New-College-Leicester-Evidence

autonomy with little or no accountability the DCMS through Sport England have been moredescriptive in their commissioning of various bodies. I personally believe that with the use of anypublic sector funding, lottery or exchequer there comes a level of responsibility and accountability.We need to be seen to be making a difference whether that is achieving more medals, growing thenumbers that are participating or improving health and wellbeing. Sport is extremely important for amultitude of reasons and until all that is embraced under a particular directorate or bodyparticipation will struggle.4.0 Is the funding allocated to delivering a sporting legacy being distributed and targetedin a way which is likely to maximise long-term positive impacts?4.1 The current level of funding being committed to sport and creating a sporting legacy issomething that is most welcome.4.2 The targeted areas for investment within Sport England’s strategy have created a five year 2012- 2017 commissioning framework that should see long-term impact.SchoolsNGBsFacilitiesLocal Investment£150 million£450 million£250 million£250 million4.3 On top of this we have the recently targeted primary school sport premium (£150 million peryear for 2 years) which again is welcome, but is invested in silo without any criteria to connectto the wider sporting landscape.4.4 Also following the success of team GB in London it is pleasing to see the ongoing commitmentto elite sport and the £500 million that will now take us beyond the comprehensive spendingreview and into the Olympic year of 2016 – 2017. Uk Sport have decided how to distribute thisfunding leading into Rio following discussions with NGBs4.5 It was interesting to see Mr Cameron suggest that the elite funding commitment was madebecause there was a “direct link” between elite performance and participation, something noprevious Games has been able to prove. (The Telegraph 12 August 2012)4.6 Mr Cameron makes these comments despite the lack of connectivity between the bodies thatare responsible for the distribution of the funding for elite sport and participation.ConclusionI believe the level of funding and the themes it is targeted at gives us an excellent chance to create asporting legacy.

My main concerns areThe distribution mechanism and the inconsistency. Elite and community sport participationis distributed through the expertise that is UK Sport and Sport England. Separate to that theschool sport funding by passes all the previously recognised expertise and is devolveddirectly to schools.The timescales aligned to all the various sports funding is not consistent and perhaps in thefuture needs bringing back into line.There is no connectivity between all the funding that is made available.This funding could be made to go so much further through a joined up approach. Working in thisway would then enable a longer term commitment resulting in long term positive outcomes.5.0 How effective are the relationships between the different organisations involved indelivering a sports participation legacy? Are those charged with delivering increasedsporting participation working well together?5.1 This is currently the area of most concern when it comes to the sports systems in this countryand delivering a sports participation legacy. The fact that I reference them as systems is a clearindication that we don’t have a unified delivery mechanism.5.2 While recognising the different expertise that is within UK Sport, Sport England and Youth SportTrust there clearly needs to be a better working relationship.5.3 Currently with no Government recognised expertise for school sport the so called 3 leggeddonkey that is the sporting landscape is in danger of falling over at some point in the future.ConclusionIn my opinion immediate attention needs to be given to the school sport scenario or we run the riskof creating some dodgy foundations that will take time and effort to repair. Not unlike the mandatesthat UK Sport have for elite sport and Sport England for community sort we need the same forschool sport and some recognised expertise.We must then revisit the so called merger which seems to have been talked about endlessly butnever been followed through. This may be due to the fact that UK Sport and Sport England are, to allintents and purposes, Government Quangos, while the Youth Sport Trust holds independent charitystatus and would make any merger difficult. However there must be ways round this.

While an official merger may not be possible an overarching group may be the sensible solution tostreamlining the way sport is managed. A separate ministerial department for sport is probably abridge too farThe development of sport from grass roots to the very top of the podium should be a continuum, anunbroken chain. Indeed, there is something called ‘the Sports Development Continuum’ which hasbeen overlooked by Government and its Quangos for too long.The Sports Development Continuum provides a simple model to ensure sport is catered for at allages, stages and abilities and if serviced properly, it covers all elements required. Current ways ofworking have seen little understanding of this basic principle as sport has been lumped into eitherElite, Community or School Sport with no flow and no continuum.This has, in part, been due to the fractured administration of sport where UK Sport looks after their‘lump’, Sport England theirs and previously Youth Sport Trust theirs. Although each has their ownstrategy, this is horizontal integration of strategy where vertical integration is clearly called for.That vertical integration or golden thread as its known will be further aided when other Governmentdepartments, who have a stake in sport, such as Education and Health, find they only need tocommunicate with one body when coordinating plans.This is not revolutionary thinking it is a well recognised mechanism that a high percentage of peopleworking in the industry would sign up to. This is an industry that is full of passionate people allworking tirelessly to make us world leading in the development and delivery of sport. If this passioncan be harnessed in a more joined up way with effective administration and governance at the verytop it would truly make us the envy of the world. A suggested starting point would be the licencefrom Government for the below group to come together along with the reinstating of the YouthSport Trust as the lead body for school sportLord CoeTim ReddishTim HollingsworthNick BitelJennie PriceSue CampbellJohn SteeleRod CarrLiz NichollCharles ReedBarry HorneChairBritish Paralympic AssociationBritish Paralympic AssociationSport EnglandSport EnglandYouth Sports TrustYouth Sports TrustUK SportUK SportEFDSEFDS

6.0 How do the sports policy objectives and spending plans from before the 2012 Gamescompare to those in place following the hosting of the Games?6.1 Sports policy, objectives and spending before the games were not too dissimilar from thecurrent policies, objections and spending plans. This is with the exception that school sport isfacilitated in a totally different way to how it was previous to the games and Sport Englandseem to be playing more of a pivotal role post the games than they did prior to the games6.2 Before the games we had the followingSport England Grow, Sustain Excel 2008 – 2011 Strategy(£600,000,000 ?)NGB Whole sport plans 2009 – 2013(£479,977,914)Physical Education and School Sport for Young People Policy (PESSYP)(£162,000,000 per year)UK Sport 2012 No Compromise funding strategy 2009 – 2013(Olympic Sports £264,143,753 / Paralympic Sports £49,254,386)6.3 Post the hosting of the games we have theSport England Strategy 2011 – 2015(£650,000,000)NGB whole sport Plans 2013 – 2017(£450,000,000)Primary School Sport Premium(£150,000,000 per year for 2 years)UK Sport 2016 No Compromise Funding Strategy 2013 – 2017(Olympic Sports £283,600,989 / Paralympic Sports £71,335,617)6.4 Despite a large proportion of the funding being reinstated since Michael Gove chose to disbandthe school sport network we still don’t have a cohesive and meaningful strategy / policy forschool sport post the Olympics.6.5 We currently have a School Games Programme and Sportivate Programme delivered by SportEngland alongside a Primary School Sport Premium which is directly devolved to each and everyPrimary School. All of these initiatives are delivered in isolation with no connectivity to eachother creating a patchwork quilt of sports delivery for young people.6.6 While the investment is welcome for such programmes the fractured landscape that is nowschool sport is confusing at a local level even for those who claim to understand it.

ConclusionAt a time when a nation of young people would have been inspired by Team GB and Paralympic GBperformance the school sport landscape was and still is in turmoil. Just when we should have beencapitalising on the success of the 2012 games the nation is still coming to terms with the slow deathof the school sports partnership network. Despite several turnabouts in policy to keep a network ofsome description the knife is due to be turned for the final time when the funding for secondaryschools to support primary schools with PE and School sport will end. Disbanding the system a bit ata time might have been a clever way of detracting the attention from such a criminal actWithdrawal of funding for Primary Link TeachersPartnership Development Managers being converted into School Games OrganiserEnd of teacher release fundingHowever for those working on the ground it has been like slow torture.October 2010 announcements to end ring fenced funding for school sport and school sportspartnerships should have been backed up by a robust policy and strategy to replace them with amore effective mechanism. Instead what we had was the misuse of competition data to suggest thata School Games Programme is the answer. This was quickly followed by the suggestion that teacherrelease funding (Not School Sports Coordinator Funding) would be provided for 2 years forsecondary schools to support primary schools with PE and School SportJust as it seems the mess that is school sport was about to take its final breath we have anannouncement of Primary School Sport Premium Funding 7 months after the Paralympic closingceremony and 2 ½ years after the announcement to end ring fenced funding for school sport. Alifeline you would think of funding yet again ring fenced for PE and School Sport. What we actuallyhave is an army of Primary Headteachers in an unfamiliar position of being tasked with improving PEand School Sport with little guidance or criteria apart from the threat of Ofsted policing theircurriculum more thoroughly.Time will tell if this latest policy is enough to revive school sport, but my guess would be not withinthe 2 years that the funding is committed for.

