150
QUEST, 2004, 56, 150-170
THOMAS
© 2004 National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education
Riding to the Rescue
While Holding On By a Thread:
Physical Activity in the Schools
Katherine Thomas Thomas
The public health burden of obesity, overweight, and physical inactivity suggests schools be actively involved in prevention and treatment. Schools were
challenged to take action by the Surgeon General in 2001. Few resources have
been allocated to support the schools and in the presence of budget and high
stakes testing pressure, resources are decreasing. Sources of support (research,
professional organizations, government, coalitions/foundations) often criticize
schools and teachers while providing erroneous information and no support.
Teachers have responded to recommendations by including lifetime activities, health related fitness, and increasing MVPA. Approximately half the recommended minutes per week are provided in schools where there is any PE,
many (5-33%) schools have no PE for their students. Three recommendations
for scholars and leaders in the field include the following: Provide clear and
consistent messages and interpretation of the scientific and theoretical information about physical activity; secure funded mandates for daily PE; be supportive not critical.
Most children and adolescents spend many hours in school each year. A
contributing factor to the problem of overweight and obese children—and an independent health risk factor—is physical inactivity in children. Schools provide a
variety of physical activity experiences for students depending upon the grade
level of the school, including recess, interscholastic athletics, intramurals, and
physical education. Schools (and teachers) pride themselves on having children sit
quietly for many of the hours children and adolescents are in school. Because
physical activity and obesity are often related, each of the physical activity experiences schools provide has the potential to impact obesity. Unfortunately the “sit
quietly” activities also impact health, overweight, and obesity. This paper will be
limited to the academic examples of physical activity that reach all students in a
grade or school; thus, the focus will be physical education and other educational
The author is with the Health and Human Performance Department at Iowa State
University, Ames, IA 50011. E-mail: [email protected].
150
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN THE SCHOOLS
151
uses of physical activity. This is not to suggest that athletics, recess, and intramurals
are less important, only that these programs are beyond the scope of this paper.
The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent Obesity and Overweight
2001 (USDHHS, 2001) outlined 11 action goals for schools. Four of the goals
focused on physical activity; the other seven targeted nutrition issues from nutrition education to vending machines in schools. One physical activity goal was
about recess, another about extracurricular activities, and a third about use of school
facilities for physical activity after school. The goal most relevant to this discussion is “Provide all children, from pre-kindergarten through grade 12, with quality
daily physical education that helps develop the knowledge, attitudes, skills, behaviors and confidence needed to be physically active for life” (p. 12). Examine
the action goal and decide which word is the most important. Is it all, quality, daily,
knowledge, skill, confidence? In Healthy People 2010 (USDHHS, 2000) the goals
for physical education are the following:
• schools increase required daily PE to 25% (from 17%) in middle school and
in high school (from 2%) to 5%;
• increase the proportion of adolescents in daily PE from 25% to 50%;
• increase the proportion of students active for 50% of the class from 32% to
50%.
The physical education (PE) goals from Healthy People would suggest that
daily is the critical word. As noteworthy as the goals included in Healthy People
2010 are those that were not included. For example, in the previous edition (Healthy
People 2000, USDHHS, 1990), there were goals for elementary students and
schools; none appear in the more recent edition. It is clear that the Healthy People
2000 goals for increasing daily PE in elementary schools have not been met, and
those goals for younger children have been abandoned. The next sections will
provide background on some of those words, beginning with daily.
Frequency and Duration of Physical Education
In 1987, the U.S. Congress passed Resolution 97, which encouraged educational agencies to provide quality daily PE (NASPE, 1997). The U.S. Department
of Education (DE) does not mandate PE in terms of standards to be met, frequency,
or duration, thus mandates are either at the state or local level. The results of the
most recent survey of state PE directors or consultants by NASPE (NASPE, 2002)
is presented in Table 1. There is some discrepancy in responses based on the interpretation of “student requirements” as some directors/consultants responded that
schools are required to offer, while others responded that students are required to
take PE. In Table 1, offering and requiring were interpreted as having the same
meaning, thus the data was combined based on frequency and duration. Even with
this weakness, the data provide a picture of what schools and/or students are required to do by their states.
Elementary Physical Education Requirements
Five states require physical education (PE) from one to five days per week
with no minimum time per class in their elementary schools. The only state to
require both frequency (daily) and duration (150 minutes per week) is Alabama.
152
THOMAS
Table 1 Responses to “Student Requirements” for Elementary Physical
Education by States Reported by State Directors/Consultants (NASPE, 2002)
Requirement
Daily
1, 2 or 3 days / wk
150 m PE / wk
150 m health and PE / wk
90-120 m PE /wk
40-50 m PE / wk
10 m PE / wk
Mandate w/o minimums
No state mandate
Number
of states
3
3
1
3
6
2
1
25
7
Names of states
AL2, IL, MT
NE, VT, WI
AL
GA, LA, NJ
CA, CT, HI, NY, ND, WA
ME, MO
RI
AZ, AR, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, MA, MD, MI,
MN, MS, NH, NM, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA,
SC, TN, TX, VA, WV, WY
AK, CO, DE, FL, NV, SD, UT
Twelve states require between 10 and 120 minutes per week of PE. Twenty-five
states require PE but leave the scheduling (frequency and duration) to the local
districts, thus schools in those states could be meeting this mandate by providing
very little PE. Seven states reported having no requirement for PE in the elementary schools. Three states (6%) require daily PE at the elementary school level,
and only one state meets the NASPE recommendation of 30 minutes per day in the
elementary school.
The School Health Policy and Program Study (SHPPS) conducted by the
Center for Disease Control (CDC) included four levels (state, district, school level,
and teacher/classroom) to assess PE (Burgeson, Wechsler, Brener, Young, & Spain,
2001). Only 8% of the districts nationwide reported providing daily PE for elementary students. In this survey, 78.4% of the states reported requiring schools to
teach elementary PE and 82.6% of the districts reported some PE requirement.
Most schools (96.4%) responding to the survey require students to take some PE.
The response rate for schools was 69% across all three levels (elementary, middle,
and high school). Thus, 96.4% of 69% of schools require some physical education.
It is possible that schools without PE are those that did not respond; that would
mean that one third of the schools require no PE. Clearly, somewhere between 4
and 33% of schools do not have any requirement.
