Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The staffing and outsourcing of the marginalised curriculum area Health and Physical Education (HPE) has been an area of growing concern, alongside rising concerns for the decline of students’ health due to increased sedentary behaviour and mental health problems, yet there has been little research attention to the staffing and delivery of HPE in Australian schools. This article addresses that gap in understanding with analysis of data from a larger study examining positioning and implementation of HPE in schools. A mixed methods questionnaire was completed by 30% of government schools in New South Wales (n = 556) providing data on staffing, delivery and outsourcing arrangements. Findings suggested that specialist HPE teachers are not in-charge of teaching HPE; and the majority (67%) of schools outsource at least some HPE, with far-reaching impacts on curriculum coverage and student exclusion from lessons evident. Findings also suggested that students experience varied methods of delivery in Physical Education (PE), and Health Education (HE) lessons. Together, these findings raise questions regarding the assurance of quality and equity, with implications for future policy and practice and the health and wellbeing of school children.

Keywords

Health and physical education (HPE)outsourcing school staffing specialist teachers equity external providers student learning physical activity

Study background

Introduction

There is broad acknowledgment that Physical Education (PE) and Health Education (HE) are important aspects of education systems, with many countries combining the areas into one curriculum area – Health and Physical Education (HPE), yet their place in schools is often marginalised (Chorney, 2011; Cruickshank et al., 2021,2023, 2024; Morgan & Hansen, 2008; Siegel, 2006). While the marginalisation of HPE has been examined in various ways, it has not yet been explored in relation to impact upon staffing and delivery of lessons.

Globally, there are broad challenges in school staffing, which have impacted the teaching of Key Learning Areas (KLAs) (curriculum areas) (Gracíia & Weiss, 2019; See et al., 2022; Thompson, 2021), including HPE (Hills et al., 2015). Simultaneously, there has been a rise of outsourcing in HPE to ‘fill the gap’ and provide ‘solutions’ to staffing difficulties (Olmedo, 2013; Picciano & Spring, 2013; Sperka & Enright, 2018). Although there has been increasing monitoring of teachers, their qualifications, professional development, and effectiveness in the classroom through teacher registration and accountability regimes (Ingvarson et al., 2006), there is a noted lack of policy and monitoring of the standards of external HPE providers (Macdonald et al., 2020) and indeed little research documenting staffing, and outsourcing practices in HPE. Outsourcing the role of a qualified teacher to an external private enterprise may have implications for equity and quality assurance (Cruickshank et al., 2023, 2024; Deng et al., 2022). This exploratory study provides empirical evidence of school staffing and outsourcing practices in HPE in New South Wales (NSW) government schools.

Background

A decade ago, the UNESCO Worldwide Survey of School Physical Education (PE) found:

deficiencies in teacher supply, particularly of physical education specialists, inadequate preparation of physical education teachers… consequences indicate problematic issues of some concerns articulated in numerous countries (UNESCO, 2013, p. 47)

Globally, in 2013, PE was most frequently taught by generalist teachers in primary schools (79%), whereas specialist teachers most frequently taught PE in secondary school settings (90%) (UNESCO, 2013). In the latest OECD report Making PE Dynamic and Inclusive for 2030, staffing remains a central challenge (Howells, 2019). The report raises concerns about generalist teachers’ teaching of HPE and the hiring of non-teachers to deliver HPE who lack qualifications and knowledge (Howells, 2019).

Recently, researchers have argued that if a teacher has not specialised in PE, they are not ‘suitable to teach physical education’ (Sufri & Chung, 2019, p. 449). There is a dearth of empirical evidence on the staffing of HE, despite a significant body of literature on the staffing of PE (Cruickshank et al., 2021; Gaudreault et al., 2018; McEvilly, 2022; McLennan & Thompson, 2015; Sperka & Enright, 2019; Whipp et al., 2011).

Alongside teacher staffing concerns, there is also a decade-long unease regarding the increasing use of external PE providers:

raises concerns about quality and relevance of curriculum delivery and impacts on teacher development as well as student learning… and hence, compromise the quality of student learning (UNESCO, 2013, p. 47)

In response to rising concerns, UNESCO devised guidelines for Quality Physical Education (QPE), suggesting responsible authorities review systems of QPE teacher education as a priority and establish qualification standards and baseline expectations for teachers responsible for teaching PE (McLennan & Thompson, 2015; UNESCO, 2015).

The issue of staffing in HPE sits within broader challenges in school staffing including low esteem for the profession (Thompson, 2021), inadequate professional pay (García & Weiss, 2019), broad teacher shortages (See et al., 2022), and intensification of work and rising workload (Gavin et al., 2021). These challenges feed into specific difficulties in provision and distribution of specialist teachers within Australia and frequent reliance on ‘out-of-field’ teachers (Hobbs et al., 2022). Countries experiencing teacher specialism shortages in different KLAs share concerns regarding repercussions for the success of their educational systems as economic and social engines. For example, teacher supply issues in STEM areas are assumed to heavily impact innovation and economic development. HPE specialist teacher shortages will likely affect population health and knock-on social and economic outcomes (Lawson, 2020). Thus, monitoring and optimising supply of these specialists is essential.

Importance of specialist staffing for HPE

HPE specialist teachers provide superior technical instruction, more opportunities to practise and develop skills, a wider range of content, and more authentic learning than non-specialist teachers (Cruickshank et al., 2024; McEvilly, 2022; Morgan & Hansen, 2008; Whipp et al., 2011). Research shows students are significantly more active in PE when taught by a specialist HPE teacher (Whipp et al., 2011). Additionally, these teachers are more willing to teach challenging health topics, such as sexual health, compared to generalists (Cohen et al., 2011). These research findings have fuelled international (McEvilly, 2022; Sperka & Enright, 2019) and national (Lynch, 2013; Morgan & Hansen, 2008) calls for more specialist HPE teachers, especially in primary schools.

International (DeCorby et al., 2005; Dyson et al., 2016) and Australian (Cruickshank et al., 2023; Dudley et al., 2020; Morgan & Bourke, 2004; Spittle, Spittle, Encel, & Itoh, 2022) research shows that many generalist primary teachers feel unprepared and lack confidence and competence in HPE. They also face barriers when implementing the HPE curriculum, including lack of training and expertise, lower levels of confidence, and competing demands (Cruickshank et al., 2021; Gaudreault et al., 2018). These barriers can have negative consequences for student outcomes and overall physical activity levels.

Australian researchers allude to a correlation between a shortage of specialist HPE teachers and NSW students’ decline in fundamental movement skills (Dudley et al., 2020). Proficiency in fundamental movement skills is crucial for physical activity (Barnett et al., 2009; Hardy et al., 2012). Hardy et al. (2012) estimated that, in NSW, two-thirds of year six students are not sufficiently competent in locomotor skills such as running, jumping, skipping, and hopping. Historic Australian research (Hardy et al., 2012) supports international arguments (McEvilly, 2022) that specialists should teach HPE so students have a solid foundation to lead physically active lives.

