Olympic Legacy? Good Luck!

With the continued success of Team GB (the only way to get some people interested in the Olympics is to give Great Britain a brand - says it all really) politicians have leapt onto the bandwagon with gusto. In order to make the Olympics of 2012 a legacy in the UK, schools and teachers must "play their part" according to the prime minister.

Frankly this is an insult to the thousands of teachers and volunteers in clubs who give up their time for free only to be told that they ought to try harder in the face of dwindling facilities, finances and resources. The current government (and the previous one wasn't much better, despite what they say) have done little other than cut services and facilities for sport. Funding is the key to the delivery of this "Olympic legacy", but seemingly the government are oblivious to this.

As far as I can see these are some major problems with this "Olympic legacy":

1. School playing fields being sold off is a bit of a red herring, but funding to schools through the SSCO and School Sports Partnership schemes is the real issue. The government has cut the SSP and therefore the SSCO scheme, meaning that the only PE provision now provided by primary and middle schools who can't afford a full-time PE teacher is delivered by non-specialists or by teachers giving up their own free time out of hours. Teachers have always been prepared to give up their time in the past, but with increased pressures to deliver "outstanding" lessons, league tables, Ofsted, a drop in real wages, being screwed over regarding pensions and various other things, including having a life outside of school, the goodwill of teachers has dwindled to a massive extent and there's no sign of that trend being reversed. Teachers have already "played their part".
2. Funding for equipment/facilities is the key - for most sports the correct equipment and/or facilities are needed for the sport to be played properly.and this doesn't come cheap to either schools or clubs. If the child wants to continue the sport then their parents will have to fork out for the equipment themselves and pay to join a club, which often isn't cheap. At every turn the issue of money rears it head, and this is the one issue the government want to avoid.
3. Government policy to "reduce the deficit" means that councils have to cut costs at every given opportunity. Sports facilities are always going to be the first to feel the pinch.
4. The introduction of competitive sports days will be purgatory for teachers, trying to control the kids who didn't qualify for the competitive events. I used to enjoy sports days when I was at school but that's because I was good at sport. There are those who just want to join in but are not that good, and by bringing competitive days back will discourage them from taking part. In the school where I'm a teacher we have a sports day contining a load of team games where everybody takes part as a tutor group. It sounds awful, and to be honest I thought it would be, but it's brilliant. Everyone joins in, staff and students alike, and the competitive element is still there as points are awarded to each group in categories such as "participation" as well as for the result. Competitive sport should be provided by clubs and state schools should introduce sports to their charges. Once again though the government have a "one size fits all" policy where they try, in vain, to compare private education (where facilities are excellent and time available to play them as well as money to pay for specific coaches) with state schools (no time available, relatively poor facilities and no money for expert coaching). It doesn't work! How many times do they have to be told?

The basis of the government's "Olympic legacy" policy is in volunteers from clubs and the teaching profession, and that's never going to work. It's all well and good making the right noises in speeches but actually putting your money where your mouth is (literally in this case) is the key, and I doubt whether our current set of politicians are capable of doing that, whatever colour their rosette.

The Working Class Are Not Taking Degrees

A new study has suggested that the numbers of school leavers from the working class who go on to university is not growing at anywhere near the rate that the numbers from middle classes is. Just hold the thought that people have been paid to come up with this stuff.

I have a basic understanding of society and would suggest that working class families generally have less income than middle class families. The cost of university is rising and from September 2012 many universities will charge students £9000 per year for the privilege of having a place at their establishment, with no guarantee that that young person will secure a better job than his mates who didn't bother with university. The average 3 year course with fees, living expenses and anything else once can think of will amount to a spend (or should I say "borrow") of around £40-50,000, unless the student becomes a hermit outside of lecture and seminar time, living off the land. Even if they did that, they'd still be around £30,000 in debt by the end.

If I were a young person from a working class family I think I'd pass up the opportunity, don't you. In fact I'm middle class (in theory) and I wouldn't encourage anyone to go to university who isn't going to do a worthwhile degree, and by that I mean, avoid subjects that may well be interesting, but ultimately have little use. For some reason anthropology springs to mind, which is probably unfair on anthropologists around the world, but I may have been checking out the wrong press, but I haven't noticed too many vacancies for an anthropologist in the well paid job section.

There's also the issue of what you think you might get in your degree. If it's lower than a 2:1 I wouldn't bother. Graduates are ten-a-penny in the job world; you are better off getting some experience in work, and if you're lucky, getting paid whilst doing it.

This will have a knock-on effect to the likes of teaching and nursing, professions that require a degree or equivalent. The greed of the universities has made these, not that well paid jobs, even less desirable as you could end up paying off your university debts throughout your thirty plus year career. Unless a rich relative dies of course - morbid, but true I'm afraid.

It's the sort of article and study that I usually ignore, but this one just made me angry as those who've compiled this statement of the obvious have probably been paid a lot of money to do so - more than a teacher or a nurse at any rate.