PE at school. Have they got the methods wrong?

aliasojo

MX5huggy wrote: »

Not read a novel since To Kill a Mocking Bird was the final nail in the coffin of ever being intrested in fiction. Give me a 3 mile x country run over that durdgery any day.

Actually I agree with you on that one too.

I loved reading but found the stuff I had to read at school to be mind numbing.

My daughter loved reading and books and her reading ability in her first year at infant school was so far ahead of her peers that she had to have her own special book box as the usual class books were holding her back.

Fast forward a few years and she had to be made to pick a book up, the school required reading material had turned her off so much.

Thankfully, her school now gets the kids to choose their own books to read and encourages individuality and personal taste. The kids do a report on the book they've just read and tell the class what they liked about it etc. They also have a reward scheme and you get points for each book you finish and complete a report on.

Daughter is now getting back into reading again and has read a few books she would not normally have considered just because a classmate has recommended them.

And whilst I'm on the roll of accusing schools of being out of touch and useless at encouraging kids...I loathed my music lessons with a vengeance because we used to have to sing old Scottish songs that had no relevance for us and were little more than boring dirges.

Teaching is about encouragement and engaging kids in order to facilitate learning. Being bored or resentful is not the best basis upon which to learn.

Why schools get this so badly wrong in many cases beats me. Is it the fault of the schools themselves or the Government who lay down the guidelines?

zaffi

shouldn't this thread have been called "why girls don't like PE", sorry couldn't resist

as a guy, I loved PE in school. Primary school was about exercise and in the lead up to sports day practising the events.

Secondary school for the first two years, when PE was mandatory it was about allowing pupils to try their hand at as many track and field events as possible. we had everything from hurdles to archery. I found out that I was very good at explosive events 100m, hurdles and long jump (only to a county level mind) but as caroline posted, where do we find the next generation of athletes, if we don't let them experience these disciplines

When PE became optional i did drop it for two years, but came back and "crashed" the higher (scottish equivalent of A level) and we had choices of football or swimming, hockey or volleyball and everyone did badminton.

Maybe I got lucky at my local school, but sport in school, to me is an incredibly important subject especially when you factor in the obvious obesity problems in this country.

daska

aliasojo wrote: »

Actually I agree with you on that one too.

I loved reading but found the stuff I had to read at school to be mind numbing.

[...]

And whilst I'm on the roll of accusing schools of being out of touch and useless at encouraging kids...I loathed my music lessons with a vengeance because we used to have to sing old Scottish songs that had no relevance for us and were little more than boring dirges.

Teaching is about encouragement and engaging kids in order to facilitate learning. Being bored or resentful is not the best basis upon which to learn.

Why schools get this so badly wrong in many cases beats me. Is it the fault of the schools themselves or the Government who lay down the guidelines?

I'm with you on that, English 'O' and 'A' levels put me off Shakespeare and Hardy for life.

Caroline_a

daska wrote: »

I think this is a fair point but it has to be balanced by the acceptance that not everyone has a talent for sprinting, cross-country running, shotput or long jump and that it is not acceptable to be nasty to kids just because they are not talented in the particular sporting area that the games teacher wants to promote.

Being encouraged to try something is one thing, being ridiculed in public or forced to do extra laps because you're not good at it, or made to sit in the cold and rain because you have an injury is quite another.

The other point to make is that not all schools bother with tennis or hurdles or a myriad of other sports (olympic gold medal alert - how many schools do rowing?), so even if a sadistic games teacher forces them to join in with whatever is on offer that doesn't mean their talent will be spotted - in fact it may mean that they are so put off sports that they never try anything outside school and that talent is completely wasted.

Oh, and congratulations to your daughter, I'm glad she discovered her talent and went on to be successful at it

I think this is the issue. It's not about the subject or the way it's taught, it's about the teacher. However, schools don't have unlimited resources, and additionally teachers can be cruel in any subject... just that a physical activity will show up a youngster who isn't able much more. I was useless at school PE, but again I had cruel teachers. My daughter however had some wonderful PE teachers in her school, who encouraged everyone, whatever their ability, to do some sort of activity.

Thanks for your kind words too

daska

zaffi wrote: »

shouldn't this thread have been called "why girls don't like PE", sorry couldn't resist

as a guy, I loved PE in school. Primary school was about exercise and in the lead up to sports day practising the events.

Secondary school for the first two years, when PE was mandatory it was about allowing pupils to try their hand at as many track and field events as possible. we had everything from hurdles to archery. I found out that I was very good at explosive events 100m, hurdles and long jump (only to a county level mind) but as caroline posted, where do we find the next generation of athletes, if we don't let them experience these disciplines

When PE became optional i did drop it for two years, but came back and "crashed" the higher (scottish equivalent of A level) and we had choices of football or swimming, hockey or volleyball and everyone did badminton.

Maybe I got lucky at my local school, but sport in school, to me is an incredibly important subject especially when you factor in the obvious obesity problems in this country.

I think you were lucky, our school wasn't about allowing pupils to try their hand at anything, it was mandatory to do it all even if you were obviously crap at it. DS2's dad didn't have it so bad, he loved running and the games teacher most of the time we were at school was keen on cross country, but for the year that swimming was compulsory (but taken by class teacher not a swimming teacher) he developed a loathing of swimming (though he loved it as a young child) and has never been since, not even with DS2.

daska

Caroline_a wrote: »

I think this is the issue. It's not about the subject or the way it's taught, it's about the teacher. However, schools don't have unlimited resources, and additionally teachers can be cruel in any subject... just that a physical activity will show up a youngster who isn't able much more. I was useless at school PE, but again I had cruel teachers. My daughter however had some wonderful PE teachers in her school, who encouraged everyone, whatever their ability, to do some sort of activity.

