1. Joe Darnell
33414921
Critical Issues in Physical Education and School Sport
Question 2: Critically discuss the implications of current government priorities for young people’s
participation in either physical education or youth sport settings. Give consideration to all young
people, not just the ‘able few’.

2. In recent years, Physical Education and School Sport (PESS) has become an extremely contested
subject area. With children’s levels of cardiorespiratory fitness declining nationally, alongside the
increasing levels of childhood obesity (Lewis, 2014), it is firmly vindicated for PE as a school subject
to be receiving mass amounts of negative attention. Penney and Evans (1997), stated that ‘particular
values and interests are being promoted and legitimated whilst others are excluded and
subordinated’ (p.24). Through the consideration of Penney and Evans’ appraisal, this essay will
critically discuss the implications of current government priorities for young people’s participation in
PE, whilst giving consideration to all young people.
One entity that must maintain clarity from the onset, is that sport and PE are not tantamount, and
that there are significant differences that help to distinguish between the two (Kay, 2005). In sport,
the focus primarily lies in the content of the activity and serves a purpose of developing
performance, through the consideration of techniques and tactics (Wright, 2004). PE however, is a
process of learning, with the primary content being physical. It serves the purpose of enhancing the
knowledge, skills and understanding of pupils, in order to promote physical competence (Flintoff,
2013). Sporting activities do contribute to these processes of learning, yet the focus lies with the
universal development of the child, rather than on the activity itself (Wright, 2004).
Despite the presence of a shared view of what it is, the general structure and purpose of PE have
been subject to scrutiny and debate ever since the first National Curriculum of Physical Education
(NCPE) was enforced in 1992. From the perspective of QCA (2007a), PE should permit young people
to learn about the relationship between their health and physical activity, so that they are able to
make informed decisions about their lifestyles. Whereas The Department for Children, Schools and
Families (2008) possess an entirely different viewpoint; whereby they consider that school PE should
play a vital role in the identification and development of ‘future champions’. Until these conflicting
viewpoints are diminished, PE will continue to be perceived as a floundering subject in the eyes of

3. society. It requires the establishment of a defining structure and purpose that can be agreed upon
by the vast majority of influential parties. If the overarching aim of PE lacks clarity, then policy
fabricators will consume difficulty in enforcing valuable strategies that can positively influence the
subject.
The entire government comprehends the value of sport. They recognise its value in improving public
health and tackling obesity. They identify value in providing young people with confidence and
purpose, as a means of diverting them from crime and drugs. Ultimately, they possess an awareness
of the value in the life lessons that sport teaches (Jowell, in DCMS, 2002). According to Penney and
Evans (2005, p.21); ‘policy frames and forms the fabric of our personal and professional lives’. With
the common association between PE and sport, developments in PE are of great interest to policy
makers within the government’s curriculum agencies and education departments (Penney & Evans,
2005). The emergence of a ‘moral panic’ surrounding the state of young people’s health in Great
Britain (Houlihan & Green, 2006), prompted a huge wakeup call within the British government in the
late 1980’s. The questioning of PE that occurred as a result of the BBC’s Panorama programme ‘Is
your child fit for life?’, forced the government to take action. Subsequently, since the arrival of
concern for PE; the government has applied countless policies and invested heavily in the subject,
with an aim to increase the physical activity levels of the nation’s young people.
In spite of the implementation of numerous policies and strategies, aimed at improving PE for young
people, Kirk (2010) has argued that the practice of the subject has persisted a severe lack of change
since the 1950’s. Kirk believes that the teaching of isolated sporting techniques that is central to the
teaching of the subject, serves a lot of young people in a negative manner. This strong argument
presented by Kirk, conforms to a concept theorised by Evans and Davies (2006). They contested that
PE is ‘socially constructed’, whereby they implied that particular forms of knowledge, pedagogies
and methods of assessment are selected, whilst others are omitted and marginalised. These

