"We need a big cultural change - a cultural change in favour of competitive sports," he said.
"The problem has been too many schools not wanting to have competitive sport, some teachers not wanting to join in and play their part."
And the controversial bit is?
I'd like to know what evidence he is basing all of the above on, or is it just his personal hunch/prejudice?
With the possible exception of lottery funding, the biological, economic, societal, and personal factors (among other) that determine future success at the elite level are unlikely to be delivered centrally from Whitehall.
Money helps. Really this is about covering up the cuts being made, and finding that scapegoat.
Perhaps that's why he said some, not all?
The teacher bit seemed a minor element of a an interview that largely devalued by political point scoring. But guess which bit made the headlines!
Schools are mostly run by teachers are they not?
Evidence? Who needs that?
Teamhm do you think they dont know which bits will be picked up on?
I doubt CMD's research went much beyond:
Despite Britain's success during the Olympics, Lord Moynihan, the country's Olympic chief, has bemoaned the fact that a disproportionate number of gold medalists are the product of private education. According to Lord Moynihan, that more than 50 per cent of medalists at the last Games in Beijing came from independent schools is something that should concern those in the state sector and the government, too. The fact that half of Britain's medals come from a sector that represents a mere seven per cent of the population is, he said, the "worst statistics in British sport".Consequently, he has called on the government to redress the balance by overhauling the approach of state schools towards sport."There is so much talent out there in the 93% that should be identified and developed," he commented. "That has got to be a priority for future sports policy. I have spoken about it many times and I will continue to speak about it until there is not breath left in me."
A number of advocates of the private model have argued that its success is based on the idea that competition is actively encouraged in such schools.By contrast, they claim that state schools tow a politically correct line, thereby sending out the message that winning is not too important. However, those on the other side of the debate have pointed out that football - the country's most popular sport - is dominated by people from a working-class background, suggesting that much of the alleged underachievement can be linked to a lack of opportunities, not a lack of talent.
"Football is different, it is an interesting example," Lord Moynihan reflected. "The balance of professional football is that around seven per cent of players come from the private sector, which is an absolute mirror image of society. "That should be the case in every single sport and that should be the priority in each and every sport and that is something that every government should strive for."
edit: A-A, you would hope so, they are supposedly trained for that! But listening to the broadcast it didn;t come across as an attack on the profession itself. But I guess we all perceive it differently.
3. The anti-competitive ethos has not been beneficial (ie, prizes for all)
Which 'anti-competitive ethos'? Does that really exist? Has anyone actually seen this first hand (as opposed to 'friend of a friend' stories about everyone's a winner races and rubbish like that?)
4. " Some" teachers have "have not wanted to join in and play their part."
What do you mean their part? If they're not PE teachers, then their job is not to organise sports. If they are PE teachers, then their job is to organise PE during their working day. Along with that, the failure to prioritize sport in the school rankings etc. has meant that many schools have stopped employing specialist PE teachers at all.
Organising out of school sports clubs is something that teachers can choose to volunteer for, but it is hard to argue that by not doing that, they are 'not taking their part'. Coincidentally in a lot of private schools, teachers are paid to do out of core hours stuff like organise sports teams, so more of it gets done.
Arguing that teachers have a duty to do out of school sports, is pretty hypocritical unless you also volunteer time at your workplace to run out of work time sporting activities for your colleagues and think that everyone should do the same.
The depressing thing about this speech is that it is just a rehash of big speeches that Tessa Jowell made (apparently in 2004) about doing sports days and all that.
( http://www.****/news/article-105459/Put-Sports-Day-track-schools-told.html# )
Personally, I am pretty fit, I've cycled most places since I was about 6 and continue to do so, swum most weeks (and nowadays swim quite a lot, and run a bit too). I really hated PE though. It was a load of rubbish, only really aimed at people who were good at a particular small range of competitive sports (rugby, football, cricket, basketball etc.), and with no real support for anyone other than the good kids. It didn't 'build my character', it just meant that I grew up into someone who didn't give a damn about those sports, and who only does exercise because I've always ridden bikes for fun. If I hadn't have been a cyclist in the first place, I'm sure I'd be like many people I know, and do next to no exercise now.
All this talk of 'competition' ignores the fact that inter-school competitive sport, sports days etc. only really help with the fitness of people who are gifted at those sports, who by definition are usually pretty fit and active already. What about focusing on how exercise can be a fun and fulfilling thing to do, how even if you are a fat slacker, going on a bike ride or going for a swim can be a laugh, and coincidentally how it feels nice to be fit and fast.
The teacher bit seemed a minor element of a an interview that largely devalued by political point scoring. But guess which bit made the headlines!
The OP's link was to the Daily Telegraph, what "political point scoring" do you think the Daily Telegraph was engaged in ? They certainly thought "the teacher bit" warranted a rather large article.
Perhaps they did Ernie, which is exactly why its important to understand in-built biases. "Some" if not "all" history (and economics teachers) might get and teach that as well as sport!
3. The anti-competitive ethos has not been beneficial (ie, prizes for all)
Is there any evidence that this "anti-competitive ethos" actually exists anywhere other than in the fevered minds of daily mail letter writers?
I don't often agree with Cameron, but I think he has a point.
So if we say private education is better for gold medals can we assume that state/almost no education is better for being a premier league footballer or that private is better for english rugby players but not welsh? Or are much bigger forces at work here than schooling?
I put it down to whatever climatic cycle we're going through for each generation.
I heard the the cuban missile crisis was the teachers fault as well.
Were you called Cougar at school too?That must have been cool, man.
Well no, but I'm not typing on a public forum the nicknames they did have for me.
"Cougar" came about in college.
What about focusing on how exercise can be a fun and fulfilling thing to do, how even if you are a fat slacker, going on a bike ride or going for a swim can be a laugh, and coincidentally how it feels nice to be fit and fast.
Bang on.
Politician in crass "completely out of touch" shocker.
The last lot were especially bad at this, as were the bunch of imbeciles that came before. The only good thing I can say about the current bunch is that they at least haven't tried lying to justify an illegal war or two. Yet.
Hated school sports because they were competitive. I'm a geek and have not one competitive bone in my body. It was only as an adult that I realised I could enjoy and become immersed in exercise/activity without competition. E.g. cycling, hiking, munro-bagging, fitness-classes, power kites etc.
The only good thing I can say about the current bunch is that they at least haven't tried lying to justify an illegal war or two.
What's that got to do with sports in schools ?
Just fancied a random dig at the last government ?
BTW, if this government isn't prepared to justify illegal wars can we expect some arrests quite soon ?
Politician in crass "completely out of touch" shocker.
And this is a surprise, he's from a PR background? From my few interactions with such beasts those working in that field have a tenuous grasp on reality at the best of times. 😈
which is exactly why its important to understand in-built biases
thank god you are free of them 😕
I teach physics and was visited by one who student who came back from university with a 1st 🙂
I also run a after school science club - turning into a geek club 😆
I volunteer in a running club after school and demanded more funding for gym equipment before being told sorry no more funds by bosses 🙁
My problem? bad parents who don't give a dam about kids roaming the streets till 2am.
Lack of funding and stupid decisions - like anything else/business in this world.
Going to leave this career due to being blamed by society even though scoring excellent in ofsted, bad parenting and offered a role with twice the wage and less hours 🙂
Blimey, JY, that's not your smartest. Perhaps, it is you who is missing you-know-who? 😉
Just fancied a random dig at the last government ?
Yup. Totally justifiable IMHO. And the government before that was shocking too.
My antipathy towards politicians knows no party bias.
What's that got to do with sports in schools ?
Quite a bit actually. I know a few teachers who resent the last government's target driven educational ethos, to the extent where they felt hamstrung.
nor is that your dumbest 8)
No, the dumbest thing I did was to think that someone who complained frequently and recently about ad hominem attacks was also good to his word! As, I said not the smartest.
Its obviously nice to win, and I am not against competition, but if we are to teach kids to enjoy sports it also needs to be about making personal improvements and achievements.
+1, all sports when I was at school in the 90's and early 2000's were just competitions against each other. No training or setting personal goals at all. Your end of term report was based on how well you stacked up against the others in a narrow range of sports, not your own improvement/effort over time. PE was setup for all the thick skulled monkeys.
The only good thing I can say about the current bunch is that they at least haven't tried lying to justify an illegal war or two.[b]What's that got to do with sports in schools ?[/b]
Quite a bit actually. I know a few teachers who resent the last government's target driven educational ethos, to the extent where they felt hamstrung.
I only come here for the intellectually stimulating debates.
I loved PE at school, does that make me a thick skulled monkey? I think your knickers are showing by the way.
teamhurtmore - MemberPerhaps they did Ernie, which is exactly why its important to understand in-built biases. "Some" if not "all" history (and economics teachers) might get and teach that as well as sport!
teamhurtmore - MemberBlimey, JY, that's not your smartest. Perhaps, it is you who is missing you-know-who?
THM, I think it is important to understand the difference in what/how/where and to whom the actual teachers that have contributed to this thread do actually teach. ...and were educated themselves?
...and the potential in-built biases they may have that may arise from these.
(Since this debate would seem to have arisen from the disproprtionate quantity of public/private educated olympians this year, it does not seem unfair to imagine that Cameron is directing these comments towards state-funded schools.)
At the end of the day as prime minister is he not the teachers boss, so if he thinks like that then he should tell them what to do, simple. He's the leader of the country so if he wants something changed then CHANGE IT!!!
Successive governments have so called passed power down to local bodies, hospitals, schools, etc so they can't be blamed when something goes wrong and can say it is out if our hands, but still complain and meddle when they don't like something. If something goes wrong in a school then it the Education minister's fault and then the prime ministers fault just like in a business. Its called taking responsibility as the boss.
Oh and why not insist kids have an hour of exercise a day. Anything from running around the play ground playing British bull dog to proper PE lessons. 2 hours a week isn't really much is it. Are we going to end up as a nation with loads of really brainy kids with loads of GCSE's and A levels but not wanting to do the manual jobs and all fat with diabetes.
julianwilson - Member
THM, I think it is important to understand the difference in what/how/where and to whom the actual teachers that have contributed to this thread do actually teach. ...and were educated themselves?
I 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. All part of the fun up to a point.
But schooling is, as A-A pointed out only one part of a much wider issue about the role of sport and achieving success. 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. As I said before, I think there needs to be a separation between the concept of encouraging participation and enjoyment of school sport and the winning of gold medals/elite performance. Neither can be addressed in the same way.
To the extent that they have responsibilities as woody points out, I believe that politicians with responsibilities for education should concentrate on the former. This is also what Jessica Ennis was saying yesterday. Concentrate first and foremost on enjoyment. The commitment, focus, required support, funding, volunteers, paid coaching, genes and above all TIME and SELF DRIVE etc that determines elite performance are all beyond realistic expectations of what governments can and should be aiming to achieve unless you want to return to the sport = national pride era of the 1970s/80s with all that this entailed.
The trouble with politicising this and drawing the private/public school issue into the debate is that it obscures the lessons that can be drawn. So I would agree with Dr Seldon the Head of Wellington College (yes, I get the bias up front) when he says:
But if we have a broader vision of what it means to be human, and to acknowledge that our humanity includes our sporting prowess, our artistic faculties, our moral sensibilities and spiritual quest, to say nothing of the development of good character prized since the ancient Greeks, [u]then we would wish our schools to educate the whole child. Children from less-privileged backgrounds depend even more on their schools to give them this extracurricular enrichment.[/u]Howard Gardner, the Harvard Professor, says that we have not one but a whole variety of intelligences, and the sovereign responsibility of schools is to identify and nurture all of them. [u]If we do not offer this breadth in our schools, we patronise children and deny them the opportunities of the rich heritage that is the birthright of every child in Britain.[/u]
[b]Why should extensive provision for all in the arts, across the sports, in adventure and character education be largely the preserve of the better-off children who attend independent schools?[/b] State schools may lack the facilities, the length in the school day and the staff expertise to offer this same breadth of education. But why should we accept the status quo? The school days can be lengthened, as some academies have done, independent schools and others can help with facilities, and skilled volunteers can help run out-of-class activities.
The Government is playing its part...{deletes the Wellington PR bit here, to return to the point].... [b]but needs to go further and tell schools that extra-curricular activities should be offered widely to all, and that academic standards will not be jeopardised, but enhanced by doing so.[/b]
The vision and inspiration that heads could offer their staff and pupils at the start of the coming academic year, inspired by the Olympics, could blow away and delight their teachers and students. [u]May our whole school system be re-forged in steel by these Games.[/u]
Why should extensive provision for all in the arts, across the sports, in adventure and character education be largely the preserve of the better-off children who attend independent schools?
It shouldn't, but it's just an issue of money - they have more, they can afford better. Fund state schools better through higher taxes/better tax enforcement on the wealthy. That's what it comes down to.
but needs to go further and tell schools that extra-curricular activities should be offered widely to all, and that academic standards will not be jeopardised, but enhanced by doing so.
Oh right, that will sort it then.
Well Grum, that's the interesting point that CMD has bought out into the open. Is it simply an issue of money? I somehow doubt it. 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."
One of the ironies of all this is the role of lottery funding. As cycling and rowing both pointed out, lottery funding was a critical factor. So a negative form of taxation helps fund sporting success for the few - we really do live in an odd world of contradictions!
To the extent that they have responsibilities as woody points out, I believe that politicians with responsibilities for education should concentrate on the former. This is also what Jessica Ennis was saying yesterday. Concentrate first and foremost on enjoyment. The commitment, focus, required support, funding, volunteers, paid coaching, genes and above all TIME and SELF DRIVE etc that determines elite performance are all beyond realistic expectations of what governments can and should be aiming to achieve unless you want to return to the sport = national pride era of the 1970s/80s with all that this entailed.
So you have changed your mind then THM from your earlier assertions agreeing with DC that a more competitive ethos was the solution
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.
