____________________________________________________________
Sainsbury’s School Games
Kitemark - Final Report - Year 2 (2012-13)
December 2013
____________________________________________________________
Submitted to:
Natasha O'Flaherty
Sport England
Submitted by:
Sport Industry Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University
A118 Collegiate Hall
Collegiate Crescent
Sheffield
S10 2BP
(0114) 225 5919
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................ii
1
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1
2
THE SELECTION OF SCHOOLS FOR INDEPENDENT VALIDATION .............. 2
2.1 The Validation Process ..................................................................................... 3
3
4
5
THE COHORT OF KITEMARK SCHOOLS ......................................................... 4
3.1
Headlines ...................................................................................................... 4
3.2
The validation process in greater detail ......................................................... 5
3.3
Outcomes of the independent validation process.......................................... 6
3.4
2012-13 school year compared with 2011-12 ............................................... 8
3.5
Concluding comments ................................................................................... 9
KEY ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 10
4.1
SGO Engagement with Kitemarking............................................................ 10
4.2
Causes of failure ......................................................................................... 15
4.3
Potential for Progression ............................................................................. 17
4.4
Driving Volume ............................................................................................ 19
4.4.1
SGO Work plans ................................................................................... 19
4.4.2
Changes to Kitemark Criteria ................................................................ 21
4.4.3
Longer term considerations to the criteria............................................. 22
RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION ......................................................... 23
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 25
Appendix 1: The list of 300 schools validated ....................................................... 25
Appendix 2: The validation pro-forma ................................................................... 31
Appendix 3: Colour coded rating of schools against criteria ................................. 39
Appendix 4: Reasons for 'failure' at higher levels of award ................................... 43
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Kitemark award scheme is administered by the Youth Sport Trust and enables schools in
England to assess themselves against various criteria to achieve a Bronze, Silver or Gold
award. The second year of the validation programme (2012-13) took the form of a fully
independent validation process.
Applications
There are 23,109 schools and colleges in England eligible to apply for a Kitemark award, of
which 67% are primary schools; 14% are secondary schools and 19% are in other categories.
Activated accounts with the School Games website stood at 15,318 at the end of the 2012-13
school year, an increase of 84% (8,321) on the previous school year. All activated schools
have the opportunity to apply for a School Games Kitemark award and in the 2012-13 school
year 2,762 (or 18% of activated schools) made an application, of which 84% were successful
in their online applications and 16% were unsuccessful. The independent validation
programme saw the validation of 300 schools across 150 SGO areas. The validation visits
revealed that 94% provided satisfactory evidence to support an award and 6% did not and
consequently failed.
SGO engagement
A relatively small percentage of SGOs generate a disproportionately high number of award
applications. Of the 451 SGO regions in England, 379 (84%) submitted at least one
Kitemark application and the remaining 72 (16%) made no applications at all. This was a
noticeable improvement on the 2011-12 school year in which it was found that 64% of SGOs
made at least one application.
Key points




SGO engagement with Kitemarking has improved in 2012-13 relative to 2011-12 with
84% of SGOs now making at least one Kitemark award application.
Some SGOs are more productive in Kitemarking applications than others, the bottom
25% generate 4% of all applications whereas the top 25% generate 58%.
There are significant differences between Local Organising Committee (LOC) areas
in terms of schools activated, applications made and success rate.
There are also significantly different levels of engaged SGOs within LOC areas with
scores averaging 84% but ranging from 50% to 100%.
Causes of failure
Key Points

Almost all schools that failed (99%+) were unable to answer one or more of the four
Bronze level questions positively, with only one school failing on a prerequisite.


A sizeable majority (76%) of failed schools did so on one criterion only and the
remaining 24% failed on a combination of criteria.
The most common reasons for failure were insufficient provision of sports at Level 1
(51%) and under achieving the criterion for 5% of pupils being involved in leading,
managing and officiating sport (39%).
Potential for schools to progress to a higher level of award
Key Points





There is potential for schools which currently hold awards to make progression in the
future although some criteria will be more difficult to achieve than others.
Notable sticking points include meeting the criteria for the requisite number of B and
C teams, as well as involving pupils in leading, managing and officiating sport.
Different types of school will face different challenges in order to progress.
Most of the 100 upgrades made to the sample of 300 independently validated schools
could be explained by errors on the application form against one or two criteria.
It is clear SGOs have an important role in helping schools to plan for progression.
Criteria changes and future applications
The most significant change to the criteria is to the prerequisite that all schools applying for a
Kitemark award should offer pupils at least two hours of PE during curriculum time each
week. Feedback from SGOs suggested that this pre-requisite was often stopping schools from
applying for the Kitemark award as some schools do not provide 2 hours of PE during
curriculum time each week. In 2013-14, for the Bronze award schools that have an
aspiration to provide 2 hours of PE can apply; at the Silver level 2 hours of PE should be
provided to all pupils but this could be made up through a mix of curricular and
extracurricular activity; and, for Gold level schools the 2 hours of PE during curriculum
time only would remain in place. It is anticipated that this change will assist in driving up the
number of applications for a Kitemark award in future years.
Key points


It is likely that the volume of applications for Kitemark awards will increase in the
next year for two key reasons:
1) Engaging with the Kitemark award process has been built into SGOs’ work plans
and early indications show that volume could grow by 146% to over 6,000
applications in 2013-14.
2) Changes to the criteria may remove barriers that have acted as a deterrent to
applications in the past.
Further thought is already being given to how the criteria can be improved in the
future to make the Kitemark award more accessible and relevant to schools.
1
INTRODUCTION
The Kitemark award scheme is administered by the Youth Sport Trust and enables schools in
England to assess themselves against various criteria to achieve a Bronze, Silver or Gold
award. Schools are able to apply for the award on an annual basis and awards are renewable
annually. This report focuses on the independent validation of the programme, which was
conducted by the Sport Industry Research Centre (SIRC) between June and December 2013.
In 2011-12 there were 1,659 applications for a Kitemark award, the validation programme for
this period followed a retrospective approach and covered 100 schools across 72 School
Games Organiser (SGO) areas. This inaugural validation programme aimed to assess the
robustness of the award scheme as well as providing key learning and intelligence to improve
the programme for the 2012-13 academic year.
The second year of the validation programme (2012-13) took the form of a fully independent
validation. Those schools which were selected for validation did not have their award
confirmed until their validation visit had taken place and the evidence to support their
applications had been reviewed. The application window for schools to apply for a Kitemark
award for the 2012-13 period was open for almost four months (from Monday 3rd June 2013
to Friday 27th September 2013). During this period 2,762 schools (18% of those with
activated accounts on the School Games website as of 27th September 2013) applied for a
Kitemark award, of which 84% were successful in their online applications. This is an
increase of 67% in applications compared with the 2011-12 academic year. The independent
validation programme for the 2012-13 academic year commenced in June 2013 and was
completed by the end of November 2013. During this time 300 schools were validated across
150 SGO areas.
The purpose of the validation programme for 2012-13 was to:
1. Bring further weight and value to the award scheme by introducing a formal
validation programme based on a sample of 300 schools and 150 SGO areas.
2. Ensure schools are achieving the award levels they deserve.
3. Ensure consistency of awards across SGO areas and regions.
4. Allow feedback to be gathered on the criteria, providing the opportunity for
further amendments and refinement to the scheme and criteria for the 2013-14
academic year.
The remainder of this report will look at the programme of validation and the selection of
schools, provide some data analysis and contextual information on the cohort of schools
applying for a Kitemark award and the report will also highlight key issues arising from the
validations and provide recommendations for the future.
1
2
THE SELECTION OF SCHOOLS FOR INDEPENDENT VALIDATION
The validation included 300 schools (two schools from 150 SGOs areas). Schools were
selected for validation throughout the application window. Figure 1 below shows the spread
of Kitemark applications made throughout the application window.
Figure 1 - Kitemark applications over time
350
Opening of Application Window
End of Application Window
School Holiday Period
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
3-Jun
10-Jun
17-Jun
24-Jun
1-Jul
8-Jul
15-Jul
22-Jul
29-Jul
5-Aug
12-Aug 19-Aug 26-Aug
2-Sep
9-Sep
16-Sep 23-Sep 30-Sep
7-Oct
The graph highlights that there were 867 applications between the window opening in June
and the end of the summer term (31st July). There were a further 734 applications between 1st
August and 20th September and the remaining 1,161 applications (42%) were submitted
between 21st September and the close of the application window (over a 19 day period). As a
result it was not possible to complete the selection of all 300 schools until the application
window closed at the end of September 2013. (Note: there were a handful of applications
submitted after the close of the application window due to SGOs appealing the outcome of
some applications and as a result applications being reset). Just under a third (94 schools) of
the entire validation sample was selected for validation between 21st September and the close
of the application window.
Once schools and SGOs had been selected for validation, they were notified via an automated
email from the application system and SIRC staff then began the process of contacting
individual SGOs to arrange and schedule validation meetings with their schools. In total 40
Schools (20 SGO areas) received validation visits prior to the end of the 2012-13 academic
year, the remaining 260 schools (130 SGO areas) received their validation visits between
September and the end of November 2013. All validations were complete within eight weeks
of the Kitemark application window for the 2012-13 period closing.
2
2.1 The Validation Process
The validation process was a systematic and objective process carried out by 10 SIRC staff:





SIRC staff worked to agreed protocols following standardised in-house training. (A
sample proforma used by SIRC validators is provided in Appendix 2).
Schools were asked to provide evidence to support their application across the
different areas of the criteria.
Support documents relating to the validation were available to schools and SGOs on
the School Games website - there was some flexibility in terms of the types of
evidence accepted and individual circumstances.
Awards were confirmed if sufficient evidence was seen by validators.
In a third of cases (100 schools) validators were presented with sufficient evidence to
upgrade schools to a higher award than they were originally in line to achieve and in
some instances schools were downgraded (8) or failed (18) their applications due to a
lack of evidence to support that all of the criteria had been met.
3
3
THE COHORT OF KITEMARK SCHOOLS
3.1
Headlines
This section is concerned with providing the technical detail on the overall population of
schools applying for a Kitemark award along with the results of the independent validation
process. In Table 1 we present the headline data summarising the numbers and proportions of:





Schools in England eligible to apply for a Kitemark award;
Schools activated on the School Games website (as of 27th September 2013);
Schools which applied for a Kitemark award;
Schools which were successful with their applications; and
Schools which failed their applications.
Table 1: Summary of headline data
Phase
Eligible Schools
n
%
Applied for KM
Award
Activated
n
%
n
%
Pass
n
Pass
Rate
Fail
%
n
%
%
15,347
66%
11,433
75%
2,044
74%
1,693
73%
351
82%
83%
Secondary
3,689
14%
2,608
17%
528
19%
470
20%
58
14%
89%
Other
3,935
19%
1,277
8%
190
7%
170
7%
20
5%
89%
Total
23,109
100%
15,318
100%
2,762
100%
2,333
100%
429
100%
84%
Primary
There are 23,109 schools and colleges in England which are eligible to apply for a Kitemark
award, of which 67% are primary schools (including middle deemed primary); 14% are
secondary schools (including middle deemed secondary) and 19% are in other categories.
These form the 'population' against which our 'sample' of those registered with the School
Games website and those who applied for Kitemarking awards can be compared.
Registration with the School Games website was 15,318 at the end of the 2012-13 Kitemark
application window and this compares highly favourably with the tally at the end of the 201112 application window (for which the corresponding statistic was 8,321). The increase in
schools activated is 6,997 (84%) which now means that it is the majority (66%) of eligible
schools that now have formally activated accounts for School Games. There is however clear
evidence from our work on the ground that this is an understatement of the reality as we have
found numerous examples of schools without activated accounts on the website taking part in
School Games activity, notably at Level 2.
All activated schools have the opportunity to apply for a School Games Kitemark award and
in the 2012-13 school year 2,762 (or 18% of activated schools) took advantage of this
opportunity by making an application for an award. These applications were made by schools
in proportion to their incidence of activated accounts. That is, primary schools account for 75%
of schools activated on the School Games website and they made 74% of the applications for
a Kitemark award.
4
Key Points:



In addition to the growth in the number of schools activated on the School Games
website over the 2012-13 school year, there has also been considerable growth in the
number of schools applying for a Kitemark award.
In 2011-12 the total number of applications was 1,659 which has grown in 2012-13
to 2,762, an increase of 66%.
The 66% increase in Kitemark applications is less than the 84% increase in
registered schools which in turn suggests that the average number of applications
made by each SGO has fallen.
On initial application for a Kitemark award through the School Games website, 84% of
applications were successful and 16% were unsuccessful. This pass rate statistic compares
unfavourably with the 2011-12 school year in which 90% of applications were successful and
10% were unsuccessful. Later in this section we look in closer detail at the reasons why 16%
of schools which applied failed their Kitemark award application.
3.2
The validation process in greater detail
The flow diagram in Figure 2 illustrates the initial stages of applying for a Kitemark award in
the 2012-13 school year. The system-based validation procedure evaluated the 2,762
applications and found that 2,333 (84%) met the criteria for an award and that 411 schools
(16%) were deficient in at least one criterion such that an award could not be made.
Figure 2 - Schools Registered for School Games and Applying for Kitemark
From the total of 2,333 applications that achieved a successful system validation, a sample of
300 of these applications across 150 SGO areas was selected for an independent evaluation
by SIRC as shown in Figure 3. The 16% of schools which failed in this initial phase were not
eligible for validation by the research team. For those schools that passed the online
validation process, the distribution of awards by type was:



