Who are the Real Losers in School Sport?
It's the end of the match day. It might be Wednesday afternoon or Saturday morning. Or any other time. The teams leave the field with contrasting body language which clearly divides the winners from the losers. Exchanging handshakes of varying levels of sincerity, they head towards the inevitable post mortem, to be conducted first by coaches, then by parents.
Nothing betrays the culture of sport in a school more clearly than the answers to the question, "How did you get on?" Where the answer is confined to numbers, it is clear what is valued; when the scores are supplemented (or preceded) by an evaluative comment, such as "We had a great game" or "The girls played really well" it says something different about the culture.
But those who finish the game with fewer goals or points are not the real losers. Most people can recognise that there are benefits from sport that are universal. When the disappointment of defeat diminishes, there can still be something positive left behind.
The real losers are those that don't take part. The meritocratic nature of school sport can mean that the opportunities are dominated by the able few, the early developers who get in the teams early in their school career and stay there for years. The kids readily labelled as "sporty". The drive to win means that the same players are in every game. The process which teams call "selection" is actually a mechanism of rejection for many. In some schools it is a majority of pupils that don't take part. However, it is difficult to make participation levels sound exciting in catchy soundbites and social media, or compare them with those of rival schools. The default success criteria for many parents and heads is simply, "Who has won?" and "What are the scores?".
In USA 70% of children involved in youth sport have quit by the age of 13. The reasons they give are depressingly simple: the able kids dominate the game time, the coach shouts at me and pressure to win. Predictably, further down the line there are epidemics of avoidable obesity and mental health disorders.
The greatest issue that schools face in sport is the dilemma between performance and participation. It is a complex cocktail of philosophy, resource allocation and priorities. Most schools claim to provide both, bandying the meaningless 1970s Sports Council's misleading strapline "Sport for All". But a brief examination of culture, spending and trophy cabinets often reveals a stark priority.
It is also a dilemma between short and medium term objectives. When there is ten minutes to go and the scores are level, emotions dictate a short term performance priority; finish the game with more goals. In the cold light of day, the unintended consequence of disengaging large numbers seems unacceptable.
The keys are not difficult to find. Younger children disengage from school sport when they don't get an opportunity to compete at their own level, or even to access coaching. The exercise behaviour of teenagers reflects the culture of the schools they attend. Where it is cool, and valued, to be involved in physical activity, participation - and fitness - levels are higher. Where the emphasis is on performance and winning, the "sporty" kids become a separate constituency.
It's a choice that schools make. Through often not consciously. The industry is quick to measure and identify the losers of the competitions, and has websites devoted to measuring the goals for and against. It is slower to recognise those who lose in the participation and engagement game