The Olympics and academic excellence

What do the 2008 Olympics teach a child? In simple terms, they teach them to win and to strive for gold and glory (silver isn't good enough - just look at Katherine Grainger and the rest of her losing team in the quadruple sculls). It also teaches them to know that wanting to be the best is something to be proud of. Children won't have missed the nation rejoicing.

It's strange how this contrasts with academic excellence in the UK. Millions of pounds have been pumped into "Team GB" and there seems to be a general consensus that it has been justifiably spent. The only question marks have come over the money given to those who haven't won medals. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there are now calls to cut funding to sports which won't produce winners - volleyball is one that has been mentioned.

Isn't this an interesting message? Imagine the outcry if the government suddenly announced that it wanted to spend a huge proportion of its education budget only on those it thought would achieve, the gold medal class, if you like. It would be disastrous for those who won't ever be A grade students, but it might actually help those who want to do well and don't feel that the support is there. Most recent education proposals, from both parties, are rightly about supporting those who may have been left behind in the past. Whether they have worked, or will work in the future, is a moot point. But what they definitely haven't been about is bringing on the best, helping those with an utter thirst for learning and stretching and extending them. They haven't been about telling children that wanting to be the best (the cleverest?) is fine, and that they will get all the help they need. Quite often, parents feel that current education announcements have been about social engineering, about universities having to take account of postcodes when offering places, or about value added, rather than value.

We don't want children to be left behind (as George Bush would say), but don't the Olympics also send the message that, if they have the talent, we actually want children to desire to zip ahead too? And talent, as double gold-medal winner Rebecca Adlington would tell you, is not the only thing you need. Any winner must be full of determination and work hard, and so must those around him or her.

It's strange how parents are often criticised for wanting the best for their children - as if the children wouldn't want it for themselves. One of the most uplifting, but also depressing stories about A level results was that of Alex Griffiths, who sounded delighted that her mother had craved only the best for her. Alex had been kidnapped when she was just a tiny baby, and her mother had subsequently sold her story to a newspaper. She invested this money, and sent Alex to a private school.

“If I had gone to a normal, mainstream school," said the now 18-year-old after receiving her results. "I probably would have done all right but I wouldn’t have got such good results. It’s strange to think that I probably wouldn't have done as well as I did if I hadn't been kidnapped when I was a baby."

If nothing else is an indictment of education in this country, then surely this is. Here is a child from a working class background, who lived on a council estate. She is obviously bright and has done incredibly well. But she genuinely thinks that she wouldn't have done so without money and a private education.

When School Gate posted on non-competitive sports days, the reaction was huge, with most people bemoaning the existence of these events. Olympic success and the dedication of athletes like Rebecca Adlington, Rebecca Romero and Ben Ainslie, backs up all those parents who posted on the blog saying that they wanted their children to compete, to fall in love with sport and win. But it also supports those who see their children's talents lying in the classroom, not out of it, and who want this to be supported too.

Read School Gate on:

Private schools - and why this is an incendiary issue in the US too

Do you trust the Tories more than Labour when it comes to education?

When should summer babies start school?

Why too much homework doesn't work

Comments

[M Ashfield]

I haven't read any other postings but oh how I agree with Sarah Ebner. We should encourage & applaud excellence no matter where. I am nearly seventy and think of myself as 'average'. I have never been sporty or musical nor a high academic achiever but I have had so much pleasure and benefit from those who have excelled in any of these. We need the 'top of the tree people' to progress and they should be nurtured quite as much as the 'low achiever' is nowadays;in education as well as in sport. The modern concept of a child feeling inadequate, jealous, unworthy or belittled because someone else has higher marks in a subject than they is a delusion. As a happy side-line-sitter, believe me,I know!

Moya A

[Rhys Jaggar]

The important thing is not necessarily to win, but to FULFILL YOUR TALENT.

Not everyone has the talent to win gold. Who except Usain Bolt, eh? Who except Kenenise Bikele, eh? Did Roger Black in 1996 fail by winning silver when his conqueror was Michael Johnson? I don't think so......

Do you tell kids that it's gold or nothing? A lot of very depressed adults, my friends......

No: it's about FULFILLING YOUR TALENT BY AIMING FOR GOLD. Some will achieve it. Most won't.

Of course, it helps to be a bit mad to cope with the fact that we're bombing the shit out of Iraq, yet lambast the Russians for invading South Ossetia.

Good lesson to teach our kids, eh? Killing human beings for oil is OK for us, but not for anyone else, eh?

