Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Am I being too harsh ? Sport/school

44 replies

Pocketwithaholeinit27 · 23/09/2013 22:18

Hi just like to get others opinion on the following please - DS is in year 2, he has been at his school since Nursery. After returning in September I discovered from him that he and some of his class mates are no longer taught PE by the boys sport teacher with experience in teaching rugby, cricket and football but by the girls PE teacher - who I should say has no experience in teaching rugby,football and cricket, this is so the other half of the class who are considered more talented can be taught by said boys PE teacher - with a view to representing the school in these sports. On taking this up with the school I was told that yes my DS is probably at a disadvantage as he is one of the youngest in his year but that essentially, too bad. They are very ambitious for the teams to do well and as such they will not change this policy. My argument is that ALL the boys should be taught by the boys PE teacher as he is the person with experience in the traditional boys sports. If they want to get a dream team together, good for them, but they should offer extra training for those boys and not disadvantage the boys less able. My DS is 6 years old and I feel that his sporting education has already been written off by his school. I should say DS is at an independent school that is - or so they say - non selective... Any words of wisdom or views would be welcome . Thanks

OP posts:
rhetorician · 23/09/2013 22:23

Sounds a bit early to be making these distinctions...BUT, why is it assumed that the girls don't need to be taught by a properly qualified teacher as well? I'd be hopping if I had a girl at this school!

Original poster
Pocketwithaholeinit27 · 23/09/2013 22:31

Oo I didn't actually mean that the girls were not being taught by a qualified teacher - they are but the ' less able' ( schools term) boys are now being taught by a teacher with no experience in teacher Rugby, football or cricket. And, she is teaching the girls at the same time so maybe you are right! This poor teacher is trying to teach girls their sports as well as teaching boys who are being told they don't meet the 'criteria '..... Angry !

OP posts:
Original poster
Pocketwithaholeinit27 · 23/09/2013 22:34

Just doesn't seem right to me - writing off little 6 year olds - what is this world coming to!

OP posts:
theneedajobname · 23/09/2013 22:40

I'd be hopping mad that my little girl wasn't being taught football & cricket. What's she doing, knitting?? Are there pre-approved 'girl' sports? FFS.

But YANBU, PE should be the time that ALL the DC learn sport, not just the boys, not just the sporty, not just the talented. If they want to field a team, that's an after-school activity.

DumSpiroSpero · 23/09/2013 22:40

I'd be asking to see their policies on Physical Education and Equality tbh - I loathe sport but think cherry picking the 'best' kids and making a distinction between girls and boys sports at that age is absolutely disgusting.

I should add that DH used to coach 4-7 year olds at a private school and they had their sessions together which included cricket, football skills, hockey and tag rugby.

If they had any with a special interest in/talent for a particular sport it was developed outside the general curriculum.

rhetorician · 23/09/2013 22:45

Didn't answer your question, but YANBU, surely the goal is for all children to learn basic skills (this is the most important thing for sporting success) and to be physically fit?

summerends · 24/09/2013 03:36

Agree with others. If the school is insufficiently resourced to offer specialist PE training to all kids and is running a two tier system then perhaps you and the other kids in his group should be offered a discount.
This would send warning bells to me about the school, does it extend the same principle to the "cleverest" or most "musical " children, also judged at the age of 6?

Lomaamina · 24/09/2013 04:49

YI agree this is unfair - and also shortsighted as your DS may be being overlooked in his talent simply because he's in the younger half of the year. If you don't mind the digression, the following supports my point:

Malcolm Gladwell has a fascinating chapter on this in his 'Outliers' book www.amazon.co.uk/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0141036257/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t where he reports on a study by Barnsley irs.sagepub.com/content/45/4/507.refs on the age cohort of Canadian hockey players: a disproportionate number were from the older end of the year. Gladwell says this is because at the coaches select the best players at set times which favour the older children in the class, thereby wasting the talent that might be latent in the younger, smaller children a t that time.

senua · 24/09/2013 09:22

I agree that lessons should be whole-class and the dream team should get extra coaching on top of that. But, if you are that fussed about a sport, you will be better served by an out-of-school club. IMO, Rugby is the best as it is more inclusive than football or cricket.

missbopeep · 24/09/2013 09:58

errrrr....don't women play rugby too? I wonder why you are upset at a female teacher teaching your son to play rugby or football.? She may not have played the games herself but if she is a qualified PE teacher then she is able to teach ball skills and the 'tag' skills that children aged 6 learn for rugby. No child is taught the rugby skills you'd expect at such a young age- it's much more games based. I'd think you had a point if he was 13, but not 6.

missbopeep · 24/09/2013 10:01

This poor teacher is trying to teach girls their sports as well as teaching boys who are being told they don't meet the 'criteria'
I don't know what you mean by this- is the lesson a mix of netball and 'girly' sports as well as rugby and cricket etc?

I think as I said above that both you and the school need to stop being sexist over sport- women play football, cricket and rugby at country level too- so all children should be taught all the skills and the gender of the staff is irrelevant at aged 6.

Madamecastafiore · 24/09/2013 10:04

He is 6!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

iseenodust · 24/09/2013 10:10

I would find out exactly what sport he is being taught but if it is exactly as you think then I would be concerned. Sport can be a great confidence booster and I agree with the poster who said find your DS a good club outside school.

Cricket is the most inclusive democratic sport DS age9 has played so do not discount that. Each player has to play all the different roles in every game and at his club they mix the teams up weekly so everyone gets turns. They also have a different captain every week at this age.

Norudeshitrequired · 24/09/2013 10:11

I think you are being totally sexist - categorising sports into boys and girls sports.

You have already stated that both the teachers at your sons schools are qualified PE teachers so I don't see what the issue is. If the woman wasn't qualified then I would see your point, but she is qualified and just perhaps has more experience in teaching certain sports. More experience doesn't mean less capable.
As long as your son gets to experience the full range of sports then YABVU. If he is going to be resigned to just playing netball and skipping then you have a point. But I think both boys and girls should do rugby, football, netball,cricket, rounders etc.
I would assume that one teacher can't teach all of the children (due to number of classes? ) so they have split them into groups to ensure that they are among similar ability children; it really isn't much different than streaming children for maths and English.

senua · 24/09/2013 10:42

Cricket is the most inclusive democratic sport

Not the experience at DS's (ex!)club. If you play limited overs then only the best three or four get to bat. Only the best three or four get to bowl. The rest are there to make up the fielding numbers.

BurberryQ · 24/09/2013 10:45

Cricket is the most inclusive democratic sport not when it is run by 'cricket dad' for the benefit of his precious offspring who is team captain every week and wins the cups too!!

namechanger1979 · 24/09/2013 10:53

I think all should be taught together. I thought boys doing "boy sports" whilst girls do netball or needlework at primary school went out in the 80's. Just look at the scholarships at american unis for women who are good at soccer!

As an aside ds1 was truly awful at football in yr 2.... He used to sit down mid match and everything. However he did enjoy it and because his school t
eam was inclusive always got a game. Now aged 9 he is actually quite good and plays on sunday for a team out of school. It might just be he hasnt found his sport yet or is a late bloomer. It would worry me the school arent nuturing him in that way

Annelongditton · 24/09/2013 10:57

BurberryQ - I think you have just summed up every kids cricket club in the country!

BurberryQ · 24/09/2013 10:58

ha probably - ah well at least my son is a good 'wicki' as that was where he was every Sunday without fail Grin

namechanger1979 · 24/09/2013 11:00

Crikey burberry are you in my village??

redskyatnight · 24/09/2013 11:24

Are there lots more boys than girls in the class?
So when the class is split in this way the numbers are roughly equal?

It sounds like a rough form of sets - the boys who are better at sport are put in top set and the other boys and all the girls are put in the bottom set.

I'd be well and truly fed up if I had a sporty girl - at 6 they should be able to hold their own with the boys.

TantrumsAndBalloons · 24/09/2013 11:35

What is a "girls sport?"

Someone better tell my dd because she plays football and does boxing and MMA.

Tbh i would be more furious about the attitude of "traditional girls sports"

But no, they should not be in sets for PE at 6 FFS. If they want a team to represent the school they should do lunch/after school activities.

ErrolTheDragon · 24/09/2013 11:44

My DDs primary was excellent for sports - they had teams and individuals which did well at national and regional level and the occasional national.

Their games lessons were totally inclusive in KS1; split by gender some of the time in KS2. The teams were after school - and they always had A and B, sometimes a C too for really popular sports. They encouraged any child who wanted to join in the extra-curricular sports clubs to do so.

Excellence and inclusivity are not mutually exclusive and a school that makes them so is failing its pupils.

Flicktheswitch · 24/09/2013 11:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GooseyLoosey · 24/09/2013 11:56

I think at independent schools (at least from 7) it is normal for girls to do hockey, netball and rounders (one a term) and boys to do rugby, hockey and cricket (also one a term) - they mostly all structure it in the same way so they can play in leagues against other schools.

This means that the games teacher should be teaching the boys rugby this terms and the girls hockey. I absolutely cannot see how that can work and it is not fair on either to only give them half the attention in the lesson. The "elite" kids are not paying higher fees so I fail to see why they get to benefit from better tuition.

This is also undermining the girls - the weaker boys end up with them. What kind of message does that give either?