In an observational study conducted by the National Institute of Child Health
and Development (NICHD), the average frequency and duration of physical education was 2.1 days per week and 33 minutes per session for third graders in 684
elementary schools (Nader, 2003). A direct observation method was used. The
schools were located in 9 states, one of which has no mandate for elementary PE,
five mandate without minimums, and only two of those mandate minimum duration (100 minutes per week in each). The other state mandates frequency (3 days
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN THE SCHOOLS
153
per week) with no duration mandate. The authors note high variability in both
frequency and duration of PE, which is not surprising in view of the variety of
state requirements. Consistent with the findings from SHPPS, 5.9% of the 814
children in this study had PE five days each week. This study also noted that 9% of
the children had no PE.
Considering the mandates, surveys, and observations of PE in the elementary schools, we are falling far short of the mark for daily PE and of the target of 30
minutes per day.
Middle and High School Physical Education Requirements
Based on the reporting of directors and consultants from each state (Table
2), middle school physical education in twelve states is consistent with the elementary requirements (NASPE, 2002). In four states(AL, IL, NJ, WA), this represents daily PE and/or 100 or more minutes of PE per week. Six states have the
same requirement for middle school as high school; unfortunately, two of those
have no PE requirement. Only 14 states require one semester or more of PE at the
middle school level. Approximately 75% of states require some physical education for graduation from high school; this varies from one semester to daily PE.
States report anecdotally that schools offer or require more than is mandated
(NASPE, 2002).
The Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBSS) data was published in 2001 for
the years 1991-1997 (Lowry, Wechsler, Kann, & Collins, 2001). The results indicated no decline in prevalence of PE for the total population, but a decline in Black
students reporting enrollment in PE. Small decreases were reported for the other
three variables (daily attendance in PE, being physically active in PE, being physically active in daily classes) for the total group and the subgroups. However, the
most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2003)
across the 10 years from 1991 to 2001 showed this:
•
•
•
•
enrolled in a PE class—no change
attended PE class daily—decreased then increased
participated in strength training exercises—increased
participated in sufficient vigorous activity—no change
This survey is conducted on a sample of students in grades 9-12, with daily
PE prevalence between 25.4% and 41.6%, and enrollment in PE varying from
48.8% to 59.6%. This data is consistent with the graduation requirements reported
by NASPE (2002), where many students would take PE two of four years or only
one year of daily PE in four years of high school. The percent of students attending
PE daily dropped consistently from grades 9 through 12 from 1991-97 (Lowry et
al., 2001).
The SHPPS data (Burgeson et al., 2001) reported that 85.7% of states required middle school PE and 82.4% of the states required high school PE, while
84.6% and 88.8% of the districts require PE at the middle and high school level,
respectively. However, when schools reported PE requirements, middle schools
described significantly lower percentages (6th grade = 32.2%, 7th grade = 26.2%,
8th grade = 25.1%) as did high schools (grade 9 = 13.3%, grade 10 = 9.5%, grade
11 = 5.8%, and grade 12 = 5.4%). While the authors state that 5.8% (p. 286) of all
high schools surveyed require daily PE, this is unlikely since only 5.4% (p. 284) of
154
THOMAS
Table 2 Student Requirements for Physical Education as Reported by Directors/Consultants in 2001 (NASPE, 2002)
Middle School
High School
Student Requirement
n
Names
n
Names
daily
3.75 units / yr health and PE
2 years
1.5 units PE
1 year
1
LA
1
NE
2
HI, NM
1
1
5
5
1
IL
NJ
CA, NE, NV, NH, WA
LA, TX, UT, VT, WI
AL, CT, FL, HI, IN,
ME
MO, MT, NM, OR,
SC
AR, DE, GA, KY, NC,
ND, WV
1
7
1 unit or semester
1 semester / yr
1-2 unit health or PE
.5 credit
200 m / wk
120 m / wk
3 periods / wk
50 m /wk 8 semesters
83 m / wk
100 m / yr
None
1
1
AR
MT
1
1
2
2
2
CA
NY
CT, DE
NH, WI
MO, ND
8
AK, CO, GA, IA,
KS, NV, SD, UT,
Mandated with no
minimums
16
Same as elementary
12
ME, MA, MI, MN,
MS, NC, OH, OK,
OR, PA, SC, TN,
TX, VA, WV, WY
AL, AZ, FL, ID, IL,
IN, KY, MD, NJ,
RI, VT, WA
3
2
AK, KS, VA
MD, OH
1
NY
1
IA
1
RI
6
AZ, CO, ID, MS, SD,
TN
MA, MI, MN, OK,
PA, WY
6
the schools reported any physical education required in grade 12. In either case,
the goal of 5% of high schools requiring daily PE is rather low.
Based on two surveys (YRBSS of students and SHPPS districts, schools, or
teachers), the amount of physical education taken by students is greater than that
required by the states. Most states require two years or less of the four years of
high school. Although the PE may not be daily and may not be taken all semester
of a year. This suggests that local districts value PE or require additional PE for
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN THE SCHOOLS
155
accreditation. Taken all together, the contribution of middle and high schools to
daily physical activity is modest. Once again, if daily PE is critical to fighting
obesity, requirements and participation are short of the mark. Further, what is reported varies greatly depending upon who answers the question (e.g., state, district, school, teacher, student) and the question (e.g., is PE required, are students
required to take PE?).
To put this in perspective, approximately 33% of the children and adolescents reported daily PE in the 70s (Wilmore, 1982), and by the mid 80s, 36% of
children and adolescents reported daily PE (Ross, Dotson, Gilbert, & Katz, 1985).
The national public health objective for physical education in 1980 was to increase from 33% to 60% the proportion of children and adolescents participating
in daily school physical education programs. In the National Child and Youth Fitness Survey (NCYF) for grades 9-12, the percent of adolescents enrolled in daily
PE was between 29 and 52% with the rates decreasing from grades 8 through 12
(Ross et al., 1985). Figure 1 presents the relationship between daily PE reported
(CDC, 2003; Ross et al., 1985; Wilmore, 1982) over the last 30 years with the
prevalence of overweight in adolescents (ages 12-19 years) and the proportion of
students enrolled in no physical education (Ross et al., 1985; CDC, 2003). While it
is hazardous to combine data sets, the benefit may be to provide a wider view. The
YBRSS concluded that no change occurred between 1991 and 2001 in the proportion of students enrolled in physical education (100-proportion in Figure 1) and a
decrease from 1991 to 95 and increase from 95 to 2001 in daily PE. Based on
NHANES increases in overweight are described as substantial, with overweight
tripling in adolescents. Clearly, the current and previous goals for daily PE have
not been met, and the data on daily PE is not easy to interpret. However, Figure 1
may provide a different view of the relationship between obesity and physical
Figure 1 — Proportion of overweight adolescents and proportion of students enrolled
in no physical education and daily physical education from 1974 through 1999.
156
THOMAS
education when comparing the proportion of students enrolled in no physical education and the prevalence of overweight, where both are increasing.
Quality
Many factors contribute to quality physical education, not the least of which
is the frequency and duration of the program. In fact, an important question must
be this: Are quality, frequency, and duration mutually exclusive or interdependent
factors? Other possible measures of quality are curriculum, teacher training, standards, assessment, instruction, moderate to vigorous physical activity MVPA, and
learning.
Curriculum and Allocated Time:
A Parasitic Relationship
Physical education teachers have been criticized for the curriculum as failing to contribute to health and fitness since the NCYF survey (Ross & Gilbert,
1985): “. . . physical educators continue to rely heavily on competitive sports and
other activities that cannot continue throughout into adulthood” (p. 48). Based on
survey results, the typical student in grades 5 though 12 participated in 5.6 lifetime
activities per year. The activities using the most class time included basketball,
exercises, baseball, volleyball, and jogging for males and exercises, volleyball,
basketball, jogging, and softball for females. It is possible that the teachers thought
exercises and jogging did contribute to health-related fitness.
During the 1990s, one of the objectives for the nation was to increase the
proportion of students who were active 50% of the time during physical education,
preferably doing lifetime activities. Consider the lifetime activities that fall into
the MVPA category. Now let’s see how the teachers responded to this challenge.
Based on median number of hours, the activities taking the most time in physical
education were jogging (10 hours), basketball (5 hours), softball (and variations 4
hours), soccer (4 hours), and jumping rope (4 hours; Burgeson et al., 2001). Over
90% of schools (all grade levels) reported teaching the benefits of physical activity,
health related fitness, phases of a work-out, and injury prevention during physical
activity. Teachers were criticized for using tag games, relays, and for not providing
enough lifetime sports, yet one could argue that teachers have been trying to address
the 50% MVPA goal by relying on exercises, jogging, tag, jump rope, and relays.
Several groups (American Academy of Pediatricians, CDC Coordinated
School Health Program, National School Boards Association) provide definitions
of the physical education curriculum that are similar to this one:
3. a sequential physical education curriculum taught daily in every
grade, pre-kindergarten through twelfth, that involves moderate to vigorous physical activity; that teaches knowledge, motor skills, and positive attitudes; that promotes activities and sports that all students enjoy and can pursue throughout their lives; that is taught by well-prepared and well-supported staff; and that is coordinated with the comprehensive school health education curriculum; (NASBE, 2002)
The seven national content standards for physical education (NASPE, 1995)
include cognitive objectives (applies principles and concepts, understands that
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN THE SCHOOLS
157
physical activity provides opportunities for enjoyment, etc.), social objectives (demonstrates responsible personal and social behavior, respect for differences), health
objectives (establish patterns of regular physical activity, achieves a health-enhancing level of fitness) and motor skill objectives (competent in many movement
forms and proficient in a few). The national standards and the NASBE definition
of curriculum suggest that teachers spend part of PE on cognitive objectives (knowledge), social objectives (attitudes, enjoyment), and motor skill. When MVPA—
for 50% of the class—is added, there are clear challenges (if not conflicts) in the
curriculum.
NASPE also recommends 150 minutes per week for elementary students
and 225 minutes per week secondary (NASPE, 2002). Children in elementary school
are falling short of this goal (by 80 minutes per week), and secondary students are
falling short by 104 minutes per week. These are estimates based on the SHPPS
data (secondary) and the NICHD survey of third grade children (Nader, 2003).
The point is that the national standards and the notion of 50% MVPA are based on
daily PE and/or 150 and 225 minutes of instruction per week. Teachers are expected to and trying to do the impossible—meet all the recommendations, standards, and needs in too little time. Therefore, some compromise is necessary in
terms of coverage in the curriculum. If the time in physical education was increased to the minimum, the expectation for curriculum coverage and MVPA could
both be met.
Physical education teachers are working full time; it is not as though a student is having PE 2.1 days per week and the teacher is relaxing in his or her office
the other 2.9 days of the week. In order to increase the minutes per week of physical education to the recommended levels, the number of teachers (and likely facilities) would have to more than double. Rather than focusing on increasing PE,
teachers are often distracted by annual threats to cut programs. Usually the cuts are
due to budget concerns, but recently academic (e.g., reducing graduation requirements, scheduling issues) and assessment (e.g., high stakes testing) concerns have
threatened PE programs. Schools are focusing on high stakes testing and budget,
rather than child health.
Another problem is that the expectations for fitness, physical activity, skill,
and knowledge at each grade is based upon the assumption that students have
mastered the prerequisite skills, knowledge, and behaviors. That assumption is a
problem because based on the number of children having no PE and those participating in less than half of the recommended time for PE, children are not likely to
master the prerequisites. In other words, the problem is additive—each year we
fail to provide minimum amounts of physical education, the further behind children fall and the less likely they are to “catch-up.”
One response to criticism of PE has been to justify programs as contributing
to academic performance (Thomas & Thomas, 1986). Even though this sounds
good, the interpretation of data is faulty (e.g., athletes have higher grades than
general school populations, but to be an athlete you must have at least a “c” average), or it is applied to an inappropriate population (e.g., cognitive function is
better in active elderly than inactive elderly, therefore PE will improve cognitive
function in children). Recent curricular examples of this are activities labeled as
brain research based, such as cup stacking. The activity has little whole body movement, does not contribute to fitness, and is time consuming. The equipment catalogs are replete with examples of equipment (and thereby curriculum content) that
158
THOMAS
is marketed based on brain research. Yet in searching the literature, there are at
present no studies showing that cup stacking helps any aspect of development.
