Conference Agenda

Internationally, there continues to be much debate about the subject of physical education (PE) and its place and purpose within schools (Kirk, 2010; Ekberg, 2021; Gray et al., 2022). Though there is recognition within the field that PE has much potential for supporting learning across multiple domains (Hooper et al., 2020; Lamb et al., 2021), and can contribute to the holistic development of young people (Bailey et al., 2009; Luguetti & Oliver, 2020), concerns continue to be raised about the precarious and, often, marginalised position of the subject within the educational landscape (Kirk, 2010). PE’s precarious history and lack of clear purpose in the curriculum has arguably played a significant role in how it has come to be positioned within research, policy, and practice in schools globally. Certainly, research has highlighted several issues faced by PE globally, including a disconnect between policy and practice, a ‘squeezing’ of curriculum time, and its positioning, often, as subject without academic significance (Chepyator-Thomson, 2014; Stidder, 2023. Growing concerns about sedentary lifestyles and the rise of lifestyle diseases (e.g., obesity and diabetes) have also seen PE increasingly aligned with a health agenda, with health now being a prominent feature in many curricula (Gray et al., 2022). Such shifts have led to concerns that PE is often tasked with ‘much to do’, and questions have been asked regarding just what the subject is (or should) be accountable for (e.g., Bailey et al., 2009).

Advocates for the subject have continued to ‘make the case’ for PE and to argue its value to and for young people (see UNESCO, 2017; afPE, 2019). Within this context, efforts to justify and enhance the status of PE have led to an increased focus on what constitutes Quality Physical Education (QPE) (e.g., Penney et al., 2009) and, in some contexts, to calls for PE to sit alongside subjects such as mathematics and sciences as a ‘core’ element in school curricula (e.g., Harris, 2018). Dyson (2014) argues that the question of ‘what is quality physical education?’ is an important one to consider, as it directs attention to key components of practice. On this, Penney et al., (2009) suggest that curriculum, pedagogy and assessment are three fundamental dimensions of ‘quality PE’, while it is also recognised that QPE is dependent on factors such as sufficient curriculum time, adequate resource and the availability of specialist practitioners, as well as the provision of inclusive, meaningful and relevant content (Kirk, 2004; Walseth et al., 2018).

In light of the discussion above, it is notable that UNESCO (2015) developed a series of Quality Physical Education (QPE) guidelines, which sought to inform PE practice globally across the full age range. In this work, QPE is defined as “the planned, progressive, inclusive learning experience that forms part of the curriculum in early years, primary and secondary education” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 9). Underpinned by a rights perspective, QPE is supported by the identification of specific indicators which detail core characteristics of PE that are seen to support quality provision. These indicators reflect broader debates and include a focus on factors such as the development of specific PE policy, the time allocated to PE within the curriculum, the inclusive nature of PE, and the training of specialist practitioners. Within this presentation, we draw on data from UNESCO’s global QPE survey – built around these indicators – to reflect on what they tell us about the current status of PE around the globe. Moreover, we use this as a basis to consider the implications for the future of PE and potential developments within research, policy and practice in the field.

There has been much debate – both nationally and internationally and over a sustained period of time – about the subject of physical education (PE) and its place and purpose within schools (Kirk, 2010; Ekberg, 2021; Gray et al., 2022a). It has long been recognised by those within the subject that it has much potential for realising learning across multiple domains (Hooper, Sandford & Jarvis, 2020; Lamb et al., 2021) and for supporting the holistic development of young people (Bailey et al., 2009; Luguetti & Oliver, 2020). However, questions have continued to be raised about the educative capacity of the subject and the contribution it makes – or is able to make – to the education of young people (Quennerstedt, 2019). These questions typically stem from what has been considered to be the relatively limited change with regard to how PE has been conceptualised and enacted in practice (Kirk, 2010; Herold, 2020; Gray et al., 2022a) and the continued dominance of particular agendas (i.e., health) within PE (Jung, Pope & Kirk, 2016; Lindsey et al., 2020; Gray et al., 2022b). Nonetheless, advocates of the subject have continued to ‘make the case’ for the subject and to argue its value to and for young people (see UNESCO, 2017; afPE, 2019). Calls for PE to become a core subject are not new, though in England these were formalised by Harris (2018) on behalf of the PE Expert Group.

