The BBC was wittering about sport in schools this morning. A comment made during the discussion was that of quantity and quality. There is an assumption that this must be on the curriculum and if enough time is not devoted to it, there is a problem. I notice a similar theme being discussed a couple of weeks ago over at archrights when Terri picked up on Gordon Brown’s desire to increase the recommended two hours to four hours.
My school days, some thirty years ago, remain fresh in my mind as if they were yesterday and sport is one reason why. Not for the reasons Brown refers to:
Mr Brown says in the interview that his memories of his school days are less about his academic studies than about the sports teams in which he was involved and he remembers the joy of being picked for the school rugby team.
Oh, no. When the BBC presenter questioned the point that many of us do not continue sport when we leave school, I look back not as Brown does with nostalgia but smoldering resentment and loathing. That is why.
In those days; the late sixties and early seventies; we had the full four hours a week that Brown would like and they were four hours of abject misery. Four pointless, wasted hours running about half naked on a frozen pitch chasing after a ball (except that I made a nuisance of myself by refusing to take part). An utterly pointless exercise that did me no good whatsoever. I recall as if it were but earlier today; shivering with cold, soaking wet and longing for the time when no one would ever force me to endure such torture again. That day, the first day of July 1976 was one of the happiest of my life. I left behind forever physical education lessons and football. That my pathological loathing of football endures to this day is due to an education system that fails to see children as individuals, that assumes as the buffoon Brown does that we must all be part of a team and all want to waste time chasing a ball about:
“I am a believer in competitive sports,” Mr Brown said. “I think people do better when challenged and you are challenged when involved in teams and comeptitions.”
The man is an arse and so are those who would inflict their stupid team sports on children who do not want to play them. Fitness, often proffered as an excuse doesn’t wash. I was fit – in my spare time I cycled and a thirty mile trip was not unusual. I also enjoyed individual sports, I held a junior green belt at Judo and was a moderately competent archer. It was simply that my choice of sport did not fit in with the mainstream so I was either forced unwilling and uncooperative onto the football pitch or despatched on a cross country run to get me out of the way. That I then simply bunked off for a couple of hours and was never followed up suited me fine – if it were not for the bitter cold.
I disliked maths at school as well. Yet I do not advocate giving children an opt out on this. Nor do I harbour any resentment at having to endure it even though I dreaded these lessons almost as much as PE. The difference being that maths has proved an invaluable tool in my life. I could not get by without maths and English, nor could I navigate without geography. Other subjects such as History have proved fascinating and enlightening to me. I can enjoy the knowledge for its own sake. These academic subjects have proved invaluable. PE has not and never will. If I never see nor hear another word or image relating to football it will not be too soon.
What those games lessons did teach me was a vigorous hatred for control freaks wherever I find them, a powerful sense of individualism and self determination, a lifelong refusal to cooperate with those who try to make me bend to their will and with that, a valuable life lesson in how to be awkward, uncooperative and stubborn and get away with it. Maybe it was some use after all – if not the intended one.
To the BBC news team; does that answer your question?
Oh how I agree! I had a protracted tussle with my headmaster during my WW2 schooldays to get out of team games – he was a cricket fanatic, and though all sports activities at the school were advertised as “voluntary” they were anything but. One of my earliest introductions to adult hypocrisy!
On I prepared earlier:
I think David Walliams being super modest here. Rather than not being sporty he’s obviously had this latent talent lurking beneath the surface all this time but it was repressed, quite likely because organised/school sports can be very off-putting for many people. For a start if you don’t have an affinity for team sports like football, rugby, cricket or hockey, either because you find them boring or get swamped by those gifted with the natural skills needed shine in them, then, as far as school is concerned, you’re not sporty. Personally I always wondered when I was an ass-kicking bike rider back in my early 20s whether I was fitter then than the “athletic” kids I’d been at school with. Highly likely. And now? Probably more so. That’s not to say that I’m assuming everybody but me has gone to seed, absolutely not. What I mean is that outside of the stultifying school sports regime many people are able to discover their true athletic calling. Of course by then it’s probably too late to plot a route to a professional career! What we need is the old East German system. of identifying talented youngsters.. Er, maybe not, even if it did bring out Jan Ullrich, Erik Zabel, Jens Voigt, Andreas Klöden…
David Walliams sums up my point admirably. Going along with the crowd is easy. Standing alone is somewhat more difficult – especially when you are an awkward adolescent. Although I did enjoy a delightful moment when in a brief spirit of broadening our horizons there was one games lesson when we were told that we would be introduced to Judo. I brought in my kit, complete with green belt…
Thick woolen socks, hard leather boots, long baggy shorts and a starched shirt tied at the neck with a bootlace. 1850 ? No … 1950 ! I bloody hated it ! and I always finished up sitting on top of the ‘horse’ in PE.
