Is it really more important to set for PE than other subjects? And how do they do it?(43 Posts)
Not an imminent issue otherwise I'd ask the school, but just wondering... Our secondary set for PE and Maths from Y7 and MFL in Y9. Now I can see the merits of setting for PE but I can see many merits for setting for all sorts of subjects. (Went through a rigid streaming system myself and find it very difficult to get my head round mixed ability teaching at all). And if your school do this how do they actually assess the ability of the children in PE?
I think they set PE in Y7 at DS's school (They streamed other subjects based on Maths and English results). This has been really useful for DS as he's pretty poor at PE and while he knows this he hasn't had the hatred of the subject he might have had if that was in his face all the time by being in with the very good ones.
I do think there is a benefit to sets/streams for most subjects, I guess the argument that is is more important for PE is because by the age of 11 you probably aren't going to make a developmental leap and suddenly be good at it but it is vital to build some activity into your life on a long term basis.
We were set for math and english at secondary school. Our English set was the one we were in for all other subjects, including pe and science.
I would have loved pe sets, being crap at it. I imagine people who are good at sport would appreciate it too.
the best form of pe setting imo varies dependent on the sport, so for example boys in set 1 for rugby would not necessarily be in set 1 for cricket. This only works if the whole/half year group can be timetabled for pe at the same time.
I think that PE sets are a great idea. It helps children to compete against children of a similar standard. County level atheletes and dyspraxic children gain nothing competing against each other.
The sad thing is the level of control the governant wants over the PE curriculum. It would be great if
fat obcese children could be helped to lose weight and taught how to eat healthily in PE and the super atheletes have a competely seperate PE curriculum.
Unfit children often prefer activites like dance or trampolining where they aren't humilated.
My friends DS's school set for PE and it has been the making of at least one of her sons who has shone in the bottom group.
DS wishes they set for PE in his school - he might stand some chance of shining at the top of the top set
I think it's a really interesting question, as there are so many facets to PE. You could be great a gym but weak at Rugby or a fab trampolinest but no stamina for cross country. I'm not sure how they would have assessed an 'overall' picture in time to be able to set in Yr7.
ds's school never set for PE, and dd's have set this year - in Yr9 - when I guess the PE staff will have had 2 yrs to see all pupils across a range of sports.
I'd like to know how they do decide though, to be able to set in Yr7
No advice but just wanted to say it's great to hear schools do this now. I was terrible at pe and would have really benefited from being in a bottom set instead of being humiliated three times a week.
"I'd like to know how they do decide though, to be able to set in Yr7"
I imagine you could test children's PE ablities. Ie. can they catch a ball, how fast they can run, how many times they can skip in 2 minutes, can they touch their toes etc. How far can a child run in 30 minutes? What is a child's balance like?
Prehaps you could get reports from primary school teachers like other subjects.
I would like PE to support other subjects, for example weak upper body strength or hand eye coordination often affects hand writing.
I know DS did the beep test, an obstacle course, football, tennis, long distance running and trampolining early in y7, I'm not sure if these were used for sets but I imagine so. He hasn't moved sets but others have so it seems flexible.
DS has hypermobility so already does a lot of gymball and physio stuff at home so he is pretty strong and we do a lot of walking and swimming as a family so he is also quite but not very fit. He's never going to be great at traditional PE but a lot of people aren't.
Thanks for the thoughts. I too would have appreciated being set in PE, so can see the advantages. I just find it odd that PE is given such special treatment when other subjects are not.
I'm not sure about setting for PE, and I also disagree that by age 11 they are not going to make any developmental leaps - DD1 has certainly made a big one. She grew in a pretty unbalanced way through Yr6 - think longer limbs she didn't know what to do with - and in the first term of Yr7 had another growth spurt and is now much more in proportion and much more coordinated. She's certainly have started Yr7 in a bottom set for PE and been really demoralised, but instead she now plays basketball and netball for the school and is good at volleyball too.
The way they did PE at my school (in Holland) was that multiple classes in a year group had PE at the same time and there was a choice of activities within the constraints of the curriculum. Everyone got the chance to develop skills without being humiliated at anything.
Mine go to 2 different secondary schools and both sort of set for PE, but in different ways.
One they all do games at the same time. Some children are in the A team, some in the B team, some in the Cs etc and they do games in their teams. After year 8, they choose whether to do the main game each term or different PE activities. They are not in the same teams for all the main sports.
The other one set them generally for PE after half a term. I think they did running, football and table tennis and set them from there. However, it doesn't seem to be set in stone, e.g. DD wants to play netball for the school, but her set are currently doing volleyball. However the set below hers are doing netball so she asked if she could join them for the time being and it didn't seem to be a problem!
