Feature
No.44
May 2005
 
    

Post-Berlin Physical Education Summit Developments
Inter- and Non-governmental Initiatives: An Institutional Perspective
Ken Hardman, United Kingdom
 

The immediate aftermath of the Physical Education World Summit included the Appeal to the MINEPS III meeting, which sought ministerial commitment to developing strategies for effective implementation of, and properly resourced, physical education programmes, and to mobilise inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, public and private sectors to co-operate in the promotion and development of physical education. Subsequently, the Punta del Este Declaration endorsed the Berlin Agenda for Action and called upon member states to implement it through incorporation in school programmes or, as a minimum, meeting with any legal requirements with respect to physical education programmes in school curricula. In expressing concern about the curtailment in opportunities for children to participate in physical education, Kaisa Savolainen, Director of the Department of Education for Culture of Peace, commented that "… Twenty one years after the proclamation of the International Charter, physical education and sport at school… did not yet seem to be national priorities and were often the target of budget cuts” (UNESCO, 1999, pp.3-4). In essence, this was an acknowledgement that member states were not wholly complying with the UNESCO Charter.
A year after the publication of the World-wide Survey Final Report (Hardman and Marshall, 2000), a Council of Europe Committee for the Development of Sport (CDDS) ‘Working Group of Experts’ on Access of Children to Physical Education and Sport picked up the baton. The Working Group resolved to examine the situation of school physical education and sport in member states with a view to providing informed recommendations for discussion and action at the Informal Meeting of Ministers responsible for Sport in Warsaw, Poland 12-13 September 2002. In the event, the ministerial Conclusions acknowledged a serious decline in the quality and the time allocated for teaching physical education and sport in schools as well as inadequate opportunities to participate in recreational sport out of school. Additionally, they indicated a need to study ways in which the provision of physical education and sport can be improved in Council of Europe member countries for all children and young people, including those with disabilities. According to the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of Europe in her Warsaw Informal Ministerial Meeting Opening Address “the crux of the issue is that there is too much of a gap between the promise and the reality” (De Boer-Buquicchio, 2002, p.2).
The MINEPS III Declaration of Punta del Este (1999) was an encouraging initial development, but restructuring within UNESCO hindered implementation. The restructuring reduced visibility accorded to physical education and sport. Nonetheless, at the UNESCO ‘Round Table Meeting’ of Ministers and Senior Officials of Physical Education and Sport in Paris in January 2003 along with proposals related to protection of young athletes and anti-doping, the Communiqué adopted by representatives from 103 countries noted that in many countries physical education was being increasingly marginalised within and outside education systems. To reverse the marginalisation trend, the ‘Round Table’ participants committed themselves to working for implementation of MINEPS III policy principles and the full recognition of the place and inclusivity of physical education and sport both within and outside education systems. The fact that this commitment to implementation was more than three years on from the MINEPS III Punta del Este Declaration is perhaps a stark reminder of the limitations of UNESCO’s spheres of influence! The participants requested the UNESCO Director-General to draw the United Nations’ Secretary-General’s attention to the importance of physical education and sport and to the desirability of debating this topic in the General Assembly. Additionally, they sought to have the Communiqué presented to the Fourth International Conference of Ministers and Senior Officials Responsible for Physical Education and Sport (MINEPS IV), eventually scheduled for December 2004 in Athens (http//:www.UNESCO.org, 2003). UNESCO General Conference (October, 2003) proclaimed 2005 as an International Year on Physical Education and Sport. One of the follow-up issues of the January 2003 Ministers ‘Round-Table’ that UNESCO has to deal with is the development of an International Anti-Doping Convention, to supplement the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) work, into which much effort is directed and at the expense of addressing physical education-related concerns; of course, doping issues are much more ‘glamorous’ than school physical education. UNESCO’s apparent ineptitude hitherto in progressing the cause for physical education has been tempered somewhat by the announcement of a Proposal for a Strategic Action Plan to Reinforce Physical Education and Sport which will contain a visionary statement for 2004-2015 on essential elements of ‘Quality Physical Education’. The Plan is to be presented at the MINEPS IV Meeting in Athens. Meanwhile, arguably the most powerful advocate for physical education in the United Nations’ system is the World Health Organisation (WHO), especially with its adoption of a Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health.
The UNESCO Communiqué echoes some of the set of Conclusions agreed by the European Ministers at their Informal Meeting in Warsaw in September 2002. However, the prescriptive Conclusions (Hardman, 2002) embracing issues of quality and delivery (curriculum content, facilities and equipment, teacher training), inclusion, more active lifestyles and an associated variety of pan-European programmes, implementation of a range of measures grouped around perceived spheres of influence (home and family, school, local and wider community collaborative provision and flexible programmes), development of relevant and appropriate national policies, intergovernmental co-operation, sharing information, research findings and national experiences in physical activity promotion were adopted as Recommendations by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on 30 April 2003. Notably, however, in the Appendix to the Recommendation, was a significant reference to physical education time allocation: an agreement to “move towards a compulsory legal minimum of 180 minutes weekly, in three periods, with schools endeavouring to go beyond this minimum where this is possible” (Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (2003) and a call for one hour of daily physical activity in or out of school settings. Previously, the final (revised) Conclusions had referred to “quality” with an undefined time allocation (Bureau of the Committee for the Development of Sport, 2002a): the consensus amongst ministerial representatives was that 180 minutes was unrealistic and for at least one country’s representative was unacceptable! It remains to be seen what impact, if any, the ministerial deliberations may have. It is encouraging to see physical education and sport in schools on the Council of Europe political agenda but the status of Recommendations is far removed from any form of mandatory requirement of member states and again raises doubts whether such intergovernmental agency policy will actually be implemented and “promise” converted into “reality”.
As well as inter-governmental initiatives since the Berlin Physical Education Summit, a number of European non-governmental organisations have begun to address issues and concerns surrounding physical education in schools. Two examples will suffice as illustrations. In October 2002, the European Non-Governmental Sports Organisation (ENGSO) held a two-day forum in Malta, in which access to physical education in schools and the role of non-governmental organisations in contributing to a sustainable future for school physical education were main themes discussed. ENGSO pledged its support for school physical education through appropriate partnership advocacy initiatives and demonstrated interest in the European Union Physical Education Association’s (EUPEA) Code of Ethics and Good Practice Guide for Physical Education to inform its own planned code of ethics and practice for personnel involved in sport. A landmark for EUPEA itself, founded in 1991 to “promote more and better physical education all over Europe”, was its 1st Symposium, 9th November 2002 in Brussels, Belgium on the topical theme of Quality Physical Education. Nearly 200 delegates from 35 countries attended the Symposium from which a number of perceived challenges emerged. These challenges embrace minimal time requirements, balanced programmes, inclusion strategies and policies, teacher education and competencies, in-service training and planned continuing professional development, ways and means of disseminating good practice and understanding frameworks used by young people to interpret physical education in contexts of national and cultural diversity across Europe. In summarising the deliberations of the Symposium, EUPEA Vice-President Chris Laws (2002) concluded that in striving for a relevant physical education curriculum there is a role for all European Physical Education Associations to act to provide “quality experiences for all children”. Clearly there is concurrence here with the UNESCO Communiqué and the Council of Europe’s ministerial Recommendations.

