The American Crisis in Physical Activity Education

Solving the Problem of Inadequate Physical Activity Education This book is titled “The American Crisis in Physical Activity Education: Confusing Winning at Sport With Total Fitness for All.” You, the reader, may not think that this is indeed a problem, much less a crisis. However, if you will bear with me, I think that as you get into this book, you may eventually agree that the latter–a crisis–is actually the case. Assuming that we are indeed confronted by a problem that has such serious ramifications for our future, what can be done? If these conditions are true, it means that we should assess the evolving situation carefully and then proceed to institute the appropriate remedies to the extent possible. To provide us with an approach that should help to communicate with policy makers at all levels about this ever-increasing problem, I decided to use the five–question approach to the building of effective communication skills recommended by Mark Bowden, a communications specialist (National Post, Canada, 2008 11 24, FP3) Question 1: Where are we now? Question 2. Why are we here? Question 3. Where should we want to be? Question 4. How do we get there? Question 5. What exactly should we do? Without attempting to enumerate specifically where any stumbling blocks might loom in our path, the field of physical activity education should keep in mind the four major processes proposed by March and Simon (The Future of Human Resource Management, 1958, pp. 129-131). They could be employed chronologically, as the field seeks to realize its desired immediate objectives and long-range goal. These four major processes to be followed in the achievement of the desired objectives and goals for the field are as follows: 1. Problem-solving: Basically, what is being proposed here is a problem for the profession of sport and physical activity education to solve or resolve. It must move as soon as possible to convince others that this proposal is truly worthwhile. Part of the approach includes assurance that the objectives are indeed operational (i.e., that their presence or absence can be tested empirically as the field progresses). In this way, even if sufficient funding were not available--and it well might not be--the various parties who are vital or necessary to the success of the venture would at least have agreed-upon objectives. However, with a professional task of this magnitude, it is quite possible, even probable that such consensus will not be achieved initially. But it can be instituted--one step at a time! 2. Persuasion: For the sake of argument, then, let us assume that the objectives on the way toward the achievement of long-range aims are not shared by the others whom the profession needs to convince, people who are either directly or indirectly related to our own field or are in allied fields or related disciplines. On the assumption that the stance of the others is not absolutely fixed or intractable, then this second step of persuasion can (should) be employed on the assumption that at some level our objectives will be shared, and that disagreement over sub-goals can be mediated by reference to larger common goals. (Here the field should keep in mind that influencing specific leaders in each of the various "other" associations and societies with which it is seeking to cooperate can be a most effective technique for bringing about attitude change within the larger membership of our profession everywhere.) Note: If persuasion works, then the parties concerned can obviously return to the problem-solving level (#1). 3. Bargaining: We will now move along to the third stage of a theoretical plan on the assumption that the second step (persuasion) didn't fully work. This means obviously that there is still disagreement over the operational goals proposed at the problem-solving level (the first stage). Now the field has a difficult decision to make: does it attempt to strike a bargain, or do it decide that we simply must "go it alone?" The problem with the first alternative is that bargaining implies compromise, and compromise means that each group involved will have to surrender a portion of its claim, request, or argument. The second alternative may seem more desirable, but following it may also mean eventual failure in achieving the final, most important objective. Note: We can appreciate, of course, that the necessity of proceeding to this stage, and then selecting either of the two alternatives, is obviously much less desirable than settling the matter at either the first or second stages. 4. Politicking: The implementation of the fourth stage (or plan of attack) is based on the fact that the proposed action of the first three stages has failed. The participants in the discussion cannot agree in any way about the main issue. It is at this point that the recognized profession has to somehow expand the number of parties or groups involved in consideration of the proposed project. The goal, of course, is to attempt to include potential allies so as to improve the chance of achieving the desired final objective. Employing so-called "power politics" is bringing such a maneuver into play. However, this is the way the world (or society) works, and the goal may be well worth the risk or danger involved. Note: Obviously, the hope that it will not be necessary to operate at this fourth stage continually in connection with the development of the field. It would be most divisive in many instances and time consuming as well. Therefore, the field would be faced with the decision as to whether this type of operation would do more harm than good (in the immediate future at least).