Fractal economics; A community adventure

Community ownership models; an evidence based approach to transformation of a county town in East Sussex.

Community in operation: developing an ecosystem

The common house in Lewes: Community site number one for People in Commons CIC, Future Folk Sussex (MHOS) and UK Commons ltd, Charity in the making.

The Lock Inn; Common House Lewes

Meeting minutes

Untitled page

Explore

Community in operation: developing an ecosystem

Reconceptualising Physical Education; post humanist critique of the Out-of-School Hours programme of a key stage 2 junior school in Brighton

Introduction:

This research moves to address the narrow understanding of Physical Education (PE) and its fundamental importance in influencing Out-Of-School-Hours (OOSH) operations. As Evans & Davis (2010) state, the subject of PE should not be, ‘... asked to perform aberrant tasks like altering the nation’s collective, or individual, waistlines.’ (p.768) Rather, its position and purpose speaks to holistic embodiment, nurturing agency and self-efficacy while allowing space and opportunity for providing grounds to critique the social injustices and inequalities at play within wider society (Hill et al, 2018).

It is social injustice and inequality that leads me to this research. Evan & Davis (2010) established that PE has made little impact on wider activity participation rates across demographics. Further, it is apparent that those poorest in cultural capital are the least likely to be actively engaged in physical activities outside of school. In addition, they highlight, from Ball (2009), that ‘only 7% of the variability in secondary school GCSE grades is attributable to the school; that is to say, 93% has nothing to do with it (school)’ (Evans & Davis, 2010, citing Ball, 2009, p.767).

It is here that they, as do I, position the wider question of who our schooling system is really for: who does it support and what does it hope to achieve? Irrespective of grades, it is important to note however, that schools influence the life chances of individuals (Ball, 2009, in Evans & Davis, 2010), and this logically moves to consideration of community activities that support the cultural capital of pupils.

This is the reason why schools must look outside their statutory duties and consider community services, focusing upon balancing social inequalities ever apparent within society. I move to question if PE and OOSH, when repositioned and reconceptualised, have potential for levelling up the playing field within society (Evans & Penney, 2008) speaking directly to inequality and social injustice.

The article ‘Measuring a Plant Does Not Help It Grow’, (Williams-Brown & Jopling, 2021) aptly situates this thesis. Their research concludes that:

‘teachers are still struggling with the consequences of the standards agenda … the heightened neoliberalism after 2010, which has increased the emphasis on performativity, accountability and achievement in schools, has intensified their opposition to how standards have been implemented.’

(Williams-Brown & Jopling, 2021, p.238.)

Throughout this research I consider these agendas and question the notion of performativity within education (children being seen as a simple performer of tasks), the impact it has upon individuals and critically, their environment. I then look at the nature of OOSH operations, posing questions that concern the rise of the ‘external provider’ and their increasing influence upon performance focused within PE and OOSH. I build on the report of the 2020 All Party Parliamentary Group; For a Fit and Healthy Childhood, from here on referred to as APPG (APPG, 2020), and provide a unique vantage point on OOSH that until now has been overlooked within research, addressing the money funnelled out of the system during ‘extended days’, simply meeting childcare needs; the negative implications this has upon driving further inequality with profits stripped through the use of school facilities; how harnessing this income has vast potential; and the ability of OOSH for creating value through implementation of programmes that are enriching for holistic development as part of an integral whole school curriculum.

Rationale:

This thesis is the culmination of my research journey throughout my MA. Beginning when I approached the Initial Teacher Education (ITE) department of the University of Sussex with my concerns about PE and the nature of outsourcing within Primary Schools across Brighton and East Sussex. Working as an associate tutor at the University, setting up and implementing the Primary Post Graduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) PE specialism, I questioned how the primary education system needs to adapt and change, be made aware of, and offered an alternative position to tackling the outsourcing problem and the opportunities being missed to support young people.

Throughout my MA the initial modules and minor project have worked to develop this thesis, enabling research that supported and furthered my understanding of what was at play within the system and how PE has come to this point. Various dialogues with teaching professionals and a previous case study at the same junior school in Brighton, have enabled me to understand both the approach towards, and awareness of, holistic wellbeing the system of primary education has. This research critiques the structuralised systems of primary education, specifically my own field of work: PE.

