House of Commons - School sport following London 2012: No more political football

School sport following London 2012: No more political football - Education Committee Contents

7 Accountability

122. Witnesses agreed that it was necessary to make schools accountable generally for their PE and sport provision, and primary schools specifically for the use of the primary sport premium.[253] We were told that there was a risk that if a school is struggling in maths or English, the head teacher will be tempted to divert resources away from sport to improve in key accountability areas.[254] Andy Reed commented that in schools "what is measured is important" and called on the Government to signal that school sports and PE was important.[255]

123. The NASUWT told us that the accountability regime and the introduction of EBacc have compromised "the capacity of schools to provide a relevant and engaging learning offer in physical education and school sports".[256] As Linda Cairns put it: "ultimately they [head teachers] are judged on their league table standings and their Ofsted performance; they are not judged on all the extra-curricular sport they deliver."[257] Jonathan Edwards suggested that the Government should be giving greater priority to sport and put head teachers "in the position where they haven't really got any choice. If the maths was down the tube or the English was down the tube, they would have to do something about it".[258]

Primary sport premium

124. Witnesses welcomed the role of Ofsted in monitoring the use of the primary sport premium,[259] but there were some concerns about how effective this accountability would be in reality, with Ofsted only visiting a small number of schools during the two years of the funding.[260] Furthermore, Sue Wilkinson raised the problem that Ofsted inspectors may not be properly equipped to look at PE and school sport,[261] although Dame Tessa Jowell disagreed, saying that Ofsted did have the "competence to make these judgements".[262]

125. The Minister told us that "a close eye" was needed, if the primary sport premium is "truly going to embed and sustain PE and sport provision in primary schools and beyond".[263] He did not accept that the accountability of schools was limited by the fact that only a small number of schools would be visited by Ofsted. He told us:

Clearly the inspection itself is an important element of holding schools to account, but it is also about the knowledge that this is now part of the inspection regime and that this money is ringfenced. Also, schools will have to put on their websites what their sports offer is so that parents can compare what their school is offering with what the school next door or across the border is offering. Parents can be a very powerful group, who can hold their school to account either through their role as school governors, where that is the case, or, more widely, through PTAs and elsewhere. There are a number of different measures for accountability that go beyond Ofsted and include the wider community.[264]

126. While Ofsted's monitoring of the use of the primary sport premium is welcome, we are concerned by the limits of this as an accountability measure. We believe that the idea that Ofsted can hold primary schools effectively to account during the two-year period of the funding is flawed. We welcome the requirement that primary schools publish details of how they will use the sport premium, but we recommend that schools should go further and report on what has been achieved by their pupils as a result of the funding. This would lead head teachers to focus on the outcomes for pupils when considering how best to spend the premium funding.

Wider accountability

QUANTITY

127. Until 2010 schools were required to report on the number of pupils who participated in at least two hours per week of PE or sport in school. Baroness Campbell blamed the apparent fall in school sport on the dropping of this target.[265] We were told by witnesses that it was impossible to establish whether or not the state of school sports was generally healthy when no recording was made of the level of activity.[266] A number of witnesses felt that this information was vital to "ascertain the true effect of current policy on the delivery of PE and sport in schools".[267] Witnesses—such as Wayne Allsopp, the Lawn Tennis Association and ukactive—called for the return of the participation target and its reporting.[268]

128. In contrast, the ASCL told us that it did not favour the idea of a minimum number of hours of PE, arguing that "forcing such activity rather than enticing it is a sure way to young people stopping it the moment they leave school".[269] It also pointed out that a measurement of quantity did not take into account the quality of teaching and that young people may spend much of their two hours not actually engaged in physical activity.[270]

129. The DfE did not regard the two-hour target as a driver for increasing participation or quality. It has said that the target was never a rule and that it was an "unenforceable aspiration" that schools were free to ignore.[271] In a statement to the media it said "we are freeing teachers from such unnecessary targets and paperwork which take up too much time better used [...] at the running track".[272]

