Is the Physical Education National Curriculum just doing a circuit?

Who introduced the National Curriculum for physical education in 1992?

 

In 1992 when the National Curriculum for physical education was introduced it was created by a working party, chosen by the government.

The working group which created the National Curriculum for physical education consisted of eleven members. The working group consisted of bank representatives, primary school headteachers, secondary school deputy headteachers who were formerly physical education teachers, a former footballer and a former Olympic athlete, as well as a professor in geography who was involved in outdoor adventure activities education, a lecturer of disabilities, as well as the head of physical education at Leeds polytechnic (Penney and Evans, 1999). So although there were no practicing physical education teachers within the working party, there were sufficient people from a physical education background and current teachers to create a sound National Curriculum.

The selection made for the working party however caused discourse, with Ken Fox (1992) commenting that "their selection seems a bit like asking a formula one driver's advice on how to design a new public transport system". Many people were shocked at the selection for the working party, as it contained no practicing physical education teachers. Although there was a distinct lack of in practice physical education teachers, a significant percentage of the working party was made up of former physical education teachers who had reached higher positions within schools or universities (Penney and Evans, 1999).

The inclusion of business men in the working party shows that there was a government plan to make schools more accountable and begin a change to a more business like running procedure for schools. Also, the inclusion of people from the sporting world portrays that the government’s action plan is to begin to blur the distinction between physical education and sport (Penney and Evans, 1999), although this could be argued because the National Curriculum brought an emphasis on participation rather than the competitive basis of sport. Whilst the criticism comes from physical education professionals and the media about the governments participation in the creation of the National Curriculum, Mike Baker states "doctors wouldn't let the government tell them how to treat their patients, so why do teachers let the government dictate what is best for their pupils?". (The Guardian, 2011). 

The way the UK created the National Curriculum contrasts with how Australia created their National Curriculum, as they put it out to tender and chose the best curriculum from the options they were given on meritocracy (www.acara.edu.au, 2013). The Australian curriculum, assessment and reporting authority state that when a new curriculum is being developed it is put to tender and developed by different companies and businesses to create the best National Curriculum for the country at the time (www.acara.edu.au, 2013). Whilst this hegemonic route could create the perfect National Curriculum, physical educators are not being involved in the creation of the National Curriculum, so the UK's creation of the National Curriculum by involving people involved in physical education and schools is therefore a more positive way and will more likely get better results from the National Curriculum.