The olympics are class-based

Icm76 said:
Not at the expense of academic study, but the actual school day should be longer and accommodate 1hr or more per day dedicated to P.E. and sport.
Click to expand...

I believe they call it lunch time. It wasn't exactly unusual during spring/summer/autumn when it wasn't raining to eat lunch on the picnic benches then 15 or 20 minutes later, go up to the football pitch and play for the next 45-60 minutes.

I know its not the same as a dedicated PE lesson but it is not physically possible to work that into every school day. Sure you could make everyone do it at the same time but do you honestly think you can get maybe 1500 students (assuming 300 and yr 7-11) to do PE together? No school would have the funding and none of them would get any attention at all.
 
We live in a capitalist world where money dominates and it's not going to change in your lifetime so you might as well get used to it and play the game rather than moan.
 
Evilsod said:
I believe they call it lunch time...
Click to expand...
I'm talking about adding to that, and English schools used to do more sport. I was talking to a Kenyan friend about this, they have some systems put in place left over from the Empire and the schools do have more sport - the boys will spend every lunch and break time playing football, then a couple of hrs per day playing rugby, cricket, athletics etc. They do much more sport per week than we do.

Sure there are major logistical obstacles to overcome, we would need more teachers and coaches to supervise, but P.E. can be spread through the day so not all students are out at the same time. Also the loss of most of the playing fields in the 1980s needs to be addressed.

However there are potential big benefits in terms of health as well as keeping kids out of trouble and supervised while parents are working. I think the main obstacle is a lack of political will and the desire (or acceptance) from parents.
 
LBC were discussing this the other day, they commented that the only sport that reflects the split between fee paying and state schools is football 7 / 93.

However of the parents I know of fee paying schools are by far putting more effort into sports by a very very very large margin it's not even remotely comparable.

The glimmer of hope is Academies, I was involved on the build of http://www.stpaulsacademy.org.uk/ and the emphasis on sports was massive, all weather pitches, 100m track through the school, massive gym, massive sports hall with proper Junckers flooring and lots of different courts.
 
Icm76 said:
I'm talking about adding to that, and English schools used to do more sport. I was talking to a Kenyan friend about this, they have some systems put in place left over from the Empire and the schools do have more sport - the boys will spend every lunch and break time playing football, then a couple of hrs per day playing rugby, cricket, athletics etc. They do much more sport per week than we do.

Sure there are major logistical obstacles to overcome, we would need more teachers and coaches to supervise, but P.E. can be spread through the day so not all students are out at the same time. Also the loss of most of the playing fields in the 1980s needs to be addressed.

However there are potential big benefits in terms of health as well as keeping kids out of trouble and supervised while parents are working. I think the main obstacle is a lack of political will and the desire (or acceptance) from parents.
Click to expand...

No, its the fact that its not possible to do at all on a national level. You'd need a huge number of PE teachers. A huge amount of additional funding for equipment which would need to be maintained and replaced. Not to mention the facilities required as you couldn't do it outdoor all the time. You can't force school children to do PE every day. If they don't want to do it they simply won't.

Yes there are benefits in terms of health but most won't care.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...t-britain-elite-privilege-schools?INTCMP=SRCH

"It's for everyone" was the message highlighted in the Olympics opening ceremony. Not quite. Even in the middle of an international sporting festival, where nothing but raw talent should count, you can't get away from the British class system. On the most conservative estimates, nearly a quarter of this year's Team GB (excluding those schooled abroad) were educated at fee-charging schools, attended by only 7% of the total child population. In the events where Britain is most likely to win medals – sailing and equestrianism, for example, which require a moneyed background even to participate – the proportion is much higher: hence David Cameron's claim that more than a third of the British medal winners at the 2008 Olympics were from private schools.
Click to expand...

Personally I read that more as being that the state schools are letting kids down rather than the "rich" having more opportunity. Unfortunately the state schools have much less interest in sport and driving people to excel in general.

While there are some sports that are predominantly dominated the middle class there is no real reason for it. Whilst rowing is taught in fee paying schools a lot of athletes get into it at university (with 50% going to it). If people feel like they aren't good enough (or more likely "that sports club is full of toffs!) then it's their fault... Unfortunately there is just as much reverse snobbery as traditional snobbery around. A lot of the sports don't need money to do*, they do however need a drive from a young age which generally comes from schools and with state schools insisting on only playing football (major annoyance to me when I was younger) the only way to experience other sports is to do it in your own time.

So in conclusion, unfortunately there is a disproportionate amount of "middle class" in the top rungs of sports other than football, however don't blame them, blame the state schools.
 
Mr Jones said:
Not trying to start anything but this article maybe where it stems from...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19109724

None of the equestrian are state educated. Understandable I suppose but the lack of funding to develop young talents within the country is atrocious.

One very simple but big game is Basketball. Football takes so much dominance that school just let kids play football, all the time. Cricket was occasional but that's it. If I wanted Basketball, I've got to do it on my break - even the extra curriculum Basketball in my secondary school was pants (Mayfield School, Portsmouth) No funding or decent equipment, we had a Maths teacher with some passion running it off his own back.