I look to an interdisciplinary approach, questioning if the failure of the system is simply that it is too prescriptive and rigid to cater for the diverse needs of the children and communities it is working to support. Ultimately I question if this has driven a disconnect between society and environment, fundamentally fuelled by a desire for profit. If so, is the machine of education being used as a mechanism to perpetuate an oppressive class system, driving injustice and inequality, suppressing critical and ‘post’ theories, reproducing via social acculturation (Lawson, 1986) a status quo, blinkered by the dazzling lights of individualism and consumerism?

Further, I consider if it is the organisational structure and rigidity that pushes professionals to the edge, leaving them frustrated that they are limited in both their actions for driving and supporting change and for adapting to the developmental and educational needs of the children they initially came to the profession to support. We will force you to be free (2007) outlines that society has been simplified by politicians, within a system that has reduced people to a set of logic outputs. We will force you to be free (2007), St Pierre (2014) among others conclude that children have been considered in much the same way. Agency, self-efficacy and a sense of being is at stake (Wapenaar, 2014; Hill et al, 2018) and the purpose of this thesis is to shine a light upon this complex entanglement, speaking truth to power (Drexler, 2020) and critiquing the assumptions that we are units of productivity, objectified in a world without meaning (The Lonely Robot, 2007).

Context of this research:

This research is locatable within various recent developments. They include the urgency for individuals to be more conscious of their environment; The lack of definition of PE, its long-standing critique; The resulting failure to meet the needs of children; The neoliberalisation and commodification of education; The politics of management of both PE and OOSH services; The constraints of design; The emergence of new theoretical frameworks that question a re-evaluation of the purpose of education in an unequal society.

This research works through each of these areas, providing justification and highlighting relevance to environmental/social justice and equality. My ontology is shaped by philosophy, with much research addressing some fundamental issues within education; the drive for positivity (St Pierre, 2014), in an area that is not quantifiable, poses questions as to why we are ‘measuring’ the ‘immeasurable’. Attempting to measure the impact an intervention has on grades has little purpose. It masks the philosophical important notions of how we live better as people, nature: supportive, just and equitable.

The urgency for individuals to be more conscious of their environment

‘This Civilisation Is Finished’, a starkly titled book by Read & Alexander (2019), necessitates the urgent adoption of transformative practices if we are to even salvage any kind of civilisation after the total collapse of our current one. An emergency response needs to be undertaken now within all areas of society. I agree with their position that:

‘...academics, politicians, scientists and activists are self-censoring their own work and ideas, in order to share views that are socially, politically or personally more palatable.’

(Read & Alexander, 2019, p.1.)

The idea that our civilisation, as we know it, and as a result of our own actions, is coming to an end, would hopefully prompt immediate response in all fields to provide strategic guidance as to what an emergency response might look like.

Within the realms of primary education, the entanglement of wellbeing and environment is something that must therefore take to the fore. Roberts et al (2020), citing Wilson (1984), posit that ‘biophilia’ is our innate attachment to our natural environment, and that our existence is entwined. It is our desire to project ourselves as masters of our universe, dissected by Foucault's critique of the human sciences invention of man as a focus of knowledge (Foucault, 2001), that may be credited for simplifying our existence. We have focused, through these human sciences, primarily upon our own priorities, humanist, dismissive of our place within the ecology of life, determined to be the ruler, the controller, the agent of our own destiny. But at what cost?

Roberts et al (2020) continue, referencing Milligan & Bingley (2007), who address the concerns that if children do not have experiences of the natural world in early life, they may come to find it threatening. Indeed, research demonstrates that our natural environment plays many roles, see diagram 1, beit physical health; cognitive function; spiritual development; psychological wellbeing or self-care (Roberts et al, 2020). Jordan (2009 in Roberts et al, 2020) suggests that the natural environment operates as a secure base for children, allowing them to mediate negative mood states and maintain more positive ones. Whilst valuable, these humanist positions are in danger of leading to a perception that we are somehow separate to nature, that ‘it’ (the natural environment) can in some way help ‘us’ (humans). Logically this leads to an objectification, with Clark & Mcphie (2014) expressing concern that this simplification of our relationship with the environment is part of the reason for the crisis we find ourselves in.

‘Critical outdoor education has sought to overcome this dualism by describing a relational understanding of the world emphasizing ecological systems and highlighting humanity’s ‘connection’ to the environment. This relational approach aims to tackle the ‘crisis of perception’, argued to be the root cause of anthropogenic planetary degradation. ... relational ontologies, as currently conceived, may reinforce a static conception of the world by emphasizing ‘points of being’ (subject and object).’

