With all this talk about how necessary physical education is for improving children’s cognition, mental health, and physical health, you would think it’s a “no-brainer” to simply demand that all schools in Arizona revamp their curriculum to include a well-rounded physical education program that aligns with the national recommendations (SHAPE America, 2018) as part of the daily offerings along with English, math and science. Right? Well, let’s take a look at some of the costs of starting a physical education program:

• certified trained physical education instructors
• a physical education curriculum
• standards in which to evaluate student achievement
• equipment and facilities

Altogether, some estimates are as high as $500,000 per school to start a physical education program (Dakss, 2005).

However, let’s take a look at some of the costs of NOT providing physical education in school. First, when looking at the cost of the rising obesity epidemic, a study reported by the Duke Global Health Institute (2019) estimates the lifetime cost of childhood obesity to be $19,000 per child. If you took this number and multiplied it by the number of obese 10-year-old children in the US, the lifetime cost of obesity is around $14 billion. This calculation is based on the variety of medical issues that result from obesity, such as type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease. This number does not calculate in the mental health consequences of obesity in addition to the physical consequences, and since we know that physical education has a protective affect against depression, that number should be considered as well. Unfortunately, there isn’t much research available that appraises the financial burden of depression in children, making this estimate a bit harder to come by (Lynch & Clarke, 2006). Even without factoring in a dollar amount related to the mental health repercussions from lack of physical activity, most economists agree that healthcare spending is trending in an unsustainable direction.

But, the costs of removing physical education from schools do not stop there. What about the excellent cognitive effects of physical education? A tremendous amount of research has demonstrated that physical education also helps children’s brains develop better, which result in better grades. A recent study demonstrated that children’s high school GPAs were directly correlated to their future earning potential (Marte, 2014). For every one-point increase in a student’s GPA, there was an annual salary increase of $12,000-$14,000. Notably, an increase in GPA also correlated with an increase in likelihood that the student will continue to pursue and complete higher education after high school. The cumulative income lost over the course of a lifetime due to lower academic achievement in high school could very well put some individuals in a completely different income bracket.

Without even breaking out my calculator, I can begin to see a clear picture that the cost of not providing physical education far outweighs the cost of implementing a physical education program; and since the benefit of physical education can be shared across both the healthcare and education sectors, then it seems only fair that the funding come from both of those branches. In my interview with Scott Turner a couple of weeks ago, he shared with me his idea for funding and sustaining a physical education reform plan. It involved taking one percent of the preventative healthcare budget along with a portion of the education budget to create the physical education funds that would be overseen using a shared-governance model. Once physical education programs have been established in public schools, then the burden would be to prove a return on investment (ROI, for those business majors) demonstrating decreased healthcare spending on preventable diseases in order to validate long-term sustainability. I must admit, his plan sounded genius to me. We just have to make it sound genius to the policy-makers who will determine whether or not a plan like this will ever come into fruition. These days, though, it seems a better question to ask rather than ‘who will pay to start physical education reform’ is ‘who is going to pay if we don’t.’ The answer is: all of us.

Dakss, B. (2005). Obesity Up Phys Ed Down. CBSNews.com. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obesity-up-phys-ed-down/
 
Duke Global Health Institute. (2014). Over a lifetime, childhood obesity costs $19,000 per child. Retrieved from https://globalhealth.duke.edu/media/news/over-lifetime-childhood-obesity-costs-19000-child
 
Lynch, F. L., & Clarke, G. N. (2006). Estimating the economic burden of depression in children and adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31(6), 143-151. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.07.001
 
Marte, J. (2014). Here’s how much your high school grades affect your future salary. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/20/heres-how-much-your-high-school-grades-predict-how-much-you-make-today/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.53ea8f06ceb1
 
SHAPE America. (2018). Physical Education Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.shapeamerica.org/standards/guidelines/peguidelines.aspx
 
Turner, S. (2019, March 1). Interview by A. R. Krick [Voice memos recording]. Private Sector Innovation Policy Advancements Related to Physical Education. Copy in possession of author. Phoenix, AZ.

Things have come a long way since the days I attended PE classes in the 1980’s. There have been quite a few noteworthy technological advancements since then when it comes to tracking and assessing fitness. Fitnessgram, an assessment tool to measure physical fitness, is the national test of the Presidential Youth Fitness Program (The Cooper Institute, 2014). It is widely used in many schools to assess children’s fitness levels. The major assessment areas of the Fitnessgram are body composition, aerobic capacity, flexibility, muscular strength, and muscular endurance. All of these areas can be measured without the assistance of technology; however, the advent of the bioelectrical impedance analyzer has allowed for more accurate analysis of body composition in the last couple decades. Barring that change, the bigger technological innovation being offered by Fitnessgram more recently, is the availability of reporting software that allows the individual students, parents, and educators to access the Fitnessgram results electronically. This is being solicited as a reporting package that can be purchased by schools or districts. Reports can be compiled using collective data for schools and entire districts, and these reports can then be used to demonstrate trends and subsequent areas of need for physical education.

Of course, it’s almost impossible to talk about technological innovations like this—especially ones that involve children—without talking about the privacy implications. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, otherwise known as COPPA, is a law that took effect in 2000 and is aimed at protecting the privacy of children under 13 years of age (TechTarget, 2019). Additionally, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is another federal law that protects the privacy of education archives pertaining to students (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). Fitnessgram collects and uses personal information in compliance with COPPA and FERPA and uses industry standard information technology measures to protect personal information collected and stored in the software.

Other ways technology is being integrated into physical education is the use of tracking tools like pedometers or heart rate monitors (School Specialty, 2017). Pedometers are most likely one of the first things one thinks of when it comes to tracking physical activity and are commonly used in research studies as reliable tools for a wide range of ages. With the eruptions of mobile technology, some physical educators have even taken to using mobile phone apps to track activity and incentivize students to move more by challenging them to complete certain tasks, like walking a certain distance in a week’s time. Given the rapidly growing popularity of new technologies among children and adolescents, physical education teachers are having to adapt quickly in order to use this to their advantage and capitalize on the potential to keep students engaged and active.

The Cooper Institute. (2014). Fitnessgram. Retrieved from http://www.cooperinstitute.org/fitnessgram

School Specialty. (2017). Six ways to integrate technology into physical education. Retrieved from https://blog.schoolspecialty.com/6-ways-integrate-technology-physical-education/
 
TechTarget. (2019). Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Retrieved from https://searchcrm.techtarget.com/definition/COPPA
 
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

This week I am discussing private sector policy advancements related to physical education. I had the pleasure of sitting down with Dr. Scott Turner last week and our conversation proved to be extremely illuminating when it comes to understanding the full scope of what it takes to advance physical activity and physical education in Arizona schools. First, though, let me tell you a little bit about Dr. Turner. It is a bit of an understatement to say he wears a lot of hats: he is the founder of Edunuity, which is a nonprofit organization that advocates for health and education policies. He is also the President and CEO of Healthy Future US, which is aiming to address the chronic illness epidemic (e.g., obesity, diabetes) through better nutrition and increased physical activity amongst school-aged children. Additionally, he is involved in the Empower Youth Health Program as a member of the leadership team, and he was actively involved the efforts to addend Arizona’s A-F school grading formula to include indicators for physical, health and arts education, a complex project that is still ongoing. Dr. Turner also had a hand in the recent Recess Bill that Governor Ducey signed into law last year that mandated public schools provide two recesses to children in kindergarten through the third grade during the school day. This is hardly an all-encompassing look at Dr. Turner’s resume, but it goes without saying that when it comes to physical health education, Dr. Turner is a great man to talk to and his passion for improving the health of Arizonans through quality physical and health education programs is evident when you speak to him.

His most recent efforts have been focused on demonstrating a practical method to measure physical and health education outcomes now that an agreement has been reached to implement physical, health and arts education indicators on Arizona’s A-F school grading formula. This involves launching a pilot program in select schools who will perform fitness testing on their students. One really important thing I learned talking with Dr. Turner is how easily unintended consequences can result from public policy. For this reason, he is also recommending monitoring physical activity as well as nutrition habits in the initial phase of the pilot in an effort to avoid “teaching to the A-F test”. Not to digress, but this point was really important for me to hear. I often have a laser-focused idea of what I believe would solve a problem—a silver bullet if you will. And, if you’ve been following my blog, you know that I can often over-simplify the answer to any question. Discussing unintended consequences with Dr. Turner gave me a healthy dose of reality and a much more well-rounded view of all of the effort, planning, and forecasting it takes to truly change the current culture and implement physical and health education reform.

