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

The coalition government ends of the School Sports Partnerships! Thoughts anyone??

Discussion in 'Physical education' started by funkygirl, Oct 20, 2010.

  1. funkygirl

    funkygirl New commenter

    After many years this government has ended the schools sports partnership. No more paper filling tasks for PESSYP data, or schools requiring to strive for the 5 hour offer and the likely end to PDM's/SSCO's! What are peoples thoughts??
     
  2. stopwatch

    stopwatch Occasional commenter

    Not impressed as this was part of my plan to return to UK after working overseas.
    Oh well, there's always the dole office (after using up all of my hard earned savings).
    Brilliant! [​IMG]
     
  3. After receiving the email from the YST yesterday, there were a few tears shed in my house last night.
    As a 27 year old SSCo/asst PDM on Mainscale 5 + a TLR where do I go from here :(
     
  4. stopwatch

    stopwatch Occasional commenter

    Probably down to the dole office. I'll meet you there.
     
  5. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    I hope that there is a route for SSCOs to work directly in the primary schools as specialist PE staff.
    SSCOs need to start enquiring within schools - either being employed by the school or even setting up a company to offering PE / sports services.
     
  6. funkygirl

    funkygirl New commenter

    But will primary schools be able to afford something that they previously got for free? Also, secondary schools will have to look at other options for ensuring that transition links are effective. I'm guessing competition managers will also be gone!
     
  7. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    Don't even know who ours is. Don't know any comps they organised. 25K a year and this is the legacy they left.
    They can afford it if they re-structure their timetables. Make PPA cover PE time. Without the endless ever changing festivals PE can be simplified now. Schools will make contact with other schools to arrange fixtures, without the need to run and tick a survey box.
    This of course relies on at least one member of staff being sports orientated in a primary school.
    This should be easy. Secondary schools organise an event every 6/12 weeks, utilising young leaders.

    I am no fan of secondary PE departments, I think they should be sent to primaries. But with the cuts the best course forward is for the Head of PE to act as a PDM. The Head of PE needs to contact all feeder primary schools and ensure they are following the same PE map. Organise fixtures between schools and occassional events. The PE department in the secondary school would provide e-mail support to primary teachers in delivering PE.
    Asking PE teachers to do more for same money...basically yes. They would need to free up time by revamping their own curriculum - running team practices within lesson time etc. Tough times, require tough measures.
     
  8. stopwatch

    stopwatch Occasional commenter

    Agree with you on this one. This is the usual strategy with cutbacks - that the jobs need doing and that time has to be made for someone to do it.
    Only there isnt time - but you still have to make it.
    This is happening in Higher Education at the moment too. Budgets shrinking, Departments shrinking, class sizes growing, all whilst academic targets remain the same.
    I would imiagine there will be a number of PE HoDs being called in to the Heads office for discussions over the next few weeks.
    Of course there is also the other alternative - that nothing will happen and primary PE will just revert to what it used to be - class teachers taking lessons and thats it.
    It's a shame.
     
  9. Caroline_p3

    Caroline_p3 New commenter

    As if heads ofPE don't hav enough to do and don't already work all hours of the day;teaching, paperwork and running their department. Our department simply havent got the man power or physical time to do an SSCO's job!
     
  10. Absolutely devastating - apart from the fact that, as a freelance sports teacher/contractor to my 2 local SSPs, I am now unemployed, the fact that every bit of progress in Primary PE has been destroyed in one move is truly heartbreaking.

    True, not all SSPs strategies hit home (is that their fault entirely?) and the paperwork was horrendous at times but in the past ten years I've witnessed massive change in pupil's skills, sporting opportunities and attitudes towards sporting activity in general, not to mention their health and social wellbeing. No longer are kids only offered a football or netball team to strive to get into (only to be left on the bench anyway), but now they are almost overwhelmed by the sheer range of sports on offer, both in and out of the curriculum.

    And the way it was done? With absolutely nobody having no warning at all of the scale of the destruction to the point where they even let the school sport partnership conference go ahead only a week ago totally uninformed and unprepared? It goes beyond cruel to being simply evil.

    On a final note, I spoke to my (soon to be former) PDM this morning only to find that he has been told that under no circumstances must he publish the brilliant results we have had this year! If that doesn't leave a sour taste in anyone's mouth that smacks of Stalinist propoganda then they are not human.

    There, I've said my piece - now to contact all my schools to cancel each of projects that will now never come to fruition.
     
  11. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    They need to make time.
    Lets look at this simply - a department of 5 can cost 120-150K a year. A vast amounnt of cash, value for money is needed.
    I've said before GCSE PE should be scrapped. Staff need to rearrange the curriculum to accommodate team practices within PE lessons. Greater communication with primary feeder schools is needed. It is all possible and should have been done many years ago. So much silly money has been spent on SSPs. Yes some results have come out of it but the results could have been tenfold of the money had been spent wisely.
     
