Addressing Inconsistent and Obsolete Assessment in Physical Education

"We [physical educators] have struggled to find success in terms of national acceptance because we have been unable to produce the volume of data on a proactive basis that we demonstrate a major impact on the entire society. We seem to be content with the past approaches using educational arguments for our existence rather than being able to openly produce valid, reliable, and objective evidence that shows we are change agents." (Holyoke, 1986)

The nature of Physical Education creates a unique set of grading issues that must be resolved (Melograno, 2007). Assessment in Physical Education is a critical and a sensitive topic. No teacher wants to be criticised that his/her grading practices are inconsistent, unreliable, invalid, and obsolete, is there?

I suppose this is my courageous attempt to simply instil awareness to my colleagues in the profession that assessment in PE needs attention in order for us to become real change agents. We all face the same challenges and criticisms from people outside our circle. They may not be vocally or loudly expressing their dissatisfaction. But we know there’s something wrong in the system. My hands are up and I dare to be a change leader necessary for the good name of our profession. 

In many Asian countries, I have witnessed how teachers are respected for their professional status. In terms of grades students receive after a long course of assessments, students tend to accept whatever mark they get without questions thinking that the grade was the result of their performance and the teacher’s professional judgment is unquestionable. Parents as well seldom question the grades their children get particularly in PE. Physical educators are professionals capable of using sound professional judgment in the assessment of students (Hensley et al, 1987). However, few teachers have been trained to implement valid, reliable, and consistent assessment procedures.

How significant is assessment in PE anyway? Why is it so important? Why don’t we just face it out of our education system? The following are a few reasons why assessment is significant and must remain part of our PE programs. 

1. Assessment is a required teaching competency to obtain information about the needs and progress of learners (Andrews and Barnes, 1990)

2. Assessment is a formal accountability that provides evidence to indicate predetermined goals and objectives are met (Safrit, 1990)

3. Assessment provides regular monitoring of student progress results in greater achievement and increased motivation (Veal, 1988)

4. Assessment serves as program justification and professional accountability (Matanin and Tannehill, 1994)

In other words, assessment is the element that makes PE a justifiable academic subject. Not providing assessment in PE only equates the subject to a fancy big recess time. 

To these days, physical educators commonly use factors such as attendance, participation, PE uniform, effort, and attitude in their assessment for grades. Motor skill performance, what students can do, level of students’ physical fitness or their effort to improve, periodical tests, homework, and projects may also be included in PE teachers’ rubrics of assessment.  If you are still using these factors, you are following an obsolete grading system. There’s gotta be a much better way to assess learners in today's modern Physical Education.

I mentioned in my past articles that no two children are ever the same. The same applies with teachers, don't you think? If a school has a few PE teachers, most parents would wish their children would be under the kindest, most tolerant, and most generous teacher in terms of giving high grades. Teacher A’s assessment process would totally be different from Teacher B’s or Teacher C’s. 

So teachers, how do we make valid, reliable, and consistent grades in PE for our students? 

Here are my thoughts about this. First, let’s distinguish which factors are the PREREQUISITES and which are the REQUISITES. Prerequisite factors are necessary to ensure learners’ involvement in class. Attendance, punctuality, PE uniform, learners’ readiness, behaviour and attitude, interest, and effort are prerequisites but they are not our focus learning targets, are they? 

For every PE class, there could be 1 or 2 unprepared students who may have forgotten to wear their PE uniforms. Sure thing, it is a responsibility they failed. But think about it. Should their grades suffer just because they haven’t participated in your class? In this scenario, as educators, what are we trying to assess? If we give them a failing grade for missing the class, we are measuring the wrong factor.  On the other hand, it is unfair for the rest of the class who did their part to learn, isn’t it? 

I have this idea that if a student comes to class unprepared, why don’t we just set up a contingency plan as educators? For example, schools should have extra pairs of uniforms ready. Lend the PE uniform to a student who failed to prepare. A possible consequence could be hand-washing the uniform after school. It’s educational and it solved the problem without focusing on whether coming to class unprepared should be graded lesser than coming to class prepared. 

If the problem is not wearing the appropriate footwear, why don’t we think about solutions. Discuss it with students. Sure thing, it’d be an educational topic for them to prepare for their unit. How about an alternative task instead of punishing the child’s unpreparedness? 

