Assessment criteria in PE: where they come from and why

Assessment criteria in physical education are a constant source of debate between parents and teachers. But they do not come out of nowhere — learning outcomes are already set out in the national curriculum, and somewhere a line has to be drawn between achieving an outcome and falling short.

Why we need criteria in the first place

Learning is work. The effectiveness of any work can be measured — it shows how we have used our time, what we did effectively and what we could do better. If the learning outcome is the destination, the grade tells us how far we have come.

But how should we assess a student who makes it halfway to that destination? Or 75% of the way? Or 90%? That is exactly why we have criteria — clear boundaries between grades 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Without them, assessment becomes vague, and accusations of “grading based on favoritism” inevitably surface.

The national curriculum states this obligation explicitly:

Learning outcomes are assessed through descriptive feedback and numerical grades. Assessment methods must be varied and aligned with the expected learning outcomes. Students must know what will be assessed and when, which assessment tools will be used and what the assessment criteria are.

How criteria develop from the curriculum

Subject syllabuses define, by topic area, what students must achieve in each subject by the end of each stage of schooling. If a learning outcome is set for the end of a stage, interim targets must also be set for the end of each school year.

The learning outcome at the end of a school year = the standard or competency to be attained during that year. Achieving it in full earns an “exemplary” assessment, or a grade of 5. If it is not fully achieved, partial achievement must also be assessed. That is where the full grading scale comes from.

The grading system is already flexible. If you master 52% of what is required — effectively only half — nobody says you have failed. Scores of 52%, 61% or 85% also represent work done, but indicate a lower level of ability. Individual differences are accounted for throughout, simply within the criteria rather than outside them.

Sensitive periods and age-appropriate development

Time is not unlimited. Children go through sensitive periods in their development — windows in which certain skills are learned quickly and effectively. Miss those windows, and learning the same skill later becomes several times harder, or even impossible. In theory, you can learn to do a cartwheel at forty, but in the early years of primary school, the chance of mastering it is almost 100%.

Educator Jelena Sepp puts it well:

Although we know that individual rates of development vary greatly and that summary data (textbooks, tables) describe only a general trend, when assessing and influencing a child’s development we must also take into account so-called sensitive periods, when the relevant developmental input has the greatest effect. If, for example, a child’s speech does not emerge and develop during the sensitive period for speech (1.5–3 years), it is very difficult to make up for lost time later. Teaching a deaf child to speak is much more effective during this sensitive period.

Read more: https://jmadisson.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/lapse-arengust-ja-selle-jalgimisest/

It is therefore unreasonable to disregard the average level for a child’s age. Curricula have not relaxed their requirements in this respect — the finish line is the same for students in mainstream schools, and that is more a blessing than a burden.

Criteria in practice — an example from physical education

Let me give you a concrete example. Under the athletics learning outcomes for grade 6, the national curriculum states that a student completing grade 6 can run continuously at a manageable pace for 9 minutes. That is the full learning outcome that warrants a grade of 5.

Because the curriculum sets outcomes for each stage of schooling, the subject teacher must set out the intermediate steps for each school year. A logical progression would look something like this:

• A student completing grade 4 runs continuously for 5 minutes
• A student completing grade 5 runs continuously for 7 minutes
• A student completing grade 6 runs continuously for 9 minutes

It makes no sense to play circle games in grades 4 and 5 and then suddenly require students to run for 9 minutes at the end of grade 6. The goal must be reached step by step.

But what if a student completing grade 6 can only run for 7 or 5 minutes? Has the learning outcome been achieved? No. This is precisely where grading criteria come in — clear boundaries set by the teacher. This is not a matter of the teacher’s mood; it is a legal obligation.

Frequently asked questions about criteria

Don’t criteria conflict with individual differences?

No. A scale of 1–5 means that every student’s level of achievement receives an appropriate assessment. Individual differences are part of the assessment, not separate from it.

What happens if a child does not reach the expected level for their age?

They receive the corresponding lower grade. That does not mean they have failed. What matters is that both the student and their parent know where the child currently stands and what they need to work toward next.

Can teachers make up their own grading criteria?

Not out of thin air. The criteria are based on the learning outcomes in the national curriculum, and teachers are responsible for setting them out for each school year. This is part of the transparent assessment that the curriculum explicitly requires.

Author: Janar Rückenberg

Come work out! ArtGym