Content standards collide with P.E. alternatives
(Calif.) Marching band. Reserve Officers Training Corps. Dance and cheer. Rodeo.
California high school students who participate in these and other extra-curricular athletic activities may be excused by their local districts from having to take regular physical education courses required for graduation.
But there is growing concern that these pupils, while physically active, are not receiving the educational content required under state-mandated P.E. standards. Lawmakers who’ve seen several bills in recent years aimed at specifying particular activities as eligible for exemption think it might be time to revisit the rules.
“This does open up a can of worms, so to speak,” Sen. Carol Liu said during a hearing last week on legislation clarifying that participation in high school rodeo can be grounds for a P.E. exemption.
“I hope that we can send some kind of message that somebody at the California Department of Education should be looking at this conundrum we have of people coming before us all the time asking for exemptions,” said Liu, a Democrat from La Canada Flintridge who chairs the Senate Education Committee.
California, attempting to combat an epidemic of obesity among school-age children and teens, was among the first states in the nation to mandate the amount of time students must spend in P.E. class.
The law states that the emphasis should be on physical activity but it also requires that students in grades 9-12 receive instruction in “a developmental sequence” across eight different subject areas.
The California Department of Education, in offering guidance around the related statutes, differentiates between physical activity and physical education, saying: “The terms…are often used interchangeably, but they differ in important ways. Every student needs both a quality PE program and physical activity program.”
The law gives school districts considerable discretion in terms of deciding what programs qualify a student for an exemption from P.E. classes but there are vagaries that cause confusion and uneven application across the state.
This, in part, has led to “spot bills” coming before the Legislature to specifically acknowledge that districts may grant P.E. exemptions for certain activities. None have passed.
In 2009 the CDE issued a letter from then-Superintendent Jack O’Connell addressing several questions around physical education requirements, including whether students in marching band, Junior ROTC and similar type activities could receive P.E. credit for those programs. For the most part, according to the letter, it is ultimately up to the district to decide whether these activities meet the physical education goals laid out by the state.
Last week, the bill from Republican Sen. Jean Fuller of Bakersfield that would add rodeo to the list was passed on by Lui’s committee to the Senate floor for a vote but not before it sparked the discussion about whether further state intervention is warranted.
Cindy Lederer, a P.E. teacher with the Fairfield/Suisun Unified School District and representative of the California Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, voiced her group’s “extreme opposition” to SB 138 saying that while rodeo no doubt offers students a learning opportunity and physical activity, it does not meet the state’s adopted high school content standards for physical education.
“We are very much in support of activities that encourage students to be active both during and beyond the school day,” Lederer told the Senate panel. “But these activities should be highly encouraged to supplement but never supplant quality physical education programs in our schools.”
A spokeswoman for the American Heart and American Stroke Associations expressed opposition toContent standards collide with P.E. alternatives :: SI&A Cabinet Report :: The Essential Resource for Superintendents and the Cabinet:
