‘It’s all about developing the whole child’: an examination of the ‘legacy’ benefits of
Youth Sport Trust’s school-based inclusion initiatives.
European Physical Education Review
Alison Black
University of Exeter, UK
Rebecca Costello
University of Exeter, UK
Anna Craft
University of Exeter, UK
Will Katene
University of Exeter, UK
Accepted version March 2015
Abstract
Between 2011-2013, the Department for Education (DfE) in England made £3.3 million
available to support the development of opportunities for young disabled people to access
high quality physical education and school sport. The DfE with the Youth Sport Trust (YST)
developed a range of initiatives to help meet this aim, including Project Ability,
TOPsportsability and the Young Leaders programme. The authors of this article were
commissioned by YST to evaluate the school-based inclusion initiatives. One aspect of the
evaluation was an examination of project ‘legacy’ benefits – a term much cited in the run-up
to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. This article asks what additional,
unexpected, positive legacy benefits appear to be associated with the capacity built by the
DfE Disability project initiatives? A wide range of legacy benefits beyond those YST set out
to achieve were found, and include: tangible achievements such as accreditation; and
intangible benefits such as the holistic development of participants beyond sports.
Keywords
Special educational needs and disabilities, young disabled people, physical education and
school sports (PESS), legacy benefits
1
Introduction
This article describes the ‘legacy benefits’ of some of the Youth Sport Trust’s (YST)
disability initiatives (namely Project Ability, Young Leaders and TOP Sportability –
collectively known as the ‘DfE Disability project’), specifically benefits beyond the
objectives YST set out to achieve. These initiatives were created by YST in England as a
result of governmental funding, from the Department for Education (DfE) for the explicit
purposes of creating a step-change in local infrastructure and increasing the numbers of
young disabled people participating, competing and progressing in sport (YST, 2012).
The study was undertaken on behalf of YST by a research team at the University of Exeter,
taking place across the 2012-2013 school year. This article focuses on answering one of the
evaluation questions: ‘what additional (perhaps unexpected) positive legacy benefits appear
to be associated with the capacity built by the DfE Disability Project initiatives?’ It sets out
the background of the study, outlining the aims of the DfE Disability Project under evaluation
and describing the various initiatives and funding mechanisms. An examination of the policy
context of Physical Education and School Sport (PESS) is undertaken, with a focus on
outcomes for young disabled people1, leading to an exploration of the concept of legacy. We
define what we mean by ‘legacy benefit’ in the context of this article. The methods used to
ascertain the legacy benefits resulting from the various disability initiatives are described.
The data-gathering included electronic questionnaires in addition to semi-structured
interviews with key stakeholders and lesson observations in 5 case-study sites. The findings
are reported, illustrated with examples from the data gathered.
The legacy benefits identified were:
1
Throughout this article we refer to young disabled people, mainly as this reflects the language used by YST
and the DfE in PESS and Olympic legacy documentation. This can be problematic for a number of reasons.
Firstly, there is a lack of consensus on whether to refer to the person or the disability first (see Harpur, 2012).
Secondly in school some of these young people are often referred to as having special educational
needs/disability, which can vary from a physical disability to a learning disability. Finally, young disabled people
are not a homogenous group (Barton, 2003), what is true for one disabled person may not be true for others.
2
-
the holistic development beyond sports (developing the ‘whole child’, such as
transferable skills, behaviour and self-beliefs);
-
tangible concrete achievements (for example accreditation that may not have been
gained without participation in the project);
-
changing of attitudes (including those of school staff and young people with and
without disabilities).
Contextualising the study
The DfE Disability Project
The DfE Disability project under evaluation began in 2006 in anticipation of the 2012
Olympic and Paralympic Games. It initially focused on strategies to support the PESS
element of the Playground to Podium (P2P) framework. P2P helped raise the profile of
disability sport within schools, ‘many schools demonstrated positive levels of adoption and
are highly committed to the continuation of sports opportunities for disabled people’
(Merseyside Sports Partnership and Oaks Consultancy, 2013: 69). However, it was a short
term initiative, neither designed nor resourced to create a systemic change in the structures
underpinning PESS (YST, 2012). Thus, there continued to be a lack of opportunities for
young disabled people to take part in sport, to compete meaningfully in school sport, and to
progress into community clubs (Skyblue Research and North Yorkshire Sport, 2012; YST,
2012). Through the DfE Disability Project, YST sought to explore ways to transition the most
valued elements of P2P into the new PESS strategy, made up of the complimentary initiatives
described below.
In the school year leading up to the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics, the DfE made
further funding available to develop opportunities for young disabled people to access high
quality PESS. The funding was to support National Governing Bodies (NGB), County Sports
Partnerships (CSP) and schools in a joint venture made up of a number of complementary
3
initiatives. It operated at three levels: all schools; targeted county areas; and priority NGBs. It
was the school-level initiatives the University of Exeter was commissioned to evaluate.
The main aims of the school-based strand was to equip all schools with the knowledge
and skills needed to increase the inclusion of young disabled people in PESS and intra-school
competition and to build school-level capacity for this (YST, 2012). Several initiatives were
developed to facilitate this, namely Project Ability; TOPsportsability; Paralympic Athlete
Mentors; and a Young Leaders scheme.
The Project Ability (PA) strategy involved focused development work with 50
schools (mainstream, special, primary and secondary schools) to lead the way in increasing
the range and accessibility of opportunities for young disabled people in their local area.
These PA schools, selected by YST for their expertise in engaging young disabled people in
PESS, aim to improve and extend PESS provision for young disabled people. They do this
through the training and support of a variety of PESS staff; supporting and extending
development of multi-sport disability clubs; development of inclusive sports formats with
NGBs; and development of Innovation Projects.
TOPsportsability is an inclusive activities programme developed by the YST in
partnership with the NGBs of various sports, aimed at supporting teachers and other
professionals in engaging young disabled people in PESS, and in School Games (SG)
activities. It includes an online resource for schools, consisting of video-clips and
downloadable content showing strategies around the inclusion of young disabled people in
PESS. DfE funding was used to enhance the existing TOPsportsability package by adding
additional sports and making its content and resources available to 3,600 teachers. PA
schools were trained in the resource, with the view of cascading this training to other schools
and School Games Organisers (SGOs).
4
Some of Britain's most successful athletes were recruited and trained by YST to be
Paralympic Athlete Mentors (PAMs), tasked with visiting schools to deliver mentoring to
2,500 young disabled people and inclusion awareness sessions to 10,000 young people.
YST’s Young Leaders programme aims to empower young people to become leaders
by learning and developing leadership skills in sport and SG. It is on offer to all young people
who wish to be involved in leadership – including young disabled people. Regional
Leadership Academies have been set up and provide opportunities for young leaders to
develop and learn from other students. Particular guidance within these Leadership
Academies has been produced by YST on how to create an inclusive and supportive
environment for young disabled people.
In addition to these initiatives there was a drive to enhance the inclusion element of
the SGs, creating meaningful opportunities for all young people, including those with
disabilities, to take part in them. There are a range of logistical, physical and psychological
barriers to young disabled people taking part in competitive sport (Rankin, 2012; Skyblue
Research and North Yorkshire Sport, 2012). The SGs are designed to circumvent these,
encouraging young people across the country to take part in competitive sport at a range of
levels (locally, regionally and nationally). SGOs and PA schools support the delivery of the
SGs.
The legacy agenda and PESS related policy
The policy landscape surrounding PESS is a crowded, complex one (Jung, 2014), as ‘its
delivery involves a disparate range of agencies and a plethora of sports initiatives that have
become increasingly interconnected with policy areas such as health and education’
(Phillpott, 2011: 131). A range of organisations’ interests and agendas co-exist in the
landscape (Houlihan, 2000) each setting their own priorities. Both YST and the DfE have a
5
role in PESS policy. YST is an organisation with a key role in both lobbying and influencing
government policy on PESS as well as supporting schools in implementing these policies.
Since 2008 YST have also had a remit to provide access to PESS for young disabled people
(Jung, 2014; Phillpotts, 2011).
A further complexity is the changes in governmental policy direction and
relationships with non-governmental bodies that are heralded by each change of
administration/education secretary (House of Commons Education Committee, HC 164-I,
2013). This results in ‘school sport being kicked around as a political football’ (HC 164-I,
2013: 4). Jung (2014) documents YST’s role in PESS policy, from its beginnings in 1994 as a
small, independent charity to becoming the main agency for delivering PESS policy. Jung
then outlines how this has changed direction again since the change of administration
following the UK’s general election in 2010, the DfE having reduced YST’s role in
constructing and implementing PESS strategies.
Thus, charting the development of provision for young disabled people in PESS is a
difficult one, as relationships with providers and funding mechanisms have changed and
evolved. In the same way, charting the expected legacy of the 2012 London Olympic and
Paralympic Games is difficult as the legacy boundaries varied when the administration
changed following the 2010 general election (Weed, 2013). Legacy benefits specifically for
disabled people were a latecomer to the general Olympic legacy planning (Weed, 2013).
There was no mention of disabled people in the initial legacy action plan (see Department of
Culture, Media and Sport, 2008). It was only in 2010 that a document was produced that
highlighted the envisioned legacy for disabled people (DCMS and ODI, 2010: 2). These
legacies were to:
-
‘Influence the attitudes and perceptions of people to change the way they think about
disabled people;
6
-
Increase the participation of disabled people in sport and physical activity;
-
Promote and drive improvements in business, transport and employment opportunities
for disabled people’.
Again, with the change of government after the general election in 2010, the specific legacy
benefits for disabled people all but disappeared from policy promises (Weed, 2013, DCMS,
2010).
The University of Exeter study
The Exeter research study was commissioned to evaluate the success of the DfE Disability
Project in achieving the funding priorities of the school strand of work for which YST were
the responsible delivery partner.2 We explored how the DfE Disability Project built capacity
in terms of:
- how teachers approach their work;
- effectiveness of TOPsportsability training/resources;
- development of inclusive competition through the SGs;
- development of the PA innovation projects;
- effectiveness of PAM visits in raising aspirations;
- any additional ‘legacy benefits’ of the inclusion initiatives.
This paper is focused on exploring the final bullet point in the list, the ‘legacy benefits’,
developing it as a research question: what additional (perhaps unexpected) positive legacy
benefits appear to be associated with the capacity built by the DfE Disability Project
initiatives? This was explored in terms of outcomes of the initiatives described above,
beyond those expected by the DfE and YST.
2
Evaluation report: Craft, Black, Costello and Katene, 2013. Other evaluations of the DfE Disability Project
include reports on the CSPs and NGBs (Skyblue Research and North Yorkshire Sport,2012) and P2P (Merseyside
Sports Partnership and Oaks Consultancy, 2013).
7
Conceptualising legacy within the Exeter study
‘Legacy’, a popular term in the run up to and aftermath of London 2012, is a multidimensional (Agha, Fairly and Gibson, 2012), elastic (Grix and Philpotts, 2013) term. It is a
complicated concept (Jung, 2013), difficult to quantify and measure (Griffths and Armour,
2013; Preuss, 2007), and is a problematic term (Weed, 2013) perhaps as there remains a lack
of agreement on its meanings (Preuss, 2007; Jung, 2013).
We chose to use it in the reporting of the identified additional benefits and impacts as it is a
contemporary term, and in the aftermath of the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympics a
particularly apt one for discussing the outcomes of a PESS strategy. It corresponds well with
notions of Olympic legacy that UK citizens were promised would result from the London
Olympics and Paralympics (DCMS, 2008), and it gives us a firmer, more concrete term than
‘additional outcomes’ to engage with.
DCMS (2008: 8) define legacy of a sporting event as ‘the imprint they leave’, arguing
that in the context of the 2012 Games it is ‘not just what happens after the Games, but what
we do before and during them to inspire individuals and organisations to strive for their best,
to try new activities, forge new links or develop new skills’. A more systematic definition and
conceptualisation is attempted by Preuss (2007: 211), who developed the following synthesis:
‘irrespective of the time of production and space, legacy is all planned and unplanned,
positive and negative, tangible and intangible structures created for and by a sport event that
remain longer than the event itself’. He illustrates these as dimensions on a cube (see Figure
1). Each dimension relates to a binary pair: planned and unplanned legacies; positive and
negative legacies; tangible and intangible legacies. The cube can then be split into eight subcubes, each with different combinations of the legacy types. Preuss argues that most
discussion around major sporting events like the 2012 London Olympics and Paralympics
8
focuses on the planned, positive, tangible legacies, rather than a focus on all legacies. For
example, a report on the legacy from the games (HM Government/Mayor of London, 2013:
p.28) commented that ‘in the first year, Project Ability has benefited around 5,000 disabled
children in 486 schools with 32 sports working with the programme’ – something that was
planned for, is positive and can be measured.
Figure 1: legacy cube (adapted from Preuss, 2007)
In our evaluation we looked at two of the possible 8 ‘sub-cubes’ – the unplanned,
positive, tangible legacies, and the unplanned, positive, intangible legacies (see the shaded
sub-cubes on figure 1). In terms of differentiating between tangible and intangible legacies,
we apply Preuss’ (2007) notion of ‘hard’, tangible structures, those that can be easily
measured, versus ‘soft’ intangible structures, which are harder to quantify.
We opted to look at the positive legacy benefits as YST’s (2012: 4) Invitation to
Tender document specified their desire that we report on ‘any benefits that people have
experienced that result from these projects’. We acknowledge that a more balanced analysis
may be desirable. However, Enright, Hill, Sandford & Gard (2014) point to the tendency
within the field of PESS research to prioritise ‘what’s broken’, rather than strengths and
9
opportunities. By examining the positive legacy benefits we are actioning Enright et al’s
(2014: 915) call for research that counter-balances ‘the field’s preoccupation with problems
and deficit’.
Methods
Data were collected through use of a case study methodology, in addition to a survey of
practitioners. We sought to engage with a range of stakeholders, including young disabled
people and school staff who had participated in the different initiatives, in recognition of the
need for multiple voices and perspectives to be heard in the evaluation of inclusion initiatives
(Waite, Broomfield and McShane, 2005). A structured questionnaire sent to all schools
involved in the initiatives was used together with semi-structured interviews and lesson
observations in five case-study schools (four special, one mainstream). Fieldnotes collected at
the schools helped amplify findings from questionnaires and interviews.
The questionnaire was used with adults who had used some of the initiatives being
evaluated (estimated by YST to be 4050 people). It was sent via email to all Project Ability
schools, and to the administrative email address of all schools in England. This step was
necessary as due to data protection legislation YST felt they could not share the details of
teachers and School Games Organisers (SGOs) involved in the initiatives. A link to the
questionnaire was placed by YST in their circulars to SGOs and PAMs. Prior to analysis
responses from people who had not taken part in or used P2P, TOPsportsability or Project
Ability were removed as responses were sought only from those who had experienced the
initiatives. Valid questionnaires were completed and returned by 44 people, a disappointingly
low response rate of 1.1%. It was completed by teachers and SGOs who had received
training, support and resources from YST/DfE Disability Project funding; members of staff in
PA schools/sites; and PAMs.
10
In the questionnaire the stakeholders were probed on:
- their role;
- resources and initiatives they had used;
- support they had received and delivered;
- their development of local inclusive sporting opportunities;
- innovation projects.
Five case study schools were identified through the questionnaire - respondents had the
opportunity to include their contact details if they wished to continue their involvement in the
study. Twelve respondents reported interest in taking part in the case studies and following
discussion between the schools and the project team five schools were selected based on
availability within the project timeframe and representation of a range of geographic
locations. The case studies were undertaken by at least one researcher visiting each school for
a minimum of one day. During these visits, a range of data were collected, including semistructured interviews with Project Ability Leads (5), PE teachers (8), SGOs (5), one teaching
assistant and a SENCo. In addition, 3 PAMs were interviewed (not linked to the schools).
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 young disabled people (YDP), in addition
to observations of 12 Physical Education lessons.
Details of the location of schools, school type, and which stakeholders were
interviewed are listed in table 1, under given pseudonyms.
The interviews with the adult stakeholders explored the key areas of:
- training and support;
- use of TOPsportsability;
- their role/responsibilities;
- students’ participation in PESS;
- their innovation project.
11
School pseudonym,
region
Applegate special school,
South East
Davies special school,
North East
School type
Interviewees
Special
Greaves special school,
North East
Henshaw special school,
North West
Special
Simmonds secondary
school, South West
Mainstream
PA lead, 2 PE teachers, 6
YDP
PA lead, SGO, PE
teacher, deputy head, 7
YDP
PA lead, PE teacher,
SGO, 3 YDP
PA lead, 2 PE teachers,
teaching assistant, 1
inclusion lead, 5 YDP
PA lead, deputy head (a
PE teacher), SENCo,
SGO
PE teacher, 4 YDP
Special
Special
Table 1: Schools and participants
Interviews with young disabled people in schools involved questions about their participation
in PESS; what sports they were involved; their experience of inclusion in PESS; and their
involvement in the innovation projects. These interviews were carried out with visual-aids
created by the research team (with parts adapted from a tool created by Coates, 2010) to
facilitate young people’s understanding of the questions the researchers asked. The interview
was piloted in a special school with a focus group consisting of young disabled people and a
teaching assistant. As a result a number of changes made to the verbal language used as well
as to the visual-aid since the images in the original did not show many disabled people.
Thematic analysis of the data from questionnaire responses and interview transcripts
was undertaken, identifying, analysing and reporting patterns within the data (Braun and
Clarke, 2006). A systematic process of open, axial and thematic coding (Flick, 2006) was
employed. Examples of legacy benefits were primarily identified at the stage of initial open
coding of the questionnaire and interview data and triangulated across all other data sources.
The research team identified these aspects of legacy benefits by examining anything
particularly insightful that emerged out of the data that related to the impact of the initiatives
under evaluation. Examples were cross-checked by members of the YST team to ensure they
12
were examples of additional outcomes, that is, they were not an expected output of the
initiatives being evaluated. The examples designated as legacy benefits were then grouped
into the three themes set out below.
Credibility was approached through: investigator triangulation - between researchers;
methodological triangulation - between data collection instruments (Denzin, 1978); peerchecking (within the research team); and member validation (checking responses to
questionnaires during the interviews, checking examples of unplanned for legacy benefits
with YST representatives, Bryman, 2012).
The research team took steps to ensure informed consent was obtained from all
participants, and that researchers acted with sensitivity when working at each school, making
every effort to safeguard participants during data collection and analysis. We took particular
care as some participants may have had additional vulnerabilities due to their special
educational need/disability.
A number of steps have been taken in order to provide anonymity and confidentiality,
including the use of pseudonyms. Staff and other adults are referred to by their job role, and
geographic identifiers have been omitted from direct quotations where applicable. All
participants were made aware of their right to withdraw for any (and no) reason.
Findings
Three themes emerged from the analysis and were further broken down into sub-themes.
They are all seen to be positive and unexpected legacy benefits and classified as tangible or
intangible. Underlining has been used in the text to show the links to the DfE inclusion
initiatives being evaluated. Occasionally examples given use the terminology SEN/D – the
acronym for special educational needs and disabilities used in the school context in England.
13
Theme 1/ Intangible holistic development beyond sports – ‘It’s all about developing the
whole child, not about teaching sports’
The main legacy benefit was the effect of initiatives on the development of the whole child,
beyond skills in sport. The analysis revealed three areas of development attributed to the
initiatives: development of transferable skills; improved behaviour; and improved selfbeliefs.
Development of transferable skills. A key sub-theme was the successful development and use
of transferable skills by the young disabled people participating in the initiatives. Although
intangible, these are skills which are necessary to function in adult life (Bouck, 2012). A PA
lead teacher in Henshaw special school noted how Step into Sports camps led to success in a
range of areas: ‘as well as succeeding in sports, socially they were succeeding, becoming
really independent, making friends’. This aspect was reinforced in the interviews in which
two of the young people interviewed discussed how their trip to the weekend sports camps
made them more independent. One young person gave the example of how he learnt to switch
on his ventilation unit himself. In one school the young people who participated in the camps
were encouraged to plan their own journey there - developing independent travel skills.
One school emphasised that involvement in competitions and sports festivals are ways
to develop both life skills and social skills. Another school similarly stressed that the Young
Leaders initiative has had an impact on developing transferable life skills:
‘They’ve got to be able to speak clearly and…show demonstrations
precisely…It’s getting them skills to be able to [do so], and…they’re
transferable as well…they would explain what they’ve done and how
they’ve set it up and why they’ve done it’ (PE teacher, Davies special
school).
14
A PAM also recognised the potential of the Young Leaders programme and a PA school’s
innovation project in developing communication skills, describing the case of a young person
with Asperger’s syndrome who had limited communication but is now one of the main teamleaders.
Improvement of behaviour/ behaviour management.
‘He messes around and when he first started running the goalball he wanted
to be one of the kids being involved rather than running it. Whereas now last
week’s session he ran the session […] he put them in groups, he did
everything’ (PA lead, Greaves special school).
The capacity of Project Ability, the Young Leaders programme and related initiatives to
change the behaviour of a young person was evidenced in a number of the interviews.