What I am trying to suggest is this: prerequisites are factors we can deal with. Sure they can be challenging. But these factors are our responsibilities to our students - making sure they are ready for the unit. Punishing them by giving them less grades because they failed in the preparation reflects our inability to connect with our students and reinforce policies in our classes. It’s not the learners’ fault. It could be ours. 

We know that when students are not interested and not prepared, they will not do their best in class. Their readiness determines their success. However, their readiness should not be the focus of assessment. Our focus should be their success.

Success is the requisite. We measure success by generating evidence that our goals and objectives are met. We monitor students’ progress making sure they are on the right track to reaching academic goals. We may adjust our approach or method to help them succeed when we see they are stagnated. At the end of the day, the assessment is just a tool to gather information about students’ progress. Evaluation, on the other hand, makes use of data generated from assessments to provide meaning to students’ progress. 

Furthermore, I’d like expand the concept of evaluation from the traditional way we conduct it in schools. Think about it… most evaluations and assessments are one way. It has always been teachers assessing their goals and objective through their learners. Students are always the subjects of assessments. I can’t help myself but to regard it the same as measuring the height and the weight of students and putting a tag on them displayed on their report cards. Nothing else.  

Oliver Gomez's perception on traditional assessment

The kind of assessment and evaluation I want to implement in the future will involve students in the process the same way as they are involved in the preparation. Assessment and evaluation should not only be teacher towards students. It should also be students toward the activity unit, or students toward themselves. Assessment and evaluation are skills students themselves need to learn. These skills are necessary to make healthy and good decisions for themselves. 

Oliver Gomez's proposal for modern PE assessment

Works Cited:

Matanin, M., Tannehill, D., http://journals.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/10021.pdf. Journal of Teaching in Human Kinetics Publishers, inc.

Melograno, V., http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795585.pdf, JOPERD, Volume 78 No. 6, August 2007
 

Flexibility and Quality Physical Education

The Quality Physical Education policy made by the UNESCO is paving the way for PE programs around the world to be inclusive, child-centred and flexible. Yes, you heard it right - flexible. “Flexibility” of the PE curricula is one of the most important ingredients towards QPE. Like in my previous article which featured the word inclusive, what does flexibility mean?

The Oxford Dictionary of English defines flexibility as the quality of bending easily without breaking. It is also described as the ability to be modified and willingness to change or compromise. These descriptions and definitions certainly apply to PE.

But first, we have to understand why some PE curricula in Asia and around the world are inflexible. Whether we like it or not, the main reason why there’s this rigidness is because of the academic standards that were developed which are believed to be guides in the learning process. Setting these standards and benchmarks is like setting the norms for what is considered “acceptable status” in the academia. Everything below standard is considered “failure”.

I am not against standard-based education as without them, progress won’t be monitored and measured. However, standard-based education has been causing the inflexibility of PE. For example, certain skills in Basketball should be learned at a certain grade level. Not being able to meet the requirements as a result of the many factors we know, means that the learner fails the subject. Teachers may try to reason out that learners should try harder to meet the requirement. But hey! We’re forgetting something. PE should not be about teaching specific skills and expecting all learners to replicate the same level of adeptness. I’ll cite what Corbin has said again: “We know we can’t teach every student to play every instrument in the band.  Why do we think we can teach every child to play every sport?” (Corbin, 2002).

Are you the type of teacher who believes that learners should be excellent at all types of physical activities we introduce in PE class? That the learners’ target should be A+ because that what being “academic” is about? Should we conform to this system even if we already know Physical Education will never be like any other theory-based subjects?

Should we set aside standards then? If so, how do we measure progress? Do we even need to measure progress at all? 

The Quality of Bending Without Breaking

True curricular flexibility means that we can bend some rules without breaking them. We don’t have to disregard academic standards. In fact, we can use them to be able to evaluate our learners. This evaluation can help us determine which areas or skills to improve. However, the question is: are the standards flexible enough? 