Thanks for your kind words too

Absolutely spot on, it's not the 'encouraging' that's a problem, it's the abuse of children who are obviously less able. DS1 had an appalling games teacher at one of his schools to the point the SENCO offered a safe haven to all her 'otherwise talented' kids, all they had to do was wave from the side of the field and tell the teacher they needed to get some help with xyz so were off to see her - he was relieved that he didn't have to have the 'useless' kids in his lessons, the kids were relieved to escape being made to feel useless and the SENCO was pleased to get the time to work with them on the areas they needed help with - but I don't think DS1 did games more than twice that year. The SENCO did make them do some exercise though, stretching etc, but she encouraged them to achieve what they could rather than criticised and shouted and put them off trying.

missprice

zaffi wrote: »

Maybe I got lucky at my local school, but sport in school, to me is an incredibly important subject especially when you factor in the obvious obesity problems in this country.

actually agree that with the so called obesity epidemic that sports should be promoted more.

however it does seem as if nothing has changed in PE lessons since I were a lass.

communal showers that we were forced to go into naked.
sports outside in winter in the brutal cold.
awful teachers that made life a misery if you could not do it.
awful pupils who made your life a misery if you could not do it.
disgusting PE kits that were always better for the boys than the girls (I had to do PE in a aertex top and tiny pleated skirt no matter the weather)
etc etc

Worst thing about PE was, I was a great long distance runner but one awful day in midwinter I was made to run around again in my tiny skirt and aetrex top in the snow because I had not put enough effort into the first time round. I was knackered and gutted cos I had just started a period (my first ever I was about 11 years ish) so my horrible PE teacher sent me around again and in case you know the area it was Roundhay Park in Leeds. And I ended up staggering round it a second time. Alone Boy do I wish I had the guts of some of you on here to rebel.

I have hated sport since that day and can I also point out that even joggers that you see on the street wear more clothing than we did in PE.:)

daska

I very much doubt that promoting sports will have much impact on the obesity epidemic. Despite popular belief exercise has been actually been proven to be ineffective as a means of weight loss and it's quite easy for very active people to be overweight. It's also quite easy to lose weight without exercising. So, no, I doubt the sadistic games teachers have as much influence on obesity as they do on quality of life. It's far more likely that the obesity epidemic is based on eating crap food that provides too few nutrients and too many carbs.

andygb

daska wrote: »

I very much doubt that promoting sports will have much impact on the obesity epidemic. Despite popular belief exercise has been actually been proven to be ineffective as a means of weight loss and it's quite easy for very active people to be overweight. It's also quite easy to lose weight without exercising. So, no, I doubt the sadistic games teachers have as much influence on obesity as they do on quality of life. It's far more likely that the obesity epidemic is based on eating crap food that provides too few nutrients and too many carbs.

There is just so much wrong with eveything here.

Can you provide any reputable links to professional sources which say that exercise is ineffective as a means of weigh loss?

If it was that easy to lose weight without exercising, then there wouldn't be so many obese people in this country.

Being fit and active, as a result of exercising, raises your metabolic rate so that you burn more calories, thus helping you to lose weight. Partaking in moderate amounts of cardio vascular exercise is beneficial to the heart and lungs - the clue is in the name - Cardio Vascular.

The reason why there are so many obese people, is largely because very few people do any exercise, not even walking, let alone organised activities. How many obese people were there 50 years ago, when few people had cars, and had to walk or cycle everywhere?

The only problem I have with children doing PE in the pouring rain, is that if they stand around doing nothing they will catch a cold like anyone else. There is nothing wrong with running or playing games in the rain, it actually helps to cool you down.

daska

andygb wrote: »

There is just so much wrong with eveything here.

Can you provide any reputable links to professional sources which say that exercise is ineffective as a means of weigh loss?

If it was that easy to lose weight without exercising, then there wouldn't be so many obese people in this country.

Being fit and active, as a result of exercising, raises your metabolic rate so that you burn more calories, thus helping you to lose weight. Partaking in moderate amounts of cardio vascular exercise is beneficial to the heart and lungs - the clue is in the name - Cardio Vascular.

The reason why there are so many obese people, is largely because very few people do any exercise, not even walking, let alone organised activities. How many obese people were there 50 years ago, when few people had cars, and had to walk or cycle everywhere?

The only problem I have with children doing PE in the pouring rain, is that if they stand around doing nothing they will catch a cold like anyone else. There is nothing wrong with running or playing games in the rain, it actually helps to cool you down.

OK, try reading what I said again, I didn't say exercise didn't play a part, I said exercise (i.e. on it's own) was pretty ineffective and that diet was the bigger culprit; the context of the comment being the suggestion that better sports in schools would fight the obesity epidemic. I also didn't comment on whether exercise might be beneficial for any other aspect of health - it undoubtedly is but not everyone can. Being disabled and having lost 35lb since October - without exercise - was easy, hence my statement. I have previously been overweight, able bodied and very active and couldn't shift it even though I was 'eating healthily'. Also, whilst I was overweight before I became disabled, that weight had been steady for some time and it was side-effects of prescribed medication rather than being a glutton which shunted it upwards to the point of being obese.