You’ve got 30 days (or less – depending on when you read this) to put in a high quality proposal.

Here are a few important things to think about as you do your best to meet the deadline.

• Register online as soon as possible.  Go to the following links and complete the necessary steps to be eligible to apply online. http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp
  (Click Organization Registration and complete the steps). Only online applications will be accepted this year so be sure to register early.




• Know and understand what you are required measure.  The federal government is expanding the data to be collected by winning applicants.  Be sure to address each of the required measures in your objectives as well as you evaluations.  Visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-14731.htm for the initial announcement and overview. Click Here for the 2010 application.




• Go for the bonus points!  Be sure to include a well-outlined plan for collecting BMI data.  Your superintendent will need to be on board and signatures will be required.  However, this could be the difference between a winning grant and an application that almost wins.Likewise, gather your programming partners, like other health organizations, your food service staff or local youth organizations.  A written and signed collaborative agreement can also score you much need bonus points.

• This last tip continues to be critical to winning PEP Grants: Know your needs and be able to prove them through documentation and assessment information. In your application, clearly outline where your program can improve and how PEP funding will make those improvements. Prove that you’ve done your homework by utilizing available assessment tools like the School Health Index and PECAT. Always address local, state and national standards.

Update 6/22/10:

The Department is providing technical assistance (TA) opportunities to applicants in the form of both webinars and conference calls. These opportunities are scheduled as follows:

1. June 21, 2010 (Webinar) –information specific to SHI, HECAT/PECAT, and BMI
2. June 22, 2010 (Webinar) –information specific to SHI
3. June 29, 2010 (AM Conference Call) –general info on program and application submission
4. June 29, 2010 (PM Conference Call) general info on program and application submission
5. July 7, 2010 (Conference Call) general info on program and application submission

Additional information related to these TA opportunities will be posted on ED’s website at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/whitephysed/applicant.html.

Hopefully you’ve prepared up to this point, and already have much of the information you need to craft your winning application.  SPARK knows and understands what it takes to be a part of a winning PEP Grant proposal.  To date, more than 100 PEP grants have been awarded to organizations that chose to implement SPARK curriculum/training and equipment!

Contact a SPARK representative for a free cost proposal and for help writing SPARK into your grant submission. We want to make it easy for you to implement SPARK and improve the quality and quantity of PE/PA at your site(s).

Carol M. White Physical Education Program (PEP) Program Summary of Notice of proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions.
Published in the Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 50; March 16, 2010

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed new directions for PEP grants.  Physical education, physical activity, and public health professionals are grateful for the PEP grant program, as are parents and education officials.  Physical education is the primary institution for preparing youth for a lifetime of physical activity, and PEP is the only federal funding for PE.  PE also plays a role as a partial solution for childhood obesity, because it is the only the policy/program that can provide physical activity for potentially all students.  Thus, there are many reasons for wanting the PEP grant program to be as effective as possible.

But there is not general consensus about the goals of PEP grants or how to achieve the goals.  I am providing input as a psychologist and public health researcher who has been working to improve PE and youth PA for over 25 years.  My priority is that PE should contribute to improving public health, and the surest way to accomplish this is to ensure students are active during PE.  Certainly PE is more than physical activity, but almost everyone would agree that inactive PE is bad PE.  PE has always been about “teaching through the physical,” but several studies show that students are inactive most of the time during PE.  This is why PEP grants and other efforts to improve the quality of PE are needed.  Most of the educational goals targeted in PEP grants can be accomplished better through activity, such as motor skills and social and emotional development.

The Public Health View of PE:

Let’s be clear that public health and PE professionals often have differing opinions about the goals of PE.  As reflected in the PEP goals, PE professionals focus on preparing youth for a lifetime of activity, not on providing physical activity during PE.  Public health professionals emphasize ensuring PE classes are active, because (a) PA provides well-document physical and mental health benefits during youth and (b) there is little or no evidence that PE has long-term effects on physical activity or health.  Especially in the midst of the childhood obesity epidemic, it is a public health imperative to use every resource and opportunity to get children active, and PE is a high priority because it reaches more children than any other program or policy.  Yet, students are mostly inactive during PE.  Further, the PE profession has not embraced the goal of ensuring PE provides physical activity.  My vision of the public health value of PE was written in this highly-cited paper 20 years ago.

Sallis, J.F., and McKenzie, T.L.  (1991).  Physical education’s role in public health.  Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 124-137.

In short, there is little or no evidence linking proposed PEP goals/requirements with lifelong physical activity.  There is much more certainty that getting children active NOW in PE classes leads to health and academic benefits.  In fact, there is enough evidence to recommend active physical education as a strategy to improve academic achievement.

http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Active_Ed_Summer2009.pdf

Thus, from the public health perspective, a critical missing emphasis in PEP is to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in PE classes.  Most studies show that students in PE are active less than 50% of the classes.  Healthy People Objectives for the Nation (USDHHS) has included an objective since at least 1990 that PE should have at least 50% MVPA.  http://www.healthypeople.gov/ However, such a goal is not endorsed by PEP or other Department of Education documents.  I strongly recommend that the over-riding goal of PEP be changed.  My recommendation is to require grants to improve MVPA in PE (all grants) and to undertake one or more of the other activities that may or may not promote physical activity. Inclusion of the other activities should be justified by the expected impact of the activity on child physical activity.

PEP Needs More Emphasis on Evidence-Based Approaches:

Despite the refreshing call for data and evaluation in this notice, there is a disturbing lack of focus on evidence-based approaches.  We do have evidence-based approaches for improving PE and for other school-based PA programs and policies.  http://www.calendow.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/By_Topic/Disparities/Obesity_and_Diabetes/PE%20Matters%20Long%20VersionFINAL.pdf

My recommendation is to explicitly encourage the use of evidence-based approaches and provide extra points for doing so. CDC’s Community Guide recommends enhanced (activity-oriented) PE as an evidence-based intervention.  Thus, the current requirements are ignoring the health goals and evidence-based strategies for achieving them.  Getting children active in PE provides immediate health and academic benefits and helps meet other goals of PE.

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/pa/behavioral-social/schoolbased-pe.html

Broadening the Scope of PEP to Nutrition Education is Misguided:

The broadening of PEP’s focus to require nutrition education would harm efforts to improve PA, PE, and fitness in youth.  PEP funding has declined over the years and is currently very low.  Thus, most of the schools applying are not funded.  Of course, it is essential to improve children’s eating habits to improve health and prevent obesity.  However, this is the wrong mechanism.  These are reasons why broadening PEP to require instruction in nutrition is not a good idea:

1. By itself, nutrition education has modest to no effects on children’s eating.  If the goal is to improve eating, then policy and environmental changes in schools are more promising.  Targeting funding for nutrition education at the expense of evidence-based physical activity programs would have a net negative effect on children’s health.
2. Requiring every team to have expertise in both physical activity and nutrition would make it more difficult to put teams together.
3. Obesity control is generally dominated by nutrition interests and professionals.  PEP is a unique source of federal funding for improving PE and physical activity programs in schools.  There are already existing sources of funds for improving children’s eating habits.
4. The infrastructure (personnel, organizational structure, funding) for physical activity promotion is minimal in the US and is dwarfed by the nutrition infrastructure.  See the references.  Adding nutrition requirements to PEP would weaken the weak component (physical activity promotion) and strengthen the strong component (nutrition promotion).

Yancey, A.K., Fielding, J.E., Flores, G.R., Sallis, J.F., McCarty, W.J., & Breslow, L.  (2007).  Creating a robust public health infrastructure for physical activity promotion.  American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, 68-78.

Yancey, A.K., & Sallis, J.F.  (2009).  Physical activity: Cinderella or Rodney Dangerfield?  Preventive Medicine, 49, 277-279.

Comment on Competitive Preference Priorities:

The proposed priorities are fine, but a more important priority is to give points to schools with high need (such as high obesity rates or low fitness levels). These schools are likely to be under-resourced and lack capacity to compete well in grant writing.  A California study showed PE is much worse in low-resource schools, so it is essential to target improvements in these schools. http://www.calendow.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/By_Topic/Disparities/Obesity_and_Diabetes/ASAP12.pdf

Other Evidence-Based Strategies:

Though I would be satisfied with restricting PEP funding to only improving the PE programs, there is also a rationale for allowing grants to support improved PE and other evidence-based physical activity strategies.  There are other evidence-based approaches for promoting youth physical activity that could be included in multi-component programs, though they do not have as much evidence as enhanced PE.  Numerous studies show that walking or biking to school contributes to higher overall physical activity, and Safe Routes to Schools programs have evidence of effectiveness.

http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_ActiveTransport.pdf

Simple interventions to increase physical activity in recess, such as painting game designs on playgrounds and providing equipment have substantial effects on youth activity.

http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Built_Design.pdf

After school time is the main opportunity for children to be active, yet low-income children have few physical activity resources like parks and programs in their neighborhoods.  Thus, joint use agreements that allow schools to the community can provide nearby opportunities for daily physical activity targeted to children who need them most.

http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Built_Design.pdf

After school programs typically emphasize academics, but it is critical to provide physical activity during these programs.  Physical activity guidelines for after school programs were developed using a rigorous evidence-based approach in California and could be a national model.

http://californiaafterschool.org/c/@gD.RsQGXiqZBk/Pages/physical__activity.html

Comments on Proposed Competitive Preference Priorities and Proposed Requirements:

Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 1—Collection of Body Mass Index.

This is fine, but it would not be my highest priority, because there is little or no evidence that measuring BMI and providing feedback will lead to more physical activity.

Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 2—Partnerships Between Applicants and Supporting Community Entities

No comment

Proposed Requirement 1—Align Project Goals With Identified Needs Using the School Health Index

This is a reasonable requirement, and SHI is an excellent tool, but more flexibility in the choice of a needs assessment instrument could be helpful.  For example, validated instruments like the YMCA’s Community Healthy Living Index, or a PE-specific evaluation could be justified.  The PECAT has limited value since it only assesses the content of a curriculum, not the quality or quantity of its implementation.

Another option would be for the applicant to use the SOFIT method of systematic observation of PE classes to identify strengths and weaknesses of actual PE classes.

McKenzie, T.L., Sallis, J.F., & Nader, P.R.  (1991).  SOFIT:  System for observing fitness instruction time.  Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 195-205.

http://www.activelivingresearch.org/node/11944

Proposed Requirement 2—Nutrition and Physical Activity-Related Policies.

Proposed Requirement 3—Linkage With Local Wellness Policies.

Proposed Requirement 4—Linkages With Federal, State, and Local Initiatives.

Requirements 2, 3, and 4 are redundant and would create an unnecessary burden on applicants.  Many of the policies will be the same or overlapping, so it could be confusing to address all these different types of policies.  One requirement that identifies the relevant policies and plans to improve policies and their implementation would be sufficient.  The applicant should focus on (a) improving implementation of policies that cannot be changed or are sufficient and (b) improving policies that need change and are modifiable at the local level.

Proposed Requirement 5—Updates to Physical Education and Nutrition Instruction Curricula.

The PECAT is only an assessment of the PE curriculum.  It does not deal with the implementation of a quality curriculum, which is also critical.  This requirement should also provide encouragement for the adoption of curricula with evidence of effectiveness from research or evaluation.

Proposed Requirement 6—Equipment Purchases.

This approach to ensuring that equipment complements other program elements, including curriculum and training, is an important one.

Proposed Requirement 7—Increasing Transparency and Accountability.

Reporting requirements should be meaningful (directly related to program goals of getting students active) but minimal.  There is a trade-off between extent of evaluation and program implementation, because time and resources are limited.  The main goal is to use PEP resources to increase children’s physical activity. Though evaluating is critical, the goal is not to document every conceivable program outcome.

Proposed Requirement 8—Participation in a National Evaluation.

I strongly support a national evaluation of PEP.

Proposed Requirement 9—Required Performance Measures and Data Collection Methodology.

Pedometers: This is a useful and feasible tool for assessing PA.  However, using them for overall daily PA should be the responsibility of the national evaluation team.  PEP grantees should be responsible for evaluating the outcomes of their projects.  If it is PE only, then using pedometers only in PE class would be the main goal.  If the project targets PA throughout the school day, then using pedometers throughout the school day would be sufficient.  Few school-based studies have documented physical activity changes outside of school.

3DPAR: I am co-author of a study showing that 3-day recalls are not valid in middle school students.  Thus, there is little justification for the time that needs to be devoted to a 3-day recall.  A 1-day recall is sufficient for an aggregate measure.  I am also concerned this measure would not be sensitive to small changes since the reports are in 30-minute blocks.  It would be better to pilot test this measure with a few grantees to determine feasibility and sensitivity to change.

McMurray, R.G., Ring, K.B., Treuth, M.S., Welk, G.J., Pate, R.R., Schmitz, K.H., Pickrel, J.L., Gonzalez, M., Almeida, M.J.C.A., Young, D.R., & Sallis, J.F.  (2004).  Comparison of two approaches to structured physical activity surveys for adolescents.  Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36, 2135-2143.

Fitness tests:  These would be fine at the beginning and end of each year.

Here is another approach to evaluating the impact of the PEP activities on student MVPA.  This method could be used with any set of programs and could support cross-school comparisons.

1. Number of “opportunity minutes for physical activity” provided per enrolled child.  These could be estimated over an entire school year and for by school and by specific programs, such as PE, recess, after school.

2. Estimated “physical activity minutes per child.” This value is based on multiplying the opportunity minutes with MVPA minutes per session of a sample of students engaged in the different programs using direct observation or pedometry.

Using these calculations would provide a simple metric that would allow all schools/PEP grants to be compared (i.e., on physical activity opportunity minutes per student per year AND observed/calculated physical activity minutes per year).

Because I am opposed to broadening PEP grants to include nutrition, I am opposed to requiring reports of fruit and vegetable consumption.  If you decide to move ahead with measuring these outcomes, then consider this validated measure.

Prochaska, J.J., and Sallis, J.F.  (2004).  Reliability and validity of a fruit and vegetable screening measure for adolescents.  Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 163-165.

Proposed Criteria for Evaluation:

The evaluation criteria should be based on using the funds to maximize the impact on youth physical activity, sustainability of programs, and evaluation.  Here are my recommendations for evaluation criteria for grants, and they should be communicated to applicants:

• Based on a systematic needs assessment
• Evidence basis for effects of proposed activities, programs, policies on youth physical activity
• Likelihood of, or plan for, sustainability of programs, policies, implementation, impact
• Evaluation plan
• Targeting high-need schools and students

Submitted by:

James F. Sallis, PhD

Active Living Research

Department of Psychology

San Diego State University

3900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310

San Diego, CA  92103 USA

Phone: 619-260-5534

Fax: 619-260-1510

Email: sallis@mail.sdsu.edu

Website: www.drjamessallis.sdsu.edu

Advocate for Quality Physical Education as part of the NCLB reauthorization (ESEA)

The U. S. House Education and Labor Committee is collecting comments regarding the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (formally No Child Left Behind) reauthorization. In an effort to have Physical Education addressed and included in the reauthorization, your participation is extremely necessary. This is crucial as our country is at a very critical point and we can NOT miss this opportunity.

Please take a few moments to send the following points to the email address below. Now is the chance many of you have been waiting for and it is a small window of opportunity. Please let our Federal Leaders know how important physical education is to our students and their health.

eseacomments@mail.house.gov

Please identify your group or identify yourself as a supporter of quality physical education.

Please request that the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act should:

• Refocus the newly developed Successful, Safe and Healthy Students section to a Coordinated School Health Approach extending the already proposed activities to provide a critical facility in which many agencies might work together to maintain the well-being of young people.
• Include the text of the FIT Kids Act, requiring schools to report on the quality and quantity of physical education, physical education facilities, teacher accreditation, and physical education curriculum;
• Require all physical education teachers to be licensed in physical education;
• Include physical education standards as part of the core curricula all students need especially when developing assessments for student growth; and
• Maintain the Carol M. White Physical Education Program as a stand-alone grant program, with minimum funding of $100 million.

The real action came at the press conference after the summit. The Governor announced new bills and executive actions that again place California at the forefront of public health efforts to improve physical activity, eating, and obesity. There were several important policy initiatives introduced, as explained in a press release: http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/14519/. Most of the policies were designed to increase children’s physical activity! This focus on getting California kids active is very welcome. The policies cover a wide range of issues, including simplifying funding for joint use agreements, targeting Safe Routes to Schools funding to disadvantaged communities, and requiring 30 minutes of daily physical activity in after-school programs.

Of particular interest is the proposed law to require 50% of PE classes to be spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) by 2013. This has been a public health objective for decades, but has never been adopted by a state. If passed, this bill could start a national trend to align public health and education goals. The goal of PE has always been to “teach through the physical” so I expect this law to help PE meet its multiple goals. Requiring 50% MVPA will stimulate teachers to find ways of teaching skills and knowledge through activity, in a way that will meet the current health needs of children.

Even when the bill passes, there is a long way to go to effective implementation. Between now and 2013, the PE community and public health advocates will need to work hard, work smart, and work together to obtain the funding needed to train teachers, adopt curricula, and develop practical accountability systems required to bring highly active PE classes to all California students. We will have to be sure that improvements are made in the low-resource schools that have the poorest quality PE now. But the effort will be worth it. More-active PE will be great for California children’s health and academic performance. This will be a big step toward defeating childhood obesity. I believe that highly-active PE classes will be seen as an improvement in quality by school administrators, parents, and legislators. Improving quality is a strong foundation for increasing PE minutes per week and bringing PE to all high school students.

Please write to the Governor and your representatives in Sacramento expressing your support for these bills that will help California children become more active and healthy. Make sure the professional and civic organizations you belong to support these bills. This is a great opportunity for California physical activity and physical education advocates, so let’s make sure the bills are passed, then work for the funding and support to implement them throughout the State. If you are not in California, then recommend your state’s leaders adopt the same, or even better, measures to improve children’s physical activity. Let’s see which state will win!

Jim Sallis
www.drjamessallis.sdsu.edu