1) Reflections on the Olympics

Have you noticed that the majority of UK medal winners were educated at fee-paying schools? It shouldn’t come as a surprise, 58 per cent of British medallists at the 2004 Olympics in Athens had attended non-state schools.
Leo Mckinstry at the Daily Mail noted this fact and fell back on an old technique: when in doubt blame the victims, http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1046615/Is-coincidence-Olympic-champions-privately-educated.html however, even for the Daily Hate this is an extraordinary set of arguments.
Let’s take a look at this Olympics malarkey. First, it strikes me that most of the world’s population hasn’t a chance of competing. Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day. No doubt the Daily Mail would point at the average African dirt farmer and say that he made his choice when he had those children.
It also strikes me that you increase your chances of winning when you opt for the more technically advanced and expensive events, as this will exclude another great chunk of humanity from competing against you. For example, I believe a good show jumping horse is worth around £250,000, add to this all the other costs, such as feeding the beast and you must safely see off the vast majority of the world’s population by choosing this sport. I guess this explains why the UK competitors have a better chance of winning in sports that require expensive equipment and specialist training in a professional environment.
However, that said, why within the UK, with lottery support monies to facilitate the elite, are there not more ex-state school Olympians? According to Leo Mckinstry there are a number of strands to this. First, that state schools don’t encourage high performing students. This is prejudice and nonsense; I know it is nonsense because I know the detail of my niece Kate’s experience. Kate is ranked 2nd for her age group at trampolining in the UK (Scottish independence would see her move to 1st; come on the SNP, I say). She attends a bog standard, middling, state comprehensive school where she has been greatly encouraged and supported by all the teaching staff and is freely given time off for training and competitions. Her successes are praised and publicised at every opportunity among the whole school community. Also, I know that this is the case for her peers, whose schools are equally proud of their pupils’ successes. Schools also recognise that tomorrows elite sports men and women require more than their school can provide and are pleased to work in partnership with others. Ignoring Leo’s usual misogyny, then there was the sneering point about health and safety; this is once again plain prejudice and ignorance: health and safety are very important; these young athletes are pushing themselves to the limit of their abilities. Without careful and precise training, tailored to their individual development, then serious and permanent injury can easily occur. Although Kate attends a middling state comprehensive school, with the possible exception of Kate herself, no-one would call her disadvantaged (no, not even with her choice of uncle). But what of the disadvantaged students; as a social group they especially value sporting success, so why if modern state comprehensives are a supportive and encouraging environment aren’t these students taking advantage of the opportunities?
As with most things in UK social policy, I think it comes down to small marginal differences and small marginal choices over a sequence of events and time that adds up to a big difference of outcome. For example, lets take an area of UK success, rowing.
First you need the idea – I could do that; then the question is how. Obviously, at one end of the scale if you go to a school with a rowing lake then this is a simple matter. But even if you live in a middle class area near some water then your family will probably know of someone who knows someone who messes around in boats. That link will get you started. However, what if you live on an estate in an inner city, all types of sailing are an alien activity, there is no link. If you were to ask around then you would be told that it is something that rich people do and you would probably suffer ridicule for asking. For most people this is where it would end, before it even begins.
The only way they might discover if they have the potential to be a talented rower would be if someone, or some organisation, reaches into their neighbourhood and offers them access. This is stage one, give lots of children the opportunity to try, then some will buy. However, stage one, is the easy bit!
Aiming for sporting excellence is a hard thing to do and its pursuit has to be maintained over many years: this requires a lot of support. My sister reckons to spend around £200 a month on club fees alone. There are transport costs, going to training 6 times a week, also competitions, which are nationwide and to maintain a national ranking must be attended. Its not just money; my brother in law and his whole family get to spend many a weekend in places such as Hull, locations they might otherwise not have chosen as a holiday destination.
Some families may not be able to provide this level of emotional support or the practical support or the financial support. Yet without it, without this backing, in all of its dimensions then the task becomes even harder to achieve; we all have our breaking points. For our potential rower, they may well have to travel alone out of their neighbourhood and mix with people who are different to them. Each of these are only marginal differences but in the long run they add up and at every stage in the process of development the disadvantaged fall away and this is long before the lottery money for potential medal winners kicks in. This is where schemes for mentoring may provide some of the support that is needed.
In short, the problem is not ideological; it is primarily practical, the problem is the variation in the level and type of support available to different groups of people as they try to do something very hard. Specifically, it is exactly what the author of this article said it was not “the urban working class are said to be excluded because they do not have the same access to facilities, coaching, and support”. That is exactly it: something that would be described to him in exquisite detail if he cared to visit any state comprehensive school and speak to the teachers, pupils and parents.
However contrast the ghastly Leo Mckinstry’s reflections on the Olympics with that of the apparently optimistic and enlightened Mayor of London, who in his enthusiasm, seemed to nearly disassociate himself from his party leader and all that chatter of a broken society http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/19/do1901.xml
In this article Boris still recognises that 58% of competitors went to private schools but argues for widening participation. We must talk to this man about how widening participation can be made real, especially with his role in the London Olympics and while there is a widespread interest in what are often seen as elite or upper class sports.