I’m getting quite confused about this disparaging term “hand-wringing” in this series of articles. This one raises a genuine and important issue. What’s next, “Left guide to Olympics hand-wringing: billions spent on vanity project while disabled hung out to dry to save money”?

As I’m pretty old, the (non-private) school I attended had a fair dollop of sport with the option of rugby or football in the winter and cricket in the summer. We also had swimming and athletics including cross-country (or really across industrial landscapes). Sports day was a cut-throat affair where winning was all and losing was ….. well, for losers. Our sports facilities were very poor with a field we shared with another school and the Victorian, public swimming baths. There were no out-of-hours’ clubs.

All of this was achieved within school hours quite simply because our curriculum wasn’t jam packed with useless subjects; just the basics of English, literature, maths, chemistry, physics, French, history, geography, RE, music and some practical stuff like woodwork and metalwork. As we approached O levels we generally dropped quite a few subjects and I only took 6 subjects before moving on to technical college.

Years later when my kids were at school, and I spent some time as a primary school governor, I noticed a massive shift. The curriculum was choc-a-block with stuff like citizenship, drama and media syudies with sport relegated to the back-burner to make room. Competition was relegated too with an attitude of ‘everyone must win prizes’. But we invested in teaching our kids to swim – cheap enough at the municipal – and joined our sons up to the local rugby club to work off the mischief. The rugby club was cheap too.

My only experience of public schools is via the daughter of a friend who teaches at one. From what she tells me, the situation is not unlike my experience as a child. But there is a lot more out-of-hours sport, to keep the kids occupied, and the facilities are pretty amazing. In her school, competition, both intellectual and sporting, is deemed a necessary part of growing up in a hostile and competitive world.

I guess what I’m getting at is that spending large amounts of money on state school facilities is only part of it. We have to overhaul and simplify state school curriculums and we have to reintroduce competition into schools. Not everyone is equal. Some are brainy and some are good at sport – and some can do both. It’s a pretty unfair world out here, as the Olympics are proving.

@ 2 Northern Worker

“All of this was achieved within school hours quite simply because our curriculum wasn’t jam packed with useless subjects; just the basics of English, literature, maths, chemistry, physics, French, history, geography, RE, music and some practical stuff like woodwork and metalwork.”

I’m taking the implication here that you think the curriculum now IS jam-packed with useless subjects. However, you’ve just pretty much described what I learned in school during the late 90s, so presumably these useless subjects are pretty new. Which subjects are you thinking of specifically, and why are they useless?

Chaise

I mentioned citizenship, drama and media studies. Art seemed a particularly important subject too at our kids’ school, whereas for me it was what you did during a wet playtime.

More to the point, my four kids were pressed into taking everything at GCSE. Dropping subjects was frowned on. Our youngest is not the brainiest (though far from a total muppet), and he took 11 GCSEs. Needless to say didn’t do that well. But he is really good at sport, no thanks to his school, and played in the county youth rugby team.

Has anyone done an analysis of the schooling of UK-born professional footballers who play in the Premier League and other top clubs?

By online reports, average Premier League wages have reached £22,353 a week – before lucrative bonuses – or £1.16million a year.
http://soccerlens.com/finance-in-english-football-wage-disparities-between-the-divisions/92692/#hjgPos3DjeHrqJzE.99

Many, probably most, of those independent boys schools providing Olympians play Rugby Union, not football.

@ 4 Northern Worker

“I mentioned citizenship, drama and media studies. Art seemed a particularly important subject too at our kids’ school, whereas for me it was what you did during a wet playtime.”

I’m not sure why art and drama appear on your “bad list” when music is on your “good”. All three of those subjects could awaken an interest that could end up driving somebody’s entire life. And drama more than either of the other two might help at boosting kids’ confidence.

Media studies sound like it has the potential to be very useful indeed, although it could be poorly taught. Citizenship I don’t know about, but if it teaches people about things like the law, their rights and so on it sounds like a worthy cause.

“More to the point, my four kids were pressed into taking everything at GCSE. Dropping subjects was frowned on. Our youngest is not the brainiest (though far from a total muppet), and he took 11 GCSEs. Needless to say didn’t do that well.”

I think that sort of behaviour on the part of schools is ideology over pragmatism. My college strongly pressured everyone to take 4 AS levels in their first year. A friend of mine, fairly bright but not that academic, struggled with that burden, and asked to be allowed to drop one subject but was refused. I urged her to just ignore that subject (aside from turning up for lessons) and concentrate on the others, but she tried to do all four and, predictably, got lower grades than she should have done.

“But he is really good at sport, no thanks to his school, and played in the county youth rugby team.”

How much educational time do you think should be given over to sport? Or do you think it should be variable based on the strengths of the individual? Congratulations to your son there, by the way.

Why are we worrying about which schools Olypians went to but not about which schools UK-born professional footballers attended or about the postcode lottery in the academic standards achieved by schools?

In today’s FT: London state schools the best in England

“White children in London still comfortably outperform white children outside the capital. White children in Yorkshire and the Humber achieve one grade lower in 3.6 subjects than pupils from similar neighbourhoods in London.”

Far more children are adversely affected by the postcode lottery in academic standards in schools than the number of Olympians who benefit from the sports enthusiasm at independent schools. Outstanding Olympians – and professional footballers – can make a lot of money but for most of us employment prospects and lifetime earnings depend on attainment in schools and higher education, not upon sporting prowess.

“Research from the Independent Schools Council suggests that privately educated pupils spend twice as long playing sport as those in the state sector.

This reflects the prevalence of after-school and weekend sport in private schools and the reality that private school children tend to have someone able to ferry them to fixtures, as well as the opportunity to have private coaching in sports in which they excel.”

There’s possibly a teensie confusion here. Some/many private schools are “boarding” schools. The number of those in the State sector can be counted without having to take off one’s socks.

The general time routine at a boarding school is weekday afternoons from perhaps 2 till 4 are sport (often with the Wed as CCF). Lessons begin again at 4.45 or 5 pm through till 7.

Matches are on Saturdays. Lessons Sat morning until perhaps 11 or so, then get ready/travel to matches.

Now, I’m not saying that this is either good or bad, just that it generally is. If we look only at the private/state split we’re going to miss that quite significant portion of the private part which has vastly more hours per week of everything. Simply because they are boarding schools.

Northern Worker:

Some are brainy and some are good at sport – and some can do both. It’s a pretty unfair world out here, as the Olympics are proving.

To misquote ‘300’: This is not Spaaaarrrrrtaaaaa!!!!.

Seriously, the idea that competitive sport can be used as a basis for economic and social policy isn’t big or clever, especially given the need in life for co-operation as well as competition.

I mentioned citizenship, drama and media studies. Art seemed a particularly important subject too at our kids’ school, whereas for me it was what you did during a wet playtime.

Why is studying art useful but media not? There are far more jobs in the media than art, more people spend more time watching the media and it has a greater impact on our lives.

And RE is rather less useful than teaching Klingon. Might as well teach Applied Bollocks.

” Citizenship I don’t know about, but if it teaches people about things like the law, their rights and so on it sounds like a worthy cause.”

It tends to be a catch all term that includes ‘good things that several organisations have campaigned to have placed on the curriculum but that don’t fall easily into other subjects’, but equally differs from school to school.

Examples of topics studied include financial literacy (learning how to budget), housing options (teaching thick kids that you have to pay rent – yes seriously), healthy eating, politics lite (things like how laws are made, what elections are etc), self-confidence and relationships (telling kids domestic violence is bad).

The thing is, because it is so varied and isn’t valued as a qualification – schools don’t take it seriously, and so treat is a trivial afterthought. However if we were to ask people whether they think kids should be taught things like household budgeting and debt, or how the country is run, most people think they should. And public schools essentially do a lot of this very well indeed. It’s just we’ve yet to figure out how to do it in the state sector in a way that commands support from parents and in a way that schools take seriously.

