PE GCSE - rewards kids for just being naturally sporty?

Why shouldn't a sporty child be able to get a qualification that evidences that ability? There are quite a few subjects that are only really accessible to those who have a natural talent or have had outside tuition/training already. My DS would never have chosen GCSE PE - not because he doesn't love sport and wouldn't find the academic side of the qualification interesting - but because he's never been sporty and knows he'd not do particularly well on the performance aspects. However, he knew that his ability on a brass instrument meant that the performance side of GCSE music would be a breeze. Should he not have had the opportunity to show off this ability by taking GCSE music? It's the same argument really. My DD is the complete opposite - born to be on a sports field - and I'm glad that there is a GCSE she can take that will allow her to evidence those talents. For optional GCSEs I don't see why this is a problem.

But you aren’t forced to take it so you wouldn’t take it. I think you are projecting because of your vision (I’ve the same issue and am still pissed off at 53 at my mum being obsessed with me catching a ball and I just needed to practice like she did, no mother my eyes don’t work properly).

It’s not an either/or. Well, at gcse in some subjects a gifted student may not need much effort but they’ll need to put some effort in at A level/uni.

maybe at gcse there should be an ‘attitude to learning’ official grade…it’s an entertaining thought but that would be very subjective and penalize kids who have issues not of their own making going on in their lives.

Why? That makes no sense. Sport/art/music can be easily assessed against objective levels just as maths and English can.

if I am employing a music expert, I want to know they are objectively good at the subject, not that they improved from not having any talent to having a little bit of talent. The improvement for that person is good for them but doesn’t mean they are good the subject compared to someone else.

GCSE’s are qualifications- There is nothing more to them than that. Anyone can study music/art/sports or any subject for that matter for enjoyment purposes and even for their career. You don’t necessarily need the piece of paper to be an expert in it.

I took Maths O level (back in the day!) three times. Failed every single time. Practice did not help me one iota.

However, I aced languages and English, because I was good at those, and history because I loved it. It has made my CV somewhat - uneven, shall we say. But I never even thought about taking PE, because my strengths were on the academic side. Surely everyone selects their subjects according to what they enjoy and have an aptitude for?

Wish I'd never had to take Maths though...

Have you read the specification for the subject?

As it seems from your OP that you haven't.

https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/physical-education/gcse/physical-education-8582/specification/specification-at-a-glance

Other exam boards are available

My DC would do terribly in art or a MFL, so he didn’t pick them for GCSE. He’s good at sport, so picked GCSE PE. Should I complain that art or MFL’s are exclusionary?
It’s really common for posters on MN to have a snobbery towards PE GCSE, as it’s not seen as a “proper” subject. This thread is a slightly different take on that.

Clearly there need to be certain markers of achievement when it comes to maths/writing ability, but applying this system to subjects like sport, art or music makes no sense to me.

You absolutely can improve at sport with hard work and practice same as maths. You might not be able to achieve as high a result as someone with more natural talent but again that is the same for any subject.

Someone who is naturally good at maths will find it easier/more enjoyable to put in that effort. Same with someone who is good at sport. At least pe is optional.

Same with many subjects. Maths, music, English.

So you’d be happy to be operated on by someone who was really awful at biology but tried hard?

My dd is very sporty and active but she has some developmental issues (genetic) that has meant she is prone to injury and her PE head of department took her aside and advised her not to do GCSE because if she was injured she’d end up failing.

I think it was sensible advice albeit dd said the conversation was pretty harsh: she was basically told she’s too weak to attempt it, despite having some natural talent. She continues her sports outside school and we have her doing heaps of physio so that should compensate and set her up for life we hope.

I think it’s just one of those things - we can’t all be good at everything. Not a terrible lesson to learn, you can still enjoy sport without doing a boring old GCSE in it.

My daughters friend has taken sports GCSE. She has dyspracia and another mild disability. She is dreadful at throwing, catching etc. But she's doing well in it, they seem to value effort, resilience and participation.

Some people are gifted at a particular thing. They will find that they perform well in that subject without having to try too hard.

A lot of bilingual students take an addition GCSE in their second (or first) language. So some kids are sitting a GCSE testing them on their ability to speak the language that they have spoken since babyhood and in which they converse at home every day. This arguably gives them an advantage, but that’s just life.

Sorry @mids2019 I am derailing your thread with my MFL rant!

FWIW btw I know at least two (very academic) students who took maths, FM and PE at A level. And went on to maths degrees.

Having a large number of bilingual students at GCSE level is unusual IME. Maybe it is area dependent.

I taught MFL for more than 10 years and never had a bilingual student in a GCSE class. I taught a few students who were flagged as being bilingual (eg German mother) but in practice they could speak a bit more easily and that was about it. Some didn't even take the GCSE in the end.

My DD had a French girl in her GCSE French class. DS2 had a friend who was Polish and took Polish GCSE (which I would imagine does have a very high level of native speakers – but I bet also the majority of them get a top grade).

Genuinely I cannot imagine that this skews the boundaries. If you hit the AOs which is more than possible for a good candidate who works well, the you will get a top grade too.

And if we are complaining about anyone having to work hard to get a good grade at GCSE in something – that can only be a good thing. I really cannot see why "dedicating time to learning the language" is something anyone can get upset about.

Yes for someone French GCSE French is probably an easy win; GCSE English language probably isn't tho – so they will have to work hard there.

Why? Exams are a measure of your ability that’s all, no more no less. You might be a hard worker, which is an admirable quality, but ultimately for a doctor I want to know that they are very clever not just someone who has improved a lot!

DD took PE at GCSE level and has a physical disability. She got an 8, HTH.

She does not compete at an elite level and is a recreational sports person, She just loved the subject and her teacher.

op your posts sound a smidge ableist. Jog on. (see what I did there)

This is hilarious!

Maths is at least as innate as sport, and there are a lot of different sports you can do at GCSE PE.

OTOH, although some of us are more talented at analysis and others at geometry or statistics, there is a massive overlap.

I was naturally able at maths (still am I guess, although it does decline with age) and I never revised for Maths throughout school (obviously I worked overall and completed all homework etc) up to Further Maths A level, where I walked out of a 3 hour paper in 90 minutes, having completed and checked it (and got the highest grade).

I was less able at a high graduate level, but I don’t think I ever learned how to persevere until much later in life, which is the downside of finding school easy.

I feel sorry for the pupils who have no natural gifts, either sporting or academics. Many find their niches later, but school is quite grim for them.

I've always thought it odd and unfair that we reward natural ability across all subjects rather than effort/improvement.

In OCR 30% of the exam is performance. Picking sports carefully and learning techniques can result in good grades.
I think it's a tough GCSE because a lot of sporty kids are drawn to it, but then struggle with the science element and other parts of the quite considerable written part (two exams!).
I've an academic child who did well in the written test but not so well in the practical as the sports he pursues outside of school did not count, so he had to take some up that he was less interested in.
However, he's pleased he did it, he's hoping to pick up some work in a gym and feels this GCSE is a good one on his CV.

Same applies to all subjects surely. Kids who are naturally good at maths or science or reading/grammar/spelling or art will be at an advantage in subjects that need those skills. Hard work on top improves prospects too although most people will have a "ceiling of improvement", that's just life.

I didn't do GCSE PE but a friend of mine did and from what she said I was surprised how much of it was theory. Her homework was often stuff like preparing a diagram of a netball pitch with all positions listed and mark the optimum positions on the pitch for passing or shooting etc. It was sports science rather than pure PE. I was shit at PE but i think I could have done quite well at the GCSE! (This was in the early 90s though so it might be very different now. )

Fluency at the highest level is rewarded, of course. As in, if you are really fluent, then it is likely you will get a high grade especially in speaking, as long as you follow the exam spec and hit the AOs (like any GCSE tbh).

But fluency at the highest level ie native speaker level is definitely not required for a grade 9 at GCSE. Nor should it be (not sure if you are saying it should?) GCSE MFL is an intro to further study of the language, whether that be for personal use or for A level and degree. No one expects a maths GCSE to make you a mathematician, and maths GCSE does not require the highest level of maths skill (tho of course some students who are very good at maths will have that and will score highly). Same with MFL surely. A 9 at French GCSE does not mean you are fluent in French.

But that can’t be the case in practise. Only a small amount of pupils can get a 9. Every single bi-lingual child at my children’s school got a 9 and there were plenty of them. So that means that the grade boundaries have to be skewed even if those numbers are relatively small. it is impossible that they couldn’t have an effect.

there is also the unfairness of the opportunity cost of time. Non native speakers have to dedicate time to learning the language at the expense of other subjects that bi-lingual students don’t

This is nonsense. Of course people can improve at sport, otherwise why would people spend so much time training for them? Even the kids that say are "naturally" good at football are probably the ones who have been going to football club since they are 4, week in, week out.