Bronze 1,357 (58%);
Silver 780 (33%); and
Gold (9%)
5
Figure 3 - The Process of Application and Validation
3.3
Outcomes of the independent validation process
The primary purpose of the independent validation process was to assess the extent to which
the awards made by the online system stood up to a more thorough inspection of the answers
given and the underpinning evidence. A secondary purpose was to establish the extent to
which successful applications achieved the most appropriate level of award for the evidence
provided. A summary of the initial sample selection, the changes made and the final sample
is shown in Table 2.
Table 2- Validation Sample
Fail
Bronze
Silver
Gold
Total
0
129
144
27
300
18
-10
-7
-1
0
Upgraded Bronze to Silver
0
-55
55
0
0
Upgraded Silver to Gold
0
0
-45
45
0
Downgraded Gold to Silver
0
0
1
-1
0
Downgraded Silver to Bronze
0
7
-7
0
0
Summary of Changes
18
-58
-3
43
0
Final Validated Sample
18
71
141
70
300
Initial Sample Selected
Failed
The 150 validation visits across 300 schools that had passed the online screening revealed
that 94% were able to provide satisfactory evidence to support their awards and that 6% were
6
unable to do so and consequently failed. If we assume that the sample was representative of
the population of schools which passed the online validation (2,333), it is likely that if all
such schools had been independently validated then 140 (6%) would have failed. Taken
alongside the initial failure rate of 16%, the overall failure rate would have been 22%, or
more than one in five schools. The headline finding is that in terms of 'pass' or 'fail' the
independent validation found the online system to be 94% accurate.
In addition to assessing whether or not a school passed or failed its Kitemark award
application, we also assessed the extent to which awards made were appropriate for the
evidence provided. The findings from this programme were positive and somewhat
surprising:


Within the sample of 300 schools it was necessary to upgrade 100 awards.
At Bronze level 55 out of an initial sample of 129 (43%) were upgraded to Silver
level;
At Silver level 45 out of 144 schools (31%) were upgraded to Gold level.
These upgrades were partially offset by a total of eight downgrades (7 from Silver to
Bronze and 1 from Gold to Silver).


Again if we assume that the sample of schools selected for independent validation is
representative of the population, then the nature of the awards achieved would change
considerably with more schools achieving Silver and Gold awards and fewer achieving
Bronze awards. This point indicates that in the 2012-13 school year, a significant minority of
schools (around one third) appear to have underestimated their level of engagement with
School Games as illustrated in Figure 4.
Pre Validation
(n = 300)
Post Validaton
(n = 300)
Figure 4- The Outcome of Validation on the Sample
43%
(n = 129)
6%
(n = 18)
0%
5%
48%
(n = 144)
24%
(n = 71)
10%
15%
20%
9%
(n = 27)
47%
(n = 141)
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Fail
Bronze
50%
Silver
23%
(n = 70)
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Gold
7
Figure 4 shows the change in the composition of the sample of 300 schools after validation.
An additional 6% of schools did not meet the criteria for any award and there was a
considerable shift upwards from Bronze to Silver and from Silver to Gold. Many schools are
doing better than they are receiving credit for. The key issue to be addressed in the future is:

3.4
A focus on the 82% that do not apply for Kitemark rather than the 18% of eligible
schools that do apply.
2012-13 school year compared with 2011-12
To put the 2012-13 data into perspective we now move on to examine the Kitemarking award
outcomes for schools that applied for a Kitemark award in both 2011-12 and 2012-13 with
those who were first time applicants in 2012-13. The number of schools which applied in
both years was 930 (34%) and the number of first time applicants was 1,832 (66%). In 201112 the number of schools applying for a Kitemark award was 1,659 and thus the proportion
that reapplied in 2012-13 can be confirmed as 56% - a small majority. Figure 5 shows how
those schools which applied in 2011-12 fared this year in comparison with their previous
award level and how those schools which applied for the first time in 2012-13 performed.
Figure 5 - Comparison Between 2011-12 and 2012-13 Cohorts
100%
3%
3%
6%
16%
90%
17%
30%
25%
80%
36%
70%
39%
60%
84%
50%
65%
55%
53%
40%
45%
30%
34%
20%
10%
17%
11%
5%
0%
Fail 2012
9%
12%
13%
Bronze 2012
Fail 2013
4%
2%
Silver 2012
Gold 2012
Bronze 2013
Silver 2013
Total 2012
15%
Not Present 2012
Gold 2013
Of those schools which failed in their application in 2011-12:


83% went on to be successful in 2012-13 - indicating resilience to reapply and
progression in terms of 87% achieving an award.
Of the schools achieving a Bronze award in 2011-12, 45% maintained their level of
achievement this year and 42% progressed to either a Silver or Gold award in 201213.
8


The majority of Silver schools in the first year of the scheme (53%) remained at this
level in 2012-13 while 30% went on to achieve a Gold award, and 12% dropped
down a level to Bronze.
The vast majority of Gold schools in 2011-12 (84%) maintained this level in 201213, although 14% dropped to Silver or Bronze, and one school failed altogether.
For those schools which were first time applicants the overall picture is one of a higher
failure rate; higher levels of achievement at Bronze level; and as a result lower levels of
achievement at Silver and Gold levels. At a headline level these findings indicate that there is
plenty of evidence of aspiring schools progressing and achieving schools maintaining their
level of award.
3.5
Concluding comments
The independent validation programme has delivered largely positive results in the sense that
the online validation process was 94% accurate and that around a third of schools actually
achieving a Kitemark award actually deserved a higher award than they received. However,
in the context of seeking further development and improvement of the Kitemark award
process we have identified a series of key issues for further analysis and discussion. These are:




SGO engagement with Kitemarking;
Causes of failure;
Potential for progression; and
Driving volume.
These key issues are discussed in their own separate sections within Section 4.
9
4
KEY ISSUES
4.1
SGO Engagement with Kitemarking
SGO engagement with Kitemarking is not uniform, and Figure 6 illustrates the extent to
which a relatively small percentage of SGOs generate a disproportionately high number of
award applications. Of the 451 SGO regions in England, 379 (84%) submitted at least one
Kitemark application and the remaining 72 (16%) made no applications at all. This is a
noticeable improvement on the 2011-12 school year in which it was found that 64% of SGOs
made at least one application and 36% did not. The finding that 84% of SGOs engaged with
Kitemarking in 2012-13 is clear evidence of the positive impact of building the process into
SGOs' annual work plans.
To illustrate the point that there are varying levels of engagement with the Kitemark award
we have divided the distribution of 379 applicants into quartiles. Our analysis shows that:

Of those SGO regions which were engaged with Kitemarking, the fourth or top
quartile (i.e. the most productive 94 out of 379) generated 1,606 applications (58%
of the total).
The least productive 25% of SGOs were responsible for 124 (or 4%) of all 2,762
Kitemark award applications.

This demonstrates that there is a degree of 'polarisation' in terms of engagement between
SGOs.
Figure 6 - Kitemark applications by SGO Regions, Grouped by Count per Region
1,800
1,600
1,606
(58%)
1,400
Count of SGOs
1,200
1,000
800
730
(26%)
600
400
302
(11%)
200
124
(4%)
0
First Quartile
Second Quartile
Third Quartile
Fourth Quartile
Number of Kitemarking Applications
10
To identify where the variances in Kitemark applications are occurring we have conducted
further analysis on the data available at County Sports Partnership / LOC level as shown
below in Table 3.
Table 3: - Kitemark applications by LOC
LOC
Bedfordshire
Cornwall
Durham
Kent
Worcestershire
Humber
Surrey
Merseyside
Hampshire & IoW
Lincolnshire
Hertfordshire
Devon
Northumberland
Northamptonshire
Cheshire & Warrington
Staffordshire
Greater Manchester
Dorset
Tyne & Wear
Tees Valley
Bucks. & Milton Keynes
London
Sussex
Leicestershire & Rutland
Oxfordshire
Essex
North Yorkshire
West of England
Berkshire
South Yorkshire
Wiltshire
Herefordshire
Cambs. & Peterborough
Gloucestershire
Derbyshire
Birmingham
Suffolk
Black Country
Cumbria
Shropshire, Telford Wrekin
Coventry, Solihull & Warks.
Lancashire
West Yorkshire
Norfolk
Nottinghamshire
Somerset
Total
Eligible
Schools
296
288
263
756
273
396
415
615
667
369
541
541
190
343
454
519
1,208
290
436
288
322
2,889
627
459
345
663
469
424
375
502
338
114
347
318
468
443
371
443
319
260
446
796
931
405
446
303
22,970
Registrations
n
%
249
84%
150
52%
243
92%
470
62%
176
64%
314
79%
269
65%
470
76%
531
80%
228
62%
354
65%
318
59%
145
76%
224
65%
303
67%
350
67%
799
66%
183
63%
266
61%
236
82%
227
70%
1,705
59%
377
60%
290
63%
276
80%
498
75%
286
61%
220
52%
228
61%
335
67%
240
71%
38
33%
286
82%
207
65%
332
71%
279
63%
251
68%
295
67%
185
58%
168
65%
325
73%
533
67%
657
71%
275
68%
329
74%
198
65%
15,318
67%
Applications
n
%
143
57%
44
29%
68
28%
132
28%
50
28%
85
27%
69
26%
118
25%
131
25%
56
25%
85
24%
75
24%
33
23%
52
23%
68
22%
76
22%
171
21%
35
19%
47
18%
42
18%
41
18%
303
18%
65
17%
50
17%
48
17%
81
16%
45
16%
33
15%
35
15%
47
14%
31
13%
5
13%
38
13%
25
12%
41
12%
31
11%
28
11%
33
11%
18
10%
15
9%
29
9%
46
9%
50
8%
17
6%
18
5%
9
5%
2,762
18%
Success
n
%
131
92%
34
77%
61
90%
112
85%
42
84%
70
82%
46
67%
103
87%
110
84%
44
79%
74
87%
63
84%
32
97%
44
85%
62
91%
67
88%
147
86%
32
91%
45
96%
38
90%
36
88%
251
83%
60
92%
42
84%
37
77%
66
81%
36
80%
27
82%
28
80%
35
74%
26
84%
4
80%
28
74%
24
96%
30
73%
27
87%
24
86%
25
76%
14
78%
15
100%
26
90%
39
85%
43
86%
14
82%
14
78%
5
56%
2,333
84%
Failure
n
%
12
8%
10
23%
7
10%
20
15%
8
16%
15
18%
23
33%
15
13%
21
16%
12
21%
11
13%
12
16%
1
3%
8
15%
6
9%
9
12%
24
14%
3
9%
2
4%
4
10%
5
12%
52
17%
5
8%
8
16%
11
23%
15
19%
9
20%
6
18%
7
20%
12
26%
5
16%
1
20%
10
26%
1
4%
11
27%
4
13%
4
14%
8
24%
4
22%
0
0%
3
10%
7
15%
7
14%
3
18%
4
22%
4
44%
429
16%
The data in Table 3 are sorted in descending order of the proportion of schools applying for a
Kitemark award relative to the number of eligible schools in the CSP / LOC area.
Bedfordshire tops the table because 57% of the eligible schools in the area applied for a
Kitemark, which is more than three times the national average score of 18%. Bedfordshire
11
also enjoys a higher level of activation with the School Games website than the national
average (84% v 67%) and also a higher success rate (92% v 84%). By contrast, Somerset at
the bottom of the table is below the national average for all indicators except Kitemark
application failure rate for which it has the highest score (44%).
If we drill deeper into the data our analysis of Kitemark applications at LOC level it shows
that there are significant differences within LOC areas. For example; the application rate for
London as a whole is the same as the national average, at 18%. however, there is wide
variation between the capital's 32 boroughs in the number of schools applying for a Kitemark
award. The findings from the London analysis point to the likelihood that there are different
levels of engagement with the Kitemarking process by SGO.
Again we can drill deeper into the data to identify the number of SGO regions within each
LOC and then to compute the proportion of SGOs within each LOC submitting at least one
Kitemark application. The national picture is that 84% of SGOs engaged with the
Kitemarking process in 2012-13 and therefore it is informative to look at where there are
notable deviations from this pattern. The data for this analysis is shown in Table 4.
Table 4: - Kitemark Engagement by SGO Region
LOC
SGO
n
Durham
Humber
Merseyside
Worcestershire
Kent
Northumberland
Surrey
Hertfordshire
Cornwall
Northamptonshire
Cheshire & Warrington
Staffordshire
Dorset
Sussex
South Yorkshire
Berkshire
Wiltshire
Gloucestershire
Herefordshire
Tyne & Wear
Leics. & Rutland
Bedfordshire
Lincolnshire
6
7
14
6
16
6
6
12
4
5
8
10
6
9
10
8
5
6
2
11
10
8
8
Engaged SGOs
Regions
n
%
R
6 100%
1
7 100%
1
14 100%
1
6 100%
1
16 100%
1
6 100%
1
6 100%
1
12 100%
1
4 100%
1
5 100%
1
8 100%
1
10 100%
1
6 100%
1
9 100%
1
10 100%
1
8 100%
1
5 100%
1
6 100%
1
2 100%
1
10
91% 20
9
90% 21
7
88% 22
7
88% 22
LOC
SGO
n
Bucks. & MK
CSW
Hampshire & IoW
Greater Manchester
West Yorkshire
London
Oxfordshire
Cambs. & Peterboro'
Derbyshire
Somerset
Essex
Nottinghamshire
Devon
Black Country
Suffolk
Salop, Telford Wrekin
Tees Valley
Lancashire
Birmingham
North Yorkshire
West of England
Cumbria
Norfolk
Total
8
8
15
21
18
56
5
5
10
5
14
9
8
11
7
6
7
14
11
10
6
6
8
451
Engaged SGOs
Regions
%
n
R
7 88%
22
7 88%
22
13 87%
26
18 86%
27
15 83%
28
46 82%
29
4 80%
30
4 80%
30
8 80%
30
4 80%
30
11 79%
34
7 78%
35
6 75%
36
8 73%
37
5 71%
38
4 67%
39
4 57%
40
8 57%
40
6 55%
42
5 50%
43
3 50%
43
3 50%
43
4 50%
43
379 84%
The differences between and within LOCs in terms of applications and SGO engagement
rates might be explained by differing policies and priorities on the part of schools, SGOs and
regions. In this context it is important to note the range of school sport schemes competing
for attention. Interviews in validation visits identified the following programmes:


