Sporting Greatness, from which School

[CusworthRovers]

As we move into post Olympic era, time to reflect on a fantastic Event that we put on and also to reflect on some wonderful performances from the athletes.

Yorkshire came out very well............why is that?

The other talking point to come out is the subject of state or private educated for our athletes.

I was initially surprised (but on reflection, not sure why I was) to learn that half of our medalists from Beijing where from Private Schools.

That has improved this time round and it's fair to say that there has been a massive investment in sport right across the board over recent years. The cynic in me suggests it was in readiness for London 2012, but I hope this continues as part of the Legacy. That said, you are still 8 times more likely to be a Gold medalist if you're from a Private school background.

Who knows there may just be 1000's of outstanding potential rowers, shooters, archers, equestrian, sailors, hockey players or whatever, out there that's simply never tapped into or pushed, signposted, motivated etc etc     

[Filo]

As we move into post Olympic era, time to reflect on a fantastic Event that we put on and also to reflect on some wonderful performances from the athletes.

Yorkshire came out very well............why is that?

The other talking point to come out is the subject of state or private educated for our athletes.

I was initially surprised (but on reflection, not sure why I was) to learn that half of our medalists from Beijing where from Private Schools.

That has improved this time round and it's fair to say that there has been a massive investment in sport right across the board over recent years. The cynic in me suggests it was in readiness for London 2012, but I hope this continues as part of the Legacy. That said, you are still 8 times more likely to be a Gold medalist if you're from a Private school background.

Who knows there may just be 1000's of outstanding potential rowers, shooters, archers, equestrian, sailors, hockey players or whatever, out there that's simply never tapped into or pushed, signposted, motivated etc etc     

The legacy should be to make these kind of sports available to the common man, not the more privileged of society

[BillyStubbsTears]

Cussy.

Those figures from Beijing are a perfect example of statistics being skewed for political reasons. There are very many politicians and newspaper columnists on the right who want to show that the state sector is failing. They are determined to keep hammering a message that state schools are run by loony lefties who refuse to let kids do competitive sports and it is this that means that state school kids do badly. Cameron has been doing it. Gove has been doing it. But its bullshit. As long ago as 1987, when the Tories first got in a flap about trendy lefties running schools, a report by Thatcher's Government found that this was b*llocks:  http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6028074 But it hasn't stopped the Right banging on about it every chance they get.

So, they trotted out this "fact" about 50% of the UK Beijing medalists being privately educated as showing that state schools were failing. this ignores the fact that:

1) Even if you accept their figures, state school kids still won more medals that they did at any Olympics in the previous 50 years - so much for trendy lefties destroying the competitive instinct in kids eh?
2) They counted the number of MEDALISTS, not the number of medals. So, for example, the men's coxed 8 won a silver medal. Seven of the rowers, plus the cox were privately educated. In the tables showing how well private schools had done, they counted this as meaning that private schools had won 8 silver medals and comp schools 1 silver medal. By contrast, when Christina Ohuruogu won the 400m, they counted this as ONE gold medal. That's the sort of thing that gets statistics a bad name.

For the London Olympics, The Guardian has compiled a very useful set of data, breaking down each medal into a "weighted medal" based on the number in the team (so the mens' coxed 8 is 1/9th of a medal per team member) and also listing their education. When you look at it this way, the figures from London are as follows:

Gold: Private 26%  - State 74%
Silver: Private 26%  - State 74%
Bronze: Private 36%  - State 64%

Total: Private 29%  - State 71%

Very different figure from the one bandied about after Beijing.

But that's not the end of the story.  You could quite reasonably expect that private schools would have a very strong advantage in sports requiring a lot a]of capital investment or ongoing running costs. In particular, this would include horsey stuff, sailing and rowing. You could perhaps also argue cycling as well because the championship bikes cost many thousands, but it doesn't cost much to get a push iron and at least get started, whereas it does cost a lot to buy and maintain a boat or a horse.

So anyway, if you look purely at the sailing/rowing/equestrian medals, you get this:

Gold: Private 55%  - State 45%
Silver: Private 46%  - State 54%
Bronze: Private 64%  - State 36%

Total: Private 54%  - State 46%

So, as you'd expect, in these sports, going to a public school (or having a rich daddy perhaps which is probably one and the same thing) gives you a huge advantage.

What about all the other sports, with the three above removed?

Gold: Private 16%  - State 84%
Silver: Private 11%  - State 89%
Bronze: Private 29%  - State 71%

Total: Private 19%  - State 81%

So, in sports where money is less of a barrier to getting involved in the first place, overwhelmingly more medals were won by state school educated people rather than privately educated people. In fairness, the figures do still show that private schools over-perform, since only about 12% of kids actually go to private schools. But then again, private schools can and usually DO pay for extremely able sports teachers - often ex-pros or leading amateurs at sports - so it's to be expected that they would spot and nuture talent more effectively.

[turnbull for england]

As much as schools influence ,I've always thought location and  parenting play a big part, a mate of mine who in his mid 40's is still turning in good times in marathons was widely regarded as being good enough to play lower league football  , came from a single parent not overly supportive home, hence never went to where he was likely to be spotted by scouts , equally someone from same year with a  supportive/pushy dad who drove him wherever he needed to be giving up endless weekends  ended up playing for a living despite never being as good as the other lad.

To be fair attitude  also plays a part in achievement  as much as talent can  but again without the support whos going to influence the attitude

[CusworthRovers]

Good points. I think parenting does also play a big part. When I was growing up my father lived the miners life of work and the Pit Club. He never knew my name until I could buy a round.

I was a good footballer and Eddie Beaglehole used to take me to Donny Boys.
My teacher in junior school used to take me running as I ran for Donny boys in meets across Sth Yorks. I had no decent clobber and both my parents never saw me once or asked me about it.

I'm not bitter about it, but ensure that the relationship with my 3 kids (especially my lad) is totally the opposite.

From your points Billy, there's clearly a money issue. Any sports that involves decent facilities, equipment or kit is immediately beyond the mass youth and more accessible to the wealthy few.

I would also say there is also an element of the old 'Ethos'..........one expects Tarquin and Rupert to take up a certain sport as that's what there immediate surroundings expect. One expects Billy and Sam not to do those certain sports, as they are likely to be ridiculed or isolated amongst their fraternity.

Regardless, the private school kids are achieving better percentage wise. Even in Donny, Hill House School is always well represented locally in sporting events and generally does very well. At £3k a term I'd expect excellent tuition and sports coaching to be fair.

I still feel all sports should be made more accessible to all youths and better signposted/promoted.

Again, in my day our school would put out 3 footy/rugby/cricket teams just for that year. We would have an athletics team to compete against other schools. That's very much gone.

I can remember we had Stainy Athletics club (is that still there)
Eden Grove was an excellent facility but gone to rot

For me it starts with schools at Junior and Secondary. These should have dedicated sports teachers to recognise, nurture, promote, signpost to better coaching, kids with a talent or potential talent for sport.

 

[DC-]

Yorkshire came out well because we've one of the largest populations. If you took London as a county, rather than the X number of separate ones that it's designated as, they won more medals than Yorkshire.

Might as well just link to this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-2187033/London-Olympics-2012-Yorkshire-county-champions-Nick-Harris.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[RobTheRover]

Ordnance Survey's medalmap is a good resource for this analysis too

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/demos/medal-map/