do schools have to provide PE classes?

The story is that PE is considered a 'core' subject by the dept of ed. However, as strange as it seems it is not compulsory. All of the other 'core' subjects are. The dept recommends a minimum of 2 hours per week for every student!!! As you know this is not implemented and regularly ignored by school management. You can be sure that the PE teacher in your school is fighting for more classes but school management are very reluctant to give over more of a very crammed timetable to PE when parents and students and society in general are so focussed on academic attainment. This is in spite of the fact that all of the research points out that remaining physically active during your exam year improves your grade averages.

The other probelm for the dept is that facilities in schools vary widely so even implementing the recently developed NEW Junior Cert PE syllabus alongside its change to examination subject is destined to be forever on the long finger.

The only solution is to make PE teachers ex-quota which would mean schools would not have to allocate any of their normal teaching hours to PE.

As far as I've seen, it's compulsory for Junior cycle students. It's optional for Senior cycle in my school as it corresponds with either independent study or LCVP so it's a small enough class out of a big year.

drusk wrote: »

The problem with PE at senior cycle is that the kids, especially girls, just aren't interested. (I taught PE for a year.)

PE is viewed as something that must be done, something that's compulsory - you have to do it whether you like it or not sort of thing. It's enforced by schools and by PE teachers. I believe that this is the totally wrong approach. PE should be encouraged and optional.

If the parents are half decent, they'll be encouraging their children to do it - that along with encouragement from schools and a break from the books would go along way to making the subject more appealing, rather than this holier than thou, no choice or options approach.

At the moment, the kids are punished for forgetting gear, for not participating, for not making any effort - and that's the wrong approach and why school boards are not making it compulsory at senior cycle. And they're right too!!

People's attitude to PE is all wrong. The grown ups are enforcing participation like it's the law and most, yes most, kids do not want to do it!

The attitude and approach to participation in PE should be encouraging and inviting. ie - not compulsory. A period could easily be made available in the timetable for study OR PE. I guarantee that most kids would opt for PE if it had a ring of positivity around it.

Yeah, I'm a girl and when I get to Senior Cycle I'm not going to do PE...if I'm eligible for LCVP I'll do it, and if not then I'll just do the study, but that's mostly because I'm aiming high...
I don't mind PE much although I 'forget' my gear often enough because I have an Irish test the class after PE every week...but otherwise it's grand.
If it was optional, I'd still do it.
By the way, it's not 'easy' to make space on the timetable for PE AND study...seriously, timetables are very, very tough when trying to accomodate everyone.

Coolio wrote: »

Also the idea that to 'aim high' one has to abandon a 40 min class of PE is a nonsense. The opposite has actually been proven to be the case. Those students who continue to actively participate in PE and sports in general are shown to have better average grades in their exams. The have more energy, are more focussed, and have better time-management.

Actually, for senior cycle in my school P.E is 120 minutes long, it goes over three classes [you get a break and then afterwards it's lunchtime]...if it was just 40 minutes it would be different but 2 hours counts for a lot...I'll do a half hour jog a few times a week if I'm having trouble focusing.

drusk wrote: »

The reason PE is a hard-sell is because it is compulsory. Exercise is enforced on young people by PE teachers. This is the wrong approach. Healthy living and exercise should be actively encouraged by teachers and parents. If as much attention and effort was put into making PE appealing and positive than into checking up on who's forgotten their gear and who's not participating, then PE would become a popular subject. If PE was optional, encouraged, fun and appealing, students would be thrilled to bring in their gear to get a 40 minute break from the books.

I firmly believe that the reason school management are not keen on PE at senior level is because the kids just don't like it - not because they want to focus every minute of every day on exam subjects.

The approach taken by schools and PE teachers needs to change in order for the subject to be embraced and enjoyed.

I disagree. I've spoken to principals who are former PE teachers who have done informal studies in on class timetabling, and its because PE isn't an examined subject in the main reason why it is cut. Its cut to make room for more hours in senior cycle - to give the academic subjects adequate hours to allow for the complete teaching of them. 88% of principals support compulsary PE for junior cycle, yet that percentage drops to 53% for senior cycle.

It has to be compulsary becuase there will always be students who don't want to do it for whatever reason. There is no way that if it was optional that there would be an increased participation - more would drop out IMO. The other three reasons in that sentence would increase it. If you don't check up on the gear, and tell them that they should have the gear, the students will assume that by not bringing the gear, they can get out of doing the class. A trick I heard that was done was that the teacher had a box of hidious gear, that if the students forgot their own, they could wear the other gear (which was washed, clean and in good condition, but in very weird colours!!) They didn't forget it again!!!

I know students who didn't do PE or resented doing it for the only reason that it interfered with study time - no other reason.

Its up to the individual PE teacher to make the class interesting and get student participation, but they are bound by a curriculum. Recently I was talking to someone involved in teacher education in New Zealand, and was explaining how their PE curriculum is different to ours. For example she explained one eight week module called striking that they did - the students learned how to strike a golf ball, hockey ball, baseball, tennis ball and a few others. What this served to do was increase the students percieved abilities in a variety of sports, not just a single one like in Ireland.

Games is the most frequently taught subject with an average of 24 hours a year, and Health Related fitness is second with an average of 5 hours. It is not varied enough to make it interesting for students. I agree that it needs to be varied, but not that it should be optional. Also Coolio made a point of non qualified PE teachers being assigned classes because the PE teachers is full; this can also contribute to classes not being interesting, because those non qualified teachers do what they are most confortable with, and safe to do. Those teachers won't automatically know that if someone is not actually physical doing the activity, that you should get them involved in another way. Instead those students are left on the sideline doing nothing or left doing study if they want to which is completely wrong. the "punishment" for forgetting gear shouldn't be something like lines - it should be something like the clothes thing I mentioned above, something that is not obvious as a "punishment" but will serve to ensure that the student doesn't forget the gear the next time. Do non qualified teachers realise that if someone isn't bringing in their gear week after week, that the teacher needs to have a word in private with the student as to why they aren't bringing it in. Emma said it above - if she had an Irish test after that she wanted to study for, she'd "forget" her gear. the department guidelines are for two hours per student per week, which is what they are getting!

edit - the source for the numbers re percentages and # of hours per year is from research by Ann McPhail et al. If you want them pm me!