Standards are not laws. I hate to cite an example of this but for academic discussion, let’s look at one of the standards from the US that many schools in Asia adopted in their curriculum. In my opinion, NASPE standards are authoritarian in nature. They impose some sort of national command that must be followed by schools, teachers and students in their country. The physically literate individual demonstrates competency in a variety of motor skills and movement patterns (NASPE, USA). The Philippines adopted it and developed its own which stated “competence in movement and motor skills requisite to various physical activity performances" (DepEd, Philippines). Again, what works in the US might not work in other countries (UNESCO). These may not be like laws like how am exaggerating them to be but unconsciously, schools and teachers might have been using these standards as some sort of authority to be followed. In this case, these standards became laws and not being able to follow them is like a crime (exaggerating again). 

How do we make the previously mentioned NASPE standard flexible when we have a diverse type of learners with different learning styles, physical activity preferences, and physical capabilities and incapabilities? Are we firm that all learners must become physically literate individuals who demonstrate competency in a variety of motor skills and movement patterns? I can’t find a way to bend this standard without breaking it. It is just not flexible. Please let me know in the comments below if you have any suggestions or any idea on how to make standards flexible.

The Ability to be Easily Modified

Flexibility is also the ability to be easily modified. To modify something means to make partial or minor changes. From this definition, flexibility allows minor alterations or adjustments to something, in our case, to PE curriculum. 

In other words, we are talking about adjusting the standards. One way we are already doing adjustments is through grade level benchmarking. Benchmarks narrow down specific standards to make them relevant to particular age group or grade level on a local standard. However, benchmarks are still standards (only localised and specified). Benchmarks still set norms to what is “acceptable” locally. And for learners to not be able to reach the set academic benchmarks means “failure” in their part. 

Willingness to Change and Compromise

This definition of flexibility is my favourite. Basically it encourages educators, policy makers, and curriculum developers to have this willingness to change and compromise. I believe that Physical Education is a unique subject in schools. There is no other subjects that will allow learners to fully develop themselves physically and socially. Maybe we have been too focused on treating PE as an objective academic discipline similar to other subjects like math and science where there are specific solutions to come up with specific answers. In as much as I like to believe and uphold that PE should receive the same status similar to other academic subjects, I am trying to open up my mind to a possibility of compromising its status. Maybe it will not hurt to focus on the main purpose of Physical Education’s existence in schools and not too much on the academic part, which in my opinion, what’s holding it back from being flexible? Or maybe, it’s time to blaze a new trail for PE to fulfil both its purpose and its being academic with those standards and benchmarks. 

Flexible PE curricula should allow schools, teachers and learners to customise, modify and adjust their curricular programs, curricular contents, standards and benchmarks, and learning outcome expectations while focusing both on the main purpose of Physical Education - to guide learners to be active for life - and its academic status - an academic subject that develops a total child.

What is your view on flexibility?

INCLUSIVE?

There’s a new concept now commonly used by curriculum developers and policy makers in designing Physical Education curricular programs - inclusive. It’s a very powerful word that gives more meaning to the already known and much accepted word - “child-centred”. But what does this word really mean? 

The Oxford Dictionary of English defines inclusive as “not excluding any section of society or any party involved in something”. 

I’d like to believe that many Physical Education curricula around the world are inclusive. However, there are more concepts involved when we dissect the inclusiveness of a particular PE curriculum. Besides, its definition suggests an absolute inclusion - not excluding “ANY” section. In this case, all students in schools.

How do we know if our curriculum is absolutely inclusive? Can there be a room for a little exclusiveness? Does integration of all aspects of the academic subject make our PE curriculum inclusive?

To answer the above questions, we need to dig deeper on the concept of an inclusive PE curriculum.

Can a particular unit activity or lesson be for all students? For example, Basketball. The answer is yes, maybe and no. It depends on many probable instances. If I have a homogeneous class of physically gifted learners, definitely yes. If I have a heterogeneous class with different skill levels, maybe. It will depend on me as their teacher. My approach, methods, and techniques of delivering the content of the lesson will determine whether my curriculum is inclusive or not. Furthermore, if I have a heterogeneous class of different skills, different preferences, different learning styles, and different capabilities (sometimes incapabilities), providing them with common standards, common methods or approach, and common assessment tool will definitely not going to make the curriculum inclusive. 

Most schools have the third picture - a heterogeneous class of different skills, preferences, learning styles, capabilities and incapabilities. What works with a child physically gifted with height may not work as well with the one who is genetically not tall. In the same way, what works with a medium built child may not work the same way as the thin ones or yeah, let’s say it - the fat ones. In other words, there are other factors that lead to the exclusion of learners - it’s not always about the curriculum or the teachers' methods. These factors are learner issues school and teachers have no control of.

Inclusive PE curricula pay attention not only with the big picture, but also with small details that include the type of parties involved, the curriculum itself, the methods, approach and practices used, and of course, the learner issues.

Learners are the centre of education. Everything we do should be for the benefit of our learners. This is probably the source of the coined word “child-centred”. Child-centred teaching method is giving priority to the interests and needs of children according to the Oxford Dictionary of English. Its definition tells us to prioritise these two important words to make our PE curriculum “child-centred” - interests and needs. I believe that these words are also the keys to inclusion.

INTERESTS. What do learners want? It refers to our learners preferences, what they are good at, what they are capable of doing, and what they enjoy doing. Learning learners’ preferences in physical activities will help educators develop a curriculum that best fits the learners. I mean, when learners like what they are doing, PE teachers will never encounter motivation problems because learners will participate intrinsically in PE class. Try offering an activity that most learners hate - you will know what I mean. So how do we do this? Emphasise “preference” in PE. Conduct a survey. Ask learners about their preferred physical activities. What is wrong with that? I think that is a very educational process when teachers make their learners aware of the concept of preference. 

NEEDS. They could either be essential but disliked or essential and preferred. Whatever the case is. For educators, curriculum developers, and policy makers, how do we determine whether certain lessons or activity units are essential or needed? For instance,we may justify fitness as a needed lesson because everybody knows exercise is good for your optimum health and it can prolong life. But if we already used that reason for fitness activities, why would our students learn basketball to be fit? Or why dance? Can we say, “if you don’t play basketball, you will not be healthy”? or “if you don’t learn dancing, you don’t have a way to enjoy yourself?” Definitely not. Health and physical fitness are commonly the reason why we move. We want to live longer and enjoy life - this could be our basis to say a certain lesson is needed? But then, we should realise that it all comes down to wellness - being able to make healthy decisions for one to enjoy life. Yes we know that all physical activities are beneficial to the wellness of everyone and it is our responsibility to educate them. Generally we can say these stuff to justify our cause. However, in practice, our PE lessons are usually focused on the unit itself and not on the purpose of why we are having the unit. Anyway, my point here is this: how do we justify the need for a particular lesson in our PE class?

This leads us to the curriculum in itself. PE curriculum, the academic content of Physical Education taught in schools, has an integrated set of broad topics that include sports, exercise, rhythmic activities, aquatic activities, recreation, movement education, and many others. For educators, curriculum developers, and policy makers, how do we properly select the academic content to include in PE class? the obvious determiners include the access to facilities and equipment, the faculty teaching the lesson, and academic resources like textbooks or workbooks. In the absence of any of these, a certain unit or lesson is discriminated or not included. Do educators, curriculum developers, and policy makers consider learners’ interests or physical activity preferences? Do the learners take part in the selection of the units? 

Selecting activity units in PE without including students along the process assumes that all learners have the same interests and needs. This is definitely a "one size fits all” type of curriculum - providing the same activities to a heterogeneous class of different activity interests, skill levels, learning styles, and capabilities and incapabilities. A “one size fits all” type of curriculum is never “inclusive”.  

So what makes a curriculum inclusive? 

It’s inclusive when learners participate in the selection. My idea is to let schools select for the needs of the learners in the same way as letting the learners select for their activity interests. The end is to give our learners both their interests and their needs. Sounds familiar? Yes, that’s the child-centred method. A child-centred curriculum is an inclusive curriculum.  

But being inclusive doesn’t end here. It also involves the methods by which lessons are taught on a daily or regular basis. It would be easy to teach homogeneous classes. But the challenge is when we have different types of students in one class. Do we need to classify them? Classifying for the sake of inclusion and better learning is not all that bad. Classifying learners according to their preferences will create homogeneous classes. Let’s say, the athletic learners are grouped together, the artistic and rhythmic learners are together, the learners who love to do different recreational activities are also teamed up together, those who love exercise and fitness workouts have their own class, so as the learners with leadership potential. I believe that teaching homogeneous classes in PE will result to absolute inclusion. They key is for learners to figure out which group they belong.