AFPE Qualitymark
Lloyds School Sports Week
12




Tesco Great School Run
FA Tesco Skills Programme
ASDA Sports Leaders
ASDA Kwik Cricket
Schools may choose to affiliate with any or all of these programmes, but teachers were quick
to point out that this had the potential to generate conflicts of interest, particularly for
academies, when apparently complementary schemes were sponsored by corporate entities.
One Sussex based SGO pointed out that:
"Branding is an issue for sponsored academies. Their rules mean that they
can't promote Sainsbury's"
In the course of our validation visits, many teachers and SGOs expressed the view that
Kitemark had a relatively low profile in school sport circles, though there were signs that this
was changing. Teachers in particular found it hard to sell the concept of Kitemarking to their
Head Teacher. One applicant in the West Midlands noted:
"We can't get the local press interested, when the only reward is a piece of
paper or a pennant at the end of it. So my head teacher isn't convinced of the
value of it. It doesn't force schools to prioritise sport. One school [in the
partnership] withdrew from a Level 2 athletics event because OFSTED came
in, and the head said the staff had to concentrate on that."
The lack of a tangible reward for achieving the award may be enough to discourage head
teachers from buying into the programme, and in the absence of management support
(particularly in terms of time) teachers and SGOs may choose not engage. Conversely, a
secondary-based school sports co-ordinator highlighted one possible consequence of securing
the buy-in from head teachers:
"Kitemarking might raise unrealistic expectations of an increase in funding
for school sport"
The point about OFSTED is an interesting one. Some primary school teachers felt that
Kitemarking represented an opportunity to link together several strands of school sport,
which could add value by supporting schools during OFSTED inspections. One teacher in
Sussex remarked:
"It's quite new, but as more schools apply and the scheme runs on, it'll mean
more because schools won't want to be left behind. Especially with OFSTED
checking how schools are spending their School Sport Premium."
This suggests that there is as much value to schools in being able to provide evidence of
involvement to other education professionals, as to parents and the local community. One
primary school PE co-ordinator in Hertfordshire commented:
"Kitemark is a good benchmark to tell people how well you're doing. And if
you haven't got it, [getting] it can be a good performance management
target."
13
Key points





SGO engagement with Kitemarking has improved in 2012-13 relative to 2011-12
with 84% of SGOs now making at least one Kitemark award application.
Some SGOs are more productive in Kitemark applications than others, the bottom 25%
generate 4% of all applications whereas the top 25% generate 58% of applications.
There are significant differences between LOC areas in terms of schools activated,
applications made and success rate.
There are also significantly different levels of engaged SGOs within LOC areas
with scores averaging 84% but ranging from 50% to 100%.
Variations in SGO engagement may be explained by differences in school
priorities, including a focus on core curriculum subjects, or engagement with other
school sport programmes.
14
4.2
Causes of failure
In addition to the analysis on those schools that were validated, the applications from the 411
schools that failed to meet at least the Bronze level of award were reviewed to identify
whether there were any consistent patterns in the data. The first key point to note is that none
of the 411 schools failed on one of the six pre-requisite questions (including the 2 hours of
PE question), and that all failures were due to answers given to one of the four questions at
the Bronze level, namely:




Number of sports at Level 1;
Number of sports at Level 2;
At least 5% of pupils engaged in leading, managing and officiating; and
At least 25% capacity for extra-curricular sport.
An analysis of the reasons for the 411 Kitemark applications failing by criteria and number
are shown in Table 5. Note that as it was possible to fail on more than one criterion, the total
of the percentage column will add up to more than 100.
Table 5: - Applications that failed (N = 411)
Failed by
Bronze Level Criteria
N
%
1. Provides approved School Games Level 1 competitions for boys and girls
210
51%
1. Provides approved School Games Level 2 competitions for boys and girls
87
21%
3. Engages students in leading, managing and officiating in School Games activity.
158
39%
4. Is offering enough participation and competition opportunities to enable pupils
to take part in extracurricular sporting activity at least every month.
64
16%
The main points emanating from Table 5 are:



Half (51%) of schools failed by not meeting the required number of approved sports
at Level 1. Some validated schools reported simply matching up the sports they did at
Level 1 with Level 2, i.e. just running sports clubs at Level 1 that were followed by
competitive fixtures at Level 2 (which works at the Gold level as the number of sports
required at each level are the same, but not at Silver and Bronze).
Only 21% of schools failed at providing the requisite number of Level 2 sports, where
fewer sports are required.
Over a third failed by stating that less than 5% of students were engaged in leading,
managing and officiating (39%), with 81 of the 158 schools that failed on this
criterion recording zero engagement and an additional 37 schools recording 1% or 2%.
The main reason for understating performance in this criterion, based on the evidence
from validated schools, was applicants being unsure which students to include in this
calculation.
15

Finally, 16% of schools failed by providing fewer than 25% of students with extracurricular sporting activity at least every month, with 21 of the 64 schools recording
10% or less and 25 schools reporting between 20-24%. This particular question has
been amended for 2013-14.
For schools that did fail, the majority (76%) failed in only one area, as Table 6 shows.
Table 6: - Number of areas failing in (for at least a Bronze award)
Number of criteria
N
%
Failed on pre-requisite
1
>1%
One
313
76%
Two
85
21%
Three
12
3%
Four
0
0%
411
100%
TOTAL
In summary from Table 6:



More than three quarters of schools that failed (76%) did so on one of the four
questions,
A fifth (21%) failed on two questions and
Twelve schools (3%) failed on three questions.

No school failed in all four areas.
Three schools seemingly met the criteria necessary for a Bronze award on application, but
were subsequently failed by their SGO; one for not doing 2 hours of PE, one for Level 1
sports, and one for the percentage engaged in leading, managing and officiating. For the 76%
of schools that failed in just one area, the following breakdown shows what they failed on.
Reasons for failing (for at least a Bronze award)





33% failed on just the number of Level 1 sports provided.
11% failed on just the number of Level 2 sports provided.
23% of schools failed on just leading managing and officiating (less that 5%).
8% of schools failed on just the extra-curricular question (less than 25%).
The remaining 24% of schools failed on a combination of two or more of the above.
Both small and large Primary schools (56%) and large Secondary schools (58%) were most
likely to fail on the number of Level 1 sports offered, with small Secondary schools most
likely to fail on Level 2 sports (75%, albeit from a small sample size). Special schools were
most likely to fail on their leading, managing and officiating score (71%), a finding consistent
with feedback from Special schools in the pilot stage last year. All types of schools were least
likely to fail on the provision of extra-curricular opportunities.
Key Points


Only one school failed on a pre-requisite.
A sizeable majority of failed schools made an error on one criterion only (76%),
rather than wholesale issues with their application.
16

4.3
The most common reasons for failure were insufficient provision of sports at Level 1,
and having at least 5% of pupils involved in leading, managing and officiating sport.
Potential for Progression
In this section we outline the level of attainment by those schools which were independently
validated at the Bronze and Silver levels compared with the higher awards to identify the
criteria that schools were not meeting. Overall, 100 of the 300 validated schools were
upgraded and the validation programme revealed that 23 of the 55 schools (42%) of the
upgrades from Bronze to Silver were made on the basis of failure on one question. Similarly
for the 36% of upgrades from Silver to Gold this decision was made on the basis of answers
to one question only (16 schools out of 45), rather than wholesale differences in their
application.
This analysis is important to help schools make progression in the future. The analysis is
based on the final level of award achieved (following upgrades and downgrades) and does not
include Gold level schools as they all achieved the Gold standard across the Kitemark criteria.
Appendix 4 has the full set of tables outlining the results at each award level. Cells
highlighted in red indicate a minority (i.e. under 50%) of achievement against a criterion
whereas, cells highlighted in green indicate high levels of achievement against a criterion (in
excess of 85%).
Table 7:- All validated schools awarded Silver (N = 141)
No. Schools
also passing
at Gold
%
84
60%
67
48%
74
52%
127
90%
131
93%
58
41%
7. Is utilising sports coaches to support school sport activity.
141
100%
8. Can provide evidence of training wider school staff to support school sport activity.
131
93%
9. Can evidence active links with a number of local sports club (as specified).
87
62%
10. Can provide evidence of provision of support for talented young sports people.
118
84%
11. Promote the School Games to parents and the local community as specified.
12. Results of competitions and match reports are featured on the school website / local
press.
82
58%
133
94%
School Games Kitemark Award Criteria
1. Provides approved School Games Level one and Level two competitions for boys and
girls
2. Provides approved School Games Level two competitions for B teams and C teams for
both boys and girls
3. Engages students in leading, managing and officiating in School Games activity.
4. Is offering enough participation and competition opportunities to enable pupils to take
part in extracurricular sporting activity at least every month.
5. Can provide evidence of strong engagement of students in leagues or competitions Level
2 or Level 3
6. Can provide evidence of how students have been engaged in planning and developing
School Games activity.
Of those schools awarded Silver, all achieved the Gold level criteria for use of sports coaches
and 85% or more were already achieving four other Gold award criteria. Silver schools were
least likely to meet the Gold award requirements concerning the provision of B and C teams
and the level of pupils' engagement in planning School Games activity, in this instance the
running of a School Sport Organising Committee / Crew.
For those schools awarded Bronze, there are two levels of analysis, first against the
requirements for a Silver award and second against the requirements for a Gold award. The
17
majority of schools were already meeting the requirements for the higher awards in two areas
- extra-curricular opportunities (87% at Silver, 73% at Gold) and use of sports coaches (85%
at Silver, 77% at Gold). Bronze schools struggled more with the capacity to offer B and C
team opportunities (51% met the Silver level, only 17% met Gold) and the frequency of
promotion. Furthermore, very few Bronze schools (14%) had a School Sport Organising
Committee/Crew for the Gold award and this was consistent with schools awarded Silver.
The analysis suggests that there is scope for schools to progress to a higher level of award in
future years of the scheme, although achieving some areas of the criteria appear more
difficult than others. For example, it would be easier to improve the promotion of School
Games through existing communication channels compared to the finding the resources to
provide the requisite numbers of B and C teams in Level 2 competition.
Splitting the Kitemark award by type of school demonstrates that certain types of school have
more difficulty meeting some of the higher level criteria than others. As an example, for
Primary schools awarded Silver, engaging students in the planning and delivering of School
Games activity at Gold level was more difficult (35%) than for Secondary schools at the
same level (51%). Similarly, Secondary schools were more likely to have problems providing
B and C team opportunities than Primary schools (31% v 59%) and meeting the percentage
requirements for leading, managing and officiating in the School Games (43% v 61%
Primary). Evidence from the validation meetings suggested that for the large Secondary
schools, the leading, managing and officiating criterion was difficult as 20% could require the
involvement of upwards of 500 students. Furthermore, the lack of staff, facilities and
transport was a regularly cited issue for offering sufficient B and C team fixtures to meet the
Gold criterion.
Bronze Primary schools were:


