Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Derek Peaple, Headteacher Park House School, Chair Berkshire School Games Local Organising Committee and Chair Youth Sport Trust Headteacher Strategy Group

1. Executive Summary

1.1 There are examples of excellent school- and local cluster-based practice in developing a 2012 legacy through PE and school sport, but these are currently isolated and localised in the absence of a national and sustainably funded framework of the type formerly provided by the School Sport Partnerships and therefore the impact and effectiveness of current Government policy and expenditure on increasing sports in schools is limited and is likely to remain so.

1.2 Where legacy activity is locally established it can have a wider impact on school improvement, including positive Ofsted outcomes in relation to Social, Moral, Spiritual and Cultural Development, although explicit reference to PE and Sport within a recalibrated Inspection Framework would further incentivise active engagement by schools.

1.3 Legacy activity is currently effective where it is being developed within locally agreed and creatively configured frameworks based the infrastructure provided by the former School Sport Partnerships and successor School Games Organiser posts alongside teacher release model School Sports Coordinators, but the absence of ring-fenced, long-term funding or incentives to retain or grow these roles means that this activity is not necessarily sustainable and, based as it is on local initiative, is certainly not uniform across the country as a whole.

1.4 The basis for an effective national and strategic framework for legacy delivery exists through a rationalisation of the current Local School Games Organising Committees, Youth Sport Trust Regional Partner School Networks and County Sports Partnerships into a series of local steering groups based on a common core membership—Strategic School and Community Sports Organising Committees—taking responsibility for the commissioning and delivery of school and community sport to partnership clusters within defined geographic areas.

1.5 Under the steering role of Strategic School and Community Sports Organising Committees teams of School and Community Sports Organisers there is the potential to develop a national delivery framework for progression through primary, secondary and FE educational partnerships and across and into community and club-based sports participation for children and young people whilst also retaining capacity for local focus in terms of agreed priorities and outcomes.

1.6 A structure of this type would re-establish and extend the work of the formerly successful School Sport Partnerships to maximise the opportunities to develop school and community based opportunities for participation and progression through to club-based and elite performance settings.

1.7 The establishment and sustainability of such a delivery framework would be significantly enhanced by partnership approaches to the release of any additional future funding sources potentially targeted at the primary sector, whereby clusters of primary schools would pool their funding to invest in secondary hub-school based School Sport Coordinators combining the role of current School Games Organisers and Teacher Release funded School Sport Coordinators working across the cluster to deliver long-term improvements in PE teaching and learning and co-ordinate local Level 1 and Level 2 competitions, feeding into Level 3 Competition.

1.8 Without the establishment of—and investment in—a lasting national school and community sport infrastructure along the lines of this or related models the impact of the 2012 legacy will be rapidly and significantly diminished as the momentum and enthusiasm created in the immediate wake of the London Games recedes into the middle distance and a unique window of opportunity closes.

2. Context and Background

2.1 This submission is based on my experience in the following roles and contexts in relation to school and community sports provision:

Thirteen years’ experience as the Headteacher of two specialist Sports Colleges, with the latter a Converter Academy retaining its Sports specialism from May 2011.

My current role as Headteacher of Park House School and Sports College, the 2011 Aviva Daily Telegraph Highly Commended Specialist Sports College of the Year.

My position as Headteacher Chair of the Berkshire School Games Local Organising Committee.

My position as the Chair of the Youth Sport Trust’s national Headteacher Strategy Group.

My role as a Board Member of the Berkshire County Sports Partnership, with the 2012 Berkshire School Games receiving the Youth Sport Trust Regional Award for the Outstanding School Games in the South.

2.2 I therefore feel able to comment on the impact of Government policy from a local, regional and national perspective. I have additionally played a leading role in international sport-themed school improvement initiatives through the British Council, Youth Sport Trust and BBC World Class Programme in South Africa, Iraq and Mongolia.

3. Current State and Impact of Provision

3.1 Since the start of the 2012–13 academic year it has been possible to identify examples of excellent school- and local cluster-based practice in developing a 2012 legacy through PE and school sport. However, these are currently isolated and localised in the absence of a national and sustainably funded framework of the type provided by the former School Sport Partnership and therefore the impact and effectiveness of current Government policy and expenditure on increasing sports in schools is limited and is likely to remain so.

3.2 An example of this outstanding but localised practice has been the establishment of a series of Paralympic sports “taster” festivals for local partnerships of primary schools in West Berkshire led by the area’s two School Games Organisers supported by the teacher release-funded School Sport Coordinators from the two SGO hub site secondary schools. Secondary school Junior Sports Leaders have acted as the facilitators of activity during the festivals.

3.3 A further example of outstanding practice is provided by the establishment of a weekly mixed Year 3–4 football league for local primary schools at Park House School. This initiative was also led and delivered by an active partnership of School Games Organiser and School Sport Coordinator working with primary school partners and utilising the support of Junior Sports Leaders as officials.

3.4 In terms of initial talent identification and development the same partnership has also launched a “Sporting Scholars” scheme across primary partner schools. This gives young people from those schools the opportunity to work with a specialist coach on the school site for an extended period and culminates in an inspirational visit to the Sports Performance Faculty at the University of Bath.

3.5 Where legacy activity of this type is locally established it can have a wider impact on school improvement, including positive Ofsted outcomes in relation to Social, Moral, Spiritual and Cultural Development. For example, the 2012 Ofsted Report for Park House School commented that:

“The school strongly fosters students’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and the Olympic and Paralympic Values are a central theme throughout the curriculum.”

“Students engage enthusiastically in the school’s promotion of the Olympic and Paralympic Values showing respect, friendship and pursuit of excellence. Students display a good understanding of how to stay safe. A recent Values Day based on the Paralympic Value of equality, heightened students’ awareness of bullying and challenged their attitudes to people’s differences.”

“An impressive range of students take advantage of extensive school-based, national and international opportunities. They participate in high profile activities, including Olympic Games Makers and the British Council’s Connecting Classrooms project.”

“Students are directly involved in a range of collaborative projects, including those with local primary schools, schools internationally and local, community-based projects such as Gardening for the Games. These rich and memorable experiences promote students’ good social, moral, spiritual and cultural development.”

3.6 These Ofsted outcomes reflect creative approaches to the integration of sports-themed programmes such as the “Get Set” and 21st Century Legacy “Be The Best You Can Be” initiative into the wider curriculum and students’ learning experiences so that they become an established and integral part of the school’s culture.

3.7 However, outcomes of this type are incidental and circumstantial and a wider recalibration of public accountability measures, most obviously in relation to the Ofsted Inspection Framework, to explicitly report on the extent and quality of PE and sport provision and its wider educational impact would incentivise activity and further drive up standards.

3.8 The basis for this currently effective Legacy activity has developed ad hoc, based on locally agreed and creatively configured frameworks, in turn based on the infrastructure provided by the former School Sport Partnerships and successor School Games Organiser posts. The absence of ring-fenced, long-term funding or incentives to retain or grow these posts alongside a teacher release model for School Sport Organisers means that this activity is not necessarily sustainable and, based as it is on local initiative, is certainly not uniform or universal across the county as a whole.

3.9 For example, whilst West Berkshire has locally sustained its network, that in neighbouring Hampshire has collapsed completely, leaving schools within that area with limited or in some cases no support in relation to the delivery of high quality PE and sport and therefore depriving many young people of comparable sporting opportunities on the basis of a “postcode lottery”.

3.10 Creative School Games Local Organising Committees and teams of School Games organisers have also added significant value to local provision by grafting wider activity onto and around the structure provided by the School Games. For example, the Berkshire School Games are characterised by a range of pre-event cross-curricular competitions, accredited leadership training for Young Ambassadors to act as event officials, cultural competitions to identify opening ceremony performers who go on to achieve Bronze Arts Award accreditation for their contributions and opportunities for students to undertake GCSE and AS coursework as part of the media team.

3.11 Schools are fully conscious of the financial pressures which restrict a (desirable) return to the previous School Sport Partnership system but there is a very strong feeling that in order to deliver a tangible legacy, it is imperative that a lasting school sport infrastructure is rapidly developed on the basis of guaranteed long-term investment.

3.12 In the last two years LOC Headteacher Chairs in many parts of the country have sought to establish a meaningful school sport delivery team through the localised co-ordination of the work of School Games Organisers, establishment of Change 4 Life Clubs and teacher release investment in the complimentary activities of School Sport Coordinators in partner primary schools.

3.13 Although funding for the School Games has been committed at a significantly reduced level from 2012 until 2015, it is a major concern that DFE teacher release funding for School Sports Coordinators is coming to an end after the summer term of 2013. If this happens as currently planned, it will leave a significant gap in the delivery of PE and sport specifically in primary schools—as the majority of secondary schools, already under significant financial pressures will find it impossible to continue the commitment of releasing a PE teacher in this way without centralised and dedicated resource. As there are no specialist teachers in the primary sector, and classroom teachers receive limited training in PE, this funding has been vital in supporting the development and delivery of high quality PE and sport in primary schools. Support to primary schools will be significantly reduced and the offer and opportunities will decrease in proportion to the reduced staffing capacity.

3.14 Equally, if this funding is not extended, it will also impact on the delivery of the School Games, as it has been utilised by many schools to create full-time School Games Organiser posts. Without this guaranteed funding in place, the stability of the School Games infrastructure will be undermined and the level of reach and effort individual SGOs are able to put into the programme also significantly reduced.