Chaise Guevara:

I’m not sure why art and drama appear on [Northern Worker’s] “bad list” when music is on your “good”. All three of those subjects could awaken an interest that could end up driving somebody’s entire life. And drama more than either of the other two might help at boosting kids’ confidence.

1 – If the person studied or liked the subject, then it’s okay; if they didn’t, it makes the shit list (see Michael Gove on A level Dance)

2 – There’s an ‘arms race’ in drama facilities as much as there is for ones in sport: that’s how Eton has been churning out leading actors like Dominic West. And of course the parents of such kids can probably afford the fees for drama school.

3 – Matt Smith: could have been a professional footballer; ended up fighting Daleks. Funny how things turn out for some people.

4
Art is very important if your good at it. My youngest daughter wasn’t particually academic at school but she was very creative. She has a degree in illustration. My eldest daughter was also good at art, but because she was quite academic, her teachers at her comprehensive put her off doing art. She has a degree in history. She is now doing a second degree in art, which is something she wished she’d have done all along.

All children are different and have different gifts. If state schools aren’t doing as well in sports, its not really the fault of the independent schools. The focus should on improving sports in state school.

@ 11 Planeshift

I remember that my college treated General Studies and Critical Thinking as being of equivalent importance (i.e. none). I did General Studies due to timetabling clashes and it was a joke; one mock exam included the question “Samuel Vimes is a recurring character in a popular series of books by which author?” Critical Thinking, on the other hand, sounded like it might teach some genuinely useful skills.

Your description of Citizenship is roughly what I thought it was, and it seems entirely worthwhile to me. Perhaps it should be rebranded as Life Skills or something that doesn’t sound so political. I really don’t see why schools shouldn’t teach you how to bleed a radiator, or what to do in a power cut, or what recourse you have when you buy a product that doesn’t match the description, and so on.

@ 12 redpesto

“If the person studied or liked the subject, then it’s okay; if they didn’t, it makes the shit list (see Michael Gove on A level Dance)”

Yeah, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head (not referring to Northern Worker, who may have well thought-out reasons, but to the dismissal of certain subjects by the nation in general). I’ve certainly noticed that a lot of people take the view that, if a subject didn’t exist back in their day, that subject is a waste of time.

“I’ve certainly noticed that a lot of people take the view that, if a subject didn’t exist back in their day, that subject is a waste of time.”

I had teachers in the early 90s who regarded IT as a waste of time. It was immensly amusing when the school attempted to introduce an electronic register.

Interesting thread!

I would mind betting the difference in views is based on age, employment (or employing) experience and children/grandchildren. Yes, my views are coloured by starting primary school in the 50s and learning by rote. But ‘old-speak’ isn’t necessarily ‘wrong-speak’.

My second experience was as an employee who wanted to be employable and later as a manager employing people. The latter really opened my eyes to subjects then in vogue which did not appear relevant when all I wanted was literate and numerate recruits.

The experience of children and now grandchildren – and as a school governor finishing less than five years ago – consolidated my experience that many subjects taught in schools are not fit for purpose.

I do think that sport is of the utmost importance, which is the subject of the post, provided sport is competitive and kids learn about winning and losing. Despite the views expressed, I would still rather kids experienced the hard knocks of sport than subjects which don’t add anything to life or employability.

Chaise @ 15

“I’ve certainly noticed that a lot of people take the view that, if a subject didn’t exist back in their day, that subject is a waste of time.”

I certainly don’t believe that provided we’re talking about teachings beyond school. At school, kids need to learn the basics. If they then want to go on and do stuff not taught up to, say, 16, they should leave and go where they need to go. That’s what I did. I wanted to do engineering so I went to technical college at 16 and took an Ordinary National. But I had the basics right before I went.

Oh and just because I’m from ‘back in the day’ doesn’t mean to say I’m out of touch. Having kids means I’m more than in touch. Either that or I get the ‘old man’ and ‘in the olden days’ comments from my offspring!

“I would mind betting the difference in views is based on age, employment (or employing) experience and children/grandchildren”

I’d say at least 99% of people’s views on education are based on their own unresolved issues from school.

Certainly my experience was that sport was not conisdered important and many teachers regarded withdrawing somebody from PE as a punishment because the naughty kids tended to like it.

However the irony was that those kids who ended up making the team and playing regulalry ended up improving their behaviour elsewhere and doing better than they would have in other subjects. Simply the regular activity of training and then getting up saturday morning to travel to a game kept them out of trouble. Plus they were physically and mentally more able to concentrate in class.

” consolidated my experience that many subjects taught in schools are not fit for purpose.”

Can I suggest that the issue here is the quality of teaching rather than the actual subject taught? Although I suspect that part of this is that schools tend to focus resources into subjects regarded as important, and subjects regarded as micky mouse subjects end up that way because it becomes a self-fulfiling prophecy.

@ Northern Worker

Couple of quick points on the fly…

“But ‘old-speak’ isn’t necessarily ‘wrong-speak’.”

Agreed. But there’s an attitude that change is bad, that any relatively new subject must be a waste of time, despite the fact that society and technology have changed much since many people were in school. It’s what leads people to automatically condemn business studies and bemoan the fact that most kids these days don’t learn Latin. And that IS wrong-speak. Not every change is an improvement, but every improvement is necessarily a change.

“Despite the views expressed, I would still rather kids experienced the hard knocks of sport than subjects which don’t add anything to life or employability.”

Sure, but is anyone arguing in favour of subjects that don’t add anything to life or employability? Assuming we can agree on what those subjects are, I imagine we’d all happily consign them to the chopping block.

@ 18 Northern Worker

“I certainly don’t believe that provided we’re talking about teachings beyond school. At school, kids need to learn the basics.”

I guess the question is what counts as “the basics”, including how broad the subjects covered in compulsory education should be.

“Oh and just because I’m from ‘back in the day’ doesn’t mean to say I’m out of touch. Having kids means I’m more than in touch. Either that or I get the ‘old man’ and ‘in the olden days’ comments from my offspring!”

Heh. Don’t worry, I wasn’t talking about you personally.

@ 19 Planeshift

“I’d say at least 99% of people’s views on education are based on their own unresolved issues from school. ”

Oh, probably. I know I resent P.E. as a waste of time and a mandatory D.T. subject as a waste of a GCSE – but that’s just because those subjects are wasted on me personally.

@ 6 Chaise

I didn’t get back to you on how much time for sport. I was posting in between writing a report.

First, though, music wasn’t necessarily on my ‘good list’. Up to 16 years old, I think kids should concentrate on the basics. After that they can do what they want and take up interests.

Glad you agree on forcing subjects on unwilling and unsuitable kids.

How much time for sport? My lot was the whole of Wednesday afternoon, which is probably about right when finding out who can hack it and who can’t. Tim makes a similar point. But I disagree with Tim about richer parents ferrying kids to away games and such. We’ve done plenty of that and we viewed it as an investment in the future of our kids no matter what it costs. It’s surprising how involved you get as a spectator stooping to shouting disparaging comments about the other side!

@ 23 Northern Worker

“First, though, music wasn’t necessarily on my ‘good list’. Up to 16 years old, I think kids should concentrate on the basics. After that they can do what they want and take up interests.”

Cool, but what are “the basics” here?

“Glad you agree on forcing subjects on unwilling and unsuitable kids.”

I should clarify that I’m a fence-sitter here. On the one hand, making a kid do a subject that will clearly never interest them or be of use to them seems like a stupid waste of everyone’s time. On the other hand, I worry about kids effectively getting locked into, say, the vocational stream, when they would have been competent and happier in the academic stream, but happened to be a late developer or had bad early teachers.