A final issue related to curriculum is that in lifetime activities like tennis,
considerable skill is necessary before one is competent to play at all, let alone gain
MVPA while playing. PE is being asked to serve two roles with conflicting agendas. In the teaching of reading, all practice (read “training”) is not completed during school. The idea of reading education is to (a) provide the skills necessary to
practice outside of class and (b) to introduce a variety of reading materials (e.g.,
mysteries, science fiction, non-fiction, poetry, technical information) so the student can participate life long in reading. Nutrition provides another perspective;
there is nutrition education and food service. Nutrition education prepares the student to make decisions life long. Food service meets the student’s daily need for
nutrients. Physical education curriculum is being asked to be both nutrition education and food service, usually without homework. How does the curriculum meet
these competing goals?
Teacher Training
In the four states requiring 150 minutes of physical education (PE) or health
and PE, classes are taught by primarily by classroom teachers (NASPE, 2002).
Alabama reports most classes are taught by PE specialists or PE aides under the
supervision of specialists and very few classroom teachers. Alaska, Arizona, and
Montana allow local districts to determine who will teach PE. Illinois, Kansas,
Michigan, Missouri, and South Carolina require PE specialists. The remaining
states allow both specialists and classroom teachers to teach elementary PE. Most
states require specialists to teach PE in the middle and high schools.
Recall the recommendation from NASBE, CDC, and others for students to
be “taught by well-prepared and well-supported staff.” Several states do not require elementary classroom teachers to have even one course in physical education methods (or any related course) but do allow those teachers to be endorsed
and teach PE. It is difficult to argue that a teacher with no training is well-prepared
to teach anything. Further, 35% of the states do not require elementary physical
education teachers to be certified, endorsed, or licensed; the same is true for middle
and high school PE teachers at 12 and 8%, respectively (Burgeson et al., 2001).
Many states (53%) require continuing education of teachers; some districts report
recent (within two years) training of teachers or supervisors or development of
materials for physical education. Consider a worst case scenario, a teacher is hired
to provide elementary PE but is not licensed in that area and therefore enters the
field with little preparation. It is possible that teachers could live in one of 24 states
that does not require continuing education—therefore the teacher could continue
teaching without any training related to the field. Assuming this is a quality issue,
who is responsible?
Assessment and Learning
While assessment is not specified in any of the aforementioned recommendations for physical education (PE) programs, it has been measured in surveys
(e.g., SHPPS). Clearly, assessment is an important part of the learning process and
essential for continuous improvement of the curriculum and instruction (Huba &
Freed, 2000). State wide assessment is required in five states (KY, MA, MN, NY,
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN THE SCHOOLS
159
and WV) and is in the planning stage in three other states (ME, MO, SC). Fitness
testing is or will be required in 10 states (CA, CT, KY, ME, MO, NJ, NY, OH, SC,
WV; NASPE, 2002). Twenty-two states require grades in physical education to
count toward the GPA, a few states do not allow the grade to be entered into the
GPA, and others leave that decision to the local districts. Most schools (74%) give
grades in PE, and 63% view PE grades in the same way as any other subject
(Burgeson et al., 2001). Most schools (81%) have PE standards; most of those are
based on the NASPE national content standards. Assessment in the schools often
includes attendance, participation, and dress and seldom includes knowledge (less
than 50% of the teachers report this). Teachers do assess skill and fitness. Almost
half of the PE teachers would like more training on assessment. While authentic
assessment, standards, and learning outcomes have become increasingly visible in
higher education, these are not evident in K-12 physical education programs.
Class Size
One in four states have a maximum teacher to student ratio, as do many
districts. The average ratios by districts for elementary, middle, and high schools
are 27:1, 30:1, and 34:1, respectively (Burgeson, 2001). For those without a policy,
the ratios are considerably higher; for example, in Texas where ratios are typically
not mandated, it was reported that class size is most often above 40:1 (NASPE,
2002). Once again, class size interacts with other factors such as curriculum, duration, facilities, and equipment.
All
All implies gender, race or ethnicity, disability, or socio-economic status,
etc. With the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its predecessor PL 94-142, appropriate physical education has been guaranteed to all students
with disabilities (Sherrill, 1993; Winnick, 2000). The intent is that students who
are disabled will not be excluded from physical education because of their unique
needs. Appropriate placements are on a continuum from regular physical education to adapted physical education. The placement for physical education appears
on the student’s individual education plan and should be the most inclusive (e.g.,
least restrictive). The expectation is that a student with a disability will be placed
in regular physical education; this may include support unless that placement is
inappropriate. If the regular placement is inappropriate, adapted physical education is to be provided. The amount of adapted PE is to meet or exceed the physical
education provided for students in “regular” PE. The point of the legislation is to
assure that students are not excluded from physical education because of their
disability. Thus, it is rather surprising to see that 28.8%, 33.4%, and 36.6% of the
elementary, middle, and high schools exempt students from physical education on
the basis of a cognitive disability. Permanent physical disabilities have similar
rates of exemptions provided at the state level. The obvious concern is that states
and schools are using exemptions from physical education to avoid providing
adapted physical education.
Another point of discrimination is based on socio-economic status. Low income schools are less likely to provide physical education or provide less than
higher income schools. This has a greater negative impact because low income
160
THOMAS
students are less likely to participate in after school activities and free play due to
cost and safety. Schools provide a free public education, however low income
schools are at a distinct disadvantage, and all schools are not equal.
When You Are Holding on By a Thread,
Who You Gonna Call?
Physical education teachers and schools can turn to research, professional
organizations, the government, and coalitions/foundations for support and solutions. This section presents representative information and resources available in
each of those categories.
Research
Four types of research provide information about what schools might do to
fight obesity with physical activity. Those are school-based interventions for treatment and prevention of overweight, cardiovascular disease prevention, and those
increasing physical activity and research identifying the precursors to a physically
active lifestyle.
Story (1999) noted that most school-based overweight treatment interventions produced small short term benefits. In twelve studies reviewed, all but one
included a physical activity component or condition; that one was the only study
failing to decrease obesity. The message to schools is that physical activity is an
important part of treating overweight. Most of those studies included as components or conditions nutrition education (n = 11) and behavior modification (n = 7).
Five included a parent involvement and one included a food service component.
The second message to schools and teachers is that nutrition education is important.
The Center for Weight and Health at the University of California Berkeley
identifies several advantages of school-based approaches:
• Most children attend school, eat 1-2 meals at school, and participate in physical activity at school.
