Assessing Law to Physical Education Essay

For this task, imagine you were recently hired as the principal of Charger Middle School, a public institution receiving federal assistance.  Over the summer, a group of parents requested a meeting with you to discuss the Charger’s compliance with Title IX regarding the physical education curriculum. During the meeting, the parents asked the following questions:

As the principal of Charger Middle School, describe how you would respond as a professional educator with knowledge of Title IX compliance.  You are expected to be the expert of Title IX compliance in this situation, referencing the law, and its’ applications in the physical education setting.

The Physical Educator
VoL 09 . pp 265-288 . 2012
PED\(,()(,V
Physical Education Teachers’
and University Teacher
Educators’ Perceptions Regarding
Coeducational vs. Single Gender
Physical Education
Grant M Hill. .lames i ‘. Hannon. ( ‘urt Knowles
Abstract
Since Title IX was enacted in the United States in f972.
Physical Education (PE) classes have become coeducational. This
may be because educational leaders interpret Title IX to require
coeducatlonal-only classes. Research, however, indicates that for
some students, coeducation classes may not be the most appropriate
learning environment. The opinions of both secondary PE (n =
265) and physical education teacher education (PETE) faculty (n =
152j were solicited in order to compare their perceptions regarding
the potential benefits of both gender mixed and gender separate
environments. In addition, both groups of respondents were asked
to identify specific activities in which students should be separated
by gender. Approximately tMo thirds of secondary school PE
teachers indicated that all activities, with the exceptions of football
and basketball, should be offered in a cr)educational format. The
percentages of PE IE faculty recommending a single gender format
were similar for most sprjrts, except for football and basketball. A
majority of both secondary school PI’ teachers and PI’. T1Í faculty
perceived that boys and girls would receive greater benefits in terms
Gram Hill teaches at California Slate University. Long Beach, James Hannon is on ilie
facult> at the Universits of Utah, and Curt Knovvlcs is a phs sical education teacher uithin
the Long Beach Unified School District, Long Beach, ( a h forma
265
of skill development and social support in single gender PE classes.
( ‘hi-.sijikiir luialvsis revealed greater support for coeducational
ri’. among I’I: IT’, faculty than among secondary PE teachers.
The findings suggest that secondary schools should continue to
assign students to coeducational I’li classes tn order to prevent
discrimination, exclusion, atid inequity based on .sex. However,
icaclicrs should separate students into single gender groups for
bodily contact activities such as football, basketball, and soccer, as
allowed by Title IX. in order to provide a safer environment.
Since Title IX was enacted Physical Education classes have
generally become coeducational in nature and have allowed boys and
girls to participate in similar aetivities (Gabbei, 2004, Hill & Cleven
2005). This may be because many educational leaders interpret
Title IX to require coeducational-only phvsical education classes
(Fox, 1992, 1997). Lay (1990) wTote that teachers are aware that
coeducational classes are one of the specific provisions mandated
by Title IX and that teachers who ignore this are breaking the law.
Lirgg ( 1993 ) also stated that Title IX prohibits the offering of single
gender courses and programs, such as all-girl home economics, allboy industrial arts, and separate girls” and boys’ physical education.
However, others have questioned whether Title IX legislation
stipulates coeducation classes in all instances Gabbei (2004)
interpreted “no person shall be exeluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
education program”” ( see Figure 1 ) as meaning students should receiv e
the opportunities, but not necessarily in a coeducational atmosphere
Derry and Phillips (2004) have concluded that coeducation physical
education classes were implemented in an attempt to uphold the
new regulation and perhaps with minimal thinking or planning
relative to the impact this decision might have on the lives of young,
adolescent girls. Recently, the U.S. Department of Education (2006)
has provided greater flexibilitv’ for schools to offer single gender
classes; however, evaluations are required every 2 years to ensure
equity of treatment and opportunit>’ for boys and girls.
Research suggests that for some students, a coeducation class
may not be the most appropriate env ironment for learning (Dern &
Phillips, 2004; Hannon& Ratliffe, 2007). Existing evidence suggests
that many female students have ditTicultv improving or achieving
skill m coeducational classes, thus creating an unfair and adverse
266
Perceptions Regarding Gender Settings
(A). ‘:\ recipient shall not provide anv course or otherwise carry out
anv of Its educatioti progratn or activitv separaielv on the basis of sex,
or require or refuse participation therein by any o( its students on
such basis, inchiditig health, physical educatioti, industrial, business,
vocational, technical, home economics, music, and education courses.
(1) This section does not prohibit grouping of students in physical
education claskses and activities bv ability as assessed by obiective
standards ot individual perlorniance de\ eloped and applied without
regiird to sex,
(2) This section does not prohibit separation of students by sex
\Mthin ph>’sical education classes or activities during participation
m wTestling, bo.ving, rugbv, ice hockey, football, basketball and other
sports the purpose or maior activitv of which involves bodily contact.”
(Part 10b.34)
Figure I. TITLE 34 Education Subtitle B Regulations of the Offices of the
Department of Education Chapter 1 Office for Civil Rights, Department of
Education NondiScriminaUon on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs
or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance
impact on female students (Gabbei, 2004). Davis (2004) states that
if the first pnorir\ is for students to achieve the highest possible
level of skill and fitness then it may be appropriate to organize
physical education classes according to gender According to Garcia
(1994), girls more than boys may be at risk of being intimidated by
aggressive bovs and mav be at more risk of stereotyping, sexism,
harassment, and teacher bias, Humbert (1996) reported one of
the maior themes to emerge in the coeducational class was this
environment is often full of male harassment, domination, and
intimidation, with a resulting lack of female participation. Derry and
Phillips (2004) suggest that while coeducational physical education
classes offer both girls and boys the opportunity to develop high
levels of competence and self-esteem through a variety of physical
activities and sports, coeducation phvsical education classes may
not be the most appropriate environment for skill development
and cognitive learning. Derr> and Phillips and Garcia also note
that while most girls might prefer coeducational formats, most are
actualh more engaged in skill learning and receive more teacher
feedback in gender separate classes.
Hill, Hannon, Kjiowles
267
Other findings indicate that boys receive some valuable
benefits bv padicipating in coeducational activities (i.e., increased
confidence, group affiliation, and helping behaviors) (Mill &Cleven,
2005). Male students in gender mixed classes tend to get more total
practice trials, more appropriate practice trials, and a higher ratio
of appropriate to inappropriate practice trials than female students
(Ctabbei, 2004). During coeducation instructional units, male
students reported feeling more confident (Lirgg, 1993), more skilled,
and stronger than females (Treanor, Graben Housner, & Wiegand,
19′-)8). Males increased confidence in coeducation classes is likely
due to more favorable social comparison of skill level when female
students made up half of the class (Gabbei, 2004).
Sinclair (2000) reported that regardless of gender, perceived
levels of skill, fitness, or effort students who indicated they liked
physical education preferred single gender physical education
Among these students, males perceived that they performed skills
and played team sports better, received more practice opportunities,
competed harder, learned more, behaved better, and felt less fearful
of lnjurv’ in single gender phvsical education classes Similarlv. the
females among these students perceived that thev performed skills
and played team sports better, received more practice opportunities,
and felt less fearful of injurv’ in single gender phv sical education
classes. Olafson (2002) interviewed adolescent girls and found that
many of them felt they were being closely scrutinized and ridiculed
by the boys. In contrast, Lirgg (1993) studied a basketball unit of
boys and girls in single gender classes and coeducational classes and
reported that boys and girls who were in coeducational classes were
more confident than boys and girls in single gender classes. Hill and
eleven (2005) and Hannon and Ratliffe (2007) have also reported
strong male and female preference tor mixed gender groupings in
most physical education activities.
Several researchers have focused on phvsical activity levels
in mixed versus single gender phv sical education classes Schmitt
(2001 ) found that sixth grade girls spent more time in their target heart
rate zone in coeducation groupings than when they were separated
by gender during an Ultimate Frisbee class McKenzie, Prochaska,
Sallis, and LaMaster (2004), using the Sv stem for Obsersing Fitness
Instruction Time, found that boys were physically active for similar
percentages of time in both single gender and coeducational groups
while girls were morephysicall> active in coeducational classes than
268
Perceptions Regarding Gender Settings
in girls-only classes Hannon and RatlifTe (2005) reported that both
males and females accumulated more pedometer steps per minute
in coeducational settings than in single gender settings during Hag
football, soccer, and Ultimate Frisbee
Teacher behav ior mav be important to determine the success of
single gender or coeducation environments. Lirgg (1993) found in
her siudv of coeducation and single gender classes that even though
the same teaehers taught both class types, class type could have
been confounded bv teacher behavior Specifically, the behavior
ofthe teacher mav have varied depending on whether that teacher
was teaching a coeducation or single gender class (Lirgg, 1993).
Nilges (1998) surveyed physical education teachers and concluded
that females are treated as second-class citizens by teachers in
physical education classes. Therefore, the success of a student may
be aft’ected bv how a specific teacher behav es and responds toward
one gender and ditïerentlv toward the other
Because of the central role of physical education teachers to
provide an env lronment that is conducive for learning for both male
and f”^emale students, it appears important to assess their opinions
of the potential benefits of both coeducational and single gender
environments This is important because an engaged, positive
expenence in phvsical education will likelv’ result in a greater
commitment to an active lifestvle after high school (Bailey, 2006).
In addition, it appears important to determine if there are specific
activ lties in which teachers believe students should be separated by
gender If most teachers recommend a gender separate grouping for
some activities but not for others, it will suggest that each activity
in a physical education curriculum should be evaluated in order to
determine how to best group students It also appears important to
determine the perceptions of university physical education teacher
education (PETE) supervisors regarding coeducational and single
gender env ironments in phv sical education classes because they are
primariK responsible for preparing those who enter the physical
education teaching profession By comparing the responses ofthe
two groups. It should be possible to identify areas of incongruity.
These differences in opinions could be potentially conf”using to inservice and new teachers because of the disparity in the views of
their universitN and secondary school supervisors.
HilJ, Harmon, Knowles
269
Method
Pai tieipants and Settings
Secondary school physical educators were selected from three
sources: (a) 154 physical education teachers in a southern California
school district completed hard copies of the questionnaire in the
presence of one of the researchers, (b) 65 secondary school physical
education teachers in another southern California school district
responded to an e-mail inquiry to over 200 teachers and completed
the questionnaire electronically on Survey Monkey, and (c) a group
of 46 secondary school physical education teachers at a physical
education teacher professional development conference in Utah
completed hard copies of the survey. A group of 157 PETE faculties
who were recruited through a national e-mail list of appro.ximately
400 possible respondents completed the questionnaire electronically
on Sur\ ey Monkey.
Instrumentation
Two forms of a questionnaire were used. Physical education
teachers were provided a questionnaire with four sections: (a)
biographical information including gender, years of teaching
experience, current teaching level, and school enrollment: (b) a
list of 36 activities to which respondents indicated whether they
currently recommend boys and girls should be separated: (c) a
list of 12 arguments in favor of offering physical education in a
coeducational format to which respondents were asked to agree
or disagree with each item; (d) a list of 12 arguments in favor of
offering physical education in a single gender format to which
respondents were asked to agree or to disagree with each item
Respondents were also asked to pro\ lde comments at the end of the
questionnaire. By providing space for teachers to provide a rationale
for their responses, it was hoped that a greater understanding would
be achieved. The questionnaire for the PETE supervisors was
identical except in the biographical section: school enrollment was
not solicited and respondents were asked to indicate whether they
were a certified K-12 teacher The items for the questionnaire were
generated through an extensive literature review. The questionnaire
was reviewed and edited for clarity and comprehensi\eness by 30
secondary school physical education teachers. The questionnaire
was also reviewed by a panel of four university professors whose
270
Perceptions Regarding Gender Settings
pnmar>- teaching and research area is K 12 physical education
pedagogv
Data Collection & .Analysis Procetluies
The directions for both the written and the online surveys
explained that the surv cv was v oluntar>, that indiv ldual questions or
sections could be skip^x’d, and that the findings would not include
an identification of anv lndiv lduals or their schools An e-mail cover
lener was sent with a link to the questionnaire on Survey Monkey
for those completing it online A similar cover letter was used
with the hard copv survevs Responses were entered into an Excel
spreadsheet and later transferred to SPSS 17.0 software (SPSS,
Inc.. Chicago, IL) for analvsis. Chi-square analysis was conducted
