Physical Education: Liberate It Or Confine It To The Gymnasium?
by Ian Culpan
Surviving the crisis
Education in New Zealand continues to experience the effects of
the revolution that was promoted by the incoming Labour Government
in 1984. The political agenda at that time included the reorganisation
of the education system along market lines so that it was characterised
by the features of educational accountability, fiscal constraint,
and an orientation to the demands of a market economy and international
competitiveness. This was the third wave of education reform. Lauder
et al. (1988), some of the earliest commentators on this
reform, identified the previous two waves as the provision of universal
primary schooling and the extension of universal schooling into
the secondary and tertiary sectors. In identifying this third wave,
they believed that these reforms were counter-productive to the
earlier attempts to promote achievement through equality of opportunity.
Instead, they maintained that it signalled a rapid reversal of the
comprehensive educational gains made since the turn of the century
and returned New Zealand to an educational system dominated primarily
by market imperatives (Lauder et al., 1988).
Since 1984, the Labour and National administrations have promoted
and, indeed, implemented New Right doctrines and philosophies in
order to achieve the economic and social agendas determined primarily
by the New Zealand Treasury during the early 1980s. The Treasury
provided philosophical and policy advice to both Governments as
they subsequently launched upon the sweeping economic and social
changes which promoted individual responsibility, a reduction in
state spending and labour costs and the implementation of competitive
mechanisms in all areas of the state and civil society in order
to promote increased productivity. This was based on the assumption
that these measures would promote increased economic productivity.
Education, of course, was not to escape what many have termed the
"slash and burn" mentality of this time.
Treasury's views were largely premised on the notion that education
can be viewed as a commodity that is traded in the market place
like any other (Lauder et al., 1988), and thus can be analysed,
assessed, and quantified in economic terms just as any other commodity.
Tinning et al. (1993) refer to this market orientation as
the jobs slot view which regards education primarily as a
training ground for the market place. In this view, it is assumed
that students should be measured by performance, ranked according
to the competitive curriculum, and then set on a path that will
benefit both the individual and the wider economy. Tinning et
al. (1993) argue that this view of the education system allows
little if any space for subjects or curriculum areas that seek to
promote the personal and social development of the individual. It
is argued by advocates of this view that such subjects do not overtly
enhance economic productivity or benefit the market place. The imposition
of the New
Zealand Curriculum Framework
(1993) is an important component of this market driven system.
It argues that:
If we wish to progress as a nation and to enjoy healthy prosperity
in today's and tomorrow's competitive world economy, our education
system must adapt to meet these challenges (Ministry of Education,
1993, p. 1).
The underlying belief here is that market-riven schools will address
the wider social problems which have historically come to be associated
with the dominant liberal progressive approach to education. Hence,
such an approach will solve the problems of:
- poor educational achievement;
- the educational alienation of the working classes;
- the widening gap in academic achievement between the professional
classes and other socio-economic groups;
- a curriculum that has no orientation to the market place; and
- the lack of accountability amongst the teaching profession.
The quest for an education system that would benefit New Zealand's
emerging market economy and the emphasis on personal and institutional
educational accountability demonstrate the exacerbation of competition
between curriculum subject areas (within an already hierarchically
structured system). The concept of competition throughout all areas
of social relations is a fundamental principle of the political
agenda of the National Government. In education it is based on the
assumption that the widespread provision of choice and competition
between institutions will ensure effectiveness and efficiency
within all areas of the system. However, the Ministry of Education
provides mixed messages in relation to the development of this competitive
curriculum. In the Policy Specifications
for a National Curriculum Statement in Health and Physical Education,
it states that:
To ensure delivery of a broad and balanced curriculum, the essential
learning area of Health and Physical Well-being should receive
equal emphasis with the other six essential learning areas up
to Year 10 (Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 6).