• It is cost and time effective to use classroom teachers and to integrate nutrition and exercise information into the curricula.
• Schools can integrate across cafeteria, classroom, home, and community.
• School-based approaches work with all children therefore reducing the stigma
for overweight children (Center for Weight and Health, 2001).
There are also challenges to school-based interventions—both treatment and prevention:
• Knowing about nutrition and physical activity does not necessarily translate
into behavior change.
• Changes in school are not always maintained out of school and may be “over
compensated for” after school.
• Culture and gender differences necessitate modifications to the environment
and curriculum.
• Highly qualified staff are difficult to maintain in light of high staff turn over.
• Convincing school boards and faculty that nutrition education (and/or general health education) and physical education are appropriate uses of time
and resources (Center for Weight and Health, 2001).
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN THE SCHOOLS
161
In a systematic review of interventions to increase physical activity, the authors concluded that school-based interventions (PE) were effective in increasing
physical fitness and increasing levels of physical activity (Kahn et al., 2002). Two
barriers identified were within the school system: requirements for PE instruction
(frequency and duration) are too low and pressure to eliminate PE to devote more
time to academic subjects. Positive outcomes from the studies included for review
were loss of fat and/or body weight and increases in aerobic capacity, flexibility,
muscle endurance, knowledge, and self-efficacy. A major finding was that while
more time was spent in PE in these interventions, no harm to academic performance was identified.
Several lines of research have identified factors that contribute to adults and
children being physically active. Clearly, these provide suggestions for physical
education teachers. These also may provide schools, parents, and communities
guidance in developing programs for children. Whitehead and Corbin (1997) identified competence and confidence during childhood as important predictors of adult
physical activity. Adults who learned skills as children and who had confidence in
their motor skill were more likely to be active as adults.
In a longitudinal study of men, a clear relationship existed between sport
skill during youth and physical activity as adults (Houston et al., 2002). The baseline
measurement was during college, with follow-up for 30 or more years. When the
cohort median age was 48 years (in 1978), 68% reported vigorous weekly physical
activity. Those who were higher in ability across all sports (e.g., tennis, golf, football, basketball) reported more physical activity as adults. The relationship between skill and cardiovascular disease and obesity was demonstrated in tennis,
where tennis players had the lowest BMI and the highest skilled players had the
lowest incidence of cardiovascular disease among tennis players. Skill level was
less a predictor in other sports (high versus low); this was likely because most
adult men were no longer playing football or basketball. Examining those men at
70 years of age, it was found that the incidence of cardiovascular disease was
lower in the high ability tennis group than in low ability or no tennis groups. The
recommendation was that the high schools include activities like tennis in the curriculum to prevent long term cardiovascular disease.
Physical competence (skill) has been associated with increased enjoyment
of physical activity and sustained participation (Weiss, 2000). Physical competence predicts motivation to participate in physical activities. Children judge physical competence as they master tasks, have fun, give effort, and receive feedback
from parents. During adolescence, the judgment is based at first on peers and adults
other than parents (teachers and coaches) and later on internal evaluations. Those
internal evaluations focus on attraction to the activity, achievement of goals,
and improvement. In other words, children and adolescents who see themselves as skilled are motivated to be active. This seems both logical and simple;
however, developing skill takes practice—lots of practice and therefore, lots
of time.
Women who were physically active as adults reported trying more physical
activities as children and adolescents (Robertson-Wilson, Baker, Derbinshyre, &
Côté, 2003). Trying activities is called sampling and occurs from age 6 to 12 years
of age. Specialization in sport comes after sampling in those who will become
sport experts. Sampling seems to provide important information about physical
activities that encourages physical activity as adults, especially in females. This
162
THOMAS
may be connected to Weiss’ (2000) notion of attraction: that is, girls try a variety of
activities until they find one or more that works for them.
Well prepared physical education teachers can articulate—often based solely
on experience—critical issues in children’s participation in physical activity. Expert teachers identified the relative age effect, the differential and essential benefit
of practice, and the relatively small contribution of talent to skill level (Thomas &
Thomas, 1999). These teachers noted that practice was the essential ingredient in
skill learning. Clearly, these teachers understand the dependent nature of motivation for physical activity and skill learning.
Research on interventions indicates that physical activity can be increased
during school; this may decrease overweight and/or fat, and does not adversely
impact academic performance. Further, the gains may be small and short term, but
school-based interventions have potential as preventative measures for both obesity and cardiovascular disease. Research indicates that competence (skill) is important to being active as a child and later as an adult; this probably leads to confidence, including the confidence to try new activities. Skill develops as a result of
practice, which is likely related to motivation and dependent upon opportunity.
Trying a variety of activities during childhood (before age 12) is important, perhaps because it allows finding activities that are well suited to the individual.
Professional Organizations
The National Association for Sport and Physical Activity (NASPE) has provided tremendous support for schools and teachers in terms of recommendations.
NASPE strengths include a passionate pursuit of anything that will promote physical activity and sport, dedication to the practitioner, and the size of membership.
As with many large organizations (e.g., the National Education Association), especially those with a practitioner focus, the organization must try to please and
serve a wide variety of points of view and may be subject to internal politics and
extensive structure that impacts efficiency. In July of 2001, NASPE published
Physical Education is Critical to a Complete Education, which presents physical,
cognitive, and affective benefits from physical education. The paper has 15 references but no citations in the text. Six of the references are to scholarly journals; the
remainder are NASPE publications, text books, and newsletters. The section on
cognitive benefits says “Teaching academic concepts through the physical modality may nurture children’s kinesthetic intelligence” (p. 2). One interpretation of
this is that PE is important because it may teach academic concepts to some children. Intuitively, this runs contrary to the notion that physical activity is important—thus physical education is important—in and of itself. A possible outcome
for schools is to say “Well, PE teaches academics; so does everyone else, so why
do we need PE?” Later in the same section, PE is justified with the following:
“Research has demonstrated that children engaged in daily physical education show
superior motor fitness, academic performance, and attitude toward school versus
their counterparts who did not participate in physical education” (p. 2). Without
citations, it is impossible to determine the accuracy of this claim or the quality of
the research supporting it. The most likely reference is a review paper, not a data
based paper. NASPE is undoubtedly trying to support physical education teachers
and encourage schools to provide quality, daily physical education. Inherent in
this mission is to provide focused, well-documented resources.
