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!

My daughters friend has taken sports GCSE. She has dyspracia and another mild disability. She is dreadful at throwing, catching etc. But she's doing well in it, they seem to value effort, resilience and participation.

My dd is very sporty and active but she has some developmental issues (genetic) that has meant she is prone to injury and her PE head of department took her aside and advised her not to do GCSE because if she was injured she’d end up failing.

I think it was sensible advice albeit dd said the conversation was pretty harsh: she was basically told she’s too weak to attempt it, despite having some natural talent. She continues her sports outside school and we have her doing heaps of physio so that should compensate and set her up for life we hope.

I think it’s just one of those things - we can’t all be good at everything. Not a terrible lesson to learn, you can still enjoy sport without doing a boring old GCSE in it.

So you’d be happy to be operated on by someone who was really awful at biology but tried hard?

Same with many subjects. Maths, music, English.

You absolutely can improve at sport with hard work and practice same as maths. You might not be able to achieve as high a result as someone with more natural talent but again that is the same for any subject.

Someone who is naturally good at maths will find it easier/more enjoyable to put in that effort. Same with someone who is good at sport. At least pe is optional.

Clearly there need to be certain markers of achievement when it comes to maths/writing ability, but applying this system to subjects like sport, art or music makes no sense to me.

My DC would do terribly in art or a MFL, so he didn’t pick them for GCSE. He’s good at sport, so picked GCSE PE. Should I complain that art or MFL’s are exclusionary?
It’s really common for posters on MN to have a snobbery towards PE GCSE, as it’s not seen as a “proper” subject. This thread is a slightly different take on that.

Have you read the specification for the subject?

As it seems from your OP that you haven't.

https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/physical-education/gcse/physical-education-8582/specification/specification-at-a-glance

Other exam boards are available

I took Maths O level (back in the day!) three times. Failed every single time. Practice did not help me one iota.

However, I aced languages and English, because I was good at those, and history because I loved it. It has made my CV somewhat - uneven, shall we say. But I never even thought about taking PE, because my strengths were on the academic side. Surely everyone selects their subjects according to what they enjoy and have an aptitude for?

Wish I'd never had to take Maths though...

Why? That makes no sense. Sport/art/music can be easily assessed against objective levels just as maths and English can.

if I am employing a music expert, I want to know they are objectively good at the subject, not that they improved from not having any talent to having a little bit of talent. The improvement for that person is good for them but doesn’t mean they are good the subject compared to someone else.

GCSE’s are qualifications- There is nothing more to them than that. Anyone can study music/art/sports or any subject for that matter for enjoyment purposes and even for their career. You don’t necessarily need the piece of paper to be an expert in it.

It’s not an either/or. Well, at gcse in some subjects a gifted student may not need much effort but they’ll need to put some effort in at A level/uni.

maybe at gcse there should be an ‘attitude to learning’ official grade…it’s an entertaining thought but that would be very subjective and penalize kids who have issues not of their own making going on in their lives.

But you aren’t forced to take it so you wouldn’t take it. I think you are projecting because of your vision (I’ve the same issue and am still pissed off at 53 at my mum being obsessed with me catching a ball and I just needed to practice like she did, no mother my eyes don’t work properly).

Why shouldn't a sporty child be able to get a qualification that evidences that ability? There are quite a few subjects that are only really accessible to those who have a natural talent or have had outside tuition/training already. My DS would never have chosen GCSE PE - not because he doesn't love sport and wouldn't find the academic side of the qualification interesting - but because he's never been sporty and knows he'd not do particularly well on the performance aspects. However, he knew that his ability on a brass instrument meant that the performance side of GCSE music would be a breeze. Should he not have had the opportunity to show off this ability by taking GCSE music? It's the same argument really. My DD is the complete opposite - born to be on a sports field - and I'm glad that there is a GCSE she can take that will allow her to evidence those talents. For optional GCSEs I don't see why this is a problem.

Firstly, you can improve at any sport. You may still not be good, but you'll be better than you were. The same is true for art, music, drama, and most subjects.