  12. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    That is the sad thing about SSPs. Kids are confused about the range of sports on offer.
    Keep it simple - rugby / netball / football / hockey / cricket. Shoulds kids wish to take part in other sports then they will have the fundamental skills in which to do this.
    The reality of SSPs is this. Hockey clubs are struggling for members. They don't teach hockey in primary schools any more. Other traditional sports suffer the same fate. Club uptake is poor, and community clubs continue to be filled by children from private schools, the only places where traditional sport are still taught to 7+ year olds.
    You have had an impact the past few years - but chuck that sort of money at something then something will happen. But the amount of money spent does not measure up to the impact, and people are learning that a greater impact can be achieved at a much less cost.
    Go down to your local sports club. Interview all the children who play sport there and ask them why they go to the club. Two answers will come out - my mum/dad goes to the club or I play the sport regularly at school. SSPs have done nothing for regular competitive sport and only existed to tick boxes on surveys. Something new is needed.
     
  13. Absolute nonsense. If you are referring to this as a staple diet of PE, supplemented by a wider variety of other individual sports then I would be the first to agree, but where else other than individual sports is a child provoked into thinking for themselves rather than choosing the option to be lost in a team if they so choose? And as for transferable skills - are you seriously suggesting that JUST invasion games are sufficient to prepare children for every sporting opportunity they will ever encounter?
    Really? Certainly not in my school (in my PE co-ord role) or in the other schools in my borough (in my SSP development role). In fact, I would say the opposite is the case - can't speak for hockey but our football, rugby, cricket, netball clubs are overflowing. Not to mention our non-traditional sports clubs which are the same.
    Do you run a club? I do, in fact I run several sword fencing clubs for adults and children alike, and I have a mix of all types of pupils with many motivations for being there - typical reasons are that I introduced my sport to them in school, (school/club links, thank you very much), that they lacked the confidence for team sports or that they wanted to try something different that would challenge them. I doubt that one of them would come up with the answer of "Mym mum/dad goes to the club"
    Point taken - but should we throw the baby away with the bath water because of this? Rather we improve a system that already is producing very good (if not outstanding) results.
     
  14. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    Pupils should have one PE lesson a week and one games lesson a week. The games lesson should be the traditional team sports. The PE lesson is about individual fitness. Running alongside this you have opporunities for individual sports - badminton, tennis etc. Most primary school cannot teach individual sports - one badminton court and 32 pupils does not work (plus dinner tables). You therefore have to introduce individual sports as a club (limit to 10 pupils) and then enter pupils into local comps should they wish.
    You state that pupils lack confidence in team sports - this is because they have never been taught them properly. If you teach games from Y3/4, with regular competition, and come Y6 the pupil decides they don't like team games then fair enough. But kids today are not taught games (how can boys learn rugby in mixed sex classes of 32, how can girls gain confidence in invasion games such as netball in a mixed class of 32?).
    The current system pushes many sports in order to satisfy the survey. Less is more. Kids need structure and the knowledge of what is happening - 'I play rugby until Christmas, then football to Easter and then cricket to the end of Summer term.' Currently it is ''we are playing handball until half term, then we have two weeks of benchball for a festival then we have 1 week of indoor cricket then we have......'.
    We have to stop giving choice. I hear parents say 'oh he is not a team player' from ages of 7/8. Low and behold that child will go up thinking he is not a team player. They need to be told they are playing team games. Should they be 10/11 and still not like team games after doing all this, only then should we give them the choice of taking another sports option. Because when we give choice pupils taje the easy option and back out.
     
  15. Caroline_p3

    Caroline_p3 New commenter

    you are talking absolute nonsense!!!!!
    Have you ever even been a PE teacher? or a head of department for that matter!
    Scrap GCSE PE haha you insult PE teachers across the country! May as well say sorry all of those pupils who like PE and science you are not allowed any more there is no education for you to gain in it and you will never be able to get a career in it!
    Joke
     
  16. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    What I am saying is that by scrapping GCSE PE, PE teachers are freed up to actually do what they are meant to do - teach PE. GCSE PE can take up to 2-4 hours a week - time spent running high quality physical PE sessions instead of pupils sitting through endless power points.
    If pupils like science and PE then they can get a GCSE in Science, and enjoy individual/team success in PE/Games.
    A GCSE in PE is not looked at favourably by many institutions. As someone who marks the exam papers every year the questions are becoming more and more dumbed down ('name a reason why a footballer would wear shinpads?').
     
  17. Finally we agree (though it would have helped if you had mentioned that previously)
    Finally! Thank you for agreeing with me once more - common sense I can cope with but ...
    .. this opinion I can't. I think I see your point - namely that the effect of teaching sports for a short period of time isn't ideal for LTAD within each sport, but .. and this is a big one .. this is exactly where we introduce sports, where children are the most receptive to learning and experiencing new things. They browse activities at this age and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that because they are developing a rounded attitude towards a range of sports rather than becoming a footballer, netball player etc. who trains so much for their team (often 'teams') that they don't have time to even compete for the school or get the slightest whiff of another sport.
    As above - absolute rubbish. What is your background by the way? would like to echo the previous poster's question in asking if you speak from experience.
     
