Chapter 9: Will PETE Survive in the 21st Century? Thomas J. Templin University of Michigan Kim C. Graber and K. Andrew R. Richards University of Illinois Physical education teacher education is at a “tipping point” in history, where the survivability of the profession in many institutions of higher education may be in question. This monograph reflects an initial attempt to understand recruitment and retention in physical education teacher education programs from the perspective of program coordinators. The purpose of this culminating chapter is to connect key points identified throughout the monograph and critically assess how the results add to the knowledge base in physical education teacher education. The chapter authors present a historical perspective on reduced enrollments and identified strategies for the promotion of student recruitment and retention. It will become evident that if a favorable future for physical education is to become reality, then a vision must be developed and enacted through the concentrated efforts of multiple stakeholders who have the time and commitment necessary to enact positive change at local, state, and national levels. Keywords: higher education, physical education, recruitment, retention, teacher education Over the last four decades, there has been a significant shift in the state of physical education teacher education (PETE) programs in the United States. Through the 1980s and 1990s, PETE pro- grams typically had stable enrollment numbers with several faculty members assisting in the preparation of future physical education teachers. These faculty members led a reformation in the scholarly stature of the study of teaching, teachers, and teacher education that increased research output as well as the rigor of methods used in that research. This attracted doctoral students with an interest in moving the field forward as future teacher educators and re- searchers. The discipline of sport pedagogy emerged and scholars from the United States and around the world united to disseminate knowledge and best practices grounded in an emerging framework developed to serve children by increasing the quality of physical education. The renaissance had begun. Yet that wave of change has settled into a current state of affairs that gives cause for concern today. Professionals in PETE (also referred to as sport pedagogy) are challenged to retain pro- grams while confronting obstacles including the tarnished status of the teaching profession, reduced school funding, drastic teacher education enrollment declines, and dwindling commitments from university administrators to support the teacher education enter- prise (Sutcher, Darling-Hammond, & Carver-Thomas, 2016). It ap- pears the disappearance or decline of PETE programs throughout the United States that we once feared as a possible weakness or vulnerability has, in fact, become a reality. Declining enrollments, which appear to be a function of fewer individuals choosing careers in physical education, represents one of the most serious problems to face the profession in decades. In this final monograph chapter, the authors consider the current state of recruitment and retention in PETE programs in light of the results reported in the preceding chapters, and in relation to occupational socialization theory. Lessons Learned About Recruiting and Retaining PETE Students In the preceding chapters of the monograph, important findings related to recruitment and retention in PETE programs are outlined that provide further insight into the status quo of many PETE programs. The results suggest that building relationships and in- stilling a positive image of the profession in the minds of potential and current preservice teachers, as well as their parents and other stakeholders such as in-service teachers, appear to be important in recruitment and retention. The results presented in Chapter 5 (Ayers & Woods, 2019) and Chapter 7 (Richards & Graber, 2019) also demonstrate there is agreement between activities that pro- gram coordinators view as effective for recruitment and retention, and those in which they actively engage. Barriers, however, exist, and were revealed through the quantitative data presented. In par- ticular, the majority of PETE program coordinators perceive lack of training and reward structure to be among the most important barriers to their involvement in recruitment and retention activities, although some differences were noted across institution types. For example, program coordinators from bachelor’s institutions were less likely to view research as a barrier to recruitment and retention than their counterparts employed in master’s or doctoral institutions. Consistent with the sequential explanatory design (Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003) that framed the mono- graph, the qualitative results presented in Chapter 6 (Kern, Richards, Ayers, & Killian, 2019) and Chapter 8 (Kern, Ayers, Killian, & Woods, 2019) generally support the quantitative find- ings. For example, the program coordinator recognized a need for both recruitment and retention activities, and prioritized those strategies that sought to build relationships. Relative to recruitment, Templin is with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Graber and Richards are with the University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. Address author correspondence to Thomas J. Templin at ttemplin@umich.edu. 1 Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, (Ahead of Print) https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0015 © 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc. SPECIAL ISSUE