The research supports the use of SPARK as a platform to improve the quality of physical education in schools. SPARK has been shown to improve student activity levels, increase minutes of vigorous or moderate physical activity for students, and bring about lasting and positive change in a school district (Myers-Schieffer & Thomas, 2012). In one study, researchers found that “children were positive about this specific program. This is gratifying because one of the goals of the program was to create a positive sense of physical activity in students” (McKenzie et al., 1994, p. 213). In another study, a SPARK intervention is attributed to students being exposed to increased motor skills, resulting in higher levels of manipulative motor skills (McKenzie et al., 1998). As a result of improved activity levels, students who participated in the SPARK program improved their times in the 1-mile sit-up and right-up tests (Sallis et al., 1997). Finally, observations from the Fitness Time Observation System (SOFIT) showed that students in SPARK classes increased their vigorous or moderate physical activity time per class from 17.8 to 40.2 minutes, compared to students in non-SPARK classes who engaged in 17.8 minutes of vigorous or moderate physical activity per class. Teachers participating in the SPARK intervention increased levels of fitness promotion and provided students with increased general instruction and more attention minutes per week (McKenzie et al., 1997; Myers-Schieffer & Thomas, 2012).
More than 76% of elementary schools offered daily breaks for children and 31% had a policy in place prohibiting teachers from preventing children from attending recess for disciplinary reasons. In 56% of primary schools that had adopted a CSPAP, physical activity was encouraged between classes/classes; in 44 per cent of cases, it has been integrated into university education; And in 43 percent, the school day started with exercise programs. Using the NASBE database, the committee conducted a comprehensive analysis of physical education and physical activity policies for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The analysis found that 45 states (88%) require physical education; 22 states (23%) require it with mandatory minutes, while 25 states (49%) have no mandatory minutes and 4 (0.07%) leave the required number of minutes to local decision makers. A majority of states allow exceptions or substitutions to physical education (see discussion below). Fitness assessment is required in 15 states (29%) and further curriculum assessments are required in 4 states (0.07%). Twenty-six states (53%) require sports grades to be included in a student`s GPA. Forty-three states (84%) require some level of physical education for high school graduation with a range of 0.5 to 3.75 credits. One state (0.02%) requires physical education from kindergarten to grade 12, but not 4 years of physical education for high school graduation. Physical education is a formal field of study in schools, it is based on standards and includes assessment according to standards and benchmarks.
In this chapter, selected curriculum-based physical education programs have been described to demonstrate the potential of high-quality physical education in the development of children into active adults. Such models offer all school-aged children the only way to access health-promoting physical activity. Curriculum models for physical education programs include physical education, which emphasizes the importance of basic movement skills as a prerequisite for physical activity throughout life; physical education to help students become skilled players in the sports of their choice throughout their lives; and physical training, which teaches students the concepts of fitness, including the benefits and scientific principles of exercise, with the goal of developing and maintaining individual fitness and positive lifestyle changes. The emergence of a technology-driven fitness program and the new presidential youth fitness program provide students with more motivating opportunities to engage in lifelong physical activity. In terms of content, physical activity in elementary and secondary schools is a supposed outcome rather than expected, except in the physical education model. The objectives of developing physical education skills and increasing knowledge are likely to be achieved through vigorous or moderate physical activity. However, there is a lack of evidence to support the claim that physical activity to promote skills and knowledge development is of high or moderate intensity and of sufficient duration for children to derive health benefits. Research findings on effective physical education support these characteristics as a benchmark for quality programs. In an attempt to understand what effective physical education looks like, Castelli and Rink (2003) conducted a mixed comparison of 62 physical education programs in which a high percentage of students met the state`s athletic learning standards with programs whose students did not.
Comprehensive data from student achievement, teacher interviews, and field observations showed that highly effective physical education programs were housed in cohesive, long-term departments that experienced more facilitators (e.g., positive policies, supportive administration) than barriers (e.g., marginalized status as a subject within the school). In addition, effective programs made changes to curricula before policy was adopted at the state level, while ineffective programs with changes waited until they were asked to do so. Teachers in ineffective programs had misconceptions about student achievement and generally had lower expectations of student achievement and behaviour. While several evidence-based physical education programs – such as the Coordinated Approach to Child Health (CATCH) and Children`s Active Sport, Play and Recreation (SPARK) – are implemented in schools, many innovative programs have also been implemented nationally that are motivating and contribute to skills development. while engaging teens in fun and fitness-focused activities. These programs include water sports such as sailing, kayaking, swimming, canoeing and paddle boarding. Adventure activities such as Project Adventure; winter sports such as skiing and snowshoeing; and extreme sports such as in-line skating, skateboarding and cycling. The 2012 Shape of the Nation report documents the many reasons why students may be exempt from physical education. Thirty-three states allow school districts or schools to allow students to substitute other physical education activities.
The most common replacements are the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC), interscholastic sports, marching band, cheerleading and community sports. Twenty-eight states allow schools and school districts to grant exemptions/exemptions from physical education time or credit requirements. Grounds for exception/exemption include health, physical disability, religious beliefs and early completion; Six states leave the land to local schools or school districts. While it seems reasonable for some alternative programs, such as JROTC or cheerleading, to accumulate physical activity comparable to physical education, these programs do not necessarily provide students with the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to participate in health-promoting physical activities throughout their lives. There are no studies on the effects of exemptions or exemptions from physical education. Currently, there is no evidence that students receive any portion of the recommended 60 minutes or more of vigorous or moderate physical activity through alternative activities approved by their school. These standards are accompanied by measurement rubrics (unacceptable, acceptable and objective, the goal being exemplary) developed jointly by NASPE and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) to evaluate physical education programs across the country (all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico). NCATE identified a total of 133 physical education teacher training programs as “nationally recognized.” The committee was unable to determine how many programs nationally met the minimum standards (not at the nationally recognized level) or to find reliable information on the total number of physical education teacher education programs. A web search using the term “physical education” yielded two different but relatively reliable statistics: 720 (College Board, 2013) and 1,945 (Peterson`s, 2013).
However, the lines of evidence did not distinguish between physical education teachers and other kinesiological concentrations (e.g., sports medicine, sports/fitness physiology). Statistics on the number and quality of physical education teacher training programmes based on NASPE standards are needed. Exercise has been a cornerstone of physical education since the 1800s. The first pioneers (François Delsarte, Liselott Diem, Rudolf von Laban) focused on a child`s ability to use his body to express himself (Abels and Bridges, 2010).