Things might have changed but if you want to develop in Basketball, you have to leave this country (what a sad affair!) either on scholarship or you have rich backings to steer you there to State side College. That's when Class comes into play.
Click to expand...

As someone pointed out to me recently, most horse owners drive fairly poor cars, mostly because they spend all their money on horses and their upkeep. Money is important, but moreso is what you spend it on. Horse folk spend it on horses (and you can get started very cheaply), others spend it on new TV's and new cars.

I had the same problem at my school, football all year then about 4 weeks of Cricket in the summer. We set up an after school rugby team one year, with one of the teachers nicely giving up his own time and bringing in equipment so we could train. I played tennis as well, had to go and join a local club.*

What is farcical about tennis at the moment. My 10 year old cousin wanted to play tennis for his school but because he had started tennis at a local club and competed in an LTA competition (just grassroots) he now isn't allowed to compete for his school because he has an LTA rating... And people wonder why state school pupils do less well at sport...?

EDIT: There is also no reason why dinghy sailing should be the preserve of the "rich"/middle class either, a small dinghy is pretty cheap and you can usually learn at your local lake/sea. The problem is it has that "rich" tag to it so many people poo poo it.

*What was even more annoying was we had tennis courts at school, and a teacher who taught tennis, however tennis was only played by the girls. They had to do Netball and Tennis, boys had to Football and a few weeks of cricket...
 
Last edited:
What's the big deal? Sport is a leisure activity. It requires free time and disposable income. Why should we be surprised that those with more of those are richer/of a higher class?
 
Vonhelmet said:
What's the big deal? Sport is a leisure activity. It requires free time and disposable income. Why should we be surprised that those with more of those are richer/of a higher class?
Click to expand...

Quite.

Private schools will always have more money to burn on interests like elite sports because they've got more money and parents willing to fund extra spending on these areas. State schools are never going to match that.

But it's not just about private education. Sailing, horse riding and similar sports are expensive pursuits. It's not that you need to privately educated to follow them but you need money. And if your family has the money to pay for a horses and training sufficient to bring you to Olympic level, it probably also has money to educate you privately.

But what would you like done about this? Do you really want schools to divert spending from teaching Maths, Science and English to training a tiny, tiny percentage of people to be elite athletes? Do you want them to shift physical education from what is useful to the masses to concentrate money on the handful that might make it? If you had an extra £500 to spend on equipment a pupil to spend would you really want to spend it buying a few boats, instead of new computers, textbooks or classrooms?

As for private access to these things, what are you going to do? State fund sailing projects for all? Do you really think that's a good use of public funds?

I think the amount of money we spend on sport is appropriate for its importance. I think PE in schools should look to be inclusive and favour skills of teamwork and self-confidence and encouraging lifelong habits of exercise over honing elite athletes. This year, when we've had more athletes than ever before, 541 British people are competing; spending money based on the make-up of those 541 is not a good use of money.
 
Some sports are costly and time consuming, so it should be understood that children will come from 2 camps (mostly):
- those with parents who can afford the time and money
- those with parents who are willing to sacrifice a lot to make it happen.

Yes, there is a class difference in a lot of the sports represented by Brits at the Olympics. Will it ever be different? No, unless you manage to get minority sports sponsored by big companies, which on the face of things isn't going to happen due to low ROI.
 
Personally I view this as somewhat inevitable, since:

-Many poor people (and their families) won't get the opportunity to invest a lot of money in sport because, well, they are poor. This is important because many sports have a cost associated, whether that be buying equipment, transport to get to practice or whatever
-Likewise people from poor backgrounds may have less time available for sporting pursuits, they are sent out to work in the cotton mills, carry water or whatever
-In terms of the West, this would manifest itself in terms of Joe Bloggs needs to go out and get a job not waste time on sport, or maybe turn to a life of crime
-"middle class" families are more likely to send their children to institutions that can support their sporting ambitions with the best training, facilities etc
-"middle class" families are possibly (I don't have stats to back this up) more likely to have daddy earning the big bucks freeing up mummy to be a housewife and take the kids to hockey practice i.e. supporting their child's sporting ambitions

Personally I don't really see a massive problem with this, the Olympics are open to all in theory it is just that the reality is that only a subset of the world's population ever really gets the support or conditioning to be in with a chance of competing. I cannot see an easy way to change this and even if one could I would question how much it would cost relative to the benefit.
 
Mr Jack said:
I'd appreciate a link if you have one, otherwise no worries.

In that case, I think there's even less reason to care. Olympic athletes are a pretty small proportion of sports people.
Click to expand...

From the BBC:

BBC said:
"Football is different, it is an interesting example. The balance of professional football is that around 7% of players come from the private sector, which is an absolute mirror image of society.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19109724
 
Mr Jack said:
Simply playing something is surely not enough. Everyone runs in their youth; I'm guessing everyone plays tennis at school, no?
Click to expand...

Not really, quite a few local schools don't have access to a tennis court for example and not many have access to decent tracks either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom