CHAPTER 3: SCHOOL AGE SPORT
Background
151. There is consensus that the critical juncture
for lifelong enthusiasm in sport to be sparked is at an early
age, when patterns of lifestyle are established. This clearly
means that schools, both primary and secondary, have a key role.
At the same time, school sport does not operate in a vacuum: it
is important to consider the relationships between schools and
other bodies in developing life-long habits of physical activity
and developing future sporting talent.
The legacy of School Sports Partnerships
152. State funding of school sports has generated
significant controversy in recent years, most centring on impact
of the Government's discontinuation of funding for School Sports
Partnerships (SSPs) in 2010. SSPs were based on networks of schools
which would receive around £250,000 each per annum in order
to develop infrastructure to boost the teaching of PE and additionally
to support local sports outside schools.
153. In its recent report, School Sport following
London 2012: No more political football,[33]
the Commons Education Select Committee concluded that:
"There is clear evidence that the ending
of the school sport partnerships funding has had a negative impact,
including on the opportunities for young people to access competitive
sporting opportunities in school. School sport partnerships were
expensive but delivered benefits for children. The Government
needs to show that an alternative programme (at lower cost) can
deliver significant increases in participation in school sport."
154. School Sports Partnerships were described
by Baroness Campbell of Loughborough, Chair of the Youth Sport
Trust, as "an evolving structure, and it still had some evolution
to go and it still had some improving to do." She noted that,
despite the ending of funding to SSPs, "about 50% have survived
in some form or other".[34]
Kate Hoey MP, who as Sports Minister introduced the concept
of SSPs, suggested that, where SSPs had been successful, they
were still largely in place. She shared the view that they were
a transitional tool;
"it was never at that time considered to
be something that would last forever. It was very much that we
thought that if this happened and we could get schools, particularly
head teachers, to realise the importance of PE and school sport,
it would then really mean that they would start to make sport
and PE much more important for themselves within the priority
area."[35]
The Sport Premium
155. In March 2013, the Prime Minister announced
new ring-fenced funding for sport in schools, in the form of a
Sport Premium of £150 million each year targeted at the provision
of PE in primary schools. In written evidence, the Government
described the uses of the Sport Premium as follows:
"Within the broad requirement that they
use it to improve their provision of PE and sport, primary schools
can use this new funding as they see fit. This could include buying
in help from secondary schools if they feel this is right for
them. They will be held accountable for their spending through
arrangement outlined in section 6.
Alternative options for the use of the additional
ring-fenced funding might include:
· Hiring specialist PE teachers, PE advanced
skills teachers, or qualified sports coaches to work alongside
primary teachers when teaching PE;
· New or additional Change4Life sport clubs;
· Paying for professional development opportunities
in PE/sport;
· Providing cover to release primary teachers
for professional development in PE/sport;
· Running sporting competitions, or increasing
participation in the School Games;
· Purchasing quality assured professional
development modules or materials for PE/sport;
· Providing places for pupils on after school
sport clubs and holiday clubs."[36]
156. Maria Miller told us that "it is really
for the school to determine where they are and what support they
need, and of course it is ring-fenced money, so they will be judged
by Ofsted as to how they have used that to support sport in their
schools."[37]
157. Whilst welcoming the announcement of the
Sport Premium, Youth Charter reported some worrying trends in
the period since funding to SSPs ended. The School Sport Survey,
which focussed on five to 16 year old children,
"was ended in 2010 when the funding for
the Schools Sports Partnerships ended. However, a survey of teachers,
school games organiser and school sport partnerships staff by
The Smith Institute—post-London 2012—found:
· Falling participation since the loss of
ring-fenced funding for School Sports Partnerships;
· The old funding system was preferred to
the new system;
· School Sport Partnerships was preferred
to the new School Games programme;
· Non-competitive physical activities must
be encouraged alongside competitive activities;
· A minimum target of two hours PE and Sport
a week is still required; and
· Physical Activity improves educational
Attainment."[38]
158. Eileen Marchant of the Association for Physical
Exercise drew parallels between perceived flaws in the SSPs' structure
and the successor arrangements. She argued that, with SSPs, "sustainability
was not created, except in small pockets where they had a massive
impact. With the PE and School Sport Premium, we do not want to
make that same mistake again. We want to make sure that what it
is used for creates sustainability so that, if the funding goes,
the impact does not."[39]
159. We received evidence from several quarters
that the ending of funding to SSPs, and ultimately its replacement
by the School Sport Premium, was a mistake. The rights and wrongs
of this decision are now academic to the legacy, which must be
forward-looking. SSPs were not universally successful, but did
provide a way for schools to cooperate to build shared infrastructure,
particularly in competitive sport. The Government, Local Authorities
and schools themselves must all be alive to the danger of individualised
funding to different schools, giving them a high degree of discretion,
leading to uneven teaching of PE. They need to consider what more
they can do in concert to ensure cooperation and the building
of shared infrastructure.