No: Olympics is about respect, fulfilment of youthful potential and honouring our fellow competitors, win or lose. Having tried 100%, yes 100%, not 99.9%, to win.

Within the rules.

Isn't it?

[Michael Birbeck]

A more cycnical answer to the question "What do the 2008 Olympics teach a child?" might be, attend more in chemistry and then you will win.

The author misses an important point. The fact that the mother in this case CHOSE to invest the money in a private education indicates all sorts of things about her - that she cares deeply about her child's academic progress, that she supports her child fully at school, that she believes in education so strongly that she is willing to sacrifice buying a new car or some nice clothes. It is likely that even if the girl had gone to an ordinary comprehensive school, she would have still done well coming from this kind of family. Perhaps she wouldn't have gotten all A's (some B's might have crept in) but she could still have gone to a good university, gotten a good degree etc etc. It's not all about private education - it really is possible to succeed without it!

[paul green]

Life isn't about winning,and being the best.It's about making a decent contribution,and being useful.

[Peter Scarlett]

It is noticible that the majority of medals have been in sports we dont do as school sports. What schools (state anyway) do Sailing and Cycling as standard. Without these events the medal cupboard would be a lot more empty than it is.
Time for PROPER competitive sport in school i'd say.

[Andy]

The objective of elite sports funding is to produce a very small number of highly trained sportspeople to win medals every 4 years. The objective of an education system is to train millions of children to achieve to the best of their potential. The argument about competitive v non-competitive sports is a side issue. If you put all your resources into educating a tiny elite, you end up like a 3rd world country with the mass of the population discarded. Hardly a recipe for a successful society in the Information Age. We are obsessed with training the elite through selection (academic and financial). Compare that approach with the experience of Finland, which has a state education system which rejects selection in favour of an inclusive egalitarian approach ( God forbid!) Finnish children start school (part-time) age 7, and stay in the same school to age 16. They don't have school inspections , SATS, or league tables, yet they manage to come top in Europe for educational achievement. They also have the lowest correlation in the world between parental income and academic success ie. high social mobility. The gap between the highest and lowest achievers is also the smallest in Europe. Compare that with our shameful record on social mobility, which has become worse under New Labour. Our system entrenches privilege, so our children's life chances are largely determined by accident of birth. We should be learning from the Finns (the world's most competitive economy according to the World Economic Forum) not harking back to failed policies of selection. As a nation we are good at rowing - we just need to row in the right direction.

[e skelton]

We have increasingly poured our education budget into trying to salvage the ineducable. Until we admit this there is no progress to be made.I would like to see a legal ruling that LEAs must spend the same sum on the education of every child. Surely if a cooperative or bright child lack a textbook because a disruptive or stupid child has recieved the cash for 'academic support' (ie a woman to do all the writing for them) then someones 'human rights' are being breached somewhere. I know for certain that it would end up in the Hague if the less able/cooperative child got less funding; And we can all predict the ruling.

[jimmyb]

What a genius this woman is: so Alex Griffiths needed money and a private education to succeed? Wow, fancy working that one out. Money and privelege still rules this country, to think otherwise is just sheer naivety and stupidity. Hence the growing gap between richest and poorest. The key problem remains this government's obsession with statistics and targets, resulting in 'massaging' of thesholds for pass rates. I'm a primary teacher and they do it for SATs scores. Blaming schools for lack of competitive sports misses the point: children just don't do enough sport, too much TV and computer games, with overprotective parental attitudes ruining children's sense of independence. Too many parents take the 'wrapped in cotton wool' approach.

[Confusion reigns]

This is a confused article.

"In simple terms, they teach them to win, to strive for gold and glory (silver isn't good enough - just look at Katherine Grainger and the rest of her losing team in the quadruple sculls)."

Actually even a bronze medal where the British athlete is twelve strides behind the winner is desperately lionised by the press and TV.

"Quite often, parents feel that current education announcements have been about social engineering, about universities having to take account of postcodes when offering places, or about value added, rather than value."

This shows a myopic vision. Some universities have tried to bring ina few talented children from a broader class base, yet that is not what the whole education system is based around.

"Here is a child from a working class background, who lived on a council estate. She is obviously bright and has done incredibly well. But she genuinely thinks that she wouldn't have done so without money and a private education."

Guess what, she's right! The fact is that funding in education counts and many people are being denied any of it.

