|
Memorandum submitted by Dr Jo Harris Director on behalf of, Teacher Education Unit,
Summary
· We have concerns about the lack of quality assurance in allocating places for ITT to school-based providers, and the adverse effects on ITT providers with good quality Ofsted reports. In particular, we are dismayed at the expansion of GTP provision in secondary physical education given the lack of quality assurance measures for this training route (see paragraph 1 below).
· We also have concerns about the insufficient attention to physical education in the training of primary school teachers. Many of these teachers spend 6 hours or less on physical education during their training and therefore lack confidence and competence in teaching it. As a consequence, many primary school children do not receive the physical education experience they should which would more effectively promote healthy, active lifestyles and combat increases in obesity (see paragraph 2 below).
· We are also concerned about the increase in outside agencies delivering physical education, especially in primary schools. Robust quality assurance measures need to be in place to ensure that these agencies/individuals are CRB checked and have enough knowledge and understanding about children's development, the aims of the physical education curriculum and pedagogical issues to ensure that they are able to increase children's attainment in the subject through positive, differentiated and coherent physical learning experiences (see paragraph 3 below).
· We are also concerned that physical education as a distinctive area of learning is in danger of being removed from the primary national curriculum (according to the current primary review), and may be subsumed into 'Understanding physical health and well-being' (see paragraph 4 below).
Supporting Information Paragraph 1. Communication from TDA to ourselves (e-mail dated 4th December 2008) informs us that a significant number of physical education teachers are being trained on GTP courses during 2008-09, way beyond the ratio of 85%:15% which it is claimed TDA is trying to maintain. Indeed, the e-mail informs us that 364 physical education places have been recruited this academic year on GTP courses - this represents close on a quarter of the overall 1213 places for secondary physical education. Furthermore, this proportion is probably even higher now as the e-mail explains that the figure of 364 does not include any GTP trainees who would be recruited to start later in the year, and this was estimated by TDA to be around 180 based on previous year's figures. The first and most important issue associated with this from our perspective is that the quotas of high quality physical education ITT providers like ourselves (as evidenced by the outcomes of a series of Ofsted inspections) have been drastically cut, whilst the proportion of GTP trained physical education teachers has been allowed to increase. This is perplexing given that the quality of GTP courses is currently unknown as they have not yet been rigorously inspected. Secondly, it is difficult to understand why TDA has permitted the GTP proportion to have increased way beyond the ratio it is claiming to maintain. How and why has this been allowed to happen? It is also surprising that any GTP places would be permitted this year, given that 1213 postgraduate and undergraduate places were recruited, based on allocations of 1150 places. This suggests that 63 extra secondary physical education teachers were recruited beyond quotas (again, begging the question as to how and why this has been allowed to happen?), and yet, on top of this, over 500 secondary physical education teachers were trained via GTP courses. How can this be? Paragraph 2. A particular concern for close on thirty years has been the preparation of primary teachers to teach physical education. Surveys of primary teacher education courses have revealed a reduction in time allocated to physical education over a twenty five year period and a wide variance in the time devoted to physical education, with durations as low as 7.5 and 5 hours reported. Further, this time is usually restricted to covering only games, gymnastics and dance, with athletics, outdoor and adventurous activities, and swimming often omitted. In addition, many ITT providers include no requirement to teach physical education during training, very few physical education lessons are taught by trainees, and only a small proportion of school mentors are able to offer fully informed support in the subject. In effect, it seems that far too many primary teachers have received little more than an introduction to physical education and primary physical education training amounts to little more than a token gesture. Primary trainees' school-based experiences have been described as at best adequate and at worst non-existent (full academic and professional references can be provided to support the statements in this paragraph). We ask that solutions to this problem be considered, including: more time spent on physical education in primary ITT; specialist physical education teachers in primary schools; good quality CPD in physical education for primary teachers in their early teaching careers.
Paragraph 3. Since 2005, when the entitlement for primary school teachers in England to be released from teaching 10% of their timetabled commitment for planning, preparation and assessment (PPA) was introduced, external groups (such as coaches) have been used to support the delivery of curriculum physical education. Although some Local Authorities have put in place quality assurance procedures to ensure that all contributors to physical education are CRB-checked and have the professional competence to target pupils' learning and raise attainment, Ofsted (2005b, p. 4) has noted that: '...an increasing number of headteachers make indiscriminate use of coaches to deliver physical education and school sport...This is threatening high quality provision in these schools'. Our view is that this is still the case and that much of the physical education which is delivered by outside agencies is inappropriate and not child-centred.
Paragraph 4. We are concerned that physical education is in danger
of being subsumed in 'Understanding physical health and well-being' in the
primary review, as this learning area could be delivered without children
moving a muscle! Physical education makes
a distinctive contribution to children's learning and supports the development
of literacy and numeracy; and, for many children, curriculum time physical
education remains their only guaranteed weekly engagement in physical activity.
This promotes the government's Public
Sector Agreement (PSA) target for all children to receive at least 2 hours high
quality physical education each week. The
aim of Physical Education is to develop physical competence so that all
children are able to move efficiently, effectively and safely and understand
what they are doing. The outcome, physical literacy, along with numeracy and
literacy, is the essential basis for learners to access the whole range of
competences and experiences. Indeed, it
is our view that physical education should be given more prominence in the
national curriculum by becoming a core subject, rather than being subsumed into
a wider learning area where it is likely to be diluted and marginalised. February 2009 |