Why do so many of our olympic athletes come from public school?

[ivykaty44]

and what would you do to change it?

Perhaps just my perception, but last night as the camera panned around the people sat in Olympic fields (or whatever it is they're calling it) - they looked to be predominantly white, middle-class.

Is that actually a fair representation of those that actually give a shit? Stratford itself is not bordering chalfont!

I assume it is white middle class as the tickets aren't cheap. There are very very few affordable tickets for the athletics. The statistics of overall ticket availability make it seem as if there are loads of cheap tickets but if you take out the huge quantity available for the football you get a different picture entirely. I paid £840 last night for two tickets to tonight's final. A huge amount of money. The seats are okay but not the best available (I couldn't afford £1550). In any other athletics event I'd be expecting a personal escort to my seat from Usain Bolt!

DolomitesDonkey - 60% of the people that you place as white middle class - well they aren't British

Do you have to pay to sit on the "henman hill" thing?

ivy They might not be British but they were rocking their Union Flags. :)

No, Donkey, you don't have to pay to sit on the hill thing as such, but you would have had to pay to get into the Olympic Park first, or already be attending another event.

Public schools head hunt and offer scholarships for sport. So it's hardly surprising.

DS mate (aged 16) was an olympic hopeful (didn't quite make it this time, so already training for the next lot!) in fencing.

He is leaving the (very supportive) grammar for a " big name" boarding school, where he will be near london etc as well as coached at school in school time.

sport is expensive-
ds1 -martial arts £30 a month + yearly fees/extras, kit/travel
ds4 - football £40 a month + boots/kit/travel

dd likes/good at volleyball but nearest club 15 miles away.no idea how much but we will look into it.
ds 3- wants to join a boxing club.which is local and seems quite cheap.will look into that too.

regarding the cost of club competitive cycling its really expensive ,my dad is in a club ,and the cost is shocking.
the outlay- decent bike/helmet/clothing ect, £3000 easy.
club membership/ect, weekly subs, race entry fees ,travel to races.- £££S.

DS's cycling costs:

Family club annual membership about £45,
free BC membership,
nice road bike that should suit for 3 yrs, w/ pedals = £550.

Spare wheels (this is DH's thing, he commutes daily on them for now, 35 miles round trip = £600).

Helmet, Clothing + shoes around £80/yr.
Bits that wear out (like chains, tubes) = £40/yr.

Each event (maybe 12/yr) is about £3 in entry fees & about £50 in travel costs; DH does some of the events too, his fun as well.
We just splurged & got DS a Garmin (£80, should be good for 3 yrs or more, too).

Another £400 for X-bike or so, plus event costs if he does Cyclo-X in winter. Not super cheap, but not touching £3k/yr, either. Maybe £1100-1200 max /yr on avg, over the 3 yr period? Most of the kit will pass down thru the family or can be resold, too.

tbh, a small number of passionate cyclists have fantastic ££££ bikes but aren't themselves very fit riders, it's like using kit to try to make up for their physical weaknesses.

Private schools only meet up for 35 weeks/yr, not remotely enough to get someone to elite level. Have to join clubs outside, too (what manicinsomniac said).

Insurance - I have to get CTC membership for dd to cycle with her club? I get family membership so we are all covered, I think I only have to have it as she rides on the road not just on the track. It is 70 pounds per year for the family (well worth the money as it cover us all If we have an accident and caused damage to someone one or a car etc)

WHEN are we going to come as a nation to the correct conclusion? When are we going to shake off our denial, and face the real issue:

That if a particular sector excells on all fronts, it means that the other sector is the one that is failing.

Don't call it 'privilege' 'money' blah blah... call it what it really, really is:

the failing of children by the ideologies of the state sector. The comprehensive education theories of the 60s DON'T WORK. THEY DON'T WORK.

(And, no, I am not in favour of a return of the grammar school system).

Correlation not causation, correlation not causation, correlation not causation.

Abitwobblynow I completely agree. But the lefties in charge of teaching will never accept it.

merrymouse how do you know that?

Well you show me the Olympic cyclist who says he/she owes their success to st custards school for young gentlemen and ladies and their fantastic velodrome facilities and I'll take it all back.

At my DD's inner city London school there are no playing fields. There's nowhere apart from a levelled out concrete slab for sport of any kind. When I look back at my childhood where all the schools had playing fields and, because they were state owned, they were open for all to use after school hours, I despair for UK children.

