UKC

Climbing has been offered at GCSE level for a number of years now, yet little has been reported in the wider community about its inclusion in the Physical Education qualification and the benefits it can bring to young people. The landscape of GCSEs will be changing from September 2016, and the climbing component is no exception.

We spoke to Iain MacKenzie - Technical Officer at National Indoor Climbing and Bouldering Award Schemes and a selection of teachers, assessors and pupils to find out more about what the course offers.

Read more

In reply to UKC Articles:

Fantastic... A really great, positive change to physical education in schools...!

In reply to UKC Articles:

I have to mention (because otherwise somebody else will), the syllabus states "Rope management - coiling, uncooling, preparation...."

I'm sorry but there is no possible way to uncool your rope. It's cool, end of!

In reply to UKC Articles:

I'm glad it wasn't on the syllabus when I started. Along with a few mates I was totally alienated by the ball-kicking jock-strap establishment that held sway at school. Climbing was just a wonderful adventure that we could get on with without the "supervision" of these PE tossers. They did mutter about how we should have "proper tuition" when they found out, which made it all the sweeter as they knew sweet FA about it.

In reply to UKC Articles:

I think it's all a bit trendy, would be better to make sure all kids leaving school could ride a bike, swim properly etc.. I don't think climbing should be added at the expense of simple sports that require almost no equipment, ie football etc.. kids should be encourage in sports that they can then do at the drop of a hat at home, it might help keep them off play stations and sweets. A few days a year to introduce them to other activities is fine, but not week in and week out.

In reply to Andy Long:

Love it... just f*cking love it!

Mick

In reply to summo:
One of the points made in the article is that climbing is a very different sport than football, rugby, hockey, basketball etc. It has a totally different social aspect and is generally non competitive. Our kids club and squad are full of kids who hate the 'traditional' sports that can involve physical prowess, ridicule if you don't like/can't do them and have found a sport where they can achieve in their own way.

I see it inspiring sport averse kids all the time.

That's why I'm happy it's on the GCSE syllabus. It shows kids that sport is not all about the jocks and grumpy pe teachers.

In reply to Andy Long:


Greatest fun John and I had at school was when we took our gym master to Harrison's (he'd expressed an interest) and he had a great deal of trouble getting up anything.

In reply to summo:

Sadly my school was so focused on "ball-kicking jock-strap" sports that I hated with a passion, that when they offered climbing at Harrisons I didn't even listen I was so switched off by then.

Bouldering is a sport that needs even less equipment than football, and you don't also have to join the red or blue tribe under peer pressure.

Luckily I could swim and cycle before I went to school, and my parents who still lived near Harrisons introduced me to climbing eventually

In reply to Andy Long:

There's no compulsion to climb. Its just one of many options that kids can choose from if they do PE as a GCSE subject. They still have to do a certain amount of PE even if they don't choose PE as a GCSE option. Hopefully, schools offer a wide range of sports for GCSE PE candidates, not just the mainstream boring ball ones. My son opted to do climbing, mountain biking, swimming and personal survival and did it a year early, securing a very good grade. As a club standard footballer and athlete he could have chosen other options, but thoroughly enjoyed doing something a bit different. He couldn't have done this without the support of the "PE tossers" who gave him these opportunities.

In reply to UKC Articles:

I would have killed to do climbing, or even something like swimming as a GCSE. Absolutely hated football, rugby, etc etc.

In reply to UKC Articles:

How exceptionally f*cking boring ... peer trust, working in partnership, strengths & weaknesses, developing specifications ... sounds like being in the office.

In reply to biscuit:


I would agree in part, but there are a whole range of athletic activities etc.. a distance to suit everyone.

Swimming is my main bug bear though. I see it as a life skill and there is no excuse for kids leaving school after 11 years of sports education every week and not being proficient swimmers.

In reply to UKC Articles:

It would look much better if the Edexcel document had been well written.

;~))

In reply to dgbryan:


Yes, the meaningless educational bollockspeak reducing it to just another aspect of the overeassessed soulless curriculum is profoundly depressing, but if it introduces kids who might otherwise be wasting their lives playing video games and on facebook to the wonderful, glorious world of climbing........................

In reply to Robert Durran:

"meaningless educational bollockspeak" brilliant.

In reply to UKC Articles:

OCR - really hating on bouldering...

