SCHOOL SPORTS U-TURN FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT GOVERNMENT LACKS SPORTS STRATEGY

20 12 2010

Michael Gove - was it really a u-turn?

Michael Gove, the Government’s Education Secretary yesterday made the expected announcement that his department is to do a U-turn on Schools Sports Partnerships.

Or did he?

Looking behind the headlines, what Mr Gove has actually announced amounts to little more than a stay of execution, a temporary extension of funding while the fuss dies down or, in his words; “…..I’m pleased to be able to confirm some funding for school sports partnerships during this transition. But I’m looking to PE teachers to embed sport and put more emphasis on competitions for more pupils in their own schools and to continue to help the teachers in local primary schools do the same…..”

The transition to which he refers is that from School Sports Partnerships to some, as yet undefined, new system in which schools will be funded to release one PE teacher for one day a week to promote pupils’ participation in PE and sporting activities.

In my 2nd December blog I suggested that the likely u-turn would beg the bigger question of how to we then do things better? However, instead of returning us to that point, Mr Gove has returned to a temporary place half way back, not so much how do we improve the model but more how far back can we take the model to dupe the public into believing the Government has listened while they decide what alternative they can come up with.

It owes more to Big State than to Big Society. Not only have they not listened, they are trying to pretend they have.

Of course, one thing that MUST happen if sports development is to again become a meaningful term in the UK is the creation of a fully, vertically integrated strategy for the development of sport. Trying to run school sport separately from main stream sport smacks only of horizontal integration at best and with little evidence of ANY strategy from either Department for Education (DfE) or DCMS it is not even that.

Mr Gove has yet to propose anything to address the lack of teaching of Physical Literacy in our primary (and secondary) schools, a fundamental component of the foundations of any long-term sports participation. He has yet to propose anything that addresses the woeful lack of PE training undergone by those training to become primary school teachers. So far his sole offering is the Minister for Sport’s pet initiative, the Schools Olympics, he is offering nothing for those who are not competitive or even those who like competing but are only moderately talented.

Hugh Robertson - told us he has a strategy for sport in July but has yet to produce it

Hugh Robertson (Minister for Sport) tells us the Government has a strategy for sport. Mr Gove tells us they are devising plans for school sport. Which is it? Does the Government have a strategy or is it still at the planning stage? Or do they see school sport as remote, separate from main stream sport?

Mr Gove and Mr Robertson need to get their heads together and start thinking about more than initiatives that look good and can be dressed as serving ‘legacy’ (but please don’t look too closely) and start thinking about how best to serve the long-term interests of sport in this country and thereby the people of this country.

That means a strategy for the development of sport which is vertically integrated. That means properly addressing every stage of the sports development continuum. It also means making the provision of sporting facilities, the support of clubs with community roots and backing for the development of sport a statutory requirement of local authorities (in line with most of Europe).

If the two Ministers do that then legacy would take care of itself but they need to act fast before we lose faith completely.

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, 2010

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal





SCHOOL SPORTS PARTNERSHIPS LIKELY U-TURN BEGS THE BIGGER QUESTION

2 12 2010

Is the Government about to do a U-turn?

The BBC News website reported (1st December) that David Cameron has ordered a rethink on school sports cuts. Such a U-turn, if it comes, should be applauded and would be a tremendous victory for common sense.

However we should not celebrate. School sport should be no different from elite sport in that we should always be striving to do things better, a Government turn-about will only return us to where we were.

The debate over whether to keep School Sports Partnerships (SSPs) or to dispose with them has put us in danger of getting back what we had and, mistakenly seeing it as a step forward, settling for where we were as that step forward.

This blog has recently tackled the absence of proper Physical Literacy development in our primary schools, absent despite having School Sports Partnerships (SSPs). We have also asked whether ‘cuts or no cuts’ is even the right question.

And asking the right question(s) is key to moving sport forward. As any good consultant will tell you, asking questions is easy, it is in asking the right questions and in asking the right follow-up questions that we establish facts and in matters of strategy (which this is) gain the depth of intelligence we need in order to progress in the right direction, at the right pace and with the right resources.

So when Michael Gove tells us that he would like schools to focus on more competitive sport  I worry that the so-called ‘experts’ advising him have not asked him how he intends to provide the structure that supports this, a structure largely serviced by SSPs? Where is the structure that supports the development of people so that beyond simply taking part in competitive sport they can enjoy and even excel at it? If Mr Gove and the Government want a legacy then they should be told by someone who actually ‘gets’ sport that prolonged participation is far more likely among people who have the basic skill set to enjoy sport.

Another question for Mr Gove might also be; what about young people who don’t enjoy competitive sport? Why are they going to take up, let alone stay in, sport?

It is a question I asked myself 17 years ago and which, in part, led to my coming up with the idea for, designing and launching the Race For Life. Through my involvement in organising other running events I had noticed that the percentage of female participants was generally extremely low and although there were/are other societal issues and, although not enjoying competitive sport is not limited solely to women, I came up with the idea of a less challenging distance (5km, which was very rare back then) and removing the ‘testosterone’ of competition by making the event female only.

Fortunately Michael Gove was not involved in designing the Race For Life!

The Race For Life has gone on to become a huge success but I wonder whether it would have even got out of the starting gate had the current Department for Education had any involvement, insisting on it being competitive. That would mean hundreds of thousands of women might not have taken part in sport, hardly the stuff of legacy!

 I am a purist and of course, at its heart sport is competitive and that must be one focus but it can’t be the only one.

Back to the SSPs. When/if we get them back the important question of how do we improve from here must be asked. Also asked must be how do we meaningfully measure that improvement for some of the figures thrown about it the last few weeks are not believable and undermine a sound argument (e.g. a spokesman on the BBC claimed 46% of young people between 14 and 16 are members of a sports club; patently nonsense).

From a long-term strategy point of view it will be essential that a vertically integrated structure is applied to sport in the UK. The Government have already made a small first step towards this with the announcement of the merging of UK Sport and Sport England (although, unfortunately, not for a few years). However, as long as school sport is seen as separate to the rest of sport the system will never operate at its most economic, efficient or effective and the proper planning of fully inclusive sports development along the sports development continuum will be undermined.

The likely U-turn from the Government should be welcomed and undoubtedly School Sport Partnerships have a large, long-term role to play in the development of sport. But, if we are serious about developing sport, including the equipping of young people to participate (and enjoy participating) for life we must not settle for getting back to where we were. We should always be asking; “how do we do this better?”

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, 2010

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal





HOW GOVERNMENT POLICY (PAST & PRESENT) UNDERMINES OUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE

28 11 2010

Michael Gove; leading a Department which is undermining children's futures

This blog has tackled the subject of ‘legacy’ before and undoubtedly will again. It is unfortunate that the word appears to have lost some of its meaning in recent years as various initiatives are offered by Governments old and new supported by the Quangos they put in place and who appear to lack the knowledge to offer quality advice.

Harsh? Maybe. Fair? The evidence says yes.

We will look at the current Government’s latest offering of initiative led, strategy lacking legacy wishes in a future blog although it is worth noting how many of these ideas rely so heavily on funding making long-term ‘sustainability’ (another misused word) questionable at best.

But what if Government policy was to lack a basic element which would provide a genuine, lasting legacy both for sport and the health of the nation that would cost very little to implement and yet the absence of which continues to undermine our children’s future?

Forget ‘what if’ – the fact is this simple element is missing and not because it is new knowledge either.

I’m talking about Physical Literacy.

In the November 2005 issue of ‘The Coach’ I addressed the matter somewhat tongue in cheek:

 “Roll out those lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer”………so the song goes. Do you remember them? Not just the summer days which seemed to last forever, but every day, summer and winter. Those days before computer games and 300+ television stations, the days when you’d go out in the morning and might get home in time for tea if you ran out of things to do.Okay, I hear you ask, what has all that got to do with coaching?Everything!Because very frequently coaches from those generations (most of us) take it for granted (i.e. assume) that the physical development we received from our lifestyles as youngsters is the same as that enjoyed by today’s youth. Sadly, it’s not and that is why all coaches, regardless of the age group they work with should be aware of the five stages of Long Term Athlete Development (LTAD).In those bygone days (even the 70’s really were that long ago), what we now call ‘Physical Literacy’ was something youngsters developed naturally as part of their lifestyles. Riding (and falling off) bicycles; climbing (and falling out of) trees; balancing on (and falling off) walls; running, jumping, climbing, sliding, skipping and who knows what else!I recently joked with a group of coaches that the reason we see fewer youngsters in plaster casts these days is because they explore the limits of their Physical Literacy so little! A joke, yes but it is a fact that sitting in front of televisions and computers and getting lifts here, there and everywhere is a lot safer. Yet there can be little doubt it is affecting more than just the nation’s health, it is affecting the nation’s sporting performance too!

Nowadays, the fact is that the coach needs to be aware of exactly what we mean by Physical Literacy to ensure that the athlete’s training takes into account their development (or lack of).