Finally, the approach and practices used by teachers in response to some learner issues are small things that count. How do we deal with obese learners? How do we treat them? What best practice could we use as educators to motivate them to make healthy decisions for themselves? Obese learners usually exclude themselves because of personal issues. In the same way, how do we deal with students who have low self-esteem? How do we teach learners who have physical learning issues or learners who are not kinaesthetically gifted? How do we approach a learner who hates his or her uniform or swimming kit and are embarrassed to wear them? How do we address bullying issues, unsportsmanlike behaviours, attitude and behaviour problems, classroom conflicts, etc.? These are petty things but are essential parts of keeping inclusion part of the PE curriculum.  

Finally let me leave you with a simple question: how do we make PE inclusive?

PROPOSAL TO PILOT PE100 SYSTEM AMONG INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN BANGKOK, THAILAND

PE100 SYSTEM™ Complies with the UNESCO's Quality Physical Education Policies

About UNESCO and the Sports Programme

UNESCO is the United Nations’ lead agency for Physical Education and Sport (PES).

Assistance and guidance services are provided for governments, NGOs, and experts to debate the evolving challenges of physical education and sport. The organization also assists and advises Member States wishing to elaborate or strengthen their training system in physical education. Furthermore, it offers its expertise in the design and implementation of development programmes in the domain of sport.

And UNESCO provides guidance, advisory services and assessments in related areas such as culture and social development; for example, to promote and develop traditional sport and games.

(Source: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/physical-education-and-sport/about-physical-education-and-sport/)




Promoting Quality Physical Education Policy

On May 6, 2016, I wrote to UNESCO Sector for Social and Human Sciences to share my initiative to promote a brand of Physical Education that's gamified, inclusive, innovative, child-centred, flexible and customisable, that will revolutionise the instruction, method of teaching, and impact in learning to students. I submitted the rationale of my first project PhysicalEducASEAN along with my website and my blog on PE100 SYSTEM™ ASIA.

On May 9, 2016, a few days after my email, Nancy Mclennan, the Youth and Sports Section Project Officer, responded with a very positive note about my projects. "Several aspects mentioned in the presentation of your projects comply with the key principles of this policy package," she wrote. She was referring the policy package to the diagram below:









"UNESCO, along with partners, have developed a Quality Physical Education (QPE) Policy package to guide Governments to revise national PE policies to be inclusive, flexible and child-centred," she mentioned. The core policy tools developed so far are included below:

• A “how to guide” (Quality Physical Education Guidelines for Policy-Makers) to review and reinforce policy measures, with locally adaptable benchmarks for provision, checklists, good practice examples and a policy matrix (also available in French, Portuguese and Spanish) 
• A methodology document which outlines good practice in terms of the process of policy revision (also available in French and Spanish) 
• An infographic making the case for public investment in inclusive, child-centred QPE policy (also available in French, Portuguese and Spanish) 

I vowed to promote Quality Physical Education Policies in my projects, use the methodology policy and will encourage public investment using the following infographic for PE100 EXTRA™, as UNESCO has encouraged me to do so.

Additionally, this year, a select number of countries (including Fiji, Mexico, Zambia and South Africa) will be actively supported by UNESCO and partners in the revision of their PE policy in line with the Guidelines. They hope these countries will then serve as mentors to inspire other governments to also review and review national policy.

With PE100 SYSTEM and PhysicalEducASEAN projects, Asia, particularly the ASEAN region is not left behind.

For more information about Quality PE Policy Package, please click this link: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/physical-education-and-sport/policy-project/

The Concept, the Purpose, and the Standards of PE100 ASIA

THE CONCEPT

The concept above, developed by Oliver N. Gomez, shows the idea of the PE100 SYSTEM™ ASIA.  The concept aims to offer program choices in PE. Several curricular programs have already been identified - IPE, AdPE, APE, MPE, and LPE. For extra-curricular activities after school, PE100 SYSTEM™ also aims to offer several choices such as recreation, wellness, sports, dance, and leadership activities. The school curricular and extra-curricular programs will be supported by off-school choices such as commercially for-profit activity providers, the private sector, community non-profit organisations, student organisations, and the PE100 global school community. Finally, to build a healthy and active lifestyle, we emphasise our core values - activity preference, motivation, leadership, and adherence.

