Primary School Physical Education in NSW:
Potential Unrealised

By

Peter Tylee BA (Deakin), MS(Psych) PhD (California Coast),
GradDipInfoTech(InfoSys)Distinction (Charles Sturt)

It would appear that physical education is struggling to find an identity. Tinning, Kirk and Evans (1993, 64) seem to raise questions about its very survival as a meaningful part of the primary school curriculum when they state: “If physical education is to survive in the primary school and command an adequate amount of time in the curriculum, it is crucial that we are able to think clearly about the educational purposes of children’s participation in physical education programs.” Indeed, a review of a select range of literature demonstrates that just what constitutes physical education is not entirely clear, or at least not widely agreed. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and the Arts (1992) suggested that the meaning of physical education is unclear. The literature also reveals strong historical determinants of limited scope, a range of competing and self-serving demands, and inadequate teaching practices. It is the contention of this paper that the potential of physical education is not being widely realised or even recognised. In putting such a case, this paper will briefly discuss some of the findings from the literature and articulate the purpose of physical education, including some ways in which it can be considered an ‘educational’ experience for children.

Of course, in saying physical education can be ‘educational’ one must be clear about just what is meant. Perhaps the most succinct way of doing this is to consider the three orientations to curriculum, and thus education, discussed by Kemmis, Cole and Suggett (1983). They present the vocational/neo-classical, liberal/progressive and socially-critical perspectives across 18 dimensions, including knowledge, desired student outcomes and learning theory. A brief summary is presented in table 1 and we shall make references to this where appropriate in this paper.

            Table 1            Three perspectives on education

	Vocational / Neo-classical	Liberal / Progressive	Socially-Critical
Knowledge	Objective: a public matter; exists in books and performances; mostly described as skills and information, having meaning in occupational or disciplinary contexts.	Subjective: a private or individual matter, exists in accomplishments or ‘in the head’ of individual; mostly described as learnings, attitudes and living skills having meaning and significance in the individual’s life context and culture. Integration of mental and manual.	Dialectical: interplay of subjective views of the world and the historical and cultural frameworks in which they are located. Sees knowledge as constructed through social interaction having meaning in actions within specific historical, political and economic contexts. Integration of mental and manual aspects of knowledge in group work.
Desired Student Outcomes	Finding one’s place in society, having skills to fulfil work roles.	The ‘educated’ person: self-actualising, reflective and potent as a human being who has learned how to learn.	A critical and constructive co-participant in the life and work of society.
Learning Theory	Behaviourist	Constructivist-interactionist	Social constructivist-interactionist

            (Kemmis et al 1983, 11)

Historical influences on current physical education curricula can be clearly identified. According to Gard (2000, 7-8), in the period preceding use of the term ‘physical education’ in Australian primary schools, the “army was responsible for organising and conducting much of the physical activity” and teacher involvement from the 1870s to the 1920s, reflecting various social concerns, involved leading military style callisthenics. This might be thought to be more related to discipline, training or a dated understanding of fitness, rather than ‘education’. However, contrary to the views of Kirk, Nauright, Hanrahan, Macdonald and Jobling (1996, 90) it could be regarded as education from the vocational/neo-classical perspective.

Approximately a century later, in the 1990s, in a very different political and socio-cultural milieu, far broader definitions of physical education were articulated. A Senate Inquiry defined physical education as “an all-encompassing term, including fitness, skills, movement, dance, recreation, health, games and sport, plus the appropriate values and knowledge in each” (Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, 1992). The Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (1993) defined physical education, in part, as “that part of a child’s education that uses physical activity as the primary medium for education” and listed a similar range of associated activities. These definitions reflect a view of education consistent with the liberal/progressive perspective. However, Kirk et al (1996, 90) claim that “there is historical evidence to suggest that in practice physical education has tended to be comprised of sport-related skills and playing team sports”. So it would seem that, while the rhetoric advanced, there was little real educational progress across 100 years.

The preoccupation with a narrow view of physical education is persistent and widespread. Tinning, Kirk and Evans (1993, 9) claim that the use of physical education “as either a cathartic or ‘kickstart’ for the day’s academic work, rather than as a worthwhile educational experience in itself, is alive and well”. The press also reflects the narrowness. Campbell (2000) implies that physical education in the United Kingdom is about reducing childhood obesity and preparing children for later or extracurricular sports. In Australia, Powell (2000) essentially concurs and adds that: “On the whole, it seems, schools consider physical education dispensable”. Raethel (1996 & 1998) reports on findings based on a Department of Education instigated survey, that children lack basic sport-related skills and that teachers should be trained to teach them. Brown and Brown (1996), while advocating for physical education, nevertheless adopt a narrow health centred focus and, as Kirk (1996) points out, base much of their argument on data and reasoning that is quite unsound.

It would appear that much of this narrow focus reflects the input of particular interest groups. On the one hand, for example, are the sporting bodies who want sport-related training to occupy the physical education curriculum and achieve specific outcomes. On the other hand there are those who reflect the interests of health care, whether medical practitioners, epidemiologists or health economists. While such groups have every right in a pluralist society to contribute to curriculum discourse for public education, there do seem to be at least two main associated problems. First there is the absence of a critical mass of teachers, especially perhaps physical education teachers, in the debates. As Kirk (1996, 26) suggests, there is a “lack of leadership and vision” coming from this group. Secondly, in this leaderless debate, the narrow viewpoints of the interest groups compete for attention and effectively tend to move the nature of physical education towards the vocational/neo-classical perspective, undermining a grounding in the liberal/progressive and certainly falling short of the socially-critical. The result appears to be ongoing dissatisfaction with physical education by the stakeholders and poor quality and problematic teaching practices as Wright (1997) and Tinning (1996) attest.

The current New South Wales syllabus for personal development, health and physical education (PD/H/PE) K-6 (Board of Studies NSW, 1999) reflects an essentially liberal/progressive education perspective. The document is impressive: it is clear, accessible, comprehensive, carefully developed, internally conceptually consistent and provides substantial useful details to support practicing teachers. As far as physical education is concerned however, it is a little disappointing. It appears to be called the PD/H/PE K-6 Syllabus because of the order of weighting in the three areas. Notwithstanding opportunities to integrate the strands, there is clearly more material supporting personal development and health than physical education and significant portions might easily have been placed into a social studies syllabus.

There is some degree of balance in the physical education strand of the Syllabus (Board of Studies NSW, 1999) between education for the body (such as basic locomotor skills) and education through the body (such as spatial awareness). However physical education could be extended to include much more. It is disappointing, for example, that the term ‘embodied intelligence’ (something faced regularly by psychotherapists and somata therapists) is not featured anywhere in the document. Nor is there much development of the application and integration of the physical in effecting cognitive and affective learning such as is presented by Davies (1995). This is a sad indictment on education leaders given that the optimum learning style for many is kinaesthetic.

So what else might be included to extend the educational scope of physical education? Gerhardt (1973 in Davies 1995, 58) asserts that: “Body movement is the foundation of thought”. Davies (1995, 49) correctly states that “movement is inextricably linked with cognitive (intellectual) functioning and affective (emotional) functioning”. It would seem however, that the tyranny of Cartesian dualism is yet to be overcome. The artificial, reductionist separation of intellectual and physical being remains dominant in education theory and practice. To a large extent then, a more holistic application of the physical in education is long overdue.

Whether primary school physical education remains undervalued and largely limited to skills and sports training, with some movement and dance included, or develops a more valued and integrated role more reflective of the holistic reality of learners, will of course be socially determined. In either case it is unavoidably educational. In the former (which is effectively the current) situation the level of education may be low, reflective of the vocational/neo-classical perspective, fraught with pedagogical problems and deserving of its relatively low status. But it will still be effecting lasting changes in learners, intended and otherwise, and some of these will actually be positive. If physical education is able to adopt a more holistic understanding, which may reflect a more liberal/progressive perspective (and possibly enable or reflect a socially-critical perspective), as a field it may experience growth of paradigm shifting proportions. It may also be seen as a vital component in any primary curriculum, where it will be far more integrated into teaching and learning and its purpose will be to assist in developing more integrated people.

In this brief paper we have we have identified a number of constraining, historical and social factors influencing the current educational theory and teaching practice in physical education, with particular reference to New South Wales. This has provided a range of views of what constitutes the purpose of physical education. We have also seen that what counts as education can itself be appreciated from varied perspectives. Finally, a position has been presented, based on existing knowledge and evidence of limited existing practices, that physical education could be extended and expanded to take a much more significant role in providing a more holistic educational experience for children.

References

Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (1993). Position statement - Quality physical education in Australian schools. ACHPER, Adelaide. 

Board of Studies NSW (1999). Personal development, health and physical education K-6 syllabus. Board of Studies NSW, Sydney.

Brown, W. & Brown, P. (1996). Children, physical activity and better health. The ACHPER National Journal, 43(4), 19-24.

Campbell, D. (2000). Schools rear crop of couch potatoes, The Observer, Feb. 27, 6.

Davies, M. (1995). Helping children to learn through a movement perspective. Hodder & Stroughton, London.

Gard, M. (2000). Curriculum studies: Movement and health in the primary school EMR406 Module 1. Charles Sturt University, Bathurst.

Kemmiss, S., Cole, P. & Suggett, D. (1983). Orientations to curriculum and transition: Towards the socially-critical school. Victorian Institute of Secondary Education: Melbourne.

Kirk, D. (1996). The crisis in school physical education: An argument against the tide. The ACHPER National Journal, 43(4), 25-27.

Kirk, D., Nauright, J., Hanrahan, S., Macdonald, D. & Jobling, I (1996). Physical education and curriculum. Chapter 10 of The sociocultural foundations of human movement. Macmillan Education Australia: Melbourne.

Powell, S. (2000). One in four Australian children is overweight. Slower, stiffer, heavier - they are the cotton-wool generation, The Weekend Australian, May 27-28, 6-8.

Raethel, S. (1996). Students caught out on sports’ skill, Sydney Morning Herald, Jan. 17, 3.

Raethel, S. (1998). Students lack basic sporting abilities, Sydney Morning Herald, Feb. 14, 2.

Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts (1992). Physical and sport education. Commonwealth Government, Canberra.

Tinning, R. (1996). The hidden curriculum. Improving teaching in physical education. Deakin University, Geelong.

Tinning, R., Kirk, D. & Evans, J. (1993). Learning to teach physical education. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.

Wright, J. (1997). Fundamental motor skills testing as problematic practice: A feminist analysis. The ACHPER Health Lifestyles Journal, 44(4), 18-20.