elementary and secondary levels (Griggs 2010; Jones and Green 2017).

Does PE teacher education need to be re-designed? The continued dominance of a sport-based model of PE (assimilating, by degrees, the HRE and examinable PE models) at the level of PE practice implies that if PE is to be effectively re-imagined and re-designed then PETE also needs to be re-considered. That said, the extent that models such as TGfU, Sport Education and Co-operative Learning are being advocated at various PETE institutions, suggests that attempts to re-imagine and re-design are well in hand. The belief that PETE is implicated in the success or otherwise of PE is clear in Lawson’s Introduction to this book. At first glance, this seems axiomatic. However, the landscape of initial teacher education (ITE) is constantly undergoing change and this may affect its ability to impact on the re-imagination and re-designing of future PE curricula. For example, ITE in England has undergone something of a transformation involving a shift towards school-centred ‘training’ with the introduction

Re-design in England and Wales  165

of new routes such as ‘Teach First’, ‘School Direct’ and the development of new School-Centred Initial Teacher Training institutions (known as SCITTs), alongside provision by higher education institutions. School-centred routes into teacher education amount to a form of ‘on-the-job’ training intended to further the development of practice-based skills within the school setting. These developments amount to a loosening of the links between higher education institutions and initial teacher training (Cater 2017). These new routes into teaching and new forms of ITE provision are firmly rooted in the ideological conviction that effective teachers need to be trained rather than educated. Nonetheless, questions remain regarding whether or not a ‘profession’ trained solely or predominantly ‘on-the-job’ is any more or less effective than one educated in higher education institutions working in close partnership with schools. Governmental Ofsted inspection outcomes, while often praising the practice-based skills acquired by school-centred trained trainees, have emphasised the narrow focus of much training (Cater 2017) implying shortcomings. This may not be good news in terms of PETE positively impacting on re-imagining and re-designing future PE curricula that will effectively promote and facilitate physically active lifestyles amongst young people.

Conclusion The abiding impression one forms when reflecting upon the fortunes of the various models of PE – some, in part, as a response to the perceived shortcomings of traditional PE – is that while these have increasingly been the subject of research and by degrees, taken root in academic PE, they have largely not done so in school PE, much beyond the sphere of influence of the institutions advocating particular models with their students and beyond individual units of work. This observation is not meant as an indictment of any particular model. Rather, it amounts to an observation about the conservative character of PE and of a profession resistant to change (Alfrey and Gard 2014; Kirk 2010). For example, the impact of teacher education tends to be ‘washed out’ relatively soon after PE teachers begin teaching ‘properly’ (Stroot and Ko 2006), and as they return to their sporting roots in contexts that have long constrained teachers towards the multi-activity sport-based curriculum model. Notwithstanding the theoretical appeal of various models, it would seem that the actual everyday ‘classroom’ practice of PE remains conventional (Capel and Blair 2013). Having said this, there is empirical and anecdotal evidence of pockets of innovation. Meanwhile, the challenges that teachers face and which undoubtedly hinder innovation must be acknowledged. Calls have been made for more and better re-research (Lawson 2009) – specifically for research into models-based practice (Casey 2017). Research, it is assumed can and should underpin and inform conscious and deliberate attempts to ‘re-design’ school PE.

166  Green, Cale, and Harris

However, there is no escape from the realisation that school PE may be being ‘redesigned’ without the involvement of PE academics. We have identified two ‘implicit’ models impacting the practice of PE in England and Wales: examinable PE and sport-based PE. Arguably, only one ‘explicit’ model seems to have gained traction and impacted the practice of PE: HBPE is becoming embedded within PE curriculum across England and Wales. However, an important qualification is in order. On the ground, implicit models are more influential than explicit ones. The net effect is mixed. Whilst achieving important outcomes in individual studies in the short term, no model has shown substantial signs of positively impacting levels of regular participation in sport and physical activity. Consequently, we cannot escape the possibility that whatever PE models we develop may be relatively powerless to countervail the significance of other influences on young people’s physical activity. On the other hand, there is no reason why PE models delivered effectively cannot contribute towards PE’s role and responsibility in stimulating “interest, enjoyment, knowledge, competence and expertise in physical activity and sport for health and well-being”; and also “providing positive, meaningful and relevant PE and physical activity experiences for young people” (Cale and Harris 2013, p. 86) ‘Explicit’ PE models can be broadly placed in one of three categories: (i) those that circulate within academia, whose influence is largely confined to PE teacher training students and fellow academics through lectures, articles and conferences; (ii) those models that find their way into policy, such as the NCPE in England and Wales; and (iii) those models that seep into the practice of school PE. If truth be told, most models are largely restricted to the first category and impact is often limited to students/trainee teachers, teachers in schools involved in ITE partnerships (laudable, of course, as that is) and the minority of interested practitioner researchers or schools which agree to participate in academics’ research. A few make it through to policy documents. Perhaps as a result of its statutory place within the NCPE in England and Wales, HBPE/HRE is one model that is an exception in this regard. Although we all hope and sometimes claim to influence the day-to-day practice of PE teachers, those that actually do are few and far between. Furthermore, analyses of the HBPE/HRE model serve as reminders that challenges with every model’s effective delivery and organisation remain. Lawson (2009) and Kirk (2010) argue that sport-based PE is a remnant from the industrial age and ‘out-of-sync’ with the values and practices of late-capitalist societies and, as such, at risk of extinction. That is not our view. While Kirk (2010, p. 8) argues that “change resistant physical education-as-sport-techniques . . . seems increasingly likely to become culturally obsolete” (Kirk 2010, p. 8), obsolescence does not appear on the horizon in England and Wales.

Re-design in England and Wales  167

While the multi-activity sport-based PE model may not deliver the holy grail of a generation of youngsters likely to engage in lifelong participation in sport and PA, it nonetheless dovetails with the dominant discourses in education in England and Wales in the early decades of the twenty-first century. For better and worse, this model continues to occupy the high ground of school PE, both in theory and practice.

References Alfrey, L. and Gard, M., 2014. A crack where the light gets in: A study of health and physical education teachers’ perspectives on fitness testing as a context for learning about health, Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 5 1, 3–18. Alfrey, L., Cale, L. and Webb, L.A., 2012. Physical education teachers’ continuing professional development in health-related exercise, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17 5, 477–491. Almond, L., 2010. Foreword: Revisiting the TGfU brand. In J. Butler and L. Griffin, eds, More teaching games for understanding: Moving globally. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, vii–x. Almond, L., 2013. Revisiting TGFU. Available from: http://connorratcliffe.blogs. [Accessed Monday 8 July 2013]. Armour, K. and Harris, J., 2013. Making the case for developing new PE-for-health pedagogies, Quest, 65 2, 201–219. Audickas, L., 2017. Sport participation in England. House of Commons Briefing Paper. Number CBP 8181. Bechtel, P.A. and O’Sullivan, M., 2007. Enhancers and inhibitors of teacher change among secondary school physical educators, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26, 221–235. Brown, T. and Penney, D., 2017. Examination physical education: Policy, practice and possibilities. London: Routledge. Bunker, D. and Thorpe, R., 1982. A model for the teaching of games in the secondary school, Bulletin of Physical Education, 10, 9–16. Cale, L., 2017. Teaching about healthy active lifestyles. In C.D. Ennis (ed.), Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies. London: Routledge, 399–411. Cale, L. and Harris, J., 2009. Getting the buggers fit. 2nd edition. London: Continuum, 138–152. Cale, L. and Harris, J., 2013. Physical education and health: Considerations and issues. In S. Capel and M. Whitehead, eds. Debates in physical education. London: Routledge, 74–88. Capel, S. and Blair, R., 2013. Why do physical education teachers adopt a particular way of teaching? In S. Capel and M. Whitehead, eds. Debates in physical education. London and New York: Routledge, 120–139. Casey, A., 2017. Models-based practice. In C.D. Ennis, ed. Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies. London: Routledge, 54–67. Casey, A. and Goodyear, V.A., 2015. Can cooperative learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education? A review of literature, Quest, 67 1, 56–72.

168  Green, Cale, and Harris Cater, J. 2017. Whither teacher education and training? Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), HEPI Report 95. Department for Education and the Welsh Office (DfE and WO), 1995. Physical education in the national curriculum. London: HMSO. Department for Education and Employment & Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (DfEE & QCA), 1999. Physical education. The national curriculum for England. London: HMSO. Department for Education, 2013. Programmes of study for physical education. Available from: Dore, R.P., 1997. The diploma disease. Education, qualification and development. 2nd edition. London: Allen and Unwin. Dyson, B. and Casey, A., eds. 2012. Co-operative learning in physical education: International perspectives. London: Routledge. Fox, K., Cooper, A. and McKenna, J., 2004. The school and promotion of children’s health-enhancing physical activity: Perspectives from the United Kingdom, Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 23, 338–358. Gerdin, G. and Pringle, R., 2015. The politics of pleasure: An ethnographic examination exploring the dominance of the multi-activity sport-based physical education model, Sport, Education and Society, 22 2, 194–213. Goodyear, V.A., Casey, A. and Kirk, D., 2012. Hiding behind the camera: Social learning within the Cooperative Learning Model to engage girls in physical education, Sport, Education and Society, 19 6, 712–734. Green, K., 2014. Mission impossible? Reflections on the relationship between physical education, youth sport and lifelong participation, Sport, Education and Society, 19 4, 357–375. Griggs, G., 2010. For sale – primary physical education. £20 per hour or nearest offer Education 3–13, 38 1, 339–346. Haerens, L., Kirk, D., Cardon, G. and Bourdeauhuji, I., 2011. The development of a pedagogical model for health-based physical education, Quest, 63, 321–338. Harris, J., 2000. Health-related exercise in the National Curriculum. Key Stages 1 to 4. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Harris, J. and Cale, L., 2018. Promoting active lifestyles in schools with web resource. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Harris, J. and Leggett, G., 2015. Testing, training and tensions: The expression of health within physical education curricula in secondary schools in England and Wales, Sport, Education and Society, 20 3–4, 423–441. Hastie, P.A. and Mesquita, I., 2017. School-based physical education. In C.D. Ennis, ed. Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies. London: Routledge, 68–84. Hastie, P., Martinez de Ojeda, D. and Calderron, A., 2011. A review of research on Sport Education: 2014 to the present, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16, 103–132. Johns, D.P., 2010. Recontextualizing and delivering the biomedical model as a physical education curriculum, Sport, Education and Society, 10 1: 69–84. Jones, L. and Green, K., 2017. Who teaches primary PE? Change and transformation through the eyes of PE teachers, Sport, Education and Society, 22 6, 759–771.

Re-design in England and Wales  169 Kinchin, G., 2006. Sport Education: A view of the research. In D. Kirk, D. MacDonald and M. O’Sullivan, eds. Handbook of physical education. London: Sage, 596–609. Kirk, D. 1988. Physical education and curriculum study: A critical introduction. London: Croom Helm. Kirk, D., 1992. Defining physical education. The social construction of a school subject in post-war Britain. Lewes: The Falmer Press. Kirk, D., 2006. Sport Education, critical pedagogy, and learning theory: Toward an intrinsic justification for physical education and youth sport, Quest, 58 2, 255–264. Kirk, D., 2010. Physical education futures. London: Routledge. Kirk, D., 2013. Educational value and models-based practice in physical education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45 9, 973–986. Kirk, D. and MacPhail, A., 2002. Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 177–192. Lawson, H.A., 2009. Paradigms, exemplars and social change, Sport, Education and Society, 14 1, 97–119. McCaughtry, N., Sofo, S., Rovegno, I. and Curtner-Smith, M., 2004. Learning to teach Sport Education: Misunderstandings, pedagogical difficulties, and resistance, European Physical Education Review, 10 2, 135–155. McKenzie, T.L. and Lounsbery, M.A.F., 2009. School physical education: The pill not taken, American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 3 3, 219–225. McNamee, M. 2005. The nature and values of physical education. In K. Green and K. Hardman, eds. Physical education: essential issues. London: Sage Publications, 1–20. McNamee, M., 2009. The nature and values of physical education. In R. Bailey and D. Kirk, eds. The Routledge reader in physical education. London: Routledge, 9–28. Metzler, M.W., 2011. Instructional models for physical education. 3rd edition. Arizona: Holcomb Hathaway. Mosston, M. and Ashworth, S., 2002. Teaching physical education. 5th edition. New York: Benjamin Cummings. Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), 2017. HMCI’s commentary: Recent primary and secondary curriculum research. London: Ofsted. Available from: Oslin, J. and Mitchell, S., 2006. Game-centred approaches to teaching physical education. In David Kirk, Doune MacDonald and Mary O’Sullivan, eds. The handbook of physical education. London: Sage, 627–651. Penney, D., Clarke, C. and Kinchin, G., 2002. Developing physical education as a “connective specialism”: Is sport education the answer? Sport and Society, 7 1, 55–64. Puhse, U., Barker, D., Brettschneider, W. D., Feldmeth, A. K., Gerlach, E., McCuaig, L. and Gerber, M., 2011. International approaches to health-oriented physical education: local health debates and differing conceptions of health, International Journal of Physical Education, 3, 2–15. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2007. The national curriculum for England. London, HMSO.

170  Green, Cale, and Harris Reid, A., 1996. The concept of physical education in current curriculum and assessment policy in Scotland, European Physical Education Review, 2 1, 7–18. Siedentop, D. 1994. Sport education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Smith, A., 2013. Primary school physical education and sports coaches: Evidence from a study of School Sport Partnerships in north-west England, Sport, Education and Society, 20 7, 872–888. Sport England, 2015/16. Active people survey. London: Author. Sport England, 2017. Active lives survey. London: Author. Sport Wales, 2015. School sport survey 2015. The state of the nation. Cardiff: Author. Stolz, S.A. and Pill, S., 2014. A narrative approach to exploring TGfU-GS, Sport, Education and Society, 21 2, 239–261. Stroot, S.A. and Ko, B., 2006. Induction of beginning physical educators into the school setting. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald and M. O’Sullivan, eds. Handbook of physical education. London: Sage, 425–448. Trost, S., 2006. Public health and physical education. In D. Kirk, M. O’Sullivan and D. Macdonald, eds, Handbook of physical education. London: Sage, 163–187. Whitehead, M., ed. 2010. Physical literacy: Throughout the life-course. London: Routledge.

Chapter 10

Redesigning physical education in Ireland Significant redesign over modest reforms? Ann MacPhail Mary O’Sullivan Deborah Tannehill Melissa Parker Introduction We set out in this chapter to share the extent to which Irish school physical education and physical education teacher education (PETE) in the national context of Ireland has favored significant redesign over modest reforms. In doing so, we respond to five main challenges posed by Lawson in earlier chapters;   (i) the relationship between schools and teacher education and, more specifically, the failure to ensure that physical education and PETE are structured together, (ii) policy neglect with respect to the centrality of physical education to school improvement and performance, (iii) the readiness of physical education teachers and teacher educators to be held accountable for young people’s physical education learning, (iv) conflicts arising from alternative models of physical education, and (v) the prevalence of physical education in industrial age schooling. We conclude with key points relevant to an international readership, with special reference to physical education preservice teachers (PSTs) and those delivering PETE programs.

Irish school and higher education context While the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland occupy the same island, they are two different jurisdictions. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom (UK). The Republic of Ireland (referred to in this chapter as ‘Ireland’) has its own government structure. Ireland has a population of approximately five million people. Approximately 3,250 primary schools

172  MacPhail, O’Sullivan, Tannehill, and Parker

cater for just under 560,000 students (aged between 4 and 11 years) with a staff base of almost 36,000 teachers and 711 post-primary schools cater for just over 380,000 students (aged between 12 and 18 years) and a staff base of almost 28,000 teachers (Department of Education and Skills 2017). The purpose of Irish primary school physical education is to provide children with learning opportunities through the medium of movement, prepare them to lead active and healthy lifestyles and engage in lifelong physical activity (Department of Education and Skills / National Council for Curriculum and Assessment 1999). Primary school physical education is taught by the generalist primary teacher, who is responsible for teaching all curriculum subjects. There is almost no support for a specialist primary teaching physical education qualification and only a handful of schools hire specialist physical education teachers in primary schools. The Irish Primary Physical Education Association of Ireland (IPPEA) does not support specialist physical education teachers at primary level, preferring to focus on supporting primary teachers to provide the highest quality to children as part of the holistic development of the child. Given the word limitations for the chapter, we have chosen not to focus on primary physical education redesign. The purpose of the first three years of Irish post-primary school physical education (referred to as the ‘junior cycle’ and catering for students aged between 11/12 and 14/15 years) is to contribute to the central role of schooling in supporting and prompting students’ learning about wellbeing and for wellbeing (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment 2017). The aim of the latter two years of post-primary school physical education (referred to as the ‘senior cycle’ and catering for students aged between 15/16 and 17/18 years) is to support learners’ confident, enjoyable and informed participation in physical activity now and in the future (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment 2011). The provision of physical education is overseen by the Department of Education and Skills through inspection visits and physical education is delivered by qualified post-primary physical education teachers. Three universities prepare physical education teachers with a ‘second’ subject (i.e., they qualify for being able to teach physical education and one other subject in post-primary schools) on four-year undergraduate programs. One twoyear Professional Master’s program in Education (Physical Education) is a graduate pathway to a teaching qualification.

Physical education teacher education policy in Ireland In his introductory chapter, Lawson shares several shortcomings of PETE. He notes because of these shortcomings a redesign of physical education, and specifically PETE, is timely yet challenging. According to Lawson, public

Redesigning physical education in Ireland  173

policy has been a key shortcoming, and the idea of “policy neglect” is apt. He claims that the best curricular and instructional practices in the best PETE programs are impossible to implement at scale “in part because of this public policy neglect and both district officers’ and principals’ naiveté about the importance of embodiment, physical literacy, and the multiple, unrealized contributions of PE to school improvement and performance” (p. 00). Ireland’s policy landscape suggests a more positive example of government involvement in teacher education and physical education. This is not to suggest that the intervention of government in teacher education and physical education has been uncontested. Rather, it is to suggest that the developments around curricular change in physical education, and changes to teacher education regulation, have been at the centre of government policy over the last ten years. In the last 15 years, there has been a policy transformation to the teacher education landscape in Ireland (Smyth 2012). Government intervention has resulted in significant changes to the delivery of teacher education and to the nature of the work for teacher educators (Ellis and McNicholl 2015).

Teaching and physical education Ireland is home to three undergraduate PETE programs. The demand for entry to all three is extremely high and has been for over 30 years. It is not unprecedented to have ten applications for every available place on a PETE program. This is not the scenario of PETE programs in crisis. The academic credentials of PETE PSTs are among the highest entrants to universities annually. As mentioned previously, all undergraduate PETE PSTs choose an additional curriculum subject teaching qualification. It is normal that one or two of the annual undergraduate PETE cohort accept offers to study for a Doctorate in Education, Mathematics or Science on completion of their teacher education program. This is reflective of the high academic calibre of the applicants attracted to teaching physical education in Ireland.

Overall teacher education and PETE Three key developments in Irish education policy are at the core of the changes to teacher education and to the work practices of physical education teacher educators in recent years. As part of the Presidency of the European Union in 2013, the Teaching Council and Department of Education and Skills hosted a conference focused on the Professional Identity of Teacher Educators, describing them as important contributors to the overall quality of the education system. The aim was to improve support for the teacher educator profession and explore the concept of teacher educator from the more traditionally understood area of initial teacher education to emergent areas of cooperating teachers,

174  MacPhail, O’Sullivan, Tannehill, and Parker

school placement and continuing professional development provision for teachers. Today, three government agencies are charged with responsibility to support teacher learning; (i) National Induction Programme for Teachers, (ii) Professional Development Service for Teachers, and (iii) Junior Cycle for Teachers teams. In essence, all staff aligned with each agency are now viewed as teacher educators. Second, an activist Minister of Education tasked an international panel of teacher education scholars (Sahlberg et al. 2012) to review the structure of teacher education provision in Ireland. In their report, the authors recommended consolidation of 18 teacher education providers to six ‘Centres of Excellence’ and all teacher education to be university-based. This has resulted in significant changes to teacher education structures including mergers of college of education programs with universities, an increased focus on research-led teaching, and increased expectation for teacher educators to be research active as universities in Ireland seek to position themselves in the global rankings. Third, and probably most significantly for PETE, has been the establishment of the Teaching Council in 2006 with its regulatory function to shape the content and delivery of all teacher education programs. Teaching Council regulations (2017) have been a catalyst for many initial teacher education departments to revise programs, as well as expectations and work practices for teacher educators. The Teaching Council promotes the ‘continuum of teacher education’ with specific standards for entry to teacher education. There has been the introduction of school-university partnerships in support of newly qualified teachers’ learning and a mandated induction program (DROICHEAD) with the creation of Professional Support Teams in schools to mentor new teachers. Currently underway is a new program of professional development (COSÁN) to support teachers as lifelong learners. There is a lack of diversity in the Irish teaching force and among physical education teacher graduates. In this perspective, Lawson’s call for greater attention to selection effects of physical education teachers would resonate with the Irish education system. The recent allocation of funding in Ireland to promote diversity in the teaching profession was limited to students with disability, from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds and the Traveller community (Department of Education and Skills 2013). While PETE programs in Ireland do prioritize differentiated instruction to reflect the diversity of the school population, more interaction with and understanding of recent immigrant populations is a challenge for the teacher education community.

PETE curriculum The PETE curriculum, like all teacher education curriculum in Ireland, is formed through a combination of institutionalized policy guidelines and

Redesigning physical education in Ireland  175

criteria with respect to program aims/outcomes, design, and content, and programmatic decisions regarding best practice. To define what is valued in teacher education and teaching that also reflects, “the wealth of our Irish teaching heritage” (O’Doherty 2009, p. 69), the Teaching Council (2017) established a set of learning outcomes for all teacher education programs. These outcomes, “directly related to the complex role of the teacher” (Teaching Council 2017, p. 24), are designed to facilitate quality learning in schools and cater for national policies related to literacy, numeracy, and inclusion. From a subject disciplinary perspective within physical education, “The study of Physical Education [teacher education] must result in the preservice teacher having sufficient knowledge, skills and understanding to teach the physical education syllabus to the highest level in post-primary education” (Teaching Council 2013, p. 39). In striving to achieve this, undergraduate, four-year PETE programs are expected to constitute 50 per cent of the time on subject discipline study, 25 percent on general education foundational and professional studies, and 25 percent on school placement. As the national physical education syllabus specifications are used to outline what is studied in PETE, this inherited PE/PETE configuration consequently means that the content of Irish PETE is massively influenced by the designated content for post-primary physical education. That is, it is the post-primary physical education content strands, rather than the related physical education outcomes, that the Teaching Council wish to ensure are being delivered by PETE programs. To meet the content of the post-primary physical education school syllabi, PETE programs must contain both practical and theoretical aspects (Teaching Council 2013). Practical content is divided into seven categories; Adventure Activities, Aquatics, Athletics, Dance, Games, Gymnastics, and Health-Related Activity. Theoretical aspects are divided into seven categories; (i) Anatomical, Physiological and Biomechanical aspects of Movement, (ii) Factors that inhibit and promote (Personal, Biological, Psychological, Sociological, Environmental) participation in Physical Activity and Sport, (iii) Disability and Movement, (iv) Historical, Sociological and Philosophical aspects of Physical Education, (v) Growth, Motor Skill Learning and Development of the Child and Adolescent, (vi) Physical Activity/Sport Promotion and Health across the Lifespan, and Artistic and (vii) Creative Studies. The program also must contain the theory, methodology, and practice of teaching physical education. While there is promising redesign in postprimary physical education, PETE content redesign at the policy level lags behind school-based physical education. This leads us to a similar consideration to that of Lawson – namely, the extent to which current content is a representation of ‘industrial age’ content for PETE (and PE) and whether it is fit for purpose in today’s society.

176  MacPhail, O’Sullivan, Tannehill, and Parker

How content is developed and taught within the three PETE undergraduate programs in Ireland is left to the discretion of the PETE program leaders. It reflects their programmatic decisions regarding best practice in postprimary physical education and the particular expertise of PETE faculty. It is at this juncture that PETE programs have had impact in shaping school physical education in preparing what they believe are teachers who are able to design programs to achieve desirable outcomes for the greatest number of young people. Three distinctive aspects of the delivery of PETE are, (1) a conscious focus on models-based practice: (2) the integration of content and pedagogy while ‘living the curriculum’; and (3) a focus on student learning and assessment in physical education. Each merits a brief description. PETE programs have followed an international trend in prioritizing a curriculum models approach to curriculum by presenting six mainstream curricular models. In contrast to Lawson’s characterization, this emphasis does not reflect a competition among models. It embraces all models to meet the diverse needs of students and interests of schools, discounting ‘the one-size-fits-all’ thinking. Second, to aid PSTs’ understanding of the complex and nuanced relationship between their academic coursework and future responsibilities as teachers, physical activity courses have been designed in a ‘living the curriculum’ manner. PSTs gain both content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge simultaneously, while experiencing the curricular models as they might be used in schools. Third, until the recent and impending changes to school physical education curricula, physical education has not been assessed in schools. Consequently, physical education has often been viewed as ‘doing’ rather than ‘learning.’ PETE programs, however, have a concerted emphasis on learning and assessing learning within physical education and newly qualified teachers therefore enter schools with a different view of physical education. It is anticipated that the programs have a stronger potential to deliver the ‘goods’ of physical education in a fashion that supports change in schools. While the three PETE programs are proactive in attempts to produce change in school physical education, formidable constraints remain. Notably, while school–university partnerships are an increasing expectation (and are developing) they remain challenging. School-university partnerships largely remain a situation of responsibility without authority as teacher union policies limit the extent that teachers can engage fully as teacher educators. PETE in Ireland may well be at a boundary crossing. The landscape is ripe for the potential of physical education and PETE working in tandem for renewal. In this way, the redesign of physical education in schools has the promise to disrupt the ‘presentism’ of physical education in schools. The question that surfaces now is ‘Can change can be realized on a more formal basis by PETE and accompanying regulatory bodies?’ Given the very

Redesigning physical education in Ireland  177

recent re-designing of post-primary school physical education in Ireland (see the next section of this chapter), the informal PETE/physical education structures currently in place give rise to potential opportunities to use the inherited configuration to move physical education forward. As the recent new school physical education documents reflect a move away from the traditional content of games and toward a focus on wellbeing, instructional and curricular models and assessment, PETE programs are poised to support the redesign of school physical education.

Post-primary school physical education in Ireland Irish post-primary school physical education has undergone, and continues to undergo, significant redesign. The multiple opportunities with differing foci that are now available for young people to experience Irish physical education provides support for Lawson’s claim that industrial age assumptions regarding a one best system, expressed colloquially as ‘one size fits all PE’ no longer are tenable. The catalyst in the Irish system for more nuanced and less-formulaic learning and development experiences was the introduction of the Framework for Junior Cycle (Department of Education and Skills 2015). This framework is structured to provide a quality, inclusive, and relevant education to meet the needs of all junior cycle students. It places students at the centre of the learning process, enabling them to actively participate in their communities and in society; and to be resourceful and confident students in all aspects and stages of their lives. Learning for all subject areas (including physical education) is set out in terms of learning outcomes that describe understandings, skills, and values students should be able to demonstrate. This supports Lawson’s prompt that physical education programs should systematically achieve designated, desirable outcomes for the greatest number of young people. Complementing the junior cycle physical education syllabus (DES/NCCA 2003), an additional opportunity arises for formal involvement in physical education through the recent introduction of a physical education ‘short course’ (100 hours of student engagement over the first three years of junior cycle), which teachers are encouraged to design in consultation with students in a bid to meet the distinct needs and interest of students (Department of Education and Skills 2015). The recent introduction of wellbeing as a new area of learning at junior cycle (NCCA 2017) places a strong emphasis on the role that physical education can play in supporting learning about wellbeing and learning for wellbeing. Consequently, physical education is encouraged to avail of a significant number of hours scheduled under wellbeing not only for physical education specific activities but also to complement and support the teaching of ‘Civic, Social and Political Education’ and ‘Social, Personal and Health Education.’ There is now considerable potential for physical education to

178  MacPhail, O’Sullivan, Tannehill, and Parker

be aligned with other health-enhancing and life-extending behaviors in addition to those focusing on life-long participation in exercise, sport, play, and physical activity. At senior cycle, physical education may be studied in two ways – Leaving Certificate physical education and senior cycle physical education framework. Leaving Certificate physical education (NCCA 2016) is a full subject (180 hours), which is to be formally assessed as part of the Leaving Certificate (it has only recently been approved as a Leaving Certificate subject and is planned to be phased into schools). It is designed to appeal to learners who have an interest in, and are committed to, participation and performance in physical activity, with the aim to develop the learners’ capacity to become an informed, skilled, self-directed and reflective performer in physical education and physical activity in senior cycle and in their future life. The senior cycle physical education framework (NCCA 2011) is designed for those learners who do not choose to take physical education as part of their Leaving Certificate. The aim of the framework is to encourage students’ confident, enjoyable, and informed participation in physical activity now and in the future. This curriculum framework provides a flexible planning tool for schools wishing to improve the management and co-ordination of physical education for this second group of learners. It is structured around six curriculum models. Each model provides a detailed map, including a rationale, planning, implementation and assessment guidance, all of which can be used in the design of a physical education program. Ireland has been informed by the international trend in prioritizing a curriculum models approach to curriculum. Significantly, there is minimal (if any) competing curricular framework problems such as those described by Lawson in the USA. Rather, there is a shared appreciation that the six models are complementary to each other and it is widely assumed that these models collectively achieve the learning outcomes noted for senior cycle physical education. That is, by being exposed to curriculum models, students are encouraged not only to improve their performance in different physical activities but also to develop their understanding of the factors that impact on their personal performance and participation in physical activity. Further, students are encouraged to explore physical activity opportunities both within and beyond the school environment, allowing them to develop as informed participants in physical activity as they reflect on the community and societal factors that support or hinder lifelong participation in physical activity.

Conclusion Ireland has seen extensive and timely innovations in physical education in recent years, and these will continue for the foreseeable future. While the policy emphasis reflects a growing regulation of teaching and teacher

Redesigning physical education in Ireland  179

education (Ellis and McNicholl 2015), Irish physical education is better positioned and marketed centrally as contributing to school improvement and performance and the education of the young person. The advantages of a small country allow the real potential for teacher education policy advocates in PETE, and education more broadly, to work with policy makers to shape public policy. There are, of course, risks to this strategy in that the profession must be careful it does not overcommit, as Lawson suggests, to grand claims for the field or to expecting practices of teachers that the reality of schooling cannot deliver. Momentum and enthusiasm must be balanced with the capacities of the system to move forward with sustainability and must sustain an enthusiasm by teachers for that change. However, the Irish context contrasts with the challenges Lawson poses for the USA. Five context-specific developments in Ireland need to be considered and deliberated further by physical education PSTs and PETE teacher educators. First, Ireland has been able to capitalize on its relatively small size to effect significant and rapid redesign to its post-primary physical education programs in recent years. The focus of the energies has been in the redesign of the physical education curriculum (based on best practices internationally) and supporting a small number of physical education teachers to create realistic exemplars of elements of the curricular and associated assessments. Yet, the extent of the professional development needed to encourage a sustained change in physical education teachers’ mindsets, and in their pedagogical and assessment practices to best reflect this significant physical education redesign, is a system-wide challenge for PETE and for the governmental agencies who support teacher professional development. Such redesigns are likely to create a level of inertia from specific groups of teachers who are not provided with sufficient resources to not only encourage a change in mindset but also encourage ongoing investment in such program redesigns. This leads to the consideration of how teachers are prepared to cope with system-wide change, ensuring that they are informed and consulted on proposed significant redesigns of physical education programs. Second, there is potential for reciprocity between PETE providers, the physical education subject association and government professional development agencies. Individuals from these agencies can play multiple roles (i.e., engaged with design, delivery and evaluation of the new curriculum as well as supporting curriculum change with teachers and/or PSTs). This provides multiple opportunities for individuals attached to such groups to operate in a ‘third space’ as boundary crossers, e.g., a teacher educator who is requested to inform government about program redesign and is then involved in the implementation of such a redesign. Third, there is a challenge for physical education teacher educators to balance their commitments to teaching and research in PETE, as well as

180  MacPhail, O’Sullivan, Tannehill, and Parker

support the professional development of physical education teachers. Given the extent of the demand for professional development (even in a small country), the role of the PETE faculty has been in supporting the creation and delivery of evidence-based professional learning communities built on a premise that teachers are empowered (with adequate governmental infrastructure) to lead on their learning and to act in facilitation roles. There is a heightened feeling from teacher educators that providing this level of support is becoming untenable, given the increasing remit, expectations and demands being placed on the university-based teacher educator. Fourth, the extent to which program redesign engages with the readiness of physical education teachers and teacher educators to be held accountable for young people’s physical education outcomes. There is a recent shift (in Ireland) to ensuring that physical education teachers are held responsible (to some extent) for capturing student learning. With this shift comes discussion on effective ways in which learning can be captured in a physical education context, with opportunities for classroom-based assessment being the preferred option. This also challenges physical education teacher educators to consider the degree to which the PETE program adequately reflects contemporary (relevant and scalable) assessment tools aligned to the national curricular outcomes. Fifth, the centrality of research-informed PETE practice through selfstudy is proposed as an effective way to capture the reality and nuances of physical education and PETE redesign. Self-study research provides a method for systematic inquiry into teaching and teacher education, encouraging a network of practitioners / researchers who bring an inquiryoriented stance toward researching their own practice. The five-year contract appointment of Applied Studies Coordinators to PETE programs in Ireland allow post-primary physical education teachers to spend five years engaging with academic staff to study their practice before returning to teaching in school. This allows a cross-fertilization of academic staff ideas on teaching and PETE with the modern realities of schooling that the Applied Study Coordinators bring with them. Encouraging such networks within PETE programs not only strengthens the sense of a shared community of practitioners / researchers but also encompasses a level of accountability in providing evidence of the extent to which a PETE program effectively provides teachers and PSTs with intended experiences.

References Department of Education and Skills, 2013. Integration, innovation and improvement; the professional identity of teacher education. Available from: www.teaching [Accessed 22 January 2018]. Department of Education and Skills, 2015. Framework for junior cycle 2015. Dublin: DES.

Redesigning physical education in Ireland  181 Department of Education and Skills, 2017. Available from: find-a-school [Accessed 22 January 2018]. Department of Education and Skills / National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 1999. Primary physical education curriculum. Dublin: The Stationery Office. Department of Education and Skills / National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2003. junior cycle physical education. Dublin: The Stationery Office. Ellis, V. and McNicholl, J., 2015. Transforming teacher education: Reconfiguring the academic work. London: Bloomsbury. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2011. Physical education curriculum framework. Dublin: NCCA. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2016. Physical education syllabus. Dublin: NCCA. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2017. Junior cycle wellbeing guidelines. Dublin: NCCA. O’Doherty, L., 2009. Teacher competences – A core challenge for teacher educators. OIDEAS, Journal of the Department of Education and Science, 54, 68–81. Sahlberg, P., Furlong, J. and Munn, P., 2012. Report of the international review panel on the structure of initial teacher education provision in Ireland: Review conducted on behalf of the Department of Education and Skills. Dublin: Department of Education and Skills. Smyth, J., 2012. Initial teacher education in Ireland: Transformation in the policy context. In: F. Waldron, J. Smith, M. Fitzpatrick and T. Dooley, eds. Re-imagining initial teacher education. Dublin: Liffey Press, 74–97. Teaching Council, 2013. Teaching Council registration – Curricular subject requirements (post-primary). Maynooth, Ireland: The Teaching Council. Teaching Council, 2017. Initial teacher education: Criteria and guidelines for programme providers. Maynooth, Ireland: The Teaching Council.

Chapter 11

Redesign of PE in Aotearoa New Zealand Ben Dyson Dillon Landi Barrie Gordon

Each nation faces specific cultural features and socio-political climates that provide a unique context for the redesign of Physical Education (PE). We choose a quote from newly elected Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern to introduce this chapter, which exemplifies these differences lucidly: Has [capitalism] failed our people in recent times? Yes. How can you claim that you have been successful when you have growth [of] roughly 3%, but you’ve got the worst homelessness in the developed world? . . . The measures for us have to change. We need to make sure we are looking at people’s ability to have a meaningful life and an enjoyable life. (Satherly and Owen 2017) In contrast to the United States, a country infatuated with accountability as well as controlling and quantifying children—Prime Minister Ardern’s quote signals a different policy agenda for children, schools, and PE in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). In this chapter, we argue that a NZ ‘re-design’ of health and physical education (HPE) has been under way since the formation of a national curriculum in 1999 (Ministry of Education [MOE] 1999a). Historically, the PE curriculum (DOE 1987) had a traditional fitness and team sport and biomedical focus (Burrows 1999). The ground-breaking work of Culpan (1998, 2000, 2004) however, shifted the focus of the new HPE curriculum onto “the well-being of the students themselves, of other people, and of society through learning in health-related and movement contexts” (MOE 2007, p. 22). We describe how and why the HPE curriculum (MOE, 1999a, 2007) is aligned to social goals which, we argue, is more akin to a ‘kiwi’ (NZ) perspective of the role of education. Our analysis proceeds in four parts: (1) HPE in NZ; (2) Characteristics of our re-design; (3) Constraints of our re-design; and (4) Implications for NZ.

Redesign of PE in Aotearoa New Zealand  183

HPE in Aotearoa New Zealand In 1999, the subjects ‘health education’ and ‘physical education’ were combined into one academic subject (HPE) in the national curriculum (MOE 1999a). HPE has remained a single subject since (MOE 2007). HPE is one of eight learning areas (e.g. English, The Arts, Mathematics, Social Sciences, etc.) that schools are mandated to provide. While each learning area has its own aim or focus, all learning areas are aligned to an overarching vision of the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC): “Young people who will be confident, connected, actively involved, lifelong learners” (MOE 2007, p. 7). In addition to the overarching vision, the NZC is structured by guiding principles including cultural diversity, innovation, community engagement, and student identities. Many of the HPE curriculum’s goals are aligned with the curriculum’s focus on students as engaged, socially just, and informed citizens. What makes NZ unique in this regard is that we openly accept that values are embedded in curriculum and therefore knowledge cannot be considered ‘value-free’. The New Zealand HPE curriculum is also unique because it is undergirded by four underlying concepts that guide teachers and students in the learning process. These concepts are (1) Attitudes and Values; (2) Hauora; (3) Health Promotion; and (4) Socio-ecological Perspective. These concepts are philosophically foundational for the HPE curriculum. Attitudes and Values When learning ‘in’, ‘about’, and ‘through’ health and movement, students are expected to reflect on and challenge their own attitudes about what constitutes ‘good health’ and who has access to it. Health is not considered merely a physical phenomenon (lack of disease), but rather a holistic state of well-being. Through self-reflection, students develop a positive and responsible attitude to their own health, respect and a sense of justice for the rights of others, and develop care and concern for others and the environment. Hauora is a Māori1 philosophy of well-being that illustrates the interconnected nature of health. The NZC adopted and modified Mason Durie’s (1994) concept, ‘Te Whare Tapa Whā’ to represent the concept, Hauora (MOE 1999b) (link to Hauora: Teaching-in-HPE/Health-and-PE-in-the-NZC/Health-and-PE-in-theNZC-1999/Underlying-concepts/Well-being-hauora). The Māori philosophy of Hauora presents ‘Te Whare Tapa Whā’, which likens well-being to a house where four equally important walls (or dimensions of health) ensure strength and balance to the house. The four dimensions are (1) Taha hinengaro: mental and emotional wellbeing; (2) Taha whānau: social well-being; (3) Taha tinana: physical

184  Dyson, Landi, and Gordon

well-being; and (4) Taha wairua: spiritual well-being. Therefore, when teachers and students construct their learning environments, this model is employed to illustrate the interconnected nature of the mental, social, physical, and spiritual dimensions. Health Promotion. Health promotion is not simply promoting ‘healthy lifestyle habits’ such as nutritious eating, daily physical activity, or stress-management decisions. Health promotion is “a process that helps to develop and maintain supportive physical and emotional environments and that involves students in personal and collective actions” (MOE 2007, p. 22). In this conception, health promotion is about relationships with others. It helps students to understand how their environment affects their well-being. Students and teachers are expected to learn about, and be active in, the development of initiatives between the school and community, ultimately benefiting society. Socio-ecological model. The socioecological perspective is “a way of viewing and understanding the interrelationships that exist between the individual, others, and society” (MOE 2007, p. 22). Cliff et al. (2009) identified three characteristics of the socioecological perspective. The first challenges the notion of personal choice as the most important factor in health. By shifting the focus to relationships among individuals, communities, and society—health and physical activity are not constructed as individual needs and problems. They are important social issues. The second characteristic is that the knowledge is viewed as socially constructed. The third characteristic is being student-centred, which entails connecting socially constructed knowledge to the students’ lives. This idea is important: if the students cannot resonate with the content or activities, it is moot.

Characteristics of the re-design Among the many characteristics of re-design’s efforts under way, we highlight three. The first is the interdisciplinary nature of our curriculum. Because our curriculum is broad in scope, it has allowed our teachers, students, and academic faculties to work and experiment in a range of different fields. The second feature derives from the community focus: Our curriculum has been resistant to a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. Third: Because our curriculum is underpinned by social justice, our conceptualization of accountability is unique and proceeds with special measures. Interdisciplinary nature In several chapters, Lawson outlined the negative effects of fragmentation in PE/PETE, caused in part by academics, teachers, and students who

Redesign of PE in Aotearoa New Zealand  185

are ‘siloed’ into particular areas and are socialized into segmental ways of thinking. Unlike the US, NZ is not as segmented in its programming. For example, instead of earning a doctorate in physical education, many scholars have a PhD in Education. Therefore, someone studying masculinities in physical education (Gerdin 2017), physical education teacher education (Philpot 2016), pastoral care in high schools (Barber 2016), or any other education-related subject will earn the same degree. In addition, students may investigate any of these topics based in other faculties (e.g. public health, psychology, etc.). In addition to postgraduate training, HPE scholars tend to be interdisciplinary in their research practices. Chapter author Dyson, for example, is considered a physical education scholar (Dyson, 2014; Dyson and Casey, 2016), but this has not stopped him from working with colleagues on broader public health research (Dyson et al. 2011; Utter et al. 2016). Others, like Fitzpatrick, started their career in physical education, but expanded into health education and sexuality education (Fitzpatrick and Tinning 2014). All in all, the differences between NZ and the US are noteworthy. While the US is sort of a sui generis in their fragmented practices, research in NZ is embedded in our communities and therefore cuts across multiple fields. The interrelated nature of our practice has shaped our policies and curriculum. In contrast to the segmenting practices often involved in HPE (e.g. health education/ physical education; mind/body; team/lifestyle activities), we argue that the NZ curriculum is more integrated and holistic. For example, the use of Hauora resists the idea that the physical body is separate from the mind, emotions, or spirituality. HPE in NZ has no doubt been affected by Cartesian logic. Nevertheless, because we draw from interdisciplinary fields, NZ physical educators have challenged this binary logic using post-colonial theory (Hokowhitu 2003), critical theory (Pringle 2010), and phenomenology (Ovens and Powell 2011). And because the underlying concepts of the NZ HPE curriculum are grounded in socio-critical theory; if used properly they can subvert simplistic binary thinking by drawing on other disciplines (Culpan 2005). Local not national Lawson describes how schooling in the US transitioned from locally based village schools to the development of the ‘one best system’ (Tyack 1974). Leading education scholars in the US looked to industry to gain ideas— in particular, ideas developed with the rise of industrialization. Unlike the US, our schools remain locally operated with minimal interference from macro-level governmental agencies. Although there is an agency (Ministry of Education) structured to oversee schools—the Ministry does not meddle in the everyday operations of the school. However, in 2009 new educational policies ushered in standards that students must achieve for literacy and

186  Dyson, Landi, and Gordon

numeracy at the primary level (Pope 2014). These standardized outcomes resulted in an uneven emphasis on these subjects in relation to others. It led to other subjects (like HPE and the Arts) becoming marginalized (Petrie and lisahunter 2011) and, in some cases, privatized (Powell 2015). In a recent turn of events, the new Labour government has scrapped the standards. Policy leaders have “doubled-down” on local control being the best option for students (Gerritsen 2017). The HPE curriculum has not been regulated by accountability standards. Instead, broadly defined ‘objectives’ (MOE 1999, 2007) can be met in diverse ways. Importantly, each local school is site-based and managed with its own budget from the government. Each has a Board of Trustees that works with school leaders and the community to create, adapt, and implement locally based policies. In practice, this can be a double-edged sword, but it is important because schools can choose to accept or reject objectives laid out in the curriculum based on local needs (MOE 2007). Therefore, the curriculum and other policies are tailored and modified to fit the population of the school. This configuration offers benefits for schools who have high populations of historically marginalized groups (e.g. Māori, Pasifika, LGBTQ students, students with disabilities, etc.). Social justice focus Equity and equality are important priorities in educational policy and practice and they extend to PE. One way to appreciate the difference between equity and equality is to draw on an illustration. In Figure 11.1 (below), there are three people of varying heights (short, medium, tall) trying to view a baseball game. According to the picture, equality means each of the three persons gets equal support (boxes) to view the game. Not everyone needs a box, however, and this still leaves the shortest person without a view of the game. Instead of an ‘equality’ approach (everyone receiving the same help) the illustrator suggests equity, which provides each person the support they require to meet the goal: viewing the game (Maguire 2016). Importantly, the NZC supports the concept of equity and fairness through social justice (MOE 2007). By using the term ‘social justice’, the curriculum analyses the social barriers that benefit some people, but marginalize others. Put another way, instead of trying to boost the ‘individual’ persons by giving them boxes, a ‘social justice’ perspective would ask why there is a fence there in the first place. Instead, could we structure the environment in such a way that all people (no matter their individual characteristics) could reach the outcome? Perhaps this would mean removing the wooden fence and providing bleachers so all could see. In other words, our curriculum encourages students to actively question inequitable societal structures rather than just accept them as ‘fact’. Importantly, this is done through service-learning projects. For example, one purpose in the curriculum is for

Redesign of PE in Aotearoa New Zealand  187

Figure 11.1  Equality versus equity Image provided by Interaction Institute for Social Change | Artist: Angus Maguire Image can be accessed at: or

students to “contribute to healthy communities and environments by taking responsible and critical action” (MOE 2007, p. 22). How this expectation is manifested in local curricula and instructional practices is up to individual schools and teachers that staff them. Using the four underlying concepts (Attitudes and Values, Hauora, Health Promotion, and Socio-ecological Perspective) is designed to provide different and nuanced ways to make socio-critical action happen. Underlying concepts can then be applied to different models of instruction like cooperative learning (Dyson and Casey 2016), sport education (Siedentop 1994), or teaching for personal and social responsibility (Hellison 2003; Gordon 2010), and therefore be made more relevant to NZ society and social goals.

Constraints: Neoliberal policies and their ramifications In the previous two sections, we provided a brief overview of the HPE curriculum in NZ, emphasizing key characteristics and policy facilitators.

188  Dyson, Landi, and Gordon

However, constraints influence NZ ‘re-design’, in part because education does not occur in a vacuum. It is embedded within larger socio-political commitments and ideologies. The NZ socio-political climate has influenced the ways in which our curriculum has materialized in schools. Specifically, the socio-historical and political effects of neoliberalism amount to a ‘perfect storm’ (Dyson et al. 2018), starting with the out-sourcing of primary HPE to external program providers. All such neoliberal policies are having capillary effects on HPE at all levels of education (primary to tertiary). We argue that the dramatic changes (re-formation) in the HPE curriculum (MOE 1999a, 2007) were also related to the hegemonic place that sport holds within NZ culture. Academics at the universities, the national physical education association (PENZ), and physical educators in the schools were ready to embrace the new direction but the combined power of sport and the neoliberal agenda limited progress. Standards and privileged subjects One of the ‘calling cards’ of neoliberal ideologies in education is the shift toward ‘high standards’ and privileged subjects (Apple 2006). The election of a centre-right government in 2009 brought about changes to education based on a perceived view of falling standards, illiteracy, and a lack of competition. The first politically motivated decision was the removal of school advisors except for those focused on numeracy and literacy, or privileged subjects (Ovens 2010). School advisors, known in other nations as curriculum and instruction experts, previously offered ongoing support and advice to teachers on how best to implement lessons for all core subjects (including HPE). Advisors were extremely important in primary schools because HPE is taught by generalist (or classroom) teachers and not specialists. Therefore, advisors were integral support mechanisms for the appropriate alignment of lessons to the underlying concepts of the curriculum (Stothart 2005). When the support was removed and re-focused toward privileged subjects, this left a critical gap in the full understanding and implementation of the HPE curriculum. In addition to the change in advisors, the government introduced national standards for ‘privileged subjects’ at the primary level (Pope 2014). The national standards were a radical change from what had previously been school-based evaluations. In essence, the external evaluation of privileged subjects created a precarious situation where teachers felt obligated to align their efforts unevenly to some subjects at the expense of others. In conjunction with the advisor change, this complex and precarious state of affairs established a two-tier hierarchy of academic areas: (1) Subjects that were externally evaluated (and worthwhile); and (2) Subjects that were internally evaluated (and auxiliary). HPE was firmly positioned in the latter category.

Redesign of PE in Aotearoa New Zealand  189

The hierarchy of subjects created material inequities at the level of teaching and learning. For example, Gordon and colleagues (2016) found that teachers spent considerably less time preparing for HPE because of the focus on national standards. One teacher claimed, “Literacy and maths would be above everything else because it’s on national standards and it’s seen as, well I say it’s seen as important” (p. 106). HPE received cursory preparation because it was perceived as unimportant. As this teacher said, “Sometimes I do lesson plans, well, I just get a whole bunch of activities and put them together and work through them” (p. 106). In brief, macro-level and neoliberal aligned policy decisions had insidious effects on HPE in schools (Dyson et al. 2018). These formidable constraints sit in a constellation of others, which influenced teacher preparation. Dwindling teacher education In addition to the material conditions in schools, initial teacher education (ITE) also has a complex history. Prior to 2004, ITE was separate from University systems. In other words, pre-service teachers were being trained by ‘expert’ teachers at local ‘Teacher Colleges’. In an effort to bridge the gap between research and practice, and to alleviate fiscal issues, Teacher Colleges were merged into universities across the country. The merger ended up being a ‘messy’ and ‘complex’ process that placed additional pressure on formerly ‘expert teachers’ to obtain PhD certifications, be active researchers, and to publish in reputable journals (Smith and Tinning 2011). In so doing, teacher educator evaluations shifted heavily toward research productivity and funding (Middleton 2009). Importantly, Russell and colleagues (2001) found that an increase in research focus tends to come with a marginalization of teaching practices and preparation at Universities. In addition to decreased focus on teacher preparation, national standards created an emphasis on teaching ‘privileged subjects’ in primary teacher education. As this process unfolded, Smith and Philpot (2011) noted that HPE courses in primary ITE faced a ‘squeeze problem’, where teacher education candidates received just one compulsory course that covered HPE. Given these powerful constraints, the ‘perfect storm’ (Dyson et al. 2018) analogy is apropos. Think about it: (1) primary teacher education students receive minimal training in HPE (Smith and Philpot 2011); (2) HPE teacher educators are under pressure to publish (Middleton 2009); (3) HPE receives less attention in schools because of status (Pope 2014) and; (4) support advisors in HPE have been removed (Ovens 2010). The amalgamation of these issues can be viewed as a ‘perfect storm’ because it lowered the professional status of HPE. By lowering the professional status of the field, it left school-based HPE wide open to external providers (EPs) and ripe for privatization (Dyson et al. 2016).