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN THE SCHOOLS
163
The AAHPERD journal, JOPERD, is widely read by PE teachers and is
refereed. Information on physical activity and health is presented often with suggestions for applying the information. For example, a recent paper presented four
strategies to assist PE teachers working with obese students (Irwin, Symons, &
Kerr, 2003). The statement of the problem, rationale, and suggestions were drawn
from research (e.g., NHANES) and policy (CDC’s Comprehensive School Health
Program). The article said that the “physical educator must become more compassionate and understanding” (p. 37) and “. . . it should be done using a healthrelated philosophy rather than using traditional, competitive method many physical education programs use” (p. 36). No evidence was presented that many teachers are using the traditional approach, nor that teachers are neither compassionate
or understanding. Thus, the article appears to attack the very teachers it is trying to
help.
The National Education Association has support materials and programs for
janitors and school bus drivers, but not for physical education teachers. The only
mention of anything related to physical activity in their booklet What Makes a
Good School: A Guide for Parents Seeking Excellence in Education are references
to “keeping athletics in perspective” and “a safe playground.”
Other organizations that influence what schools and school boards do provide considerable guidance and support for physical education in the schools. These
were mentioned previously but warrant repeating: National Association of State
Boards of Education (NASBE) and National Association of School Boards (NASB).
Government
Most states have a coordinator or director for physical education. Previously,
the state level mandates for physical education were discussed. So this section will
focus on federal government support for physical activity in the schools. The U.S.
Department of Education has recently signed a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicating they are “working together to expand school-based efforts to help children and young people develop healthy eating and physical activity skills that will last a lifetime.” The MOU is part of the
Healthier US program initiated by President George W. Bush in June 2002.
USDA sponsors TEAM Nutrition, a program and curriculum. TEAM Nutrition funds are generated by the school lunch program. The program is a multichannel (classroom, school-wide, cafeteria, food service training, home, community,
and media) approach to behavior change. There are four messages based on the
dietary guidelines:
•
•
•
•
Eat a variety of foods.
Eat more fruits, vegetables, and grains.
Eat foods lower in fat more often.
Be physically active.
State agencies apply for funds that can be used to train school personnel or
fund grants to schools related to the four messages. Support materials related to
TEAM Nutrition are Power Panther, a mascot encouraging kids to eat breakfast,
have healthy snacks, and be active and “Changing the Scene,” a community action
kit designed to assess the health environment of the school. Many of these materials are available to schools and community organizations free of charge.
164
THOMAS
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also has a variety of
support programs and materials. VERB (it’s what you do) is a media campaign
targeted at teens, with the goal of increasing physical activity. BAM! (Body and
Mind) is a website with information and activities for children and adolescents
about health, particularly physical activity related issues. Powerful Girls, Powerful Bones is a website devoted to girls’ physical activity and nutrition. CDC is also
recommending Take 10! (a curriculum developed by the International Life Sciences Institute; Kohl, 2003). The cards provide activities for classroom teachers to
use during academic instruction that use physical activity to teach science and
math content.
The U.S. Department of Education administers the Carol M. White Progress
for Physical Activity Grants. These are one-time allocations to schools and districts for training and equipment. The amount of funding for 2002 was $50 million, estimated for 2003 is $59 million, and the request is for $100 million in 2004.
At this time there is a zero allocation in the 2004 budget; this is subject to change
before approval. In any case, this funding is between 1 and 2 million per state and
does not provide additional personnel to teach physical education, nor is the funding a permanent source of funding. On the positive side, this is federal money for
physical education instruction. On the other side, it is not permanent, does not
increase the frequency or duration of PE, and could be used as an argument against
additional funding to support daily PE.
Coalitions and Foundations
Action for Healthy Kids (AFHK) is a national coalition
(actionforhealthykids.org) with affiliate coalitions (teams) in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia. Thirteen organizations were on the original advisory panel
(e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dietetic Association, American
School Food Service Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, NASPE,
NASBE, National Dairy Council, NSBA, USDA, USDE, USDHHS, CDC, and
USDHHS, NICHHD). The first activity of AFHK was the Healthy School Summit
in October of 2002. All of this was the vision of Dr. David Satcher, former Surgeon
General, to implement his Call to Action (USDHHS, 2002). After the national
summit, state teams were to select action goals from the Call to Action, host a
summit, and develop action plans. The rationale was that states would evolve differently but have clear goals and plans with similar missions. Teams had to have
one representative from both the state’s department of education and public health.
Other members of the team were invited by the Dairy Council, who provided funding
for the summit. The most frequently selected goal for state teams was “quality,
daily physical education.” This is remarkable for teams heavily weighted with
nutrition experts. The National Dairy Council continues to provide support in terms
of work (each state has a NDC employee to provide support services) and funding
(sponsoring travel to meetings, money to each state team for operations, follow-up
national training, and in kind support from dairy affiliates). Additional funding has
increased the support at the national level (e.g., the National Football League
donated $2 million to AFHK in September of 2003). Services and materials are
provided free of charge by AFHK. The mission of AFHK as nonschool and nonphysical education groups and individuals lends strength and authenticity to their
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN THE SCHOOLS
165
work for physical activity and physical education in the schools. Building the Argument is a pair of papers presenting data to support physical education and nutrition initiatives in schools. While academic enhancement is one of the rationales
presented, the citations are clear, allowing the reader to judge the value of the
contribution.
The National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity (NCPPA) is a collaborating organization in Action for Healthy Kids. The mission of NCPPA is to
provide leadership and synergy to existing groups with a stake in physical activity.
NCPPA is less directly applicable to schools than AFHK. NCPPA evolved from a
meeting of interested partners (among the 30 partners were ACSM, AAHPERD,
AHA) at an American Heart Association meeting in 1995.
