GCSE PE

[everydaysaschoolda]

Please can anyone explain this to me.

My daughter has been assessed on 1500m for GCSE PE practical assessment, she runs for our local club, she has qualified for inter counties and county level. Runs all the local events. She scored 14.5. This score is from the PE dept at her school. My daughter has run since primary school and is really dedicated, she worked so hard to get PBs especially for GCSE PE

Now I know it isn’t about comparing pupils but another girl scored 15. She only took up athletics for GCSE PE, my daughter bet her in every race by 20-30 seconds. This pupil did no running outside of school and hasn’t qualified at any higher level.

This just seems so unfair, should I contact the school to ask them to re-assess or am I being THAT parent?

Happy for someone to explain this to me if I’ve got it all wrong. I wasn’t educated in England and didn’t do GCSEs. Thank you

So it’s not about what your daughter scored, it’s the fact that the other girl scored more?
Yes , you are being ‘that parent’

That's a two edged sword though.
I coach a sport and there is growing understanding that over emphasis on competition is one of the factors that leads young people to drop out of sport and that there needs to be focus on the benefits of sport and exercise beyond "winning".
The subject is Physical Education, not sporting attainment and we're only talking GCSE here - it needs to be accessible to quite a wide range of pupils and placing too much emphasis on high attainment potentially excludes a lot of pupils. Personally, if I were in charge of the syllabus I would widen the types of sports that are eligible and replace one of the current slots with a non competitive physical activity, though I acknowledge the difficulties that would pose with assessment. But I'd like to see a move away from the perception that PE is a subject only for the "serious" sportsperson.
I do agree that it is unreasonable if higher attainment marks go to pupils who achieve less well though and maybe I've just been lucky but that didn't seem to be an issue at my DC's school. But there is a lot more to it than how good you are at a particular sport. There are other ways to assess that. One of my DS's friends in his A level PE class was literally world champion in his sport. My DS was not bad at his - he was on the talent pathway for his sport and got as far as national age group trials but wasn't selected, so not a world beater but not a complete duffer either. DS was top of the class and won the school PE prize after A levels. At prizegiving I overheard someone asking the friend why he didn't win the prize when he's the best in the world. He replied with something like "I've got a world championship medal because I'm the best in the world at my sport but I wasn't the best at A level PE in this class."
If pupils who really have no aptitude for sport and aren't putting in any effort are really getting higher marks for attainment than hard working competent athletes then these is something wrong, but I'd suggest that that is a school issue rather than an intrinsic flaw in the subject. But the best sportspeople shouldn't automatically get the best GCSE and A level PE grades. There are lots of rewards available solely for sporting performance but PE as an examined subject at school is an academic subject and there needs to be balance.

Great post @MrsAvocet and I love the comment from the world champ.

We need to look at what our DC are doing and how we can encourage them to stay interested in sport and activity. If GCSE PE attempts to do this, instead of simply giving the top grades to the pupil who wins, then that’s a good thing surely?

How is this fair when compared with other subjects like Maths where natural talent is definitely rewarded and no one questions it. It's completely absurd to mark down kids who achieve much higher results in their sports than their peers.

Or Music?

No one is scoring good grades in GCSE music because they've progressed from never having played to being able to play the recorder are they?

We were told they needed to be playing 2 instruments at grade 4 level or so to consider it.

It is really odd that those who are good at sport are not allowed to study and be assessed and get good grades to reflect their ability when that is the case in nearly every other gcse?

The concern around extending participation and enjoyment of physical activity beyond primary years is a whole other discussion and conundrum entirely. Changing the gcse requirements isn't going to answer that at all.

Because it is about health fitness and exercise as much as anything else and the theory not just sporting prowess

it isn’t sport gcse it is physical education there is a difference

@MrsAvocet thabk you as well you say what I am trying to say very well

PE is different to music PE and promoting health and fitness is vital do physical and mental health

plus you need multiple sports so very few are that good at everything

I agree that in maths (and other subjects) the highest grade does not necessarily go to the student who has made the most progress (tho that student will gain a higher grade) but rather to the student who attains the most (ie gets the most questions right) – which may ofc be the most improved as well, but that’s not so likely.

But in fact in a lot of creative subjects, which our DC are encouraged to take as a change from history and maths, or as a way of stretching themselves differently, improvement is a key criterion. Think about art, drama, food tech, DT – to some extent in the NEA for all those there is an element of award for demonstrating improvement, or how you would improve. The highest mark does not automatically go to the best performer or the best artist. That’s a good thing isn’t it? We surely want YP to have some hope that there is a point to their work and even if it’s not the very best, they can still score well?

