The PE Shift: Why Physical Literacy Matters
By Nigel Green, Chair of IPLA
In July 2024, the Government commissioned Professor Becky Francis CBE to convene and chair a panel of experts to conduct the Curriculum and Assessment Review. This has now been published. The following comments are reflections on the review and more particularly how physical literacy could be key in the final recommendations and the resulting curriculum and assessment plan.
The Curriculum and Assessment Review provides an opportunity for physical literacy to be a central focus in supporting the final curriculum guidelines for PE and Dance. The concept provides a foundation that focuses on a more holistic, inclusive and relevant curriculum offer that should encourage all young people to be active for life. However, although there is much to celebrate, there are still concerns, as highlighted in this reflection.
The Government’s stated mission in the executive summary is to break down barriers to opportunity by equipping children and young people with the knowledge and skills to adapt and thrive in the world and the workplace. Unfortunately, this misses out the importance of attitudes and behaviours, which, from a physical education perspective, allows a focus on young people developing not only the knowledge and skills, but also the positive attitudes and behaviours that lead them to engage in physical activity for life. Later in the document there is a statement that suggests that ‘schools should support the full development of their students and prepare them for their future life and work’, so the intention is there, but perhaps not from a holistic development perspective.
The suggestion is that the current architecture of key stages is broadly working well, and the government intend to recommend retaining it. However, as we know, children arrive at school with widely differing experiences and capabilities and structuring work in a key stage format can stifle the idea of progression in learning according to the needs of the individual rather than the more general progress within a ‘key stage’. The document suggests that coherent curricula are ‘articulated over time as a sequence of topics and performances that are logical and reflect, where appropriate, the sequential or hierarchical nature of the disciplinary content from which the subject matter derives’. PE therefore needs to ensure it has a clear and progressive nature, and that transitions between the key stages are smooth for all children. Updating the subject aims for each key stage is welcomed as there is currently a lack clarity which poses challenges for specialists and non-specialist PE teachers in planning and teaching high-quality lessons to meet diverse needs and achieve broader educational outcomes.
It is clear that the EBacc performance measures within the wider accountability framework, have impacted on young people’s choices and outcomes, especially in relation to the ‘lower status subjects’ like PE. It will be good if this measure is removed, and all subjects are valued equally. Progress 8, if it continues in the current format, should also have PE included within it.
The importance of English, Maths and Science has once again been reinforced, however if we think back to Covid, when apart from food and medicine, physical activity was highlighted as the next most important aspect of our lives. It would be refreshing to see the new curriculum value physical education, as a vehicle to promote physically active lifestyles, and value it as highly as the Core Subjects.
The Review also suggests that it wants to ensure that the assessment system captures the strengths of every young person and has the right balance of assessment methods, while maintaining the important role of examinations. It considers that the system is broadly working well, and there is an intention to retain the mainstay of existing arrangements. This clearly misses the opportunity to allow young people to demonstrate what they can do in a practical situation, where not only knowledge and skills can be demonstrated, but also life skills, which are so important to individuals for their future lives.
PE is a National Curriculum subject that must be provided by all schools, at Key Stages 1 – 3. It becomes a Foundation subject at Key Stage 4 and must be taught, but not necessarily assessed. This lack of compulsion for assessment at Key Stage 4 effectively lowers the status of the subject. If we want an active, healthy, flourishing population, then measuring how young people value and engage in physical activity could provide a focus for PE. It would also allow us to judge the effectiveness of the PE curriculum and teaching strategies in encouraging everyone to be active for life.
It is interesting to see how the number of candidates for GCSE PE has declined (19% to 11%) as the subject has developed into a more academic and scientific subject rather than celebrating the physical, cognitive, affective and social domains that are clearly developed within the subject and would be of great value if they were assessed. The original PE qualifications from the 1980’s had a significant focus on these aspects, but unfortunately the scientific emphasis was forced into the subject, along with the increased examination weighting, inevitably turned off those who excelled in this practical subject.
The report highlights the UK Chief Medical Officers guidelines for physical activity and notes that a secure grounding in PE at school is important for developing children’s skills and confidence to be physically active, ultimately reducing the risk of coronary heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes and non-physical issues such as social isolation. Why is there no mention of the motivation and cognitive benefits that can occur through high quality PE experiences?
Schools are strongly encouraged to deliver a minimum of 2 hours of PE per week, yet UNESCO recommends a minimum of two hours of physical education per week at the primary level and at least three hours at the secondary level. Surely, we should be more ambitious and considerate as a nation and look to other nations who are providing up to one hour a day.
