Is PE fair on schoolkids who hit puberty later?

Is it fair that we let very fit jocks and the female equivalent of jocks to compete against barely matured skinny/fat weak kids that have barely hit puberty yet?

I feel there's surely an unfair aspect to it in terms of ability for the latter to impress or score high.

Um... I have seen very few examples of PE classes that score based on performance, most of the time, and any time I've ever seen has always been graded on participation and behavior towards others.

You had very different teachers and qualification factors for age-group teams than me then. For me, you were 90% graded on attainment, 10% 'effort'.

Thus the problem [one of many] with public education today. Education just does not teach personal excellence, and, in fact, punishes it so that all can get along 'participating.' No wonder we've raised a generation of ninnies who have no competition in them. Too bad.

So... do you think they should grade off of performance? Because then it would be an issue for people with asthma or similar things to that degree, please refrain from widespread generalizations. 

Yes, grading should be based on performance in any subject. That we are all different is just the way it is. Not everyone excels in sports, just as not every excels in language, or in any other discipline. We should each engage in that in which we excel. Participation trophies are for people who cannot find that in which they excel. Who's fault is that?

Um.. for people with asthma? Not there, you see the fundamental difference between physical and intellectual improvement are not the same. You cannot improve in physical terms at the same rate as you can intellectually, the categories are not comparable.

Did I ever say they were compatible? No. I said some excel in sports, and others, in other things.   Did Lexico tell you they were the same?

In order for your argument to be valid, you would have to assume that performance in physical activities are equated to intellectual endeavors. 

Also you should realize that my primary dictionary for things is the Cambridge and the APA, not Lexico, I only mentioned it in the other source because you are stubbornly insistent on your favorite book.

Isn't it God's fault for not knowing anything about quality control?  But I see what you are saying, in gym class, a kid on steroids should get an A and a kid in a wheel chair

should get an F.

Mm, obviously the people with broken limbs should make Fs too. Yaaay ablism 

If both physical and intellectual matters are equitable, why do some students excel in several subjects, some in all, and some in none? No, their endeavors in phys ed and physics are not necessarily equitable. And it isn't just me saying the OED is at the top of the heap. And, what other dictionary devotes over nearly 400 printed column inches to 'salt?' Hmmmm?

Nothing is God's fault. And no, you do not see what I'm saying. You are obviously unaware that taking steroids has an effect on brain function and memory. Abuse it, it's even worse, which will also effect one's prowess with phys ed, while the guy in a wheel chair may exceed the steroid guy in all subjects, including phys ed.

So, all cool, sure let's pretend you have a point - would you like to answer the question about ablism friend?

It is probably true. I think a study was done in Canada that showed kids bord in January February and March were almost exclusively the ones given college scholarships to play hockey. The age advantage is real when you are that young

Sorry. Not familiar with the word, ablism. Do you mean ableism? No, I oppose the concept.

By what commentary do I support ableism? I've simply said that we are different in our abilities to compete in any discipline, and that is not discriminatory, it is reality. I'm not saying the disabled are required to compete with the abled according to the same criteria. I am saying all should compete to their best ability, whatever that ability is. How is that ableism? Have I said I am critical of the Special Olympics? Perhaps a restrictive name, but I didn't make it, did I?

You are grading in a physical area of ability, if someone has less ability physically then they receive lesser grades no? 

Ableism - "unfair treatment of people because they have a disability (= an illness, injury, or condition that makes it difficult for them to do things that other people do):" 

Why have grades be based on performance at all? That would be needlessly complicated, why not keep it accorded to effort or participation and behavior.

PE is not graded on a curve. As long as you improve by a measurable amount (which is super easy to cheat by not trying at first) and show up regularly, you will get a good grade.

You've entirely missed what I said. I repeat:

Is that clear, now? 

And you missed one of my points

"Needlessly complicate things" 

Is it "needlessly complicated" to define achievement standards for the disabled. Difficult, yes, considering the wide variety of disabilities. For some, perhaps it is justified to be dismissed from requiring physical education. I'm sure that occurs, anyway, but does that mean it is justified to dismiss it for all who are able? Adjust the system by the limitations of the few? That is "needlessly complicated."

Yes. Yes it would be needlessly complicated; for a good reason, because there is no purpose to making physical education performance-based, why would you do that? If your answer is because the other classes do that, that would be ignoring the point that physical and intellectual improvement is not the same. Furthermore, there is a much wider pool of how people improve physically, from diet to sleep, to so many other things that it would be nearly impossible to fairly set it up.

Sometimes, you just gotta show up. Then do according to your abilities, whatever they may be and however physical limitations apply. Why is that so hard to comprehend. Is that measurable? To the degree that improvement can be demonstrated, yes.