back from sports day for reception age - very upset

[Spatz]

Just been to our first sports day for about 25 years! Shocked by the treatment of small children - I thought the world had moved on. DDs reception class had to do egg and spoon, obstacle and sprint races then some throwing and jumping. The events were all won by the same few biggest children (all boys).

As far as it went that's okay because they had fun in the events, but the prizegiving at the end went on for about 15 mins while each of six races had three certificates and a medal for the winner - some lads had 5 or 6 prizes by the end and most children ended up with nothing. They became sadder and sadder as they realised they wouldn't get a certificate and many ended up in tears. At the end the head of the junior school said they should all go to their class teacher to make sure they got a little 'I'm a good sport' thing to pin on.

How are other sports days run? Is this normal?

'They are doing coursework and they can't be arsed. so glad for them that they have lots of people to praise them for their indolence.' So many assumptions, Poppy, and you've completely missed my point. If students are making spelling errors out of laziness then no that's not great but, as you have so successfully demonstrated in your own posts, people make mistakes for all sorts of reasons (distraction, pressure, poor teaching, having English as a second language, dyslexia). There are more important things than spelling and there are many hard-working geniuses who are poor spellers. I recently taught a student who was very far from indolent and had A grades in physics, chemistry, biology and maths A level but failed his GCSE English 3 times and would have been denied access to a medical degree unless he had finally passed on his 4th sitting.

Standardised spelling is a relatively recent phenomenon anyway. Before mass communication the English language was much more influenced by regional dialect (Shakespeare's language reflects his strong midlands dialect) and much of the 'poor spelling' you seem to be comdemning is probably actually the same thing (a much more logical reflection of how people actually speak).

It's clear you're not going to change your mind Poppy. Some people just hark back to a mythical golden era when everyone know their place and was happy and believe we should have an elite few who are rewarded and run the country while everyone else is branded losers and failures. Such people miss the 11+ too and, like Gradgrind, insist on a set of rules which are not be questioned and which squash out creativity. Personally, I'd rather have teachers and schools who value creativity, inclusion and effort and I'd rather teach rotten-speller Shakespeare than those weirdo children who win spelling bees.

In Chaucer's time most people couldn't read, nor in the Bard's. This was left to the very rich and to member sof the clergy. Standardized spelling has become crucial because of the growth of written communication and a need therefore to have written words that evryone can understand.
You must think then that people should spell however they want then. You also make alot of assumptions that those people who cannot be arsed to check over their university level essays are somehow poor genii who have far better things to do with their time.
I also think that the university level education as it stands now is very poor. You ask lecturers. The say that they have to spend often 1- 2 years of a course bringing students up to the standard needed to actually start learning. HOw can that be improvemnet.
I am all for individuality and freedom of expression, of course I am. But the idea that nearly everyone can / should go to university is daft. It's like saying everyone is working towards a grade A. That makes a grade A meaningless doesn't it? I guess that's why they have to now have A at school because everyone expects to get an A.

Poppyflower you accuse blackandwhitecat of making assumptions while making masses yourself. Nowhere does she say that she thinks people should spell however they want - she merely says it isn't the be-all and end-all. Nor does she say that lazy students who can't be arsed to check their essays are genii in disguise. I think setting up Aunt Sally's like this doesn't take the debate very far.

University level education now is no poorer than it used to be, if you look at actual numbers of people entering HE. Yes many students are not ready for the course, but that is because so many more of them are going into HE. There are not fewer students going in now ready, than 20 or 30 years ago. I agree with you that not everyone should go to university or be directed into an academic education that they are unsuited for, but what you seem to be saying is that a world where only 6-8% of the school population have the opportunity to be educated beyond the age of 18, is a much better world than one where 30-50% have that chance. I have huge reservations about the government's target of 50% - for one thing, I think it will marginalise anyone who doesn't have a degree and almost force young people into unsuitable academic courses when they should be doing something else; for another I think it will cause "degree inflation" - but I don't think we need to kid ourselves, that the British population as a whole were better educated than they are now, when only the academic (not to mention the economic) elite went into HE. That's obviously not true. The average 60 year old can spell no better than the average 20 year old. For one thing, the former is likely to have dropped out of school at the age of 13.

How did a thread on a sports day move to a debate on the level of education in Britain?!... only Mumsnet...

To return to the original topic. I agree that this level of fuss is too much and that a big thing should not be made about small children. A small degree of competiveness is OK and keeps up with the general spirit of things but to have a huge ceremony is daft and will upset some children.

My ds has autism and we recently had our sports day, he is at mainstream and the only one with autism. I found it hard I must admit (he didn't even notice - too busy lining up the cones etc!) to see all the other kids running properly, the parents cheering them on etc and I couldn't do this. He did take part in some of it and I just have to be thankful for that. There wasn't a lot of fuss, just a badge for each child and no ceremony.

