To think that year 4 competitive sport should be more inclusive than competitive

[saresywaresy2]

Basically I'm saying - should all the children who want to have a go playing in a school team be able to have a go regardless of ability?
My son is in year 4 and for the first time they are playing all kinds of different sports against other schools in tournaments. It is a fantastic opportunity and experience for them - if they're sporty.
His teacher is competitive and picks the best kids to go in the teams. He does a try out and then he picks a team completely based on merit. My son is one of those annoyingly good at everything sorts and has been picked for everything. He loves it and I don't want to take it away from him and I never would say anything to stop him getting involved, but I'm just surprised that his teacher isn't letting everyone have a go. I know some wouldn't want to. But i think if they';ve tried out and they've never been on a team before I would pick them. My husband says i'm being a typical lefty. Just wondering what is standard with these things? I am starting to feel guilty around other parents!

YANBU

All the YABUs should go and read 'Outliers' by Malcolm Gladwell.

This shows how so many professional sports are dominated by kids born in the first 3 months after an age cut off.

At primary level there is a lot of physical difference (on average) between the oldest in the year and the youngest. Teachers think they are picking the 'best' but so often this equates to the 'oldest/biggest'. So the oldest/best/biggest get to play in the teams, and guess what? - they get better as they are having match practice. And so it continues.

Think also about differing ages of puberty. At secondary if they don't watch out teachers will pick the kids who have already grown / developed strength. So They get more practice and encouragement.

ps My children get to shine neither academically nor at sports (nor at music, nor at art). But DD1 benefitted from getting to play in netball matches when she was 9 at primary.

And it's not the same as exams - which almost everyone has to do regardless of level of attainment. You might not do as well but you still have to do it.

There isn't as much in the academic arena that's only available to the best - you are just in the exam system. It's not as if only the best kids get to go to the theatre to see Shakespeare.

backingvocals I'm still bitter after my school have the end of school academic prizes to people they were hoping to encourage to work harder. All those who really were working hard and doing well lost out. I'd imagine that's how those players who lose their places on the team to less good people feel.

I'm with you, OP.

It's simple enough in most schools to select enough kids so they can all sub on and off. Or, if you have that many kids, have two teams.

Kids need to do more activity, not less. This is one way of helping them do that.

TeenandTween that is definitely the case in our house. My eldest unsporty child was born at the end of August and my year 4 Linford Christie in October. It makes sense.
I'm also August born and hated sports at school. I enjoy moving my body now but not in team games - i've been too put off to even imagine playing hockey or netball. And yet I see the enormous benefits of team sports. I have always thought that if you are good at sport and enjoy sport then your path is life will be easier.

YANBU - or at least there should be the same amount of opportunities to play, receive coaching and compete for all children, even if it is split by skill level.

I heard an interesting programme on the radio a few months ago that people born in the summer months were statistically less likely to be professional athletes. (Note before there is a torrent of responses: It did not say 'no one born in the summer has ever reached the top in sport, just that it was less likely). Essentially, the disadvantage of being the youngest /smallest was so heavily reinforced in school sports e.g. only 'the best' get picked for the team, 'the best' get the majority of the coaching and training attention, other children have their confidence knocked and learn not to enjoy sport - so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and the gap between 'the elite' and the majority of children widens.

If a child is struggling with learning to read, maths etc, they get additional help and encouragement to bring them up to speed.

Obesity and lack of exercise are major health issues and having a system where the majority of children see sport as, at best, not for them or at worst an unpleasant/humiliating experience has to change.

The sport issue (selecting oldest/biggest) is the same as 'summer born' children for academic education.

Summer born children can get put into lower groups with lower expectations right from infants. This still doesn't unwind fully by the time the pupils get to GCSEs. I think I have also read that children are more likely to be identified as having SEN if born in the last 3 months of the academic cut offs.

Maybe it should be as someone wrote above - that anyone can be in the club and practice together but they just pick the best to compete...that would maybe make me feel better!!!

This I agree with.

I have two kids who both do the same sport. The youngest is far better than the oldest. But she knows everyone has their strengths.

The youngest is far more likely to be competing for the club in the next year. The oldest has to practice more to make the team but she has to accept her limitations. The youngest doesn't find academics as easy. He will need to accept dd does.

It's life.

And it's not the same as exams - which almost everyone has to do regardless of level of attainment. You might not do as well but you still have to do it.

That doesn't make a difference. Test results should be kept private and academic kids shouldn't get any extra opportunities than no academic kids, following this train of thought.