190  Dyson, Landi, and Gordon

Privatizing HPE A major principle of neoliberalism is the syphoning of public funds into private hands to create and sustain new markets (Massey 1995). One such market was professional development—where the government outsourced services via governmental contracts (Ell 2011). In so doing, the government slashed funding from public programmes (e.g. Healthy Eating Healthy Action) and re-directed those funds to Kiwisport (a private entity). The government allocated $NZ82 million to Kiwisport (Pope 2014) with goals to: (1) increase the number of students participating in sport; (2) increase availability and access of sport to children; and (3) support children to develop skills to participate in sport. Indeed, the focus on sport highlighted a ‘hidden curriculum’ that directly contradicted the underlying concepts of the HPE curriculum (Dyson et al. 2016; Petrie 2016) in favour of neoliberal concepts like individualism, nationalism, and competition (Landi et al. 2016). One immediate result of Kiwisport funding was the ‘outsourcing’ of school-based primary HPE. Instead of teachers exclusively providing HPE to students, outside agencies came into schools and began to teach HPE classes in curriculum time. Dyson and colleagues (2016) found that the presence of the external providers (EPs), funded and supported predominantly by a Sport NZ initiative, has had a negative impact on primary teachers’ confidence in their ability to teach physical education and led to reduced alignment with the NZC. In essence, the outside ‘sport experts’ had become the new de facto advisors in physical education. It should be noted, however, that little research has been conducted on their practices. Indeed, some teachers expressed criticisms around EPs pedagogical approaches and lack of curricular knowledge (Dyson et al. 2016). More recently, the ‘Play.Sport’ programme has been proffered as a solution to a perceived lack of quality in primary school physical education (Sport New Zealand 2017). Play.Sport is a curriculum designed, planned, and implemented by the powerful and influential Sport NZ organization under the umbrella of professional development. Sport NZ is a well-funded government organization that has been tactical in its hiring practices by targeting former teachers, as well as coaches. The Play.Sport programme is heavily funded to work in two geographical areas of NZ. Both areas (West Auckland and Hutt region) are recognized as ‘high need’ areas with observed gaps in their curriculum. The focus on these parts of NZ, however, reinforces the practice that reform strategies always target and experiment with ‘poor kids’ of low socio-economic status. Implications for Aotearoa New Zealand The preceding analysis indicates how and why HPE in NZ is currently undergoing a ‘re-design’. In so doing, we outlined the underlying concepts

Redesign of PE in Aotearoa New Zealand  191

of the curriculum, the socio-critical and historical characteristics of these concepts, and the limitations our ‘re-design’ has faced. We conclude that NZ provides a dynamic example of HPE reform and re-design in process. Its distinctive strengths offer important examples to an international audience. The strengths of our curriculum are its interdisciplinary nature, the communitybased approach it takes, and the social justice efforts it privileges. Nevertheless, socio-historical and political forces inevitability play a role in the shaping of HPE (Hawkins 2008). So, while our re-design focuses on social justice and community-based efforts, formidable constraints may produce a perfect storm, starting with the individualistic and inequitable forces driving the historically powerful NZ sporting influences and neoliberalism. One indicator is especially problematic: Much of the potential of the HPE Curriculum (MOE 1999a, 2007) appears to have been lost in primary schools with a narrowing of the enacted curriculum demonstrating a more traditional sport and fitness focus (Dyson et al. 2018). It should be noted, however, that much of the research we have synthesized has focused on primary settings. Importantly, these implications cannot be said to be the same for secondary HPE. For example, Fitzpatrick’s (2013) critical ethnography highlighted the potential of the NZ secondary school HPE curriculum. Furthermore, secondary teacher education programs have actually retained much of their potential because they have not watered down their HPE curricula. These encouraging developments suggest that the potential of the curriculum can still be brought to fruition if all teachers (not just specialists) are appropriately trained and socialized into the HPE curriculum. This socialization, of course, requires significant time and effort (Petrie 2016). A related need also merits attention. More HPE research in NZ schools is needed, particularly at the secondary level. Overall, PE’s re-design is not a ‘quick-fix’; it is a long-term initiative, in part because the policy environment is turbulent. For example, as we completed this change, socio-political forces were set in motion again when the new government scrapped the core standards for Math and Literacy and removed the accompanying external evaluation system. Both measures have marginalized HPE programs. Our hope is that this return to local control will drive the success of HPE programs. Meanwhile, the HPE curriculum with its unique, solid foundation has the potential to be a strong policy document because of its social goals and community-based approach (Culpan and Bruce 2007). The time has arrived to proceed beyond advocacy based on this curriculum’s potential to research evidence in support of its claims. Toward this end, we see the need for longitudinal, school-based collaborative research partnerships to produce evidence that is meaningful and relevant to our communities. A keynote feature of these research designs is important to emphasize: We would like to see academics working ‘with’ and not ‘on’ teachers and students at all school levels.

192  Dyson, Landi, and Gordon

In this vein, we re-invoke the wise words of Horace Mann: “Where anything is growing, one former is worth a thousand re-formers” (Dewey 1990, p. 95). The most important influence we can have is teaching students to value health and physical activity (Siedentop 1996). If this book’s sub-title is accurate in its claim, that “every child matters”, we entreat that HPE start with the children in our local communities. Or better put, be a former and not a re-former.

Note 1 The Māori are the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand. In New Zealand, the country must follow the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, which ensures indigenous knowledge is protected in our schools.

References Apple, M.W. 2006. Educating the ‘right’ way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Barber, C. 2016. ‘It takes a village to raise a child’: Pastoral Care for Māori and Pasifika secondary school students. Auckland, NZ: The University of Auckland. Burrows, L. 1999. Developmental discourses in school physical education. Wollongong, NSW: University of Wollongong. Cliff, K., Wright, J., and Clarke, D. 2009. What does a sociocultural perspective mean in health and physical education? In: M. Dinan-Thompson, ed. Health and physical education: Issues for curriculum in Australia and New Zealand. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 165–182. Culpan, I. 1998. Physical education in the new curriculum: Are we agents of the state? Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 31 (2), 3–8. Culpan, I. 2000. Getting what you got: Harnessing the potential, Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 33 (2), 16–29. Culpan, I. 2004. Physical education curriculum: A humanistic positioning. In: A.-M. O’Neill, J. Clark, and R. Openshaw, eds. Reshaping culture, knowledge and learning. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press, 225–243. Culpan, I. 2005. Physical education: What is it all about? The muddled puzzle. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Available at: whats_happening/health_physical_e.php Culpan, I. and Bruce, J. 2007. New Zealand physical education and critical pedagogy: Refocusing the curriculum. International Journal of Sport and Health Science, 5, 1–11. doi: 10.5432/ijshs.5.1 Department of Education. 1987. Physical education: Syllabus for junior classes to Form 7 with guidelines for early childhood education. Wellington: Department of Education. Dewey, J. 1990. The school and society & the child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Durie, M. 1994. Whaiora: Māori health development. Auckland, NZ: Oxford University Press. Dyson, B. 2014. Quality physical education: A commentary on effective physical education teaching. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85 (2) 144–152. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2014.904155.

Redesign of PE in Aotearoa New Zealand  193 Dyson, B., Wright, P.M., Amis, J., Ferry, H., and Vardaman, J.M. 2011. The production, communication, and contestation of physical education policy: The cases of Mississippi and Tennessee. Policy Futures in Education, 9 (3), 367–380. Dyson, B. Gordon, B., Cowan, J., and McKenzie, A. 2016. External providers and their impact on primary physical education in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 7 (1), 3–19. doi: 10.1080/18377122.2016.1145426. Dyson, B. Cowan, J., Gordon, B., Powell, D., and Shulruf, B. 2018. Physical education in Aotearoa New Zealand primary schools: Teachers’ perceptions and policy implications. European Physical Education Review, 1–20. doi: 10.1177/1356336X17698083. Dyson, B. and Casey, A. 2016. Cooperative learning in physical education and physical activity: A practical introduction. London: Routledge. Ell, F. 2011. Teacher education in New Zealand. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37 (4), 433–440. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2011.611010. Fitzpatrick, K. 2013. Critical pedagogy, physical education and urban schooling. New York: Peter Lang. Fitzpatrick, K. and Tinning, R., eds., 2014. Health education: Critical perspectives. London: Routledge. Gerdin, G. 2017. Boys, bodies, and physical education. New York: Routledge. Gerritsen, J. 2017. Teachers delighted by end of National Standards. Radio New Zealand, 30 September. Available from: checkpoint/audio/2018619766/teachers-delighted-by-end-of-national-standards [Accessed 19 December 2017]. Gordon, B. 2010. An examination of the responsibility model in a New Zealand secondary school physical education program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29 (1), 21–37. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.29.1.21. Gordon, B., Dyson, B., Cowan, J., McKenzie, A., and Shulruf, B. 2016. Teachers’ perceptions of physical education in Aotearoa/New Zealand primary schools. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 51 (1), 99–111. doi: 10.1007/s4084 Hawkins, D. 2008. Pragmatism, purpose, and play: struggle for the soul of physical education. Quest, 60 (3), 345–356. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2008.10483585. Hellison, D.R. 2003. Teaching responsibility through physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hokowhitu, B. 2003. ‘Physical beings’: Stereotypes, sport and the ‘physical education’ of New Zealand Māori. Culture, Sport, Society, 6 (2–3), 192–218. doi: 10.1080/14610980312331271599. Landi, D., Fitzpatrick, K., and McGlashan, H. 2016. Models based practices in physical education: A sociocritical reflection. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35 (4), 400–411. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2016-0117. Maguire, A. 2016. Illustrating equality vs equity, change, interaction institute for social. Boston, MA. Available from: [Accessed 19 December 2017]. Massey, D. 1995. Spatial divisions of labor: Social structures and the geography of production. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Middleton, S. 2009. Becoming PBRF-able: Research assessment and education in New Zealand. In: T.A.C. Beasley, ed. Assessing the quality of educational research in higher education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 193–208.

194  Dyson, Landi, and Gordon Ministry of Education (MOE). 1999a. Health and physical education in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Ministry of Education (MOE). 1999b. Health and Physical Education Outline. Available from: [Accessed 21 December 2017]. Ministry of Education (MOE). 2007. The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. Ovens, A. 2010. The New Zealand curriculum: Emergent insights and complex renderings. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 1 (1), 27–32. doi: 10.1080/18377122.2010.9730323. Ovens, A. and Powell, D. 2011. Minding the body in physical education. In: S. Brown, ed. Issues and controversies in physical education: Policy, power and pedagogy. Auckland, New Zealand: Pearson, 150–159. Petrie, K. 2016. Architectures of practice: Constraining or enabling PE in primary schools. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 44 (5), 537–546. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2016.1169484. Petrie, K. and lisahunter 2011. Primary teachers, policy, and physical education. European Physical Education Review, 17 (3), 325–329. doi: 10.1177/1356336X 11416729. Philpot, R. 2016. Kicking at the habitus: Exploring staff and student ‘readings’ of a socially critical physical education teacher education (PETE) programme. Auckland, New Zealand: The University of Auckland. Pope, C.C. 2014. The jagged edge and the changing shape of health and physical education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19 (5), 500–511. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2013.837440. Powell, D. 2015. Assembling the privatisation of physical education and the ‘inexpert’ teacher. Sport, Education and Society, 20 (1), 73–88. doi: 10.1080/ 13573322.2014.941796. Pringle, R. 2010. Finding pleasure in physical education: a critical examination of the educative value of positive movement affects. Quest, 62 (2), 119–134. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2010.10483637. Russell, T., McPherson, S., and Martin, A.K. 2001. Coherence and collaboration in teacher education reform. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 26 (1), 37–55. doi: 10.2307/1602144. Satherly, D. and Owen, L. 2017. Homelessness proves capitalism is a ‘blatant failure’ – Jacinda Ardern, Newshub, 21 October. Available from: [Accessed 19 December 2017]. Siedentop, D. 1994. Sport education: Quality P.E. through positive sport experiences. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop, D. 1996. Valuing the physically active life: Contemporary and future directions. Quest, 48 (3), 266–274. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1996.10484196. Smith, W. and Philpot, R. 2011. The preparation of HPE teachers in New Zealand. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 2 (3–4), 71–80. doi: 10.1080/18377122.2011.9730360. Smith, W. and Tinning, R. 2011. It’s not about logic, it’s about logics of practice: A case study of teacher education reform in New Zealand. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (3), 235–246. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2011.588309.

Redesign of PE in Aotearoa New Zealand  195 Sport New Zealand. (2017). Play, sport and physical activity for young people. Retrieved from [Accessed 22 December 2017]. Stothart, B. 2005. Nine strikes and you’re out: New Zealand physical education in crisis? Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 38 (1), 95–102. Tyack, D.B. 1974. The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Utter, J. Denny, S., Lucassen, M., and Dyson, B. 2016. Adolescent cooking abilities and behaviors: Associations with nutrition and emotional well-being. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 48 (1), 35–41. doi: 10.1016/j. jneb.2015.08.016.

Chapter 12

Re-visioning the Australian curriculum for health and physical education Doune Macdonald Eimear Enright Louise McCuaig Questions regarding physical education’s (PE) status, resources, and student outcomes are global challenges that resonate in Australia. The recently released Australian Curriculum for Health and Physical Education (HPE) was informed by a national consultative process managed by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) designed to address these and other challenges. ACARA’s national collaborative approach provided opportunities for diverse individuals and groups within and beyond the profession to give feedback and express their curricular preferences. This curriculum-making exercise resulted in the development of a ‘futures-oriented’ Australian Curriculum for HPE (AC:HPE). In this chapter, we contextualise the construction of this curriculum, introduce the propositions on which it is based and sample the voices of HPE teachers, students, teacher educators and external stakeholders to consider what is necessary to support the translation and enactment of the AC: HPE. We close in arguing that gradualism is the appropriate approach in this case of curriculum reform.

The emergence of the Australian HPE context Every curriculum is firmly embedded in and must be understood in terms of its historical context (Posner 2004). Thus, in seeking to understand the emergence of any particular curriculum we also must understand the complex histories that characterise the operation of society (Brady and Kennedy 1999) as well as the contestation that impacts upon curriculum as practice in schools. As Goodson (2013, p. 7) reminds us, “Subjects are not monolithic entities but shifting amalgamations of subgroups and traditions. These groups within the subject influence and change boundaries and priorities”. For well over a century, school-based programs of HPE have been a resilient feature of Australia’s public education and health strategies (McCuaig and Tinning 2010). A strengthening health focus for Australian schooling emerged during an ambitious project of curriculum renewal in

Re-visioning the Australian curriculum  197

the early 1990s. Efforts by Australian educators to define a HPE-related key learning area stimulated debate, with some commentators claiming a curricular identity crisis (Kirk 1996). Questions concerning HPE effectiveness were fuelled by the Australian Parliament Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts (APSSCERA). Drawing on their inquiry into school physical and sport education, the committee identified two key findings: (1) “Unanimous support for physical education in schools” (APSSCERA 1992, p. iv); and (2) “A decline in the resources and time allocated to physical education and school sport” (APSSCERA 1992, p. iv). The Senate Inquiry Report (APSSCERA 1992) depicted a disturbing picture. According to its authors, Australian children had: •• •• •• ••

poor fitness and motor skill levels, experienced poorly designed school PE and sport, lacked role models or trained teachers, and, were provided inequitable programs due to gender, race, geographic locality or socioeconomic status.

According to this report’s authors, specialist and generalist teachers were the most important reason for the declining quality of Australian PE and sport. Teachers did not provide students with “quality instruction which prepares them for conducting structured, safe and sequential physical education and sporting activities” (APSSCERA 1992, p. 13). In the ensuing years, national and state-based curriculum iterations formally integrated once-separate health education and physical education topics. Curriculum designers also incorporated a social model of health and promoted “new” ways of thinking about teaching and learning strategies (QSCC 1999). For example, teachers of the state of Queensland’s HPE curriculum were expected to acknowledge students’ life experiences, address diverse learning styles, model social justice, encourage student reflection, and create safe and supportive learning environments. Additionally, HPE teachers were expected provide significant amounts of physical activity in their programs, ensuring “students have the opportunity to use physical activity as a medium for learning and in demonstrating learning outcomes” (QSCC 1999, p. 62). Curricular realities did not match these high expectations. Although this new HPE program endeavoured to move teachers beyond the mere provision of physical activity and sport, in the ensuing five years what stood for HPE in Queensland and Australia overall demonstrated little evidence of innovation. In fact, researchers exploring HPE curriculum reform identified critical implementation challenges, some of which accompanied the inclusion of a socially critical perspective and required dramatic shifts in curriculum content and teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. For example, researchers

198  Macdonald, Enright, and McCuaig

found that HPE KLA implementation was a negative experience for many teachers. It posed challenges to their ontological security, and their sense of competence, particularly in primary (elementary) schools where generalist teachers often taught HPE (Macdonald, Glasby and Carlson 2000; Tinning 2004). The combination of health and PE curriculum content also presented identity-related challenges, as some teachers resisted identifying themselves as HPE teachers (Tinning 2002). Additionally, researchers raised concerns regarding the impact of teacher preparation (Macdonald, Glasby and Carlson 2000), emphasising its relationship with school practices: . . . teachers and schools need ample time and resources (both in personnel and materials) to plan, trial, refine and coordinate their units and programs . . . Teachers also need clear procedures for assessment and reporting, professional development in how to teach sociocultural issues in addition to the physical skills, assurance that the Syllabus retains a sufficient emphasis upon engagement in physical activity, and a sense of security with regard to who will teach what subject matter. (Macdonald, Glasby and Carlson 2000, p. 7) Nevertheless, the context was set for health education and physical education to be taught as a cohesive learning area and lessons were learned for subsequent curriculum reform.

Enduring challenges and issues Enduring challenges and issues can be derived from this overview of 20 years of Australian HPE curriculum reform, and many align with those that Lawson has identified. Examples include an absence of accountability; the strong competition for curriculum time, teacher attention and resources; an inconsistent commitment to teaching the HPE curriculum, especially in primary schools; and policy-related enthusiasm for the outsourcing of HPE programs. During the years of HPE KLA implementation, Australian educators also witnessed an increasing problematisation of children’s health and heightened concerns regarding the physical, psychological, sexual and social wellbeing of children and youths (Bloch et. al. 2003). National newspapers have communicated concerns regarding young Australians’ mental health and body weight, and they have been instrumental in the development of an ever-expanding array of health-related strategies and programs (Macdonald 2011). Although PE (or HPE) teachers and schools clearly recognise their role in this student health and wellbeing work (Rossi et al. 2016), researchers have identified a programmatic divide between what teachers provide and

Re-visioning the Australian curriculum  199

what external providers of health-related programs offer (Williams and Macdonald 2015). Although these external providers demonstrate willingness and enthusiasm to employ education sector language, they proceed with different frames and language. These tend to focus on problematic health, risk or behaviour issues that must be rectified, and they proceed with a “fix-it” position with interventionist language and approaches (McCuaig et al. 2016). Resolutions of the emerging tensions between educative and interventionist approaches to school HPE have continued to influence Australian physical educators, including their most recent opportunity to redesign HPE on a national scale.

A futuristic national curriculum for health and physical education Prior to the 2007 Australian federal election, the proposed development of national curricula for English, Mathematics, Science and History received bipartisan support from the two major political parties of the federal parliament. This was not the first time that nationalisation of school curricula had been attempted. It was influenced by global comparability measures such as the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which fuelled the resolve of national school reformers and ensured the realisation of national curricula. HPE planning: State and Federal In 2010, State and Federal education ministers agreed that HPE was an important element of a child’s overall education. They directed ACARA to begin work on an HPE curriculum as part of a “phase three” development of the national curriculum. This was not the first time that nationalisation of school curricula had been attempted. In this instance, it was influenced by global comparability measures such as the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which fuelled the resolve of national school reformers and ensured the realisation of national curricula. In the last three decades, collaboration has characterised state and national curriculum reform agendas. The AC:HPE also was informed by a national consultative process. This process was managed by ACARA. It was based on the process outlined in ACARA’s Curriculum Development Process document v6.0 (ACARA 2012a) and uniform for all 14 subjects/ learning areas. This process was designed to ensure broad engagement of key stakeholders, providing opportunities for discussion and feedback at four key phases: The curriculum shaping phase, the curriculum writing phase, the preparation for implementation phase, and the monitoring and evaluation phase.

200  Macdonald, Enright, and McCuaig

Futures forecasting for a futuristic curriculum This curriculum development process resulted in the construction of a ‘futures-oriented’ AC:HPE, and it was informed by futures forecasting. Although forecasting is not an exact science, the futures literature around health, sport, education, and digital communication provided insights into how HPE leaders needed to lift their gaze to some possible futures to inform the field and rely on futuristic frameworks as a critical first step in curriculummaking and re-making. In a national report named “Our Future World”, Hajkowicz, Cook and Littleboy (2012) outlined inter-linked megatrends that would shift environmental, economic and social conditions for Australians. Examples included “more from less” ensuring quality of life while adjusting to limited world resources; efforts to retain ecological habitats and biodiversity; the ageing population, associated healthcare costs and the responses in lifestyles and services; continued expansion of a digitally connected world and diminishing trust in traditional information sources; and the “rising importance of social relationships” (p. 3). Then these trends were brought to bear on HPE and all other subject areas: (They) must not only respond to these remarkable changes but also, as far as possible, anticipate the conditions in which young Australians will need to function as individuals, citizens and workers when they complete their schooling. These future conditions are distant and difficult to predict. (ACARA 2012b, p. 9) Furthermore, scholars investigating the future of schools as institutions predict that schools will guide learning and contribute to the building of community. In brief, schools remain important social sites, but they no longer have a monopoly on students’ learning. Ever-changing communications technologies and social media provide ready access to content knowledge (Kurzweil 1999; Slaughter and Beare 2011), and they are instrumental in the development of innovative pedagogies. In this futuristic scenario, teachers need to teach children and young people how to effectively and safely navigate the digital world (Watkins 2009). This emphasis apparently is timely. For example, a Mission Australia survey (2010) found that the proportion of young people identifying the internet as a top source of advice increased from 1 in 10 in 2002 to 1 in 5 in 2011. One implication is apparent; in schools overall and HPE in particular, teachers’ work changes. Their new role is akin to a “knowledge broker”. It entails guiding students’ individualised learning, appraising and curating resources, and directing students to learning partners such as community organisations and sports providers (Slaughter and Beare 2011; Sperka, Enright and McCuaig 2017; Macdonald, Hay and Williams 2008).

Re-visioning the Australian curriculum  201

Other redesign opportunities accompanied the decline of conventional, industrial-age schooling models and the accompanying rise of boundary-less learning and development resources. Already students are more freely navigating resources and gaining access to learning partnerships to assist and support their individual physical activity and health management outside the school’s boundaries. Although all school subjects are influenced by several societal shifts in mind, HPE is particularly susceptible to complex, contextual factors and national policy reports that emphasise their implications. For example, both the National Preventive Health Strategy (Department of Health and Ageing 2009) and the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (NHHRC 2009) have reinforced Australia’s need to refocus the health system towards promoting good health, health literacy and reducing the burden of chronic disease. The NHHRC (2009, p. 7) emphasises an agile, self-improving health system “encouraged by: building health literacy . . . ; fostering community participation . . . ; and empowering consumers”. It follows that a futures-oriented HPE must provide young people with opportunities to improve their health literacy. They must become lifelong, critical consumers of health-related information and possess the skills to access, appraise, and apply health-related knowledge. Predictive medicine, based upon an individual’s genetic profiling, is a key driver for this health literacy. Students’ unique biomarkers (Canton 2006; Kurzweil 1999) drive students’ personalised problem-solving and health management. Drawing on this information, each student learns how to optimise their personal health (e.g., optimal nutrition, personalised exercise). Recreational sport also has a role in contributing to a healthier Australia. Details are provided in The Future of Australian Sport (Hajkowicz et al. 2013). This report emphasises the growth in personalised and lifestyle sports (including “extreme sports”), alongside waning popularity in team sports in the face of rapidly shifting global preferences. These findings and recommendations clearly have import for team sport-oriented PE curriculum.

Shaping the future of HPE The futures-oriented AC:HPE is underpinned by five interrelated propositions: focus on educative outcomes; take a strengths-based approach; develop health literacy skills; value learning in, about and through movement; and include a critical inquiry-based approach (ACARA 2012b). These propositions were informed by a broad literature, including the futures literature, reviews of international best practices in HPE (or equivalent), significant national and international reports (primarily health and sport-related), and research reviews on the biophysical, sociocultural and behavioural foundations of HPE priorities.

202  Macdonald, Enright, and McCuaig

Focus on educative purposes Although the new curriculum may contribute to other student outcomes (e.g., health promotion), the top priority for students is to ensure the provision of “ongoing, developmentally appropriate opportunities to create, apply and evaluate knowledge, develop their understanding, and practise and refine the skills necessary to maintain and enhance their own and others health and wellbeing and participation in physical activity” (ACARA 2012b, p. 4). A central assumption needs to be emphasised. Although HPE will not solve obesity, physical inactivity, drug misuse, family and community violence, youth suicide etc., it can educate young people in gaining foundational skills, accessing and appraising resources, and evaluating progress towards living as a health and physically educated citizen. Take a strengths-based approach Historically, HPE curricula in Australia have adopted a risk-based model focusing on young people’s risky health behaviours and reasons and approaches to correcting these behaviours. However, the new futures orientation together with extensive work in diverse fields such as positive psychology and cultural studies suggests that this deficit-oriented approach is anachronistic. Drawing on salutogenic theory (Bengell et al. 1999), the AC:HPE’s strengths-based approach, “recognises that all children and young people have particular strengths and interests that can be nurtured to improve their own and others’ health, wellbeing and participation in physical activity”. It invites students to “build on and share their own and others’ resources and competencies to enhance the sustainability, equity and participation goals of health promotion” (ACARA 2012b, p. 3). Value movement This movement-oriented proposition draws attention to the significance of movement to human physical, social, emotional, cultural and intellectual identities and endeavours. It emphasises the physical and experiential core of HPE – as informed and justified by Arnold’s (1988) PE rubric for learning in, about and through movement. This proposition came to life in the more detailed curriculum document that followed. It emphasised that students will spend a majority of HPE curriculum time engaged in purposeful, relevant, and fun movement experiences, enabling them to develop competence and confidence (Morgan and Hansen 2007). Develop health literacy Health literacy, broadly defined, is about an individual’s ability to selectively engage with, understand and apply health information and services in ways

Re-visioning the Australian curriculum  203

that promote health. Nutbeam’s (2008) three inter-related dimensions of health literacy provide additional clarity on how health literacy is recruited in the context of the AC:HPE and might be operationalised in schools: •• •• ••

Functional – acquisition of information relating to knowledge and services Interactive – acquisition of more advanced knowledge, understanding and skills to actively and independently engage with a health issue and to apply new information to changing circumstances, and Critical – access to and critical analysis of health information in order to take action to promote personal health and wellbeing or that of others.

Health literacy is consistent with a strengths-based approach, and it is constructed through the AC:HPE as a “personal and community asset to be developed, evaluated, enriched and communicated” (ACARA 2012b, p. 4). Include a critical inquiry approach This proposition emphasises the need to engage students in processes that encourage them to research, analyse, apply and critique knowledge in health and movement fields, essential for twenty-first-century students. Drawing on a multi-disciplinary knowledge base, students learn to appraise the scientific, social, cultural and political factors that influence healthy, active living. They explore themes such as power inequity, inclusivity, taken-for-granted assumptions, diversity and social justice through their critical inquiries. This critical inquiry approach is consistent with experiential and critical pedagogies (ACARA 2012b), and critical thinking is a foundational aspiration for Australian schooling. Assessing the joint impact of the five propositions To reiterate, these five inter-related propositions derived from a rigorous consultation process and review of literature. Like the curriculum they underpin, they present choices regarding the health and physical education of Australian students and inform judgements about the purpose and future of the subject. However, these propositions (and ipso facto the curriculum) did not gain unanimous approval from all stakeholder groups. Here, the case of physical literacy and the AC:HPE is itself an interesting story (Macdonald and Enright 2013). Despite advocacy for physical literacy’s curricular framing role, this contested concept was not explicitly referenced in the final curriculum document. Instead, ACARA and Australia’s health agencies prioritised the inclusion of health literacy. While these propositions strongly resonated with HPE and health professionals, these differences were to manifest in the critical phase of curriculum implementation where expectations for renewal of practice had to be tempered by the realities of enactment.

204  Macdonald, Enright, and McCuaig

Curricular enactment: Voices from the field No matter how sophisticated a curriculum document might be, ultimately the curriculum that counts is the curriculum that is taught – the enacted curriculum. Before the curriculum reaches the “school gates”, enactment is compromised by political forces. For example, Australia’s states and territories approach curriculum implementation differently, as is their legislative prerogative. In addition to federal and state governmental influences, professional associations and school sectors provide diverse professional development opportunities and resources to support curriculum implementation. This jurisdictional complexity is just one of the “filters” through which the AC:HPE passes as it undertakes its translation journey into schools. Teachers, students, and external stakeholders also act as filters, as indicated by the HPE teachers’, students’ and external stakeholders’ voices regarding the translation of the AC: HPE. The data excerpts provided below are drawn from three research projects (Macdonald et al. 2013–2016; Enright 2014–2016; McCuaig et al. 2012) conducted during the throes of AC:HPE design and implementation. Data gathered from teachers demonstrate schools’ readiness to employ or partner with private providers in order to gain access to their expertise, resources, assistance, and supports. Given limited generalist teacher preparation for HPE program delivery, it was not surprising that these teachers were nervous about their knowledge and expertise. For example: Facilitator: Do you know how and why it was decided that the health and PE curriculum area needed to be outsourced? Interviewee: I think it’s to just to get that level of expertise. Because there’s lots of ongoing changes in that area and there’s lots of new research all the time. So we need to be at the top of our game here, so we need to outsource those things to make sure that we’re up to date with the latest. (Preparatory Teacher, Hilltop College) In contrast, students who have engaged with the AC:HPE philosophies have embraced the potential for a futures-oriented and innovative HPE. Consider, for example, the following student’s response to the co-author of this chapter, Eimear’s, questions regarding on the new curriculum’s strengths-based proposition: There’s a new PE curriculum. That’s news to me. Somebody needs to tell our teacher . . . I like the idea of strengths-based. Sometimes, not like just for me, but as a teenager, you feel like everyone has got it in for you, or like they’re worried about you, and afraid of what we might do or not do [laughing], but if it’s about teachers starting with what we’re good at, what make us tick, that sounds cool. Better than the alternative. (Steven, 14-year-old male skateboarder)

Re-visioning the Australian curriculum  205

In the same vein, Louise asked students to describe the impact of the learning experiences on their own and others’ healthy living: Louise:  Do you think the unit gave you any new information or resources that you could use in relation to your health and the health of other people? Alexander: Well it’s helped me to help . . . my friends because they’re bigger fellas and I’ve given them advice on it. I’ve given them the websites and ways of losing the weight – physical ways like walking and jogging and stuff like that. Louise: Did you learn anything new that really surprised you that you thought yeah I’m going to try and do that now? Alexander:  Healthy food is good for you. Jesse: Yeah healthy food. Louise: Has it changed how you eat at home for example? Alexander: Yeah it has. I’ve asked my dad to get more healthy foods instead of – because dad normally gets chips and biscuits and all that for me. I’ve asked him to get more of the healthy food. Finally, our research gave voice to external providers who offer yet another perspective on the new AC:HPE: We have a curriculum writer. So, she works closely on the Australian curriculum in terms of understanding what the requirements of it are and then mapping the products that we put out in response to that . . . Can I brag for a minute and say we’re smart because the deeper the integration of the curriculum, the more sustainable this program will be and that’s why we did it . . . So we call it integrated. It’s an integrated program and we’ve done that work because in a way we’re ahead of where the education system is, that’s the truth. (Stephanie Alexander, school kitchen garden resources) This stunning claim that these external providers are “ahead of where the education system is”, bears testimony to the contested ownership of HPE curriculum. Together, these voices regarding curricular enactment reveal the restraints and new demands of twenty-first-century schooling. The plurality of persons, disciplines, rationales and objectives accompanying Australian curriculum reform endeavours complicates it and suggests variable adoption and implementation.

Conclusion Curriculum-making always is a political act (Goodson 2013). The HPE curriculum, like curriculum writ large, is part of an ongoing dialogue among

206  Macdonald, Enright, and McCuaig

shifting stakeholders who hold different commitments and beliefs about the nature and purpose of HPE, extending to their diverse views regarding what young people should learn in school. Indeed, it is possible that subsequent iterations of the AC:HPE will reflect the interests and agendas of different stakeholder groups. Viewed in this way, curriculum-making, whether framed as improvement or redesign, is an adaptive project. The enactment and implementation process continue long after the release of a document. Ultimately, the legacy of any curriculum is the extent to which teachers, as curriculum makers, take up its educative intent. Our chapter has provided one response to Lawson’s “battle cry” for a redesigned HPE. The AC:HPE provides a roadmap for what might be considered a redesigned Australian health and physical education. With an alternative vision for an Australian context, this chapter has mapped a different journey and destination to that provided by Lawson for PE in the USA. For example, Lawson calls for “PE programs as interventions and PE teachers as intervention designers” (p. 00). His is a robust interventionist approach that is accompanied by stronger accountability for student performance outcomes. We share with Lawson firm commitments to reform, not only of the curriculum but reform in industrial-aged schooling models. We also endorse inter-professional preparation that supports the complexity of teachers’ work, readying them to be boundary spanners in response to the changing needs of young people. However, a radical redesign was not Australia’s intent. A more modest curricular vision was the preferred alternative, one that allows for a re-calibration of deliberate attention to teaching and in ways that authentically reflect the propositions identified in the preceding analysis. The AC:HPE is essentially an exercise in gradualism (Macdonald 2013). Louis (2006, p. 19) makes a compelling case for gradualism: Like many other organisations, the culture of schools is not naturally innovative. Yet, attempts to change schools that do not take the characteristics of teachers and schools into account cannot succeed. Other curriculum and policy commentators support this view. They emphasise that curriculum change is assisted by compatibility with existing teacher beliefs, interests and practices (e.g., Ball et al. 2011; Cheung and Wong 2012; Edwards 2012; Fenwick and Cooper 2012), and it necessitates respecting their professionalism. Indeed, this commitment to teachers’ professional growth, voice and engagement positioned their input into the Australian curriculum-making process, and it stands as a critical investment in HPE curriculum implementation.

Re-visioning the Australian curriculum  207

References Arnold, P., 1988. Education, movement and the curriculum. London: Falmer Press. Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2012a. Curriculum development process, version six. Available from: au/resources/ACARA_Curriculum_Development_Process_Version_6.0_-_04_ April_2012_-_FINAL_COPY.pdf. [Accessed 22 January 2018]. Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2012b. The shape of the Australian curriculum: Health and physical education. Available from: Health_and_Physical_Education.pdf. [Accessed 22 January 2018]. Australian Parliament Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts (APSSCERA), 1992. Physical and sport education: Summary of findings and recommendations Rev. Ed. Canberra: The Committee. Ball, S., Maguire, M., Braun, A., and Hoskins, K., 2011. Policy actors: doing policy work in schools. Discourse, 324, 625–639. Bengell, J., Strittmatter, R., and Willmann, H., 1999. What keeps people healthy? The current state of discussion and the relevance of Antonovsky’s salutogenic model of health. Köln: Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (Federal Centre for Health Education – FCHE). Bloch, M.N., Holmlund, K., Moqvist, I., and Popkewitz, T.S., 2003. Governing children, families and education: Restructuring the welfare state. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Brady, L., and Kennedy, K., 1999. Constructing curriculum. Sydney: Prentice Hall. Canton, J., 2006. The top trends that will shape the world in the next twenty years. New York: Plume. Cheung, A.C.K., and Wong, P.M., 2012. Factors affecting the implementation of curriculum reform in Hong Kong: Key findings from a large-scale survey study. International Journal of Educational Management, 26 1, 39–54. Department of Health and Ageing, 2009. Australia: The healthiest country by 2020: National Preventative Health Strategy: The roadmap for action. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing. Edwards, F., 2012. Learning communities for curriculum change: Key factors in an educational change process in New Zealand. Professional Development in Education, 38 1, 25–47. Enright, E., 2014–2016. Young people, digital technologies and physical culture: Lessons learned from skateboarders and surfers. Brisbane: The University of Queensland. Fenwick, L., and Cooper, M., 2012. Prevailing pedagogies for classes in low SES contexts and the implications for standards-based reform in Australia. Australian Educational Researcher, 39 3, 349–361. Goodson, I. F., 2013. School subjects and curriculum change. Third edition. London: Routledge. Hajkowicz, S., Cook, H., and Littleboy, A., 2012. Our future world: Global megatrends that will change the way we live. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO. Hajkowicz, S., Cook, H., Wilhelmseder, L., and Boughen, N., 2013. The future of Australian sport: Megatrends shaping the sports sector over coming decades. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO.

208  Macdonald, Enright, and McCuaig Kirk, D., 1996. The crisis in school physical education: An argument against the tide. Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 43 4, 25–28. Kurzweil, R., 1999. The age of spiritual machines. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Louis, K.S., 2006. Organising for school change. New York: Routledge. Macdonald, D., 2011. Like a fish in water: Physical education policy and practice in the era of neoliberal globalisation. Quest, 63 1, 36–45. Macdonald, D., 2013. The new Australian health and physical education curriculum: A case of/for gradualism in curriculum reform? Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 42, 95–108. Macdonald, D., and Enright, E., 2013. Physical literacy and the Australian health and physical education curriculum. International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education Bulletin Journal of Sport Science and Physical Education, 65, 351–359. Macdonald, D., Glasby, T., and Carlson, T., 2000. The HPE statement and profile Queensland style. The ACHPER Health Lifestyle Journal, 471, 5–8. Macdonald, D., Hay, P., and Williams, B., 2008. Should you buy? Neo-liberalism, neo-HPE and your neo-job. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 413, 153–168. Macdonald, D., Rossi, A., McCuaig, L., and Enright, E., 2013–2016. External provision of the school curriculum: Local needs to global networks in Health and Physical Education. Canberra: Australian Research Council Grant. McCuaig, L., and Tinning, R., 2010. HPE and the moral governance of p/leisurable bodies. Sport, Education and Society, 15 1, 39–61. McCuaig, L., Carroll, K., Coore, S., Rossi, T., Macdonald, D. Bush, R., Ostini, R., and Hay, P., 2012. Developing health literacy through school based health education: Can reality match rhetoric? Phase I Report. Brisbane: University of Queensland. McCuaig, L., Enright, E., Rossi, A., Macdonald, D., and Hansen, S., 2016. An eroding social justice agenda: The case of physical education and health edu-business in schools. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 87 2, 151–164. Mission Australia, 2010. Insights into the concerns of young Australians: Making sense of the numbers. Sydney: Mission Australia. Morgan, P., and Hansen, V., 2007. Recommendations to improve primary school physical education: Classroom teachers’ perspective. The Journal of Educational Research, 101, 99–108. National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (NHHRC), 2009. A healthier future for all Australians. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Nutbeam, D., 2008. The evolving concept of health literacy. Social Science and Medicine, 67, 272–278. Posner, G.J., 2004. Analyzing the curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill. Queensland School Curriculum Council (QSCC), 1999. Health and physical education: Initial in-service materials. Brisbane: Publication Services, Education Queensland. Rossi, T., Pavey, A., Macdonald, D., and McCuaig, L., 2016. Teachers as health workers: Patterns and imperatives of Australian teachers’ work. British Educational Research Journal, 422, 258–276. Slaughter, R., and Beare, H., 2011. Education for the 21st century revisited. Brisbane: Foresight International.

Re-visioning the Australian curriculum  209 Sperka, L., Enright, E., and McCuaig, L., 2017. Brokering and bridging knowledge in health and physical education: a critical discourse analysis of one external provider’s curriculum. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, https://doi-org. Tinning, R., 2002. Identity, politics and the challenges of preparing H-PE teachers to teach a socially critical curriculum: A tentative beginning. Paper presented at AIESEP. La Coruna: Spain. Tinning, R., 2004. Rethinking the preparation of H-PE teachers: ruminations on knowledge, identity, and ways of thinking. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32 3, 241–253. Watkins, S.C., 2009. The young and the digital. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Williams, B.J., and Macdonald, D., 2015. Explaining outsourcing in health, sport and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 201, 57–72.

Chapter 13

Redesigning physical education in Italy The potential of a network ecosystem Caterina Pesce Rosalba Marchetti Anna Motta Franca Marzocchi Liliana Leone Phillip D. Tomporowski Chapter overview The current Italian law for school system innovation emphasizes direct and indirect supports for redesign including: (1) The introduction of specialist PE teachers in primary schools; (2) Program enhancement via network governance; (3) Equal opportunities framed by an ecological network model encompassing school, community, and state levels; and (4) A national plan for teacher training and action research, which bridges schools’ educational goals and school community improvement goals. Redesign in Italy can be viewed as a “double challenge” because it involves both local and national action. Four needs must be addressed, and all are influenced by PE’s history and current educational policy. First, both process-oriented and outcome-focused evaluations must respond to two needs. Presently local evaluations are scarce and uneven. At the same time, mandated national school teaching evaluation assessments and improvement policies neglect motor competence and other PE outcomes. Second, policy advocacy for PE is needed, especially involving local, “bottom-up” initiatives. Three lines of research can be translated and disseminated in support: (1) The predictive role of motor development for academic achievement; (2) PE’s contributions to positive health trajectories; and (3) The role of integrated physical activities to facilitate learning in nonphysical domains, particularly for children who need it most. Third, school leaders’ beliefs about PE must be prioritized. Principals in particular need to know about the compatibility of physical activity and academic achievement; and also how school environmental conditions constrain PE.

Redesigning physical education in Italy  211

Fourth, schools need to be open to families and other key external actors, enabling them to appreciate, and advocate for, PE’s roles for lifelong learning and social inclusion. This work is timely because it can be integrated with European Union-sponsored initiatives developed to promote learning innovation and social inclusion.

Redesign rooted in the past: Back to the future of Italian PE Reforming the education system—and with physical education (PE) and PE teacher education (PETE) as components—is common in Italy because governments have changed. For example, nine Ministers of Education have served from 2000 to present. This pattern of changing leadership indicates that redesign cannot be hitched to the short-term goals of a temporary government. Historical factors and trends influence PE’s redesign. Three historical factors remain influential: (1) A neo-humanistic approach to holistic child development and positive youth development through multi-domain goals of PE (Enrile 1968); (2) The domain-specific identity of PE as a “hands-on subject” with connected knowledge, skills and attitudes; and (3) The multi-sectoral commitment for PE, especially joint governance by the education system and the sport system. Related developments: Changes in higher education Higher education institutions are central to PE’s redesign in Italy, and it is noteworthy that redesign in this sector began at the threshold to the new millennium. The Superior Institutes of Physical Education, formerly in charge for PETE, were transformed into University Faculties of Movement and Sport Sciences. This radical change brought more emphasis on medical–scientific evidence and comparatively less on practical skill building for PE teachers. Accordingly, secondary school PE was renamed as “Movement and Sport Sciences”. This shift reflects two recurrent issues in Italian PE’s history. One is difficulty in bridging the divide between evidence-based theory and school practice. The other is lack of recognition of school PE’s special contributions to holistic development through practical “learning by doing”. Connecting education systems and community youth sport systems Debates continue regarding whether and how to develop synergies between the education and the sport systems. Bridging mechanisms are needed for bridging physical activity promotion in school and out of school contexts.

212 Pesce et al.

Important, mutually beneficial synergies were realized in the past century as “School Sport Groups” were developed by the Ministry of Education and school “Youth Games” were launched by the National Olympic Committee (NOC), complementing PE with school sport. In 2009 national guidelines for connecting PE and sport were released. In 2015, this developing synergistic framework was advanced by a new school system law.

Facilitators, constraints, and barriers for redesign The selective, historical examination provided above enables a better understanding of the three important PE influences: (1) Ones that ease PE’s development (facilitators); (2) Ones that selectively orient and delimit PE (constraints); and (3) Ones that hinder innovation and prevent redesign (barriers). Formal legislation can be a facilitator, constraint, or barrier. For example, the current law for school system innovation includes several clauses for PE’s promotion, and they are suitable for redesign, not merely reform. The most relevant facilitator is the introduction of specialist PE teachers in all primary schools. This new requirement provides recognition of PE’s educational importance. Unfortunately, this policy facilitator implicates an accompanying constraint. To date, there is no corresponding redesign proposal for physical education teacher education (PETE), one that is tailormade for primary school PE teachers. Viewed in this way, the legislative requirement for specialist PE teachers in primary schools is encouraging, but it is insufficient to change PE’s secondary role and lower status in primary schools. This secondary role is implicit in the non-alphabetical order of school subjects listed in the ministerial indicators for primary and secondary school curricula. PE is placed in the second to last and last positions. An important barrier also must be identified. The lack of structural funds for realizing the new recruitment of specialist PE teachers in primary schools is an economic barrier which compels alternative courses of action. The most common alternative is investment in generalist (classroom) teachers’ professional development, aiming to strengthen their PE teaching skills. Fortunately, a special facilitator is available, and it may be exploited to assist classroom teachers and also connect them with PE specialists. The national plan for compulsory teacher training, newly introduced by the legislation for school system innovation in force, provides a unique opportunity to implement ad hoc professional development of generalist teachers to act synergistically with external PE specialists. This plan emphasizes action research that bridges goals of in-school and out-of-school education, goals of school and community improvement. Governance models and economic resource allocation capacities also are relevant to PE’s redesign. Indeed, the economic recession is imposing

Redesigning physical education in Italy  213

the search for new models of governance to exploit the limited available resources. The network model allows for resource optimization, as explained in the sentences that follow. For example, new models emphasize opportunities for multi-sectoral, shared responsibility, as evidenced in formal agreements among the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the National Olympic Committee, and the national Paralympic Committee (NPC). New models like this one optimize the use of resources for PE to promote healthy and active lifestyles in children and youths. A special challenge for PE’s redesign process is ensuring an adequate alignment to internationally defined standards. Two important examples are the European Framework for Key Competences for Lifelong Learning (European Union 2006) and the requirements of the National Evaluation System (MIUR 2014). Meeting these standards while, at the same time, safeguarding a nuanced, customized PE model, is not easy. In fact, alignment with European standards can be viewed as a constraint. On the other hand, at local level the Italian system’s policy peculiarities can be exploited to enhance PE’s reach of special sub-populations and render PE tailor-made for nuances. Four are especially important: (1) The principle of freedom in teaching set out in the Italian Constitution (Art. 33); (2) Autonomyoriented school legislation; (3) The school-customized Educational Offer Plan; and (4) The student-customized Educational Cultural and Professional Profile (MIUR 2014). Local influence and design-related controls are possible as the school and teachers’ council set out the cultural and planning identity of the school by drawing up their own three-year Educational Offer Plan, through which schools can autonomously plan activities and synergies with local bodies and individualize teaching paths.

Too “interesting times”? Time to redesign because every child matters Echoing Eric Hobsbawm’s (2003) description of the twentieth century, we are experiencing “interesting times”. Europe, as well as most western democracies, are facing critical economic and social integration problems, which urge societies—as a whole and not merely individually—to increase social solidarity. For example, this agenda entails providing strong support to educators, addressing the increasing diversity of learners, and enhancing access to good quality and inclusive mainstream education and training (European Council and European Commission 2015). Toward this end, legislation for the Italian education system has prioritized the provision of equal opportunities of enjoying the right to education, health, social inclusion, and safety to all students with different capabilities, cultural origins and socioeconomic status. Significantly, this new legislation also promotes multi-sectoral synergies to achieve this goal.

214 Pesce et al.

Where PE is concerned, joint commitments by the education and sport systems may contribute by providing equal opportunities to all students. However, the two systems are not necessarily intended to serve the same interests. There are inherent divergences between holistic education in PE (Bailey 2006) and early specialization in competitive sport (Malina 2010). Another need must be addressed. Synergistic work by the school professionals and sport leaders needs to be complemented by interprofessional training. Unfortunately, this co-requisite has not been prioritized. For example, in primary schools, the national program of PE promotion requires a synergy between generalist teachers and external specialist PE tutors charged with “classroom sport” (Cazzoli and Zompetti 2017). Unfortunately, generalist teachers lack interprofessional training. Only the external specialists receive training for this project. In secondary schools, a national program of sports promotion tailored for students living in disadvantaged areas is named “Schools open to Sport”. Laudable for its general goals, it lacks interprofessional training and any form of synergistic commitment of PE teachers and external sports technicians. In fact, these external sports experts are assigned as substitutes for PE teachers! Moreover, the overall assignment of sport federations’ technicians to the different school districts can be characterized as “top-down” and “one size fits all”. This approach by-passes the regional and provincial PE coordinators. It also neglects local needs assessments which have the potential to facilitate customized programs. Teacher training options for in-service teachers need to be designed according to the specific needs linked to the school-specific Educational Offer Plan. Oftentimes they are not. Instead, these options are defined in a top-down fashion with the goal of realizing short-term actions or, even worse, of being in compliance with the newly-introduced national plan for compulsory teacher training. Thus, an essential element for redesigning PE in Italy is extending interprofessional Continuous Professional Development (CPD) to a broad array of professionals and voluntary personnel—including parents— representing the education and sport sectors. This interprofessional education must emphasize the practice competences needed by multiple agents to act synergistically in ‘whole-child’ initiatives of PA promotion. An Italian policy pathway is especially noteworthy because it is in line with the recommendations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2017a). Public-private partnerships are an important innovation, and they provide opportunities to capitalize on the financial and human resources. Here, enterprises are increasingly committing to PA promotion within the framework of corporate social responsibility (CSR). This trend is based on the emergent economic view that shared value and benefits may provide a better, more sustainable framework than

Redesigning physical education in Italy  215

ones characterized by short-term goals and narrowly defined stakeholder interests and goals (Leone et al. 2016). For example, a school-based CSR program targeted to promote motor, cognitive and life skills development through PE is named “Joy of Moving”. This innovation has undergone process and outcome evaluation (Pesce et al. 2016a; Pesce et al. 2016b) and is entering the scaling-up phase at national level and related evaluation of feasibility in different settings. Also relevant to a PE redesign agenda are disadvantageous school environmental conditions constraining PE and school principals’ beliefs about incompatibility of physical activity and academic achievement (e.g. Leone and Pesce 2017). These constraints and principals’ beliefs can be positively influenced by a stronger advocacy for PE, grounded in evidence. For example, enhanced PA during school hours, if implemented appropriately, does not mean a waste of time; it is an effective strategy to improve academic performance and classroom behaviours (e.g. Álvarez-Bueno et al. 2017; Donnelly et al. 2016). Especially relevant are the benefit systems for important student subpopulations. Examples include the cognitive benefits of well-designed PA for children at risk of poor cognition; obese children (e.g. Bustamante et al. 2016); children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (e.g. Grassmann et al. 2017); and children with atypical motor development (e.g. Pesce et al. 2013), especially considering that motor impairment is intertwined with cognitive and social development problems (Leonard 2016). In secondary schools, a solution to enhance PE has been underway since 2010—the sports-oriented curriculum. However, this curriculum’s reach is mainly limited to those students motivated to practice sport. Indeed, many of these students do not need PE enhancement. At primary school level, PE programs and physical activity programs merit joint attention. Children need more PA in addition to the very limited PE hours (1–2 weekly). One redesign alternative involves bringing more movement into the classroom, relying on evidence of classroom-based PA effects on cognition and academic achievement (e.g. Donnelly and Lambourne 2011). Key evidence demonstrates the feasibility and efficacy of integrated PA interventions to facilitate learning in non-physical domains and needs satisfaction (e.g. Beck et al., 2016; Vazou and Skrade 2017). The suitability with disadvantaged children is grounded on the conception of motor skills being primary skills that can be used in the acquisition of cognitive skills, which would otherwise involve a higher working memory load (Paas and Sweller 2012). The context matters for redesign In the light of the growing critical approach to globalization, there is renewed interest in the local and regional context in which schools operate

216 Pesce et al.

(OECD 2017a). In Italy, forward-thinking in PE has emphasized windows of opportunity provided by a renewed interest in how each “locality” can counteract the marginalization of disabled and socially disadvantaged students. For example, Marchetti (2009) highlighted the potential of an integrated system of networked actors operating at local level through social zone plans. Supported by welfare legislation, Marchetti proposed to position PE and school sport at the crossroads of innovation, shifting the focus from “welfarism” to positive policies of local integrated services promoting availability and accessibility of school resources beyond compulsory times and activities. This innovative perspective anticipated elements of the legislation in force for the school system, which foresees prolonged school opening times in the afternoon and during school holidays for in-school sport activities in cooperation with parents, actors of the tertiary sector and local sport promotion agencies and bodies. Opportunities for promoting learning innovation and social inclusion of students who need it most, especially those living in disadvantaged regions, are provided by priorities of the European regional policy 2014–2020, as “education, training and lifelong learning” and “social inclusion” (European Commission 2014). The arm of the Italian Operational Programme on Education, focused on improving transversal key competences for global citizenship particularly in areas at higher risk of illegality and discrimination of disabled or migrants, has led to the proliferation of school-based interventions at local level addressing the thematic area PE and sport within the interrelated areas of healthy diet, PA, environmental education, and active citizenship. The priority of social inclusion is central to programs developed at regional level, which are designed to capitalize on in-school and out-of-school sport to reduce school drop-out and support positive youth development. The sports associations and local bodies play pivotal roles in this three-component agenda for social inclusion, school attendance and positive child/youth development. What is needed to advance the redesign agenda? The roundtrip between policy and evidence Considering actual developments in the Italian society and education system, it is impossible to disagree with Lawson’s key redesign elements. Italian leaders must set the agenda, including operationalizing the right problems; developing less standardized models and more nuanced solutions targeted to reduce education inequalities; building on interdisciplinary research in PE and interprofessional education in PETE and CPD; and strengthening networked relations among actors and policymaking sectors. Rather than providing alternative or additional elements for innovation, the Italian context may offer a unique national view on what elements are already present

Redesigning physical education in Italy  217

at which jurisdictional levels and what elements are missing and how they should and might work. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development states that: “Sustainable and systemic forms of innovation have more chance in open environments, in ‘ecosystems’ of learning and innovation” that encompass not only schools, but also broader communities, organizations, and business enterprises (OECD 2017a). Openness of schools to their local communities is considered essential for sustainable innovation. Additionally, and in accordance with innovative learning principles, learning environments should promote “horizontal connectedness” not only across subject areas, but also to the community and the wider society (OECD 2017b). In Italy, there is a strong focus on horizontal connectedness of learning objectives across subject areas realized in vertical continuity across school levels (Pesce et al. in press). On the other hand, needs remain for “open source” ecosystem. Although this innovation remains in its infancy, it is an important substitute for a “one fits for all” solution that does not address societal complexity and student diversity. A theoretical framework of organizational culture change based on a realist approach to context-mechanism-outcome configurations (Pawson 2006) may act as a facilitator for this redesign work. It offers guiding principles and operational mechanisms by which these principles operate in different contexts (Willis et al. 2016). Starting from the alignment of vision and action, an open source ecosystem fosters distributed leadership, creates collaborative relationships, encourages continuous assessments, and facilitates policy and practice learning. This ecosystem approach should be: (1) stable in vertical connectedness along jurisdictional levels and (2) adaptable as a function of evaluation outcomes and changing needs and further developable for creating innovation and nuanced solutions through horizontal forms of accountability, giving stakeholders more legitimacy to play an active role. Figure 13.1 provides one depiction for this framework (Pesce et al. in press). Central to the stabilization of the Italian PE system is the cascade process along jurisdictional levels from ministerial National Indications for the curriculum and PE guidelines to National and Regional Plans for PE and local school Educational Offer Plans. This pathway ensures dynamic circularity, i.e., non-stop cycles for planning, implementation, feedback from ongoing monitoring, and evaluation for improvement and further planning. The adaptability and multi-sectoral co-responsibility, essential to a redesign proposal, goes beyond the actual features of the national PE system in Italy. Prompted by the legislative innovation at national level, a virtuous circle is emerging in some regional contexts. It links PE governance, organization, and key actions. Figure 13.2 provides salient details in a prototypical regional context (Motta and the Conference for PE and sport of the region Piedmont, personal communication 28 Aug 2017). In this prototype, the Regional School

Improvement actions IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES School autonomy (law 1999) Shared governance of PESS by Regional School Off ices, NOC, NPC

3-yrs plan of school educational offer (PTOF)

School institutions

Actual law on the Innovation of the national education system (107/2015)

PTOF revision

LIST OF ACTIVITIES PESS projects Multidisciplinary and transversal co-planning

Validated school projects

NOC – NPC recognized local authorities

Agreement protocol of Ministry of Education with


School self-evaluation report (RAV)

Figure 13.1 Pathways from PESS guidelines to local plans and activities with evaluation feedback loop

Evaluation – impact analysis


Physical education teacher education (PETE) and continuous professional development (CPD)

LIST OF ACTIVITIES Curricular and extracurricular PESS activities Multidisciplinary and transversal co-planning

Specif ic transversal actions

Regional and local PESS plans

Regional School Off ice and local settings

Guidelines revision

Plans revision

Ministry of Education, Off ice for School Sport Policies – National PESS Plan

National PESS Guidelines

Projects revision

Figure 13.2  Linking PE governance, organization, and key actions: Regional school office role

Tools Laws – Guidelines – Operational Plans – Financial Plans

Organizational flexibility tailored to match local needs


Coordination cluster for education

University of Movement and Sports Science


Institutional and Joint Working Tables

• Communication

• Research and education documentation, production of educational tools

• Co-planning and funding

Organizational Models of Human Resources

Regional Organizational Models


‘vision’: scientif ic-pedagogic framework ‘policies’: for health, PE and sport, legality, inclusion, active citizenship, safety, and a positive approach to the natural and technological environment ‘strategies’ for system stabilization and further development

Openness to further partner

Governance for School Sport Regional School Off ice Regional Olympic and Paralympic Committees

EDUCATIONAL FRONTLINE Family – School – Youth Sport – Associations

Regional Council

Regional Administration Department for Education Regional Health and Sport institutions




220 Pesce et al.

Office can play a pivotal role, by taking part to inter-sectoral roundtables as the Conference for PE and sport, Technical Health Group, Legality Table, School Participation Unit, Safety Commission, and create linkages to national surveillance systems as the Health Behavior in School-aged Children and PA observatories of the NOC.

Research and development for an open source ecosystem To build an open source ecosystem that is adaptable, evaluation requirements must be addressed. The well-known continuum between research with scientific controls and ecologically valid interventional PE research has relevance for the new agenda in Italy, and it involves trade-offs. Randomized Controlled Trials often lack generalizability due to sampling constraints, whereas larger-scale evaluations trade scientific rigour for ecological validity (e.g. Colella et al. 2017). For example, research conducted in school PE programs may not have a control group (e.g. Chiodera et al. 2008), nor can classroom teachers undergo blinded assignment to the intervention group or control group (e.g. Pesce et al. 2016b). While it is usually stated that we need to put more research evidence into policy, the reverse also is needed to advance the redesign agenda. Putting more policy into the search for evidence means extending the research focus toward evaluation of whether a program works and is sustainable over time when delivered and implemented under real-world conditions. This evaluation of the processes of adoption, implementation and maintenance, essential to set and reset the balance between implementation fidelity and adaptability especially at the level of settings and intervention agents, can make the difference between standardized and customized PE models. Unfortunately, this approach is rare in Italian PE innovation attempts (Pesce et al. 2016a). Instead, outcome evaluation for PE has been the norm. Grade-level outcomes (i.e., minimum threshold of competence and differentiated mastery levels) for each competence targeted in the ministerial indications for K-12 PE have been defined by the Italian Confederation of the Associations of Graduated in PE and Sport Sciences (Innocente 2013). Unfortunately, these valuable efforts have not been validated at national level, nor paralleled by the inclusion of evaluations of motor competence and other PE outcomes within the external mandatory assessments conducted by the National Institute for the Educational Evaluation of Instruction and Training. Much-needed, large-scale validation of multidomain assessment of PE outcomes, spanning from the motor domain to the cognitive and socio-behavioral domains, have remained an unfollowed exception in the Italian PE panorama (Facheris Ranucci 1989). In fact, the absence of any motor competence assessment for national school teaching evaluation and improvement indicates frail policy advocacy for PE. All new policy advocacy can be strengthened by translating more

Redesigning physical education in Italy  221

evidence into policy. For example, growing evidence from interdisciplinary research at the intersection of motor-developmental, neuroscientific and exercise-cognition research shows that motor development is associated with positive trajectories of health (e.g. Robinson et al. 2015) and cognitive development (e.g. Van der Fels et al. 2015), and it also is predictive of academic achievement (e.g. Roebers et al. 2014). Overall, this evidence may provide the missing link between PE and educational achievement—a connection that strengthens PE policy and practice advocacy (Pesce et al. 2018). Last, but not least, PE redesign should be informed by relevant intersections between the two fields of human rights and public health ethics. Together, they contribute to strengthen global health actions (Nixon and Forman 2008). The indivisibility of the rights to health and play is a key opportunity for PE. A growing evidence base has informed the actual shift in public health position on child’s active play—no longer merely for caloric expenditure and fight against obesity (Alexander et al. 2014)—and on the provision of the child’s right to play and be physically active as a health determinant (Leone et al. 2016). Most importantly, active play early in life and the cognitive development related to it are predictive of the development of active citizenship skills (Astuto and Ruck 2017). Thus, deliberate play should be the basis for a PE’s redesign and the reconfiguration of child and youth sport (Côté and Hancock 2016). Active play is both a right to be fulfilled and a powerful means to promote the holistic development of the physical, cognitive and social prerequisites of health and civic engagement.

A conclusion for a new start Policy priorities of holistic promotion of health and civic engagement may orient the search for evidence on the unique role of PE. Meanwhile, researchbased insights from exercise neuroscience can be marshalled in the service of educational achievement (Meeusen et al. 2018) to inform PE and sports pedagogy, also enhancing overall educational practice and policy development. Along with this roundtrip between policy and research evidence, any redesign proposal must start with children and their ecologies and be projected toward a grand vision. In the words of Pasquale Bellotti, an eclectic and passionate leader for the Italian culture of PA and sport, Even I have a dream, just one: that a President of the Republic will tell the country, with seriousness and conviction, once and for all, that movement is important in life and that with movement and movement games strong individuals will be forged – and remain women and men – who will build a better country, where a better quality of life actually means animating (giving a soul to) all ages. (Bellotti 2016, p. 17)

222 Pesce et al.

References Alexander, S.A., Frohlich, K.L., and Fusco, C., 2014. Playing for health? Revisiting health promotion to examine the emerging public health position on children’s play. Health Promotion International, 29 1, 155–164. Álvarez-Bueno, C., Pesce, C., Cavero-Redondo, I., Sánchez-López, M., GarridoMiguel, M., and Martínez-Vizcaíno, V., 2017. Academic achievement and physical activity: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 140 6, e20171498. Astuto, J. and Ruck, M.D., 2017. Growing up in poverty and civic engagement: The role of kindergarten executive function and play predicting participation in 8th grade extracurricular activities. Applied Developmental Science, 21 4, 301–318. Bailey, R. 2006. Physical education and sport in schools: a review of benefits and outcomes. Journal of School Health, 76 8, 397–401. Beck, M.M., Lind, R.R., Geertsen, S.S., Ritz, C., Lundbye-Jensen, J., and Wienecke, J., 2016. Motor-enriched learning activities can improve mathematical performance in preadolescent children. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10 645. Available from: [Accessed 25 Jan 2018]. Bellotti, P., 2016. Prefazione [Preface]. In: C. Pesce, Marchetti, R., Motta, A., and Bellucci, M., eds., Joy of moving. MindMovers & ImmaginAction – Playing with variability to promote motor, cognitive and citizenship development. Perugia: Calzetti-Mariucci, 15–19. Bustamante, E.E., Williams, C.F., and Davis, C.L., 2016. Physical activity interven­ tions for neurocognitive and academic performance in overweight and obese youth: A systematic review. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 63 3, 459–480. Cazzoli, S. and Zompetti, T., 2017. Physical and sport education national development project school based: Sport di classe © CONI (School class sports – Italy). In: D. Colella, B. Antala, S. Epifani, eds. Physical education in primary school researches – best practices – situation. Lecce, IT: Pensa MultiMedia Editore, 241–252. Chiodera, P., Volta, E., Gobbi, G., Milioli, M.A., Mirandola, P., Bonetti, A., Delsignore, R., Bernasconi, S., Anedda, A., and Vitale, M., 2008. Specifically designed physical exercise programs improve children’s motor abilities. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 18 2, 179–187. Colella, D., Antala, B., and Epifani, S., eds., 2017. Physical education in primary school researches – best practices – situation. Lecce, IT: Pensa MultiMedia Editore. Côté, J. and Hancock, D.J., 2016. Evidence-based policies for youth sport programmes. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 8 1, 51–65. Donnelly, J.E. and Lambourne, K., 2011. Classroom-based physical activity, cognition, and academic achievement. Preventive Medicine, 52 suppl.1, 36–42. Donnelly, J.E., Hillman, C.H., Castelli, D., Etnier, J.L., Lee, S., Tomporowski, P., Lambourne, K., and Szabo-Reed, A.N., for the American College of Sports Medicine, 2016. Physical activity, fitness, cognitive function, and academic achievement in children: a systematic review. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 48 6, 1197–1222. Enrile, E., 1968. I principi fondamentali dell’educazione fisica [Fundamental principles of physical education]. Rome, Italy: Società Stampa Sportiva.

Redesigning physical education in Italy  223 European Commission 2014. Regional policy in your country [online]. Available from: [Accessed 25 Jan 2018]. European Council and European Commission 2015. Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020): New priorities for European cooperation in education and training. [online]. Available from: http://eur-lex. from=EN [Accessed 25 Jan 2018]. European Union 2006. Recommendation 2006/962/EC on key competences for lifelong learning [online]. Available from: TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006H0962&from=EN [Accessed 25 Jan 2018]. Facheris Ranucci, R., 1989. Educazione fisica nella scuola elementare e materna. Una ricerca-sperimentazione longitudinale condotta nella scuola italiana. [Physical education in preschool and primary school. A longitudinal interventional study conducted in the Italian school]. Nuova Paideia, 4 (VIII), 15–38. Rome, Italy: CIRMES. Grassmann, V., Alves, M.V., Ferreira Santos-Galduróz, R., and Galduróz, J., 2017. Possible cognitive benefits of acute physical exercise in children with ADHD: A systematic review. Journal of Attention Disorders, 21 5, 367–371. Hobsbawm, E., 2003. Interesting times: A twentieth-century life. New York: Pantheon Books. Innocente, L., 2008. L’educazione fisica che vogliamo – Gli standard di apprendimento delle competenze motorie e i livelli di padronanza [The physical education we want to have – Learning standards for motor competences and mastery levels]. Parma: Spaggiari Casa Editrice. Leonard, H.C., 2016. The impact of poor motor skills on perceptual, social and cognitive development: The case of developmental coordination disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 311, Available from: fpsyg.2016.00311/full [Accessed 25 Jan 2018]. Leone, L., Ling, T., Baldassarre, L., Barnett, L.M., Capranica, L., and Pesce, C., 2016. Corporate responsibility for childhood physical activity promotion in the UK. Health Promotion International, 31 4, 755–768. Leone, L. and Pesce, C., 2017. From delivery to adoption of physical activity guidelines: realist synthesis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14 10, 1193. Available from: [Accessed 25 Jan 2018]. Malina, R.M., 2010. Early sport specialization: roots, effectiveness, risks. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 9 6, 364–371. Marchetti, R., 2009. L’unione fa la forza. Possiamo costruire un sistema integrato di interventi e servizi sociali che includano lo sport [There’s strength in numbers. We can build an integrated system of welfare interventions and services including sport]. Roma Sport, 6. Rome, Italy: Comune di Roma. Meeusen, R., Schaefer, S., Tomporowski, P., and Bailey, R., 2018. Physical activity and educational achievement: Insights from exercise neuroscience. London: Routledge. MIUR 2014. The Italian education system. QE – I Quaderni di Euridyce, 30, 1–95. Available from: 30_per_web.pdf [Accessed 25 Jan 2018].

224 Pesce et al. Nixon, S. and Forman, L., 2008. Exploring synergies between human rights and public health ethics: a whole greater than the sum of its parts. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 8 2. Available from: https://bmcinthealthhumrights. [Accessed 25 Jan 2018]. OECD 2017a. Schools at the crossroads of innovation in cities and regions. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available from: [Accessed 25 Jan 2018]. OECD 2017b. The OECD handbook for innovative learning environments. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available from: book-for-innovative-learning-environments-9789264277274-en.htm [Accessed 25 Jan 2018]. Paas, F. and Sweller, J., 2012. An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24 1, 27–45. Pawson, R., 2006. Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. London: SAGE Publications. Pesce, C., Crova, C., Marchetti, M., Struzzolino, I., Masci, I., Vannozzi, G., and Forte, R., 2013. Searching for cognitively optimal challenge point in physical activity for children with typical and atypical motor development. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 6 3, 172–180. Pesce, C., Leone, L., Motta, A., Marchetti, R., and Tomporowski, P.D., 2016a. From efficacy to effectiveness of a ‘whole child’ initiative of physical activity promotion. Translational Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, 1 3, 18–29. Pesce, C., Masci, C., Marchetti, R., Vazou, S., Sääkslahti, A., and Tomporowski, P.D., 2016b. Deliberate play and preparation jointly benefit motor and cognitive development: Mediated and moderated effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 349. Available from: full [Accessed 25 Jan 2018]. Pesce, C., Faigenbaum, A.D., Goudas, M., and Tomporowski, P.D., 2018. Coupling our plough of thoughtful moving to the star of children’s right to play: From neuroscience to multisectoral promotion. In: R. Meeusen, S. Schaefer, P. Tomporowski, and R. Bailey, eds., Physical activity and educational achievement: Insights from exercise neuroscience. London: Routledge, 247–274. Pesce, C., Motta, A., Marchettiand Bellucci, M., (Forthcoming). CEREPS Anthology: Italy. In: H. Aschebrock and R.-P. Pack, eds., School sport, vol. 40. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer. Robinson, L.E., Stodden, D.F., Barnett, L.M., Lopes, V.P., Logan, S.W., Rodrigues, L.P., and D’Hondt, E., 2015. Motor competence and its effect on positive developmental trajectories of health. Sports Medicine, 45 9, 1273–1284. Roebers, C.M., Röthlisberger, M., Neuenschwander, R., Cimeli, P., Michel, E., and Jäger, K., 2014. The relation between cognitive and motor performance and their relevance for children’s transition to school: A latent variable approach. Human Movement Science, 33, 284–297. van der Fels, I.M., Te Wierike, S.C., Hartman, E., Elferink-Gemser, M.T., Smith, J., and Visscher, C., 2015. The relationship between motor skills and cognitive skills in 4–16 year old typically developing children: A systematic review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18 6, 697–703.

Redesigning physical education in Italy  225 Vazou, S. and Skrade, A., 2017. Intervention integrating physical activity with math: Math performance, perceived competence, and need satisfaction. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15 5, 508–522. Willis, C.D., Saul, J., Bevan, H., Scheirer, M.A., Best, A., Greenhalgh, T., Mannion, R., Cornelissen, E., Howland, D., Jenkins, E., and Bitz, J., 2016. Sustaining organizational culture change in health systems. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 30 1, 2–30.

Part III

Summary findings, lessons learned, and implications

Chapter 14

Agenda-setting Continuous improvement alongside redesign Hal A. Lawson

This book provides an international-comparative analysis of school physical education (PE), including its relationship with physical education teacher education (PETE) and to a lesser extent, Kinesiology, public health, and other pediatric helping disciplines. Its title—Redesigning Physical Education: An Equity Agenda in Which Every Child Matters—is founded on a bold claim. Alongside context-specific reforms, redesign is needed when standardized programs do not systematically achieve two kinds of unique, important outcomes: (1) The ones claimed by PE teachers and teacher educators; and (2) Others promoted by physicians, public health experts, pediatric Kinesiologists, educational policy leaders, and other constituencies. Outcome differences and conflicts are normative, and they tend to escape notice under seven related conditions: (1) The societal context is relatively stable; (2) PE teachers and PE teacher educators enjoy a professional monopoly; (3) Their preferences for school programs correspond to a dominant model for a school; (4) Research-guided and -justified practice is not a priority; (5) Outcomes-based accountability systems with cost-benefit analyses are not the norm; (6) Interprofessional competition is minimal and policy protections are strong; and (7) The vast majority of the host nation’s children are active and enjoy health and well-being. When these conditions no longer hold, and researchers identify gaps between ideal and achieved outcomes (World Health Organization 2017), competition looms for the PE profession, and new public policy priorities arise. Then outcome differences, shortfalls, and conflicts are catalysts for agenda-setting (Lawson 1984). Agenda-setting in twenty-first-century global societies increasingly is complicated by interacting needs and priorities, defies simple categories and singular solutions, and is in some measure nationspecific. It thus qualifies is an adaptive problem without easy answers. For example, in the USA inequitable student opportunities and outcomes, challenging working conditions for PE teachers, some teachers’ preference for coaching school sports and accompanying role conflicts,

230  Hal A. Lawson

teacher marginalization and turnover, model-focused competition among teacher educators, and problematic policies, both Big P and little p, go hand-in-hand. Together they signal needs for complex, collaborative solutions, and they also raise questions about whether modest improvements focused on just one problem will be fit for purpose.

Revisiting the American redesign agenda The chapters in Part I presented the USA as a case example of a nation in need of a multi-component, redesign agenda. Six main claims were offered in support of this need. First, redesign is needed when inequitable opportunities and outcomes are systematically produced and reproduced in the institutional home provided by the industrial age school. When the school acts as a student sorting machine, and PE is structured and operated in accordance with its policies and practices, inequitable outcomes are mass produced. Second, the quest for a standardized PE model characteristic of the twentieth century no longer is fit for purpose because every model is in some ways unresponsive to manifest diversity involving student subpopulations, family system configurations and dynamics, and local school and community characteristics. More nuanced PE program designs thus are timely in response to variable social ecologies, especially as new school designs develop. Examples include community schools, charter schools, magnet schools, and on-line schools. Third, program alternatives need to be outcomes-focused—and with particular interest in important, unique outcomes which can be achieved equitably at scale. Toward this end, justifiable theories of change offer redesign guidance, and intervention frameworks provide practice specifications. For example, systematic assessments of individuals and sub-populations pave the way for customized interventions with implementation fidelity protocols, adaptation guidelines, and mechanisms for evaluation-driven continuous quality improvement. In this view, curriculum and instruction are interventions. This expansive idea of intervention differs from the narrower view associated with public health and medicine, and it corresponds to the growing implementation of response-to-intervention protocols and positive behavior intervention systems in schools worldwide. Fourth, in today’s policy climate, with its increasing focus on outcomesbased accountability systems and cost-benefit analysis, redesign must be theoretically sound and evidence-based. Theory and research focused on children’s socialization into and via health-enhancing, enjoyable physical activity, sport, dance, and active play structures and guides redesign and provides foundational knowledge for policy and practice. Framed by socialecological models, this theory and research starts with proximal learning

Agenda-setting 231

and development outcomes teachers are able to achieve in school contexts. Both school and community influences on childhood experiences and outcomes are connected to beneficial life course developmental trajectories and outcomes. Alongside direct practice with young people, this work necessitates better environmental designs that encourage active lifestyles for children, youth, adults, and family systems (Lawson 2005). Examples include community recreation and sport facilities, playgrounds, walking trails, dance studios, and bike paths. In this lifespan, social-ecological framework, students’ daily physical activity, formal PE, and extra-school experiences are harmonized and synchronized; and with special emphasis on relationships among three kinds of outcomes: (1) Process outcomes (e.g., students get out of their seats and move); (2) Proximal learning outcomes (e.g., national, state/provincial, and local curriculum standards); and (3) Distal outcomes, which stretch into adulthood. Together, these three outcomes indicate that school-based programs must be connected to community offerings and family preferences, perhaps extending to relationships with the business community and governmental agencies (National Physical Activity Plan Alliance 2016). Fifth, this emergent framework for redesign takes PE beyond the school day and outside the school’s walls. To ensure that school and community initiatives are complementary, PE teachers are compelled to be boundarycrossers and bridge-builders as they assume a new role as stewards of, and advocates for, child and adolescent health and well-being. In this expansive institutional configuration, PE no longer merely is a school subject for which colleges and universities prepare teachers. It is a school program founded on three related alternatives: (1) A special opportunity for active learning and performance during the school day; (2) A before-school and afterschool program; and (3) A community-based experience, including special summer camps and programs, with firm connections to schools. Significantly, practice with students shifts from a nearly exclusive reliance on whole group, direct instruction controlled by a teacher. For example, learning systems complement teaching systems. Learning systems innovations include ones facilitated by digital technologies as well as those facilitated by social networks, especially those that enjoy peer leadership and support mechanisms. All three alternatives provide young people with choices, paving the way for more nuanced experiences. All depart from the required, standardized, teacher-controlled curriculum, including pupil control technologies and grades as incentives and rewards. All usher in boundary-crossing and bridge-bridging roles for teachers; necessitate solid assessment protocols as well as data systems for customized interventions; and open avenues to

232  Hal A. Lawson

digital portfolios that document young people’s experiences and learning, substituting for student report cards with grades. All proceed with researchsupported theories of change founded on intervention rationale. Sixth, redesign necessitates strategic research and development (R & D) partnerships featuring both discipline-specific and interdisciplinary initiatives and yielding a more expansive, rigorous knowledge base for policy and practice. Theory and research to defend and improve programs are prioritized alongside path-breaking theory and research for redesign with innovative public policies. The PETE research community has a pivotal role to play. However, diminishing numbers of researchers signal a companion need for Kinesiology researchers, broadly defined, to assume joint responsibility. Toward this end, innovative, collaborative relationships between Kinesiology researchers and PE/PETE researchers are long overdue, and so are interdisciplinary R & D teams. Although this R & D partnership agenda is daunting, it is a practical necessity because social institutional change is underway in nearly every sector of American society. If PE/PETE/Kinesiology leaders do not accept the R & D challenges, competitors will. In fact, out-sourcing already is underway in resource-strapped school systems.

International agendas: Commonalties, similarities, and uniqueness The Part II chapters offer promising, nation-specific developments, achievements, and needs, albeit with a reminder. Direct technology transfer from one nation to another is inadvisable because national, state/provincial, and local contexts vary, and these contexts are consequential for nation-specific policies, schools, PE programs, community-based programs and services, teacher education programs, and higher education institutions. In lieu of technology transfer, lesson-drawing is the recommended strategy (Schön and Rein 1994). Lessons learned about and for policy, practice, and teacher education can be organized in two related ways. One is to derive international commonalities, similarities, and indicators of uniqueness. Unique, context-dependent lessons are especially important because they illuminate differences and compel analysts to track their consequences. This strategy dovetails with a key improvement science principle (Bryk et al. 2015): Variability is the core problem to address. The second strategy is to proceed beyond obvious features of policy, practice, and teacher education and investigate antecedent and co-requisite conditions. A three-component category offers structural and operational guidance. Facilitators are the forces, factors, and actors that ease innovation and implementation. Constraints refer to those that recommend some strategies, while ruling out others. Barriers refer to those that prevent a desirable strategy.

Agenda-setting 233

Lesson-drawing begins with an examination of the host national context and with special interest with keynote characteristics and innovations, together with salient facilitators, constraints, and barriers. From there, it is imperative to study each host nation’s agenda and public policy. The interplay between national policy (Big P) and local counterparts (little p) is especially important because it sets the parameters for whatever discretion teachers, teacher educators, and other school and community leaders enjoy. Mindful that variability is a core problem to address, analysts must strive to put aside their respective preferences and prejudices, aiming to appreciate what author teams identify, describe, and justify. Special interest resides in “the right questions” in lieu of conventional quests for “the right answers.” These reminders frame the ensuring analysis of the Part II author teams’ perspectives and contributions. Three questions structured every chapter. Is there a need for a redesign in your nation? If so, what are the main priorities? How should the work commence? Predictable selectivity in agenda-setting Special interest resides in how and why teams have framed, described, and justified their respective agendas. For example, do they recommend fresh directions, offer alternative frames of reference and language systems, emphasize emergent opportunities for cross-border R & D, outline budding interdisciplinary initiatives, and describe practical lessons learned regarding policy-related trap doors and programmatic dead ends? Or do they describe and justify an agenda characterized as continuous improvement? Richards and colleagues (Chapter 6) provide an analytical starting point. In contrast to the bold redesign agenda described in Part I, this American team emphasizes improvement. Their recommendations promise to strengthen school programs and teacher education. This chapter also provides a key lesson, one that is relevant to all of the Part II chapters. Teams’ perspectives are influenced by their members’ roles, responsibilities, relationships, and career trajectories. Many identify themselves, and are known as, PETE professors, and they also are former teachers. Their shared professional socialization helps to explain their preferences for improvement instead of bold redesign. This observation is not a criticism because every author team enjoys national, perhaps international, recognition for their policy and program leadership. In fact, there is good reason to honor both the improvement and redesign agendas—albeit with a caveat. When authors recommend modest improvements in lieu of redesign, a critical perspective is warranted. Do author teams emphasize equity? What evidence can be marshaled in support of modest reforms in today’s programs, practices, and policies? Specifically, will reforms yield unique, important, and equitable outcomes at scale?

234  Hal A. Lawson

These questions offer a framework for evaluating authors’ roles, program preferences, and careers. For example, the interdisciplinary author team representing Italy is exceptional because it includes PE specialists and pediatric Kinesiology researchers. This team expands, crosses, and bridges prevailing boundaries as they outline a complicated equity agenda, including proactive policy change, an innovative ecosystem, and an R & D approach with multiple components. Author teams’ selectivity and professional socialization can be appreciated in another way—by showcasing authors who are not represented. Here, it is noteworthy that pediatric experts representing medicine, public health, health education and promotion, and Kinesiology frequently hold alternative views. Some are compatible with PE/PETE leaders’ recommendations and preferences, while others not. Increasingly, these outside experts’ perspectives and preferences need to be taken into account because they are co-generators of salient theory and relevant research. Some are key policy actors. Others loom as competitors. Although the Part II author teams overall do not recommend coalitions and alliances among competing constituencies with their diverse goals, it is an alternative worthy of consideration. School-linked physical activity (broadly defined) and learning-focused PE programs (by whatever name) surely can be developed harmoniously and synergistically once evidence drives the agenda and young people’s needs and outcomes are the top priority. The aforementioned R & D partnerships provide a viable mechanism for organizing and mobilizing diverse stakeholders for collective action in the quest for a collective impact. Policy supports for PE and PETE programs In contrast to the United States, seven author teams (Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Italy, England, Australia, New Zealand) indicate that their host nation provides sufficient policy supports, albeit unevenly. Authors primarily focus on Big P policy, and they emphasize mandates and identify windows of opportunity. With the Australia and New Zealand (NZ) chapters as exceptions, teams offer comparatively fewer details on little p policy alignment and coherence in local school districts. This special framing is justifiable when policy uniformity and compliance are the norm, which is more likely to be the case in smaller nations such as Ireland and Scotland. The NZ team describes a unique policy framework in a turbulent governmental climate. The special emphasis accorded to social-ecological frameworks and child/youth well-being is noteworthy, and its expression at the secondary school level merits examination. Significantly, redesign in NZ includes a priority for cultural traditions. At the same time, this team describes the growing challenges for primary (elementary) school PE. Challenges include the quality of program provision via classroom teachers,

Agenda-setting 235

increased competition for time during the school day, the decline in PE subject matter consultants, and the formidable competition involving outside program providers. The Australian team uniquely emphasizes a collaborative approach to policy and curriculum development founded in part on futures forecasting research. Designers have oriented this curricular combination to predictions regarding health-enhancing, active lifestyles in changing, twenty-first-century societal circumstances. This team also describes a visionary strategy for creating a desirable future, with schools and connected PE and health education as centerpieces. After identifying what appear to be sufficient policy supports and resources, the Canadian team emphasizes important differences between macro-level policy and practice that yields equitable outcomes. Mirroring the disparities among Native American (American Indian) children and youths, the Canadian team presents a compelling case for equitable opportunities and outcomes for First Nations people. Although these two nations are different in so many respects, policies and programs for indigenous people have been impaired by a colonial heritage. Strategic, tailor-made redesign is needed to end this tradition Overall, the policy emphases in these several chapters lead to a significant conclusion. School-related PE practice, teacher education, and educational policy are mutually constitutive. Changes in one influence and are influenced by changes in one or both of the others. An omission also is important. Today’s students need to be viewed as policy actors, particularly when they become adults. Optimal experiences enhance the probability that they will be policy advocates. Sub-optimal experiences for today’s students may materialize as policy challenges. This idea of students as policy actors merits more attention. The politics of education and the influence of local, regional, and national governance structures International-comparative scholars of educational leadership and policy oftentimes begin their analyses with the host nation’s political orientation— and with special interest in local, regional, national, and international educational governance structures. Several Part II author teams follow suit. Alone and together, the chapters illuminate important relationships between the politics of education and what might be called “the politics of physical education and PE teacher education.” Important educational policy issues are manifest, and they have import for PETE programs, program design and conduct, and policy advocacy. The chapter by Green et al. (Chapter 9) offers two consequential developments. “Examinable PE” is a standardization impulse that may pose threats to PE’s unique and integrity as well as to local designs and control.

236  Hal A. Lawson

The “sportization of PE” in England and Wales poses comparable threats, perhaps alongside timely opportunities. Emergent developments in NZ and Italy also involve influential, sport constituencies with sometimes-divergent interests and goals. In all three national contexts, an implicit question looms large (Lawson 2005). Is PE mainly a feeder system for competitive sport systems, extending to professional and Olympic sport? This question provides an equity-relevant reminder. Every child has a body and needs to experience enjoyable, health-enhancing embodied experiences, but some of them do not wish to become athletes. Policy leadership needs cross-cut the Part II chapters. Insofar as public policy overall and educational policy in particular have been a kind of “Achilles heel,” three priorities are apparent: (1) Emphasize educational policy analysis in preservice education, with a special focus on PE, sport, and public health; (2) Prepare teachers and other Kinesiology professionals for policy advocacy and change; and (3) Recognize that today’s primary and secondary school students are tomorrow’s policy actors and take appropriate actions. PETE programs as strategic sites for improvement and redesign The Ireland team’s emphasis on PETE programs as a policy priority and a lever for school program improvement merits analysis. Fortunately, the comparatively small scale—three PETE programs in this nation—enables detailed policy and practice analysis. Program comparisons with special interest in the orientations and actions of PE teacher educators hold promise for a better knowledge base for teacher education practice and refined investigations focused on the extent to which innovations provided in preservice education transfer and hold firm in schools. In the same vein, the NZ team emphasizes the advantages of unique doctoral education programs for PETE faculty. Because doctoral programs are not hyper-specialized, professor-researchers enjoy a broad foundation provided by companion studies in education or an arts and sciences discipline. Their research, teaching, and outreach-engagement thus are comprehensive and are more likely to be integrated with mainstream educational policy and practice. Several important questions are nested in the idea of reconfigured and redesigned PETE in service of better school programs which yield equitable outcomes for students. Five question clusters merit consideration. First, how much specialization is essential in PETE programs? What and whose criteria are instrumental in this decision? In what tangible ways do specialized knowledge domains translate to PE program structures and practices which promise to yield equitable outcomes at scale? To what extent is

Agenda-setting 237

the pedagogical content knowledge emphasized in PETE programs generalizable to all manner of formal PE models? Questions like these lead to others, which derive from the generic teacher workforce research. Is there a teacher quality gap in PE, and is it manifest in the distribution of higher quality teachers in advantaged schools and lower quality colleagues in schools surrounded by, and encompassing, multiple challenges (Goldhaber et al. 2018)? Are PETE professors ready, willing and able to take on the challenges of identifying and validating quality measures? The second question cluster is more complicated. In what ways will knowledge for practice be organized and disseminated, and which components are best learned and refined in clinical practice? This question leads others involving, for example, analytical knowledge and action-oriented practical knowledge (Lawson 1985) as well as where, how, and toward what ends prospective teachers spend their time—schools or universities. All such questions necessitate boundary-related research and development (Lawson 2008). The England team introduces a third question cluster. It is framed by differences between PETE professors’ preferences and research and practicing teachers’ preferences, practice routines, and work epistemologies (Lawson 1985). For example: What is to be done about implementation gaps between theoretically sound, research supported models and what teachers prioritize and do? Are practicing teachers merely implementation puppets, or are they leaders? To what extent are implicit models more influential than formal ones? And if these implicit models hold sway, how will teachers be persuaded to emphasize data-based learning and instruction and policy priorities for evidence-guided decision-making? The fourth set of questions is founded on the assumption that continuous improvement and redesign depend fundamentally on what teachers know, prioritize and learn how to do. While PETE programs provide a foundation, the fact remains that beginning teachers are novices. How will they be guided and supported in their journey from novice to expert? What competencies, commitments, values, and beliefs mark the way ahead? Who will provide joint leadership and supports for this agenda? What changes are in order for provincial/state certification systems, PETE accreditation agencies, and national professional associations? The fifth cluster implicates an omission in Parts I and II. How can secondary school teachers become firm partners and key contributors to teacher recruitment and preparation? And, how might they exert influence over future teacher selection and PE’s workforce pipeline overall (Ward in press)? This question is timely in the USA because secondary schools are encouraged and mandated to graduate college- and career-ready students. Toward this end, specialized career academies have been developed, which leads to redesign questions. Where are the new career academy models for

238  Hal A. Lawson

sport, dance, exercise, and PE? Even in generalist secondary schools, what can today’s teachers prioritize and do in service of pre-university PETE? How might these initiatives free up time and space for PETE enhancements in higher education, especially needs for specialized depth and breadth in an already-crowded curriculum? Equitable opportunities and outcomes for children and youths Author teams representing Italy, Canada and Scotland emphasize the contrast between enviable public policy supports and the extent to which PE programs achieve equitable student outcomes at scale. Identifiable student sub-populations are of interest, and it is not a coincidence that some are not engaged in school and may be at risk for early school leaving. The NZ team uniquely contrasts equality and equity. Their socialecological framework, combined with educational policy which facilitates local control, enables nuanced program designs in service of equity. Significantly, NZ redesign is founded on the protection of important national and cultural traditions. Viewed in this unique way, redesign is “back to the future,” not “out with the old, in with the new.” The Scotland team uniquely identifies needs for research and evaluation focused on young children before they enter primary schools. PE in early childhood education and preschool settings surely belongs in both improvement-focused and redesign agendas. The Scotland team provides preliminary guidance. The author team for Italy lends special emphasis to equitable opportunities and outcomes. Like the Canadian team, this team emphasizes student sub-populations currently “under-served.” Other reasons for studying the Italian context start with the special emphasis authors accord to social inclusion, needs for policy and practice alignment between the sport system and the education system, and eco-system mapping and development in service of better policy and practice. Physical literacy, health literacy, and mental health literacy The teams representing Canada, Australia, NZ, and England introduce a keynote redesign priority. Physical literacy and heath literacy (aka health education) are priorities, ideally with aligned, coherent curricular connections. In the same vein, the author teams from Ireland and Scotland note the growing emphasis on health and well-being. This emergent agenda has worldwide import, albeit with thorny details regarding separate and overlapping domains of health education and PE, the extent to which teachers are committed to subject matter integration, and whether health related concepts must be learned in classroom settings versus gymnasia, playing fields, dance studios, and swimming pools.

Agenda-setting 239

With the exception of the team representing Australia, no author team emphasizes the emergent concept of mental health literacy. In the USA, New York State’s Education Department is among the first states to mandate curricula for this special literacy. Mental health literacy refers to students’ mental health knowledge, beliefs, and outcomes (e.g., Lam 2014). Students who develop it are able to recognize, treat, manage, and prevent mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. They also learn how and why problems such as depression are connected to disengagement, substance abuse and suicidal ideation. PE’s contributions to mental health literacy development have not been identified, developed, and evaluated. Several avenues are open to exploration and development. For example, embodied learning via active participation produces adrenalin, the body’s natural antidote for depression. Students’ mental health literacy development can be grounded in this positive, altered state, including its phenomenological experience. At the same time, psychological phenomena such as personal meaning and identity development, flow, enjoyment, and happiness signal PE’s role in preventing mental health problems such as depression. Paradoxically, this program thrust reverses an enduring critique in PE and PETE. Students who are busy, happy, and demonstrate good behavior in PE may be developing mental health literacy! Frameworks and protocols for social and emotional learning (SEL), widely emphasized in school systems worldwide and especially for traditionally underserved populations, have import for mental health literacy via PE (Beyer 2017; Smith et al. 2017). In fact, Smith et al. prioritize teamwork as a key SEL strategy. Opportunities abound for connections between SEL and formal models such as Sport Education, Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility, Cooperative Learning, and Teaching Games for Understanding. The timing may be right for a promising combination of physical literacy, health literacy, and mental health literacy. Three author teams (Scotland, Australia, NZ) introduce or signal a salutogenic approach (Antonovsky 1987). This approach begins in childhood and extends to adulthood. Founded on the difference between health and disease, it places a premium on the development of well-being, emphasizing how people of all ages can develop the ability to prevent and alleviate stress and facilitate coping under sub-optimal circumstances. Two improvement strategies with widespread applicability Author teams for Canada, United States, Scotland, Ireland, and Australia offer an innovative strategy with the potential to enhance opportunities and improve outcomes. Give students more voice and choice in their activities.

240  Hal A. Lawson

This generative innovation extends to a companion one in preservice teacher education programs. In lieu of emphasizing just one curriculum model, ensure that prospective teachers gain commitments and competencies for several models, enabling them to diversify program offerings in variable school contexts. The Irish author team offers the most elaborate description of this strategy, including its connections with teacher education policy and practice in Europe. Like the American team, this team recommends improvement-focused partnerships so that improvements in school programs are aligned with PETE programs. PE teacher characteristics, orientations, and outcomes A special finding from the Part I chapters can be brought to bear on the invited chapters. Better opportunities and improved outcomes for students depend in part on a committed, competent, stable, and suitably supported workforce in school systems in which educational leaders make PE a central priority, starting with class sizes and composition, scheduling and time allocations, and suitable facilities and equipment. Author teams’ approaches to this agenda-setting priority vary. For example, the American author team and the Scotland team prioritize the selective recruitment and socialization of teachers, extending to how and why their respective preferences are instrumental in what they later offer students. The Canadian team emphasizes innovations needed to achieve equitable opportunities and outcomes, starting with teachers’ cultural competence and including teachers’ preparation for and commitments to policy improvements. The Scottish team emphasizes the need for teachers and teacher educators to take stock of, and respond to, students’ mental health needs. The Australian team presents provocative research findings that reveal an important difference. While all teachers apparently supported a futuresoriented curriculum design that wedded PE and Health Education, some of them expressed reservations as implementation proceeded. Differences among teachers are predictable. They serve as a reminder that every program innovation necessitates customized professional development for teachers and perhaps teacher educators. This reminder also paves the way for two lessons regarding the design and conduct of PETE programs. Graduates (i.e., novice teachers) must be prepared to continuing learning. Specifically, they must know how to learn and develop knowledge and expertise from and for their practice as they practice (Schön 1983). In today’s rapidly changing policy and practice environments, novice teachers also much enter practice with firm expectations that innovation design and implementation will be the norm throughout their careers. Implementation science holds special promise for prospective and future teachers.

Agenda-setting 241

The teams representing England and Wales also provide compelling description of practicing teachers’ orientations and pivotal roles in every aspect of PE. The gulf between them and PETE academics is especially important because it helps to explain the incidence and prevalence of implicit PE models. Other teams apparently assume that PETE programs, the PE workforce and PE’s status in the host nation’s schools are in good stead. Perhaps assuming that supportive national policies are in place, teams focus on students’ experiences, program designs, and teachers’ work. On the other hand, the NZ team emphasizes the recent loss of an occupational monopoly over primary school programs. Author teams for Scotland and Italy express the same concern. Grand questions accompany primary school classroom teachers’ control of PE curricula and physical activity (PA) experiences overall, and they extend to early childhood education. Comparative policy research focused on differences between exemplary teachers and programs and ill-defined PA programs supervised loosely by classroom teachers is a priority. Together, the chapters indicate policy and practice variability are endemic and normative. It is essential to embrace variability and determine salient antecedents, correlates, consequences, and implications (Bryk et al. 2015). This focus includes descriptions of, and explanations for, context-specific adaptations for promising PE programs, PETE innovations, and their relations (Knox et al. in press). A nearly exclusive focus on the school subject Apart from Italy and Australia, the Part II authors tend to maintain an exclusive focus on PE as a school subject, complete with inherited curricular requirements. Student voice and choice is an important innovation, perhaps in tandem with a more nuanced curriculum design in substitution for one model such as sport education or SPARK. A firmer connection between PE outcomes and health outcomes is a persistent theme. In the case of Australia, innovation proceeds with a strengthsbased perspective that emphasizes students’ ability to make informed choices. Similar developments apparently are underway in Ireland, extending to changes in PETE. Apart from Australia, teams do not offer proposals for afterschool innovations and school-community program configurations harmonized and synchronized with school PE programs. Research-supported student assessment systems, which encompass students’ experiences in extra-school contexts, and set the stage for teachers’ data-driven decision-making and customized intervention planning, are not emphasized. The Australian case is exceptional in another way. Authors describe curricular planning for personalized learning via digital technologies and

242  Hal A. Lawson

social networks. As schools worldwide are transformed into “anytime, anywhere, anyone learning systems”—with correspondingly less teachercontrolled, whole group, direct instruction, it appears timely for PE and PETE program designers worldwide to seize opportunities to learn from the Australian experience. Two chapters—those on NZ and Italy—describe the import of socialecological frameworks for research, policy, program designs and pedagogical practice. The Australian team implicates such a framework with the development of school-community programs in concert with external providers. The Italy team (Chapter 13) presents grand plans for school-community partnerships facilitated by interprofessional education programs, albeit with formidable challenges associated with the development and sustainability of boundary-bridging relationships. Perhaps this selective attention can be viewed as an international redesign priority. It might encourage leaders to consider afterschool programs and out-of-school time programs overall. Influential afterschool and out-of-school time opportunities enable adults to view and treat young people as children and youths, not students in the school. Holistic approaches of this kind have the potential to promote young people’s healthy development, provide family support mechanisms for working parents, and facilitate school engagement, starting with regular attendance (Lawson and Lawson 2013). Limited attention to youth leadership, peer networks, family systems, and environmental designs The idea of PE as a school subject conducted in accordance with educational policies and controlled by the PE profession is firmly entrenched in the Part II chapters. It helps to account for predictable selectivity. With the Australian team and the Italy team as exceptions, authors do not emphasize youth leadership, positive youth development, the socialization power and influence of peer networks (including ones with youth leadership), coordinated initiatives with parents/caregivers and entire family systems, digital age learning technologies and social networks, and placebased environmental designs as indirect practice mechanisms. All such selectivity may be viewed as an important blind spot. It merits discussion focused on how PE and PETE can be reconfigured in accordance with new designs for schools and learning systems overall. Special attention can be given to what the research says about what it takes to facilitate desirable affective, cognitive, and behavioral changes—equitably and at scale. And, insofar as PE teachers are expected to conform to classroom teachers’ pedagogical requirements, imperatives for systematic student assessments, data-informed instruction, and research-supported decision-making must be emphasized in PETE and school practice.

Agenda-setting 243

Commendable attention to embodied learning and child development The teams representing Scotland and Italy emphasize students’ povertyrelated challenges and teachers’ needs to address them in a concerted effort to facilitate motor development (alternatively, physical literacy). The Italy team builds on this important idea by emphasizing the relationship between appropriately structured and conducted PE and physical activity programs to children’s cognitive development. Authors draw on neuroscience as they promote embodied learning and child development, while providing an important departure from Cartesian mind-body dualism’s hold on PE.

An analytical menu for policy planning The Part II authors identify and describe variable policy-related circumstances, including facilitators, constraints, and barriers. Viewed in isolation, each offers special contributions for international lesson-drawing. At the same time, these chapters provide a collective contribution. They enable the development of a menu of alternatives. This menu offers opportunities for international comparisons and cross-border lesson-drawing. A sample menu is presented below. Plain language, with “we” used as a referent for the host nation, facilitates comparative analysis, highlighting special achievements and highlighting current priorities. •• •• •• ••

•• •• •• ••

We (our nation) enjoy optimal conditions for school programs, teacher education, teachers’ employment, and students’ experiences, and our policy configuration merits examination by leaders from other nations. We have what appear to be the requisite policy supports, but we have not achieved equitable outcomes. We have achieved a bit of both (optimal conditions and equitable outcomes), and we are striving to scale up these conditions and outcomes. We are striving to optimize policy supports and resources, enhance teacher education, improve teachers’ working conditions, and discover better program drivers for desirable student outcomes—all appear to be within our reach. We have not achieved the right conditions or desirable outcomes, so redesign is essential in tandem with strategic policy advocacy. The current institutional arrangement, which features tight connections between school PE programs and teacher education, is fit for purpose when it is continuously improved. The current institutional arrangement reflects and contributes to suboptimal policies, programs, and outcomes, and so a redesign agenda is in order, including school–community partnerships. PE teachers and teacher educators, broadly defined, are positioned to advance our nation’s agenda.

244  Hal A. Lawson



•• ••

Coalitions, perhaps led by PE teachers and teacher educators, are needed to advance our nation’s agenda because the inherited PE/PETE establishment lacks the person-power, breadth of expertise, and policy influence and expertise. Interdisciplinary research and development initiatives, facilitated by simultaneous renewal partnerships with schools and state/provincial/ national education departments, are needed to achieve educational equity. International and national professional and scholarly associations have assumed leadership for twenty-first-century agenda setting and leadership development. Governmental bodies (e.g., those associated with the European Union) have developed policy requirements and guidelines that facilitate improvement and redesign.

The need for a formal systems design: Macro-planning priorities The author teams representing Australia and Italy offer macro-level planning frames for their respective nations. These frameworks signal needs and opportunities for formal systems designs worldwide. For example, the American Physical Activity Report Card, featured in Part I, described a particular kind of system in the USA. Authors describe fractured programs, sub-optimal environmental planning, disconnected professionals, limited data sets, declining interest in PE as students matured, and manifest policy needs. This sub-optimal example illuminates the importance of an improvement science principle. See the system that produces the outcomes (Bryk et al. 2015). In the case of the USA, inequitable opportunities and outcomes are predictable when the implicit systems design is sub-optimal. The development of a formal, testable systems design appears to be an international priority. Four keynote features of systems thinking and planning provide guidance for the work that lies ahead (Senge et al. 2012). Interacting systems components First, all system components interact with demonstrable effects and sideeffects. In other words, changes in one part ultimately influence, and are influenced by, one or more of the others. So, the work starts with mapping systems components and figuring out how to optimize, synchronize, and harmonize their relations and interactions. To wit: Big P and little p policy, teacher socialization mechanisms, R & D configurations and outcomes, equitable opportunities and outcomes for young people in schools and community youth programs, state/provincial

Agenda-setting 245

curriculum standards and local curriculum maps and models, organizational designs for schools, the design of active environments, and the provision of convenient, attractive facilities such as community recreation centers and playgrounds, are key components in the system. In the USA, only recently have these components been mapped, and comprehensive theories of change have yet to be developed. In this view, narrow planning for PE is like building a home without an architectural design developed in accordance with housing standards, community zoning regulations, and national safety regulations. Lindbloom and Cohen (1979) named this pattern “disjointed incrementalism” and describe how leaders “muddle their ways through” complicated problems that defied ready-mix solutions. This uncoordinated, piecemeal approach is associated with sub-optimal outcomes and undesirable side-effects. This same systems scenario can be brought to bear on PE teachers and teacher educators. Lacking a comprehensive, coherent, and aligned systems design, they are left to their own devices regarding whether and how they fit in to a larger, coherent, important agenda. They risk positioning themselves in ways that ensure isolation and cut off avenues for assistance, social supports, and much-needed resources. At the same time, they often foreclose their individual and collective ability to assist and support other teachers and community-based professionals. Students lose out under these circumstances, and so do adults intent on serving them. For example, students’ views of and experiences with embodied learning are constrained when PE is conducted apart from art, music, and drama. At the same time, stand-alone PE structured apart from a comprehensive systems design forecloses opportunities for teachers to join professional learning communities, gain organizational resources, and advance PE’s organizational centrality. When the examining lens moves outside of schools, youth sport coaches, dance teachers, fitness instructors, and community recreation leaders come into view as systems components and system design priorities. In the USA’s current “non-system configuration,” they may not know each other and tend to work in isolation and perhaps at cross-purposes. In a formal system, all of these significant others have designated roles, relationships, responsibilities and accountabilities—with data-driven mechanisms for communication, coordination, collaboration, and continuous quality improvement. When leaders lack an overarching systems design, they are likely to focus on just one part, perhaps “muddling their ways through” the influences of other, unconnected parts. Adult learning for systems development and change The second feature accompanies every effort to move what amounts to a non-system to a formal, coordinated, and cohesive one. Every systems

246  Hal A. Lawson

design depends on adult learning and development, both individual and collective (Armour et al. 2017). In a coherent, aligned, and effective system, every adult professional knows what their roles and responsibilities are, including how their respective interventions and programs complement and benefit from others’. And when their roles, responsibilities and relationships change, additional learning supports and resources are provided. The implications for preservice education, doctoral programs and professional development initiatives are profound, and they extend to the needs of today’s researchers who were socialized via and into a fractured system. Fortunately, pioneering researchers have provided start-up frameworks for alternative teacher education frameworks and models. For example, Armour and Chambers (2014) have proposed an integrative framework for sport and exercise pedagogy, and a team of investigators has provided research-supported recommendations for aligning public health agendas and teacher education (Webster et al. 2015). Meanwhile, a new proposal for preparing teachers as policy leaders for comprehensive school physical activity programs is especially promising (Castelli et al. 2017) because it dovetails with research that documents the importance of local school district leaders in research use and practice improvements (Honig et al. 2017). Mapping the system and providing operational compasses for leaders The third feature is best expressed as a design-related question. What would a comprehensive, coherent, effective and adaptable system necessitate and entail? This question may be this book’s most important contribution because it sets the stage for systems-building, enhancing broad platforms such as the USA’s national plan (National Physical Activity Plan Alliance 2016). For example, the constituent components for a USA system are like pieces in search of a puzzle configuration. The timing in the USA is right because planning is underway for a maternal and child health systems design (Kroelinger et al., 2014). In response to this need, several important priorities can be derived from the Parts I and II chapters. The contributions from Italy, Canada, Ireland, and Australia are particularly helpful. For example: ••

Nations, states, and provinces have developed an aligned, coherent, theoretically sound, and research-supported macro-system, operationalized in policies that link and support various forms of physical activity, sport, dance, and active play and emphasizing links between measurable, proximal outcomes during childhood and adolescence to distal outcomes in adulthood, including critically important public health outcomes.

Agenda-setting 247



•• ••


•• ••





Nations, states, and provinces have prioritized physical literacy, health literacy, mental health literacy, and their connections in policy platforms for citizens of all ages—and with special missions, measurable outcomes, and accountability structures for school systems. Nations, states, and provinces have prioritized teacher education as a main lever for improvement, and innovative policy frameworks provide structural guidance, operational supports, and quality control mechanisms. Nations, states, and provinces have prioritized PE needs for preschool children, including family-centered strategies that engage parents, particularly mothers. Solid theory and rigorous research, operationalized in one or more theories of change, guide the design, implementation, and continuous improvement of professional education and training programs, extending to accreditation and certification requirements. Solid theory and rigorous research, operationalized in one or more theories of change, guide the design, implementation, and continuous improvement of school PE programs and companion programs in community agencies and neighborhood organizations. R & D simultaneous renewal partnerships among universities, schoolcommunities and state/provincial education departments serve as policypractice design labs and hubs for community of practice networks. R & D experts collaborate routinely via national and international networked communities of practice focused on the articulation and continuous improvement of specialized delivery systems and particular program models. Scholarly and professional associations join forces to develop, support, and advance a policy-focused, research and development agenda focused on children and youths, particularly school-based and schoollinked socialization structures and experiences. As new designs for schools develop and innovative systems for education systems (not merely schools) increase, customized prototypes for collaborative school and community programs are piloted and evaluated, and PE leaders pilot digital age models and strategies in support of children, youth, and families. Nascent models for comprehensive school-based physical activity (Carson et al. 2014a) are connected to whole child, whole school, whole community, whole school, whole child designs for overall well-being (Lewallen et al. 2015). Inherited boundaries that once separated PE teacher education researchers, Kinesiology researchers, public health researchers, and other pediatric researchers are bridged via interdisciplinary research and interprofessional education and training programs.

248  Hal A. Lawson

•• ••


Family-centered programs and services simultaneously address the needs and aspirations of parents, children, and entire family systems. Social networks (e.g., exercise friends, running clubs, self-help and mutual support groups) involving peers, family systems, and professionals are harnessed for their socialization power, resource-generating capacities, and policy change leadership. Cross-sector policy and program planning include emergent priorities for mental health, social inclusion and integration, crime and delinquency prevention, positive youth development, and comprehensive strategies for addressing the social determinants of health disparities, especially sedentary lifestyles and obesity.

The fourth systems design priority: Public policy Every system design depends on supportive public policy. As everyone knows, the optimal relationship between big P and little p policy described in three of the Part II chapters is not easy to establish or maintain, and this is why better public policy and leadership for it are system building necessities (Carson et al. 2014b; van der Mars in press). Alongside generic policy, some policy must be tailor-made for sub-populations such as adolescents (Pate et al. 2016). In the USA, the idea of “policy neglect” is apt. Policy experts are scarce, and so are policy-focused curricular tracks in higher education, in part because the PE-focused, policy research literature is scarce. The development of better policies for a comprehensive, coherent system requires the preparation and support of policy specialists and change agents. In political science circles, some specialists are called “policy entrepreneurs” (Mintrom and Norman 2009) because they market and promote innovations and recruit diverse supporters. Closer to home, every PE teacher, teacher educator, and Kinesiology researcher is a key policy actor. What they prioritize and do, how they proceed, what they accomplish, and how they publicize their success stories and continuous improvement journeys are policy acts! A well-known phrase is apt: Think globally and act locally. Even with such a grassroots approach, policy specialists are needed. Looking ahead, it is possible to wonder who will prepare and support PE policy specialists and entrepreneurs. Questions regarding policy leadership are accompanied by companion questions regarding who will provide leadership for new systems designs. Although international and national scholarly and professional associations are the likely candidates, it is possible to wonder which one(s) are able to meet this need. Meanwhile, questions remain about what leadership development would entail, and how associations might proceed.

Agenda-setting 249

The American social work profession offers a timely exemplar. Emergent practice challenges and policy opportunities—homeless children and families; ones with mental health needs and substance abuse problems; the development of trauma-informed, resilient communities; and the development of elder-prepared and aging-friendly communities—emerged at the dawning of the twenty-first century. Individually and together they required innovative adaptive and proactive responses. However, social work lacked a critical mass of leaders. The social work solution was to develop problem-specific leadership academies and national community of practice networks. At the same time, social work leaders followed the engineering profession’s trail when they proclaimed “Grand Challenges for Social Work” (American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare 2017). Because these emergent needs were important national policy priorities and not merely self-interested pursuits, social work leaders were able to garner financial supports from external funders at the same time that professional and scholarly associations accelerated national advocacy. Notwithstanding manifest limitations, this multi-faceted social work initiative offers a feasible, achievable way to advance leadership development in support of new systems designs and policy innovations, benefiting agendas described as improvement-oriented and redesign.

Collective action for collective impact This book showcases an equity agenda structured in relation to important, unique outcomes that can be achieved systematically in local school and community contexts. Gaps between equity ideals and research-supported realities illuminate an unfinished agenda. Peter Drucker’s (2008) question offers an opportunity to launch agendasetting. If we hadn’t inherited it, would we do it this way? Whether this agenda is framed and named as improvement or redesign, it is a call to collective action in the quest for beneficial, collective impact. It is founded on helping disciplines’ and professions’ ethical obligations, moral imperatives and social responsibilities. Children’s needs, interests, and outcomes are the top priority, stretching into their life course developmental trajectories. Although this agenda is daunting and perhaps can be viewed as revolutionary, a retrospective analysis suggests it is achievable.

Epilogue: Optimism for redesign gained from an autobiographical journey Like other colleagues of my generation who completed their professional education and garnered teaching experiences during the 1960s, in the

250  Hal A. Lawson

ensuing decades I have experienced both modest reforms and revolutionary changes, some of which qualify as institutional redesign. “Revolutionary” is not an exaggeration. Several USA examples support this claim. During this time, once-separate programs for men and women have merged. Interscholastic and intercollegiate sports programs for women have spiraled. The academic discipline of Kinesiology (by whatever name) was proclaimed and developed rapidly, albeit with enduring conflicts regarding its relations with PE and PETE (Lawson and Kretchmar 2017). Beginning in the latter part of the 1970s and accelerating thereafter, research and development expertise and theoretically sound, researchsupported justifications challenged PE and PETE authorities’ values and program preferences. Meanwhile, other disciplines’ neglect of child and youth PE, sport, active play, dance, and health ended. Public health specialists, health educators, and self-designed experts with training in other disciplines increasingly have offered interprofessional competition for the right and privilege to serve schools and students. As internal disagreements within the PE/PETE community have continued (e.g., “education of the physical” versus “education through the physical”), outside researchers with commitments to children and youths have asked and addressed different research questions because their training was not restricted to pedagogy, and they were not embroiled in conflicts regarding the best PE system for industrial age schools. Their R & D was enriched by the perspectives provided by arts and sciences disciplines such as psychology, sociology, physiology, and biochemistry, and neuroscience. Diverse in several respects, their common purpose has been to figure out how to achieve optimal outcomes for children and youths. These new perspectives and research directions also have become defining features of Kinesiology, albeit influenced by sub-disciplinary specialties and scholarly associations, both national and international. Together, scholars representing sport, exercise, and health psychology and neuroscience increasingly have extended the frontiers of knowledge. Some have emphasized embodied learning and development, while others have illuminated the importance of youth sub-cultures and their respective physical cultural practices (Schilling 2010). Unfortunately, this new knowledge has not penetrated the American PETE establishment. In the main, professors have continued to focus primarily on pedagogy, while continuing to persuade teacher candidates to do the same. In brief, a disappointing circumstance remains—-a firm divide separates PETE faculty and researchers from Kinesiology and other disciplines. It continues to defy interdisciplinary bridge-building. Although the social organization of these Kinesiology and interdisciplinary researchers is fractured and in need of a systems design, and their preference for laboratory research instead of direct engagement in real world

Agenda-setting 251

settings raises issues about their knowledge claims, a tangible benefit system has resulted from their overall R & D focused on children and school programs. The body of knowledge that can be called “pediatric exercise, sport, and health science” is a key component in this benefit system. It has developed rapidly, and the pace of knowledge development continues to accelerate as Kinesiology researchers join forces with researchers from other disciplines such as public health, social work, medicine, and neuroscience (Lawson 2016). This body of knowledge holds unlimited promise for PE/PETE policy and practice. In contrast to the 1960s when my professional socialization commenced; and when a major in PE primarily meant training in school-based sport pedagogy and sport skills development, today there is a substantial evidentiary base in support of relationships among school-based physical activity, optimal school PE, and life-long heath-enhancing exercise, sport, active play, dance, and appropriate nutrition. This knowledge base can be marshaled in support of a grand, revolutionary claim. Active, healthy lifestyles established during childhood are life-enriching and, if they continue, they are life-extending and perhaps life-saving. A field that claims jurisdiction over these lifestyles, or at least claims the ability to be a key influence, is compelled to deliver on this immense potential. The failure to do so, especially when a guiding knowledge base is available, sends the wrong meta-message. It signals that professionals’ values, needs, preferences, and convenience are more important than children’s needs, preferences, and outcomes. In brief, when practicing professionals do not avail themselves of the best theory and research in support of optimal policies and practices, allegations of professional negligence develop, and they imperil the field’s survival (Lawson 1998). Thus, agenda-setting for comprehensive improvement and bold redesign start with twin aims: (1) Safeguard the field’s survival; and (2) Provide research-supported opportunities that lead to the achievement of equitable outcomes for children and youths.

References American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare, 2017. Grand challenges for social work. Available from: [Accessed 1 May 2017]. Antonovsky, A., 1987. Unravelling the mystery of health. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass Inc. Armour, K.M. and Chambers, R., 2014. Sport & exercise pedagogy: The case for a new integrative sub-discipline in the field of Sport & Exercise Sciences/Kinesiology/ Human Movement Studies. Sport, Education, & Society, 19 7, 855–868. Armour, K.M., Quennerstedt, M., Chambers, F., and Makopoulou, K., 2017. What is effective CPD for contemporary physical education teachers: A Deweyian framework. Sport, Education, and Society, 22 7, 799–811.

252  Hal A. Lawson Beyer, L.N., 2017. Social and emotional learning and traditionally underserved populations. Washington DC: American Youth Policy Forum. Bryk, A.S., Gomez, L, Grunow, A., and LeMahieu, P., 2015. Learning to improve: How America’s schools are getting better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, Carson, R.L., Castelli, D., Pulling, A.C., and Glowadu, E.M., 2014a. Impact of trained champions of comprehensive school physical activity programs on school physical activity offerings, youth physical activity and sedentary behaviors. Preventive Medicine, 69 Suppl 1, S12–9. Carson, R.L., Castelli, D., Beighle, A., and Erwin, H., 2014b. School-based physical activity promotion: A conceptual framework for research and practice. Child Obesity, 10 2, 100–106. Castelli, D.M., Carson, R.L., and Kulinna, P.H., 2017. PETE programs creating teacher leaders to integrate comprehensive school physical activity programs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 88 1, 8–10. Drucker, P.F., 2008. The essential Drucker: The best sixty years of Peter Drucker’s essential writings on management. New York: Collins Business Essentials. Goldhaber, D., Quince, V., and Theobald, R., 2018. Has it always been this way? Tracing the evolution of teacher quality gaps in U.S. public schools. American Educational Research Journal, 55 1, 17–201. Honig, M.I., Venkateswaran, N., and McNeil, P., 2017. Research use as learning: The case of fundamental change in school district central offices. American Educational Research Journal, 54 5, 938–971. Knox, V., Hill, C., and Berlin, B., (Forthcoming). Can evidence-based policy ameliorate the nation’s social problems. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Kroelinger, C.D., Rankin, K., Chambers, D., Dize Roux, A., Hughes, K., and Grigorescu, V., 2014. Using principles of complex systems thinking and implementation science to enhance maternal and child health program planning and delivery. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 18, 1560–1564. Lam, L.T., 2014. Mental health literacy and mental health status in adolescents: A population-based study. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry & Mental Health, 8 26. Available from: [Accessed 31 January 2018]. Lawson, H.A., 1984. Problem-setting for physical education and sport. Quest, 36 1, 46–60. Lawson, H.A., 1985. Knowledge for work in the physical education profession. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2 1, 9–24. Lawson, H.A., 1998. Here today, gone tomorrow: A framework for analyzing the invention, development, transformation and disappearance of helping fields. Quest, 50, 225–237. Lawson, H.A., 2005. Empowering people, facilitating community development, and contributing to sustainable development: The social work of sport, exercise, and physical education programs. Sport, Education, and Society, 10 1, 135–160. Lawson, H.A., 2008. Crossing borders and changing boundaries to develop innovations that improve outcomes. The Cagigal Lecture, AIESEP World Congress, Sapporo, Japan, January.

Agenda-setting 253 Lawson, H.A., 2016. Stewarding the discipline with cross-boundary leadership. Quest, 68 2, 91–115. Lawson, H.A. and Kretchmar, R.S. 2017. A generative synthesis for Kinesiology: Lessons from history and visions for the future. Kinesiology Review, 6, 195–210. Lawson, M.A., and Lawson, H. A., 2013. New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83 3, 432–479. Lewallen, R.C., Hunt, M., Potts-Datema, W., Zaza, S., and Giles, W., 2015. The whole school, whole community, whole child model: A new approach for improving educational attainment and healthy development for students. Journal of School Health, 85 11, 729–739. Lindbloom, C.E. and Cohen, D.K., 1979. Usable knowledge. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Mintrom, M. and Norman, P., 2009. Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. The Policy Studies Journal, 37 4, 649–667. National Physical Activity Plan Alliance. 2016. National physical activity plan. Columbia, SC: Author. Available from: docs/2016NPAP_Finalforwebsite.pdf [Accessed 5 July 2016]. Pate, R.R., Flynn, J., and Dowda, M., 2016. Policies for the promotion of physical activity and the prevention of obesity in adolescence. Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness, 14, 47–53. Schilling, C., 2010. Exploring the society-body-school nexus: Theoretical and methodology issues in the study of body pedagogics. Sport, Education, and Society, 15 2, 151–167. Schön, D.A., 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D.A. and Rein, M., 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books. Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., and Kleiner, A., 2012. Schools that learn. 2nd edition. New York: Crown Business. Smith, C., McGovern, G., Peck, C., Larson, R., and Roy, L., 2017. Preparing youth to thrive: Methodologyy and findings from the social and emotional learning challenge. Washington, DC: Forum for Youth Investment. van der Mars, H., (Forthcoming). Policy development for physical education . . . our last, best chance? Quest. Ward, P., (Forthcoming). Setting the scene: Challenges and building capacity for physical education teacher education programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. Webster, C., Stodden, D.F., Carson, R.L., Egan, C., and Nesbitt, D., 2015. A systematic review of public health-aligned recommendations for preparing PE teacher candidate. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86 1, 30–39. World Health Organization, 2017. Physical activity for health: Most active people for a healthier world. Draft global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Available from: [Accessed 2 January 2018].


academic achievement 54, 72, 73, 74; Canada 137; Italy 215; motor development linked to 210, 221 academization 163–164 accountability 13, 53–54, 55; Australia 198; Canada 135, 139, 142; industrial age schools 29; Ireland 180; lack of 34–35; New Zealand 184; outcomes/results-based 3, 10, 41, 42, 44, 48, 206, 229, 230; role centrality 56; weak 57 accreditation 53 action research 98, 210 active play see play Active Schools 147, 150, 151 adaptive problem, redesign as an 65, 66–73 adolescence 25–26, 81, 90 adult learning 245–246 adventure education 125 advocacy 31, 60, 236, 243; interventions 89; Italy 210, 215, 220–221; local 129, 130; PETE 43; politics 235; research and development 117; social work 249 affective domain 151–152 afterschool programs 3, 50–51, 52, 72, 231, 241, 242 agency 3, 74, 77; directed play 33; holistic view 34; interventions 90; student-centered learning 127; teachers 58, 130; see also choice agenda-setting 4, 65–66, 67, 229, 233–234, 240, 249, 251 Almond, L. 159, 160 altruism 98 ambiguity 10 aptitudes 27

Ardern, Jacinda 182 Armour, K.M. 246 Arnold, P. 202 art 8, 13, 29, 245 Ashworth, S. 157 assessment 3, 230, 231; data 67, 90, 94, 96–97, 98, 125; examinable PE 163; industrial age schools 29; international testing 14; Ireland 176, 178, 179, 180; research-supported 241; response-to-intervention 87; Scotland 148–149 assimilation 25, 33, 136 attitudes 183 Australia 196–209, 234, 235, 238, 240, 241–242 auto-pilot metaphor 10, 37, 44, 109 autonomy 127, 152, 213 backward designs 79, 80 Bacon, Francis 118 Bailey, Richard 46, 47 Bardid, Farid 145–155 Basic Moves programme 150, 153 behaviorism 50 Bellotti, Pasquale 221 Beni, S. 47 “black box problem” 77–78 boys 36 Brewer, B. 149 bridge-building 2, 13, 231, 250; Canada 139, 140, 141–142; industrial age schools 29; interventions 91; research and development 112, 115 bullying 151 Bunker, D. 159–160 bureaucracies 32–33

Index 255 Cale, Lorraine 156–170 Callahan, R. 26 Canada 134–144, 234, 235, 238, 240 career academies 237–238 career and technical education 30 career progression 53 Carlson, T. 198 Carson, R.L. 56 Cartesian mind-body dualism 28, 30–31, 185, 243 cascading effects 69, 70, 128 categorical policy 35 centrality 54–55, 56, 245 certification 32, 53, 148–149, 247 CfE see Curriculum for Excellence Chambers, R. 246 childhood, invented 25–26 choice 3, 74, 184, 231, 239, 241; assessment data 94; directed play 33; holistic view 34; interventions 90, 100, 116; play 67; professional ethics 99; Scotland 152; student-centered learning 127; see also agency Chrónín, N. 47 civic engagement 221 class sizes 11, 12, 66, 106, 128, 240 Cliff, K. 184 coaches 57–58, 164 coalitions 244 cognitive development 29, 51, 70–71, 72, 215, 221, 243 Cohen, D.K. 245 Cohen, R.D., 26 collaboration 90–92, 100 collective action 15, 59, 249; health promotion 184; research and development 106, 110, 112, 113, 234 Collins, D. 149, 150, 151 communities of practice 14, 247 community agencies 2, 3, 38 competence 127 competition 229–230, 250 competitive sport 49 conservatism 1 continuous improvement 76–78, 93, 98, 116, 117, 230, 237, 247; see also improvement Continuous Professional Development (CPD) 214, 216, 218; see also professional development Cook, H. 200

Cooperative Learning 162, 164, 187, 239 corporate social responsibility (CSR) 214–215 Cosma, A. 151 cost-benefit analyses 3, 10, 41, 42, 44, 229, 230 counseling 81–82 CPD see Continuous Professional Development critical inquiry 201, 203 CSR see corporate social responsibility Culpan, I. 182 cultural assimilation 25, 136 cultural diversity 1, 3, 24–25, 92, 183 culturally appropriate curricula 137 curriculum 72, 130; Australia 196–198, 199–201, 202, 203–206; Canada 135, 137; curricular maps 87; England and Wales 157, 158, 162; “hidden” 190; identity-based 81–82; industrial age schools 25, 28, 29, 34; institutionalized content 38; interventions 230; Ireland 174–177, 178, 179; Italy 215; multi-activity 51–52, 93–94, 146, 157, 159, 162, 165, 167; New Zealand 182, 183–188, 190, 191; Scotland 145, 147–148; standards 26; studentprocessing 32; systems design 244–245; theories of change 80; United States 125 Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) 147–148, 151, 152 customization 3, 66, 67, 80–81, 100, 230, 231 dance 11, 72, 246, 251; benefits of 8; bridge-building 29; Canada 137; embodiment 13; England and Wales 157; holistic interventions 91; identity 25, 81; institutionalized content 38; Ireland 175; multiactivity curriculum 51; social ecologies 4; social geography 68 data collection 67, 150, 153 data systems 87 Day, C. 152 demography 6, 24, 95 Descartes, René 30 design-based research 111 design science 5–6, 142

