'Could have done better': Teachers' interpretation and implementation of the new National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE) in England

Background and purposeEnnis (2011) notes that it is the central role of any curriculum to serve as a fundamental framework for teachers, acting as a guide to assist them in their efforts to achieve the principal learning... [ view full abstract ]

Background and purpose

Ennis (2011) notes that it is the central role of any curriculum to serve as a fundamental framework for teachers, acting as a guide to assist them in their efforts to achieve the principal learning outcomes of the subject. Bernstein (2000) outlines how subsequent processes of re-contextualisation determine how official curriculum documents are actually interpreted by teachers. There is a dearth of primary research in this area and this study explores how English Secondary PE teachers implemented the new NCPE (DfE, 2013) in English schools.

Method

43 Physical Education Teachers from 12 English Secondary Schools participated in semi-structured interviews exploring their approach to teaching the new NCPE. Constant comparative method was used to develop themes and categories during the data analysis process (Charmaz, 2006).

Results

• The brevity of the official curriculum document provided teachers with very limited guidance for their teaching, but was seen as liberating by some.
• Teachers’ uncertainty was accentuated through lack of secondary re-contextualisation , as well as lack of engagement with the documents.
• The absence of specific assessment guidance was perceived to be a significant weakness of the document.
• Lack of guidance is likely to impact on standardisation of teaching practices across English schools.
• Many teachers interpreted their own, existing practice as ‘best practice’ and perceived little impetus/need for change

Conclusion and Implications

The latest curriculum reform is unlikely to have much immediate impact on the current teaching of PE in England. Lack of detail, limited guidance and enthusiasm are unlikely to cause curricular innovation as a consequence of the reform, with curricular stasis and divergence of practice being the most likely medium term consequences. Verdict: Could have done better.