Simplistic Policy, Skewed Consequences: Taking Stock of English Physical Education, School Sport and Physical Activity Policy since 2013
Saved in:
| Title: | Simplistic Policy, Skewed Consequences: Taking Stock of English Physical Education, School Sport and Physical Activity Policy since 2013 |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Lindsey, Iain (ORCID |
| Source: | European Physical Education Review. May 2021 27(2):278-296. |
| Availability: | SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2021 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Education Level: | Elementary Secondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Educational Policy, Foreign Countries, Physical Education, Physical Activities, Athletics, Educational History, Policy Analysis, Elementary Secondary Education, Political Attitudes |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom (England) |
| DOI: | 10.1177/1356336X20939111 |
| ISSN: | 1356-336X |
| Abstract: | The period from 2013 to 2019 was one of relative continuity in policies for physical education (PE), school sport and physical activity (PESSPA) in England. Starting from the advent of the government's flagship PE and Sport Premium (PES Premium) initiative in 2013, the end of the period was reached 20 with renewed uncertainty in 2020 about the future of PESSPA policy. It is therefore an appropriate point for this article to 'take stock' of PESSPA policies and their consequences since 2013. The political science literature on policy design underpins the approach to considering the mix of both policy goals and those instruments used by governments to achieve them. To do so, a comprehensive set of policy documents, published reports, academic literature and empirical research on schools' use of the PES Premium was interrogated. Policy goals articulated by government since 2013 reinforced, rather than resolved, long-standing debates about the purpose of PESSPA. Health-related objectives rose in prominence, but sat uneasily alongside continued commitments to competitive sport. Only a narrow range of the policy instruments available to governments were used in pursuit of their policy goals. PES Premium funding was solely distributed to primary schools, with limited use of regulation and information systems to shape PESSPA provision. These aspects of policy design contributed to increasing reliance on external coaches in primary schools and indicators of a decline in secondary school provision and participation, resonant of prioritisation of short-term approaches over longer-term strategic development. Possibilities for improving future PESSPA policies are considered as a result. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2021 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1294136 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | The period from 2013 to 2019 was one of relative continuity in policies for physical education (PE), school sport and physical activity (PESSPA) in England. Starting from the advent of the government's flagship PE and Sport Premium (PES Premium) initiative in 2013, the end of the period was reached 20 with renewed uncertainty in 2020 about the future of PESSPA policy. It is therefore an appropriate point for this article to 'take stock' of PESSPA policies and their consequences since 2013. The political science literature on policy design underpins the approach to considering the mix of both policy goals and those instruments used by governments to achieve them. To do so, a comprehensive set of policy documents, published reports, academic literature and empirical research on schools' use of the PES Premium was interrogated. Policy goals articulated by government since 2013 reinforced, rather than resolved, long-standing debates about the purpose of PESSPA. Health-related objectives rose in prominence, but sat uneasily alongside continued commitments to competitive sport. Only a narrow range of the policy instruments available to governments were used in pursuit of their policy goals. PES Premium funding was solely distributed to primary schools, with limited use of regulation and information systems to shape PESSPA provision. These aspects of policy design contributed to increasing reliance on external coaches in primary schools and indicators of a decline in secondary school provision and participation, resonant of prioritisation of short-term approaches over longer-term strategic development. Possibilities for improving future PESSPA policies are considered as a result. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1356-336X |
| DOI: | 10.1177/1356336X20939111 |
