Implementation Facilitators and Barriers of the Presidential Youth Fitness Program

Thursday, March 19, 2015: 4:24 PM
303 (Convention Center)
Jeanne M. Barcelona1, Hannah G. Calvert1, Jessica Duncan Cance1, Seraphine Pitt-Barnes2, Jane Wargo3 and Darla M. Castelli1, (1)The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, (2)Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, (3)Presidential Youth Fitness Program, Dunkirk, MD
Background/Purpose: The Presidential Youth Fitness Program (PYFP) is a multifaceted program that offers resources to improve student health through fitness and physical activity in order to promote lifelong health. Its primary aim is to enhance fitness education through quality of physical education (PE) programming in schools by providing continual professional development (PD) for teachers, health-related fitness assessments, associated motivational recognition for students, and encouraging communication with students and family.  Given the potential student health related benefits and the multitude of resources for teachers, the PYFP is a useful tool for educators seeking to improve the health of their student body.  The purpose of this study was to investigate the facilitators and barriers to implementation of the PYFP in schools.  

Method: Using a mixed methods approach, three hundred seventy four schools across the US were awarded a PYFP grant, which provided teachers with access to online professional development. As a component of the teacher PD, a twenty question, valid and reliable survey was administered at baseline and at year’s end.  Phone interviews with teachers and site visits with 10% of the sample were also conducted to give meaning to the contextual variables that aided or hindered implementation of the PYFP.

Analysis/Results: Triangulation of the data sources demonstrated that year-end survey results corroborated the findings of the baseline survey suggesting that there were three main facilitators of implementation: provision of resources (77.69%), supportive administration (58.46%), and student desire to receive awards and recognition (40%). Other facilitators (16.15%) included grant money and facilities.  The three key barriers to implementation of the PYFP were technology (81.91%), communication (14.89%), and administrative support (10.64%).  Teacher phone interviews confirmed these findings and provided additional, contextual strategies for overcoming these barriers, such as working at the district level to resolve issues related to the technology.

Conclusions: Physical education teachers identified a variety of facilitators and barriers to PYFP implementation.  Some factors are more modifiable than others.  However, these results indicate that in order to successfully implement the enhanced version of PYFP teachers must be provided with proper resources.  Without access to proper technology and software teachers face an uphill battle toward implementation.  Programs such as the PYFP provide key resources essential for enhancing physical education leading to improved student health and fitness.