1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Paying to be a part of the sports partnership- primary

Discussion in 'Physical education' started by miss googoo, Jun 11, 2011.

  1. Hi,
    We are a junior school- Just wondered if other sports partnerships across the country were asking you to pay to join the partnership now due to the cut backs? We have signed up for next year and I feel it is very expensive for what we will get out of it (considering the major sporting events we do are not through them) but the head wanted to pay it anyway.
    What's happening where you are?
  2. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    I don't know what is happening with ours but do know that the PDM, intervention managers, coaches and SSCo's are running around trying to justify their jobs.
    They are basically after the pupil premium money.
  3. funkygirl

    funkygirl New commenter

    It depends on who your link secondary school is. There have been a number of school sports partnerships asking schools to buy into the process but the main thing you need to think of is value for money!! Each secondary school will be getting funding for the one day teacher release to support primary schools with competition and support in primary.

    The question you need to ask is will your main secondary school where all your pupils go to be supporting you anyway?? Do you already organise any fixtures against other primary schools? If the answer is yes, then paying into a partnership would not be value for money over the next two years as School Games organisers 'should in theory' be ensuring that competition is taking place in primary and secondary over the next two years at least.

    hope that helps?
  4. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    Good advice.
    People on here know I am anti-partnership but I have to look at what they offer:
    * tournaments which only a handful of pupils are allowed to attend.
    * training in sports that are just not practical to teach in primary schools (tennis)
    * training in random sports where there are no clubs nearby.
    * big large events where 400 kids attend and they get one go every 30 minutes at some daft relay.
    Look at what they want money wise. For me I would much rather spend the money on small fixtures between 3/4 schools that get everyone involved rather than the selected few.
    As I've said they are not daft, they are after the pupil premium money which they know schools are getting.

  5. <font face="Times New Roman">I'd echo everything that's been said above. As a Primary Link Teacher, I'm
    constantly being bombarded by e-mails from SSCOs, PDMs, Competition Organisers
    telling me about different tournaments I should be entering teams in. I'll be
    sent the same information from all three usually - they all have to justify
    their jobs - and if the tournament is being run by a "real" sports
    club, I'll already have had the original email from them anyway.</font>

    <font face="Times New Roman">On top of this, I'm required to pester teachers in
    other year groups and do countless risk assessments / organise TAs to accompany
    children / arrange transport so that a handful of kids in a year group can take
    part in a tournament in some sport for which they've had little or no preparation.
    If we're lucky we might get a coach (e.g. three one-hour tennis lessons for a
    year 3 class of 32 kids. None had ever played before. The "best
    three" were then selected to take part in an inter-school tournament.)
    Ridiculous. With luck, the teacher <u>might</u> know
    something about the sport, but for things like cricket and tag rugby, in a
    primary school it's unlikely. This in itself is, I think the biggest indictment
    against the whole concept of PESSCl - it has done little to improve most
    teachers&rsquo; skills and knowledge in teaching PE.</font>

    <font face="Times New Roman">What I don't get is any support in helping teachers
    deliver any of this. It must be literally years since our SSCo has set foot in
    a PE lesson at our school. I for one am glad that the government is doing away
    with the whole thing and I think it's a disgrace that secondary schools are
    still getting money for next year (significant sums too, from what I hear.)</font>

    <font face="Times New Roman">What should have been done way back when this
    started was that the government should have given each school (primary and
    secondary) a set amount of money ring-fenced for PE (especially, though not
    exclusively extra-curricular). The schools should then have been responsible
    for spending it as they saw fit and should have been required to justify how it
    had been spent and what the impact had been. As far as I can see, millions has
    been wasted and there has been very little to show for it.</font>

    So, the short answer to the OP's question is: spend
    your money elsewhere!

  6. funkygirl

    funkygirl New commenter

    In terms of secondary schools getting 'huge' amount of money, this is incorrect. Schools get £7000 a year which just about covers 39 school weeks a year (39 X £180 per day for cover). I still think there is value in teachers going into Primary schools from a head of PE perspective to support the school curriculum and teachers. Primary schools need to ensure that they are getting the necessary support from what was their link Secondary school within the Partnership. I think the whole change has given a big shock to those in post as an SSCO or PDM who haven't made their partnership as successful as it could have been!
  7. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    So secondary schools are getting £180 a week to cover a PE staff member to go into primary schools?

    Are they seriously going to block book supply staff for this? Or hire someone for 1 day a week? Or pocket the money and cover in-house?

    Nail was hit on the head above - after so many years of SSPs primary teachers still cannot teach PE. SSPs were meant to improve teacher's confidence but what a sad state of affairs when teachers can't teach cricket or tag rugby.
  8. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    Can you opt out, will you be allowed to?

    I'm seriously thinking about setting my own up. I'm prepared for massive resistance and dirty tricks from the SSP.
  9. funkygirl

    funkygirl New commenter


    As the money is no longer ring fenced, schools can choose how they will allocate one day release hence why I would advise any primary school to ensure that they maintain their link with their local secondary school which they mainly feed into.