130. The Minister told us that there were a number of surveys that collected information on participation—'Taking Part' survey by DCMS and the 'Active People' survey—as well as the DoH's National Child Measurement Programme.[273] He also cited the number of school involved in the School Games—17,000[274] schools registered and over 13,000 fully engaged in the programme—as evidence of participation.[275] But he told us that it was "not just about participation […] it is also about whether the participation itself is meaningful" and whether it is delivering benefits for the individual child.[276]

131. As we have noted previously, in schools if something is not measured it is not always done. While participation targets are limited in that they reveal nothing about the quality of provision, we are concerned that without some measure of activity levels, schools are not fully accountable for all their pupils. While the number of schools involved in the School Games is recorded, this does not provide an indication of the activity of a large number of young people who do not enter competitive sports. In particular the level of involvement of certain key groups—such as girls, obese children and those with special needs—is not revealed by current accountability measures. We think that the measurement of levels of participation could apply equally to both primary and secondary schools, and could be useful for capturing a school's achievements, for example the extent to which they have been able to overcome the teenage drop-off in participation.

132. We recognise that some data is collected on levels of participation such as the 'Taking Part' survey. However, this information is not broken down to school level and so does not hold individual schools to account for their PE and sport provision. Neither does the National Child Measurement Programme reveal anything directly about the provision of sport and PE in an individual school.

133. We recommend that schools are required to report annually on their websites the proportion of children involved in at least two hours of core PE each week. Schools should also indicate whether or not they provide weekly opportunities for pupils to participate in school sport, and the proportion of pupils who do so for at least two hours per week.

QUALITY

134. The quality of the teaching and provision of PE and sport in school was a theme that ran through all the evidence we received. Many witnesses felt that an emphasis should be on the measurement of the quality and not the quantity of PE and sport provision.[277] Sue Wilkinson told us that the quality of teaching was more important than the number of hours spent in terms of "having an impact on children's physical welfare and physical health and well-being".[278]

135. We heard that the afPE had introduced a quality mark for good practice in the teaching of PE.[279] The quality mark provides independent endorsement—by Ofsted-trained PE specialists— that a school offers high quality physical education.[280] The YST also told us about the School Games kitemark, which was introduced to measure quality of provision in schools".[281]

136. In response to a question on the usefulness of kitemarks as a quality-control measure, the Minister said :

Generally speaking, I do not have a problem with kite marks as long as they mean what they say. Sometimes it is easy to pursue a kite mark, quality mark or whatever it may be, that, when you dig beneath it, does not demonstrate a huge level of commitment. As long as there is great rigour behind the kite mark or quality mark that is on offer and it has the "Ronseal" element to it, it can be of benefit to schools, particularly as they are, on their websites, going to have to tell a much wider audience what they are doing to deliver for children in their school.[282]

137. We agree with the Minister that schools need to be clear that any quality kitemark scheme they enter is sufficiently rigorous and meaningful. It should be possible to validate externally the quality of the teaching and provision of PE and school sport and it would be helpful to schools if the DfE signposted the quality marks offered by recognised, reputable organisations and encouraged schools to achieve the standard. We note that there are kitemark schemes for the quality of PE and school sport provided by national bodies such as the afPE and the Youth Sport Trust, and recommend that schools are encouraged by the Department for Education to achieve these quality marks.

253 For example, Q71, Q131, Q144, Q159 Back

254 Q18 Back

255 Q41 Back

256 Ev w18. NASUWT told us about their survey of 2,500 secondary school teachers, which found that provision for PE had declined in 10% of schools, with six in ten saying that pupils' ability to study non-EBacc subjects, including PE, was restricted. Back

257 Q74 Back

258 Q130 Back

259 Q35, Q42, Q71, Q173 Back

260 Q76 Back

261 Q35 Back

262 Q184 Back

263 Q251 Back

264 Q259 Back