to get annoyed that the same children get picked for all the sports teams?

[onlywhenyouleave]

I am fed up of seeing the same names over and over again on the school newsletter for every sports team - I know the school wants to be competitive and pick the best teams but it is so disheartening for all the other children (and yes, DS1 is one of those who isn't picked).

I know quite a few children who don't even bother trying out now as they don't see the point

Some kids don't WANT to be in the top group/team

DS1 school has sets for PE, and that seems to work well. Funnily DS has been put in bottom set this term and instead of having to do rugby and football (which he hates) they do Bollywood dancing this term.

Anyway, it taught me lots of kids don't want to do competitive sports at all. Actually, I was like that myself. Never got picked. No emotional scars, I wasn't that bothered.

Parents want their kids to shine, a lot of kids like being low profile.

"Well it would be a pretty rubbish school play of they only chose the children who were too shy to speak out loud on stage. Can you imagine going to a school play and the children with all the main roles don't speak loudly enough for anybody to hear their lines?"

This attitude stinks. It's all about picking kids who look confident, rather than giving kids enough opportunity to actually see who might be good on stage.

I was a hyper shy kid, verging on selectively mute. One year the supply teacher was picking kids to read out lines of a verse for the school carol concert. I was so desperate to be picked when he asked those interested to put their hands up. The poster above wouldn't have chosen me. That teacher did. Because, FFS, it's primary school, not some big pro show, slightly for some weird reason is really keen, let's give her a go.

As it happened, I had a BIG BIG voice for a tiny child, and regularly did readings at church. So I was perfectly fine, better than the rest in fact, when it came to the show itself. But it didn't matter that some of the others were inaudible, they still loved doing it and got a huge boost from being up there.

Why do some posters keep giving examples of reluctant children being forced to participate? That's not what we're talking about here, at least not what I'm talh about. My child WANTSto do sport, she's disappointed that she isn't given a chance. It doesn't come from me, I would be far happier if she didn't give a toss believe me. And in her case it isn't even just sport, she has never been chosen for anything, ever and she's in year 6. It makes her feel worthless to be honest and no amount of extra curricular stuff helpsbecause school is a huge part of her life and she wants some kind of recognition there.

Whether it 'stinks' depends on the audition process that got them there.

Not on what should be done when there aren't enough parts for everyone, or only six can be taken to the chess tournament or the rules of the debating competition mean one team of four, etc.

Crap individual teachers (many of whom seem to be described on their thread) clearly leave a long shadow.

But that doesn't mean that differentiation is wrong. Whether in the curriculum or in extra-curricular activities run by the school that require a certain level of performance.

(This thread is in AIBU, not an age-specific 'education' topic, and seems to be covering both primary and secondary years. So yes, I'd aim off for the tinies, where the differences between the aptitudes/potential/ability is far less marked, so giving everyone a turn is important. But given OP is about children old enough to have regular fixtures - usually private prep or all secondaries - I'm thinking this was intended about pupils that age)

Iam I think you'll find those going for level 6s get sfa whilst those kids struggling for 4s get everything thrown at them which is how it should be.

Really? You think that the children going for level sixes should get sfa? Don't you think that all children should get the level of support that they need to achieve their best which might mean enrichment classes for the most able to ensure that they can learn beyond the prescribed level 4 targeted curriculum? I know in practice in many schools the most able don't get the support that they need to achieve their best because the schools are too busy throwing their resources at the least able but that shouldn't be the case (hence why I miss ed one of my children to the private sector in Juniors). Each child should get what they need to achieve their best academically.

each child should also get what they need to be able to do their best at sport, but I don't think being selected for the school team necessarily enables each child to achieve more. Many primary schools don't even have qualified sports coaches and the extra sessions are really just about team tactics - who is going to play what position etc.

It's more about how kids get labelled. "The sporty one", "the bright one", "the loud one", "the musical one". And then those labels stick like glue, worst of all inside the kid's head.

And the little kids "too unimportant to get a label" get to feel like shit.

This attitude stinks. It's all about picking kids who look confident, rather than giving kids enough opportunity to actually see who might be good on stage.

At my children's school the main roles have always been decided based on audition performance. So a child who cannot be heard in a small room by the person holding the audition isn't likely to get a main role because they would not be heard on the stage in a crowded room. I don't see anything wrong with that and I fail to see how it means my attitude stinks.
If a child who is usually quietly spoken and shy puts themselves forward for audition and is found to have a loud clear voice then they would likely get a main role.
it is a case of the school picking the child best suited to the role, whether that be sports, acting or something academic.

Yes! The kid without a label is my daughter and she does feel like shit. There has to be a solution to that surely? Within school I mean? Every activity is either competitive or councils are voted for by peers - and the most talented kids are often the most popular. Kids like mine miss out at every turn.

If it's 'every activity' that's quite a fault in the school.

Because one way of looking at all this (to take a slightly mixed and flowery metaphor) is to make sure that all can blossom, and that's not done by cutting down the tallest poppies.

So, just as schools often put a lot into their C/D borderline and other lower target candidates (whilst top setters vanish off to maths masterclasses), that model can apply to other subjects too.

longdiling - that sounds horrible, everything being competitive. I don't object to some competitive activities, but learning how to play or work together inclusively is actually a really really important skill for later life.

In our school ..... It's always the kids who's parents are on the PTA!!! Mary and Joseph are usually PTA kids as are the kids in the newspaper when the photographer comes!!!!

This thread isn't about children who have no desire to join in - it is those who desperately want to but never get chosen or given a chance.

Wouldn't the answer then be more teams and more fixtures for those teams?

Though of course sport is much easier to find in clubs outside school than other curriculum subjects.

I think that was suggested way back upthread, AuntieStella. There don't seem to be a lot of people clamouring that they want to be the coach for the B and C teams, though, or volunteering to fund-raise to buy the equipment to keep 2 teams running, and who will run around organising fixtures & lifts.

Our school has successful and competitive teams, esp for swimming (try out at 8, not good enough then, never in team) and football.
It also has a quiz team which dc1 got place on in Y3 (is for Y3-6). They did really well, best school in region, but dc1 can't be on team again, even if they qualify via the trial quiz, as its only fair others get a go apparently. Figure I'll ask for a place on the football team for them instead as its "only fair".

at my school its always the popular kids that do the school play the ones whose mom has time for the pta (they always do the meetings at 7pm in the evening which discounts the single parents with no childcare) they exclude people without cars too as they "need" car drivers to ferry items from a-b people with a useful occupation get included so if you're a carpenter your child will be included as a star in the play and by the way can you just help us with xyz please?

cynical much? not me just experienced with primary school politics

Apologies if this has already been mentioned.

OP (and others) have you read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell?

He has an interesting chapter about professional sports teams, showing how people born in the 3months after cut off dates are over represented in the adult teams. He reckons this is because when younger the older kids are slightly bigger and better coordinated, so they get picked for teams and squads, so they get more practice, so they get better and more enthused. It is a distinct disadvantage to be born in the 3 months prior to a cut off.

This ^^ is the reason why primary at least should continue to give everyone a chance, and why even at secondary this needs to be encouraged too.

because the staff struggle to find resources to run an A team, never mind the extra work of organising coaching & fixtures for B or C teams. If parents want B & C teams then you should run the B & C teams. They will bite your hand off if you offer.

Yes, I'd read that TeenAndTween, which makes me all the more proud of DD (who has been in her normal cohort, but under current govt plans would be eligible to to have started reception a year later).

There seems to be discussion of both primary and secondary schools here, which is probably muddying things a bit. Fixtures only really come to the fore in secondary, don't they?

And to run more team fixtures you don't need more kit (bibs, balls etc) than they use in lessons but number of pitches/courts might be an issue, but mixing home/away fixtures might solve that. You'll need to spend more on minibuses (ask the PTA to fundraise to help cover this?)