A class intervention for school PE.

it is now recognized that public school physical education (PE) programs are an effective and necessary way to promote youth physical activity. As the nation at last confronts its obesity problem, many hope these programs, which were widely eliminated in the 1980s and 90s, will make a thorough comeback. Meanwhile, a growing number of public schools (for example, in New York City) have stopped waiting for a seismic shift in the distribution of their monies, and are enrolling in privately-funded after-school activity programs for their students. Running Partners, the flagship program of the New York Road Runners Foundation (a public/private partnership), now serves some 3,000 elementary, middle and high school students across the five boroughs with little or no access to school PE.

But what of existing school PE programs? Is there a feasible way to enhance them to lead to greater activity levels in public school youth, without breaking meager school budgets and taking time away from other, equally important classroom subjects? A new study suggests that there is.

A randomized trial of 24 two-year public middle schools developed, implemented and assessed a physical education intervention designed to increase student physical activity during existing PE classes. The schools were diverse in size, facilities and demographics. The average enrollment was 1,109 students, 45% of which were non-white, and 39% of which were participating in free or low cost meal plans. Twelve schools received the intervention; 12 served as controls. A total of 25,000 students in Southern California participated in the study.

Intervention schools received curricular materials, staff development and on-site follow-up over the 2-year PE program. Specifically, the intervention staff gave in-service training sessions to PE teachers, which consisted of three 3-hour sessions the first year, and two 3-hour sessions during year 2. Among intervention staff goals were to raise teacher awareness of the need for active PE, and to assist teachers in the design and implementation of active PE criteria. One difference between this and former interventions, the authors note, is that staff were not to provide structured curricula, but rather revise existing programs with the specific goal of increasing student activity levels. The controls continued their regular PE programs. Student activity was observed in a total of 1,849 PE lessons, at baseline, year one and year two. Mean class size was 38 students.

Moderate to vigorous physical activity during PE lessons increased in the intervention schools by 3 minutes per lesson--with cumulative effects such that by year 2, activity had increased by 18% in PE classes. As the effects were cumulative, it's important to note that only one year of the intervention was not sufficient. Consistent with other research of its kind, the findings revealed the intervention had a stronger effect on boys, in this case, greater activity by 30%. Girls may need additional strategies to increase PE class activity. The researchers suggest that same-sex activities and a different set of motivational techniques may be called for.

At the heart of all that is encouraging about the present study is the fact that the intervention did not require increases in frequency or duration of PE lessons. Furthermore, no new teachers were needed; the intervention merely developed existing school staff. The schools were given $1,000 worth of gym equipment as a participation incentive. Otherwise, the program saw significant activity increases without any extensive overhaul.

The researchers expected student activity to increase via teachers increasing the time for fitness within the PE lessons, but to their surprise, this did not occur.

Instead, the researchers report, the mechanism appears to be the increased proportion of time students were active within already-established active components of the class. These include fitness activities such as game play and free play, as opposed to lectures on health and nutrition, for example. The authors go on to report, however, that activity increases were due in part to more efficient (and therefore decreased) classroom management time, for example, teachers learned to call the roll or distribute equipment while the students warmed up. And they write, "The adopted changes included ... curricular decisions (e.g., considering that providing physical activity was more important than talking about the history of a sport)." This would appear to reflect increased classroom time for fitness after all.

Nevertheless, the intervention shows that incremental improvements in current curricula are valuable insofar as they are cumulative. No schools dropped out of the study, and the teachers responded positively in questionnaires about their overall experiences. This intervention method, which by design works within existing school curricula, does not increase PE lesson time or frequency, and requires no additional teaching staff, has great potential for use in other schools.

(Med. Sci. Sport Exerc., 2004, Vol. 36, No. 8, pp. 1382-1388; NYRRF, www.nyrrf.org)