Kinesiology Review, 2013, 2, 107-109
© 2013 The National Academy of Kinesiology
Official Publication of NAK and AKA www.KR-Journal.com
Within the archives of Springfield College are the unofficial minutes of the Gulick Academy of Physical Educa- tion from 1906–1909. Surprisingly, the attendance, participation, and presentations of Clark W. Hetherington were not very impressive, which raised the question, what had he accomplished to warrant the Academy designating him as its first member and president—or for making the Hetherington Award its highest honor?
The answer is complex, but insights can be obtained from the results of an early association with Thomas D.
Woods and from the implementation of his philosophy of play by select schools and states. By 1926, many universities had adopted his objectives and curricula for physical education, while his philosophy for physical education began to be promoted by the physical education profession. However, since 2010 the term physical education has been removed from our title and bylaws. Consequently, should we continue to have our highest honor be identified with the Hetherington Award? I sincerely hope so, but the issue should be addressed by our membership.
Keywords: history, perspective
Located in the basement archives of Springfield College are the unofficial minutes of the Gulick Academy of
Physical Education (Gulick, 1906, 1907, 1909), which, surprisingly, indicated that Clark W. Hetherington was not an active or impressive participant in their organizational activities. Consequently, it raised the question,
What had or did Hetherington accomplish before 1926 that enabled him to be designated as Academy Member
Number 1 and subsequently facilitate his election to be its first President?
The answer begins with his association with Dr.
Thomas D. Wood of Stanford University, who was
Professor of Hygiene and Physical Training, Medical
Director, and director of the gymnasium. Hetherington, an outstanding gymnast, served as Wood’s assistant and taught unsupervised classes in the gymnasium as an advanced undergraduate student (Fisher, 1928). In addition, after graduating in 1895, he spent an additional year as an assistant to Dr. Wood. As a result, he likely became aware of Wood’s views against formalized gymnastics, as practiced in the Swedish and German systems, and for physical education activities that were natural for the individual (Bronson, 1958; Felshin, 1967).
After leaving Stanford University, Hetherington spent the next two years as Director of Physical Culture at a reformatory school in Whittier, CA for 480 youthful inmates, where he provided a diversified program of athletics and games that effectively demonstrated play activities could facilitate the objectives of education (Gerber, 1971). It is noteworthy that Hetherington
The author (NAK Fellow #215) is with the Dept. of Physiology,
University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ.
concluded after studying the personal backgrounds and police records of the inmates that “eighty percent of the inmates were in the institution because of the neglect of their play impulses” (Butler, 1965, p.18). He also concluded that play activities could enhance physical and moral development.
Hetherington devoted the next two years at Clark
University as an assistant in the psychology department when the university was a recognized Child Study Center,
G. Stanley Hall was President, Professor of Psychology
(Gerber, 1971), and formulating a recapitulation theory of play (Davidson, 1914). Although several authors have suggested Hall had a commanding influence on
Hetherington’s philosophy of play, my perspective is that Hall’s impact, because of his responsibilities and scientific interests, was limited and essentially confined to the role of the brain in learning—a perspective that has some support from the text of Harper, Miller, Park, and Davis (1977).
In 1900, at the age of 30 and possessing an A.B. degree in Physical Training and Hygiene, he accepted a position at the University of Missouri as Professor of Physical Training and Director of Gymnastics and
Athletics with additional responsibilities of providing physical training to the student body (Gerber, 1971) and supervising a recreational program that had the goal of
“organized play in every town and rural school in Missouri” (Butler, 1965, p.22). Thus during the years of the Gluick Academy, he was facing the challenges of implementing his responsibilities while resolving the problems of violence and corruption in intercollegiate athletics that also included the University of Missouri
(Fisher, 1928). It was also a time when he was “crystallizing” his philosophy of play, its interrelationship to the
107

108 Tipton objectives of physical education and how both could be realized. Hetherington characterized play to mean plays
(theatrical), games, athletics, the play side of gymnastics, dancing, and large muscle activity (Hetherington, 1910).