Concluding Comments
The Berlin Physical Education Summit Agenda for Action for Government Ministers, the Punta del Este Declaration, the Council of Europe’s 2002 Conclusions and 2004 Recommendations and UNESCO’s 2003 ‘Round Table’ Communiqué together with various WHO, IOC and some national governments’ initiatives amongst others demonstrate that there is now an international consensus that issues surrounding physical education in schools deserve serious consideration in order to solve existing and future problems. It is imperative that monitoring of developments in physical education across the world is maintained. Both the Council of Europe’s ministerial Conclusions and Recommendations and the UNESCO ‘Round Table’ Communiqué called for monitoring systems to be put into place to regularly review the situation of physical education in each country. Indeed, the Council of Europe referred to the introduction of provision for a pan-European survey on physical education policies and practices every five years as a priority! (Bureau of the Committee for the Development of Sport, 2002a and 2002b; Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, 2004). “Promises” need to be converted into “reality” if continuing threats are to be surmounted and a safe future for physical education in schools is to be secured. Otherwise with the Council of Europe Deputy Secretary General’s intimation of a gap between “promise” and “reality”, there is a real danger that the Informal Ministers’ meeting’s agreed Conclusions and Recommendations will remain just that – more “promise” than “reality” in too many countries across the world and compliance with Council of Europe and UNESCO Charters will continue to remain compromised.

References
Bureau of the Committee for the Development of Sport, (2002a). Draft conclusions on improving physical education and sport for children and young people in all European countries. MSL-IM16 (2002) 5 Rev.3. 16th Informal Meeting of European Sports Ministers, Warsaw, Poland, 12-13 September. Strasbourg, Council of Europe.
Bureau of the Committee for the Development of Sport, (2002b). Draft conclusions on improving physical education and sport for children and young people in all European countries. Revised by the Drafting Group. MSL-IM16 (2002) 5 Rev.4. 16th Informal Meeting of European Sports Ministers, Warsaw, Poland, 12-13 September. Strasbourg, Council of Europe.
BVLO, (2002). Minutes of 13th EUPEA Forum Meeting. Brussels, 8 November.
Council of Europe (2001). European “Sport for All” Charter. Strasbourg, Council of Europe.
Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, (2004). Recommendation Rec(2003)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on improving physical education and sport for children and young people in all European countries. Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 30 April.
De Boer-Buqicchio, M. (2002). Opening Address. 16th Informal Meeting of the European Ministers responsible for Sport. Warsaw, 12 September.
Hardman, K., (2002). Council of Europe Committee for the Development of Sport (CDDS), Report on School Physical Education in Europe. MSL-IM 16 (2002) 9. Strasbourg, Council of Europe.
Hardman, K., and Marshall, J.J. (2000). World-wide survey of the state and status of school physical education, Final Report. Manchester, University of Manchester.
Laws, C. (2002). Report on 1st EUPEA Symposium, Brussels, 9th November 2002. Personal Communication.
Savolainen, K. (1999). Third International Conference of Ministers and Senior Officials Responsible for Physical Education and Sport (MINEPS III). Final Report. ED-99/CONF.209/CLD.11. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO (1978), Charter for Physical Education and Sport. Paris, UNESCO.
World Health Organisation, (2004). Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. Geneva, WHO. 17 April.


Dr Ken Hardman
Executive Board Member
International Society for Comparative Physical Education and Sport (ISCPES)
Manchester, UK
Email: ken.hardman@tiscali.co.uk




http://www.icsspe.org/portal/bulletin-may2005.htm