ABSTRACT
Issues around defining success in physical education have been hotly debated for many years. However it would seem that we are no closer to achieving consensus, across groups at least, that is between policy-makers, advisers and teachers of physical education, about the nature of success in physical education. The key issues seem to lie with understanding what the subject is really about. In other words what are its aims? For example is it about nurturing sports skills or promoting health and fitness? Alternatively is it about fostering motivation in participation in physical activity or is it about development for all in and through the physical? How would working to each of these different aims affect the way in which success is described? (See also Chapters 1 and 2.) Certainly, our subject began in secondary schools as sport in the form of boys’ games in the mid1800s. Much has changed in education since then. Those seeking recognition of the potential of our subject to make a difference to the lives of all young people have successfully influenced politicians in England, initiating a debate about the value of the subject. Over the years since the 1990s the National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE) in England has evolved and programmes have been implemented through a national strategy for physical education and school sport which ran from 2003 to 2011, and yet it would seem that any enlightened understanding about learning and assessment of success is being clouded by historical thinking and practice. It seems that the way we see success in physical education is so deeply rooted in sport culture that high performance is accepted uncritically as our fundamental aim and our criterion for success. This view is seldom challenged and has, indeed, become highly resistant to change. The intention here, therefore, is to reflect on the impact that developments in our subject area have had on our professional culture and their influence in terms of how judgements regarding success are made. Are the success criteria that were regarded as appropriate in the early to mid part of the twentieth century just as appropriate now? A possible measure for this perhaps lies in the answers to the following questions: what do we really want to achieve and are
we being successful? And here is the issue. If, as many advocate, what we want to achieve is for all young people to be ‘successful learners and confident individuals’ (QCA, 2007a) in order that they will lead active, healthy lifestyles, to what extent is this currently the outcome of our work? Furthermore, to what extent is this even considered to be a feasible aim? Indeed, it is often questioned as to whether we can ever know whether or not learners will remain active for life? Some might suppose that there will always be those learners who, in spite of all efforts, will not want to learn or to continue participation in sport or physical activity. Undoubtedly, in England more learners do engage in physical activity than they did a decade ago, largely due to the national strategy, entitled Physical Education, School Sport and Young People (PESSYP) which was operational from 2008 to 2011, but the issue of quality and lifelong participation remains questionable. The chapter therefore closes with a recommendation that we review our aspirations and work to aims that all learners can achieve in physical education. These aims, it is argued, are more likely to promote lifelong participation in physical activity. It is suggested that it is against these aims that we should identify and judge success.
