Cowan Global Website

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Consultant, Consulting, DCMS, Hugh Robertson, Jeremy Hunt, Legacy, Leisure, London 2012, Minister for Sport, News Comment, Olympic Games, Olympics Minister, Planning, Political Comment, Public Funding, Sport, Sport England, Sport Politics, Sports Development, Strategy
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

NOW THE STADIUM IS DECIDED CAN WE PLEASE DEBATE THE LEGACY?

13 02 2011

An Olympic Stadium with an athletics track. But what of legacy?

It felt a bit anti-climatic didn’t it? By the time it was announced, West Ham’s win over Tottenham hardly seemed like news anymore, it had been so widely leaked. The nation breathed a sigh of relief, the track would remain in the Olympic Stadium and the legacy was safe.

Only it isn’t. That whole West Ham verses Tottenham thing was a smokescreen, the legacy is far from safe and no one, least of all the media seem to care.

Let’s rewind to the days before the announcement that the 2012 Games would come to London and look at what was being described as ‘Legacy’ by the London team.

Previous Games had promised that what they built would provide a legacy for future generations, that the buildings they created would somehow, magically inspire future generations. Unfortunately, as the London team, the Government and many others pointed out, this had not been the case. They pointed at Barcelona and Sydney and told us that London would learn from their mistakes. They told us that relying on buildings to motivate did not work and that Stratford would not become home to such ‘white elephants’.

That is why the stadium legacy promised to the IOC as part of London’s bid was one of athletics legacy not of a building legacy. It was one of a reduced capacity (25,000 seats) stadium, home to athletics. Not a stadium at which athletics is very much the junior partner and which will host a minimal amount of athletics competition and little (if any) training due to its newly found commitments to football, music, cricket and a whole host of other attractions.

But what of legacy?

The London team were selling a legacy built on far more than a building when they won the right to host the Games, so what was it they were selling?

The principle strand of legacy was not one of erecting buildings in which to watch sport, it was one of inspiring people to take up sport. And even if West Ham and Newham Council find a way to make the athletics track at the Stratford Stadium accessible to coaches and athletes, their clubs and local schools on a regular, daily basis the surface of the promised legacy has not even been scratched.

Much has been made of West Ham’s laudable desire to allow ‘community usage’ of the Stadium and to keep it ‘in the community’. But which community exactly? How accessible is Stratford from Sheffield or Cardiff or Dundee? How many communities across the UK have no or poor athletics facilities while the Lea Valley Athletics Centre and the Olympic Stadium sit barely six miles apart?

Which community was legacy promised to and what was that legacy?

Perhaps the best place to find the answer and to establish what was promised is to view the video the London 2012 team put together for their presentation to the IOC, the presentation which was used to argue for London getting the Games.

“Our aim is to inspire young people across Britain and the world to take up sport”. Those words were said by Sue Barker who presented the video. Not just football and athletics in Newham and Stratford but across Britain and the world.

The video urged the IOC’s members to; “Choose London and inspire young people to choose Olympic Sport”.

Tony Blair appeared promising the IOC that his Government and all opposition parties backed the London bid 100%. “It is the nation’s bid” Blair told them.

Blair went on; “our vision is to see millions more young people in Britain and across the world participating in sport and improving their lives as a result of that participation.”

It got repetitive but the point was made; the legacy that 2012 was offering wasn’t one of bricks and mortar, it was one of inspiring people to take up sport.

And so what of that Legacy?

Unlike many European countries sport in the UK does not benefit from statutory protection*. Many local facilities, local clubs and local sports development have no guarantee of a future especially during a time of financial hardship where it is the non-statutory requirements local authorities will cut.

Planning for the development of sport in the UK is laughable, equating to little more than having a dream and then crossing your fingers. Successive Governments have thrown a succession of initiatives at the issue while it’s agency in England, Sport England, has never yet been left alone long enough by Ministers to see to a conclusion any of the three-year plans Government has required of it (to deliver Government agenda, not to develop sport).

What of legacy? Thanks to the bid video we know we had a vision, we know what we wanted to achieve but what of the strategy to deliver that vision?

What of legacy? Well, we have a stadium with an athletics track. Thank God for that, the future of sport in the UK can sleep safely tonight!

(*Playing fields benefit from a requirement of Sport England to act as a statutory consultee on planning applications that affect them)

Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: Cuts, DCMS, Football, Hugh Robertson, IOC, Legacy, Leisure, London 2012, Minister for Sport, News Comment, Olympics, Planning, Political Comment, Sport, Sport England, Sport Politics, Sports Development, Strategy, Sue Barker, Tony Blair, Vision, West Ham
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

“BIG SOCIETY HAS NO STRATEGY” – BUT WHY NOT?

10 02 2011

“Big Society has no strategy” – Although I agree, those aren’t my words; they are those of Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, Executive Director of Community Service Volunteers (CSV). In this Blog I have highlighted lack of Government strategy before and although they deny it, they continue to offer no evidence that said strategies exist.

Rather than continuing to lambast the Government for lack of strategy, I felt it was time to take a look why I say there is no strategy using the ‘Big Society’ as my example. Hopefully, some of what I say will be of far wider use than solely in Westminster.

Dame Elisabeth Hoodless: "Big Society has no strategy"

Let’s start at the beginning. In order to create a strategy which will define the actions which will enable something to happen, we have to first know what that ‘something’ is.

It’s just like making a journey, before setting out it is useful to know where we are intending to end up!

Now, what of Big Society? It’s all a little vague isn’t it? The Prime Minister seems to know what it is but hasn’t explained it in terms understood by many and there are plenty, even in his own party, when asked don’t seem to be able to define it. And then of course, it keeps changing too. Every negative news story seems to bring a fresh, but still vague, explanation from Government representatives.

It’s a little like picking up Mercury. It’s there, you know it’s there, but it continues to elude your grasp. And until they have a clear, understandable definition of what it is, what Big Society should look like, they can’t possibly put a strategy in place to make it happen. They can claim they have and they can even have documents which say; ‘Big Society Strategy’ on the cover but that won’t mean they have a strategy; it won’t magically turn those documents into functional tools.

Having said all of that, let’s ignore it! Let’s assume that somewhere in Westminster there is a firm, clear definition of what Big Society looks like which just hasn’t been shared very well.

Do we then have a strategy?

Erm, no.

And it is actually on this point that not only Government but also many other organisations fall down. I have lost count of the number of times I have been proudly presented with a ‘strategy’ which was, in reality, little more than a list of aspirations.

No matter how many times the word ‘strategy’ is used to describe something, unless it clearly describes the ‘how’ and that ‘how’ is supported by sound method, it is not a strategy. It is a dream, a fantasy. To use the travel analogy applied above, it is knowing the destination we aspire to but to lack the means of travel, or even knowledge of what travel is.

This is not a peculiarly Coalition Government issue, their predecessors were probably worse. Minister for Sport Hugh Robertson famously described their policies as ‘Initiative-itis’ by which he meant for every issue a new initiative was thrown at the problem but no strategy was put in place, no cohesive thinking. Unfortunately, Robertson is one of the current Government’s Ministers who keeps reassuring us he has a strategy (for the development of sport) in place but when challenged has yet to produce it and who appears to be employing a policy of (by his own definition) ‘Initiative-itis’.

I have focused on the ‘what?’ and the ‘how?’ both key elements for any strategy. When you consider your own strategy don’t also forget to consider ‘what’ and ‘how’s’ close relations; ‘when’, ‘why’, ‘where’ and ‘who’ – for the same applies to them in that their absence from strategy stops it being strategy, prevents it being a functional tool.

It is said that Society (big or small) gets the politicians it deserves. Bearing that in mind, next time you are looking at your corporate or sporting or charity or whatever organisation you work for’s strategy; ask yourself, is ours any better?

Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: Assumptions, Big Society, Consultant, Consulting, Cuts, Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, Hints & Tips, Hugh Robertson, Initiative-itis, Minister for Sport, News Comment, Planning, Political Comment, Sport Politics, Sports Development, Strategic Planning, Strategy, Vision
Categories : All Blogs, Charity, Consulting, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

LEGACY OR SMOKESCREEN?

31 01 2011

HOW THE OLYMPIC STADIUM DEBATE DISGUISES THE LACK OF REAL LEGACY PLANNING

Tottenham or West Ham? Or a smokescreen debate disguising the lack of real legacy?

It was supposed to be a quiet Sunday lunchtime pint however the locals, knowing I used to be an athlete, were keen to get my take on the big Tottenham v West Ham match. No, not a football match; the Olympic Stadium and the whole so-called legacy. They were surprised by my view.