Education and school sport7.0 Is there a legacy from London 2012 for school sport? What has been the impact of2012 Games on the School Games initiative? How will this programme deliver longtermbenefits to school sport?7.1 Depending on what you perceive the tangible measures to be will indicate whether theGovernments plans for a school sports legacy are successful or not. If this is to be judged by theamount of young people participating in PE and school sport then I would suggest at themoment it is going to fall short.7.2 The political debate and stalling was not helpful in creating a meaningful and fit for purposeschool sport offer and system that will improve the foundations of any sport system. Highprofile events have a shelf life in terms of utilising the interest the event generates and turningit into participation. At New College we are fearful that the inspiration that the games created isa missed opportunity in terms of school sport and any school sport legacy is currently on lifesupport.7.3 Improvement in competition within schools was always on the up well before the introductionof the School Games Programme and the 2012 Games. One of the 10 strands of the PESSYPprogramme was dedicated to competition and a robust network of Competition Managers wereworking across the country through School Sport Partnerships to improve the calendar of schoolcompetition on offer.7.4 All the introduction of the School Games did was rebrand this approach and reshuffleindividuals within the school sport system. A number of Partnership Development Managersbecame the School Games Organisers picking up from the work that the Competition Managershad started.7.5 The Governments emphasis on competition and some realigned funding for dedicated SchoolGames Organisers should hopefully see an improvement in competition within schools. WithinLeicester City we have 2 full time posts dedicated to the School Games. This is more than was inplace before although the disbanding of the network of individuals within each and every schoolwith a remit for school sport is making it difficult for these individuals to have any impact.7.6 The Local Organising Committee facilitates a successful range of competitions at level 3 and thelocal School Games Organisers do their best to arrange level 2 based inter school competition tocompliment that. However we feel at the moment that the structure is fairly rigid and will onlycreate competition for a select few. The programme needs to have greater flexibility to allow allstudents the chance to compete at one stage or another.7.7 Competition is extremely important when it comes to sport and life. You can’t take competitionout of sport but this is not the only factor that makes school sport great.

ConclusionI have no doubt that many young people will look back on the 2012 Games with a lot ofmemories and desire to imitate the success of the athletes that made up Team GB andParalympic GB. However with schools placed under ever increasing pressure to performacademically we are fearful that it is diluting the amount and quality of PE and School Sportbeing delivered.If you were to measure the impact of the games only a year on from the opening ceremony27 July 2013 we believe it would be very difficult even after only a year to demonstrate thatthere is any tangible school sport legacy. We feel the new announcement regarding primaryschool sport gives us a chance of legacy, but we have a long way to go to catch the likes ofreality TV and the media which seem to be doing more in terms of keeping the Olympicsalive than anyone else.Following the 2012 Games I would suggest with the resource dedicated to the School Gamesthat competition is sustainable. I don’t think that on reflection with data from the PESSYPsurvey that it would have increased dramatically in Leicester City. No dedicated members ofstaff within the primary sector since the withdrawal of the Primary Link teacher fundingleaves a huge gap. Some of those relationships have been sustained but others have soondisappeared when the funding was not there to release teachers to support festivals andinter school competition.The autonomy provided to secondary schools with regards to teacher release funding hasresulted in some schools not supporting the School Games and priorities directed elsewherewith the use of this funding. Teacher release funding disappearing in July 2013 will dilute thesystem further and we will be left in the City with 2 School Games Organisers responsible forthe School Games Programme. These individuals will not have an official system to workwith and due to schools having autonomy this will potentially see a decline in competition.The School Games Programme as a standalone programme will not deliver any long termbenefits to school sport. It will provide a mechanism for the sportiest children to competeeven more than they probably currently do so.Competition is an important part of school sport but it is not the only part.

