The development of youth sport „talent‟ is a core concept of PESSCL/PESSYP and media in relation to a close connection between PESS and elite sport development. Developing the sport talent of young people is linked to competitive school sport in an exclusive way throughout PESSCL/PESSYP. In other words, a variety of initiatives introduced by PESSCL/PESSYP is de-located and reworked form of sport discourse produced in the primary field. For instance, according to A Sporting Future for All (DCMS, 2002), SSC was created based on an „explicit focus on elite sport‟ (p.8). In addition, the strategies included a distinct Gifted and Talented strand of PESSCL/PESSYP including profiling and tracking of talented sport players, a national network of Competition Managers, a national competition scheme, elite disability sport, multi-skill camps, multi-sport clubs and a National School Sport Week, in order to improve their performance and increase success rates in top level competition (DCMS & Strategy Unit, 2002; DfES & DCMS, 2003; DCMS, 2008a). Returning to my discussion on elite-sport-oriented sport development in the UK in chapter 2, talent development and high performance
127
sport are nothing new in the course of sport development in the UK (Croston, 2013; Kirk, 2004). To be clear, sport policy has been focused towards elite sport development for the goal of medal-winning from both Conservative and Labour governments from the mid-1990s onwards (Green & Houlihan, 2004), and in this context physical education has been expected to contribute to the pursuit of elite sporting achievement (Houlihan, 2000; Kirk & Gorely, 2000). In a similar vein, there had been increasingly unequivocal mentions of PESS for the elite sport development and Olympic/Paralympic success (i.e. achieving more medals) in politicians‟ and medallists‟ comments and the work of journalists during the 2000s. For instance, the former Education Secretary Charles Clarke noted that „the Olympic Games would be a massive boost to sport in schools.‟ (BBC, 2004e) and Jason Queally, cycling gold medallist said that „all successful sporting nations have the roots of their success in school sport and I hope there will now be an increase in the choice of sports.‟ (The Guardian, 2000b).
Specifically, the significance of PESS in line with particular connections between competitive sport and talent development is easily demonstrated within both sites of policy-making and media production. It appears to be common for government politicians and media commentators to refer to elite sport development by means of emphasising a need for (competitive) school sport. The first Labour sport strategy A Sporting Future for All (DCMS, 2000) restated the priorities of youth sport as a necessary foundation for future elite performance and international success. The policy document Game Plan (DCMS & Strategy Unit, 2002) proposed to support Gifted and Talented pupils in school in terms of School Sport Partnerships Programmes. Furthermore, this pervasive diffusion of sport discourse is demonstrated by reference to media reports containing politicians‟ statements and evaluation research regarding the role of school and sport initiatives related to elite sport development. The BBC (1999b) and The Daily Mail (Moss, 1999) introduced the SSPs as effective ways of nurturing young sporting talent for the future by means of „a renaissance in competitive sport at school‟ and competitive
128
sport was said to „give every child the chance to be the very best they can be and helps us find the champions of tomorrow‟ (Selvey, 2007, The Guardian). The media also reported that the mission of schools for elite sport had failed, that is, schools were not doing enough to find the potential Olympic/Paralympic stars of the future because too little attention was paid to talented pupils (BBC, 2004a; Ward, 2004, The Guardian). In consideration of articulations surrounding sport discourse centred on linking between policy and developing youth sport talent, there are two explicit models: the pyramid model and virtuous cycle of sport.
i) The pyramid Model (mass participation -> elite sport development)
Increasing mass participation levels in sport is articulated with elite sport development within policy documents. The rationale is typically expressed as follows: „without a broad base of participation we will not draw out the most talented stars of the future‟ (DCMS & Strategy Unit, 2002, p.52, also see Figure 8). Accordingly, this „pyramid model‟ of sport development assumes that increasing high performance is driven by a widened base of participation. In other words, from Figure 8, it is assumed that schools should provide a broad base as a foundation and/or a clear pathway to elite sport for success in international competition (DCMS, 2000; DfES & DCMS, 2003).
129
According to Kirk and Gorely (2000)13 the pyramid model of sport development typically assumes that physical education is the preparation stage for elite sport competition in terms of the learning fundamental motor skills forming the basis of the structure. A Sporting Future for All (DCMS, 2000) emphasised this way of thinking:
It is in school where most of us get our first chance to try sport. It is here that children discover their talent and their potential. They need high quality teaching of basic skills. They need opportunities to compete at a level in line with where their ability has developed (p. 2).
