Taking Stock

Taking stock, and looking forward: primary physical education in a time of change. Dr Richard Bowles

Using this assertion as a starting point, my aims in this article are to firstly describe the current position of PE in Irish primary schools, then identify some of the current challenges and opportunities and, finally, raise some questions about the future possibilities for the subject. Rather than look at specific issues in depth, my intention is to highlight a wide range of issues in the hope that this will prompt further discussion over the coming months.

The current PE curriculum focuses “on the child’s holistic development, stressing personal and social development, physical growth, and motor development” (Government of Ireland, 1999a, p. 6). While the curriculum document foregrounds the provision of a “broad and balanced programme” (p.8), research on curricular provision over the past 20 years points to the dominance of the Games strand (Fahey et al., 2005; Woods et al., 2010). In her overview of primary PE provision in Ireland, Ní Chróinín (2018, p. 214) concludes “there is a gap between the aspirations of the curriculum and reality of teaching and learning experiences”. 

Questions have also been raised about teacher confidence implement the full programme, and we know that a teacher’s own prior experiences impact their teaching of the subject subsequently (Fletcher&Mandigo, 2012). Although government policy asserts the class teacher should “retain overall responsibility for planning, organisation, control and monitoring” of the PE programme (Government of Ireland, 1999b, p. 28), we also know that external personnel such as sports coaches are heavily involved in its delivery (Mangione et al., 2020). In some cases these coaches work alongside class teachers (as recommended by the curriculum documents), but the teacher is more frequently replaced by the coach, leading to concerns about how activities are planned, taught and assessed in a coherent (Bowles & O’Sullivan, 2020). On a more optimistic note, while up to 18% of children may be receiving 30 minutes or less PE each week, the overall frequency and duration of PE classes appears to have increased over the past 10 years (Woods et al., 2018).

In the context of this present publication, our understanding of children’s movement skill development has been enhanced in recent years by the publication of an extensive body of research, nationally and internationally (e.g. Behan et al., 2019; Duncan et al., 2020). While this research raises issues for the development of physical activity and sport initiatives broadly, they can also inform some of the decision-making relating to pedagogical approaches on PE too, with Duncan et al. suggesting that structured movement skill interventions can facilitate increased physical activity, and may confer health benefits on children who are provided with appropriate programmes by suitably qualified personnel at least twice weekly.

At a Crossroads 

We are currently at a very important juncture in primary PE. For the purposes of this article, I intend focusing on two particular issues: firstly the immediate impact of COVID-19 and, secondly, the potential long-term implications of the NCCA’s Draft Primary Curriculum Framework. The closure of schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic in early March resulted in an immediate challenge to the teaching of PE. The transition to on-line teaching created a vacuum that was quickly filled problematic for a by personalities like Joe Wicks who offered physical activity workouts as a replacement for PE. While this phenomenon were highly problematic for a range of reasons, it did prompt a conversation about the objectives of PE and, perhaps, has raised an awareness in some quarters that high quality PE is much more than simply a series of physical activities lacking context and clear learning outcomes. More recently, the Irish government’s Return to School guidelines provided a welcome focus on the importance of quality PE within our schools (Department of Education and Skills, 2020). As a consequence, PE provision has been identified as a central component of children’s education, despite the current restrictions. Anecdotally, it seems that many schools have taken the opportunities to organise engaging, small-group activities with a focus on movement skill development since September. A second issue - the ongoing NCCA curriculum revision - will shape PE provision for at least the next decade.

Within the proposed framework, there seems to be scope for an increase of PE time within the curriculum as a whole. This would be very welcome, particularly if the revised provision reaches the 120 minutes per week level that is common in many other European countries. However, many aspects of the framework are currently unclear. Positioning PE within the key competency of Wellbeing aligns with curricula elsewhere. However, a clear focus on the teaching of discrete PE content should be a central component of this new departure. In particular, the possibility that the curriculum structure in the first four years of primary schooling will be underpinned by a thematic approach raises questions about how PE will be taught under these circumstances. 

Where might we go from here? 

Having highlighted some aspects of PE provision, and identified two key stimuli for change, I conclude this piece by raising two questions that may help to stimulate discussion over the coming months. 1) How might movement skill development be integrated to best effect within the primary PE curriculum? This question might be considered in the context of the potential for PE to contribute to the development of physically literate individuals. Recent research suggests focused interventions can have a positive impact on

primary school children’s mastery of fundamental movement skills, but more longitudinal research may be required in order to understand the long-term implications (Kelly et al., 2020). 2) In the context of the primary school curriculum revision, what might constitute our core vision for PE?

It is noteworthy that Scott F Kretchmar contributed elsewhere in this publication. Building on his, and other work (e.g. Beni et al., 2016; Ní Chróinín et al., 2019), the provision of meaningful experiences may be one way to frame our curricular provision in the coming years. A curriculum encompassing the six features of meaningful PE (fun; personally relevant learning; movement competence development; social interaction; appropriate challenge; delight) can help to establish a distinct position for PE within the Wellbeing curriculum competency, with positive benefits for all children.

Dr Richard Bowles

Department of Arts Education & Physical Education

Faculty of Education

Mary Immaculate College

References Department of Arts

Behan, S., Belton, S., Peers, C., O’Connor, N. E., & Issartel, J. (2019, 2019/11/17). Moving Well-Being Well: Investigating the maturation of fundamental movement skill proficiency across sex in Irish children aged five to twelve. Journal of sports sciences, 37(22), 2604- 2612. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1651144 

Beni, S., Fletcher, T., & Ní Chróinín, D. (2016). Meaningful Experiences in Physical Education and Youth Sport: A Review of the Literature. Quest, 69(3), 291-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1224192 

Bowles, R., & O’Sullivan, M. (2020). Opportunity knocks: the intersection between schools, their teachers and external providers of physical education and school sport. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 41(2), 251-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2020.1722428 

Duncan, M., Stratton, G., Foweather, L., Collins, H., & Stodden, D. (2020, Winter 2020). The BASES Expert Statement on the Importance of Fundamental Movement Skills for Children's Physical Activity and Health. The Sport and Exercise Scientist(66). https://www.bases.org.uk/imgs/8688_bas_tses___winter_2020_online_pg6_7326.pdf 

Fahey, T., Delaney, L., & Gannon, B. (2005). School Children and Sport in Ireland (Vol. 1st). The Economic and Social Research Institute. 

Fletcher, T., & Mandigo, J. L. (2012). The primary schoolteacher and physical education: a review of research and implications for Irish primary education. Irish Educational Studies, 31(3), 363-376. Government of Ireland. (1999a). Physical Education Curriculum. The Stationery Office. 

Government of Ireland. (1999b). Physical Education Teacher Guidelines. The Stationery Office.

Kelly, L., O’Connor, S., Harrison, A. J., & Ní Chéilleachair, N. J. (2020). Effects of an 8- week school-based intervention programme on Irish school children's fundamental movement

skills. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1834526

Mangione, J., Parker, M., O’Sullivan, M., & Quayle, M. (2020). Mapping the landscape of physical education external provision in Irish primary schools. Irish Educational Studies, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2020.1730218

Ní Chróinín, D. (2018). Primary Physical Education in the Republic of Ireland. In G. Griggs & K. Petrie (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Primary Physical Education (pp. 205-216). Routledge.

Ní Chróinín, D., Beni, S., Fletcher, T., Griffin, C., & Price, C. (2019). Using meaningful experiences as a vision for physical education teaching and teacher education practice. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(6), 598-614. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2019.1652805

Woods, C. B., Powell, C., Saunders, J. A., O’Brien, W., Murphy, M. H., Duff, C., Farmer, O., Johnston, A., Connolly, S., & Belton, S. (2018). The Children’s Sport Participation and Physical Activity Study 2018. Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences,

University of Limerick, Sport Ireland, Healthy Ireland, & Sport Northern Ireland.

Woods, C. B., Tannehill, D., Quinlan, A., Moyna, N., & Walsh, J. (2010). The Children’s Sport Participation and Physical Activity Study. Research Report No 1. School of Health and Human Performance, Dublin City University and The Irish Sports Council.

Education & Physical Education Faculty of Education Mary Immaculate College