More of the same?

There are 3 possible futures for Physical Education in England. At least according to David Kirk’s (2010) critical analysis of the subject. The darkest future is the extinction of the subject, this however is the least likely one. The most likely future for the subject is that the dominant practice, what he calls ‘PE-as-sports-techniques’, will continue. However his concern of this ‘more of the same’ is that eventually it will still lead to death of the subject. For PE not only to survive, but thrive, then a third future needs to be embraced, that of radical change and a new id² of PE.

What is an id²? In the opening of the book Kirk (2010) states that PE is socially constructed. This means it is not a naturally occurring phenomena, like the sunrise, but has been created by humans. However due to it being socially constructed then PE can be whatever anyone decides it is. Therefore no one’s definition or purpose of PE is better than anyone else’s, as he states on page 11 – “anything goes“.

What he asks the reader to do is ignore what people say PE is for (for example to develop lifelong physical activity) but examine what they actually do in PE (for example get children a good result in GCSE PE). What people say PE is for is an id. What people actually do in PE is also an id. Which is a why he calls it id² – the idea of the idea – which are the essential characteristics of PE found in the profession’s institutional practices (Stolz, 2014). Radical change therefore is found in the change of practices.

Kirk argues that the dominant id² of PE within English schools is PE-as-sports-techniques. Simply put this is the teaching of children correct movement patterns, such as an overhead clear in badminton, that are isolated from participating and understanding the actual sport. The skill is broken down into small technical chunks, where the focus of learning is on biomechanically efficient sports movement whilst simultaneously prioritising the learning of technical declarative knowledge. Success in PE is then becomes about the accurate replication of a decontextualised motor pattern and the articulation of the correct teaching points of the technique.

Children in PE then get short blocks of different sports (multi-activity approach) with each lesson focused on learning a specific technique, before moving onto the next technique in the next lesson and then the next sport. This “”molecularization” of teaching and learning within PE is positioned not just as a legitimate educational form, but also the most effective one (Kirk and Houssin, 2021). However Kirk and Casey (2020) in their advocation of models-based practice highlight some serious concerns with the the multi-activity sports technique based PE:

1. It is not inclusive of all young people as it underserves children from a range of marginalised groups within school
2. It does not recognise nor cater for the wide diversity of physical endowment and movement experiences of the school age population
3. It does not support learning, especially for the children who needs it, due the brief exposure children have to a lesson objective and activity

Therefore it has been heartening to see many departments of PE recognising that the dominant form of PE in England is not educationally fit for purpose and are engaging in the very difficult and messy process of change. Whilst I recognise how difficult change can be, especially to overcome entrenched dominant practices which cause inertia and in working environments that do not reward risk taking but punish it, I do want to raise caution about a specific change I’m seeing.

A practice I have seen more of in the last few years is the growing focus of generic life skills within PE. They are often presented as an additional learning objective of a lesson which sit along side physical and technical learning objectives. This is less my concern (see Greg Dryer’s blog for a further critique) as opposed to how I have observed it being implemented:

• The life skill is defined at the beginning of the lesson (for example fixed and growth mindset).
• One of learning objectives is linked to this life skill (for example to develop a growth mindset).
• There is a quick self assessment of the pupils ability to achieve the life skill (for example sit behind the red cone if you have a fixed mindset, yellow cone if you sometimes have a fixed mindset and a growth mindset and behind the green cone if you have a growth mindset).
• Throughout the lesson there is a reminder of the learning objective linked to the life skill (for example praising pupils who are demonstrating a growth mindset, but no explicit teaching to develop understanding and application of the life skill, as the focus is still on the physical and technical learning outcomes).
• At the end of the lesson another self assessment (for example sit behind the cones and ask questions about whether improvement was made or not and why).
• Then link the life skill to the wider world of school and work (for example questions about might we need a growth mindset in the future for exams or jobs).
• In the next lesson of the unit of work there would be a focus on a different life skill with the unit of work still being short and focused around a specific sport (for example the next lesson would have a like skill learning objective around marginal gains).

In attempting to move away from the id² of PE-as-sports-techniques which is the molecularisation of teaching and learning it has been unintentionally replaced by an id² of PE-as-employment-skills which is the abstractification of life skills linked to performing well academically and in the workplace. Neither in my mind are truly personally relevant to children, do not provide the time and depth required for learning to occur or lead to developing a positive relationship with movement.

I appreciate change is challenging. I appreciate that a school environment comes with a set a physical, social, historical and cultural constraints that make navigating change treacherous. I appreciate that change takes time and that this caution is not required because this is the first step of many with the first step of change being the hardest. However if all we are doing is swapping a learning objective of a series of lessons within a short block of sport from serve, overhead clear, and smash to growth mindset, marginal gains and leadership, then this is not the radical change that Kirk (2010) has called for, but is more of the same just under a different name.