4. constructions ultimately, lead to the needs of particulars groups of people being better served than
others. Generally, policy is implemented via a top down, hierarchical structure, and therefore within
the profession of PE, teachers are only acting as passive recipients (Penney & Evans, 2005). This
proposes a significant issue, as it means that new initiatives and strategies are being implemented
on the basis of what the people in parliament, ‘think’ they know about PE and school sport (PESS).
This is then being accepted by the people who are delivering PE to young people (PE Teachers),
regardless of whether they agree with it or if it suits the specific needs of their school and pupils.
Therefore, this method of applying policy is endangering the PE experience for innumerable young
people across the country.
As a means of improving their approach to policy making and application, the government must first
consider their methods of research that inform their decisions with regard to policy. Currently, there
is more information surrounding participation rates rather than information surrounding the actual
experiences of young people in PESS (Dyson, 2006). The nature of ‘participation levels’ research is
extremely limited in what it actually informs about PESS for young people (Flintoff, 2013). The
research formulates useful platforms to map broad trends: however, it fails to inform of the
meaning or value of physical activities in the lives of young people, or of how this may adjust over
time (Wright & Macdonald, 2010). An additional issue with ‘participation levels’ research, is how it
compares all young people to what is considered the ‘norm’, which tends to be the rates of
participation of middle-class males. In the undertaking of this approach, certain collections of young
people are being highlighted as ‘problematic’, despite the limited information that is presented with
regard to their background, or further reasoning as to why they are not participating in physical
activity (Coakley & White, 1992). Conclusively, these approaches to research that are informing the
central basis for many of the government’s policies, could be acting as a crucial catalyst in the
marginalisation of certain pupils in PESS.

5. The National Curriculum is a group of subjects and standards acquired by schools, to ensure a
consistency of learning amongst all children across the country (Gov.uk, 2016). The Education
Reform Act of 1988 enforced the first National Curriculum for England, although the original NCPE
was not a feature until the Department of Education and Science implemented their curriculum
model in 1992. Ever since the initial introduction of PE to the National Curriculum, the NCPE has
featured as a core component, with the application of four updated versions in 1995, 1999, 2007
and 2013. By working alongside strategies such as PE, School Sport and Club Link Strategy (PESSCL)
and PE, School Sport and Young People Strategy (PESSYP), the NCPE aims to ensure that all pupils:
develop the competence to excel in a broad range of physical activities and lead lifestyles that are
healthy and active (Gov.uk, 2013).
The NCPE also aims to engage all children in competitive sports and activities - an element of the
curriculum that triggers concern amongst many. Competitive team sports tend to dominate the
lion’s share of the PE curriculum (Smith et al., 2009), which is leading to the exclusion and
disengagement of the lesser-abled children (Bailey, 2006). According to Evans (2004), the dominance
of games, parallel to a pedagogy of sports performance, is resulting in the fostering of particular
conceptions of ability within PESS. Due to this, some children are able to succeed and enjoy PE,
whilst others are labelled as ‘lacking in ability’ and have negative experiences of the subject. A
second issue that can be identified from the NCPE is the dominance of traditional team sports.
Despite an Ofsted (2009) report confirming that PESSYP positively impacted the widening in range of
activities provided to children, they also expressed concern for the inconsistency of non-traditional
activities available to children across schools. A longitudinal study conducted by Engstrom (2008),
identified that children with a good breadth of sports participation possess a much greater chance of
being physically active in later life. Parallel to this, Lewis (2014) recognised that children often have a
greater interest in participating in activities that are unavailable within the traditional PE curriculum,
such as Parkour, Skateboarding and Cycling. In light of such eye-opening research, it is overwhelming

