Just pointing out the apparent change in mindset of teachers from when I was a child
Obviously you know **** all about teachers or teaching.
I'm married to a teacher (Key Stage 1) and the amount of additional paper work successive govt's have heaped on them coupled with ever higher (meaningless) targets and year on year budget cuts mean that the job is far more than a 9 to 5. My wife leaves the house around 7:30 and gets back around 6. Most evenings involve some work and a morning or afternoon at the weekend.
Is it simply an issue of money? I somehow doubt it.
It's not [i]just[/i] about money, but I fail to see how that's not a very large part of it. Having much better facilities/equipment/more experienced/qualified coaches, better coach/pupil ratios, more trips away to other even better facilities, more trips to international competitions etc - never mind private schools cherry-picking those already showing sporting prowess. Never mind well-off parents paying for private lessons on top.
But no the reason private schools do better is lazy, hippy state school teachers trying to 'let everyone win, man'.
And what is wrong with the final comment ie, recognising that education in not just about exams and sport/other activities can enhance academic achievement or as Seldon would say "education."
I agree - but just telling schools that (or indeed slagging them off for not doing it when they have lots of conflicting pressures) isn't actually very helpful or constructive.
Money?
I live next door to a private school with its own Olympic sized swimming pool, which is not open to anyone other than the pupils. It also has its own tennis courts. The huge playing fields are open to anyone who can climb over the locked gates though...
What would make a real difference is the proper funding of local sports clubs, with the proviso that the sports clubs are directly linked with local schools, so the cross country runs and races take place with the club, the school swimming takes place with the local swimming club and so on.
The problem seems to be that even the poor attempts to get children into sport stop as soon as they leave school, we need a longer term association between sports and peoples lives.
The highlighted quotes were merely responses to digs that betray an element of STW history that goes with engaging in debate with people who have broadly differing views. All part of the fun up to a point.
Yes we were having digs but when you said I was stupid you were presumably free from bias?
Bit like you did an ad hominem whilst complaining that I did one [ it was at worst misplaced humour on my part]
The point I made [ and I was largely joking but you missed it] was that you often talk of bias which is to suggest that you yourself are somehow free of them and that everyone else is biased..ironically this is your bias.
I repeat that I agree with L Moynihan that the statistic regarding medals/education is a poor reflection but doubt that the causation is as direct as politicians will have us believe
So that fact that private schools have better sporting facilities and the parents more money has no effect on the outcomes of those kids? despite the fact they have better outcomes? Participation and access don’t affect outcomes?
I don’t see how anyone can disagree that access to better sporting provision [ in the private sector] will NOT have an outcome….not many state schools have a boating lake for example so it is unlikely they will produce rowers to the same degree. Ditto horse riding wher eyou need a horse or sailing where you need a boat. Hence why there are more [ poorer from birth] footballers as you need a ball and they are quite cheap.
I do not see how you can achieve what the Dr wants without setting aside both time and money on order to achieve them..I don’t disagree with the aims but Gove seem to think the problem is not just money and it does not require set aside time to achieve…..he just needs to re invigorate teachers to do it for free I assume???
Is it simply an issue of money? I somehow doubt it.
Are you really claiming that outcomes in state schools for sporting achievement and academic and cultural factors would not be improved by them having the same amount of funding as a private school?I fail to see your logic at work here
It may be the case that we need money and X [ time, quality coaches etc] but without the money the later wont come. So yes it takes more than money but we still need it....its capitlaism everything has a price and the higher the price the better the service/gooods etc.
How can you argue we have all these sporting athletes form private schools [ better funded and better resourced] and then doubt the link between the cost and the achievement
JOKE
Do you just think the rich are genetically superior to the poor and that is the cause 😉
teamhurtmore - MemberI agree entirely. The highlighted quotes were merely responses to digs that betray an element of STW history that goes with engaging in debate with people who have broadly differing views.
...THM you are the 'known-as-a-teacher' on this forum that (from lenthly contributions to education/economics/politix threads) we nevertheless know the least about. Apart from the 'being an economics teacher' bit, that is.
