So
my recent experience over the last year has been having a go at
gymnastics slightly later than the average beginner! I want to push
forward real quality teaching and learning. At Leeds gymnastics in a
dedicated sports hall sized building, there are all the gymnastic
apparatus and many shapes and sizes of pads and mats, with pits of
foam to land in as well. I have had the opportunity to learn and
develop many skills in just 2 hours a week. I can now front
somersault, round off back tuck-ish, back handspring, front
handspring, some parallel bars exercises and rope climb (and more).
Admittedly I am motivated and a better than average learner, but I am
not a very talented athlete. The secret has been a top facility and
quality coaching. I have received these elements elsewhere but they
were lacking in ‘my education’ and where I have worked in
education (schools and colleges). Yes I should provide video evidence
of 1 year’s progress, but I am too busy getting better! Others who
attend also progress to new skills with exercise and fun included.
Many have a go and progress, as opposed to attempts at hypothermia on
a school field or forgetting kit.
In
education, the public industry, seldom gets very close to this level
of quality where correct and safe facilities and equipment combined
with subject matter experts and quality coaching. Far to often like
my experience in PE, where I have ‘taught’ over 10 sports,
including some I have never been taught myself, let alone my cover
and supply work in other subjects. The average lesson is more
behavioural activities and bureaucracy than teaching and learning. My
problem is I have tasted much better and have seen little in schools
and colleges that comes close, even when I had my head up from the
paperwork.
The
issue I would like to push is that those of talent (not me at
gymnastics) need much more than is provided in the vast majority of
schools. I have used gymnastics because I can show off obvious skills
that most cannot, it’s obvious and visual. The idea of finding and
supporting the most talented children as well as quality tasters for
less able and sometimes more motivated children. I have had the
opportunity to try and fail in progressive exercises with timely,
expert feedback. Sound like your training at Uni?
Now
the obvious area is sports, but it’s all areas. If you use Howard
Gardner’s other intelligence areas; Logical-maths, music,
linguistic, spatial, intra- and inter-personal. How are we providing
firstly for the top 1-5% most talented in all areas, but also how are
we finding the most talented in a 30 per class education system with
teachers not teaching their main area. Perhaps political statistics
can tell dam lies and the obvious lack of elite state school
achievement is the clear proof they are not being effective in
preparing children. The answer is not just academic grammar schools
but the elite for all areas. If it’s 5% of each (Gardner)
intelligence even with overlap it’s 20-25% of the population are
deprived of exploring their potential and achieving higher levels.
Closing the gap in social mobility can only be done by nurturing the
talents of all.
Sports
excellence occurs mostly outside of education, but those STEM
subjects are monopolised (nationalised) in education, with poor rates
of conversion from state school to the wider world. The answer is to
not be prejudiced and enforce disadvantage on the most talented
children who do not have the luck of supporting backgrounds. The
second group of children are the ‘normal’ 68% in the middle if
the distribution who do not get good introductions and encouraging
experiences so that they get and keep an interest in some form of
physical activities and sport
(exercise
is quite good for your health with nutrition and sleep) and
from STEM subjects they could even have skills they could apply at
home and work as an adult. These should be the metrics that education
should be judged; the performance of the students after education. Do
they have knowledge and skills and do they use them as adults?
A
lot of young people leave education not knowing their talents and
strengths and realistic understanding of their weaknesses. Many with
negative experiences some approaching trauma from their education
experiences. Quality provision for people in their strengths and
positive experiences in other areas like mine in gymnastics would
benefit many and hopefully reduce the two thirds in work that feel
they are in the wrong job, and 90% who do not get enough exercise!
Alternatively we can pick up the cost through taxes for health and
related costs. Can we afford mediocre provision when better is both
available and more cost effective. The child standing on the half way
line in winter rather than participating has the cost and a negative
benefit (hypothermia) but at least they brought their kit!
To
summarise; I propose exploiting children’s talent and motivation
with talented and motivated teachers/coaches in high quality
facilities that equal teaching and learning excellence. Would time
spent in a strong area for the student be better than time spent in a
weak area. The maths is clear and my experiences also back it up.
©
22/07/18 Richard Lander. All Rights Reserved
