PE GCSE - rewards kids for just being naturally sporty?

Totally agree

My DS did GCSE and A level PE. Being "naturally good at sport" is not enough to get you good grades and in fact the teachers stressed that to pupils and parents in the run up to choosing GCSE options. Lots of kids seem to think that being good at football guarantees them a good PE GCSE and it absolutely doesn't. Of course having a natural ability helps, just as having natural ability helps in most subjects but you still have to work at it.
At GCSE the focus of the practical component is in fact improvement so you can score quite well without being a particularly talented sports person. And you still need to get good marks on the theory to get a good grade overall, no matter how talented you are on the sports field. A level is a bit different in that the practical assessment does measure absolute performance more than improvement and you do need to be at quite a high standard to score well, but the majority of the marks are still from the theory papers which are largely science based. To get a high grade you need to score well in all components of the course - top practical marks can't override a poor performance in the exams.
It's an optional subject and it seems unlikely that anyone would take it if they weren't interested and had at least some ability in sport. It's no more discriminatory than any other subject with a practical element such as music, art, drama, dance etc. Nobody would take GCSE music if they can't play an instrument or sing, art if they're totally uncreative or dance if they've got 2 left feet.
Disabled students can still do PE GCSE as there is activity adjustment process that the school can apply for to ensure fair access and there's a good range of sports you can choose from beyond the ones provided in most schools. Personally, the only thing I would change is remove the requirement for all 3 of the sports at GCSE to be competitive as I think it would be good to include things done for personal fitness. I guess that would be hard to assess though. But otherwise it's a perfectly good subject. Yes, it favours those with natural talent to some degree but what exam doesn't? I found maths and science easy and intuitive. I got the highest possible grades in my O and A levels with fairly minimal effort. There were kids in my class who worked their socks off and never got anywhere near my exam results. Whether that is "fair" or not, it's reality.

I don't think you have to be 'Messi' or 'Emma Raducanu' to pass GCSE P.E, not even an A*.

I doubt you can pass an English literature GCSE without ever reading outside school either. I don't understand why you sport is being singled out

It isn't different in terms of fairness from other exams. In terms of disability, of course many SENs will make specific subjects difficult for specific individuals. But every individual has strengths and weaknesses, and at least with PE, it's not something you have to take.

If he'd only done music at school, it would have been impossible to pursue a music gcse.

Yes that was also our experience. Tbh music GCSE is not advisable without taking music externally IMO. PE is less of an issue – DS offered one sport that he solely undertook in school and he was not alone in this – but for sure if a student already plays footy or swims or skis or does athletics outside school then that will help.

Meant to say (but was too late to edit) that wrt my comments about native speakers missing the point, and fluency in the speaking exam – ofc that is only 25% of the overall GCSE; I would expect a native speaker to be able to do very well on reading and listening papers for sure and writing too if they work to the spec. But while listening skills may come to the fore, fluency of speech/pronunciation is no help (and digressing badly is not going to be such a hindrance apart from in the writing!).

Surely part of the point of having options at GCSE is that it allows students to pursue subjects that they have a natural talent for, or at the very least a strong interest in?

As for improving sporting ability - it very much depends on the 3 sports chosen. My DS did road cycling and cricket for 2 of his and school did no road cycling at all (not even a trip to the velodrome) and very little cricket. They seemed to be playing football or rugby 90% of the time, and as much as it was good for general fitness, it wasn't helping his performance coursework.

Also with Music GCSE, the teacher did absolutely nothing to teach him how to play the piano. If he'd only done music at school, it would have been impossible to persue a music gcse.

Many vision impaired pupils take GCSE PE. It can be adapted quite easily. VI Boccia or goalball can be played instead of other more contact team sports such as netball or football. Individual sports can be anything really- running with a sighted guide, swimming, dance etc

Oh but an interesting one! Please start it!

@Calliopespa yes at GCSE IME most native speakers will gain a 9. The only time they wouldn't would be if they had massively missed the exam spec and so when asked Where did you go on holiday? just answered "France" without any development. As you actually might in a genuine conversation! But while I have known native speakers not always show off the best of their skills because they are trying to make the conversation too much like a real conversation (I had a candidate like that this year) I would be very surprised if even that candidate did not gain a 9.

It’s a very different story at A level but that's a whole other thread.

and fwiw I don't think it's "unfair" if a bilingual student does get a 9easily. Qualifications are to evidence skills and if they have it, they have it.

Thanks, Yes I had realised fluency wasn't needed for a 9 and don't think it should be.

