Naomi Alderman on competitive sport

| 5 Comments | No TrackBacks

Naomi Alderman, a regular Guardian columnist, on one of my pet hates in popular attitudes to education - the emphasis on the supposed value of competitive sport. I'm sure we've all heard the attacks on the alleged "all must have prizes" culture (Melanie Phillips wrote a book by that title, attacking the trend), but competition is only a small part of what physical education should be about, namely keeping the children fit. Basing it all around competition is guaranteed to associate it with humiliation for those less able. (I agree, since my favourite "sport" at school was cross-country; putting myself in front of a flying ball in a field full of much more physically mature kids, some of them more than willing to use fists when the usual means of getting the ball failed, was never my cup of tea.)

As someone who went to school in the 70s and 80s, I can't say that I noticed much of a "medals for all" culture myself. Physical education was taught in much the same way it's always been taught: team games, captains picking their sides, and the inevitable segregation between those who are good at games and are picked first and those rejects left shuffling uncomfortably while the captains try to decide between the fat child, the child in glasses or the child puffing on an inhaler. In other words, physical education was taught in a way guaranteed to give at least some of the children lasting exercise-phobia. ...

To get some sense of the damage this can cause, imagine if we taught maths using the same method. Every lesson would start with two maths captains picking their teams - inevitably leaving those known to be bad at maths to the end. The rest of the lesson would be taken up with public competition in mental arithmetic. Get a sum wrong, and not only would you show yourself up in front of your classmates, but you'd let your team down, too. And as for slow and steady progress, improving your skills and working on your weak spots? Forget it, there's no time for that. There's a reason we don't teach maths like this; it's because we think maths is too important for us to risk leaving some children behind by creating an association in their minds between maths and public embarrassment.

Of course, children who enjoy competitive sports should have the chance to play them, learn new skills and improve their performance. They should be encouraged to take that interest as far as they can. This country has a rich heritage and tradition in sport; both as participants and as whole-hearted supporters. We can all be tremendously proud of our Olympic athletes, of their determination and abilities. But competitive sport is really just one tiny offshoot of PE. Children who enjoy maths should be encouraged to pursue that interest as far as they can, too - to a professional level, if they want. But most of us don't need the skills of professional mathematicians. What we need are basic mathematical life-skills: the ability to plan a journey to get somewhere at the correct time, to make a budget, to work out that paying £20 a month over a year for a £120 TV isn't a good bargain.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://www.blogistan.co.uk/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/4426

5 Comments

I suspect that PE lessons based around team sports rather than physical exercise is partially responsible for child obesity. Another issue is the heavy bias towards football. I think it is the result of it not just being a team sport but part of British popular culture. I really would like to know what advantage is there to be gained from team sports at school later in life. Only a tiny fraction of people ever become professional sportsmen, so why make team sports such a major part of the PE curriculum?

Proponents of team sports can harp on all they like about the importance of competitiveness in later life. But the fact is that sports comprise almost all the competitive activities offered by most schools. I'm not against competitive activities but schools should offer a much wider variety of competitions not requiring a high level of physical co-ordination even if they end up as trigonometry or robot building contests.

As cross-country running has winners- and so losers- what is uncompetitive about it?

Well, it's a straightforward race, and it doesn't involve tackling. It's pretty much each person for himself.

"Well, it's a straightforward race, and it doesn't involve tackling. It's pretty much each person for himself."
So what's uncompetitive about it?
It isn't competitive sport but team games you dislike.

What activities would you most and least like to encounter in school PE lessons?

Leave a comment

Archives

OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID
Powered by Movable Type 4.2-en