We are in critical point in history where there are more children being inactive due to digitalisation. Research by (Kohl et al., 2012) states that, “physical inactivity is the fourth leading cause of death worldwide”. Thus, Physical Education (PE) and Youth Sport (YS) are an essential part of a school’s curriculum in shaping today’s children and youths, leading to the policies being made. One policy this essay will be exploring in-depth is PE and sport premium for primary schools. In this essay, we will investigate how policy informs practice with the support of relevant literature, why PE and sport premium for primary schools was introduced and its implications on practitioners as well as a reflection on how policy and pedagogy impact practice.
Policy and Pedagogy
Existentialism is the philosophical concept that our individuality and personality is comprised because of our involvement of experiences within the world (Michelman, 2008). This concept suggests that interaction is key to stimulating our development. Ultimately by “doing” we can develop and learn, which suggests that a person who is physically literate can further develop their abilities, by interacting with various experiences. However, to become physically literate, the practitioner must initiate that interaction and either create or have created those environments for the child. Bates et al (2011) define educational policy as, “The raft of laws and initiatives that determine the shape and functioning of educational systems at both a national and local level”. The policy thus creates an environment for which practitioners can act upon the development of the child using pedagogical underpinnings. Pedagogy as defined by (Watkins & Mortimore, 1999) is, “any conscious activity by one person designed to enhance learning in another” whereas (Siedentop, 1991) considers pedagogy as “the skillful arrangement of an environment in such a way that students acquire specifically intended learnings”. From these definitions, we can infer that pedagogy links teachers’ actions with students’ outcomes. Thus, policy dictates how the practitioner carries out the lesson therefore, informing practice. It sets out guidelines and is a key component of any organization providing structure for daily operations. It is an essential part of running of schools; ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, provide guidance for decision-making, and streamline internal processes (Willoughby, 2010).
When, Why and How?
The precedent of setting out legacy commitments by host cities and their respective governments has become common practice in recent years, as seen in the London 2012 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games (DCMS 2007). A key point within the London legacy commitments was how the games 'Inspire a generation of young people' (DCMS 2007). Both during the Games and in its wake, government rhetoric was awash in the media concerning the different ways in which young people were going to be inspired. Significantly, however, it was on 11 August 2012, on the eve of the close of the games that the then UK Prime Minister (PM), David Cameron, published a statement on the Number 10 webpage stating that, “we will put competitive sport for children at the heart of Olympics legacy” (HM Government 2012). These words came amidst a dual pressure on being seen to deliver on how the Olympic Games were to ‘Inspire a generation of young people’ (DCMS 2007) and against a backdrop of austerity cuts which had removed all funding for PE and school sport in England just two years prior (Griggs & Ward, 2013). Two key resultant polices followed: firstly, in the form of an updated national Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE), which is considerably smaller and more focused towards competition (DfE 2014a) and secondly, a substantial funding commitment to all English state-funded primary schools (DfE 2013).
The updated NCPE will require every primary school child to take part in competitive team sport like football, netball and hockey, and will include team outdoor and adventurous activity. The PE programme of study aims to: enable pupils to be physically active for sustained periods of time; develop pupils' competence in a broad range of physical activities; provide opportunities for pupils to engage in competitive sports and activities and help pupils to lead healthy and active lifestyles.'
In March 2013, this statement was realised when the UK government announced a major new funding initiative titled: Primary Physical Education (PE) and Sport Premium (SP) which promises new funding for school sport and PE worth 150million pounds a year for the next two years (Roan, 2013).
On November 2013, further details were released which states the funding was provided jointly by the Departments for Education, Health and Culture, Media and Sport and was allocated to primary school head teachers. All primary schools in England with 17 or more primary-aged pupils would receive a lump sum of £8000 plus a premium of £5 per pupil per annum. Smaller schools with fewer than 17 pupils received £500 per pupil (DfE 2014b).
In the 2013 Autumn Statement, Chancellor George Osborne announced an additional year’s £150 million extended funding, bringing the total investment to the end of the 2016 academic year (HM Treasury 2013). PM David Cameron further committed to continue the funding for the Primary PE and Sport Premium until 2020 on February 2014 (Wintour, 2014).
Unlike previous PE and school sport strategies, this funding has been ring-fenced and therefore, can only be spent on provision of PE and sport with schools having free reign to choose how they do this. Additionally, schools are to be held accountable for their spending by publicly publishing their spending plans and outlining the impact made (DfE 2014b) with the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) having also required to report on PE and sport premium as a matter of routine during school inspection visits (OFSTED, 2014) .
Implications
As soon as Primary PE and Sport Premium was introduced (Callanan, Fry, Plunkett, Chanfreau, & Tanner, 2015) found with it, the appearance of the “white van man” who comes with the bag of balls and some qualification in football coaching. This appearance does not translate to quality nor is it sustainable. As cited by a head teacher in their report, “That's somebody that's making money out of schools where that money can be better spent”. This is supported by case study schools that had stopped using an external coach because of unsatisfactory performance in the same report (Callanan et al., 2015). Examples included coaches with poor teaching skills, those who could not manage behaviour, or where the coach did not provide the level of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) required and were unreliable. Rural schools also reflected that it was hard for them to access high quality coaching, because of their geographical location (Callanan et al., 2015).
Griggs (2015) further adds and highlight some recurring themes; insufficient challenge in lessons, an over-concentration on performance, the delivery of an imbalanced curriculum (dominated by games) and poor assessment and recording. What results in practice is the continuation of lessons in which children are being ‘busy, happy, and good’ (Placek 1983, 46) with minimal learning taking place and little or no consideration of theoretical underpinning (Light 2008).
In addition, with a sport-centric teaching practice, it can create for social exclusion amongst the less-abled children giving them a negative view of sport. According to Sport England (2013a), 47% of 16-25-year olds don’t take part in sport or physical activity at all. The number of individuals that drop out of sport and physical activity also increases with age (Sport England, 2013b). This highlights the dropout rate of those doing physical activity after compulsory school age.
While it has been shown that sport can be beneficial for children’s development, it has also been discovered that the frequency, intensity and duration of these activities are not enough to reap the health benefits of physical activity. (Health Education Authority,1998; Department of Health, 1999).
Considering that physical literacy development through the school curriculum defined by (Whitehead, 2010) as “the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding that individuals develop in order to maintain physical activity at an appropriate level throughout the life course”, it only partially meets these criteria as it aims to have children confident and competent in a range of physical activity which includes team-based games and individual sports such as running. However, there remains to be seen on how they will maintain children’s interest and engagement beyond school and throughout life with the use of additional funding, and according to the theory of physical literacy it should be the end-goal of a PE curriculum for children as it enables individuals to maintain these ideals of physical activity and health into adulthood.
(Tinning, 2010) aptly portrays this as he highlights that it is unrealistic to expect individuals to change their lifestyles and behaviours simply because they acquire some new knowledge, and to expect that knowing ‘that’, will translate into ‘doing’, is naïve.
Findings suggest that the biggest hurdle for quality PE in primary schools, is the qualifications and preparation of teachers. Lynch & Soukup (2017) recommended that opportunities for developmentally appropriate PE specialisations be included within degrees, allowing every primary school over time to have a sustainable infrastructure of PE expertise and advocacy. This recommendation will in time provide quality PE experiences for all children; offering a comprehensive orientation for learning in the physical domain and consequently, optimise holistic education (Lynch & Soukup, 2017). Also, international research notes that the preparation time of classroom teachers is impeded by systemic barriers, resulting in low-classroom teacher confidence, competence and subsequent interest (Lynch & Soukup, 2017).
Teaching styles variation.
(Mosston & Ashworth, 2008) lists a variation of teaching styles and understanding them in relation to PE and youth sport delivery will aid practitioners in engaging the students. Some examples of teaching styles are;
Direct Instruction.
A traditional method where the teacher leads the class through a task which usually sees all the students performing the same task at the same time.
Advantages. Can be time efficient; Provides plenty of practice opportunities which are good for introducing new skills.
Disadvantages. A teacher centred approach, as such it is difficult to provide feedback and variations to all students.
Teacher's Role. To plan tasks, lead students through them, and provide feedback.
Learners' Role. To follow the teacher's 'commands'.
Convergent Discovery.
Students are given an issue with one solution and are allowed the opportunity to discover the answer themselves. The teambuilding activity 'One Way' is a great example of convergent discovery.
Advantages. Promotes the use of critical thinking skills which are good for working on social skills.
Disadvantages. Grouping students is more important and students need to be self-motivated.
Teacher's Role. Design the problem and provide tasks that will guide the students to discover the solution.
Learners' Role. Cooperate with one another to find the solution whilst doing the tasks the teacher has prepared.
There are no proper delivery styles with regards to each individual and remains a dynamic area. Onus is on the practitioner to plan and manage according to the situation, adapting the session based on the needs and requirements of the students as well as be in line with philosophical assumptions of physical literacy (Mosston & Ashworth, 2008).
Fortunately, practitioners can develop confidence, physical competence, motivation and knowledge and understanding by inculcating a mastery-oriented climate in their approach which includes; creating a deliberate practice to challenge and engage students; spending sufficient time in deliberate practice to ensure skill acquisition; and including systematic assessment to track individual student learning (Roetert & MacDonald, 2015). With Primary PE and sport premium funding, it may address these issues with training.
