Toward Better Why’s & What’s of Physical Education — Part 1: The Problem of Incoherence

Before you read this article, consider:

1. This is Part 1 of a series. Here are Part 2 and 3. If you prefer to read the recap and save yourself some time, head over to Part 3 and scroll down to the bottom.
2. I intend to come back to this and edit it as I see fit. What you see here may not only change, but may also be the result of multiple updates and edits.
3. I would love for you to highlight and/or comment on any significant parts. Dialogue is welcome here!!
4. My position is grounded in Democratic aims — political/civic equality, fairness, social justice, the common good, and general welfare, and more as a way of life and less like a political system — the purpose of which, I think, can be summarized as Well-Being for all. I have nothing to say about Public Education or Physical Education in the context of a society that is NOT explicitly Democratic.

Incoherence In Education and Physical Education

Physical Education, in America and perhaps internationally, seems to be in a perpetual state of either crisis, insecurity, or confusion (or maybe it’s all of those at the same time?). Some of the reasons for this lie at the feet of the field, and some of them lie elsewhere. But regardless of who is judged to be most guilty, the biggest issue (for me) is this: INCOHERENCE. We either don’t have, or don’t agree on (or both), a compelling and coherent vision of WHY and WHAT Education and Physical Education should be and be about. And while I admit that a total consensus on such a thing is impossible, I believe that we can, and should, strive for more clarity of purpose. If we don’t, we will continue to be ineffective. We will continue to try to do the wrong things “righter,”and the right things “wronger.”

The Big WHY Problem & Where It Comes From

I suggest that this fragmentation and incoherence begins with a pervasive societal inability to clearly identify and agree on what our society is for (speaking from an American perspective here), even though the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence makes it fairly clear. As a result, we repeatedly devise and revise aims for Education, and thus Physical Education, that are not only mis-aligned with our greater societal aims, but often conflict with them. This is a WHY problem.

P.E.’s WHY Problems

P.E. suffers from two primary WHY problems, both of which equate to having the wrong WHY:

1. It isn’t grounded in a coherent, functional, or legitimate Educational WHY. It typically aligns with the aims of a public education system that prioritizes Neoliberal Capitalist ends before Democratic ones. And since Neoliberal Capitalism often obstructs Democracy, such an education system is incoherent, dysfunctional, and illegitimate (at least it is far too often).
2. Its purpose is (far too often) a narrowly conceived end-state of “Health” and/or a “Healthy Body,” that is ultimately reduced to a set of “objective” metrics (which fits nicely with Neoliberal Capitalism’s demand to measure, and thus, commodify everything). This purpose reduces the value of everything we do in P.E. to the degree that it contributes to these metrics, hence the overriding emphasis on Sport, Fitness, Physical Literacy, and Lifelong Physical Activity (because they are assumed to improve health metrics).

P.E.’s WHAT Problems

Because of these WHY problems, Physical Education also suffers from two primary WHAT problems:

1. It has the wrong WHAT. Typically, P.E.’s WHAT is movement, or a notion of Physical Activity that is reduced to movement. And when this limited WHAT is coupled with a dysfunctional WHY, the possibilities for transformative, empowering experiences is severely constrained, thus rendering P.E. ineffective (for far too many) and impotent (in terms of its potential to facilitate well-being for all). I will explain, in part 2, why a better WHAT for P.E. is the Physical or Body (of which movement is a part).
2. Its main WHAT’s are too narrowly conceived. Dominant notions like movement, physical activity, health, body, and physical are typically seen through a reductive lens, leading Educators and Physical Educators on a wild goose chase toward an Ideal Form that is not only unattainable for far too many, but also encourages teachers to view students (and the rest of the world) as objects to be corralled, controlled, disciplined, and fine-tuned. Such an approach disregards the agency of students (and others), limits the construction of positive meanings associated with our medium (our Embodiment), and hinders the development of deeper inter-relationality with others (and not just human others).

In short, we too often design P.E. around the assumption that our WHAT is movement (or Physical Activity) and our WHY is a Healthy Body. If you pay enough attention, you will see that dancing, running, throwing, skipping, playing, competing, and any other “physical activity” is done in P.E. because they will make students more healthy and productive (think about how the grit narrative gets abused and co-opted by P.E. teachers). This is PE as ANesthesia, as an ANaesthetic. It is dead. It doesn’t enliven and enrich (enough).

This wrong WHAT and narrow framing, at least to me, is ineffective for far too many people, and too often obstructs the realization of many of the foundational values and aims of Society (in an American context, these values/aims are located in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence).

Put another way, it inhibits Well-Being for all more than it should.

Part 2 of this series will attempt to provide not only a compelling vision for Education and Physical Education, but a coherent one.

One that:

1. Grounds the visions for Physical Education and Education in the explicit, authoritative visions for the democratic societies within which they live (this article is only concerned with such societies. I have nothing to say here about other types of societies).
2. Grounds Physical Education in a Holistic conception of the Physical and Body, whereby both mean Lived and Relational Body, and is about the development of Embodied Capacities for reasons, and in ways, that contribute productively to democratic aims.

Click HERE to read Part 2.

**Thank you to those who generously offered their feedback before I published this! An extra special thanks to Justen O’Connor for his insights!