Internationally, there continues to be much debate about the subject of physical education (PE) and its place and purpose within schools (Kirk, 2010; Ekberg, 2021; Gray et al., 2022). Though there is recognition within the field that PE has much potential for supporting learning across multiple domains (Hooper et al., 2020; Lamb et al., 2021), and can contribute to the holistic development of young people (Bailey et al., 2009; Luguetti & Oliver, 2020), concerns continue to be raised about the precarious and, often, marginalised position of the subject within the educational landscape (Kirk, 2010). PE’s precarious history and lack of clear purpose in the curriculum has arguably played a significant role in how it has come to be positioned within research, policy, and practice in schools globally. Certainly, research has highlighted several issues faced by PE globally, including a disconnect between policy and practice, a ‘squeezing’ of curriculum time, and its positioning, often, as subject without academic significance (Chepyator-Thomson, 2014; Stidder, 2023. Growing concerns about sedentary lifestyles and the rise of lifestyle diseases (e.g., obesity and diabetes) have also seen PE increasingly aligned with a health agenda, with health now being a prominent feature in many  curricula (Gray et al., 2022). Such shifts have led to concerns that PE is often tasked with ‘much to do’, and questions have been asked regarding just what the subject is (or should) be accountable for (e.g., Bailey et al., 2009).

Advocates for the subject have continued to ‘make the case’ for PE and to argue its value to and for young people (see UNESCO, 2017; afPE, 2019). Within this context, efforts to justify and enhance the status of PE have led to an increased focus on what constitutes Quality Physical Education (QPE) (e.g., Penney et al., 2009) and, in some contexts, to calls for PE to sit alongside subjects such as mathematics and sciences as a ‘core’ element in school curricula (e.g., Harris, 2018). Dyson (2014) argues that the question of ‘what is quality physical education?’ is an important one to consider, as it directs attention to key components of practice. On this, Penney et al., (2009) suggest that curriculum, pedagogy and assessment are three fundamental dimensions of ‘quality PE’, while it is also recognised that QPE is dependent on factors such as sufficient curriculum time, adequate resource and the availability of specialist practitioners, as well as the provision of inclusive, meaningful and relevant content (Kirk, 2004; Walseth et al., 2018).

In light of the discussion above, it is notable that UNESCO (2015) developed a series of Quality Physical Education (QPE) guidelines, which sought to inform PE practice globally across the full age range. In this work, QPE is defined as “the planned, progressive, inclusive learning experience that forms part of the curriculum in early years, primary and secondary education” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 9). Underpinned by a rights perspective, QPE is supported by the identification of specific indicators which detail core characteristics of PE that are seen to support quality provision. These indicators reflect broader debates and include a focus on factors such as the development of specific PE policy, the time allocated to PE within the curriculum, the inclusive nature of PE, and the training of specialist practitioners. Within this presentation, we draw on data from UNESCO’s global QPE survey – built around these indicators – to reflect on what they tell us about the current status of PE around the globe. Moreover, we use this as a basis to consider the implications for the future of PE and potential developments within research, policy and practice in the field.

This presentation presents findings from a secondary analysis of data collated as part of UNESCO’s global QPE Survey. The QPE survey, compiled with input from various stakeholders (e.g., academics, organisations and individual experts) from across all world regions, sought to gather data related to different aspects of PE policy and practice. Questions were designed to address knowledge gaps, support the standardisation of data collection, and provide targeted support to UNESCO Member States for policy development. Questions within the survey were aligned with UNESCO’s QPE indicators, thereby focusing on issues such as frequency of provision, variety of activities, and notions of inclusivity (UNESCO, 2015). Two versions of the survey were created: i) a Ministerial-level survey (to capture data at the policy level from UNESCO Member States) and ii) a School-level survey (to collect data from teachers about PE provision/practice). These surveys were disseminated to sport ministries and schools in 2020-2021 in partnership with the International Federation of Physical Education and Sport (FIEPS). In total, responses were received from 117 ministries and 2101 PE teachers, with all regions (as defined by UNESCO) represented (i.e., Africa, Arab States, Europe and North America, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia Pacific). The secondary analysis presented here employed both qualitative and quantitative methods to draw out key messages from the surveys relating to three core areas: i) challenges to PE within the respondents’ context; ii) perceived needs for delivering QPE within the respondents’ contexts; and iii) examples of good practice relating to QPE in the respondents’ context. For the qualitative analysis, data from the open-ended responses to relevant questions in the Ministerial-level and School-level surveys were analysed thematically, using an approach detailed by Braun and Clarke (2006). The quantitative analysis generated descriptive statistics of the QPE indicators and developed bivariate associations in relation to these. Further regression analyses were undertaken to block test sets of variables (e.g., space available, equality, school location, and teacher qualifications) to arrive at a set of parsimonious models with the QPE indicators as outcomes. Models were estimated with standard errors clustered on countries to control for country specific heterogeneity in the sample. Regional variables were added to explore their potential association with the outcomes. As each stage of the analysis progressed, ongoing conversations between the qualitative and quantitative teams ensured that a shared understanding of the data was developed.

Core findings from the analysis of data will be presented, with shared messages from the qualitative and quantitative analyses discussed in light of their implications for the PE field. In summary, the analysis of data highlighted several themes – shared between the ministerial and school surveys – which reflect different aspects of PE practice. Some themes were focused more on practical or functional matters (e.g., ‘facilities and resources’ and ‘workforce’), whereas others were concerned with the broader policy landscape (e.g., ‘curriculum’, ‘policy matters’ and ‘status of PE’) or more contextual issues (e.g., ‘culture, community and context’, ‘equity and inclusion’ and ‘public health’). An additional theme of ‘climate’ was also identified - specific to the school survey data – which largely reflected the perceived challenges for practice caused by extreme and/or unpredictable weather. However, as might be expected, there were many interconnections between these different themes, reflecting something of the complex educational landscape of PE (e.g., Ekberg, 2021) and highlighting the need for a relational perspective. Together, the analysis of data from the UNESCO QPE surveys (both Ministerial-level and School-level) serves to indicate that in many contexts – and across all regions – there remains a lack of clarity regarding the place and purpose of PE within the broader education landscape. However, despite the data identifying various challenges and needs in this respect, it is notable that there are also many examples of good practice that evidence the significant contributions that PE can and does make to school life. Notably, recognition of the contributions that PE can make to pupils’ holistic development and to supporting local communities, traditions and cultures, which are reflective of broader conversations in the academic literature (e.g., Dyson, 2014; Hooper et al., 2020) and serve to strengthen the case for recognising and further enhancing the status of PE.

Bailey, R., Armour, K., Kirk, D., Jess, M., Pickup, I., Sandford, R. and BERA Sport Pedagogy and Physical Education Special Interest Group (2009) The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: an academic review, Research Papers in Education, 24:1, 1-27. DOI: 10.1080/02671520701809817 Dyson, B. (2015) Quality Physical Education: A Commentary on Effective Physical Education Teaching. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85, 144–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2014.904155 Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Ekberg, J-E. (2021) Knowledge in the school subject of physical education: a Bernsteinian perspective, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 26:5, 448-459, DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1823954 Gray, S., Sandford, R., Stirrup, J., Aldous, D., Hardley, S., Carse, N., Hooper, O. & Bryant, A. (2022a) A comparative analysis of discourses shaping physical education provision within and across the UK, European Physical Education Review. DOI: 10.1177/1356336X211059440 Harris, J. (2018) The Case for Physical Education becoming a Core Subject in the National Curriculum. Available at: https://www.afpe.org.uk/physical-education/wp-content/uploads/PE-Core-Subject-Paper-20-3-18.pdf Hooper, O., Sandford, R. and Jarvis, H. (2020) Thinking and feeling in/through physical education: What place for social and emotional learning? In F. Chambers, D. Aldous and A. Bryant (Eds.), Threshold Concepts in Physical Education: A Design Thinking Approach (137-148). London: Routledge. Kirk, D. (2010) Physical Education Futures. London: Routledge. Lamb C., Teraoka E., Oliver, K. and Kirk, D. (2021) Pupils' motivational and emotional responses to pedagogies of affect in physical education in Scottish secondary schools, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18:10, 5183, DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18105183 Luguetti, C. and Oliver, K. (2020) ‘I became a teacher that respects the kids’ voices’: challenges and facilitators pre-service teachers faced in learning an activist approach, Sport, Education and Society, 25:4, 423-435. DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2019.1601620 Penney, D., Brooker, R., Hay, O. & Gillespie, L. (2009) Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment: three message systems of schooling and dimensions of quality physical education, Sport, Education and Society, 14:4, 421-442, DOI: 10.1080/13573320903217125 Quennerstedt, M. (2019) Physical education and the art of teaching: transformative learning and teaching in physical education and sports pedagogy, Sport, Education and Society, 24:6, 611-623. DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2019.1574731 Stidder, G. (2023) Teaching Physical Education: Contemporary issues for teachers, educators and students. Routledge. UNESCO (2015) Quality Physical Education. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000231101