Now, back to pilot… in order to fund this trial, Dr. Turner developed and introduced an appropriations bill, SB 1399, this past month. It received its first and second reading and was passed unanimously through the Senate Education Committee. It is now awaiting the Senate Appropriations Committee.

As I wait over the next days to weeks to learn the outcome of SB 1399, I am reminded of something Dr. Turner mentioned during my interview. When reflecting on why we haven’t been able to turn the statistics around for preventable chronic diseases in the last 40 years, he expressed the difficulty in getting individuals to change their habits. He emphasized the need to approach this complex problem from a variety of angles, and—unlike the silver bullet strategy I spoke of earlier—each piece to the solution needs to implemented in parallel so they can work synergistically. For example, many states have mandatory fitness testing or mandatory physical education assessments, yet they are not connected to the A-F formula, leaving the schools without much incentive to improve. He aims to fill in the gaps and implement a more integrative approach to chronic disease prevention by connecting the pieces that incentivize people to change their behaviors.

If SB 1399 passes, this could be the beginning to a much-needed change in trajectory for physical education in Arizona schools.

I want to extend my deepest gratitude to Dr. Scott Turner for the time he took out of his incredibly busy schedule to talk with me.

References
Turner, S. (2019, March 1). Interview by A. R. Krick [Voice memos recording]. Private Sector Innovation Policy Advancements Related to Physical Education. Copy in possession of author. Phoenix, AZ

Public sector institutions have a large influence on where public schools place their priorities. At the highest level is the United States Department of Education. According to their website, the federal role in the United States education system is a limited one, as they defer much of the education policy to the states and local municipalities via the Tenth Amendment¹. However, that didn’t stop the federal government from implementing one the of the most influential pieces of legislation in 2001 that many experts feel is responsible for the continual decrease of physical education in public schools. As noted in last weeks’ blog, the No Child Left Behind Act was introduced 18 years ago². Broadly speaking, this piece of legislation did two things:

• It sought to reform public schools by focusing on more class time related to the core academic subjects, which it defined as English, mathematics, and science.
• It tied financial incentive to schools that met the passing scores on standardized tests in those subjects.

Pertinent policies and guidance administered at the federal level by the U.S. Department of Education include¹:

• Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), and its subsequent amendments—No Child Left Behind is an amendment of the ESEA
• Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
• Higher Education Act
• Civil Rights

At the state level, more specifically, in Arizona, there is the Arizona Department of Education (ADE)³. The ADE is the only institution at the state-level that is commanded by a publicly elected official, the Superintendent of Public Instruction³. The Superintendent is responsible for implementing policies for the ADE as well as state education laws.

At a local level, there are school districts. As of 2013, Arizona has 666 school districts that are governed by some type of governing board, either elected or appointed⁴. The boards conduct the official business of the school and also helps determine policies at the district level.

An example of the complex dance between the federal and state public sectors as it relates to Arizona’s education can be seen with the American initiative Common Core. Common Core was developed by the National Governors Association and provides benchmarks for English-language-arts, and mathematics⁵, although the implementation must take place at the state level. This is partly because the state officials already possess authority over the development of curriculum and assessments, but also because there has historically been a lot of controversy with the federal governments’ involvement in the education standards⁶. Thus, the Common Core standards were adopted by the Arizona Board of Education in 2010. However, in 2014, Governor Jan Brewer announced the intention to depart from the entity that developed the standardized examinations that aligned with the Common Core initiative. Since then, there were multiple bills that were introduced in 2015 at the Arizona State Legislature that would place the onus on the individual school districts to create their own standards, or even rescind the Common Core testing altogether. None of the bills were passed; however, the Arizona Board of Education did vote to create a separate committee to oversee the implementation of Common Core standards⁷.

So, as one can see, navigating the public sector institutions and policies that relate to education can be very complex. Physical education, though, is even more multifaceted when you consider the convergence of educational public sectors and policies with health public sectors and policies. The argument can be made that physical education is both a health issue and an education issue.

1. U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.) Laws and Guidance. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/landing.jhtml?src=go
2. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). No child left behind act of 2001. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
3. Arizona Department of Education. (2019). About ADE. Retrieved from https://www.azed.gov/adeinfo/
4. Arizona Department of Health Services. (2014). Understand Arizona’s education system. Retrieved from https://www.azahcccs.gov/Resources/Downloads/BehavioralHealthReports/Education_System_Manual.pdf
5. Common Core States Standard Initiative. (2019). About the standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/
6. Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Common Core state standards initiative. Retrieved from https://ballotpedia.org/Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative
7. Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Public education in Arizona. Retrieved from https://ballotpedia.org/Public_education_in_Arizona

One may wonder how physical education came to take a backseat to the “core subjects” in our public schools. While we’re on the subject—no pun intended—what exactly are “core subjects?” Well, let me take you back a few years to 2001 when George W. Bush was president of the United States, and he introduced into legislation the No Child Left Behind Act¹. The stated intention behind this law was to close the students’ academic achievement gap, which included schoolwide reform strategies to, “increase the amount and quality of learning time” dedicated to the “core academic subjects.” ¹ Now, the entire PDF document explaining the language in the No Child Left Behind Act is 669 pages long, so there is a lot more in this act than just simply increasing the amount of time focused on the core academic subjects, but trust me when I say that this becomes one of the central themes of that piece of legislation, and ultimately becomes the catalyst that many believe was the beginning of the end of physical education in our school system². It took some searching through the document, but I was finally able to find in Section 1705 where it explicitly calls out English, mathematics, and science as the core academic areas that are frequently referenced throughout. The significance of this act is that it linked federal monies to the standardized test scores in those core subjects. This expanded the role of government in evaluating students and categorizing schools accordingly². No one wanted the dreaded title of a failing school, and thus more and more class time became focused on meeting the testing requirements; after all, there’s only so many hours in a school day.

In May of 2014, the Arizona State Board of Education passed new standards for physical education in Arizona. The concepts of the new physical education standards are consistent with those that are outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and SHAPE America; however, they do not specify the number of minutes per week of PE that should be offered by public schools. Remember that the CDC and SHAPE America recommend 150 minutes of PE per week for K-5^th grade, and 225 minutes of PE per week for 6^th grade through high school^3,4. Without any recommendation in the Arizona PE standards for how much PE to provide, along with competing priorities to increase student’s passing scores in core subjects, mixed with financial incentivization from the government, it’s not hard to believe that most middle and high schools in Arizona only require ONE single PE class in order to graduate⁵. That’s one class in four years. To add another layer of interest to this conversation, I want to remind you that the Arizona state statues do not require that PE scores even be reported to the public, as they do for English-language-arts (ELA), math, and science⁶. So, at the end of the day, we don’t know which schools are providing PE, how much they might be providing, and how well the students are learning the concepts.

This is one example of how simply providing a recommendation does not produce the desired results when it is not enforced. Meaning, enforced by law.

But What About the New Recess Law?

As many have heard, last year in 2018, Governor Ducey signed legislation that required K-5^th schools to provide two recess periods to students⁷. This seems like it would be a win for physical education advocates; however, some points of clarification need to be made. Firstly, there is no requirement for how long the recess needs to be. It does specify, though, that lunch can be counted as one of the two recess periods. This can lead to students either (a) skipping lunch in order to play, or (b) cramming their food down in order to play. Sounding good so far? The worse alternative is that (c) the students won’t do anything at all. See, recess has no requirement other than the student is given the option to interact with other students. Unlike a structured physical education program, recess doesn’t teach all of the health and science concepts in addition to the physical activity, nor does it evaluate the student’s understanding of it. If given the option for a recess, some students will engage in physical activity, but others will not. This makes it very hard to know if the benefits of recess are being evenly distributed to all of the students. Unfortunately, my further concern is that the students who may benefit the most from physical activity may be the least likely to engage in it during recess, further widening the disparities that already exist in the children. The dirty truth is that recess is no substitution for a high-quality physical education program.

1. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). No child left behind act of 2001. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
2. Arizona Sonora News. (2012). Arizona’s decline in physical education. Retrieved from https://arizonasonoranewsservice.com/arizonas-decline-in-physical-education/
3. SHAPE America. (2017). Physical education guidelines. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_4Fhdo7GAPgJ:www.shapeamerica.org/standards/guidelines/peguidelines.cfm+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
4. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (USDHHS), Division of Population Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Current physical activity guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/prevention/policies_practices/physical_activity/guidelines.htm
5. AZ Central. (2015). How Arizona’s new PE standards aim to help students become ‘physically literate.’ Retrieved from https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/chandler/2015/09/01/chandler-tarwater-physical-education-class/71315646/
6. Arizona Department of Education. (2017). Accountability and research. Retrieved from http://www.azed.gov/accountability-research/reportcards/
7. Tucson.com. (2018). Arizona governor signs law requiring more school recesses. Retrieved from https://tucson.com/news/local/arizona-governor-signs-law-requiring-more-school-recesses/article_31893fb4-d47a-5fba-829c-94ffe10c29c4.html

So, I made a bold move last week. I not only suggested that physical education in school is a good idea, but I took it a step further and proposed that we make it a law.

Everyone, welcome to the world of health policy.

Let’s start by defining some potentially intimidating terms. First, what is health policy? A health policy is any authoritative decision made in any of the three branches of our government—legislative, executive, judicial—that guide or influence our pursuit of health¹. Unfortunately, though, these authoritative decisions are made by humans. And as we all know and personally experience, humans are often subject to fault and will make decisions based on self-serving intentions and not for the good of all people involved. This is where ethics enters the scene.

What are ethics and how do they impact health policies?

Broadly speaking, ethics is a set of moral principles that guide how an individual conducts themselves². In the creation of health policy, there are four main principles that should serve as a guide for anyone involved in the policy-making process¹:

• Justice – The benefits of a health policy are distributed fairly (they don’t benefit only one group)
• Beneficence – The policy maximizes the benefits to humanity as a whole
• Nonmaleficence – The policy should not harm anyone
• Respect for other’s autonomy – Respect that people are entitled to their own beliefs and that they have the right to make decisions that honor those beliefs

So, how does a policy directed at enforcing physical education in school hold up against the four ethical principles?

Let’s talk about justice first, as I think this is one of the more powerful points to be made about physical education. There have been a multitude of studies that have been performed that look at the effects of physical education and physical activity on school-aged children’s cognition, or mental processes. The results were very compelling that physical education does positively impact children’s cognition, resulting in greater academic outcomes^3,4,5,6,7. More simply put, when children got daily physical education, they got better grades. What’s more impressive, though, is that from study to study, the ages, socioeconomic status, genders, and ethnicity of the children varied. This means that physical education was demonstrated to improve all children’s mental processes, not just girls, not just boys, not just Caucasian children, or those in higher income brackets. Everyone. That is powerful. Even more, when compared to factors such as gender or ethnicity, physical fitness has been demonstrated to be the only significant predictor of academic success⁸. If this is true, implementing physical education as a standard in every school may have the ability to level the playing field, so to speak, and provide an equal opportunity for all children to overcome some of the social determinants of health that ultimately affect their brain development and future opportunities. Imagine the possibilities. If this doesn’t fulfill the principle of justice, I don’t know what would.

In the context of a physical education policy, the principle of beneficence is closely aligned with justice, in that it requires decisions to be made with the good of all society in mind, and that the burdens and benefits are fairly equal. I believe the benefits to children—who inevitably become adults—has been adequately demonstrated. Perhaps this is where one might want to consider the burden of this kind of policy as it relates to teachers and education budgets; however, I will address that in a subsequent blog devoted to the discussion of healthcare financing.

Nonmaleficence—the concept of doing no harm—is well reflected in this policy topic. It is not only important to acknowledge that children’s cognition and grades improve when physical education is introduced into their school day, but it is also noteworthy that grades improved even when there was less time devoted to the study of core subjects such as math and science. The reason this is important to understand is to be able to address any concerns people may have with extending the school day or altering their schedules in any way. In the majority of studies, the physical activity intervention was incorporated into the normal school day, with no disturbances to the parent’s, children’s or teacher’s schedules. Additionally, in one study, the children who did not receive the physical education intervention (the control group) actually experienced a decrease in their test scores from baseline (as opposed to the experimental group who received the physical education intervention and demonstrated an increase in test scores)³. While this was not statistically significant, this observation raised questions as to the harm that can arise from not providing physical education in our schools. This policy would aim to address that question.

