Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Physical education' started by funkygirl, Oct 20, 2010.
goo you are cluless. SSCo's only cost 16 grand a year and schools get a great deal out of it
Having been a SSCO and having seen money spent on posh buffets and team building jollies, then I would not say I am clueless.
Give me the SSCO budget for every school in my area and I would give each school a PE specialist and a sustainable system.
Seems to me that you have an answer for everything or have been there and done that. Your comments on this thread have been short sighted and it is obvious that your experience has been very limited in terms of the 'type' of schools that you may have taught at. Try working in an inner city school where 100% A*-C isn't hard to come by in GCSE PE due to barriers at times that is beyond the control of teachers. In terms of the new GCSE Specifications, these now involve students being able to show case their abilities as a leader/officiator as well as a performer and students who are not normally gifted as a 'performer' can now access this accreditation. You say that you have marked exam papers in the past?? how recent and which exam board? The examination part of the course is an opportunity to introduce students to sports physiology, psychology or contemporary issues in sport and prepare students for A levels such as PE or psychology etc should they wish to go on and study it.
Your theory on how PE should be placed on the curriculum is short sighted and doesn't take into account the participation factor, those who may not enjoy the 'competitive' element of sport or based on accessing those hard to reach students i.e year 9 girls with low self esteem!!
How do you figure that one out - 12 minutes in a year?
Are you saying the only beneficial part of PE is the active part?
Are you saying playing a 'proper' game is the only worthwhile part of physical activity for children?
Again, what is your point? - that the only worthwhile way of measuring effective PE in schools is to time how long they are active?
If it is, then you are wrong.
Elucidate and clarify - how will you do this?
No they haven't. You disagree with what I say. Does not mean you are right.
Been there, done that. With a bit of time and effort the pupils were able to get GCSEs in Maths and Science. Most realised that a GCSE in Maths, English and Science top trumps a GCSE in PE.
I'm not going to disclose the exam board but certain questions have been absent for many years. Might be because the students keep getting them wrong and pushing their scores down.
Why do you think those girls have low self esteem in Year 9? Had you caught those girls in Year 3 then maybe there wouldn't be a problem! Hence my point about GCSE PE, drop it and send the staff into primaries.
Open your eyes to the issues facing PE. If you can't then go and spend 10K and some dance mats and a further 5k on a 'active girls sports' conference. I'd much rather spend £120 to send a rugby coach into Y3 for 6 weeks.
And how do you propose on catching those disaffected pupils early in primary school if a they arrive from another country??? in year 5, 6 or 7??
And who mentioned dance mats (which is a waste of resources)?? This isn't what I was talking about in terms of participation and comes across as a bit chauvinistic. I'm talking about barriers such as child protection issues, poverty, role models within families who all have an influence on pupils who live in highly deprived areas. Again, your view is a little closed and doesn't take into account that every partnership, area of the country, school is different!
It is you that needs to open your eyes to the current issues that face education in general, not just PE. Our subject can offer a number of opportunities for both students and staff from other subject areas and doesn't just cross link with Science, but also English in terms of verbal/non verbal communication particularly in pupil leadership, Maths in terms of statistical information which pupils can experience through leadership in cricket or basketball.
The fact that nobody on any thread seems to agree with your thinking should tell you something?
The money has to be spent wisely. At the moment money pays for one bloke to come in and run a taster session for sport X, then the next week a lasy comes in to run a session on sport Y, the following week sport Z.
I would make contact with local sports clubs to employ staff as coaches on a casual basis. A games afternoon can exploit the coaching strengths of school staff and also include additional coaches.
Some of the coaches involved in SSP work have been laughing - £25-50 per hour. Negotiate with local sports clubs a reasonable rate - who would also see it as a marketing exercise to draw more money into their club (more pupils to their club = more subs, more cash).
There are many things to do. I would make contact with the PTA and arrange a way to raise funds for a sporting programme.
Less is more. Less sports, more activity.
