Key Stage 3 PE: Choosing An Assessment Model That Helps Pupils Thrive
By Brett Griffin, Pupil Progress Founder & CEO
Since the removal of the national curriculum levels way back when (2014/15), and the introduction of the infamous ‘Life without Levels’, there has been a huge volume of controversy surrounding assessment at KS3 in general – let alone amongst the PE community. I remember the joy and elation when the news was received: no more assessment for assessment’s sake; no more 4b, 4b, 4b, 4c, 4b, 5c, 4c… and no more “No, no, this pupil can’t be a Level 5 – he’s in Year 7!”
Our joy was short-lived, as we soon realised this had caused mass hysteria for non-PE specialist senior leaders, convulsing at the thought of there not being a number to evidence learning or progress. Queue the introduction of level descriptors (that are certainly not levels), and the vice principal needing to put this in a spreadsheet. So then, what we had was not actually a ‘Life without Levels’, it was effectively a life without levels WITH levels. Yep, my brain was fried having these conversations too!
This then gave PE Leaders the almost impossible job of delivering a meaningful curriculum: one with an ethos and a purpose; one that’s engaging and enjoyable as well as providing a way to measure progress; and, let’s be blunt about it, one that produced some data to keep senior members of staff happy.
One thing a ‘Life without Levels’ has definitely done is challenge the status quo. A lot of PE teams have gone back to the drawing board, stripping back what it means for pupils to engage with PE. It was Andrew Frapwell (Frapwell, A. 2014) Systemwide improvement change: Assessment AS learning, OF learning FOR Learning Wychbold: afTLC Ltd) that lead the charge, developing a curriculum designed to bring back what it means to be a PE student. Both the Youth Sports Trust and the Association for PE have cited Andrew's work and research on this new direction of assessment, with proven case studies to support the use of this model. Andrew developed the concept of Head, Heart, Hands and leaders in the community have taken inspiration from these models, adapting the criteria and assessment outcomes to meet the needs of their own contexts and individual school needs.
Fundamentally, we all know that whatever model is chosen and whatever route you go down, there is an element of forcing round pegs into square holes. So let's park that, and focus on the solutions rather than what’s wrong with education.
It seems there’s been an ever-increasing comfort developing with the idea that we can give pupils a grade or a level and also deliver a meaningful curriculum. That we can use descriptors and/or levels to show the pupils that they are moving forward. If we forget the needs of the Senior Leadership Team, we do need something tangible to help pupils and teachers see that pupils are learning and progressing. So, what do you use?
We know that we need to assess, track, and monitor progress. But, how do we do that in a way that fits in with what the whole school is using as an assessment and reporting system? What’s best for the pupils we teach? What curriculum is going to be most engaging and enjoyable? Which curriculum will students learn from the most?
The good news is, Ofsted won’t be looking for or at your data – only school outcomes. But we do know that they’ll be looking for an engaging curriculum, where pupils thrive and learn. Therefore, delivery and assessment go hand in hand – and how do we know pupils are learning and progressing if we aren’t assessing?
So, which model do you go with? This choice really sits with the subject lead and ethos of the department, but here are a few ways teams have been choosing.
Different generic models
Skills-based curriculum
In a skills-based model, the focus is to teach skills that pupils successfully apply in a competitive scenario for a sport or activity. This generally sees a new skill taught every week, for example ‘the overhead clear’ or ‘chest pass.’ These skills can be taught in competitive situations from the start of the lesson, or taught in isolated drills and then applied. Our department tried to get pupils into competitive situations as often as possible. We felt pupils were more active, and their heart rate higher throughout the lesson in these types of scenarios and activities.
The assessment comes from level descriptors at your disposal. For example, GCSE criteria for the exam board that you use at GCSE level, or descriptors that have been written from scratch, breaking down skills in the same way the GCSE criteria does. You can then simply give the pupil a Level 1-9 or a Level based on their ability to meet the criteria.
