So did that boring drill, we called P.T. back in school, stand for ??
Doing all those stretching exercises in sync with 100 other batchmates and the most synchronized sub group getting to perform in front of capacity crowd of parents and staff on annual day (popularly called sports day). Bending down and getting up when the drum beats without knowing a thing why we were made to do it. So we were doing P.T., PHYSICAL TRAINING !
The 'sports' teacher , or P.T.I., as the post was and is called, was the most feared "disciplinarian" of the school. No prizes for guessing why ! The 'subject' which he (and it was always a he and not she) had to take was, for some reason beyond the comprehension of most, called PHYSICAL EDUCATION. A physical educator tasked with physical training ?
Did it make any difference to anyone then? Does it make any difference to anyone now ? I guess no.
Making them 'fall in line' and doing as they're asked to do was the task he was assigned and did he not do it well (or should I say 'effectively') no matter the means deployed. I wonder if anyone back then asked the question what IS this subject called 'Physical Education' ? What was to 'study and learn' in that? What was the 'syllabus' , the curriculum? Why was it interchangeably used with the word 'GAMES' in time table and hence brought as broad a smile on boys' faces as on girls' who wouldn't smile as much at the thought of field and courts as at the thought of free period.
Doing all those stretching exercises in sync with 100 other batchmates and the most synchronized sub group getting to perform in front of capacity crowd of parents and staff on annual day (popularly called sports day). Bending down and getting up when the drum beats without knowing a thing why we were made to do it. So we were doing P.T., PHYSICAL TRAINING !
The 'sports' teacher , or P.T.I., as the post was and is called, was the most feared "disciplinarian" of the school. No prizes for guessing why ! The 'subject' which he (and it was always a he and not she) had to take was, for some reason beyond the comprehension of most, called PHYSICAL EDUCATION. A physical educator tasked with physical training ?
Did it make any difference to anyone then? Does it make any difference to anyone now ? I guess no.
Making them 'fall in line' and doing as they're asked to do was the task he was assigned and did he not do it well (or should I say 'effectively') no matter the means deployed. I wonder if anyone back then asked the question what IS this subject called 'Physical Education' ? What was to 'study and learn' in that? What was the 'syllabus' , the curriculum? Why was it interchangeably used with the word 'GAMES' in time table and hence brought as broad a smile on boys' faces as on girls' who wouldn't smile as much at the thought of field and courts as at the thought of free period.
Ahmed this is a very interesting observation which often go unnoticed or without much inquiries. Here i could see two distinct questions out here.
ReplyDelete1. what is the rational behind introducing physical training in education?
2. was the practice describe above cohere to the rational of introducing physical practice?
If the rational of introducing physical training or education itself is in contradiction to the meaning of education than it is not worth criticizing its implantation. but, if the rational of introducing physical education is in tune with the meaning of education than we can ask the second question. The rational of PT/PE will surely envisage some notion of 'ought to be' in implementation. so if we have more information about the rational and the ought to be notion we can get more understanding on it. There is POSITION PAPER NATIONAL FOCUS GROUP ON HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION. Reading this may give us more information.
*replace not worth by 'redundant'
ReplyDelete