It's more that I'd hope a native speaker could pull themselves together and follow the criteria sufficiently well to get a 9! IME most of them do though?

@DataColour fair point – the improvement aspect is analysis rather than your own sport improving.

At the end of the day we have to remember that qualifications are just that: qualifications.

If you are better at - either because you have worked harder or because you are, well, just better at it - you deserve a better qualification.

I don't see why sporty dc shouldn't benefit to some extent from that too. At the end of the day there are far more subjects that benefit innate academic ability. And as @limescale has pointed out, there's still an academic component to PE GCSE.

@Calliopespa lol at the people shouting in very bad French. At least they are having a go tho and not just shouting in English!

Maybe I wasn't clear. Fluency is assessed for all candidates at GCSE French – tho tbf only genuinely in the speaking assessment and then only as one AO. But if your fluency is so poor that you cannot be understood then you will not score well at that AO (and overall tbh as if the examiner cannot understand, then your content and language will get little credit; I have definitely known this happen). It’s just that native speaker level is specifically noted as not being needed – as people often seem to think it is.

Five marks available at AQA as you see here

From what I remember (and I need to double check it as DD will be doing it this year!), the
: Analysis and evaluation of performance to bring about improvement in one activity.
bit refers to the 10% written coursework element where they have to write about one sport, they evaluate their performance and ways to improve it.
It's not the 30% physical assessment bit where they have to provide video evidence, that is purely ability not improvement. This is AQA btw.

My very sporty son got a 3 in GCSE PE. He didn’t do well in the written part.

No I completely agree with all of that and wasn't saying at all that fluency should be required. A 9 in GCSE French is still a country mile - and then a few feet more - away from fluency. You only need to listen to all the English accents - VERY, VERY LOUDLY BECAUSE IT MUST BE YOUR EARS NOT MY FRENCH BECAUSE I'VE GOT A GCSE IN IT - bungling their way through interactions in France to gauge that!

My point really was that if fluency doesn't move you very close to what the course seeks to reward, it perhaps is worth asking what they ARE rewarding. That's a point I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about - and have done with the school system ever since one of my dc who was a very early reader had a literacy alert on a nursery report because they didn't know their phonics at age 3. When I spoke with them they said "well the problem is your dc can already read so there is no incentive for them to learn their phonics." It did give me an impression of some very topsy turvy assessment criteria! But I have noticed a lot of that box-ticking style along the way as a parent, and in a professional role: assessment criteria are often aimed at levelling rather than rewarding real achievement. I understand the need for clarity and parity but it can create some odd outcomes. That was more what I was getting at.

I found maths, French and German super easy at GCSE, music doable with hard work and would have failed DT and Art if I'd spent 2 years doing only them (I didn't do them).

All GCSEs are easier if you have talent (although Art, Dance and Drama can be massive time sinks even with talent!)

Of course ANY exam rewards those who are actually good at the subject. Don't choose something you are bad at!

Great posts @mojobrojo and @LetsTryAgainNowThen - yes indeed, while you may never be Dina Asher-Smith, if you work at your sprinting (if you want to) then you will get better.

And yy for sure it’s reasonable that there are some GCSEs where actually, innate skill and previous practice can play a part. Thank goodness. Music, art, drama, food tech, computing – quite a few actually. None is compulsory tho. And tbh even if you do take one of the more creative subjects and it’s not one where you excel, there is still I hope something to be got out of working at it an dimproving?

(that said I suspect my KS3 art teacher was relieved I went a different way!)

DS has adhd and dyslexia. He was absolutely gutted in year 9 when he lost so many marks in his English papers for SPAG. He still has to take English, but at least he has also been able to choose subjects at which he may excel.

Optional subjects are there for students to choose what they are good at, surely? Much more unfair is the compulsory English literature for dyslexic students, for example. My dyslexic son worked his arse off for his 5 in literature, my daughter did very little study for hers and got a 6...

Firstly, you can improve at any sport. You may still not be good, but you'll be better than you were. The same is true for art, music, drama, and most subjects.

Secondly, I believe there's a sport for everyone. Suck at kicking a ball? Try swimming. Terrified of water? Try shot put. No good at throwing? Try skiing. Blind? Try tandem cycling. Etc. There are a million sports out there, most people can find one they like imo.

Thirdly, exams reward effort in the sense that if you work hard, you'll probably do better than if you don't. It's not a waste of time to do your best. But at the end of the day, in real life in absolutely everything there will be people more innately talented than you.

Fourthly, most people play to their strengths.