8.0 Will the Youth Sport Strategy encourage a greater number of young people to take upsport? What arrangements are in place to implement the strategy and are theyappropriate?8.1 The title Youth Sport Strategy is extremely misleading. The brief given to Sport England seemsto be targeted at people aged 14 years upwards.8.2 With a title such as Creating a Sporting Habit for Life I would suggest the brief given to SportEngland should have been a cradle to grave approach.8.3 A large proportion (50%) of Sport England funding as commissioned National Governing Bodiesof Sport of which 60% is to focus on young people aged 14 – 25. On the basis of this you wouldexpect to see young people within that age bracket participating more in sport. The major issuewith this is NGB and CSP capacity and not being able to deliver at a local level.8.4 The headline figure of suggesting each of the 4000 secondary schools in the country will beoffered a community sports club on its site complete with a direct link to one or more NGBs isgoing to be a mountain to climb.8.5 The satellite club initiative needs dedicated people on the ground to make it happen. Subregional / regional officers will not have the capacity or potentially the knowledge to work withall schools to link them with a community sports club.8.6 The politically backed School Games is a programme that again is floored in its title in that anindividual school is not able to make it all the way through to the tier 4 finals that will be held inSheffield this year. That privilege is for the small amount of individuals that will be selected totake part. The fragmented school sport landscape now creates an almost impossible situationfor School Games Organiser and Local Organising Committees to create meaningful level 1, 2and 3 competitions.8.7 There are certain programmes recognised within the Youth Sports Strategy that are and will seeyoung people taking up sport. The Sportivate programme is delivered exceptionally well via ourCSP as they licence each local area to come up with their own plans based on local knowledge.The Door Step Club and Get on Track programmes are again initiatives that are likely to seemore young people take up sport. The common ground as to why these programmes are andwill be successful is that they are targeted at young people and the resource is made availableat a local authority level.ConclusionSport England becoming a commissioning and funding body is a move in the right direction ratherthan an over bureaucratic organisation. There are certain elements of their commissioningframework that will work well due to the fact that the resource is getting to the heart of the problem

at a local level. There are other areas that will need more thought as to how they will actually driveforward participation and in particular participation amongst young people.Having a recognised lead for community sport should be applauded along with Sport England’sefforts to keep afloat a young people’s sport offer. However while the strap line of Youth SportsStrategy might be a demonstration of your commitment to young people it does not reflect yourability to deliver to young people. Commissioning expertise that is more familiar with thisenvironment is sensible, but why ministerial departments don’t continue to invest directly in thatexpertise to drive forward PE and Sport for young people is a mystery.It seems like Sport England have been given the mandate for young people without any real teeth.They seem to have reluctantly taken it on and seem to run to the YST on all things young peoplerelated.9.0 Is the current proportionate division of financial resources between primary andsecondary schools for school sports appropriate or should it be modified?9.1 Any financial resource dedicated to improving school sport is welcome and we believe that thetarget for that needed to be improving primary PE and School Sport.9.2 The fact that like most people across the country we believed that we needed to improveprimary PE and School Sport was an indication that something was not right.9.3 The new primary school sport premium is welcome but all it as done is put the resource in thehands of those who generally do not have the expertise, knowledge or capacity to make thisresource work effectively.9.4 New College Leicester decided to take the concept of the teacher release funding or previouslyas it was known the school sports coordinator role and we have created a post dedicated tosupporting the primary schools with their PE and School Sport.9.5 A cohort of primary schools welcomed this and they have agreed to part fund this post throughthe use of their school sports premium. This post will be dedicated to mentoring and up skillingthe current primary practitioners.9.6 Secondary schools have dedicated faculties to deliver an effective PE and School Sport offer andthere is no reason why additional resource should be made available to improve secondary PEand school sport. If secondary schools are failing in this area then they need to look at theirperformance management and staff CPD needs9.7 The purpose of the primary school sport premium is appropriate, but the distribution of it is notthe most effective way of achieving the purpose.