When I was Director of Sport, we assessed pupils across eight sports. In line with the GCSE model, we assessed in isolated ‘Skill performance’ and in ‘Full context’ using the top three sports to calculate a grade from 1-9. Our ethos was that pupils shouldn’t be penalised for not being good at all sports. The old argument comes into play here: is Usain Bolt, not a sportsperson if he can’t play football? OK, bad example because I know that he can, but you get the idea.
Pupils who were talented footballers, for example, and really capable in basketball and athletics, but not particularly strong in badminton weren’t frustrated at the impact on their overall grade. It also gave them the opportunity to reinforce overarching strands of the curriculum such as determination or resilience, or to try new skills and develop other areas, and see that improvements in other sports and activities actually benefit their best sports in terms of agility, tactical awareness, speed, etc.
This is particularly useful for PE departments that have large GCSE cohorts. Not only does this get the pupils’ eyes on the criteria early, developing the exact skills needed to succeed at GCSE level, it also gives teachers and pupils great insight as to whether they are best suited to the GCSE, or whether they may need to find another pathway in KS4. We also assessed pupils in activities they engaged with outside of school: many of them were talented boxers, one was an international swimmer in Year 9. Lastly, we started to deliver GCSE in Year 9, so we gave the GCSE pupils extra time to develop practical skills in core lessons.
Holistic development-based curriculum
Holistic development uses PE and Physical Activity to teach soft skills. Examples include focusing on leadership and/or communication, teamwork, etc... and then assessing those strands. This is a more inclusive approach. It has been deemed “less elitist” and may encourage PE refusers, or those less engaged with PE, to be more engaged. A holistic curriculum also seeks to show both pupils and parents the benefit of sports, participation, and exercise – whereas in more traditional models the softer outcomes weren’t so obvious, and therefore undervalued. We have seen a number of schools document and evidence greater participation and engagement in PE with this model, but we have also had questions about the higher ability pupils that seek greater levels of challenge in lessons.
I haven’t been able to find a purely holistic approach amongst the PE community, so we would welcome anyone from our audience to share with us if they’re taking this approach. How it is working? How has it been implemented sustainably? How are the pupils engaging with it?
Hybrid curriculum
There has been an evolution of hybrid curriculum models, which assess ability as well as soft skills. The assessment is broader in this model, assessing pupils with covering statements that can be applied to multiple sports or activities. Examples include the Head, Heart, Hands curriculum and the work from Mr Thomas Brush with the ‘Me in PE’ curriculum model.
Me in PE
Tom fully recognises that he has taken inspiration from Andrew's concept to develop the 'Me in PE' model. He has worked directly in collaboration with Andrew and the PE community to develop this model, adapting and sharpening it for successful sustained delivery in his own school. He's now looking to share this model with the wider community.
The model looks at five core strands:
- Thinking Me
- Physical Me
- Social Me
- Healthy Me
- Personal Me
Pupils are assessed against this criteria using Foundation, Developing, Secure, and Excellence as the outcome. Tom has commented that senior managers have even given each outcome a number so that data can be analysed and progress can be evidenced. This is now bridging the gap towards a meaningful curriculum, and meeting the needs of whole-school assessment cycles.
The example below is taken from Tom’s Physical Me strand, showing how the criteria can be applied to more than one activity. The example below looks at one of the five strands in the model.
Example from ‘Me in PE’
Each core strand focuses on the broader understanding of physical activity and sports participation. The ‘Thinking Me’ assesses students’ ability to make decisions in competitive situations, apply tactics, and demonstrate tactical awareness. The ‘Healthy Me’ links the pupils’ ability to understand and interpret the benefits of a healthy active lifestyle, and so on.
As mentioned previously, Tom’s model uses level descriptors which could be interpreted as numbers if needed. For example, you could take a score for each activity, record the average scores for each strand, then report the highest scores for each strand. If the school report using 1-9 outcomes, you could even apply bands: 1-3 for Foundation, 4-6 for Developing, 7-8 for Secure, and 9 for Excellence. This represents a year group specific grading system. It’s a highly adaptive model, or it’s pretty much ready to go off the shelf!
