This post is written for PE teachers or those teaching or coaching young people in an educational setting. Within the post, I want to present five myths to you and then write what I would typically say or discuss with a student in response to their use of the myth or even, delicately, in response to these myths being displayed by other colleagues or parents of the students.
We should be upfront: myths are widely held but false beliefs. But exactly because they are widely believed, they are sometimes hard to counter, especially in a room full of teenagers. As always, the role of the educator when a student presents an opinion in line with a myth is not to be judgmental nor to castigate (unless there is a specific need to) but, rather, to ask delving questions about the opinion.
Let’s take five standard myths in sport and PE that I have heard time and time again:
Myth 1: Boys are better at sport than girls
Deep breath. This is a very firmly established myth. Many of your students will hold this view. Boys and girls in your classes. Moreover, some will know that the myth is unfair and even untrue but won’t be able to argue why it’s untrue. Therefore, there is an excellent educational opportunity here. Whenever I hear or read people arguing this myth, I almost universally experience them talking about maleness and femaleness. But look back at the myth. There are other variables:
Boys are better at sport than girls.
This myth is not only about sex. It’s also about sport. What is sport? What makes up success in a sport?
If, to begin with, we accept basic biological principles, we can probably reach a consensus that male physiology and specifically the testosterone bursts that happen three times over a male’s lifetime as well as the ongoing hyper-production of testosterone compared to females on average means that males, on average, will be more explosive, stronger and faster than females. Yes, there are exceptions and it is certainly true that many females are more explosive, stronger and faster than many males but the average trend remains. Finally we can probably all agree that, of the top 1% of the most explosive, strongest and fastest athletes, ALL are male and this plays out in elite sport if the sport is based on these characteristics. Sports like rugby, boxing, Association football, tennis, badminton, sprinting, etc. rely on power, strength and speed for success.
So far, you may even think I agree with the myth. But I don’t. The myth is false. Why? Because rugby, boxing, Association football, tennis, badminton, sprinting, etc. are not all that sport is or could be. Sports requiring hyper endurance, localised muscular endurance, pain tolerance and hyper-flexibility, say, are, unsurprisingly, dominated by women.
Let’s imagine that the sport of rugby was formatted under different conditions and was centrally focused on hyperflexibility as its core fitness component, as opposed to power. Which sex would dominate rugby? Females, right? Correct! This is why a history lesson is required.
Rugby was honed in a uniquely masculine environment. At the exact time that the cult of male athleticism was developing in elite schools in England, the adventurous and often dangerous off-site pursuit of those schoolboys was being curtailed. Boys at schools like Rugby School couldn’t leave the school to run, swim and hunt. Rather, they remained on the school grounds and had to release those physical expressions in a different way. Open spaces such as inter-building courtyards and lawns became focal points of play. Boys, having seen games like mob football in their villages, adapted their experiences to suit the confines of a rectangular piece of turf, eventually put posts at the end and created –literally created– the game of Rugby football. The game was all about masculinity. It could have reasonably been called testosterone-ball if rugby had not sufficed and, guess what, the game emphasised what boys can do well, on average: push, leap, run fast, dive, tackle and throw long distances. Rugby –and most of what we consider to be western sport– is developed on male physiology in the 19th century.
So let’s come back to our myth:
Boys are better at sport than girls.
Clearly this is not true but what could be true and –what’s more– is easily confusable with the myth above is the following fact:
Boys, on average, are likely to perform at higher physical levels in sports dominated by power, strength and speed than girls.
One can see why the myth is pervasive. All one needs is a little confirmation bias and a lack of historical understanding of the contextual development of western sport and the myth becomes very compelling.
Myth 2: Afro-Caribbean British (black) athletes are naturally faster
An even deeper breath: the myth that Afro-Caribbean British (from here forward I will refer to as “black”) athletes are naturally faster is a very, very widely held but false belief. If you are an ECT PE teacher, I can almost guarantee you that you are going to come across this myth. You may even believe the myth. The argument goes that if you look at the start line of a 100m sprint final for men or women, all or nearly all athletes will be black. Many people internalise this as evidence that black people are faster. Before you read on, what do you think of this? Do you think this is true?
I am going to firmly argue that it is not true. I have a few points to raise in support of my argument, but I will start here: there is not a single piece of research following a rigorous scientific methodology that has ever found there to be statistically significant differences between the speed of black, white or any other ethnicity athletes. Now, if someone can point me in the direction of such research and I am confident in its process and the results have been replicated, I will change my view. But, until then I want to try to explain why I think so many people hold this myth.
