T

 

The introduction of the NC was seen by many as an intrusion upon teaching (Clay, 1999. & Hill, 1997), although it was to be a huge breakthrough in the way schools managed their pupils’ learning that was welcomed by individuals from within and outside of the teaching profession (Penny & Evens, 1999).  The National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE) was one of the last to be appointed along with Art and Music in 1991 (Clay, 1999). This of course left PE teachers feeling demoralised and of low self-worth, as the historic low status was continued for PE (Penney & Evans, 1999. & Stidder & Wallace, 2003). Although as Caspon (1992) announces, the late introduction of the NCPE had the “benefit of pro-active reflection” allowing for the most suitable curriculum to be put in to place.

 

PE was slated as a major let down to pupils as it did not meet any physical or social requirements pre NC; in order to rectify this, a shift away from the child centred approach and a forward movement to the past occurred with reference to teaching styles and strategies. A more disciplined and didactic style of teaching was to be embraced to instil skill and physical fitness into pupils (Bailey, 2001).  Regrettably, even with all of these changes to ensure that “physical education was now acknowledged to be firmly part of education” (Capel & Whitehead, 2013), results showed the percentage of students under the age of 14 participating in PE for  less than two hours a week catapulted from 14% to a unexplainable 71%, between 1978 and 1990 (Fordyce, 2013).

 

PE itself was mainly based around games, with the usual rugby and football for the boys and hockey and netball for the girls, the question being, has much changed from this apparently ancient document?