In the school I went to PE was 'mixed', but all the good children ended up in one group, crap ones in another groups (me being one!). When we had to join with 'the good group' for certain things it was hell! No fun for anyone!
I deffinitely think setting in certain other subjects is more important, though
Wow, didn't expect that.
Half of DS entire year group (160 pupils) has PE at same time. Then they are further divided into 5 groups (so 16 pupils each) for the actual games & exercises.
DS is pretty sure he's in the top 5th of the bottom half, but no idea how he got put there. The school never did any diagnostic testing on him, not even CATs for the academics.
My DS's school did it based on teacher assessment in the first few weeks. DS had his arm in a cast at this time so ended up in bottom set. Teacher asked him a few months later if he'd like to move up but DS say No Way, he doesn't like the competitive sporty kids and is much happier in the lower set!
The reasons some schools don't set for other subjects is to avoid "labelling" children - but I guess the kids who are not great at sport don't really care about being labelled as such.
Another one who wished desperately there'd been setting for PE when I was at school (though I would have been top set for indoor stuff - dance/gym/swim - and bottom for games...I agree that you can vary on ability dependent on the type of sport!)
Ds's schools sets for games but not for PE which seems reasonable - the rugby team are off playing matches whilst the lower set are doing rugby skills - whereas in PE they are doing new stuff all together (proper gym/circuit training/athletics not taught so much as team sports in primary schools?)
DC's school set for PE, I have no idea on what basis. This happens in year 8, whereas much other subjects they use sets from year 7. PE only seems to consist of team ball games rather than a range of sports.
I think this is a good idea in principle, but inevitably it means that bottom sets also includes the disruptive kids, This means that kids like my DS who has ASD and dyspraxia still end up finding PE difficult
We also have children at two different secondaries.
One school has sort of optional setting -- the pupils choose whether to go for 'adventure', 'strength' or 'team' stream each term. Adventure is stuff like climbing wall, cycling, cross country; team is football/netball/cricket, and I think strength it some weird mix of salsa and gym work. DS thinks it works fine.
The other sets in a more traditional way (but DS2 says no one has to do rugby if they don't want to!).
Admittedly my boys are both wusses, but at least this way they can become slightly fitter wusses without anyone ranting at them.
creamteas I actually think that quite a few children who can be very disruptive in a classroom, are quite often children who excel at sport - it strikes me that PE is an area where there wouldn't be any correlation between children with behavioural issues and children who are least able.
<Thinking of dd's football team manager who was in despair recently as two of his better players were on a week's ban from representing the school at sport, due to some misdemeanours in school >
back that might be true except that they demote kids who don't 'play nicely' to lower sets as a punishment. So anyone who fouls too often, or talks back gradually sinks to the bottom regardless of their sporting ability....
I'd only ever heard of this at private schools (teams A,B and C for all sports and everyone allocated a place but could be team A for cricket and team C for rugby etc) or in schools with small year groups (less than 150 per year).
The schools near us have huge year groups and don't set for P.E. They set for a variety of subjects - mostly maths, English, science and MFL and sometimes the Humanities set is the same as the English set.
P.E is mixed ability and based on tutor group (registration group). DS has mobility issues and finds P.E difficult but the teachers are very good at differentiating the lessons for him and for the other children who have medical conditions or are just not very sporty. Hopefully they are equally good at differentiating for the super-sporty children too.
tiggy, the school my friends DS's go to is a state comp. It's for the lessons that they set, although they may have A and B, etc teams.
They don't set at my DS's school, but I think the PE teachers must be good at differentiating as mine no longer complain (like they did at primary!)
"I think this is a good idea in principle, but inevitably it means that bottom sets also includes the disruptive kids, This means that kids like my DS who has ASD and dyspraxia still end up finding PE difficult "
I don't think that ablity in PE has anything to do with behaviour or ablity in academics.
"back that might be true except that they demote kids who don't 'play nicely' to lower sets as a punishment. So anyone who fouls too often, or talks back gradually sinks to the bottom regardless of their sporting ability.... "
If badly behaved children are demoted to the lower sets for PE then that is really wrong. It implies that being in a the bottom set for PE is a permament punishment. Children who misbehave in maths don't get put in a lower set. In properly run schools children who misbehave get put in isolation or sent to the head of year.
If it is really the case that badly behaved atheletic children get put in the lower sets then I think you should complain formally to the school.
Join the discussion
Please login first.