Physical education and citizenship: More than just the creation of the “personally responsible” body?

Physical education and citizenship: More than just the creation of the “personally responsible” body?

Kylie Thompson

Abstract

Current notions of “good” citizenship have become closely related to the pursuit of good health and wellbeing. This, alongside popular claims that physical education can be associated with the promotion of particular morals, values and attitudes, suggests that the subject may be viewed as cultivating a specific type of person or “body”. In order to critically evaluate the complexities and potential of physical education as a key contributor to citizenship education, this article employs Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) three conceptions of the “good citizen”. A number of ideological and political tensions associated with the development of the personally responsible citizen in physical education are analysed before I argue that The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007), partnered with an action-oriented critical pedagogy, has the potential to extend students beyond the personally responsible and to some extent the participatory concepts of citizenship to a more justice-oriented approach.

Citizenship

An increased number of writers today point to a set of “unprecedented” challenges and “wicked” problems that are facing society (Bolstad, 2011). Alongside this perceived rapid and pervasive social change is an emphasis on utilising education as a tool to prepare young people to engage with 21st century challenges. To complicate matters further, this argument has been paralleled with burgeoning academic, political and public debates concerning the number of young people who are being identified as “disaffected” in society (Sandford, Armour, & Warmington, 2006). As such, it is no surprise that we are seeing an increased interest in the potential of citizenship education as a response to some of these perceived challenges within our schooling system.

Schooling is a national project and a practice of the state. Citizenship in this environment, therefore, can be viewed as a political process preparing young people for adulthood (Gordon, 2006). Similarly, Barr (2005) summarises the term citizenship as follows:

Citizenship has traditionally been defined in terms of communities in general and in terms of the nation state in particular. Citizens’ social, political, economic, and linguistic identities have generally been formed within states. This process has always involved more than just legal status; the term ‘citizen’ also suggests particular attitudes and values towards the state and fellow citizens. Citizenship then embodies the ideals that represent what a citizen ought to be and how he or she ought to live in order to enjoy the rights that the states bestow on their citizens. (p. 56)

Therefore, citizenship should be recognised as a multidimensional, contested concept. Gilbert (1996) views citizenship education as a broad and encompassing term which may include aspects such as citizenship as a status implying formal rights and duties; citizenship as an identity and a set of moral and social virtues; citizenship as public practice; and citizenship as participation in decision making in all aspects of life. How people shape themselves in order to participate in society and also how they interact with, and shape, their communities and societies as an effect of this is a key focus of citizenship education.

Citizenship education in New Zealand

Results from the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 2010) indicate that citizenship education in New Zealand has generally been considered effective when compared with many other countries. This is interesting to note considering that, unlike many other countries, citizenship education does not exist as a separate subject within The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) and Social Sciences is the only learning area that refers specifically to the term in its curriculum. Instead, as can be seen in the excerpts below, citizenship education in New Zealand can be viewed as a broad-based topic that is embedded in the principles, vision, values and key competencies of The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007):

Figure 1: Excerpts taken from The New Zealand Curriculum

Source: The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007)

Whilst much of the literature and many of the teaching resources relating to citizenship education in New Zealand may have their roots in the Social Sciences learning area (see, for example, Aitken, 2005; Mutch, 2003), physical education, underpinned by a socio-ecological perspective, also espouses notions of citizenship in its curriculum documents. For example, under the heading of “Why study in this learning area?” the curriculum suggests:

Through learning and by accepting challenges in health-related and movement contexts, students reflect on the nature of well-being and how to promote it. As they develop resilience and a sense of personal and social responsibility, they are increasingly able to take responsibility for themselves and contribute to the well-being of those around them, of their communities, of their environments (including natural environments), and of the wider society. (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 22)

A number of writers suggest that not only may physical education contribute to a student’s citizenship education, it claims to have an explicit and significant role to play in this endeavour (Armour & Jones, 1998; McCuaig & Tinning, 2010; Ohman & Quennerstedt, 2008; Sandford et al., 2006). However, whilst acknowledging the potential of physical education within citizenship education, it is also important to consider the tensions and complexities associated with, firstly, the definitions surrounding the “good” citizen in physical education and, secondly, how physical education contributes to contested notions of a “good” citizen. In order to provide a platform towards achieving this, a brief description of Westheimer and Khane’s (2004) three conceptions of a “good citizen” will now be outlined and discussed in relation to physical education in New Zealand.

