Every child has a right to be healthy, happy, and have opportunities to fulfill his or her aspirations for the future. The pivotal role of schools in promoting healthy lifestyles and attitudes is present in every nation and country. In the school curriculum, the subject designed specifically for this objective was Physical Education (PE). In the contemporary context, however, PE has largely been taken over by health promotion.
Health promotion does include PE and health education and should be supplemented by effective public health policy, as without such policy education alone cannot achieve much (Capel, 2004).
Every pupil in the school has a right to participate in quality physical and health education and sports games regardless of their age, culture, class, and physical and mental abilities. In the United Kingdom, every child spends at least two hours per week participating in high-quality PE classes. There are a variety of ways in which children benefit from spending time studying this subject. Some of them are: enhancement of self-confidence through sport competence; achieving positive attitudes towards general education; receiving basic skills and knowledge for a healthy and active lifestyle, balanced development of mind and body, benefits for cognitive development, etc (Penney, 2002).
This paper aims to analyze and review the effectiveness of provisions made for school pupils between ages of 5-11 years of age for promoting physical activity based on various printed and electronic sources published primarily within the last 5 years. It will also discuss the correlation between PE and health education and promotion.
The paper will focus on the processes and achievements in the United Kingdom, some comparisons, however, to the international experience will be made.
The literature review will take place in the context of contemporary gender, culture, age, and class issues, and will also include epidemiological aspects.
The vital need for health promotion, especially in terms of secondary education has been highlighted by the science of epidemiology – the study of factors that influence the health and illnesses of people. It serves as a foundation for the principles of public health and preventive medicine.
Epidemiology studies the numbers of people (animals) that have the disease, its outcomes, as well as those factors that affect its circulation and outcomes. This science is deeply interconnected with health education and especially with health promotion as it serves as a basis for their principles and strategies (Macdonald, 1998).
Epidemiology is vital for health promotion in two ways: in terms of distribution of disease and determinants of disease. The study of the distribution of disease helps to promote health by identifying the initial steps for preventing diseases (Macdonald, 2003). Many of these studies are concentrated on the data obtained on the day to day basis: mortality rates, medical records, infectious disease notifications, etc. In some cases, particular diseases are studied within a group of people for a certain amount of time through a representative sample (Bunton, Macdonald, 2002).
There has been a tendency, however, to rely in excess on epidemiology in developing health promotion programs. Epidemiology alone provides a narrow view of health if it underestimates other health-related studies, as to benefit one fully, the science has to concentrate on physical, mental, and social aspects of health (Wiegand, Bulger, & Mohr, 2004).
According to Tannahill’s model (1990), there are three main areas of health promotion: health education, health prevention, and health protection all of which overlap and comprise a single integrated system of health promotion (Mowling, Brock, Eiler, Rudisill, 2004). Although this model is criticized for not taking into consideration the sociological aspects of health promotion and illness causes, it serves as a good ground for exploring the topic of health promotion, particularly in the framework of school education, and will be used in this paper as a context for discussing health promotion in a school setting in the United Kingdom.
The model can also be broken down into further categories: preventive services, preventive health education, preventative health protection, health education for preventive health protection, positive health education, positive health protection, and health education aimed at positive health protection (Mawer. 1996).
Tannahill’s model is especially effective in creating health promotion programs for specific diseases or risk factors. It is used to create programs for key groups (communities) rather than particular disease categories (Sage, 2003).
It should be noted that although health education and health promotion are terms that are sometimes used as synonyms, their meanings differ. Health education mainly focused on illnesses and diseases as a consequence of unhealthy lifestyle, it had little or no consideration for environmental, sociological, economic, and other aspects that influences people’s health and well-being (Collins, Amodeo, 2005). It was largely directed at motivating people to change their unhealthy behaviors and inform them about ways of prevention (Butler, 2006).
