Background/Purpose Despite an increase in state mandates for PE, no evidence exists regarding how local districts implement them. One reason may be the ambiguity of mandates. Ambiguously written statutes result in varied interpretations and implementation. The purpose of this study was to analyze state PE policies' Statutory Ambiguity and resulting legal implications.
Method Policies were retrieved from state government websites, LexisNexis, and Westlaw. The second author, a lawyer, trained in the legal analysis method of Statutory Interpretation analyzed statutes using Textualist Theory and performed a comprehensive review of literature to investigate how courts resolve education-related litigation.
Analysis/Results Meaning could not be determined textually for a majority of PE statutes. An inadequate definition of PE provision and instructional time requirements, therefore, requires statutory interpretation from those implementing them. This results in significant variability of how authorities interpret statutes and decreasing the likelihood of consistent interpretation or adherence to the NASPE National Guidelines for quality PE. Without clear guidance from the statute, district level interpretation of PE statutes leads to arbitrary and educationally unsound implementation of which there is little judicial oversight (or intervention).
Conclusions Statutory Ambiguity and minimal judicial oversight in the interpretation of PE policies necessitates more precise language in PE statutes and additional legislative action. PE statutes do not allow private challenges to the quality of school-district administered PE which reduces the likelihood of judicial involvement in their interpretation. Thus, educators and school boards are responsible for interpreting PE statutes with limited, if any, judicial oversight or qualification.