Ben@Forest wrote: ↑14 Jun 2021, 12:31pm
The question is not what the talented, the winners, get out of school sports, but whether the losers, the perpetual duffers, get a discouraging experience that puts them off trying for life.
They learn that they are no good at sport, and that attempting to take part is unrewarding and humiliating.
But the point is Ian Wright was a 'duffer' (that sounds very Johnsonian) at school. It was sport that got him out. When I was in 6th form at least two students took Oxbridge entrance exams (do they exist any more?) - but the point is they weren't duffers but got MORE attention from teachers precisely because they were intelligent (or at least had the savvy and confidence to be Oxbridge candidates). Should they not have got that attention?
[/quote]
I meant a duffer at sports, and whether the way sorts are handled at school produces people who are likely to continue to enjoy taking part in sport, at whatever level and have the health benefits of doing so.
Whether the academic side of school works well is a seperate question. The idea that sport can give disadvantaged pupils a way out of deprivation is fine and often discussed. Boxing is an example often mentioned.
Coaching promising pupils for Oxbridge is common, and there is little use in trying to teach the less academic to do those entrance exams.
Sports teaching should equip pupils for a healthy life, which means enjoying physical activity, not finding that there is nothing in "games" that they enjoy or find rewarding. Being picked last and ending up on the losing side is no fun.
Lurking out of the way on the boundary is pleasant on a fine sunny day, but running in the opposite direction to the ball on muddy pitch on a cold winters day less so.