In July 2025, the President of the United States announced the return of something many Americans remember with a mix of nostalgia and trauma: the famous "Physical Test" in public schools. Created in 1966, this program rewarded the top 15% of students in tests such as running, sit-ups, push-ups, and flexibility tests. Winners received certificates bearing the presidential seal and even special emblems.
At first glance, it might seem like a good idea. After all, who wouldn't want to see young people more active, less sedentary, and encouraged to exercise? In a country with serious obesity and sedentary lifestyle problems, this measure could seem like a game-changer.
The arguments in favor
The new plan includes reintroducing tests during Physical Education classes, offering national performance awards, and even creating partnerships with athletes and programs to encourage sports culture. The stated goal is simple: to motivate young people to move, raise awareness of the importance of physical activity, and, in some way, create a connection between sports and national identity.
The criticisms (and there are not few)
On the other hand, critics point out obvious risks:
- Exposure and humiliation of low-performing students.
- Increased unnecessary pressure and body anxiety.
- Excessive focus on competition rather than health.
- Ignoring social and physical inequalities, leaving out inclusion.
It is worth remembering that this model had already been suspended in 2012 by Barack Obama, precisely because of these flaws.
Reflection
The return of the “Physical Test” raises different perspectives on the role of Physical Education in schools.
On the one hand, some argue that the program can help combat sedentary lifestyles, encourage young people to exercise more, and foster a spirit of discipline and self-improvement. Furthermore, the awards and recognition can serve as an additional incentive for students to engage in activities.
On the other hand, critics point out that focusing on competition can create unnecessary pressure, body anxiety, and even humiliation for low-performing students. The issue of inclusion also arises, as this type of assessment may not consider students' diverse physical conditions and social backgrounds.
Between valuing performance and promoting health for all, the discussion remains open.