This statement suggests that equal emphasis equates with equal
status, equal time and resource allocation. However, in an Education
Gazette article, Dr Maris O'Rourke, the then Secretary for Education,
wrote that:
The New Zealand Curriculum Framework ...(does) ... not
stipulate how much time should be spent on any one essential learning
area. It is up to boards of trustees, the principal and staff
to determine what a balanced curriculum should be for their school
... Schools need to exercise professional judgement in providing
such a balanced curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 2).
While the concept of the decentralisation of decision making has
been central to the implementation of Tomorrow's Schools, the messages
transmitted by these official documents are somewhat confusing.
Does equal emphasis equate to equal time allocations? Does the word
"balance" mean equal weighing ensuring equal status? Apparently
it does not.It would appear that the curriculum openly endorses
the existence of a competitive hierarchy between subject areas.
Thus one has to ask whether a subject such as physical education
which, historically, has had marginal status in the liberal progressive
curriculum will have difficulty surviving? One also has to ask what
kind of "popular" assumptions about prioritising and resourcing
this curriculum area boards of trustees will bring to their curriculum
decision making? As elsewhere, education in New Zealand has (to
different degrees at different historical junctures) emphasised
cognitive and intellectual endeavours as opposed to the practical,
vocationally orientated subjects. Hargreaves attributes this discursive
hegemony to:
The rationalist bias in Western culture (which) entails a radical
separation of body and mind that accords primacy to the mind (1987,
p. 139).
Notwithstanding this bias, however, physical education in New Zealand
over the last decade has undergone some huge curriculum innovations.
These include the development of the National Physical Education
Syllabus in 1987, the introduction of daily physical education and
fitness programmes in the primary schools, Kiwi Sports, a National
Sixth Form Certificate award, the introduction of a Seventh Form
Bursary paper in the senior secondary school and sports education
programmes within timetabled class time for secondary schools.
The New
Zealand Curriculum Framework (1993) identified seven major
learning areas upon which our future primary and secondary school
curriculum was to be based. In this document, physical education
was not identified as one of these but Health and Physical Well-being
was. Physical Education was identified as a field of study within
that learning area. This caused huge concern within the physical
education fraternity as physical educators interpreted it as a move
which threatened the integrity of their subject. Physical educators
saw this as an attempt to redefine the area primarily in terms of
health and, in so doing, to ignore totally the intrinsic values
of physical activity such as satisfaction, fun, pleasure, sensuous
enjoyment, competition, relaxation and playfulness. Furthermore,
the attempt to redefine Physical Education in this way was understood
to threaten the perceived psychological, physiological, cognitive
and emotional benefits of fostering physical growth and development
through a balanced, movement orientated programme as has been the
aim in New Zealand. It also threatened the use of movement as a
valid learning context and medium through which to foster the development
of interpersonal skills. The threat generated a valuable internal
philosophical debate about the wider purposes of the contributions
that physical education makes to the education of young people.
Consequently, written submissions were received by the Ministry
of Education and the NZQA protesting at the apparent oversight.
In summary, the submissions made the following arguments:
- physical well-being is more like an adjective than a
noun;
- physical well-being is an inadequate title to encompass the
breadth of skills and knowledge resulting from a balanced physical
education programme;
- physical education has a history, a philosophy and a body of
knowledge, as well as a research base and an international literature
informing its practice; and
- physical education is about learning through, in and about movement,
whereas physical well-being is not.
I believe the debate which ensued strengthened the resolve of
physical educators to attain more formal recognition for their subject
as a major learning area. Subsequent lobbying and negotiations with
the Ministry of Education led to the name of the learning area being
retained but the curriculum area was to be called Health and Physical
Education. On the advice of their Advisory Group in Health and Physical
Well-being, the NZQA also changed the name of their learning area
from Health and Physical Well-being to Health and Physical Education.
So the tradition continues. But, given the historical and contemporary
marginality accorded to physical education within the formal curriculum,
what is it that allows it to survive? There are several possible
reasons for the survival of this curriculum subject area and its
continued inclusion in the Curriculum Framework.
previous /
back to index / next
|
