This house would make physical education compulsoryIn the UK, Physical Education (PE) is compulsory in state schools until the age of 16 – that is, that sports are compulsory for as long as education is compulsory. Every year, more and more parents complain to their children’s schools about PE; they believe that their children shouldn’t have to participate in physical activity if they don’t want to and that it is not a conducive educational activity or environment. Proponents of PE, however, believe that it is a crucial element of all-round schooling and our society’s well-being, particularly with the contemporary rise in levels of obesity in the developed world and the proliferation of high-fat, sugary food and drink. They insist PE in schools remains one of the few places whereby the youth can be forced to participate in aerobic exercise.

Goverment Team

Participation in sport promotes a healthy lifestyleParticipation in sport promotes health. The effect on self-esteem and well-being as a product of sport can only be experienced by certain children if forced by their schools to first participate. A recent report to the European Parliament declared 'physical education is a springboard for involvement in sport and physical activities throughout life’[1]. Government is, or should be, concerned with the health of its citizens. Encouraging physical activity in the young through compulsory PE fights child obesity and contributes to forming lifelong habits of exercise. This doesn’t have to be through traditional team sports; increasingly schools are able to offer exercise in the form of swimming, gymnastics, dance, weight training, use of a multi-gym, aerobics, etc

COUNTER POINT

It is a red herring to say that PE makes any serious difference to people's health. There are plenty of more effective ways of ensuring a healthy population than pushing children round a freezing sports pitch once a week; not least would be addressing the disgusting diets our young have today, and encouraging walking or cycling to school rather than total reliance on the car. Both methods would involve promoting a healthy lifestyle without forcing the participation in unpopular physical education classes that do little for one's education.

Physical education helps to forge skills that will prove invaluable in later life Physical education helps to forge character and the mutual respect required to succeed in an adult environment. Playing team sports builds character and encourages students to work with others, as they would be expected to do in most business or sporting environments. Sport teaches children how to win and lose with good grace and builds a strong school spirit through competition with other institutions. It is invaluable to imbue with children the delicate balance between a competitive rivalry that encourages effort and, on the other hand, losing the fairness and respect required to enjoy sport. It is often the experience of playing on a team together which builds the strongest friendships at school, which endure for years afterwards. As was noted in a report to the European Parliament, 'PE...helps children learn to respect and value their own bodies and abilities, and those of others'[1] . Compulsory physical education is the only means by which all children can be forced to appreciate such advantages.

COUNTER POINT

Physical education undermines one's character as much as it strengthens and forges it. For every future athlete who grows in stature as he becomes comfortable in a team environment, there are a number of academic students who are forced weekly to cope with the brutality and criticisms of others more gifted at specific sports. Values like respect are not taught on a football field, any glance at a professional football match leads inexorably to that conclusion. Furthermore, learning about teamwork and co-operation no longer requires hours spent playing sport; they can be taught just as accurately and effectively in a classroom through music, drama, community projects, etc. without the need to encourage an ultra-competitive ethos.

Compulsory physical education will improve national sporting achievement The quest for national sporting achievement begins in schools. If schools don't have compulsory PE, it is much harder to pick out, develop and equip athletes to represent the country on a wider stage. Even with a 'sports academy' model run along Australian lines, it's much easier to find suitable individuals with a full sports program in every school. In the UK seventy per cent of state-school students are dropping PE when it becomes optional; it is no surprise that up to 30% of its Olympic athletes are now privately-educated, where physical education is compulsory until the end of one's education[1]. State education is not just about aiding the individual it’s also about the state getting a good return on its investment – in a well-educated populace to drive business and entrepreneurialism etc. This applies equally in sports.

COUNTER POINT

Schools aren't supposed to be about fostering achievers for the state – that smacks of Stalinism. Schools should be tailored to the individual – if the individual student doesn’t want to participate in sports, they shouldn’t have to. If we allowed such national aims to be considered in schools, would we consent to humiliation of those that did badly in maths lessons, to encourage their achievement in maths (and thus business skills?) Of course not. But we allow that in PE.

Sports teams require the support of schools and the encouragement of physical education Without school support, sports will collapse. If compulsory physical education classes aren't in place, then team activities will end by sheer lack of numbers, no matter if several very talented individuals are at the school (or even potentially talented – they’ll never know without the program). New surveys in the United Kingdom have found that they expect to see a fall in sporting events provided in schools due to cost-cutting, despite the upcoming Olympics inspiring students to want to compete[1]. If voluntary take-up of sport in schools is too low, then schools will shut down PE programmes so that there is no choice at all. Not everyone is academic: why deprive those talented sports students of their one chance to shine? Athletes who lack academic prowess are required to stick at classes like maths even if it appears obvious their career path is in sport; why should mathematicians escape from their respective obligation to compete in sports?

COUNTER POINT

Forcing children that don't want to play to make up teams in order to allow others to shine smacks of rigid education from a bygone era. Learning about teamwork and co-operation no longer requires hours spent playing sport; they can be taught just as accurately and effectively in a classroom with altogether more academic and conducive activities. In any case, in an increasingly litigious age, a compulsory rather than voluntary sports program is a liability. More and more schools are avoiding the very team games (e.g. rugby, soccer, hockey, football) to the (realistic) fear of lawsuits when injuries and disputes occur.

Schools can punish students who do not participate in the classes with further PE lessons Compulsory PE lessons can be treated in the same manner an ordinary educational class is treated; if the student refuses to participate and therefore does not do their work, they are punished with extra work of that same class. In this case, that would necessitate added physical education exercises at a later date or immediately after the class. The excuse that the student does not wish to participate in the class should be seen as no different to if it were stated during a maths or English class, where it would not be accepted. The fact that physical education is qualitatively different to those classes is irrespective; once deemed a compulsory subject, and therefore beneficial, it must be accepted and completed.

COUNTER POINT

The intention of advocating a healthy lifestyle and sports is lost if there is a punishment attached to the class. Furthermore, to expect all students to participate in a class that is so overtly embarrassing to the weaker athletes is almost state-sanctioned bullying. In a maths class, the working and answers of the weakest students are not paraded in front of the class for all to see, and if they try to stop this, kept behind for extra work. It is demonstrably unfair to ask students, fragile about their appearance as it is, to compete physically with classmates. It should be encouraged, but maintain voluntary for those who wish to do so. The others can still be taught about healthy living and exercise without being dragged into physical exertion.

OPPOSITION TEAM

Individuals should have the right to control their own bodies

We acknowledge the right of individuals (or their parents) to control their own bodies – when they have an operation, where they go, what they do. Why is this any different?

This discussion should be held in the real world: students actually aren’t compelled to attend PE classes, as ‘sick notes’ are produced with alarming regularity by parents complicit in their child’s wish to avoid this lesson. The aim of ‘compulsory PE’ isn’t being fulfilled at present in any case, and greater efforts to enforce it will only result in more deceit, or children missing school for the entire day – or, in the most extreme cases, being withdrawn from state education by parents unwilling to allow their children to be forced into something they don’t wish to do. Instead, we should simply abandon the whole exercise and allow PE to become voluntary. The UNESCO charter stresses the right to PE, and was addressed to nations that failed to provide it at all – it was not meant to suggest that individuals should be compelled to do it in nations that do[1].

COUNTER POINT

If not forced to exercise in youth, many will never think to do it in adulthood. This is no idle question: obesity in the UK is rising rapidly and Dr. David Haslam believes schools are part of the problem[1]. Individuals have no right to 'choice' about this: they're being compelled to attend school, to take the lessons the state says they should take. The state doesn't just impose a curricular compulsion, since physical attendance is forced – so there’s nothing unique in principle about enforced PE. Indeed, what can be more important as an aim for our schools than to encourage public health?

It is in recognition of that fact, that in 1978 UNESCO recognised PE as ‘as essential element of lifelong education.’ [2]

If PE is made voluntary, it seems obvious that many students – against their long term interests, and the long term interests of society – will choose not to. That will damage this essential element of education, and damage public health. It is true that the health of society is not perfect even with compulsory PE – but how much worse might it be without it?

Students should have the right to choose which subjects they complete at school

Students should be allowed a choice with relation to their school subjects, including physical education. Children know, often from early ages, what they want to do with their life from what subjects they enjoy and those they don't. Lots of children don't want to do physical education; it is different from any other lesson – it is about what one does with one’s body. For those not confident about their bodies, why should they be forced to go through the embarrassment and stress of a PE class when they could be spending the time most constructively and happily in a classroom? Furthermore, and on the flip side, those who do enjoy PE will still be able to take the class and in an environment surrounded by those who feel similarly. Athletes will no longer be held back by those who force teachers to re-iterate instructions or rules.

COUNTER POINT

Students, unaware of the subjects that will most benefit them in the competitive work environment, have no such right to choose all their subjects at school. Many schools offer students a restricted right to choose subjects at school, but only those which offer comparative advantages. Certain subjects like, in the Western world, English, maths, science and physical education, are not voluntary because they offer advantages to all that form a foundation necessary to excel in other areas. If students were given the right to choose all their subjects, few would do the more difficult subjects like science and maths that, whilst requiring more effort, are more rewarding for society as a whole, and the students themselves.

Compulsory physical education risks unnecessary and costly injury

A compulsory rather than voluntary sports program is a risk for both students and schools. More and more schools are avoiding team games (e.g. rugby, soccer, hockey, football) for the (realistic) fear of lawsuits when injuries and disputes occur. In one example, a defendant was awarded £100,000 by the school of a student who tackled dangerously and caused both neck and ligament injuries to his opponent opponent[1]. Furthermore, injuries sustained through school sport and the psychological trauma of being bullied for sporting ineptitude can mark people for years after they have left school. Furthermore, psychological injuries occur to those who would not otherwise do sport if not forced, these injuries tend to be the longest and most damaging. Voluntary physical education would avoid such traumatic episodes.

COUNTER POINT

Compulsory physical education does not risk unnecessary and costly injury. Injuries that occur in physical education are firstly more advisable than injuries that occur in the classroom or playground for PE teachers tend to be trained in first-aid. Furthermore, the psychological bullying occurring in physical education classes is only a small subset of bullying that is rife among schools as a whole. The prowess, or lack of it, that leads to bullying in PE classes is no different to the lack of 'prowess' in looks, or name, or spelling that will drive bullying in other educational environments.

Physical education is best taught to selected groups

Successful sporting nations realise that sports, like any other specialised subjects, are best taught to selected groups that display both talent and interest in the field – forcing all to compete holds back the able and punishes the less able. The right way to go is to liberate those that don’t want to participate, and allow those that are extremely keen to go to academies that focus their talents more efficiently than a regular school ever could.

Furthermore, our children are burdened enough in schools already, especially at the older end of the system, with multiple examinations. PE simply adds, needlessly, to this hectic schedule.

COUNTER POINT

Sport is different to, say Latin – it encompasses life choices (most importantly, a concern for physical fitness, but also working in a team etc.) that ought to be encouraged in all students. As Ken Hardman argues, ‘physical education makes a unique contribution to the education of all pupils’[1]. Extra classes for interested students can take place separately, and often do in the form of fixtures with other schools, championships etc. Sport shouldn’t be seen as an alternative to academia, an either/or – it should be a part of every student’s life in addition to their other studies.

If the opposition is correct about the heavy workload involved in schools, then students are that much more likely not to choose PE in an environment where it is voluntary, and the quality of our children’s health will be even worse. Much better to keep being healthy compulsory, and reform the pressures elsewhere in the curriculum.

Sport is a waste of school time and resources Sport is a waste of school time and resources. One or two PE lessons a week make very little difference to an individual's health– but a huge difference to a school’s budget. It creates a whole extra department in schools, wasting a great deal of money and time that could be better spent on academic lessons[1] It also requires schools buildings to be surrounded by a large amount of land for playing fields, making it prohibitively expensive to build new schools in urban areas. The quality of teaching is low, as students are taught in huge classes. On the other hand, the quality of teaching and of equipment goes up if there are fewer (but keener) students taking the subject. One Californian student asked to comment stated PE ‘doesn’t help me in any way...it’s really a waste of time. I don’t learn anything here.’[2]

COUNTER POINT

Physical Education is an important part of holistic schooling. PE is an aspect of school being about more than just book learning – it is about educating the whole person, a holistic education that betters us in an all-round sense, rather than a merely academic experience. Some aspects of physical education are vital for future wellbeing, e.g. being able to swim, learning to lift heavy weights safely. Furthermore, ‘kids who are more physically active tend to perform better academically’[1].

Arguments about cost seem petty when compared to this aim – and also misguided, since PE departments would continue to exist to serve those that chose to study PE voluntarily, even if the subject were no longer to be compulsory. Arguments about the size of classes may well be correct, but these suggest better funding for PE rather than abandonment of the commitment to public health.