No grammar school exams, no help with private school fees for academic children. No rewards based on academic achievement

Letting a larger number be in the club/squad, then generally the best being on the A team and a B and even C team being available for anyone else interested, would be ideal.

And ensuring that the weakest kids get extra support in sport, just as if they were weak at maths or literacy. Ds age has always hated PE, but was assigned to PE 'club' this year ("for children who need extra support or building confidence in PE skills") and is loving it, and even voluntarily kicked a football recently! He'll probably always be crap at football but at least will be able to join in a casual kickabout to make friends.

DS (Y2) is summer born - 26th of August so the youngest in his year. He has really struggled with his reading, (not helped with glue ear), and feels pretty deflated about being so far behind his peers. However, he is incredibly sporty, one of the fastest runners in his year group of 60, consistently voted 'player of the tournament' in rugby and beats 10 year olds in the pool. We have frequent conversations about how people are good at different things, he isn't so good at reading but is excellent at running, whilst one of the brightest kids in his class can't swim. Seeing him come 4th in his Y2 100m final last sports day was a huge confidence boost to him at a time that he really needed it and he is excited about the prospect of being chosen for teams next year. It gives him something to aim for.

I'm surprised this thread has gone this way when threads about school plays always say that different children should get the big parts each time so everyone has a turn. It's the same thing to me.

I think YANBU and YABU. It's important to have the best team (and cast for a play!) but also important that everyone gets a chance.

So I think it's important to have A, B, C and however many other teams are needed (our year 6 has an F team!!) and to have versions of other activities that are selective and others that aren't.

If there's only one team then I would have the best playing every time as a core but give every child who wanted one at least one match.

At the school my ds was at, they were very into competitive sport, and there were A,B,C teams. The issue was that there was never any chance of moving up the teams as they wouldn't take a chance, and as the A team always got a match, played in tournaments, extra coaching time and so on, they got better and better. And as ds said, there was no point in him trying and trying as he could never get out of the B team. He was so turned off by the whole thing.

There is a place for both. In normal PE lessons all children should get to have a go and not be discouraged by differing ability. However this is extra curricular teams and as such children with a talent should be allowed to compete in order to explore and develop that talent to the highest degree possible.

Perfectly fine for extra curricular activities to be selective on ability IMO.

As an unsporty child I hated it when it was obviously give everyone a go time. I knew, and knew others knew, that with a better person on the team they'd win. I was lucky in that I was always in a nice group who never said anything (except once by someone even less sporty than me!) but I still felt bad that I was letting them down.

Our local sports centre have noticed that the very in co ordinated children are often left out - these away days are really good for confidence building. Some have never been taken by their parents to these types of activities etc.

We have several sports days for the least able to come and meet other schools to they too can shine. It's still competitive.

This leaves out those in the middle!! Always the middle kids.

I love it though because education isn't just for the bright kids - in the same way sports should be just for the most able.

As an unsporty child I hated it when it was obviously give everyone a go time. I knew, and knew others knew, that with a better person on the team they'd win.

I think this is often overlooked in these discussions as well.

The kids know they are a pity pick, they often feel it's their fault if the team loses. And they know other people knew they were the pity pick.

I can't see how that's helpful either.

But as I've said, the other extra curricular activities aren't only for the best. Our school's art club is open to all. If there's a school trip to a gallery it's for everyone, even my children who are useless at art

And unlike academic activities where those who are less good get streamed and supported and potentially get even more resources than the able ones, in sport the opposite happens. It hasn't moved on since my days at school when our PE teacher basically took the ones who were really good at tennis and spent the lesson effectively coaching them while we were sent to the far court to just knock a ball about skive off

I do think PE in school needs to change - I really like the idea of the school mile run every day. It's not competitive necessarily (although I'm sure the speedy ones will make it so at the top end). But everyone does it and it's just a daily habit. We can't introduce that at our school as we basically have no playing field (think one of those inner city schools with the playground on the flat roof). But it's a great idea imho.

At our school, during the PE lesson achievements are given out on improvement.

They do a fitness test at the beginning of every term. The winner of the challenge is who improves most from the last time. Not the fastest.

After school clubs are different.

Curren, I would love our school to do some of this. Alongside the competitive stuff for sure. But at the moment the delivery of physical education is incredibly old fashioned - as I've said, it's the same as when I was at school 40 years ago. My mother, who also hated sport, reports the same. So in some places not much has changed in 70 years. Surely we must have got more sophisticated in our understanding of how to engage children in learning new skills and staying active over the course of seven decades?