(Clarke & Mcphie, 2014, p.198.) It is here that Clarke & McPhie (2014) bring Deleuze’s (1997) immanent materiality into play, noting that it is specific points of ‘being,’ that are moved by time into a continuous process of ‘becoming.’ They continue, promoting the notion of: ‘animism as a mode of living where the world is understood to be immanent and constantly becoming.’ (Clarke & Mcphie, 2014, p.198.)

Through conversations with professionals, reflecting upon OOSH and PE, there was little acknowledgment of the importance of the link individuals have with their environment other than how they can ‘use it’ for their own wellbeing. There is a slight indication from Speaker F (2021), following a prompt, that the OOSH adventure club supports a sense of belonging. Continuing, Speaker F does acknowledge that there is a need for change, with schools being prompted through the local authority’s commitment to change (Our plan, 2019).

The lack of definition of PE, its long standing critique;

I turn to focus upon the critique and material/discursive analysis of the current PE curriculum with an emphasis upon how Objectively Measured Performance (OMP) has led to a reduced focus upon the holistic benefits of PE, opening the field to an increased reliance upon private coaching organisations which are, inadvertently or not, driving inequality in a system designed to work towards greater equality. The narrow focus of PE has been subject to debate since its very introduction. Much before the dawn of the national curriculum, the endeavours of the subject were mocked:

‘There is very little to know about riding bicycles, swimming or golf ....

Furthermore, what there is to know throws very little light on much else.’

(Peters, 1966, p.159.)

Peters in many ways missed the point of the learning potential of the subject. Indeed, PE is the only subject that can focus upon total positive embodiment: ‘positive body connection and comfort, and agency and functionality’ (Voica et al, 2021. P.106.) Unfortunately as we understand from the APPG’s report in 2020; Griggs (2010) and Griggs & Randall (2019) among others, a vast majority of PE and OOSH activities are delivered through outsourcing to coaching organisations and individuals who have little or no understanding of pedagogy, let alone embodiment, but are focused upon the OMP of the sport they are affiliated to. If, through this social acculturation (Lawson, 1986), pupils perceive themselves as simplified output models, how might they realise their existence is entangled (Clarke & Mcphie, 2014).

Stirrup (2020), working to understand pupils’ perceptions of PE, concludes that:

‘Pupils felt judged and in turn judged others on their ability to perform and play sport well. Furthermore, pupils' constructions of PE as sport is reinforced by the coach's data and how they view both PE and their role within PE – ideas of ‘playing’, ‘competing’ and ‘sport’ is echoed in their data.’

(Stirrup, 2020, p.23.)

Sport focus is not inherently poor practice and indeed great outcomes can come from sport-based education but, as we know from Kirk (2004), ‘even when it is taught well, sport-based physical education has serious limitations’ (p.189.). Kirk continues to state that sport is not the right place to look for the basis of a meaningful physical education programme. Siedentop (1994, in Kirk, 2004), Ennis (1999, in Kirk, 2004) express and support Kirk’s view that there are:

‘...minimal opportunities for sustained instruction, little accountability for learning, weak or non-existent transfer of learning across lessons, units and year levels, few policies to equalise participation between boys and girls (in co-ed) and high-low skilled players, and a student social system that undermines teacher authority.’

(Kirk, 2004, p.189.)

Lewis (2006) supports Stirrup (2020) here, suggesting that there is a tendency to define communities with a deficit or medical model of need, pre-defining a need that is then catered for by a system trying to ‘fix’ that need. If the need happens to be an ‘ability to perform’ then Lewis’ logic would insinuate a ‘deficit’ within the nonperformers and, once again, we see pupils begin to ‘judge’ each other, meaning they become objectively measured.

As we begin to see, through Lewis (2006), Clarke & Mcphie (2014) and Stirrup (2020), we have been systematically dissected from our environment, objectifying each other and the environment as something that can be measured for

‘performance’.

It has also been well argued that PE has a profound and holistic purpose:

‘… for students to develop a critical consciousness, appreciate multiple perspectives, and engage in actions to enhance equity, democracy, and social justice.’

(Hill et al, 2018, p.470.)

Not only this but the importance for instilling a love of Physical Activity (PA), as part of embodiment, has been under-recognised. Further still, opportunities for supporting a vast range of health benefits has been almost completely ignored, with focus still being placed upon competitive sport (APPG, 2020).

Failure to meet the needs of children; ultimately everyone.

