My purpose is to provide a personal history of the development of the curriculum and instruction model I call Sport Education, to review some theoretical and practical connections of Sport Education to other curricular and instructional models, and to explore a few issues related to the continued development of the model. I'm grateful to the Adelphi AIESEP organizers for providing me the opportunity to do this. It was at the Adelphi AIESEP Congress in 1985 that I was first able to show what the Sport Education model looked like, using sides of 5thand 6th-grade children in a soccer season as the exemplar, so it is fitting that this personal retrospective is presented at this Congress. The ModelSport Education is a curriculum and instruction model designed to provide authentic, educationally rich sport experiences for girls and boys in the context of school physical education. I will briefly review the main features of Sport Education, as they have been fully described elsewhere (Siedentop, 1994(Siedentop, , 1998. In Sport Education, students participate in seasons that are often two to three times longer than typical physical education units. Students become members of teams immediately, and this affiliation allows students to plan, practice, and compete together, as well as benefit from all the social development opportunities that accompany membership in a persisting group. A schedule of competition is organized at the outset, which allows learners to practice and play within a predictable schedule of fair competition. A culminating event marks the end of the season and provides both the occasion to mark progress and the opportunity to celebrate successes. Records are kept and used for purposes of motivation, feedback, assessment, and the building of standards and traditions. The entire season is festive with continuous efforts made to celebrate success.If you were an observer in a gym of a 5th grade teacher doing Sport Education volleyball, you would likely see students enter the facility for class and go in groups (teams) to one of three court spaces (home courts) where they would immediately begin to work on either a warm-up, stretching, or a series of skill drills. These would be led by a student (coach) and organized by another student (manager). The teacher would be doing last-minute preparations and interacting with students. At some point a skill or tactic practice might begin, or teams might

The first source of the knowledge base is content knowledge-the knowledge, understanding, skill, and disposition that are to be learned by school children. This knowledge rests on two foundations: the accumulated literature and studies in the content areas, and the historical and philosophical scholarship on the nature of knowledge in those fields of study.Lee Shulman (1987, pp. 8-9) My task is to discuss issues related to the definition of content knowledge for physical education. While it is clear that current thinking in teacher education favors the view that content knowledge and pedagogy need to be studied together-the domain of the knowledge base that Shulman calls pedagogical content knowledge-it is equally clear that to do so requires that the parameters of the content knowledge domain be identified. In math or English or music or art, the task of defining the content knowledge base would be straightforward. That is because the math, English, music, and art that children learn in school is clearly related to the math, English, music, and art that prospective teachers learn in the university as content knowledge in their teacher preparation programs. To be sure, the university versions of these content fields are more sophisticated, complex, and intellectually rigorous than what is taught in schools, but school curricula in these fields are obviously a developmental version of the mature subject fields of study in the university.The content knowledge domain for physical education is not so easily identified. In fact, it continues to be a source of serious controversy in our field. What I will argue this morning is that we, and by "we" I mean particularly the teacher educators in physical education, have largely given up the historic content knowledge of our field, and, in so doing, have virtually eliminated the possibility of developing a serious body of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching physical education. Pedagogical content knowledge is the "main stuff" from which effectiveness and expertise in teaching and coaching derives. But, this much is clear: You can't have pedagogical content knowledge without content knowledge, and all of our advances in pedagogy in physical education can't change that simple truth.Several of our colleagues have for some time pointed out the degree to which we are emphasizing pedagogy without a corresponding emphasis on content knowledge. Joan Vickers (1987) described this view in Cincinnati at AAHPERD's

No abstract

No abstract

Full inclusion refers to educational practices where all students with disabilities are educated in regular classes along with nondisabled peers. Six elementary physical education specialists (5 females, 1 male) were studied to obtain their views of inclusion practices and perceived outcomes. Teacher interviews and observations revealed four main themes: (a) multiple teaching styles, (b) student outcomes, (c) teacher frustrations, and (d) differences in inclusion practices. Results indicated that schools provided little support, and teachers reported that they were inadequately prepared to teach effectively with inclusive classes. These teachers had strong feelings of guilt and inadequacy as they continued to try to be effective for all children.