Independent schools have always been relatively clear about the position of games. For more than 150 years, the sector has agreed that games should play a central role in the life of these schools, that participation should be compulsory, and that competition with other schools is an integral part of this programme.
Team games in particular have enjoyed unquestioned primacy, based on a Victorian belief that they developed "character", and that they were an essential part of education. Wherever British education was exported, games went with it. Initially to the Empire, and then to the developing world. It is now curiously unsurprising to see Rugby in Sri Lanka, Lacrosse in Malaysia and Cricket in China. Inter-school competition was an essential part of the export package, leading to teams travelling huge distances across continental frontiers to play in tournaments.
The sector was completely comfortable with all of this, even when its impact was questionable, and its opportunities available only to a select few.
But Physical Education has enjoyed no such position. Where the maintained system, and many girls' schools, have seen a seamless integration of Games as part of a wider offering of physical activity, traditional schools have always seen them as separate. And they have had no difficulty in arranging them in order of importance. Games comes first, and PE is its poor relation.
In schools which devote several hours each week to compulsory games, the place of PE is less secure. The arms race of facility development, and changes in teacher education have meant that the traditional diet of gymnastics and swimming has been diluted and replaced by a variety of indoor games, often including Basketball and Badminton. With so much time already devoted to games, is this really a valuable use of time? If "Games" and "PE" are both devoted to games, and the only difference is the venue, is there much value in this?
What might a forward thinking PE programme contribute to an industry leading physical education? Certainly, there will be physical outcomes. These will not be more games skills, but will be aimed at establishing a foundation of physical literacy for all pupils. This would involve movement skills (run, jump, catch, throw), as well as aquatic competence and creative activities, including meaningful gymnastics.
But, in the Twenty First century, perhaps there is a more important justification for PE. And that is teaching the how and why of exercise. Not through a token six weeks of unimaginative "Health Related Fitness", but integrated within the entire programme. The impacts of exercise on academic learning, concentration, physical and mental health. The foundation of a culture of health and fitness across the school. The growing profile of wellness and mental health appear to be emerging without an input from the PE programme, while classes of poor standard Badminton still proliferate. Pupils need to understand the wide and varied benefits of exercise, and the types and intensities of activity which produce them. Low levels of skills in youth cub style games are not much of a justification for timetable time. The subject needs to do more to justify itself.
That PE has a potential value to all pupils is indisputable. That it delivers this value is very much open to deliberation. The Inspection process does little to help. The scant attention it pays to PE is dominated by how the teaching outcomes are delivered, and fashionable practices involving technology and small white boards. The value of the programme is of lower priority, and the significance of this is beyond the understanding of many non-specialist inspectors.
The purpose of compulsory curriculum PE should be clear. It must lay a foundation of movement capability, and establish a clear understanding of the value and impacts of exercise. Only in that way can its universal benefits be relevant to all pupils. Without appreciation of the purpose of physical activity, motivation will be restricted to those pupils who are engaged by Games. PE exists to bridge the gap, and to clarify the rationale of lifelong, active lifestyles.
To do this, many schools will require new, and more imaginative programmes.