6. to witness the government continually prioritising the traditional team sports within their policies
and strategies.
A second policy initiative that can be considered, is the School Sport Partnership Programme (SSPP).
School Sport Partnerships (SSPs) were a component of the Labour Government’s Physical Education,
PESSCL strategy (Ofsted, 2011). SSPP consisted of partnerships and families of schools working
together to produce an articulate structure of sporting opportunities for young people, with a
specialist sports college at the hub of the SSPs (Flintoff, 2013). The primary aim of the programme
was to increase the percentage of 5 – 16-year-old school children in England – who occupy a
minimum of two hours per week participating in high-quality PESS within and beyond the Curriculum
– to 75% by 2006 (Ofsted, 2004). SSPP was applied over a seven-year period between 2000 and
2007, and there has been sufficient research to suggest that they had a significant bearing on the
improvement of the variety and eminence of PESS for young people (Ofsted, 2011). In their SSPP
report summary, Ofsted (2011) outlined that the programme increased the capacity of individual
schools to improve the quality and quantity of their PESS, as a result of strategically planning
collaboratively across a number of schools. They also stated that SSPs played a prominent role in the
professional development of teachers, which ultimately assisted them in their quest to deliver high-
quality PE to young people in schools. Supporting the report, formulated by Ofsted with regard to
SSPP, the Loughborough Partnership reported in their evaluation (2008) that the programme
increased the range of opportunities available for children to be physically active.
Reviews and summaries of SSPP, such as those of Ofsted (2011) and Loughborough (2008),
suggested that the programme operated well in enhancing PESS for young people and developing
teachers. Despite this, once the coalition government formulated in 2010, they immediately decided
to discontinue funding the scheme (DfE, 2010b). Again, this led fairly to the questioning of the
programme and the enforcers of policy within the government. In an evaluation of the programme,

7. Flintoff (2008) specified that offering supplementary opportunity for children to compete in
competitive sport is an ineffective method of enticing young people who have previously had
negative experiences of physical activity to participate in PESS. Promoting competition in traditional
team sports was a huge focus point of the programme (Flintoff, 2011), which ultimately excluded
and disengaged the lesser-abled children, due to the fact that children generally tend to put further
exertion into activities in which they feel competent (Lewis, 2014). The research conducted by Lewis
(2014), also proposed that the activities in which most children are best interested in are often not
available within the PE curriculum. With this in mind, manufacturers of the programme should have
included more “everyday activities” such as skateboarding, martial arts or cycling, in an attempt to
interest a much wider range of children in sport and physical activity.
A second issue highlighted with regard to the programme lies with the coordinators, and how they
fixated more profoundly on increasing the quantity of opportunities available to children, rather
than the actual quality of the pedagogy and learning experiences (Smith & Leech, 2010). Alongside
this claim, Kirk (2005) decorated how important it is to create a task-orientated climate and avoid
the ego-orientated climates, which concentrate upon and around sporting performance in PE. The
statement, which he constructed around the achievement-goal theory (AGT) of motivation (Nicholls,
1984), assisted the further acknowledgement of how SSPP failed as an intervention to improve PESS.
Conclusively, SSPP prioritised the inclusion competitive team sports rather than actually attempting
to improve the quality of PE for children, which sustained the ever present exclusion and
marginalisation of certain groups of young people.
The final policy to be conferred is School Games. School Games was produced in 2010 as an
Olympic/Paralympic style sport competition for schools and were a key feature of the Government’s
plans to generate an eternal sporting legacy from 2012 Olympic Games held in London. With the aim
of further reviving competitive sport in schools, the policy was enforced to provide all schools in

