Does School Sport Exist for the Benefit of Schools, Sport – or Children?
Establishing the purpose of something has always been recognised as an important starting point for defining a strategy. Stephen Covey recommended “start(ing) withy the end in mind”: Simon Sinek made an industry out of “Start with Why”.
School sport never had that luxury. It was never planned, nor its purpose established. Consequently, it should not be of any surprise that success criteria have been confused, and varied, for more than a hundred years. Whether it is supposed to develop sports skills, fitness or personal characteristics has never been satisfactorily prioritised. Neither has the place of competitive success. Whether victory against local rivals was pursued to enable pupils to experience satisfaction of achievement, or simply to promote the superiority of one school ahead of another in a competitive marketplace, has never been either clear or consistent.
There has emerged a tension between the educational purpose of a school, and its business purpose. Sport has become a central battleground. It is a simplistic philosophy that equates victories in games between teams of children with educational superiority and commercial advantage. However, it is one which is surprisingly commonplace amongst headteachers - who might reasonably be expected to take a more enlightened view. When school reputation is embroiled in winning matches, the pupils exist for the benefit of the school – surely a juxtaposition of purpose.
The inexhaustible drive for high performance has unwittingly positioned education as a feeder for professional sport. Any consideration of the statistics involved in the likelihood of school athletes succeeding on the elite stage would quickly dispense with this as a rationale for a sports programme. Schools do not exist to supply athletes into the professional game.
The purpose of “Sports Scholarships” is equally confused. Improving life chances through meritocracy is the essence of the charitable foundation of schools. However, these programmes often deteriorate into an unseemly scrap for the services of the early maturers. The credibility of this industry is further undermined by parents who parade their offspring in a thinly disguised auction . Many so-called “scholarships” are little more than fee discounting in the transfer market. Often they do little to develop the holders as performers or as people. At its worst, schools purchase the services of emerging athletes, exploit them for competitive success, and care little whether they continue to enjoy active lives into adulthood.
The confusion of success criteria reflects the uncertainty of whom school sport is supposed to benefit. The logical, intellectual answer is that schools should exist to benefit their pupils. In the context of sports, this would surely be to inspire all children to take part in enjoyable, health promoting physical activities, to have experience of culturally significant games and a chance to experience striving for success, and the making of memories, in the company of friends. And to lead healthy, active lifestyles after schools.
If these were the stated success criteria, the culture of school sport might look considerably different.