UKC

A slightly esoteric subject but I am sure answerable by the assembled UKC knowledge base. Probably one for PE teachers primarily.

Context: my 9 year-old is a pretty good football player, in several teams, mostly outside school, playing up to U11 level against kids from all over this region (the Gulf). I am quite proud of him, especially as he is wholly self-motivated. At his school I have helped out coaching/ managing teams for some of their inter-school football events (with UKC assistance!: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=290033 ) This year things have turned quite weird at the school. The old head of athletics, a gnarly old British guy, has left, and the young Canadian head of elementary school gym has taken the oportunity to can the school's long involvement in the main local U9 and U11 school league. And shows no sign of substituting anything else, bar an astonishingly-lame "open to all" 1-day event in which school "teams" will be filled by anyone who shows up, without any skill selection (and will presumably then be beaten hollow by the visiting proper teams from other schools).

Here is a taste of her philosophy:

“Selecting” and “cutting” are very real parts of sport that all athletes will be exposed to at some point. The children in our Elementary school have just begun to develop physically, and will undergo many changes throughout the rest of their Elementary and Middle School years. I do not believe that telling an undeveloped child they are not good enough to play a sport is beneficial. I don’t believe that children should be sheltered from reality in any way, but when we have the ability as a community to offer a program that allows a child to grow as an athlete, while giving them a chance to participate in a sport, I do not see the need to exclude anyone with a goal of further developing a select few. As a physical educator in this school, it is my hope to expose as many children to as many sports in a manner that keeps them involved in athletics as opposed to eliminating them from participation.

My question: is this kind of nonsense fashionable in PE theory? And if so, why and what ages are considered most "vulnerable" to the evils of sport selection. Might a UK school avoid having properly-selected school teams, whether for football or any other activity? Any good websites that might help understand current thinking on this?

In reply to tobyfk:

Bummer. Sounds like you've lucked out with the new guy.

Not much else to add really.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to tobyfk: It used to be. Sheffield city council went through a non-competitive period for many years in the late 80's 90's and the sports suffered hugely. Are your kids at an international school?

Suprised at that view as they normally really push to have competitive teams.

I don't think this view is wrong, of course all kids should participate:
"As a physical educator in this school, it is my hope to expose as many children to as many sports in a manner that keeps them involved in athletics as opposed to eliminating them from participation."

But the after school games should be for the better players and rewarding hard work. Sport gets kids to experience team work, Winning, losing and rewarding relaibility hard work and there are some great lessons for kids to learn from sport.

In reply to tobyfk:

Why don't you see if some of the parents will band together and get a team into a local junior league?

It's probably not worth struggling against this kind of vaguely fashionable crap.

In reply to IainRUK: add to that the honour and stature gained from playing in the team ..

I am a small bloke therefore I was a very small kid. It was only because I was a bit nifty with a ball that I came out of my school alive. It also gave me the confidence to achive more in other sports ..after all I beat the bigger kids to gain a place into the team once so why not in something else.

what state would British sport be in if competetive teams where taken out of all schools?

In reply to IainRUK:

>But the after school games should be for the better players and rewarding hard work. Sport gets kids to experience team work, Winning, losing and rewarding relaibility hard work and there are some great lessons for kids to learn from sport.

Yes, mix the kids in school, but they get places on the school team on merit. Some of the kids may not even want to play football and still get selected, not good.

In reply to tobyfk: It sounds like you and and your sone have both been lucky to always be picked, but spare a thought for the kids who don't get picked. What about them? Are they not allowed to participate? How would you feel if you never got picked ever? Why should some kids not be allowed to participate and enjoy everything about sport that your son clearly loves just because their ability is not deemed adequate. It is not nonsence.

Many kids get put off sport for life because they are deemed useless at it.

In reply to Jon Dittman:

Indeed. Very much my personal experience at school. I do understand both sides of the argument; however I think going to the extreme of dumping all selected school teams is pretty bizarre.

Anyway my central interest is not so much the argument itself as its context? Is this stuff part of accepted PE theory or is the tiresome Canadian chick making it all up herself?

In reply to Jon Dittman:

Why? Kids get picked for plays, choirs, orchestra's, so why not ball sports. They don't have some out of tune kid blasting away on the trumpet ruining everyone else's music, so why have some kid running around in a circle ruining everyone else's game of football.

In reply to Jon Dittman: Also they can, in school time all sports should be for everyone, like music lessons, after school events should be for those selected to play.

In reply to tobyfk: Lefty council. It was mainly driven by non-contact sports rather than non-competitive to be honest though. We could compete at sports like badminton but for many years our football team was not entered in leagues, we just played friendlies.

In reply to IainRUK:

Was that driven by broader politics though (lefty council?) or PE theory?


Essentially, yes (though it is technically an American school). Boy #1 anyway, boy #2 is still at the crawling 'n bawling stage of life.



Of course. They already have a vast intra-school "soccer" program which is wholly-inclusive and very popular; and which I have been helping out with. But the same inclusivity is being extended to inter-school as well.

In reply to IainRUK:

My observation is that if you randomly select kids into teams (as they just did for intra-school matches here) you end up with a few who can play, a few who can't really play but try hard, and a few who stand around looking the wrong way then run away from the ball if it comes close. It is very hard to be sympathetic to the "rights" of the last group.

In reply to tobyfk: Raise it with the school head, see what they say.

I'm in favour of selective, competitive team sports. Sean Connery said it best in The Rock.

In reply to mux:
>
>

Not clear if thats something you've written or whether you're quoting someone else, but surely it should be....

"I was a very small kid and therefore I am a small bloke.."

After all there is a very definite time-line to these things (unless you happen to be called Marty, drive a Delorean and have a friend called Doc Brown!)

In reply to Martin76:


Yes, thankfully my son is already very immersed in that sort out of stuff outside school. And another parent, with stronger football credentials than me, wants to more aggressively pick other kids out of the school for a new private team.

If it wasn't for selective team sports, we probably wouldn't have nearly as many good climbers

In reply to tobyfk:
Essentially broader politics, but not just lefty stuff about being inclusive. The teaching unions were in near constant conflict with the Government during the 80's (rightly so IMHO), as a result a lot of activities which required large amounts of teacher good will, ie. unpaid work, lost out. School football teams, drama clubs, orchestras etc.

In reply to tobyfk:

Crap isn't it. Talking to a colleague about this the other day, and although it was a 'challenge' facing up to huge kids with beards(!) when we were pre-pubescent rugby players, we just took our hidings and tried our best.

I don't agree with this 'inclusive' policy for competition. Fine, do it at class-level and encourage participation across the board, but I think (despite the inevitable physical advantages/ disadvantages) that kids need to know if they are good at something or not. It is one of the learning blocks of life.

The only option is to take it up out of school where they'll soon learn how good they are. Kids seem to organise casual matches in the park much less than we did (Video games and paedo fear?) so the outlet for discovering their talents - or failings - is diminished.

In reply to JPG:

Lame ineffective avuncular man who says yes to everything then does nothing once you've left his office. Meanwhile the illiterate head of athletics refused to meet me and another parent to discuss (unless we met him one at a time; a blatant bureaucratic divide-and-rule tactic).


What did he say?

In reply to Cerulean:


So do you encounter in schools in Britain (or wherever you are?)?

In reply to IainRUK:
...so why have some kid running around in a circle ruining everyone else's game of football.

That's only the case if you're some sort of narcissistic tart on the field. I found at secondary school that this sort of attitude was very prevalent, with significant ostracism by both other pupils and PE staff if you weren't very good. It didn't promote good team work, just a series of glory grabbing arses trying to show off their own skills rather than what worked for the best result. Further it puts a lot of people off sport and physical activity, not a good outcome when increased social sedentary behaviour is becoming an issue.

I've subsequently played with teams who allow anyone of any ability to play and it creates a much better environment for mere mortals of players to participate in. By not becoming so focused on showing off their own skills it allows people to relax and enjoy it and do what they can for the team and not trying and failing to more than they reasonably can. Thus it actually creates a probably more successful team, and definitely a better dynamic. At secondary level, especially within classes sport this will have a better result than a cutthroat 'chop at the first sign of weakness' attitude.

In reply to tobyfk:

I don't really understand this ^^, what do you mean?

In reply to tobyfk:

Raise it with the governors, then.


Ambush her. "By the way, I've brought along so-and-so... Hope you don't mind! *smile*"


Losers whine about their "best". Winners go home and fsck the prom queen.

In reply to Liam M:

Rubbish. You didn't get picked a lot at school did you?

In reply to Liam M:

Let me guess. With an academic department?

I just refuse to play work football. Lads who've never played or take it all too seriously and get too sensitive. Knock them in a challenge and it's some sort of personal attack, shout and you've offended the wee souls..

To be social I played with an insititute last week and limited myself to no shooting or tackling so I couldn't get involved with the game. I even ignored the score, hated it, but I know they wouldn't have appreciated me talking incessantly for 90 minutes telling everyone what to do and where to go..


"Thus it actually creates a probably more successful team, and definitely a better dynamic. At secondary level, especially within classes sport this will have a better result than a cutthroat 'chop at the first sign of weakness' attitude."

This last statement is pure rubbish. sorry you may think that's the case but it's not. Being a team makes a small difference if you already have good players, I'd rather have me and one other footballer on a 5 a side pitch and we'll play the game ourselves than 4 others who are poor but work together.

A better dynamic? Depends what you want. Some of us play sports to win. Pretty simple, the enjoyment is the winning, OK nice football matters but at a distant second. That may seem a bad attitude but it's the attitude of many. maybe we play sports for different reasons. Some to enjoy the game, some to enjoy winning, so why force the 2 to mix?

What you call showing off is just some lad showing some talent. I'd say there is far more showing off at the average indoor wall than there is on a pitch. Footballers are far more driven to the goal than the style, the ethics of the game go out of the window, it's just about scoring or winning (for many).

In reply to IainRUK:

>A better dynamic?

Well maybe not on the pitch but when you have ostracized the one person who can help you with your homework or help you at work not letting them JOIN IN does nobody any favours.

In reply to sutty: As a 14 year old lad that was never high up on my list..

We let them join in, we needed someone to beat

In reply to tobyfk:

It's not fashionable in P.E. theory as I understand it (I'm P.E. co ordinator in a primary school). My view is that competition is good for children up to a point, I always open after school clubs to all irrespective of ability but I am then ruthlessly selective in choosing teams for competetive matches, it's unfair on children who are into sport to not select properly in my view! I also arrange many friendlies for the other children to have the experience of playing competetive sport.

In reply to Cerulean:

Sorry. Just looking for supporting/ non-supporting evidence on this topic. I guessed from your prior post you were a parent with school-age children; if so, are you aware of school(s) that have selection-averse sports team policy like that enforced by the PE woman at my son's school?

In reply to JPG:


Even more lame and annoying than the principal as far as I can tell!


Actually the overall head of school PE is a testosterone-crazed skinhead "Ironman"; to whom the Canadian woman reports. We considered ambushing him but his emails on the topic became increasingly forthright so would have basically lead to an outright confrontation. Possibly entertaining, but probably terminal in terms of making further progress now or at any time in the future. On the positive side, I now have a nice email trail demonstrating him to be a prick, which I am sharing with other parents.

In reply to MattG:


Cheers. Exactly what I was after.

Any other PE teachers out there able to comment?

In reply to tobyfk:

Ah right, yes, my missus is a teacher, and they have a selection-averse sports policy which means they lose all the inter-school competitions, but it is a primary where this issue is probably less significant. I'd say it's probably more reasonaable to have such a policy at a primary so at least an ability/ liking is fostered in all in the early years, then at secondary they can find out if they're actually genuinely any good and decide or be selected on merit.

In reply to tobyfk:

That explains a lot -- the Septics know naff all about footy anyway, and with a moosefarmer in charge of PE, what chance does he have.

Tough Luck for the lad, Toby.

I'm sure that if it were an Ice Hockey team, the response would be a lot more favourable.

http://www.abudhabiscorpions.com/

In reply to Lord of Starkness: Asked mates about this over email, the response:

"That is exactly what is currently wrong with this country! Nurturing a culture of mediocrity and not celebrating success. What utter tosh."

Ok I know it's outside the UK but general view is correct.

In reply to tobyfk:
Everyone should be allowed to play sport BUT life is about competition, kids may as well be exposed to it earlier rather than being unaware of it - this doesn't mean they shouldn't get the chance to play sport, those less gifted obviously have the right to and must play sports but why not just at a lower level, why hold down the naturally better ones? I can't stand the mentality offered in this particular person's philosophy. For the record, one of my colleagues coaches a non-school U10 team and said there are a vast number of teachers who have to tow that line and enforce it despite disagreeing with it.

In reply to MattG:

Exactly as it should be

In reply to MattG: Yours sounds the ideal approach to me, with the possibility of being promoted to the school team if you were shining in the 'also'rans'.