“But I disagree with Tim about richer parents ferrying kids to away games and such. We’ve done plenty of that and we viewed it as an investment in the future of our kids no matter what it costs. ”

I’m sure you do, but it seems likely that the average rich person is more likely to be able to do this for their kids than the average poorer person. For a start, rich people are more likely to own a car.

Chaise @ 24

The basics basics are maths and english regardless of generation as examination subjects. Otherwise, it probably depends on generation (IT clearly these days) as long as not too much is loaded on kids. Eleven subjects at GCSE is ridiculous. Make time to do things properly and try some sport.

Rich people more likely to own cars.

I don’t agree with that. There are 62 million people and 34 million have licences. There are 30 million cars. That’s an awful lot of rich people. Someone should tell Richard Murphy.

18 gold medals for Team GB! Brilliant. I really hope this changes things for the better.

“18 gold medals for Team GB! Brilliant. I really hope this changes things for the better.”

Germany is at No 9 in the Olympic medals table. In the last 12 months to May, Germany had a trade surplus of $225.8 billion. In the same period, Britain had a trade deficit of $166.4 billions.
http://www.economist.com/node/21559965

I suspect that difference has a lot to do with Germany’s training system for industrial skills. We need to think about whether we want better training for sports or a better training system for industrial skills.

@OP, Tim Wigmore: “But facilities aren’t enough. Research from the Independent Schools Council suggests that privately educated pupils spend twice as long playing sport as those in the state sector.”

Hours are good, but choice may be better. The “rich kids” (acknowledging that not all have wealthy parents) may be exposed to different sports. Rugby Union is unusual in the state sector, for example. Children and teenagers need to be exposed to things that they like; the uninterested soccer player might have an aptitude for hockey or running, sports that don’t require specialist equipment.

“This reflects the prevalence of after-school and weekend sport in private schools and the reality that private school children tend to have someone able to ferry them to fixtures, as well as the opportunity to have private coaching in sports in which they excel.”

The capacity for young people to follow sport outside school is largely driven by parents. Parental consent is required to attend training or events at clubs. Plus the transport problem. It is achievable for independently minded young people to do it on their own. Problematic but possible.

Parents need to be convinced that it isn’t a waste of time; most of the time, the young person will achieve no more than to become a decent county runner or whatever. The young person will learn loads about him or herself — but don’t slack on formal educatioal achievement.

@26. Bob B: “Germany is at No 9 in the Olympic medals table. In the last 12 months to May, Germany had a trade surplus of $225.8 billion. In the same period, Britain had a trade deficit of $166.4 billions.
http://www.economist.com/node/21559965

I suspect that difference has a lot to do with Germany’s training system for industrial skills. We need to think about whether we want better training for sports or a better training system for industrial skills.”

We should assume both differences: better athletes in one place and other types of industrial workers in another.

I don’t how this applies to a trade deficit; given that Germany is *more* dependent on “industrial exports”, it is *less* dependent on other exports; so what? The UK exists in the converse.

Charlieman

We often read/hear the call that we need to reduce Britain’s dependence on financial services and revive manufacturing. The last time I checked, manufacturing was contributing 11 to 12 pc of Britain’s GDP, as compared with 18 pc in Germany. A few hours ago, I read this:

Britain’s small and medium sized manufacturers have seen their biggest fall in output since October 2009, in a blow to hopes the sector will help drive economic recovery.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/9453918/Manufacturing-slowdown-dents-hopes-for-recovery.html

In Saturday’s Economist: Since the start of the recession that began in 2008, the number of 16- to 24-year-olds in work has fallen by 597,000. Over the same period the number of workers over the age of 65 has increased by 240,000. The greying of the British workforce dates back to around 2001, since when the proportion of older people working has nearly doubled. . . At the last count, over a million 16- to 24-year-olds were unemployed, 12% more than a year ago.
http://www.economist.com/node/21559927

Why do employers prefer to employ older workers? I really wonder if training more young athletes and sports celebrities is the way to create jobs for the 16- to 24-year-olds and to restore Britain’s living standards:

“British families are feeling the pinch as disposable incomes fell to a nine-year low through a combination of inflation and minimal wage rises” [Independent 31 July 2012]

Wonders – my response to Charlieman’s post has reappeared.