8. England with the opportunity to participate. As a means of engaging all children across the
participating schools, the games introduced different levels of competition to suit a range of
abilities: intra school competition; inter school competition; county festivals; and national finals
(Sport England, 2016). As the initiative is still being enforced across the country, it is difficult to
assess the true impact it has – and is having upon young people. However, a national statistic run by
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport reported that since monitoring began in 2011, they
have witnessed a positive trend. Their research established increases in the proportion of
respondents who reported to be taking part in competitive sport both in and outside of school
(Sport England, 2013). In an executive summary report, Sport England (2016) concluded that the
School Games is well placed to make a strong contribution towards achieving the ambitions of Sport
England’s new strategy, which is aiming towards an active nation.
Although the research findings based on participation figures – which, as accentuated earlier, fails to
inform who is involved and the nature of the pedagogy (Flintoff, 2011) – highlight School Games in a
positive light, there remains an enormous scope for the initiative to be questioned. When the
coalition government came to power in 2010, they announced the School Games as a ‘radical’ new
approach to youth sport, however it is clear that their proposed approach is lacking originality. Once
again, the policy adopts an extremely elitist approach to sport (Capel and Piotrowski, 2000), with
competitive elements situated at the very heart of the games. This is something that has become all
too familiar within PESS, with a competitive sport discourse dominating for a number of decades
with very little change, despite the countless policy initiatives that have been implemented to
enforce change (Penney & Evans, 1999). A survey conducted by Marylebone Cricket Club and the
Chance to Shine charity (2014), identified that nearly two thirds (64%) of children questioned stated
that they would be "relieved, not bothered or happier" if competition was not a factor. With such
statistics regarding children’s views of competitive sports recurring ever so frequently, it is
fascinating that the government continue to prioritise the discourse of competitive sports within

9. PESS. Penney and Evans (1999) have called for more radical changes to be made to the nature and
discourse of PESS and the National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL, 2015) trust that true
potential for such modification lies within the recent rise in the number of academy schools across
the United Kingdom.
Academies are independent schools, which obtain their funding directly from the government,
rather than through a local authority. The running of academies lies entirely with the head teacher
or principal, however they are supervised by individual altruistic bodies known as academy trusts.
These trusts provide schools with advice, support, and a calculated overview of the functioning of
the school. Ultimately, academies possess more freedom than other schools to innovate. Currently,
2,075 out of 3,381 secondary schools in the United Kingdom have an academy status; a number that
inflated dramatically under the coalition government in 2010 (BBC News, 2016).
The upsurge in academy schools based in the UK, has crafted a firm platform for change within PE
(NCTL, 2015). The freedom over curriculum choice that arises with the status of an academy school,
could potentially provide the participating schools with the perfect opportunity to retreat from the
dominant discourses that are continually promoting the needs of some, whilst subordinating the
needs of others in PESS (Penney, 2006). Essentially, academy schools present the prospect of
narrowing the huge disconnect that is currently evident between teachers and pupils (Flintoff, 2011)
due to the freedom that they provide for practitioners. If these types of independent schools elect to
listen to the voice of pupils and give them what they so desperately desire – to spread their interests
across a range of activities (Flintoff & Scraton, 2001), and to participate in non-competitive sports
(Chance to Shine, 2014) – then they may well witness a noteworthy increase in PESS participation
rates. This postulation stimulates in accordance with AGT (1984), whereby it is clearly theorised that
through the construction of a task-orientated learning environment, which would occur through the
elimination of competitive sport, children will experience advanced levels of motivation to partake in

10. PESS.
Nevertheless, it is essential to recognise that the increase in number of academy schools in the UK,
could potentially have a serious negative impact upon PE. Ultimately, the rise of academy schools
could trigger a transformation within the traditional school environment (Boffey and Mansell, 2016).
With the freedom of curriculum choice that descends with the academy status, PE is located in an
extremely vulnerable position. There is consistent questioning of PESS, as a result of the continuing
decline in health of young people across the country (Lewis, 2014), alongside recommendations for
PE to be ‘downgraded’ from a core to a foundation subject (DfE, 2011). The concerned notion that
consumes PE as a school subject could eventually direct a number of academy schools towards a
complete disregard for PESS in favour of focusing their interests more directly on other key subjects
such as English and Mathematics. The prospect of which presents a matter that would be truly
detrimental to the development of young people and the future of society.
In summary, this essay has critically discussed the implications of current government priorities for
the participation of young people in PE. Through the consideration of Penney and Evans’ appraisal,
alongside an in depth observation of three policies that have been applied to PESS: a number of
prevailing issues have materialised. First of all, it would appear that there is a significant issue with
the research, which informs policy (Flintoff, 2011) and with how the policies are implemented
(Penney and Evans, 2005). Furthermore, there appears to be an elitist attitude within PESS (Capel
and Piotrowski, 2000), with the government recurrently promoting a discourse of competitive sport,
which is ultimately excluding a huge proportion of young people within PESS (Flintoff, 2013).
Alongside this, traditional team sports are continuing to dominate the curriculum, despite the steady
increase in popularity of lifelong activities such as cycling and skateboarding, which suggests that if
they were to be further included, participation rates in physical activity across a range of young
people would increase dramatically (Loughborough Partnership, 2008b; Lewis, 2014). Finally, the rise

11. of academy schools in the United Kingdom has presented policy fabricators and practitioners of PESS
with an opportunity to apply the positive changes, of which are so desperately required in order to
tackle the issues situated within the current curriculum. Conversely, they must also maintain an
awareness of the threat that academy schools pose to PE as a school subject. With the freedom of
choice over the curriculum that derives with the academy status, there is always a worrying
vulnerability that surrounds PESS. Fundamentally, the government must ensure that PESS remains at
the very peak of all agendas that possess a concern for children and young people.
Word Count: 3082

12. References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), pp.261-
271.
Ames, C. and Archer, J. (1988) Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes.
Journal of Educational Psychology.
Altshuler, S. and Schmautz, T. (2006). No Hispanic Student Left Behind: The Consequences of "High Stakes" Testing.
Children & Schools, 28(1), pp.5-14.
Ball, S. (2010) 'New Class Inequalities in Education: why education policy maybe looking in the wrong place! Education
Policy, Civil Society and Social Class', International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 30 (3/4), 155-166.
Bailey, R., Armour, K., Kirk, D., Jess, M., Pickup, I., Sandford, R. and BERA Physical Education and Sport P, (2009). The
educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: an academic review. Research Papers in Education,
24(1), pp.1-27.
BBC News. (2016). What does it mean to be an academy school? - BBC News. [online] Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13274090 [Accessed 21 Nov. 2016].
Boffey, D. and Mansell, W. (2016). Are England’s academies becoming a cash cow for business? [online] The Guardian.
Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jun/12/academy-schools-cash-cow-business [Accessed 6 Dec.
2016].
Capel, S. and Piotrowski, S. (2000) Issues in Physical Education, London, Routledge / Falmer.
Chance to Shine. (2014). News: It’s only a game? Competition in school sport under threat. [online] Available at:
https://www.chancetoshine.org/news/it-s-only-a-game-competition-in-school-sport-under-threat [Accessed 8 Jan. 2017].
Coakley, J. and White, A. (1992). ‘Making decisions: gender and sport participation amongst British adolescents’, Sociology
of Sport Journal, 9: 20 – 35.
Department for Education. (2016). 2010 to 2015 government policy: sports participation - GOV.UK. [online] Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-sports-participation/2010-to-2015-
government-policy-sports-participation#appendix-2-the-school-games [Accessed 13 Dec. 2016].
Department for Education. (2016) Schools that work for everyone: Government Consultation. Pages 1-34. (Online)
Available at: https://consult.education.gov.uk/school-frameworks/schools-that-work-for-
everyone/supporting_documents/SCHOOLS%20THAT%20WORK%20FOR%20EVERYONE%20%20FINAL.pdf (Accessed
25/10/2016)
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)/Strategy Unit. (2002). Game Plan: A Strategy for Delivering Government’s
Sport and Physical Activity Objectives, London: Strategy Unit.
DfE. (2010b). ‘A new approach to school sports: decentralising power, incentivising competition and trusting teachers’,
press release. [Online] Available at: www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/pressnotices/a0071098/a-new-approach-for-
school-sports [Accessed 05/01/17].
DfE. (2011). “The framework for the National Curriculum: A report by the expert panel for the National Curriculum review’’.
[Online] Available at: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-00135-2011
[Accessed 06/01/17].
Dyson, B. (2006). ‘Students’ perspectives of Physical Education’, in Kirk, D, Macdonald, D. and Sullivan, M. (2006) The
Handbook of Physical Education, London, Sage.
Engstrom, L-M. (2008) Who is physically active? Cultural capital and sports participation from adolescence to middle age –
a 38-year follow-up study. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 13: 319-343.
Escartí, A. and Gutiérrez, M. (2001). Influence of the motivational climate in physical education on the intention to practice
physical activity or sport. European Journal of Sport Science, 1(4), pp.1-12.

13. Evans, J. (1990 ) 'Defining a subject: the rise and rise of the new PE?', British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol, 11, No.
2, pp.155-169.
Evans, J. (2004). Making a Difference? Education and Ability in Physical Education. European Physical Education Review,
10(1), pp.95-108.
Evans, J. and Davies, B. (2006) ‘Social class and Physical Education’, in Kirk, D, Macdonald, D. and Sullivan, M (eds.), The
Handbook of Physical Education, London, Sage.
Flintoff, A. and Scraton, S. (2001). ‘Stepping into active leisure? Young women’s perceptions of active lifestyles and their
experiences of school physical education’, Sport, Education and Society, 6 (1): 5 – 22.
Flintoff, A., Foster, R. and Wystawnoha, S. (2011). Promoting and sustaining high quality physical education and school
sport through school sport partnerships. European Physical Education Review, 17(3), pp.341-351.
Flintoff, A. (2008). “Targeting Mr Average: participation, gender equity, and school sport partnerships’’, Sport Education
and Society, 13 (4): 413 – 431.
Flintoff, A. (2013) ‘Physical Education and School Sport, in Hylton, K. (2013). Sport development. London: Routledge.
Foster, D. (2015). Briefing Paper: School Sport Partnerships. [online] Parliment.uk. Available at:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06052/SN06052.pdf [Accessed 13 Dec. 2016].
Gov.uk. (2013). National curriculum in England: Physical Education programmes of study. [online] Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-education-programmes-of-
study/national-curriculum-in-england-physical-education-programmes-of-study [Accessed 15 Dec. 2016].
Gov.uk. (2016). The National Curriculum. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/national-
curriculum/overviewhttps://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/overview [Accessed 6 Jan. 2017].
Hastie, P. A. (1998). Skill and tactical development during a Sport Education season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 69, 368-379.
Hay, P., & Macdonald, D. (2010) Evidence for the social construction of ability in physical education, Sport, Education and
Society, 15, 1-18.
Hunt, J. (2012) ‘Press release: four thousand community sport clubs to be created to drive a sporting habit for life’, [Online]
Available at http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/8762.aspx (Accessed 15 Dec. 2016)
Houlihan, B. (2000) Sporting excellence, schools and sports development: The politics of crowded policy spaces, European
Physical Education Review, 6, 2, pp.171-193.
Houlihan, B. and Green, M. (2006). The changing status of school sport and physical education: explaining policy change.
Sport, Education and Society, 11(1), pp.73-92.
Hylton, K. (2013). Sport development. London: Routledge.
Kay, W. (2005) ' A Rose is a Rose by any other name', But Physical Education and Sport are not the same, Bulletin of
Physical Education, 41, 15-22.
Kirk, D, Macdonald, D. and Sullivan, M. (2006). The Handbook of Physical Education, London, Sage.
Kirk, D. (2005). Physical education, youth sport and lifelong participation: the importance of early learning experiences.
European Physical Education Review, 11(3), pp.239-255.
Kirk, D. (2010). Physical Education Futures, London: Routledge.
Lewis, K. (2014). Pupils' and teachers' experiences of school-based physical education: a qualitative study. BMJ Open, 4(9).
Loughborough Partnership. (2008a). ‘ School Sport Partnerships: Final annual monitoring and evaluation report: The
Partnership Development Manager Survey’, [Online] Available at www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ssehs/research/centres-
institutes/youth-sport [Accessed 04/01/17].

14. Metcalf, B., Hosking, J., Jeffery, A., Henley, W. and Wilkin, T. (2015). Exploring the Adolescent Fall in Physical Activity.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 47(10), pp.2084-2092.
National College for Teaching & Leadership. (2015). Governance in multi-academy trusts. Gov.uk. [online] Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/458632/governance-in-multi-academy-
trusts_Sept2015.pdf [Accessed 8 Jan. 2017].
National Council of Teachers of English. (2014). How Standardized Tests Shape and Limit Student Learning. [Online]
Available at http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/CC/0242-nov2014/CC0242PolicyStandardized.pdf
(Accessed 25 Oct. 16)
Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance.
Psychological Review, 91(3), pp.328-346.
Office for Standards in Education. (2004). School Sport Partnerships. [online] Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownl
oad/HMI%202150.pdf.pdf [Accessed 13 Dec. 2016].
Office for Standards in Education. (2011). School Sport Partnerships: A Survey of Good Practice, London: Crown Copyright.
[Online] Available at: www.ofsted.gov.uk/news/learning-lessons-school-sport-partnerships [Accessed 04/01/17].
Office for Standards in Education. (2011). School Sport Partnerships: Report Summary, London: Crown Copyright. [Online]
Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/413540/School_Sport_Partnerships_-
_summary.pdf [Accessed 04/01/17].
Penney, D (2006) ‘Curriculum construction and change’, in Kirk, D., Macdonald, D. and O’Sullivan, M. (eds.), The handbook
of Physical Education, London: Sage.
Penney, D. & Evans, J. (1997) Naming the Game. Discourse and Domination in Physical Education and Sport in England and
Wales. European Physical Education Review, 3,1.
Penney, D. and Evans, J. (1999) Politics, Policy and Practice in Physical Education, London: E and F N Spon.
Penney, D. and Evans, J. (2005) Policy, power and politics in PE, in K. Green and K. Hardman (eds) PE: Essential Issues,
London, Sage.
Penney, D., Clarke, G., Quill, M., Kitchin, D. (2005) Sport Education in Physical Education, London: Routledge.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (2007a). ‘Physical Education: Programme of study for Key Stage 3 and
attainment target’, [Online] Available at
www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/secondary/b00198952/pe/ks3/programme [Accessed 16
Dec. 16).
Rooney, K. (2016). TES: Leave ‘social mobility’ outside the school gate. [online] Available at:
https://www.tes.com/news/tes-magazine/tes-magazine/leave-social-mobility-outside-school-gate [Accessed 25 Oct.
2016].
Smith, A. and Leech, R. (2010). ‘Evidence. What evidence?’: evidence-based policy making and School Sport Partnerships in
North West England. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 2(3), pp.327-345.
Sport England. (2012). School Games: Executive Summary Year 1. [Online] Available at
https://www.sportengland.org/media/4583/school-games-executive-summary-2012.pdf [Accessed 15 Dec 2016]
Sport England. (2013). Sainsbury’s School Games Evaluation: Executive Summary Year 1. [Online] Available at
https://www.sportengland.org/media/4252/school-games-executive-summary-2013.pdf [Accessed 17 Dec 2016]
Sport England. (2016). School Games Review: Executive Summary Report. [Online] Available at
https://www.sportengland.org/media/10902/school-games-review-exec-summary.pdf [Accessed 16 Dec 2016]
Wright, L. (2004) Preserving the value of happiness in primary school physical education, Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 9(2), 149-163.

15. Wright, J. and Macdonald, D. (2010). Young People, Physical Activity and the Everyday, London: Routledge.
Wright, J., Macdonald, D. and Groom, L. (2003) ‘Physical activity and young people: beyond participation’, Sport, Education
and Society, 8 (1): 17-34.