In reply to Cerulean:

Thanks. So Primary is what I am talking about. I guess I have been away from the UK so long now that I forget some of these linguistic differences. Where I have written 'Elementary' substitute 'Primary'. To me, under 10 or under 11 seems to be the golden age for football - old enough to actually position themselves and pass but too young for all the fouling and aggression - thus deserves to be treated with the highest seriousness. (Though no doubt I'll have changed my mind once boy #1 is a bit older than that).

In reply to IainRUK:

Where are your mates, Iain? ie which "this country" are we talking about?

In reply to IainRUK:


No - they have decent teachers who encourage the out of tune trumpetter not to play out of tune.

There is no reason why everyone can not be good at some form of sport. I was that kid who never got picked for anything and as a result I was pretty disallusioned by the whole thing. As an adult, it turns out that I am actually quite good at many sports, specifically climbing, hockey, squash, badminton...

I could have been good at all of these as a kid if I had been given half a chance, but I was not.

In reply to tobyfk: I haven't read the whole of the thread, but to my mind the main responsibility for schools is to educate kids to enjoy and partake in sport and physical activity. How they go about that I'm not qualified to say. If they put all their efforts into the elite few kids that are really good, the country will end up with some decent footballers and athletes etc., but with a large percentage of the population obese and drawing on already over-stretched NHS.

I think the teacher makes a very good point about the differing rates at which children develop physically.

In reply to wayno265:


Though ignores the fact that football is not 100% physical - ie it isn't weightlifting or sprinting. For example, it seems to me that at my son's age having the intelligence to anticipate where the ball may be going rather than chasing where it is now makes a huge difference.

In reply to Jon Dittman:


I disagree, music is a natural talent. If a kid doesn't have it why persue it outside of school.

I agree re choice of sports that's why schools now teach periods of most sports through the year, but taking them further should be primarily for the better kids. At our school we later had a 'B' team for those who enjoyed the game but were erm..'less gifted'..you know lacked coordination..

In reply to wayno265:


I think the teachers do that now. Sport in school time should be for all. Even training outside of school should be for all, but actual competing, that's for rewarding. It should be a hiuge privilige to represent your school, captain your school, and from there go on to represent county/region etc, that's how kids get spotted.

In reply to tobyfk: They also develop at different rates mentally. I really think it's the duty of the school to develop the many and not the few. If there's spare capacity to run an elite team, great. If not, the better players should join a club outside school.

In reply to IainRUK:

I have sympathy with that argument. There is a counter argument that if the kids who don't show as much in training never get to compete, their temperament for the competitive environment can't be assessed. Some people are great when the pressure's off, but not so good when there's a bit more riding on it, and vice versa.

In reply to IainRUK: Music is much less of a natural talent than sport, which does rely on physiological advantage to a greater or lesser degree - vis the number of musicians who are children of musicians. It isn't some sort of inbred ability, it's simply that they get exposed to it much more consistently, and also often without the competetive element.

Which isn't to say that Schools shouldn't encourage competetiveness, rather that your example isn't so good.

Says the Toad, who was never in any sports team (and who managed to skive off games in favour of doing an extra electronics "o" level!) and lives in a house with a guitar, flute, banjo & a fiddle and can barely manage Amazing Grace on the tin whistle

In reply to wayno265:

I think though, like John says, sports great in that there is normally a sport for most kids. I competed mainly at football but also la crosse, hocky, badminton, squash, rugby union, rugby league, cross country for my school. Those sports allowed almost any kid to compete in one of the sports.

I see the point about external teams but there is also the parents time issue. My parents were the taxi service for many of my mates so we could all play sports somewhere. Few parents gave so much time to carting kids about and school sport was handy that we just walked to the school and jumped on the mini bus. Training was just at school after school. For external teams training is elsewhere so are games and sadly many parents are not willing to give up there weekends. On the weekends my Dad would play Rugby, me and my brother would compete for school, then we'd compete again on the SUnday for our teams. My mother wouldn't stop. Some weekends I'd play 4 games a weekend for teams, cadets, the city and school at football or rugby. For many without parental support that isn't possible but that set me off on a lifetime (hopefully) of sport.

In reply to IainRUK:

>also la crosse, hocky, badminton, squash, rugby union, rugby league, cross country for my school

Most comps do not have those on the curriculum so no chance of the average kid even trying them. Most are lucky if they even have a sports field at all now.

In reply to sutty:

I know, the school I went to sold 50% of it's playing fields for housing and built on most of the rest.

These were supposedly 'protected'. Shocking.

Back then X-county was a 2.5 mile run up over Blackamoor, a great loop, good climbs, mud, it's now loops around what exists of the playing fields.