Although intangible, there were two specific incidents of a named young person’s behaviour
changing as a result of involvement in the projects, and several general mentions of PE and
sport changing, channelling or challenging bad behaviour. The Simmonds secondary school
SGO hypothesised that engaging in a new sport changed the behaviour of a young person in a
primary school he was delivering an outreach session to. The SGO described how this young
person would usually not respect any rules put in place, but during the outreach session, he
seemed to realise that all the students were in the ‘same boat’ of not knowing about the sports
they were participating in. The SGO added ‘I don’t know if that was the thing that really
engaged him. But when I worked with him you wouldn’t have said he had specific needs that
we had to work with, he just cracked on as all the other children did’.
The use of specialist coaches, in off-site locations was seen as another way of tackling
poor behaviour as well as extending the most talented students, who, one PA lead suggested,
often had Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (EBD):
15
‘the best ones […] are the ones that are EBD […]you’ve got to think, “what
might actually be more beneficial for them” to a certain extent, why don’t
we take a little group (because they would be our talented group anyway) –
off-site, give them coaches and develop them that way and then you never
know, that might be the thing that changes their behaviour’ (PA lead,
Applegate special school).
The need for teachers to develop skills to differentiate was seen as a means of tackling
behaviour which the increased teacher training associated with the initiatives could provide.
A PA lead in a special school hypothesised that some young people do not engage in PE
because the work is set too high, resulting in behaviour issues and disengagement. He
believed if they could train/up-skill teachers to deal with the behaviour by differentiating,
disengagement and bad behaviour would decrease.
Increased sense of self-belief. The different initiatives were seen to give young disabled
people the chance to achieve success in a range of intangible areas such as increasing their
self-confidence and their sense of achievement/accomplishment. The PA lead in Henshaw
special school commented that students with SEN/D often excel in sport, whereas they tend
not to excel in other subjects. Because of this she believes that PE should be seen differently:
‘certainly for special needs children I think sometimes they succeed so much and they get so
much out of PE it should be top of the list [of priority subjects]’. She views sport as a vehicle
to make young people ‘feel good about themselves and make them believe in themselves,
believe that they can do anything’.
This experience of, or opportunity for, success was seen as leading to enhanced selfconfidence of the participants. This happens as a result of being selected to attend events and
competitions, meeting sports personalities and PAMs, or simply succeeding in sport. One PA
lead described the case of a student who was selected to represent the school in a competition
event. He was shocked, having never been selected to represent the school at anything before.
16
At the event, he was successful and was presented a medal by a well-known sports
personality. Staff in the school noticed a difference in him in the days after the event: ‘the
amount of confidence that he seems to possess following [the event]... he’s got more
confidence walking around school... hopefully now that he’s had that positive experience in
sport that he will continue’ (PA lead, Baker school).
The young people themselves described their confidence through the Young Leaders
scheme: ‘I’ve obviously got leadership now, which is going to help me with my confidence a
lot and to become more confident at speaking in front of people’ (Simmonds school, young
disabled person).
Increased self-confidence and self-esteem was mentioned frequently in the
questionnaires, a PAM reported they could see the effect their presentations have on the
confidence of those inexperienced or self-conscious young leaders. The leadership aspect of
the initiatives also increases self-confidence: ‘a significant increase in the confidence of the
young people as leaders who have a SEN/D’ (SGO, mainstream PA school). When asked
how they have increased the engagement of disabled students a number of participants
commented that this was through their actions to raise the confidence and self-esteem of
young people. The innovation projects were also felt by some respondents to have an effect
on this, a number commenting on how it had increased participants’ self-confidence.
17
Theme 2/ Tangible concrete achievements – ‘as much accreditation that we can get them that
is suitable for them and will give them an opportunity to be almost matching their peers’
The provision of structures whereby young disabled people can achieve in the sense of a
tangible outcome was another impact of the initiatives documented by this study. There are
two themes that stand out: ‘paper’ qualifications and recognition awards.
Paper qualifications. In terms of qualifications, pupils who otherwise may not have had the
opportunity to gain recognised ‘paper’ qualifications can achieve them. There is the
opportunity for young people in special schools to gain qualifications to the same level as
their peers in mainstream schools: ‘to our more able we offer similar accreditation to what
you get in mainstream schools’ (PA lead, Applegate special school). This was confirmed in
an interview with a young person in Applegate special school who stated he was studying the
equivalent of seven GCSEs3.
There is also provision of an alternative accreditation route for students who may not
achieve all aspects of a GCSE: ‘we have a couple of kids who are struggling with certain
aspects of PE, but even with them, they’re working on BTEC work’ (PA lead, Davies special
school). A young person in this school confirmed this, stating he had completed and
qualified in a BTEC4 award.
It is not only young disabled people in special schools who have been enabled to gain
qualifications; there were examples of young disabled people in mainstream schools gaining
a GCSE in PE with the support of PA special schools. One PA school assisted in the
assessment of a student with a physical disability to enable him to achieve a GCSE in PE:
3
General Certificate of Secondary Education, a qualification in a specific subject typically taken by school
students aged 14-16 in England
4
Business and Technology Education Council, vocational qualifications that teach the skills needed for working
life.
