When I was younger I noticed that there were certain "lessons" at school that didn't seem to be about teaching you to do things - instead we just had to do things and those who were good at it were rewarded/praised.
Music, Art and P.E. come to mind. The teachers only seemed interested in the ones who were good at it and I don't recall any actual teaching happening. In Art every week we drew a picture or painted etc. and then the teacher would comment on those that were good. Those that weren't as good may be given some feedback e.g. 'your pear is too big' but we were never taught how to actually improve. Yes I can erase my pear and make it smaller but how do I learn to actually draw things with the right proportions in the first place?
I assumed this was normal until as an adult I worked at a very nice school with specialist subject teachers and I sat in an Art lesson where the Art teacher was actually teaching students how to draw and it was eye-opening. I really wanted to be good at Art but I didn't know how to get better. "Practice makes perfect" was thrown around but an Art lesson once a week just practicing your (already lacking) fruit-drawing skills doesn't help. I never even considered learning in my own time - I assumed that some people were simply good at Art and some people simply bad at it. I lamented that I wasn't good at it. This was back in the day where we were told that "everyone is good at something" and I kept waiting for my "thing" to jump out at me.
P.E. was the worst for me. It seemed like every week we were brought outside and made to play a team sport, with team captains, humiliation and the rest, as has already been discussed in depth. I do not really understand the idea that P.E. is about winning or competition. It, like all lessons, should be about teaching and learning. It should be teaching coordination, motor skills, fitness, looking after your body, avoiding injury and learning to take pleasure in exercise.
Competition, if done right, can be fun and so games and competitions are sometimes used in all kinds of lessons. Obviously it particularly lends itself to P.E. and I understand you need to actually play team sports in P.E. If you're learning football skills I understand that has to involve playing football in teams, as that is how the game is designed to be played.
But a previous poster recalled seeing two team captains arguing over who had to take the last person to be picked and the teacher not stepping in - instead commenting that it was "tough luck". This is exactly how it was when I was young and I want to point out how absolutely insane it is that this is still a thing.
When I was a primary school teacher, about ten years ago, when teaching (Maths as an example) lessons, I was expected to pitch the lesson to cater to all abilities, differentiate based on instruction, task, support, resources. I was expected to meet all children where they were at and make sure they all made progress. (Accelerated progress including after-school intervention sessions for those who were 'behind').
I was expected to make sure all students learned in a supportive environment and were safe to make mistakes. I was expected to instil a growth mindset instead of a fixed mindset, where students did not label themselves as "bad" at Maths but saw it as something they could improve on. I was expected to come down hard on those who were unkind or cruel to others about their academic ability.
Can you imagine the heaps of shit I would be in if every single Maths lesson I gave the two top students the power to pick 'teams' and spent the lesson not ever actually teaching how to do multiplication but forcing them to competitively work out multiplication sums against each other. If you get it wrong, you get shouted it or mocked by your peers and often even your teachers. If you're shit at multiplication you always get picked last and the team captains fight to make the other take you.
As a teacher, on witnessing this, I simply express to the team captain that it's tough luck. After all, we all know that student is a deadweight but they have to go somewhere so tough luck.
Imagine if I ignored the kids who couldn't do multiplication and focused only on those who excelled, inviting them to join my extracurricular team. The students at the top of my class are now labelled 'Mathsy'. Bad luck to everyone else. I'm sure you'll find something you're good at. Maybe you'll be 'Sporty' instead. Or 'woodworky'. Or 'musical'. Either way, you're not Mathsy so you're not my problem.
I get that Maths and P.E. are different but why are they so different? Why weren't the teachers spending extra time with those of us who couldn't catch? Teaching us skills and differentiating tasks, spending time with us giving us support e.g. to correct our stance or footwork or whatever?
Why didn't anyone ever instil an idea that exercise is for everyone and it vital to being healthy? Sure, you might enjoy some forms more than others, and yes it's fun to try and win, but overall the idea is that you keep your body healthy and really reduce your chances of dying young. Why is it not so much more important that all kids are given these messages about their physical health more than Maths?
I accept that some are more naturally gifted and it will come easier to others. I accept that I would never have been an Olympic athlete or famous artist. But perhaps, with some actual empathy and adequate teaching I'd have got a bit better at drawing my fruit bowls. I may or may not have cared enough to spend my time improving at home. But ideally I'd have actually believed that it was possible for me to be as good as the 'Arty' kids one day if I put the effort in.
Perhaps I never would have liked team sports but I would have understood the value of exercise and instead got into something else - like running. I would have known that anybody who puts the effort in can get to a point where they can go out for a run every morning.
I genuinely didn't understand this concept until I was an adult. It wasn't that I disliked sports or exercise (although I did) - the reason I didn't do it is because I thought I was bad at it and it simply wasn't an option for me.
I would have loved to join a choir but I couldn't sing so it wasn't an option. I would have loved to be on the running team but I was the slowest in the class at running so I couldn't (and in my mind, would never be capable of doing). These are all things I genuinely believed and didn't question.
Kind of a side note - I know research on streaming is mixed but I think, for something like P.E. perhaps it's a lesson where streaming would have made the most sense (and ironically was one of the few lessons that wasn't streamed). I think all students would prefer to be doing P.E. with people of similar abilities to them.