To think that PE could be reconsidered in order to be a more meaningful and enjoyable experience for secondary aged pupils (and primary too!)?

[EveSix]

This week, I'm hearing so many of DC1's school friends and parents express their frustration with the experience of PE in school (secondary age in our case, across several schools, two counties / local education authorities). So many pupils seem to loath it and struggle to participate with any real sense of enthusiasm or enjoyment.

In DC1's friendship group, PE gives rise to lots of anxiety about changing bodies and comparison; nobody seems to feel better for a stint on the field. I'm an active adult now and love physical exercise on my own terms, but remember feeling very much like DC1's friends when I went to school.

Looking at the National Curriculum for PE (KS3 copied in below), I can't help but to feel as if there could be another way of teaching young people to actually enjoy physical activity and feel good and safe in their bodies. There are so many ways to be active, and some of them, if approached sensitively and creatively, would be bound to appeal to kids who don't feel there is a place for them in PE lessons at the moment.

Across the schools I know, there seems to be a big focus on competitive team sports and track, which just isn't going to be everyone's idea of fun. I'm sure many more pupils with SEN and anxiety are exempt from PE than geography or food tech because it's can be such a high stress environment. When I exercise, I'm definitely not looking for a stressy time.

Does anyone care to join me in musing on what alternative provision and activities might be enjoyed more broadly if made available?
If you didn't like PE the way it was taught at your secondary school, is there an activity you think you might have enjoyed? Or perhaps a different approach to teaching PE altogether? Contributions from DC welcome!

YABU: young people just need to crack on with it; PE is character-building

YANBU: PE could be made more enjoyable and relevant to a wider range of pupils

My suggestions would be (some might involve travel to facilities not within easy walking distance):
Yoga
Pilates
Nordic walking
Mindfulness walking
Archery
Fencing
Badminton
Table tennis
Rollerskating
Ice skating (DC1's school is in spitting distance of an ice skating rink, for instance)
Gym sessions for cardio (exercise bikes, treadmills, rowing machines etc) and free weights

I am convinced that if I'd had the experience of learning to enjoy a range of physical activities that made me feel good about myself in a relaxed environment during OR lessons, I would have been happier in general at school.

Here's the the first part if the PE Programme of Study for KS3:

Purpose of study
A high-quality physical education curriculum inspires all pupils to succeed and excel in competitive sport and other physically-demanding activities. It should provide opportunities for pupils to become physically confident in a way which supports their health and fitness.

Opportunities to compete in sport and other activities build character and help to embed values such as fairness and respect.

Aims
The national curriculum for physical education aims to ensure that all pupils:
 develop competence to excel in a broad range of physical activities
 are physically active for sustained periods of time
 engage in competitive sports and activities
 lead healthy, active lives.
Attainment targets
By the end of each key stage, pupils are expected to know, apply and understand the matters, skills and processes specified in the relevant programme of study.
Schools are not required by law to teach the example content in [square brackets].

disclaimers about disabilities/sen aren't needed are they?

Yea, they are. I was called ableist for saying most people had the basic skill of running in hand.

Not so apparently and I am ableist for thinking it.

PE streaming is a great idea in theory except that some people might be fantastic runners but awful at team sports...how is the streaming decided?

I absolutely hated all team sports as I was uncoordinated, could never remember the rules, and hated being cold. Come the spring term and once we started cross country running and swimming and I was like a totally different child. The first year we did cross country in middle school, I came third and our PE teacher was literally open mouthed when she saw it was me.

Give kids a choice of what to do for PE and they'll be happy. Give them more flexibility in what to wear for PE (ie choose to cover up if they want to and not wear enforced shorts or skirts) and they'll be even happier. No gym in the land has a dress code as strict as a school PE kit.

My son is 14 and hates PE with a passion. He’s no good at football, rugby or cricket which seems to be all the school care about for the boys. He has a sense of dread when it’s PE day and this also leads him wide open for bullying as the boys who are good at sport gang up against the “nerds”
I was similar - luckily good at running so cross country was quite big in my school but rubbish at netball, hockey, rounders and always last to be picked.
I do take health and fitness seriously though and my 14 year old has joined my gym and loves coming and having a work out with me on his terms and with no one there to make fun of Him.
I’m not sure what the answers are but certainly less emphasis on competition in sport for the non competitive children and yes a wider range of choice - even just the choice to do your own thing - run or walk round the field , gym work out - anything. It seems presently pe only suits those who are super fit and competing anyway and building up a lifetime of dread of exercise for those who aren’t good at it. We need to change the mindset.

I think as one of the “unfit” people my views on how to teach PE to kids who are “unfit” are valid. As others have said, the problem is that all the PE teachers and policy makers are sporty people who don’t understand the needs of non-sporty people. They actually need someone like me on the committee to say “if you want to help people like me who are fat and hate sport then this is the strategy you need”. Because the current strategy only works for people who are already naturally sporty.

We've had school PE for decades and obesity has risen hugely during that time. Even if obesity was a result purely of lack of exercise, there is no universe in which schoolchildren get enough PE time at school to stop them becoming overweight. 'Traditional' (for want of a better word) PE teaching methods which favour the sporty and either ignore or humiliate the unfit are therefore an entirely useless tool for promoting health and fitness. PE lessons need to focus (as many schools now do) on exposing children to exercise as a fun and enjoyable pastime and sparking interests which can then be developed out of school.

Your views are indeed valid, I never said they weren’t.

But are they practically useful when you yourself don’t knowledge the importance of the subject.

And re current strategy, it doesn’t just work for sporty people.
It really doesn’t, poor management and a facilities and funding can make it seem thus though.

PE does teach health and fitness,
leasons are streamed and less able pupils aren’t grouped with those who would maascte them, and not all teachers are monsters.

There are some extreme views on here.

@Quincythequince

Sitting here nodding in agreement at your threads.

I love some of the assumptions about the sporty kids on this thread who like to compete. Painted as aggressive thickos etc that love to demean others. Honestly? What on Earth?

My oldest son is incredibly sporty. Plays at academy level football AND achieves academically. He’s kind and helpful too. Just a great all rounder to be honest. Oh he’s shit at art though, like seriously shit.

And all this talk of assessing someone’s run? These are mainstream kids we are talking about not kids with disabilities. They are able to put one foot infront of the other. Mumsnet has gone absolutely mad here!!!!

I agree but I'm not sure it even works for the 'sporty' (aside from being a chance to shine) given that most sporty children will be so not because of anything they've done or been taught in their PE lessons but because they have developed their skills and fitness at clubs and activities out of school.

I have a learned a lot from this thread and one thing I am certain of is that my kids’s school appears to be excellent at delivering PE.

It is one of the most sought after subjects at GCSE too - and most of those boys aren’t on al the school teams, there wouldn’t be enough space!

I feel very lucky to have such great teachers, I will be mindful of that. But I am also very happy I keep mine engaged when’re possible. Because exercise and fitness is important for good health.

Thank you dala and I know.

My eldest has volunteered in SSC since year 9 with vulnerable students as he has used it himself.

Good thing I’m not offended by the suggestion he’s a stupid bully (who also happens to be shit at art!)

So we’re talking about wealth then. Specifically parents who are wealthy enough to afford those clubs and activities out of school. I can tell you for sure that kids whose parents can afford twice weekly gymnastics and dance lessons are fitter than kids whose parents can’t afford them. And kids whose parents live in nice safe areas with big gardens are fitter than kids whose parents keep them in a 5th floor flat in a dodgy area. Obesity is inversely correlated with wealth.

I think the whole subject just needs a complete overhaul. We have zero chance of getting that though because once something is entrenched it is very hard to change it - all the PE teachers will defend the status quo etc.

PE clearly does not deliver healthy outcomes in terms of exercise. It may - may - occasionally deliver some sporting achievements but almost all sporting achievements come from those who do sport in their spare time.

If it was me I would burn the whole curriculum on a big bonfire and look at the question of 'how can we get our kids to enjoy exercise?' completely differently.

@Quincythequince

Bizarre assumptions all round. My sons school is that strapped for cash this year they asked each parent for an 18 pounds art donation. Voluntary of course but I happily obliged even though it’s not my sons thing. I would hate to think art lessons would have to be reduced on the timetable as I know some kids thrive in art.

Unfortunately I think you are right and I think this needs to be acknowledged. School PE is never going to be enough to iron out these inequalities when some parents have the time and money (and are willing to put the effort it) to take their children to these extra activities.

In our area, swimming lessons and one or two other activities a week (dance/football/rugby/judo), often with park run, swimming or bike riding at weekends, seems to be the norm in most reasonably well-off families. This is for children from reception age or younger. Plus sports camps in the summer.

And I don't buy the "PE is their one chance to shine so let them have it" rubbish either. Often the children who are strong academically also shine in PE (partly I suspect because they often come from more affluent backgrounds and parents have the resources to support them and develop their interests).

I suppose we need to ask ourselves what the purpose of the core PE curriculum actually is. It's obviously considered important by the powers that be as it remains compulsory thoughout the majority of the school years, even for those not taking it as an examined subject. I think it's almost unique in that respect.
So what is it for? To promote competitive sport, to encourage health and fitness, a combination of both, or something else?
Obviously as a HCP I'm biased and I think it should be mainly about promoting health and fitness, though I do think that competitive sport has a role within that. But there is little doubt in my mind that too much emphasis on competition is unhelpful for many.
I worked for most of my career in areas with some of the worst rates of obesity, both child and adult, in the country and for a lot of the children I saw, school PE was the only physical exercise they got during the week. And most of them were not well engaged in that. Of course it is a highly complex problem and changes in PE teaching won't solve it. But would be a step in the right direction.
Why can't the parents help those who struggle in PE? Well largely for the same reasons why a lot of parents can't or don't help their children who are struggling with maths or literacy I would imagine. They don't perceive it as important and/or don't have the abilities/resources/time to help. Should we shrug and say it's the parents' problem if a child can't read? Of course parents should be trying to support their child's learning, but if they can't or won't I think most people would agree that it is the school's job to do everything they can. So why not in PE? It's part of the core curriculum after all and has potentially significant effects on long term health and well being.
Again, I'm not saying the whole of the responsibility lies with schools. But some of it does. They are limited by available time and by costs of course, but I do think that many schools could do PE better. The anecdotes from some of the posters here suggest that some schools are doing better, so it's not impossible. I think the main aim of the core curriculum should be physical "literacy" for as many pupils as possible and a focus solely on traditional competitive sports just doesn't achieve that.

Sorry, that was to @Dadaya .

@carefullycourageous

My DD still enjoys PE despite being a natural sloth. She does not do sport outside of school. How can you say it doesn’t deliver her any health outcomes? It will get her heart pumping for a start.

If it was me I would burn the whole curriculum on a big bonfire and look at the question of 'how can we get our kids to enjoy exercise?' completely differently.
Its not about getting kids to enjoy exercise though. As evidenced by the huge number of kids who are forced to do PE and hate it. They do nothing to help kids improve and they don’t try to offer enjoyable activities or different options. It’s merely a box ticking exercise to say “we made them play cricket so we can tick to say they’ve had some PE”.

I agree. I also think one way in which school PE could be more valuable would be in linking children and parents up with free and low cost activities locally to do out-of-school.

@Goldbar

Whilst it is true you can shine in sports and academia that’s not always the case is it? My niece totally shined in PE but didn’t pass any GCSEs (lots of issues severe dyslexia, dyscalculia etc). For her PE was a lifeline at school. She’s since left and has managed to find a construction/building apprenticeship which will totally suit her need for a practical job role.

Totally agree

dd has terrible running technique. She’s hyper mobile, very high arch, pronates horribly and brings her feet from back to front in a curve not a line. Horribly inefficient. Has any PE teacher ever corrected her? Nope - just “try harder”. so she won’t even try c25k because she’s been told she’s rubbish at running.

also can’t throw/catch/hit a ball (bang goes team sports). But she can dance for hours and ski all day without stopping so it’s not a fitness issue.

I coach a sport and I am always aware that some people do have much more innate aptitude for it than others (body shape, propriocepton, muscle control or whatever).

there is no point trying to teach all the kids the same things in the same way. Give them options that will teach them how to enjoy being fit. Let them do c25k at whatever speed they fancy, listening to music or chatting. Getting out there and doing something is better than being put off for life, even if you don’t think they are trying hard enough. I might have been able to do 5k at 18 instead of 48 if I hadn’t been put off running for almost life by being forced to go too fast for my fitness and then failing to finish/being lapped etc.

and train teachers to look for physical issues (like pronation/weird gait) because these can be fixed!

It's true that the two don't necessarily correlate. The only thing I object to is the narrative that 'PE is where the non-academic kids get their chance to shine so the others just need to put up with it". It may be true, but it isn't necessarily the case - you may have a non-sporty child struggling with academic work who doesn't shine anywhere (and in PE this is made very obvious to their peers).

I love the way this thread presents all the exceptions as a rule.

How many kids have genuine physical
issues which means they can do no sports, versus those who have none and are just unfit and lazy?

I wasn’t aware we had a National epidemic or children with physical difficulties tbh!

I am not suggesting they do no physical activity. If you read what I wrote I said I would burn the current curriculum and look at putting in place something better. Obviously they still need some exercise. I just think it could be improved - a lot.

@DorotheaDiamond

They are teachers, not physios. Now I don’t know about anyone else but I can remember a few kids who quite clearly struggled with running/had very strange gaits etc. These kids were NEVER shouted at in PE, they were always just gently encouraged. It’s common sense and it definitely doesn’t take a genius to work out who is struggling and who is just being a bit of a lazy mare!

Clearly I had very good PE teachers.