Declining grades : physical activity to the rescue ?

In France, seve­ral orga­ni­sa­tions are war­ning of a drop in aca­de­mic stan­dards, par­ti­cu­lar­ly in cer­tain sub­jects such as French and mathe­ma­tics. While some experts may qua­li­fy this obser­va­tion, over the last twen­ty years or so, aca­de­mic levels in these sub­jects have been fal­ling (-11 points and ‑8 points res­pec­ti­ve­ly per decade for rea­ding and mathe­ma­tics). What are the causes ? Could phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty be one of the solutions ?

There is no doubt that aca­de­mic stan­dards have risen consi­de­ra­bly since the 1970s, as Nadir Alti­nok and Claude Die­bolt argue in an article for The Conver­sa­tion¹. Howe­ver, if we look at the per­iod from 2000 – the start of the sur­veys conduc­ted by the Pro­gramme for Inter­na­tio­nal Student Assess­ment (PISA)² – to 2020, the results are less promising.

The authors of the article point to a wor­rying decline in school per­for­mance in rea­ding and mathe­ma­tics. Howe­ver, Eric Rodi­ti points out that “France’s PISA results in mathe­ma­tics have always been more or less in line with the OECD ave­rage (see figure below). The only excep­tion is the first PISA in 2000, when France was well above the OECD ave­rage.” Never­the­less, the resear­cher points out that “as this was the first PISA assess­ment, it is not pos­sible to rule out pos­sible sur­vey res­ponse effects.” To explain this change in edu­ca­tio­nal attain­ment, he says : “It is rather the pro­por­tion and level of ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ stu­dents that is chan­ging. The figures also high­light the cor­re­la­tion, which is par­ti­cu­lar­ly mar­ked in France, bet­ween social back­ground and per­for­mance.” Indeed, as the data shows, the pro­por­tion of pupils expe­rien­cing dif­fi­cul­ties will rise from 17% in 2003 to 30% in 2022. At the same time, the pro­por­tion of high-achie­ving pupils has fal­len from 15% to 7% in 19 years³.

While social back­ground seems to be a deter­mi­ning fac­tor in school per­for­mance, we still need to unders­tand the mecha­nisms invol­ved. Socio­lo­gy has long made a num­ber of obser­va­tions : low eco­no­mic, social, edu­ca­tio­nal and cultu­ral capi­tal. Howe­ver, there is a for­got­ten capi­tal that has its place along­side the macro­sco­pic causes, and which can only be addres­sed by sys­te­mic and struc­tu­ral inter­ven­tions : phy­si­cal and cog­ni­tive capital.

Before we can ask our­selves how phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty can be effec­tive, we first need to mea­sure whe­ther it real­ly is. Research into the psy­cho­lo­gy of phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty and edu­ca­tion leaves no room for doubt. “The effec­ti­ve­ness of phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty on school per­for­mance, par­ti­cu­lar­ly in mathe­ma­tics, has been demons­tra­ted by nume­rous ran­do­mi­sed control­led stu­dies,” points out Boris Che­val. In fact, in the Februa­ry 2022 memo that the resear­cher co-autho­red for the French Minis­try of Edu­ca­tion, there was a 48% and 60% increase in cog­ni­tive and aca­de­mic per­for­mance res­pec­ti­ve­ly⁵.

The resear­cher also points out that this effec­ti­ve­ness is undoub­ted­ly unde­res­ti­ma­ted. “When you mea­sure the effec­ti­ve­ness of a drug, you com­pare the group recei­ving the sub­stance with a group recei­ving an inert pla­ce­bo. In research on phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty, the control group remains a phy­si­cal­ly active group, because it would be une­thi­cal to ask chil­dren to stop doing anything.”

Final­ly, phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty boasts some­thing that no other treat­ment in the world has : the absence of side effects. “Phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty has no adverse effects on lear­ning. On the contra­ry, increa­sing the amount of phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty and move­ment could improve the qua­li­ty of lear­ning. Increa­sed acti­vi­ty never dimi­nishes lear­ning. We need to think about the qua­li­ty of the time used, in other words, do less to do bet­ter,” insists Boris Che­val. A dyna­mic that has its equi­va­lent in the world of work with the 4‑day week, which most stu­dies show to be lar­ge­ly bene­fi­cial to productivity.

How might phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty affect per­for­mance at school ? Boris Che­val cites a num­ber of bio­lo­gi­cal mecha­nisms that could be behind the effect of phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty on school per­for­mance : “phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty trig­gers a dere­gu­la­tion of our body’s homeo­sta­sis (state of phy­sio­lo­gi­cal equi­li­brium). This dere­gu­la­tion trig­gers a series of reac­tions and the release of sub­stances (myo­kines, endor­phins, BDNF, etc.). The result is an adap­ta­tion of all the organs in the human body, and in par­ti­cu­lar changes in the brain : angio­ge­ne­sis, synap­to­ge­ne­sis, neu­ro­ge­ne­sis, etc. This means that phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty enables our body and our brain to orga­nise them­selves bet­ter, to com­mu­ni­cate bet­ter and the­re­fore to func­tion bet­ter, which in turn has an effect on cog­ni­tive per­for­mance and conse­quent­ly on per­for­mance at school.”

