Using discursive strategies, playing policy games and shaping the future of physical education

Abstract

This paper presents a critical analysis of the representation of physical education (PE) in the 1992 Senate inquiry into ‘Physical and Sport Education’ in Australia. Analysis focuses specifically upon how and why a new professional discourse, fundamental motor skills (FMS), gained a privileged position in the inquiry, the inquiry report and in subsequent PE policy and practice across Australia. This paper examines the complex policy processes and power-relations underpinning the progressive legitimisation of the FMS discourse, and identifies subtleties and variations in the expression of the discourse. Attention is drawn to the strategic appropriation of established professional discourses and utilisation of crisis discourses in establishing and gaining support for the FMS discourse. The analysis reaffirms policy arenas as sites of contestation but highlights that they are simultaneously sites of possibility for PE professionals who are prepared and able to use discursive resources in strategic ways. The contemporary relevance of the discourses privileged in 1992 and lessons to be learned from events surrounding the Senate inquiry are discussed.

Keywords:

• Education
• Policy
• Fundamental motor skills
• Discourse

Acknowledgements

Thanks go to Professor Doune Macdonald for her support as supervisor for Karen Swabey's doctoral research and to Dr Jeff Walkley for his participation in the research. The authors also thank two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Notes

1. Throughout the paper we refer to PE and as appropriate the broader learning area context. We acknowledge that the learning area nomenclature varies across States and Territories in Australia. For simplicity we use the term HPE to encompass HPE and State/Territory specific variations.

2. English, Mathematics, Languages other than English (LOTE), Studies of Society and the Environment (SOSE), the Arts, Health and Physical Education, Science, and Technology.

3. All participants in Swabey's (2006) research gave their consent to be named in her doctoral thesis and all publications arising from it. The authors also specifically sought permission from Dr Walkley for him to be named in this paper.

4. This was a reference to Holland (1986).

5. The DEET (SA) document did not provide a reference for the survey referred to.