Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Linda Cairns, School Sports Co-ordinator on behalf of George Abbot School, Guildford, Surrey

Executive Summary

School sports following London 2012 have been presented with a dilemma; how to capitalise on the undoubted enthusiasm generated by the Olympic and Paralympic Games when the stated policy is to deliver competitive sport, above all other forms of activity, at the secondary level.

The provision of sport and physical education at primary level could be revolutionised by the funding announced 16 March 2013, if implemented effectively. It proposes a very broad based focus on participation and physical literacy which is not reflected at secondary level. Therefore, there remains a real risk that following the transition to secondary schooling, the interest and enthusiasm of those students who do not qualify for competitive team selection may wither only for attempts from the age of 14 to re-engage these same students via community and club projects.

Secondary level school sports policy focuses on competitive sport and already excludes provision for less sporty students to develop and capitalise on their post Olympic/Paralympic enthusiasm. It restricts access to sporting opportunities and as the funding follows the policy, there is little opportunity to provide more inclusive activities.

1.0 The impact and effectiveness of current Government policy and expenditure on increasing sports in schools

Issue

1.1 The new primary sport premium announced 16 March 2013 introduces a radically new strategy to the primary sector.

The Guildford Experience

1.2 This injection of funding takes provision of physical education at primary level to an unprecedented level and, if delivered effectively, will create the legacy London 2012 envisaged.

1.3 In particular, we welcome that:

The funds are ring fenced for this purpose only.

The goal of teacher training is built into the two year programme which should enable sustainable delivery into the medium and long term.

The programme will be monitored by Ofsted inspection.

There is a broad focus on participation and healthy lifestyle.

1.4 As this is such a recent announcement there are a number of details to be confirmed and some areas of concern.

The announcement lacks indication of the level of support to Heads to ensure these funds are spent wisely so they do cover teacher training rather than PPA cover/physical education delivery.

The Ofsted inspection regime is repeated on a five yearly programme. Therefore, monitoring of success will be restricted to those schools with inspections in the next two plus years.

Is there the capacity within National Governing Bodies and local clubs to make coaches available to schools in the numbers likely to be required? Most club coaches hold down full time jobs and coach in their spare time so are unlikely to be available during school hours to deliver either programmes to pupils or to develop teacher skills.

The strategy aims to increase physical literacy but through delivery by individual National Governing Bodies whose programmes are on the whole, sport specific. What definition of physical literacy is being used? How do the individual NGB programmes match the need for provision from very young ages through to year six?

There is a danger of an experience gap between pupils experience at primary and that they have following the transition to secondary where the emphasis is on competitive sport and not on participation activities.

1.5 The Mid Surrey School Sports Partnership was very effective at sharing good practice and learning from good practice in other partnerships. It makes sense to capitalize on this knowledge and experience in creating the structures to deliver the new primary programme locally. It is not clear how or if this will happen

Issue

1.6 Government policy in state Secondary schools focuses on competitive sport to the exclusion of other forms of physical activity.

The Guildford Experience

1.7 Guildford’s state schools have always had a good network of inter-school competitions and fixtures covering athletics, netball, basketball, cricket, rugby and football. Fixtures are:

organised by the District School Sports Associations; and

Form a sustainable programme of competitive sport at this level.

1.8 Delivering fixtures depends on the input of the PE specialists in schools supported by some teaching staff from other specialisms.

1.9 The School Games cover a much more diverse range of sports than the standard school sports programme. Dodgeball, rowing, sailing and skiing are not mainstream activities for schools in the area and as such only offer expanded possibilities on paper. In practice, it is highly impractical to add such sports to the Guildford schools programme when the available staff and supporters are already fully stretched delivering the standard competitive sports fixture list.

1.10 The focus on competitive sports is by its very nature, exclusive. Whilst there may be a first eleven/fifteen/squad, lack of available staff means that Guildford schools struggle to support second, third or fourth teams. So, competitive opportunities become restricted to those students with the most accomplished skills and ability leaving the majority of any one year group without the opportunity to compete.

1.11 Competitive sport is not for everyone. It is all too easy for such a narrow focus to exclude and de-motivate those for whom this is an inappropriate goal. Curriculum PE offers a more balanced range of activities including dance and fitness. Extracurricular activities are only competitive in nature. Most non-competitive activities that are on offer out of school hours have been created and delivered or managed by the School Sports Co-coordinator. This resource will be axed in July this year following the October 2010 announcement regarding Sports Partnerships.

1.12 Focusing purely on competitive sport reduces the opportunity for less sporty students to capitalise on the enthusiasm generated by the Olympics and Paralympics.

Issue

1.13 Current expenditure at secondary level follows policy focus on competitive sports to the exclusion of any other physical activity. The new primary expenditure is much more broadly based.

The Guildford Experience

1.14 The Government’s current expenditure on sport in schools is decreasing not increasing sport in schools. Current expenditure in the secondary sector is reducing capacity to support sporting activity. As a result sports provision is also reducing with the remaining staff focussing on the familiar core competitive sports. This has been demonstrated in Guildford.

1.15 Following the dissolution of the School Sports Partnership, George Abbot School chose to extend their co-ordinator’s appointment by combining the Teacher Release day with direct school funds for one day. This has enabled them to benefit from the considerable output the post-holder has generated in support of the standard competitive sport offer in the school. An overview of the broad areas of operation for this post is shown in Figure 1 below.

1.16 The SSCo also aided the proliferation of primary level activity through the establishing of effective working relationships. The new announcement of funding is welcome but leaves little time to develop collaboration between clusters of primary schools and their local secondary school. There is a real risk that the local knowledge and experience of the SSCo will not be available to help primary heads when the new project starts.

1.17 The remaining staff are already fully committed to curriculum, academic and vocational physical education alongside their inter-house, inter-school fixtures and after school clubs. The extra capacity created by the School Sport Co-ordinator post will be lost; consequently the identification and fulfilment of additional sporting and activity opportunities delivered by that post holder will also cease to be delivered.

Figure 1

WORK AREAS FOR SCHOOL SPORTS COORDINATOR IN GUILDFORD

2.0 The scope, appropriateness and likelihood of success of the Government’s plans for a school sports legacy from London 2012

Issue

2.1 Up to 16 March 2013, the Government’s plans for a school sports legacy have been too focused on competitive sport, fail to deliver to the widest school population and are at severe risk of failing rather than inspiring a generation.

The Guildford Experience

2.2 The announcement of new primary funding is very exciting news and should be widely celebrated. It will take primary provision back to, and way beyond, that previously delivered by the Sports Partnerships. Its scope is broad, very appropriate and should deliver a significant legacy following London 2012.

2.3 At primary level the scope will encourage participation and healthy lifestyles as well as performance levels appropriate to the pupils’ capabilities. The stated aim to increase “physical literacy” not just competition is highly appropriate. Guidance is required to primary heads to ensure that this increase in provision also increases the quality of what is on offer.

2.4 Initial conversations with the primary Heads within the Guildford network has indicated low levels of awareness that the announcement was made and anxiety about how they will apply these funds to deliver effectively.

2.5 At the secondary level, the unidirectional focus on competitive sport is at odds with the need to reach hard-to-reach audiences who do not engage with competitive structures but who do demonstrate keenness and willingness to participate in non-competitive situations. Far from encouraging a love of sport and exercise for a lifetime, there is a real danger that significant numbers of pupils will be excluded from that goal because of policy myopia. The funding announced for the primary sector will have no effect on the provision made at the secondary level.

2.6 There is a risk that young people that have engaged with participation activities at the primary level, under the new programme, may be left out and become disillusioned following their transition to secondary school where the policy encourages the focus purely on competition.

3.0 The impact so far of London 2012 on the take-up of competitive sports in schools

Issue

3.1 The take up of competitive sports in schools is limited by the nature of such sports.

The Guildford Experience

3.2 The primary sector capitalized on the excitement of the pre-Olympic/Paralympic period with a wide range of cross curricula activities. However, on the whole these were not focused on the take up of sport and were not continued beyond the summer break.

3.3 In our experience in Guildford there has been no change to the offer of traditional school competitive sports at the secondary level. The enthusiasm for a wide range of sporting activities created by London 2012 has not been catered for as resources dedicated to enabling these sports to take place in schools has reduced. As competitive sports can only cater for the most able and skilled in the field, there is a majority of any one school year for whom this is at best an impossible dream and at worst a demotivator that decreases their willingness to participate in any form of organised sporting activity.

3.4 When offered, there is considerable interest in a wide range of non-standard sports (eg zumba, archery, rowing and climbing) from the wider school population. Many of these are competitive in their own right but do not form part of the core competitive sport offered by The District School Sports Association. Others are non-competitive but encourage participation and increased activity levels.

3.5 At the secondary level, there is a large degree of catch-up required in order to re-inspire students de-motivated and disillusioned through lack of engagement at the primary level. This is why we believe that the change in focus at the primary level offers so much potential.

4.0 What further measures should be taken to ensure a sustainable and effective legacy in school sports following London 2012

The Guildford Experience

4.1 Further measures that should be taken to ensure a sustainable and effective legacy in school sports following London 2012 include:

Recognise that resources are more than just money and manpower is required to make things happen with the money available on the ground for pupils.

Understand the actual availability of NGB coaches to work with schools.

Extension of policy from primary to secondary level that physical activity is not exclusively based on competitive team sports and an active lifestyle is as valid a goal as much as the winners medal.

Acknowledge that the Whole Sport Plan funding directed via National Governing Bodies is not funding school sport at all and is uniquely directed at the 14–25 age group through community/club projects.

4.2 The new primary funding is a really positive opportunity to redesign physical education provision from the youngest age groups up.

It needs to be delivered effectively.

Teacher training must be built into the process to enable delivery beyond the current time frame.

4.3 There is a danger that pupils at primary level become inspired through a wide range of activities only for that variety to be much reduced following the transition to secondary school. This risks continuing to permit the disengagement of less sporty 11–14 year olds.

4.4 The new announcement also made mention of “multisport satellite clubs from Sport England”. This is a very welcome suggestion but it is not clear how practical the suggestion is, when they might begin and how they might be co-ordinated locally.

April 2013