Compare:

“Britain must capitalise on the country’s Olympic gold rush by continuing to fund both top athletes and local clubs to increase sports participation, Lord Coe said on Sunday.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/443c802c-df1f-11e1-97ea-00144feab49a.html#axzz22mpJX4Q5

All those aspiring young athletes will be able to work out at their local Sebastian Coe Health Club. According to entry for him in Wikipedia: “Coe is a worldwide ambassador for Nike and owns a string of health clubs with a membership of 20,000. “

Bob B @ 26

I totally agree about apprenticeships and emulating Germany, as long as the apprenticeships aren’t the Tory variety in supermarket delis. But then I’m bound to agree because I benefitted from an engineering apprenticeship and I’ve worked my whole life at the mucky end. Sport, though, as another poster said should be an essential part of schooling. As well as making you fit, and perhaps stimulating a life-long interest, sport teaches you discipline – a crucial part of work.

@ 29 you mention older workers. I’m a very old worker. Quite simply, the kids just aren’t choosing industry and manufacturing, and that’s why we older workers are still employed. I agree it’s disgusting that we have so many unemployed kids 16-24. But that’s a whole new discussion and nothing to do with encouraging sport. Perhaps Sunny would like to start a thread on industry and manufacturing.

@ 25 Northern

“The basics basics are maths and english regardless of generation as examination subjects. Otherwise, it probably depends on generation (IT clearly these days) as long as not too much is loaded on kids. Eleven subjects at GCSE is ridiculous. Make time to do things properly and try some sport.”

Fair enough. I should point out that kids currently DO try some sport though. You say yours was all Wednesday afternoon. Mine was broken across two days but was probably for about the same amount of time per week.

“I don’t agree with that. There are 62 million people and 34 million have licences. There are 30 million cars. That’s an awful lot of rich people. Someone should tell Richard Murphy.”

If you could stop being snarky for a second you’d see that you’d totally misread what I said. I didn’t say “only rich people have cars”, which is what it would take for your comment above to make sense. I said “rich people are more likely to have cars” which makes intuitive sense as poor people are more likely to be unable to afford a car. They are also more likely to live in cities, where cars are less vital. If you’re aware of some contrary factor then you need to explain what that is instead of just airily saying that you disagree.

Chaise @ 32

Sorry about that, it had been a long day.

Some 85% of passenger-kilometres travelled in the UK are by car. Trains and buses are about 50/50 of the rest. I guess my point is better explained by this, ie most people have a car or access to a car. But clearly some people don’t. It’s certainly true that people living in city centres are much less likely to have cars because they don’t need them (trains and buses available) and we do have less well off people living in these areas. Indeed you have to wonder whether last year’s riots would have happened if the youths involved had better access to sport, although as generally poorer areas I can see your point about cars.

@ 33 Northern Worker

No worries, mate. That’s pretty much my point – car ownership is common, not rare, but of those households that don’t own cars, a disproportionate number are likely to be poor. And if car ownership makes the difference of whether or not you can send your talented kid to a good extra-curricular sports society (which might be cheap or free, but not run a minibus service), then that in turn might make the difference between whether or not your kid develops to become world-class in their chosen sport.

Indeed, with factors like this in play, the disproportionate number of Olympians from private schools could be explained without any difference in the schools themselves – although I’m not claiming that this is the case.

I imagine that better access to a lot of stuff – sports facilities, youth centres, just stuff to *do* of an evening – could have reduced the number of people rioting significantly, possibly below whatever critical mass is required to turn anti-social behaviour into a riot.

“I suspect that difference has a lot to do with Germany’s training system for industrial skills. We need to think about whether we want better training for sports or a better training system for industrial skills.”

Germany of course, being utterly useless at sport.