Courtesy of Deborah Tannehill

Guiding questions

1. What is a curriculum?
2. What is a standards-based curriculum?
3. How does a standards-based curriculum differ from a traditional curriculum?
4. Why have we gone to using a standards-based curriculum?
5. How has educational reform impacted schools and the way they do business?
6. What other factors have influenced curriculum development?
7. How does planning differ with traditional and standards-based curricula?
8. What role does assessment play in a standards-based curriculum?
9. How are activities selected in a standards-based curriculum?

9781449691745_CH01.indd 4 3/31/2014 1:35:25 PM

 CHAPTER

1
Introduction to Standards-
Based Curriculum
Development
Jacalyn Lund, Georgia State University
Deborah Tannehill, University of Limerick

What makes a good program good? What are its main characteristics? .  .  . First, it is clear
that a good program accomplishes something .  .  . physical education must accomplish
­tangible outcomes to gain acceptance by students, faculty, administrators, and parents.1

What does your physical education program stand for? Can you articulate clearly what your
program is attempting to accomplish? Can you communicate this to students, parents, and
administrators? Could you produce tangible evidence that this is happening? Physical education
programs today are repeatedly being required to answer these and other questions. Educational
reform and the move to standards-based education are changing the way educators do business.
Picture the graduate of your physical education program—how would you want this person
to act? What would you want them to know and be able to do? Many physical educators would
reply that they want their graduates to choose to participate in physical activity, have sufficient
skill and knowledge to do so successfully, and lead an active lifestyle. Others may be more con-
cerned with their students gaining social responsibility as they participate in a physically active
lifestyle, and still others may focus on young people becoming physically active citizens who are

1
Reproduced from Siedentop, D., Mand, C., & Taggart, A. (1986). Physical education: teaching and curriculum strategies for
grades 5–12, p. 311, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

9781449691745_CH01.indd 5 3/31/2014 1:35:25 PM

 6 Chapter 1 Introduction to Standards-Based Curriculum Development

conscious of the inequalities that exist for physical activity participation in some social contexts
and work as change agents to remedy this situation. Though there is not just one correct answer,
most likely all physical educators would want graduates to recognize that an active lifestyle con-
tributes to physical health, as well as social and mental well-being. Participation can manifest
itself in a wide variety of forms—from square dancing with a local group, to playing softball
with a recreational team, to hiking in state or national parks.
Although certainly a goal of most physical education teachers, having graduates participate in
physical activity on a regular basis is not an automatic outcome of a physical education program,
as our national health statistics confirm (Burgeson, Wechsler, Brener, Young, & Spain, 2003).
Choosing to be physically active is the result of experiencing a solid curriculum that allows
­students to develop the skills and knowledge necessary for success, along with making them
aware of activity venues within the community in which to participate (Rink, 2000). People
tend to participate in activities during which they experience success. The challenge for physical
educators is twofold: first, to give students the skills and knowledge they need to be successful,
and second, to introduce them to activity venues where they can participate in these activities
long after they graduate from high school.
As stated previously, educational reform is changing the way schools operate. The move
toward standards-based education is an attempt to clarify what schools and teachers are trying
to accomplish. This book is designed to help you during the journey of developing a standards-
based physical education program. Because knowing where to start is often the most difficult
part, this chapter is designed to help you begin by defining what a curriculum includes, describ-
ing how the standards-based movement began, and explaining the significance of this move-
ment so that you will know the important components of developing a quality, standards-based
­physical education program.

What Is Curriculum?
Curriculum includes all knowledge, skills, and learning experiences provided to students within
the school program. This encompasses even those activities that are typically offered beyond the
school day such as band, student clubs, intramurals, and after school sports teams. From our
perspective, curriculum includes the planned and sequenced learning experiences that allow stu-
dents to reach significant goals deemed worthwhile for students to achieve. Ultimately, a curric-
ulum represents the plan that guides delivery of learning experiences and instruction. Although
it is difficult to separate instruction from the curriculum and assessment, we will attempt to do
so to better clarify the latter pieces of the triad. In this text, we will narrow our description of
curriculum development to include only those experiences that are delivered within the physical
education class typically offered within the school day, although we recognize that the curricu-
lum actually includes much more than that.
curriculum    Includes all knowledge, skills, Curriculum writing is the process of developing a
and learning experiences that are provided sequence of activities and/or selecting an appropriate
to students within the school program.
curriculum model that will enable students to meet