So, what is ‘Physical Literacy’?

In short hand it is:

ABC + ABCs + KGB + CKS

That is:

  • ABC = the ABC of athletic movement which is Running, Jumping and Throwing.
  • ABCs where A = Agility, B = Balance, C = Coordination and S = (neural) Speed.
  • KGB where K = Kinaesthesia,  G = Gliding and B = Buoyancy.
  • CKS where C = Catching, K = Kicking and S = Striking.

Now, think back to ‘those lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer’ and you’ll see that the average child of the 70’s and before covered most of that little lot just by being a normal active child. Since the 80’s however children have been less active and have not developed the same degree of Physical Literacy.

Jim Cowan, The Coach, Issue 31, Nov/Dec 2005

The article went on the explain that the ideal ages to develop Physical Literacy was between 6 and 11 although the point of that article was to address remedial Physical Literacy work in senior athletes, only required because the general population was/is so poor!

Talking sense but will the Government isn't listening

Now the British Association of Sport and Exercise Medicine (BASEM) are agreeing with me and are calling on the Government to include something called ‘five in five’ in schools.

Speaking in the Daily Mail (26th November) Dr Richard Budgett, of BASEM, said he is deeply concerned about current PE lessons in schools. “Out of the 40 minutes, there’s eight minutes of activity going on. Very often the kids are standing around and just listening to the teacher talk.”

Dr Budgett said children are “made to ‘run before they can walk’ because they are thrown into playing sport before they learn how to co-ordinate and move properly.”

He added: “Without learning the basics of how to balance and reach and co-ordinate, all their sporting techniques may well be flawed.”

It is important to note that BASEM are not suggesting we do away with competitive sport in schools, simply that we add a logical step to the learning of every child which will improve their ability to both enjoy and excel at sport, both key reasons for continuing to do sport.

Is this new thinking? No. In 2001 Chris Earle (Loughborough University) in rebuffing the thinking that Physical Literacy as part of a Long Term Athlete Development programme was an ‘elite’ model said;

“This is not a “high performance” model but rather an athlete retention model.  By increasing each young person’s success rate, by keeping more young people playing sport longer, there will be a larger pool of potential talent to fish in.”

Undermined by Government policy?

Isn’t more people (especially youngsters) playing more sport exactly what legacy is supposed to be all about?

What is the cost of introducing the teaching of Physical Literacy into the curriculum of every primary school (and until we catch up other schools too)? It is the price of teaching teachers how and why to deliver Physical Literacy to the young people in their care. Compared to the £millions thrown at (so-called) legacy in recent years, it’s not much is it?

And the cost of not introducing it? Probably £Billions!

As part of one of our own Cowan Global Training workshops we highlight the knock on effects of a nation with poor Physical Literacy. These are not restricted to fewer people enjoying and therefore taking up sport. As a by-product of that we also see a population with less active lifestyles and less (physical) mobility who are also more accident prone, less healthy and are prone to higher levels of obesity. In short an invisible but nonetheless huge burden on the NHS’s budget.

As Dr Budgett puts it in the Daily Mail; “In later life this (lack of co-ordination, a key component of Physical Literacy) leads to musculo-skeletal disorders. Painful backs, necks, shoulders and hips can cause a great loss of quality in our daily lives.”

Of course, if it isn’t fun, people won’t do it so the learning of Physical Literacy must be fun. Having delivered hundreds of Physical Literacy sessions to young and old over the years, this author can testify that the above equation is easy to turn into fun sessions packed with variety and challenge.

Zoe Biggs, a teacher at Camps Hill Primary School in Stevenage has been trying out BASEM’s recommendations with 60 nine and ten year olds at her school. She told the Mail; “They have vastly improved co-ordination and strength. And they loved it!”

What of the Government? In the same Mail article the Department for Education (DfE) said deciding whether or not to include this training would be up to individual schools before stating it would prefer them to focus on more competitive sport.

Will someone at the DfE please wake up and realise what ‘legacy’ means and start thinking about how we equip ALL children to enjoy that competitive sport thereby creating a pathway for a lifetime of physical activity. You would not ask a child to write an essay without first teaching them basic literacy, why are you asking children to take up (and then hope they will continue with) physical activity without first teaching them to be physically literate?

NOTES:

My article from Issue 31 of The Coach is not available online however if you would like a copy please drop me an email.

The Daily Mail article can be read here.

Find out more about BASEM here.

© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, 2010 

info@cowanglobal.net

Twitter @cowanglobal








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,085 other followers