THE PURPOSE

A widely accepted definition of Physical Education states that it is an integral part of the educational program designed to promote the optimum development of an individual physically, mentally, socially, emotionally,and spiritually through total body movement in the performance of properly selected physical activities. The purpose of PE is active participation in and out of school throughout one’s lifetime. 

PROPERLY SELECTED PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES. PE100 SYSTEM™ interprets the last phrase in the definition of PE as PREFERENCES of all involved in the selection process following general guidelines such as the availability of facilities and equipment, safety, and faculty. PE100 SYSTEM™ empowers learners to become part of the selection process aside from school authorities. Units or lessons are classified as “a must” or “a can”. The “Must Do” units are essentially mandatory carefully and properly chosen by school authorities while the “Can-Do” units are essential electives that are carefully and properly selected by learners.

THE GOAL OF PE PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS. PE100 SYSTEM™ aligns itself to the main purpose of Physical Education’s existence in the academe. We believe that our core values are the key to successfully achieve the goal of PE and guide schools to its real purpose.

PREFERENCE. Children are unique. They are individuals and no two children are alike; physically, emotionally, socially and intellectually, each child is a unique individual (UNICEF, 2001). Each child has a unique liking or fondness towards physical activities. This is the reason why PE100 SYSTEM™ is introducing CHOICES.  

MOTIVATION. Physical activities are intrinsically motivating in nature. However, forced learning, whatever type of it, greatly demotivates learners. PE100 SYSTEM™ makes PE an intrinsically motivating learning experience because we value our learners’ activity preference. As equally important, our gamified approach also takes PE to a whole new level and this is an extrinsic motivation for our learners.

ADHERENCE. Physical activities that fit the preference of learners and at the same time enjoyable and motivating are more likely to be adhered.  Learners develop habits in living a physically active life when schools and authorities follow this simple equation: Preference x Motivation = Adherence in physical activities and exercises.

LEADERSHIP. At PE100 SYSTEM™, we educate learners to be leaders in health and physical activities. Leaders know their activity preferences. They are motivated to be active. They have developed habits to adhere to their physical activity programs. And more importantly, they influence others to live a healthy and active lifestyle.

LIFESTYLE. PE100 SYSTEM™’s goal is to guide our learners to develop their preference in physical activities and exercises, motivate them intrinsically and extrinsically, help them overcome the barriers of adherence in their physical activity programs, become leaders promoting healthy lifestyles, and live a fun-filled purposeful healthy and well lifetime.

THE STANDARDS

With the absence of a governing body that could create the most anticipated future “Physical Education Standards in Asia”, most schools rely on standards created in Western countries. The 2013 UNESCO final report on World-wide Survey on School Physical Education suggested that policies and practices are subject to localisation and/or local interpretations, and that there is no “one size fits all” solution (UNESCO, 2013). What works in many Western countries may not work as efficiently and effectively in Asia.

With this, PE100™ ASIA has come up with its own academic standards based from our core values and philosophy statements.  Our partner schools may adopt these standards to create their own benchmarks.

Standard 1. SAFETY. The motivated learner adheres to the general policies for safety and well-being in all physical activities.

Standard 2. PROBLEM SOLVING. The motivated learner recognises strengths, acknowledges weaknesses, and acts to overcome setbacks.

Standard 3. ADHERENCE. The motivated learner demonstrates adherence to his/her physical activity preferences.

Standard 4. SELF-RELIANCE. The motivated learner demonstrates self-reliance in physical activities when working independently or with a group.

Standard 5. GOAL SETTING. The motivated learner sets goals focused on education and behaviour change leading to physical activity outside of class.

Standard 6. EVALUATION. The motivated learner evaluates himself/herself, his/her environment, engagement, enjoyment.

The Idea of Creating Several PE Programs

I was 11 years old when I first encountered General Science as a subject in high school. For the record, I am a proud alumnus of the Kilikili National High School located at East Kilikili, Wao, Lanao del Sur, Philippines. Way back, the Philippine public education system then provided 10 years of basic education - 6 years in Elementary and 4 years in Secondary. First year high school (which was the term we used for Grade 7) taught General Science. The following year was Biology. On the third year, Chemistry. And finally, during my fourth year, we had Physics.

Mathematics! At first, I thought Math was only about counting. Then Algebra was introduced, followed by Geometry, and then finally, Trigonometry. But it didn't end there. There are other branches such as Applied Math, Analysis, Statistics, Calculus, Logic, Set Theories, etc.