18
‘[The mainstream school] didn’t really emphasise anything for him before
and it wasn’t because they didn’t want to,…the PE teachers were saying,
“how do we include him in GCSE PE, we’re doing rugby, he can’t do
rugby?” We’ve agreed that I will take him […]to the events and we do
different events, I’ll grade him through those events […], give them the
feedback and the video footage and they can go and do it and that’s how we
get an assessment; another young man being included within lessons and
activities where he wouldn’t have been before’ (PE teacher, Applegate
special school).
As well as national accreditation routes, another way young disabled people can
achieve is through the Leadership Academy. In the questionnaire, an SGO from a mainstream
PA school stated provision for gifted and talented students with SEN/D was enhanced
through the Leadership Academy and the skills involved in achieving this standard with
minimal support. A PE teacher in a mainstream school discussed an innovation project they
had been involved in which lead to a Boccia Young Leaders qualification for those with
SEN/D. Young people in Applegate special school, Davies special school, Greaves special
school, and Simmonds secondary school all mention their young leaders work in interviews;
recognising it as leading to a qualification. Informal discussion with a member of staff during
a lesson observation in Applegate special school revealed that all their Year 11 students did
some aspect of the Sports Leaders’ award. The young people able to gain the qualification are
put through for it, those unable to access the theory elements take part in the practical
sessions, and those who are not put in for the national award are given a school designed
certificate at the completion of the year.
Recognition awards. Alongside national and school level qualifications, other aspects of
recognising achievement included young disabled people being nominated and receiving
tangible recognised awards. These were many and varied and included:
-
winning the school’s Sports Person of the Year prize;
19
-
winning the Princess Diana Award;
-
visiting Downing Street and meeting the prime minister as part of the 2012 Laureus
Sports Awards;
-
being nominated and short-listed as the Sports Person of the year with a
Physical/Learning Disability for the local council’s annual Sports Personality Awards,
gaining second place;
-
acting as court assistants in the 2012 London Paralympics through the Young Game
Makers scheme.
Theme 3/ Intangible changing of attitudes – ‘the kids in the mainstream schools…said they
now understand that everyone can play sport’
The initiatives have resulted in attitude change at a range of levels: changes in the attitudes of
schools/school staff and the attitudes of young people with and without disabilities were
documented through the questionnaire and interviews. These are seen as intangible benefits.
The attitude of schools/school staff. PE teachers in a PA special schools reported how they
saw their role as breaking down stigma of disability in mainstream schools. During an
interview in Simmonds secondary school, the PA lead discussed how she saw her role in
changing teachers’ attitudes:
‘It’s been about making sure that I can have an impact on them [PE teachers]
in getting them to see that these [young disabled] children deserve to have a
chance and to go places as well’.
The PA lead in Baker school stated ‘it’s making the schools aware that just because they’ve
only got two or three people who've got SEN/D, that they’ve actually got just as much right
to compete and have the same opportunities as their peers do’.
20
A PE teacher in a special school who responded to the questionnaire reported how
their role had increased the engagement of young disabled people in sport by the fact they
had made people question the practice in their schools. Another PE teacher in a PA special
school reported during interview how as a result of their work the teachers in mainstream
schools are becoming more open to suggestions. One way this had been achieved was by
inviting mainstream teachers into the special school: ‘they’ll [mainstream PE teachers] come
in and just see [young disabled] kids, who maybe they can’t do a thing with, but ours are
doing all this, and it’s maybe just how you teach or how you approach it’ (PA lead, Davies
special school).
It is not just the attitude of mainstream schools/teachers that participants felt needed
to be changed. Stigma about potentially losing in School Games and competitions may exist
in some special schools, perhaps reducing the school’s willingness to participate in SGs. The
PA lead in Baker mainstream secondary school explains:
‘it’s changing the attitude of the special school teachers as well, that just
because they're a special school, they might not actually lose, they might still
get that opportunity to go through…. [in] a sport like Boccia, that special
schools do a lot more than mainstream schools, they stand just as good a
chance as winning’.
The attitudes of young people with and without disabilities. Some SGOs saw their role as
changing the attitude of young people without disabilities towards young disabled people, as
one put it: ‘we’re trying to introduce kids in the mainstream to disability sports. So, the
children actually find out and realise what it’s like for a child with a disability in [the town] to
experience PESS’ (SGO, Henshaw special school). This can be through exposing all young
people to disability sport, as the PA lead in the same school reported: ‘last night we had some
mainstream children come to play Boccia, our kids are experts at Boccia, and we whooped
21
them…it made the mainstream kids think they're experts in that field and it’s not as easy as it
looks’. A PAM gave a similar example in interview, saying how she uses sitting volleyball to
level the playing field, making the ‘tall, really fast kid no longer the tall, really fast kid
anymore’.
Another PAM reported in interview how he had seen a mainstream school promote
Paralympic sport, even in classes which have no students with SEN/D: ‘they're still doing
projects/modules on seated volleyball or boccia just to have better awareness of Paralympic
sport alongside other sports’.
The attitudes of young people without disabilities were also felt to be changed
through the leadership programme and Step into Sports (SIS) days, a PAM reporting in the
questionnaire how the SIS days helped Young Leaders see the importance of inclusion. This
is reinforced in the interviews with young people, those who had taken part in the Young
Leaders’ qualification were able to define inclusion and differentiation clearly. A Year 11
Sports Leaders’ lesson was observed in Applegate special school, the lesson was aimed at
enabling the Sports Leaders to develop the skills of differentiation, inclusion and evaluation.
In the lesson starter the students were asked by the teacher to define inclusion and
differentiation which they did successfully (researcher fieldnotes). This is verified in the
transcript of the interview between a researcher and a young disabled person doing the Sport
Leader’s course:
Researcher: ‘Yesterday in your lesson your teacher used words like
“inclusion” and “differentiation”. Can you tell me what they mean?’
Young disabled person: ‘differentiation means making it harder for them, or
if they find it too hard making it easier for them’.
Researcher: ‘What about inclusion...’
Young disabled person: ‘making sure everyone takes part.’
22
The PAM visits also made young disabled students question their attitudes: ‘it
actually made [young disabled people] appreciate by listening to what he’d been through and
how he’d overcome with it and he didn’t sit around moaning, he just got on with it’ (PA lead,
Baker school). Another PA lead felt PAM involvement really inspired young disabled people
to believe they could do what they wanted to do, that their disability did not need to be a
limiting factor of how successful they could be.
The PAMs interviewed felt they had a role in changing young people’s lives through:
instilling the desire to achieve and not giving up; by being a positive role model; and by
encouraging goal setting and barrier breaking. The students who had had PAM visits
demonstrated that this aspect of the PAMs role has been realised – the word ‘inspiring’ was
used by many to describe the effect of the visits, a few commented how they aspired to be
like the PAM. One young person in Simmonds secondary school reported the key message
learnt from the PAM visit: ‘just because they have a disability doesn’t mean that stops them
from doing what they love to do’.
Discussion
This study reveals the legacy benefits of the initiatives that make up the DfE Disability
Project, with examples of both tangible and intangible benefits. The intangible benefits, the
‘soft structures’, those often overlooked in studies of project legacy (Preuss, 2007),
outnumber the measureable, tangible benefits. The majority of the legacy benefits revealed
are intangible and thus hard to quantify and measure. By exploring these the bigger picture
can be seen, beyond what is quantifiable, beyond ‘how many young disabled people take part
in PESS’ and whether this increases as a result of the initiatives. Tangible project legacies
such as this are reported on elsewhere, notably by OfSTED (2014: 50) who claim evidence of
the success of PA and the SG in participation data - ‘The National Finals [of the School
23
Games] 2013 were held in Sheffield, where 1,439 athletes took part, 170 (12%) of whom had
a disability’. This paper highlights the need for evaluators to consider intangible project
legacies.
This paper helps evidence aspects of the DCMS and ODI (2010) envisioned Olympic
legacy for disabled people as described above. The target of increasing the participation of
disabled people in sport and physical activity was an expected outcome of the DfE Disability
Project and thus not one explored in this article (see Craft et al 2013). However, the
attainment of the other two targets can be evidenced by this paper, as seen in Table 2. The
thematic analysis of unexpected additional legacy benefits gives examples of influencing
people’s attitudes towards disabled people, as well as potentially driving improvements in
transport and employment opportunities.
DCMS and ODI (2010) Olympic
legacy targets
Influence the attitudes and perceptions
of people to change the way they think
about disabled people
Promote and drive improvements in
transport and employment
opportunities for disabled people
Themes from evaluation which evidence targets
Changing attitudes of:
- schools (including special schools)
- teachers
-young people without disabilities
-young disabled people (including increasing self-belief)
Through
-Developing transferable skills/life skills, including
travel planning.
-achieving recognised qualifications and CV enhancing
awards
Table 2: evidencing DCMS and ODI Olympic legacy targets in the DfE Disability Project
Any legacy evaluation must be aware that legacies are multifaceted, dynamic and
dependant on local and global factors (Preuss, 2007; Scott, 2014). The initiatives discussed in
this report do not occur in a vacuum and the additional outcomes and impacts described
above may be achieved by factors other than those related to the initiatives themselves
(Pawson and Tilley, 1997). For example, the gaining of paper qualifications could be the
result of the government's benchmark measure of five good GCSEs being used to compare
schools, leading schools to enter more pupils for qualifications. Preuss (2007: 212) notes this
is an issue with the majority of legacy evaluations which assume the legacy occurs in a ‘static
24
and empty place in which no other development is taking, or would have taken, place’. Thus,
further exploration needs to take place of the processes by which these outcomes were
achieved (Girginov and Hills, 2009), there is a need to ask as Scott (2014: 15) does: ‘in the
absence of the [DfE Disability Project], to what extent would these things have happened
anyway?’ Another potential weakness of this study and other legacy evaluations is the
consideration of the longevity of the benefits. If the benefits are short-lived, they cannot be
considered legacy, but rather a project impact (Preuss, 2007). Some of the benefits will
remain after the projects – some young disabled people will still have their GCSE certificates,
but others may be more tentative – will attitudes to disabled people stay changed after the
initiatives cease? However, the definition of legacy benefits that we adapted from Preuss goes
on to state that legacy is something that remains longer than the event itself. Our findings
show PAM visits were still having an impact on pupil attitudes some time after their visit,
and one school had made a long term change to its curriculum, which now includes modules
on disability sports.
This study deliberately focuses on the positive outcomes, the positive sub-cubes of
Preuss’ (2007) model, yet, as Cashman (2005) argues, there is the danger of assuming legacy
is entirely positive. Preuss (2007: 223) acknowledges that an obstacle in any legacy
measurement ‘is the difficulty in deciding whether a legacy has a positive or negative value’.
He cautions that the same legacy can be positive and negative at the same time. For example
the building of a stadium for an Olympic host-city may help the image of the city, but may be
underused after the mega-event it was designed for. The potential of the legacy benefits
identified in this article to have a negative impact should be further explored.