P.E.4LIFE is a foundation dedicated to advocacy for health, fitness, and sports
activities in schools. The foundation is supported by contributions from sporting
goods companies and related businesses. An institute and website are two paths to
advocacy. The site provides a variety of tools, from NASPE position papers to
research. Unfortunately the research is not necessarily peer reviewed, nor is the
topic directly related to PE in the schools. An example is the presentation of the
First Choice Study. The description is of an substance prevention program for
disadvantaged youth with the implication that the program solves the daily PE
issue for schools. Under the category “exercise and the brain,” you get a link to
Hyperfit1 and a the paper titled “Advocacy: A Case for Daily Quality Physical
Education” (by Jean Blaydes). This paper begins asking the reader to be cautious
about the connection between physical activity and cognition and then presents
examples of brain research that suggest physical activity improves brain function
(the conclusion to be drawn might be that PE will make kids smarter). The reference list does not include a single refereed paper. The point is that by default
PE4LIFE advocated for rationalizing physical education because it impacts both
cognition and academic performance. By making this point, they lead schools and
society further from the essential benefits of PE and into the dangerous territory of
justifying PE programs based on academic, intellectual, and cognitive goals. Teachers are struggling to teach the core of PE and are increasingly trying to add content
from the “brain research” in order to justify their programs. The implication is the
physical activity is not important enough alone to justify PE.
Sample Best Practices
What should I do with the precious time and resources that I have? Physical
activity in the schools is a result of how school administrators and teachers answer
that question. Grants, innovative activities, excellent integrated instruction, and
collaboration can be observed in schools everywhere when administrators and teachers answer, “I will devote my resources to improving child health.” Unfortunately
schools and teachers are constantly being asked to do more for less; the result is
careful consideration before answering the question. In one middle school, a TEAM
Nutrition grant accomplished the following:
• Breakfast in a bag addressed the needs of students arriving on late buses or
early for athletic practice. A bag containing milk, juice, and a grain serving
(muffin, granola bar) was available just before the first class in the main
166
THOMAS
school hall. Students swiped a food service card (which credits free and
reduced meals and charges parents for paid meals), selected a bag, and went
to class. Students had 20 minutes to eat the meal and dispose of the trash
during first period.
• The family and consumer science teacher (FACS) taught a unit on healthy
snacks for 6th grade and a unit on nutrition and growth for 7th grade. The PE
teacher and FACS teacher coordinated a unit on energy balance for 8th graders. Students learned about nutrients in foods during FACS and the energy
demand of activities completed during PE.
• During the study period at the end of the day, a healthy snack cart went to
each classroom selling fruits, vegetables, and low fat grains to students. This
program was run at cost by food service to compliment instruction in FACS.
• After school aerobics, weight training, and jogging were offered for students and staff. Each month, the guidance counselor ran the mile with students during lunch recess to show support for the after-school exercise program and the PE classes.
When the principal announced that the snack cart would not run one day at
the end of the school year because the high school candy sale was replacing it,
student protested. The school health committee requested that students be allowed
to make a choice between the candy and the cart. The students argued that teachers
had helped them learn to make healthy decisions and this was not consistent with
school philosophy! Most of this program continued after the grant funding ended,
although the after-school activities were dropped, and the snack cooking unit in
FACS was reduced due to lack of funding.
Examples from individual schools include:
• Daily walking at lunch with a teacher and once a month with the principal
took students on a virtual trip across their state by logging miles. Progress
was tracked on a large map and each day the conversation was about the
history, economy, and geography of the communities visited through conversation during the walk. (This is a state-wide initiative in Wisconsin.)
• A policy was established to eliminate soft drinks and PE exemptions in a
middle school with the rationale that children need calcium and exercise to
develop healthy bones. No parents protested this policy change.
• Many schools include physical activity and healthy snacks in their after school
program for at risk students (e.g., 21st Century Grants).
States provide leadership and advocacy as well. For example, leveraging
TEAM Nutrition funds, one project did the following:
• It produced public service announcements showing young children (under
age 7 years) doing developmentally appropriate physical activities or eating
healthy snacks.
• It produced activity and snack cards, policies, and best practices and a video
to help schools, parents, and child care providers improve physical activity
and nutrition (over 3,500 individuals were trained in this project).
• Parents were an indirect target as the PSAs and trained professionals educated parents about the importance of physical activity and nutrition in school
and after school care settings.
• Training has been expanded to numerous other states.
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN THE SCHOOLS
167
Turning the Thread Into a Strong Rope
to Save PE
There are three things we can and must do to support schools in providing
physical activity for children and adolescents:
1. Provide clear and consistent messages and interpretation of the scientific
and theoretical information about physical activity.
2. Secure funded mandates for daily PE.
3. Be supportive, not critical.
As a profession, we must put our own research and theoretical orientations
in perspective when advising schools and teachers. Of course, what we do is important to us and important as it contributes to the body of professional knowledge. However, schools and teachers do not have the resources to put all of the
information in perspective and then apply it in their own school setting. For example, our profession has told them to keep students physically active with MVPA
for at least 50% of the class and teach the skills necessary for lifetime participation. We have not interpreted that recommendation in the context of their situation.
What are the priorities when, instead of 225 minutes per week, a student has PE
for 50 minutes per week? Furthermore, our research and writing often undermines
the vary programs we want to expand! In the NICHD study (Nader, 2003), the
conclusion was “. . . received 25min/wk of moderate to vigorous activity in school
PE, falling far short of national recommendations” (p. 185). Consider that the recommendation is for 50% MVPA, this study found 38% MVPA or 76% of the recommendation. The area that is far short is in time allocated to PE: 66 of 150 minutes or 44% of the recommendation. Teachers have no control over the allocated
time, but administrators (and legislators) use data like this to eliminate or reduce
PE programs by saying teachers are not doing a good job. It is the states and districts that are falling far short of the recommendation by not fully funding daily
PE!
Research critiquing the quality of physical education programs and instruction makes no effort to separate fully qualified teachers from those teaching PE
with little or no training. Thus, fully qualified teachers may be judged based on
programs conducted by educational assistants, classroom teachers, and teachers
with no training in PE.
Another example is fitness testing. First we advocate one test as preferred
over another test. We explain that one has less fit students continuing after the
more fit students are finished (e.g., the mile run), and another test eliminates the
least fit kids first while the more fit kids continue (e.g., the Pacer). Which of those
tests really reduces the stigma on the least fit kids and is therefore preferred? Second, we advocate fitness testing, a time consuming process. Is the investment worth
the cost when there is precious little PE? Would they be better served if we suggested doing fitness testing only when students meet the minimum recommendations for time in PE?
As scholars and leaders in our field, we must identify and address the factors
leading to physical inactivity and overweight in children. We are quick to say
“quality daily PE;” we are slow to say “send money to the schools.” Many of us
request or demand the participation of schools and teachers in our scholarly work.
How many of us divert funding and other resources to the direct benefit of the
168
THOMAS
schools and teachers? Are we willing to lobby for the funded mandates necessary
to address the problem or do we see that as outside of our responsibility? The
worst case scenario would be unfunded mandates. We need to demonstrate how
fully funded programs would, in the long term, be economically viable by reducing health care and other disease associated costs. Further, we need to identify
quality of life issues related to sedentary lifestyles and overweight and obesity.
Thus, three actions are suggested:
• Call your legislator and school board and support expanded funds designated for daily PE.
• Consider the causal factors when designing research and interpreting and
reviewing research.
• Join a coalition supporting physical activity in schools; specifically address
policy changes at the state and district level.
Finally, we need to identify those factors that are and are not under school
and teacher control. The majority of the criticisms and weaknesses in physical
education and physical activity programs in schools are not under the school or
teacher’s control. Those that are under the control of individual teachers and schools
are subject to correction, and we should facilitate the correction. Examples of problem areas that are not under teacher control are frequency, duration, size of classes,
national and state standards, requirements for graduation, and exemptions from
PE. Often curriculum and grading are not under the teacher’s control. Conflicting
messages (e.g., importance of math and reading, lifetime sports versus physical
fitness training) about what is important are not under the teacher’s control. The
spirit and the letter of what we write and say about school physical education
should not undermine those programs. As a profession, the greatest opportunity to
address physical inactivity, overweight, and related health problems is through children in school, thus through physical education. Yet we undermine those programs
and alienate the teachers. To address these concerns we should do the following:
• Be positive rather than negative.
• Take care when interpreting programs and results.
• Clearly identify factors beyond the school or teacher’s control.
Once we see our mission as scholars as part of the same mission schools and
teachers work toward, we will strengthen the position of physical education in the
schools. Thus, we will be one of the strands of a strong rope schools use to reduce
overweight, obesity, and other health risks while increasing physical activity.
References
Burgeson, C.R., Wechsler, H., Brener, N.D., Young, J.C., & Spain, C.G. (2001). Physical
education and physical activity: Results from the school health policies and programs study 2000. Journal of School Health, 71, 279-293.
Center for Disease Control. (2003). YRBSS: Trends in the prevalence of physical activity.
Retrieved from www.cdc.gov website August 15, 2003.
Center for Weight and Health. (2001). Pediatric overweight: A review of the literature. A
paper prepared for the California Department of Health Services, Childhood Obesity
Prevention Initiative, Grant No. U58/CCU119326 from CDC.
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN THE SCHOOLS
169
Houston, T.K., Meoni, L.A., Ford, D.E., Brancati, F.L., Cooper, L.A., Levine, D.M., Liang,
K., & Klag, M.J. (2002). Sports ability in young men and the incidence of cardiovascular disease. The American Journal of Medicine, 112, 689-695.
Huba, M.E., & Freed, J.E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting
the focus from teaching to learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Irwin, C.C., Symons, C.W., & Kerr, D.L. (2003). The dilemmas of obesity: How can physical educators help? JOPERD, 74, 33-39.
Kahn, E.B., Ramsey, L.T., Brownson, R.C., Health, G.W., Howze, E.H., Powell, K.E., Stone,
E.J., Rajab, M.W., Corso, P., & the Task Force on Community Preventative Services.
(2002). The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity: A systematic
review. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 22, 73-107.
Kohl, H.W. (2003, April). Physical activity in schools. A paper presented at Current Issues
in Nutrition Videoconference, Ames, Iowa.
Lowry, R., Wechsler, H., Kann,L., & Collins, J.L. (2001). Recent trends in participation in
physical education among U.S. high school students. Journal of School Health, 71,
145-152.
Nader, P.R. (2003). Frequency and intensity of activity of third-grade children in physical
education. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 257, 185-190.
National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE). 2002. On line. Available http://
nasbe.org/Educational_issues/reports/fithealthy.html#phyed.
NASPE. (1995). Moving into the future: National standards for physical education. Reston,
VA: NASPE Publications.
NASPE. (1997). Shape of the nation. Reston, VA: NASPE Publications.
NASPE. (2001). Physical education is critical to a complete education. A position paper
from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education, Reston, VA.
NASPE. (2002). Shape of the nation. Reston, VA: NASPE Publications.
Robertson-Wilson, J., Baker, E., Derbinshyre, E., & Côté, J. (2003), Childhood sport involvement in active and inactive female adults. AVANTE, 9, 1-8.
Ross, J.G., Dotson, C.O., Gilbert, G.G., & Katz, S.J. (1985). What are kids doing in school
physical education? JOPERD, 56, 73-76.
Ross, J.G., & Gilbert, G.G. (1985). A summary of the findings. JOPERD, 56, 45-50.
Sherrill, C. (1993). Adapted physical activity, recreation and sport: Cross disciplinary and
lifespan (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.
Story, M. (1999). School-based approaches for preventing and treating obesity. International Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorders, 23, S43-51.
Thomas, J.R., & Thomas, K.T. (1986). The relation of movement and cognitive function. In
V. Seefeldt (Ed.), Physical activity and human well-being (pp. 443-452). Reston,
VA: AAHPERD.
Thomas, K.T., & Thomas, J.R. (1999). What squirrels in the trees tells us about sport expertise. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 30, 221-234.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1990). Healthy people 2000: Surgeon
General’s report. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Healthy people 2010: Conference
edition. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). The Surgeon General’s call to
action to prevent and decrease overweight and obesity 2001. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office.
170
THOMAS
Weiss, M.R. (2000). Motivating kids in physical activity. President’s Council on Physical
Fitness and Sports Research Digest, 3, 11.
Whitehead, J.R., & Corbin, C.B. (1997). Self-esteem in children and youth: The role of
sport and physical education. In K.R. Fox (Ed.), The physical self: From motivation
to well-being (pp. 175-203). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wilmore, J.H. (1982). Objectives for the nation: Physical fitness and exercise. JOPERD,
53, 41-43.
Winnick, J.P. (Ed.). (2000). Adapted physical education and sport (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Author Notes
1
Hyperfit is a commercial enterprise focusing on equipment and facilities.
Alabama requires both daily physical education and 150 minutes per week, thus appears
two times in the table.
2