The concern that, nationally, PE varies in quality, is noteworthy. Also significant is the fact that four out of 10 primary schools (40%) used external PE teachers or providers, such as coaches to provide physical education. Some of these may well provide more positive experiences than teachers who lack training and enthusiasm for the subject. However, Quality Physical Education (QPE) is considered as an essential component of a well-rounded education that promotes the physical, cognitive, social and emotional well-being of students (UNESCO, 2015). It goes beyond simply engaging students in physical activity, as it aims to develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to lead healthy, active lifestyles (Hardman and Marshall, 2009). In this respect QPE acts as the foundation for a lifelong engagement in physical activity and sport, fostering physical literacy, which is the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and engage in physical activity for life (IPLA, 2017). It is essential then, that teachers of physical education are well trained and qualified.
In the Call for Evidence, it was suggested that the statement of purpose in the national curriculum is no longer appropriate, and that there is too much emphasis on success in competitive sport. Also indicating that England is an international outlier in this regard: as the 2019 OECD report found that many countries are shifting towards a more holistic curriculum that balances competition and sports with other less competitive dimensions. England is referred to as a ‘notable exception’, with competitive sports ‘becoming an increasingly central component in the PE national curriculum’. The OECD report found that this could be limiting participation among
certain groups of students. The Review acknowledges the importance of striking a balance between competition and inclusive participation. However, the suggestion that England’s distinctive approach to competitive sport in schools should be recognised and celebrated is somewhat concerning, given all the evidence to the contrary. Sport has the potential to
foster mastery, confidence, and motivation, and allow some students the chance to realise their talents at the highest level. However, as suggested, PE must serve broader purposes. It should engage and motivate all young people. It is welcome that the Review recommends that the defined purpose of compulsory PE is broadened to reflect the role it plays in pupils’ holistic development, emphasising the subject’s physical, social, cognitive, and emotional benefits. Clearly here, there is an opportunity to acknowledge the concept physical literacy, with it holistic, inclusive and individual focus.
Stakeholders have argued for a clear and coherent PE curriculum that focuses on developing physical skills in contexts, activities and sports that become more challenging as pupils progress. Ofsted found that many schools aim to cover a wide range of activities in PE, but the average time spent on one ‘topic’ or activity is only 5 hours each
year. The Review highlighted this issue and is rightly concerned that this does not support pupil development in, or mastery of, skills, knowledge and understanding. The proposal that the DfE considers a clearer and more structured outline of what pupils should learn at each key stage, aligned with the refreshed subject aims, is a welcome one. Activities such as dance, swimming, and outdoor activities were suggested to be a concern, and all are vitally important, therefore it is good that the suggestion is to improve the Programmes of Study for these activities is a future aim.
A recognition that the teaching of PE qualifications is often stronger than, and prioritised over, the teaching of compulsory PE at Key Stage 4 is important to highlight as significant time and energy is focussed on 11% of the pupils nationally, as teachers are judged on their success in students’ exam pass rate. This also often impacts on the curriculum in earlier key stages. A focus on core compulsory PE from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 4 is a priority and that it remains physical in nature, ensuring that pupils and students are active for most of the lesson.
There is a suggestion to rename the GCSE PE qualification GCSE Sports Science or GCSE Sports Studies, to reflect its content more accurately and to draw a clearer distinction between it and compulsory PE. However, there is no reason why students could not be offered the Sports Science/Studies option alongside a PE GCSE option, that was PE focussed.
The suggestion then to focus the compulsory PE pathway on practising competitive sport, again misses the priority for all students to be motivated to be physically active. A wide range of competitive and non-competitive activities needs to be provided to engage all students, not just the competitive ones.
The issue related to equity of access in GCSE PE by SEN students’ needs to be addressed.
Activities should be adapted or adjusted to meet the needs of disabled students, and the PE activity list should be reviewed.
The recommendations to the Government need further consideration. Redrafting the purpose of study for PE, should not focus on retaining the importance of competitive sports. It should clarify the significance of providing all pupils with opportunities to learn in a physical environment and emphasise the physical, social, cognitive and emotional benefits that complement and enhance overall academic performance and general wellbeing. Redrafting the aims of PE so that they are clearer and more coherent at each key stage is important. Introducing a concise, scaffolded approach to the attainment targets and key stage subject content within the Programmes of Study is welcomed. Distinguishing clearly between mandatory core PE and qualification pathways, needs considerable work to ensure that Core PE is valued just as much as GCSE PE/Sports Science/Studies.
The suggestion of an “evolution not revolution” approach, is disappointing. If we want to be world leaders, then we need to be more creative and innovative with our curriculum.