It is Plato’s Republic that speaks of social justice, actions that consider the ‘good of another’ (Thrasymachas and Aristotle in Dent, 1992). Continuing he argues that

‘agents with just souls will not be attracted to unjust actions.’ (Plato in Dent, 1992, p.xii)

Plato voices that it is the awareness of justice that can only be considered and established through education, contending that this is the main focus and purpose of civilization, to provide education ‘...the most important role of the state, because it can produce just individuals, who are better off than anyone else.’ (Plato in Dent, 2014, p.x).

This, combined with philosophy of Socrates, who proposed that the ‘rulers of the best political systems will be philosophers’ (p.xiii) and that wisdom should be valued over belief, underpinned by rational understanding, (Socrates, in Dent, 1992) therefore promote social justice throughout the spheres of politics, government and thereby, education.

The power imbalance within our society, that has led to the marginalisation of communities through the wanton destruction of the environment (Read & Alexander, 2019) might indeed be considered as ‘non-rational’, akin to slowly cutting through one’s lifeline in a space suit. This would also be considered unjust, as it is not for the ‘good of another’, as Thrasymachas and Aristotle define (cited in Dent,1992, p.x).

Stirrup (2020) using Bernstein's code theory, demonstrates how a power dynamic is perpetuated through the system of knowledge transfer within PE:

‘...formal educational knowledge is realised through three message systems: (i) Curriculum – what counts as valid knowledge; (ii) Pedagogy – what counts as the valid transmission of knowledge; and (iii) Evaluation – what counts as the valid transmission of this knowledge by the taught.’

(Stirrup, 2020, p.15.) St Pierre (2013) critiques this ontology within education asking:

‘...what counts as knowledge and whose knowledge counts, how knowledge becomes foundational and is used to secure truth, the imbrication of knowledge and relations of power, the links between knowledge and ethics, how knowledge produces reality, and so on.’

(St Pierre, 2013, p.648.)

Stirrup’s (2020) inspiring critique of this current social acculturation process (Lawson, 1986) only reinforces the question of if and how PE and OOSH let alone education are at all part of a system designed to tackle social injustice or inequalities.

Further to this, the evaluation of this knowledge, as noted by Stirrup (2020), that results from a performance pedagogy, only reinforces perceptions of a value of power. Herein lies the problem. Education is not and should not be seen as being done to, if pupils become the subject or object of education this only reinforces and condones power and oppression.

Stirrup concludes from her research that PE appears to:

‘...foster a performance pedagogy which reduces the importance of the individual's needs and judges learners against performance criteria, often in a competitive environment.’

(Stirrup, 2020, p.24.)

It is also articulated through the narrative that the understanding of the subject is not solely through the curriculum or the pedagogy but influenced through the pertained value that the participant sees (Stirrup, 2020). Therefore, it is the content, activities and practice and culture that become the ‘Social Acculturation’ (Lawson, 1986). This is reinforced by Kirk (2004), as expressed earlier, that even when delivered well, sport education focus does not lead to the intentioned critical awareness, because it is stopped in an elite sport culture, based upon valuing performance. The subject is unable to shake off those shackles it desperately wants to dismiss.

Evan & Davis (2010) offer further insight:

‘As in education generally, increasingly demanding strategic and navigational skills are needed to access and manage children’s learning and acquisition of physical culture/capital out of school, as sport/activity routes become more formal and complex. Opportunities and spaces for spontaneous/informal play and games are increasingly prescribed, limited and regulated to occur only in formal environments.’

(Evans & Davis, 2010, p.772.)

Stirrup (2020) expresses that the PE has been used to promote increasingly narrow views of performance, promotion of physical activity or to combat obesity. These are much wider complex issues perpetuated through the inequality in society that Evan & Davis (2010) and Stirrup (2020) speak of. If we look at wider consequential failures of the subject to tackle this impossible task, The World Health Organisation (WHO) outlines that 1 in 4 of all premature deaths are caused by physical inactivity (WHO, 2018). The WHO (2018) and UNESCO (2016) among others clearly state that a minimum of one hour Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity (MVPA) should be undertaken by children under the age of 18, daily. It is also demonstrated by the CMO that only 20% of children in the UK meet these requirements.

Again, if the subject is being used and seen to cater for these crises, its practice is working exactly against this purpose. The continued focus upon sport-based education is critiqued by Koorts et al (2019) and Weed (2016), among others, who further demonstrate in their respective research, that participation in sport itself does not provide the necessary daily MVPA levels and calls into question if there is even be a health benefit when there is a focus upon a sport within PE curriculum.

It is here that the question must be asked as to why our institutions, set up to speak to inequalities, have been enabled to operate in a way that, in the words of Evans & Davis (2010), ‘… has by default come perilously close to becoming part of the problem it seeks to resolve, inadvertently, sustaining a form of education which… preserves structural relations between social groups’ (p.776.).

