Professor Margaret Talbot - afPE

ePolitix.com speaks to Margaret Talbot, chief executive of the Association for Physical Education, about the launch of their PE manifesto and the goals of the afPE for the rest of 2008.

What are afPE's primary goals for the rest of 2008?

Professor Margaret Talbot: We are going to issue a manifesto for physical education at the beginning of September — to hit the party conference season — to set out the issues we think are important and some of the concrete solutions that can be found to some of the weaknesses in the system.

The other thing we are doing is increasing the number of services we offer for continuing professional development in physical education for the specialist sports colleges and school structures. It is very interesting that they are approaching us for specialist help, particularly given the new curriculum in secondary schools which is being implemented next month for Year 7. 

Everyone is talking about the Olympics, are you concerned about physical education's place in the legacy of the London 2012 Games?

Professor Talbot: First of all, let us celebrate the success our competitors have had, which I think shows that the investment in talent development has been very successful.

We have always had the talent in this country, though we have not always been able to muster the level of investment made for Beijing 2008. Going into Athens, for instance, it was estimated that the UK invested only one-twelfth of what the Australians invested. That demonstrated that we needed to do something differently, and I think that has been proven now. 

It is not just about money, it is also about the expertise and support structures we have in place. Part of that support structure is physical education and I am firmly convinced that it is making a direct contribution to Team GB's success in the Olympics.

There are quite a number of physical education teachers who were themselves Olympians in Beijing and many Olympians in Beijing who owed their early interest in physical activity and sport to their physical education teachers. I just wish that we compiled better research and data on this so we could draw some direct relationship.

There is concern, however, that even the talented end of the spectrum will struggle to make sure that funding is continued, particularly with the shortfall from the private sector. There will perhaps almost inevitably be a drift towards the elite end which will result in less investment in grassroots physical activity and sports, and particularly in physical education. 

This happened in Australia and it is remarkable how much their health figures have deteriorated in the period since Sydney, when they made the quite bad decision to redirect funding away from community participation into talent development.

You've said before that the lack of training primary school teachers received in Initial Teacher Training was causing concern to you. Has the government since addressed this?

Professor Talbot: Let's just make it clear; it is some primary teachers, because some initial teacher training providers do make adequate provisions. Their graduates come out into schools confident and able to deliver physical education in primary schools perfectly adequately — particularly if backed up by professional development. 

That means, of course, that if they can do it, they all can do it. Therefore it is even more reprehensible that our estimate is that nearly 40 per cent of newly qualified teachers going into primary schools will have had six hours or less initial teacher training for physical education, which is just scandalous. 

We have the shortest period of initial teacher training for post-graduates in western Europe. We are not the only subject concerned about this, in terms of the quality of delivery, but we are the only subject where there is a direct relationship with safety and the possibility of accidents to children.

What can you say about the afPE's National College for Continuing Professional Development?

Professor Talbot: It is the first one of its kind. We are the only subject with such a national college that has accredited provisions across the board for physical education, not only for teachers but also for those assisting teachers in the delivery of physical education, like coaches, development officers, teaching assistants and higher level teaching assistants. 

We are very proud of the fact that we have accredited our annual conference, which means that everyone attending can count the credits towards masters level qualifications. We think we are well ahead of the government's policy of teaching as a masters level profession, but this can be achieved in bite-size pieces with relevant continuing professional development.

Are enough provisions being made to ensure the government's commitment to five hours high quality physical education each week is being met?

Professor Talbot: I am not sure there will ever be enough, because this is such a big, ambitious target. That is not to say that I do not welcome the target, I think it is a really good ambition. 

I am concerned that there isn't sufficient funding being directed to the 100 per cent of children for whom national curriculum physical education is a statutory entitlement. That of course relates back to the initial training issue: if there is a systemic weakness, it needs fixing, but given that it is not being fixed, we need to invest more in in-service training. 

afPE's other concern is that the current physical education school sport strategy for young people actually seems to write off 20 per cent of children as being, "unwilling or unable to engage in organized sport". If that happens while children are still in the school system, it means that the gap between those children who have the opportunity and those children who do not, will never be closed.

We believe that the Every Child Matters agenda really should transcend the difficulties that there may well be by making sure that there is provision for those children who are, for instance, carers for other members of their family, or who because of family circumstances must work after school, and therefore cannot take part in extended school and after-school activities. 

We have to be much more imaginative in considering how we can encourage these young people to be physically active for three hours beyond the school day. A national study on children's physical activity released this month showed that seven per cent of children did physical activity only within their physical education lessons, and there was no other opportunity for them to do so beyond that. We have got to change that.

The other problem we have is also systemic. If we are going to achieve the five hour target, that means we must make sure that there are enough good coaches and development officers out there. They must be properly qualified, whether they are paid or volunteers — and of course they must have the same qualifications whichever status they are.

At the moment, the national governing body awards are getting more expensive and difficult for people to access because of the government's policy, which targets funding for further education away from adults and towards 16 to 19-year-olds without level 2 qualifications.

The majority of adult volunteers do not fit into that category so there is an unintended consequence that national governing body awards are getting more and more expensive. This is actually militating against another of the government's PSA targets, which is to increase volunteering.

What are the most pressing issues for your members in 2008?

Professor Talbot: I think it is about finding a balance when it comes to the expectations that exist of physical education. We are the only school subject which has policy expectations outside of education.

We are a national curriculum subject because of the educational value of physical education, particularly in terms of physical literacy and physical development. But there are also really quite exacting expectations related to health, particularly in combating childhood obesity.

Yet at the moment there is absolutely minimal funding for a coherent approach to promoting physical activity amongst children. There are now some draft guidelines being issued by NICE, which we will be commenting upon. That is one policy area, and then of course as we have already mentioned, the policy area related to sport. Therefore, physical education is pulled between education, sport and health expectations, with actually very little investment from any of the three.

Another pressing matter for many members is the whole issue of health and safety. I had a telephone call this week from the BBC who had spoken to a hammer throwing coach who said that physical education teachers are scared of teaching athletic throws events because of safety issues and the fear of litigation.  He cited the example of one school which had forbidden hurdling because someone had fallen down and hurt themselves. 

We are living in a very risk-averse society and yet that also means that our children are not able to understand and recognise risk and manage it for themselves, in the way that I did, when I was a child roaming freely around Worcestershire, in a way which I think is not allowed for many children these days.

I think the balance between sensible risk assessment and sensible risk management and parents being overprotective and schools being scared of litigation even when they have take the right measures to make children safe, does need to be managed better.

Do you think that government takes seriously the link between obesity and lack of physical education? 

Professor Talbot: I think that the Department of Health has been very slow to recognise any measures related to prevention. If you look at the expenditure of the Department of Health, it was criticised very heavily a few years back by the King's Fund for investing so little in preventative measures. 

Physical activity is one of the most powerful "Yes" factors for young people. Nearly everything else is a "No" factor – don't smoke, don't take drugs, don't eat too much; whereas physical activity is a "Yes" factor and it ought to be fun and enjoyable.

The actual investment in promotion of physical activity needs to go much wider, beyond physical education and school life, into the community — it needs to be a seamless multi-agency provision and the Department of Health is miles away from achieving that.

What steps do you think that government, schools and the community can take to reverse this risk-averse culture that we live in?

Professor Talbot: I think it is about recognising the value of the kinds of activities which some parents seem to be fearful of, and also recognising that children do need some personal freedom. 

There was a television program a few months back, where one parent was even talking about putting microchips into her own children so that she would always know where they are. That is such an invasion of privacy. You do it to your pets with a collar and a lead, but surely you don't do that to your children.

Children can learn about the natural environment in a context where you have skilled teachers or leaders who make sure that they do understand dangers and threats and can pass on the competences necessary to identify risk. 

We know, for instance, from the Royal Life Saving Society statistics, that boys are much more likely to drown in open water and pools, than girls are, because of their tendency to show off and do things which they don't think about carefully.

We need to help children to see that open water can be dangerous and to treat it with respect. Unless they actually see those risks, for themselves, they are not likely to be prepared to manage them later. 

Lastly, we have just published the new edition of 'Safe Practice in Physical Education and School Sport', which gives a real back-up for risk assessment and risk management across a whole range of activities. It is the "bible" for anyone who is dealing with physical education and physical activity in schools and with young people.

And would you encourage MPs to look at this publication as well?

Professor Margaret Talbot: I am not sure they would wade through the whole volume as it is a very heavy publication. MPs don't have time to read great tomes, but I think they could certainly encourage their constituency schools and local authorities to buy it and make sure their health and safety officers do.

Do you have any final messages for ePolitix.com's readers?

Professor Talbot: Just to say that we tend to take for granted things which are not under threat in our own context. I was in China at the Scientific Convention which precedes the Olympics on physical education and sport science and it is very clear that the UK is a source of real envy because physical education is a statutory entitlement for children in all four of our home countries. 

We must never take that for granted, because it allows us to build a system of both education and sport which is genuinely for all children. Only by embedding that provision in schools, can we make sure that all children learn the skills, the confidence and the understanding that they need for lifelong participation in and love of movement and physical activity.