Strong in terms of offering extra-curricular opportunities and utilising sports coaches.
Weaker in terms of providing B and C team activity and, at the Gold level, having a
School Sport Organising Committee / Crew (17%) and club links (13%).
Bronze secondary schools were:


Stronger at offering Level 1 and Level 2 activities (in terms of the requirements for
the higher awards).
Weaker for the leading, managing and officiating percentage, the number of B and C
teams, having a School Sport Organising Committee / Crew, and the frequency of
promotion to parents and the local community.
Areas that stood out for Bronze schools upgraded both to Silver and Gold were:


The frequency of promotion of School Games activity to parents and the local
community. Applicants routinely answered this question conservatively, (mainly due
to a limited understanding of the evidence required to achieve this criterion).
Upgraded schools at the Silver level were also underreporting their activity in leading
managing and officiating and the level of planning and engagement in School Games
activity.
18


Upgraded schools at Gold were also not keeping accurate records of their club links.
Schools were good at recording their Level 1 activity, which they had control over,
although 21% of Silver upgrades and 11% of Gold upgrades understated their activity
at Level 2 following cross-referencing with the SGOs’ competition calendars.
Key Points





4.4
There is potential for schools which currently hold awards to make progression in
the future although some criteria will be more difficult to achieve than others.
Notable sticking points include meeting the criteria for the requisite number of B
and C teams as well as involving pupils in leading, managing and officiating sport.
Different types of school will face different challenges in order to progress to higher
levels of award.
Most of the 100 upgrades made to the sample of 300 independently validated schools
could be explained by errors on the application form against one or two criteria.
Armed with the intelligence gained from the 2012-13 independent validation
programme, it is clear SGOs have an important role in helping schools to plan for
progression.
Driving Volume
As noted previously the proportion of eligible schools that applied for a Kitemark award was
18%, with 82% of schools not applying. The independent validation of schools found that 94%
of the sample of schools selected met the criteria for a pass at some level and, of these, 100
schools were upgraded. These findings suggest that for the minority of schools in the
Kitemark ‘net’ the process is reliable and awards are being made on the basis of an ‘at least’
level of achievement. The bigger challenge in the longer term is to make the Kitemark award
scheme relevant to the majority (82%) of eligible schools that did not apply for an award in
2012-13. We call this process ‘driving volume’ and in section 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 we look at the
prospects for driving volume by two methods, namely SGO work plans and criteria changes.
4.4.1 SGO Work plans
Table 8 (overleaf) details the forecast number of Kitemark Applications for 2012-13,
measured against the actual outcome. The table is sorted by the variance between the two. In
the first year of Kitemarking, the number of applications forecast by SGOs in their work
plans proved to be an underestimate of 295 (+22%). In 2012-13, as the forecast number of
applications increased significantly, the actual outturn of applications fell short by 357 (11%), though this still represented an increase of 1,107 applications on the previous year.
There is much variation at local level. Bedfordshire's achievement in generating the highest
rate of applications was supported by an over delivery against their SGOs' forecasts (143
against a forecast of 113). Conversely, while the West of England achieved 22 more
applications than forecast this was not enough to prevent the LOC coming near of the bottom
of the table for applications by eligible schools. At the other end of the scale, in London a
forecast of 564 schools achieving Kitemark proved to be over optimistic.
19
Table 8: - Kitemark applications - forecast and actual
2011-12
LOC
Forecast
Actual Var.
3
7
4
Surrey
81
88
7
Bedfordshire
14
14
0
Cornwall
4
10
6
West of England
21
27
6
Devon
9
7
-2
Dorset
80
97
17
Merseyside
0
0
0
Cumbria
19
29
10
Sussex
0
0
0
Norfolk
38
44
6
Hampshire & IoW
3
3
0
Wiltshire
9
8
-1
North Yorkshire
11
11
0
Nottinghamshire
11
23
12
Tees Valley
11
15
4
Coventry, Solihull & Warwickshire
9
15
6
Shropshire, Telford Wrekin
11
14
3
Tyne & Wear
35
44
9
Worcestershire
1
1
0
Herefordshire
2
6
4
Birmingham
7
9
2
Lancashire
35
40
5
Durham
18
18
0
Suffolk
20
23
3
Buckinghamshire & Milton Keynes
32
35
3
Leicestershire & Rutland
23
25
2
Black Country
37
40
3
Cambridgeshire & Peterborough
21
24
3
Northumberland
6
7
1
Somerset
28
33
5
Gloucestershire
9
10
1
Northamptonshire
36
54
18
Staffordshire
4
8
4
Derbyshire
40
45
5
Lincolnshire
60
72
12
Hertfordshire
54
63
9
Cheshire & Warrington
10
13
3
Berkshire
4
27
23
Essex
27
34
7
West Yorkshire
116
116
0
Greater Manchester
33
35
2
South Yorkshire
73
75
2
Humber
15
27
12
Oxfordshire
90
54
-36
Kent
194
244
50
London
0
65
65
Unknown
Total
1,364
1,659 295
2012-13
2013-14
Actual Var. Forecast
23
69
46
94
113
143
30
171
15
44
29
77
11
33
22
50
55
75
20
111
16
35
19
57
99
118
19
164
0
18
18
61
49
65
16
110
2
17
15
116
117
131
14
256
17
31
14
92
33
45
12
148
10
18
8
98
34
42
8
99
22
29
7
103
10
15
5
96
42
47
5
152
46
50
4
81
2
5
3
15
30
31
1
110
47
46
-1
211
70
68
-2
138
30
28
-2
99
44
41
-3
81
53
50
-3
126
37
33
-4
88
42
38
-4
94
38
33
-5
95
18
9
-9
38
36
25
-11
81
63
52
-11
124
88
76
-12
136
55
41
-14
162
72
56
-16
138
102
85
-17
192
87
68
-19
176
55
35
-20
107
107
81
-26
230
79
50
-29
188
204
171
-33
363
80
47
-33
129
119
85
-34
159
95
48
-47
138
188
132
-56
325
564
303 -261
905
Forecast
3,119
2,762
-357
6,784
In the 2013-14 school year we can be confident that the absolute number of applications for a
Kitemark award will increase as a result of:
20


SGOs themselves are forecasting that they will make 6,784 applications – an
increase of 146% on the actual number of applications achieved in 2012-13.
Assuming the number of eligible schools remains constant, the proportion of eligible
schools applying for a Kitemark award will increase from 18% to 44%.
4.4.2 Changes to Kitemark Criteria
The independent validation provided the opportunity to gather feedback on and review the
Kitemark criteria for the 2013-14 school year.
Table 9 presents the key changes to the criteria for 2013-14. Significant changes include:


The pre-requisite that all schools applying for a Kitemark award should offer pupils
at least two hours of PE during curriculum time each week.
Offering opportunities that enable pupils to participate in extracurricular activity.
Table 9:- Key Changes in the criteria for 2013-14
Level of
Award
Level of
Award
2013-14 Criterion
Bronze
Aspire to provide two hours of PE to all
pupils per week.
Silver
Provide all pupils with two hours of PE
and school sport per week (made up of
curricular and extra-curricular activity)
Gold
Provide all pupils with two hours of PE per
week (within the curriculum only.)
Bronze
The school is offering opportunities that
enable 25% (15% for special schools) of
pupils to participate in extra-curricular sporting
activity every month.
Bronze
Engage at least 20% of pupils (5% for
special schools) in extracurricular sporting
activity every week.
Silver
The school is offering opportunities that
enable 45% (25% for special schools) of
pupils to participate in extra-curricular sporting
activity every month.
Silver
Engage at least 35% of pupils (10% for
special schools) in extracurricular sporting
activity every week.
Gold
The school is offering opportunities that
enable 70% (40% for special schools) of
pupils to participate in extra-curricular sporting
activity every month.
Gold
Engage at least 50% of pupils (20% for
special schools) in extracurricular sporting
activity every week.
2012-13 Criterion
All
(Prerequisite)
The school can evidence that it provides at
least two hours of PE during curriculum time
each week for all pupils.
Gold
Use the School Games formats to provide
the opportunity through inter-school
competition (Level 2) for both boys and
girls to take part in B and C team standard
competition.
Gold
Strong Engagement of students in School
Games leagues or competitions (Level 2) or
School Games Festivals (Level 3) as volunteers
or participants (where qualification has been
achieved)
Gold
Criterion Removed.
Silver
The school is promoting the School Games to
parents and the local community once a
month.
Silver
Promote the School Games to parents and
the local community at least once every
half term.
Silver
Gold
The school is providing the appropriate number
of School Games competition formats at B / C
team standard for both boys and girls within
the academic year.
Silver
21
The remaining three changes to the criteria for 2013-14 were relatively minor changes and
have been made primarily to enhance the clarity of the criteria:



Providing School Games competition opportunities at B and C team level now
stipulates that this must be at Level 2 of the programme, as there was some confusion
as to whether this could include opportunities at Level 1.
Strong engagement of students in School Games leagues or competitions at Level 2 or
School Games festivals (Level 3) for the Gold standard has been removed as this
engagement is addressed elsewhere in the criteria.
The promotion of School Games activity to parents and the local community has been
changed from a monthly frequency to half-termly at Silver level as it was felt this
terminology was more in-line with how most schools communicate news to parents
and the local community.
The relaxation of the two hour PE offer and the improvements in clarity to the other
changed criteria should remove barriers that may have deterred applications in the past and
have a positive impact on driving volume.
4.4.3 Longer term considerations to the criteria
The independent validation has had a positive impact on revising and refining the criteria for
2013/14, however it is important that they are continually reviewed so that any further insight
obtained is used to support recommendations for future changes. Two of the criteria in
particular are now receiving further focus and review;


The number of sports listed as School Games sports for Level 1 and 2 activity; and
the requirements for B and C teams.
A large number of schools validated mentioned Dodgeball; they felt that meaningful
competition activity at Level 1 and 2 was available for their pupils but they could not include
this activity as part of their Kitemark application. Another frequently cited example was that
'athletics' encompasses a variety of activities (including indoor and outdoor athletics, quad
kids and cross country) and yet if schools were involved in these varying activities they could
only count this as one activity under the umbrella of 'athletics' in their Kitemark application.
These issues are currently under further review with YST.
Key points