ConclusionThere is no shame in admitting that you got something wrong. The School Sports Partnerships whereeffective and made enormous sense in secondary schools supporting their local primary schools in asubject area that they had less expertise in. If anything SSPs did not go far enough and the supportoffered by the secondary schools should have amounted to more than 2 days per week. Recognisingthat we are not going to have Physical Education professional in each and every one of our primaryschools the next best thing would be to have a full time Primary PE and School Sport specialistworking with 5 or 6 primary schools.The model we have created enables us to work effectively with our partner Primary Schools withoutmonopolising all of their sports premium funding. Our focus will be on assisting primary schools withcore curriculum physical education and we will also offer advice and support on school sport andbest use of their remaining school sports premium.If Government believed the SSP network to be over bureaucratic then they should have tackled thisas an issue not cut the funding and disband a network that was clearly making a difference.Reinstating some school sport funding is a demonstration that they got it wrong. Not prepared toadmit this the funding is now distributed in an ad hoc ill thought out way placing school sport at risk.The purpose and proportion of funding is accurate and the main issue is that it by passes all therecognised experience and comes with very lose criteria and guidance.10.0 Which measures have proven most effective in improving access to sport acrossthe school system in general, and with regard to high performance sport inparticular?10.1 We don’t have to go back far to recognise the effectiveness of the School Sport Partnershipswhen we consider data that is applicable to Leicester City.10.2 A network of dedicated staff all working towards the same goal of improving PE and SchoolSport for all children and young people is something that worked in most cases10.3 Tasked with the 10 strands of the Physical Education and School Sport for Young People(PESSYP) policy. SSPs were seeing some remarkable improvements in PE and School Sport.This alongside the ambition to see young people participate in 5 hours of PE, Sport andPhysical Activity demonstrated a huge commitment to seeing young people be morephysically active and healthy.10.4 PESSYP data suggested that Leicester City had moved from 36% of young people aged 5 – 16year olds participating in 2 hours of Physical Education to 76% by 2010.

10.5 PESSYP data also suggested that in Leicester City intra school competition had improvedfrom 37% in October 2006 to 63% in October 2010. Inter school competition had improvedfrom 22% in October 2006 to 32% in October 2010. With data like this that suggest animprovement in competition I was surprised to hear Government had used competition datato suggest a review is needed of how school sport is delivered.10.6 In terms of high performance sport this is not the brief for schools or the Youth Sport Trustwho were managing school sport. Obviously schools and the YST were interested in Giftedand Talented young people when it came to PE and school sport and programmes andmeasurements were taken to start and support those individuals. However the opportunitiesfor those young people to progress in terms of high performance sport we needed thesporting landscape to come together effectively. Community clubs needed to be readilyavailable to provide an exit for the more able young people. NGBs support was needed toidentify those young people with potential talent for their performance pathwayprogrammes. Unfortunately this did and does not work as effectively as it should do.ConclusionThe question of what proved effective in improving access to sport across the school system is aquestion I believe is answered above. While not perfect I would suggest that school sportspartnerships were an effective mechanism for exposing a large number of young people to PE,School Sport and Physical Activity. Recognising the fact that they did not connect effectively to theother areas of the sporting landscape like they should they still provided opportunities for allchildren and young people.11.0 Is the infrastructure to promote competitive sports between schools adequate?11.1 Current inter school competition is likely to decline following the disbanding of a network ofpeople dedicated to improving all aspects of PE and school sport.11.2 The School Games initiative will take time for the relevant mechanisms to be put in place todrive forward competitive inter school opportunities. In Leicester City we have 2 SchoolGames Organisers who are frantically planning a diverse menu of competition for primaryand secondary schools to opt in to. Previously they would have had a network to workthrough which unfortunately is now more fragmented and we have pockets of schools thathave sustained roles and individuals still with a remit for PE and School sportConclusionAny infrastructure that is created should not have competition as its leading policy objective. Youngpeople should be at the heart of any PE and school sport policy with a view to more of themparticipating in high quality PE and school sport. Competition should inevitably feature somewhere

ut not at the expense of encouraging young people in to lifelong participation in sport. The LongTerm Athlete Development Concept made an enormous amount of senseFUNdamental movement skills (High quality physical education)Learning to trainTraining to trainTraining to competeTraining to winThis concept was a stage approach and not age specific which made enormous sense.