I think a lot of the problem is that in many USA school districts (mine included) we don’t honor academics or the arts as much as we do sports.
If we honored all of them, as well as skill at physical-work trades, I think there’d be less abuse, not more; because one type of ability wouldn’t be being held up as more important than the others.
And that actually would be good for all or nearly all children’s discipline, self esteem, team work and social skills; instead of teaching many children that they’re bad at what matters, not useful to their team, and looked down on socially, so why bother with discipline?
Sports are a zero sum game where if you win, I lose. Since I was bad at sports, what you say did not at all apply to me.
But I agree with you about the moderation. Canada is an example of moderation here. The U.S. is at an extreme.
I would be interested to see if there is any correlation between national academic achievement, and expenditures on physical education and sports. Quick googling failed to find it.
Hypothesis: Any country where physical education time is more than 50 percent of math education time has a population that suffers from innumeracy.
I was also bad at sports, so I didn’t participate except for the mandatory gym class. I still think it was a positive for a lot of kids in my school. And I don’t think you need to win to get something out of it.
I agree that lots of US school districts put way too much emphasis on sports (and on winning.) But that doesn’t mean I’m in favor of banning school sports, just downsizing the ones that are overboard.
I’ve seen schools that can do both. They have top sports programs such as football where kids get college scholarships, other sports programs where they earn top awards, plus fine arts programs like great choirs, bands, and school plays, and then of course, high academic standards with top SAT scores.
I cannot speak to the US, but if my Canadian high school experience some 40 years ago was any indication, Canadian schools do indeed emphasize moderation. Being on the football team carried as much weight at school as belonging to French Club, helping backstage for Drama Club, or playing second clarinet in the band. In other words, no weight at all.
I think what helps is that there are no sports scholarships at Canadian universities (save one), so there is little emphasis on sports as a way to a post-secondary education. There were scholarships for academics, music, and drama, among other criteria; and it was (perhaps still is) true that US college scouts would occasionally scout our football and basketball teams–one of my football-playing high school friends was scouted by a couple of US colleges–so athletic scholarships were available, just not to Canadian schools. At any rate, if you played football and wanted a scholarship, then you’d better study hard, because football is just another extracurricular and you’re not going to get a scholarship for playing football.
To address the OP, the US’s, or any country’s schools, should not drop sports. School sports teach self-discipline, and hard work to succeed; both good qualities. But school sports are not the only way to impart those qualities. It takes both those qualities, plus dedication and practice, to master a musical instrument, to nail the audition for the lead in the school play, or to win an essay-writing competition. The kids who can do such things should not be sacrificed on the altar of the kid who can throw touchdown passes, or sink a three-pointer just as the buzzer sounds.
In short, moderation is key. Sports should not be dropped, but they should be regarded as no more important than any other extracurricular.
Of course the same applies to the performing arts, and you’re much less likely to get injured doing them. There have even been studies to show that arts programs are far more beneficial than sports programs in high schools, but I can’t be bothered to look them up right now.
Ironically, marching band (or specifically “drum and bugle corps”) can be far more physically demanding and require a much higher level of physical and mental discipline than any sport you can name. I have several friends that have participated in DCI events and my nephew played marching timpani for several years while in high school and college, and the practices are fucking gruelling - all day, pretty much every day from morning until dark (and sometimes after), usually in the middle of summer. They have to up their calorie intake dramatically during the season and still come out lean and muscled (and very, very tired).
You can argue that watching musicians march around the field in pretty patterns is a waste of time, but then watching high school students injure each other to move a ball around the field isn’t exactly a boon to mankind either.
So 1) “coaches”, and 2) working extra jobs and a full year. Do you feel that’s a representative example of what being a teacher is like?
The arts programs aren’t totally safe. In the 12 total years(4 year gap adds to 16) I’ve been coaching, there have been around 15 injuries to cross-country/track athletes involved in the theater/music programs. Mostly dropping or tripping over equipment and a couple backing off the stage. Nothing serious like broken bones but several sprained ankles or muscle strains.
But they appeal to different kids. I think high schools should offer a wide variety of activities.
Maybe not football – not just because the degree of attention it gets can be toxic, but also because I believe the risk of damaging head injuries (which may only manifest years later) is unacceptable. But there are lots of other sports with a better safety profile, and they can be really positive to a developing young adult.
Wait wait, are you saying that school coaches are also expected to teach other subjects? They aren’t dedicated PE teachers? Sorry, not au fait with the US system (everything I know, I know from Hollywood), but in the UK, PE teachers are generally dedicated to teaching PE, not history or english or anything else.
Not a sports guy here. Well, sort of. I did do little league that wasn’t affiliated with any school, but I didn’t do anything in high school. And I probably only attended a few games of anything in high school.
Still, I can see value in it, for reasons other have pointed out, and I wouldn’t eliminate it.
The entire Ivy League works this way, which is, of course, why they are their own athletic conference, hence the name. (MIT and UChicago aren’t in the Ivy League, I think because they just don’t have enough going on in sports to bother.)
You’ve got it a little backwards- PE teachers are generally dedicated to teaching PE , but coaching is not restricted to PE teachers.So that if a school might hire an English teacher who also coaches for his coaching ability rather than his English teaching ability ( and thereby pass over a better English teacher)
Depends on the school. I coach at a rather small high school(700 enrollment appx.), the teachers who don’t coach have a PE class along with the classes they teach.
Most of the kids who have PE rather than being on the one of the school teams don’t generally have much enthusiasm for movement.
Huh, in my non-US experience, the after-school sports-team coaching is part of the PE teachers’ role. I mean, you wouldn’t have a geography teacher directing the school play when you have drama teachers, would you?
Yeah, that’s how my high school worked too- the vast majority of teachers also coached some level of some sport or other, and the vast majority of students were also involved in some sport or other. Not everyone, as it wasn’t compulsory, but it was probably 60% of students who were on a sports team of some kind- we had football, basketball, baseball, soccer, golf, tennis, cross-country, track, swimming and water polo.
But we were a school of about 650 all-male students, so there was a lot of opportunity- not all teams had entirely full rosters. But had you doubled our enrollment, we’d have had full rosters, but the percentage of students involved in athletics would have gone down as well.
Generally speaking, the dedicated coaches taught PE and/or Health, while the academic teachers were generally either assistant coaches or coached JV or lower level teams.
I think it was a good thing- we didn’t have a jockocracy, as most people were involved in sports, and it generally made for a more school-engaged student body than I think we’d have had otherwise.
Probably not , but you might have a social studies teacher directing the school play when you either don’t have any drama teachers or don’t have any who wish to take on an additional after-school assignment. It’s entirely possible for a school not to have any PE teachers who are particularly knowledgeable about one or more sports - or to have more basketball teams than PE teachers willing to coach basketball.
Not to hijack, but if a teacher is involved in “after school activities” (not necessary sports, but could be, maybe plays or choir tours), how is this handled salary wise? Or is is this baked in with “drama teacher”, for example.