Why do They Call These Lessons “Games”?

Most schools fill one or more boxes on their timetable with a commodity called “Games”.  It is a universal nomenclature, and omnipresent.  Widely loved, and rarely challenged.  Most schools have an anti-games lobby on their staff; few of these are sufficiently radical to be abolitionists.  Acceptance of value is widespread.

“Can we have a game, Sir?” is an equally prominent enquiry.  It is the enquiry of choice of children in schools all around the world.  It is usually to be found in lessons whose timetable title is “Games”.  However, it is rarely answered without qualification:  “At the end”, “After we have learned the skills”, “If you are well behaved”.  Rarely are games provided as a major part of “Games” and without qualification.  And yet there is little doubt that the most engaging dimension of Games – is games.  A typical time allocation to “game” on the coaching plan is 20 minutes; it can end up less if the previous components didn’t run to time.

So, why is this?  There is a feeling amongst some constituencies of teachers and coaching that “having a game” isn’t doing a proper job.  It is often announced apologetically, “We are just having a game this week”.  An indulgent treat for the end of term.  Universities and governing bodies haven’t helped.  Coach education has preached gospel of warm up and skill development activity.  Improving skills in the company of cones has become the expectation of serious coaching.  The most frequent request of teachers on coaching courses is to learn new “drills”.  A wide repertoire of drills is the badge of honour.  Learning through drills (even where it can be shown that learning occurs) is a duty, not a pleasure.  A Stakonovite approach that is surely the opposite of the spontaneous fun of games.

Skill learning has become an unduly important dimension of “Games” lessons.  Despite the fact that it is widely recognised that it is less engaging than games. It rarely fires the imagination and is infrequently demanded by pupils.  “Can we get the cones out and dribble round them, Sir?” is not a request of choice. 

The attraction of games, for most children, is a combination of factors.  The joy of unfettered movement, memorable moments of magic, triumphs, goals, the satisfaction of physical fatigue.  These are not ability dependent; they are accessible to children of all ages and levels of skill.  They are the first answers of young children to the parental enquiry, “What did you do at school today?” However, they are rarely delivered through single outcome practices.   Skill learning has a place in games coaching, of course.  But it is not the sole purpose of it.

“Drills” create frustration for pupil and teacher alike.  The purpose of skill practice would appear to be to create desirable behaviour change in a game.  But, frequently, the skills so diligently rehearsed fail to transfer into the fluid environment of games.  Such coaching has therefore failed to achieve its aim. 

Drills are excellent mechanisms for repairing teeth and extracting oil.  They are less successful in winning children’s engagement.  “Pointless cone activity” would be a poor title to insert into the timetable.

What about a radical new coaching principle: “At least 50% of Games is – games”?