But new results from a long-running Australian mega-study suggest that not all phys ed is created equal. Specialized teaching, combined with a focus on lasting activity patterns rather than immediate fitness benefits, produced measurable gains in health and academic performance that emerged after several years – a finding that ties into an ongoing debate about who should teach phys ed in elementary schools.
For details, check out the article or blog post. Two points that I wanted to highlight here:
First, contrary to my expectations, the better results produced by the specialist teachers weren't necessarily the result of them being hard-ass taskmasters pushing the kids to work harder:
“Not once did they get the kids to run laps,” says Dr. Richard Telford, the director of the LOOK study. “In comparison, the control group [with non-specialist teachers] always started with a run around the oval.”
Now at Australian National University, Telford spent several decades at the nearby Australian Institute of Sport, where he first headed the elite sports physiology program and later led Australia’s long-distance running program. Two of the athletes he currently coaches competed in last summer’s Olympic marathon, so he has no objection to running laps – under the right circumstances.
In the context of elementary-school phys ed, he says, “the aim is not to get kids fitter or better at sports; it’s to develop a lifelong love of physical activity.”
Second, how do you find that delicate balance between stimulating and engaging kids' love of competition and putting too much emphasis on winning and losing? We all know that phys ed (and childhood sports more generally) can be a demoralizing experience for some kids. The phys ed curriculum used in the study was developed by the Bluearth Foundation, and their website lists literally hundreds of activities and exercises that they use for various purposes. Here's an example that I found interesting:
Crocodile net In this group game, each student picks two other students without telling anyone: One is their “crocodile” and the other is their “net.” When the game starts, everyone attempts to move so that their net is between them and their crocodile. When the whistle blows, anyone who isn’t in the right position gets eaten.
This game certainly has competition, and it's a group activity with plenty of interaction. But the head-to-head competition is oblique, since no one knows who everyone else's crocodile or net is. I thought that was a pretty neat example of a game that sounds engaging and fun without being too stratifying.