Good afternoon everyone, my name is Mark Edge, this is Rachel Seddon and Louise Walsh and today we will be discussing School Sports Partnerships, from their introduction through to the eventual removal by the coalition government. Since the Secretary of State for Education’s October 2010 statement, calling for a new direction in school sport, there have been some significant policy changes. In October 2010 the Secretary of State announced that the previous administration’s Physical Education and Sports Strategy was being discontinued and, therefore, ring-fenced funding for School Sport Partnerships (SSPs) was to end in March 2011. The Government wanted to encourage more competitive sport in schools and to give schools the freedom to concentrate on the improvement of competitive sport provision by removing many of the requirements of the previous strategy
Our outcomes for the presentation are as follows:Explore the history and discuss the current position regarding School Sports Partnerships and their relevance to pupils, teachers and parentsConsider the role SSP played within personal development of pupils and the impact their removal may present to future opportunities in a sporting contextWith reference to the London 2012 Olympic Legacy, appraise the decision to eradicate funding to a proved successful part of School Sport Use academic theory to support and critically evaluate the changes, with particular reference to the cuts in funding to PE and School SportOverall, the aim of the presentation is to have a full understanding of the progress of the SSP’s and the issues the removal of funding toward it has presented
Schools sports partnerships we introduced not only to raise the standard of PE but the opportunities available to both students and staff. With an overall aim of two hours high quality PE a week the six objectives set out were –strategic planning: to develop and implement a PE/sport strategy school liaison: to develop links, particularly between Key Stages 2 and 3out-of-hours: to provide enhanced opportunities for all pupilsschool to community: to increase participation in community sportcoaching and leadership: to provide opportunities in leadership, coaching and officiating for senior pupils, teachers and other adultsraising standards: to raise standards of pupils’ achievement
Introduced in 2000 as the School Sports Coordinator Programme, published in the government document ‘A Sporting Future For All’, its aim was to develop opportunities for youth sport both within an outside the formal curriculum, later developed into the more focussed School Sports Partnership, the original programme presented the aims continued throughout the years but without the targets developed laterThe PESSCL strategy introduced SSP’s as one of its eight strands and was the starting point for the partnerships to develop.In 2004, the government white paper, focussing on health presented a key moment in the development of SSP’s. With the bid for London 2012 in the process, the opportunities created by SSP’s in terms of health benefits meant the government support was evident The obvious impact and success of the School Sports Partnerships meant by 2006 all schools in England were part of onePESSYP built upon PESSCL increasing the opportunities and extending scope for SSP’s to fulfil its goalsPossibly the most important aspect of SSP’s was the election of a new coalition government, the change in focus towards PE had a detrimental effect on the partnership.We will now, over the next few slides, pick out the key developments we feel had the most important impact on the topic and discuss them in more detail.
Funded directly by the government, through the DCMS the programme helped fund activities, expand opportunities and support staff members to aid the running. A Partnership Development Manager’s manages the partnership full time and work directly with School Sport Co-ordinators, teachers based in a secondary schools and released from timetable 2 days per week to work on the project. They work with their own school, and a cluster of feeder primary school who each have a Primary Link Teacher, a primary school teacher who is released 12 days per year to work on the project
The PESSCL strategy aimed to increase the sporting opportunities for 5-16 year olds, so that 85% of children would experience a minimum of two hours, high quality PE in and beyond the curriculum by 2008. This, along with its successor PESSYP which we will discuss later, allowed nationwide, government goals to be focussed into local areas to meet the requirements. PESSCL described eight key strands – READ. In order for the strategy to be successful all the strands had to work together, complimenting each other through shared goals. The SSP’s allowed this to be implemented to a wider range of people through strong linksThe heavy investment of funding can be criticised, it is suggested by...that such....
From the obvious measured success (85% of pupils reached two years ahead of schedule) of PESSCL, a developed strategy was put in place to build upon the extended range of opportunities made available, a wider age range was targeted and further hours offered. Two further strands were offered and restructured to expand into areas not previously explored by PESSCL, aiming to address the post-16 drop-off rate by creating more of a sporting habit involving other bodies as well as those offered in the curriculum. Again the heavy investment was criticised and was a strong reason put forward later in the development for its removal. Its success however directly responds to criticism with government targets being met, opportunities developed and health worries assessed
Sports Colleges acted as a focus for partnership as the sharing of facilities and what is deemed as ‘hub’ for involvement meant the SSP’s were given an identity. The extra funding given provided opportunities to develop the shared facilities to provide the high quality PE and school sport required.When investigating SSP’s, we found the last three topics discussed presented key areas for the development of the programme. The strategies continued to drive forward the importance of increased opportunities to develop pupils both in a sporting context, in and out of school, but through education as well. The support of the government to fund the strategies showed how important both the SSP’s and its partner schemes were in meeting the targets and how successfully they had been met.
The extent to which the success of SSP’s can be seen in the figures from surveys carried out. Not only was the sporting success or academic achievement key to the partnership the development within the wider context of young peoples lifestyles, as discussed by Roberts and Treasure meant the programme allowed for a complete pupil develop. Two other key bodies in assessing the success can be found in the annual School Sports Survey and in reports carried out by the inspection of standards body OFSTED.
The School Sport Survey is an annual measure for tracking the progress of schools in meeting governments targets, which is administered by the Department for Education to all schools across the 450 school sports partnerships it is invaluable for measuring the success of policies and highlighting opportunities for improvement. The main aim was to provide very robust and reliable information from partnership schools on the proportion of pupils receiving 2 hours of curriculum PE, and the proportion of pupils participating in at least 3 hours of high quality PE and school sport in a typical week.In addition to ‘top level’ information, the survey also sought to help gauge the performance of individual partnerships and track how performance has changed over time.Make it relevant 1997 doc.Competitive sportg Data
Figure 1- Years 1 – 11 have shown the average number of minutes spent oncurriculum PE has increased from 107 minutes in 2004/05 to the 123minutesThelatest survey shows that in the last year there has been an increase in all yeargroups, even Years 10 and 11 which had previously shown little or no increase.Figure 2 - The survey data reveals that just under half (49%) of pupils across Years 1 – 11 participated in inter-school competition during the academicyear. This continues the upwards trend in competitive sport within schools, with a five percentageincrease in thelast year, and a 14 percentageincrease over the last four years.We feel both these graphs represent no real reasons for the removal of the scheme, both in terms of curriculum physical education and competitive sport. The obvious benefits of the partnerships are seen here in statistical form and with government aims to increase competitive involvement in the wake of London 2012, the findings suggest no change was necessary.
initial thoughts are negative, after the proven successful work and especially in the current sporting climate with the Olympic legacywhilst our main focus is on the sporting effects, economic issues must be taken into account (critical analysis)1.44 STOP
The coalition government, upon election announced the ring-fenced funding towards the SSP’s were being removed due to them being perceived ‘neither affordable nor likely to be the best way to help schools achieve their potential in improving competitive sport’. Saying this, despite the obvious success of the programme, created strong opposition, petitions and a Facebook page with over 20,000 likes showed the popularity and hostility towards the decision. In December 2010 after major criticism a revised DfE announcement stated that funding for SSP’s was being extended until August 2011Arguments for the removal of the partnerships were mainly based around the tough economic climate by the government and how money could be spent better by allowing head teachers to have freedom to spend where they feel necessary.
OFSTED provided possible reasons for the cutting of SSP’s in their 2009 annual report. With the curriculum not specifying a certain amount of hours of PE to be carried out, the two may have been seen to not comply with each other or attaining the same goals. Similarly without set guidelines nationwide for individual partnerships in terms of specific activities, standards cannot easily be maintained. Each specific SSP will have their own local needs, tailored to requirements, this therefore is not a national target and cannot be sustained.
Through the use of two case studies, at Brownedge St. Mary’s Catholic High School and Canterfield High School, carrying out brief questions to important parties, we discussed the removal of the SSP’s and the impact it will have to PE and School Sport experiences. Some we found supported the programme, and were against the decision to remove it.
And some had strong points of views, supporting the governments decision.The questionnaires were given to parties that will be affected by this funding cut and collecting these results provided first hand data of the situation from the perspectives of the people most relevant to the situation, having direct involvement with the SSP’s. This displays first-hand the realistic nature of governments making one decision that can effect the lives of millions people and whilst their views may provide sound reasoning within the party the actual physical results may not be supported by everyone.
Flintoff discussed the issue with allowing head teachers to be in control of funding suggesting due to examined nature of other subjects, they will take priority over those subjects who don't, specifically Physical Education. As well as this, it is important to note that without a set direction in which PE must go a teacher’s personal favouritism may be supported more than other areas. This could have a detrimental effect not only on the levels of sporting achievement but the levels of involvement and all the positive work carried out by the previous programme.