for the secondarv school phvsical education teachers” responses
using crosstabs for the following variables: gender, school size,
school level (middle vs high school), and teaching experience. In
addition, question responses were eompared between seeondary
phv sical education teachers and PETE supervisors using Chi-square
analvsis ,-\ significant level oíp < 01 was used for all statistical comparisons Open-ended comments were analyzed using eonstant comparison qualitative techniques (LeCompte & Priessle, 1993). Two researchers with previous experience conducting qualitative research independently read and reread participants' responses and coded the frequencv of common response types. The researchers discussed findings and identified and negotiated themes that best represented the data. Results Demographics Secondary school physical education teachers. A total of 265 secondary school physical education teachers (39.5% females, n = 101 ; 60.5% males, « = 1 55) completed the survey. Nine respondents did not indicate their gender The median years of certificated teachinii experience was 10 years Level of school was Elementarv' = 2.4%ln = 6), Middle = 45.6% (/? = 11 5 ), and High School - 52.0% (n= \3\). Five ofthe respondents indicated they teach at more than one level, and eight of the respondents did not indicate at which school level they teach School enrollment ranged from 34 to 4,200 with a median of 1,350 students. ilill, Hannon, Knovvles 271 Physical education teacher education faculty. A total of 152 PI: IT- faculty completed the online survey (50 0% females, n = 75; 50°o males, n 75). fwo respondents did not indicate their gender. The mean years of University PHTH experience was 16 years. Most respondents (89.4%) indicated they were certified to teach K~12. Activity Formats Secondary school physical education teachers. In Table 1, the percentages oi' secondary school phvsical education teachers indicating specific activities should be offered in single gender groupings ranging from 65.5% (highest) to 0.4% (lowest). Only footbair(65.5°o) and basketball (50.2%) were selected by the majority of the respondents to be offered in a single gender format. Only five of the 36 activities listed had percentages exceeding 25%. Those five activities (football, basketball, soccer, volleyball, and softball/baseball) are all competitive team sports. Physical education teacher education faculty. Less than a majority of the PETE supervisors indicated that any of the activities should be offered in a single gender grouping. For most of the team sports, the percentages were substantially lower for the PETE supervisors than for the secondary school physical education teachers: football (46.7%), basketball'(31.9%), soccer (22.4%), softball/baseball (19.7%), and volleyball (11.2%). The rest of percentages for nonteam sports were very similar to those of the secondary school physical educators. A secondary- review of the completed survev s revealed that 91°o of the secondary school physical education teachers and 63.6° o of the PETE faculty indicated that at least one of the 36 listed acti\ lties should be offered in a single gender format Reasons Supporting Coeducation Physical Education Percentages of secondary school physical education teachers and PETE supervisors who agreed with specific reasons why coeducational physical education is beneficial are displayed in Table 2. None of the 12 reasons were supported by a majority of either group of respondents. Of note were the low percentages of respondents who perceived there is male or female student support for coeducational physical education Low percentages of respondents perceived males or females develop better skills and participate more tully in coeducation physical education classes than in single gender classes. However, whereas onlv 19 Po 272 I'erceptions Regarding Gender Settings 2. 3 c î O i 3 ä "S- È es. Ie. cr to to *^ ji i § '—J C^ C/) = s3C X X -J — C — u — a 2 i I to K" o 3- •^ O to C ^ Vi --J -U C — ! J -^ ^ "y y: ~ yz c«: zc C ^^ -o '^ •» ^ M PI c: Hill, ¡Idimon, Knovvles 273 3 •i S § = g •-J 4- S = ë O^ OO ^ ro ^ ho 'a-- o^ a 3 =3 ? 3 c !^ — -J — -J ro ,/i 3C —• — H! ho OO z 4- O C^ h O h O ^ O - - J , . - - j hO 2 DC 274 — ~ Perceptions Regarding Gender Settings ro c: NJ o_ o ÜT O ere QQ NJ NJ NJ CL V !/l O dance í? r skatm 3 ero ancc 3 1 __ 3 O D- O a D ,^ NJ ctiv ities Ö bic tennis c -0 NJ r- .£. — r' X 3C """ 3 9 H o X 1 9-5 s a "~^ NJ NJ -.^ --4 V' X í-j 0 ( — NJ o '-^ — •í' -d _ i- rn -4 Hill. Hannon, KnowU's 275 m ucati 8. O ost b ucati s. '¿ Í o o o Í. 00 en 3 n ? Q. e a. o ' 7. IV most p oc t/l 1 groupin want co1 groupin 3 hl >3 n
n>
3
Ii
5′ ~
B>
—\
3
3
”•
•^
3
t J
00
00
>
Os
Os
69
o
o
~J
—
IJO
r»! o
II
_
os
to
5 ,~i
s: 3C/2 ,3-
C/i’
-^
70
CM
~.