It is likely that the volume of applications for Kitemark awards will increase in the
next year for two key reasons:
1) Engaging with the Kitemark award process has been built into SGOs’ work plans
early indications show that volume could grow by 146% to over 6,000 applications in
2013-14.
2) Changes to the criteria may remove barriers that have acted as a deterrent to
applications in the past.
Further thought is already being given as to how the criteria can be improved in the
future to make the Kitemark award more accessible and relevant to schools.
22
5
RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION
In the final section of this report, we summarise the specific recommendations which have
the potential to improve the Kitemark award scheme in the future. The 2012-13 academic
year was the second year of the award scheme and the increase in applications in 2011-12 of
67% is a positive testimony to school and SGO engagement with the scheme and is a sign the
scheme is continually growing and evolving.
The independent validation delivered positive results and revealed that the online application
process was 94% accurate (in terms of pass or fail rates) and that around a third of schools
actually deserved a higher award than they would have received by the system had they not
been selected for independent validation.
SGO and School Engagement
The independent validation revealed that many schools are actually achieving a higher
standard than they are giving themselves credit for and this is a positive finding. It is
therefore evident that a key issue which needs addressing in the future is not concerned with
the 18% of eligible schools who applied for a Kitemark award in 2012-13 but a focus on the
82% who did not apply for an award. SGOs should be encouraged to work with the schools
which have not engaged thus far and to support them through the process.
SGO engagement in the award scheme has also improved with 84% of SGOs engaged during
2012-13 compared with 64% in 2011-12, this is a positive indication that building the process
of the Kitemark award scheme into SGOs' work plans is having an impact. There remains
varying levels of engagement in the scheme by SGO area which is highlighted by the fact that
25% of SGOs accounted for 58% of total applications in 2012-13. Further targeted support
work on those SGO areas which are less engaged is required in order to help drive up the
volume of applications in the future.
Progression of Schools
For those schools which are first time applicants, the overall picture is one of a higher failure
rate; higher levels of achievement at Bronze level and as a result lower levels of achievement
at Gold and Silver levels. These findings suggest that there is plenty of evidence of schools
aspiring to achieve a Kitemark award and also either maintaining their level of award or
progressing to a higher level of award in the future. Some elements of the award will be more
difficult to achieve for some schools aspiring to achieve a higher level of award, notably the
number of B and C teams required and also involving pupils in Leading, Managing and
Officiating in School Games activity. SGOs will play an important role in helping their
schools to plan for progression and helping them put in place action plans in order to
maintain their Kitemark award in the future.
Driving Volume
The biggest challenge for the Kitemark award scheme in the future is ensuring that the
scheme is relevant to 82% of eligible schools that did not apply for an award in 2012-13. It is
evident from SGO workplans and their forecasting for Kitemark awards that we can expect
the number of applications for an award in 2013-14 to increase as overall SGOs are
23
forecasting a 146% increase on the number of applications achieved in 2012-13. We estimate
the proportion of eligible schools applying should increase from 18% to 44%, if projections
are converted into actual applications.
The changes to the criteria made for the 2013-14 period are also likely to have some impact
on driving up the volume of applications. The changes which have been made have been
applied with the understanding that the criteria will become more accessible to more schools
by removing barriers which in the past have acted as a deterrent to applying for an award;
notably relaxing the requirement of two hours of PE during curriculum time each week for all
pupils at Bronze and Silver level. This is a key message which should be communicated to
schools via their SGOs as to date this has been a major barrier for some schools.
Longer term Recommendations
We found that the list of School Games sports formats is not fully inclusive of the range of
competition activity taking place in schools and therefore a review of these sports is
necessary and could as a result affect two of the criteria (the number of sports listed as School
Games sports for Level 1 and 2 activity as well as the requirements for B and C teams). It
was evident that although some schools felt they were providing meaningful competition
activities in array of different sports this could not be fully reflected in their Kitemark
applications due to sports such as Dodgeball being excluded and athletics being an umbrella
term for an array of activities such as indoor and outdoor athletics as well as cross country. A
review of SGO competition calendars to ascertain the array of sporting activity taking place
would provide further evidence to review the list of 38 School Games sports.
Conclusion
The independent validation with 300 schools confirmed that the online validation process was
94% accurate (in terms of the pass / fail rate) and 100 schools were worthy of a higher award
than they were originally in line to achieve. This suggests that the Kitemark criteria and the
process of applying for an award are reliable instruments in which Sport England, the Youth
Sport Trust and other stakeholders can be confident. The changes to the criteria for 2013-14
will increase confidence in the process further.
The award scheme received some 2,762 applications in 2012-13, an increase of 67%
compared with 2012-13. With a programme of this nature there will always be the need for
continuous improvement and a need to evolve in order to respond to the demand from
schools and the school sport infrastructure. A considerable amount of learning has taken
place throughout 2012-13 and the independent validation programme has added value to this
and enabled changes to the criteria to be implemented for 2013-14. We are confident that the
action taken from the learning acquired over the last two years will help drive up the number
and quality of applications for a School Games Kitemark Award in 2013/14 and beyond.
Sport Industry Research Centre
December 2013
24
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: The list of 300 schools validated
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SGO Name
Abigail Price
Abigail Price
Adella Ball
Adella Ball
Alan Grantham
Alan Grantham
Alan Watkinson
Alan Watkinson
Alex Cleland
Alex Cleland
SGO Region
Royal Alexandra & Albert
Royal Alexandra & Albert
Parklands
Parklands
Caistor
Caistor
Isleworth & Syon
Isleworth & Syon
Shelfield
Shelfield
Alex Liddell
Alex Liddell
Alexa Joel
Alexa Joel
Alexandra Mays
Alexandra Mays
Alison Groves
Alison Groves
Alison Mapp
Alison Mapp
Alison Watt
Churchill Community
Churchill Community
William Edwards
William Edwards
Stourport
Stourport
Angmering
Angmering
Kingsbury (Birmingham)
Kingsbury (Birmingham)
St Ambrose Barlow
Alison Watt
St Ambrose Barlow
Hamble Community
Hamble Community
Carres
Carres
Wye Valley
Wye Valley
Lady Lumleys
Lady Lumleys
Bridlington
Bridlington
Barnhill
Barnhill
Rawlett
Rawlett
Chesterton
Chesterton
Grange (South Gloucestershire)
Grange (South Gloucestershire)
Birchwood
Birchwood
King Alfreds (Oxfordshire)
King Alfreds (Oxfordshire)
Ash Manor
Ash Manor
48
49
St Peter's CofE Middle School
St Edward's Royal Free Ecumenical Middle School
Windsor
Hall Meadow Primary School
Amanda Quill
Amanda Quill
Andrew Allen
Andrew Allen
Andy Cavill
Andy Cavill
Andy Park
Andy Park
Angel Sanderson
Angel Sanderson
Becci Cooke
Becci Cooke
Ben Bulleyment
Ben Bulleyment
Carl Inskip
Carl Inskip
Caroline Bungay
Caroline Bungay
Caroline Tooze
Caroline Tooze
Carolyn Murphy
Carolyn Murphy
Carrera Clarke
Carrera Clarke
Chantal Roe-gammon, Claire
Yeoman,
Chantal Roe-gammon, Claire
Yeoman,
Charlie Brewster
50
Barton Seagrave Primary School
Charlie Brewster
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
School Name
Salfords Primary School
St Matthew's CofE Primary School
Childwall Church of England Primary School
Calderstones School
St Michael's Church of England School Louth
Caistor Yarborough Academy
Gunnersbury Catholic School
Our Lady and St John's RC Primary School
Brownhills School
Shelfield Community Academy
Seaton Burn College A Specialist Business and Enterprise
School
Churchill Community College
Giffards Primary School
Woodside Primary School
Comberton Primary School
Burlish Park Primary School
Downsbrook Middle School
St John the Baptist CofE Primary School
Kingsbury School and Sports College
Calshot Primary School
Lander Road Primary School
Christ Church Church of England Controlled Primary
School
St John the Baptist Church of England Controlled Primary
School
Swanmore College of Technology
St Botolph's CofE Primary School
Carre's Grammar School
John Hampden Grammar School
The Disraeli School and Children's Centre
Lady Lumley's School
Rosedale Abbey Community Primary School
Bridlington School Sports College
Boynton Primary School
St Bernadette Catholic Primary School
Hillingdon Primary School
Rawlett Community Sports College
Thomas Barnes Primary School
Sir Thomas Boughey High School
St Chad's CofE (C) Primary School
Barrs Court Primary School
Longwell Green Primary School
The Bishop's Stortford High School
Thorn Grove Primary School
Faringdon Community College
Buckland Church of England Primary School
Broadwater School
William Cobbett Junior School
Windsor Boys and Girls
Windsor Boys and Girls
Southfield
Southfield
25
No.
77
78
79
80
School Name
Bramley St Peter's Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary
School
Swinnow Primary School
Park Junior School Wellingborough
Wrenn School
Hadlow School
St Margaret Clitherow Catholic Primary School
Ellesmere Port Christ Church CofE Primary School
The Whitby High School
Idsall School
William Brookes School
Lostock Gralam CofE Primary School
Charles Darwin Community Primary School
Whalley Range 11-18 High School and Business & Enterprise College
Wilbraham Primary School
Brewood CofE (C) Middle School
Havergal CofE (C) Primary School
Melbourn Village College
Swavesey Primary School
Waverton Community Primary School
Calveley Primary School
St Margaret Clitherows RC Primary School
Dormanstown Primary School
Leverstock Green Church of England Primary School
The Reddings Primary School
St Lawrence RC Primary School
Feltham Community College
St Osmund's Church of England Voluntary Aided Middle School
Dorchester
St George's Community Primary School
Birstwith Church of England Primary School
Glasshouses Community Primary School
81
St Thomas Aquinas Catholic Primary School
Dan Dawson
82
83
84
85
86
Trentham High School
Killigrew Primary and Nursery School
The Grove Infant and Nursery School
Christ Church CofE Primary School
The Catholic School of Saint Gregory the Great
Dan Dawson
Dan Klinger
Dan Klinger
Daniel Derrick
Daniel Derrick
87
Blackburn the Redeemer CofE Primary
Danny Morton, Andrew Mercer
St Cuthbert's Church of England Primary School
Cawthorne Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School
Darton Primary School
The Grove Special School
Berwick Middle School
Park View
West Green Primary School
Flanderwell Primary School
Bramley Grange Primary School
Holy Family VA RC Primary School
The Deans Primary School
Hollybush Primary School
The Sele School
Danny Morton, Andrew Mercer
Darren Padgett
Darren Padgett
Dave Pick, Franki Clark
Dave Pick, Franki Clark
Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas
David Walker
David Walker
Dean Gilmore
Dean Gilmore
Debbie Evans
Debbie Evans
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
SGO Name
SGO Region
Charlie Pyatt
Charlie Pyatt
Charlotte Sayers
Charlotte Sayers
Charlotte Twydell
Charlotte Twydell
Chris Caskie
Chris Caskie
Chris Jew
Chris Jew
Chris Story
Chris Story
Christine Bland
Christine Bland
Christine Wood
Christine Wood
Claire McDonnell
Claire McDonnell
claire smedley
claire smedley
Claire Tennyson
Claire Tennyson
Clare Mccawley
Clare Mccawley
Colin Smith
Colin Smith
Priesthorpe
Priesthorpe
Manor Raunds
Manor Raunds
Hayesbrook
Hayesbrook
Cheshire Oaks
Cheshire Oaks
Idsall
Idsall
Hartford
Hartford
Wright Robinson
Wright Robinson
Cheslyn Hay
Cheslyn Hay
Comberton Village
Comberton Village
Blacon
Blacon
Rye Hills
Rye Hills
Cavendish
Cavendish
Feltham
Feltham
Dale Rhodes
Dale Rhodes
Damien Smith, Naomi Jones
Damien Smith, Naomi Jones
Wey Valley
Wey Valley
Harrogate Granby
Harrogate Granby
Berry Hill (Stoke on
Trent)
Berry Hill (Stoke on
Trent)
Roundwood Park
Roundwood Park
Christ College
Christ College
St Bedes/Blackburn
with Darwen
St Bedes/Blackburn
with Darwen
Priory (Barnsley)
Priory (Barnsley)
Haydon Bridge II
Haydon Bridge II
Woodside
Woodside
Wickersley
Wickersley
All Hallows RC
All Hallows RC
Sele
Sele
26
No.
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
School Name
Paignton Community and Sports College
Brixham College
Broughton Primary School
Wallop Primary School
Bromet Primary School
Queens' School
Eastbrook Comprehensive School
Dagenham Park CofE School
St Benedict's Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Middle School
Bothal Middle School
Priestnall School
St Anne's Roman Catholic High School Stockport
Holt Voluntary Controlled Primary School
Bellefield Primary and Nursery School
Oldfield Primary School
Charters School
117
Mossley Hollins High School
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
Aldwyn Primary School and Motor Impaired Resource Base
Waddesdon Church of England School
Marsh Gibbon CofE Infant School
St Mary's Catholic Primary School Bicester
Blessed George Napier Catholic School and Sports College
Durham Community Business College for Technology and Enterprise
St Hild's College Church of England Aided Primary School Durham
St Martin's School Brentwood