I support our olympians but if you checked out their educational backgrounds then I think you will find substantial silver spoons stuck in many of their mouths.

Not to mention the fact that lottery money which is basically a tax on the least successful pays a full time income to many of them while the rest of us work at a real job.

The success of some supported athletes does not represent an argument for reducing educational opportunity for all.

What has happened in the NHS in the only part that has become privatised (dental services) is that 1) everyone who works pays (twice) since they pay through their Nat insurance and their wages
2) Those who are NHS receive a lower standard of treatment than those who pay more.

Yet, the NHS was designed to give the best free care for everyone without charge and that is why we all pay national insurance and general taxation towards it.

The educational system was designed originally to give an equal chance to everyone. In fact most working class individuals are now denied a place at university unless they are willing to take on crippling amounts of debt.

"When School Gate posted on non-competitive sports days, the reaction was huge, with most people bemoaning the existence of these events."

Yes that's pathetic, no it doesn't help anyone but really it's not got a lot to do with who is being funded best by the education system.

Why not give all students a FREE education? That's what used to happen and the higher tax came later after the fast start.

[eddy]

every year thirty thousand people take part in the London marathon, only one can win,but everyone can take part. it is the same in life we all play a part,for some there will be little success,but also serve,we forget this simple truth to our cost

[Kathrin]

What is wrong with supporting those who excel, in whatever area? Why are academic high-flyers constantly labelled as geeky and socially inept, instead of being praised just once for all the hard work that goes into their grades?

[Taxpayer]

Wonder who was asked to get this general consensus of opinion.
Mine is you want to become an athlete and play volleyball - go for it - if you get good enough the sponsors can fund your hobby - get your hands off "public money" and let it be used for something useful like hospitals.

[stan hayward]

So, Sarah Ebner got short listed four times for the British Press awards; what a pity she didn't win. But in that sport age doesn't count so she still has a chance to be successful and not an also-ran.
Are children inspired by heroes? Of course. Do parents want their children to be successful? Of course. Has that ever been different? Unlikely.
The Olympic games will be yesterdays news soon, and Sarah will have to look for some other reason the world is in a bad state. She might start by questioning the motives of reporters who live by the rule of 'Never let the truth get in the way of a good stroy'.

[KR]

Nice article but completely misses the mark. Winners deserve glory, but eliminating competition as our educators have tried to do over the last few decades teaches nothing ata all. We need to foster competitiont in order to train to not come first. Given the proportion of winners to non-winners in life, the important thing is to be able to pick up and carry on after a defeat instead of wilting into misery as a result. The Olympic teaches very little, if anything, about that. Our education system teaches nothing about carrying on in adversity, to the life-long detriment of our children and the future detriment of our country.

[Simon Stephenson]

"Millions of pounds have been pumped into "Team GB" and there seems to be a general consensus that it has been justifiably spent"

Yes, but what is the general thought-pattern that has led to this consensus for justification?

Is it because it changes our perception of the most appropriate technique for developing, generally, the talents of our young?

Or is it more that it's a long overdue trigger for us to reassert national confidence and pride in the way we British do things? And, most importantly, give us (temporary) bragging rights over other nations, especially the French, Germans and Australians.

"Imagine the outcry if the government suddenly announced that it wanted to spend a huge proportion of its education budget only on those it thought would achieve, the gold medal class, if you like. It would be disastrous for those who won't ever be A grade students, but you know what, it might actually help those who want to do well and don't feel that the support is there."

I don't think there's much doubt that your final sentence is true, but the argument you have to win is that the focusing of resources on the willing will not be any worse than neutral in the effect it will have on the development of the unwilling.

"Most recent education proposals, from both parties, are rightly about supporting those who may have been left behind in the past. Whether they have worked, or will work in the future, is a moot point."

I think there's a misapprehension that resources spent on attempting to enhance the humanity of the underclass is principally a philanthropic gesture on the part of society's successful - something to appease the do-gooders and to ease our own social consciences. I think it helps to look at it from a more mercenary viewpoint. The more human a society is, the less animalistic, the better life is going to be for everyone in it, including those who will be reasonably OK even if there is a savage and hostile underclass. Everyone is at least moderately affected by the quality of the social ambience in which we live, and great strides can be taken by understanding this.

[John]

Sport has its place in school - not just to teach life lessons about winning and losing or that making an effort brings rewards (which are valuable enough in their own right); but it also helps to create the conditions for learning the classroom based subjects. Teenage boys who are chock full of energy and raging hormones are more easily persuaded to sit still and get on with their work when they are worn out and tired after running about on the games field or in the gym. This is why private schools put so much emphasis on sport - they just try to wear them out so they won't fidget and will listen.

