In many ways Health and Physical Education (HPE) can be seen as risky business. It can serve to characterise our bodies simultaneously as ‘risky’ (i.e. overweight, inactive, unfit) and ‘at risk’ (i.e. of disease and death). One way that HPE teachers characterise the bodies of young people is via fitness testing. Fitness testing is a privileged practice in HPE, at least in England and Australia, and it is arguably positioned as one way of helping young people avert 'risks' related to sedentary lifestyles. HPE teachers continue to use fitness testing pervasively as a context for learning despite a lack of evidence to suggest its worth.  

The measurement and classification of bodies is a historically-rooted phenomenon. Indeed, the impulse to measure and classify the bodies of human populations has been a feature of western life since the emergence of the nation state. Different forms of measurement have served different social, cultural and political functions at different times (Gould, 1981). Measurement regimes have been, and remain, both an expression of pervasive concerns about the state of human populations as well as an instrument for governing them. There is evidence, for example, that colonial authorities in Australia kept quite detailed information about the weight and stature of children arriving in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, ostensibly to assess the extent to which they might withstand the rigours of antipodean life (Olds & Harten, 2001). This kind of measurement and classification has been evidenced internationally and over time.

More recently, the validity and educational worth of fitness testing has been questioned by academics from a range of disciplines (Naughton, Carlson, & Greene, 2006). Whilst arguments certainly exist for using fitness testing as a context for learning (Keating, Silverman, & Kulinna, 2002), there are dangers in pedagogies that are heavily individualistic (Cale, Harris, & Chen, 2012; Garrett & Wrench, 2008; Sykes & McPhail, 2008). While some young people may enjoy fitness testing, Evans, Rich, Davies, and Allwood (2008, p. 147) argue that an emphasis on fitness and performance within HPE can result in ‘a cocktail of high performance mixed with body-centred pathology codes [which] may have deeply damaging consequences for students’ identity, their education and health’. Hopple and Graham (1995) pointed out in one of the few empirical studies of student’s attitudes towards fitness testing, even if not obviously damaged by the experience, it is not always clear what, if anything, students actually learn from the process.

This paper draws upon existing research, and figurational sociology to contribute to a theoretical discussion around how HPE teachers have come to think about and enact fitness testing. Applying a figurational lens: (a) encourages us to view fitness testing as a historically rooted practice; (b) sensitises us to the importance of social interdependencies and habitus when trying to understand their prevalence; (c) encourages us to identify the (un)intended consequences of fitness testing, and how these are enabling and constraining and for whom. Using a figurational lens we identify scientisation and shaming as two social processes that can help us understand the prominence of fitness testing in current HPE programs. The theorising we share in this paper, together with the work it follows, can help us move forward in terms of pedagogical possibilities for HPE.

The paper will draw upon empirical findings as well as the sociological work of Norbert Elias and other figurational sociologists. In terms of the empirical research, it consisted of two phases. Phase one The survey (n=130) was developed to explore Victorian (Australian) HPE teachers’ views and experiences of the Health Education–PE nexus, and their perspectives on fitness testing in particular. Using a series of five-point likert-style questions, teachers were asked to state the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a range of statements related to fitness testing in HPE. For example: (1) Testing students’ fitness once per year is a sound way to measure their health; (2) Testing fitness helps to improve student’s health. Phase two The interviews provided an opportunity to expand upon, clarify and add detail to the questionnaire data, and focused on the teachers’ experiences and perspectives on fitness testing in HPE. Interviews with 8 self-selected secondary HPE teachers (4 male, 4 female) of varying levels of experience, and from a range of state, private and catholic schools, took place in a quiet room, were recorded with permission from the interviewees, and lasted between 30 and 75 minutes.

Findings and conclusions Phase One The survey data suggested that 95% (n = 108) of the teacher’s used fitness testing as a context for learning. Eighty per cent of the participating teachers felt that fitness testing carried out once per year did not provide an adequate measure of health but nearly half (49%) did think that testing fitness helps to improve students’ health. The majority (90%) thought that all fitness test results should be recorded with nearly half (49%) suggesting that results should be given to parents. A quarter (26%) thought that it was appropriate to test children’s fitness without them fully understanding the process or why they were doing it. Phase two The findings suggested that fitness testing is prevalent for three key reasons: - Pragmatism and tradition - Science, medical and health discourses - Ambivalence Across all of the interviews, there was no mention of curriculum imperatives or educative purpose. Conclusions Applying a figurational lens (Elias, 1994, 1995): (a) encourages us to view fitness testing as a historically rooted practice; (b) sensitises us to the importance of social interdependencies and habitus when trying to understand their prevalence; (c) encourages us to identify the (un)intended consequences of fitness testing, and how these are enabling and constraining and for whom. Using a figurational lens we identify scientisation and shaming as two social processes that can help us understand the prominence of fitness testing in current HPE programs.

Cale, L., Harris, J., & Chen, M. H. (2012). Monitoring health, activity and fitness in physical education: Its current and future state of health. Sport, Education and Society, 1–20 (online first). doi:10.1080/13573322.2012.681298 Elias N (1994 [1939]) The Civilising Process. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Elias N (1995) Technisation and civilisation. Theory, Culture & Society 12(3): 7–42. Evans, J., Rich, E., & Davies, E. (2004). The emperor’s new clothes: Fat, thin and overweight: The social fabrication of risk and ill-health. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 23, 372–391. Garrett, R., & Wrench, A. (2008). Fitness testing: The pleasure and pain of it. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 55(4), 17–22. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Hopple, C., & Graham, G. (1995). What children think, feel, and know about physical fitness testing. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 14, 408–417. Naughton, G. A., Carlson, J. S., & Greene, D. A. (2006). A challenge to fitness testing in primary schools. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 9(1–2), 40–45. doi:10.1016/j. jsams.2006.01.002 Keating, X. D., Silverman, S., & Kulinna, P. H. (2002). Preservice physical education teacher attitudes toward fitness tests and the factors influencing their attitudes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 193–207. Olds, T., & Harten, N. R. (2001). One hundred years of growth: the evolution of height, mass, and body composition in Australian children, 1899–1999. Human Biology, 73, 727–738. doi:10.1353/hub.2001.0071 Sykes, H., & McPhail, D. (2008). Unbearable lessons: Contesting fat phobia in physical education. Sociology of Sport Journal, 25(1), 66–96.