Health promotion is a broader term and in addition to the aspects of health education, it also encompasses the influence and responsibility of sociological aspects in building a healthy lifestyle (Penney, 2004). In the contemporary context, health promotion receives higher levels of attention as it provides a more holistic approach towards teaching young children the basics of a healthy lifestyle and the role of physical activity in daily life. In some countries of the world, the term physical education is no longer existent as it is substituted by more inclusive subjects that concentrate not only on physical performance but on other aspects of health and human wellbeing as well.
Now, both school and home settings could be used for health promotion through the development and testing of various messages to further broadcast them through possible media outlets (TV, radio, etc.). Methods of peer education, aspects of social marketing should also be introduced for success in promoting health among children (Hardman, Stensel, 2003).
In the 1980s the term “Health Related Fitness” first appeared in the context of physical education in schools. Although it reflected the progress in providing health promotion in schools and included such new aspects as fitness testing and weight training, it was still very much concentrated on measuring strength, speed, and endurance (Sage, 2003). It was considered an individual responsibility to be imposed on children to get improvement in these areas. This was the first implication for the future developments of health promotion, health education, and incorporation of other innovations into the school curriculum.
A new development in health promotion has been launched by WTO. It is named a “health-promoting” or “healthy” school where not only teachers participate in learning and health promotion, the school serves as a center of the community where parents, families, and other institutions and agencies play an important role (Denman, Moon, Parsons, & Stears, 2002). The main purpose of creating such an environment with a holistic approach towards education and health promotion is to ensure that the next generation acquires the ability to gain control over their lives, and their health (Jamner, Stokols, 2000). Some successful projects in the framework of the WTO health-promoting school have been implemented in other countries of the world. For example, in Hong Kong, this system was introduced in several schools, and the survey that was conducted after a certain period of its implementation indicated that health awareness among pupils, as well as their general physical performance, increased, and in addition to that, the project was widely supported through the participation of the family and community members.
Nowadays, physical education in schools is planned, implemented, and controlled through the guidelines for physical education created in the framework of the National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE) that underwent its latest revision in the year 2000 to introduce changes and innovations that corresponded better to the requirements of that the current changes and world trends impose on various areas of education, including PE (Wiegandm Bulger, Mohr, 2004).
Although focused mainly on PE, NCPE does include some aspects of health education and promotion into the content of learning: “Physical education develops pupils’ physical competence and confidence, and their ability to use these to perform in a range of activities. It promotes physical skillfulness, physical development, and knowledge of the body in action. Physical education provides opportunities for pupils to be creative, competitive and to face up to different challenges as individuals and in groups and teams. It promotes positive attitudes towards active and healthy lifestyles… Pupils learn how to think in different ways to suit a wide variety of creative, competitive, and challenging activities. They learn how to plan, perform and evaluate actions, ideas and performances to improve their quality and effectiveness. Through this process, pupils discover their aptitudes, abilities, and preferences, and make choices about how to get involved in lifelong physical activity.” (Tinsley, 2002).
The new Curriculum (last revision – the year of 2000) also introduced the shift from the product-based curriculum (activity) to the process-based curriculum (learning) (Penney, Clarke, Quill). The new implications, however, were not so easily understood by teachers and pupils as was reflected in their planning and learning that was still focused on the activity itself, rather than on the process of participating in a diversity of activities, language used by pupils and faculty, and assessment methodology chosen by teachers to measure achievement (Capel, 2004).
It clearly shows that even in the framework of the improved curriculum, there is still much room for perfection as it is not easily comprehended and employed by teachers and their pupils alike.
Four aspects comprise NCPE 2000:
- acquiring and developing skills;
- selecting and applying skills, strategies, ideas;
- assessment and improving;
- knowledge and understanding of fitness and health.
If these aspects are integrated fully into the process of learning, PE becomes a subject based on knowledge, skills, and understanding of the process of sports participation (Severs, Whitlam, Woodhouse, 2003), not simply a subject where one attempts to succeed at any cost and were only personal performance and achievement measurement count.
Each age group and level has its attainment target within the framework of four areas of NCPE. Although certain numbers are given as expected results, it is difficult to estimate the progress of each student: some students have stable progress according to the provided numbers, while some progress faster at certain stages, and some slower.