So called legacy? Are you serious? Isn’t this a serious debate about a legacy for athletics in the UK?

But is it? In what way exactly does West Ham’s proposed saving the track at the Olympic Stadium provide a legacy for athletics that Tottenham’s proposed redevelopment of Crystal Palace does not?

Let’s face it, after the embarrassing withdrawal from the hosting of the 2005 World Athletics Championships, it is unlikely that event will be visiting London soon. So, after 2012 what use will a 60,000 seat stadium be to athletics? Very little. The annual London Grand Prix might sell that many tickets but that is unlikely and so the harsh truth is that in maintaining the track at Stratford we would be creating a white elephant legacy of the kind Coe, Jowell & Co said we would not do, of the kind they pointed to in Sydney and Barcelona and Athens.

Double Olympian and leading coach John Bicourt is another former athlete who agrees. Last Friday (28^th January) he was quoted in the Mail reminding us all that actually, post-Games, the original plan was to reduce the Olympic Stadium capacity to 25,000 to create a dedicated venue for athletics. As Mr Bicourt states; this was a bid promise.

But still, what of legacy?

The whole stadium/legacy debate is little more than a smokescreen to deflect our gazes from the lack of the legacy that was promised as part of the London 2012 bid; that of more people doing sport. Watching an athletics meeting in front of 60,000 empty seats is hardly likely to inspire future generations to take up what is fast becoming a minority sport.

I have written fairly frequently in these pages of the lack of strategy for the development of sport in this country. I have also pointed out on numerous occasions that throwing initiatives at the problem will not create any sustainable legacy for sport. I won’t repeat myself, those articles are still available on this blog for anyone interested however I will point out that we will not guarantee the legacy of increased sporting participation via the sort of ‘cross your fingers and hope’ planning seen by both current and previous Governments.

Professor Mike Weed in his excellent blog wrote on 26^th January;

“Today BBC London published a poll that found 63% of Londoners believe “It would damage the legacy if the stadium cannot hold athletics after 2012“. Lord Coe has said that London 2012 is “morally obligated” to preserve an athletics legacy. But, in the haystack of words that have been written on the stadium legacy options, there are very few needles on the nature of the athletics legacy that the stadium is expected to deliver, and not even a pin on what EVIDENCE exists for such legacies.

In short, while the quantity of comment has been extensive, the quality of debate has been poor. No-one on either side has detailed WHAT the athletics legacy is intended to be (more participants? more elite athletes? more elite events? all of these?), HOW retaining a track at the stadium will develop such legacies, WHO is intended to benefit and, most importantly, what EVIDENCE exists to suggest that the WHAT, HOW and WHO is viable? Perhaps the postponement of the stadium decision will give advocates on all sides the time to consider their moral obligation to improve the quality of the debate!”

Ill defined then, but smokescreen? Oh yes. For while Sport England are telling us how successful the funding of

Athletics - fast becoming a minority sport? (pic: BBC)

athletics has been in driving up participation in that sport, research by others tells an entirely different story.

For starters, Sport England’s statistics include everyone who jogs once a week. Yes, seriously, if you jog once a week you are part of the Government’s ‘evidence’ that athletics is growing nicely, that the legacy is falling into place.

So concerned are they that the truth is being misrepresented, the Association of British Athletics Clubs (ABAC) commissioned their own research into current levels of participation in track and field athletics. In other words, they asked how many people take part in what the general public understand to be athletics.

The answers, published on the ABAC website as a series of ‘fact files’ will astound those who think the publicly funded pursuit of legacy is thriving.

Sport England tell us that 158,000 – 165,000 young people between the ages of 11 and 15 take part in athletics ‘regularly’. Sport England define ‘regularly’ as once per month. ABAC’s research reveals that even in the best case scenario and even calling once a month ‘regular’ participation, the absolute maximum number of 11 to 15 year olds taking part in athletics is 51,000, only 31% of the Sport England figure.

As if that isn’t bad enough, the real figures for senior athletics participants are even further apart. Sport England tell us that 1.876 million adults ‘regulary’ take part in athletics, not forgetting they include jogging. ABAC’s research was limited to senior athletes between 20 and 34 years old and told us that fewer than 2000 regularly take part in track and field athletes in that age group!

I can’t speak for others but my own feeling is that the athletics legacy being chased by successive Governments will be in no need of a track at ANY venue, let alone one with 25,000 or 60,000 seats. Track and field athletics will be a thing of the past and joggers will be the new athletes. Perhaps the IOC will introduce jogging to the timetable in time for 2012?

