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. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    Please write in paragraphs!
    My suggestion is about getting value for money from our PE teachers. Now be honest - give most of your students a GCSE revision guide and most will get enough marks to get somewhere. Should we devote 1 hour a week of teaching time to the theory part of the subject where only 40% of exam goes towards the grade. And should 1/2 hours a week be devoted to 'practical' sessions - when the students are already having one PE lesson a week? It's all about value for money, tough times. With SSCO going, lets drop GCSE PE and stick the PE staff in primary schools. It's a suggestion, you may not agree but that's up to you.
    Yes. The language of football is universal. Many of my former students have improved their English playing football.
    Get the parents involved if possible. Sometimes this can't happen, but you can offer the activity to the pupil. Please don't complicate things.
    The prime age for learning new physical skills is between 7 and 11. You must introduce team games then. Start at 7/8. At 9/10 start to offer other activities such as net games and individual sports. You will get some pupils who want to continue in team games, some who don't and want to play individual sports. When they get to Y7 every pupil should have one sport (team or individual) that they play. Secondary schools need to pick up on this further devloping the teams and individual sports.
    Currently at Y7 you pile everyone together and start teaching the basics. One of my former pupils is learning how to do a Level 4 badminton serve. He is a county standard player! He can do that blindfolded. Another is a county standard team player, yet PE lessons are a waste and he is grouped with all abilities going over basic skills.

     
  2. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    No, children will always learn playing games. But in order for them to PROGRESS and better EVALUATE themselves, they need to play against an opposition for a considerable time (more than 4 mins).
     
  3. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    This is what I see time and time again in primary schools.
    Get changed (10 mins).
    Pupils excited about playing games, start to get giddy (5 mins).
    Teacher sits pupils down and talks to them about rules (10 mins).
    Pupils go outside and teacher gets out Val Sabin notes and tries to make sense of the lesson (10 mins).
    Pupils warm up (10 mins)
    Learning objectives set up, pupils go and practice. Still can't wait to play a game, so again get giddy (5 mins).
    Pupils called in as being giddy, teacher again reads out rules. Pupils sent in to get changed. (10 mins).
     
  4. I know that the Cambridgeshire SSPs were very successful and it will be a shame if the links are abandoned. It worked because the primary and secondary teachers respected each other and what each could bring to PE in the local area.


    Where I am currently it is not the case. In a vain attempt to keep his job my SSCo wrote a lengthy e-mail noting the benefits of SSPs. "They have improved primary PE from just being one or two hours running around the playground" How insulting!!??!! As a PE graduate teaching in the primary sector it made my blood boil.


    it is a shame the SSPs will be going because of the ones that work and have established great links. These links will continue no doubt to deliver great opportunities. Those who didn't get anything set up that would be a long lasting programme may have wasted a lot of money that cannot be wasted again.
     
  5. I am also a PE graduate of many years experience - starting in a middle school, then moving for a spell in the private sector, currently I am in a state primary. Since being in the primary I have long felt looked down upon by many secondary colleagues, and some of the activities offered by SSCO's or some of their coaches have been a complete waste of time as they are secondary trained and haven't a clue when delivering to younger children. (I am speaking from personal experience here and wouldn't want to presume that all SSCO's and coaches are the same).
    Incidentally - what are anybody's thoughts on this high 5 netball that seems to be taking over ?

     
  6. Comp Managers going by April? PDM's by August? combined with the budget cuts to whole school it would be naive to think secondary schools can use PE HODs as PDMs or schools alter their curriculum to accomodate PE they will be redirecting resources to keeping their heads above water! gone are the honeypot days of PE & sport in schools back comes the narrow minded ideas John Major wanted to see of the sports that are the domain of ex-Grammar & Public schools that totally switch off kids when purely coached, shame these politicians werent exposed to real PE & school sport of the last 10 years!!
     
  7. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    Kids switch off when they are badly coached. And most classes are still mixed-sex. Switches most of the boys and girls off from the start.
    A primary school will never compete with the facilities of a private school. Many will never do rugby or a field or netball on a netball court. But we can take these traditional sports to provide a base for pupils to explore other sports.
    The pupils who focus on rugby / netball at school do a variety of other sports - they have the confidence to attend clubs out of school. How many handball clubs do you see,or benchball clubs?
    Now I'm not saying primary teachers should learn to coach rugby. This is where secondary PE staff should come in as they are movement specialists and should be able to coach sports with all levels of differentiation.
     
  8. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    I think English Netball need to decide if this is a girls event or whether we are playing to the PC brigade.
    Allowing boys on the team just creates tension between teams - one team brings 2 boys to a comp, one team brings 3.
    Lets girls play the game.
    How many Universities have boys netball teams? Never heard of one.
    Personally I'm a bigger fan of Korfball - needs equal numbers of boys and girls.
     
  9. Totally agree. If you throw lots of fixtures and mentoring into it as well there is no chance!
     
  10. As a primary school teacher I used to deliver KS3 rugby at my local secondary school so we are not all incompetent idiots who should fall over genuflecting to the awesome nature of these specialist secondary school PE teachers that you seem to think have all the answers. In our sports partnership the SSCO has not once been in and worked in schools, a good job as he is hopelessly outdated and still teaches as he must have been taught in the 70s. I wouldn't dream of saying that he is typical of SSCOs or PE teachers but your sweeping generalisations about primary PE are amazing.
     
  11. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    You are missing the point.
    Some primary schools have teachers who have backgrounds in sports such as football, rugby, cricket, netball etc. This is great - and the school is able to offer these activities to pupils.
    If there was a better system for secondary staff to come into schools then this would benefit your school - as it would enable two groups for rugby - the primary teacher could take the more able group and the secondary teacher the less able or vice versa.
    This is not the case for all schools. Some schools I see still do not have one member of male staff. Some of the female staff know a bit of netball, but haven't a clue on rugby. Subsequently the boys don't get exposed to any sort of rugby / football / cricket kinds of sports. Some of the female staff don't know any sport full stop, and instead think that PE is just standing on a mat and doing some yoga. Same for some male staff. We have to look at a system that fits all schools, not just the ones with specialist staff.
    The whole PE system is a mess because secondary staff are trained in PE, yet when they get to secondary level they effectively become sport coaches. The ones who arrive in Year 7 with movement difficulties don't progress as the fundamentals aren't covered. The prime age for learning new sport specific skills is 7-11 (5-7 for fundamental basics such as run, skip, hop etc) yet we continue to 'coach' sport specific skills from 11-16? Why?! It works both ways as the ones who arrive in Year 7 with a very high level of ability end up spending 2 years covering the basics instead of actually progressing. Secondary PE staff need to be in the primary sector working on movement as a whole through PE and sport.
     
  12. stopwatch

    stopwatch Established commenter

    Without trawling back to check through all of your contributions, I have read many oof them previously.
    Your arguments (and that is what they are whether you realise it or not) are very patronising, generalised (in your opinions of primary schools and staff), rambling, contradictory/confusing and inaccurate.
    I don't recall there being many posters actually agreeing with you, and most disagreeing quite vehemently.
    Doesn't that tell you something?!
    Or maybe it's us lot who have got it all wrong?
     
  13. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    What is wrong? It's an opinion. You can agree or disagree.
    I am not being patronising the primary staff. They have a million things to do. Some can do PE, some can't. The system in place has tried to empower them to teach PE themselves, but once the support is withdrawn this never happens. This is why primary schools need a greater input from secondary schools.
    Many people are fearing for their jobs so will side with opinions that they think will keep them in jobs. I could go one step further and say drop all secondary PE staff and replace them with sports coaches, who work as teaching assistants supporting maths and English in the mornings and coach sport in the afternoons. Would save a fortune. Pupils would be more motivated. How many PE lessons are taught to pupils who don't want to be there - for example teaching rugby to Year 9 for 6 weeks when none of them want to play rugby and all have received sessions in Year 7 and 8 previously (that happened to me).
    But the facts are there - children learn sport specific skills best between the ages of 7 and 11. So why do we invest so much money in general sport specific teaching post 11 years? Why is one of my former pupils learning to do a Level 4 badminton serve when he is county standard? Why is one of my former dyspraxic pupils learning to play hockey when she can't even hop or walk in a straight line?
    Why are the most physically educated members of staff working at secondary level when they are needed at primary? They are effectively sports coaches but getting paid between 22-40K a year, when sports coaches in the community doing similiar or greater work receive a lot lot less. To justify that 22-40K a year wage they need to be in primary schools, identifying pupils who need extra support - special needs and G&T. Grab the pupils with special needs early enough and you will save a vast fortune in support in later years. PE teachers are movement specialists, not sports coaches. It's great getting paid a PE teacher wage for being a sports coach which is why so many PE teachers are resistant to change.

     
  14. stopwatch

    stopwatch Established commenter

    Don't get me wrong, I agree that primary children should have specialist trained teachers. I work overseas where all achools have PE specialists. the level to which the children work is WAY above that in UK state primary, both in class and particularly in extra curricular/inter school/inter country competition.
    I also agree that these things need to be taught first in Primary and not Secondary.
    However it also needs to be present in Secondary too. Sports COACHES are not TEACHERS. Teaching is a completely different balll game (forgive the pun)
    However I think so many of your other comments about Secondary PE are also so very very wrong!
    Your previous comments about GCSE PE and comments here about Secondary PE teachers just being glorified coaches are so off kilter it is laughable.
    Again, I repeat, look back at other posters, how manyhave agreed with you?
    I think you have the right motivation and an obvious passion for sport and PE and young people which is laudable and potentially inspiring. I just don't think you have got the mix right - No offence intended
     
  15. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    Where is squashballs when I need him!
    At this time of need I am looking at ways of getting value for money.
    Take a dismotivated child in primary.Pupils struggling in lessons as they lack confidence.They need specialist movement teaching and motivation into PE and games, in the hope it will have a knock on effect in school.
    Take a dismotivated pupil who is struggling at GCSEs but after a few years of secondary PE is good at PE and wants to take GCSE PE.
    For a moment consider that the dismotivated pupil in primary will turn into the dismotivated pupil in secondary school.
    You have £X to spend. This £X can be spent on running a games session for that child's class every week for 2 years in primary school OR on 2 hours worth of GCSE PE for 2 years. What would you spend the money on?
    My view is obviously you spend it on primary PE as you will empower the pupil and instill motivation in them that takes them through secondary school. This is why it was suggested that maybe we should look at taking secondary teachers away from GCSE and put them into primaries. Look at the money spent on secondary school intervention programmes, there are vast amounts that could be saved.
    I'm sorry but secondary PE teachers are coaches at times. They run the session, then pick the best 15 to play games for the school. What about the least able 15? That's not teaching as it isn't inclusive. Having sessions in the gym / hall on fitness, gym etc are great as everyone is included as everyone can achieve, but when it comes to games they turn into coaches.
    Now the message that comes back time and time again from research into secondary PE is that the pupils want choice. Surely this is the chance to get coaches into school (Level 3) to run sessions - coaches with connections to clubs. Coaches cost less than PE teachers - more coaches can be had and money still be saved, more activities etc. Instead of one PE teacher to 35 pupils you can have 1:15.
     
  16. stopwatch

    stopwatch Established commenter

    Yes, this is virtually what I said, but that it should be both Primary AND Secondary that have PE Specialists.
    You seem to talk a lot about after school sports and Games. What about what goes on in the lesson/curriculum, this is where replacing teachers with coaches is not appropriate.
    You also sound like you are talking about Private Education - are you?
    BTW, what research are you talking about?
     
  17. The government have got this wrong they are just looking at competition. What about the improvement in primary PE, sporting opportunties offered, childrens fitness and improving health in the future that impacts on NHS.
     
  18. stopwatch

    stopwatch Established commenter

    You're right QM, a lot of focus is placed on 'competition' and team games.
    There is soooooo much more to offer children as part of the Physical Education curriculum. Like you say, general fitness, health, diet. General development of Skills related fitness.
    And what about exercise for enjoyment?
     
  19. gogojonny

    gogojonny New commenter

    You can easily condense Key Stage 3 PE teaching into Key Stage 2, with a specialist teacher. No reason why the Y6s can't do the Cooper Run around the yard.
    Look at two different sessions each with 30 Year 7s. One session is a school session - one teacher, 30 kids. Two objectives for the session - no individual objectives. The other session is a club session. The cost of one PE teacher buys two coaches. Session is differentiated between high and low ability, specific objectives can be set. Small group coaching, pupils more on task. Which session is better?
    Loads of research - one paper by Balyi and Hamilton (both Canada) put the prime age for sport specific skills as being between 9 and 12. The research on pupils views on PE is all over the internet - various surveys. Pupils generally enjoy PE as it is something other than sat in the classroom.
    Obviously a PE specialist in primary and secondary would be great. But if we can only have one then it must be primary.
     

  20. Why the assumption that I am male? Or that female staff can only have a background in netball? The thing I like about primary sport is that all pupils, regardless of gender, are exposed to different sports and are not segregated to the rugby is for boys, netball is for girls stereotype.
     

Share This Page