Vi
Í
il.
ÙS
00
•^
to
a.
^1
c
>
Si
?• a
5 3-
ero
3
ON
to
rsit;
to
o-
^” a
c 3
-£ 5:^
1?
00
to
30
3- !!^
3- ;;;}
276
Perceptions Regarding Gender Settings
•^
I
‘< í o . _ . •-» ^ a., o i a. O 3 o a3 o Ci o 65 3 o I tri III -ë "^ Ci -1 o 1 o c o. c v; S? ree ers s UJ 00 ;? onda Educ -^ NJ fis oc 5' 3 9O 2 00 NJ 00 oc '^J Ö p -J 3- "^ © a &9 T« rï •S- "1 yi X r>
3″ • 0
(208
ro
to
–
00
NJ
ce
ce
00
3
(22)
(16)
00
00
Ö
‘^
5′
î ^
ce
S.’5
00
ce
s? a
Hiil, Mannon, Knowles
M
H
277
oí the sccondarv’ school physical education teachers perceived
ccK’dticational phvsical edtication results in more positive social
dv namics between males and females than in single gender classes,
a significantly larger percentage (43.3%) of the PETE supervisors
perceived coeducational physical education results in more positive
social dynamic between males and females
Reasons Supporting Gender Separate Physieal Education
Percentages of secondary’ school physical education teachers
who agree with specific reasons why single gender physical
education is beneficial are displayed in Table 3. Alt but one of the
reasons listed (i.e , makes it easier to plan lessons, 46 6%) was
supported by a majorit>’ of the respondents The five most frequently
cited reasons were as follows: Most boys want gender separation
for activities (88 3%); Title IX allows separation for bodv contact
activities (80.5°-o); girls participate more fullv (78 3°o); most girls
want gender separation for activities (78.2%); and boys develop
better skills (78.0%).
Chi-square analysis was conducted for the secondar>’ school
physical education teachers responses using crosstabs for the
following variables: gender, school size, school level (middle vs.
high school), and teaching experience Significant differences (p < .01) were found for the following items in which there was also disagreement by gender: 51 0°ó of the female respondents believed that Title IX mandates that all activities should be offered on a coeducational basis, whereas just 29.7°o of the male respondents had a similar perception. Whereas 57 8% of the female respondents perceived their school administrators expect coeducational groupings in all ph> sical education activ lties, just 38 8°o of the male
respondents had a similar perception A significant difference [p < .01 ) was found for one item for the variable of school enrollment. Specifically, just 29.0°'o of the teachers at schools with less than 1,000 students perceived their school administrators expected them to use mixed gender groups for all physical education activities, whereas 62.1% (school enrollment of 1.000-2,100) and 85.7°o (school enrollment greater than 2,100) had a similar perception. There were no significant differences found for any of the items in which there was also disagreement for the v ariables of teaching experience and school type (middle vs. high school). When the responses of the secondarv school phvsical education teachers were compared with University PETE faculty, significant 278 Perceptions Regarding Gender Settings Ci O >
o 3 erg
er
z:.
i-r
—•
II
Si -3
— Ä
2 teacher who knows their students is in the best position to
make the call. In some situations, separation may be best; in others
coeducation is best “”
For the secondary school Physical Education teachers, the three
major themes were as follows:
(a) Separate PE is generallv better for both boys and girls. One
respondent wrote, “Separation of genders is long overdue. Many
students are being deprived ofthe full physical education experience
because of Title IX interpretation. Flaving taught gender separated
classes at the middle school level for over 15 years, there is no
comparison to what once was accomplished to now. The last 11
years have been more challenging and less productive in all areas.””
(b) Boys and girls should be separated for physical contact units
One respondent wrote, “1 dont feel they should be separated in
everything but there are some acti\ities where physical contact is
my concern.””
Hill, Hannon, Knovvles
281
(c) 1 here are more important factors and considerations other
than gender to consider when determining how to group students.
One respondent wrote, “Separation should be based on ability, not
sex.”
