My issue isn’t so much with methods of teaching as with content.
I don’t think that there any reason that justifies teaching a kid to jump as wide or as high as possible. The same goes for activities like shot putting. If you optimize your jumb for distance you aren’t optimizing it for using your body in a way that prevents you from hurting your back.
A goal of present sport eduction is to train children to be good at the Olympic activities. I object to that goal.
As far as team sports go they aren’t as bad but I still don’t think they are optimzed to teach useful life skills.
A goal of present sport eduction is to train children to be good at the Olympic activities. I object to that goal.
Not in theory. If you ask school administrators or state education officials, they’re more likely to tell you that it’s about teaching kids discipline, teamwork, getting in shape and so on. In practice, kids’ sports have become increasingly specialized and competitive, with parents investing huge amounts of time and money into their kids’ training, and sports injuries, especially overuse injuries which were almost unheard of in child athletes a few decades ago, have shot up dramatically.
It’s hard to restructure kids’ sports programs to better address the purposes they’re nominally geared towards though, because the sports activities are strongly driven by parents who want to see their kids compete.
Not in theory. If you ask school administrators or state education officials, they’re more likely to tell you that it’s about teaching kids discipline, teamwork, getting in shape and so on.
Getting kids to do broad jumps doesn’t seem to me to maximize either discipline, teamwork or getting in shape.
Schools should just cut out the whole track and field athletics business.
If you want kids to do basketball, I have no problem. Let them compete in basketball. The sport was created in the late 19th century by a physical education professor who thought a bit to create a good team sport.
While we are at a topic, there are also team sports created in the 20th cenutry. Underater hockey seems like a good candidate for a sport that provides benefits.
Getting kids to do broad jumps doesn’t seem to me to maximize either discipline, teamwork or getting in shape. Schools should just cut out the whole track and field athletics business.
Track and field does do quite a lot to get students in shape; most of the fittest students I knew in high school were track athletes. And it certainly requires considerable discipline.
A large part of the trouble with changing the athletic curriculum though, is that the people who’re most in need of basic, safe athletic training to improve their fitness are those who, along with their parents, are least involved in the current system. The people who participate in the system, who have the most power to shape it, are mostly sports practitioners, coaches and enthusiasts, for whom the bottom line is already written.
The people who participate in the system, who have the most power to shape it, are mostly sports practitioners, coaches and enthusiasts, for whom the bottom line is already written.
Not completely. If you go as an adult to a gym they might give you crossfit which is a modern system. They are not likely to tell you to do broad jumps.
Gyms make money by catering to what the clients want. School gyms don’t care what the clients want, because the clients are a captive audience. School gyms give kids what the parents and coaches want for the kids.
Suppose that instead of paying to go to the gym voluntarily, all adults were made to go to the gym, and all adult competitive sports practitioners were selected from among gym attendees and encouraged to get into sports based on their gym performance. Gym activities would tend to become highly sports oriented, even if the nominal reason for mandatory gym attendance was to promote fitness.
My issue isn’t so much with methods of teaching as with content.
I don’t think that there any reason that justifies teaching a kid to jump as wide or as high as possible. The same goes for activities like shot putting. If you optimize your jumb for distance you aren’t optimizing it for using your body in a way that prevents you from hurting your back.
A goal of present sport eduction is to train children to be good at the Olympic activities. I object to that goal.
As far as team sports go they aren’t as bad but I still don’t think they are optimzed to teach useful life skills.
Not in theory. If you ask school administrators or state education officials, they’re more likely to tell you that it’s about teaching kids discipline, teamwork, getting in shape and so on. In practice, kids’ sports have become increasingly specialized and competitive, with parents investing huge amounts of time and money into their kids’ training, and sports injuries, especially overuse injuries which were almost unheard of in child athletes a few decades ago, have shot up dramatically.
It’s hard to restructure kids’ sports programs to better address the purposes they’re nominally geared towards though, because the sports activities are strongly driven by parents who want to see their kids compete.
Getting kids to do broad jumps doesn’t seem to me to maximize either discipline, teamwork or getting in shape. Schools should just cut out the whole track and field athletics business.
If you want kids to do basketball, I have no problem. Let them compete in basketball. The sport was created in the late 19th century by a physical education professor who thought a bit to create a good team sport.
While we are at a topic, there are also team sports created in the 20th cenutry. Underater hockey seems like a good candidate for a sport that provides benefits.
Track and field does do quite a lot to get students in shape; most of the fittest students I knew in high school were track athletes. And it certainly requires considerable discipline.
A large part of the trouble with changing the athletic curriculum though, is that the people who’re most in need of basic, safe athletic training to improve their fitness are those who, along with their parents, are least involved in the current system. The people who participate in the system, who have the most power to shape it, are mostly sports practitioners, coaches and enthusiasts, for whom the bottom line is already written.
Not completely. If you go as an adult to a gym they might give you crossfit which is a modern system. They are not likely to tell you to do broad jumps.
Gyms make money by catering to what the clients want. School gyms don’t care what the clients want, because the clients are a captive audience. School gyms give kids what the parents and coaches want for the kids.
Suppose that instead of paying to go to the gym voluntarily, all adults were made to go to the gym, and all adult competitive sports practitioners were selected from among gym attendees and encouraged to get into sports based on their gym performance. Gym activities would tend to become highly sports oriented, even if the nominal reason for mandatory gym attendance was to promote fitness.