The School Games programme is designed as "a celebration of competitive sport" that will involve all young people in Years 3 to 13, regardless of ability or background. Government and Lottery funding will give thousands of young people the opportunity to take part in competitive sport through the programme, creating a legacy from the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games. Each level will feature funding support for a package of events that will to provide more opportunities for pupils to compete in a dynamic programme of regular intra-school and inter-school competitionsAs shown through the School Sport Survey findings on previous slides, participation in competitive sport had seen a significant increase through Labour’s efforts, therefore was the scrapping of these successful partnerships for a more narrow focus on competitive sport a necessary action? In our opinion, through our collective knowledge and the significant research undertaken for this topic we believe that it poor decision on behalf of the coalition government, as the was no real evidence to suggest that the scrapping of these partnerships along with the successful infrastructure was needed to go altogether.
SSP’s are able to continue with the new government without the previous funding, so the success that was seen previously will be more difficult to replicate. With the success of London 2012 it is now down to the schools to capitalise on this wave of sporting euphoria. Despite this the lack of targeted funding may have an adverse effect on the carrying out of the legacy. As we have previously mentioned, allowing funding to be more flexible and giving more power to head teachers may harm PE and School Sports involvement in comparison to other exam subjects. The works of Flintoff and organisations such as DfE and OFSTED have allowed us to critically evaluate the topic thoroughly in relation to positives and negatives.
School Sports Partnerships
‘Since the Secretary of State for Education’s October 2010 statement, calling for a new direction in school sport, there have been some significant policy changes. In October 2010 the Secretary of State announced that the previous administration’s Physical Education and Sports Strategy was being discontinued and, therefore, ring-fenced funding for School Sport Partnerships (SSPs) was to end in March 2011. The Government wanted to encourage more competitive sport in schools and to give schools the freedom to concentrate on the improvement of competitive sport provision by removing manySchool Sports the requirements of the previous strategy’ of Partnerships (House Of Commons, 2012) Mark Edge Rachel Seddon Louise Walsh
Explore the history and discuss the current position regarding School Sports Partnerships and their relevance to pupils, teachers and parents Consider the role SSP played within personal development of pupils and the impact their removal may present to future opportunities in a sporting context With reference to the London 2012 Olympic Legacy, appraise the decision to eradicate funding to a proved successful part of School Sport Use academic theory to support and critically evaluate the changes, with particular reference to the cuts in funding to PE and School Sport
The partnerships’ overall aim was to help schools to ensure that their pupils spend a minimum of two hours each week on high-quality PE and school sport. The partnership programme had six strategic objectives:1. strategic planning: to develop and implement a PE/sport strategy2. school liaison: to develop links, particularly between Key Stages 2 and 33. out-of-hours: to provide enhanced opportunities for all pupils4. school to community: to increase participation in community sport5. coaching and leadership: to provide opportunities in leadership, coaching and officiating for senior pupils, teachers and other adults6. raising standards: to raise standards of pupils’ achievement (Flintoff, 2003)
2000 2003School Sports Coordinator School Sports Partnership Programme – PESSCL 2006 2004 All Schools In England PartGovernment White Paper Of SSP 2008 2010 PESSYP New Government Elected
Each partnership received an average grant of £270,000 each year, paying for: (YST,2004) Flintoff, 2010
Specialist Sports Colleges School Sports Step Into Sport Launched on 2 October 2003 the PE, School Sport Coordinators and Club Links‘Locally partners, including local authorities, need to come together to ensure the effective delivery of Gifted & Swimming theseprogrammes to support schools and maximise the benefits Talented for young people’ (DCMS, 2003) Delivered through eight strands – QCA PE & School/Club School Sport Links Investment of £459 million over 3 years from April Investigation 2003 Professional Development
Continuation of PESSCL Strategy, to further improve the quality and quantity of PE and school sport ages 5-19 Developed strands to 10 individual components – Club Links, Coaching, Competition, Disability, Extending Activities, Gifted and Talented, Infrastructure (SSPs), Leadership and Volunteering, Swimming Further investment on £755 million over 3 years The main driver of SSP’s to provide high quality Physical Education within and beyond the curriculum.
In 2008 the number of schools with Specialist Sports College Status was 471. All Sports colleges receive additional funding to raise standards in PE and Sport. Apply for additional funding once £50 000 of private sector sponsorship is gained, along with a 4 year development plan. In return DfSE provided a grant of £100 000 Eligible to apply for up £2million in lottery funding and an additional £123 per pupil per year. 123 000 for the average school of 1000 pupils.
Prior to the start of the programme an average of 91 girls across year groups 7-13 participated in extra-curricular activities a week. This has increased by 93% on the pre-SSP level to an average of 176 girls 94% of Partnerships in 2008 offered 20 or more activities: 40%, offered more than 30 activities & 97% offered multi-skills clubs (Institute of Youth Sport, 2009)Roberts and Treasure (1993) highlight the crucial role that sport plays inthe lives of young people, particularly with regards to them developingpositive peer relationships and enhancing their self-esteem and self-worth
‘a compulsory, annual survey that measures a school’sprogress at meeting government targets for engagingyoung people within PE and school sport’ (Norwich SSP, 2010)
Michael Gove announced that the network of SSP was “neither affordable nor likely to be the best way to help schools achieve their potential in improving competitive sport.” He insisted SSP are not being closed down but instead they were being entrusted to schools to decide how to use them in the future. Funding was suggested to be ‘flexible’ under the new scheme
SSP’s Does Not Cover The National Curriculum Qualifications Not Matching With Requirements Lack Of Accurate Data Collection Not A High Standard Across The Board OFSTED Report, 2009
‘if the government are serious about school olympics and increasing “competitive sport” then how do they justify taking away the structure that creates competitive sportMark Holmes (Head Of PE)- within school clusters, partnerships, towns and countries’‘from the feedback given to me by my son,the enjoyment and increased opportunities available through SSP’s the withdrawal of the funding, at such an important time in this country’s recent history, post London Helen Pietersen - Mother 2012 seems like a ridiculous decision’
‘placing so much funding into a non- examined subject at this tough economic time doesn’t make financial sense. the money can be used better to benefit aJacqueline Jones wider range of people in more academic terms’(Deputy Headteacher)-‘in my day, we had to make use of what was available during similarly tough financialtimes, and the enjoyment didn’t come from policies in place. cuts need to be made, everyone will suffer its another obstacle to conquer’ Clive Drakeford – Local Resident
‘the pressure of exam results and that when you speak to headsand try to explain the importance of taking part in sport…theiranswer is that there are more important priorities, andunfortunately, they come first’ (Flintoff, 2011) 30% local Authority areas still have a fully functioning SSP 60% drop in the amount of time dedicated to organising school sport nationwide Now 110 fewer School Sport Partnerships- a decline of 37%. 48% of local authorities have seen a decrease in SSP’s, 28% no longer have any. (Guardian 2012)
Adapted From ‘The Arches School Sports Partnership
SSP’s Are Able To Continue Without The Previous Funding. London 2012- Will There Be A Lasting Legacy For Schools? Flintoff, Department For Education And Ofsted.
BBC (2010). A Guide To School Sports Funding Row. Available At http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11837426.Last Accessed 24/1/13Channel 4 News (2010). ‘Save School Sport Partnerships’. Available At:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X2Cpv41MR8. Last Accessed 20/1/2013Department For Education (2008). PE & Sports Survey 2008-2009. DfE, LondonDepartment For Education (2009). PE & Sports Survey 2009-2010. DfE, LondonFlintoff,A. ,Foster, R. & Wystawnoha, S. (2011) ‘Promoting And Sustaining High Quality Physical Education And SchoolSport Through School Sports Partnerships’. European Physical Education Review. 17(3) p341 Gibson O. (2012). Drop In School Sport Support Blamed On Funding Cuts. Available At:http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jul/18/school-sport-drop-funding-cuts. Last Accessed 4/12/2012.House Of Commons (2012). School Sport. Available At: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06052. LastAccessed 24/1/13Institute of Youth Sport (2009). ‘Summary Of Key Findings’ Available At:http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ssehs/research/sport-science/youth-sport/downloads/research-downloads/young-people-school-based-dl/school-sport-partnership-2008-dl/executive-summary-long-2008.pdf. LastAccessed 20/1/2013Norwich School Sport Partnership (2010). ‘2010 School Sport Survey Launched’. Available At:http://www.norwichssp.co.uk/news/4683/2010-school-sport-survey-launched. Last Accessed. 12/1/2012Office For Standards In Education (2009). The School Sport Partnership Programme. DCMS, London.Roberts, G. And Treasure, D. (1993) The Importance Of The Study Of Children In Sport: An Overview. In M. Lee(Ed), Coaching Children In Sport: Principles And Practice, London, Spon Press, Pp. 3–16.The Arches School Sports Partnership (nd.). School Games Structure. Available At:http://www.thearches.org.uk/school_games_structure.php. Last Accessed 29/1/13 Woodhouse C. (2012). Ruff Guide to PE and School Sport . Available:http://www.sportdevelopment.info/index.php/component/content/article/47-ruffguides/54-rgschools. Last accessed11/12/2012.