You can download the full 'Me in PE' Assessment Pack here:
‘Head, Heart, Hands’ (initially developed by Andrew Frapwell, further developed by the PE teaching community)
This work originated from Andrew Frapwell’s research, then teachers across the community got their hands on it, remastering and adapting it for their own needs.
We were introduced to the ‘Head, Heart, Hands’ model by the Trinity PE Department and know that Bridgemary School has also successfully adopted this model. It has been working extremely well with their pupils, and they are very happy for it to be shared.
‘Head, Heart, Hands’ works in a slightly broader way than ‘Me in PE’ in that there are only three strands. Each of these strands has six sub-strands under each heading.
We have researched two adaptations to this model, and recommend getting to know both. These have been developed from two different contexts, so one solution might be more applicable for your school than the other.
‘Head, Heart, Hands’ (1-9 Grade Model)
With this version, pupils are assessed by giving them a grade based on whether they meet the criteria. Like ‘Me in PE’, this can be applied to multiple sports.
Both Trinity School and Bridgemary School are delivering this model using termly sports. For example, using football to assess across the three strands. This allows pupils and teachers to see the pupil’s highest-performing sport, and highest performing strand.
Below is an example of how this can be set up as a tracking system, and what it looks like to track the progress of this curriculum methodology. The example below is one we have developed specifically for The 9-1 Head Hearts Assessment Model, which supports not only reporting into whole school data cycles, but also for parents’ evening, and engaging with pupils in lessons. This is a popular delivery model amongst the PE community, and we have developed this to support the last piece of the puzzle on implementation.
‘Head, Heart, Hands’ (Level Descriptor Model)
This model is more like the structure of ‘ME in PE’, but uses the Head Heart Hands method. In the end, the final level descriptor can be reported, also as a number if needed.
There are five level descriptors within this model. What’s especially useful here, as with all of these models, is that it can be adapted for schools that only use four level descriptors, or use different names for the final outcomes. When you have all these descriptors and models, they can be used however you need.
These level descriptors also provide a set of criteria specific to each year group. Each year group’s criteria covers different content from the previous one, providing plenty of stretch and challenge for students, and the ability for lessons to be truly differentiated.
The tracking for this is similar to the ‘Me in PE model’, allowing you to select the appropriate level descriptor from a drop-down. This provides a number and average score for pupils for each strand and overall outcome.
So, which model is the best one to use?
All curriculum models have their pros and cons. When choosing a model, we believe that it comes down to the team and demographic of your pupils. You can get buy-in from pupils whichever model you use, as long as you’re crystal clear on why and how you’re going to deliver it. What’s more, if it’s delivered with enthusiasm and passion, it will work.
The first stage of the decision-making process is for your team to sit down and decide what it means for their pupils to be “engaged with PE”. For our context and demographic, we believed our pupils needed the focus on a single skill in each lesson, each with three key teaching points, allowing for focused exercises, activities, and drills that had structure and purpose. Using GCSE assessment criteria to assign levels, seeing their ability in each skill gave pupils a clear understanding of where they were working, how they could move forward, and how the focus of the lesson fed into their overall success or progress. But again, I must stress that this suited our pupils and their context. Our teachers were also passionate about using this method to deliver lessons, this passion fed through to the pupils, and that’s why it was ultimately a success. The same can be said for Trinity, Bridgemary, and Nishkam (where Tom is PE Lead). These schools are using different models, all are working well in their own context, the teachers have passion for the models, and they have buy-in from the team. That’s what makes them a success.
Try the KS3 PE hybrid curriculum models in action
We're happy to announce our brand-new KS3 PE Assessment Packs for the widely supported hybrid models outlined here: the Head, Heart, Hands (9-1 and Level Descriptor) curriculums and the 'Me in PE' model.
All three are available as part of our new downloadable packs, which include core assessment criteria, level descriptors and core task examples -- and along with the tracking system, they ensure you have all key components required to deliver at KS3.
Brett Griffin is the Founder and Owner of Pupil Progress. A former teacher for 12 years and a Director of Sports for 5 years, he is on a mission to transform the way data is used in education.