Source paper: Cruickshank, Pill, Williams et al. (2023) — Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, 14(2)
New research from Tasmanian primary schools reveals a telling gap between what teachers think they’re doing in health education — and what the curriculum actually asks of them. Here’s what it means for HPE specialists.
Picture this: a teacher wraps up a lesson on healthy lunchboxes and feels good about it. The kids were engaged, a few brought different food the next day, and one parent even reached out to say thank you. By any reasonable measure, that feels like a win. But here’s the question worth sitting with: was that health literacy education — or was it health awareness? And does the difference matter?
According to a study by Cruickshank and colleagues, published in the journal Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education, the gap between those two things is wider than most schools realise — and it has real consequences for students.
The study followed 30 generalist primary school teachers across four Tasmanian schools over 12 months as part of the HealthLit4Kids program. Researchers used focus groups and a sociological framework to examine how teachers understood and taught health literacy — one of the five key propositions embedded in the Australian health and physical education curriculum.
What they found was both understandable and concerning. Most teachers were enthusiastic, caring, and genuinely motivated to improve student wellbeing. But their approach to health education was largely shaped by what the researchers called ‘everyday philosophies’ — personal beliefs, intuitions, and assumptions about health that weren’t grounded in curriculum requirements. In practice, this meant health education that raised awareness without developing the deeper skills students need: the ability to critically access, evaluate, and act on health information.
One teacher’s comment captured the pattern perfectly: ‘I do it [Health Literacy] all the time.’ The problem? When pressed, there was no evidence that what was happening in class aligned with what health literacy actually requires. This isn’t a criticism of individual teachers — it’s a systemic issue. When HPE receives less curriculum time, when health sits in the shadow of physical education, and when teachers haven’t had explicit professional learning in health literacy, even the most committed practitioners fall back on what feels familiar.
Researchers also found a striking silence in the data: teachers almost never mentioned the curriculum document when describing their teaching. Health education was happening — but it was largely disconnected from the learning progressions, achievement standards, and propositions the curriculum sets out.
The HealthLit4Kids intervention did shift things — just not as deeply as hoped. Teachers became more enthusiastic about health education. They started talking about it in staffrooms. Parents got involved. Figurations — the networks of people who shape school culture — grew to include more stakeholders. These are genuinely positive developments.
But the shift remained at the level of awareness and attitude, not curriculum alignment. Students were reported to be ‘more critical’ — but what that meant in practice was rarely connected to the curriculum’s expectation that students learn to research, evaluate, and apply health information in meaningful ways. Real health literacy — the kind that builds agency and equips young people to navigate a complex health landscape — requires more than enthusiasm. It requires intentional, curriculum-aligned teaching.
If you work as an HPE specialist, you’re probably nodding along to parts of this. You’ve seen what happens when health education gets squeezed out by timetabling pressures, or defaulted to a generalist teacher who’s covering the learning area alongside 27 other curriculum obligations. You may have heard a colleague say ‘we do health literacy — we talk about food and wellbeing all the time.’
This research gives you language and evidence to have a different conversation. Here are three things worth taking back to your school:
1. Audit what’s actually happening in health education at your school. Ask colleagues to describe a recent health lesson and listen for whether the focus is on awareness (knowing facts about health) or literacy (being able to find, evaluate, and use health information). The distinction is foundational.
2. Make the curriculum visible. The research found that the curriculum document was largely absent from teachers’ thinking. Consider running a brief professional learning session that maps what health literacy actually looks like in practice — using the curriculum propositions as a shared reference point, not just a compliance checkbox.
3. Build the figuration. The most sustainable change in this study came when health education spread beyond individual classrooms to include staffrooms, parents, and school leadership. If you’re an HPE specialist, you’re well-placed to be the connector who builds that broader culture of health literacy across your school community.
The teachers in this study weren’t failing their students — they were doing their genuine best with the knowledge and support they had. The lesson from this research isn’t that good intentions don’t matter. It’s that good intentions, without curriculum grounding and professional support, can only take health education so far.
For HPE specialists, the opportunity is clear: use your expertise not just in the gym or on the oval, but as a professional resource your whole school can draw on. Health literacy isn’t a side dish to physical education. It’s a core entitlement for every student — and you’re positioned to make sure it’s actually delivered.