I know I am games focussed and that you all hate games, thinking it causes permanent psychological trauma. But the fundamental gym skills can be covered in Key Stage 1 and there are many resources to help class teachers do this. I would eventually like to see no PE session as such in Key Stage 2 but two games sessions, with the first half an hour of each session being pure fitness work.
If you have an established games session with a team playing regular fixtures, then the pupils with EAL quickly take notice. Again seen it done - pupils desparate to play for the football team. Pupils desparate to stand on a mat and pretend to be a bridge - unfortunately not seen that yet.
We agree on something. Cyber Coach UK must be scared of X Box Kinnect. Schools won't pay 10K for dance mats anymore.
The best way to involve parents is to play regular fixtures. 'Come and watch me play football'. Children in deprived areas want to belong to something - schools must provide teams and the SSPs haven't done that. They have sent one team to one festival, then re-jigged the team, changed the sport and sent them to another festival. These pupils need ONE sport a term, and need to play several times each term as a team to establish cohesion.
No, my view is different to yours. If a pupil came to you with this idea would you put them down like this?
Actually on the other thread quite a few people agreed about dropping GCSE PE for further development work in primary schools.
I accept that you won't agree because you don't know any better.Having experienced both private and state sectors I know what works. I know how much it costs to work.
I go back to what I said before. The SSP organised a basketball tournament. Each pupil played for 12 mins. That was the only organised basketball event all year. Event cost a fortune. Each sport event works out the same - pupils play for roughly 10 mins (rules where they only play for 3 mins then swap to allow something else to play). Over the course of the year pupils play probably 60 mins in total. There are pupils in the private sector who play 60 mins in ONE game. But look at the money spent - the amount spent on SSP events Vs the amount spent of two schools meeting up on a hired facility to play a proper game. This is why SSPs are not value for money.
Quite simply pupil plays for 4 mins, 3 times.
It's down to value for money - the cost of the sports hall, the cost of the coaches. Talking about a large event for many schools with many staff needed.
Now could that money be better spent on a small basketball league for a few schools, with longer games.
If I was paying for private education and I found out my child was only active for 10 mins then I would not be getting what I paid for.
The Government is saying that these pupils are active for 2 hours a week. These claims need to be checked to see again if it is value for money.
In my early days someone once timed the active part of a lesson - 9 mins. Pupils are not learning PE if they are not active. You can talk about the learning outcomes of a successful bridge in gymnastics until the cows come home, but until the pupil actually starts to perform one then they are not going to learn it.
Could be down to poor organisation,lack of playing spaces. We have done tournaments where teams have got 6 x 10 min games in half a day
Surely these children would have been playing games whilst training. They cant have just gone into a competition without training.
Again you are presuming that participation is the only thing which is beneficial. Learning by observing, particularly other teams is also beneficial. Total immersion theory?
Again - are you saying that playing a proper game is the only worthwhile part of physical activity?
I think that you would find 10 mins participation iin a 1 hour lesson isnt the norm, unless you have a teacher who is either disorganised or maybe likes the sound of his/her own voice.
Besides this, we all know a 1 hour lesson is actually a 40 minute lesson as 20 mins are spent changing
Pupils can learn whilst not active. Peer observation, peer coaching, peer and group evaluation are alll activities which result in learning.
Plenaries and mini plenaries are good learning activities as long as they are not 'overcooked'
Am I right in thinking that, according to you, we should just get them changed, give them a ball, and let them get on with it? This is what it sounds like.
Should this be the same in Gymnastics?
Give us some idea of where you are coming from. How many schools have you taught in? how many years private/state? how many years as SSCo.
You seem to have a very negative and simplistic viewpoint
The system works in that the pupils selected for the competition. So not every pupil plays - I once sat in a room where 32 pupils wanted to play, but due to the numbers of the tournament (few children from each school but loads of schools, pushes up survey results) only 12 could play. So only these 12 received the basketball training from a funded coach.
Now in school we can run basketball sessions but resources limit us. No basketball hoop etc. Still learn the core skills but is very difficult with 32 pupils (the 12 got a session after school). Game time is limited.