256 Index Dewey, John 39 diagnostic stereotyping 94, 99 digital technologies 67, 68, 80–81, 242; Australia 200, 241–242; digital portfolios 4, 231–232; learning systems innovations 231; responseto-intervention 87 diversity 1, 3, 67, 92, 230; Canada 137, 138, 142; diagnostic stereotyping 99; Ireland 174; New Zealand 183; United States 24–25; “unity founded on” 80 dosage 88–89, 97 drama 8, 13, 29, 245 Drucker, Peter 4, 39, 78, 249 Durie, Mason 183 Dyson, B. 182–195

evaluation 98, 99, 116, 143; Italy 210, 218, 220; theories of change 76 evidence-based practice 56, 86–87, 94, 96, 104, 110 examinable PE 163–164, 166, 235 exercise: benefits of 8; dosage 97; England and Wales 157; holistic interventions 91; identity 25, 81; institutionalized content 38; intervention frameworks 88; Kinesiology research 251; PE leaders 31; social geography 68; see also physical activity exercise deficit disorder 46 external providers (EPs): Australia 198–199, 204, 205, 242; Italy 214; New Zealand 189, 190, 234–235

ecosystem approach 217, 220, 238 education 42, 43, 71 Elmore, Richard 44 embodiment 8, 12–13, 25, 29, 81, 139, 173, 239, 245 emotional labor 56–57, 59 empowerment 99, 127, 152 engagement 135, 136, 149, 152, 242 England and Wales 156–170, 234, 235–236, 238, 241 English as a second language 2, 3, 10, 92, 96 enjoyment 66–67, 72, 74, 152, 166 Enright, Eimear 196–209 EPs see external providers equality of opportunity 6, 24, 238; Italy 210, 213; New Zealand 186; standardization 26, 27 equity 6, 7–8, 52, 238; agenda-setting 251; Canada 135–138, 141, 235; constraints to 23; industrial age schools 29; intervention science 100; New Zealand 186, 238; outcomes 47; R & D partnerships 118; research framework 108; standardization 27, 28; systems design 244–245; teacher outcomes 12; theories of change 80 ethics 98–100, 118, 143, 221 ethnicity 24; see also race European Framework for Key Competences for Lifelong Learning 213 European regional policy 216

fair play 88 family: family-centered programs 248; interventions 95; social ecologies 67–68, 69; support for working parents 242 Finland 14 fitness: Australia 197; intervention frameworks 88; low-dose PE 89; multi-activity curriculum 51; New Zealand 182; physical activity games 71; student-centered learning 127; teacher education 36; theories of change 74 Fitzpatrick, K., 185, 191 Fletcher, Tim 47, 134–144 FMS see Fundamental Movement Skills forecasting 200, 235 forward designs 79 Fullan, M. 35 Fundamental Movement Skills (FMS) 161–162 funding: Canada 136, 137, 138; Italy 212; New Zealand 190; Scotland 151, 153; United States 54, 105 games: Canada 137; England and Wales 157, 159–160; identity 25; institutionalized content 38; Ireland 175; physical activity 70–71; sportization 164; teacher education 36; Teaching Games for Understanding 159–160, 161, 164, 239; University of Georgia program 51

Index 257 gender: Australia 197; sport education 49–50; teacher education 36, 37 generalist teachers: Australia 197, 198, 204; Canada 141; Ireland 172; Italy 212, 214; New Zealand 188; Scotland 150 Gerdin, G. 157 Getting to Outcomes (GTO) 96 gifts and talents 27, 28, 33 girls 2, 36, 69, 96, 152 Glasby, T. 198 globalization 14, 25 goals 90, 94–95, 99 Goodlad, J.I. 109 Goodson, I.F. 196 Gordon, Barrie 182–195 governance 212–213, 217, 219 Graber, Kim C. 123–133 gradualism 206 Gray, S. 148, 150, 152 Green, Ken 44, 156–170, 235 GTO see Getting to Outcomes gymnastics: Canada 136; England and Wales 157; Ireland 175; teacher education 36 Hajkowicz, S. 200 Halas, Joannie 134–144 harm reduction 6, 98 Harris, Jo 156–170 Hastie, P.A. 46 Hauora 183–184, 185 HBPE see health-based physical education health 10, 42, 43, 71, 125; Australia 201; Canada 136; disparities 24, 105, 136, 248; Italy 210; Kinesiology research 251; outcomes 241; public health ethics 221; Scotland 147, 148 health and physical education (HPE): Australia 196–209; New Zealand 182–192 health-based physical education (HBPE) 158–159, 166 health literacy 3, 12, 69–70, 72, 238–239, 247; Australia 201, 202–203; Canada 138, 139–140, 141–142; industrial age schools 29; low-dose PE 89 health promotion 4–5, 184, 221 health-related exercise (HRE) 158–159, 161, 164, 166, 175

Hellison, Donald 48–49 “hidden curriculum” 190 Hobsbawm, Eric 213 holistic development 34, 72, 73, 242; Canada 139, 140; Ireland 172; Italy 211, 221 Howie, E.K. 74 HPE see health and physical education HRE see health-related exercise human rights 221 identity 8, 25, 89, 99; Canada 135, 136–138, 141; identity-based curricula 81–82; teachers 56–57 immigrants 1, 2, 3, 10, 24–25; “Americanization” of 26; Canada 137; interventions 92, 94, 96; Ireland 174; social inclusion 74 implementation fidelity 70, 93, 96–97, 162–163, 230; barriers to 125–126; Italy 220; research and development 117; SPARK 50 implementation science 97, 111, 115, 240 improvement 1, 76–78, 233, 239–240; forward designs 79; interventions 93, 97–98; Italy 210; reform-asimprovement 105, 106–107; see also continuous improvement improvement science 53, 106–107, 111 inactivity 90, 123–124; Australia 202; Scotland 146, 152 Inchley, J. 152 inclusion 80 Indian Residential School (IRS) 134, 136 Indigenous people: Canada 134, 136, 137–138, 139, 141, 142, 235; New Zealand 192n1 industrial age schools 11, 23–35, 37, 43, 123; Canada 134; institutional sorting 98; Ireland 175, 177; logic of 67; multi-activity curriculum 52; reform 206; selectivity 7; standardization 26–28, 52, 75, 100; sub-optimal working conditions 124 inequities 54; Australia 197; critical inquiry 203; Italy 216; reproduction of 230; United States 229–230, 244 Ingham, Alan 38 initial teacher education (ITE) 164–165, 189; see also teacher education

258 Index innovation 111, 217, 231 institutional perspective 9–10, 23, 37–39, 42 interdisciplinarity 15, 247, 250; Italy 216; New Zealand 185, 191; research and development 105, 108, 112, 114, 232, 244 International Association for Physical Education in Higher Education 112 international networks 112 international testing 14 interprofessional collaboration 90–92, 100 interprofessional training 92, 214, 216, 242, 247 intervention frameworks 82, 86–103, 230 intervention science 86, 88, 89, 93, 96, 100 Ireland 171–181, 234, 236, 238, 240, 241 IRS see Indian Residential School Italy 210–225, 234, 236, 238, 241, 242, 243 ITE see initial teacher education Jess, M. 150, 151 job descriptions 11, 12 Juvenal 30 Kinchin, G. 161 Kinesiology 15, 23, 38, 43, 234, 247; Canada 138; intervention frameworks 88; lack of research 43; policy advocacy 236; research and development 105, 108, 109, 110, 232, 250–251 Kirk, David 2, 145–155, 157, 160, 166 Kiwisport 190 knowledge 111–112, 115, 237, 251; pedagogical content 34, 52, 160, 176, 197, 236–237; social construction of 184 Kuhn, T.K. 113 Lamb, Cara A. 145–155 Landi, Dillon 182–195 Lawson, Hal A. 1–19, 123, 136, 179, 229–253; design science 142; fragmentation in PE/PETE 184–185; industrial age assumptions 175, 177; interventions 86–103, 206;

learning-oriented and identity development curriculum 135; “one best system” 185; outcomes 41–64; PE in the industrial age school 23–40; physical literacy 139; redesign as an adaptive problem 65–85; research and development 104–120; shortcomings of PETE 172–173; sport-based PE 166 leadership 23, 236, 244, 248–249 learning: adult 245–246; affective 151, 152; “by doing” 211; Canada 135; Cooperative 162, 164, 187, 239; customized 67, 80–81; “ecosystems of” 217; embodied 8, 12–13, 29, 72, 81, 239, 243, 245; interventions 98; Ireland 177, 180; learning systems innovations 231; outcomes 11; personalized 34, 98, 100, 241–242; student-centered 13, 126–127, 128, 130, 161, 184; sub-optimal 123–124; through movement 201, 202 learning communities 129, 152–153, 180, 245 legislation 212, 213, 218; see also public policy Leone, Liliana 210–225 lesson-drawing 232–233 Levesque-Bristol, C. 127 life course development 11, 69, 70, 73, 91, 114, 231 lifelong participation 156, 157, 167, 172, 178 Lindbloom, C.E. 245 Lipsky, M. 33 Littleboy, A. 200 Lorusso, Jenna 134–144 Louis, K.S. 206 Lounsbery, M.A.F. 156 Macdonald, Doune 196–209 MacPhail, Ann 160, 171–181 Mann, Horace 192 Marchetti, Rosalba 210–225 marginalization 55, 57, 124, 128, 189, 216, 229–230 Marzocchi, Franca 210–225 “melting pot” 24–25 McCuaig, Louise 196–209 McKenzie, T.L. 156 McMillan, P. 145 McNamee, M. 163

Index 259 mental health 72, 81; Australia 198; cross-sector policy and program planning 248; mental health literacy 239, 247; Scotland 146, 151, 152, 240; see also well-being meta-cognitive abilities 51, 71 method-bound teachers 94 Millar, John D. 145–155 mind-body dualism 28, 30–31, 128, 185, 243 Mission Australia 200 Mitchell, F. 152 models 43, 48–52, 59–60, 106, 247; England and Wales 156, 159–163, 165–166; Ireland 176, 178; modelfocused competition 230; research and development 114–115; socialemotional learning 239 Mohl, R.A. 26 Mosston, M. 157 motivation 99, 151 motor development 221, 243; Australia 197; Italy 210, 215, 220; Scotland 146, 150–151, 152 Motta, Anna 210–225 movement 201, 202, 221; see also motor development multi-activity curriculum 51–52, 93–94, 146, 157, 159, 162, 165, 167 music 8, 13, 29, 245 National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE) 157, 158, 166 neo-liberalism 41, 42, 188, 189, 190, 191 network governance 210, 213 networked learning communities 152–153 New Zealand 182–195, 234–235, 236, 241, 242 norms 87–88 Nutbeam, D. 203 nutrition 70, 205, 251 obesity 10, 90, 105, 221, 248; Australia 202; England and Wales 158; Italy 215; Scotland 152; SPARK 50 occupational socialization see teacher socialization O’Doherty, L. 175 OECD see Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

Ofsted inspections 165 Oliver, K.L. 2, 152 opportunities 68, 238 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 199, 214, 217 organizational centrality 54–55, 56, 245 O’Sullivan, Mary 124, 171–181 out-of-school activities 2, 242; Canada 141; Italy 211–212, 216; research needs 106; sport education model 49, 50; teaching personal and social responsibility 48 outcomes 41–64, 66–67, 71–72, 73, 229, 230, 243; accountability 3, 10, 206; Australia 201; Canada 135; Cooperative Learning 162; equitable 6, 8, 47, 52, 67, 235, 238, 244–245, 251; Getting to Outcomes 96; importance 42–43; institutionalized PE/PETE 39; Ireland 177, 178, 180; Irish teacher education 175; Italy 220; learning 11; measurable 60, 107, 246; models-driven research 48; process 73, 106, 107, 231; proximal and distal 68–69, 74, 79, 82, 106, 107, 230–231, 246; research and development 116; research needs 106; research reviews 46–47; scalability 44–45; Scotland 147; student preferences 47–48; teacher outcomes 12; theories of change 75–76, 82; uniqueness 44; United States 229, 244 Parker, Melissa 171–181 partnerships: improvement-focused 240; public-private 214; renewal 244; research and development 5–6, 15–16, 109–112, 115, 118, 232, 234, 247; school-community 91, 242, 243; school-university 109–110, 174, 176 Pate, R.R. 74 PBIS see positive behavior intervention systems PE see physical education pedagogical content knowledge 34, 52, 160, 176, 197, 236–237 pedagogy 81–82, 89, 109, 250; Canada 137; critical inquiry 203; industrial

260 Index age schools 29; intervention frameworks 86; response-tointervention 87; standardized 26; student-centered 13; theories of change 80 peer networks 68, 242 peer support 73 performance measures 54 Pesce, Caterina 210–225 PETE see physical education teacher education Philpot, R. 189 physical activity 72, 125, 156, 246, 251; Australia 197, 198, 201; Canada 138; England and Wales 158–159; industrial age schools 28, 29; intervention frameworks 88; Ireland 178; Italy 210, 215; multi-activity curriculum 51–52; outcomes 66–67; PE conflated with 11, 28, 36; PE leaders 31; report card on 45–46, 69, 244; school-linked programs 234; social ecologies 4, 67–68, 231; student-centered learning 127; teacher education 36; theories of change 74; University of Georgia program 50–51; see also exercise Physical Activity Task Force 73 physical education (PE): Australia 196–209; Canada 134–144; decline in participation 46; England and Wales 156–170; forward designs 79; industrial age schools 27, 28–35; institutional sectors 10, 42, 71; institutionalization of 23, 30, 37–39, 42; internal conflicts 9, 11, 36–37, 250; international networks 112; intervention frameworks 86–103; Ireland 171–181; Italy 210–225; mental health literacy 239; models 43, 48–52, 59–60, 106, 114–115, 156, 159–163, 165–166, 176; neoliberalism 41; New Zealand 182–195; outcomes 42–43, 44, 47, 73; policy advocacy 31; policy influences and impacts 35–36, 53–55; program and teacher research 53; redesign as an adaptive problem 66–73; research and development 104–120, 250; research reviews 46–47; role marginality 55; Scotland 145–155;

selection effects 6–7; social ecologies 46; student preferences 47–48; suboptimal reproduction 56–59; teacher characteristics 240–241; theories of change 73–82; United States 123–133, 229–230 physical education teacher education (PETE) 1, 6, 23, 124, 130, 236–238, 240; Canada 137–138, 142; diminishing number of students 104; doctoral programs 16; England and Wales 164–165, 241; ethics 100; forward designs 79; institutional perspective 9–10, 23, 37–39, 42; institutional sectors 10, 42, 71; internal conflicts 9, 11, 36–37, 250; international networks 112; Ireland 171, 172–177, 179–180, 236; Italy 212, 216, 218; lack of research 43; models 48, 52; neo-liberalism 41; New Zealand 189, 191, 236; outcomes 42–43, 44; politics 235; reform 129; research 15, 60, 105, 232, 250; Scotland 145; selection effects 7; sub-optimal reproduction 58–59; teacher socialization 53; see also teacher education physical literacy 3, 12–13, 70–71, 238–239, 247; Australia 203; Canada 138–139, 140, 142; England and Wales 161–162; industrial age schools 29; policy neglect 173 PISA see Programme for International Student Assessment Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycle 107 planned abandonment 4 play 2, 72, 246, 251; benefits of 8; directed 33; enjoyment 67; holistic interventions 91; identity 25, 81; institutionalized content 38; progressive ideals 26; right to 221; social ecologies 4; summer programs 72–73 Play.Sport programme 190 policy (Big P) 12, 35–36, 54, 233, 248; accountability 13; Canada 134, 138–139, 142; industrial age schools 28; institutionalized PE/PETE 39; low-dose PE 89; outcomes 66; policy supports 234; research and development 117; research needs 106, 107; Scotland 146; systems

Index 261 design 244–245; teaching personal and social responsibility 49; United States 230; working conditions 129; see also public policy policy (little p) 35–36, 54, 233, 248; accountability 13; Canada 134, 142; institutionalized PE/PETE 39; low-dose PE 89; New Zealand 186; outcomes 66; policy supports 234; research and development 117; research needs 106, 107; systems design 244–245; teaching personal and social responsibility 49; United States 230 policy advocacy 31, 43, 60, 235, 236, 243; interventions 89; Italy 210, 220–221; research and development 117 policy entrepreneurs 13, 248 policy leadership 2, 43, 236, 248 policy neglect 13, 34, 172–173, 248 policy silos 35 policy specification 35–36 politics 235–236; see also socio-political climate positive behavior intervention systems (PBIS) 3, 87–88, 230 positive youth development (PYD) 73, 90, 211, 216, 242, 248 poverty 1–2, 24, 68, 94, 96, 150, 243 power issues 32 Pringle, R. 157 privatization 189–190 problem-setting 4, 65–66; see also agenda-setting problem, theory of the 93–95 professional development 129, 130; adult learning 246; Australia 198, 204; customized 240; Ireland 173–174, 179–180; Italy 212, 214, 218; organizational centrality 54; privatization 190; teacher socialization 53 professional ethics 98–100 professionalism 58, 206 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 14, 199 public policy 13, 129, 229, 233; Australia 201; Canada 141–142; compliance with 10; gaps in 2, 34–35; impacts of 53–55; incoherence 11; influences and determinants

35–36; international-comparative analyses 14; Ireland 173, 179; lack of research 43; New Zealand 185–186; outcomes 9; policy supports 234–235, 238, 243; shortcomings of PETE 172–173; systems design 248–249; see also policy (Big P) public-private partnerships 214 PYD see positive youth development qualifications 148–149 Quennerstedt, M. 152 race 24, 25; Australia 197; Canada 136–137, 138 Randall, L. 141 recess 11, 35, 36 recruitment 7, 9, 11, 60, 240 reform 1, 5, 9, 28; Australia 206; reform-as-improvement 105, 106–107; teacher education 129 refugees 137 relatedness 127 relational policy 35 relationality 134 renewal 109–110, 111, 114, 153, 196–197, 244, 247 replication 44–45 report card on physical activity 45–46, 69, 244 reproduction 9, 23, 56–59, 230 research 15–16, 53, 230–231, 247; action research 98, 210; interdisciplinary 15, 105, 108, 114, 185, 216, 244, 247, 250; interventions 95, 96; Italy 220; models-driven 48, 60, 165; New Zealand 191; research reviews 46–47; research teams 112; self-study 180; student preferences 47–48; theories of change 74 research and development (R & D) 2, 10, 70, 104–120, 244, 250–251; bold redesign 105, 107–108; Italy 220–221; partnerships 5–6, 15–16, 109–112, 118, 232, 234, 247; planning 105; reform-as-improvement 105, 106–107; research orientations 113–114; social organization 112–113; systems design 244–245; values and visions 118

262 Index response-to-intervention (RTI) 3, 86–87, 88, 90, 94, 230 Richards, K. Andrew R. 123–133, 233 rights 221 Robinson, D.B. 141 role marginality 29, 55, 59 RTI see response-to-intervention rules 87–88 rural areas 68 Russell, T. 189 salutogenic approaches 152, 202, 239 Santayana, George 23 scalability 44–45, 88, 106 Schaefer, L. 140 Schön, D. 65 school advisors 188 school-linked programs 3, 234 Scotland 145–155, 234, 238, 240, 241, 243 segregation 24, 25 selectivity/selection effects 6–7, 38, 126, 233–234, 242; industrial age schools 7, 29; Ireland 174; multiactivity curriculum 52; report card on physical activity 45; universal standards 13 self-concept 57 self-determination theory 82, 90, 99, 126, 127 self-efficacy 81, 127 self-study research 180 sexual diversity 137 SHAPE America standards 125, 126 Siedentop, Daryl 49, 160–161 Simon, Herbert 5 simultaneous renewal 109–110, 111, 114, 247 Singapore 14 Smith, C. 239 Smith, W. 189 social ecologies 4, 46, 47, 66, 67–69, 82, 242; interprofessional collaboration 100; interventions 91; life course development 70; New Zealand 184, 238; redesign agenda 230–231 social-emotional learning 2, 10, 72, 74, 239; interventions 94; low-dose PE 89; positive behavior intervention systems 87, 88; teaching personal and social responsibility 48, 49, 66

social exclusion 1, 24, 26, 75, 94, 96 social geography 68, 95 social inclusion 74, 94, 211, 213, 216, 238, 248 social institutional perspective 9–10, 23, 37–39 social justice: Australia 197; critical inquiry 203; New Zealand 184, 186–187, 191 social media 200 social networks 4, 67, 68, 81, 107, 231, 241–242, 248 social relations 38–39 social support 54, 55–56, 60, 96, 245 social work 249 socialization 5, 6; dual socialization perspective 123; industrial age schools 26; models for PE 114; organizational 58; peer networks 242; professional 43, 233, 234, 251; research and development 108, 109, 247; research on 2–3, 11–12; social ecologies 4, 66, 67–69; social networks 248; theory and research 230; see also teacher socialization socio-political climate 188, 191 “solutionitis” 65 SPARK (Sports, Play and Active Recreation for Kids) 50, 52, 106, 113, 241 special education 3, 96 specialist teachers 11, 31, 70; Australia 197; Big P policy 36; Canada 141; industrial age schools 32; Ireland 172; Italy 210, 212, 214; multiactivity curriculum 51; Scotland 145, 146–147, 150; social relations 38; student-processing 35 sport 10, 42, 43, 71, 72, 246; Australia 201; benefits of 8; Canada 136, 138; holistic interventions 91; identity 25, 81; institutionalized content 38; Italy 211–212, 214, 215, 238; Kinesiology research 251; multiactivity curriculum 51; New Zealand 182, 190; social ecologies 4; social geography 68; summer programs 72–73; teacher education 36; US sports programs 115 sport education 49–50, 52, 66, 106, 239, 241; affective benefits 151–152; England and Wales 160–161, 164;

Index 263 New Zealand 187; research and development 113; United States 125, 126 Sport New Zealand 190 sportization 163, 164, 236 sportsmanship 88 Spring, J. 26 standardization 1, 8, 13, 67, 68; diagnostic stereotyping 99; examinable PE 235; industrial age schools 26–28, 34, 52, 75, 100; institutionalization of PE/PETE 37; interventions 95; multi-activity curriculum 52; student-processing 32–33 standards 13, 54; curriculum 26; industrial age schools 28; international 213; New Zealand 185–186, 188; SHAPE America 125, 126; systems design 244–245 status 54, 55 stereotyping 94, 99 strengths 89; Australia 201, 202, 203, 204, 241; Canada 143 structural ambiguity 10 student-centered learning 13, 126–127, 128, 130, 161, 184 student preferences 47–48, 149 student-processing 32–33, 35 student sub-populations 3, 230, 238; backward design strategy 79; industrial age schools 29; interprofessional collaboration 91–92; interventions 95–96; Italy 215; New Zealand 186; tailor-made PE 116 summer programs 2, 68, 72–73, 231 SWOT analysis 39 systems design 244–249 Tannehill, Deborah 171–181 teacher education 1, 9, 36–37, 243, 247; adult learning 246; Australia 198; equity-oriented redesign 6; Italy 214; New Zealand 189, 191; occupational socialization 11; policy analysis 236; selection effects 7; simultaneous renewal 110; studentcentered pedagogies 13; see also physical education teacher education teacher socialization 9, 12, 43, 57–58, 240; components 53; models 52;

New Zealand 191; Scotland 145; systems design 244–245; United States 11, 128, 130 teachers: athletics background 124; Australia 197–199, 200, 204, 206; Canada 135, 137, 140, 141; certified 32; cultural assimilation 25; divisions between 9; England and Wales 159; equitable teacher outcomes 12; implementation fidelity 97, 126, 162–163; industrial age schools 29, 33–34; institutionalized social relations 38–39; intervention frameworks 89; Ireland 172, 179; Italy 210, 212, 214; lack of PE expertise 34; low-dose PE 89; method-bound 94, 99; models 115, 176; New Zealand 188, 190; outcome differences and conflicts 229; preferences 126, 229, 237, 240; research on 53; response-tointervention 87; role marginality 55; role of 5, 47–48, 231; Scotland 145, 146, 148, 149, 152; social support 55–56; sport education 50; studentprocessing 32–33; sub-optimal reproduction 56–59, 60; teachercentered learning 126–127; teaching personal and social responsibility 49; TGfU 160; United States 229–230; working conditions 124–125, 128, 129, 130, 243; see also generalist teachers; specialist teachers Teaching Council (Ireland) 174, 175 Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) 159–160, 161, 164, 239 teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR) 48–49, 52, 66, 151–152, 187, 239 Templin, Thomas J. 123–133 Teraoka, Eishin 145–155 TGfU see Teaching Games for Understanding theories of change/action 5, 65–66, 73–82, 100, 230, 245, 247; interventions 91; research and development 105, 114, 115; research-supported 232; tailor-made PE 116 theory of planned abandonment 4 Thorburn, M. 148, 149, 150 Thorpe, R. 159–160

264 Index Tomporowski, Phillip D. 210–225 Townsend, C. 152 TPSR see teaching personal and social responsibility transformation 9 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) 134, 136, 137–138, 141 turnover 12, 13, 57, 58, 60, 229–230 Tyack, D. 26 United States of America (USA) 14, 123–133, 182, 229–230, 240, 250; career academies 237; divided teaching profession 9; industrial age schools 11, 23, 24–26, 27, 28–35, 123; institutionalization of PE/ PETE 38; inter-school differences 60; intervention frameworks 86–87; mental health literacy 239; models for PE 48–52; multi-activity curriculum 51–52; national plan 246; New Zealand compared with 185; policy neglect 248; poverty 1; redesign agenda 230–232; report card on physical activity 45–46, 69, 244; research and development 16, 104, 105, 107, 110; school population 6; social work 249; societal sorting by schools 7; sport education model 49; sports programs 115; standardization 13, 26–28; systems components 245 University of Georgia 50–51 urban areas 68

value-committed design science 5–6 values 118, 143, 183, 251 visions 118 vocational education 30 voice 3, 33, 239, 241; assessment data 94; holistic view 34; interventions 90, 100, 116; professional ethics 99; student-centered learning 127 Wales 156–170, 234, 235–236, 238, 241 Walsh, D. 49 warranties 96, 104 well-being 72, 238, 247; Australia 198; Canada 135, 136, 138–140, 141–142; emotional 151; Ireland 172, 177; New Zealand 183–184; salutogenic approaches 239; Scotland 147, 148, 152; see also mental health Weston, A. 11 Whitehead, Margaret 139, 161–162 whiteness 136–137, 138, 141 whole school health promotion 4–5 Woods, Amelia Mays 123–133 working conditions 32, 52, 60, 243; impact on learning outcomes 11; improving 128, 129, 130; industrial age constraints 23; low-dose PE 89; Scotland 145; sub-optimal 12, 13, 33, 35, 56–59, 94, 124–125; United States 126, 229 youth sports programs 2, 115