9781449691745_CH01.indd 6 3/31/2014 1:35:25 PM

 What Is a Standards-Based Curriculum? 7

desired goals at the conclusion of their school ­experience. The curriculum outlines the big
picture for this process; develops assessments that are given at various points, allowing stu-
dents to demonstrate success toward meeting these goals; and identifies activities that allow
graduates to meet curricular goals. In the past, curricular goals were determined largely by
the school district developing the curriculum. Most school districts relied on teachers within
the system to write the curricular goals. ­Educational reform has now provided external
guidelines that schools are required to follow. States and nations have developed standards,
which are statements describing what students should know and be able to do. Instead of
developing their own goals, most teachers are now
required to have their students meet standards at the standards    Curriculum goals established
at the national, state, or district level
state, district, or national level. How the standards that identify the skills, knowledge,
are unpacked will result in programs looking quite and dispositions that students should
demonstrate.
different depending on the decisions made about the
content and the activities used to meet the standards.

What Is a Standards-Based Curriculum?

A standards-based curriculum represents a huge
paradigm shift for many teachers currently in the
standards-based curriculum    A curriculum
field (Doolittle, 2003). In the past, choice of activ- that is developed by looking at the standards
ity led the design of the curriculum. Curricula (district, state, or national); identifying the
skills, knowledge, and dispositions that
were written to include a variety of activities tradi- students should demonstrate to meet these
tionally included in a physical education program. standards; and identifying activities that will
The focus was on developing skill competence for allow students to reach the goals stated in
the standards.
­students in these sports or activities. In other words,
teachers taught students the skills necessary to play
­volleyball, soccer, or tennis; dance; or swim, for example, and the only goal was for stu-
dents to be able to play or perform the activity. Activities were selected because they were
typically played by one gender or the other (e.g., boys wrestled and girls danced), were
commonly played in a certain region (e.g., ice hockey was common in Minnesota physi-
cal education programs), teachers were competent performers in the sport or activity and/
or they enjoyed teaching the unit, or that was tradition—certain sports have always been
included in physical education and not including them would almost be an act of heresy
(e.g., basketball). As new sports or activities emerged they might be included in the cur-
riculum if facilities, equipment, and personnel were available (e.g., inline skating, ulti-
mate, team handball, etc.). Other activities might be eliminated for a variety of reasons
(e.g., trampoline units were eliminated largely for liability reasons).
Developing a standards-based curriculum begins by looking at the standards; recognizing the
skills, knowledge, and dispositions that students should demonstrate to meet these standards;
and selecting a curriculum model and/or activities that will allow students to reach the outcomes

9781449691745_CH01.indd 7 3/31/2014 1:35:25 PM

 8 Chapter 1 Introduction to Standards-Based Curriculum Development

stated in the standards. In other words, curriculum design now begins with the standards and
when they are unpacked, the activities to reach them emerge. Time is limited, so teachers must
carefully choose content and activities that will allow students to reach the standards. Some
activities may be eliminated from a program because of their minimal contribution to meeting
standards.
Curricular assessments are also necessary in standards-based curricula so that students will be
able to track their success, and teachers can determine whether the curriculum will enable stu-
dents to meet the standards. If students are falling short of meeting the standards, the reason(s)
why must be determined. In some cases, new approaches to teaching or different activities must
be included in the program. In other instances, additional time is needed for students to achieve
the standards. For example, 30 minutes per week in elementary school is not sufficient for chil-
dren to learn and become competent in all the standards. When physical education is offered for
only 1 year at the high school level, there is no opportunity for most youth, especially the slow
developers, to gain the skills necessary to achieve all the standards. In these instances, schools
need to identify additional ways to give students the opportunity to reach the standards, or
teachers must make choices about which standards their students will meet. If physical educa-
tion is not part of the state testing mandate, and school districts do not take responsibility for
ensuring that the standards are met, it is unlikely that all students will reach the standards.
Due to a misunderstanding of what it is, some teachers object to a standards-based curricu-
lum because they feel it infringes on their right to choose what students should learn. Other
teachers, who run recreational programs where little instruction and, consequently, little student
learning occurs, dislike standards-based curricula because their programs do not allow students
to meet the standards. Some teachers are so concerned that students enjoy physical activity that
they sacrifice skill competency so that students can engage in game play for the majority of their
class time without considering the role that skill competency has in the level of student enjoy-
ment. Other teachers who object to standards-based curricula have traditionally taught only
team sports, and tend to repeat them at every grade level and sometimes within the same year.
Some teachers have come to appreciate the standards for the guidance they provide, how they
have contributed to improving what is done in the name of physical education, and how they
have improved the status of our profession (Petersen, Cruz, & Amundson, 2002).
In actuality, most movement forms and physical activities can be included in the curriculum
to assist students in meeting the standards if instruction is focused on student learning. Although
we are proponents of sport when it is taught well, we also recognize that not all standards can be
achieved through sport alone . . . or dance alone, climbing walls alone, or fitness alone. Dance,
outdoor pursuits, body control activities (e.g., gymnastics, martial arts), individual sports, fit-
ness activities, and racquet sports have much to contribute to the development of a physically
educated person. Omitting them from a curriculum does the student a serious injustice and
eliminates primary options for students achieving the standards. The key is to provide mean-
ingful options through variety. To help achieve this variety, many school districts have adopted
main theme curriculum models.

9781449691745_CH01.indd 8 3/31/2014 1:35:25 PM

 What Triggered Educational Reform? 9

W h y H a v e We G o n e t o a S t a n d a r d s - B a s e d
Curriculum?
Have you ever stopped to consider what a high school diploma represents? Prior to the stan-
dards movement, for too many schools, a diploma had come to represent “seat time” (Guskey,
1996). In other words, a student attended school for a given number of years, sat at a desk
for a required number of days, and thus earned a diploma. Although some students achieved
competence in several subjects, this could not be said for all students. The standards movement
sought to bring an end to this by stating what a graduate of a program should minimally know
and be able to do.

What Is Educational Reform?

In 2001, federal legislation was passed in the United States that required states and their respec-
tive school districts to report student progress on reaching academic performance goals estab-
lished by the state. Schools were required to report results publicly as to whether students are
making adequate yearly progress toward these state mandates. Recently, however, this provision
has been relaxed as states are moving toward holding teachers accountable for student learning
as part of merit pay increases. The original legislation, referred to as the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act of 2001, resulted in schools spending many precious resources (time and money)
to meet these goals. The intent of NCLB is for every child to achieve a minimal level of compe-
tency in several academic areas. To date, physi-
cal education is excluded as a core subject from
this legislation and in some ways has become
the forgotten subject as schools struggle to meet
the expectations outlined in NCLB. This legis-
lation is really part of a reform effort that began
in the mid-1980s as the United States sought
to catch up to the performance levels exhibited
by many other countries around the world.
The following section will briefly discuss some
of the important events that led to the call for
Courtesy of Rachel Gurvitch ­educational reform.

W h a t Tr i g g e r e d E d u c a t i o n a l R e f o r m ?
In many respects a school is a reflection of society. Early educational systems were based on
classical European models, designed for the upper class (Siedentop, 1998). As the United States
became less of an agricultural society and more industrial, schools assumed more of a vocational
role rather than providing a liberal arts education for a few.

9781449691745_CH01.indd 9 3/31/2014 1:35:26 PM

 10 Chapter 1 Introduction to Standards-Based Curriculum Development

Compulsory education laws caused students with less scholastic ability to stay in school.
This trend, coupled with the population boost from the baby boomer generation (those born
between 1946 and 1964), put increased demands on the structure of schools. As class sizes
increased, students were less likely to receive individual attention. At the same time that schools
were dealing with a more diverse population of students with a wide variation in ability, as well
as larger class sizes, knowledge increased exponentially. Teachers tried to cover what they had
traditionally taught along with this new information. The net result was that not all students
were learning necessary skills and knowledge by the time they graduated from high school.
A similar metamorphosis impacted physical education. Physical education classes in the early
1900s found students engaged in physical training that consisted largely of calisthenics and
fitness activities. Today’s physical education classes may cover a variety of team and individual
sports and recreational activities, along with aerobics, hiking, disc games, dance, swimming, and
fitness activities. Teachers have more to teach, less time to teach it, larger classes, and greater
variation in physical ability, ethnic background, and culture.
The standards movement actually originated from the world of business as leaders began
calling for educational reform. Business leaders wanted to ensure that their future workers were
capable of performing the tasks necessary for success. Employers who hired graduates wanted to
make sure that those holding a high school diploma had mastered at least a minimum set of skills
and acquired a basic level of knowledge. Educators were called upon to identify what students
should know and be able to do. This set of skills and knowledge was referred to as standards.
Because states have control of their own educational system, each state is responsible for
developing its own standards. The standards movement required people to look at the graduate
to define the desired knowledge base or exit skills. From there, educators could go through a
process referred to as backward design (Jacobs, 1997),
backward design    Intentional planning which means to identify the ultimate goal/end and then
in which the teacher begins with the exit
goals and designs the curriculum toward
determine what students needed to know at each grade
those goals, from high school down to level to enable them to successfully achieve the exit
elementary school. ­outcomes.
Many cognate areas began developing subject area standards to assist states and provide guid-
ance. The National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) released ­physical
education content standards in 1995. The NASPE standards (1995, 2004) were based on the
document Outcomes of Quality Physical Education Programs (NASPE, 1992), which defined a
physically educated person (see Figure 1.1). Although each state is responsible for developing
its own content standards, many states have adopted the NASPE National Physical Education
Content Standards (1995, 2004), as did the International Council for Health, Physical Educa-
tion, Recreation, Sport, and Dance (ICHPERSD), an international physical education organi-
zation. Some ­countries followed suit, adapting their standards to those developed by NASPE.
Although some people look at educational reform and the standards movement as being
problematic, in some respects it can be looked upon as an opportunity for educational renewal.
Because of the expansion of knowledge, the emphasis has changed from knowing minute facts

9781449691745_CH01.indd 10 3/31/2014 1:35:26 PM

 What Triggered Educational Reform? 11

To pursue a lifetime of healthful physical activity, a physically educated person:

• has learned skills necessary to perform a variety of physical activities
• knows the implications of and the benefits from involvement in
physical activities
• participates regularly in physical activity
• is physically fit
• values physical activity and its contributions to a healthful lifestyle

Figure 1.1  Outcomes of quality physical education programs, which define a physically educated
person.
Source: Reproduced from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (1992).
­Outcomes of quality physical education programs. www.aahperd.org.

and details to a more conceptual approach to learning (Erickson, 2002). In many instances the
standards provide a lens through which to focus learning. Philosophical conversations about how
to address these standards can be challenging for those willing to engage in the debate while clari-
fying and sharpening program goals. In physical education, a standards-based approach to curric-
ulum development forces teachers to select activities based on their contribution to m ­ eeting the
standards rather than based on teacher preference, tradition, or just as a place to start. Research
(Peterson et al., 2002; Veal, Campbell, Johnson, & McKethan, 2002) has indicated positive
results while moving to a standards-based approach to designing and implementing units.
The National Standards (2014) are the basis for the model of curriculum development
­proposed in this text. These standards are:

• Standard 1: Demonstrates competency in a variety of motor skills and movement patterns

• Standard 2: Applies knowledge of concepts, principles, strategies, and tactics related to
movement and performance
• Standard 3: Demonstrates the knowledge and skills to achieve and maintain a health-
enhancing level of physical activity and fitness
• Standard 4: Exhibits responsible personal and social behavior that respects self and others
• Standard 5: Recognizes the value of physical activity for health, enjoyment, challenge,
­self-expression, and/or social interaction

National Standards might best be thought of as a way to define our subject matter. A new,
recently approved framework will provide grade-level outcomes for each grade, K–8, and two
levels of outcomes for high school. Many states have adopted the National Standards other states
have modified them and developed their own standards and frameworks.
It is important to recognize that, unlike other disciplines, physical education does not have a
national curriculum. Instead, we have a set of competencies that define the skills and k­ nowledge
that students are expected to learn through physical education (Society of Health and Physical
Educators 2014). These ­competencies have been labeled content standards and specify what a
student should know and be able to do as a result of participating in a quality physical education
program. Although these content standards describe what students are expected to know and be

9781449691745_CH01.indd 11 3/31/2014 1:35:26 PM

 12 Chapter 1 Introduction to Standards-Based Curriculum Development

able to do, they do not define what is considered an acceptable level of performance. That is the
role of performance standards. The Society of Health and Physical Educators (2014) suggests that
a performance standard describes the levels of achievement that students are expected to attain
to meet the content standards. Although the new standards provide a framework for physical
education, they are not considered performance standards because performance expectations will
depend on the number of days per week a child has physical education, class size, and resources
(space and equipment) availability. NASPE’s PE Metrics provides assessments to measure student
performance for each of the National Standards (Fisette et al., 2009).These can be helpful for
programs as they develop performance standards for their students.

What Other Factors Have Influenced

Curriculum Development?
Although educational reform has changed the focus of curriculum development, other factors
have led to the changes in physical education curriculum content. These factors are a direct
result of our changing society and, more importantly, changes in the way that education is
­considered. This section will discuss the impact that societal interests, mobility, accessibility,
choice, educational accountability, and time have on curriculum development.

Societal Interests
Several games and activities that, in the past, were the focus of after school and weekend play in
local parks are now popular additions to physical education programs. Physical activity trends
have appropriately become curricular choices. Ultimate, inline skating, and pickleball are three
examples of popular activities that have been added to physical education programs starting
in the 1970s. When students master the basic skills of physical activities, they can learn new
activities as adults. If young people develop a sidearm throw, balance, and striking skills while
in school, then the previously mentioned activities are relatively easy to learn as adults, even
though they had not previously experienced them. Physical education curricula must provide a
variety of activities and skills to allow success while learning new activities as adults, even if these
­activities are not directly taught in physical education.

Mobility
Society today is much more mobile than in the past. Instead of living in a single community
for one’s entire life, people today are much more likely to work in a variety of geographical
settings because of job and personal changes. An individual growing up in Florida taking part
in body surfing and snorkeling might end up working in Colorado, where skiing, hiking, and
mountain climbing abound. Someone from North Dakota, having spent time mountain biking
and skiing, might settle in southern California and have access to beaches, beach volleyball, and
surfing. Curricula need to be diverse enough to allow for the changes in the living environment
that adulthood may bring.

9781449691745_CH01.indd 12 3/31/2014 1:35:26 PM

 What Other Factors Have Influenced Curriculum Development? 13

Accessibility
Sports and physical activity are popular outlets for enjoying one’s free time. As a result, many
facilities have made new activities more accessible. Someone living in a major city might never
visit a mountain, yet can enjoy wall climbing at a local YMCA or sport center. Some homes
include exercise rooms so that busy owners can work out when it fits into their schedules. For
these individuals it is important to understand training principles so they can develop their own
exercise regimens. The needs of youth are varied in a physical education program. Curricula that
align with the standards will identify conceptual learning and provide youth with ways to stay
physically active throughout a lifespan.

Choice
Despite what we know about the importance of physical activity and leading a physically active
lifestyle, we live in a sedentary society. Too many people select sedentary activities because they
have greater appeal than more physical ones. Physical education programs must have a major
focus on helping children and youth choose to be physically active and provide them with
the skills and knowledge to design their own physical activity and fitness plans to carry them
through adulthood. Success and enjoyment of our programs as they move through school are
one way to facilitate this effort, because we tend to choose to take part in the things we enjoy.

Accountability
As stated earlier, one of the biggest components of educational reform has been the idea of
accountability. In 1983, Placek found that many physical education teachers planned lessons
primarily to keep students busy, happy, and “good.” Although these are factors of a strong
program, they are not enough alone—learning and achievement must also be an outcome.
In some schools, physical education was marginalized and administrators did not care about
what students learned in physical education, as long as the classes were under control. In these
schools, physical education often turned into recreation programs, with large numbers of stu-
dents engaged in game play rather than instruction. In other schools, physical education became
a setting where students could choose to just sit and watch others participate. In still other
schools, a few days were devoted to instruction but the majority of time was spent in game play.
Because learning didn’t need to be documented, some administrators didn’t pay much atten-
tion to what was happening in physical education. Times have changed, and the accountability
movement is as important for physical education as it is for reading or mathematics.

Time
Time is a precious commodity in schools. Teachers in subjects that are tested in state-wide
assessment programs are under pressure to document student learning. Physical education must
become part of this accountability system if we are to keep our programs and make them viable.
In states where physical education is not part of the accountability formula, some administra-
tors have cut time available for physical education so that students can spend ­additional time

9781449691745_CH01.indd 13 3/31/2014 1:35:26 PM

 14 Chapter 1 Introduction to Standards-Based Curriculum Development

on subjects that are tested, despite there being no documented evidence that this practice
improves test scores on a long-term basis (Wechsler, 2008). If physical education is going to
continue to be part of the school curriculum, teachers must find a way to connect with the
educational goals of a school and document their contribution to meeting these goals. Schools
are being held accountable for student learning, and physical education is not exempt from this
accountability.

