What are the common strengths and weaknesses we identified in how a sample of schools teach geography, PE and music?

Ofsted has published three new subject reports in our series. We talked to the leads for each new report to get a quick preview of what they found and what teachers can take away from each report.

Important messages included making sure that:

• there is a focus on geographical skills, the body of knowledge about how we do geography


• PE is for all pupils and that leaders think really carefully about lessons to support this


• music leaders ask 'what can pupils realistically learn, rather than just encounter in the time available?'

Shreena Kotecha 

Hi, I'm Shreena Kotecha, Ofsted's head of strategy. This week we're talking about our subject reports.

The reports evaluate the common strengths and weaknesses of different subjects in a sample of schools that we've inspected. They build on our research reviews, which identified factors that lead to high quality curriculums and each of the national curriculum subjects. We've already published reports on science, maths and history. And last week on geography, PE and music.

You can find all of our reports on our website or by searching 'Ofsted subject reports.' And just to pique your interest in these, I've spoken to leads for each of the new reports to get a preview of what they found.

First up, is Mark Enser who is Ofsted subject lead for geography. Mark, what did you find in this new report?

Mark Enser 

I think one of the most important messages is just how much of an improvement there has been in recent years. When you look back at the report in 2011, the previous subject report, you can see that geography wasn't in a good state, across the country. It pointed out that, in too many schools, geography had been removed completely. Children weren't getting a geography education. And even when there were lessons that were called geography, the geography content had often been removed and replaced with more generic competencies.

But what we see in the report now, is that geography is very much back, it's alive and kicking. And much more thought is being given to what children should learn. So I think that's a really key message.

But there's also some really important messages on where we need to go next. We know particularly in primary schools, that there's been a lot of work on progression within a topic. So pupils learning more say about a topic on rivers, and the knowledge on rivers is built in a sequential and meaningful way towards an endpoint. But once they've finished studying that topic, they never come back to that body of knowledge. It just sits in isolation, they're not using it, they're not building on it in the future.

And then when we look at secondary schools, we find a similar problem at Key Stage 4, less so at Key Stage 3, but at Key Stage 4, the exam specifications have often become a de facto curriculum. So one of our main messages not just for people in schools, but for policy makers, for our subject associations and others, is that we really need to think carefully about how we turn an exam specification which prescribes content into a curriculum, which orders it in a logical, meaningful way that teaches pupils about the geography that sits behind that content. Simply working through an exam specification is not the same as teaching our subject and recognising the potential that our subject has.

Shreena Kotecha 

And what messages would you like geography teachers to take away from the report? What can they take back to the classroom?

Mark Enser 

There's a number of things that I'd really like teachers to take back. We've subtitled the report, 'getting our bearings.' And I think that's the first thing that I'd like teachers to take away is that it's a moment to pause, to look at where we've come from. And then to think about where we want to go next, as a subject community. It's an invitation to have those conversations and to have those discussions.

A couple of areas that I think a lot of work could be done is around skills, geographical skills, the body of knowledge about how we do geography. And one thing we see in the subject report is that's not often taught well. There's been a lot of curriculum thinking about the more substantive knowledge, about those different geographical concepts, and so on. And people thinking about how they want to teach that content in a logical way.

But not when it comes to geographical skills. They're not considering when to introduce those skills and how there should be progression over the years in them, and even less so when it comes to field work. There were very few schools in which there's a curriculum for developing field work. For how are pupils going to get better at carrying out field work over time? What pupils are getting are a number of individual experiences where they go out of school and experience some field work, but no sense of a sequence that's going to lead to them getting better.

Another thing that I think teachers can take away is around how places are used in geography. Quite often, when we talked to pupils, we found that they had a very fragmented knowledge of the places they'd studied. But they could remember isolated facts, little bits and pieces, but they couldn't use them in any meaningful sense. They couldn't tell you how those places had changed, or why they had changed or why they were the way that they were. They could just remember a rundown of some key information. They couldn't use them to do geography.

And when you look at the curriculum in the schools where pupils were struggling, what you see is they're being taught in a very fragmented way. They're doing a topic on say, a named country but with no particular intent behind it, of what that country is being used to demonstrate or to show. Which geographical themes or processes are being shown through the study of that place? Which geographical questions they want pupils to be able to answer about those places? It just becomes little more than a fact file.

So I think there's something there. When are they teaching certain places? When are pupils returning to those places? How are they layering up knowledge about those places? And what questions are they going to answer about those places?

Shreena Kotecha 

Thanks Mark, very interesting, and lots to think about.

Next up, we have Hanna Miller, who's our subject lead for physical education. Hanna, what did you find?

Hanna Miller 

Just before I talk about the main findings, I just want to say a really big thank you to all of the schools who really welcomed us into conduct the research visit.

I think in terms of the key areas of strength, the extra curricular programmes that were in place were really broad and ambitious, and that provided opportunities for lots of pupils to develop what they were being taught in lessons.

I think another real key strength was in secondary schools that we visited, where qualification PE was taught at Key Stage 4, or 5, or both. Most schools had thought really carefully about what to teach and when, and why. And many of those decisions were really quite carefully informed by some really positive work with the qualification specifications, and using them to inform the structure of the curriculum. And in all of the qualification lessons that we visited, there were strong teacher subject expertise.

There was some variability across the schools as well. So obviously, a couple of those key strengths were coming through. But there were also some areas of development that leaders had spoken to us about as well. And what was really clear in a lot of those schools was that leaders really wanted to provide a range of sports and physical activities for pupils through the PE curriculum. But what we found in some cases was, although the curriculum was incredibly broad, there were times when it didn't match the ambition of the national curriculum.

And there were also times when the curriculum was very tight, it had a lot packed into it. And I think assessment was also an area that schools spoke to us about. And leaders often explained that it was an area that they wanted to work a bit more on, to really ensure that the methods that they were using to assess pupils were effective, and how they use that information that they gathered to inform their next steps as well was really effective.

And I think just to kind of round that off, what was particularly interesting was some of the barriers that leaders had shared with us and they'd identified. Particularly around COVID-19, and the impacts that that had had on the PE curriculum when returning from partial closures, but also the implications of some of that now. But also some, some real positives, were coming out around building links with other schools and building local links within the community as well. So really positive messages coming through as well.

Shreena Kotecha 

And is there anything in particular you think PE teachers should take away? What are the key messages for them?

Hanna Miller 

Yeah, I think these will link really closely to what I'd said about the areas that leaders had identified themselves, things that they wanted to improve in schools. And obviously, what we'd found on the visits as well.

One of the first things is around breadth and depth. In PE that's always been a really interes