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?

I used to have arguments about this with teachers - I used to say that wriggly children (or "naughty" children, depending what was under discussion) should be rewarded for making an effort, even for a small amount of time; they used to say that wasn't fair on the unwriggly or "good" ones who could be still or "good" for much longer.

They were only interested in performance, not effort. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Mind you these were more old-school teachers, I am hoping the younger ones are a bit more realistic?

no, cat it just means I'm typing onehanded with bay at breast and kids screaming.

For you information, check the dictionary BEFORE you criticise Wooly can be spelt that way- I thank you

It's interesting isn't it. I have one good as gold child, and one pain in the arse (for teachers anyway!). dd has always got the most rosy reports believable right through nursery, and now in reception. She loves school, finds it easy to concentrate and loves to please. ds also enjoys school, but has always had "interesting" reports because he lives by his own rules, and struggles to see why he should do what he is told instead of what has taken his interest. He has done a few rounds of special needs assessments, but has mostly settled now (I must admit I stopped taking it that seriously when the SN teacher suggested to my dh that I was autistic because I didn't stay with the crowds at a school trip I was forced to attend - despite having a broken arm and jaw...). However I note that they have about the same amount of smiley face stickers, so I think the school does recognise their differences quite well.

but only if you are American... If that's permissible then just where are our standards going!

Spatz, I agree. What a ridiculous response! Some children who shine in the classroom are also very sporty, and some children struggle at both. DS1 is quite clever, but not outstanding, and useless at sports. So it seems he doesn't get rewarded anywhere!

Strangely enough you may find that some students at HE are also typing with a baby at the breast or are trying to combine a degree with full-time paid work or whatever because thankfully HE these days is not just full of privileged 18 year olds who go to Oxbridge. Also, while spelling may not be a great strength of theirs (as it wasn't for Chaucer or Shakespeare) the fact that they can type, use a computer, email, set up a webpage and have 1000s of other skills (including changing babies nappies which men would not have done until relatively recently) people didn't have 100 years ago is worthy of note. The vast majority of people have a better level of education than their parents that's your proof that standards have improved.

Priorities, methods and content of the curriculum have all changed (also thankfully). I would have found it difficult to parse a sentence (a requirement of a 50s English O Level) on leaving school but there are many skills I would have had that the average 50s school child wouldn't. And by the way, learning by rote, was discredited years ago. You may learn to recite facts and figures but it's much more useful to have skills that you can apply in real life.

Spatz, a PE teacher colleague of mine always used to refer to research which linked sporting and academic ability. I have my doubts about this but I would also have concerns about what your Head was saying. Agree with you too Nooka.

What type of research was it blackandwhitecat? I've often heard this argument that sports lessons are the compensation for kids who aren't good academically and have always been sceptical of it. I remember that out of the 10 or so top sporty girls in our year, about 6 of them were in the top groups for everything. The others were in the bottom groups. But that still left a hell of a lot (the overwhelming majority) who didn't fit in with the stereotype of bad academically = good sporty.

There is a large and growing school of thought which holds that all external rewards - be it medals, certificates, stickers, praise or performance related pay - crushes intrisic motivation and leads to less creative work of a lower standard being turned out.

This book is a fantastic and persuasive argument, backed up with a lot of research, against trying to motivate people using rewards.

Oh lord. So does that mean all our stickers and star charts are wrong? Will our children be sitting on mumsnet in 30years time discussing our primitive parenting techniques?

Might need to start a new thread about this...

Oh FFS. So we're wrong in praising our children now?? Not everything has a "just for the joy of doing it" factor.

Sheesh. All it takes is a happy medium - don't over praise/reward but don't under priase/reward either.

It's called common sense.

"So does that mean all our stickers and star charts are wrong?"

Erm, yes

"So we're wrong in praising our children now??"

If you are doing it as a means to manipulate their behaviour (which praise seems to have become these days, rather than a spontaneous expression of pleasure), yes.

Try the book, it's a great read.

There've been a few threads about it on here, Caligula. Search for Alfie Kohn and you will find aviatrix explaining it better than I can.

What a silly reply. I am on a web chat page and they are typing for degrees. It makes no difference whether I make typing errors of can't be bothered to double check a spelling. 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.

Your posts seem quite rude and defensive to me poppy.

I agree with you about standards of literacy slipping actually, and put it down to the depressing reward based system of education in this country ,which is failing our children.

Don't mean to be rude, but defensive? Perhaps.
I am being 'attacked' on many different levels here. Perhaps I am brave and or foolish going against general thinking, I just get fed up with it sometimes. There seems to be a perceived wisdom that I just don't agree with. If I had more time I guess I could compose threads that put my point over without appearing rude.
You are the 1st person that has cut me some slack, I thankyou for that.

I think it's possible to debate or disagree with someone without saying things like "What a silly reply" and "For your information", yes.

(note mental note to follow own advice )

I don't think you are being ganged up on here, there are loads of differences of opinion as far as I can see, not one "perceived wisdom" or "general thinking".

Franny, I found her attitude and tone of writing very unpleasent and dismissive. if i am 'rude' I am certainly not alone in that

Wow, interesting thread that has developed a bit since I posted!

