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!

Music and GCSE PE both require a lot of outside of school input to get to a good level, especially music (which one of my DC did too).
I always think that PE and Music teachers have most of their work done outside of school, which is unfair on the other teachers!

Being disabled isn’t a barrier to GCSEs PE as para sport exists.
I know a number of physically disabled students who achieved a 9.

Surely you can improve your performance at anything, with practice? There'll be a natural limit to how good you can become, but you can improve. With PE you can improve general fitness levels as well as specific sports skills, to elevate performance.

So what if it does? You choose your best subjects for GCSE and not every child is academic so it gives them an opportunity.
My DD is obsessed with Classics and can already score a 6 on past GCSE papers (currently Yr 9). She's obviously going to choose Classics as a GCSE option, is that also not fair?

It is a non-issue.

I'm in Scotland and pretty sure the times that are required are different for each sex. Also, teachers can look at adjustments for disability. You could do swimming or running if you can't do ball sports. If you are very impacted by the disability, you can do boccia or goalball, specific disability sports.

You seem to be assuming that it is only worth doing an exam if you are going to achieve top marks in it.
Yes, everyone has to do maths and english but they are not all expected to excel. There is an expectation to apply themselves and do the best they can even if everyone knows they will only ever achieve a very low grade.
And maths and english are integral to our daily lives in a way that sport, art or music are not.

Actually I think PE is 'fairer' in that most kids will have some ability to do sports and learn the theory (which is not as complex as, say, biology). Of course there will be a tiny few who really can't do sports at all but since you can choose other options, it's really not a problem. Soooo many of the less academic kids did PE in DC's school. I think it's amazing there is a subject which motivates them. You don't need to be Ronaldo or Alcaraz! Just some basic ability (probably less than required for music or languages).

My daughter is enthusiastic but certainly not county level at any sport so I just feel it's all a bit risky. Unlike any other subject there has to be a different standard of assessment for boys and girls (we don't have mixed football teams for example) so I wonder how you show horn assessment with this obvious sex based physical performance divide.

I completely agree with the amount of outside work necessary and so it does favour time/resource rich parents.

It's just one GCSE but do feel it's a bit of a risk.

From the AQA spec on the practical element (which btw is less than half the GCSE in total)

• Practical performance in three different physical activities in the role of player/performer (one in a team activity, one in an individual activity and a third in either a team or in an individual activity).
• Analysis and evaluation of performance to bring about improvement in one activity.

So improvement is looked at. Pretty sure a student will improve at PE between ages 11 and 16, or even between 14 and 16. My DS did anyway. You need to be keen on sport of course but agree, nothing like national level. DS played footy for a local youth team, no more, and got an 8.

Also, as a parent of kids with wildly differing abilities, I can tell you that hard work won't get you even middling grades and very little work can get you top grades, across all subjects at GCSE. Some people just are not academically able especially the way we are assessed in this country at 16 (most countries are shocked at our system).

Yes - you have to take maths and English! And for a significant section of students there is a real issue with one or the other and tho they will improve, they won't achieve the standard that's asked for. (Not that I am against study of maths and English of course).

Why do you assume it's possible to get better at maths but not PE?

Have you never heard of growth mindset OP? The idea that you are innately good or bad at something is quite outdated. Of course people - children - have a greater interest or ability in certain areas, and not everyone can become an Olympic athlete or a professor of maths, but most people have the ability to improve.

You don't need many resources to do running. My friends child did park run for her assessment. You can make loads of progress in two years just going out a couple of times a week for 30 minutes.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.