Schools are a key place for physical activity programs – here’s how to make them work

The importance of promoting activity among juvenile people cannot be overemphasized. This is public health priority. And yet new study reports that school-based physical activity programmes are ineffective in increasing the activity levels of juvenile people. The review found that in 17 international studies of a range of school-based physical activity interventions, there was little or no change in the amount of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) juvenile people did during the day.

This finding paints a bleak picture of current efforts to get kids moving, and suggests we’re not addressing a very stern problem. But it’s not a case of saying that all projects designed to get kids moving don’t work. Finding a solution requires inventive thinking—one size definitely won’t fit all.

If the evidence shows that placing activity programs in schools doesn’t work, then surely the community and home would be the next best place. Recent findings from our ACTIVE Project show that there are some very early factors in home life that can be addressed to improve activity levels. Combining these with routine health data, we found, for example, that being a firstborn and not breastfeeding has a negative impact on heart health and physical fitness. So supporting breastfeeding and promoting opportunities for play and socialization among first-time parents can aid raise children’s activity levels later in life.

But that doesn’t mean schools should be taken out of the equation. In fact, we think they should remain a priority alongside other settings. Interestingly, our research also found that home factors, such as greater deprivation, did not have a negative impact on children’s activity levels and fitness. In fact, more deprived children were less sedentary. However, attending a more deprived school as a teenager actually has a negative impact on fitness levels and heart health. If we ignore this fact and do nothing at school, there is a real risk that the health of juvenile people from deprived homes will be damaged.

What juvenile people want

We have found that one of the best ways to find out what works for different children is to ask what they want in terms of sports activities. The juvenile people we have spoken to are disappointed with what is offered to them in terms of school activities. They say there is not enough choiceand that the same sports (netball, football, rugby, athletics) are played consistently throughout school life.

They also say that schools do not allocate enough time for exercises. Other core subjects take priority and there are fewer opportunities for play because primary schools eliminate breaks and support staff to enhance teaching time and save money. This leaves juvenile people with little room to explore different activities and find what they enjoy.

As a curriculum in UK schools go through a crucial period of changeNow is the perfect time to rethink how we approach physical activity. And since physical activity has been shown to improve focus, attention, and memory, it’s in schools’ best interests to aid kids move more and sit less.

Another perspective

But just as the school setting cannot be ignored, it is not something that can be solved by simply restructuring various activity patterns. Another issue we need to address is the emphasis on moderate to vigorous activity (MVPA). Global guidelines suggest that juvenile people should practice MVPA for one hour per day, and various programs encourage this as a priority. However, there are health benefits associated with all types of activity from light to intenseBy focusing on MVPA, we may miss the benefits of less conventional activities such as cycling or skateboarding.

Thinking outside the box and looking for other ways to encourage juvenile people to move, such as encouraging simple changes like walking to school, can go some way to improving their activity levels. Energetic travel is associated with healthier body composition and physical fitness in children. However, this would not meet the criteria for MVPA. Movement in any way is better than no movement at all. And by encouraging such changes in life, we could also aid combat the idea that activity has to be a lot of effort to be effective, which often discourages juvenile people.

While we cannot ignore the fact that research has shown that school-based activity programmes are ineffective to date, we should not give up. Our evidence shows that schools remain an vital setting, particularly for children who are not in school. Rather than changing the setting, perhaps we need to change the way researchers and practitioners approach physical activity. We need to stop quantifying activity and start asking what evidence and support is needed for different schools and children with different needs.