Firstly, the concept of difference is very important to traditional ideas about race and, specifically, about superiority. Race theory posited, with no reliable evidence whatsoever, that black people had certain physical superiorities and certain intellectual deficiencies in order to justify, amongst other things, slavery and control. These falsehoods seem to have been woven into the fabric of society and seem to still require a little unweaving. Furthermore, I personally believe that there is a form of fetishisation over these concepts. Modern, western society seems enamoured with the idea of white success. For example, have you ever heard anyone ask the question of “Why are black athletes faster than Japanese athletes?” I’m going to guess you haven’t. Why not? Western society seems fixated on a white winner.
Others have suggested that the dominance of athletes whose ancestors experienced a transatlantic, slave ship crossing hundreds of years ago can partially explain the success of sprint athletes in places like Jamaica. The "Great Man", Usain Bolt even suggested this himself and you can read about that via the BBC. But there is no evidence whatsoever for this "strong genes" or "unnatural natural selection" theory just as the BBC go on to argue in the article I have mentioned already.
None of this explains why black athletes are overrepresented in Olympic sprint finals, right? I am strongly of the opinion that the modern trend of black sprinter success is socioculturally derived. Otherwise, why do we not see other power and speed-focused events such as sprint track cycling, javelin throwing, hockey goalkeeping and sprint swimming dominated by black athletes? If black athletes are faster, why is it almost purely in sprinting on a running track? The answer to all of these questions ultimately comes down to OPE: Opportunity, Provision and Esteem.
I will focus on provision here: provision relates to concepts such as the availability of a sporting infrastructure such as clubs, competitions, coaches and talent pathways. Let’s take the most successful sprinting nations of the last quarter century and identify Jamaica, USA and –go on, let’s chuck it in– the UK based on some relay success. All three of these nations have a potent provision for sprinting just as Indonesia does for badminton and India does for kabaddi. Moreover, all three nations have established black populations to varying degrees. Therefore, black athletes from these locations have access to the right provision. This helps explain why Senegal, Mali or Nigeria do not dominate in sprinting despite having a large black population. Yes, they have a few fine athletes but nowhere near the per-capita success of black athletes in Jamaica, the USA and the UK.
But again, this does not explain why black athletes from the UK currently seem to outperform white athletes from the UK. Both groups have access to that provision, right? Well, yes but provision is not the only factor. We also need to consider concepts such as esteem. Esteem is the driver of behaviour, things such as personal confidence and belief in the possibility of success. It is role models to learn from and aspire toward. It is acceptance and encouragement. It is every interaction with a parent, sibling or peer about the attitude object (in this case, sprinting). Think about how many times a fast, young person would have been socialised toward or away from sports and positions in sports based on their ethnicity. Think about how many times a young, black athlete has been socialised into sprinting positions such as striker and winger in football rather than into a central midfield or goalkeeping role. Think about every time a young, fast white athlete has been socialised away from 100m sprinting because they may be more suited to 400m or 800m.
Whilst sociological factors are much harder to pin down, they really do have an impact and, when we also consider the concept of opportunity which includes available income, time, transport and parental support, the reasons why young, black, British athletes are socialised more toward sprinting than tennis, say, become apparent.
Myth 3: PE is not an academic subject
Have you noticed that there is snobbishness around learning? Some –and I would argue many– people seem to hold a belief that some forms of learning are superior. In the UK, maths, the sciences and linguistics are seen as more “academic” than the humanities. The humanities are deemed as more important, although equally academic, to foreign languages and all of these are more academic than music, drama, design and technology. But a special place is reserved for PE. At the very bottom of the pile is PE: the least academic of all the subjects, right? This really, really annoys me. I am going to imagine that it really, really annoys a lot of PE teachers around the country too. For a long time in my early career, I tended to not view myself as equal in the staffroom. I would consider that my views on classroom teaching didn't count, and I probably had a point. I got very close to zero training in classroom practice. As I moved up school management structures and got to see the inside of many of these classrooms around schools, I came to believe that I was pretty decent in comparison to the average.
But this myth goes much deeper than this. The myth is that PE is not academic. Well, exactly what is “academic”? What does it mean? Gemini (I’m obsessed with it; many more updates about our impending work with AI to follow) states that:
Academic learning is the process of acquiring knowledge and skills in an educational setting, such as a school, college, or university. It's different from everyday learning experiences and involves specific cognitive systems for assimilating new information.
So, academic learning is formal: it happens in a school, college or university. Tick!
It also involves specific cognitive systems for assimilating new information. I cannot think of a better description of learning in physical education than this. It is exactly what we do! It is certainly exactly what I do as a PE teacher. Furthermore, and as I have argued before in my blog Schools are sedentary institutions! Move More Month might be able to help, I can even make a good case for academic learning in PE being the most critical of a student’s school experience because it is directly related to an individual’s physical, emotional and social health. Factors that affect 100% of our society.
So, PE teachers, get your collective chins (one chin per PE teacher, not one PE teacher with lots of chins) up and stand, at least, shoulder to shoulder with your maths, science and drama colleagues in that staffroom.
Myth 4: PE teachers don’t do marking
I’m going to keep this one really simple:
PE teachers do a full day of teaching, then offer extracurricular activities because they believe in the importance of provision and then also do marking for their GCSE, BTEC or A-level groups.
Furthermore, PE teachers assess every student via their own, core PE assessment criteria with many of these teachers even setting out-of-hours written learning and assessment for core PE students and mark this too.
PE teachers do marking!
Myth 5: Extracurricular clubs are just for teams
I find this myth really interesting because it may have been relatively true 30 years ago. Extracurricular sport was a competitive teams-type offer. Therefore, it was relatively elitist. Now, I strongly believe in school sport as a vehicle for learning and I am not here to knock this at all but, in 2024, extracurricular sport and PE is far more than just teams.
Reflecting on this, I want to mention my three most popular –and I would consider successful– extracurricular clubs over my 26-year teaching career. Before you look at these, be aware that I have coached teams in football, korfball, badminton and table tennis to national representation and, in the case of badminton, been a two-time British National Colleges champion coach but my most successful clubs are these:
The cheerleading club really surprised me. I was approached by a group of students in 2009 about hosting a cheerleading club. I was dead against it. In my opinion at the time, cheerleading seemed to be the art of females shaking stuff about to entertain men whilst the sweaty boys had a break in the changing rooms. I was wrong. Cheerleading is an art form. It is spectacular as a dance format and, perhaps more critically, it engaged hundreds of sixth-form age, typically female students in high-intensity physical activity. I distinctly remember the same students coming back to me and refusing to leave until I agreed. So I agreed. Within two weeks, the dance studio and then, later, the sports hall were rammed full of dancers.
I’m not going to pretend it was all smooth sailing. We had to hire a coach. I had to somehow get people registered (it was a nightmare, they were everywhere) every week and, on one occasion, a student had a really nasty fall. But the take-up was spectacular!
About 12 months later, the same original students came back to see me and persuaded me to invest in a cheerleading kit. They had got hold of samples and were sitting with me wearing the kit. How can one say no to such persistence and success?
I still keep in touch with the college and the club is still going! What a success!
Girls' night was brilliant. We implemented it on Wednesdays after school and we did so based on some learner voice surveys where girls told us they didn’t like the feeling of having lots of boys around. These were the rules:
Girls flooded down to PE on Wednesday nights. Within 12 months, the average register was of over 100 girls. The entire school (this was one site of three) was 800 pupils, meaning that in the region of a quarter of the girls attended. It became so popular that we had to break the rules. We didn’t have enough female staff to manage the popularity, so I would always find myself as first reserve on Wednesdays. Come 15:30, I would be in the PE office hoping for and hoping against massive numbers. Obviously, I’m deeply proud of being part of it but an early finish is also lovely. Invariably I’d get the call: “Simmsy, you’re on table tennis!” I’d just get stuck in and play some games and have a giggle. It was super chill. I wonder how many of those girls made decisions based on those experiences. I would like to know how many kept doing their badminton or trampolining or simply learned to love to move. I really, really hope this is the case.
Finally, “Open night” was in response to complaints we received from boys that they didn’t have a Boys’ night like the girls did. It was fair criticism and they had a point, but I honestly didn't feel comfortable excluding girls on any night. I understand that some people may disagree with this stance but it was the best decision at the time. Instead, we opened up the PE block to everyone on a Friday after school. Whilst it was tough to get the team to stay at school until 17:00 on a Friday, we always managed to staff it one way or another and there were kids everywhere! There were tonnes of football, table tennis, cricket nets (softball), basketballs... We even developed a specific running club on a Friday because an art teacher loved running. She would take groups of –typically– females on local runs as we had lots of open spaces near us. It was awesome. I remember this one lad on a Friday night always wanted to play me at table tennis. I am a half-decent player and he did everything to try and beat me. I never let him win. In fact, I don’t think he ever got a game off me but I do recall in one of the last weeks I worked at the school he took me to setting (when the score gets to 10-10 and someone has to win by two) twice in a best-of-three game match. I have never, ever seen a more determined young person than for those final few points. Now, daftly, he lifted a ball onto my open forehand on the decisive point and I looped it past his backhand but that experience will always stay with me. I actually hugged him after that match. It was honourable and appropriate and public and, whilst I’m sure someone will tell me it was wrong, it wasn’t to me. We shared a moment and I deeply hope that young man (probably now in his mid-thirties) still plays table tennis.
So, there you have it. Five myths in PE and sport. What do you think? Do you agree with me? Do you see it differently? Do be encouraged to add a comment whether or not you agree with my stances. I’m not ideological in my opinions and what exists above is simply a set of opinions.
I really enjoyed writing this blog. It made me think of lots of people that I hadn’t thought about in ages and made me smile in lots of places. I hope you enjoyed reading it. 🙂
James