MSP - Member
So you have changed your mind then THM from your earlier assertions agreeing with DC that a more competitive ethos was the solution
On the contrary MSP, read what I actually said especially in the first line of the following para in my original post. I do not think that the anti-competitive ethos (yes, I have experienced it directly) has been beneficial BUT/AND I believe that the priority at schools should be to "prioritise participation and enjoyment." They are not in contradiction with each other (except perhaps in minds of the politically polarised).
JY - I did not say [b]you[/b] were stupid - I merely pointed out that [b]your observation[/b] that I exempted myself from bias was not the smartest comment that you have made (nor an accurate one), although I took it that it was with an element of humour belatedly. Perhaps we both misunderstood each other, so apologies if my comments came across as being at your rather than at your comment. That was not my intention.
But of course money and facilities have an impact. The issue is what to do about it. The Wellington College PR that I deleted for the sake of brevity is an example of how answers can be given without the BS that accompanies CMD interview. He made a sensible point ie, money is important but it is not the only factor/solution.
But private schooling itself does not guarantee success, surprisingly. Indeed it can work exactly the opposite way. I know two boys who both played county tennis and got to the point where the coaches wanted a level of time commitment from them and from their parents that was simply incompatible with the demands of their private schools timetabling. So they reigned back on the tennis much to the disgust of the coaches who claimed..."that's the trouble with coaching private sector kids, they can't give up the time." We really do live in an odd world of contradictions!
As many of the gold medal winners have stated repeatedly a key factor behind their success is the sacrifices/investment/commitment that comes from their parents. Just look at Judy Murray!
grum - Member
I agree - but just telling schools that (or indeed slagging them off for not doing it when they have lots of conflicting pressures) isn't actually very helpful or constructive.
Which is a great example of how perception/bias affects "how" we hear and interpret things.
Junkyard - Member
....and the higher the price the better the service/gooods etc....
I hope you don't fall for that one!
How can you argue we have all these sporting athletes form private schools [ better funded and better resourced] and then doubt the link between the cost and the achievement
I don't, I just question the extent of the causation. I agree with A_A early, its more complicated than that!
Of course not I mean a Kia is as good as a Rolls Royce and a supermarket £99 bike as good as an Orange 5
No one can actually seriously argue that money does not get you better things.
To hear this from right wing avid capitalists who have been given every advantage money can afford is at best disingenous and a worse an utter crock of lies they dont even buy - for clarity I mean the millionairre tories like CMD [not you]. How many PM's from Eton *?- not that his paid for education could be considered an advanatge eh]
Clearly money counts as it buys you stuff
I heard a PE teacher on Radio 4 who siad his entire PE budget would buy every pupila tennis ball each and they had been after a gym since 1978.Tell him money wont help or get him anuything better
Junkyard - Member
No one can actually seriously argue that money does not get you better things.
Actually, they can if they think about it.. The link is far from perfect. There is a fundamental difference between price and value for a start. Money "may" get you better things (whatever that means?) but is certainly doesn't guarantee it. Blimey, this is a MTB forum and there are plenty of examples of price not equating to better bikes and ability to ride.
I havent seen anyone actually say, "money doesn't help". Merely that [b]it, alone, does not guarantee success.[/b] The point that CMD was making, funnily enough. Throwing words like capitalist around, doesn't alter that basic fact otherwise the world of sport would be a very different place to the one we are currently experiencing.
Blimey CMD gets lambasted because he states the obvious and then foolishly (perhaps as Ernie reckons) stated that "some" teachers have not played their part. Imagine just for one moment if he had touched on factors such as genes, correlation between races/different sports (any causation?), and most importantly the role of parents and the sacrifices they make to ensure sporting success (money AND time plus emotional support etc). You can imagine the headlines.
Its also somewhat patronising to suggest that the main factor behind the success of our athletes was money. That would be a very interesting conversation to have face-to-face with them.
Its also somewhat patronising to suggest that the main factor behind the success of our athletes was money. That would be a very interesting conversation to have face-to-face with them.
Many of the athletes I've seen interviewed have made a point of thanking the amazing coaching teams, facilities and support that has been made available to them (paid for with, you know, money) and specifically stated that they wouldn't have won without it. I'm sure you and CMD know better though.
Blimey CMD gets lambasted because he states the obvious
No, he gets lambasted because he completely disingenuously tried to deflect attention away from the fact that his government massively slashed school sports funding, and instead blamed lazy teachers and a liberal 'no winners' ethos, based on precisely zero evidence, when there was plenty of credible evidence that the scheme they scrapped was effective.
I love the way you always talk about others' bias, while claiming no political affiliation of your own, yet you almost always (not so) subtly support the conservatives and try and dismiss almost all criticism of them as biased/misplaced.
and yet you chose not to explain it to me with the £99 supermarket bike and a Ornage.Blimey, this is a MTB forum and there are plenty of examples of price not equating to better bikes and ability to ride.
I havent seen anyone actually say, "money doesn't help". Merely that it, alone, does not guarantee success
Its absence - you dont buy pitches or equipment or horses or lakes. Not doing the sports does guarantee failure...that is the point. TO do them costs money.
]Blimey CMD gets lambasted because he states the obvious
right winger says something you agree with and you tell us it is obvious...what was your point on bias again?
have you seen the coverage a number of athletes have been very clear in theior praise for lottery funding which has enabled them to train FT at the best places with the best resources.Its also somewhat patronising to suggest that the main factor behind the success of our athletes was money. That would be a very interesting conversation to have face-to-face with them.
Perhaps you think that the velodrome, the Lottery funding and the specialist bikes have made no difference to the cycling teams success and that they should all get £99 shopper bikes and train oin the towpath...after all it was not the money t hat made them win was it so there would be no effect in performance.
Yes they need to train hard, yes they need to work hard, yes they need to be dedicated but having all that and no training facilities and no equipment wont make winners. I fail to see why you or anyone would even argue it tbh
I am out of this thread now.
Blimey CMD gets lambasted because he states the obvious and then foolishly (perhaps as Ernie reckons) stated that "some" teachers have not played their part.
I must admit that I'm not exactly clear what part teachers actually have to play in this issue. It seemed clear to me from what I heard that he was referring to extra curricular activities rather than PE, and quite frankly I'm not sure why we as a society should expect teachers to run such things. It's not what they trained to do, it's not what they are employed to do so why do we expect them to do it?
Well put grum.
BinnersI went to school in St Helens. As far as school sports were concerned we had a choice of rugby, rugby or rugby. In all weathers
I absolutely ****ing HATE rugby!!
Well, TBH in St Hellens you were probably playing the wrong sort of Rugby.
*lights the only touch paper faster bruning than a tory bashing thread and legs it*
The tories appear to have a twofold agenda, on the one hand to lay blame for any fault they can find [ despite the fact that most sports funding has tended to come from lottery money , and secondly to capitalize on the reflective glory of sports people doing well and the nation getting behind them
Grum, you must have missed the economics threads if you think I consistently support the Tories 😉 Plus please tell me where I,and CMD for that matter, have said that money isn't important. I supported CMD when he said that money was not the answer alone. If that makes me a right wing capitalist, swivvled eyed loon, Tory sympathisers than so be it. To me, that's just common sense and has got nothing to do with politics.
But as someone who rides socially and races on a £600 HT with/against others on £multipleK FS mega bikes, I will stand by the observation that money doesn't guarantee success if you don't mind. Of course I would like a better bike but my brain (not any political persuasion) tells me that this will not make me a better rider. Better to spend the money on coaching and the time on practicing.
Out of interest JY where did I say that not having facilities was not an issue? Again a bit patronising for runners coming out of East Africa, but that's another story altogether as the money grows on trees there apparently.
Covered the lottery money earlier thanks. Now that really is an interesting one. Tory PM introduces negative tax system (for those who think about it) to fund elite sports who, if earlier posts are to be believed, are there principally because they are rich (sic) and that is considered a positive thing. It really is a funny old world.
money doesn't guarantee success
Does its absence guarantee failure as i mentioned above?
Have you tried competing on a £99 supermarket bike..or perhaps without one because you could not buy it?
Again a bit patronising for runners coming out of East Africa, but that's another story altogether as the money grows on trees there apparently.
I would assume that is some sort of dig [ lost on me sorry] though of course you dont do that and you are not a right winger 🙄
Perhaps you could use an example where you require equipment rather than to just run? You do like to cherry pick your examples but it is rather obvious.
So where are the rowers, showjumpers, sailors,shooters, archers, cyclists etc oh that wont be amoney thing or lack of equipment/opportunity now will it.
Tory PM introduces negative tax system (for those who think about- PATRONISING AGAIN? NOT SURE IF YOU MEAN TO TBH) to fund elite sports who, if earlier posts are to be believed, are there principally because they are rich (sic) and that is considered a positive thing. It really is a funny old world
indeed it is
teamhurtmore -
"Frankly, if the only problem was money, you'd solve this with money. The only problem isn't money."The problem has been too many schools not wanting to have competitive sport, some teachers not wanting to join in and play their part.
"So if we want to have a great sporting legacy for our children - and I do - we have got to have an answer that brings the whole of society together to crack this, more competition, more competitiveness, more getting rid of the idea all must win prizes and you can't have competitive sports days.
[b]"We need a big cultural change - a cultural change in favour of competitive sports. That's what I think really matters.[/b]
He's quite clearly completely downplaying the importance of funding (despite evidence it worked to improve participation), and saying the main issue is teachers attitudes and a lack of competitive ethos (yet again where is the evidence?). I don't see how you can argue otherwise.
Your posts are full of straw men BTW.
Whereas comparing a filing cabinet (according to STW) to a supermarket bike is a sensible analogy. Blimey, I mis-timed the smartest quote didnt I!?!
All you are doing JY is proving my point and showing that we agree (pls go back to my OP). Money is important, you are not going to arrive at the starting line at the elite level in most sports without it. But, just in case my actual point, and that which CMD made specifically in the radio interview, was misunderstood, it doesn't guarantee success.
So that is the objective bit. The subjective bit comes with the politicising the issue. To suggest that either of the two main parties has placed a major emphasis on sport (or even read the fascinating work of Gardener that Seldon mentioned on the multiple intelligence and the breadth of proper education) is a little wide of the mark.
Grum, the four points in my OP are completely apolitical. That was the point. The negative point about CMD politicising the debate in the same interview wasn't, it was political. And biased in which way? Anti-Tory.
Edit for x-post. Grum FWIW I disagree with CMD at the general level as I (and Jessica Ennis) said. They real key is participation and enjoyment. From that springs the true inner desire that builds champions which is the message that Jess was getting across. When it comes to the elite level, the story is different though and competition plays an important role there. But JY, thing about all the rich parents who splash money on extra coaching, the best equipment etc and wonder why their kids are not Olympic champions.
WunUndred 😀
Edit - changed my mind about posting
Blimey, I mis-timed the smartest quote didnt I!?!
well thanks for once more for bringing up my [lack of] intelligence on the thread , you made an excellent point about ad hoiminems and you have led by example 🙄
And biased in which way?
I cannot even be bothered getting a face palm picture for that
I did not have you down as this unaware
I reckon I will argue I type well and that I am not left wing next time we debate something...why not eh.
But JY, thing about all the rich parents who splash money on extra coaching, the best equipment etc and wonder why their kids are not Olympic champions.
is it because talent matters and we know they dont have enough because they have actually done the sport and it is not down to lack of opportunity because someone was able to pay for them to do the sport? Unlike the east Africans who you forget to mention.
Are you suggesting they play for extra coaching because it does not work etc yadda yada descent into more one sided abuse and denail of your views etc
To repeat - no money = not doing the sport so it is essential
Wise move TJ I shall heed your wise words
Its not money per se thats important, its sensible targeted investment.
For example the reason BC are producing the goods is that they have put dosh into the sport where the most medals are available, (i.e. track), only then following on with the others, on top of that they have invested heavily in coach and official training alongside a process of identifying and fast tracking talent for the future.
Personally, I think it might be worth appointing Dave Braillsford and his team to coach at Westminster, mind you you have to have the raw material to start with and lets face it you can't polish a turd.
Great to see our latest gold medalist was a stable hand! Put that in the equation!
...and was that the Battle of Britain theme that she rode to and against German opposition?
Watch BBC now. Charlotte can make a donkey do anything (her MUM) ! QED
No money = not doing the sport. Exactly.
Sorry about the "smartest" bit but come on - the supermarket vs Orange apology is taking logical extension a bit far.
CBA with this any more either. No surprise that you were watching horse dancing instead of BMX though!
Loads of experience of watching parents think they can buy success helps JY!! They must think that the causation is a strong as others. Funny that they are so often disappointed.
Grum, better half and I fighting with the remote! She's struggling with the crashes. The BMX has been incredible, but painful to watch!
The high jumper Robbie Grabarz, who won a bronze medal on Tuesday despite having his lottery support withdrawn, said: "Funding is fantastic and it helps a lot of people on their way. It would be a shame if it were to go.[b] But it is not the be all and end all at the same time. If you really want something you can do it."[/b]
So which message will inspire a generation?
When you are in a hole stop digging.
It is clear that neither you or Cameron have any clue about what happens in the real world away from your protected little enclaves of privilege.
Rhetorical question but how you can participate in say showjumping or shooting without equipment and facilities which money provides?
private schools get huge government subsidy in the form of completely unjustifiable tax breaks, state schools have ever shrinking budgets and reductions in facilities as tories happily sell off the playing feilds
To suggest as you and Cameron attempt to do that the fact that private schools produce more participants in the sort of sports that require expensive equipment and facilities is nothing to do with money shows a depth of self delusion that is quite breathtaking.
same as you attempting to declare you are apolitical whilst spouting right wing dogma.
You really are farcical. do you even believe this guff yourself? Yo do realise that those that are not irritated by your nasty hectoring manner are laughing at the absurdity of your position?
Easy tiger!
Ranting like a crazed loon about someone diminishes the effect of what you say.
As a kid in sixth form, our school wouldn't allow a junior cycling champ to do bike training on the wednesday sports afternoons even though he was sponsored by the sports council at the time & was good enough to go on to train chris boardman.
Money & facilities ain't much cop if the schools ethos isn't there in the first place.
State funded grammar school my son went to had such a large private school intake & attitude, that they only played rugby & not football, having not played rugby before the age of 11 he ended up in the C team - most schools they played only fielded A & B teams so he rarely got to play. The attitude of some schools to sport really does need to move on 🙁
Nice entrance TJ, good to see you back. In answer to your question, reference our latest equestrian gold medalist. Glad she didn't fall for the idea that money is the only key to success.
So shooting, that's a good example. Who was our recent gold medalist - Peter Wilson
But a lack of British shooting medals at the Beijing Olympics in 2008, coupled with a crippling recession meant that UK Sport cut its shooting budget, and at a crucial point in Wilson’s career, his funding was removed completely. If he was to keep his Olympic hopes alive, Wilson would have to find the means to support himself. His solution was to take on a part-time job at his local pub, the Poachers Inn in Piddletrenthide.
Never let fact get in the way of a good argument or personal abuse TJ!
I'm not sure at all where this thread is heading TBH.
Perhaps Cameron is justifying in advance the complete withdrawal of all state funding for sports. If our olympians are disproportionately from the public/private school system, and there are examples (see above post from thm) of 'normal' people who make it as sportspersons in spite of funding cuts during their training, then what is the point at all? 👿
THM, despite having brought the issue of personal bias up a couple of pages ago, you seem to have missed/ignored my hints that you might like to put some meat on the bones as to where your own personal biases might come from, specifically how you were educated and in what sort of establishment and for what sort of people you are a teacher. This would seem to be entirely relevant to the issue of schools and teachers being brought into it.
So shooting, that's a good example. Who was our recent gold medalist - Peter WilsonBut a lack of British shooting medals at the Beijing Olympics in 2008, coupled with a crippling recession meant that UK Sport cut its shooting budget, and at a crucial point in Wilson’s career, his funding was removed completely. If he was to keep his Olympic hopes alive, Wilson would have to find the means to support himself. His solution was to take on a part-time job at his local pub, the Poachers Inn in Piddletrenthide.
Never let fact get in the way of a good argument or personal abuse TJ!
interesting, you could try taking your own advice. Wilson stopped the bar job because the late nights were interfering with his training. And he was funded and trained by Sheikh Ahmed Al Maktoum. Which he mentioned when talking to the bbc after winning the medal.
[i]Wilson recalled: “He (Al Maktoum) said he was going to quit after Beijing. I said, ‘well, I’m about to lose my funding’. And we had a deal over a coffee and a handshake.”
[/i]
The wonder of Wiki! Perhaps less selective quoting might give a clearer picture
Following budget cuts by UK Sport following the lack of shooting medals at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Wilson's funding was removed completely and he was required to fund his shooting expenses which amount to nearly £10,000 a year. He tried to work in a pub as a barman, but found that the night shifts conflicted with his shooting practice. His parents instead funded him for a year while he tried to secure further funding. He has also raised funds, along with the rest of the British shooting team, by running fundraising events.
So got of his backside and responded. Coached and (possibly, I dont know) funded by Sheik Ahmed, but still the case that he didn't allow money or lack of it prevent him from achieving his goal. The message to inspire a generation or perhaps we should say, sorry if you dont have the money or are not privately educated, give up now? Which should be the legacy of the games?
[Perhaps the Sheik only chose him because he had been at Millfield. 😉 Isn't that how it is suppose to work?]
The message to inspire a generation or perhaps we should say, sorry if you dont have the money or are not privately educated, give up now?
Another classic straw man from you.
he didn't allow money or lack of it prevent him from achieving his goal
What lack of money? he just funded from alternative sources if he had not had 10 k he would not have trained
Its not even that strong grum its just wrong
Not initially, he relied on parents, part-time job and fund raising. So JY, seriously, where does the funding payment come from? Let's say that it costs £10k to get to the start line (but not necessarily to win), where does that come from?
The money was just harder to get this time but without it he would not have won or even have taken part.HE STILL NEEDED FUNDING/MONEY
As i said pages ago money wont make you win but it does mean you can participate without money you have nothing as you have no boat, lake, etc so poor people play footie [as it is cheap] and dont ride horses or go sailing
And we agree on that entirely. Circle squared! But still interested to know where the £10k comes from. But not before 100 lengths. Time training is worth more than pennies spent.
Time training is worth more than pennies spent.
And your own example shows that people can spend more time training if they don't have to work late shifts in a pub. 🙄
Still waiting. 😉
and only train at that sport to Olympic standard with 10 k
And funny how winners find the time, Grum, isn't it?
As a kid in sixth form, our school wouldn't allow a junior cycling champ to do bike training on the wednesday sports afternoons even though he was sponsored by the sports council at the time & was good enough to go on to train chris boardman.
Money & facilities ain't much cop if the schools ethos isn't there in the first place.
I'm so glad I went to an FE college as opposed to a 6th form. They wouldn't even bat and eye lid if we didn't turn up, or walked out of lessons early, or came in stoned or stinking of booze from an afternoon underage pub session.
Ahhhhh good times.
Funny that we should turn on to shooting as a subject isn't it really - according to TJ anyone who shoots for fun is a deranged violent fantasist... so presumably he would have been completely opposed to public funding supporting this potential murderer, let alone the prospect of teaching schoolchildren to shoot things 😯
9.9% of 4-5 year olds are obese according to tonight's news, who's fault is that?
Good grief...
And funny how winners are the people who find the time [b][u]AND THE MONEY[/u][/b], Grum, isn't it?
thm, you can't have blocked my posts because you replied to half of one earlier. You are getting as bad as zulu for sidestepping 'difficult' questions.
[edited for crossed post with the above] ...and as if by magic! ^^
(Zulu, didn't this happen a couple of months ago too? You're like beetlejuice! 😆 )
And funny how winners find the time, Grum, isn't it?
You are a tool, Olympic funding correlates to Team GB's golds with a statistically significant 95% confidence level. Basically what guarantees Golds, is cold, hard cash.
I got bored.
julian - I suspect THM is embarrassed about what he does hence he will not tell us.
Its certainly very interesting on this forum to see who is reasonably open about who they are and what they do and who hides their identity.
Its also very clear that THM will go to any lengths to try to sustain an obviously unsustainable position such as this one including claiming agreement with people who make points diametrically opposite to his.
So THM - how can you train in an equestrian sport without a horse?
[img] 
[/img]
So THM - how can you train in an equestrian sport without a horse?
FFS! 🙄
tj, it was THM's raising of this that piqued my interest. -His original comment (about the Guardian) of course is quite right:
its important to understand in-built biases. "Some" if not "all" history (and economics teachers) might get and teach that as well as sport!