Finally, respect for autonomy is probably the most ambiguous principles when it comes to policies of any kind. After all, if the fundamental concept of respect for autonomy simply means that we must respect people’s right to make their own decisions, then why make policies at all? As autonomy relates to policies, it concerns the rights that individuals have that are intrinsic to their U.S. citizenship. It also includes other aspects such as honesty, confidentiality, and keeping one’s word. When policymakers engage their constituents with honesty and fidelity, while keeping their promises and respecting our rights as U.S. citizens, the resulting policies will be more ethically aligned¹. Ultimately, I believe that a policy directed toward requiring physical education in our public schools is ethically sound and more than clearly demonstrates a strong degree of justice and benefit to our society, while displaying no harm or conflict with individuals’ rights as a U.S. citizen.

1. Longest, B.B. Jr. (2010).  Health policymaking in the United States (5th ed.). Chicago, IL:  Health Administration Press.          

2. Merriam-Webster. (2019). Ethic. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic

3. Fedewa, A.L., Ahn, S., Erwin, H., & Davis, M.C. (2015). A randomized controlled design investigating the effects of classroom-based physical activity on children’s fluid intelligence and achievement. School Psychology International, 36(2), 135-153. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1177/0143034314565424

4. Kall, L.B., Nilsson, M., & Linden, T. (2014). The Impact of a Physical Activity Intervention Program on Academic Achievement in a Swedish Elementary School Setting. Journal of School Health, 84(8), 473-480. doi: 10.1111/josh.12179

5. Kall, L.B., Malmgren, H., Olsson, E., Linden, T., & Nilsson, M. (2015). Effects of a Curricular Physical Activity Intervention on Children’s School Performance, Wellness, and Brain Development. Journal of School Health, 85(10), 704-713. doi: 10.1111/josh.12303

6. McClelland, E., Pitt, A., & Stein, J. (2015). Enhanced academic performance using a novel classroom physical activity intervention to increase awareness, attention and self-control: Putting embodied cognition into practice. Improving Schools, 18(1), 83. doi:10.1177/1365480214562125

7. Ardoy, D. N., Fernandez-Rodriguez, J. M., Jimenez-Pavon, D., Catillo, R., Ruiz, J. R., & Ortega, F. B. (2014). A physical education trial improves adolescents’ cognitive performance and academic achievement: the EDUFIT study. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(1), 52-61. doi: 10.1111/sms.12093

8. Lorenz, K.A., Stylianoub, M., Moorec, S., & Kulinna, P.H. (2017). Does fitness make the grade? The relationship between elementary students’ physical fitness and academic grades. Health Education Journal, 76(3), 302-312. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1177/0017896916672898

“Academic achievement is directly related to aerobic fitness.” 

Lorenz, K.A., Stylianoub, M., Moorec, S., & Kulinna, P.H. (2017). Does fitness make the grade? The relationship between elementary students’ physical fitness and academic grades. Health Education Journal, 76(3), 302-312. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1177/0017896916672898

For many of us, going to PE classes every day in school was just an accepted part of our childhood growing up. These days when I ask parents if their children are currently taking physical education classes, I receive a variety of quizzical looks and responses, but the answer is rarely a hard “yes.” You see, in the state of Arizona, there is no requirement in the statutes that physical education be offered in public schools. There are, however, laws that require schools to provide and report the scores for English language arts (ELA), math, and science to the public. You can find these scores online in the Arizona Report Card for every school and school district in Arizona¹. But, when it comes to physical education, every school is left to its own judgement as to whether or not they will offer PE, and if so, how much. Also, I’ve come to learn, because PE isn’t required by law to be reported on the Arizona Report Card, it is difficult to determine which schools offer PE and which do not. While there are national guidelines from the Society of Health and Physical Educators and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that recommend 150 minutes of PE per week for K-5^th grade, and 225 minutes of PE per week for 6^th grade through high school^2,3, only 4% of primary, 8% of secondary, and 2% of high schools adhere to these recommendations by providing PE on a daily basis for the entire school year⁴.

So why are more and more schools providing less and less PE? 

Many speculate that the increasing focus on academic outcomes and has dwindled the amount of time devoted to physical education⁵. Is this a counterintuitive strategy, though? Could we be doing more harm than good? What difference does physical education make in children? And does it even matter if it disappears from our education system?

What does the science tell us about PE?