However we had a show earlier in the year for plants, flowers, crafts etc and there was an awful lot of the same children winning too many prizes. Some parents have more time to help their kids with such projects and I felt it was silly for one child to win 6 prizes and others none - and we are talking about preschool kids too, too young to be competitive.

You'ld be surprised just how competitive preschoolers can get, Eulalia. I recently posted about how every single report ds has received this year (from 4 different educational establishments) have commented on his competitiveness! Though TBH I think often it's not the taking part that matters for him, but purely the winning. He's not yet mature enough to see the whole process.

Sorry Caligula, I beg to differ. The average 20 year old, from essays I have seen, is not a good speller. The correspondence I have seen from the older generation, has not only superior spelling and grammar, but the overall sophistication in composition is greater. I also disagree on the comparisions you make between me and cat but I shan't be giving a detailed argument on that score, I could, but I shan't

'Standardized spelling has become crucial because of the growth of written communication and a need therefore to have written words that evryone can understand.' There's much more to it than that. It is rare that I can't understand what someone is communicating because of their spelling. Look at text messages on mobile phones for example. Spelling and the English language has always changed and developed. Again, look at Chaucer. He uses the word 'sely' which has become our 'silly' yet when he was writing it had a slightly different sense (sort of 'naive'). Every year the OED adds new words to reflect our changing vocabulary. The word 'Goodbye' was originally 'God be with you'. So perhaps you'll forgive me for not seeing too much wrong with my students writing 'alot' when they 'should' write 'a lot' though of course I have to tell them that they must write in 'Standard English' if they want to pass their exams. And what actually is the 'English' language anyway? Actually a combination of Anglo Saxon, Norman and Latin and then there's more recent additions like 'pyjamas' which is Indian as is 'gymkhana'. Really you just prove my point that there are some people who automatically resist change as though there's something inherently wrong with it. Adherence to 'correct' spelling and grammar usually has more to do with snobbery or ignorance than ease of communication. Prince Charles has regularly criticised new-fangled Americanisms which are actually (and obviously unbeknown to him) older versions of modern British words. 'Standard English' is actually the dialect which developed prestige because it was associated with those who had power and money and it is no more 'correct' than any other dialect.

As for your point about 'degree inflation' Caligula, while I agree with you about most things, I don't about this. England has one of the lowest rates for entry to HE in Europe. In America I believe nearly 50% of people do enter HE. I would indeed like to see a country where HE was accessible to the majority of the population because everyone was equipped for its demands and it was equipped for everyone's needs.

By the way, Poppy, I actually spend a lot of time talking to lecturers (I work at 6th form level and weirdly my father is also a university professor teaching on MA creative writing programmes amongst other things). Yes, some of them bemoan a general decline in spelling (I think you'll find that it's a human characteristic to remember the good old days. Perhaps you should look at some articles from The Daily Mail etc 100 yrs ago) but many are more optimistic and value the new skills students arrive with. I also believe many universities are also hideously resistant to change and ill-equipped or ill-inclined to prepare students for a changing world. Snobbery, elitism and prejudice are still rife particularly in the more traditional universities. We're told, for example, that Oxbridge unis are much more pre-disposed to accept a student studying English Literature than one studying Media Studies or even a combined Literature and Language course even if that student is predicted/ has gained A grades in all of his or her A Levels. And, it's still possible to come out of HE with a 1st class degree in History, for example, and not know how to work in a team or give a presentation or create a database or whatever.

Also, Poppy, you're happy to admit that only a couple of hundred years ago the majority of the population were almost completely illiterate so exactly when did this great decline happen? In the last 100 years? 40? Or 20? And how could you possibly compare the spelling and grammar of an 'average' 60 year old and an 'average' 20 year old? This sort of research would take the time, resources and expertise I can only begin to imagine and all the evidence I've seen suggests the opposite findings from yours.

By the way everyone my dp is organising a sports day at his 10-16 EBD school as we speak. Participating is optional though non-doers will form the audience and activities are largely fun e.g. welly wanging and sack race. If he tried the kind of sports day some of you describe it would be devastating. These are the kinds of kids I've mentioned who have been labelled failures or been failed by m/s education and often their parents or carers. They come to school for a sense of normality and achivement not to be made to feel bad about themselves.