Secondly, I believe there's a sport for everyone. Suck at kicking a ball? Try swimming. Terrified of water? Try shot put. No good at throwing? Try skiing. Blind? Try tandem cycling. Etc. There are a million sports out there, most people can find one they like imo.

Thirdly, exams reward effort in the sense that if you work hard, you'll probably do better than if you don't. It's not a waste of time to do your best. But at the end of the day, in real life in absolutely everything there will be people more innately talented than you.

Fourthly, most people play to their strengths.

Optional subjects are there for students to choose what they are good at, surely? Much more unfair is the compulsory English literature for dyslexic students, for example. My dyslexic son worked his arse off for his 5 in literature, my daughter did very little study for hers and got a 6...

Great posts @mojobrojo and @LetsTryAgainNowThen - yes indeed, while you may never be Dina Asher-Smith, if you work at your sprinting (if you want to) then you will get better.

And yy for sure it’s reasonable that there are some GCSEs where actually, innate skill and previous practice can play a part. Thank goodness. Music, art, drama, food tech, computing – quite a few actually. None is compulsory tho. And tbh even if you do take one of the more creative subjects and it’s not one where you excel, there is still I hope something to be got out of working at it an dimproving?

(that said I suspect my KS3 art teacher was relieved I went a different way!)

DS has adhd and dyslexia. He was absolutely gutted in year 9 when he lost so many marks in his English papers for SPAG. He still has to take English, but at least he has also been able to choose subjects at which he may excel.

Of course ANY exam rewards those who are actually good at the subject. Don't choose something you are bad at!

I found maths, French and German super easy at GCSE, music doable with hard work and would have failed DT and Art if I'd spent 2 years doing only them (I didn't do them).

All GCSEs are easier if you have talent (although Art, Dance and Drama can be massive time sinks even with talent!)

No I completely agree with all of that and wasn't saying at all that fluency should be required. A 9 in GCSE French is still a country mile - and then a few feet more - away from fluency. You only need to listen to all the English accents - VERY, VERY LOUDLY BECAUSE IT MUST BE YOUR EARS NOT MY FRENCH BECAUSE I'VE GOT A GCSE IN IT - bungling their way through interactions in France to gauge that!

My point really was that if fluency doesn't move you very close to what the course seeks to reward, it perhaps is worth asking what they ARE rewarding. That's a point I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about - and have done with the school system ever since one of my dc who was a very early reader had a literacy alert on a nursery report because they didn't know their phonics at age 3. When I spoke with them they said "well the problem is your dc can already read so there is no incentive for them to learn their phonics." It did give me an impression of some very topsy turvy assessment criteria! But I have noticed a lot of that box-ticking style along the way as a parent, and in a professional role: assessment criteria are often aimed at levelling rather than rewarding real achievement. I understand the need for clarity and parity but it can create some odd outcomes. That was more what I was getting at.

My very sporty son got a 3 in GCSE PE. He didn’t do well in the written part.

From what I remember (and I need to double check it as DD will be doing it this year!), the
: Analysis and evaluation of performance to bring about improvement in one activity.
bit refers to the 10% written coursework element where they have to write about one sport, they evaluate their performance and ways to improve it.
It's not the 30% physical assessment bit where they have to provide video evidence, that is purely ability not improvement. This is AQA btw.

@Calliopespa lol at the people shouting in very bad French. At least they are having a go tho and not just shouting in English!

Maybe I wasn't clear. Fluency is assessed for all candidates at GCSE French – tho tbf only genuinely in the speaking assessment and then only as one AO. But if your fluency is so poor that you cannot be understood then you will not score well at that AO (and overall tbh as if the examiner cannot understand, then your content and language will get little credit; I have definitely known this happen). It’s just that native speaker level is specifically noted as not being needed – as people often seem to think it is.

Five marks available at AQA as you see here

At the end of the day we have to remember that qualifications are just that: qualifications.

If you are better at - either because you have worked harder or because you are, well, just better at it - you deserve a better qualification.

I don't see why sporty dc shouldn't benefit to some extent from that too. At the end of the day there are far more subjects that benefit innate academic ability. And as @limescale has pointed out, there's still an academic component to PE GCSE.

@DataColour fair point – the improvement aspect is analysis rather than your own sport improving.