I)i,scussi()n
This research was deemed important becau.se secondary school
physical education teachers create the environment in which
secondary school students learn, and thev spend the most time with
students in that setting. Consequently, they should be considered
experts regarding the most effective way to group students in
physical education classes. In addition, physical educators should
be able to accurately assess the effectiveness of single gender
and coeducational physical education and to identify specific
units in which students should be separated by gender It was also
important to solicit the responses of PETE professors because
they are primarily responsible for educating prospective physical
educators. By comparing the responses, it was possible to determine
whether there is congruency in regards to the information teacher
education candidates are receiving in their education courses and the
information they receive from secondarv school physical education
teachers in their preservice and early teaching experiences.
Over two thirds of secondary school phvsical education
teachers indicated all activities, with the exceptions of football
and basketball, should be offered in a coeducational tbrmat. The
percentages for the PETE faculty were similar for nonteam sports
but less for team sports. The support for coeducational groupings
in physical education classes for activities of a single or dual sport
nature appears to be logical because thev traditionallv have an
element of coeducational participation in society ( e g , golf, racquet
activities, dance, bowling, and distance running) (Hill & Cleven,
2005). Specifically, activities of this nature do not require direct
physical contact to compete against one another as compared to
contact sports such as basketball or football Hence, the possibilitv
that noncontact activities could be gender mixed throughout a
lifetime makes teaching them in a coeducational setting a more
obvious choice. In addition, participants of other social building
activities (parachute, team building, ropejump, and dance) generally
perform well whether single gendered or coeducational. Finally,
activities popularly categorized as coeducational (^luggling, archery,
282
Perceptions Regarding Gender Settings
dance, orienteering, and lopcjump) arc normally tatiglK w ith a skillbuilding rather than a competitive emphasis
Geneiallv both secondary school physical education teachers
and PETE faculty indicated boys and girls would receive greater
benefits in terms of skill development and social support if they
were taught in single gender phvsical education classes. These
findings support the findings of Derrv’ and Phillips (2004) and
Garcia (1994) who argued that despite the fact girls might prefer
coeducational phvsical education, they will be able to develop
higher levels of competence and self-esteem as well as better skills
and cognitive learning in single gender environments. Respondents
in this studv. hovvever. did not distinguish between boys and girls in
regards to phvsical skill and social development—they perceived
adv antages for both genders in single gender classes. The results are
also congruent with Sinclair (2000) who found that both males and
females would be more engaged, learn more, and feel safer in single
gender phv sical education classes These findings may also suggest
physical education teachers mav be grouping males and females
together for most activ lties. not because they believe it is best for
students, but because it is mandated bv Title IX and reinforced by
schools who assign teachers both male and female students in their
classes (Lay. 19901.
.A high percentage of respondents of secondary school physical
education teachers and PETE faculty indicated a concern for safety
in coeducational phv sica! education classes. This may have occurred
because most secondary school physical education curriculums
include some phvsical contact activities (Hill & Cleven, 2005).
Consequentlv. it is not surprising the two activities that had the
highest percentages of respondents recommending gender separate
grouping were the two most contact-oriented and most potentially
dangerous activities (football and basketball). Football is particularly
challenging as a mixed gender class because of height, weight,
and upper bodv differences between most males and females.
In addition, football has the potential for inappropriate touching
inherent in blocking and flag pulling, which may lead to students
being knocked down or hit w ith an inadvertent elbow. In basketball,
rough or inappropriate contact may occur when students block out
for a rebound, set a screen, or defend against a shot. The concern
for rough play in mixed gender classes appears to be consistent
with Sinclair (2000) who reported girls believe they perform better
Hill, Hannon, Knowles
283
and feel less fearful of iiijurv in single gender physical education
classes In addition, respondents” support of single gender physical
education may be interpreted as a way to increase participation by
girls by removing an overly competitive environment that is present
in feam sports when boys are participating in the same classes as
girls
It IS interesting that a majority of femalesecondary school physical
education teachers perceived they were required both by Title IX
and by their school administrators to group boys and girls together
for all activities, whereas most male physical education teachers did
not share similar perceptions These findings are puzzling and may
reveal gender difTerences among teachers regarding level of support
and/or compliance and interpretation of Title IX
In comparing the responses of secondary school physical
education teacher and PETE faculty, there were two items in which
there was significant disagreement Specificallv a majoritv’ of PETE
facultv’ perceived that both parents and school administrators support
coeducational groupings while a majority of the secondary school
physical education teachers perceived that both parents and school
administrators support single gender groupings These findings
suggest that PETE faculty perceive greater support for coeducational
physical education within secondary’ school communities than there
may actually be In addition, there mav be some confusion regarding
the wisdom of coeducational groupings m phvsical education
because boys and girls are segregated bv gender in interscholastic
sports programs and because some of those same sporting activities
are also offered as units in physical education classes.