What’s more, by mobi­li­sing high-level cog­ni­tive func­tions, phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty could improve their use. “Cer­tain acti­vi­ties, such as dance or team sports, enable us to use cer­tain memo­ry struc­tures or exe­cu­tive func­tions that are essen­tial in cer­tain sub­jects, such as wor­king memo­ry or inhi­bi­tion,” explains Boris Che­val. Howe­ver, this raises the ques­tion of the trans­fer of skills from one field to ano­ther, which is still wide­ly deba­ted in psy­cho­lo­gi­cal research.

If cer­tain phy­si­cal acti­vi­ties mobi­lise par­ti­cu­lar brain func­tions, this sug­gests that not all phy­si­cal acti­vi­ties are equal. On the basis of all these ele­ments, it is pos­sible to create a pro­file of the ideal phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty for impro­ving per­for­mance at school. “It should be of mode­rate to high inten­si­ty, involve balance, coor­di­na­tion and lear­ning, be cog­ni­ti­ve­ly deman­ding, be col­lec­tive rather than soli­ta­ry, and be prac­ti­sed at least three times a week,” says Boris Cheval.

An inno­va­tive aspect of the research explores the effect of the affec­tive expe­rience of phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty. “The idea behind our cur­rent research is that a spor­ting expe­rience with a posi­tive conno­ta­tion would not only be use­ful for per­se­ve­ring with the acti­vi­ty in the long term, but would also have a posi­tive effect on the bio­lo­gi­cal and cog­ni­tive effects of phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty in the short term,” empha­sises the resear­cher. It should be poin­ted out that this research is extre­me­ly recent and that more in-depth inves­ti­ga­tions are under way.

At this stage, we know that phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty is a real asset for impro­ving per­for­mance at school, par­ti­cu­lar­ly in mathe­ma­tics where the levels of evi­dence are the highest. In the same PISA report cited above, there was a spe­ci­fic increase of 86% in per­for­mance in mathe­ma­tics as a result of phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty, com­pa­red with 53% for languages.

The low level of poli­ti­cal will (albeit with good inten­tions) does not give tea­chers the resources they need to imple­ment these measures.

There is also a cor­re­la­tion bet­ween the level of phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty and socio-eco­no­mic sta­tus. In addi­tion to eco­no­mic and cultu­ral capi­tal, it would seem that inequa­li­ties also have an impact on people’s cog­ni­tive capi­tal, from a very ear­ly age. Boris Che­val points out that “child­hood is a cri­ti­cal per­iod when we deve­lop our cog­ni­tive reserve. Mea­sures aimed at increa­sing phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty are also more effec­tive in popu­la­tions with lower levels of phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty or cog­ni­tive performance.”

To over­come these dif­fe­rences in cog­ni­tive capi­tal, there is only one solu­tion : put move­ment back at the heart of school and lear­ning. “Move­ment is essen­tial for all lear­ning. It helps to create new cog­ni­tive habits by impro­ving cog­ni­tive func­tions. We need to get away from the idea that lear­ning should always be done sit­ting down and as quiet­ly as pos­sible,” com­ments a per­plexed Boris Cheval.

Unfor­tu­na­te­ly, archi­tec­tu­ral and poli­ti­cal dyna­mics are ham­pe­ring this objec­tive. “The low level of poli­ti­cal will (albeit with good inten­tions) does not give tea­chers the resources they need to imple­ment these mea­sures. The result is a fee­ling of coer­cion and ter­ri­to­rial inequa­li­ties that per­sists and is get­ting worse,” deplores Boris Cheval.

To coun­ter these trends, strong mea­sures are nee­ded. Examples include trai­ning and sup­port for pri­ma­ry school tea­chers in set­ting up qua­li­ty acti­vi­ties or eco­no­mic sup­port. Tea­chers need to feel empo­we­red and sup­por­ted. Theo­ries in the psy­cho­lo­gy of moti­va­tion, the theo­ry of self-deter­mi­na­tion and the theo­ry of plan­ned beha­viour have clear­ly demons­tra­ted that in order to adhere to and per­se­vere in a beha­viour, it is above all neces­sa­ry to feel auto­no­mous, com­petent and to create a bond. Without these ingre­dients, the government’s good inten­tions will pro­ba­bly be in vain, and the hours of phy­si­cal edu­ca­tion and sport on the cur­ri­cu­lum will conti­nue to be the first to be can­cel­led as necessary.

In conclu­sion, it is impor­tant to remem­ber that phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty is not just a cata­lyst for aca­de­mic per­for­mance. Above all, it has a major impact on phy­si­cal and men­tal health. There is an urgent need to take action with regard to the life­styles of the very young. We need to com­bat the loss of car­dio-res­pi­ra­to­ry capa­ci­ty, obe­si­ty, type‑2 dia­betes and all these increa­sin­gly com­mon ear­ly onset patho­lo­gies. Without good phy­si­cal health, there can be no qua­li­ty education.

Pro­per phy­si­cal edu­ca­tion at school ins­tils a taste for effort, com­pe­ti­tion, coope­ra­tion and sur­pas­sing one­self. So many skills that are use­ful in social and pro­fes­sio­nal life. Ancho­ring phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty in a posi­tive emo­tio­nal expe­rience helps to main­tain well-being and phy­si­cal and men­tal health. At the same time, it’s a way of pre­ven­ting socio-eco­no­mic and gen­der inequalities.

Julien Hernandez