Equity and Inclusion in Physical Education and Sport

Gary Stidder, Sid Hayes, Gary Stidder, Sid Hayes

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136478079
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Multicultural Education

An essential component of good practice in physical education is ensuring inclusivity for all pupils, regardless of need, ability or background. Now in a fully revised and updated new edition, Equity and Inclusion in Physical Education fully explores the theoretical and practical issues faced by physical education teachers today.

The book amalgamates areas of critical debate within the world of physical education and is structured around the key topics of ability, special educational needs, gender, sexuality, social class, race and ethnicity. These issues are discussed in relation to principles of equity, equality of opportunity, pedagogy, differentiation, curriculum planning and cultural awareness. Other chapters explore contemporary themes such as healthism and obesity and values in physical education and policy, whilst a chapter new to this edition demonstrates the importance of reflexivity and critical self-reflection in good inclusive practice.

As well as being a perfect introductory text for any course on inclusion or inclusive practice in physical education, the book offers invaluable, practical advice for established professionals, newly qualified teachers and trainees about how to meet equity and inclusion requirements. Examples of good practice are included throughout, as well as guidance on how to implement an inclusive PE curriculum within the school.

1
Equity and inclusion in physical education

Themes and perspectives for practitioners

Gary Stidder and Sid Hayes

Now if you were good at football or netball, you were fine … if you weren’t then you were screwed. Fortunately I am pretty tall so I had a natural advantage for netball, but many people didn’t … and because our school focused on netball a lot, we went to (and won) many competitions, so a lot of our PE lessons were basically training sessions for the A & B teams, with the rest of the year sort of thrown together as what became known as the ‘reject team’ to play against us and get shouted at … I dropped out of the netball team asap because I was basically forced into the team by my fearsome headmistress (who coached the teams) and nobody could understand the fact that I liked the sport but didn’t want to play because I wanted to play because I chose to, not because I had to (if that makes sense). And of course the teachers would always have their favourites – the kids who were natural athletes who did the whole lesson and didn’t break into a sweat and wanted to do more etc. … I hated them!

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=798976&page=6
Accessed 25 August 2009

During the mid-1980s we were both training to become physical education teachers at different institutions in England. For both of us this was an aspiration that we shared from a very early age and was influenced by our passion for and achievements in competitive team sport. During our secondary school years neither of us had paid much attention to the ways in which we were taught physical education and it was not until we were exposed to the pedagogical process during our undergraduate training that we began to realise and appreciate ways in which physical education could be an alienating experience for some pupils. Much of our understanding of and interest in this particular aspect of education was informed by Richard Peters (1973) and Ronald Morgan (1974) but inspired by the edited work of John Evans (1986) and subsequently by other related publications (Evans 1988; Evans 1993). This influenced us to pursue our own postgraduate studies during the nineties (Hayes 1994; Stidder 1998) and ultimately led to the publication of ‘Equity and Inclusion in Physical Education and Sport’ (Hayes and Stidder 2003).

Twenty five years since the writing of these texts we believe that the physical education profession still has work to do with regards to inclusive practice and like our predecessors we contend that the teaching of physical education in some secondary schools still ‘fosters rather than contests sexism, racism and élitism’ (Evans and Davies 1993: 21). Moreover, it remains the case that the values of those who define physical education programmes in schools needs to be confronted if a commitment to equity and inclusion ‘is to be more than a façade behind which old habits hide’ (ibid. 21). Despite the seminal work of Evans (1986; 1988; 1993), the types of practices witnessed over a quarter of century ago still exist in some schools today whereby ability, performance-related outcomes and sex-differentiated provision in separate male and female physical education departments work against a ‘same for all thrust’ (Evans and Davies 1993: 19). Penney and Evans (1999) initially prompted us to reconsider the rhetoric and reality of policy whilst Ken Green’s excellent publication Understanding Physical Education (2008) has led us to re-examine our own stance on matters related to inclusion in physical education and has provided the impetus for us to proceed with a second edition of our initial publication.

At this point we are keen to establish what inclusive physical education is and, more importantly, what is not. Our use of the term ‘physical education’ rather than the abbreviation ‘PE’ relates specifically to the 76 hours (or 5%) of formal curriculum time devoted to the teaching and learning of physical education to all pupils in an academic year.¹ Whilst we accept that there might be a tenuous link between the structured learning that takes place in the physical education curriculum and the extended school sport programme, we would like to make it clear that physical education has broader educational objectives and learning outcomes. In this context, the teaching and learning of physical education has little or no relationship to the provision of competitive school sport, as these experiences are usually for élite performers often in sex-segregated teams which have performance-related outcomes. As we have stated in one of our previous publications

The term ‘school sport’ has been increasingly used in government policy documents alongside ‘physical education’ in the title of the subject thus giving the impression that school sport is synonymous with physical education. We believe that to refer to ‘school sport’ alongside ‘physical education’ is potentially misleading and may cause some confusion amongst our readers. Our use of the term ‘physical education’, therefore, refers specifically to the UK government’s intended offer of at least two hours of high quality physical education in the curriculum to all 7 to 14-year old pupils.

(Stidder and Hayes 2011: xix)

We are also keen to emphasise the fact that sport and carefully managed competition can be a valuable educational experience for all pupils but by the same token should not be at the expense of their overall holistic development. In this respect, we believe that all pupils irrespective of social categorisation are entitled to engage with all aspects of a broad, balanced and relevant physical education curriculum. This book is, therefore, our attempt to emphasise a child-centred approach to the teaching and learning of physical education in schools and to dispel the myth and any misconceptions that physical education teachers just coach sport!

The writing of the first edition of this book began at a time when the physical education profession in the UK was entering a period of transition and significant change. Ironically, the writing of the second edition of ‘Equity and Inclusion in Physical Education and Sport’ also began as physical education teachers in the UK prepared for yet another major policy change under the Labour government with the introduction of a fourth version of a national curriculum for physical education implemented in September 2008 alongside a ‘Physical Education and Sport Strategy for Young People’ PESSYP (DCFS 2008). This text has, therefore, been both hindered and helped by the speed of change in the educational world and (metaphorically speaking) the ‘moving of goalposts’ with regards to physical education, UK government policy and yet another anticipated National Curriculum for Physical Education due for implementation in 2014.

The election of a UK coalition government in May 2010 resulted in further change of education policy and the re-emergence of competitive school sport as a major area of policy development, in order to reverse a decline in competitive sport brought about by left-wing councils that scorned it as ‘élitist’ and insisted on politically correct activities with no winners or losers. During the course of our work, voices from within educational circles in the UK began to drive the place of competitive school sport and physical education onto the political agenda, particularly since London achieved the rights to hosts the 2012 Olympic Games. In June 2010 the UK coalition government announced plans for the introduction of a ‘schools Olympics’ and endorsing this particular initiative education secretary of state Michael Gove said: ‘We need to revive competitive sport in our schools. Fewer than a third of school pupils take part in regular competitive sport within schools and fewer than one in five take part in regular competition between schools’,² echoing his previous sentiments at the Conservative Party conference in October 2007 when he pledged to make it easier once more for children to do ‘proper’ competitive team sports in schools. In our opinion, this comment only served to misinform the general public about the perceived demise of competitive activities in schools and was nothing more than an ill-informed doctrine about the place of competition in physical education.

Michael Gove’s ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy received a luke warm reception and his subsequent public letter to Baroness Campbell at the Youth Sport Trust dated 20 October 2010 was, in our view, a nail in the coffin for physical education in schools. In his correspondence Michael Gove confirmed that ‘The Coalition Government will encourage more competitive sport, which should be a vibrant part of the life and ethos of all schools through the creation of an annual Olympic-style school sport competition’. In our opinion, this was a sad indictment of the way in which physical education was viewed by policymakers reflected by Michael Gove’s use of the term ‘sport’ 32 times compared to physical education once and the abbreviated term ‘PE’ on five occasions. In her response dated 29 October 2010, Baroness Campbell referred to the change of government policy as ‘deeply disappointing’ and would potentially exclude pupils with special needs, disaffected teenage girls, pupils on the verge of exclusion and those where sport is not culturally embedded. Whilst offering support for competitive sport, Baroness Campbell also stressed her commitment to ensuring that young people who do not enjoy team sports are provided with opportunities to engage in an activity that they can pursue throughout their lifetime. Eileen Marchant, chair of the Association for Physical Education also corresponded with the Secretary of State for Education on 2 November 2010 expressing concern about the impact of the intended policy on the teaching and learning of physical education in schools.

I know that the National Curriculum is shortly to be reviewed and AfPE is very much committed to keeping physical education as a statutory subject. We are aware that competition will feature strongly in the revised curriculum but without an effective grounding in a high quality physical education curriculum competition will suffer at all levels.

Despite a recognition by academics that boys and girls could not be categorised as one homogeneous group (Penney and Evans 2002), Michael Gove proceeded without due regard for the dynamics and inter-relationship between gender, ethnicity, ability, sexuality, age, religion, culture and disability. His only public acknowledgement of the effect of social diversity upon British school children was when he publically acclaimed to the Commons Education Select Committee on 27 July 2010 that ‘Rich thick kids will always do better than clever poor ones’,³ a reference to the ‘yawning gap’ which had formed between the attainment of poor children and their richer counterparts.

On 24 November 2010 the UK government’s White Paper ‘The Importance of Teaching’ was announced in the House of Commons signalling the beginning of a radical overhaul of the education system in England. In terms of physical education it was clear that the vision for physical education was firmly embedded in competitive team sport as a means of providing pupils in school with moral fibre and personal toughness.

4.28 Children need access to high-quality physical education, so we will ensure the requirement to provide PE in all maintained schools is retained and we will provide new support to encourage a much wider take-up of competitive team sports. With only one child in five regularly taking part in competitive activities against another school, we need a new approach to help entrench the character building qualities of team sport.

(DfE 2010: 45)

On the same day as announcing the government reforms to teaching, Prime Minister David Cameron attempted to justify the government’s decision to axe the school sport partnership programme along with £162 million of previously ring-fenced funding on the basis that it was a poor use of public money. Whilst accurately claiming that the numbers of schools offering the traditional team sports of netball, rugby and hockey had fallen under the previous government, the Prime Minister failed to acknowledge the unprecedented numbers of young people who had actually rejected these types of competitive team sports in favour of other individual, alternative or lifestyle activities and the increasing numbers of schools who were making these types of provision available through the school sport partnership.

David Walsh, The Sunday Times chief sports writer implied that the government’s decision to cut school sport funding was contradictory and full of double standards citing the fact that it was young people that had actually helped London (and Sebastian Coe) to achieve the rights to host the 2012 Olympic games during the bidding and lobbying process in Singapore in 2005. In return, funding for school sports partnerships would be slashed.

Five years on and one feels nothing but disgust at the way young people were used and are now being abused … Sport and young people are being exploited for political purposes, used by any amount of careerists for their own ends and it asks a serious question about Coe’s sincerity when he said that the London games would be about inspiring young people.

(Walsh 2010: 20)

Physical education and school sport were literally being kicked about like a political football. It was clear that the UK Coalition government intended to restructure the interface of physical education in schools and emphasise competitive sport as the vehicle to engage more young people in physical activity whilst overlooking the significance of lifestyle activities. In this respect, physical education was regarded as no more than a ‘conveyor belt for élite level sport, showcasing able and talented youth with potential to succeed’ (Green 2010: xiv) whilst ignoring the individual needs of those pupils who had rejected competitive team sport in favour of alternative team games and non-competitive lifestyle activities. It was in effect an invitation to a small proportion of ‘gifted and talented’ pupils into what Brown (1997) described as the ‘inner sanctum of the physically able and keen young male athletes of the school’.

As the 2012 London Olympic Games approached, the vision held by politicians was for physical education to ‘serve as a vehicle for the flow of talented athletes into top-level representative sport’ (Green 2010: 4) even though the percentage of pupils in schools aged between 9 and 16 who were defined as gifted and talented was only seven per cent of the total population of pupils in schools (Quick et al. 2008 cited in Green 2010: 4). Even the Queen’s 2010 Christmas broadcast contained references to the belief that competitive sports could contribute to the formation of a nation’s character and may have been reminiscent of David Cameron’s experiences as a former Etonion schoolboy. After all, it is reputed that the Duke of Wellington once said that ‘the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton’. Subsequently, the revised policy for physical education in schools had the potential to stigmatize the vast majority of pupils who did not have advanced physical skills, as inferior. Such was the level of public and professional outrage to the planned reforms, the UK Coalition government announced a minor U-turn on their intentions to remove all funding from the existing school sport partnerships and instead cut the funding by 87 per cent enabling this to continue over three years.

In our opinion, the UK coalition government’s vision for physical education in schools represented a retrograde step and signified the advent of more performance-related outcomes and a greater emphasis on sex-segregated team sport which would have little or no relevance to a large proportion of young people in schools. For us, it was a blatant attempt to re-affirm the gendered and élitist nature of the ‘PE ritual’ (Hargreaves 2000). Indeed, it was tantamount to legitimizing the dominant hegemonic forms of masculinity that had historically prevailed throughout the development of physical education, robustly defended as natural and desirable by politicians in the past (Brown and Evans 2004: 49). Needless to say, the UK coalition government’s generic education reforms received considerable criticism from opposition politicians but also had equal relevance to the world of physical education. In spite of all this, the intended reforms to school physical education did receive some support. Eleanor Mills wrote in The Sunday Times (17 July 2011: 4) that a sporting education should be every child’s birthright:

Competitive sport, for too long a dirty word in state schools, needs to be put back centre stage. All kids need tough, competitive sport – and lots of it. Michael Go...