With Evans & Davis (2010) contending that the nature of our current schooling practice is increasingly exclusive itself, Williams-Brown & Jopling (2020), add

‘…enduring use of SATs ... suggests that the standards outcomes need to be rebalanced by focusing first and foremost on the wellbeing of all children.’

(Williams-Brown & Jopling, 2020, p.227.)

It is a critical lens that must be brought to bare if we are to nurture children to themselves be critical of the structualised system that leads to oppression and class domination (Hill et al, 2018). Hill et al continue, referencing Maclaren who proposed that:

‘…globalisation and capitalism are the most significant structures of social control that lead to international class domination.’

(Maclaren, 1998, in Hill et al, 2018, p.471)

As I have just laid out, there is a demonstrable need for the subject to focus upon holistic health, instilling a love of PA, embodiment and the vast range of health benefits (APPG, 2020) and logically therefore, our connection to, and health of our environment, with a recognition that the simplification of the subject, disconnecting ‘humans’ from the environment, is counterproductive (Clark & Mcphie, 2014). The focus upon sport education is not necessarily the answer for PE (Kirk, 2004) and it has not enabled pupils to develop a critical consciousness (Hill et al, 2018). As we understand more about our pending civilisation collapse and the need for transformative principles to be applied across all spheres of research (Read & Alexander, 2019), surely then it is the root of a ‘crisis of perception’ that needs to be addressed through education (Clarke & McPhee, 2014). But, does the status quo enable these issues to be addressed?

It is Foucault, in the ‘Order Of Things’, who aptly states that we might:

‘...believe that something new is about to begin, something we glimpse only as a thin line of light low on the horizon – that feeling and that impression are perhaps not ill founded. It will be said that they exist, that they have never ceased to be formulated over and over again since the early nineteenth century; it will be said that Hölderlin, Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx all felt this certainty that in them a thought and perhaps a culture were coming to a close,...this perilous imminence whose promise we fear today, whose danger we welcome, is probably not of the same order. Then, the task enjoined upon thought by that annunciation was to establish for man a stable sojourn upon this earth…’

(Foucault, 2001, p.419.)

Both lead professionals I spoke with in regard to the subject of PE and the OOSH period framed equality as central (Speakers M & S, 2021). They both saw developmentally appropriate assessment as essential and were critical upon the reliance of performance-based outcomes. Speaker M (2021) comments upon how we should assess the development of children, so that it is meaningful for both the educator and the pupil. They continue to state that not only is a linear performance model failing children but that both agency and motivation are misaligned with this approach.

One might contend from the above, that it is children themselves who have had their needs pre identified and that our current system of schooling constraints is focused solely upon those needs being met.

‘...PE becomes focused on measurable performance, with notions of ability encoded in policy and school recontextualisation of this policy..’

(Stirrup, 2020, p.17.)

The neoliberalisation and commodification of education:

With the above identified, along with the complexity of education; PE and OOSH, it might be considered that there would be some drive to support the profession to bring about better outcomes. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case.

Not only are these activities largely exclusively designed, supporting the performance ontology, but they are also poorly implemented (Griggs, 2010; APPG, 2020). It is these OOSH, along with PE delivery that have come into question, with the APPG 2020 report, voicing concerns over lack of regard for any kind of accountability.

Considering the ever-increasing drive to marketise everything (Ball & Mannheim, 2004), outsourcing is more easily understood, especially when curriculum areas take an approach that is purely based upon performance. Griggs (2010) writes candidly about the pressures schools find themselves under, demonstrating in 2008, that PE was already readily outsourced due to the lack of confidence of many primary teachers, citing that only a few hours of training within a Post Graduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) is not sufficient to instil confidence, knowledge or skill set to effectively implement the subject. This is supported through conversations with speaker S (2021) who questions the time made available within ITE for PE and calls for schools to put their funding to better use (PE and School Sport, PESS). To be spent upon CPD for all teachers, provided by academics not companies. Speaker S continues to suggest that an alternative use of the funding would be the employment of pedagogically proficient teachers, within primary schools, to support effective implementation of PE.