  18. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    I teach primary and secondary PE.
    This is where our views are going to differ.
    The current model results in this - my pupils don't know what they are doing when they turn up to my lessons. I have told them, but they forgot. They are confused and who can blame them? One week we had to do some basketball in training for a basketball competition, then the next week there was an athletics comp so we had to do some training for that. Then the following week a squash coach wanted to run some training sessions, and then a gym coach wanted to come in and talent ID kids to take to his training camp.
    Lots of activity, surely this is great? But some kids will miss out on the basketball and athletics comp as we are only allowed to take 15. The squash coach sat them in lines and made them run up and down the yard balancing squash balls on their racket, and some kids were upset that they weren't talent ID'd (at 8 years) for the gym camp.
    At a young age kids will do any sport you say to them. It's a great opportunity to promote sport to them. But you are missing one vital factor and the major reason why anybody does sport - cohesion. Teams don't have chance to gel together because they move onto another sport. Pupils don't feel part of the team and therefore get negative vibes about the sport. You need to stick to the traditional team sports and foster cohesion amongst the pupils in that sport. These are the sports that will provide the fundamental skills to pupils. Should they wish to go and do another sport outside of school then they will have the skills AND confidence in which to approach a club and start playing.
    You have to plan the Games season around sports clubs in the area. I for one mention the local clubs every lesson and kids go and join them. Some come back to me and say 'I was going to join the rugby club but have instead joined the fencing / lacrosse etc club'. Brilliant - we have been talking about clubs and that pupils had had the confidence through games (rugby / netball / hockey etc) to go and approach a community club and join.
    In a perfect world we would give Y5/6 the option of individual sports (badminton/ tennis) as their games session. All Y3/4 need two years of traditional games. Only then should they be allowed the chance of an individual sport. Why? As said it is not possible to teach 32 kids for badminton. Offer badminton at Y3 and enthusiastic as they are all of them want to do it. Offer it as a club, then only as a games session to those in Y5 who really are not suited to games. You will get a natural split at Y5 of games and non-games orientated pupils. And those pupils who don't choose games are justified - they have done it for two years and don't like it. Fair enough - compared to those who have never played games and state they don't like it.
    But this may not always be possible. Do primary schools have the staff to split the group into games and individual sports? What happens is that you offer individual sports and make the whole class do them, instead of providing games opportunities. In cases like this games must take priority - it is the session in which you will get the most pupils engaged.
    There is a reason why private schools are miles ahead of primary schools with regards to sport. Look at a primary school PE map, and compare it with a private prep school PE map. A primary school map will have 20 times more activities as they try and squeeze in every Val Sabin module. But private prep school pupils play to a higher standard and have greater presence in the rugby / hockey / cricket clubs - the backbone of our sporting nation. You don't need a highly qualified coach to reap success - one or two primary school staff need to go on coaching courses for the traditional sports and deliver these in lessons. Enthusiasm and direction to local clubs is all you need. This is why you need to limit the sports on offer - because less is more.
     
  19. What about all those pupils that don't enjoy games activities?!
    If I had experienced your games dominated curriculum I would not be teaching PE today!
    PE is about far more than winning matches.
     
  20. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    What about all of those pupils you don't enjoy maths? Do we find another activity for them? I know pupils who also don't like literacy.
    PE is personal fitness. Games is winning matches.
    Games can be taught as part of PE non-competitvely. This is where your handball and benchball comes in, your less-competitive child friendly games. But benchball ain't an Olympic sport. Pupils also need a competitive games lesson linked into regular fixtures with other schools.
    Games can be team games (rugby, netball etc) or individual sports (tennis, badminton). Each of these games requires a winner. Games can be social or competitive. School should strive to teach the traditional sports and have A,B and C teams for each. Your less games orientated players might be in the C team. I know many pupils who love being in the C team, they have a run around, a laugh with their mates and get to play sport without the pressure of being in the A team. Once the game finishes they may go and attend their badminton or tennis club out of school. On the other side there are pupils who love being in the 'A team' - they thrive on the pressure and challenge.
    One PE lesson a week, one games lesson a week.
    For games you can introduce individual sports, but it is very difficult with 32 children and little space. Traditional games engage more children. You offer other activities as clubs. It is possible with the traditional games session to differentiate to accommodate all groups and cater the activity to them, but this depends on staff.
    And going back to one of the orginal points - most pupils have not been taught games properly, hence why they don't like them. I for one did not pick up a rugby ball until I was in Y7 (and there are many pupils who still don't today). Had I picked one up in Y3 and started playing little games against other schools, then maybe I would be a better rugby player than I am today.
    I appreciate that for those who weren't privately educated (I wasn't) or have no experience of the private school sports system this could be a difficult concept to understand. If you tell pupils it's OK not to do something then they won't do it. If you tell them it's OK not to like games then they won't do games. I only ever say this to pupils after they have spent quality time playing games.
     

Share This Page