ABSTRACT
We consider four particular points posed by Lawson in this text: (i) The relationship between schools and teacher education and, more specifically, the failure to ensure that physical education and PETE are structured together, policy neglect with respect to the centrality of physical education to school improvement and performance, (ii) The readiness of physical education teachers and teacher educators to be held accountable for young people’s physical education learning, (iii) Conflicts arising from alternative models of physical education, and (iv) The prevalence of physical education in industrial age schooling. We conclude with five pertinent points that arise and these include: (i) How teachers are prepared to cope with system-wide change, (ii) Opportunities for individuals to operate as boundary crossers between PETE provides, the physical education subject association and government professional development agencies, (iii) The role of PETE faculty in supporting the professional development of physical education teachers, (iv) The readiness of physical education teachers and teacher educators to be held accountable for young people’s physical education outcomes, and (v) the centrality of research-informed PETE practice through self-study.
