to think that we really don't need to be making children do more sport?

[Tricccky]

Don't get me wrong, I am LOVING the olympics. It's fantastic to watch and great that it will, no doubt, 'inspire a generation'. I hope that some kids are genuinely inspired go greatness from it. But it does not highlight anything systemically wrong in sports teaching (in my opinion) or mean we should strengthen sports teaching targets. Three points:

1. We are THIRD in the world already (looking at the medal tally). There's clearly not a long wrong with our current approach. The two country's ahead of us have approximately 4 times (US), and 16 times (China) our population. We are punching way above our weight. The national lottery sponsored schemes have clearly been a massive massive success and due credit should be given.

1. Success in sport at a national competitive lesson should not be for schools to push. Giving children access into competitive sports absolutely should be - and in my experience most schools do do this. The whole 'state schools don't do competitive sports' thing is complete bollocks from what I know. Every state school I know where I am does competition perfectly well thank you very much. They encourage it (and not just in sport) so it really bugs me when this myth is peddled about. However, schools can and should only take children to a certain level - essentially recognising potential. Specialist sports clubs at local and national level is what will take children beyond that.

1. Sport just isn't for everyone. If there wasn't an Olympics, and instead there was a major musical (for example) world playoff, we'd all currently be clamouring for 2 hours music teaching for every child every week - there's plenty of evidence of the added extra that music (etc) gives to children who spend time on this activity, that it adds to their other academic achievements, gives them confidence etc etc. All this extra proposed time for sport will take away from other 'non-core' areas, like music, which would be a massive negative for many children for whom sport will never be a mainstay.

For that matter, Britain is punching so high above its weight, I suggest we don't change anything at all. What Britain is doing is already spectacularly successful and excellent value for money. The current system is obviously working very well. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

I don't think anyone want to do that. What we don't want to see is what happened to Australia - in 2000, in home games they got
2000 - G16 S25 B17 T58
2012 - G7 S14 B10 T31 (as of today)

those who are going to be competing in 12 years time are young pre-teens and teens, young teenagers now - they have to have facilities and encouragement
some of them haven't started to train in their sports of choice yet, but all of them have been born by now :)

2000 - G16 S25 B17 T58

It's interesting to note that Finland has the highest rate of participation in sport in the world. It is also the most equal in terms of wealth, and one of the richest per capita.

They also have one of the highest suicide rates, but I don't know if that's relevant to this thread.

Forgot to say. They have won one medal, so far. (Silver, for windsurfing)

DCs Junior School has a fantastic reputation for its music, (inclusive choir and orchestra) and also does extremely well in a wide variety of competitive sports.

What it doesn't do as well is 'physical activity opportunities' where they can just enjoy being active for its own sake.Tthere is definitely a feeling of them and us by the time they have reached Y6.

My oldest DC goes into Year 10 this September, as PE is compulsory they will have a choice of Pathways, Competitive, Coaching or 'Sport for Life' which seems a really good idea in principle, although it remains to be seen whether DS1 is fired up with any enthusiasm at all.

My DSs go to a Tae-kwondo Club outside of school. They are not super sporty or competitive and the club caters for that and still encourages them.

my local council closed down our pool the week the torch came to our town, less than 3 weeks before the olympics began, leaving our young competative swimmers with no pool, It was very sad for all involved and deflated the experience of the olympics coming London for many young dedicated competiters. many of then now have to travel over 15 to train and obviously will affect their fitness. many are unable to train at all and many others are training far less, none of them manage to swim before school now. so no hope for working towards the next olympics for any of them.

TheEnthusiasticTroll - that should really be talked about, how swimming pools are being closed, schoold playing fields sold etc

if there's law about greenfields - why not law about sports facilities????
to preserve them and keeping them open

I would have mine in sport 24 hours a day if it was possible. Tired children = good children (or something like that ).

Today's Olympians did not get where they are today through school PE lessons, which are, by and large, a load of shite.
We need to have more affordable community sports facilities where children can learn to do sports properly, without the pressure of their classmates and the off-putting hearty-farty attitude of PE teachers.

yes absolutly school playing fields being sold, I read that on the guardian online headlines, I didnt read the article yet though. it is shamefull.

How do you decide which sports will be in schools though as you'll always find that not everyone likes the sports on offer.

When I was in school I like swimming, climbing, horse riding and walking, I didn't like any of the school provided options. A year of messing around in a pool as part of the schools attempt to teach kids to swim hardly counts as swimming if you already know how and would learn more going to your weekly swimming lesson. Since non of my preferred options or even my less preferred options were available through school I very rarely attended but I did a lot out of school at my parents expense.