In reply to UKC Articles:

I wonder what the pass/fail rate / grade spread is?

In reply to Toerag:


Due to the nature of the beast no-one knows, it seems people don't know how many kids even use climbing as an option for GCSE PE.

But depending on the school (obvs), not that many kids do GCSE PE anyway.

It tends to be away from the academic side, so if you're doing sciences, for example, the timetable doesn't offer the option. My lad couldn't even do both German and Geography due to the timetable restrictions.

RE, PE, Resistant Materials (woodwork), Dance, Food Technology (how are twiglets made?) are at the other end of the options.

So focusing on grades, not telling us much but historically lower.

In reply to Howlinmaggie:



OCR = Only Crushing Routes

* I'll get my coat...

In reply to Toerag:

I've taught GCSE Climbing as a very part-time instructor at my local wall, Wolf Mountain. In my experience most kids who choose it as one of their GCSE PE options find it stimulating and challenging. Don't know any national stats for Climbing in isolation - they may well only be available for PE overall. However, I must say it's very easy to assess the students: we just pick out those who are 'having the most fun' and dish out the A*s!

In reply to Andy Clarke:


Yes, but what criteria do you use to determine whether a student is having sufficient fun to warrant an A* (or any other grade)?

In reply to Robert Durran:


I simply refer to my fun assessment matrix to arrive at a fully objective judgement. I would reproduce it here but it requires a minimum of five days off-timetable training at a selection of overpriced hotel conference centres before it can be understood.

In reply to summo:


In the UK swimming is only taught at Primary level, not Secondary, although I think it is compulsory not all schools do it.

Part of the problem is that public pools typically come under a different part of the council, so it's a hassle to get to a pool as they're not co-sited. You can waste that time in Primary but not Secondary.

Of course it is also quite possibly wholly fallacious to say that swimming is a life skill as more swimmers drown than non-swimmers, by encouraging children into the water you may just be killing more than if you just told them never to go near it.

In reply to UKC Articles:
I went to Macmillan Academy 5 years ago and being on a sports course is exactly how I got into climbing! Great to see that Macmillan Academy and more schools are now still introducing more and more people into the world of rock climbing!

In reply to winhill:

If only such a practical factual approach was taken religious education, morning assemblies and so forth, there would be a few free hours a week for swimming?

In reply to Robert Durran:


I think it might be a play on the cliche "the best climber is the one having the most fun" :p

In reply to Morgan Woods:


Oh, I see. But that is complete bollocks; hardly a suitable basis for objective assessment in the context of an important examination which might affect a student's life chances.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Did you miss the winky face?

A fail at GCSE PE is not going to materially affect anybody's life chances. I would argue that a fail may indicate someone who prioritises things correctly (assuming they passed spelling and maths)

edited for spelling - the irony!

In reply to Andy Hardy:



Well why bother with GCSE PE then? The whole point of education is as a vehicle for objective assessment to provide grades which then determine a person's progression through life.

In reply to UKC Articles:
Climbing is a spare time personal activity.
GCSEs should be all about Maths, English, Physics, Chemistry, History, Geography, Biology, Art, Woodwork, Metalwork and a few others.
No wonder UK is 20th or some other abysmal position in World education attainment.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Not sure i would be too happy at my young daughter coming home and telling me she had spent time doing gcse climbing at school. If she could do it at the local climbing centre, great but i dont see it as a positive at school.

It would feel like we were taking something she already knows (And by the time its GCSE applicable definately knows) and slotted it into a class that could be better used. I didnt get a gcse in football. I didnt get a gcse in running. If my daughter wants a gcse in climbing, she will have to do it off her own back imo

In reply to Robert Durran:


The only point to GCSE PE is to make woodentops feel like proper teachers.

I thought education generally had a bit more point than merely sorting academic wheat from chaff, and, fortunately for me at least, my progress through life has not been entirely determined by my 'O'-level results

In reply to Andy Hardy:

As an ex secondary school head I do have very strong views about 'the whole point of education' but I won't be boring people on here with them. I fear that at any moment someone will raise the subject of Media Studies A-level. However, I would just like to point out that climbing lends itself quite easily to objective assessment criteria, eg 20 climbs at 5/5+, 30 climbs at 6a or above etc etc.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Only if you have an objective way to measure grades. There have been several immensely long threads on here about this.........

And if you can't measure attainment objectively then the subject clearly has no place in a rational education system.