How Does Planning Change When Moving

f r o m a Tr a d i t i o n a l t o a S t a n d a r d s - B a s e d
Curriculum?
The process of curriculum development with a standards-based format is different from the
process used in planning traditional curricula. Whereas traditional curriculum development
begins with identifying activities for students, a standards-based curriculum does not. The major
difference between the two is that a standards-based curriculum requires those developing the
curriculum to look first at what they are trying to accomplish before identifying activities that
will help students attain those standards. In states where there is strong accountability (i.e.,
rewards and sanctions based on whether students meet standards), schools pay closer attention
to whether their students are able to meet the standards.
In a standards-based curriculum, once teachers have decided what students should know and
be able to do, they must decide on the level of performance. National Standards talk about com-
petency in motor skills and movement patterns to perform a variety of physical activities. What
number does “a variety” represent? What level of performance does “competency” represent?
Identifying performance levels for standards helps define the standards. This process also can
be part of educational renewal as teachers discuss their expectations about how good is “good
enough” to satisfy the intent of the standards. These and other discussions occur as curriculum
writers unpack the standards.

What Is the Role of Assessment in a

Standards-Based Curriculum?
The second part of the paradigm shift with standards-based curricula involves the use of assess-
ment. Assessments are a key part of the standards-based curriculum process because those
developing curricula must decide what they are going to accept as evidence that students
have met the standards. Additionally, they must decide at what point(s) students are going
to demonstrate competence. Because exit outcomes are assessed when students have taken
their last physical education class, in some districts, this may be as early as 9th grade. Teachers
and schools will also usually assess students prior to this final evaluation to see whether they
are making adequate progress toward the exit outcomes. Some states have mandated when
­students will be assessed. In states where there are no state mandates, school districts make
these decisions.

9781449691745_CH01.indd 14 3/31/2014 1:35:26 PM

 Selecting Activities in a Standards-Based Curriculum 15

The types of assessments used for a standards-based curriculum must be aligned with the
standards. Although this might seem like a simplistic statement, in some cases there is a dis-
connect between the standards and the assessments. For example, if the state adopted stan-
dards similar to the National Standards a paper and pencil test would not be an adequate
measure for Standard 1 (Demonstrates competency in a variety of motor skills and movement
­patterns). Many states have been reluctant to implement performance-based assessments because
they are costly to administer and evaluate. It is also difficult to hire evaluators who can visit
a site and administer the assessments. Some states have directed school districts to develop
assessment systems that measure student learning and achievement of standards; others are
trying to develop assessments at the state level. The challenge of assessing physical education
performance is an issue that will need to be resolved when using student learning to determine
teacher merit raises. Recent legislation associated with Race to the Top funding will require
states to determine how to award merit in those subjects that are not tested with current
­assessment programs.

Selecting Activities in a Standards-Based

Curriculum
A standards-based curriculum calls for a careful selection of activities with adequate time
provided for students to strive toward and master them. When viewing an entire standards-
based program, it would appear that fewer sports and activities are offered, and instruc-
tional units tend to be extended for longer periods of time. This reflects the “less is more”
principle and is built on students gaining competency in a few activities. It is also intended
that as students become knowledgeable with one activity they will be able to transfer that
knowledge to other activities with similar characteristics. The “exposure curriculum” of the
more traditional multiactivity programs simply does not allow this depth of knowledge and
transfer.
Teachers often feel they are on a teeter-totter when they plan for and deliver a curriculum
in physical education. On one hand, a primary function of education is to provide students
with the skills and information that they will need to be active as adults. Participation patterns
for adults are very different from those of youth. Physical education programs need to take
these differences into consideration as they prepare students to be active adults. On the other
hand, we know that if students are going to choose to be physically active as adults, they must
enjoy physical activity as youth. A wonderful article in Educational Leadership, “Lessons from
Skateboarders” (Sagor, 2002), highlights the time, energy, sweat, and injury many youth will
go through just to master a skateboarding skill, yet when they get to school they are unmoti-
vated and lack interest in learning. Although what we teach should not be dictated by what
the students want, we must find ways to pull them in, motivate them to persevere, and provide
them with what is important, relevant, and worth their time and energy to master. This also
might mean that our programs offer activities that are taking place in the community after
school and on weekends and encourage students to participate in them beyond the physical
education class.

9781449691745_CH01.indd 15 3/31/2014 1:35:26 PM

 16 Chapter 1 Introduction to Standards-Based Curriculum Development

Although providing options is a key to meeting the standards, activities included in the cur-
riculum must be evaluated in terms of their contribution and linked to the standard to which
they align. For instance, golf is a great lifetime sport, but its contribution to fitness is minimal.
Gymnastics contributes to the aesthetics as well as the flexibility component of fitness, but it is
not something in which older adults usually participate. Activities must be selected not only for
their individual contribution, but also for their impact on the overall education of the child. Just
as a jigsaw puzzle needs all the pieces to show the correct picture, a curriculum needs to have all
the pieces (activities) necessary for a child to be physically educated. The curriculum must have
a balance between activities for the present and those for the future.
Teachers also must remember that students have different activity preferences. All students
are not alike—some enjoy backpacking, whereas others prefer the aesthetics that dance and
gymnastics provide. Additionally, different activities are popular in different regions. Imagine
trying to teach ice hockey in Alabama, and trying not to teach it in upstate New York! Clogging
is a very important dance form in North Carolina, but few (if any) people in New Mexico go
clogging on a regular basis. When deciding how to meet the intent of the National Standards
each of the previously mentioned activities has its place and contribution. Teachers must select a
variety of activities that will allow students to meet the standards, while respecting the participa-
tion preferences regarding physical activity in their region of the country.
One alternative is to have a main theme as the organizing center or central thrust of a
program around which content is developed to meet specific goals or standards (Siedentop
& Tannehill, 2000; Tannehill, van der Mars, & MacPhail, 2015). A variety of activities pre-
sented through main theme models (e.g., net, invasion, and target games in sport education;
hiking, fishing, and camping in outdoor education; trust, cooperative games, and low-level
initiatives in adventure education; and basic motor skills in d ­ evelopmental education) will
increase opportunities for students to reach these goals or standards to their fullest extent. The
standards reform initiative has forced schools and school ­districts to think differently about
what is taught and why it is included in the curriculum.

Summary
A standards-based curriculum is complex and requires a great deal of thought to develop and
implement. Writing clear goals and purposes for a physical education curriculum, and then
developing assessments to measure these goals, are the first steps when creating a standards-
based curriculum. A variety of curricular models may be adopted that provide interesting lenses
through which to create a program. Physical education programs can be exciting and provide
challenging learning opportunities for students. Additionally, they make a positive contribution
to the health and well-being of those who participate in and complete the program. Although
some individuals are resistant to the standards movement, we see it as an opportunity to redesign
the way we think about physical education. Developing a standards-based curriculum is seen
as a vehicle for educational renewal, as well as the first step toward building a quality physical
education program.

9781449691745_CH01.indd 16 3/31/2014 1:35:26 PM

 References 17

K e y Te r m s
curriculum standards-based curriculum
standards backward design

References
Burgeson, C., Wechsler, H., Brener, N., Young, J., & Spain, C. (2003). Physical education and activ-
ity: Results from the school health policies and programs study 2000. Journal of Physical Education,
­Recreation & Dance, 74(1), 20–36.
Doolittle, S. (2003, April).). Assessment programs in New York State: A whole village’s effort. Paper presented
at the National Conference for the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and
Dance, Philadelphia, PA.
Erickson, H. L. (2002). Concept-based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond the facts. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fisette, J., Placek, J., Avery, M., Dyson, B., Fox, C., Franck, M., & Zhu, W. (2009). Developing quality
physical education through student assessments. Strategies, 22(3), 33–34.
Guskey, T. (1996). Alternative ways to document and communicate student learning. Read by author. ­Cassette
recording no. 296211. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the big picture. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricu-
lum Development.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (1992). Outcomes of quality physical education
programs. Reston, VA: Author.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (1995). Moving into the future: National standards
for physical education. Reston, VA: Author.
Society of Health and Physical Educators. (2014). National standards & grade-level outcomes for k–12
physical education, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Peterson, S., Cruz, L., & Amundson, R. (2002). The standards’ impact on physical education in New York
State. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 73(4), 15–18, 23.
Placek, J. (1983). Concepts of success in teaching: Busy, happy and good? In T. Templin & J.  Olson
(Eds.), Teaching in physical education (pp. 46–56). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Rink, J. (2000, July). Linking physical activity and fitness. Presented at the National Conference sponsored
by the National Association of Sport and Physical Education on Content Standards 3 and 4. Baltimore,
MD.
Sagor, R. (2002). Lessons from skateboarders. Educational Leadership, 60(1), 34–38.
Siedentop, D. (1998). Introduction to physical education, fitness, and sport (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield.
Siedentop, D., Mand, C., & Taggart, A. (1986). Physical education: Teaching and curriculum strategies for
grades 5–12. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical education (4th ed.). Mountain
View, CA: Mayfield.
Tannehill, D., van der Mars, H., & MacPhail, A. (2015). Building effective physical education programs,
Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Veal, M. L., Campbell, M., Johnson, D., & McKethan, R. (2002). The North Carolina PEPSE project.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 73(4), 19–23.
Wechsler, H. (2008). Physical education in the United States: A status report from the CDC’s 2006
school health policies and programs study. Presentation made at NASPE’s general session at the 2008
AAHPERD national convention in Ft. Worth, TX.

