The role of the (PE) teacher

It has previously been argued that there are ‘too many’ professionals involved in the lives of young people facing multiple challenges, such as care-experienced youth (Stephenson, 2007). However, it is perhaps inevitable within educational establishments that LACYP will come into contact with numerous adults, a large majority of whom are teachers. For example, Holland (2010) noted that the LACYP within her study were often involved in large, complex networks and that these relationships (positive or negative) were central to their everyday emotional and physical wellbeing. This section, therefore, focuses on the role of the PE teacher in shaping LACYP’s PESS experiences, in addition to further exploring the role of the Designated Teacher who is responsible for the education of LACYP within their school (see Chapter 3, section, 3.4.13). The data collated from the LACYP participants implied that although some of them had a positive relationship with their PE teachers at school, this did not necessarily lead to a greater desire to participate in PESS due to their own personal preferences, as the previous chapters have highlighted. This is illustrated in the following extract taken from an interview with Nathan, who as we saw in Chapter 5, had an extremely turbulent school experience and often chose not to attend PE:

CW: So how about your PE teachers, what were they like?

Nathan: They were good. I liked the PE teachers, ‘cos obviously they were quite motivating and stuff like that, cos they have to be. But, like, yeah, most of them were really good. I don’t think I had anyfink [sic] against any of them.

Nathan’s account demonstrates that the relationship he had with his PE teachers was positive (or certainly not negative) implying that this may not necessarily be the case for some of his other teachers at school. Further conversations with Nathan revealed that what he valued most from his PE teachers was their support with motivation, encouraging participation at times when he perhaps did not want to engage. We know from the previous chapters that motivation was a struggle for Nathan, who disengaged from school and at times presented undesirable behaviours at school such as absconding. In a similar vein,

Jamie spoke of three particular teachers who were supportive in nature and contributed to his overall school experience, one of whom was a PE teacher:

CW: Why do you think it was those three in particular [that you felt supported you]?

Jamie: ‘Cos they were the ones that actually, like, cared. Like, if I had a problem, they were the ones who would come to me and knew what was going on. Like, if I was upset in the classroom and I was trying to cover it up, they were the ones that saw through it and could tell something was up. Whereas no one else did. If I was in a bad mood, that’s all they saw.

Like Nathan (and as outlined in Chapters 6 and 7) we know that Jamie did not value PESS or identify potential benefits associated with participation in PESS. Therefore, the positive relationship Jamie refers to with his PE teacher was not based on the teacher’s ability to provide Jamie with those benefits; it was based solely on the support and nurturing investment the teacher made towards him with regard to what was going on outside of school. This somewhat contradicts previous research that suggests positive relationships between teachers and young people have been noted as potentially facilitating engagement and personal development within physical activity and sport (see Sandford et al., 2008a; Armour et al., 201335_{). However, the importance of positive relationships is considered a}

central concept amongst research on resilience (Hayden, 2007) and, in the context of this study, the role of the PE teacher becomes an identifiable interpersonal factor within the social ecological model (McLeroy et al., 1988). The potentially positive impact of PE teachers on LACYP can also be seen from the interview data from the local authority professionals, as the VSH assistant, Lisa Phillips, from Millfolk local authority implied:

I think for some of our looked-after children, the PE teachers are really positive role models. Y’know because PE is a thing they do enjoy, because it does help them release a lot of pent up stress. Y’know the fight, flight sort

of aspect of themselves. They often do associate with PE teachers quite a lot.

It is important to acknowledge here, however, that Lisa’s sentiment is likely to be more applicable to those who already engage with PE. In a similar vein, Liam McKay, an Education Development Officer at Eastonshire local authority, made the following observation:

I notice that [PE] staff are younger people now and they relate to the children well, and kind of accommodate the needs of looked-after children well … myself, I have a very close relationship with some of the staff and they keep an on-going dialogue. For example, I use this child Joe Bloggs, they’ll say “well he didn’t participate today” or “he was tearful today” or “do you know he didn’t have his kit”. So, it helps you to understand where things are for looked-after children.