Study Strengths and Limitations
There were several major strengths associated with this study.
Most important, this is first-reported research that has compared the
opinions of secondary’ school phv sical education teachers and PETE
supervisors regarding how students should be grouped for phv sical
education classes. The three sections ofthe survey addressed three
important questions regarding gender grouping in physical education:
(a) which activities should be ofTered in a single gender format, (b)
arguments for coeducational groupings in physical education, and
(c) arguments for single gender groupings in physical education.
Because the response groups were selected on a voluntarybasis rather than through random sampling, the results may not be
generalizable to all secondary school physical education teachers
284
Perceptions Regarding Gender Settings
and PETE facult> It is possible that some of the PETE supervisors
were tar enough renio\ ed troin seeoiuiaiA sehool physieal edueation
programs that the\ telt uncertain in their responses io soiiie of the
items p-inalh. the use ot two hsts ot arguments, one m support oi”
gender mixed groupings and one in support oí mixed groupings,
required a tixed response to sjx^eitie items While space was provided
for eomments. the hmited response tbn’nat of the survey provided
less ehoiee than a qualitatiNe approach with open-ended questions
Recommendations and Conclusions
Based on the insights gamed from this study, we make the
following recommendations and conclusions Schools should
continue to assign students to coeducational physical education
classes in order to pre\ent discrimination, e.xclusion, and inequity
based on sex HoweNer. teachers should separate students into
single gender groups for bodily contact acti\ities such as football,
basketball, and soccer, as allowed b\ Title IX, in order to provide a
safer en\ironment The comments b\ many of the respondents suggest
that skill le\ el should also be consiciered \v hen grouping students and
that when students are separated in noncontact activities, it should
be according to skill le\ el. not by gender Several respondents also
suggested that teachers consider the age of students when grouping
students because high school bo\ s and girls may socialize better
in physical education classes than middle school students. In order
to pro\ide students enMronments that are conducive for learning,
ph\sical education programs should consider offering concurrent
ph> sical education elective activities that might be preferred by one
gender For example, offering students choices between football
and aerobic dance as an elective unit may attract more of one
gender than the opposite gender, allowing natural groupings of likelnterest students (Carroll & Loumidis, 2001, Williams, Bedward,
& Vvoodhouse. 2000) Howe\er, this format will require teachers
to share students for some units. Physical educators should survey
students to determine their interest in specific physical education
activities The use of the surveys helps physical education teachers
avoid offering a gender-biased curriculum and allows students to
engage in activities in which they are more likely to participate in
laterTife (Hill & eleven, 2005).
Further inquiry would be helpful to better determine teachers”
perceptions of reasons why specific activities should be offered in a
single gender or coeducational format I he survey tool used lor this
Hill, Hannon, Knowles
285
studv utili/cd a simple yes/no check-off format Many respondents
may not have taken the time to read each statement completely
or mav not have believed there was a clear yes/no answer to each
question Dtili/ing more open-ended questions or interviews might
result in more in-dcpth and insightful information.
References
Bailey, R. (2006). Physical education and sport in schools: A review
of benefits and outcomes, .loiirnal of School Health, 76(S), 397401.
Carroll, B.,& Loumidis, J. (2001 ) Childrens perceived competence
and enjoyment in physical education and physical activity
outside school T.uropean Physical f-.diicaiion Review, 7( 1 ), 2443
Davis, M. R (2004). Bush has own view of promoting civil rights.
Educatum Week, 2-/(8), 1, 32.
Derry, J. A., & Phillips, D. A (2004). Comparisons of selected
student and teacher variables in all-girls and coeducational
physical education environments. The Phystcal Educator, 61( 1 ),
2J>-J>4.