In reply to Andy Hardy:



or depending the sports played indicate a person completely unable to work as part of team.

if the GCSE PE is simply not relevant, then it is waste of money, have normal PE lessons and use the GCSE option for a more relevant academic subject.

In reply to Andy Clarke:


I would rather see the assessment related to understanding pulley systems, forces on anchors & directly runners, group management skills, the physical properties of different climbing mediums, the history of climbing. This is real knowledge that can be assessed, not some numerical climbing grade, as long as people can climb a pretty low minimum it doesn't matter, it's not a guide's summer assessment. A bit like an ML assessment doesn't measure how long your biggest best ever hill day is, but the skills which you needed or used to accomplish it.

In reply to Robert Durran:



Much educational 'measurement' depends on judgement informed by professional training and moderation. Obvious examples of subjects where this is primarily the case would by English, History and Art. I believe assessment in Sport can be as 'objective' as it is in these cases and consequently I regard it as a perfectly valid and important part of the curriculum. In fact, my school entered all students for GCSE PE Short Course and offered the Full Course as an option. Sport, both curricular and extra-curricular, played a crucial role in the life of the school, which was very popular, successful and rated outstanding. Our 'wooden tops' were highly thought of by colleagues, students and parents alike.

In reply to Andy Clarke:


Well I'd chuck them out of the curriculum as well then

In reply to summo:

Interesting. How would you assess this exactly? A written exam? A discussion? As soon as it is reduced to "real knowledge that can be assessed" it'll all have to be evidenced and that - unbelievably - would probably mean a written exam in climbing. Hmmm.

In reply to UKC Articles:
The Scottish Qualifications Authority are definitely missing a trick: they could have Higher Climbing.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

and then Advanced Higher Climbing

In reply to tony:

and then Severe Advanced Higher climbing,
and then Hard Severe Higher Climbing...

In reply to 1234None:


yes, ML, SPA, MIA, etc.. have a written theory paper. So why not. It's easy to write a definitive set of answers for a GCSE climbing paper. I would add in environmental and access legislation too. If you want a qualification related to climbing, there is more to climbing that bottom roping an indoor wall.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:



I think I agree with you there, based on the spelling and grammar skills of some of the youngsters we have had in the office recently, either for work experience whilst they're at school or doing their full year out in practice from their uni course. Master the basics first, then worry about the secondary subjects.

Most, if not all of my young, foreign colleagues can spell and punctuate a sentence better than their home-grown counterparts.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Reading some of the replies, some people appear to be under the impression that students do a bit of climbing then get awarded a GCSE in Physical Education. In reality (with Edexcel at least) students have their practical ability assessed in 4 different sports of their choosing. On top of this they are required to produce some written controlled assessment (think coursework that is done in class under exam conditions). They also have to produce a personal exercise program that is based on fitness testing done at the start of the course. When GCSE exam time comes around, they have to sit a 1 and a half hour theory paper. There appears to be a bit more to this GCSE in climbing than it first appears!

In reply to summo:
From what I understand, there's already a written paper for the theory element, but that isn't climbing specific - and in my opinion it doesn't need to be. Climbing is just one of the sports that students can choose for the practical element. The assessment of that element will always be, to some degree, subjective and difficult to tightly control. I'm of the opinion that there should be an element of the course that allows young people to just try new sports and develop new skills - even if they aren't on the exam. The more opportunity for a young person to discover their unique combination of talents/skills, the better. A lot of kids don't get these opportunities in their home life, so reducing their exam-focused years to just that which is on the test would be a shame.

Distilling education to only that which can be easily standardised and objectively assessed is symptomatic of what is wrong with our education systems in general. Most of the really worthwhile skills/character traits that could be taught in schools aren't necessarily that easy to assess on a piece of paper. Robert's comments above about education being all about generating grades, which in turn dictate a person's progression through life is hard to believe, given the fact that he has a lot of direct experience in education.

I teach science, which is still mostly taught without assessing a young person's ability to think scientifically, ask good questions etc. I'm not suggesting getting rid of the theory element, but am suggesting a more practical focus and more trust in teacher ongoing assessment, despite the fact that it may be subjective. That's why I believe the introduction of a wider range of practical options for GCSE PE, with grading that is perhaps a little more subjective, is a good thing.