Outsourcing in HPE

Outsourcing of HPE is pervasive worldwide (Deng et al., 2022; Sperka & Enright, 2018). It involves engaging an external provider to deliver part of the HPE curriculum, aiming to ‘extend, substitute or replace internal capabilities’ (Sperka, 2020, p. 275). Many problems are associated with outsourcing, including, qualifications of providers, inconsistent delivery, lack of curriculum knowledge, inequity, and how it undermines the HPE teaching profession (Cohen et al., 2011; McEvilly, 2022; Parnell, 2015; Powell, 2015; Williams et al., 2011).

Outsourcing HPE is a regular practice in Australian schools and is so prevalent in NSW that since 2008 the NSW Department of Education has provided guidelines for schools using contracted external providers for PE and school sport in years K–6 (NSW Department of Education and Training, 2008).

A growing body of literature examines the rise of outsourcing in HPE internationally (Macdonald, 2015; Sperka & Enright, 2018) and in Australia (Hogan & Stylianou, 2018; Morgan & Hansen, 2008; Whipp et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2011). Many researchers note how outsourcing is used to ‘fill the gap’ due to a lack of HPE specialist teachers. Barwood et al. (2017) report that HPE is outsourced in Western Australia because of teacher training and qualification inconsistencies.

Cruickshank et al. (2023) suggest that outsourcing can be used as an extension of, not a replacement for, teacher-led HPE. Lynch (2013) supported this, but argued that employing a qualified, enthusiastic HPE specialist would eliminate extra school expenses in the long term, and schools that did not have a HPE specialist were generally lacking resources and advocacy.

In additional to concerns about teaching standards, the opportunity to develop student-teacher relationships in outsourced classes is extremely low. Student-teacher relationships are one of the most influential factors on student behaviour and learning outcomes (Churchill et al., 2011; Hughes & Chen, 2011; Roorda et al., 2011). These relationships foster a sense of belonging and create an environment where students can more actively participate in learning, impacting their learning, outcomes, and achievement (Churchill et al., 2011; Hughes & Chen, 2011; Roorda et al., 2011). Sperka and Enright (2018), when investigating how students experience outsourced lessons, note ‘many students considered it beneficial to know their teachers’ (p. 578). Yet we note that opportunities for students to ‘know their teachers’ are limited with outsourcing, where time frames are often short and staff focus tends to be on program delivery, rather than getting to know students.

The growth of outsourcing is built upon a history of staffing issues in HPE. In 1992 a senate inquiry highlighted the issue of ‘appropriately qualified teachers’ and suggested staffing was a contributing factor to the decline of PE (Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, 1992, p. 8). The inquiry made two crucial recommendations relating to PE staffing. Recommendation 27 urged the various education authorities to ensure all PE programs were conducted by or at least overseen by, a qualified, specialist PE teacher as a matter of priority. Recommendation 31 asked education authorities to ensure every student has regular access to a specialist PE teacher. Both recommendations stressed the importance of specialist teachers at the primary school level. Research has not examined outsourcing practices of the area HE.

Since the establishment of the NSW Public Schools Act of 1866, government schools have worked to provide equitable opportunities for all school-aged children (NSW Department of Education, 2023). Since the 1990s, external providers have emerged in schools, in NSW and many other jurisdictions, with an increase in public/private partnerships as well as education businesses providing ‘solutions’ to policy problems (Hogan, 2016; Olmedo, 2013; Picciano & Spring, 2013). Today outsourcing of HPE is a booming business, raising concerns regarding affordability and educational inequity and potential knock-on effects on health outcomes (Lawson, 2020). The growth in public/private partnerships, education businesses, and outsourcing raises issues regarding student equity. Outsourcing of classes from qualified teachers to unregulated external providers is also problematic. Growth in outsourcing runs counter to recent global developments to lift education quality through registration and accountability frameworks for qualified teachers (Lingard et al., 2017).

Teacher standards and the importance of teacher specialist staffing

In Australia, as in many countries, concerns about HPE staffing have developed alongside significant investment in teacher accreditation, teaching standards, and clarification of the professional work of teachers (Ingvarson et al., 2006). All teachers in Australia must have a minimum of four years of university qualifications, be registered to teach in schools (Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee, 1998), and maintain teaching standards. The impetus for these developments is the mounting evidence supporting the positive impact of highly qualified and specialised teachers on student learning outcomes. Researchers agree that improving teacher quality and instruction is the most effective way to increase student engagement and outcomes regardless of student background (Adnot et al., 2017; Chetty et al., 2014; Dinham et al., 2008; Goldhaber et al., 2015; Kunter et al., 2013; Wenglinsky, 2002). Nevertheless, while registration requirements are mandated and fully enacted, there frequently remains a mismatch between teacher specialisation and the classes they teach (Hobbs et al., 2022). Specialist teachers have additional specialist learning in initial teacher education and are more common in secondary schools. However, as shown in Figure 1, government reporting shows that only approximately half of secondary teachers in NSW teaching HPE have completed appropriate preparation. There is no equivalent data available for NSW primary teachers.

Figure 1.

Subject teaching and initial teacher education among NSW secondary teachers (Source: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2021, p. 46).

While NSW teachers must provide evidence of their qualifications, registration, effectiveness, and adherence to standards, there are no such requirements for external providers. There is a lack of policy and monitoring of external providers’ qualifications, expectations, and standards (Macdonald et al., 2020). Thus, despite regulation and professional standards, shortages of teacher specialists, high out-of-field teaching and increasing use of external providers mean that the potential for high-quality teaching and learning in HPE is curtailed.

Considering the unaddressed Senate inquiry recommendations made over 25 years ago and studies on the rate of outsourcing in NSW schools, now more than 15 years old, there is an urgent need to obtain empirical data on who is teaching HPE in NSW government schools. This study addresses that gap, providing an overview of the teaching workforce in HPE in NSW, Australia. Given international trends, the study will likely be informative to many other jurisdictions.

Research questions

1. Who is in-charge of HPE in NSW government schools?

2. Who is teaching HPE in NSW government schools?

a. If teaching is outsourced, who is paying for it?

b. What do students experience in outsourced HPE lessons if payment is required but not provided by their parents or caregivers?

After answering these questions, our discussion explores the implications for policy and practice within schools.

Method

The study

This article reports on a component of a larger study, the NSW HPE Enacted project, which provides empirical evidence to enhance understanding of the position of HPE in NSW government schools by examining three areas (I) the logistics, (II) the process, and (III) the status (Sears, 2021). Ethics approval for the NSW HPE Enacted project was provided by the University of Sydney (HREC2017/631) and NSW State Education Research Applications Process (SERAP20172024).

Methodological approach

This study used Creswell and Plano Clark’s (2018) embedded QUAN (qual) design model. This approach allowed direct quotes from participants to be included alongside quantitative statistics to illustrate participants’ perspectives relevant to the quantitative findings.