I used the word smokescreen and that is exactly what it is. If legacy is to mean anything it must include participation in SPORT, not a redefinition of what sport is to fit the available figures. As I said to the locals at the pub, whether Tottenham or West Ham win their battle is probably irrelevant to athletics as there will be insufficient participants remaining to require very much of any stadium!

NOTES:

From a personal, footballing view-point, I should point out that I support neither Tottenham nor West Ham. I am a Chelsea supporter who believes in football belonging to its communities. On that point and that point alone I support West Ham’s bid to occupy the Olympic site. As for the siting of the track, I have no issue with Tottenham’s proposals.

The ABAC research was conducted independently by one of the world’s leading athletics statisticians, Rob Whittingham. For the sake of transparency I should report that I am an elected official of the Association of British Athletics Clubs, an organisation run entirely by volunteers and funded solely from members’ subscriptions.

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ABAC, Association of British Athletic Clubs, Athletics Legacy, Consultant, Consulting, DCMS, Football, Legacy, Leisure, London 2012, Minister for Sport, News Comment, Olympic Legacy, Olympic Stadium, Political Comment, Sport, Sport England, Sport Politics, Sports Development, Strategy, Stratford, Tottenham, West Ham
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

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 2^nd 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.

Twitter @cowanglobal

Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: Big Society, Consultant, Consulting, DCMS, Department for Education, Education, Education Secretary, Horizontal Integration, Hugh Robertson, Legacy, Leisure, Minister for Sport, News Comment, PE Teachers, Physical Education, Physical Literacy, Planning, Political Comment, Primary School Sport, School Sports Partnerships, Sport, Sport England, Sport Politics, Sports Development, Sports Development Continuum, Strategy, Vertical Integration, Youth Sport Trust
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

SPORTS STRATEGY STILL ABSENT WHILE INITIATIVE-ITIS CONTINUES UNCHECKED

18 12 2010

Regular readers of this blog will recall that back in May, when the Government was new; I applauded the Minister for Sport’s announcement that he was to end what he termed ‘initiative-itis’. At last, I thought, a Government that will put strategy ahead of piecemeal initiatives, a Minister who will support the proper, planned development of sport.

Then, only a month later, Hugh Robertson (the Minister in question) announced a new initiative and I blogged that initiative-itis had returned before it had even left asking the Minister, “Please Mr Robertson, can we see a genuine sports development strategy in place of this cross your fingers planning?”

Through the pages of ‘Inside The Games’ (where some of my blogs are reproduced) Mr Robertson responded angrily that he did have a strategy with a clear direction. He cited a list of impressive sounding aims and objectives telling us, “This is a strategy with a clear direction.”

We're still awaiting the strategy Mr Robertson

Unfortunately, Mr Robertson had failed to advise us of one key component of this ‘strategy’ – the ‘how’; he failed to indicate how we are going to achieve the listed aims and objectives. Why was this important? Because any strategy without the ‘how’ is actually not a strategy at all, more a list of aspirations.

I pointed this out to the Minister asking if the strategy exists, as he assured us it does, could we please see said strategy. That was in July and Mr Robertson’s response is still awaited. We still await sight of his much vaunted strategy.

Then, on 15^th November the Minister for Sport unveiled ‘Places People Play’ described as the Government’s London 2012 Legacy plans.

‘Hurray’ I thought, ‘the promised strategy at last!’

But alas; no. ‘Places People Play’ is much like Mr Robertson’s earlier reply to my blog, heavy on aspiration but very light on ‘how’ and without the ‘how’ (I know, I’m repeating myself) it is not a strategy.

Now, I am not alone in stating this. The Centre for Sport, Physical Education and Activity Research (SPEAR) at Canterbury Christ Church University agrees with me. In an exceptional article about the London 2012 Mass Participation Legacy Plan, Professor Mike Weed states; “Now we know the WHAT and WHY, but no one is telling us HOW!”

In his personal blog, ‘Lies, Damned Lies and Sports Participation Statistics’ Professor Weed goes further, pointing out fundamental flaws in the way statistics are being used to support the legacy bandwagon and giving valid reasons why the aims and objectives of ‘Places People Play’ will fall short.

Much is made of the £135 million being invested in sport via ‘Places People Play’ but will it provide a legacy? With councils, traditionally the nation’s largest funder of sport, up and down the country facing a struggle to maintain services and sport falling outside of the statutory requirements of local authorities will that £135 million (over three years) balance with the likely cuts to local sport provision? A quick calculation suggests it is the approximate equivalent of only £340,000 per authority or £113,000 per year of ‘Places People Play.’!

Apologies if I repeat myself again, but in previous blogs I have suggested that if we want a genuine lasting legacy from hosting the 2012 Olympic Games then the Government could do worse than matching most of the rest of Europe and 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.

The Government could further support a lasting sporting legacy by leading on the creation of a genuine, vertically integrated strategy for the development of sport in the UK which understands, supports and delivers on the principles behind the sports development continuum.

In short the Government could drop the ‘initiative-itis’ (a term coined by its own Minister) which was so rampant under its predecessors, and which it has already acknowledged does not work, and begin planning properly. Step One needs to be by thinking about ‘how’.

Twitter @cowanglobal

Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: Canterbury Christ Church University, Centre for Sport, Consultant, Consulting, DCMS, Horizontal Integration, Hugh Robertson, Legacy, Leisure, Minister for Sport, News Comment, Physical Education and Activity Research Centre, Places People Play, Planning, Political Comment, Prof Mike Weed, SPEAR, Sport, Sport England, Sport Politics, Sports Development, Strategy, Vertical Integration
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

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 (26^th 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.

Read the full Telegraph article here.

Twitter @cowanglobal

Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: BASEM, Consultant, Consulting, Cuts, DCMS, Department for Education, Education, Five in Five, Hints & Tips, Leisure, Minister for Sport, News Comment, NHS, Physical Litearacy, Planning, Political Comment, Sport, Sport England, Sport Politics, Sports Development, Strategy, Training, UK Sport Network, Vertical Integration, Workshops
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, Education & Training, News Comment, Sport, Strategy

IS THE CULTURE SECRETARY ABOUT TO SACRIFICE SPORT FOR HIS CAREER?

30 09 2010

Alarm bells are ringing in the offices of sports bodies up and down the UK as rumours persist that the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt is about to impose swingeing cuts in an attempt to boost his career and gain a place on the Government’s ministerial committee deciding on departmental cuts, the so-called ‘star chamber’.

Jeremy Hunt. Friend or Foe (Picture: The Telegraph)

Writing in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph Paul Kelso reported that while the Minister for Sport and the Olympics Hugh Robertson is fighting sport’s corner, Hunt is likely to favour the culture and media sectors of his portfolio and savagely cut the funding of sport.

Given that the DCMS typically receives a very small budget compared to many Government departments, any cuts could seriously undermine the future of sport in this country, an important by-product of which is also the nation’s health.

Undoubtedly some savings could be made by reducing the duplication of work and streamlining the structure that delivers sport through implementing vertical integration of strategies where currently only horizontal planning takes place. However the cuts Hunt is believed to be in favour of will go much deeper.

How much deeper? The Telegraph reports that Hunt is considering cutting funding to sport by 40%.

In real terms what does 40% mean? Using Sport England as an example, they received £123m of exchequer funding for the current financial year. A 40% reduction in that figure would reduce it to £73.2m, a loss of £49.2m to the development of grass-roots sport in England. That is almost double the annual contribution to the entire County Sports Partnership network!

Cuts will, of course, need to be made but surely the role of the Culture Secretary is to treat each section of his portfolio as an equal partner while making the case to the Exchequer to keep cuts to a minimum?

If The Telegraph’s report is correct and Hunt is about to sacrifice sport for his career then the Prime Minister should examine the actions of Hunt, believed to be a Cameron favourite, closely.

If he is not fully committed to working in the best interests of his entire department then surely he should be replaced by someone who will serve those interests. And if he is putting his ambition to become a member of the ‘star chamber’ ahead of the demands of his appointed role then he should not be considered a suitable candidate for either.

Of course, in the foggy world of politics there is another way to interpret The Telegraph’s story.

Should cuts be lower than the feared 40%, let’s say a still draconian 30%, will we have been conned into believing we got a good result? The story also portrays Sports Minister Robertson as someone well-regarded within sport, yet that is not the opinion of all as we still await evidence of the improvements in the structure and delivery of sport promised prior to and during the election suggesting the story could be a means to improve his image.

D-Day is 20^th October. In the meantime, British sport is holding its collective breath.