In reply to 1234None:

In answer to the post you deleted yesterday before I had time to reply (!): No, none of my posts, except to some extent the first, in this thread have been serious (or at least not to be taken at face value); I've just been venting my current deep cynicism with the direction in which education seems to be heading, in particular the extent to which everything is driven by jumping through the hoops of assessment to the detriment or exclusion of developing any actual thinking, understanding or appreciation of a subject.

In reply to Robert Durran:
Makes more sense now! Thanks. I couldn't agree more.

Perhaps summo is venting the same cynicism, but unfortunately I don't think that's the case...

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

'All they need is facts. They are little vessels waiting to be filled with facts.' T. Gradgrind.

I'm amazed you included something as airey-fairy as 'Art' in your list.

In reply to UKC Articles:
Its interesting the differing approaches that are possible. At one end of the scale it can be, 'Who wants to do climbing? Hands up. Right you are going down to the local wall to be taught climbing'. It's an approach, but I wonder how many pupils elect to do football who have never kicked one?

But at the other end of the scale it can be a pupil who climbs demonstrating their competence to aid towards a qualification. For those of you who were already going climbing when you went through your GCSE's (or 'O' levels for the old gits amongst us) would it have been nice to have been allowed to do that instead of being made to play rugby to gain marks.

For what its worth I helped my son prepare a video for his GCSE assessment.

He described and practically demonstrated a range of gear, its use and care, from harness through to cams; demonstrated the construction of a single point and equalised multi-point anchor on a crag top and a multi-point equalised ground anchor and how to tie into them using that full range of gear. He then looked at guidebooks and the information on access and good practise contained as well as identifying physical crag features, with their strange terminology, and discussed the difference between the UK trad. climbing grades and sport grades (he did mention that bouldering grades are just a total mess). Moving on to bouldering on a grit crag he described a full range of hold use and movement techniques and practically demonstrated them (heel-hooks, mantels, hand- and foot-jams etc etc.) He then showed (on a limestone crag for variety) how they could be all incorporated into a low level bouldering traverse to practice the flow from hold to hold required on routes. Rigging a bottom rope and ground anchor he belayed another climber on a crag and held their fall and lowered them off under control. He then led a trad limestone route placing a variety of wires and cams for protection and at the top created a three point (two wires and a cam) equalised anchor and brought a second up to him. He then realigned the anchor to enable an abseil to 'retrieve stuck gear'. He abbed down, self-protecting with a french prusik. At that point he felt that he had fully satisfied the assessment criteria specified. He got 10 marks towards his overall GCSE grade and I thought he probably deserved them.

But he can't spell 'prusik' I bet.

In reply to summo:


So maths, physics, communication skills, chemistry/geology, reading and understanding but no actual climbing? They used to call that 'general studies' in the old days didn't they?

And I'm afraid I would refute the idea that group management skills are 'real knowledge that can be assessed'. You can assess knowledge of the theory in that way but the actual application of those skills in a real environment is a different matter.

In reply to Andy Clarke:


It may lend itself to that but obviously such criteria only assess physical performance. Are the only 'good' climbers those who lead E4 or above, for example? Is someone with one arm who can't manage 6a told to go away and not bother?

In reply to Andy Say:

I made the presumption that going climbing and some sort of assessment of ability to belay etc.. would be a given.

I do think subjects should be taught more in conjunction with each other, so people see how they are applied to the real world, rather than people saying that they learnt X at school and never used it in real life etc.., as they reach for their phone to divide a very simple restaurant bill.


I was only really referring to practical stuff here. Although you can still ask for a written list like considerations when climbing as group like warm ups, access, litter, toileting etc.. most of a GCSE could be robbed from SPA.

In reply to summo:


Which begs the question: why on earth would anyone want a GCSE in climbing as opposed to an SPA or CWA.

If you are looking for a job related to climbing an employer is going to want a CWA or SPA. If you aren't going for a climbing related job an employer isn't going to care if you have a GCSE in climbing.

