PE GCSE - rewards kids for just being naturally sporty?

You can improve sports /PE with practise and dedication.
My dc struggles with school and math especially. Being good at sports and PE makes him feel he's good at least in something. Is he not allowed to feel good/proud about that?

I agree. My son got a 9 in GCSE PE and only did football outside of school, in the same team he'd been in since U9, at a local club in a local league so very accessible to all. Everything else was done within school. His other sports were table tennis and trampolining neither of which he'd done before starting his GCSE course and neither of which he did outside school.
He does have natural sporting ability and picks up new sports very quickly which no doubt helped him achieve a high grade but he had to work hard too

You can improve athletic skills with practise and dedication too.

I really can’t see you have a point here.

All subjects are like this. My DD is very uncoordinated.Has never been the first pick on a sports team in her life. She got a 9 at GCSE Maths and A*s at Alevel and further maths due to some degree of inate mathematical ability. Some of her sporty friends struggled to get 4/5s at GCSE but neither would judge the other of taking undue advantage of natural ability. You do what you enjoy and play to your strengths.

I did PE GCSE many years ago (it was compulsory at my school)...

I was not at all sporty...picked last, slow runner, couldnt really throw or catch etc, but I got an A* as (for me) the exams were easy....I think I must have literally got 100% in the exam as I think I had a D in the practical 😆

So you can 'beat' the system

I'd agree that once you start into exams, you should be choosing subjects that you have some affinity with (apart from the important basics). The thing I found about PE (and Art) at school was that they seemed unique amongst the subjects in that they didn't seem to have to actually teach kids how to get better. I didn't foster a growth mindset in these subjects until into my 40s, because all the lessons at school seemed to involve having a go, then getting a sigh and an eyeroll when you weren't immediately any good. That was the 90s mind you, I really hope things have moved on!

Is the thread basically about the fact your kid wants to take PE at GCSE and you think it's a waste of a subject?

Having different benchmarks for boys and girls in sports isn't shoe horning anything in - it's standard practise to account for the different physical strength in sports. At every level.

You joking right? Have you never seen any wheelchair sports, blind football, swimmers with missing or no limbs etc they are phenomenal athletes! I’m sure they outclassed those without disability at gcse p.e

But I don't think PE and Further Maths is.

Maths is an excellent, broad skill. Further Maths is something different.

You're wrong on how much of PE GCSE relies on natural sporting ability. If your DC is not sporty I wonder why they want to take it. Best to talk to the teacher so they can explain it to you.

I don't wholly disagree with your observation, but I do think that raises a bit of a concern with the syllabus content and the way it is being marked.

Surely the real point of a MFL is to have the skill of being able to communicate in it, and if fluency isn't rewarded at the highest level in terms of GCSE results, it is a bit of a worry.

But I reiterate that I don't disagree with you. Lots of GCSE papers are heavily driven by a formulaic "model approach" rather than real skill.

I was terrible at sports. I didn’t do GCSE but my teacher put some of us through the sports leader award.
That got me a qualification in coaching - I didn’t have the talent for sport but I had the smarts for rules etc to be a referee and teaching it had I wanted to go down that route.

I would also add that maths and pe is a very common combination at A level.

I’m shit at sport so I didn’t take PE GCSE. I’m good at Art so I took Art GCSE. Surely everyone plays to their strengths?
I have one DD who would never consider PE GCSE, and one who plays academy football and will probably want to take it.

BTW just to counter the "PE is not academic" narrative – my DS did PE GCSE, PE A level (! the horror!) and also maths (not unusual to combine the two IME), and is now doing a masters (not in PE) at uni.

That's really not the case for the tiny % of bilingual students taking MFL GCSE (which a number of schools insist everyone takes). There is no need for native speaker ability (even at A level actually) as is stated in the spec.

The boundaries really are not skewed. A student who works hard and uses good exam technique can score as well as one who is a native speaker. I examine MFL speaking assessments and I have seen that in practice just this year actually. I really hope non-native-speakers are not put off MFL GCSE.

My son did AQA, no need to be county level and no need to do anything outside of school at his school or at his friends schools.

It was 30% of the grade and children who didn't make the school football team were getting 17/25 for football.

My son got 20 for athletics and he has never run competitively.

Part of the score is on technical ability which can be practiced.

There are plenty of sports like table tennis and badminton that with practice children can get decent scores if they are not that sporty

Of course you can improve your sports in 3 years! With hard work.
Most kids will improve say their run times in that period merely from getting older and taller! But with regular running most people improve.
And the practical part of the GCSE is small and split between 3 sports. So each one doesn't have that much weight.
If your DD would like to do the GCSE I wouldnt think its a massive risk as such.
The main issue with PE GCSE is providing video evidence. I got sick of standing in a muddy field somewhere trying to record my DD doing cross country!
Most people are not naturally talented at sport. Those that appear that way have played their sport from a young age. And enjoyed it. And therefore already worked hard at it. Setting then up for GCSE. Just like all those years of Maths and Enlish gets one to that point too.

I think you are slightly missing the point with all this tbh.

Maths and English are compulsory because they cover basic skills needed for life. You can improve a few grades by working hard, but you can't transform yourself into a natural mathematician.

PE isn't compulsory because it is only really needed (or useful) if you want to pursue a career related to it.

Some people are naturally good at maths and I would say that plenty couldn't achieve highly in, say, Further Maths, for all the dedication they might throw at it. Music is very similar: some people are tone deaf and, even for non-practical aspects, that can make it harder to discern aspects of style etc. As others have said, some people can' t draw, and some people have a good ear for languages.

People just have different strengths.

PE is added to allow students who have a particular strength in that area to shine. To be honest, few people who are whizzes at further maths or Latin are likely to be taking PE in reality as they sit at opposite ends of an academic spectrum and lead to very different sorts of careers, so I wouldn't worry too much about them.

PE is there to even things up for DC who are sporty rather than academic and will find their path in a different direction. I can't see the problem with that.

I actually think btw that language GCSE’s are the worst as they reward bi-lingual children for having parents who have brought them up speaking a second language. Not only are they pretty much guaranteed a top grade, they skew the grade boundaries so it’s much harder for non bilingual speakers to reach the standard required for an 8/9.

I think you are looking at this wrong. The point of people picking options is that children start to pick subjects that play to their individual strengths. No one should take art/music/sport unless they have an underlying talent. Same for languages also so is frustrating so many children are forced to do them when they really have zero talent for it.

english and maths are different as they are basic skills that every child needs to meet a minimum standard.

This . I could no more do PE at GCSE than I could play a violin. We all have strengths and aptitudes for things and other areas where we are , at best, just above hopeless. I couldn't hit a cows arse with a giant shovel but I was fantastic at written subjects and took O level ( I'm old) English language a year early and got an A.I took O level maths twice to scrape a C. Written work enjoyable, successful, really enjoyed it. Maths just about made my brain explode.

This position comes from a place of thinking whereby everyone should be rewarded for effort first and foremost. I believe this is the reason behind many problems that our country currently faces. "Here, have a medal for trying" sounds nice but does absolutely nothing to foster a culture of excellence in society. Where is the motivation to excel? What does this do for the kids who do excel but who end up getting the same award as everyone else?

Its the same for all subjects. Some people will find it easier than others. My DD will excel in her Maths/Science zgCSEs and have to work her socks off for a 4/5 in English. That's just how it is.

But being on the national team for your sport won't make you any better at the scientific parts of GCSE PE for example.

I took art at school as didn't want to do drama or PE as rubbish and shy and failed art because guess what? Im rubbish at that so total waste of time.

My son is sporty but struggled academically with the theory side of PE so guess what? He failed that so he was at zero advantage whatsoever.

You also had to be playing some kind of sports to apply for Pe GCSE to.