3.15 There is already evidence in Berkshire, which delivered the outstanding School Games Competition in the South in 2012, is losing highly talented School Games Organisers, who are leaving their posts and the profession because their roles are not guaranteed and, as it currently stands, will disappear altogether after 2015.

3.16 There is clear evidence from the current extent of school buy-in of former PDM and other services formerly provided under the auspices of the School Sport Partnerships in Berkshire that Primary schools would be inclined to adopt partnership-based approaches to any additional funding streams that became available to them, pooling resources in order to retain and sustain the level service currently provided.

4. Recommendations

4.1 The basis for an effective national and strategic framework for legacy delivery exists but will require a rationalisation of the current Local School Games Organising Committees, Youth Sport Trust Regional Partner School Networks and County Sports Partnerships into a series of local steering groups based on a common core membership—termed for these purposes, Strategic School and Community Sports Organising Committees (SSCOCs)—taking responsibility for the commissioning and delivery of school and community sport with counties or identified geographic units.

4.2 Under the steering role and guidance provided by these Strategic School and Community Sports Organising Committees for teams of School and Community Sports Organisers and School Sport Co-ordinators there is the potential to develop a sustainable national delivery framework for progression through primary, secondary and FE educational settings and across and into community and club-based sports participation for children and young people.

4.3 A structure of this type would re-establish and extend the work of the formerly successful School Sport Partnerships to maximise the opportunities to develop school and community based opportunities for participation and progression through to club-based and elite performance settings.

4.4 The establishment and sustainability of such a delivery framework would be significantly enhanced by partnership approaches to the release of any additional future funding sources potentially targeted at the primary sector, whereby clusters of primary schools would pool their funding to invest in secondary hub-school based School Sport Coordinators, combining the current roles of School Games Organisers and Teacher Release-funded School Sport Coordinators, working across the cluster to deliver long-term improvements in PE teaching and learning and deliver local Level 1 and Level 2 competitions, leading into Level 3 Competition.

4.5 The model outlined diagrammatically in Appendix 1 is based on three linked tiers of organisation which would be developed from infrastructure potentially provided by the LOCs in relation to the School Games, YST Partner School Network in relation to teacher professional development and wider educational impact and County Sports Partnerships in relation to the school-community-club sport interface. It could be designed to provide a strategic and coherent national infrastructure for the commissioning and delivery of PE, School and Community Sport, whilst also retaining capacity for local focus and priorities in terms of outcomes.

4.6 Within the proposed model illustrated in Appendix 1 (attached separately):

Tier 1 focuses on strategy and commissioning and is based on the transitioning of the current LOCs with their specific/project management focus on School Games delivery to a wider strategic and commissioning role in relation to national funding streams and resources across a county or identified authority. It assumes the current membership of LOCs will continue to reflect the locality but that all newly constituted Strategic School and Community Sports Organising Committees be extended on the basis of a uniform, national core membership to include the County Sports Partnership, Youth Sport Trust County Headteacher Ambassador, a Local Authority CEO or designated representative, the Youth Sport Trust Regional Director and FE and PCT representatives.

Tier 2 focuses on Level 3 School Games competition planning and high quality PE and School Sport and would replicate the work of School Games Organising Committees working through project management teams currently to specifically plan and deliver the county School Games. There is potential within this Tier to extend to additional strategic focus areas identified by individual SSOCS, led by Youth Sport Trust partner schools commissioned on the basis of specific areas of expertise. A discretionary example identified in Appendix 1 is a focus on the interface between PE and school sport and healthy lifestyles activities, as currently reflected in Change 4 Life Clubs. A further area of potential activity at this Tier would be the provision of PE Advisory Service (formerly under the auspices of individual LAs) led and/or co-ordinated by Youth Sport Trust Lead/Partner School(s).

Tier 3 (based in this example on 4 primary-secondary school clusters within a county or geographic unit) would focus on the development of an annual programme of Level 1 and Level 2 Competition across counties or identified geographic units planned and delivered by School Sport Coordinators combining the current roles undertaken by School Games Organisers and Teacher Release funded School Sport Coordinators.

4.7 A recalibration of public accountability measures, most obviously the Ofsted Inspection Framework, to explicitly report on the extent and quality of PE and sport provision would incentivise activity and further drive up standards.

5. Conclusions

5.1 Without the establishment of—and investment in—a lasting national school and community sport infrastructure along the lines of the model described in Section 4 above the impact of the 2012 legacy will remain a matter of local initiative and, as a result, be rapidly and significantly diminished as the momentum and enthusiasm created in the immediate wake of the London Games recedes into the middle distance and a unique window of opportunity closes.

APPENDIX 1

A POSSIBLE MODEL FOR THE DELIVERY OF A 2012 LEGACY WITHIN AND BEYOND SCHOOLS