Callanan et al (2019) further support this with findings from the three-year review of the PESS funding, 2013-2016, that the teaching of PE by external coaches increased by 40%, see table 1.1 (Callanan et al, 2016). This review from the National Centre for Social Research continues, outlining the increase in external sport coaches providing OOSH sessions, rising from 57% to 90%, see table 2.2. Further, the report cites a head teacher who clearly has concern:

‘As soon as it's announced in the press that schools are receiving £9000 extra funding for sport, ‘white van man’ appears with.. the bag of balls.. and the little bit of paper that says he's got a level ‘whatever’ in football coaching. That's not quality. That's not sustainability. That's somebody that's making money out of schools where that money can be better spent’ (Headteacher)

(Cited in Callanan et al, 2016, p.43.)

Table 1.1

⁠

Table 1.2

⁠

It was Lewis (2006) and Evans & Davis (2010) who drew attention to both the potential, and the inequality that OOSH might create and yet, as we see from APPG (2020), it seems that no systematic approach has been taken to ensure that the potential has been realised.

With a performance ontology opposed to one of equality and social justice it appears that performance is perceived as ‘pre-valued’ through an implementation of the National Curriculum (NC 0, and as Hill et al (2018) and Ross & Gibson (2007) state, this is symptomatic of neoliberalism.

‘Neoliberalism is marked by deregulation, open markets, economic liberalisation, and privatisation in the belief that free markets can mitigate economic and social problems.’

(Ross & Gibson, 2007, p.2.)

Schools are a relatively new, but unsurprising, casualty of neoliberalism with the economics of the system necessitating continuous growth and constant new avenues to profit from, thus it is not surprising that schools have been driven to this cause.

‘A not-so-new, but a growing international force that challenges all theoretical positions on social justice stems from neoliberal ideology. At a superficial level, neoliberalism aligns with humanism due to a focus on self-actualisation and individualised education solutions through choice (e.g. private schools, outsourcing education).’

(Hill et al, 2018, p.472.)

Lewis, (2006); Griggs (2010) and Griggs & Randall (2019), consider the transparency of the practice of outsourcing. This is voiced again by Speaker S’ concern for due diligence and safeguarding. The thought that organisations and individuals would be capable of providing ethical practices should be considered at the very outset of any negotiations. Yet there is very little consideration other than basic operations to complete the work (Griggs, 2010). The problem identified as the performance pedagogy leads to, as Powell (2014) suggested, a ‘pragmatic approach’ to outsourcing, leaving teachers feeling that they lacked the necessary skills to implement the performance basis of the subject.

As we have seen from above, it is not possible to achieve social justice and equality through the outsourcing of services. Head teachers ‘don’t know what they don’t know’ (Speaker S, 2021). It works against the very principle of education and it might suggest a total reworking, reimagining and reconceptualising is needed.

The politics of management of both PE and OOSH services:

From Lewis’ vision of the potential of the extended school initiative in 2002 (Lewis, 2006), there seem to have been several catastrophic changes in the way OOSH are offered. Unfortunately, Lewis continued, the activities appear to be provided as an afterthought, with business potential being the driving force behind this so-called value. Lewis foresaw that schools:

‘...will need to develop a sustainable ecological view of the extended school’s place in the community based on systems thinking moving beyond the idea of an extended school being merely a school that is open for longer hours, pursuing its current agenda with the addition of ‘wrap around’ care.’

(Lewis, 2006, p.176.)

Schools have looked to providers to offer a range of services from childcare to football and the value achieved from these provisions has been, to say the least, patchy (APPG, 2021; Griggs, 2010). Griggs (2010); Blair & Capel (2011); Griggs & Randall (2019) continue a critique, pointing out that a race towards the bottom is underway with providers working to offer the best ‘value’ to the schools they cater for. Mainly the value they are talking of is monetary and as is often the case, it is the business manager who liaises and deals with these contracts.

Griggs & Randall (2019) provide a rather clinical explanation for the politics that has led to the management of PE and OOSH to be widely outsourced. Their research walks through the history of ITE, moving from trainees gaining a subject specialism over three and four year degrees, to a one-year PGCE approach, without time nor substance for specialism to be gained. They note an obvious drop in knowledge of the subject (PE) and a lack of the ability of Continuous Professional Development (CPD) to combat this. Poor teacher confidence within PE ultimately led to, as they say, a ‘perfect storm...paving the way to outsourcing’ (Griggs & Randall, 2019, p.667.). They go further, citing the APPG report in 2016 on a fit and healthy childhood, stating PE being seen as a ‘Cinderella subject’, with much funding allocated yet still with foundation status and leaders not being held to account for the impact and potential it has upon pupil outcomes (APPG, 2016, in Griggs & Randall, 2019).

Again it is Griggs & Randall (2019) who state that: