Policy agendas for education in the UK (e.g. EYFS, NCPE) as in many countries elsewhere are driven by expectations that play and physical education respectively will impact positively on a child’s educational attainment, health and wellbeing. Research findings around the intersections between health discourse, PE and learning environments are currently the subject of much debate within the social science literature on pedagogy, the body and policy. This paper looks to add to these debates by exploring the nature of the transactions within primary school PE and how these may differ between settings in relation to social class and culture. Primary school contexts, as with all other educational settings, are complex assemblages of several discourses (i.e. academic, cultural, social, moral) that together play their part in constructing children’s learner identities.

Physical education (PE) in England and internationally, has historically been and is increasingly seen as a subject in which political agendas can and are being enacted (Penney, 2008) as health, sport and /or leisure agendas compete for space against educational aspirations (Houlihan and Green, 2006). Against this backdrop, in 2012, the UK Government announced the launch of ‘Primary PE and Sport Premium’ (PPESP) funding (amounting to £450 million) for English primary schools, initially for three years (although later extended). We have existing international literature on the impact of outsourcing on who delivers PE (Sperka and Enright, 2018; Parnell et al, 2017), the impact of outsourcing on teachers (Smith, 2013) and how schools spend their funding (Griggs, 2016). However, this paper focuses on the nature of the transactions and interactions within primary school PE.

Previous research (Petrie and Clarkin- Philips, 2017; Stirrup and Evans, 2016)  within the Early Years Education (EYE) context, illustrate how the different organisational and curriculum structures, pedagogical interactions and transactions of EYE settings cultivate distinctive relationships to health knowledge. These relationships, in turn, play their part in the reproduction of social class and cultural inequalities, despite the best intentions of EYE policy to address these matters. Similarly, we know from previous international research within secondary school, that PE discourses cultivate certain ideals which impact on pupil’s engagement and interaction with the subject (Croston and Hills, 2017; Wilkinson and Penney, 2016; Wright and Burrows, 2006).  However, we know very little about the nature of pedagogical interactions and transactions within primary school PE which is what this research aims to shed light on. Using Bernstein’s concepts, ‘the pedagogic device’ (PD), codes and ‘classification and frame’ (C and F) this paper will look to explore curriculum enacted in each setting, the nature of the transactions between teachers and pupils within PE lessons, and the impact this has on children’s learner identities.  

The research to be presented here, is in its early stages but will draw on data collected from across three socially and culturally diverse primary schools. Specifically, the data will be collected across one school term (3 months) and will include observations, focus groups and semi structured interviews. It is anticipated that Key Stage 2 pupils will participate in this project because, this is hopefully a small-scale project and the starting point for a larger project exploring PE and the transition between primary and secondary school. As such, it is felt that exploring the nature of transactions between coaches/teachers and Year 3/ 4 pupils in PE, is important since this marks the start of Key Stage 2 and preparation for the transition to secondary school where physical education exists as a compulsory weekly timetabled slot and there are expectations that pupils arrive with specific knowledge of PE. It is anticipated that observations of PE lessons, will take place on a weekly basis across one Year 3 or 4 class within each school. These observations will inform two focus group discussions with each class, one towards the start of the term, and one towards the end to understand pupils learning and understanding within PE. Furthermore, semi structured interviews will take place with the class teacher or sports coach (context dependant).

We know from previous work in both EYE and secondary school PE focused research (Stirrup and Evans 2016; Evans and Davies 2017; 2015; 2014 ) that social inequalities prevail, and specific learner identities are constructed. These learner identities can position certain children as being ‘at risk’. Drawing on previous research, specifically within the EYE context, those deemed not at risk are routinely encouraged to think beyond the immediate and are presented with greater opportunity to determine their own actions, with the expectation that they will choose correctly. In this process they internalise and consolidate the rules and expectations of elaborate codes within their social setting. Enacted EYFS policy replicates family life ensuring there is a continuous pedagogy at play. Made ‘school ready’ these children are likely to carry this ‘advantage’ into the next phase of schooling and (more) comfortably recognise its elaborated codes. This research will look to explore if this advantage is carried across and the potential impact for learner’s identity within primary school and beyond.

Griggs, G. (2016). Spending the Primary Physical Education and Sport Premium: A West Midlands Case Study. Education 3 -13 44 (5): 547–555. Penney, D. (2008). Playing a political game and playing for position: Policy and curriculum development in health and PE. European Physical Education Review 4 (1): 33–49. Petrie, K., and Clarkin- Phillips, J., (2017). ‘Physical Education’ in early childhood education: Implications for primary school curricula, European Physical Education Review, 1 (17): 2-17 Smith, A. (2015). Primary school physical education and sports coaches: evidence from a study of School Sport Partnerships in north-west England, Sport, Education and Society, 20 (7): 872-888 Sperka, L., and E. Enright. (2018). The Outsourcing of Health and Physical Education. European Physical Education Review, 24(3), 349–371 Wilkinson, S., and Penney, D., (2017). The involvement of external agencies in extra-curricular physical education: reinforcing or challenging gender and ability inequities? Sport, Education and Society, 21(5), 741-758