Fox, C. (1992). Title IX and athletic administration. Journal of
Physical Education. Recreation, d- f)ance. (^i(3), 48-52.
Fox, C. (1997). Title IX: Promises still unfulfilled. Jimrnal of
Physical Education, Recreation, &: Dance, 68{2i), 4-5.
Gabbei, R. (2004). Achieving balanee: Secondarv’ physical education
gender-grouping options, .lournal ¡f Physical Education,
Recreation, A- f)ance, O(3), 33-39.
Garcia, C. ( 1994). Gender differences in v oung children s interactions
when learning fundamental motor skills. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 63{2>), 213-225.
Hannon, J., & RatlitTe, T (2005) Physical activity levels in
coeducational and single-gender high school phv sical education
settings, .fouriial of Teach I nil ‘” Physical Education, 24, 149164.
Flannon, J , & RatlilTe, T (2007). Opportunities to participate
and teacher interactions in coed versus single-gender phvsical
e d u c a t i o n s e t t i n g s . The I’livsical
286
lulucator,
Perceptions Regarding Gender Settings
6-4{\],
11-20.
Hill, G., i!^ eleven. R, (2005). ,’\ comparison of’•>th grade male and
female phvsical education activities preferences and support for
coeducational eroupuiLis fhe I’hvMcal l.diicator. 62(A) 187197
Humbert, M L. ( 1 9 9 M HOW do girls pcrcci\c coed physical
education classes .!our?iü¡ of rhxMcul Iduciiiion. Uccrcntion.
á Dance. 6 “(4), 4.
Lay.N. C.O’^’^0).ATitle IXdialogue ./í);/níí;/í)/7’//v.vícív/Ac/;/ca//íw,
Recreation, * Dance, 6/(5), 83-84
LeCompte, M , ct Priessle. ] (1993). Ethnography and qualitative
design m educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Lirgg, C D (19Q3) Effects of same-sex coeducational physical
education on the self-perceptions of middle and high school
students. Research Quarterly for Eixercise and Sport, 64{3), 324334
McKenzie, T, Marshall, S , Sallis, J , & Conway, T (2000). Student
activitv levels, lesson context, and teacher behavior during
middle school phv sical education. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport. “/13 ), 249-259
McKenzie, T L , Prochaska, J J , Sallis, J. F., & LaMaster, K.
(2004) Coeducational and single-sex physical education in
middle schools: Impact on physical activity. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport. ~5. 446-449
Nilges, L N (1998) I thought only fairy tales had supernatural
power: A radical feminist analysis of Title IX in physical
education Journal of leaching m Physical Education. 17(2),
172-194.
Olafson, L (2002) “1 hate phv s ed,'”: Adolescent girls talk about
phvsical education, fhe Physical Educator. ,59(2), 67-74.
Schmitt, M. (2001). A comparison of the physical activity levels
of males and females m co-educational and gender segregated
sixth grade physical education classes. Eugene, OR: Microform
Publications, University of Oregon
Sinclair, C (2000) How do adolescents perceive coeducational
and same-sex physical education classes? Journal ¡f Physical
Education. Recreation. cK- Dance. ”/( I ), 9.
HiU, Hannon, Knowles
287
licanoi. L . Grabcr. K , Housner, L., Wiegand, R. (1998). Middle
school students perceptions of coeducational and same-sex
phvsical educational classes .lournal of fcaching m Physical
¡•diication, ¡S, 43-56.
LI S Dcpaitmcnt of Education ( 1979) 11 ILE 34 Education Subtitle
B Regulations of the Offices of the Department of Education
Chapter I Office for Civil Rights, Department of fZducation Part
106.34 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education
Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.
Retrieved from http:/7www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edliteU. S. Department of Education. (2006) Secretary Spelling announces
more choice in single-sex education: Amended regulations give
communities more flexibility to offer single-sex schools and
classes [Press release]. Retrieved from http:;/wAvw.edu.gov,
news/pressreleases/2006/10/1024242006. html.
Williams, A., Bedward, J , & Woodhouse, J (2000). An inclusive
national curriculum’^ The experience of adolescent girls.
European Journal of Physical Education , 5, 4-18.
288
Perceptions Regarding Gender Settings
Copyright of Physical Educator is the property of Sagamore Journals and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Copyright of Journal of Teaching in Physical Education is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.