The “good” citizen

In their study of educational programmes in the United States that aimed to promote democracy, Westheimer and Kahne (2004) found three conceptions of the “good citizen” underpinned approaches to education for citizenship: personally responsible, participatory and justice-oriented. They concluded that each of these conceptions carries particular ideological and political views of society that become embedded in teaching practices and curricula. This article is interested in how these particular ideological and political views are played out within physical education and what sort of influence they have on the way students come to understand society and their roles within it. Each conception will now be considered individually and critically evaluated within a physical education context.

The personally responsible citizen

Westheimer and Kahne (2004) describe programmes that seek to develop personally responsible citizens as those that attempt to build character and personal responsibility by emphasising honesty, integrity, self-discipline, respect and hard work. The assumption behind these types of programmes is that society will become a better place if everyone acts responsibly and with self-discipline. Critics of this conception note that the emphasis placed on individual character and behaviour obscures the need for collective initiatives (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). This emphasis can be seen as distracting attention from analysis of the causes of social problems and does not require students to look more deeply at the causes of injustice and inequality.

In The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) under the section of health and physical education, it is claimed that this area makes “a significant contribution to the well-being of students beyond the classroom” (p. 22). Teaching practices and programmes that aim to develop the personally responsible citizen, or “body” in physical education, are very prominent. Figure 2 provides a brief overview for three examples of these.

Figure 2: Examples of teaching practices and programmes that aim to develop the personally responsible citizen in physical education

While it is not possible to cover each of the above areas in detail, the fitness movement will be critically analysed in order to address some of the underlying discourses and tensions associated with the creation of the personally responsible citizen in physical education.

The fitness movement in physical education

Physical education is the only state-institutionalised compulsory (to Year 10 in New Zealand) form of bodily training to be undertaken across most developed countries (Groom, 2006). In terms of citizenship, the achievement and maintenance of good health is generally viewed by society as an individual’s duty in order to fulfil the economic and moral responsibilities of active citizenship. Achieving good physical fitness can be seen as a state-instituted preventative measure in reducing the fiscal drain on a public health system and therefore a vital component in producing productive bodies for a neoliberal society.

A number of scholars (Culpan, 2005; Kirk, 1997; Lupton, 1999; McCuaig & Tinning, 2010) have suggested that the role physical education has had in disciplining the body and mind has been so pronounced that it has played an important part in ensuring the subject’s survival due to its perceived benefits towards capitalism. When underpinned by a “healthism” discourse in which the individual is held accountable for their personal health and physical activity is seen as an efficient and unproblematic way of achieving this, the fitness movement in physical education could arguably be viewed as the prominent state-instituted practice aimed at fostering the type of personal responsibility in young “bodies” required to prepare them to fulfil their duties as efficient and “good” citizens. Petersen and Lupton (1996) further suggest that the cultural conditions in Western society infer that if the individual does not achieve healthy citizen status, then they should be castigated and castigate themselves for failing. Unfortunately, this logic continues to remain popular despite the conditions for achieving this status as an individual never being equal or fair, let alone the lack of acknowledgement that personal health status and healthy bodies are defined, constructed and valued very differently by various groups of people and cultures.

The “obesity” discourse, underpinned by “truth” claims from science, has played a significant role in many teachers of physical education focusing on fitness units that encourage personal responsibility, self-discipline and hard work. It is commonly claimed that the world is in the grip of an “obesity epidemic” producing catastrophic health consequences Such an epidemic can be seen as a threat to neoliberal economies. In response to this, physical education teachers are not only being encouraged to provide opportunities to maintain physical fitness but are also being urged to survey student physical activity rates and employ psychological theories to change students’ attitudes towards physical activity (Pringle & Pringle, 2012):

PE teachers need to become more familiar with the population-level monitoring and surveillance data related to children’s exposure to daily PE and the amount of physical activity provided by the average lesson ... Most of all, there is an urgent need for physical educators to know and understand health behavioural change theory ... and how to plan, implement and evaluate theory-based strategies to promote physical activity behaviour in school PE. (Trost, 2006, as cited in Pringle & Pringle, 2012, p. 146)

Activities and practices that are aimed at developing personal responsibility to conquer the “obesity epidemic” are commonplace within the learning area of health and physical education. Some of these include lessons relating specifically to food and weight such as learning how to keep food and exercise diaries in order to monitor daily intake/output; implementation of controversial and often very public body measures to establish body norms (for example, the Body Mass Index); and “healthy” food education using models such as the Food Triangle. In some cases this has even included lunchbox checks in primary schools. Lessons emphasising physical fitness can also be viewed in a similar light. Common examples of these may include teaching and learning programmes devoted to educating students on how to create their own fitness programmes as well as enforced participation in fitness training and fitness testing.

The discourse of healthism along with the ideology of the “obesity epidemic” encourages the public, health workers and teachers of physical education to construct those who are overweight as lazy and morally lacking. In many cases this may be viewed as a rationale for implementation of the practices and activities identified above. However, Gard and Wright (2005) warn that the rhetoric of the obesity epidemic acts as a form of social control that unfairly directs the dilemma of social problems onto individuals. The focus of concern in this instance becomes not what is necessarily best for the individual but how the state might benefit if individuals can be suitably controlled or disciplined. This is concerning when these types of discourses and ideologies have the potential to legitimate harmful relations of power to the extent that some students may become the subjects of questionable, body problematising teaching practices. Overall, this may reduce their engagement or enjoyment in the subject and, more worryingly, put their wellbeing at risk.

The notion of the fitness movement as a civic duty carrying the message of obligation to be a physically active, healthy “body” who willingly keeps up their exercise programme seems difficult to avoid. Ohman and Quennerstedt’s (2008) study of physical fitness programmes highlights that the governing processes underpinning them, however, are not usually characterised by coercion or about forcing students to do something they do not want to do. Rather, they are about affecting their willingness to become the type of person they ought to be of their own free will:

Pupils are obliged to think and act in a determined way, at the same time as the obligation of personal responsibility and self-determination are made manifest. It is desirable that pupils make such imposed and expected actions their own and understand this as a result of their own willingness. Willingness thus stands out as a decisive criterion in the difference between the acceptable and the non-acceptable. (p. 375)

This view is well supported by Michel Foucault’s (1991) writings on surveillance as a technique of power used to maintain this type of governance. Foucault’s studies suggest that surveillance functions as a technique of power because it prescribes behaviour according to dominant discourses within society. Subjects who are being watched or who felt they were being watched internalise the gazes and regulate their behaviours and identities towards a certain norm. In light of this, McCuaig and Tinning (2010) suggest that posture charts, caloric intake and output records, fitness testing and skinfold measurements can all be seen as strategies that take place within physical education in order for students to problematise their bodies—at first under the surveillance of a teacher and their peers but with the end goal being that the student, aware of their body being judged by society, uses these techniques to self-survey and engage in corrective practices accordingly:

Apprentice citizens must also be motivated to become critically aware of their bodies and so recognise the need to deploy strategies of self problematisation ... students do not discover a hidden conscience, they acquire one through the provision of pedagogical environments that incite them to reveal their ‘true’ dispositions, and the guidance of teachers who monitor and address their performance within these environments. (McCuaig & Tinning, 2010, p. 46)

In returning to Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) conception of the personally responsible citizen, it can be concluded from the above discussion that there are important issues and tensions associated with development of the personally responsible citizen caught up in the “fitness” movement operating within physical education. Pringle and Pringle (2012) suggest that the ever-increasing political pressure on schools to view themselves as a key solution to the obesity epidemic may be seductive to teachers of physical education due to the perception that the scientific “truths” that accompany it legitimise the marginalised status of physical education. However, the harmful effects associated with a moral panic surrounding the obesity epidemic need to be thoroughly considered. This will require a comprehensive critique of the popular belief that the prominent goal of physical education is to foster personal responsibility towards fitness in order to achieve a healthy, productive, “good” citizen, ready to not only contribute but also ensure he/she is not a fiscal drain on a neoliberal society.

While government leaders would probably be delighted if their young citizens learned the lessons put forward by the many proponents of the personally responsible model, Westheimer and Kahne (2004) warn that the visions of obedience and patriotism associated with it are also at odds with democracy and may actually hinder democratic participation and change. This conception of the personally responsible citizen in physical education also fails to embrace collective social action and the pursuit of social justice. A focus on obedience, self-discipline and individuality not only has the potential to be harmful in this context but also works against the critical reflection and action that many assume are essential in a democratic society.