Long Ridings Primary School
Cotsford Junior School
Dene House Primary School
The Holgate Comprehensive School
Sutton Centre Community College
Altrincham College of Arts
Wellfield Junior School
King's Norton Boys' School
St Paul's Catholic Primary School
Stow-on-the-Wold Primary School
Withington Church of England Primary School
SGO Name
Debbie Speed, Nick Gillard
Debbie Speed, Nick Gillard
Donna Smith
Donna Smith
Duessa Lipley
Duessa Lipley
Elaine Burgess, Claire Clark
Elaine Burgess, Claire Clark
Elizabeth Armstrong
Elizabeth Armstrong
Elle Baker
Elle Baker
Emily Reynolds
Emily Reynolds
Emma Fitzgerald
Emma Fitzgerald
Emma Heap, Rachel
Whitehead
Emma Heap, Rachel
Whitehead
Emma Howard
Emma Howard
Emma Jackson
Emma Jackson
Emma Nichol
Emma Nichol
Fiona Arnold
Fiona Arnold
Garry Purcell
Garry Purcell
Glynn Hall
Glynn Hall
Hannah Goddard
Hannah Goddard
Hannah Roberton
Hannah Roberton
Helen Pauling
Helen Pauling
137
Wellfield Methodist and Anglican Church School
Helen Tyson
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
Burnley Brunshaw Primary School
John F Kennedy Primary School
Biddick School Sports College
Clavering Primary School
Great Sampford Community Primary School
Haynes Lower School
Shelton Lower School
Dell Primary School
St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School
New Oscott Primary School
The Arthur Terry School
Palace Wood Primary School
St Augustine Academy
Helen Tyson
Iain Thom
Iain Thom
Jackie Coleman
Jackie Coleman
James Stephenson
James Stephenson
Jeffrey Hoey
Jeffrey Hoey
Jenny Tipping
Jenny Tipping
John Saunders
John Saunders
SGO Region
Paignton
Paignton
Mountbatten
Mountbatten
Queens
Queens
Barking Abbey
Barking Abbey
Ashington I (Ashington)
Ashington I (Ashington)
Priestnall
Priestnall
Kingdown Community
Kingdown Community
Charters
Charters
New Charter Academy
New Charter Academy
Buckingham
Buckingham
Blessed George Napier
Blessed George Napier
Gilesgate (Durham)
Gilesgate (Durham)
Shenfield
Shenfield
Easington
Easington
Kirkby (Nottinghamshire)
Kirkby (Nottinghamshire)
Ashton on Mersey
Ashton on Mersey
Baverstock
Baverstock
Cirencester Kingshill
Cirencester Kingshill
Blessed Trinity (St
Theodores)
Blessed Trinity (St
Theodores)
Biddick
Biddick
Saffron Walden
Saffron Walden
Redborne
Redborne
Kirkley
Kirkley
Wilson Stuart
Wilson Stuart
Astor of Hever
Astor of Hever
27
No.
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
School Name
Someries Junior School
Bushmead Primary School
Werneth School
Moorfield Primary School
Whitehill Primary School
Ifield School
Suffolks Primary School
Forty Hill CofE Primary School
Hazel Oak School
Light Hall School Specialist Mathematics and
Computing College
Wardle High School
Redwood
Lent Rise Combined School
Burnham Grammar School
Beechwood Primary School
The Heath School
St Martin's CofE Voluntary Aided Primary School
St Edmund's Church of England Girls' School and
Sports College
Ipsley CofE Middle School
Trinity High School and Sixth Form Centre
Bridgemary Community Sports College
Holbrook Primary School
Queen Elizabeth's School
St Michael's Church of England Voluntary Aided
Middle School, Colehill
St Mark's Catholic Primary School
Holy Family Catholic Primary School
Fulford School
Dunnington Church of England Voluntary Controlled
Primary School
Charing Church of England Aided Primary School
Kingswood Primary School
Hollingbourne Primary School
Cippenham Primary School
Langley Grammar School
Redden Court School
The Royal Liberty School
Fyndoune Community College
Edmondsley Primary School
188
John Taylor High School
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Victoria Community School
Maryport CofE Junior School
Ewanrigg Junior School
Oaks Park High School
Fairlop Primary School
Huntcliff School
Scawby Primary School
Sheddingdean Community Primary School
St Wilfrid's CofE Primary School Haywards Heath
Rawmarsh Community School - A Sports College
Wentworth CofE (Controlled) Junior and Infant School
St Mary's CofE Primary School
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
SGO Name
Jon Williets
Jon Williets
Judith Riddings
Judith Riddings
Julia Youens
Julia Youens
Julian Golding
Julian Golding
Julie Chrysostomou, Lisa Edwards
SGO Region
Stopsley
Stopsley
Stockport
Stockport
Meopham
Meopham
Lea Valley
Lea Valley
Lode Heath (South Solihull)
Julie Chrysostomou, Lisa Edwards
Julie Roberts
Julie Roberts
Karen Donnelly
Karen Donnelly
Karen Drake
Karen Drake
Karen Moore
Lode Heath (South Solihull)
Cardinal Langley
Siddal Moor
Burnham Upper
Burnham Upper
Saints Peter & Paul (Halton)
Saints Peter & Paul (Halton)
St Edmunds
Karen Moore
Karen Pearson
Karen Pearson
Kathryn Heathers
Kathryn Heathers
Katrina Cole
St Edmunds
Arrow Vale
Arrow Vale
Bridgemary
Bridgemary
Queen Elizabeths (Dorset)
Katrina Cole
Kerstine Hogg
Kerstine Hogg
Kevin Davies
Queen Elizabeths (Dorset)
Kirkby
Kirkby
Burnholme
Kevin Davies
Kimberley Humphrey
Kimberley Humphrey
Kimberley Humphrey
Laura Fear, Laura Goodall
Laura Fear, Laura Goodall
Laura Stubbington, Sharon Phillips
Laura Stubbington, Sharon Phillips
Leanne Weatherburn
Leanne Weatherburn
Les Pearson, Caroline Smith, Joanne
Cooper-Rowley
Les Pearson, Caroline Smith, Joanne
Cooper-Rowley
Linda Borthwick
Linda Borthwick
Lisa Whymark
Lisa Whymark
Liz Notman
Liz Notman
Lorraine Everard
Lorraine Everard
Louise White
Louise White
Lyndsey Hulme, Lyndsey Nolan
Burnholme
Swadelands
Swadelands
Swadelands
Wexham
Wexham
Coopers Company and Coborn
Coopers Company and Coborn
Roseberry
Roseberry
Robert Sutton
Robert Sutton
Netherhall (Cumbria)
Netherhall (Cumbria)
Caterham
Caterham
Baysgarth
Baysgarth
St Pauls
St Pauls
Rawmarsh
Rawmarsh
Wentworth
28
No.
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
School Name
Cadishead Primary School
Marton Manor Primary School
Pallister Park Primary School
Edward Betham Church of England Primary School
Downe Manor Primary School
Grantham Preparatory School
West Grantham Academy Spitalgate
Goring Church of England Aided Primary School
Whitchurch Primary School
Highcliffe Primary School
Overfields Primary School
Kew Woods Primary School
Holy Trinity Church of England Primary School
Pinfold Primary School
St Mary's RC Primary School
Victoria Road Primary School
St Mary's Catholic Primary School Crewe
Leighton Primary School
Allfarthing Primary School
Oak Lodge School
The Bulwell Academy
Whitemoor Primary and Nursery School
Mill Hill Primary School
Holden Lane High School Specialist Sports College
Knowles Primary School
Lord Grey School
Deyes High School
St Gregory's Catholic Primary School
Brighton Hill Community College
North Waltham Primary School
Lady Bankes Junior School
Bishop Ramsey CofE Voluntary Aided Secondary
School
Valley View Primary School
Mortimer Community College
Longford Park School
Wellacre Technology College
North Ferriby Church of England Voluntary Controlled
Primary School
Swanland Primary School
The Nottingham Emmanuel School
Hadden Park High School
Taverham High School
Great Witchingham Church of England Primary School
Wembury Primary School
Pomphlett Primary School
Alderley Edge Community Primary School
Parkroyal Community School
Herne Bay High School
Whitstable and Seasalter Endowed Church of England
Junior School
The Grange School
Aylesbury Grammar School
SGO Name
Lyndsey Hulme, Lyndsey Nolan
Malcolm Dewell
Malcolm Dewell
Mark Needham
Mark Needham
Mark Sayle
Mark Sayle
Matt Bunston
Matt Bunston
Michael Mastrolonardo, Pam Dodds
Michael Mastrolonardo, Pam Dodds
Mike Smethurst
Mike Smethurst
Natalie Craig
Natalie Craig
Neil Castle
Niall McGregor
Niall McGregor
Nick Miller
Nick Miller
Nick Robb, Sam Roper, Rebecca Mason
Nick Robb, Sam Roper, Rebecca Mason
Nigel Edwards
Nigel Edwards
Nina Sweetland
Nina Sweetland
Penni Allen
Penni Allen
Phil Jeffs
Phil Jeffs
Philippa Constable
SGO Region
Wentworth
Oakfields
Oakfields
West London Academy
West London Academy
Central Technology
Central Technology
Wallingford
Wallingford
Laurence Jackson
Laurence Jackson
Stanley
Stanley
Astley (Tameside)
Astley (Tameside)
North School
Ruskin
Ruskin
Southfields / Ernest Bevin
Southfields / Ernest Bevin
Ellis Guilford
Ellis Guilford
Holden Lane
Holden Lane
Leon
Leon
Chesterfield/Sefton
Chesterfield/Sefton
Brighton Hill
Brighton Hill
Hillingdon
Philippa Constable
Rachel Lynch
Rachel Lynch
Rachel Redmond
Rachel Redmond
Hillingdon
Mortimer I
Mortimer I
Flixton Girls
Flixton Girls
Rebecca D'Arcy
Rebecca D'Arcy
Rebecca Mason
Rebecca Mason
Rob Mccombe
Rob Mccombe
Rob Wright
Rob Wright
Rosie Harris
Rosie Harris
Sally Bell
South Hunsley
South Hunsley
Farnborough
Farnborough
Taverham
Taverham
Plymstock School
Plymstock School
Wilmslow
Wilmslow
Herne Bay
Sally Bell
Sam Clapham, Katy Kelly
Sam Clapham, Katy Kelly
Herne Bay
Mandeville
Mandeville
29
No.
251
Cherry Orchard First School
Sam Hook
252
253
254
255
Sam Hook
Sara Robson
Sara Robson
Sarah Burdett
Sarah Burdett
Sarah Lansdowne, Daniel Hewins
Sarah Lansdowne, Daniel Hewins
Sarah Price
Sarah Price
Sarah Williams
Sarah Williams
Sean O'Connor
Sean O'Connor
Seth Foster
St Lawrence
Crown Hills
Crown Hills
Sedgefield
Sedgefield
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Bognor Regis
Bognor Regis
Holmfirth
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
Pershore High School
Thriftwood School
New Hall Preparatory School
Saint Augustine Webster Catholic Primary School
Winterton Comprehensive School with Specialist Status in
Engineering
Rushey Mead School
Soar Valley College
Byers Green Primary School
Spennymoor Comprehensive School
The Park School
West Byfleet Junior School
Chichester High School for Girls
Bishop Tufnell CofE Junior School Felpham
Marsden Junior School
Brockholes Church of England Voluntary Controlled Junior
and Infant School
Yardley Primary School
Chingford CofE Voluntary Controlled Junior School
Southern Road Primary School
Cumberland School
Hampton College
Arthur Mellows Village College
Streetfield Middle School
All Saints Academy Dunstable
SGO Region
Evesham (South
Worcestershire)
Evesham (South
Worcestershire)
Great Baddow
Great Baddow
St Lawrence
Seth Foster
Shona Gordon
Shona Gordon
Simone Laidlow
Simone Laidlow
Sophie Jeal
Sophie Jeal
Steph Flynn, Kirsty Dunleavy
Steph Flynn, Kirsty Dunleavy
275
Swannington Church of England Primary School
Steve Benson, Rachel Harrison
276
277
278
279
280
Broom Leys School
Kings' School
Norwood Primary School
Hockliffe Lower School
Dovery Down Lower School
Steve Benson, Rachel Harrison
Stewart Magee
Stewart Magee
Stewart Seymour
Stewart Seymour
281
Bexleyheath Academy
Sue Allsop
282
Hurstmere Foundation School for Boys
Chorley All Saints Church of England Primary School and
Nursery Unit
Mayfield School
Nicholas Breakspear Catholic School
Park Street Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary
School
Broadhempston Village Primary School
Bovey Tracey Primary School
The Canon Peter Hall CofE Primary School
Healing Science Academy
Limeside Primary School
The Hathershaw College of Technology & Sport
Belvedere Preparatory School
Lawrence Community Primary School
Trinity School
Balfour Junior School
Hetton School
Houghton Kepier Sports College:A Foundation School
Congleton High School
Holmes Chapel Comprehensive School
Sue Allsop
Holmfirth
Rush Croft
Rush Croft
Cumberland (Newham)
Cumberland (Newham)
Stanground
Stanground
Northfields Technology
Northfields Technology
King Edward VII
(Leicestershire)
King Edward VII
(Leicestershire)
Toynbee
Toynbee
Vandyke Upper
Vandyke Upper
Chislehurst, Sidcup &
Hurstmere
Chislehurst, Sidcup &
Hurstmere
Sue Lago, Sue Lago, Gemma Stokes
Sue Lago, Sue Lago, Gemma Stokes
Tanya Angus
Holy Cross
Holy Cross
Nicholas Breakspear
Tanya Angus
Thomas Hayne
Thomas Hayne
Tristan Creighton
Tristan Creighton
Vicky Dean
Vicky Dean, Steve Tyrrell
Vicky Marshall
Vicky Marshall
Vikki Bell
Vikki Bell
Yvonne Setchell
Yvonne Setchell
Zoe Hughes
Zoe Hughes
Nicholas Breakspear
South Dartmoor
South Dartmoor
Oasis
Oasis
Failsworth
Waterhead Academy
Childwall
Childwall
Greenacre
Greenacre
Houghton Kepier
Houghton Kepier
Sandbach
Sandbach
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
School Name
SGO Name
30
Appendix 2: The validation pro-forma
SIRC Validation for School Games Kitemark Gold Award 2012 / 2013
1.
School Name:
2.
Type of School:
3.
Number of pupils:
31
SIRC Validation - PRE-REQUISITE Kitemark Requirements
1.
The school can provide evidence of holding a School Games Day which was a culmination of a year round
competition programme.
Yes ☐
No
☐
If yes, what evidence is available to support this?
2.
The school can provide evidence of a calendar of competition demonstrating opportunities for people
with SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disability) to take part in competitions.
Do any disabled students attend the school?
Yes ☐
No
☐
If yes, is there a calendar of competition that demonstrates opportunities for young disabled pupils to
take part in competitions?
Yes ☐
3.
No
☐
The school has a notice board promoting School Games activity.
Yes ☐
No
☐
Is the notice board branded with School Games paraphernalia? (N.B. if it does not, it is simply a school PE
board which does not meet the criteria).
Yes ☐
No
☐
If yes, what evidence is available to support this?
4.
Has a system in place to capture information on participation in School Games activity.
Yes ☐
No
☐
If yes, what evidence is available to support this?
5.
The school can provide clear evidence of offering opportunities which attract less active young people to
participate in physical activity.
Yes ☐
No
☐
If yes, detail any evidence of the school offering opportunities which attract less active young people to
participate in physical activity.
32
6.
The school can evidence that it provides at least two hours of physical education during curriculum time
each week for all pupils.
Yes ☐
No
☐
If yes, detail any evidence of pupils taking part in at least two hours physical education during
curriculum time each week.
33
GOLD Level Kitemark Requirements
1.
The school is providing the appropriate number of School Games competition formats for both boys and
girls within the academic year (boys only or girls only for single sex schools).
Yes ☐
No
☐
GOLD
SILVER
BRONZE
School Type
Level One
Level Two
Level One
Level Two
Level One Level Two
Primary school with KS2 of
less than 120 pupils
Primary school with KS2 of
more than 120 pupils
Secondary school of less
than 500 pupils
Secondary school of more
than 500 pupils
FE Institution
6 sports
6 sports*
4 Sports
4 Sports*
3 Sports
2 Sports
9 sports
9 sports
6 Sports
6 Sports
5 Sports
4 Sports
9 sports
9 sports
7 Sports
6 Sports
6 Sports
4 Sports
11 sports
11 sports
9 Sports
7 Sports
8 Sports
6 Sports
10 sports
10 sports
8 Sports
6 Sports
6 Sports
4 Sports
Special School
4 sports
3 sports
3 Sports
2 Sports
2 Sports
2 Sports
*can include mixed gender teams
If yes, what evidence is there to demonstrate this?
2.
The school is providing the appropriate number of School Games competition formats at B and C team
standard for both boys and girls within the academic year (boys only or girls only for single sex schools).
Yes ☐
No
☐
Primary school with KS2 of
less than 120 pupils
Primary school with KS2 of
more than 120 pupils
Secondary school of less
than 500 pupils
Secondary school of more
than 500 pupils
FE institution
Special School
B teams
1 sport
GOLD
C teams
n/a
SILVER
B teams C teams
1 Sport
N/A
BRONZE
B teams C teams
N/A
N/A
4 sports
1 sports
2 Sports
N/A
N/A
N/A
4 sports
2 sports
2 Sports
N/A
N/A
N/A
5 sports
2 sports
2 Sports
N/A
N/A
N/A
4 sports
1 sport
2 sports
n/a
3 Sports
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
If yes, what evidence is there to demonstrate this?
34
3.
Engages at least 20% of students in leading, managing and officiating in the School Games.
[10% = Silver, 5% = Bronze]
Yes ☐
No
☐
If yes, how many young people are leading, managing and officiating in the School Games activity?
Detail any evidence of number of young people leading, managing and officiating in the School Games.
4.
The school is offering opportunities that enable 70% (40% for special schools) of pupils to participate in
extra-curricular sporting activity every month.
[Silver: 45%/ 25% Special Schools, Bronze: 25% / 15% Special Schools]
Yes ☐
No
☐
If yes, how many opportunities are you offering? (evidence may include: objective - competition schedule,
registers to demonstrate the average number of sessions per week and total number of spaces provided
for participation and subjective - teacher's testimony).
5.
The school can provide evidence of strong engagement of students in School Games leagues or
competitions (Level 2) or School Games Festivals (Level 3) as volunteers or participants (where
qualification has been achieved).
[Silver & Bronze: N/A]
Yes ☐
No
☐
If yes, detail any evidence of strong engagement of students in Sainsbury's School Games leagues or
competitions (Level 2) or Sainsbury's School Games Festivals (Level 3) as volunteers or participants
(where qualification has been achieved).
6.
The school has a School Sport Organising Committee/Crew in place.
[Silver: Engages students in the planning and development of School Games activity - e.g. school councils;
Bronze: N/A]
Yes ☐
No
☐
If yes, detail any evidence of the School Sport Organising Committee/Crew.
35
7.
The school is utilising sports coaches to support school sport activity.
[Silver: Same as gold standard, Bronze: N/A]
Yes ☐
No
☐
If no, why?
If yes, detail any evidence that the school is utilising sports coaches to support school sport activity.
8.
The school trains wider school staff to support school sport activity.
[Silver & Bronze: N/A]
Yes ☐
No
☐
If yes, detail any evidence of the school training wider school staff to support school sport activity.
9.
The school can evidence active links with at least 6 local sports clubs (2 for special schools).
[Silver: Active Links with at least 3 local sports clubs (1 for special schools), Bronze: N/A]
Yes ☐
No
☐
If yes, provide examples of active links with at least 6 local sports clubs (2 for special schools).
10. The school is providing support for talented young athletes.
[Silver & Bronze: N/A]
Secondary school criteria: talented young sports people are offered specific support to help them to
balance their sporting commitments with school and home life.
Primary school criteria: talented young sports people are offered specific support to help them develop
their sporting potential.
Yes ☐
No
☐
If yes, detail any evidence of the support the school is providing to talented young athletes.
11. The school is promoting the School Games to parents and the local community once a fortnight.
[Silver & Bronze: N/A]
Can provide evidence of promotional activity being channelled to parents and the local community at
least once a fortnight?
36
Yes ☐
No
☐
Detail any examples of promotional activity / frequency of promotional activity.
12. Results of competitions and match reports are published regularly on the school website/local press.
[Silver: Same as gold, Bronze: N/A]
Yes ☐
No
☐
If yes, detail any evidence of match reports and competitions published regularly on the website/local
press.
37
Appendix 3: Colour coded rating of schools against criteria
Silver Schools
SILVER
Summary of evidence from
B validation
S G B S G visit
B S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S G
1. Held a School Games day as a culmination of a year round competition programme.
2. A calendar that demonstrates opportunities for disabled pupils to take part in competitions.
3. A notice board promoting School Games activity.
4. A system in place to track young people's participation in School Games.
5. Opportunities which attract less active young people to participate in physical activity.
6. Provide at least 2 hours physical education during curriculum time each week for all pupils.
1. Provides approved School Games Level one and1 Level 1two competitions
1
for boys1and girls
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2. Provides approved School 1
Games Level two
1 competitions
1
1 for B teams and1C teams for both boys and girls as
1 specified
1
in1 any one academic year. 1
1
3. Engages students in leading, managing and officiating
1
1 in School Games
1
activity.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4. Is offering enough participation and
1 competition
1 opportunities
1
to enable pupils to take part in extracurricular sporting activity at least every month.
9. Can evidence active links with
1 a number1of local sports
1 club (as specified).
1
1
1
1
1
10. Can provide evidence of provision of support1for talented
1
young sports people.1
1
11. Promote the School Games to parents
1
and the local 1
community
1
as1 specified.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
/
1
1
1
1
5. Can provide evidence of strong engagement of 1
students
1 in leagues or competitions
1 (Level 2) or School Games Festivals (Level 3) as volunteers or participants.
6. Can provide evidence of how
1 students have been
1 engaged in planning and1 developing
1
School
1
Games1activity.
1
7. Is utilising sports coaches to support school sport activity.
8. Can provide evidence of training wider school staff to support school sport activity.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
/
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12. Results of competitions and match reports are featured on1the school website / local press.
1
1
1
Summary of evidence from
B validation
S G B S G visit
B S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S G B S G B S GB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SG
1. Held a School Games day as a culmination of a year round competition programme.
2. A calendar that demonstrates opportunities for disabled pupils to take part in competitions.
3. A notice board promoting School Games activity.
4. A system in place to track young people's participation in School Games.
5. Opportunities which attract less active young people to participate in physical activity.
6. Provide at least 2 hours physical education during curriculum time each week for all pupils.
1. Provides approved School 1
Games1Level one and Level 1two competitions for
1 boys and girls
1
1
1
1
2. Provides approved School 1
Games Level two
1 competitions for B teams and1C teams for both boys
1 and1girls as
1 specified
1 in 1any one1 academic year.
1
3. Engages students in leading,
1 managing and
1 officiating
1
in School
1
Games
1
activity.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4. Is offering enough participation
1
and competition opportunities to enable1pupils to take part in extracurricular sporting activity at least every month.
1
1
1
1
1
9. Can evidence active links with
1 a number
1
of local sports club (as specified).
1
10. Can provide evidence of provision
1
1 of support for talented young
1
sports
1
people.
1
11. Promote the School Games to parents
1
and
1 the local community
1
as1 specified.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5. Can provide evidence of strong
1 engagement of students in leagues or competitions (Level 2) or School Games Festivals (Level 3) as volunteers or participants.1
6. Can provide evidence of how
1 students
1
have
1 been
1 engaged
1 in planning and developing School Games1activity.
1
7. Is utilising sports coaches to support school sport activity.
8. Can provide evidence of training wider school staff to support school sport activity.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12. Results of competitions and match reports are featured on the school website / local press.1
38
Summary of evidence from
B validation
S G B S Gvisit
B SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S GB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SG
1. Held a School Games day as a culmination of a year round competition programme.
2. A calendar that demonstrates opportunities for disabled pupils to take part in competitions.
3. A notice board promoting School Games activity.
4. A system in place to track young people's participation in School Games.
5. Opportunities which attract less active young people to participate in physical activity.
6. Provide at least 2 hours physical education during curriculum time each week for all pupils.
1. Provides approved School Games Level one
1 and Level two competitions1 for boys
1 and girls
1
1
1
2. Provides approved School Games Level two competitions1 for B teams and
1 C teams for 1both boys and girls as 1specified
1 in any1one academic
1
year. 1
1
1
3. Engages students in leading, managing and
1 officiating in School Games activity.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4. Is offering enough participation and competition opportunities to enable pupils to take part in
1 extracurricular
1 sporting activity at least
1
every month.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5. Can provide evidence of strong engagement of students in leagues or competitions (Level 2) or School Games Festivals (Level 3) as volunteers or participants.
6. Can provide evidence of how
1 students
1 have
1 been1engaged in planning
1
and developing1School Games activity.
7. Is utilising sports coaches to support school sport activity.
8. Can provide evidence of training wider school
1
staff to support school sport activity.
1
1
9. Can evidence active links with
1 a number of local sports 1club (as specified).
1
1
1
1
1
11. Promote the School Games to parents and the local community
1
as specified.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12. Results of competitions and match reports are featured on the school website / local press.
1
1
1
10. Can provide evidence of provision of support for talented young sports people.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Summary of evidence from
B validation
S G B S Gvisit
B SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB SGB S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G
1. Held a School Games day as a culmination of a year round competition programme.
2. A calendar that demonstrates opportunities for disabled pupils to take part in competitions.
3. A notice board promoting School Games activity.
4. A system in place to track young people's participation in School Games.
5. Opportunities which attract less active young people to participate in physical activity.
6. Provide at least 2 hours physical education during curriculum time each week for all pupils.
1. Provides approved School Games Level
1
one
1 and Level two
1 competitions1 for boys and girls
1
1
2. Provides approved School Games Level
1
two
1 competitions for B teams and C teams for1 both boys
1 and girls as
1 specified
1
in1any one academic
1
year.
1
1
1
1
1
3. Engages students in leading, managing and officiating
1
in School1 Games activity.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4. Is offering enough participation and competition opportunities to enable pupils to take part in extracurricular sporting activity at least every month.
5. Can provide evidence of strong engagement of students 1
in leagues or competitions (Level 2) or School Games Festivals (Level 3) as volunteers or participants.
6. Can provide evidence of how
1 students
1 have
1 been engaged
1 in planning and developing School1 Games
1 activity.
7. Is utilising sports coaches to support school sport activity.
8. Can provide evidence of training
1
wider school
1
staff to support
1
school sport activity.
1
9. Can evidence active links with
1 a number of
1 local 1sports club (as1 specified). 1
1
11. Promote the School Games1 to parents and the local
1 community as specified.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10. Can provide evidence of provision of support for talented
1 young sports people.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12. Results of competitions and
1 match reports are featured on the school website / local
1 press.
39
Summary of evidence from
B validation
S G B S visit
G B S G B S G B S GB SGBS G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G
1. Held a School Games day as a culmination of a year round competition programme.
2. A calendar that demonstrates opportunities for disabled pupils to take part in competitions.
3. A notice board promoting School Games activity.
4. A system in place to track young people's participation in School Games.
5. Opportunities which attract less active young people to participate in physical activity.
6. Provide at least 2 hours physical education during curriculum time each week for all pupils.
1. Provides approved School Games
1
Level
1 one and Level two competitions for boys and girls
1
1
1
1
2. Provides approved School Games Level
1 two1competitions for
1 B teams and C teams for both boys and girls1as specified in1any one
1 academic
1 year.
