What PE can Learn from Maths
Maths and PE have some things in common. Every pupil, in just about every school in the world, is compelled to take part in both from the moment they start school until - usually - the age of 16. That's 11 or more years in most countries. This presumably indicates that these subject areas are regarded as of considerable importance. In most schools the amount of time allocated to both is similar, at somewhere between two and three hours each week. Few schools have more Maths than this, but many schools have significantly more PE and Games.
Another similarity is that every school has pupils who are very able at Maths, and also have some who are very physically able. Sometimes they are the same children: often not. All schools also have pupils who struggle to learn Maths, and a significant number who do not find physical skills easy to develop - and others who have an aversion to traditional games and the outdoors.
But the are also differences between PE and Maths. Almost every school has intricate mechanisms for identifying the children who are slow learners in Maths. Specialist teachers sit in frequent meetings, carefully assessing which pupils require a more individualised approach. They recognise that some will learn these vital skills more slowly, will have more difficulties in doing so, and will never reach the dizzy heights of achievements of some of their peers. Exactly the same is the case with physical skills. But that is where the differences begin
Whilst every school will have small, specialist sets for the least able in English and Maths, with carefully targeted interventions from caring teachers, this approach rarely extends to PE. Few are the schools that carefully identify children who are physically illiterate, can't swim, ride a bike, run a mile, catch a ball, show determination or collaborate with their peers. Even fewer are the organisations which have remedial programmes conducted sensitively by specialists, tracking the triumphs of the later developers and slower learners.
The result is the adoption of labels that can last a lifetime. Many adolescents (and adults) readily identify themselves as "non-sporty". This is a conclusion they come to early in life through a combination of observing peers, listening to the lauding of competitive triumphs by their contemporaries, a rejection from school teams and lack of interest from "sporty" staff. Teachers like the kids who share their interests, and therefore the PE staff struggle to identify with the games refusers or those to whom physical skills do not come easily.
Is it possible to engage the least enthusiastic? Or is that unrealistic? Probably not by a traditional programme - or a traditional approach. It would depend on those pupils seeing a value in physical activity. A value that is different from success in games. They would need to see something worthwhile in the struggle to master running, catching, throwing, swimming, endurance and strength. But the benefits of these are intellectually indisputable, as is the impact on academic learning and health. The arguments are compelling. But much depends on how they are articulated, and the impact on self esteem associated with mastering them. It's all about culture. And how physical activity is positioned within a school. That's a choice that all schools make, usually covertly.
Schools choose what they value, and then reinforce this in strong cultural messages. Capacity in Maths is universally valued. Getting marginal candidates through Grade C at GCSE is seen as a triumph alongside winning Oxbridge places. Both are recognised as specialist teaching roles, and worthwhile achievements for a school.
Athletic prowess will always command the admiration of the young. It is strongly reinforced in most schools. The least able offer a school a different kind of challenge, though one that is rarely embraced. Competition is a zero sum game: there can be only one winner. Physical literacy is not limited in the same way: it is a positive sum situation. All pupils could improve physical skills: it just depends on the importance attached to this by teachers and schools.
Given that both PE and Maths are compulsory worldwide, presumably it is felt that they have potential benefits for all children, of all levels of interest and apparent ability. How far these benefits are delivered is a choice that all schools must make.
How is success measured? In this, PE has much to learn from Maths. The stellar achievements of a small number of able pupils are justifiably celebrated. The world of sport has mature ways of recognising competitive success. But maybe there are equal successes possible at both ends of the ability range. It's a matter of choice.