That is why NZ comes top of the league table doe medals per population. Nothing to do with the education and everything to do with the attitude that state assets should be open to all. Now who was it who sold off the school playing fields in the UK?

Katherine Grainger nominated the teacher who inspired her at her (state) comprehensive to carry the torch when it was going through Glasgow.

Right, wobbly, so what happens is, then, all children are born with the same opportunities in life and the same abilities, and the finances of their houses have no bearing on anything at all: it's all fair.

Then they go to school, and all the ones who go to state comprehensives get deliberately failed by a load of lefties. And that's the only difference.

I'm not sure that schools are dominated by the ideologies of the 60s - at least those ideologies were interested in actual education. What you have now is a lot of managerialism and mindless box-ticking, targets and the like, and this makes education a very joyless and one-dimensional experience for an awful lot of children.

There's nothing wrong with competition, but there's equally something very important to be said for doing things for the love/joy of them - most of us are not going to be Olympians, but we all need to be active and to enjoy being active.

I would make my point again about the need for children to be allowed to enjoy physical play in an unstructured way (they will make it competitive, left to themselves!) then they will have the basic skills for any sport; if they are not talented they will be physically fit

I haven't read all the thread so it may have been said already buf i wondered what the state/private breakdown would be just for athletics or perhaps swimming which seem far less public school dominated than rowing, sailing , shooting or horse riding?

well not one of the 3 fabulous track and field golds was won by someone from a public school - I do think it's partly down to the nature of the sports, although it is true that to be involved in anything (not just sport) you need parents who are willing to make both the time commitment (which may simultaneously be a financial one) and investment in equipments, fees, travel etc. It can be tough, I would have thought, on other children in the family too, which would be a consideration if this was an issue for either of my children

ethelb - of cause it's correlation. No school can singlehandedly get a child to olympic standard in any school. Regardless of the facilities the school is mainly there for all of its children of all abilities and its main focus is on academics.

I take the gymnastics club at my independent prep. We have all the equipment and a dedicated 1.5 hour session every week. I have about 30 children from 7 to 12ish and they range from working on a forward roll to single flips on the beam. We have 5 girls in the school who compete at a regional or a national level. Do they come to my club once a week after school in the school hall? OF COURSE NOT! They are too busy training 4-5 nights a week after school in their specialist elite gym with their specialist coaches. Which they are taken to by their parents. Who have both the time and the money to do that AND to pay for private school.

Our facilities are an exellent opportunity for all children to be able to participate. They can't get any child to an olympic standard.

Stop saying 50% of Olympians went to independent school Xenia, it was 50% of medalists at Bejing. This time round 25% of the team went to non-state schools and it looks as though the former state school pupils are going to do rather well in the end in, let's face it, sports with participants from a larger number of countries.

PS I went to the same school as Andy Murray and have a big smile on my face tonight!

I second Minymouses chant of Correlation not causation.

What I would like to see happen is the emphasis in schools to be on encompassing more sports.

At the moment it is football, football, football and let's face it, the overpaid prima donnas have been truly shown up by the Olympians.

My dts are about to go in P7, during their PE at school they get dodgeball. Not even rounders, dodge-bloody-ball. They learn nothing but aggression from it.

There is the opportunity local to do tennis, kayaking, archery, swimming. Their school does 4 months of kayaking at the end of P5 but for only a few pupils (some of whom have parents who could afford to send their children if the desire was so strong thus leaving the places for the families who couldn't afford it), some swimming in P5/6, a few weeks of tennis in P4.

Like I said, they don't even play rounders now and there is no specialist training needed for that ffs. I think people get a bug up their knickers about public schools but if the kids get the opportunity then it is hardly their fault to excel at something!

One of my DC's is eager to try out track and field activities on the back of watching the Olympics. Ive looked online for local athletics clubs and found one that runs literally a mile down the road from us (never knew of it at all til google search even tho its held at eldest DC's school grounds!) Its £20 yearly subs and £1 a week to attend training. I appreciate that other costs may/will occur over time if it's something he wants to progress in but we dont feel its priced out of our reach at the moment and obviously if/when he need things then we'll have to budget for it. Taking him to have a look on Weds!

4boyz most running clubs have very modest subs for juniors and will provide coaching - all you need are shoes really; there's a pretty good structure countrywide, plus other events like orienteering

Two Mo Farah wanted to play football - but a canny coach noticed his running ability and well, the rest is history :)