The study sample

The study investigated HPE in 556 government schools across NSW, including 377 primary schools, 164 secondary schools, and 15 K-12 (covering primary and secondary levels) schools. A proportional stratified random sampling method was employed, placing the population (schools) into different strata to ensure each group’s sampling was proportionate to the total population (Collins, 2017) A list of all NSW government schools was obtained from the NSW Department of Education’s master dataset (NSW Department of Education, 2017). Highly specialised schools, such as environmental education centres, hospital schools, and juvenile justice establishment schools, were removed prior to sampling. The sample strata focused on school geography: major cities, inner-regional, outer-regional, remote, and very remote (these last two were combined), and school socio-educational status (SEdS) (high, mid, and low Index of Community Socio-educational Advantage [ICSEA] value). A schools’ ICSEA value ‘corresponds to the average level of educational advantage of the school’s student population relative to those of other schools’ with a national mean score of 1000 (low less than 950, mid between 950 and 1050, high over 1050) (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2016, p. 2). A total of 1526 schools, 75% of all NSW government schools, were sent an invitation to participate to ensure a robust dataset and a sufficient spread within the strata. A total of 556 schools completed the online survey, with a 36.4% response rate, comprising 29.3% of the NSW government school population (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Participating schools by type and response rate.

	Count	Response rate %	% Of total population
Type
Primary school	377	31.6	23.7
Secondary school	164	58.0	43.5
Central/Community school	15	29.4	22.1
Socio-educational status
Low	176	29.8	22.6
Mid	197	31.7	23.7
High	183	57.2	42.9
Geographical Location
Major city	378	45.5	34.1
Inner regional	123	29.7	22.2
Outer regional	50	19.6	14.7
Remote	5	13.2	9.8
Total	556	36.4	29.3

The questionnaire

An online questionnaire, completed by the teacher-in-charge of HPE, was used to collect both quantitative and qualitative data on staffing and delivery of lessons. Previous large-scale survey studies informed the development of questionnaire design, including TALIS surveys (OECD, 2013), UNESCO WorldWide Survey of Physical Education (UNESCO, 2013), Department of Education United Kingdom PE and Sport Survey 2009/2010 (Quick et al., 2011), and the first national survey of Australian secondary teachers of sexuality education (Smith et al., 2011). The online questionnaire included questions on 1) demographics, 2) who teaches HE and who teaches PE, including external providers 3) outsourcing – payment and student participation. Details of the survey can be found in Sears (2021). The questionnaire was piloted with six teachers – three generalists and three HPE specialists.

Data analysis

Both qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques were utilised in a QUAN (Qual) approach, focussing predominately on quantitative data supplemented by direct quotes from participants to illustrate quantitative findings. As shown in Table 1, the resulting dataset is large and representative of the population of NSW government schools. The quantitative analysis reported here is primarily descriptive. Where appropriate, some tests of association and/or difference were carried out, in SPSS, to confirm the statistical significance of patterns observed in the descriptive analyses. Details of these analyses are available in Sears (2021). More than 433 respondents (77.9%) provided qualitative comments. Some responses were one to three-word answers, while others were paragraphs long, with 4803 qualitative responses collected. There were 13 text boxes for participants to make qualitative responses. Quotes are embedded within the quantitative results to confirm, validate, affirm, and explain in participants' voices the statistical data (Eldh et al., 2020).

Findings and discussion

Demographics of the teacher in-charge of HPE

Table 2 profiles teachers-in-charge of HPE and reveals that most are employed full-time. The gender of these teachers varied by school type; primary schools had more female teachers-in-charge of HPE than secondary schools.

Table 2.

Demographics of the teacher in charge of HPE at participating schools.

		Primary	Secondary	Central/Community	Total (cat.%)
Age	Number	337	164	15	556
	Min-Max	22–66	22–63	26–57	22–66
	Mean	40	40	37	40
	SD	11	10	10	11
	SE of mean	1	1	3	0
Sex	Number	377	164	15	556
	Female	249	64	8	321 (57.8)
	Male	127	100	7	234 (42.0)
	Non binary	1	0	0	1 (0.2)
Employment status	Number	377	164	15	553
	Permanent	262	121	10	393 (70.7)
	Temporary	114	40	5	159 (28.9)
	Casual	1	3	0	1 (0.2)
Employment status	Number	377	163	15	555
	Full time	358	151	14	523 (94.2)
	Part time (90%–50%)	18	12	1	31 (5.6)
	Part time (>50%)	1	1	0	1 (0.2)
Years teaching	Number	377	164	15	556
	Min-Max	1–41	1–44	2–36	1–44
	Mean	15.12	14.57	13.38	14.91
	SD	10.09	10.57	11.43	10.25
	SE of mean	0.62	0.97	3.3	0.51
Years teaching at this school	Number	377	164	15	556
	Min-Max	0.5–35	1–35	2–27	0.5–35
	Mean	8.75	8.27	9.58	8.63
	SD	7.08	6.79	9.46	7.06
	SE of mean	0.43	0.62	2.73	0.35

Of the 556 survey participants, 548 reported what the person in-charge of HPE at their school was qualified to teach: 196 were HPE specialists (35.8%), 342 were generalists (62.4%), and ten specialists for another KLA (1.8%). The only statistically significant difference here was school type, secondary schools had a larger percentage of HPE specialists in-charge of HPE (40.8%). In all school types, the majority of teachers-in-charge of HPE were not HPE specialists.

Most teachers-in-charge of HPE hold a bachelor’s degree (79.0%). Among these teachers, a substantial number have obtained a postgraduate degree (13.5%), as shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Qualifications of the teacher in charge of HPE at participating schools.

		Primary	Secondary	Central/Community	Total (cat.%)
Qualification	Number	377	164	15	556
	Postgraduate degree	50	22	3	75 (13.5)
	Bachelor degree	291	138	11	440 (79)
	Certificate	1	0	0	1 (0.2)
	Graduate Certificate/Diploma	24	3	1	28 (5)
	Diploma	11	1	0	12 (2.1)
Qualified to teach	Number	377	164	15	556
	HPE specialist	124	67	5	196 (35.2)
	Generalist	237	95	10	342 (61.5)
	Other teaching area	8	2	0	10 (1.8)
	Not qualified to teach	8	0	0	8 (1.4)
		Low ICSEA	Mid ICSEA	High ICSEA	Total
Qualification	Number	176	197	183	556
	Postgraduate degree	28	32	15	75 (13.5)
	Bachelor degree	131	151	158	440 (79)
	Certificate	0	1	0	1 (0.2)
	Graduate Certificate/Diploma	14	8	6	28 (5)
	Diploma	3	5	4	12 (2.1)
Qualified to teach	Number	174	195	179	548
	HPE specialist	73	73	50	196 (35.8)
	Generalist	97	119	126	342 (62.4)
	Other teaching area	4	3	3	10 (1.8)
		Major city	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote
Qualification	Number	378	123	50	5
	Postgraduate degree	49	19	7	0
	Bachelor degree	310	89	36	5
	Certificate	0	1	0	0
	Graduate Certificate/Diploma	13	9	6	0
	Diploma	6	5	1	0
Qualified to teach	Number	378	123	50	5
	HPE specialist	116	59	21	0
	Generalist	248	60	29	5
	Other teaching area	9	1	0	0
	N/A	5	3	0	0

Major-city and high-SEdS schools show a smaller proportion of specialist HPE teachers-in-charge of HPE than schools in inner and outer-regional locations or low-SEdS schools.

Who is teaching and delivering HPE?

Responses to questions about who was delivering HPE indicated that the majority of schools were using external providers (67.0%), followed by other teachers (55.4%) and HPE specialist teachers (44.5%), as shown in Table 4. School support staff such as school counsellors, school nurses, and school chaplains were rarely employed by schools to deliver HPE (5%, 3.2%, and 1.6%, respectively), so have been excluded from the following analysis.

Table 4.

HPE teachers and providers in participating schools.

		External provider	HPE specialist	Other teacher
All schools	%	67.0	44.5	55.4
Primary schools	%	78.4	17.9	48.0
Secondary schools	%	44.8	95.9	69.2
K-12	%	66.7	60.0	60.0
Major city	%	68.2	43.2	54.3
Inner regional	%	65.4	44.8	55.2
Outer regional	%	61.4	50.0	59.1
Remote	%	100.0	100.0	100.0
Low socio-educational	%	59.3	51.3	59.3
Mid socio-educational	%	69.6	43.8	59.1
High socio-educational	%	72.4	37.6	46.6

Note. Due to multiple response options percentages may not add up to 100%.

Previous research has highlighted schools outsourcing of HPE to external providers to ‘fill the gap’ of teachers lacking confidence and competence to provide quality HPE lessons (Cruickshank et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2011). Our data reveal 78.4% of primary schools were employing external providers to deliver HPE. Only 17.9% of primary schools reported that they had access to a HPE specialist teacher, this lack of specialist teachers may contribute to high levels of outsourcing. Although the current exploratory study did not measure frequency of outsourcing, a number of qualitative comments from respondents suggest it may be becoming a frequent practice, with respondents stating, ‘An external provider who comes to school and teaches for roughly an hour period once a week’ (respondent 27435673) and ‘A typical [outsourced] class would have one lesson a week for a term’ (45545567).

Overall, 44.5% of schools employed HPE specialist teachers, with differences between school types. Only 17.9% of primary schools reported employing a HPE specialist teacher, compared to 95.9% of secondary schools. Primary schools with a HPE specialist show less use of external providers, ‘We have internal full-time HPE staff who teach Physical and Health education across K–6’ (respondent 45118929). Many schools (55.4%) reported that ‘other teachers’ (including generalist and non-HPE specialist teachers) were teaching HPE.

Employing a HPE specialist teacher to deliver HPE is more common in low-SEdS schools (Table 4) and lower-SEds schools also have a higher percentage of HPE specialists in-charge of HPE (Table 3). This reflects international best practice, where these most qualified teachers are strategically placed in the most disadvantaged schools (OECD, 2018). There is a slightly higher rate of external providers delivering HPE in high-SEdS schools, possibly related to a greater capacity to cover the related costs.

With increasing remoteness, there proportion of schools employing a HPE specialist teacher to teach HPE increased (see Table 4). This appears to be at odds with previous reports of a lack of specialised teacher availability and reduced retention in regional and remote schools (Guenther et al., 2014). At the same time, no remote school reported having a specialist HPE teacher-in-charge of HPE (see Table 3), which is surprising given the responses indicates that these schools employed a specialist HPE teacher to deliver HPE. It is possible that, as remote schools are often very small, that there is no formal HPE coordination role and responsibility falls to the school principal.

School type, SEdS, and geographical location may all contribute to schools’ decisions to outsource HPE to external providers. These factors often intersect; we calculated, for instance, that 82% of high-SEdS primary schools outsource HPE compared to 43% of low-SEdS secondary schools. Furthermore, High-SEdS primary schools in major-city areas are the most unlikely to employ a HPE specialist (only 6.7%). See Sears (2021) for further detail.

Initial analysis of the data (not reported here, see Sears, 2021) indicated that there were differences in the delivery of the separate curriculum areas of HPE. Therefore, the following sections examine who is teaching HE and PE separately.

Teaching HE lessons

Most noteworthy is the lower proportion of schools reporting outsourcing of HE (33.29%) compared to PE (53.5%). Some qualitative responses highlighted a much lower, or ‘one-off’ nature of outsourcing health in some schools: ‘Health – One session a year’. (respondent 45483275); ‘Health – Healthy Harold, Interrelate, depends on what is being covered’ (respondent 27457654). Others reported outsourcing far more frequently: ‘Health would be 45 minutes once a week for each class generally one provider each term’. (respondent 26138710) and ‘One session a week per class for K–1 teach holistic health’ (respondent 32962809).

Overall, the employment of HPE specialist teachers to teach HE was reported less often than that of HPE specialists employed to teach PE. HPE specialist teachers are trained with pedagogical knowledge specific to HPE, yet in primary schools, 17.9% reported that a HPE specialist teacher taught HPE, but only 9.3% used these teachers for HE. This suggests a lost opportunity wherein some schools employ a HPE specialist but do not capitalise on the specialist teacher’s specialist knowledge. Other school types of various SEdS and geographic locations showed similar arrangements, except outer-regional and remote schools. These figures show that while outer-regional and remote schools use specialist HPE teachers to teach HE, major-city and inner-regional schools do not (Table 5).

Table 5.

HE teachers and providers in participating schools.

		External provider	HPE specialist	Other teacher
All schools	%	32.9	38.3	30.4
Primary schools	%	36.1	9.3	35.4
Secondary schools	%	21.9	91.8	27.4
K-12	%	26.7	60.0	20.0
Major city	%	31.7	37.6	32.4
Inner regional	%	33.3	32.4	27.6
Outer regional	%	36.4	54.5	22.7
Remote	%	100.0	100	50.0
Low socio-educational	%	34.0	46.7	31.3
Mid socio-educational	%	33.5	38.0	32.3
High socio-educational	%	27.1	29.3	30.8

Note. Due to multiple response options percentages may not add up to 100%.

It is unclear why there is less specialist teaching of HE than PE. It is also unclear why there is less engagement of external providers for HE. A lack of providers could explain this, or it may also be explained by generalist teachers’ teacher efficacy (Cruickshank et al., 2021), where teachers feel more competent and confident in theoretical HE lessons rather than the practical environment of PE, reducing the need for outsourcing. Further research is needed to explore this further.

Teaching and delivering PE

More schools reported the use of external providers to deliver PE (53.5%) than HPE specialists (43.3%) and generalist teachers (29.9%). This varied by school type, SEdS, and geographical location (see Table 6).

Table 6.

PE teachers and providers in participating schools.

		External provider	HPE specialist	Other teacher
All schools	%	53.5	43.3	29.9
Primary schools	%	67.9	15.0	34.6
Secondary schools	%	27.4	95.9	21.9
K-12	%	40.0	60.0	20.0
Major city	%	56.9	42.4	30.0
Inner regional	%	52.4	41.9	28.6
Outer regional	%	36.4	50.0	31.8
Remote	%	0.0	100.0	50.0
Low socio-educational	%	44.0	50.0	34.7
Mid socio-educational	%	54.4	43.0	29.1
High socio-educational	%	63.2	36.1	25.6

Note. Due to multiple response options percentages may not add up to 100%.

