Mandatory tests for PE in Schools

[verybusyspider]

This article

I kind of see where they are coming from but wonder how this will affect a childs self esteem if they are 'bottom'
I have a child who is hypermobile and struggles to run - this type of testing wouldn't help him at all....

They don't actually say what the testing might consist of, so it's difficult to say whether it is a good idea or not.

PE is part of the NC, so each child's progress should be tracked anyhow.

Right now it's just a "Call for...." rather than any specific plans. And bear in mind who's doing the "calling". It's a sports medicine specialists. Go ask a music specialist if they think music should be tested....you'd probably find they do.

Re: the self esteem issue, you could argue the same about maths or any subject. What about the self esteem of the child who isn't very good at it?

I'm just mindful that I was utterly hopeless at PE. I was always the last but one person to get picked for any team. The last was a lad who didn't even try. At least i tried but was just useless. My point is that I've done ok and I found I was good in other areas. It's important that children learn that they cannot be the best at everything and that it doesn't matter.

I am struggling to see the point TBH. It may be part of the NC, but I dont' see or understand why testing should take place.
IMO, it would be expensive to implement, presumably measurements of pulse rates would be done pre and post excercise etc.

'Let us achieve future success now by building in a PE curriculum that embraces push, pull, squat, brace, rotate, accelerate and change of direction."'

If all those aren't already in the PE curriculum then we have problems. They were there back in the 70s/80s when I was at school, and most kids can do them anyway. My ds has change of direction and acceleration down to a fine art when asked to help with the dishwasher. He can push the trolley around the supermarket as well, so he's half way there!

There isn't sufficient help available on the nhs/ education for children with physical disablities yet alone for those who are poor at PE. There is no point in telling Billy Bunter that he has failed his PE SATs and not offer any help with obsecity or teach him how to catch a ball.

I can see the sense in looking at physical development in nursery and picking out children potentially with dyspraxia for extra help. Being physically uncoorindated affects lots of areas of life. Its easier to work with a two year old than stroppy nine year old.

As niceguy2 says
"Re: the self esteem issue, you could argue the same about maths or any subject. What about the self esteem of the child who isn't very good at it?"

What's the difference?

In dcs' school PE is a compulsory BTech subject. Slightly awkward for dd who is pretty well disabled by Ehlers Danlos and can very rarely take part in any lessons, though she has been told she has a chance of passing by just doing the theoretical side of it.

I think the problem with this report of the proposal is they don't seem to quite have worked out what they want: is it going to be progress tracking of the SATS kind or is it going to be competitive? The sports medicine specialist quoted seems to say first the one and then the other.

English and maths aren't really competitive in the same sense that a race is: you are measuring yourself against set expectations, not against your friends; you won't get less of a 5 A in your sets because Emily's writing exercise was even cleverer.

I'd find it easier to have an opinion if they made themselves a bit clearer. But accept that it is not worse for my disabled dd to fail her sports assessment than for a child with learning difficulties to fail their maths.

Though given that disabled people can actually be very good at sports, even competitive sports, it would be nice to have flexible criteria, to acknowledge for the fact that you can be incredibly fit and sporty but not able to do certain things due to e.g. lacking an arm.

But kids do compare themselves with their peers. It's only natural. Even when my son was in year 1, he was already very aware which table he sat on in class and that he was getting harder work than the other tables to do.

My daughter's 15 and her friend was apparently quite down last week cos she's predicted a D in maths but most of her friends are expected B's and above.

So whilst it's not competitive against each other, human nature dictates otherwise and it does impact their self esteem.

DD1 is in Year 8 at a selective private girls school. Last year at the end of Year 7 she was part of the first year to take a P.E. exam with the other end of year academic exams, it was compulsary. It was very good for her.

It consisted of a paper about the rules for hockey and netball and a paper all about pulse, heart rate, muscles and healthy living. It was a good knowledge base for all pupils and I think it should be part of the curriculum in all schools.

There was no actual physical P.E. exam so everybody could take part.

My 9 year old ds would do very well if they yested in PE and physicality. He is very active, fast and agile.

He also has a spelling test every Friday and regularly comes out bottom in that.

All of his peers know he is crap at spelling and he has to deal with that, what's teh difference?

It's competitive in the sense that they compare themselves, niceguy, and there is no way you are going to get away from that even if you do not differentiate in any way.

But by the time they get to Yr 6 SATS at least they will know that there are also absolute standards of expectation and that if they get a 5 b they are doing very well quite regardless of the fact that 4 other children in the class may be getting a 5 a. It is still different from a system that is based entirely on ranking lists. You have a goal to focus on, rather than worrying about how the others are doing all the time.

As long as dd gets the As she needs in her GCSEs it won't worry her at all if somebody else happens to be top of the class.

As a uni teacher I find that the students who are very personally competitive tend to do less well in their studies; they focus more on other people than the thinking and stress more about someone getting ahead of them than think about how they can learn from somebody else's contribution.

I think this is an utterly dreadful idea. There is quite enough bloody testing in schools as it is. It's like some people want to eradicate any area of education that doesn't make children stressed and unhappy.

It also just further promotes the idea that nothing is worth doing of you aren't immediately and directly tested on it. Working in a university this is a real issue. Students are increasingly instrumental about their education and won't do anything if it doesn't contribute to their mark. At DH's university, attendance at lectures is utterly dismal (10-20 out of 80 students) because the students will only attend the single lecture that pertains to the essay they're writing. They don't want to learn anything if it's not going to 'count'.

I think this is quite a good idea as it will help quantify childrens fitness and schools can then use this to improve it. Competition also has a habit of increasing standards.

I disagree that competition increases standards for children who aren't any good at PE. The nature of competition is that most children are losers.

It does nothing to moviate the children who are bottom of the class.

The school I used to work at had skills groups as part of its curriculum. It was able to do this as it was a special school and was less constrained by the national curriculum. It allocated one lesson a day to boost skills in an area were the kids were weak at. It had mixed age classes in subjects like hand writing, social skills, anger management, PE, reading, maths, ICT to name a few. A child who was weak at PE would have 5 additional lessons a week of PE for half a term. I wish that mainstream schools had skill groups as well.

Really good posts, cory - very interesting thinking on the role of competitiveness. Thank you.

"As niceguy2 says
"Re: the self esteem issue, you could argue the same about maths or any subject. What about the self esteem of the child who isn't very good at it?"

What's the difference?"

Theoretically, none. Actually, quite a lot. I've yet to hear of someone being bullied because they're useless at maths. Children with physical difficulties are much more of a target.

some children take the pressure of PE. Others are depressed by it. All PE teachers are NOT sensible the Olympics will turn us into exercise fanatics for a while.

I didn't see anything that said the sports medicine specialist was asking for competitions or Grades A-E for PE! - more that pupils were taught how to run, jump, lift something, some fitness routines (everyone from a previous generation did star jumps or sit ups regardless of how well - not sure there is an "A grade" for a sit up anyway!.....there are some children now who have no idea what these are). I think that's all he's asking for, for children just to be taught these things so that they can be physically fit and take care of their own health and fitness when they are grown up.
Just like a home ec teacher might say it's important for all students to learn how to boil an egg and cook vegetables - but not necessarily to compete for the best steamed broccoli......

I would be all in favour of children being taught and encouraged to measure themselves against expected standards, even if it does mean that some children like my dd will be left out.

Encouraging children to compete too strongly within a small group can be less productive ime as it makes the not-so-high-achievers drop out altogether. In my school, the teachers were terribly keen on the high achievers, which meant the rest of us treated PE as a bit of a non-subject; we weren't going to win the race anyway and if that was all the teacher cared about there was clearly nothing there for us...

But learning to do things sounds good to me.

I had zero interest in PE at school (I had a very 'academic' bent and wasn't at all sporty) and I think a very regimented system with tests etc would have just put me off even more. In fact I probably would've taken pride in doing badly . Why not just encourage children to walk and play outside more, rather than introducing another dreary regimented testing regime into schools?