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. stopwatch

    stopwatch Established commenter

    GoGo johnny;
    I teach in a large 5 form entry primary.
    The children cover all activities in their curriculum - swim strokes, life saving, water polo, gymnastics, athletics, basketball, football, rugby, netball, Striking and Fielding, HRF
    In KS1 they do swimming, Gymnastics, Games skills and athletics skills.
    However we have a high level of success within Dubai and across the Middle East in major Games (Rugby, Football and Netball) plus swimming and Athletics.
    How does this fit in with your theory?
     
  2. stopwatch

    stopwatch Established commenter

    .... and I also think your idea of scrapping GCSE is a joke.
    Your example question (shinpads) is only one from a whole exam paper. The papers have a range of questions of differing difficulties.
    I taught GCSE theory for around 20 years before I went into primary. Most of the sports kids were fascinated by it and it helped to develop their overall unserstanding. I use many of the principles (basic biomechanics, anatomy and physiology) when coaching the primary children at the school I am at now.
     
  3. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    I probably need to make myself clear. Traditional team sports need to be part of games - and these should be kept to a few sports - rugby, hockey, netball, football, athletics, cricket, rounders.
    In PE (one lesson a week) there will be gymnastics, dance, swimming. OAA is another option as well. Some schools also offer HRF.
    Games can be taught within PE non-competitively - benchball etc. This comes under personal fitness - we play games to keep fit, physical effects etc.
    But pupils need to learn to play games to win, hence the games session.
    You have high success because you are able to push pupils towards the games your school chooses to compete in. I would imagine that your pupils play these games from Y3/4 onwards.
    It is not a theory, it is in practice up and down the country in the private sector. With all the money chucked at the state sector they should have been able to replicate it, even exceed it, but haven't.
     
  4. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    If they are interested in PE then they have the option of A-Level PE.
    We are living in times where only half of pupils on average get 5 A*-C. GCSE PE is seen as an easy pass to boost scores. Why can't some of these pupils pass their Science GCSE?
    The time spent on GCSE PE theory could be spent actually boosting subjects that employers are bothered about.
    In these times of need the time spent delivering GCSE PE should be spent delivering PE to primary school pupils.
     
  5. Caroline_p3

    Caroline_p3 New commenter

    I stopped replying as i was feed up of feeling insulted as a PE teacher and listening to some ludacris ideas. But this post i cannot ignore!
    GCSE PE should NOT be scrapped nor will it ever be scrapped. Why should those pupils interested in PE and good at it be told sorry this is one subject you can't take at GCSE, so suffer in another subject you don't enjoy. Sporty pupils like GCSE theory and they are good at the practical, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do it. it allows their reseraching skills, understanding skills and group working skills just as much as any other subject!
    Employers these days don't even look at GCSE's and if they are PE 'inclined' they will properly want a career somewhere in that field anyway and then GCSE PE becomes important. Have you tried teaching A-Level PE to a pupil who did not take GCSE?! not a good idea
    Oh and for the record in this day and age of 5 A*'-C - my school gets 100% at GCSE PE each year! worth it - i feel so!
     
  6. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    Practically every school gets 100% A*-C pass rate for GCSE PE. That's why employers don't take much notice of it.
    Pupils applying to Oxbridge are now being faced with their GCSEs being scrutinized - PE and media studies are ones that are not looked favourably on as they are considered easy passes. What I said was that nationally only 50% of pupils gets 5 A*-C passes.
    Teaching A-Level PE to someone who hasn't done GCSE PE - yes been done. Teaching it to someone who hasn't done GSCE PE but got A*-C in their science GCSE - easily done also.
    Not trying to insult you as a PE teacher, quite the opposite. I believe you should spend your time teaching PE instead of putting pupils through what is an easy GCSE.
     
  7. You are all about generalisations fella - I have been a PE coordinator in a state primary and now teach in a prep school. In both contexts I have been proud to extend the range of sporting opportunities in order to fully develop ALL the physical and social skills of the pupils as they progress through the school. Also in both we have competed well in all the traditional and individual sports and pass many children onto clubs. It seems that this system is working for me and my schools.
    How insulting - are you suggesting that PE teachers and Heads use every resource without interrogation? The best of us (which by the way is the majority of us) take what is good and throw the rest out. Tell you what - I'm getting bored with this, you do what you like and so will I.
     
  8. .. and in (perhaps) a vain attempt to get us back on topic - what other effects do people think the axe of the partnerships will have? Personally I am concerned that PE will start to drift towards the back of the bus again in terms of importance, given that funds are no longer ring fenced, meaning we might all struggle for work. Also my heart goes out to anyone involved in the partnerships who now find themselves revising their CV - might be a bit early in the day but any ideas from these people about the next step in their careers?
     
  9. (quote = gogojonny) Don't even know who ours is. Don't know any comps they organised. 25K a year and this is the legacy they left
    I work as a competition manager and the partnerships I worked in definitely knew who I was. Things I achieved were introducing regular fixtures meetings that never happened, providing different sporting opportunities, providing opportunities for young people to not only take part in sport as a participant but in a volunteer/leadership role and regular competitive opportunities.
    What was frustrating in my role is trying to get schools to compete regularly - too often schools cancelled fixtures/entry into a competition with the same old excuses - someone is off sick, we have parents evening, can't get enough kids, not allowed to take our kids out of school, we don't have a minibus, we have no one old enough to drive a minibus etc
    I personally think that the only way that competition between schools will be regular is if they adopt a system like BUCS where Wednesday's are known as sports day and the institutions do not have lectures etc in that afternoon to allow this. Why can't all schools finish on a Tues/Thurs at 1pm, so this can happen? If pupils aren't part of a team/individual sport then schools can offer other extra curricular clubs for them.
    The new Govt also announced an olympic style sports competition with different tiers (intra, inter, county, national) - who is going to organise this? The schools in my area will definitely not organise inter/county events albeit an adhoc fixture here and there.
     
  10. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    Spot on.
    Schools in a local area need to get together and say 'we will all run Y5/6 fixtures on a Thurs afternoon, run Y3/4 fixtures on a Tues afternoon'. Sticking to one sport per term (rugby for boys, netball for girls etc).
    You can run other sports - basketball, badminton etc - around this on other days.
    Nationally it would never work - so many local factors dictate whether a fixture can take place. But locally someone need to take over the role of the SSPs and put their foot down with regards to fixtures.


     
  11. My thoughts entirely - even though comp managers arguably haven't been effective due to the problems you raise, I would have thought that they would have been the only secure role given the new emphasis on competition. For what it's worth, I spoke to my PDM yesterday and he thinks that perhaps the government will provide some additional support after the current setup has gone - in other words competition managers or something similar!!
     
  12. Let's hope so. I've heard that the CSPs have been consulted on this but it may be a rumour - there seems to be a few going around at the moment.

    Also agree with gogojonny last post - people pushing it locally and keep sports to terms
     
  13. "If they are interested in PE then they have the option of A-Level PE.
    We are living in times where only half of pupils on average get 5 A*-C. GCSE PE is seen as an easy pass to boost scores. Why can't some of these pupils pass their Science GCSE?
    The time spent on GCSE PE theory could be spent actually boosting subjects that employers are bothered about.
    In these times of need the time spent delivering GCSE PE should be spent delivering PE to primary school pupils."

    The above comment is simply insulting. I don't understand why people feel the need write comments which undermine the value of subjects like PE. Where do sweeping generalisations such as employers not being bothered about PE come from?
    You suggest that pupils should not have the option to study PE theory until college. Surely that argument could be applied to any subject. The implication appears to be to narrow pupils' curriculum options. I don't see that as anything other than a step backwards.
     
  14. It's another government policy that has not been thought through. Any chance of an Olympic legacy has now disappeared. Who is going to be in charge of increasing comeptition within schools and between schools? Who is going to be looking into getting top level coaches working with young people, especially those who cannot afford to pay for it? Who is going to try to inspire young people to become active who are turned off by traditional sport? Who is going to be supporting primary schools with their school sport especially as they are not going to see any of this money. It is a cut in funding for school sport as it is not ringfenced so that means that head teachers can spend what little money they get direcly on what ever they like. This is an absolute disgrace, the school sports partnerships have been a massive success you only have to look at the figures for this. It is massive backwards step for sport in this country.
     
  15. Sport Partnerships being scrapped is a aweful, plain and simple! The increase of over 5 million children getting more activity in their lives is proof enough that they work. Thats not to say there could not be savings in them, overpriced random activities being paid for, SSCo's that have tiny families are all ways that Partnerships could have made cut backs. But to cut them completely is a discrace and destroys the true Legacy we are trying to instill on our young people.
    The quote above is one of the main reasons I feel that P.E is mis-understood. The whole idea of increasing the range of activities is to get more people active and therefore trying to make them healtyhier in later life. This would mean people are more productive in the workplace, take less sick leave, be less of a berden on the NHS etc.... Sure you get the increase in athletes making their way through the system to achieve more in sports also but that is not the sole focus of SSP's.
    "Boosting subjects employers care about", how many employers care about which GCSE they have the A - C in, they care if their staff member is off because they are ill all the time due to Obecity related illnesses. Thats the bigger affect on society!
    I would happily rant on but I think thats enough for now!!
     
  16. I am amazed how many negative messages there are on this subject. Either these people don't know what great work the Sports Partnerships do, or their Sports Partnerships are rubbish. In Cornwall, our Sports Partnerships are excellent, and without them, sport in primary schools, and the standard of PE teaching in primary schools will become non-existent.
    I have written to our friend Mr Gove, and the Primeminister, asking some pertinent questions. If he believes that Sports Partnerships are solely about competitive sport, (and his figures are inaccurate), he need to listen to some people who know the truth, Sue Campbell and Stuart Grainger, and Head teachers.
    So much for the much-touted "Lasting Legacy" of the Olympics, and dealing with obesity.
     
  17. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    How many proper games does a typical Y6 pupil in Cornwall play in the course of a year?
    Add up all the activity time in minutes.
    For example pupils in a basketball tournament organised by our SSP played for 12 minutes in a year.
     
  18. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    Be honest, stop your stopwatch at the start of when your pupils are active in your lesson and stop it when they finish. Do this for both lessons per week. How far off 120 minutes will you be? Time for changing, time for learning objectives, time to discussion, time for a plenary. 30 mins? 20 mins?
    Figures can hide the truth.
    Now instead of moaning about it start thinking about ways in which you can help school sport.
     
  19. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    Make it 100% theory then, or at least 60% theory and 40 % written course work.
    Why should less able performers be discriminated against? You don't have to be able at PE to learn about it.
    Better still incorporate sports leaders into the GCSE, making a link with primary school sport.
    If a PE teacher is £25 per hour then you cannot justify that cost in running practical GCSE PE sessions for students who are quite able performers to begin with anyway.
     
  20. For all those dissafected SSCO's why not utillise you skills and knowlege and run your own successful coaching company. There is a professional coaching company who specialise in PPA and extra curricular provision, who are offering franchises at £4995. They are endorsed by a top midlands Head Teacher and offer an unbelievable package. Check out their franchise opportunities at www.multiactivegroup.co.uk . Good luck
     

Share This Page