With youth and local authority participants both referring to the positive relationship that can potentially ensue between PE teachers and care-experienced youth, it would seem that interpersonal factors such as this can be incredibly influential with regard to shaping LACYP’s school and PESS experiences. Previous research findings have highlighted the important role that positive relationships can play in acting as a protective factor against negative life outcomes for LACYP, as well as other individuals living in difficult or challenging circumstances (Cottam, 2015; PRT, 2016). However, like their peers, not all LACYP will experience this positive relationship and therefore a critical perspective is needed here. The notion of being able to associate with PE teachers has also previously been reported within broader sporting literature, which identifies that project leaders who are charismatic and willing to tackle issues associated with disengagement are more likely to affect a positive change in the lives young people with whom they work (see Sandford et al., 2008a, b). Despite some of the local authority respondents suggesting that PE teachers can play a (positive) pivotal role in LACYP’s PE experiences, the majority confirmed that they did not have direct contact with the PE teachers. This raises questions regarding to what extent they can be certain of such a pivotal role. The consensus was that contact between a local authority professional and a PE teacher would only occur if there

was a particular issue or problem to be resolved, as evidenced by the VSH at Whippinghamshire local authority:

CW: Do you have contact with the PE teachers?

Heather Roberts: Not in their role as a PE teacher. Some of them may be a PE teacher that is [also] the Designated Teacher for looked-after children. Or some of them may be a PE teacher, but they’re acting as head of year role and they will have contact with my team. I don’t specifically have involvement with PE teachers.

This extract helps to demonstrate that the relationship between respondents situated within a Virtual School and the PE teachers in a mainstream school was somewhat tenuous. Conceptually, this notion that there may be a disconnect between two institutions is considered a community factor within the social ecological model (McLeroy et al., 1988) and highlights, again, the potential piecemeal provision of PESS for LACYP. Further evidence to this effect was provided by Robert Knight, the VSH from Bucktonshire local authority:

We don’t tend to [have contact with PE teachers], it tends to be through the Designated Teachers. I mean because I’m dealing with such a large number of children and a large number of schools, we don’t tend to get involved with individual teachers unless there’s an issue.

Having previously discussed the support that the Virtual School respondents provided individual LACYP (identified in Chapter 7), it became apparent through the analysis that contact with PE teachers is often related to the size of the local authority. For example, Liam from Eastonshire (featured above) who stated that they had direct contact with PE teachers, was based in a far smaller local authority than Bucktonshire. From a social ecological perspective (McLeroy et al., 1988) this can be considered a community factor since it is the relationship between two

institutions (Virtual School and mainstream schools). Nonetheless, Chapter 3 identified that all Virtual Schools must have contact with a Designated Teacher within each school. To this end, the data implied that the relationship between Virtual schools and the Designated Teachers may be influential in shaping the school experiences, and specifically PESS experiences, of LACYP. Such relationships can be considered specific to the care context within with LACYP are embedded, in that those who are not looked-after would not be influenced by this community factor. This is clarified in the following extract from the VSH at Talborough local authority:

Mainly it’s the Designated Teacher and the head of year that we would meet in school. So really, it’s for the Designated Teacher really to have that overview of what that [looked-after] child is involved with, and promote activities for them.

The Designated Teacher was not only seen to be influential at the community level through the relationship they had with the Virtual school, but also at an interpersonal level, through the relationship that they had with the LACYP within their school. This is evident in the following comments from Robert Knight when asked his thoughts on how practice in schools could be improved in order to better support LACYP with PESS. He suggested:

The Designated Teacher’s got to be aware of the child’s views. And be aware of, through building relationships with them, what it’s like in school, what’s difficult in school, and trying to make adjustments accordingly. Umm I think that, that would be the key thing.

Having an awareness of LACYP’s needs in order to sufficiently support them during school is not a new finding with regard to the wider LACYP literature (see Chapter 2). Broader literature also highlights the need to understand young people’s experiences with regard to issues around space, place and identity (Sandford, in press). For example, in Selwyn’s (2015a) review on LACYP’s views of being in care, several studies highlighted

that LACYP felt that there was a lack of awareness amongst professionals and peers of the issues they face. This presented as a clear finding in this study, which is where we turn to next.