What's the point?

Well, I have been trying to make sense if the case for Science and Math could also be a case for Physical Education - you know, maybe we should create branches too.

Unlike any other academic disciplines, PE is unique because it is the only subject that involves the total psychomotor and affective domains in learning. However, PE has become one of the most overlooked subjects in schools.

In the Philippines, the word "lang" (only) has become a suffix to PE, thereby, hearing the expression "PE lang" most of the times in schools. Maybe, PE either has a reputation of being an easy A or being less academic.

For years I've been trying to figure out why people use lang when they describe PE. Then it hit me. It is not about the perceived difficulty or easiness or making PE less academic than any other subjects. Lang is to describe that PE is simple, singular, and without complexity. Physical Education is never perceived as complex as Math or Science. PE is practical while the rest needs a lot of cognition and thinking. PE is tangible while the rest could be abstract. PE is easy and simple and the fun element makes it appear that it doesn't make life complicated - but it makes life stress-free and simply happy. In my opinion, this is the main reason why there's "PE lang".

A Physical Educator would argue that PE should not be described this way. I, for one, have been fighting for this cause - for people to never look down on my profession because PE deserves a status similar to other academic subjects. However, it's undeniable that PE gets small credit in being an academic subject worldwide.

Does this mean we have to make PE a little bit more complex than how it is perceived today? No. This is not my point. I refuse to make PE much more complex than what it is today. I'm satisfied with its simplicity. But I refuse to accept the fact that its simplicity makes it look like it is not what it should be - an integral part of school curriculum.

A lot of factors affect why PE in the Philippines and around the world has been perceived inferior to other subjects. But I won't point fingers at anything or anyone. My life's work is to identify the problems and offer solutions as best as I can.

Today, PE has only one face - physical type of education. For this reason, I want to create several branches of PE like that of Science and Math. It may not appear fancy such as the names: Biology, Chemistry, or Physics; but at least dividing PE will make it more relevant to the learning experience of each learner. It may not be "branches" after all because we don't really have to create names like "a branch that study sports" or "a branch that study movements and rhythms". Of course, creating branches or different types of PE shouldn't just be for the purpose of creating to make it look good. Besides, there has to be bases in doing so. I believe in purpose and intention. For what reason do I want to create several Programs in PE?

If you are a PE teacher, you know that PE has many faces or appearances. The question is: what side of PE are you showing to your learners?

• Are you showing the competitive side of PE where learners undergo training to win competitions? 
• The recreational part where learners are encouraged to seek fun in physical activities? 
• The health and wellness part where learners are given physical activity options to be fit for life? 
• The artistic part where movements are associated with rhythm and performing arts? 
• The scientific and theoretical part where students need to learn science-related topics in PE? 
• The aesthetic side where learners have to exercise and move for beauty and good outward appearance? 
• The extreme part where learners seek adventure and challenge? 
• The relaxation part where learners meditate and practice mindfulness? 
• The adaptiveness of physical activities where modification of activities are made to fit into certain type of population? 
• The leadership part where learners experience to belong to a team and get exposed to the meaning of teamwork and being a team player? 
• The lifestyle part where learners are encouraged to develop healthy practices and avoid dangerous unhealthy habits
• The values formation part where physical activities and exercises are used to impact learners' attitudes and behaviours
• The life-saving part where learners value lives and learn techniques to save lives

One of the main issues in Physical Education is the idea that the one and only PE program that we offer to our learners is enough and it caters to all types. Yes, we may have divided our programs into several units/topics. But that doesn't solve the issue. There is no such thing as "one size fits all" in Physical Education.

For a second, this reminds me of my former student in Mandalay, Myanmar a few years ago. He has the biggest feet in the school. He always come to my class with a pair of flip flops. He reasoned out that he cannot find shoes that have his size. It affected his academics. I was certain it affected his entire life too when he dropped out.

A "one size fits all" programming in PE may have been seen effective by some schools. But it is not inclusive at all. There may be one, two, or half of the class struggling to find their best fit but many schools only offer one type of program in PE.

In conclusion, what if PE could become similar to Math or Science with several branches and focus of studies? What if schools create several programs in PE and change the "one size fits all" programming to "customise to fit all"? How will this be possible at all?