The delivery of PE in primary
schools
160. Much of our evidence pointed to a lack of
expertise in primary schools, which represented the best opportunity
to address this at a critical age. School Sports Partnerships
did address this by combining with other schools and local sports
clubs and effectively by outsourcing control of sports teaching
to School Sports Coordinators. When the Committee visited Gainsborough
Primary School in Hackney, we were struck by the enthusiasm and
commitment of the teaching staff to take on a greater role in
PE and sports teaching, but they were clear that they would need
additional training in order to do this.
161. At the request of the Welsh Government,
Baroness Grey-Thompson chaired a review group which considered
physical activity in Welsh schools, and published her report[40]
in June 2013. The sole recommendation of the report was that PE
should become a core subject in Welsh schools. Elevating PE to
core subject status would, according to the report, cost £5
million per annum; the report compares this to the estimated £73
million annual cost to the health service resulting from obesity.
The report also drew attention to shortcomings in the preparedness
of teachers to deliver PE, she told us that "A massive priority
is changing teacher training. I and so many other people have
been going on about this for years. It could be changed incredibly
quickly. Most parents would be shocked if maths was being taught
to their primary school children by somebody who dropped out at
11 and had four hours of instruction in how to deliver it. There
would be universal outcry."[41]
A report in August 2012 by the Sutton found that, over 60% of
teachers received fewer than six hours of training on the delivery
of PE.
162. Looking at the current system of sport in
schools, Baroness Campbell identified:
"two major issues: in primary, it is expertise;
and in secondary, the PE teacher carries out the role that, in
independent schools, is carried out by a director of sport. They
are not only teaching physical education; they are trying to provide
after-school sporting opportunities, hire, fire and employ coaches,
and organise the competition. In independent schools that is done
by a separate role, called the director of sport, and that allows
the PE department to teach the curriculum and the director of
sport to manage the out-of-school opportunity. That does not happen
in our state schools, so there are two big issues that have been
with us for a very long time. The third big issue is this connectivity
of young people to the community, so it is about expertise, time
and headteachers feeling the pressure. They are judged on examination
results, not on the health, wellbeing, fitness and participation
of their young people in sport."[42]
163. We agree with Baroness-Grey Thompson's
call for a greater emphasis on PE as a core subject in primary
schools, giving it its place alongside academic studies. We believe
this approach has relevance to the rest of the UK. As significant
a barrier as time in the school day is the lack of appropriate
teacher training, which is not adequate as it stands in primary
schools.
164. We call for investment to be made in
primary school teachers and club coaches, the link between whom
is of critical importance, to create a more positive disposition
to sport and physical activity in young people in the UK.
This sort of change would help to reduce healthcare costs significantly
in the medium term. To achieve the change, consistent review and
monitoring will be necessary. (Recommendation 4)
165. We call on the Government to require
Ofsted to inspect and report on the time in the school day spent
on PE, including 'out of hours' sport, in all school inspections.
This would ensure that school leaders take the development of
PE seriously and invest in the professional development of teachers
and coaches. (Recommendation 5)
166. In parallel and to the same end, we call
on the Government to conduct a review of initial training for
specialist PE teachers so that they can deliver a 21st century
curriculum with the quality of PE teaching which our young people
need and deserve. (Recommendation 6)
The link between schools and
communities
167. The "third big issue" identified
by Baroness Campbell, that of connectivity to the wider community
is also key. Schools do not exist in a vacuum and partnerships
with other bodies, such as sports clubs, are critical, whether
or not they receive funding from Government. A framework is needed
if competitive sport is to be fostered, and in some places we
heard that SSPs are still operating to achieve this.
168. A telling statistic of the medal success
at the London 2012 Games was that 36% of medallists were privately
educated, despite the private sector only accounting of 7% of
the school population in the UK. These figures are starker in
some sports, such as rowing, where 54% of medallists were privately
educated.[43] The broader
composition of the squad was more balanced, as Youth Charter told
us in evidence, 17% of the whole squad was privately educated[44].
Nevertheless the bare statistics imply two things: firstly that,
overall, the sports facilities in independent schools are far
better than those elsewhere and secondly that there is an untapped
wealth of talent in the 93% of the school age population which
is educated in the state sector. There seems to be clear scope
for greater cooperation between the sectors, as the often world
class facilities in the independent sector, including Olympic
legacy facilities such as the rowing facilities at Eton Dorney,
could be made to work particularly for state primary and schools
in the independent school's catchment area; as a base for competitive
sport between secondary schools; and also being available for
fledgling local clubs to use. We are aware of examples of best
practice but its further development, in keeping with the charitable
status enjoyed by independent schools, would help to make better
use of the infrastructure which is already there.
169. We heard from a number of governing bodies
of sports about a variety of inter-school competitions which are
held. Some sports fitted less well into a the framework of a single
sport event, and these have been picked up by the Sainsbury's
School Games, which is a competitive school sport programme developed
through a partnership comprising DCMS, DfE, DH, the BOA, the BPA,
the Youth Sport Trust and Sport England. Its total funding over
three years is £128 million, largely from Lottery funding.
DCMS estimated the average cost to the taxpayer to be £13.20
per eligible student participating in the Games. The scheme is
aimed at children and young people from seven to 19 years old
and are structured on four levels of activity, which Sport England
set out as:
"Level 1—competition in schools (intra-school
sport)
Level 2—competition between schools (inter
school sport),
Level 3—competitions at county level
Level 4—national finals event
At a local level, the School Games are delivered
by schools, clubs, CSPs and other local partners. Local organising
committees have been set up, chaired by head teachers, to oversee
the Level 3 county festivals. The latest results show that 17,620
schools had registered on the School Games website. In 2013 there
will be 100 summer and winter festivals, with at least 150,000
competitors coming through from the level 1 and 2 competition."[45]
170. The Government and the Mayor put these numbers
in proportionate terms, telling us that "Just over half of
all English schools signed up for the 2012 School Games, including
around 90 per cent of secondary schools and half of primary schools.
As at 3 June 2013, 17,126 schools (i.e. over 70%) had registered
with the School Games."
171. We received evidence from New College Leicester
which was somewhat more sceptical about the impact of the School
Games: "All the introduction of the School Games did was
rebrand this approach and reshuffle individuals within the school
sport system. A number of Partnership Development Managers became
the School Games Organisers picking up from the work that the
Competition Managers had started."[46]
172. More broadly, Andy Reed, Chairman of the
Sport and Recreation Alliance, warned of the dangers of over-emphasising
competitive sport in young children, arguing that "there
is a time to introduce it. It varies slightly from sport to sport.
Tennis, for example, is an early-adoption sport, as is swimming,
but many others you would not want to specialise in until you
are into year 7, 8, 9 or 10. They are much later. If you asked
me my honest opinion, it would be that you have to get primary
school PE right first before introducing competitive sports."[47]
He argued that PE was a necessary precursor to learning a sport:
"You would not start teaching English by giving a seven year-old
Shakespeare, and saying, "Right, let us go and sort this
out".[48]
173. Developing competitive sport is clearly
of great value, but Baroness Campbell also highlighted the importance
of widening choice for inclusion. She told us that "We moved
from 25% to 90% of youngsters doing two hours of PE and sport,
and that was by widening the choice and giving youngsters options
that they found attractive."[49]
174. Cooperation between schools, particularly
between secondary schools, whether independent or in the state
sector, and primary schools in the vicinity must continue to be
fostered. Facilities, particularly in independent schools, which
enjoy charitable status, must be made to work for the wider community
through partnerships with other schools and clubs, not least in
developing the facilities as hubs for inter-school competition.
175. As a part of the routine inspections
called for in paragraph 165, we call on Ofsted to pay close attention
to primary schools' use of the Sport Premium, to ensure that schools
pool resources and infrastructure wherever possible. (Recommendation
7)
176. There are a variety of ways by which
a framework for competitive sport in and between schools can be
developed, ranging from the inter-school competitions organised
by national governing bodies to school age events such as the
School Games. Competitive sport is not, however, for every child
at every stage in their development. We agree that choice must
be widened in order to encourage the greatest possible number
of young people to find a form of physical activity which they
will enjoy and sustain.
Young people with disabilities
177. The Taking Part Survey data for the participation
of children aged five to ten years, who have a limiting disability
is gloomy. The Government and Mayor told us that "In 20011/12
81.4 per cent of children with a limiting disability reported
having done some sport in the last 4 weeks, compared to 89.6 per
cent for children with no disabilities." The Government emphasised
the role of the Sainsbury's School Games in improving access to
local competitive sport for young people with disabilities through
the Project Ability scheme, currently involving a network of 50
lead schools and involving 5,000 young disabled people. The scheme
had five facets:
" Providing disability-specific training
for School Games Organisers
· Establishing even more local competitive
opportunities for young disabled people
· Working with sports to design inclusive
sports formats
· Including disability sport across all
levels of the School Games
· Sustaining young people's participation
through the development of school club activities."[50]
178. The Youth Sport Trust set up the Project
Ability scheme, which it described as "an outstanding success"
in opening up competitive school sport to young disabled people.
The central concept of Project Ability is the development of the
lead schools as centres of excellence, with teachers being trained
as "peer teachers" to spread best practice.[51]
179. The difference between the levels of
participation between young children with a limiting disability
and those without is unacceptably stark and the scale of the challenge
is vast. We welcome the Project Ability scheme as step in the
right direction, and over time we expect it to be expanded to
extend the opportunities to competitive sport more widely than
at present.
33 Education Committee, School Sport following London
2012: No more political football (3rd Report, Session 2013-14,
HC 164-I). Back
34
Q 156 Back
35
Q 461 Back
36
The Government and the Mayor of London. Back
37
Q 480 Back
38
Youth Charter. Back
39
Q 156 Back
40
Available at http://wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/wagreviews/physical-literacy-review/?skip=1&lang=en Back
41
Q 136 Back
42
Q 153 Back
43
Available at http://www.suttontrust.com/news/news/over-a-third-of-british-olympic-winners-were-privately-educated/ Back
44
Youth Charter. Back
45
Sport England. Back
46
New College Leicester. Back
47
Q 82 Back
48
Ibid. Back
49
Q 160 Back
50
The Government and the Mayor of London. Back
51
Youth Trust. Back
| 
