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

PESSYP? So what now?

Discussion in 'Physical education' started by neilwatts27, Dec 8, 2011.

  1. Dear Matt The PESSYP was a number of questions/targets each school would try to achieve regarding competition, leadership, G&T, local clubs and the amount of PE hours students were getting. The schools had one PE link teacher who would work with the schools sports co-ordinator to achieve these targets. The government assessed each school against this frame work and would set targets regarding the outcome. This system is no longer inforced in schools but some still use it as a guide. I have been the schools sports co-ordinator in Cambridgeshire for the past two year and out of the nine primary schools I worked in only two were not bothered about PESSYP dissapearing so there is still a high support for PE in the schools.
    What has changed is the roles of the SSCO, they are now competition co-ordinators so basically there is more a focus on competition in Primary and Secondary. You sound very keen, which is great since as you will find, not every Primary teacher loves PE.We are still organising lots of events and tournamanets for Primary schools and as an SSCO we need keen, enthusiatic PE orientated teachers in Primary schools to help drive forward and maximise the opportunities for young people.
    I wouldn't worry about the change, yes there is less funding but every department and schools has got a reduced budget.

    I hope this helps

    Neil
     
  2. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    I thought it was mis-leading.
    I sat in a survey meeting once - school had done a sport once for about 20 mins.
    'Shall we tick the box - we've not done it for long?'
    PDM runs over - 'Yes tick it, your children have experienced it'.
    So people believe that children have experienced sports like rugby, yet they have probably held a ball for 10 seconds.
    Intra-competition is the worst - it's very well organsing inter-competitions but children are again missing out. Again this week I have seen children miss out and the phrase 'it's not my turn this time' is too common. All children should experience a tournament within school, with the more able going to inter-tournaments at clubs. This is the grand plan but sadly primary teachers are just not pro-active enough to run it.
     
  3. Neil
    Cheers for the help, appreciated.
    I would of hoped that schools still tried there best to meet some of the stands, though obviosly some are harder to meet now such as 'Sport Unlimited' and 'Coaching', especially 'Disability and 'G&T' which are always targeted within other areas of the curric. So its pretty much the role of the SSCO thats changed then and im guessing a lot of them will have vanished with the funding cut.

    Thank you, yes i am quite enthusiatic about PE. I would love to aim to become a PE leader/coordinator within a primary school once i graduate (though after the soul crushing NQT year). I am mostly quite enthusiatic about it because i hope to teach in my hometown of Loughborough were the PE in primary schools, from what i have seen, is quite shocking even though Loughborough University offers fantastic coaching and provison for the local middleschools and high schools.
    Thanks
    Matt
     
  4. This is quite an interesting view, infact i have not really seen any views that dont hold the PESSYP on a pedestal. And of course *** all is perfect so i like to hear views like this for a fair examination of something.
    I can see what you saying, and have even seen something similar were teachers skipped teaching basketball and instead usd netball (for a year 6 class) wanting to deal with any possible injuries with a bit more invasive game. Then again i view such neglect can appear in any part of the curric, and school, where teachers are not comfortable and have limited exposure of the topic. i do whole heartedly agree with the rest of your statement and sadly it is hard to find people enthusiatic and pro active about PE at the primary stage with most foundation subjects, something which i myself am guilty of and only get pro active with PE and history and only meet basic standards for rest of the NC foundation subjects
     
  5. Hi,

    PE is in a state of transition. PESSCL / PESSYP were supported by 'public service agreements' (PSA), which are formal agreements between the government and local authorities/schools to deliver in certain ways. These haven't been cancelled, so I think it is reasonable to assume that, although the government might not use the label PESSYP, the expectations are still there in terms of time commitment, support of G&T pupils, school sport, ad the like.

    BUT, at some point there will be changes. Personally, I think most of the big issues will remain the same. But there will be a lot of 'window dressing (like we have seen already with Mr Gove's tirades about competition!

    So, the current state of play seems to be that schools ought to carry on doing what they are doing, stick to the PSA requirements, and wait until the government figures out what it really wants from PE.

    Richard

    http://talkingeducationandsport.blogspot.com/
     
  6. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    What have you got against competition?
    School sport is incredibly simple:
    * 1 PE lesson a week - focus on physical fitness through gym, dance (if you can't get away without not doing it) and HRE.
    * 1 Games lesson a week - fundamental skills from Y3-4, with A and B teams from Y5 (here is your G&T).
    * Range of extra-curricular clubs on offer.
    * Intra events in school, link up with other schools for inter events. ALL pupils play intra events, selected ones play inter events (again G&T).
    Less is more, we don't need endless box ticking of 20+ sports. 3 sports a year for games.
     
  7. 'What have you got against competition?'

    I don't have anything against competition. I think it is great. Trouble is, not everyone agrees with me. And all of the evidence suggests that an over-emphasis on competition, especially during the primary stage, reduces young people's likelihood to carry on playing sport and being active after school.

    So like all good things in life, moderation would seem to be the key!

    As for your 'simple' recipe:

    1) Games are supposed to be an integral part of PE; not a separate subject. I can't think of any justification for dividing them in this way.

    2) 'focus on fitness' - physical fitness activities once a week will have absolutely no effect at all on children's health or fitness. The only contribution we can track between PE and fitness is when lessons inspire children to take up new activities or play them more seriously. But have a lesson per week that focuses on fitness is a waste of time.

    3) 'Less is more, we don't need endless box ticking of 20+ sports. 3 sports a year for games' What sports would these be? Surely, if we want to inspire people to be physical active, we need to try to 'catch' them with a sport. Offering a narrow range of sports will benefit those who have always benefitted from the system, and exclude those who have always been excluded.


    So, sorry my friend, but a disagree with just about everything you have said! I do not think 'School sport is incredibly simple'. I think it is incredibly powerful, and like all powerful things, it needs managing carefully and cautiously.
     
  8. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    Unfortunately with people like you school sport will never progress. Competition has to come in at Year 3, it inspires the pupils and leads into two strands - competitive and social. What is turning kids off sport is not getting picked for competitions - school partnership runs an event but only 10 pupils can attend. How do you whittle this down from a class of 30? The pressure is on to always select the most able, as after all Caborn devised the SSPs to be a talent ID programme. And just remember we are schools not sports clubs. We should be teaching them the skills to take out in the community. 12 weeks of rugby will give them confidence in passing and receiving, we can then provide details on other passing and receiving sports for them to attend but the pupils must empower themselves and their famllies.
     
  9. I'm not quite sure how to respond to this!



    It is an interesting combination of peculiar rudeness and inaccuracy.


    But ..



    Caborn did not devise SSPs. He was Minister for Sport, and the SSPs were devised and managed by the Department of Education and Skills. Caborn had no direct responsibility for education.



    SSPs were not a talent ID programme. The talent ID programme was the G&T PE and sport programme. There are obvious connections between this two things. But they are different programmes, with different aims and targets.



    12 weeks of rugby? As you correctly say, 'we are talking about schools not sports clubs'.



    One final thought:


    These issues are both interesting and important. Isn't it possible to discuss them without silly insults? If you make a mistake, or someone disagrees with you, it is not a personal attack. just the sort of give and take we'd all expect from the pupils.


    Best of luck!
     
  10. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    When have I been rude? I stated that school sport, with your views, will never progress.It's an opinion, not rudeness.
    During my time in the system I was frequently told that SSPs were Caborn's baby. So much so when PDMs went to meet him to raise concerns over the system, they were met with foul mouthed abuse. Now that's rudeness.
    So what about the coaches at the events I attend, wandering around with 'special letters' inviting kids to a special training session. Nothing worse than driving kids back from an event, where 2 have got letters but 8 haven't.
    The G&T sports programme should be quite simply the first team. These sports partnership events are inter-school events, they are the only events many pupils get as schools are still uncapable of intra events. All pupils should play intra events within school, with selected few going to these inter events. I have no problem with talent ID at these events, as long it is not the only event the kids get to experience.On top of these, there are numerous leagues where schools can enter A, B and C teams.
    When I have insulted you?
    Number one question I hear from kids - what are we doing today? So many activities, no time to master skills, not a clue what they are doing. 12 weeks of rugby is perfect, know what they are doing, time to learn and progress. Is it any wonder the private sector thrives in sport and provides most of the Olympic team. Most of the Olympic team will have played rugby, netball and cricket for long periods of time. They are a success in their chosen sport because they have the skills from learning traditional sports at school, plus have the motivation to get up off their backside and seek out activities in the community to utilise those skills.



     
  11. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    From your twitter feed:
    I find very few things as disheartening as talking to a stupid teacher.
    Is that directed at me?
     

Share This Page