Yes Cat, I am very familiar with all the examples you give I am a linguist and am fully aware that language morphs all the time. However, I do not like some of the changes.
I think we have lost alot of the art of good language use. That does not make me a 'stuck in the mud' who 'hars back to a golden age'.
I think English was a beautiful language, rich and varied. I now think it is losing many of those qualities and due to the increasing use of American and Austrailian 'English' and not gaining input of equal value. For me spelling and grammar are important to my appreciation of a piece of writing. I find misuse in these areas a hinderence to my enjoyment of a text.

should have been a comma after and and before due

I'm going off to have a nice bbq now

I've already said the decline happened during the 70's, bye

How ridiculous that you 'do not like' some of the additions and changes to our language esp. when as I said some of the Americanisms are actually older versions of English words or new words to label new things like 'television' (a combination of Greek and Latin or 'internet' or 'chatroom'. I expect to see your next posts in Middle English then Poppy or better still in Latin!!! And perhaps you should have a race to the nearest cave for your bbq and only the winners get to eat. Enjoy!!

Poppy, you've also mispelt 'hinderance' and 'a lot' amongst others and I think you'll find that 'morphs' is a fairly new addition to our rich and varied language. But don't worry I understand exactly what you mean. Not nice when someone criticises your spelling is it? Oh, I forgot, you weren't really trying!

How rude you are. And how very ignorant and silly. I shall go through my life being glad that whatever I think or do I won't be doing it like you. There ,now you have nearly reduced me to your level, not quite though.
Your agruments are so mainstream and conventional. It's a shame that you choose to be insulting. That makes you look silly and does not support your case. I have chosen not to drone on and on using examples that anyone could pull out of a book, but are actually not very interesting. Have a nice night

No I wasn't trying, it's only a web chat page for heaven's sake

You are a pathetic person, really you are

Poppy, who's using insults again? I agree with you on one thing though I'm glad you don't teach English too!!

how interesting that this thread became so, er,
competitive.

agree with poppyflower's first post though.

Morph is infact of Greek origin and has been used to mean what it means for.... um... a long time. Had a lovely BBQ btw and had lots of meat, must be a winner then!!!

Well, good on you for Googling 'morphs' Poppyflower, it's just a shame you haven't quite understood what you've found. 'Morph' is indeed of Greek origin and means 'shape' so if you wanted to talk about the English language changing shape you would probably need to use the word 'metamorphosis'. But hey, I'm the one that's quite happy with language changing and growing so if you want to use 'morph' in its new context (probably introduced by American IT types) you go right ahead. It's just that you said you didn't like new additions to the language and richness and quality was somehow 'lost' by these. Of course, you'll know all about what 'morphemes' and 'morphology' mean because, as you've said, you're a 'linguist'. Though I'm wondering what linguistics course can possibly have taught you to put an apostrophe in '70's' and given you the idea that one word has more value than another etc etc.

I'd better stop now because you see my advice on language as 'pathetic' or 'droning' or 'insulting' which I certainly never intended but then again I find language and its development fascinating rather than threatening. At least I didn't make you stand on a chair so that you would learn from your mistakes though eh? What you should note, however, is that before you judge others' spelling and grammar (as in that of the 'average' 20 year old) you should really start to question your own and make sure it lives up to your own standards (assuming you know exactly what these are yourself).

And like I said about competition, it's really only those who are insecure about their abilities who need to compete with others or insult them. I'm just joining in a debate here!

I didn't need to google "morph" Cat but it seems you felt the need. Obviously I've failed to explain myself, I too am happy with the language changing and growing and more than this, I understand that's it's impossible to fight the process. I merely said I don't like some of the changes, some not all. I can't see how this is such a controversial stance or how I've provoked such scorn from you. Obviously I feel the word "morph" as it is now used adds to the expressiveness of the language whereas I don't find it "wicked" that some other words or phrases have been pulled so far from their original meanings. Another example is the apostrophe in 70's, which would have been frowned on decades ago but which I regard as clearer than 70s, or wcs or cds; Fowler's seems to agree with me. No Cat, I didn't have to google this or look it up (at least not this time).

I merely said that we're losing some of the art from the language; I didn't claim to be its greatest exponent and I don't make that claim now. If you trawl through my postings I expect you'll find numerous errors but this doesn't detract in any way from my original point (this is a chat room not the OED).

You'll be pleased to know that I didn't research the spelling and grammar of an 'average' 60 year old and an 'average' 20 year old, it's what I have found empirically. How can I compare them? Well, the same way one compares anything. And yes it's subjective but subjectivity doesn't invalidate anyone's views: the fact that smoking kills has only been proved in the last decade, previously it was one's subjective view point based on extremely strong evidence.

And one more thing Cat, did you say you did or didn't believe in competitiveness? Looking back at the tenor of your postings, it'd be difficult to tell.

can somebody fill me in on what the heck language change and a percieved decline in standards has to do with competetive sports days for 4 and 5 yr olds pls.

Sorry Senora, the conversation seems to have morphed.