[John]

Sport has its place in school - not just to teach life lessons about winning and losing or that making an effort brings rewards (which are valuable enough in their own right); but it also helps to create the conditions for learning the classroom based subjects. Teenage boys who are chock full of energy and raging hormones are more easily persuaded to sit still and get on with their work when they are worn out and tired after running about on the games field or in the gym. This is why private schools put so much emphasis on sport - they just try to wear them out so they won't fidget and will listen.

[James]

What the government seems to have forgotten, is that whilst in education, children are competing against each other after that they are competing against all the children from the rest of the world. Are we giving Britain the best chance of winning?

[Bob Finbow]

It will not change in the foreseeable future because there is a political unwillingness to acknowledge basic differences in temperament and abilities between boys and girls. By and large boys and girls have, on average, different strengths and weaknesses. Currently all children are taught as if they were girls. Boys will never thrive under such limitations. They are essentially incapable of sitting quietly and "getting on with their work". They need to be challenged physically as well as mentally in a way that allows them to succeed or, more importantly, learn to fail according to their own ability and effort. Even a bit of playground bullying is no bad thing. They learn that life isn't fair and that they must make their way through a world where mummy won't always be there to "kiss it better". It is the only way of pushing them towards excellence in the fields they are suited to. As a result of modern teaching practice, many (indeed probably most) boys underperform themselves and disrupt lessons for others. Over the last 40 years, as a result of this, our country has fallen, educationally speaking, from a world leader to little more than a Banana Republic. We produce too few with the drive and enterprise that builds success and allowed us to be world leaders in research and development in the sciences. We now only produce "Social Scientists" who can "empathise " with everyone but achieve nothing of value. When boys are again taught with their real strengths in mind, in a highly competitive and to some extent combative environment, we may start to produce young men who can help regain our former eminence on the world stage.

[John C]

The concept of the Olympic Games flies in the face of socialist ideology. It is elitist and exclusive. Given their chance they'd ban them.

[Will S]

We have the same problem(s) in the U.S. There is certainly nothing wrong with encouraging the best atheletes - but helping the brightest to be the best they can be will have more long term positive effects on our societies. All too often, the "smart" kids (espeically boys) are bullied and teased and made to feel "weird".

[m r williams]

I am sick of all this nonsense about the Olympics. The lastest cost is over 10 Billion pounds, Most people would rather spend the money on health. Let them pay for it themselves.

[David Supple]

I think the maxim "Winning isn't everything, but the will to win is everything" is probably more appropriate, but even that seems a big struggle to engender into some of our children these days.

[ian cheese]

Winning is great but we must also teach the young to be gracious about defeat & to the defeated.

[Andrew]

I knew there was a moral lesson in their somewhere. Thanks for that one. I will certainly pass those pearls of wisdom on to my children one day.

[Simon]

Sadly too many snobs and feminists in are schools don't want sport to take a central role in the confidence building of our kids.

My school had an arts, music and English department. All extremely exclusive. The sports department found a place for everyone, incredibly inclusive!

[Will]

i agree whole heartedly. something i find almost perverse in britain is that people have no problem supporting special schools for children with learning difficulties or other problems, but they have absolutely no inclination to see the brightest kids achieve their potential.the only word i can think of for such an attitude is perverse. Ambition is a good thing, sergey brin and larry page had the ambition to catalogue every web page in the world- served them quite well! jfk had an ambition that before this decade is out etc etc and achieved glorious results for america. kids should be encouraged to compete becasue that feeling of glory is something you will never forget and something that you will strive to emulate as an adult.

[oldandrew]

While I agree that the most able lose out in our current education system the rot hardly stops there. It is not just the most able who aren't stretched. Learning is simply not the aim, beyond those target students in certain years. The aim is to have as many students as possible "socialised" by education.

Schools are held to be responsible for the students who don't behave, don't attend or don't learn and are meant to do everything possible to keep those students in school at the expense of those who want to learn.

To call this "social engineering" is to pay it a compliment. Although the rhetoric is about social inclusion the fact is that this is little more than babysitting. It doesn't do anybody any good, but change would involve more effort than just extending the scope of the babysitting (now to include 17 and 18 year olds).

---------------------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://oldandrew.edublogs.org
Latest entry: 17/8/2008