    In terms of Primary's buying into a partnership, hubsites have been given funding fora SGO for 3 days a week. Its up to schools who run the partnership if they want to extend it to a 5 day role which is why some partnerships are trying to get schools to fund the extra 2 days if that makes sense.
  10. I can't imagine many primary heads paying money to stay in SSPs like the OP's head has chosen to. After all, it's the secondaries, not the primaries who are getting the government cash now. Presumably, any primary head paying to be in a SSP is now doing so with cash from the main school budget. I don't know how much they'd be expected to stump up, but I can't see the schools getting value for money.
    It seems to me that if each secondary is getting 7 grand a year, then each feeder primary should be getting free input from its SSCo anyway. That's what the money's there for, surely?
    I'd much rather be given a small proportion of that money for my school to spend as I saw fit. I know which option would provide the better outcome for the kids in my school.
  11. It's really interesting to hear others opinions. I am coming from a sports college viewpoint and believe our partnerships and the other two in the city have been a great success. Already primary schools are signing up to join a network for next year, due to it's success.
    Listening to the other posts, I think it is very poor planning of their partnerships if there are 'one off' events, cpd for irrelevant subjects etc. Our partnership offers CPD of choice for each of our partner primaries and relevant competitions including Tag Rugby, Cricket, Orienteering all based at the sports college. (A free resource) There are also programmes for student leadership, minority sports and the healthy schools agenda, as well as top-up swimming, which again is based for free at our sports college. Tennis CPD course was an extra offered through the LTA governing body. (teachers can choice to go to get new ideas or not) and shouldn't be part of their core CPD programme.
    A reason to keep a recognised partnership is so that secondary schools do not cherry pick the best primary schools to provide sports provision to. What will begin to happen now under the new government is that some of the tougher schools will not get secondary school coming into their schools and some of the most deprived children will miss out. Inevitably, the better primary schools have parents who will take them to sports outside of school anyway.
    The breakdown a collabrative partnerships will lead to secondary schools competing to provide provision for the best primaries, which is ok if your school is one of them.
  12. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    I understand some partnerships have worked, but on the whole I can't help but think we are over-complicating a small problem.
    Take where I work - nearby there are 3 other schools within walking distance. Logic would say that these schools should get together once a term, plan some fixtures and have a league. They can also share resources etc. However in my city each of these schools is in a different partnership, and has to trek half way across the city to play one off events with only 10 pupils from each year group.
    I would rather take the money and spend it on little regular comps, rather than large box ticking events.
    I really don't see the need for secondary schools to be involved at all, apart from an occasional advisory role. Primary schools get together, deliver PE / games, play fixtures, push kids into clubs.
  13. I worked as an SSCO many moons ago, and from my experience the truly successful schools had a TRAINED, dedicated PE teacher in-house. Provision is so patchy, some schools have loads of teachers keen to take PE and teach it very well and get involved in extra-curricular. Other schools had staff terrified to take out gym equipment and avoided PE at all costs under any excuse. If two primary schools could share a PE teacher, or have a pe teacher who is partly based in the classroom it would lead to a nation of enthused, physically literate young students raring to go to secondary school PE because they've had a positive experience. Provision should be the same across all schools and a PE specialist could offer that. No wonder we have a growing obesity problem, ever-decreasing participation in our main team sports at amateur club level, and an NHS crisis looming. How can teachers who receive 4-6 hours of training over four years be expected to provide quality PE, especially if they do not happen to be keen on it. It is often too late by year 7 to try and enthuse students, they are frequently already switched off. (I'll get down off my soap box now...). Also, primary teachers are being pulled in so many directions, if a primary PE specialist was at school they could ensure extra-curricular activities and attendance at competitive events. Maybe then we could start winning a few more gold medals somewhere down the line and save the government billions in obesity related NHS costs.
  14. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    I used to think specialists were the answer. But then I looked at the primary PE work in detail and the answer is regular INSET for staff.
    How difficult is it to take pupils outside and teach them how to sprint? The fact that many primary teachers get away with not doing PE is a scandal and headteachers need to take action against it.
    These are teachers paid a very good wage. If there is something they can't do they need to ask for training in it, not just ignore it.
  15. i agree, its not hard to teach a basic yet effective pe lesson, especially if your a teacher..... its just much easier to sit indoor, catch up on marking and share a piece of cake and coffee whilst usually in my experience a poor quality level 1 coach is payed to babysit 30 kids chase 1 ball for an hour!!! unfortunatley that is exactly what i have seen in my local primaries which causes so many problems later on when the kids arrive at secondary school, wanting to play and beleive they are excellent when truth is they are not and they know very little about any of the games. but hey.... so long as the kids are out for an hour, the coach got his money and most importantly the marking and cake gets finished, who cares!!
  16. I think think it is really a local call. I know our SSP didn't run all the events but they where the major players in organising and coordinating the events. As a teacher that attends a lot of events (...and the time this takes to send letters home, organise the children, have practices) without our SSP we would not have had the quality or as much provision. Our SSP has been a huge resource and well worth the buy back in.

    I am not saying they are perfect - but they have been a huge resource for schools. The SSP's where put in a huge hole and I think we are forgetting who did this? Seeing as Michael Gove spent 38 Million on independent consultants last year.

    Our SSP has become a Social Enterprise (Non Profit). It spent the year having consultation with schools, (all staff, including parents and pupils). Schools have been given a choice of services, (Most schools 85% have bought in at some level of service - Bronze, Silver Gold), Some did not - but that is the schools choice.

    The body is run through a Steering Group so is not a top down process and the Head teachers also agreed that Teaching and Learning was a huge point not to forget, so they Competition is not the nly service they provide; (insets, training courses, schemes of work etc).

    I am not sure what you are paying but our school has opted for the Gold model and already feels it has got its money back. The SSP impact on most of our children 60 - 80%. Extended Schools only used to focus on 10 and it is the same price....

    Unfortunately, school have had budget cuts - the real test will be in the service delivered....
  17. I have found our School Sports Partnership fantastic in just about every way so why wouldn't anyone buy into it.

Share This Page