Shaping up

Want high-quality physical education in primary schools? Give them a common framework says Jim Lavin...

In this new era of post-Gove euphoria we seem to have achieved a state of less government interference. Perhaps this is why the new, slimmed-down, physical education curriculum for Key Stages 1 and 2 seems to have aroused little concern from within the teaching profession. But in throwing out the old guidelines, we have not gained the advantages of autonomy. The freedom of primary schools to develop their own PE curriculum is not a freedom at all, because schools lack the expertise to exploit it.

Under the current requirements there are many obstacles to providing children with high-quality physical education. And with a lack of appropriate training and a pressure on schools to concentrate on the core subjects, we clearly need more guidance. We need to know what is appropriate to teach, and what the right expectations are for each age group.

Raising the bar

Without guidelines, insufficient training becomes an even greater issue. Many QTS courses offer very limited hours on the subject, even though it is probably the one area that raises most concern among trainees – especially when it comes to aspects of safety and behaviour issues. Research undertaken by Spence (2012) confirmed that the quality of PE training for primary schools was ‘woefully inadequate’, and a lack of confidence in the delivery of the subject was highlighted as a major barrier.

The move from university-based teacher training to other routes into the profession, such as School Direct and Teach First, does not seem to have increased teachers’ subject knowledge in terms of delivering the PE curriculum. The continued growth of free schools, which do not have to employ qualified teachers, hasn’t helped the situation either.

Then there is the elephant in the room: many teachers are reluctant to teach physical education. While primary teachers seem content to otherwise cover the full range of the curriculum, PE phobia is a real problem. You only need to look at who is given the role of subject leader for PE in the school. Often it’s one of the youngest staff, as if suitability for the role is simply to do with age. And then there’s the perceived stereotype that a male teacher will be more interested in sport, and therefore more suitable to anything linked to physical activity. On top of all this, PE phobia has led many schools to pass the responsibility of subject leader to a TA with a sporting background. Suddenly, it becomes the only subject in school not led by a qualified teacher.

Game plan

The lack of a framework is at the root of all of these factors, and it’s the greatest problem primary schools face in delivering high-quality physical education. When I run professional development sessions with teachers, their main concern is not lack of expertise, or poor facilities and equipment, but knowing what they should teach as part of the curriculum. They worry about the actual content of units of work, and of individual lessons. Moreover, they want to know when to teach these lessons and units in order to provide a coherent physical education experience over time, ensuring that pupils achieve progression, year on year.

It is worth noting that we used to have a well-regarded framework for the delivery of the PE curriculum. The 2000 national curriculum provided schools with detailed, non-statutory guidance for physical education. Many teachers will recall the ring-bound folder containing A3 sheets that provided ‘units in the physical education scheme of work’. There were seven units for Key Stage 1: two each on dance, games and gymnastics, and one on swimming. For Key Stage 2 there were no fewer than 28 units of work covering all six areas of the PE curriculum, with the addition of three more for the Key Stage 2 to 3 transitions. These units provided teachers with learning objectives, possible teaching activities and learning outcomes. They also included core tasks that teachers found useful in deciding what children could be expected to attain. These units were not part of the 2006/7 revision, and were certainly not considered for the current national curriculum documentation.

Mapping progress

Wiliam (2014) notes that a school’s assessment system has to identify learning progressions, establish checkpoints and set targets thoughtfully. Other school systems still provide structure and support for PE that serves to scaffold learning, and that have proved instrumental in driving up standards. So why not ours? Scotland has produced a worthwhile and well-regarded national curriculum (its Curriculum for Excellence), where health and wellbeing is given prominence and physical education, physical activity and sport are contained within this aspect of the curriculum. The documentation in this section covers movement skills, competencies and concepts; cooperation and competition; and evaluation and appreciation.

Each of these aspects is detailed in terms of what the expectations are for the pupils in each age group. It also includes a commitment that every pupil in Scotland will be provided with at least two hours per week of good-quality physical education in primary schools. This commitment is something the English national curriculum for PE has shied away from, to the detriment of the subject.

The Department of Education and Training in Western Australia provides a similarly detailed curriculum framework for its teachers. Learning is divided into early childhood (0-3), middle childhood (4-7) and early adolescence (8-10). For each of these areas teachers are provided with an online resource relating to purpose, phase of development, planning, content, references and assessment. They are also given progress maps to monitor students’ ‘achievement of learning outcomes’, and the syllabus is designed to ‘support teachers to plan and deliver learning, teaching and assessment programs’.

The progressive New Zealand model explicitly has four strands: personal health and physical development; movement concepts and motor skills; relationships with other people; and healthy communities and environments. The lesson to be learned from this arrangement is that physical education should not be seen as a stand-alone subject, that its success in developing active, healthy citizens depends on a range of factors, not just movement concepts and notions of physical literacy.

Finish line

In the absence of sufficient government guidelines, many schools are searching for an appropriate, detailed curriculum for physical education. There has been a rush from private publishers such as LCP and Val Sabin to provide in-depth schemes with a sound basis for learning. Perhaps the closest thing to a national resource for primary schools is ‘PE Core Activities Key Stages 1 and 2’ provided by 1st4sport, which is endorsed by the Association for Physical Education. The problem, however, is that schools have to purchase a particular scheme and implement it before they can decide if it meets their needs. It’s trial and error – which isn’t a good way to develop high-quality PE!

With an insufficient government framework, the lack of training and the marginalisation of physical education have been woefully exposed. More guidance is required to offer better PE teaching. Combined with the success of the PE and sport premium in providing adequate funding for primary schools, this could offer a unique opportunity for this generation of schoolchildren. Given a progressive, creative, innovative and inspiring curriculum framework, we could witness a golden age for the subject.

Five expectations missing from the PE curriculum…

• That physical education should be explicitly linked with health and wellness concepts.
• That there should be a commitment to provide pupils with at least two hours per week of good quality physical education
• A recognition of the cognitive and physical developmental needs of pupils in relation to movement skills, competences and concepts.
• Provision of a framework for learning so that benchmarking and assessment of progress can be made.
• That appropriate curriculum material should be freely available to primary teachers.