In any case IME the talented sportsperson or artist or actor or musician will get a good mark. No one is suggesting that they should be marked down just because they are fast or skilful or brilliant on stage. Surely there is room for both to do well. It’s not a competition.

Creative subjects are somewhat different from things like maths and MFL where there is right and wrong answer or way to do the task. But it would be a poor situation if students felt there was no point them taking PE or art or drama GCSE, all of which can offer a great outlet and a lifelong hobby, if they thought “well James is so much faster than me so I won’t stand a chance.” We need to encourage our YP to stop comparing themselves to others.

We were told they needed to be playing 2 instruments at grade 4 level or so to consider it.
Well that's nonsense. You only need to perform on one instrument/voice and grade 4 standard performance by the end of the course will score highly if done well. My DC only plays one instrument and got a 9 at GCSE . Most of my DC's class played grade 4 level pieces even if they had passed higher grades as there is no advantage to performing anything more difficult and you are more likely to make mistakes and lose marks.
Much like PE, GCSE Music is an academic qualification and performance is only a part of it. There are pure performance exams and competitions which judge only that but lots of other components to Music GCSE - theory, composition, history and so on. It is true that you are unlikely to do well in the other elements if you are not keen on music and those keen on music are likely to be at least competent performers. But that's all you need to be really.
Someone who plays multiple instruments at a higher grade isn't guaranteed a better GCSE music result than someone who plays one at grade 4. (Though having done theory outside of school first doubtless helps.) If you played a grade 8 piece flawlessly for your individual performance you'd probably get full marks. But you could also get full marks for an excellent performance of a grade 4 standard piece. The higher achieving performer doesn't get bonus marks - both have met the standard required for the General Certificate in Secondary Education though one has reached a higher level in specialist exams . I don't think that is that different from PE actually.

My point was that grade 4 is quite good and certainly not in the reaches of someone who doesn't put the time in, have lessons and practice outside of school etc.

I think most people understand and accept this and dont expect their child to do well without the additional elements. PE is the same but posters here are arguing that it shouldn't be.

But in Maths, like in PE, part of the grade relates to technique and not just whether you got the right answer/ran the fastest. In my subject, a student who gets the right answer, but doesn’t explain how they reached that answer, will get a lower mark (potentially a fail) than a student who demonstrated their understanding, but went awry in their application.

The NEA isn't about health fitness and exercise though (for AQA at least). It is about performance and analysis of that.

Paper 2 is about the social elements of sport and exercise but paper 1 is about human biology and science.

There is not much of an emphasis at all on more general physical activity or movement.

That is NOT what I said at all. If you’d bothered to read my posts it is about fairness. My dd worked her ass off to improve, watched videos to improve her running, skills and tactics. We are very proud of her no matter what her score and delighted she has a love for running. All I want is fairness and consistency in the marking. According to the other girls dad, she hated running is glad it’s over, never wants to run again and didn’t make any great improvements. Of course my dd is allowed to feel a bit disappointed to find out she worked hard yet scored less than someone who admits they didn’t.

Go pick on someone else

I may have missed it, but I don't think I have seen anyone suggest that a pupil who doesn't put any effort in or have any aptitude for or interest in PE should get the same mark as one who doesn't? If that is happening then the school doing the assessment is at fault.
But it's a GCSE. It should be accessible to lots of pupils. And it's not a competition. The OP's daughter may be faster than her friend but that doesn't necessarily mean she should get a higher mark - they may both be in the same band of times but one demonstrated some other element better. And if a time under X seconds gets you full marks then getting (X-10) will not win you a better mark than (X-5). X should be something that is attainable by a reasonably competent 16 year old, not only someone who is on the Olympic pathway. It gets tougher at A level as you would expect, but this is GCSE and placing too much emphasis on high attainment potentially excludes a lot of pupils who would otherwise benefit from studying the course.
And with the music comparison, you don't actually have to play a grade 4 piece perfectly to pass do you? That will get you potentially the full performance mark but a easier pieces performed well and a good effort on the written papers can still get you a reasonable grade - it's not all or nothing. It's not a subject that only the best musicians can pass at GCSE.
A key difference is of course that PE requires you to present 3 sports. If you had to play 3 instruments for GCSE Music I think they would have to change the assessment criteria and accept lower standards or make some assessment of progress as in reality very few "ordinary" children play 3 instruments to the same standard. I bet schools would be starting recorder groups etc and there would be some pretty flaky "3rd instrument" performances just as lots put on badminton, table tennis etc for their GCSE pupils 3rd sport at not a massively high standard. Not many youngsters do 3 sports at a high level. In fact I'd say if you are really good at one sport you are less likely to do others due to lack of time. But the GCSE PE syllabus requires breadth, not excellence in a single sport. The marking needs to reflect that.

I may have missed it, but I don't think I have seen anyone suggest that a pupil who doesn't put any effort in or have any aptitude for or interest in PE should get the same mark as one who doesn't? If that is happening then the school doing the assessment is at fault.

This is basically what the OP was posting about I thought.

Good posts from @MrsAvocet.

Yes two instruments to grade 4 in year 9 is not needed, I am surprised anyone was told that. My DD took music and only ever played one instrument. And yes, to gain the level required for a high grade at GSCE there is no need to be playing grade 8 pieces. Better to play a G4 piece really well. In the same way in MFL (my subject) people are concerned about native speakers gaining the top grades – but in fact a GCSE grade 9 is very accessible to a non-native. The spec notes that native speaker fluency is not needed. It’s GCSE, not a degree.

And to use the analogy of the time that will get you the top mark and another student not getting a higher mark for beating that time – so for the new spec German GCSE you need to develop x number of answers in the photo card to y extent to access the top mark. You can do that in a fairly straightforward way (again, it’s GCSE and intended to be accessible to a decent % of students); you could also, if you were really keen, learn and use a whole range of extra vocab, idiomatic phrases and recherché uses of the conditional tense or obscure irregular verbs. Great. All good. Developing your language knowledge. Love it. Will it get you a higher mark than the top mark achieved by the student who did the relatively basic ask on the MS? Nope.

It’s true anyway as MrsAvocet notes that the talented musician will most likely do well at other aspects – just as a YP who is really committed to and keen on sport will most probably perform well in the other aspects of the exam – of which the NEA is a minority element – in OCR it is worth 30%. DS2 is smart, very sporty, very engaged in that subject. No he was not the best footballer or discus thrower in the country (or even in his club tbh). He was pretty good tho and worked hard and did well in the exam.

Surely the op was saying the opposite of that? as in that’s not what should happen.

I’m all for PE GCSE being about development as well as talent but I certainly don’t think that lack of effort should be highly rewarded. No one is saying that,

Fair enough, I could have phrased that better.
What I meant is that I don't see anyone claiming that sporting performance is irrelevant when it comes to GCSE grading, just not as important as some people think it should be, and not as simplistic as A ran faster than B therefore should score higher. In the sport I coach, and doubtless others, physique makes a huge difference and especially in the teens you often get a big gap opening up between those who went through puberty early and those who are a couple years later. So you see some kids winning events just by virtue of physical strength that the later developers can't yet compete with, even if they actually have far better technique. Who is "better" - the winner who lacks finesse but has the advantage of size and strength currently, or the kid in 8th who has a beautiful technique and has actually performed better than you might expect from their physical attributes? Even objective measures like PBs don't always tell the full story.
None of us can honestly say whether the OP's daughter has been treated fairly or not. I think she is completely reasonable to ask how the mark was arrived at, but to judge her DD's performance against the mark scheme not the other girl.
But I think the conversation has moved on from the specifics of the OP's daughter to how the subject is/should be marked. I stand by my earlier comment that the subject is physical education not sporting prowess and that the syllabus and mark scheme should not discourage pupils who are not high achievers on the sports field. (And my DS is quite a high achiever so no personal axe to grind - I don't want to PE to be seen as a subject that only people like him do.)

This is completely ridiculous though. Showjumping at the highest level in Juniors takes a HUGE amount of skill and the riding school kid wouldn't be able to get over a single fence let alone a full course on one of those ponies. It's a very technical sport that requires a lot of accuracy, skill, physical and mental strength. To score a riding school kid on a cob higher than a top junior showjumper just shows how ridiculous the marking is.

Just a quick update

The PE dept hasn’t replied to my email (asking for how it was marked) but they spoke to my daughter today and asked why she felt disappointed, she told them all the things I’ve mentioned previously, working hard, improving pbs, skill, technique, taking part in lots of runs etc. she mentioned the other girls score and said she felt she tried harder, worked harder and improved more (I’m not necessarily in agreement about her mentioning that) She has been told because the other girl is taller and has longer legs (my dd is short, only 5ft) that the other girl is easier to mark and looks more like a runner.
I don’t even know where to start with this. Wtaf???

Looks more like a runner.. wtf?

I would wait for them to reply to your email. If they don't reply contact the Head.

My dd feedback was her stride wasn’t long enough but if she’s only 5ft she can’t really have too long a stride, can she?

I don't think you can penalise a child for being short. Imagine you swop the word short for fat and then you are in a real sh1tstorm.

Interested to see how the school explain this to you..

What?! There are going to have a very hard time explaining how they applied the mark scheme with that nonsense. That’s outrageous.

What?! There are going to have a very hard time explaining how they applied the mark scheme with that nonsense. That’s outrageous.