9781449691745_CH01.indd 17 3/31/2014 1:35:26 PM

 18 Chapter 1 Introduction to Standards-Based Curriculum Development

Additional Resources
Bulger, S., Housner, L., & Lee, A. (2008). Curriculum alignment: A view from physical education teacher
education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 79(7), 44–49.
Carr, J., & Harris, D. (2001). Succeeding with standards: Linking curriculum, assessment, and action plan-
ning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Castelli, D., & Beighle, A. (2007). The physical education teacher as school activity director. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 78(5), 25–28.
Cooper Institute. (2002). FITNESSGRAM test administration manual (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Corbin, C., & McKenzie, T. (2008). Physical activity promotion: A responsibility for both K–12 physical
education and kinesiology. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 79(6), 47–50.
Eisner, E. (1995). Standards for American schools: Help or hindrance? Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 758–764.
Hirsch, S., & Killion, J. (2009). When educators learn, students learn: Eight principles of professional
learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 465–469.
Kirk, D., Penney, D., Burgess-Limerick, R., Gorley, T., & Maynard, C. (2002). A-level physical education:
The reflective performer. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lambert, L. (2000). The new physical education. Educational Leadership, 57(6), 34–38.
Landers, D., & Kretchmar, S. (2008). Focus and folk knowledge. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation,
and Dance, 79(6), 51–56.
Lawson, H. (2007). Renewing the core curriculum. Quest, 59, 219–243.
Lee, A., & Solmon, M. (2007). School programs to increase physical activity. Journal of Physical Educa-
tion, Recreation, and Dance, 78(5), 22–24, 28.
Lewis, A. (1995). An overview of the standards movement. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 744–750.
Locke, L. (1990). Why motor learning is ignored: A case of ducks, naughty theories, and unrequited love.
Quest, 59, 346–357.
Locke, L. (2008). Three examples of kinesiology in physical education: Why, how, and for whom? Journal
of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 79(7), 50–54.
Lynn, S. (2007). The case for daily physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and
Dance, 78(5), 18–21.
McCullick, B., & Chen, A. (2008). Introduction. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance,
79(6), 46, 55–56.
Napper-Owen, G., Marston, R., Volkinburg, P., Afeman, H., & Brewer, J. (2003). What constitutes a
highly qualified physical education teacher? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 79(8),
26–30.
National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity. (n.d.). Model school wellness policies. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolwellnesspolicies.org
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub.L. No. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. section 6301 (2001).
President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. (2002). The president’s challenge. Washington, DC:
Author.
Thomas, J., Thomas, K., & Williams, K. (2008). Motor development and elementary physical education
are partners. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 79(7), 40–43.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Welk, G., Wood, K., & Morss, G. (2003). Parental influences on physical activity in children: An explora-
tion of potential mechanisms. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15, 19–33.
Wiegand, R., Bulger, S., & Mohr, D. (2004). Curricular issues in physical education teacher education.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 75(8), 47–55.
Woods, A. M., & Graber, K. (2007). Stepping up to the plate: Physical educators as advo-
cates for wellness policies—part 1. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 78(5),
17, 21.

9781449691745_CH01.indd 18 3/31/2014 1:35:26 PM

9781449691745_CH01.indd 19 3/31/2014 1:35:26 PM