Almost all secondary schools (95.9%) reported that specialised HPE teachers taught PE, while only 27.4% of secondary schools outsourced PE. In comparison, primary schools reported high use of external providers, with 67.9% using them to deliver some PE and only 15% of primary schools reporting that a specialised HPE teacher taught PE Table 7.

Table 7.

Reported sources of payment for external providers for HPE

		Parents/Care Givers	School	Community groups
All schools	%	78.0	58.9	8.9
Primary schools	%	76.8	62.5	8.9
Secondary schools	%	83.3	48.3	8.3
K-12	%	57.1	78.6	14.3
Major city	%	85.7	54.9	5.1
Inner regional	%	66.7	60.6	14.1
Outer regional	%	56.4	79.5	20.5
Remote	%	33.3	100	33.3
Low socio-educational	%	66.2	72.7	15.2
Mid socio-educational	%	79.9	55.2	9.7
High socio-educational	%	89.1	49.2	1.6

Note. Due to multiple response options percentages may not add up to 100%.

Primary teachers described typical engagement of external providers as: ‘One lesson a week for PE. The provider we use runs different programs for different stages. I have to supervise but don’t teach’. (44236701), ‘PE – 1, 40 min lesson per week. Company comes in with equipment and young university students to run different activities. They also assess our students for us’. (respondent 27457654) and ‘PE would be 45 minutes once a week for each class generally one provider each term. This may happen for two terms a year. X company run a number of different PE programs, a different one each term’. (respondent 26138710).

Teacher efficacy could explain this disparity, as secondary schools employ more HPE specialist teachers with specialist training and pedagogical knowledge, which increases teacher efficacy in implementing PE and may result in less need for external providers (Spittle, Spittle, & Itoh, 2022). Primary schools have comparatively fewer HPE specialists and instead have generalist teachers who have reported lacking the necessary confidence and competence to provide quality HPE lessons (Morgan & Hansen, 2008; Williams et al., 2011). Lower teacher efficacy may increase the likelihood of outsourcing of PE to external providers.

With increased remoteness, the proportion of specialised HPE teachers employed to deliver PE increased, and the outsourcing of PE decreased (Table 6). No remote schools outsourced PE; this may be due to a lack of access, as other researchers have reported schools in remote areas lack access to services and resources (Guenther et al., 2014). Low-SEdS schools reported higher employment of specialised HPE teachers to teach PE. In contrast, the proportion of High SEdS schools who reported using external providers for at least some of their PE teaching appeared higher than the proportion of Mid and Low SEds schools who outsourced PE teaching.

Outsourcing: Payment and student participation

Outsourcing HPE incurs costs, and schools typically engaged private or public corporations, not government agencies. This section reports on who is incurring the cost when schools choose to outsource, whether students whose parent/carer were unable to make payment continued to participate in HPE, and whether students experienced differential treatment, or exclusion from lessons.

The Education Act 1990 (NSW) states that core curriculum is to be delivered free of charge in NSW. Since HPE is a compulsory curriculum subject, this means that it should not incur any charge for ‘minimum’ curriculum lessons. Additionally, policy notes that ‘principals will ensure that no student or family suffers any discrimination or embarrassment over failure to make a voluntary or subject contribution. Confidentiality, privacy and dignity must always be maintained concerning contributions’ (NSW Department of Education, 2020; para. 1).

Despite these legislative and policy positions, respondents frequently reported that the outsourcing of HPE did come at a financial cost: ‘We use external providers …This involves liaising with local businesses and/or sporting providers, creation of permission notes and costing, allocation and/or purchasing of equipment, timetabling and supervision of programs’ (respondent 29871120) and ‘Term 1 and Term 4. Cost $45 for one term, $80 for two’ (respondent 30160227).

Source of payment for providers

Among schools who reported outsourcing HPE (373 of the 556 respondents), parents were the most commonly reported source of payment (78%, n = 291 schools), while school finances (59%, n = 220) and community groups (9%, n = 34) were also reported as contributing to payments.

Parents/carers were the most common financial contributor for outsourced HPE in both primary and secondary schools. In contrast, K-12 schools reported the school as the primary financial contributor to external providers, which may be due to their lower SEdS relative to the other schools.

The higher the SEdS of the school, the higher the proportion of schools reporting that parents provided payment, while lower-SEdS schools relied more on schools and community groups providing payment. Despite this, two-thirds of low-SEdS schools still reported that parents provided payment for outsourced HPE. Overall, a large majority of schools required parents/carers to pay for outsourcing to fulfil the minimum requirements of the mandatory curriculum.

In major cities, parents remained the most common source of payment, this decreased with increasing remoteness, dropping from 85.7% for major-city schools to 66.7% in inner-regional schools, 56.4% in outer-regional schools, and even further to 33.3% in remote schools. An opposite trend occurred for reported payments by schools and community groups. The proportions reported tended to be higher for more remote schools, with remote areas reporting the highest payment rate by the school (100%) and community groups (33.3%). Regional and remote schools reported higher engagement of community groups to deliver HE, which may explain the differences seen here.

Student participation

In the current study, 67% (n = 373) of schools reported outsourcing lessons an, 52% (290) of schools reported that parents/caregivers pay for external providers. In such a context, it is important to understand what happens to student participation if parents/caregivers do not pay, particularly as research warns that students who have negative experiences in HPE, such as feeling excluded, are less likely to be physically active adults (Cardinal et al., 2013). Not much is currently known about what lessons or alternatives students are offered if their parents do not pay or do not provide permission for external provision of HPE.

Table 8 shows that almost half of outsourcing schools reported that they not allow students to participate in outsourced lessons if parents did not pay or provide permission, excluding students from the outsourced curricular activities. Teachers reported, for example, ‘the school uses some off-campus sporting/gaming facilities that students can choose to pay extra for instead of free on-campus teacher run’ (respondent 45097600), ‘we provide students with the option to pay for…to external providers’ (respondent 44679847) and ‘students have the option to select’ outsourced lessons (respondent 32449763). About half of schools provided an alternative HPE lesson if students are excluded from outsourced lessons due to failure to provide payment. This ensures students were still able to participate in a HPE lesson; however, the alternative lesson arrangements raise questions as to whether practices ‘ensure confidentiality, privacy, and dignity’ over ‘failure to make subject contributions’ payments (NSW Department of Education, 2020; para. 1). Alternative arrangements were more commonly reported by secondary schools than primary schools; however, the proportion of secondary schools who reported allowing students to participate without payment was lower than that of primary schools. With increasing remoteness, the proportion of schools reporting that a student can still participate in the outsourced lesson increased, from 46.6% for major cities to 66.7% in remote locations. However, there was a lower proportion of schools offering an alternative HPE lesson in remote, compared to major-city schools.

Table 8.

Activities students are provided if their parent/caregiver does not provide payment or permission for external providers.

		Participates in alternative HPE lesson	Still participates	Completes other KLA work	Sits and watches	Completes non KLA activity
All schools	%	48.8	47.0	25.5	20.0	9.9
Primary schools	%	45.4	50.9	26.6	22.1	11.4
Secondary schools	%	55.8	37.5	23.3	16.7	7.5
K-12	%	53.8	53.8	23.1	7.7	0.0
Major city	%	52.6	46.6	29.7	21.4	9.4
Inner regional	%	43.0	45.0	15.0	22.0	13.0
Outer regional	%	37.1	54.3	22.9	2.9	5.7
Remote	%	33.3	66.6	33.3	33.3	9.9
Low socio-educational	%	41.9	52.7	23.3	13.2	7.8
Mid socio-educational	%	56.7	37.3	26.7	21.3	10.0
High socio-educational	%	46.4	52.8	26.4	25.6	12.0

Note. Due to multiple response options percentages may not add up to 100%.

A quarter (25.5%) of schools also reported that students without payment completed work for another KLA. One in ten schools reported that students completed a non-KLA activity if parents/caregivers did not provide payment or permission. The proportion of High-SEds schools that followed this approach was higher than among other schools.

One in five schools (20%) reported that students ‘sit and watch’ if parents/caregivers did not provide payment or permission for outsourced lessons. Again, the higher the schools SEdS, the higher the proportion of schools that employed a ‘sit and watch’ arrangement. Outer-regional schools reported the lowest levels of arrangements wherein students had to sit and watch an outsourced lesson, with only 2.9% reporting this.

Some schools also reported removing students from lessons due ‘to no payment’ (respondent 45546005) and ‘non-payment by parents’ (respondent 30194812). These findings echo literature on students missing out on full educational participation due to costs that parents and caregivers may not be able to afford, and a large evidence-base highlighting how poverty negatively impacts academic achievement, school, and health outcomes (Bond & Horn, 2009). Students sitting and watching, completing other KLA work, or completing non-KLA work, all have potential detrimental effects on students’ achievement and outcomes and raise serious questions regarding maintaining ‘confidentiality, privacy, and dignity’ for students whose families/carers cannot pay.

Implications and recommendations

The survey data provides insights into how HPE is staffed, taught, and delivered in government schools in NSW, and suggests the existence of some challenges, including prevalent out-of-field teaching and extremely high number of schools reporting outsourcing of at least some core HE and PE curricula. Both these issues raise concerns over standards of teaching, while the outsourcing also raises concerns regarding children’s legislative rights to ‘instruction provided in government schools… free of charge’, for student participation in ‘the minimum requirements of the curriculum’ (NSW Department of Education, 2020) without parents/carers incurring any costs. There should also be avoidance of ‘any discrimination or embarrassment over failure to make a voluntary or subject contribution’ (NSW Department of Education, 2020) for activities beyond the minimum requirements. Our findings suggest that in some schools the core HPE curriculum is being outsourced with practices that directly challenge these policy edicts. Further research is needed to look at this in more detail.

Methodologically, the survey, whilst a representative sample, was limited in relation to the depth of information collected and its reliance on the report of the school informant. In particular, data on outsourcing failed to measure the frequency and hours of outsourced lessons, this is because the study was framed broadly. Future research should provide additional detail on: the quantum of hours outsourced; the providers and nature of outsourced programs, also the background, specialisms and skill base of ‘other teachers’ teaching in HPE; the relevant skills and understanding of generalist teachers teaching HPE. Ideally, national teacher databases would also be able to monitor and provide additional insight into staffing issues in HPE, but scant research and reporting mean the current study provides the most representative and valid data currently available.

This study has provided evidence of how HPE is currently staffed in NSW government schools and we have also highlighted the lack of policy and attention this area has received. Similar observations have been made internationally for more than a decade, with concerns around ‘the lack of specialist or trained teachers’ creating ‘a significant barrier to inclusion’ and ‘persistent gaps between school physical education policies and actual implementation as well as a failure to strictly apply legislation on provision’ (UNESCO, 2015, p.9–10). It is important to monitor and strengthen the staffing and provision of HPE. This can be done in two ways.

Working toward all HPE programs being led and taught by qualified specialist HPE teachers

Employing HPE specialist teachers will improve the quality and equality of HPE across government schools in NSW. This recommendation is consistent with the literature showing that without specialised knowledge, teachers lack confidence, competence, and efficacy (DeCorby et al., 2005). Non-specialists also lack the training to plan and implement quality lessons that effectively use time, differentiate for different types of learners, and manage behaviour in a practical environment (Sears, 2021). This study found that 82.1% of NSW government primary schools do not have a HPE specialist teacher to teach HPE lessons. Research has shown a positive correlation between qualified specialised teachers and students learning experiences and improvement of student outcomes (Dinham et al., 2008; Lawson, 2020). In the short term, policy and resourcing support needs to be provided to generalist teachers-in-charge of HPE to build their capacity, while supply and capacity in specialised HPE teachers is further developed.

Longer-term planning is needed to progress toward all HPE classes being taught by specialists, through coordinated national strategy on teacher recruitment, retention, and distribution, that can address the current geographical and socio-educational trends and develop uniform provision of specialist teachers. There is also urgent need for a national teacher database to monitor and manage the distribution of specialist teachers across Australian schools, with the planned Australian Teacher Workforce Data project (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2022) incomplete and unable to report on teacher specialisms at the time of writing. Once a database is established, clear and transparent scheduled reporting should be used to monitor provision of specialist teachers to different school types and contexts over time. Other countries and jurisdictions may face similar challenges in this regard. The development of teacher specialism data bases would also allow for further research into the impact of specialism and this is worthy of further attention.

Qualifications, registration, and monitoring of external providers

Ensuring all students benefit from qualified and skilled HPE teachers means external providers must also be considered. We found that the majority (67%) of NSW government schools outsource at least some of their teaching of HPE.

The NSW Department of Education does provide information sheets and checklists to assist principals in making decisions on the employment of external providers. However, no explicit policy or standard exists that must be adhered to. Currently, the quality of HPE being delivered by these providers is not monitored, assured, or accredited. The frequency and quantum of hours schools outsource for HPE, and other KLAs, are also not being monitored. While a student in one school may experience external provision once or twice a year, a student in another school may experience this weekly. In addition, some students are currently not being provided HPE if their parent/caregiver does not provide payment. It is essential to ensure this exclusionary practice does not continue in schools.

While this study did not examine the quality of outsourced HPE, this is a concern for educational jurisdictions across Australia and worldwide (Spittle, Spittle, & Itoh, 2022; Williams et al., 2011). One possibility for ensuring quality is to require external provider staff, that frequently provide outsourced HPE to government schools (defined with minimum hours), to qualify and register as teachers. Investment in teacher standards and registration, without similar regulation of external provision, cannot provide complete quality assurance.

Conclusion

Ensuring all students can participate in HPE lessons taught by qualified and accredited teachers who understand the intricacies of HPE pedagogy is essential for educational equity; however, this study highlighted a lack of specialist-qualified teaching, and high-levels of provision by external providers. Such providers have unknown qualifications and are not required to comply with professional standards. In a substantial proportion of schools outsourced lessons involve exclusion of students who were unable to provide signed consent or payment for external provider classes. A long-term strategy is needed to redress this situation, provide universal access to specialised, qualified HPE teachers, and convey the value of, thus lifting its status in schools. Such a strategy would strengthen the HPE field, increasing its potential to prevent and ameliorate a raft of health problems through optimal and equitable education and the development of healthy lifestyle skills and habits.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Commonwealth Government PhD funding.

ORCID iDs

Jessica Amy Sears

Rachel Wilson

References

Adnot

Dee

Katz

Wyckoff

(2017). Teacher turnover, teacher quality, and student achievement in DCPS. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 54–76. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716663646

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority . (2015). About ICSEA 2016. https://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/About_icsea_2014.pdf

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership . (2021). Australian teacher workforce data: National teacher workforce characteristics report: New South Wales, December 2021. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/atwd/atwd2022/state-profile--new-south-wales.pdf?sfvrsn=e827a03c_2

Barnett

L. M.

van Beurden

Morgan

P. J.

Brooks

L. O.

Beard

J. R.

(2009). Childhood motor skill proficiency as a predictor of adolescent physical activity. The Journal of adolescent health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 44(3), 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.07.004

Barwood

Penney

Cunningham

(2017). A paradox or a culture of acceptance? The idiosyncratic workforce delivering health education in lower secondary government schools in Western Australia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 8(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2017.1362955

Bond

Horn

(2009). The cost of a free education: Cost as a barrier to Australian public education. Brotherhood of St Laurence. https://library.bsl.org.au/bsljspui/bitstream/1/6206/1/BondHorn_Cost_of_a_free_education_2009.pdf

Bryman

(2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877

Cardinal

B. J.

Yan

Cardinal

M. K.

(2013). Negative experiences in physical education and sport: How much do they affect physical activity participation later in life? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 84(3), 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2013.767736

Chetty

Friedman

J. N.

Rockoff

J. E.

(2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-Added and student outcomes in adulthood. The American Economic Review, 104(9), 2633–2679. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633

10.

Chorney

(2011). The need to re-conceptualize physical and health education in schools. Physical and Health Education Journal, 77(2), 6.

11.

Churchill

Ferguson

Godinho

Johnson

N. F.

Keddie

Letts

Mackay

McGill

Moss

Nagel

M. C.

Nicholson

Vick

(2011). Teaching: Making a difference. John Wiley & Sons.

12.

Cohen

J. N.

Byers

E. S.

Sears

H. A.

(2011). Factors affecting Canadian teachers' willingness to teach sexual health education. Sex Education, 12(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2011.615606

13.

Collins

K. M.

(2017). Sampling decisions in educational research. In Wyse

Selwyn

Smith

Suter

L. E.

(Eds.), The BERA/Sage handbook of educational research (pp. 280–292). Sage.

14.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

15.

Cruickshank

Hyndman

Patterson

Kebble

(2021). Encounters in a marginalised subject: The experiential challenges faced by Tasmanian health and physical education teachers. Australian Journal of Education, 65(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944120934964

16.

Cruickshank

Mainsbridge

Nash

Pill

Williams

(2023). ‘It’s not a priority’: Australian generalist classroom teacher experiences of teaching the health education component of health and physical education. Curriculum Perspectives, 43(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-023-00204-z

17.

Cruickshank

Pill

Williams

Mainsbridge

Nash

(2024). Primary school physical education (PE) specialist teachers’ experiences of teaching health education and physical education. Curriculum Perspectives, 44(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-023-00208-9

18.

DeCorby

Halas

Dixon

Wintrup

Janzen

(2005). Classroom teachers and the challenges of delivering quality physical education. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 208–221. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.4.208-221

19.

Deng

Philpot

R. A.

Legge

Ovens

Smith

(2022). Should primary school PE be outsourced? An analysis of students’ perspectives. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, 14(3), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2022.2140594

20.

Dinham

Ingvarson

L. C.

Kleinhenz

(2008). Teaching talent: The best teachers for Australia's classrooms. Business Council of Australia. https://research.acer.edu.au/teaching_standards/12/

21.

Dudley

Telford

Stonehouse

Peralta

Winslade

(2020). Teaching quality health and physical education (2nd ed.). Cengage.

22.

Dyson

B. P.

Colby

Barratt

(2016). The co-construction of cooperative learning in physical education with elementary classroom teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35(4), 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2016-0119

23.

Education Act

1990. (NSW).

24.

Eldh

A. C.

Årestedt

Berterö

(2020). Quotations in qualitative studies: Reflections on constituents, custom, and purpose. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, Article 160940692096926. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920969268

25.

García

Weiss

(2019). Low relative pay and high incidence of moonlighting play a role in the teacher shortage, particularly in high-poverty schools. In The third report in “The perfect storm in the teacher labor market” series. Economic Policy Institute. https://files.epi.org/pdf/161908.pdf

26.

Gaudreault

K. L.

Richards

K. A. R.

Mays Woods

(2018). Understanding the perceived mattering of physical education teachers. Sport, Education and Society, 23(6), 578–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2016.1271317

27.

Gavin

McGrath-Champ

Wilson

Fitzgerald

Stacey

(2021). Teacher workload in Australia: National reports of intensification and its threats to democracy. In Riddle

Heffernan

Bright

(Eds.), New perspectives on education for Democracy (pp. 110–123). Routledge.

28.

Goldhaber

Lavery

Theobald

(2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15592622

29.

Guenther

Bat

Osborne

(2014). Red dirt thinking on remote educational advantage. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 24(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2013.18

30.

Hardy

L. L.

Reinten-Reynolds

Espinel

Zask

Okely

A. D.

(2012). Prevalence and correlates of low motor skill competency in Australian children. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 15(5), S58–S59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2012.11.142

31.

Hills

A. P.

Dengel

D. R.

Lubans

D. R.

(2015). Supporting public health priorities: Recommendations for physical education and physical activity promotion in schools. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 57(4), 368–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2014.09.010

32.

Hobbs

Du Plessis

A. E.

Oates

Caldis

McKnight

Vale

O’Connor

Rochette

Watt

Weldon

Richardson

Bateup

(2022). National summit on teaching out-of-field: Synthesis and recommendations for policy, practice and research. Deakin University. https://ooftas-collective.squarespace.com/s/TOOF-National-Summit-Report.doc

33.

Hogan

(2016). NAPLAN and the role of edu-business: New governance, new privatisations and new partnerships in Australian education policy. Australian Educational Researcher, 43(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-014-0162-z

34.

Hogan

Stylianou

(2018). School-based sports development and the role of NSOs as ‘boundary spanners’: Benefits, disbenefits and unintended consequences of the Sporting Schools policy initiative. Sport, Education and Society, 23(4), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2016.1184638

35.

Howells

(2019). OECD Future of Education 2030: Making physical education dynamic and inclusive for 2030: International curriculum analysis. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/oecd_future_of_education_2030_making_physical_dynamic_and_inclusive_for_2030.pdf

36.

Hughes

J. N.

Chen

(2011). Reciprocal effects of student–teacher and student–peer relatedness: Effects on academic self efficacy. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.03.005

37.

Ingvarson

Elliott

Kleinhenz

McKenzie

(2006). Teacher education accreditation: A review of national and international trends and practices. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. https://research.acer.edu.au/teacher_education/1/

38.

Kunter

Klusmann

Baumert

Richter

Voss

Hachfeld

(2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583

39.

Lawson

H. A.

(2020). The physical education system as a consequential social determinant. Quest, 72(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2019.1627224

40.

Lingard

Sellar

Lewis

(2017). Accountabilities in schools and school systems. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.74

41.

Lynch

T. J.

(2013). Summary report of key findings for the Australian government: Australian Institute for teaching and school Leadership (AITSL). How are primary education health and physical education (HPE) teachers best prepared? Monash University. https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10026.1/6421/842c5e_0aa1762a6d34423dae5e4e7ae362e28c.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

42.

Macdonald

(2015). Teacher-as-knowledge-broker in a futures-oriented health and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 20(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.935320

43.

Macdonald

Johnson

Lingard

(2020). Globalisation, neoliberalisation, and network governance: An international study of outsourcing in health and physical education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 41(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2020.1722422

44.

McEvilly

(2022). What is PE and who should teach it? Undergraduate PE students’ views and experiences of the outsourcing of PE in the UK. Sport, Education and Society, 27(6), 662–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1901684

45.

McLennan

Thompson

(2015). Quality physical education (QPE): Guidelines for policy makers. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000231101

46.

Morgan

P. J.

Bourke

S. F.

(2004). I know it’s important but I’d rather teach something else! An investigation into generalist teachers’ perceptions of physical education in the primary school curriculum. Australia Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, Melbourne, Australia. https://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/32223.

47.

Morgan

P. J.

Hansen

(2008). The relationship between PE biographies and PE teaching practices of classroom teachers. Sport, Education and Society, 13(4), 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573320802444994

48.

NSW Department of Education . (2017). Master dataset: NSW government school locations and student enrolment numbers. https://data.nsw.gov.au/data/dataset/nsw-education-nsw-public-schools-master-dataset

49.

NSW Department of Education . (2020). Voluntary school contribution. https://education.nsw.gov.au/policy-library/policies/pd-2005-0233

50.

NSW Department of Education . (2023). Public schools act 1866. https://education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/our-people-and-structure/history-of-government-schools/government-schools/public-schools-act-1866

51.

NSW Department of Education and Training . (2008). Guidelines for using contracted external providers for physical education and school sport. https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/en/home/edm-links/External_Providers_and_Schools.pdf

52.

OECD . (2013). Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2013: Teacher questionnaire. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/TALIS-2013-Teacher-questionnaire.pdf

53.

OECD . (2018). Effective teacher policies: Insights from PISA. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301603-en

54.

Olmedo

(2013). From England with love… ARK, heterarchies and global ‘philanthropic governance’. Journal of Education Policy, 29(5), 575-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.859302

55.

Parnell

(2015). Outsourcing physical education: A critical discussion. International Journal of Physical Education, 4(4), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.5771/2747-6073-2015-4

56.

Picciano

A. G.

Spring

J. H.

(2013). The great American education-industrial complex: Ideology, technology, and profit. Routledge.

57.

Powell

(2015). Assembling the privatisation of physical education and the ‘inexpert’ teacher. Sport, Education and Society, 20(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.08.013

58.

Quick

Simon

Thornton

(2011). PE and sport survey 2009/10. Department for Education.

59.

Roorda

D. L.

Koomen

H. M. Y.

Spilt

J. L.

Oort

F. J.

(2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793

60.

Sears

J. A.

(2021). Curriculum evaluation: The logistics, process and status of personal development, health and physical education and school sport in NSW government schools. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney]. https://hdl.handle.net/2123/26946

61.

See

B. H.

Munthe

Ross

S. A.

Hitt

El Soufi

(2022). Who becomes a teacher and why? The Review of Education, 10(3), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3377

62.

Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee . (1998). A class act: Inquiry into the status of the teaching profession. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/∼/media/wopapub/senate/committee/eet_ctte/completed_inquiries/1996_99/teachers/report/report_pdf.ashx

63.

Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts . (1992). Physical and sport education: A report by senate standing Committee on environment, Recreation and the Arts. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Completed_inquiries/pre1996/physportedu/∼/media/Committees/ecita_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/phy_sport_edu/report.pdf

64.

Siegel

(2006). The effects of physical activity on the health and well-being of youths. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 77(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2006.10597805

65.

Smith

Schlichthorst

Mitchell

Walsh

Lyons

Blackman

Pitts

(2011). Sexuality education in Australian secondary schools 2010. Australian Research Centre in Sex Health and Society, La Trobe University.

66.

Sperka

(2020). (Re) defining outsourcing in education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 41(2), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2020.1722429

67.

Sperka

Enright

(2018). The outsourcing of health and physical education: A scoping review. European Physical Education Review, 24(3), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x17699430

68.

Sperka

Enright

(2019). And if you can’t hear us? Students as customers of neo-HPE. Sport, Education and Society, 24(6), 570–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2019.1611556

69.

Spittle

Encel

Itoh

(2022). Confidence and motivation to teach primary physical education: A survey of specialist primary physical education pre-service teachers in Australia. Frontiers in Education, 7(2), 72. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1061099

70.

Spittle

Itoh

(2022). Outsourcing physical education in schools: What and why do schools outsource to external providers? Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 4(2), 854617. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2022.854617

71.

Sufri

Chung

H. J.

(2019). Following the footsteps of specialist physical education teachers in Singapore’s primary schools. International Journal of the History of Sport, 36(4-5), 449–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2019.1657836

72.

Thompson

(2021). The global report on the status of teachers 2021. Education International. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/213926/1/2021_EI_Research_StatusOfTeachers_ENG_FINAL.pdf

73.

UNESCO . (2013). World-wide survey of school physical education. https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/World-wide_survey_of_school_physical_education_final_report/9610463/files/17257598.pdf

74.

UNESCO . (2015). Development of international indicators on quality physical education: Progress report. UNESCO Digital Library. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000216465

75.

Wenglinsky

(2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). 12, https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.V10n12.2002

76.

Whipp

P. R.

Hutton

Grove

J. R.

Jackson

(2011). Outsourcing physical education in primary schools: Evaluating the impact of externally provided programmes on generalist teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 2(2), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2011.9730352

77.

Williams

B. J.

Hay

P. J.

Macdonald

(2011). The outsourcing of health, sport and physical educational work: A state of play. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 16(4), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2011.582492

Issues in staffing and outsourcing in schools. Who’s teaching health and physical education?

Abstract

Keywords

Study background

Introduction

Background

Importance of specialist staffing for HPE

Outsourcing in HPE

Teacher standards and the importance of teacher specialist staffing

Research questions

Method

The study

Methodological approach

The study sample

The questionnaire

Data analysis

Findings and discussion

Demographics of the teacher in-charge of HPE

Who is teaching and delivering HPE?

Teaching HE lessons

Teaching and delivering PE

Outsourcing: Payment and student participation

Source of payment for providers

Student participation

Implications and recommendations

Working toward all HPE programs being led and taught by qualified specialist HPE teachers

Qualifications, registration, and monitoring of external providers

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References