Transcript Slide 1
AN OVERVIEW OF MANAGING RISK IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SCHOOL SPORT: SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR PRIVATE COACHING PROVIDERS. Peter Whitlam The use of coaches in schools has the potential to release excellent expertise to broaden and raise the quality of pupils’ experiences in physical education and sport. There is some very good practice in some schools – unfortunately there is also some very poor practice. There is also significant ignorance and misunderstanding of legal and professional responsibilities by both agencies and schools. e.g. Level 1/quality assumptions/not managed by school etc Consider the following case outcomes as if your staff were involved. Who is legally responsible? Could it be you? What would be needed to avoid the negative outcome? Would your coaches know not to do what the person involved did? On a Friday afternoon in school a small group of VI formers approach a member of staff to take them in his car to go climbing over the weekend. The teacher (coach) agrees to take and lead the group but does not inform the head teacher. During a climb one student falls and is seriously injured. Teacher/coach Outside contract – did not inform head teacher therefore a private arrangement. based on Stenner v Taff-Ely 1984 A Year 11 group go on a field studies trip to a local rocky area. The accompanying teacher (coach) has not taught the group nor knows them individually. Two pupils leave the group and begin throwing rocks and stones from a bridge towards where the group is working. The teacher (coach) tells them to stop then moves further along the valley to a second group some 50 metres away, out of sight and sound of the first group. The two boys again drop rocks onto the first group, hitting a pupil causing a fractured skull. Employer (local authority) – agency could also be sued. Inadequate supervision – competency (group management skills) - duty of care. Porter v Bradford MBC 1985. A group of 15 years old pupils attend a golf range with a teaching assistant as part of their PE programme. The club’s professional (coach) teaches them. A pupil practising a golf swing is struck in the face by another pupil swinging a club whilst trying to hit a bouncing ball. Employer (local authority) Workforce reform. Competence. School responsible for pupil wellbeing – inadequate supervision. Agency (golf club) could have been sued at the same time. Cuthbertson v Merchiston Castle School 2001. A night club owner (school) employed a security firm (coach agency) to control public entry to the club. The club owner gave instructions to the security staff about allowing entry to the club. During an argument about entry one of the security staff – a “bouncer” (coach) – hit a member of the public and broke his jaw. The injured person sued the security firm (coach agency) and the nightclub owner (school) for the attack by the bouncer. Joint responsibility . Club owner was judged to have exercised “detailed control” on the work of the bouncer – “having control and responsibility for assigned staff” – therefore he was a “temporary employer” and jointly liable with the security firm. This decision has major implications for head teachers, governors and agency managers. Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd 2006. Joint responsibility for actions of coaches when in school Same risk management (health and safety) standards apply as for school staff Same safety awareness expected as for school staff Ability to do adequate risk assessments Same competency (teaching and group management) standards as for school staff Planned and structured training according to individual needs of coach Ensure head teacher/school staff are aware of intentions “Risk management is about enabling good things to happen, not just preventing the bad”. Dr Lynne Drennan, Autumn 2008). CEO ALARM (Zurich Municipal News & Views, “Events need to be as safe as necessary not as safe as possible” (RoSPA). Macleod R – (“Change in Attitude to Injury Liability”: Recreation. Summer 2008) “Risk management should be routine, embedded and well documented”. Tom Shewry, Head of Education, Zurich Municipal, (News and Views, Autumn 2008). good teaching/ good organisation reasonable forethought, anticipation, forward planning 3 purposes: ensure potential safety problems are understood check whether existing precautions are adequate implement any FURTHER precautions necessary on-going risk assessment - dynamic – expertise – unwritten As managers of coaches working in schools, how would you advise them about the following………… 1.3m Should they continue in these situations? A coach asks you if s/he can introduce an activity to their programme , hold a particular sports event or have something like a three-legged race in their sports programme. Before you say “yes” or “no”, what would you expect to have been considered to determine whether it would be safe? Previous experience – have been taught the techniques Poor/ faulty technique corrected – i.e. skill level in relation to demand of activity Recent experience Matching comparable size, experience, confidence Knowledge of pupils – medical information, behaviour History of injury occurring Clear safety framework – rules - applied! Supervision at appropriate level – remote by degrees Equipment and facility suitable and checked – appropriate, good condition Regular and approved practice – improvise with caution Expertise of adult with group Forethought – have we considered what may happen? i.e. Good teaching. Pupils Staff PEOPLE CONTEXT Facility Equipment Procedures/routines “Behaviour is the cause or a contributory factor in more than 80% of accidents”. Helen Sully (Kier Group for HSE) 2007. Acceptable risk PE/SPORT Appropriate challenge Beaumont, Eve, Kirkby, Whitlam 1998 ORGANISATION Class organisation Teaching