No matter how many times you play games in training, the real learning comes in paying other teams. You don't know who they are, their tactics etc.
What I am talking about is value for money. Get 3/4 schools together who are close by, find venues close by and play a proper game - just two teams. Lets get back to proper hospitality - the teams putting on food for their visitors and showing respect after each game. Kids today don't know their opposition because they end up playing too many teams too quickly.
I'm aware you are in Egypt but I think you should observe some primary PE lessons in the UK. Some are great, others are non-existent. All the SSP supporters are saying it is fantastic and has transformed school sport - it hasn't. Pupils still don't get anywhere near 2 hours and do not play enough high quality fixtures.
I'm aware from primary teachers are not PE specialists. But with all this SSP cash they should have an idea on how to run a basic PE session. But through no fault of their own they are confused. The SSPs have tried to introduced too much, too many sports. It needs to be simple, less is more. Senior staff members would always say this when I was SSCO - they felt obliged to follow the programme but knew their children best and the current plan was just too confusing.
I still have pupils come to me saying at their old school they had PE once a month.
Pupils should be active as long as possible. There will be quick 2 min chats in between activities, but pupils should be constantly on their toes. Now in an ideal world if there was a games session as well then PE could be more a sit down and think lesson. But in primary state PE where games sessions are rare, and pupils don't have a lot of opportunity to be active, that 60 mins must include as much activity as possible.
I have experience in lots of sectors. Don't going to list my CV. Call it negative and simple but I actually find the whole concept exciting. Pupils will be playing games from a young age - might not need that 'Y9 get girls active' conference any more.
In terms of the 'you don't know any better'comment to GCSE's/accreditation is very insulting to everyone who has argued your point and in your words...its a case of disagreement and you have not highlighted anything/or shown how the course could be improved if you think its 'such a waste of time' at present. Fact of the matter is, GCSE PE is here to stay so you can either:
1. Moan about it and be negative!!
2. Be a better leader and look for positive strategies and look at ways of improving the course for the better if you think it isn't up to scratch!
In terms of EAL.....how many have you worked with?? have you had to deal/work in a school where the majority of the cohort may be EAL from a range of different background.
You mention the 'get the parents involved with fixtures'...yes this is something that ALL PE teachers should be doing and aspiring to do, but there should also be an acceptance that cultural beliefs/differences are still a huge barrier, tell this to parents of Muslim girls who's family are not so welcoming to them taking part in sport or looked after children who do not have that support network! to name a few. This is what I'm talking about in terms of REAL barriers and it at this stage where alternatives need to be into to get them engaged!
Your obsession with team games and no 'physical education' development style curriculum comes across as narrow minded and isn't welcoming and inclusive practices. Going back to your point of getting them involved in team games at primary and they won't be disaffected in secondary? pupils are hammered with Maths and English from day 1 in primary but there are still cases of disaffected pupils in this subject areas in secondary!! Why?? Because 'other factors' take over such as the barriers to learning that pupils can often face outside of school as mentioned here and in previous posts.
It is not a case of different opinions gogojonny, its a case of having to be more 'open minded' as no curriculum should have a 'one size fits all' approach.
Like I said - organisation. You dont work with these kind of numbers with such short time and limited resources.
You are also contradicting yourself. You are now saying they DONT learn by playing games unlless it is against unknown opposition. Make up your mind.
Firstly I dont work in Egypt, I work in Dubai. I used to work in Egypt. Both were British Schools.
I am also aware of the situation in UK Primary Schools.
However, your comments are with regard to how lessons should be taught:
Disagree - doesnt matter how much or how little time you have, there has to be a mixture of activity and evaluation/instruction/explanation. yes, lessons should have 'pace' and 'challenge' but not merely as much activity as possible. This is too simplistic
Otherwise it ends up being a 'here's the ball - go play with it' situation with the odd call in now and again.
Again, your argument seems confused and contradictory.
Funkygirl can you please write in paragraphs, it makes my eyes bleed trying to read your comments en bloc (although I do like the content)