The participatory citizen

Programmes that aim to produce participatory citizens are identified by their emphasis in preparing students to engage in collective, community-based efforts. Educational programmes designed to support the development of participatory citizens’ focus on teaching students to plan and actively participate in organised efforts in school, community, local and national affairs. Proponents of participatory citizenship argue that this type of participation develops relationships, leadership, common understandings, trust and collective commitments. However, critics of this conception question whether programmes designed to encourage civic participation necessarily promote students’ capacities for critical analysis and social change (Mutch, 2011).

Teaching practices and programmes that aim to develop the participatory citizen in physical education can be seen in sports leader and sports volunteer units of work. These types of programmes (outlined below) are generally celebrated for fostering leadership skills, developing interpersonal skills and actively contributing to the community. While these outcomes carry obvious benefits for students and are commonly accepted within physical education, it is also important to analyse some of the underlying tensions and challenges that may be associated with development of the participatory citizen in this context.

Sports leadership and sports volunteering in physical education

Sport is considered a key area of learning within health and physical education in The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) and the practice of educating and supporting students to become sport leaders who may in turn facilitate sporting opportunities for others to participate in, is a popular aspect of the senior physical education curriculum. As such, it is commonplace for physical education students to implement the skills they have gained in class to design fitness programmes for others; organise “get active” lunchtimes; volunteer to coach junior sports teams; facilitate physical activities for special needs students; and actively promote increased physical activity within the school community. These types of activities can be classified under sports leadership and sports volunteering programmes taught and assessed in many senior physical education classes throughout New Zealand.

Sports leadership and sports volunteering units within physical education can be considered as fostering the “participatory” citizen due to their intention for students to actively participate in their school community by providing a service to other students. In their support of such programmes in physical education, Eley and Kirk (2010) suggest that:

The contribution of students in such programmes takes on added significance because their leadership training in sport not only contributes to their own personal skills development but they in turn use those skills through volunteering to provide more sport opportunities for other young people to participate in sport. These opportunities for sport participation will help address issues such as community safety by giving young men (in particular) and young women sporting alternatives to occupy their time and reduce the risk that they may lapse into anti-social behaviour. (p. 152)

Sport in general is often viewed as a relevant context in developing the participatory citizen due to the common perception that increasing young people’s involvement in sport is character building, pro-social and consequently beneficial to society as a whole (O’Donovan, MacPhail, & Kirk, 2010). It is a cherished belief within physical education that participation in sport has the potential to offer young people (especially “disaffected” young people) a range of physical, psychological, emotional and social benefits. However, an increasing number of scholars in physical education are also questioning the nature and validity of such statements, suggesting that more robust evidence is required if these claims are to be supported (Bailey et al., 2009).

The implications of sport being unquestionably accepted as a compatible context in development of the participatory citizen raises a number of issues and challenges. While sport may hold the potential for a positive contribution to the development of citizenship in young people, research also shows that students’ experiences of sport in physical education are not always necessarily positive (Bailey et al., 2009). Dominant behaviours and values relating to competition and success in sport can in some cases foster undesirable outcomes and even marginalise students who may not fit within popular stereotypes associated with participation in sport. Pill (2010) also suggests that sport can become a context where those who already “can” are acknowledged for their existing athleticism and competency, while those who “cannot” have reinforced what they are unable to do or be good at.

The physical education student involved in sports leadership or sports volunteering programmes may be successful in providing opportunities for their peers or the wider community to participate in sport; however, if a critical approach to the context of sport is lacking, there still remains the possibility of disempowering ideologies relating to gender, ability/disability, social class and ethnicity being simply reproduced or reinforced rather than challenged or critiqued. Without careful and considered implementation of such programmes, there lies the potential for students feeling isolated in their schools and communities rather than more motivated to participate in the long term.

In returning to the framework of the “good” citizen, Westheimer and Kahne (2004) acknowledge that, in general, programmes that aim to develop the participatory citizen do not necessarily increase the students’ understanding of the structural or root causes of problems within society. While sports leadership and sports volunteering programmes may have the potential to increase activity levels, engage disaffected youth or provide movement opportunities for special needs students, without exploring why participants might be disaffected, inactive or disempowered in the first place, the resultant outcomes may not only be limited but in some cases also detrimental. In this context, a critical analysis regarding what it is about society that restricts and limits opportunities for some while at the same time privileges others should also be considered.