Preparation Progression 3 ways to reduce any risk – i.e. to control risk: Supervision Protection Training High quality is a shared responsibility School staff (including agency coaches) must: Know and apply the school’s policy for H&S (frolic) Take reasonable care for own safety and that of others Pass on guilty knowledge – on anything that could cause harm, damage or injury Do what is within their power to prevent further harm Not interfere or misuse items for health and safety Apply the common law duty of care…… show reasonable forethought (common sense) “Specified work (i.e. teaching) may not be carried out by a person in a school unless s/he holds QTS or satisfy the specific requirements…” (Education Act 2003, s133). HLTAs, sports coaches and other suitable adults may teach classes or groups in timetabled physical education. Provided they: only assist or support the work of a nominated teacher in school; are subject to the direction and supervision of a nominated teacher; have satisfied the head teacher, through a risk assessment, that they have the skills, experience and expertise required to carry out the specified work. (SP 2008 – chapter 4 and Appendix 3) Management: (coach entitlement from school) safe recruitment, initial assessment, induction, information about pupils, procedures, routines and standards, regular communication, risk assessments, shared/monitored planning, monitoring competence, professional development. It is the responsibility of the school to: Agree the programme with the Agency in writing Verify the Agency has undertaken the required checks Designate a teacher to manage and be the point of contact with the coach Provide a comprehensive induction programme for the coach, specific to the school, that includes as a minimum: Accident and emergency procedures Fire evacuation procedures Dismissal arrangements for pupils (after school sport activities) Rewards and sanctions Standard procedures and routines e.g. personal effects, carrying equipment Child protection arrangements Dress (pupils and coach) Any medical or emotional issues relating to pupils Registration arrangements Monitoring and evaluation procedures Signing in arrangements Procedures for canceling a session Risk assessment issues (courtesy of Northants CC PE Adviser) S/he should: have an appropriate NBG qualification in the activity they deliver or equivalent in activities such as dance.(minimum NGB Level 2 to lead a session); be aware of and follow Local Authority and school policies; contact the school prior to the delivery, have a designated teacher allocated, agree the work programme and some school based induction ensure the sessions are pre-planned with clear learning objectives, matched to the schools’ scheme of work where appropriate ; ensure the facility, activities and equipment are suitable for the age, ability and size of the group; ensure the activities match the needs and abilities within the group; keep a formal record of sessions to aid future planning; participate fully in periods of supervision and monitoring activities; be aware of the school accident and emergency and fire procedures and inform the school of any incidents which occur; be aware of the of the school procedures for canceling sessions, complete required documentation e.g. registers, accident report forms. The agency should ensure that their coaches have: a current National Governing Body (NGB) award usually (Level 2) or equivalent which enables the coach to deliver a session on their own. a valid enhanced CRB check registration with, and vetting completed by, the Independent Safeguarding Authority where appropriate attended a sport related, safeguarding course and Education Awareness training two references (one of which should be from a competent person who has witnessed the coach in action). appropriate experience of working with young people; the confidence, leadership skills, organisation/group management skills, control and discipline, communication skills and competence appropriate to the demands of the pupils and the activities to be delivered. Agencies should: ensure a satisfactory assessment of coaches through a formal application and interview process. agree a detailed service level agreement with the school to ensure that detailed expectations and provisions are discussed and built into the agreement (courtesy of Northants CC PE Adviser) Competence: “to have the skills, knowledge, understanding and expertise necessary to plan, deliver and evaluate the pupils’ work in a context of appropriate challenge and a safe working environment.” (baalpe, 2004, page 29). Incompetence: “Where someone is not qualified or competent to undertake the responsibility placed on her/him, such as being required to take responsibility for pupils in physical education, but has been placed in that situation by the employer - or the employer’s representative such as a head teacher or agency manager - then the employer may be directly liable for negligence, as established in Jones versus Manchester Corporation, 1958 (2 QB 852) .”(Whitlam, 2004, page 25). Articulate your base line of competence for an adult to be left alone to teach physical education. This is what determines direct (team teaching) or distant supervision (working alone) and impacts on high quality provision expertise in the range of activities to be taught – i.e. technical knowledge knowledge of progression safety issues rules, delivery of national curriculum process model knowledge of the particular needs of the group (case law) (Education Acts) (case law/NCPE PoS) observation and analysis skills to ensure that what is going on is safe good class control and group management (HaSaWA s.7) (case law/STPC s.37) appropriate relationships – teaching children not coaching a sport (Common Core Skills/HLTA standards, DfES 2006 & afPE/ukSport ASLs 2006) Do your coaches meet this standard?