Perspectives of PETE on a National Curriculum in Physical Education

Background/Purpose: Since the publication of ‘A Nation at Risk’ (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), there has been a growing response in the educational community that a nationwide curriculum and national testing are necessary to hold schools accountable for high achievement and ultimately raise educational standards (Apple, 1996). Some scholars believe that conversion to a national curriculum could lead to clearer instructional guidance and more coherent learning goals. This has been widely debated in the United States, where the tradition of local control and state responsibility are dominant. The purpose of this study was to use a Systemic Reform model (Smith & O’Day, 1991) to investigate whether establishing a national curriculum in physical education is reasonable and feasible.

Method: Twenty-four Physical Education Teacher Education scholars from colleges and universities across the United States consented to participate. All participants had served or were currently serving in a leadership capacity at the state or national level in a primary professional organization. Each participant was interviewed using formal and informal questions for approximately 60 minutes. The interviews occurred in person during the 2014 annual SHAPE America National Convention and through phone interviews thereafter.

Analysis/Results: Interview transcripts were inductively and deductively coded using open and axial techniques (Corbin, & Strauss, 2008) and were triangulated by comparing the responses of individuals employed at different types of institutions. Results indicated that the majority of participants oppose the idea of developing a national curriculum because the rigidity and inflexibility of such a system would not allow implementation in the culturally, geographically, and climatically diverse U.S. school context. In addition, they believe that a national curriculum would not be readily accepted in the United States due to the strong tradition of local and state governance of curriculum, the multi-layered educational policy structure, and the anticipated resistance of teachers, schools, and states to change.

Conclusions: In order to allow for both educational consistency and flexibility in the United States, the content and pedagogical requirements of a national curriculum must be conceptualized. Employing a national curriculum would require long-term planning to determine the scope, sequence, breadth, and depth of the changes. This would include how to specify the appropriate motor skills and knowledge to be assessed; supply adequate resources and funding for each school district; foster collaboration between multi-level administrative groups, professional organizations, and schools; and promote pre- and in-service professional development.