This same message is reinforced through the popular media which reports regularly on the importance of basic skills for sport such as running, jumping and athletics, gym and basic fitness, drawing on Olympic stars such as Jessica Ennis as examples (e.g. BBC, 2000a; Davies, 2010, The Telegraph). In this sense, regarding the transformation of grassroots sport (mass participation) to success in international competition, it can be argued that the wording of the Physical Education, School Sport and Club Links (PESSCL) strategy underpins the relationship between PESS and elite sport, as a talent development pathway.
However despite the pyramid model‟s popularity, there have been critical voices in the academic literature. First and foremost, the model‟s design raises moral issues because it implies the systematic exclusion of youth regardless of the basis of „ability‟, i.e. „fewer and fewer individuals can participate at each level‟ (Kirk & Gorely, 2000, p.123). Moreover, mass participation in school and club sport does not necessary drive higher international performance because elite sport success is more likely linked to other factors such as family background and local variables (Edward, 2011, Kirk & Gorely, 2000; Harvey et al., 2013). Therefore to some extent, the pyramid model results in evoking a narrow perspective on physical education as a preparation stage for achieving elite sport success by a small
13
Also, they suggested other popular metaphors associated with the pyramid model: „foundation stones‟ and „trickle-down effects‟.
130
number of individuals in the future which is factually incorrect and ethically questionable and may even deter young people from pursuing lifelong participation because the pyramid structure is restrictive of school physical education programmes (Kirk, 2003, 2004). Although it appears that some consideration has been given to the extent to which the pyramid model systematically excludes young people, as evidenced in the 2002 inclusion of a route to Lifelong Grassroots Participation (see Figure 8), it is clear that the pyramid model remains central to the discourse of elite sport development in Game Plan despite the critiques of this model.
ii) A virtuous cycle of sport
Grix & Carmichael (2012) discuss the notion of a virtuous cycle of sport as illustrated by Figure 11, which has formed the basis of arguments made by government for investing in elite sport:
The notion of a virtuous cycle of sport takes this (government funding of elite sport) further, first by presenting the relationship between elite and mass sport as self-reinforcing and circular. Thus, the virtuous cycle of sport holds that elite success on the international stage leads to prestige and elite sport contributes to a collective sense of identity; this, then, boosts a greater mass sport participation, leading to a healthier populace; this, in turn, provides a bigger pool of talent from which to choose the elite stars of the future and which ensures elite success (Grix & Carmichael, 2012, p.76-77).
As such, talent development is articulated within policy documents with Olympic/Paralympic legacy and mass participation centred on competitive sport. The DCMS (2002, p.82) also emphasised the link between youth talent development and SSP/SSC, nothing that the discourse of talent development is justified by a „feel good factor‟ in relation to elite sport success at
131
Olympic/Paralympic Games, which are expected to inspire young people to engage in physical activities. In this way, the virtuous cycle of sport constructs and reinforces the dominant sport discourse within other policy documents (e.g. Playing to win, DCMS, 2008).
Figure 9 A virtuous cycle of sport (figure adapted from Grix & Carmichael (2012, p.75))
With respect to the nature of the link between sport participation and talent development (i.e. Figure 9, 2&3 1; Increased participation Elite success ), the crucial words articulating mass sport participation with elite success is „pathway‟ or „transition‟ from school to community sport and elite sport, that is, a preparation to climb the „ladder‟ of talent development, implying the pyramid concept of youth sport development (DCMS, 2000; DCMS & Strategy Unit, 2002; DfES & DCMS, 2003; DCMS, 2008a, Sport England, 2008). Government documents set out their plan positioning sport discourse at the core of policy for PESS in order to transform school sport participation to community sport participation and elite sport performance through high quality „competitive sport‟ (DCMS, 2008a, p.2). The talent development discourse was further strengthened in 2008 with the publication of the Labour government‟s policy statement for PESSYP, Playing to win, which placed competition and performance at its heart. The former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Andy Burnham in his
132
foreword to the document (DCMS, 2008a), stressed the talent development discourse centred on offering more competition chances for young people:
When you play sport, you play to win. That is my philosophy […]. This plan (PESSYP) suggests a shared goal to unite around – maximising English sporting success by expanding the pool of talent in all sports. In short, more coaching and more competitive sport for all young people
(DCMS, 2008a).
Importantly, this document confirmed that the Youth Sport Trust (YST) would have responsibility for providing more coaching and competitive opportunities to all pupils in terms of working in partnership with UK Sport based on a network of SSPs, SSCs and Competition Managers (DCMS, 2008a). The sport discourse centred upon competition and talent development had been located centrally within PESSCL and especially PESSYP through the work of the YST as the major recontextualising agency of PESS during the 2000s. This role will be discussed further in chapter 6.
5.3.3 Dominant sport discourse constructing and constituting PESSCL and