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.
