1. M-SPAN Middle School Physical Activity and Nutrition  Study of environmental interventions to increase PA and reduce dietary fat at middle schools  Funded by NIH-NHLBI, 1996-2000  6 semesters of measurement:  1 baseline; 4 intervention; 1 maintenance  School was unit of analysis (12 Interv; 12 Control)  Females not targeted specifically  Individuals not tracked

2. M-SPAN Key Personnel continuing with TAAG  Jim Sallis (PI)  Thom McKenzie (Co-PI)  John Elder (Co-PI)  Terry Conway (Co-PI)  Paul Rosengard (Intervention Director)  Jamie Strelow (Project Coordinator)  John Alcaraz (Design)  Marie Luna (Measurement)

3. Physical Education/Activity Intervention  Vision: Initiate and facilitate environmental changes to increase the physical activity levels of students

4. PA and PE Considerations  Total accumulated minutes of P.A. throughout the day, in- and out-of-PE  Healthy People Goals 2010 Objective: 50%or more MVPA in PE classes  Healthy People Goals 2010 Objective: 50% or more MVPA in PE classes  CA Educational Code: minimum 400 min./10 days (grades 7 & 8) 200 min./10 days (grade 6)  P.E. Specialists provide more than 90% of classes  Collaborate with organizations with similar goals

5. Opportunities for PA During School Day  Before school  After lunch  After school  PE classes No recess at middle schools

6. M-SPAN Study Schools  24 middle schools (grades 6-8) in San Diego County (26,000 students)  9 school districts  1082 avg. size (range 456-1776)  43% ethnic minority (13-71)  39% free/low cost meals (5-70)  36% arrive by bus (0-85)

7. Physical Activity Assessment  1. SOFIT (System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time). Student Activity Levels, Lesson Context, and Teacher Behavior during PE lessons.  2. SOPLAY (System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity in Youth). Activity levels in PA areas before school, at lunch, and after school.  3. SPAS (Sources of Organized Physical Activity in Schools). Director report of frequency, duration, and numbers in interscholastic, intramural, and other programs.  4. Student/Parent Surveys. Reports of student participation in specific sports and activities.

8. PE Lessons  Offered daily; primarily co-ed  Allocated length = 49.8 min  Actual length = 34.3 min  Held outdoors = 94%  Taught by PE specialists = 88%  Students per class = 36.9

10. PE Intervention  Five, 3-hour, staff development workshops  conducted at schools by M-SPAN staff  focus on active PE curriculum and instruction  efficient management & appropriate activities  Sample active curricula  On-site follow-up visits (~ 1.5 per month)

11. Parent Involvement (minimal)  Monthly articles in school newsletters  “How Parents Can Help” brochure at Open House  PTA presentations  PTA rep at school policy meetings

12. Focus of PE Staff Development  Assist teachers with developing & implementing curricula & instruction that:  provide many opportunities for PA during class  are effective for boys & girls at all skill levels  are enjoyable  teach generalizable movement skills  encourage present & future physical activity  have minimum “down time”

13. PE Staff Development Content  Design:  Interactive, collaborative effort, empowering attendees  Strategies: 1. Yearly plan analysis 2. Action planning/community collaborations/volunteers 3. Individual/partner/group format 4. Organization/management techniques 5. Variety of Teaching Styles

14. PE Staff Development Content  Strategies: (continued) 6. “Super Starts” 7. High activity roll taking 8. High activity skills progressions 9. Modifying games/dance/sports 10. “Quality Lesson Assessments”

15. M-SPAN PE Inservice Evaluation: Quality (N=155; Lowest = 1; Highest = 5)

16. M-SPAN PE Inservice Evaluation: Usefulness (N=155; Lowest = 1; Highest = 5)

17. Recommendations for Staff Development  Complete detailed needs assessments in each target environment first (e.g., yearly programs, schedules, curricula)  Lead by experts (i.e., experienced middle school physical educators and recreation specialists)  As long as possible (15 hours min for PE alone)  Focus directly on the measurable objectives  Interactive, recognizing implementers are collaborating professionals

18. M-SPAN PE: Effects on Student MVPA Minutes MVPA Min Per Lesson N=24 Schools; 214 Teachers; 1847 Lessons

19. M-SPAN: Effects on MVPA in PE MVPA Min Per Lesson N=12 Intervention & 12 Control Schools; 1847 lessons

20. Effects of M-SPAN: MVPA% During Lesson Contexts -12 Intervention Schools- MVPA Percent

21. Effects of MSPAN: Change (Year 2-Baseline) in MVPA Percent during Lesson Contexts MVPA %

22. MVPA by Gender N=24 M-SPAN schools; 151 areas (McKenzie et al., Prev Med, 2000) Percent in MVPA Percent in MVPA * = p<.01 * *

23. Results for PE  Program increased PA (Int=18+%) without increasing frequency or length of lessons (p<.02; d=.88)  Greater increases evidenced in Year 2 than Year 1, suggesting effects were cumulative  Program more effective on increasing MVPA rather than vigorous PA  Program more effective on increasing boys’ PA than girls’

24. Barriers to the PE Intervention  Large number of schools  Limited time for staff development  Guests in the school -- no direct power  PE class size  Facilities: limited grass fields, few gyms, few indoor areas  PE staff turnover  Natural resistance to change

25. M-SPAN PE Teacher Debriefing Usefulness: (Lowest = 1; Highest = 7)

26. M-SPAN PE Teacher Debriefing (Lowest = 1; Highest = 7)