Participation in team games has been compulsory in English schools since before most sports had written rules. The rationale was initially one of social control – the need to keep all pupils on the premises in the afternoon – but later justified by the presumed capacity to influence character building through the development of courage and selflessness. The primacy of team games has been more or less unchallenged since then. Whilst all other dimensions of school life have changed out of all recognition, it is remarkable that the assumption underlying compulsory team games, and the time allocated to them, has remained inviolate.
Recent adverse publicity has challenged this compulsion. This is particularly the case where an obligation to take part in potentially hazardous activities is involved. It raises the question of whether the assumption that all boys can benefit from an experience of Rugby, and all girls from an experience of Hockey, has any evidence to support it. Schools typically require their pupils to commit between 180 and a staggering 350 minutes per week to team games; the upper figures in this range comfortably exceed the training times of elite adult teams in the top national leagues of the same sports. Some, typically boarding, schools require a commitment of 3 – 5 hours every week to games, in order to prepare for two or three games in a 15 week term.
Why does this compulsion endure? The power of conservatism cannot be ignored, and neither can the long established reluctance to challenge the potential benefits of games. This is despite the fact that such benefits are usually assumed: there is an absence of justification or rationale, let alone evidence to support them
What is the alternative? What will the Games Programme of the future look like, particularly in independent senior schools? Here are some thoughts:
The experience of team games will remain for most schools, and an obligation to experience certain culturally valued games, at least for a limited period. However, there may be greater imagination and sensitivity in how these are presented, especially to the less able. This might at least ensure that the experience of traditional games, even if it turns out to be brief, is at least a positive one.
The benefits of team games will be more carefully defined and articulated. Schools will consider exactly which benefits they are trying to deliver to their pupils through games. These will be widely communicated to pupils, staff and parents, and use to argue a rational case of balancing benefits against risks. The school websites of the future might explain what they see as the real benefit to children of the games programmes they offer. And how the school ensures that these are delivered.
There may well be an opportunity for some pupils to play a limited amount of traditional games, as well as taking part in other activities. One Netball session each week, and a game every two weeks for the less enthusiastic might allow the best of all worlds. Schools might have “performance” groups, who train intensively and play regularly, “participation” groups who train and play less frequently, and other pupils who play no traditional games after a compulsory taster period.
There will be better and more imaginative coaching. The introduction of choice would create an overdue “market” pressure to make the experience of team games so overwhelmingly positive that a majority of pupils will want to take part in it. A history of compulsion has removed pressure to develop a relentlessly positive games experience. As a result, much shabby provision has been hidden behind an obligation to take part. Adults who take part in games do so entirely because they love the experience.
There will also be choice of activities. The future will inevitably accept that outdoor team games do not command the attention and commitment of all children, Nor all adults. They never have, and they never will. The only thing that will be different will be the acceptance of this fact. However reluctantly this might be at first. Schools which currently offer choice find that between 50 and 70% of pupils choose to be involved in traditional games. That level of success would attract a good grade in most GCSE subjects.
With choice will come a need to abolish some of the illogical assumptions that ensure in many schools. The primacy of boys’ Hockey in the second term will be one of them. Systems that allow pupils to play one game (eg Association Football) only when they have proved their incompetence at another (Hockey), have always been impossible to justify. Similarly, the requirement for vast populations to endure a miserably dull experience of low ability cricket will also be consigned to history. Cricket will remain, and probably thrive, but will not be thrust reluctantly upon a large number of children
Will this future be an impoverishment of the legacy of 150 years of compulsory games? Only to those who wish the future to be identical to the past. The Games Programme of the future must surely be more credible and intellectually defensible that its predecessors. Radically, it could be aimed at encouraging all pupils to find a love of activity and challenge, as well as the habit of exercise. That accusation can never be levelled at a system based on years of compulsory participation in outdoor team games. Do children exist for the benefit of the Games Programme, or does the Programme exist for the benefit of children?
