Teaching > Credentialing

Proposal would allow military instructors to teach physical education


Credit: iStockphoto.com

Credit: iStockphoto.com

High school military instructors could become authorized physical education teachers if a contentious regulation change before the state Commission on Teacher Credentialing is approved Friday.

The rule change would allow Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) and Basic Military Drill instructors, who are typically retired military personnel and who are not required to hold a bachelor’s degree, to receive a special authorization to teach physical education as part of their military classes.

The proposed change is the latest salvo in a fractious statewide debate about whether districts should be able to give physical education credit to students enrolled in JROTC and military drill electives, which are high school classes that use curriculum from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. Fitness training and marching are part of the classes, according to the Army JROTC, which runs the largest JROTC program in the state, but the curriculum also includes leadership, geography, civics and U.S. history.

The idea of authorizing military instructors to teach physical education has sparked an uproar among credentialed physical education leaders, who say that the move devalues the rigor, alignment to the new Common Core academic standards, and state and national standards of physical education instruction.

The California Teachers Association opposes the regulation change, saying it is unnecessary because school districts already have the option of granting physical education credit for JROTC classes, said spokesman Mike Myslinski.

A public hearing and possible vote on the proposed change is scheduled Friday morning in Sacramento.

“We would never think about doing this in math or English – having a non-credentialed, non baccalaurate-holding instructor teach,” said Mary Jo Sariscsany, professor of kinesiology at California State University, Northridge. “If California believes in standards-based education, they can’t accept any credit for physical education other than physical education itself. It’s an insult to those individuals who teach quality physical education in the schools currently.”

But JROTC supporters say that the move would make it easier for students to enroll in JROTC electives, because cadets would not have to squeeze in additional classes to fulfill the state-mandated two years of physical education.

“It’s a benefit for students because it gives them options,” said Lt. Colonel Christian D. Taddeo, a JROTC instructor at Mt. Diablo High School in Concord, where enrollment in JROTC is about 80 to 85 students.

To keep a JROTC program, minimum enrollment must be 100. In its rationale for supporting the regulation change, credentialing commission staff explained that increasing student course options would make it easier for JROTC programs to meet their enrollment numbers. If high school students are not awarded physical education credit for military drill and JROTC classes, they must enroll in physical education classes in order to graduate, “thereby creating the potential for enrollment declines in the BMD (basic military drill) and ROTC programs,” the commission stated.

The commission said the new authorization would strengthen the case made by some school districts that cadets who march, do push-ups and study the history of war in military classes can earn physical education credits for their participation. Under the proposed change, school districts would not be required to grant physical education credit for military drill or JROTC. The special authorization would be awarded to JROTC and drill instructors who “verify” content knowledge in physical education through a process not specifically outlined in the regulation proposal. The authorization would allow the instructors to teach fitness and marching for physical education credit.

But many opponents balked at the idea of changing a teaching credential to ensure enrollment in military-based programs where instructors don’t have the science-based knowledge or training that physical education teachers have.

“That’s what this is all about – increasing JROTC numbers,” said Chad Fenwick, president-elect of the Sacramento-based California Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, a membership organization. “It’s not about wanting to teach quality physical education or gaining a deeper understanding of physical education content.”

Army JROTC officials say the shift will help bolster participation in their programs. In the last six years, the number of Army JROTC programs in California has dropped from 86 to 82 high schools, said Mark Pratt, chief of JROTC operations for the 8th Brigade Reserve Officer Training Corps based in Washington state.

Most of the Army JROTC programs in California already give students physical education credit, Pratt said, but districts require various adjustments to the JROTC curriculum. The new teaching authorization would make a case that JROTC qualifies for physical education, he said.

Mark Thompson of the 8th Brigade ROTC, who oversees 53 Army JROTC programs in southern California, said JROTC instructors and physical education teachers have long battled for students. “One needs to make numbers, while the other needs to teach,” Thompson said. “The JROTC needs to make numbers because that’s how they’re funded. If you have less kids, you get less money.”

“This is about physical education being respected as a Common Core technical subject,” countered Joanie Verderber, past president of the California Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. “We are supposed to support the Common Core — and you would have people who don’t even have a college degree teaching physical education.”

Jane Meredith Adams covers student health. Contact her or follow her @JaneAdams. Sign up here for EdHealth, EdSource Today’s free newsletter on student health.

Filed under: Credentialing, Student Health, Teaching

Tags: , , ,

Comments

EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers. The level of thoughtfulness of our community of readers is rare among online news sites. To preserve a civil dialogue, writers should avoid personal, gratuitous attacks and invective. Comments should be relevant to the subject of the article responded to. EdSource retains the right not to publish inappropriate and non-germaine comments. EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

4 Responses to “Proposal would allow military instructors to teach physical education”

  1. Paul said

    on February 20, 2014 at 9:57 am

    Mr. Physical Education, I agree that a military officer’s fitness-related work experience is not a substitute for a teaching credential. Still, I’d be open to case-by-case waivers involving the consent of the instructor, the site principal, and the local school board. “Local assignment options” are part of the law, even though they are seldom used these days. The theory that a principal and a school district are better-positioned than the state to know the special capabilities, experience and training of an employee is a valid one.

    I taught for a time at Oakland Military Institute and wanted to say how much I appreciate your having earned qualifications in the military *and* in public education. Even greater cross-over between the military and educational realms would, I think, enhance specialized schools like OMI and regular-school programs like JROTC.

    As you know, physical education is the *only* subject area for which a specific number of instructional minutes is prescribed by law. While there’s no question that physical fitness is important, I wouldn’t support increasing the already-generous legislated time requirement unless and until time requirements for English, math, science, social science, world languages and the arts are also legislated.

    Ref: http://pubs.cde.ca.gov/tcsii/ch3/rdmdrqirdinstmin.aspx

  2. Mr Physical Education said

    on February 19, 2014 at 8:04 pm

    I teach middle school Physical education at a public school in California. I am also in the Navy reserves serving as a assistant fitness coordinator. Ive been in the Navy for over 18 years. I see both sides of the issues ALL teachers need to be credentialed teachers. Teachers are professionals and all our students need highly qualified teachers. My belief is we need more P.E in elementary and high school, not less. We are talking about our students overall health and wellness. It will help them in the future with their healthcare. Future military high school students need to be adapt to challenges earning appropriate credits. Serving in the military your asked to do your primary job and many other jobs…Military individuals do have funding for school (GI Bill, Tuition assistance, Troops to teachers etc…)Lastly in the Navy college is suggested and recommended and degrees help to advance to the next paygrade.

  3. Anne White said

    on February 17, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    Many districts allow P.E. credit for participating in athletic teams. While some coaches have degrees and credentials, many do not. The sport focused activities are not what would be offered in a traditional P.E. class and are mostly likely not aligned with Common Core. Please help me see an important difference between playing a sport and participating in JROTC drill that allows one to earn credits for graduation and the other does not

  4. BEB said

    on February 14, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Isn’t this squeezing physical education into a vise as if it were a commodity? We don’t need to Walmart classes.

Template last modified: