Moany moan moan
Aug. 19th, 2008 10:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caz963Anyone who knows me knows I'm not a fan of sport. So I'm not following the Olympics, although I will admit to being pleased that for once, the Brits aren't coming last at everything! And I'm pleased for the athletes who have worked and trained hard to achieve what they've achieved - their success is clearly deserved.
But reading this article in the Times today has given me pause for thought. In Arts and Heritage pay the price for Gold, the columnist points out that, although we can certainly attribute some of this newfound success to sports funding from the National Lottery, in order to achieve the same - and possibly greater - success in 2012, lots of other organisations that normally benefit from Lottery funding will be losing out. Word is that arts funding will be cut by at least 20%, with a figure of 35% being spoken of just as frequently. The Heritage Lottery Fund, which has been responsible for restoration work at York Minster, projects to introduce kids to archaeology, recovery of community woodland; is losing over £160 million. The "good causes" fund is losing over £200 million because money is being diverted to the Olympics.
The real sufferers will be the small, the innovative, the community-based, the kind of enterprise that can change lives and restore morale at a far deeper level than we can get from the passing thrill of watching a rower cross the line or a sprinter breast the tape. Of course we want to see Britain winning, but the notion that we can, in the modern era of sport, achieve this without squeezing the cultural life of the nation is illusory.
In other words, you really can't have your cake and eat it.
I know that amid the current glow of national pride, this sounds incredibly grumpy and negative, but as the writer says, this is something that happens once in a blue moon, and we're going to throw money at it left, right and centre, and sacrifice things which will be more lasting - despite what Tessa Jowell says about there being "no more money" for 2012.
And while I'm on the subject of the Olympics, Now let's top the medals table for education - asks why we can't apply the mindset that our athletes and their coaches are displaying in sport to education in general.
In education, we have done everything we can to make winning easier rather than getting down to the hard work of teaching our children properly. Exams have been devalued and pupils are no longer expected to know facts. Universities skew admissions to favour weaker candidates from more disadvantaged areas. Can you imagine the rower Mark Hunter being given a 20-metre start because he came from the East End rather than Eton?
also
Sports coaches don't accept children who turn up late and mess around, whatever their background.
Yep. But the rest of us have to.
This article, along similar lines is also worth a read, as are the comments at the end, particularly this one -
Schools are held to be responsible for the students who don't behave, don't attend or don't learn and are meant to do everything possible to keep those students in school at the expense of those who want to learn.
To call this "social engineering" is to pay it a compliment. Although the rhetoric is about social inclusion the fact is that this is little more than babysitting. It doesn't do anybody any good, but change would involve more effort than just extending the scope of the babysitting (now to include 17 and 18 year olds).
That's just so true.
But reading this article in the Times today has given me pause for thought. In Arts and Heritage pay the price for Gold, the columnist points out that, although we can certainly attribute some of this newfound success to sports funding from the National Lottery, in order to achieve the same - and possibly greater - success in 2012, lots of other organisations that normally benefit from Lottery funding will be losing out. Word is that arts funding will be cut by at least 20%, with a figure of 35% being spoken of just as frequently. The Heritage Lottery Fund, which has been responsible for restoration work at York Minster, projects to introduce kids to archaeology, recovery of community woodland; is losing over £160 million. The "good causes" fund is losing over £200 million because money is being diverted to the Olympics.
The real sufferers will be the small, the innovative, the community-based, the kind of enterprise that can change lives and restore morale at a far deeper level than we can get from the passing thrill of watching a rower cross the line or a sprinter breast the tape. Of course we want to see Britain winning, but the notion that we can, in the modern era of sport, achieve this without squeezing the cultural life of the nation is illusory.
In other words, you really can't have your cake and eat it.
I know that amid the current glow of national pride, this sounds incredibly grumpy and negative, but as the writer says, this is something that happens once in a blue moon, and we're going to throw money at it left, right and centre, and sacrifice things which will be more lasting - despite what Tessa Jowell says about there being "no more money" for 2012.
And while I'm on the subject of the Olympics, Now let's top the medals table for education - asks why we can't apply the mindset that our athletes and their coaches are displaying in sport to education in general.
In education, we have done everything we can to make winning easier rather than getting down to the hard work of teaching our children properly. Exams have been devalued and pupils are no longer expected to know facts. Universities skew admissions to favour weaker candidates from more disadvantaged areas. Can you imagine the rower Mark Hunter being given a 20-metre start because he came from the East End rather than Eton?
also
Sports coaches don't accept children who turn up late and mess around, whatever their background.
Yep. But the rest of us have to.
This article, along similar lines is also worth a read, as are the comments at the end, particularly this one -
Schools are held to be responsible for the students who don't behave, don't attend or don't learn and are meant to do everything possible to keep those students in school at the expense of those who want to learn.
To call this "social engineering" is to pay it a compliment. Although the rhetoric is about social inclusion the fact is that this is little more than babysitting. It doesn't do anybody any good, but change would involve more effort than just extending the scope of the babysitting (now to include 17 and 18 year olds).
That's just so true.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-19 11:58 pm (UTC)No. We're going to throw money at something that has been neglected for too long, has helped countless children stay off the streets in underprivileged areas, has been proved to improve the concentration of children in the classroom, and has been consistently been cut from the curriculum over the last two decades. Plus we're not going to throw ludicrous sums of money at it in some ridiculous attempt to outdo Chinese spending. Sport gives kids something we all bemoan the lack of in society today - discipline. In times where we're constantly complaining about health issues and particularly obesity, it's also a good thing. There are projects already in the East End of London that are benefiting the local community. £100 million was supposed to be provided to Team GB from the private sector and this is where the problem lies - the credit crunch. If that shortfall does happen, then presumably the arts funding will have to be cut to cover that. I'm never a fan of cutting funding of any sort, although appreciate sometimes the money just isn't there. But what price role models for children - sport *does* have an inspirational value and thank God it's not overpaid footballers on tabloid pages for once - and the idea of self-belief that they can actually achieve something.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-23 11:33 pm (UTC)Sport gives kids something we all bemoan the lack of in society today - discipline. -
I've not seen it. Almost ALL the boys in that crappy year 9 class I had last year were members of the school under-14 footie team, who I think did quite well in local competitions. Did being in the team instil any discipline into them? Did it bollocks.
I agree with you - and with the Times columnist - that sport can help instil discipline into kids; but for the most part, I don't think it has that effect because the sports teachers are focused on just that one area and it doesn't matter to them what the kids are up to the rest of the time. If I'd gone to the footie coach and suggested that those boys who were causing the most problems were temporarily suspended from the team until their behaviour improved, I'd have been laughed at.
And sport in the curriculum is on the increase - again, from experience, the MFL department where I teach is losing lesson time to make room for the newly increased mandatory PE time.
So by all means, teach kids to throw a javelin if it will improve their behaviour overall. But I don't see it happening that way. They'll be allowed to get away with murder elsewhere because they're good at javelin throwing. At least in the US, kids who are at school/college on sports programmes have to keep a certain academic standard; maybe if we tried something similar here, it would improve behaviour and might also make those of us who teach subjects other than maths, english and PE feel that we weren't always losing out to sport.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-23 11:55 pm (UTC)That sanction, when properly used, is a bloody good way of getting them to tow the line - I saw it used up at a school in Salford to great effect once. The problem is getting it applied and for that you need, excuse the pun, colleagues on side.
And, yeah, PE time may be on the up now, but that's because of years of not having it on the curriculum enough. Kids *need* it, or they end up fat and playing Nintendo DS all the time. In many areas, particularly the inner cities, it's just not safe enough for them to go out and kick a ball about anymore after school so this is the only time they'll have to be energetic. I've seen sport keep kids out of prison, it's been that big an influence in their lives.
As far as the feeling of losing out to sport is concerned, every teacher of every subject feels they should have more time. I'm willing to bet that if we find the LJ of a sports teacher, they'd be moaning about being expected to meet certain standards but they're losing out to kids faffing on a keyboard when they're never gonna even take the GCSE. Simple fact is that there just aren't enough hours to fit everything in.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-21 09:42 am (UTC)