3. Engages students in leading, managing
1 and1officiating in School
1
Games activity. 1
1
1
1
1
4. Is offering enough participation
1
and1 competition opportunities to enable pupils to take part in extracurricular sporting activity at least1every month.
5. Can provide evidence of strong engagement of students in leagues or competitions
1
(Level 2) or School Games Festivals (Level 3) as volunteers
1
or participants.
6. Can provide evidence of how students have1been engaged
1
in planning
1 and1developing
1 School
1 Games
1 activity.
1
7. Is utilising sports coaches to support school sport activity.
8. Can provide evidence of training wider school
1 staff to support school sport activity.
9. Can evidence active links with
1 a number of 1local sports
1
club
1 (as specified).
1
10. Can provide evidence of provision of support
1 for talented
1
young sports people.
11. Promote the School Games to parents and the local community
1
as specified.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12. Results of competitions and match reports are featured on the school website / local press.
40
Bronze
BRONZE
Summary of evidence from validation visit
B
S
GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GBSGBSGB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S G B S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S G
1. Held a School Games day as a culmination of a year round competition programme.
2. A calendar that demonstrates opportunities for disabled pupils to take part in competitions.
3. A notice board promoting School Games activity.
4. A system in place to track young people's participation in School Games.
5. Opportunities which attract less active young people to participate in physical activity.
6. Provide at least 2 hours physical education during curriculum time each week for all pupils.
1. Provides approved School Games Level one and Level two competitions
1 1 1for boys
1 1 and girls1 1
11
11
11
1
1
11
1
2. Provides approved School Games Level two competitions for B1teams
1 1and
1 C1teams
1 1for1 both
1 1boys and
1 girls as specified
1 1 1in any1 one academic
1 1 year.
11
1
1
11
3. Engages students in leading, managing and officiating in School Games
1 1activity.
11 11
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
11
1
11
4. Is offering enough participation and competition opportunities to enable pupils
1 1 to take part
1 1 in extracurricular sporting
1 activity
1 1at1least every month.
11
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
11
1
11
1
11
11
11
11
1
11
5. Can provide evidence of strong engagement of students in leagues
1 or competitions
1
(Level
1
2)1or School Games Festivals (Level13) as volunteers or participants.
6. Can provide evidence of how students have been engaged 1in planning
1
and
1 developing
1 1 1 1 School Games
1 1 activity.
1
1
7. Is utilising sports coaches to support school sport activity.
1
1
1
11
1
1
11
11
11
1
1
1
11
11
1
1
1
1
1
11
1 1
1
8. Can provide evidence of training wider school staff to support school
1
sport activity.
1
9. Can evidence active links with a number of local sports club (as
1 1specified).
1 11
1
1
11
11
10. Can provide evidence of provision of support for talented young sports people.
1
11. Promote the School Games to parents and the local community
1 1
1as specified.
11
11
11
12. Results of competitions and match reports are featured
1 on
1 the
11
school website
1 1 / local press.
11 11
11
Summary of evidence from validation visit
11
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
1
1
11
11
11
11
11
1
11
1
1
11
11
11
1
1
11
11
1
1
1
1
11
11
1
11
11
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
11
11
1
11
11
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
11
1
11
11
1 1
1
11
1
1
B S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S GB S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S GB S G B S G B S G B S G B S G B S G
1. Held a School Games day as a culmination of a year round competition programme.
2. A calendar that demonstrates opportunities for disabled pupils to take part in competitions.
3. A notice board promoting School Games activity.
4. A system in place to track young people's participation in School Games.
5. Opportunities which attract less active young people to participate in physical activity.
6. Provide at least 2 hours physical education during curriculum time each week for all pupils.
1. Provides approved School Games Level one and 1Level
1 two competitions1 for1boys
1 and
1 1 girls 1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2. Provides approved School Games Level two competitions
1
1for 1
B teams
1
and
1 C teams
1 1 for
1 both
1 1boys and girls
1 as1specified
1 1 1 in 1any
1 one
11
academic
1 year.1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
3. Engages students in leading, managing and officiating 1in1School Games
1 1 activity. 1 1
11
11
1
11
11
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
4. Is offering enough participation and competition opportunities to enable pupils to take part in extracurricular
1
sporting activity at least every
1
month.
1
5. Can provide evidence of strong engagement of students
1
in leagues or competitions (Level
1
2) or School Games
1
Festivals (Level 3) as1volunteers or1participants.
1
6. Can provide evidence of how students have been engaged
1 1 1in planning
1
1and 1developing
1 1 1 School
1 Games
1 1 activity.
1 11
11
7. Is utilising sports coaches to support school sport
1 1activity.
11
11
1
8. Can provide evidence of training wider school staff
1 to support school sport activity.
9. Can evidence active links with a number of local1sports
1
club (as specified). 1
11
1
1
10. Can provide evidence of provision of support for talented young sports people.
1
11. Promote the School Games to parents and the local
1 community
1
1 as specified.
1
1
11
11
12. Results of competitions and match reports are featured on the school website
1 1 / local press.
11
11
11
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
11
1
11
1
11
11
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
11
1 1
1 1
1 1
11
1 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
41
Appendix 4: Reasons for 'failure' at higher levels of award
All Failures, performance at the Bronze level
School Type
Total
Level 1
Level 2
Leading,
Managing,
Officiating
Extracurricular
Primary school, less than 120 pupils KS2
N
109
N
48
%
44%
N
18
%
17%
N
46
%
42%
N
18
%
17%
Primary school, more than 120 pupils KS2
234
130
56%
52
22%
83
36%
38
16%
Secondary school of less than 500 pupils
4
1
25%
3
75%
0
0%
0
0%
Secondary school of more than 500 pupils
50
29
58%
10
20%
19
38%
7
14%
Special school
14
2
14%
4
29%
10
71%
1
7%
411
210
51%
87
21%
158
38%
64
16%
Total
Primary and Secondary schools awarded Silver
School Games Kitemark Award Criteria
Primary
Schools also
passing at Gold
Secondary
Schools also
passing at Gold
No.
%
No.
%
41
55%
51
62%
44
59%
32
31%
45
61%
39
43%
67
91%
68
90%
67
91%
73
98%
26
35%
44
51%
74
100%
74
100%
71
96%
68
90%
37
50%
59
75%
10. Can provide evidence of provision of support for talented young sports people.
58
78%
68
90%
11. Promote the School Games to parents and the local community as specified.
12. Results of competitions and match reports are featured on the school website /
local press.
43
58%
50
61%
69
93%
71
95%
1. Provides approved School Games Level one and Level two competitions for
boys and girls
2. Provides approved School Games Level two competitions for B teams and C
teams for both boys and girls as specified in any one academic year.
3. Engages students in leading, managing and officiating in School Games activity.
4. Is offering enough participation and competition opportunities to enable pupils
to take part in extracurricular sporting activity at least every month.
5. Can provide evidence of strong engagement of students in leagues or
competitions Level 2 or Level 3
6. Can provide evidence of how students have been engaged in planning and
developing School Games activity.
7. Is utilising sports coaches to support school sport activity.
8. Can provide evidence of training wider school staff to support school sport
activity.
9. Can evidence active links with a number of local sports club (as specified).
42
All schools awarded Bronze (N = 71)
School Games Kitemark Award Criteria
1. Provides approved School Games Level one and Level two competitions for
boys and girls
2. Provides approved School Games Level two competitions for B teams and C
teams for both boys and girls
3. Engages students in leading, managing and officiating in School Games activity.
4. Is offering enough participation and competition opportunities to enable pupils
to take part in extracurricular sporting activity at least every month.
5. Can provide evidence of strong engagement of students in leagues or
competitions Level 2 or Level 3
6. Can provide evidence of how students have been engaged in planning and
developing School Games activity.
7. Is utilising sports coaches to support school sport activity.
8. Can provide evidence of training wider school staff to support school sport
activity.
9. Can evidence active links with a number of local sports club (as specified).
Schools also
passing at
Silver
Schools also
passing at
Gold
No.
%
No.
%
48
68%
22
31%
36
51%
12
17%
41
58%
21
30%
62
87%
52
73%
46
65%
N/A
41
58%
10
14%
60
85%
55
77%
43
61%
13
18%
40
56%
N/A
44
10. Can provide evidence of provision of support for talented young sports people.
11. Promote the School Games to parents and the local community as specified.
12. Results of competitions and match reports are featured on the school website /
local press.
62%
N/A
44
62%
13
18%
39
55%
33
46%
Primary schools awarded Bronze (N = 52)
School Games Kitemark Award Criteria
1. Provides approved School Games Level one and Level two competitions for
boys and girls
2. Provides approved School Games Level two competitions for B teams and C
teams for both boys and girls as specified in any one academic year.
3. Engages students in leading, managing and officiating in School Games activity.
4. Is offering enough participation and competition opportunities to enable pupils
to take part in extracurricular sporting activity at least every month.
5. Can provide evidence of strong engagement of students in leagues or
competitions Level 2 or Level 3
6. Can provide evidence of how students have been engaged in planning and
developing School Games activity.
7. Is utilising sports coaches to support school sport activity.
8. Can provide evidence of training wider school staff to support school sport
activity.
9. Can evidence active links with a number of local sports club (as specified).
Primary
Schools also
passing at
Silver
Primary
Schools also
passing at Gold
No.
%
No.
%
33
63%
13
25%
25
48%
9
17%
35
67%
17
33%
47
90%
38
73%
31
60%
N/A
28
54%
9
17%
46
88%
44
85%
32
62%
7
13%
29
56%
N/A
30
10. Can provide evidence of provision of support for talented young sports people.
11. Promote the School Games to parents and the local community as specified.
12. Results of competitions and match reports are featured on the school website /
local press.
58%
N/A
34
65%
12
23%
27
52%
22
42%
43
Secondary schools awarded Bronze (N = 18)
School Games Kitemark Award Criteria
1. Provides approved School Games Level one and Level two competitions for
boys and girls
2. Provides approved School Games Level two competitions for B teams and C
teams for both boys and girls as specified in any one academic year.
3. Engages students in leading, managing and officiating in School Games activity.
4. Is offering enough participation and competition opportunities to enable pupils
to take part in extracurricular sporting activity at least every month.
5. Can provide evidence of strong engagement of students in leagues or
competitions Level 2 or Level 3
6. Can provide evidence of how students have been engaged in planning and
developing School Games activity.
7. Is utilising sports coaches to support school sport activity.
8. Can provide evidence of training wider school staff to support school sport
activity.
9. Can evidence active links with a number of local sports club (as specified).
Secondary
Schools also
passing at
Silver
Secondary
Schools also
passing at Gold
No.
%
No.
%
14
78%
8
44%
10
56%
2
11%
5
28%
3
17%
14
78%
13
72%
14
78%
N/A
12
67%
1
6%
13
72%
10
56%
10
56%
N/A
13
10. Can provide evidence of provision of support for talented young sports people.
11. Promote the School Games to parents and the local community as specified.
12. Results of competitions and match reports are featured on the school website /
local press.
72%
N/A
5
28%
11
61%
10
56%
2
11%
12
67%
11
61%
All Failures, performance at the Bronze level
Bronze
upgrades to
Silver
(N = 55)
Silver
upgrades to
Gold (N = 45)
No.
%
No.
%
1. Provides approved School Games Level one competitions for boys and girls
5
9%
4
9%
1. Provides approved School Games Level two competitions for boys and girls
2. Provides approved School Games Level two competitions for B teams for both
boys and girls as specified in any one academic year.
2. Provides approved School Games Level two competitions for C teams for both
boys and girls as specified in any one academic year.
3. Engages students in leading, managing and officiating in School Games activity.
4. Is offering enough participation and competition opportunities to enable pupils
to take part in extracurricular sporting activity at least every month.
5. Can provide evidence of strong engagement of students in leagues or
competitions Level 2 or Level 3
6. Can provide evidence of how students have been engaged in planning and
developing School Games activity.
12
22%
5
11%
10
18%
3
7%
9
20%
School Games Kitemark Award Criteria
N/A
16
29%
14
31%
11
20%
6
13%
1
2%
N/A
16
6. School Sport Organising Committee/Crew
7. Is utilising sports coaches to support school sport activity.
8. Can provide evidence of training wider school staff to support school sport
activity.
9. Can evidence active links with a number of local sports club (as specified).
N/A
2
4%
N/A
14
10. Can provide evidence of provision of support for talented young sports people.
11. Promote the School Games to parents and the local community as specified.
12. Results of competitions and match reports are featured on the school website /
local press.
29%
25%
N/A
N/A
7
16%
0
0%
3
7%
15
33%
4
9%
25
45%
29
64%
10
18%
0
0%
44