These factors are important to recognize as they allow to decide when and what type of pressure should be put on the pupils to have the biggest effect. In general, the learning should be broken down into separate integral stages for the pupil to achieve better results (Denman, Moon, Parsons, & Stears, 2002), and within these separate stages, the process of learning should be flexible and based on individual approach and needs of every pupil.
To provide credible results on the progress of every child, the assessment should be integral and originate in the learning process; it should focus on individual learning, not on individual performance results; it should appreciate the differences among the students, etc (Mackenback, Bakker, 2002). The revision of NCPE changed a lot of the assessment strategies in PE allowing teachers to be more specific and detailed in providing results of their pupils’ achievements (Capel, 2004).
Additionally, to promote a healthy environment, the National Curriculum encourages the following aspects to be taught to all pupils:
- Controlling risks of their physical activity, and nature of the hazards;
- Recognition of hazards and their risks, and steps that should be taken to control them;
- Managing environment to secure healthy and safe operation and learning for themselves and those around us.
General teaching requirements that are applicable in all subjects taught under National Curriculum include aspects of language usage, inclusion, ICT in the curriculum, health, and safety (Hardman & Stensel, 2003).
Although the revised Curriculum introduced some new ideas and changed strategies and perspectives of physical education, it remains largely focused on the performance in various areas of physical education, rather than on promoting health and educating pupils to choose a healthy lifestyle (Burgeson, Wechsler, Brener, Young, & Spain, 2003).
After the launch of the new Curriculum, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority introduced “schemes of work” as guidelines for responding to the revised version of NCPE. These guidelines position motor skills and performance in sport as dominant to health promotion. Thus, the new version of NSPE also reinforced and sustained the drawbacks of the previous editions, although it did provide starting points in the development and progression of the health-promoting components for physical education.
The following description was given to the new NCPE models and strategies: “Established boundaries to thinking and action and the key reference points for thinking and action are reinforced rather than challenged. Attention is on the recognition and the development of a suitable response, rather than questioning, critique, and exploration of potential responses. ‘How’ and ‘where’, not ‘whether’ are the legitimate issues to address” (Davies, Evans, Wright, 2004).
In October of 2002, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom launched School Sport and Club Links program. Under this project, between 2003 and 2007, the government spent about ÂŁ978m on the program implementation. Additional ÂŁ686m were invested into improving sports equipment and facilities in state schools. This means that currently about ÂŁ1.5 billion is being invested in PE (Collins, Amadeo, 2005). The program will continue until 2008 and it is a joint effort of the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The overall objective of the program is to increase participation in sport for children between 5 and 16 years of age by increasing the number of pupils who spend at least 2 hours a week participating in PE. The estimate of the program is to reach 85% by the year 2008 through adding more class hours to the curriculum, creating a variety of opportunities for extracurricular activities, and engaging families and communities into the sports activity development.
The program has already reached a large portion of its goals: in the year of 2006 80% of pupils who responded to a survey indicated that they spend two hours and more a week participating in PE and extracurricular sports (Merson, Mills, Black, 2006).
The long-term goal of the program is to increase the number of hours that children spend in PE and sports by 2010 to four hours per typical week. It is suggested that two hours of that time children will spend in a school setting, while the remaining two will be spent in extracurricular sports activities offered by clubs, societies, and communities.
To support the developments in PE, an act entitled “Youth Matters” was published in 2005; it focuses on providing opportunity and support of school pupils participating in sports, and those schools that provide a variety of quality sport opportunities for its pupils. The proposals included in “Youth Matters” suggest the development of new national standards for pupils to benefit to the fullest extent in their free time (Kinchin, 2005).
The national program is sustained by seven intertwining factors: sports colleges, school sport partnerships, professional development, “step into sport”, club links, programs for gifted and talented, sporting playgrounds, swimming, QCA’s PE, and school sports investigation.
Under the first two aspects, a wide infrastructure is being developed. There are now about 450 school sport partnerships and 402 sports colleges that are all a part of an established network (Merson, Mills, Black, 2006).
According to the report on the School Sport and Club Links, the majority of pupils in primary and secondary schools are performing at or above the requirements of the national standards. Additionally, in some schools pupils benefited from extra physical activity throughout the day that consisted of short periods of exercise to the music to help them to understand the significance of daily exercise and sport participation (Merson, Mills, Black, 2006). Another aspect of the program is that it encouraged pupils with special needs, such as physically or mentally challenged, to participate in all physical education classes, school, and extracurricular sports activities.
It should be also noted that an excessively large part is played by school inspectors who decide the future of the school and teachers in it allowing very little or no flexibility in the framework of the existing guidelines and their possible interpretation or tailoring to the exclusive needs of individual pupils.
The subject itself remains labeled as Physical Education, and not Health and Physical Education (as it is in New Zealand, and some parts of Australia), or Personal Development, Health, and Physical Education (some regions of Australia) (Davies, Evans, & Wright, 2004).
One of the recent developments in advancing health promotion in the United Kingdom was the introduction of the subject known as Personal, Social, and Health Education that is now a part of the general school curriculum (Hardman, Stensel, 2003).
The subject discusses the various legal implication of substance abuse, many aspects of health, relationships, and personal development.
With the introduction of this subject, certain difficulties appeared among the teaching staff as it is one of the few subjects where examination or knowledge check is very limited. In addition to that, many questions discussed in classes cannot be found in textbooks (Smith, 2003).
It is believed that many inconveniences in teaching this subject could be solved by having children sit in a circle. Although it is not a new approach to the discussion of such types of topics, it is relatively rarely found in the school setting of the United Kingdom.
Once sufficient evidence of the effectiveness of Personal, Social, and Health Education was collected, the UK government issued a “SEAL” pack that concentrates on social, emotional, and behavioral skills to facilitate the teaching of emotional and general personal development through the above-mentioned classes.
The secondary schools are also to receive a similar pack that is still being developed called “SEBS” that will also concentrate on personal development and growth (Butler, 2006).
This new subject is in many ways related to physical education and health promotion as it teaches the pupils to be responsible for their mind and bodies and to lead healthy lifestyles of which physical education is an integral part.
Recent research at the University of Southampton and Bristol has resulted in a thrust towards changing this. The UK government has published the “SEAL” pack (Social, Emotional and Behavioural Skills) for primary schools to overtly teach emotional literacy and personal growth through PSHE and the curriculum. This is to be supported also in secondary schools in England and Wales with a similar pack, still in development, called “SEBS” or Social, Emotional and Behavioural Skills (Butler, 2006).
Among the new challenges that contemporary schools face is the influence of globalization and increased mobility of people and services. To respond to these developments, schools should increasingly internationalize their curricula. To promote international understanding on all levels in the world where international communications in all fields (economy, culture, politics, science, etc.) continue to grow, appreciation for other cultures should be promoted in schools (Penney, 2003). For example, studying international sport in physical education classes of different grade levels can evoke interest, and therefore allow increased understanding of the world diversity (McGehee, Rickie, 2002).
Inequalities in the United Kingdom have been subject to research in the country for many years. It has been proved through various research and studies that sociological inequalities lead to health inequalities. In recent years, the service sector in comparison to the manufacturing sector has grown that lead to lower rates of male employment, especially where unskilled employees are involved (Dabies, Macdonald, 1998). Accordingly, female labor force participation (especially part-time) has increased. This, in turn, leads to the appearance of a growing number of single-parent families, and families with income below the average which significantly influenced inequalities in health among children (Bunton & Macdonald, 2002). For example, teenage girls from poor neighborhoods are more likely to get pregnant at an early age. In some areas, teenage birth rates comprise one teenage pregnancy per ten (Bakker, Mackenbach, 2002).
Recognizing health inequalities among other inequalities in the society, the government started its activities by issuing Reducing Health Inequalities: An Agenda for Action that outlined and summarized the main strategies undertaken in this field, and emphasized the need to eliminate the causes of the inequality, not its characteristic features. Among other principles, the governmental policy also concentrated on improving educational opportunities and education in general (Butler, 2006).
It should be noted, however, that while schools try to include all the pupils into the PE classes to promote healthy lifestyles, PE classes might not always be what the students need. For example, in the course of seven years, the EarlyBird Diabetes Study in Plymouth examined degrees of children sports activity and their correlation to health, the studies have found that while PE classes improve the general health of the pupils, it does not necessarily provide a guarantee that children will not suffer from such illnesses as diabetes, a child’s genes play the pivotal role in the relation of his activity and health (Wesson, 2004). The director of the EarlyBird program Terence Wilkin commented on the findings: “Our research has led us to suspect that it is not an environment that determines activity but some central biological mechanism within each child that we might call an ‘activity stat (Capel, 2004)’.
The EarlyBird program works with children from various populations and age groups observing their sport activity and its relation to metabolism.
The program findings are also important in terms of proving the need for a flexible PE curriculum. During the research, regardless of the amount of exercise that children were offered to perform, they primarily found the levels they felt most comfortable with (Wiegand, Bulger, Mohr, 2004).
For example, in one study involving 215 children three schools were monitored: one offering nine hours of PE per week, the second one-two, and the third one – about 1.8 hours. It was found that although in the first school pupils received more physical activity, the general levels were similar, like the rest of the children compensated for those hours through activities at home (Wiegand, Bulger, Mohr, 2004).
One study monitored a week of physical activity during waking hours among 215 children aged 7 to 10 at three schools with different sports facilities and timetables. A private preparatory school with playing fields offered nine hours of PE a week; a village school 2.2 hours; and an inner-city school with a small playground 1.8 hours.
The research also questioned the role of physical activity in fighting childhood obesity. It was established that although those children who exercise more have faster metabolic processes and better overall wellbeing, it does not mean that they are much slimmer than their peers with less active lifestyles (Kinchin, 2005).
As far as gender inequalities and policies concerning them in physical education are concerned, the question came into light more than fifteen years ago when it was first highlighted by the Interim Report for National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE) in England in 1991 among other aspects of providing equal opportunity for all pupils (Merson, Mills, & Black, 2006). The programs and agendas that resulted from the suggestions and research that followed allow much room for interpretation by teachers and teacher educators at different schools (Penney, 2002). This flexibility faced extensive positive feedback, as well as some negative comments. Historically, physical education and health promotion approaches were strictly gendered separating those for girls and boys as it was believed that they participate in physical activity on different levels, engage in different sports, progress differently, and thus will only be able to benefit from PE classes if separated.
The curricula developed for both genders corresponded to the beliefs held at the time of gender-specific roles, and those activities that can benefit fulfillment of such roles. Thus, for example, girls were directed at the development of elegance and poise as well as physically prepare their bodies for future childbearing and child-caring, not much attention was devoted to the strength development or engaging in various types of sports. At the same time, boys’ physical education stressed strength and fitness without little or no room for engaging in creative activities or activities stereotypically regarded as female. (Penney, 2002).
Important gender implications were presented by the EarlyBird studies mentioned above. Since the research found out that the activity levels may depend on genes, it was also suggested that females may have genetically smaller inclinations for sports activity, and their interest in sport is not predetermined by social implications.
The issues of inequalities have been addressed by teachers and policymakers. The National Curriculum developed in the United Kingdom was aimed to guarantee equal opportunities for PE for all children, regardless of their class, physical abilities, etc. Under the National, Curriculum schools have to offer to the children a flexible PE curriculum among other things.
It also recognized that children in different areas and different schools must be taught differently (Kinchin, 2005). The new policies of the curriculum were very timely ones as the changing society highlighted the need for a very individualized approach to all children, and turning special attention to the vulnerable groups: children with mental or physical disabilities, behavior disorders, obesity, or other illnesses as well as those children who progress faster than their peers do.