Looking back, I realise now just what a culture of bullying existed. A culture nurtured by those charged with stamping it out.
hello! my names jennene an i am doing an essay bout shoutd teenage driving age be lifted an your report was really good an i got a better understanding on wat im gonna write bout! thanks a bulk xoxox 😀
oops wrong article
Whilst I applaud your individualism and free-thinking, competitive team school sports can develop youngsters by:
1. Teaching them association with others
2. Teams “work” in all areas of life.
3. Helps to develop relationships
4. Fosters moral fibre
5. Improves self-esteem ( very necessary at present I suggest) 🙄 🙁
Jeremy, all of these can be managed without sport. Indeed, a good team manger recognises and nurtures the individual and unique abilities that each member brings to the team.
I’ve been effective in teams throughout my working life and managed a few in my time too – not a single football to be found.
Team sports in my experience are more about subjugating individual differences rather than celebrating and utilising them.
If people want to enjoy team sports, you won’t find me standing in the way, but please don’t tell me that they are in any way necessary to teach anything about life or that we need them in school, because we don’t. Forcing children into team sports against their will does anything but prepare them for a working life in team relationships. And, see my first comment in response to your point – I have managed teams. Football did not teach me this, common sense and good personnel management did.
I take your point about self esteem – again, football was used to destroy it in those of us who did not like it (my comment about bullying by PE teachers). I gained more self esteem from rebellion than from subjugation to the hive mind of football. It is hardly surprising that the sports that I naturally graduated to were individual sports rather than team ones – they still are.
I repeat – while all of the points you make are valid, all can be achieved without going anywhere near a playing field.
I was at school the same time as you and recognise your story of miserable sports lessons.
We were out in drizzle and worse. I recall that because the whole year did sports concurrently, we would have the best 22 players playing on one field, the second best 22 on a second and the dregs on a third. I was in the bottom third along with the disinterested, the smokers, the overweight, and the disabled. The teachers would (naturally) devote most of their time to those who actually wanted to be there, so we were left alone. Before 5 minutes of the lesson had elapsed, the smokers had departed to the still undemolished bomb shelters.
Also like you, I didn’t mind so much the “solo” sports and was competent at long distance running and the high jump.
However I cannot agree with your rejection of sport.
There is a major difference between then and now. There was a less TV and no video games that kept kids at home in our day. We played out for hours, either in the street or in the fields. That has stopped for whatever reason and consequently children are generally less fit.
Children lack the maturity to know they will never benefit from sports. Their dislike has several origins including peer pressure, fear of the unknown, fear of failure and many others, but people benefit from exposure to new ideas or participation with new activities and often that has to be forced initially.
Many of the activities my parents or teachers forced me to do I resented at the time but now I can see the point. Did you eat your greens?
TDK, I am not rejecting sport per se, I am rejecting any form of enforced sport in schools. Big difference. It’s a fair point you make about a more sedentary lifestyle today, and I make no bones about encouraging exercise. You don’t need competitive team sports to do this.
Did I eat my greens? Yes, I liked greens. However, to take your parallel, I detested root vegetables and still do. My parents decided that allowing me to opt out of swede, turnip and parsnip was the most pragmatic solution. I agree with them entirely. Introducing something for people to try is good. Forcing it on them when they decide that having tried it, it is not for them, is not. That way lies the third football pitch you and I endured as children and I would not visit that experience on my worst enemy.
The point about greens was to illustrate that sometimes (particularly with children) we have to force people to try something.
My children would not initially eat veg, anything spicy, anything unusual. After going through the grief of “you will eat it before you leave the table” they now eat many more things than they otherwise would; not everything, but sufficient variety to be healthy. They also accept novelty now whereas they once never did. I doubt that would be the case if we hadn’t used coersion.
Children are not mini adults – they need arranged activities and boundaries.
Team sport is just a type – would you still object to a program that mixed team sport with individual activities?
I acknowledged your point in the penultimate paragraph of the original article. Yes, some coercion is desirable for children’s future development. Sport, being a leisure activity, does not meet the criteria. When a child having been introduced to it states that they do not like it, that wish has as much right to be respected as anyone else’s.
I agree entirely about respecting children’s wishes, and personally reckon coercion of any kind is rarely necessary (a bit of basic road safety, maybe). We’ve never done the ‘eat up your greens’ number – and we also managed to home educate our sons without the ‘you will learn this or else’ routine. Seems to have worked out fine.
I agree entirely, Terri. While I do not resent my compulsory maths lessons as those lessons have proved invaluable in later life, I do deeply resent the compulsory sport – so where’s the positive outcome in that?
I have always treated children as younger versions of adults. Why not? That is after all, what they are. Why were my wishes as an eight year old, perfectly capable of expressing my wishes (and didn’t I just) not respected and honoured? Why were they less valid than those of an adult?