PE GCSE - rewards kids for just being naturally sporty?

[mids2019]

My daughter is taking GCSE PE and I have to say looking at assessment I wonder if it is quite fair to rate on sport skills when some children are naturally good at sport and to a large extent skill and ability are determined by such things as hand eye coordination. Also if you have say a visual impairment I don't see how think can be fairly accounts d for in terms of assemsent.

Has anyone got children doing GCSE PE and is it a fair exam with the ability to score a high grade without just being innately good at sport. Seems to me if you are lacking for what ever reason you can't just work harder to be Messi or Emma Raducanu!

Isn’t that the same for all subjects? My kids didn’t do PE at GCSE, as they’re not naturally good at sports, but they were naturally good at maths and that gave them a clear advantage in that subject, a subject all the kids have to take whether they want to or are good at it.

You might as well say gcse maths rewards people who are great at mathematics. We all have our different strengths.

I don't see PE as being any different to say Art. One of my DDs slept walked her way through her Art course as it comes to her naturally, her twin couldn't have passed had she spent 24/7 working on it.

It’s more written/theory than practical.

Or music.

Inter what you are saying but you can improve maths with practise and dedication.

Sport on the other hand is more innate but granted there are maths geniuses that also have innate ability.

Art, music, drama. Yes, easier to do well if talented, but not the only factor!

I've no experience of gcse pe but surely it's the same for must subjects. Gcse music was easy for me back in the day. Some kids just "get" maths without having to work at it. Some have talents in art, drama, languages. If you are already working at gcse level at something as its your hobby or talent then it is obviously going to be easier to get a good grade.

Yes as others say, that's true of any subject.
Actually PE GCSE looks at improvement which is always possible. Absolutely no need to be a elite sportsperson to gain a top grade.

This is such a bizarre position.

All exams reward participants who are naturally talented in the area of examination whether it be maths, french, art or music. PE is certainly no different.

your post actually highlights a massive issue with the education system: the assumption that everyone starts from a level playing field and that exam results are predicated on effort and hard work. They’re not.

You could say the same about Art, Music, Languages. An affinity for these subjects will give a child an advantage over the average kids(not necessarily impaired in some way). To a certain degree even Maths and English.

Interesting there is a large written component which seems fair for an academic subject. I suppose maybe it's a deeper discussion but Glenwood want GCSEs surely to allow hard work, organisation and dedication to allow for high grades. I have monocular vision and can't catch a ball for love or money so how could I be assessed in such a GCSE? How do you couple physical disabilities and inclhsvity with a GCSE which seems at least superficially exclusive?

You could say the same about Maths for someone with discalculia.

Not every GCSE is easy, or even possible, for everyone. Nor should it necessarily be - they're an indication of someone's skill in a particular subject.

My youngest child has such a level of disability that she will gain no GCSE's, regardless of how much effort, but that absolutely doesn't mean subjects should be lowered to her ability level for every child.

If we have an exam system that doesn't reward hard work or you are randomly disadvantaged by genetics does this mean we have to think about the exams themselves?

you get into quandaries with athletics for example where someone could spend a huge amount of time and effort reducing their 100m time from 14s to 13s and yet someone may just be innately quicker.

also according to my daughter this is the only subject where there are real problem s with gender with boys being innately better than girls at an absolute level and there is no really satisfactory way to be gender neutral as in other subjects.

I think you pick the GCSE's that play to your natural strengths.
People often have subjects they enjoy more, have a natural inclination for, find easy, take to naturally. Some ppl just have an ear for language, some people are naturally numerate, some have great memories for facts etc.

If you are rubbish at sport don't do PE at GCSE.

There is a wide range of choices-i don't understand your position at all.

Why would you want to do PE if you physically can't manage it? There are other options! Should a french kid not take french GCSE because they have a natural advantage? The point of GCSE options is that kids opt for what they like / are good at.

Anyway in our family experience being "naturally sporty" didn't guarantee a 9 in PE GCSE!

Oh and of course you can improve sporting ability in the way you improve maths ability - with practice!

The idea that you can't improve sporting prowess with practice/ hard work is just wrong.

It's no different to academic subjects - much easier for some than others, everyone can improve their baseline.

Presumably you’d pick a sport that didn’t involve catching a ball. Running? Dance? Swimming?

Why would someone pick gcse PE if they're not good at sports? That would be as silly as me picking art when my artistic skills are on par with the average 8 year old.

Both my DCs did/doing PE GCSE. In the physical elements you really don't have to be super sporty, just above average sporty.
Unlike what a pp said though, they are not rewarded for improvement. They really don't improve that much through school PE even at GCSE . You've got to already be good at it, but doesn't have to national level or anything like that.

You don't have the option to not take maths or English and there is the expectation people can improve in these subjects. I think there is scope to improve in written exams but in terms of just playing sport you are rewarded for your talent. The problem with GCSE OR is that teachers don't tell children they are poor at sport so you do find people taking it that will find it a challenge.

As a child I was told I was just naturally bad at sports and as a result I never did anything physical or sporty until my 40s. Turns out I can certainly get better at things and enjoy exercise and I'm quite good (for my age!) at swimming and weightlifting.

It's such a toxic attitude this idea that you have to be naturally talented or just not bother. We don't tell children struggling to read that they're just unlucky to be shit at reading so just never do it.

I don’t see how there would be bias in the examination determined by sex? In the syllabus followed by DD’s school they have to “perform” in three sports, at least one of which must be individual and one a team sport. They are not graded in comparison with each other, rather on how they meet the grade requirements.

As others have said, a large portion is theory based and encourages some great reflection on sporting performance. Some syllabuses allow for coaching to be included (at least at A Level), and all allow a large number of disability sports to be assessed. The list of sports allowed is determined by the government and applies across all exam boards.

Why shouldn't sporty people have an opportunity to evidence their skill and knowledge in that area?

But as an aside, my DS did PE A level. First, the written academic element was huge and second he has a disability and was assessed on his coaching in that sport (and actually coached people with disabilities too) but I dont know if the criteria are the same at A level as gcse.

First post nails it.