Select insights on his philosophy of play can be gleamed from the following statements (Hetherington, 1915):
1. Play is the central element in the scheme of human nature that makes volition possible (p. 285)
2. Play is nature method of education . . . education . . . in the broadest sense is identical to living (p. 285)
3. Play is the child’s chief business in life (p. 288).
Additionally, the educational outcomes through play were
(Hetherington, 1915)
1. Enhanced mental development
2. Enhanced psychomotor development
3. Enhanced emotional development
4. Enhanced moral development.
To facilitate acceptance in Missouri, he wrote and distributed a manual (Hetherington, 1909) on the philosophy and organization of play for professionals in communities and teachers in rural schools that was in use until 1925. He also promoted the statewide idea of a designated play day for high school girls that not only spread to other states (Gerber, 1971), but also became a practice that prevailed for more than six decades in various regions of the United States.
1
As mentioned previously, Hetherington considered athletics to be a component of play. In fact, he chaired a
Committee on Amateur Law which stated athletics were a phase of play. In particular, Hetherington peculiarly thought adolescent play functioned as a spectacle and served as source of amusement for spectators (and that spectators were willing to pay a fee to observe skilled performers). Therefore, it was essential that educational institutions, and especially colleges, organize and control athletics as an educational force for the whole student body (Hetherington et al. 1910). Thus when the University of Missouri football team had a member who was being paid to “play,” it was not surprising that he fired the coach, removed the player from the team, and became the most unpopular Athletic Director in the state of Missouri. Even so, he was able to convince other institutions in Missouri to form a conference to provide control on athletics while forming an Athletic Research Society that focused on amateurism and athletic administration
(Fisher, 1928; Gerber, 1971).
When Hetherington was an assistant at Clark University, he approached Hall concerning the feasibility of establishing a Demonstration Play Summer School in the Boston area. Although Hall was receptive to the concept, circumstances prevented its fulfillment. After
Hetherington left the University of Missouri in 1910, he was able to establish a Demonstration Play Summer
School at the University of California in Berkeley. It was a six-week period for students (four to thirteen years of age) which began in 1913 and continued, with his wife as director, until 1934 when the economic depression hastened its closure. From the perspective of administrators, educators, teachers, students, and parents, it was an impressive success and reinforced Hetherington’s concept on the educational value of play (Hetherington, 1915).
The school was his last professional endeavor pertaining to his philosophy of play.
A notable contribution to the philosophy of physical education occurred in 1910 when Hetherington shared a paper at a National Education Association Council meeting in Boston. The paper, entitled Fundamental Edu- cation , has been regarded by prominent authors as a significant contribution to the beginning of a “new physical education” (Felshin, 1967; Harper et al., (1977; Sidentop,
1972) or an “Americanized physical education” (Fisher,
1928), because with direct leadership, physical education 2 significantly contributed (Hetherington, 1910) to
1. Organic education (capacity for vigor, immunity from fatigue)
2. Psycho-motor education (muscle and nervous system development)
3. Character education (acquiring moral and social values)
4. Intellectual education (information insights and assimilation), memory, and attention.
According to Siedentop (1972), this concept dominated the profession of physical education for the next
50 years. It also evolved when Wood and Hetherington were a) involved in the “revolt” against the German and
Swedish system of gymnastics being incorporated within
American physical education programs which favored a program of natural gymnastics, and b) leading a transition into a more natural physical education program [or into a program that had components of the new physical education (Siedentop, 1972; Wood & Cassidy 1927)].
Hetherington’s distain for formalized programs was exhibited when he became Supervisor of Physical
Education for the State of California. After assuming this responsibility, he eliminated the existing program of calisthenics and marching and instituted a program that featured natural activities (e.g., plays, games, athletics, dancing, gymnastics, and large muscle events) (Gerber,
1971).
Before 1917, institutions had few standards and requirements for the education of professional physical educators and, as a result, prevailing curricula had few theoretical courses. Consequently, Hetherington planned a four-year curriculum for the University of Wisconsin using a model that defined the functional responsibilities of a physical educator, the educational courses required to meet these responsibilities, and the foundational science courses (biology, chemistry, physics, anatomy, physiology, psychology, sociology) necessary to become a professional educator (Bronson, 1958). In subsequent years, he authored detailed articles on the professional courses needed in universities to prepare physical educators
(Hetherington, 1920, 1921, 1925) and on the objectives of a physical education curriculum (Hetherington,1922).

Hetherington: Perspective and Questions 109
Gerber (1971) stated it was the consensus of many physical education authorities that Hetherington’s most important contribution to American physical education was the formulation for New York University of a fouryear undergraduate professional curriculum, followed by a three-year graduate program, which was initiated in 1926. This was the same year that Hetherington published an article entitled the “Needs of Physical
Education.” Although the establishment of an Academy of Physical Education was not listed in the article, the need for standardized and recognized professional education requirements was mentioned as a high priority
(Hetherington, 1926).
The best explanation as to why Hetherington was selected to become the first member of the Academy was provided by Bookwalter and VanderZwaag (1969), who concluded that Hetherington, as well as Gulick and
Woods, were responsible for physical education becoming an academic profession. Gulick died eight years earlier and Woods was not elected at the initial meeting. Thus,
Hetherington was the logical and overwhelming choice of all who were present. However, in 2010, the Academy removed Physical Education from its official title. Therefore, should we not change the name of the Hetherington
Award to recognize an individual from Kinesiology? If not now, when? I sincerely hope the answer is never; but,
I do believe future recipients should be cognizant of the
Academy’s rich physical education heritage. While it is uncertain whether the Academy will ever address or consider this issue, it is certain that I proudly accept the Clark
W. Hetherington Award for 2012, treasure my physical education heritage, express gratitude to my nominators—
Drs. Casperson (#395), Farrell (485), Going (456), Parnik
(#393), and Wilmore (#252)—and thank the Academy again for this most singular honor.
1. In 1954, a Play Day for girls was scheduled at Lena
High School in Lena, IL, where C.M. Tipton was employed.
2. The concept of the new physical education was empowered when Jesse F. Williams, in 1930, emphasized that educational values were enhanced through physical education
(Patterson & Hallberg, 1965).
Bookwalter, K.W., & VanderZwaag, H.J. (1969). Foundations and principles of physical education . Philadelphia, PA:
W.B. Saunders Company.
Bronson, A.K. (1958). Clark W. Hetherington: scientist and philosopher . Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
Butler, G.D. (1965). Pioneers in public recreation. Minneapolis,
MN: Burgess Publishing Company.
Davidson, P.E. (1914). The recapitulation theory and human infancy.
New York, NY: Teachers college, Columbia university.
Felshin, J. (1967). A perspective and principles for physical education . New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Fisher, G.J. (1928). Clark W. Hetherington, pioneer, indefatigable worker, student, idealist, organizer, fighter. American
Physical Education Review, 33, 165–168.
Gerber, E.W. (1971). Innovators and institutions in physical education . Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Gulick, L.H. (1906). Minutes (non-official) of the meeting for organization of the Academy of Physical Education.
Gulick, L.H. (1907). Minutes (non-official) of the second annual meeting of the Academy of Physical Education.
Gulick, L.H. (1909) Minutes (non-official) of the third meeting of the Academy of Physical Education
Harper, W.A., Miller, D.M., Park, R.J., & Davis, E.C. (1977).
The philosophic process in physical education (3rd ed.).
Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Hetherington, C.W. (1909). A normal course in play. New York,
NY: Playground Association of America.
Hetherington, C.W. (1910). Fundamental education. American
Physical Education Review., 15, 629–636.
Hetherington, C.W. (1915). The demonstration play school of
1913. American Physical Education Review, 20, 282–294,
373–380, 429–444.
Hetherington, C.W. (1920). University professional training courses in physical education. American Physical Educa- tion Review., 25, 185–196.
Hetherington, C.W. (1921). Professional training for physical education. American Physical Education Review., 26,
69–72.
Hetherington, C.W. (1922). The objectives of physical education. American Physical Education Review., 27, 405–414.
Hetherington, C.W. (1925). Graduate work in physical education. American Physical Education Review., 30, 262–268.
Hetherington, C.W. (1926). The needs of physical education.
Proceedings of the annual meeting of the National Education Association.
64:603-615.
Hetherington, C.W., Waldo, C.A., & Dudley, W.L. (1910).
Report of the committee on an amateur law. American
Physical Education Review., 15, 165–181.
Patterson, A., & Hallberg, E.C. (1965). Background readings for physical education . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Siedentop, D. (1972). Physical education, introductory analysis
(2nd ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: W. C. Brown Company.
Wood, T.D., & Cassidy, R.F. (1927). The new physical educa- tion . New York, NY: The MacMillan Company.