It is notable that PE is the only foundation subject that is compulsory from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 4 but while this is somewhat akin to core status it is not an equivalent and interpretations of this in practice have been varied. As such, there has continued to be sustained interest and advocacy – following the formal call from Harris (2018) – in making PE a core subject and momentum has been gained in this regard following the formation of the Association for PE (afPE) Taskforce in 2020. The afPE Taskforce was assembled to consider (and make recommendations on) the future of PE within England and comprised expert representatives from across the PE sector with support from a wider advisory group. As part of their work, the afPE Taskforce published a report on putting PE at ‘The Heart of School Life’. The afPE Taskforce report set out to make recommendations to Government about the subject of PE with two of the headline recommendations relating to making PE a core subject. However, despite the House of Lords responding positively to the recommendation to make PE a core subject, the Government’s official response was less positive, affirming that they “do not currently plan to make PE a core subject” (HM Government, 2022, p. 11). As such, despite a strong case being put forward by Harris (2018) and continued interest and advocacy in making PE a core subject, the Government remain unconvinced.

Whilst there is evidently much enthusiasm for making PE a core subject, from a range of stakeholders, there remains a dearth of evidence surrounding the impact such a move would have for pupils, teachers, schools and communities more broadly. Therefore, research is needed to explore the (potential) impact of making PE a core subject and to generate evidence that might be used to demonstrate this and ultimately to better make the case for PE being designated as a core subject. This paper presents the first phase of a research project that seeks to do this by evaluating a pilot of PE as a core subject across primary and secondary schools within a large academy trust in England.

With the recognition that education is a complex, interrelated and emergent phenomenon (Ovens et al, 2012), interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary ways of approaching educational topics are becoming more prevalent (Klein, 2018). Heterarchical ways of working, in which all participants are engaged in the learning and development process, are gradually replacing the linear, top-down hierarchies that have long dominated. Within this non-linear and more inclusive landscape, developing shared visions for the future have become a significant component of many educational developments (Huffman & Hipp, 2001). However, as this development process is a collaborative and dynamic endeavour, creating shared visions is not straightforward because it requires all those involved to be suitably equipped to effectively contribute to this joint process (Augsburg, 2014). Constructing a personal vision for the future, aligned with the ability to articulate and share their vision with others, is subsequently an important attribute for teachers as they engage in these future-oriented discussions (Shulman & Shulman, 2004). In addition, while part of this collaborative venture, personal vision also has an important role in helping teachers’ shape the nature of their own professional development.

In North America, teachers’ personal vision has become recognised as a key component of their initial and continuing teacher education (Hammerness, 2006). A teacher’s personal vision is an image of what they aspire to achieve in their classroom, school, and community and, in some cases, even society (Hammerness, 2001). This personal vision can guide the negotiation of policy, become a mechanism for reflecting on experience to inform future professional learning (Shulman & Shulman, 2004) and can also help teachers contribute to the wider development of departmental, school and community visons. Initiating the vision-making process with student teachers in Initial Teacher Education (ITE) has been identified as the most productive but most challenging place to begin this process (Hara & Sherbine, 2018). Developing vision at this early career phase helps student teachers think strategically, which later avoids confining them as teachers ‘gathering endless strategies, practical tips, and curriculum information’ (Kosnik & Beck, 2011, p. 122). Visioning in ITE can instead initiate a process to support the clearer articulation of beliefs and values about teaching and learning, foster a critical awareness about policy directives and explore an activist stance in relation to dominant discourses.

With this background in mind, ‘Vision and Voices’ is a multi-layered longitudinal project being developed as part of a four-year undergraduate Physical Education initial teacher education programme at the University (Munro et al, 2022). Involving almost 400 full-time students, efforts are being made to interweave the development of personal vision across the programme. Threading personal vision across the programme, however, is a complex process and requires collaborative and connected efforts by university staff to include vision-related activities within their own practice. Consequently, while the tracking of student teacher’s evolving visions is ongoing (Jess et al, 2021), the project is also investigating how university staff can work together to incorporate the development of student’s personal visions across the different courses that make up the programme. This is important because teacher educators are an under-researched, poorly understood, and ill-defined group (Murray, 2014) and physical education teacher educators even more-so (McEvoy et al., 2015). Consequently, this study seeks to explore personal vision within a European context and make a contribution to future practice. To do this, three related research questions are addressed:

1. What are the personal visions of teacher educators working on the PE programme?
2. How do these visions inform their teacher educator practice on the PE programme?
3. How should the ‘Vision and Voices’ project progress in the future?