I think there's a happy medium to be struck here. Our school made it a "fun day of sport" - there was non-competitive activities in the morning where they all got to try different things and apparently had a lot of fun. In the afternoon, there was Sports Day and as mentioned previously, every child who raced got at least one house point. They sat in their Houses, apart from Reception (it's a Combined school) and all roared each other on.

Every child did a running race and an obstacle race and this is the only aspect I would have changed - I would have given children the choice of whether they wanted to run or not. You've at least got a chance in a obstacle or egg and spoon race if you're not particularly sporty whereas if you're a poor runner, a sprint demonstrates this to the world and can be incredibly upsetting - I always came last or second last in sprints at Sports Day and hated them whereas I did managed a 3rd place once in the egg and spoon .

I think there's been some very good points made here - for me, it's all about balance and I think the Head of the OP's school has not got that balance right.

F&Z - isn't that the Montessori approach, too? To encourage the child to work to their own standards and be able to operate accurate self-evaluation?

On the 'Child of Our Time' programme 9not, possibly the most cast-iron psychological experiments) they did an excercise where they asked different groups of children to do a task - some offered a reward, some not. The ones who did it for the plaesure and achievement of doing it did it with the most determination and persisted after the official goal had been reached, iirr.

Poppy - sorry if you feel ganged up on - call it competitive arguing, if you like!

I don't think anyone has outright argued against any form of competition - only against the rather extreme polarisation of the sporty and non-sporty for priamry school children, and agaist the idea that achievement is always the same as competition, or that competitiveness is the basis of life - or that that is always a good thing.

Setting yourelf up to climb everest - hard work, determination, extreme competitiveness, against yourself, and others who don't / can't achieve such a thing. A huge effort of single-minded will to 'win'.

To the extent that earlier this year a whole procession of Everest climbers trudged past a dying man rather than share their oxygen.

Blu, I always mean to find out more detail about the Montessori method. I know so little about it, except I usually agree with what they are aiming for.

There have also been studies which show that people being rewarded for a task perform it less creatively, and put in the meagrest amount of effort possible to complete the task. Children rewarded for doing an activity (such as playing with certain maths materials) were much less likely to choose to play with those materials again of their own free will, than children who were not rewarded (manipulated) in this way.

Came across a lovely John Holt quote this morning which seems very relevant to this thread:

" "success", as much as "failure", are adult ideas which we impose on children. The two ideas go together, are opposite sides of the same coin. It is nonsense to think that we can give children a love of "succeeding" without at the same time giving them an equal dread of "failing". Babies learning to walk, and falling down as they try, or healthy six- and seven-year-olds learning to ride a bike, and falling off, do not think, each time they fall, "I failed again." Healthy babies or children, tackling difficult projects of their own choosing, think only when they fall down or off, "Oops, not yet, try again." Nor do they think, when finally they begin to walk or ride, "Oh, boy, I'm succeeding!" They think, "Now I'm walking!" "Now I'm riding!" The joy is in the act itself, the walking or the riding, not in some idea of succes."

And by the way my 'what a ridiculous response!' was not aimed at any poster, but at Spatz's school's reply.

Haven't read "Punished by rewards" but must do. From what I can see, some children are inherently motivated by intrinsic rewards and some aren't. One of my children isn't at all interested in rewards, and the other is. Will have a look at the book - though I fear we're too far down the 'carrot and stick' approach with DS1 (my not inherently motivated one) to go back.

Singersgirl, some children are certainly motivated to receive the reward, but it kills their intrinsic motivation to perform the task being rewarded. Their perception and enjoyment of that task is affected negatively, in some cases forever. If your child likes reading and you give him a sticker or prize every time he finishes a book, he is less likely to say that he enjoys reading, and likely to read fewer books after the reward scheme finishes - not just fewer then he read when he was getting prizes - but fewer than he read before you started rewarding him.

The book is so fab, and very inspiring - I don't think it is ever too late to try an different way of doing things.

Ds1's sports day was really well organised - 4 teams, split into 6 or 7 groups. Then the groups did a rotation round the 'events', which were team races, so totting up the number of times a particular group ran, threw the beanbag in the hoop and got back. Made it much less obvious who was winning/losing as all children carried on till the end of the time, then moved on to the next rotation. Then a presentation at the end for the team with the most points.

Ds1 still ended up in tears though, through heat and overexcitement! And dd refused to take part in the toddler race...

Haven't read the whole thread, but my Ds has cerebral palsy, he does sports day knowing that he will never win anything. He isn't 'let off' off any of the races, and TBH I wouldn;t want him to be. Sometimes they allow him to run round something instead of jumping it etcetc. He enjoys doing the races, even if he does come in last every time. Me and DS did a funrun a few weeks back, the teacher said he only had to do 1 lap rather than 4, but Ds wanted to do the 4 laps, so we did, we came in last(out of 200 kids) but hey, it doesn't matter, he took part and enjoyed it.
I agree that children need to leqarn that there are winners and losers, but all that matters is taking part and trying your best.