The previous two chapters have shown clearly that physical-education curricula differ markedly from place to place. There are several appealing models for physical education, and there is evidence that these models can translate into effective school programs.

Yet the issues considered reveal that physical education, as a school subject, is in trouble in May education, as school subject, is in trouble in many ways.

One problem is that there is no common understanding of what physical education should be and what students who study it in school should achieve this has led in recent years to suggestions that there should be a national curriculum in physical education.

The idea of a national curriculum sparks debate among physical educators. Proponents see such a curriculum as providing a badly needed common foundation for skill, knowledge, and fitness.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The common foundation would ensure that students would experience the kinds of activities that would lead to goal achievement, yet it would also be sufficiently flexible to allow for local and regional influences.

The opponents of a national curriculum cite a number of concerns. First, many people fear that a national curriculum would fail to consider local needs and interests. Second, they fear that it would stifle the creativity that leads to new, valuable program ideas. Third, they fear that a national curriculum would comprise only sports and games, since that has been the dominant curricular approach in recent times.

School districts could choose from among these approved curricular models, thus satisfying local interests and needs. The benefit of having districts choose from among curricular models is clear.

It would require each district to conduct a serious discussion about which goals in physical education are most important, then would allow for the adoption of a curriculum designed to achieve those goals.