When a debate seems to circle around:
1) CMD's criticism of state school teachers,
2) whether or not "you get what you pay for"
3) the need/superfluousness of additional funding for sports traditionally excelled in by those with a public/private school background,
...then it becomes all the more important to understand the possibilities of in-built bias amongst those who were educated by the state or by the private sector, and those who teach for the state or in a public/private/crammer school. I am not so black-and-white as to be seeking to 'out' THM as a Tory, but I am curious as to why he would seem to be so reluctant to back up his points on a thread so tied up in those three issues with more background to the professional position from which he makes them.
I am sure the other well known teachers on this forum will happily ackowledge that the different people and places they teach to/in brings them different outlooks on both the practice/experience of educating, and the political environment in which that education happens. To pick three prolific and open contributors to such threads: aganellis', miketually's and don simon's employers and workplaces all being different, their students all being different ages and there for different reasons. I know this because all three have been quite willing to discuss this on the forum in the past. Why not THM? ❓
No need to out him as a tory - its so obvious his right wing bias. The amusing thing is that his insistence of right wing dogma as apolitical and the norm / accepted wisdom on any vaguely political thread. I think this says a lot about the circles he lives in.
Nice baiting of TJ as per your norm DS what a positive contribution you have made to the thread
PS I made the same point much much earlier but you forgot to mock me.
When the debate is whether money enables you to partake in sport the question is one of wealth and that you need to have some spare cash to have a horse.
I contrasted this with why you see so many working class footballers because it requires a ball and this is quite cheap
Still you just wanted to bait TJ so i dont know why I actually bothered typing that I suspect this is the correct playground level required
So you and Z-11 joined in to simply bait TJ....... FFS 🙄
I'm waiting for Internet Arguing to become an Olympic Sport.
Would 16 days be long enough?
if Internet arguing were an Olympic sport, nobody from STW would be in the medals! Take your pick...
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
FFS 🙄
😆
al, time for a STW Olympics Thread don't you think?
@DD: ❓
Well since you mention History teachers;
DISCLAIMER;Obviously as a teacher I accept my experience is open to challenge from this congregation of big hitters as they know better.
That being said;sport in state schools;
1)An increasing number of kids and parents now mostly feel they are doing you a favour by playing.
2) I run rugby teams for which I get no thanks from either parents or (most)pupils or management.
3)If I am going to say, Glasgow in the Scottish cup on a Wed afternoon, I will not be home till 7/8pm. I can expect the school to view the time spent taking a sports team as "non contact" and issue me with cover periods for absent workmates to cover the time I have been on a jolly.
4)I had to rake around to buy strips,obviously I was not allowed any sponsorship that the team could do in school.
5)Risk assessments...
6) Union trying to stop us doing any extra-curricular; Not in Scotland.
7) Non competitive nature of sport? Can't say I have noticed.
8) 25% of the pupils at my school refuse to do PE of any kind,the school cannot do anything about it.Parents just TELL the school their child will not do it and refuse any sanctions such as detention for not doing them.
9) Local clubs often pressure the pupils not to play for the school.
10) HOWEVER; Seeing my u18 side dismantle much bigger/better resourced schools with the somewhat "robust" style I have instilled and seeing the self belief and spirit instilled in them in the six years they play a game that requires discipline and commitment and....what were the previous 9 I mentioned?
Waves at TJ.
al, it'd be the kind of thread only you could get away with starting. 😉
*waves at duckie and blows a kiss*
How you doing big fella?
DD; getting there, back to work next week up here.
Erm...OK...what's it to be about then?
In answer to your question, reference our latest equestrian gold medalist. Glad she didn't fall for the idea that money is the only key to success.
Out of interest was that the same gold medal winner who was saying that she only managed to be in the sport because of her Grandmas will enabling her to buy a horse? Clearly not at all effected by funding then?
I think the point you are missing is that no one is actually claiming that it is the only key to success, however they are saying it is a pretty damn important one, as history and recent events quite clearly demonstrate.
I am saying it is a threshold
no money means you often dont participate- even thm cited an shotist as an example of this
No funding means you have to juggle work and training
No rich parents/affluent schools mean you never do rowing, horse riding stuff or sailing so who knows what talents we are missing out on
after that point it would take commitment, application, dedication but if you withdraw the money all that wont matter as you can no longer do the sport to your best and in many cases at all.
I dont really know why this is controversial tbh.
I haven't been reading this thread but,
Just seen a post from TJ on Facebook, he's just received a lifetime ban from STW after his posts on here.
I'm not going to comment on the decision, but figured the forum should know.
🙁
Tbh, from his entrance into the thread, it was only going one way.
No rich parents/affluent schools mean you never do rowing,
Unfortunately this is simply wrong. There are lots of clubs which are open to the public and don't require wealthy parents or attendance at a public school.
As for the people in public clubs not getting a bite at the cherry, again this is not true either, our club produced a world champion oarswoman. Maybe she was lucky to have been spotted by a well respected coach, maybe she was just so naturally talented, but it wasn't because of money and not out of reach of many, discounts for unemployed too. 😉
Maybe the public are not interested in this type of sport because they, misguidedly, believe they're elitist sports.
Berm Bandit - Member
I think the point you are missing is that no one is actually claiming that it is the only key to success, however they are saying it is a pretty damn important one, as history and recent events quite clearly demonstrate.
Exactly right BB and going back to my OP.
teamhurtmore - Member
2. Spending money is important but not the only answer
Hence the question, "And the contraversial bit is?"
I do agree with you JY except there is plenty of evidence, even today, to show that the "no rich parents" comments can be falsified.
But forget the arguments for a moment, let's just hope that everyone pulls together to ensure that, first-and-foremost, perceived and real obstacles to children participating and enjoying sport are removed. Then, that real talent is properly nurtured and allowed to reach its full potential. Money should not be an obstacle to this and let's hope that no child is left with the idea that this is the case. That would be a shameful legacy. After all that is what education is really about - Hence Dr Seldon's reference to Harvard Uni's Howard Gardner. I went to a lecture by Seldon and bought these books to see what he was going on about. A lot to take in but worth it if anyone is interested in wider aspects of educating young children.
I see Evan Davies (R4) has just done the sums and shown that more Team GB medals have been won by state-educated athletes than private schooled. Also, that London, Yorkshire and Scots educated have won the most medals.
Not sure if this makes any difference to this thread though...
7 % are privately educated what was the split?
{For clarity given what is going on that is a genuine question as i missed the show and there is no hidden agenda]
duckman, great to see another teacher contribute to this thread with his cards fully on the table. 😀
Teamhurtmore, since it wasn't the wonderings about what your education and professional experience brings to the table that got TJ banned (after all, not a peep about it at my end: unlike both TJ and your good self I have never once been 'moderated'), I will remind you yet again that it would be nice in the interests of your comment earlier:
its important to understand in-built biases. "Some" if not "all" history (and economics teachers) might get and teach that as well as sport!
...and the issues at hand in this thread which I would have thought schoolteachers of all backgrounds are most excellently placed to comment on,
[i]what potential bias does your own education, employer and type of student have for you here?[/i]
Off to bed now. Since you seem to have been active on this thread all evening, hopefully I will have a slap on the wrist or an answer on here in the morning. 😀
@ jy above - Sorry - only heard it on the way to the pub so not sure of the detail.
Chemistry teacher and do rugby and athletics. State school educated and private school employed.
No extra payment for coaching or Saturday sports, yes we have good facilities but in order to keep them going we hire them out when the school isn't using them.
I do think that there is more of a "let's do it " ethos, or perhaps more of the staff step up. I genuinely believe that the strikes of the eighties ruined school sports in the state sector, with lots of people suddenly realising what a weekend with your own family was like. How you get that mindset back is the problem. That and the fact that a surprising number of parents are willing to criticise and comment on something you have volunteered for but not so willing to step up with the time and training.
Julian, good questions and avoided because I did genuinely go to fit in swim training before the 200m final. Reticence is due to involvement in "related project" that is far too early to discuss. Many of the issues raised in the thread explain why this is ex UK! However, core theme is that money should not determine accessibility to the best in education (but is required for its delivery). Among current WIP is role of sport (!) and other ECAs and how this is linked to core theme. So there, my bias is laid bare!
Re history, not my area of knowledge, but I am impressed at how the subject has developed from one that was overly based on factual learning and remarkably biased IMO (when I was at school) to one which emphasises the use of analystical techniques to understand bias and the appropriate use of materials and sources. So it would be nice if history students picked up the Daily Telegraph (OP) recognising where it might be biased (clue in the headline) but then dig behind this to see if there is an alternative message or use of the material. IMO there was in this case, but this is not an opinion that is widely shared obviously!