The justice-oriented citizen

Justice-oriented citizens are considered proponents of educational programmes that emphasise social change and seek to prepare students to improve society by critically analysing and addressing social issues and injustices. Justice-oriented educators argue that effective democratic citizens need opportunities to analyse and understand the interplay of social, economic and political forces. While working to prepare these citizens for a democracy they do not aim to impart a fixed set of truths or critiques relating to society; rather, they work to engage students in informed analysis and discussion regarding social, political and economic structures (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004).

In order to become justice-oriented citizens, students must therefore learn to weigh the opinions of varied members of society and develop the ability to communicate with and learn from those who hold different perspectives. While consensus may not always be considered the appropriate outcome, justice-oriented citizens will consider collective strategies for change that challenge injustice and aim to address the root cause of problems. Westheimer and Kahne (2004) acknowledge, however, that justice-oriented educators will need to be mindful of “supporting the development of armchair activists who have articulate conversations over coffee without ever acting” (p. 245). In light of this comment it is important to note that a focus on social action within justice-oriented programmes will be important.

The potential of The New Zealand Curriculum in developing the justice-oriented citizen in physical education

Health and Physical Education in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1999), physical education’s previous curriculum document, initiated the beginnings of a fundamental change to the way the subject was to be approached. It set out with developing a socio-ecological teaching and learning paradigm for physical education embedded in social critique. This type of perspective provided a way of critically viewing and understanding the relationships that exist between the individual, others and society that had not being emphasised in previous curriculum documents. One of the key writers of this document, Ian Culpan, suggests that, in light of this, the curriculum was also attempting to engender awareness and debate around the discourse of healthism and acknowledges that the individual in his/her search for personal meaning, once educated in health and physical education, would be able to make positive contributions to the enhancement of society (Culpan, 2005).

Due to the Health and Physical Education curriculum being one of the later curriculum documents to be developed as part of the New Zealand Curriculum Framework, the changes that the learning area underwent when revised for the current New Zealand curriculum may be considered fairly minimal. Physical education in the current curriculum can still be seen as fostering all of the above objectives, and now set amongst the vision, principles and key competencies of The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007), it can be argued that the subject consequently aligns very well with the development of the justice-oriented citizen.

Tinning (2009) argues that no other learning area has such an explicit reference to social justice as does Physical Education. He does, however, suggest that this may be due to the influence of certain key players in the curriculum development project rather than a representation of a grass roots commitment to social justice on behalf of physical education teachers themselves. While it is difficult to find current research supporting this suggestion, it may be that if there is any lack of grass roots commitment to social justice in physical education it could possibly be due to the overwhelming strength and political power of the healthism and obesity discourse underpinning the development of the personally responsible “body”. Hegemonic practices focused on fitness, body image, science “truths” in sport and masculine interpretations of the body are often promoted in an unchallenged and privileging manner (Culpan, 2005). Physical Education in The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) provides a framework to challenge this and an emerging group of educators and scholars are embracing the development of a socially critical, justice-oriented citizen in this context (see, for example, Bowes & Bruce, 2011; Bruce, Martin, & Brown, 2011; Gillespie & Culpan, 2000; Pringle & Pringle, 2012; Smith, 2011; Wright, Macdonald, & Burrows, 2004).

A large part of what defines quality physical education programmes is that physical activity, deliberate exercise, fitness and sport are not necessarily accepted as inherently and unproblematically good (Ennis, 1997). While the development of the personally responsible citizen may contribute to the state’s objectives of a healthy body, it is the opportunity to analyse and understand the interplay of social, economic and political forces that sees the justice-oriented citizen play an integral role within society. Physical education within The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) allows for the development of justice-oriented citizens through its fostering of students to become critical consumers of a movement culture. An important outcome for physical education in this light will be the development of young people who are competent and confident and have the potential to use physical activity and sport to utilise what Culpan (2005) describes as rich and powerful consciousness-raising avenues by which they can make sense of the world.

Excerpts taken from the achievement objectives for the learning area of Health and Physical Education in The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) indicate that there are multiple, rich opportunities to develop the justice-oriented citizen in this subject.

Figure 3: Health and Physical Education level eight achievement objectives

Source: http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Curriculum-documents/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum

Action-oriented critical pedagogy in physical education

While a socio-critical model of learning in, through and about movement has provided a good platform for embracing the development of the justice-oriented citizen in the physical education curriculum, as discussed earlier in this article, Westheimer and Kahne (2004) caution that a focus on learning about social justice may not necessarily lead to effective social action. Through adopting an action-oriented approach to critical pedagogy, educators have the potential to encourage justice-oriented citizens to not only analyse and understand the interplay of social, economic and political forces operating in society but to also take considered action towards the root causes of the issues identified.

An action-oriented approach to critical pedagogy places equal emphasis on socio-critical thinking and critical action embedded within a physical education context (Bruce, Martin, & Brown, 2011). Students are able to be led through a sequential and progressive socio-critical process encouraging them to ultimately enact change for a more equitable and just community. Bowes and Bruce (2011) acknowledge that this combining of socio-critical thinking and critical action is a pedagogical enactment of Freire’s notion of praxis—the reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it. They further suggest that physical education in The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) supports this notion by referring to developing “active citizens now” (p. 23), rather than in the future.

Despite Tinning’s (2009) suggestion that the evolution of physical education’s socio-critical curriculum may not necessarily have been the product of a grass roots commitment to social justice by physical educators, the author has observed a number of promising examples of programmes in secondary schools that aim to develop the justice-oriented citizen in physical education through an action-oriented approach to critical pedagogy. One example relevant to this discussion was a lesson where Year 11 students were taught how to conduct a content analysis on sport-related media resources. Students engaged in a programme of learning focusing on gender stereotypes in sport and then individually chose a media resource reflecting this theme. Examples included commentary of a rugby game, the sports section of a newspaper and popular sports brand television advertisements. The students designed their own templates for recording information relating to gender stereotypes, some of which included analysing the language used, comparing male and female coverage and investigating visual representations of the body in the media. Each student presented their own content analysis back to the class which was then followed by a class discussion on the outcomes of their findings on themselves and New Zealand society. Finally, the class committed themselves to taking social action towards increasing the coverage of women’s sport in the media. Students decided what type of form this would take and engaged in a number of actions ranging from writing letters to the editor, submitting complaints to the Broadcasting Stanadards Authority and even exploring how Facebook and other social networking tools can be used to create positive change in society.

It is these types of activities within physical education that make a meaningful contribution to the development of the justice-oriented citizen. In order to move past the dominating and political discourses of healthism and obesity associated with the personally responsible conception of a citizen, physical educators should be encouraged to embrace an action-oriented critical pedagogy when implementing the physical education curriculum.

Conclusion

Whilst physical education, to some degree, has been expected to maintain healthy bodies through its regulation of personally responsible citizens, it is increasingly being recognised that the learning area also has a responsibility to contribute to social change and emancipation. This article has demonstrated that tensions arise when young people are educated to be personally responsible, competent, productive and compliant citizens, yet there are obvious demands in democratic societies for active, critical and justice-oriented citizens.

Physical education is consequently a place where both political aspirations and the creation of today’s citizens are staged. The obvious shortcomings of the personally responsible conception of citizenship should be considered by all physical educators as many current efforts at educating for this type of citizen do not seem to reflect the socio-critical curriculum document in place, but rather political choices with political consequences. A thorough understanding of The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007), along with an action-oriented approach to pedagogy, offers this learning area a promising and exciting contribution to the development of the justice-oriented citizen.

References

Aitken, G. (2005). The purpose and substance of social studies: Citizenship education possibilities. In P. Benson & R. Openshaw (Eds.), Towards effective social studies (pp. 83–110). Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove Press.

Armour, K., & Jones, R. (1998). Physical education teachers’ lives and careers. PE, sport and educational status. London: Falmer Press.

Bailey, R. (2007). Evaluating the relationship between physical education, sport and social inclusion. Educational Review, 57(1), 71–90.

Bailey, R., Armour, K., Kirk, D., Jess, M., Pickup, I., & Sandford, R. (2009). The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: An academic review. Research Papers in Education, 24(1), 1–27.

Barr, H. (2005). Towards a model of citizenship education: Coping with differences in definition. In C. White & R. Openshaw (Eds.), Democracy at the crossroads, International perspectives on critical global citizenship education (pp. 55–76). Lanham: Lexington Books.

Bolstad, R. (2011). Taking a “future focus” in education—what does it mean? An NZCER working paper from the Future-Focused Issues in Education (FFI) project. Wellington: NZCER.

Bowes, M., & Bruce, J. (2011). Curriculum liquefaction (shifting sands) in senior school physical education in New Zealand: Critical pedagogical approaches and dilemmas. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 2(3), 17–33.

Bruce, J., Martin, T., & Brown, S. (2011). Seeking change: A model for critical service-learning in physical education teacher education. In J. Nendel & M. Miller (Eds.), Service learning in physical education and related professions: A global perspective (pp. 332–341). London: Jones & Bartlett.

Culpan, I. (2005). Physical education: What is it all about? The muddled puzzle. Retrieved from http://www.tki.org.nz

Eley, D., & Kirk, D. (2010). Developing citizenship through sport: The impact of a sport-based volunteer programme on young leaders. Sport, Education and Society, 7(2), 151–166.

Ennis, C. (1997). Defining the dreaded curriculum: Tensions between the modern and postmodern. In J. Fernandez-Balboa (Ed.), Critical postmodernism in human movement, physical education, and sport (pp. 207–221). New York: University of New York Press.

Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect. Studies in governmentality. London: Penguin.

Gard, M., & Wright, J. (2005). The obesity epidemic: Science, morality and ideology. London: Routledge.

Gilbert, R. (Ed.). (1996). Studying society and environment: A handbook for teachers. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.

Gillespie, L., & Culpan, I. (2000). Critical thinking: Ensuring the ‘education’ aspect is evident in physical education. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 33(3), 84–96.

Gordon, T. (2006). Girls in education: Citizenship, agency and emotions. Gender and Education, 18(1), 1–15.

Groom, L. (2006). Educating bodies to be good citizens: The politics and practices of physical education in Australia and France. PhD thesis, University of Wollongong, Wollongong. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/658

Hellison, D. (1985). Goals and strategies for teaching physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2010). ICCS 2009 International report: Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower-secondary school students in 38 countries. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Author.

Kirk, D. (1997). Schooling bodies in new times: The reform of school physical education in high modernity. In J. Fernandez-Balboa (Ed.), Critical postmodernism in human movement, physical education and sport (pp. 39–65). New York: State University of New York Press.

Lupton, D. (1999). ‘Developing the “whole me”’: Citizenship, neo-liberalism and the contemporary health and physical education curriculum. Critical Public Health, 9(4), 287–300.

McCuaig, L., & Tinning, R. (2010). HPE and the moral governance of p/leisurable bodies. Sport, Education and Society, 15(1), 39–61.

Ministry of Education. (1999). Health and physical education in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Mutch, C. (2003). Citizenship education in New Zealand: Inside or outside the curriculum? Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 5(3), 164–179.

Mutch, C. (2011). Editorial: Crisis, curriculum and citizenship. Curriculum Matters, 7, 1–7.

O’Donovan, T., MacPhail, A., & Kirk, D. (2010). Active citizenship through sport education. Education 3–13, 38(2), 203–215.

Ohman, M., & Quennerstedt, M. (2008). Feel good—be good: Subject content and governing processes in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 13(4), 365–379.

Petersen, A., & Lupton, D. (1996). The new public health: Health and self in the age of risk. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

Pill, S. (2010). Sport literacy: It’s not just about learning to play sport via ‘textbook techniques’. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 4(2), 32–42.

Pringle, R., & Pringle, D. (2012). Competing obesity discourses and critical challenges for health and physical educators. Sport, Education and Society, 17(2), 143–161.

Sandford, R., Armour, K. M., & Warmington, P. (2006). Re-engaging disaffected youth through physical activity programmes. British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 251–271.

Smith, W. (2011). An alternative to Kirk’s idea of the idea and a future for physical education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 2(2), 23–33.

Tinning, R. (2009). Thinking about thinking bodies and moving minds in the context of recent HPE curriculum initiatives in New Zealand. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 11(1), 9–13.

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.

Wright, J., Macdonald, D., & Burrows, L. (Eds.). (2004). Critical inquiry and problem solving in physical education. London: Routledge.

The author

Kylie Thompson has taught physical education at both secondary and tertiary levels over the past 12 years. She is currently studying towards a Master of Professional Studies in Education and a PGDipArts (Public Policy) in order to pursue her interests in the development of justice-oriented citizens within the secondary school.

Email: kylie_thompson@yahoo.com