It may not surprise most people to know that physical education is linked to consistent daily activity, which is beneficial to children’s health⁶. For this reason, one can say physical education plays a vital role in the realm of public health because it teaches health assets that can be used to maintain good health throughout the lifespan⁷. This is of particular interest to me and my role as a future family nurse practitioner. You could say I’m in the business of health—maintaining health or restoring health—it’s what I do. However, daily physical activity can not only benefit the student’s physical health, but also has significant impact on cognitive function. Another way to put it: physical education can impact children’s academic success. But, please, don’t take my word for it. Numerous studies have demonstrated that introducing regular physical activity to children throughout the school day produces higher academic outcomes in core subjects such as math and reading^8,9,10. What’s even more impressive is the margin of improvement in national standardized exam scores were particularly helpful for students that were previously struggling academically in the lower 20^th percentile¹¹. In fact, physical fitness has been shown to be the only significant predictor for academic success when compared to other factors such as gender or ethnicity⁵. Not only does regular participation in physical activity demonstrate an increase in cognitive ability, but the intensity of the physical activity makes a difference as well. In children who participated in the same PE class but with increased intensity with a goal to elevate the heart rate above 120 beats per minute, both cognitive ability and academic performance were improved after only 4 months¹². 

So, if PE is really this beneficial to both the mind and body, why isn’t it required to be offered in school and reported publicly in the same way math or science is? Well, I believe it’s the same reason drivers didn’t use seat belts until New York enacted the first seat belt law in 1984, with other states quickly following over the next few years. Perhaps the public didn’t have all the facts about how helpful seat belts were. But even when most people could agree that seat belts saved lives, there was still hesitancy to use them until the law demanded we did. My goal is to get the information about physical education out into the world, educate our parents, teachers, children, and legislators, and advocate for an amendment to the Arizona State Statutes to require physical education programs be included in public schools and reported on the Arizona Report Card.

1. Arizona Department of Education. (2017). Accountability and research. Retrieved from http://www.azed.gov/accountability-research/reportcards/
2. SHAPE America. (2017). Physical education guidelines. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_4Fhdo7GAPgJ:www.shapeamerica.org/standards/guidelines/peguidelines.cfm+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
3. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (USDHHS), Division of Population Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Current physical activity guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/prevention/policies_practices/physical_activity/guidelines.htm
4. American Heart Association and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Voices for Healthy Kids. (n.d.). About the issue. Retrieved from https://physicaleducation.voicesforhealthykids.org/about-the-issue/
5. Lorenz, K.A., Stylianoub, M., Moorec, S., & Kulinna, P.H. (2017). Does fitness make the grade? The relationship between elementary students’ physical fitness and academic grades. Health Education Journal, 76(3), 302-312. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1177/0017896916672898
6. National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE). (2004). Moving into the future: National standards for physical education (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://wheresmype.org/downloads/NASPE%20Standards%202004.pdf
7. NASPE. (2015). The essential components of physical education. Retrieved from https://www.shapeamerica.org/uploads/pdfs/TheEssentialComponentsOfPhysicalEducation.pdf
8. Fedewa, A.L., Ahn, S., Erwin, H., & Davis, M.C. (2015). A randomized controlled design investigating the effects of classroom-based physical activity on children’s fluid intelligence and achievement. School Psychology International, 36(2), 135-153. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1177/0143034314565424
9. Kall, L.B., Nilsson, M., & Linden, T. (2014). The Impact of a Physical Activity Intervention Program on Academic Achievement in a Swedish Elementary School Setting. Journal of School Health, 84(8), 473-480. doi: 10.1111/josh.12179
10. Kall, L.B., Malmgren, H., Olsson, E., Linden, T., & Nilsson, M. (2015). Effects of a Curricular Physical Activity Intervention on Children’s School Performance, Wellness, and Brain Development. Journal of School Health, 85(10), 704-713. doi: 10.1111/josh.12303
11. McClelland, E., Pitt, A., & Stein, J. (2015). Enhanced academic performance using a novel classroom physical activity intervention to increase awareness, attention and self-control: Putting embodied cognition into practice. Improving Schools, 18(1), 83. doi:10.1177/1365480214562125
12. Ardoy, D. N., Fernandez-Rodriguez, J. M., Jimenez-Pavon, D., Catillo, R., Ruiz, J. R., & Ortega, F. B. (2014). A physical education trial improves adolescents’ cognitive performance and academic achievement: the EDUFIT study. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(1), 52-61. doi: 10.1111/sms.12093