The UK government has also suggested that under the new curriculum the schools will be expected to identify and help to develop those pupils who are believed to be gifted and talented to build upon their natural unique qualities for their future success. This can be through a variety of approaches and with the support of the Excellence in Cities program, and the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth (Eiler, Rudisill, 2004).
Although it should be noted that there has been a lot of research and studies in talent development in the general curriculum and professional sport, very little attention has been given to it in the context of PE classes.
The problems of inequality, however, cannot be solved solely in the school setting, as they are often interconnected with other cultural, financial, family related issues, such as caring for younger siblings, or having to catch a bus to get back home, etc. that do not allow to stay develop one’s interest in PE and sports. Thus, this issue has to be addressed by various institutions and agencies to secure PE that would be completely free of any inequalities.
Policies can serve as a force for promoting advance and more socially important practices in PE that extend beyond conventional thinking and actions (Davies, Evans, & Wright, 2004).
Based on everything above mentioned, I would recommend for the National Curriculum for Physical Education to acquire more flexibility to satisfy the individual needs of all pupils. Also, the role of the school inspectors should be lessened for schools to fulfill the needs of their pupils as the needs differ depending on the region the school is situated in, the pupils who study there and teachers who teach there.
I would also recommend for physical education to shift its focus from the performance and assessment of individual activities to the process of learning and promoting healthy lifestyles among the young generation. The implications for such shift are put forward by the new programs and curriculum, they have not been, however, completely understood and utilized by some of the teachers to the extent possible. This implies that the new developments in PE require large-scale promotion and information programs not only among school teachers but also among students, parents, and the community so that everybody realized what part they are playing in the new approaches towards education.
For this paper, various resources were utilized to perform a search for the needed information. The resources include a variety of media: print books and journals, as well as Internet websites.
The research was performed based on several key aspects: physical education and health education in the United Kingdom, its evolution within the last decade; the study of epidemiology and its correlation with health promotion; health promotion in the context of school education on the ground of Tannahill’s health promotion model. The research was performed on the experience of the United Kingdom, some international comparisons, however, were also drawn.
The paper included some information on governmental policies, strategies, and reports. These were primarily taken from the official government websites: Association for Physical Education, Physical Education Association in the United Kingdom, National Curriculum On-Line, etc.
The historical aspects were primarily found in books, while contemporary topics for debate and discussion in the field of PE were found in journals and online.
Books also provided necessary theoretical data on some of the main terms used in the paper, such as epidemiology, policies, health promotion, and health education, etc.
This paper discussed the main issues in provisions for physical education in the school system of the United Kingdom. It focused on physical education versus health education, and health promotion to argue that although significant changes were made in developing school curriculum for physical education, it still concentrates mainly on performance and performance measurement, not the process of learning and development. The provisions for such are made in the National Curriculum for Physical Education; they, however, are not widely accepted by teachers and teacher educators, and thus there is a need for an extensive promotion campaign of the new phenomenon not only among teachers or students, but among parents, families, and communities as well.
Also, the role of school inspectors does not allow for much flexibility in the context of the National Curriculum, so their duties and responsibilities should be revised to provide schools with sufficient opportunity to tailor the curriculum to the individual needs of the pupils.
Additionally, the role of epidemiology for health promotion was discussed. While epidemiology serves as a ground for the principles of health promotion, it should be also noted that epidemiology alone cannot serve as a single source for health promotion program development. If the study of health promotion focuses solely on epidemiology, the range of its principles and guidelines will be very narrow and not able to accommodate a variety of people.
References
Association for Physical Education, Web.
Bunton, R., & Macdonald, G., (eds) 2002, Health Promotion: Disciplines, Diversity, and Development, Routledge, London.
Burgeson, C., Wechsler H., Brener N., Young J., & Spain C, 2003. “Physical Education and Activity: Results from the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2000”. JOPERD – The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, vol. 74, no. 1, pp 19-25.
Butler, J., 2006, “An Introduction to NCATE and NASPE/NCATE Beginning Teacher Standards: Report Guidelines, Teacher Standards, Unit Standards, and Sundry Revisions Make a Convoluted History-Now Clarified”, JOPERD–The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 15-23.
Capel, S., (ed) 2004, Learning to Teach Physical Education in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience, RoutledgeFalmer, London.
Collins, M. & Amodeo M, 2005, Responding to Plagiarism in Schools of Social Work: Considerations and Recommendations. Journal of Social Work Education vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 527-530.
Davies, J & Macdonald, G., 1998, Quality, Evidence, and Effectiveness in Health Promotion: Striving for Certainties. Routledge, London.
Denman, S., Moon A., Parsons C., & Stears D., 2002, The Health Promoting School: Policy, Research, and Practice, Routledge Falmer, London.
Penney, D., 2004, “7 The Body and Health in Policy” In Body Knowledge and Control: Studies in the Sociology of Physical Education and Health, Routledge, New York.
Evans, J., Davies B., & Wright J., (eds) 2004, Body Knowledge and Control: Studies in the Sociology of Physical Education and Health. Routledge, New York.
Hardman, A., & Stensel D., 2003, Physical Activity and Health: The Evidence Explained, Routledge, New York.
Hardy, C., & Mawer M., (eds) 1999, Learning and Teaching in Physical Education. Falmer Press, London.
Jamner, M., and Stokols, D., (eds) 2000, Promoting Human Wellness: New Frontiers for Research, Practice, and Policy. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Laker, A., 2002, The Sociology of Sport and Physical Education: An Introductory Reader. Routledge Falmer, London.
Macdonald, T., 1998, Rethinking Health Promotion: A Global Approach. Routledge: London.
Macdonald, T., (ed) 2003, The Social Significance of Health Promotion. Routledge, New York.
Mackenbach, J. & Bakker M., (eds) 2002, Reducing Inequalities in Health: A European Perspective. Routledge, London.
Mawer, M., (ed) 1996, Mentoring in Physical Education: Issues and Insights. Falmer Press, London.
Merson, M., Mills, A., & Black, R., 2006, International Public Health: Diseases, Programs, Systems, and Policies, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, London.
Montangero, J., & Maurice-Naville, D., 1997. Piaget, Or, the Advance of Knowledge. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ.
Mowling, C., Brock S., Eiler K., & Rudisill M, 2004, “Student Motivation in Physical Education: Breaking Down Barriers; Student Motivation in Physical Education Typically Declines after the Early Years. Why? and What Can Be Done About It?”, JOPERD–The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 40-47.
National Curriculum in Action, Web.
Penney, D., (ed) 2002, Gender and Physical Education: Contemporary Issues and Future Directions, Routledge, London.
Penney, D., & Evans, J., 1999, Politics, Policy, and Practice in Physical Education. E & FN Spon, London.
Penney, D., Clarke G., Quill M., & Kinchin, G., (eds) 2005, Sport Education in Physical Education: Research-Based Practice. Routledge, London.
Physical Education Association in the United Kingdom, Web.
Sage, G, 2003, The Future of Physical Education: Building a New Pedagogy, Routledge, New York.
Severs, J., Whitlam P., & Woodhouse J., 2003, Safety and Risk in Primary School Physical Education: A Guide for Teachers. Routledge, New York.
Smith, J., 2003, Education, and Public Health: Natural Partners in Learning for Life, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria.
Tinsley, B., 2002, How Children Learn to Be Happy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
United Kingdom Department of Health, Web.
Watson, J., & Platt S., (eds) 2000, Researching Health Promotion. Routledge, London.
Wesson, K., 2004, Sport, and PE: a complete guide to Advanced Level Study, Hodder Arnold H&S, London.
Wiegand, R., Bulger S., & Mohr D., 2004, “Curricular Issues in Physical Education Teacher Education: Which Foundational Courses Do PETE Students Really Need? Should More Time Be Spent on Pedagogical Content Knowledge? Is the Curriculum Presented in the Best Order? Read On”, JOPERD – The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance vol. 75, no. 8, pp. 47-54.