How Policy and Pedagogy Impact Practice
In tracing the evolution of educational policy, Bates et al. (2011) very aptly link the development of education policy in England to the change in how education is now perceived from what it was once; a precious civic gift as a means to develop society and citizens, to a transformed commodity which through the influence of economics and politicians, has to deliver a workforce which can add to the economic wealth of the country and be accountable for doing so to society (Bates, Lewis, & Pickard, 2011). Policy is analysed in terms of how people appropriate its meanings. Appropriation is a kind of taking of policy and developing it as one’s own (Sutton & Levinson, 2001). Appropriation, highlights the way practitioners perceive elements of policy, thereby incorporating these discursive and institutional resources into their own schemes of interest, motivation, and action (Sutton & Levinson, 2001). The policy is interpreted by practitioners to which is then carried out according to the provision of PE and youth sport thus impacting practice.
In a study by (Blair & Capel, 2011), it was found that coaches did not understand the importance of using a range of different pedagogical approaches when delivering a sport session to children which led to an increase in disengagement during the session. However, after having went through the CPD programme, the data show that coaches changed their pedagogical approach when working with children. Coaches’ reported the CPD programme had impacted or modified the way in which they coached. For example, five coaches explicitly stated that they used much more question and answer techniques and a further two coaches highlighted their increased awareness of letting the children make more decisions, recognising the significant positive impact pedagogy has on the changes to their practice and interaction with children.
Conclusion
Historically, PE have fluctuated between a prescribed list of narrow sporting activities and an emphasis upon breadth and balance. Primary PE and premium funding coupled with revised primary NCPE policy has also demanded a focus upon competitive sport to develop future sporting champions, in addition to alleviating contemporary concerns with increasing sedentary behaviour by training pupils to adopt lifelong participation in physical activity. Teachers tasked with navigating this policy space are increasingly ill-equipped to meet these conflicting demands and therefore have subcontracted delivery to coaches who offer an inexpensive but superficial solution. If PE teachers, coaches, and others working within PE and youth sport could be encouraged and supported with pedagogical underpinnings and additional training in their delivery when promoting learning about health, then they will be more likely to successfully engage more young people in a healthy, active lifestyle throughout their life course.
References
Bates, J., Lewis, S., & Pickard, A. (2011). Education policy, practice and the professional. London [u.a.]: Continuum.
Blair, R., & Capel, S. (2011). Primary physical education, coaches and continuing professional development. Sport, Education and Society, 16(4), 485-505. doi:10.1080/13573322.2011.589645
Callanan, M., Fry, A., Plunkett, M., Chanfreau, J., & Tanner, E. (2015). PE and sport premium: An investigation in primary schools. ().Department for Education (DfE).
Griggs, G., & Ward, G. (2013). The london 2012 legacy for primary physical education: Policy by the way? Retrieved from https://www.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=od_______645::fef3b6049bc28a0a9a2e79a2caa25e1b
Kohl, H. W., Craig, C. L., Lambert, E. V., Inoue, S., Alkandari, J. R., Leetongin, G., & Kahlmeier, S. (2012). The pandemic of physical inactivity: Global action for public health. Lancet (London, England), 380(9838), 294-305. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60898-8
Lynch, T., & Soukup, G. J. S. (2017). Primary physical education (PE): School leader perceptions about classroom teacher quality implementation. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1348925. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2017.1348925
Michelman, S. (2008). Historical dictionary of existentialism. Lanham, Md. [u.a.]: Scarecrow Press.
Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2008). Teaching physical education (1. online ed. ed.). Columbus u.a: Merrill.
OFSTED. (2014). Inspections and performance of education providers. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/education/inspections-and-performance-of-education-providers
Roan, D. (2013). School sport handed £150m funding boost. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/21808982
Roetert, E. P., & MacDonald, L. C. (2015). Unpacking the physical literacy concept for K-12 physical education：What should we expect the learner to master. 运动与健康科学：英文版, 4(2), 108-112. doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2015.03.002
Siedentop, D. (1991). Developing teaching skills in physical education (4. ed. ed.). Palo Alto, Calif: Mayfield.
Sutton, M., & Levinson, B. (2001). Policy as practice : Toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of educational policy. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/[SITE_ID]/detail.action?docID=268991
Tinning, R. (2010). Pedagogy and human movement. London: Routledge Ltd. doi:10.4324/9780203885499 Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781134088867
Watkins, C., & Mortimore, P. (1999). Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning (1. publ. ed.). London: Chapman [u.a.].
Whitehead, M. (2010). Physical literacy: Throughout the lifecourse . London: Routledge.
Willoughby, M. (2010). A practical guide to developing childcare policies Retrieved from http://data.theeuropeanlibrary.org/BibliographicResource/3000078420829
Wintour, P. (2014). David cameron offers guarantee on primary school sport funding. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/feb/06/david-cameron-guarantee-school-sport-funding