A PEP grant’s influence on change in a school district: One year post funding

•A critical mass of people influenced how change became embedded in their schools, and physical educators continue to take ownership of the changes.•PEP grant funding is no longer available, despite the clear positive changes it can bring.•There was no sustainability plan designed for the changes implemented throughout the PEP grant.•It is unclear how long the change will endure or be institutionalized. This study examined teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of the institutionalization phase of the Carol M. White Physical Education for Progress (PEP) grant. A qualitative exploratory single case study (Yin, 2014) was utilized to examine the elements of the PEP grant that sustained or did not sustain after its conclusion, along with elements that were institutionalized and influences on this process. The findings were represented in the following three themes: (a) positive shifts, (b) backsliding, and (c) new directions, each with their own subthemes. Positive shifts includes sub-themes: (a) philosophy, (b) instruction, assessment and curriculum, (c) collaboration, and (d) respect. Backsliding includes sub-themes: (a) wellness team functioning, (b) the loss of PD and collaboration time, and (c) reduced data collection. New directions includes sub-themes: (a) mastery learning, (b) during school physical activity, (c) stress, and (d) administrative support. The factors that were institutionalized were quality physical education leadership roles, change in teachers’ philosophies that influenced their instruction and assessment, and garnered administrative support. These elements were embedded into the physical education program and the school so much so that principals now expect the same type of programming from any new hire.