To think David Cameron has got it completely and utterly wrong re sport in schools,a competitive ethos should come after raising levels and a love of sport?itness

[Prarieflower]

Thats it really.Fat lot of good creating a more competitive ethos will do if the maj of teenagers are unfit and loath PE. Competition actually puts many children off sport full stop.

I went to secondary school in the 80s when non sporty types were ridiculed and made to feel like failures during PE lessons and Sports Day. Competition ruled over all else,nobody did sport just for enjoyment or just to maintain fitness.As a result I and many others did all we could to avoid PE lessons and thought we hated all sport.

For years I did nothing and then I discovered I enjoyed hiking,cycling and swimming-just for me.Who knows, if any had been provided and encouraged just for fitness I may well have gone on to take part in competitive events.Having better fitness levels for a start would have made that more likely.

I think schools should be encouraged to help pupils to pick sports they enjoy,they should be expected to take part in something of their choice more frequently. There should be a wide range linked to off school sites and red tape should be cut. There should be better facilities and the selling off of school fields stopped. There should be access to tasters in the specialised stuff like the dreaded javelin and shot put(sp?) which I hated. Sports Day which only celebrates athletics should be only for those that are interested and want to take part.Those that want to go the gym or have a swim should be able to do just that.Other sports should be celebrated not just athletics.

My kids are far more positive re PE than I ever was so I think schools of today are doing something right,it just needs to be extended further.

David Cameron simply doesn't have a clue re state school provision and it's needs.

Not very knowledgeable re sport so I'll await my flaming.I'm just observing and speaking as a previous sport avoider and now as a mum.

That would be- "after raising fitness levels"

I think he is right about re-introducing the concept of winning. I think that the idea of feeling good and exercising should be part of PE but so should winning.
PE should not be tailored to suit those who hate sport, just as english shouldnt be tailored to those who hate reading

Nothing new about doing anything in your power to avoid PE/Sport/Gym or whatever - we did that a good 10/15 years before you you know! You 80's kids didn't invent it! Speaking only for myself and fellow serial avoiders it had bog all to do with not liking the competitive element or any desire to raise fitness levels. It was all to do with not liking it. Didn't then, don't now - and it wouldn't have mattered how they dressed it up!

PE in my school was shit - Think 2 years of belly/street dancing and if you refused to participate you had to run round the track I skipped those lessons I chose to go horse riding and swimming out of school

I think he probably does have a clue...

YABU

Non sporty types are still ridiculed and made to feel like failures for not being sporty, that never changed, although its by other kids.

I was never sporty but I was competitive and got into team spirit and the idea of winning. I remember coming last and loads of people cheering me, yes some people laughed but most cheered because at least I was trying.

Sport an give you a good ethos for life, it keeps you healthy and I do think can make you more resilient as well as teach other skills. To me it is equally if not sometimes more important than academia.

I've brought my children up to be really sporty, their schools to my knowledge have never abandoned the idea of winning and I'm happy about that. Taking part and is important because its trying to win, not because its making an appearance. I always encourage mine to win and so I don't think bringing that ethos back is a bad thing.

Should point out I will never vote for Hameron.

Neither are tailored to those who hate sport.Schools work hard to foster a love of reading,the more able are pushed,the less able supported.The same should happen with sport.

Giving pupils confidence in sport would make them more likely to engage in attempting to win.You wouldn't put poor readers on the spot in front of 100s of parents so I don't get the need for PE.That however isn't really my point.

If you make kids fit and enjoy sport of their choice they'll do it more,get fitter and more confident/likely to compete.If you don't like athletics thats it,all the competition in the world won't make you enjoy it-you'll just bunk off like I did to read in the library.

I also think private schools should share their facilities.I went to school in Oxfordshire.I'd have loved rowing but simply not an option in my crappy comp.If said comp could have bussed kids out to local rivers and facilities I'd have been there with bells on as opposed to bunking off and getting unfit.

I disagree. Some people are competitive, some are not. While there should be an emphasis on introducing children to sports they enjoy, there is no reason why they should not enjoy competing in them. Competing is simply an organised way of testing skills gained and level of achievement, and all taking part can learn from it. I also don't agree with doing everything to the lowest common denominator - on your arguement, those who are talented and skilled would have to be seperated from the less competitive.

YABU the universal attribute that all athletes and sportsmen/women have is a competitive edge which gives them the will to win.

The choice is too narrow.If going to a gym had been an option I'd have come across rowing machines there.

All we had was athletics which I loathed,hockey,netball,tennis and cross country.Hated the lot.

A poster on another thread said in the US they have to pick sports they enjoy which they do daily. Seems to be more or a range.Maybe this is why they're waaay more successful than us.

Why should private schools share their facilities? Why?

As a fee payer, I already struggle to pay for my own children. Why should I pay for anyone else's beyond the humungous income tax we pay?

I don't see your average private school having any access to the ££££ in grants that are available to only the state sector.

Who is paying for all of this? The idea of everyone getting to do what they enjoy is lovely but not even close to being possible.

Dave is such a fine physical specimen, isn't he?

We would do well to do everything he says.

I wonder if he has any views on the economy up his sleeve?

I think half the problem in state schools is the training and class sizes. It's fair enough to give a taster class with an experienced teacher but useless if it's an hour for 30 dc.

My dc had a free afternoon once a week where he attended an out of school club of his choice which was a good idea.

The problem after taster sessions is if there isn't the facilities locally to do the sport or the access to coaches who are good.

There's a big skill gap between grass roots/competing sport

Sooooo in the summer a twice weekly diet of netball/athletics and a hideous Sports Day with braying parents is the answer to future Olympic success.

So how are you funding this then?

What is needed is more facilities for people to do these sports and keeping them affordable - still not easy to do but much more realistic than trying to cover everything in schools

Here

No, YANBU.

Sorry it's the DM.

I meant to add, if there is any sport left in schools.

You have lots of objections, prarie(sic)flower.

What are your answers?

I don't recognise the school sports you describe, from either my own schooling (c1980) or my children's. Although my kids are in 3 different independent schools, their sports/games are all low cost. What they have is team/house/school spirit. Even the lowest achiever will have something to contribute to their team.

I'm sure that independent school PE teachers must wonder what the problem is.

Sports day is one day, and at my school and at my dcs school you were never forced to interact. Sports day is minor in the grand scheme of things.

PE lessons should be of more focus than sports day.

Yes it would be nice if everyone got a go at every sport, but that requires facilities and equipment. Who is paying for it?

I don't see how private schools are going to share either, they tend to do a lot more sport and their facilities are generally in use a lot of the time, as well as being usually smaller schools, how are they going to fit in sharing with others. Are there even enough private schools to make it fair. Near my parents there are 5 senior schools within walking distance, the closest private school is 30mins drive away, doesn't work. Nice idea, poorly thought through.

I do think he should be concentrating on more important things elsewhere rather that putting out trivial shite.

And no not saying our kids PE is trivial, him thinking he has to make this statement is.

There was a piece about this on TV yesterday. A teacher said that for years now, the total time on PE in teacher training was 6 hours.

Now by the time children are at secondaries, where you'll find specialist teachers, perhaps the small amount of training wouldn't make so much difference.

But before children get there, you have the formative primary years, when PE would be taught by generalists. If one is serious about sport, and about better delivery of the PE curriculum, then overhauling training might be a start point.

(Adds naughtily - either that or let state schools opt out of using qualified teachers and employ coaches instead).

Claire I made lots of suggestions you on the other hand haven't.

Not sure how you can when you clearly have no experience of state schools.If you had you'd recognise my experiences.I'm not alone,the last state PE thread a few weeks ago was inundated with far worse state PE memories.

Just to add in my children are at inner London state schools, which I did too, although I briefly (1 term) attended a private school, but that was in London and there weren't any sports facilities.