In reply to Andy Say:


I'm quoting (from memory) examples of criteria from the syllabus of the exam for which I've done some instructing. Obviously these criteria relate to the physical performance aspect of climbing, which is not the only aspect assessed. If memory serves, to score A/A* you need to apply a range of knowledge and practical skills across 35 climbs at 6a. This seems reasonable to me: after all, a top GCSE grade should be a real challenge. Doing so on climbs that were less demanding technically would result in a lower GCSE grade. Without wanting to re-open one of UKC's infinity threads, I would regard someone who consistently leads E4 as an 'extremely good' climber and as a 'better' climber than someone who consistently leads VS, particularly in relation to assessing them for an exam. I don't know what special arrangements would be made for the assessment of disabled pupils in climbing, but I can't see any of the PE depts I've worked with being so unfeeling or uninterested that they'd simply tell the pupil to go away!

In reply to Andy Say:

Can you get the video uploaded here? Sounds worth watching.

In reply to Andy Clarke:


I would suggest 6a, is a little high, given that MIA demands some logged sports route at this grade or higher. Guide assessments on rock are 5b trad and above. Whilst there are many kids who can easily cruise 6a, there is much more to climbing than a numerical grade.

In reply to jonnie3430:


I'd better ask him!

In reply to Andy Clarke:


So. We are back into 'competition'? You will only get a good grade in athletics if you can do 100m in 10.5 seconds? All others need not apply? At the age of 15 or 16 you've got to be climbing at 6a to get top grade? That seems pretty rubbish to me. And I'm not sure how you apply special arrangements to such a rigid structure. 'Only one leg; well you need to do 35 5A's' instead.

Somebody up-thread talked about 'the climber having the most fun'? I'd rephrase that as the climber demonstrating most 'comfort on the route and understanding of what they are doing and the context within which they are doing it'. I'll stick my neck out here and say that I'm unclear how a pupil on a bottom rope on a wall after 5 days tuition can really demonstrate that.

From experience I would say that there are more than a few climbers pushing the grades who are physically very capable but yet 'know nowt' and could be/are a complete liability in terms of overall safety. And a hell of a lot of climbers who just climb at comfort grades who equally know a hell of a lot in terms of their overall expertise. And I know which I'd rather climb with

Re grades - You 'may' be confusing GCSE with 'A' level here? Certainly my elder lad (yet another video!) was quite grade focussed for his AS but for GCSE there was no mention of grade apart from actually understanding the grading system.

In reply to Andy Say:
I confess I brought up the climber 'having the most fun' but I was being mischievous. All GCSEs apply performance standards to grade students. Since physical strength and skill are very significant aspects of climbing, I feel it would be pointless to have a climbing exam that didn't evaluate these. Just because one can't get the very top grade doesn't mean one 'need not apply.' I've taught many many students who were delighted to get a grade C in English at GCSE - or, come to that, a grade E at A-level - and certainly didn't feel that the system was 'rubbish' because everyone couldn't have A. But I guess we'll just have to agree to differ.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Well I suppose:
1. GCSE's are not designed as vocational qualifications and,

2. If you are 15 or 16 and at school you can't do SPA or CWA anyway. You are too young.

For older candidates an SPA or CWA will probably not have any impact upon a GCSE. BUT they are Ofqual recognised level 3 qualifications in their own right with Mountain Training England as the awarding body so 'equivalent' to 'A' level in demand.

In reply to Andy Say:



So what is the purpose of a GCSE in climbing? Prima Facie it looks like a completely pointless piece of paper.


If Ofqual reckons a CWA is 'equivalent' to A level maths they need their heads examined.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Not mischievous at all; quite pertinent, really. But if you paraphrase that as the one 'most in their comfort zone, happy and demonstrating suitable knowledge'?

And if its all about strength they could simply do it in a gym? 'Skill' is way harder to assess. The most skilful hurdler may not be the fastest hurdler!

I confess I am quite interested in this whole thing about how we assess competence in a fluid environment: is it all about observing the following of set 'protocols' or is it about interpreting intelligent response to the context.

I recall being taken to task by a previous BMC president because the SPA would 'not allow you to just belay off a single massive and well rooted tree'. Which was bollocks. But he had assumed that there was a rigid protocol that everyone had to adhere to. And there isn't.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



And the 'point' of a GCSE in Art is? The 'point' of a GCE in History is? I mean, christ, who has ever got a job in 'mathematics'!

Lets get this clear Tom: you don't get a GCSE in 'climbing'. You get a GCSE in 'Physical Education' which requires performance in three different sporting disciplines (30% of total mark) plus course work and examination on a variety of supporting areas of knowledge.

In reply to Andy Say:

OK so the point of the GCSE climbing module is to get a GCSE in Physical Education which might help you get into a higher course in PE which in turn might lead to a job? Fair enough: it's not a pointless piece of paper.

The curriculum looks a bit bogus though with way too much focus on trad and the faff surrounding it like gear placement and access issues presumably because it is easy to make up exam questions on that kind of thing.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Aaaaaarrrrggggghhh! Might equate to my response to the suggestion that 'faff' about trad gear, placements, access etc. is an 'incorrect' focus. I'd say its spot on with regard to the ability to go climbing in the UK.

Unless you only clip bolts.

Don't give a shit about access

Or carry a fat mat and only get 6 inches off the ground.

In reply to Andy Say:


The whole idea of exams and qualifications seems anathema to the adventure climbing ethos of trad. So why have trad in a PE syllabus instead of, say, indoor bouldering which is a competitive sport and accessible to city dwellers.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


We may be on the verge of agreement; except that you seem to assume that SPA / CWA assessment are NOT exams and qualifications.

And bouldering is NOT necessarily a 'competitive sport'!

Some big questions embedded in here. What is climbing? Is it discipline exclusive or multi-disciplinary?

Just how do you assess climbing competence?

Is it purely performance based (X number of routes at Y grade) or a more holistic analysis. If the former then you just set up a comp. and the top 10% pass. The rest fail; or get a grade based upon their result. Seems fair?

Is it about a more holistic 'understanding' of the climbing environment and what they are doing within a 'culture' and a demonstration of a variety of approaches to the activity?

The first course is, of course, easy-peasy. The second requires assessment with understanding and empathy.

In reply to jonnie3430:

He says I can. So now I have to work out how to do that!

In reply to Andy Say:


I don't think that at all. They clearly are exams and qualifications. My comment was that there was no way a CWA was 'equivalent' to A Level Maths - not because the CWA is not a qualification but because it is *way* easier to get a CWA than an A level in Maths.


It doesn't have to be just like running doesn't have to be: but it is formalised as a competitive sport and (like most runners) most boulderers occasionally do competitions for fun.


Sure, just set a few indoor routes/boulders, score it like a comp and set a cut off level to pass. If there are specific techniques they are supposed to know set the routes so those techniques are needed.

In reply to Andy Say:

Email the mods and they may include it in this article?

In reply to jonnie3430:

Have done.

In reply to Andy Say:


Strictly speaking, only academic mathematicians, but many, many jobs require a lesser or greater competence in and knowledge of mathematics and probably almost all some sort of arithmetical competence.

To get an A in mathematics probably requires a certain mathematical ability that some people probably are not born with (or at least don't arrive at school with). Should getting an A in PE require a genetic propensity to athleticism?

In reply to Robert Durran:


Robert, I'd say 'no'. Athletic performance is not the same as 'competence'. In a climbing context competence is so much more than being able to pull hard.

Andy

In reply to Andy Say:

To be fair the assessment criteria are fairly flexible but the whole thing still stinks of applying rigid authority and misguided values to a sport many of us love because of the freedom it gives us. Couldn't they take a step back and say you have to log 100 hours of your chosen activity and give ongoing reflection on why you chose it, how you progressed, what you gain from it, maybe a piece on some aspect that interests you - that's markable and more useful

In reply to trouserburp:

I really will try to upload my lad's video submission. He had just turned 16 and had been climbing for 13 years!

In reply to UKC Articles:


My Daughter used climbing (well bouldering actually) as one of her sports for the GCSE & Coaching climbing as another.

We are waiting for the grades now as internal & external assessment has taken place.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Thank goodness you've cleared that up. I was getting more worried with every post of yours I read!

Martin

In reply to trouserburp:

I hope this doesn't smack too much 'of applying rigid authority and misguided values to a sport many of us love because of the freedom it gives us.'

youtube.com/watch?v=CpW4-iKy38s&

In reply to jonnie3430:


Uploaded to another channel. youtube.com/watch?v=CpW4-iKy38s&

This was an attempt by my son to fully meet all of the assessment specification on his GCSE syllabus. He was satisfied at the end that we had probably covered everything. There were some nerves at first but he rapidly realised that he DID know what he was talking about

And for any nit-pickers he had just turned 16 and he is my son and I have a baseball bat.

In reply to Andy Say:

Video is set as private so its not viewable.

In reply to Richard Wilson:
See. That's how much I know about all this stuff