Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programs: Current Practice & Promise

Background/Purpose: The recent release of the Institute of Medicine report entitled, Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and Physical Education to School, affirmed the importance of whole-of-school or coordinated approaches in providing access to 60 or more minutes of PA within and around the school day. One such model is the Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program (CSPAP) model, where teacher professional development and targeted points of intervention are the focus of implementation. Therefore, the purpose of this research study was to examine the current practice of physical education (PE) teachers implementing the CSPAP model in relation to the number of PA opportunities within the school environment.

Method: This cross-sectional study investigated the PA opportunities provided and strategies utilized by PE teachers to implement five components (e.g. PE, during school, staff involvement, before/after school, and family/community engagement) of the CSPAP. PE teachers, from 15 states completed the CSPAP Index, which is compiled from valid and reliable instruments (Centeio & Castelli, 2011; Lounsbery et al., 2010; and Martin & Kulinna, 2003). Data were collected through NASPE in person CSPAP trainings, then were confirmed and reduced using IBM SPSS v 19. Descriptive statistics and ANOVAs were used to summarize current practice while regression analyses were conducted to determine what facilitated implementation by early adopters.

Analysis/Results: Of the 330 (female = 236) PE teachers surveyed, 95% attempted to facilitate PA opportunities during and beyond PE classes.  ANOVA results revealed that PA opportunities significantly varied by school context and teacher induction experiences. Specifically, total PA opportunities were significantly different by educational level (elementary/secondary; F(5, 301) = 4.86; p < .001), CSPAP component (during day M=3.43±2.37; staff M = 1.51±1.45; p < .001), school size (p < .001), and urban/rural classifications (p < .001). Regression analyses suggested that SES (β = -.31, p < .01), degree of implementation of CSPAPs (β = 1.60, p < .001), and district induction resources (β = -.26, p < .01) were unique contributors, accounting for 44% of the variance.

Conclusions: Findings from this study suggest that elementary PE teachers who have a high degree of buy in to the CSPAP model and are well supported and prepared by their district offer the most PA opportunities for students. These findings identify a need for professional development and support (e.g. sample lessons) if PE teachers are going to provide a quality PE program and PA opportunities through implementation of the CSPAP.