Physical Education Today - Planned Obsolescence?
By Neil Williams
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (JOPERD)
The gas-guzzling, tail-finned American cars of the late 1950s and early ‘60s were a symbol of the era – good economic times, emerging middle class freedoms and lifestyles, and planned obsolescence. Those cars weren’t made to last a long time, but they satisfied the immediate desires of consumers. As a result, people bought lots of American cars, and times were good for domestic automakers. At least until the Japanese came along and, in order to compete in the automobile industry, decided to try a new marketing strategy – offer lasting design, quality and durability to win over customer loyalty.
The result of that strategy is that now consumers desire Japanese automobiles, which change little, perform well, and maintain a high resale value for many years. By ignoring the long-term needs of their customers, and concentrating on short-term profits, American automakers did themselves and their customers a great disservice. It seems clear to me that we in physical education today are similarly misjudging our clientele and doing ourselves, our students, and our society a great injustice as well.
The main focus of physical education over the past century, particularly in the secondary schools, has been sports-oriented team activities such as football, soccer, basketball, softball and volleyball. The rationale driving most curricula today still seems to be rooted in the premise that PE classes are the place where future varsity athletes (ratherthan appropriately physically active adults) are prepared. The very nature of this philosophy has been based on short-term gains-just like the American automobile manufacturers’ philosophy of the 1950s. The fact that most adults, rarely, if ever, participate in football, wrestling, gymnastics, hockey, soccer or volleyball after they leave high school seems to matter little in view of short-term goals – victorious varsity teams.
However, secondary school physical educators have the same responsibilities which are the linchpin of all educational endeavors in this nation – to prepare students for lives as productive, responsible, and healthy citizens. Our educational curricular must focus on what is needed by our clients (students) for success as adults in the “real world.” In the National Sporting Goods Association’s annual sport participation survey for this year, the top ten sports and fitness activities were exercise walking, swimming, bike riding, fishing, camping, bowling, exercising with equipment (e.g., weights, rowing machines), billiards/pool, basketball and aerobic exercising.
Few of these activities are included in our physical education curricula at the secondary level. Furthermore, only one of the ten activities is a team sport – the rest are all activities that a person can do alone or with someone else.
How can physical educators expect to be taken seriously by school boards, parents, communities and students if what we are teaching our children has no real application for the vast majority of them in the future? Is it any wonder that our consumers meet our appeals for teaching positions, funding, and respect with disdain when our programs are often poorly engineered by us? With the public’s long-term commitment to health, personal satisfaction, the environment, and physical fitness, why do we insist on giving them flash-in-the-pan glory based on inappropriate and archaic perceptions and values? If we continue to misjudge our clientele, misdirect our programs, and prepare young bodies and minds for middle-age obsolescence, why should be surprised when student, parents, school boards, state legislatures, the federal government, and even the media question the place and value of “gas-guzzling, tail finned” physical education in the public school curriculum?