Legacy studies and exploration of benefits is value-laden and therefore inherently
political (Girginov and Hills 2009). This gives added complication to the already complex
25
policy landscape of PESS. It also points to a limitation of the study, the ‘benefits’ have been
named as such by researchers (incidentally, all non-disabled) and verified by YST - a key
stakeholder in PESS strategy. More consultative methods could have been used to verify
whether the legacy benefits reported on are seen as such by the research participants
themselves.
Conclusion
The DfE Disability Project set out to create systematic change in the structures underpinning
PESS, with particular reference to the inclusion of young disabled people. We argue it has
been successful in its aims of building capacity in the system by equipping schools with the
knowledge of how to engage young disabled people in all levels of schools sport, and to raise
the aspirations of both schools and young disabled people. Data reveal that the project has
had positive legacy benefits beyond these aims, both tangible (qualifications and recognition
awards for young disabled people, and, more frequently, intangible ones (raising self-belief
of young disabled people, improving behaviour, changing attitudes).
Although the origins of these benefits cannot be attributed purely to the DfE Disability
Project, it is clear that the project has resulted in additional benefits and impacts as described
above. They should be seen as a sign of success, measured and reported as such. Further
evaluations should explore the capturing of intangible legacy benefits.
26
References
Agha N, Fairley S, and Gibson H (2012) Considering legacy as a multi-dimensional
construct: The legacy of the Olympic Games. Sport Management Review. 15(1): 125-139.
Barton L (2003) Inclusive Education and Teacher Education. London: Institute of Education.
Bouck E (2012) Secondary students with moderate/severe intellectual disability:
considerations of curriculum and post-school outcomes. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research. 56(12): 1175-1186.
Braun V and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in
Psychology. 3(2): 77-101.
Bryman A (2012) Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cashman R (2005) The bitter-sweet awakening. The legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic
Games. Sydney: Walla Walla Press.
Coates J (2010) Let the children have their say: experiences of children with special
educational needs in Physical Education. PhD thesis: Liverpool John Moores University.
Craft A, Black A, Costello, R and Katene, W (2013) Study of the success of Disability DfE
Project creating step-change in local infrastructure/disabled participation in sport.Report,
University of Exeter, UK, September.
Denzin N (1978) The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.
Chicago: Aldine.
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (2008) Before, during and after: making the most of
the London 2012 Games. London: DCMS.
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (2010) Plans for the legacy from the 2012 Olympic
and Paralympic games. London: DCMS.
Department of Culture, Media and Sport and Office for Disability Issues (2010) London
2012: a legacy for disabled people: setting new standards, changing perceptions. London:
DCMS.
Enright E, Hill J, Sandford R and Gard M. (2014). Looking beyond what's broken: towards
an appreciative research agenda for physical education and sport pedagogy. Sport, Education
and Society. 19(7): 912-926.
Flick U (2006) An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.
Griffiths M and Armour K (2013) Physical education and youth sport in England: conceptual
and practical foundations for an Olympic legacy? International Journal of Sport Policy and
Politics. 5(2): 213-227.
27
Girginov V and Hills L (2009) The political process of constructing a sustainable London
Olympics sports development legacy. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics.
1(2): 161-181.
Grix,J and Phillpots L (2013) London 2012 and its legacies. International Journal of Sport
Policy and Politics. 5(2): 163-164.
Harpur, P (2012) From disability to ability: changing the phrasing of the debate. Disability &
Society 27(3): 325-337.
HM Government/Mayor of London (2013) Inspired by 2012: The legacy from the London
2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. London: Cabinet Office.
Houlihan B (2000) Sporting excellence, schools and sports development: The politics of
crowded policy spaces. European Physical Education Review. 6(2): 171-193.
GREAT BRITIAN Education Committee, (2013) School sport following London 2012: No
more political football. HC 164-I. London: The Stationery Office Limited.
Jung H (2014) The social construction of pedagogic discourse in policy for PESS. PhD
thesis: University of Bedfordshire.
Merseyside Sports Partnership and Oaks Consultancy (2013) Playground to Podium
research: Evaluation and impact report. Loughborough: EFDS.
OfSTED (2014) Going the extra mile: excellence in competitive school sport. London:
OfSTED.
Pawson R and Tilley N (1997) Realistic evaluation. London: Sage Publications.
Phillpotts L (2011) Sports development and young people in England. In Houlihan B and
Green M Routledge Handbook of Sports Development. Abingdon: Routledge, pp 131-142.
Ranking M (2012) Understanding the barriers to participation in sport April 2012.
Loughborough: EFDS.
Scott C (2014) Legacy evaluation and London, 2012 and the Cultural Olympiad. Cultural
Trends. 23(1): 7-17.
Skyblue Research and North Yorkshire Sport (2012) DfE disability funding best practice
report. London: EFDS.
Waite SJ, Bromfield C and McShane S (2005) Successful for whom? A methodology to
evaluate and inform inclusive activity in schools. European Journal of Special Needs
Education. 20(1): 71-88.
Weed M (2013) London 2012 legacy strategy: ambitions, promises and implementation
plans. In Girginov V (ed.) Handbook of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.
Volume 1. Abingdon: Routledge, pp 87-98.
28
Youth Sport Trust (2012) Disability. Invitation to tender document. Loughborough: Youth
Sport Trust.
29