The popular media has not always been kind to Physical Education. Recently a feature in USA Today (June 11, 2009, page 7D) proclaimed, “PE may have little effect on kids’s overall activity.” The newspaper article author was Jillian Berman. The study she cited was done in England. According to the newspaper article children “with the most phys-ed time got an average of 9.2 hours of scheduled exercise a week; students at the school offering the fewest opportunities got an average of 1.7 hours a week.” In spite of the fact that physical education, by the researchers own report, helped kids get an average of 20 to 110 minutes of activity per day, the headline declared the ineffectiveness of PE. The activity that student performed was equal to 1/3 of the 60 minutes recommended for kids each day for the least active and nearly double the daily activity recommendation for the most active. Clearly physical education in all cases was helpful in getting kids active.
In spite of the fact that physical education provided activity during the school day, the article concluded that PE is ineffective because the kids who did more activity in school did not do more overall activity (in and out of school) than those who were the least active in school. They suggested that biological compensation was the reason.
The day after the article appeared I wrote a letter to the editor (USA Today) that went unpublished. I have inserted it below.
Dear Editor:
In the Life section of USA Today (Thursday June 11) a half page article reads, “PE may have little effect on kids’ overall activity.” Such an article may lead to incorrect conclusions about physical education. Typically responsible news sources reserve large spaces and headlines for major research findings. The journal in which the cited research was published is typically noted so that readers are able to consult the original source. The findings of a single study are put in context with the larger body of evidence. The article in question cites one study done in England with no citation as to where the article was published, or if it was peer reviewed. It ignores the body of work published in the United States on the subject of compensation (Do youth who do activity in school compensate by doing less after school?). The compensation hypothesis is not new and there has been more than a little research on the topic. Berman would have been more responsible if she had placed the work of the British researchers in context with other research findings. Dale, Corbin, and Dale (Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 2000), for example, conducted a study using accelerometers and found that children did not compensate with less activity outside of school on days when they had physical activity periods (recess or physical education) during school. The Dale article reviews other work on the topic. A recent article in the Journal of Physical Activity and Health (2009) also reviews findings of the compensation hypothesis for adults. This, and other articles, could have been cited in a more balanced news report. Many people read the half-page article on June 11. Only a few will read this letter. Readers of USA Today deserve better.
Charles B. Corbin, Ph.D.
Since the letter was not published, not one person read it. Many readers will draw conclusions about PE from the USA Today article. It is for this reason that it is important for us as physical educators to reach out to the public to make them aware of the many benefits of quality physical education.
On the positive side, quality physical educators who make a difference, are now recognized as equal to their peers in their contributions. My Fitness for Life: Middle School co-author and colleague Dr. Dolly Lambdin (past NASPE President) was recently recognized by the University of Texas with the Massey Award for Excellence in Teacher Education. Clearly Dr. Lambdin’s colleagues at the University of Texas value Dolly and what she does (quality physical education). You can learn more about Dr. Lambdin’s award at www.texasexes.org/alcalde/news.asp?id=358#item&AddInterest=12.
In the weeks ahead I will write more about quality physical education. Among the topics will be the Top 10 Reasons for Quality Physical Education. These were first reported in a JOPERD article in 2006 by Corbin and Le Masurier (access at http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/pdf_files/top10reasonsforQualityPE.pdf).
Subscribe to feed
