When Labour came into office in 1997 they faced a legacy of neglect on school buildings and the rampant sale of school playing fields. Sports facilities in many schools were dire and funding for sports was ad hoc, disjointed and where it was available inefficient because resources were not shared within local areas.
Whilst many ‘quango’ style initiates of Labour rightly attract criticism putting sports funding into a grass roots level has started to pay dividends. Participation in sport – a key health driver in tackling obesity, diabetes and heart disease – all killer diseases – shot up to 95% amongst all school children. It took over a decade to get there. Targets for sports participation were achievable because the funding followed the targets and council sports and leisure services were part of the action. In short the strategy was working.
Gove’s cuts to school sports funding and the partnership that delivered the coordinated activity is short sited. He has attempted to dress this up as an end to central control and about power to schools but no one should be fooled by such claims. Not all ‘central approaches’ even in Tory eyes are wrong.
The very efficiencies that can be delivered in this area ought to be reason why they should be retained. Sharing sports coaches, facilities and activities between schools is the most efficient use of investment we can expect from sports funding. Claims that money will now be passported to head teachers and therefore still used for sports is laughable.
Asking head teachers to ‘mind the money’ for sports is like asking an alcoholic to look after a bottle of whisky. Headteachers will not be able to resist the urge to use the funds for academic purpose. This money will be absorbed into general teaching funds as it was in the 1980s and early ‘90s. And those that do buy in sports services undoubtedly will go for cheapest price casual labour which is rife across the sports industry.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/20/michael-gove-sport-schools-funding
It is another attack on working class kids whose parents can’t pay for private coaching or private spots club fees. It is ideologically driven but it not about localism or power to schools it about keeping working class kids in their place at the bottom. They deserve a sporting chance but they will not get one.
Anna Rose
