Talking Education and Sport

Richard Feynman on the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 02:55:13 PDT

A friend recently introduced me to this wonderful presentation by the great scientist Richard Feynman. A winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, a member of the Manhattan Project, and outstanding communicator (and bongo player), Feynman is one of those people universally acknowledged to be a "genius".

The focus of this talk, which was part of an interview with the BBC, was science education. This became a recurring theme in Feynman's later life, as he felt that most schooling was at best dreadfully dull, and at worst pointless. In this case, his concerned can be summarised quite neatly:

"I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something."

It is possible to watch this short clip again and again, and take different lessons from it each time.

Feynman stresses the relative unimportance of names and words in learning, and that is an important lesson for those working in systems that tend to prioritise the superficial aspects of knowledge.

But his story also tells of a teacher (his father) who was willing to admit his own ignorance. And in doing so, inspired his son to go out and learn for himself. Learning was not a matter of remembering, but an adventure!

I think, implicit within this short extract of a conversation between the father and son was an introduction to the nature of science.

“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.”

Thanks to Ray Askew coach of the great Invicta Gym for introducing this clip to me.

On the Duty of Being a Pain in the Arse

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:11:29 PDT

When I recently invited people to share their views on the so-called Olympic legacy, a colleague tweeted that she hoped people would remain optimistic in their responses. Another respondent worried that sports professionals had a tendency to be too negative about issues like legacy, and maybe it was time we all positive-up!

These comments struck me at the time as extremely revealing, entirely reflecting a certain way of thinking that finds a welcome home in central sports agencies and some national governing bodies in the UK, and sometimes elsewhere.

Perhaps it is a natural response to a policy environment that is so unstable. Some times we are flush with cash, other times not. Sometimes that cash is directed into the shiny, beautiful world of elite sport, justified with, let's face it, a series of ludicrous claims about benefits tricking down to the dirty, much less glamorous worlds of community sport and school sport. At other times, sport is hailed as the new public health prescription. And then, in the blink of a general election, it changes again.

So 'keep smiling and carry on' has become something of a motto in British sport, much as a sense of humour became a defence against the horrors of bygone Britain. Who can argue with that? A certain wilful hopefulness has characterised the sports profession for as long as I have known it.

The only problem arises when this chirpy optimism is incompatible with intelligence. Positive thinking is a worthy strategy, but it should not be at the expense of reason and evidence. Just as there is a vital difference between an open mind and a whole in the head, there is a difference between constructive optimism and truth-blindness. And here lies a bit of a problem for sport in UK, and elsewhere. Criticism of policy has traditionally been as welcome as a fart in a duvet.

Critics are trouble-makers. Stirrers. Awkward questions are spoilers. One senior sport leader used to publicly condemn the 'yes but' folk who could not just accept new schemes and initiatives without piping up and pointing out their potential problems. The way these poor fools were described and the laughter of derision they inspired made it perfectly clear that, in this context at least, a critical friend was a contradiction in terms.

No UK government in recent times has sought out expert opinion in sport in any serious or meaningful way. And this applies whether that expertise lies in Universities, sports agencies or professional associations. From time to time, and out of a sense of grudging obligation, new policy documents are waved at the professional community, and they are warmly invited to send their comments by last Tuesday. Generally speaking, the people who run sport for a living are seen as obstacles to be overcome, rather than resources to be tapped.

There are many reasons for this situation. For example, a great deal of money is invested in even the most small-scale schemes, and perhaps those charged with promoting them feel under pressure to defend them too. A more plausible explanation is that sport suffers and benefits from being politically sexy. All sorts of people, including the general public, have views about it. So any sports policy carries with it expectations both of politics and public opinion. So, some policies need protecting from criticism because they are bullshit (in the sense I have defined elsewhere in this blog: "The bullshitter does not care if he or she is lying or telling the truth; only whether the statement advances a particular objective. The bullshitter makes claims to persuade, or sell, or convince. Whether they are true or not is irrelevant.").

Geoffrey Wheatcroft’s account of the most gifted bullshitter of recent history is helpful because it makes the art more real for us:

“Blair isn’t a liar, not in the sense that most of us are. That is, most of us have on occasion told untruths, usually to get out of trouble of some kind or another .. but we crucially knew what we were doing .. By contrast, Blair is something different, and far more dangerous: he s not a liar but a man with no grasp at all of the distinction between objective truth and falsehood.”

A more recent example of policy bullshit is Education Secretary Michael Gove's repeated calls to increase the amount of competitive sport in schools. One clue that this is the case is the fact that it was Mr Gove, himself, who was responsible for undermining one of the most effective competitive school sport structures in the world, when he attacked the PESSCL/PESSYP scheme, and especially the School Sport Coordinators role. Apart from this, I am willing to bet my liver that Mr Gove has never given school sport a second thought since he was a pupil himself (I assume he failed to make any of the teams, and was forced to watch the matches with the wheezy children with notes from Matron). But he must say something stirring about competition in schools because he is a Tory minister, and that is the sort of thing they have to say.

Of course, open discussion is not a panacea. It may be that certain issues are too complex to be laid open to genuine discussion, although I have never come across an instance where this applies in sport or education. Is the bases of ideas and schemes are made clear to everyone, and open dialogue on any problems or concerns takes place, those with greatest influence can be challenged to justify their views all to change them. And, of course, it may well be that these ideas turn out to be entirely reasonable. The whole point of open discussion and dialogue is to allow all sides to detect errors and correct them, for the greater good. And also that, where changes need to be made, they must emerge from the discussion, and not be made in advance by those with power or control.

This is so radically different from the model assumed by most public agencies in the UK and elsewhere that it might seem naive. When I have asked why there is so little open consultation before new schemes are finalised, I have been told that it would not be practical, and that special interest groups merely slow-up the process of implementation. In many cases, the special interest groups contain far more expertise then is held by the government and quasi-government agencies, so this position is clearly ludicrous. Experts only cause "trouble" if they let errors or inconsistencies or nonsense slip by into practice.

If this is accepted, then we need to think again about the importance of discussion and criticism in public discussions of sport. Those in control need to reflect a little on their own limitations. The rest of us need to step up and take our responsibilities seriously as active participants in the exchange and improvement of ideas.

And those people who we have been told are the most loyal and most supportive, who stand behind policy no matter what, should be exposed for what they are: freeloaders. There is a large numbers of people and groups in the current climate who have identified that compliance is a safe and secure strategy. There are outraged at criticism of any sort, and imply that those disreputable folk who criticise the creators of policy are not team-players. In fact, the opposite is true. These bland, cowardly individuals add nothing to the quality of public discussions. They contribute nothing to learning, and merely act as anchors, resisting change and progress.

Humans, all humans, make mistakes. We are fallible. Criticism is the best way we know to put those errors in check. So criticism is vital. It should not be merely tolerated; it should be invited, encouraged, and celebrated. And those who seek to protect their ideas from criticism should be exposed and condemned.

Olympic Fortunes - what has been the legacy of London 2012?

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:49:18 PDT

A few weeks ago, I asked fellow travellers in Twittersphere about their views of Olympic Legacy. This was not just a random act of nosiness, as Sebastian Coe had just been given responsibility for the International Inspirations, which seems to be seen by those in power as an important part of the Legacy programme.

For no very good reason, I decided to turn my little survey into a 'Family Fortunes' style affair, and stopped the poll at 100 responses. As (depending on your age and nationality) Vernon Kay, Les Dennis, Bob Monkhouse or some large-toothed American TV presenter might say:

WE ASKED 100 PEOPLE …. WHAT HAS BEEN THE LEGACY OF LONDON 2012?

It is important to recognise that this is not in any way a scientific study. The aim of the survey was simply to take a snapshot of people's views, and those people formed what researchers called a self-selected sample. In other words, it would be a mistake to assume that the hundred people surveyed here work in any way representative of the population as a whole.

On the other hand, this strong dose of humility ought to be partially balanced against the likelihood that (since the survey was promoted mainly through my Twitter-feed) most respondents worked in or near sport, in one way or another. So, perhaps they could claim some special insight into the matter.

I lack the computer skills (and inclination) to offer an interactive reveal of the findings. And maybe that is not necessary and the results are fascinating enough.

The results are what politicians might euphemistically call "disappointing". 65% of respondents claiming that Olympic Legacy commitments have been based is a rather damning report card, although a figure of less than 10% claiming that commitments had been met is possibly even worse!

Respondents were also invited to make a comment about the Olympic Legacy, and a selection of these responses has offered below. I have decided not to organise them, but rather let them speak for themselves as individual contributions to the debate.

Is it too soon to be able to measure this yet?

Clearly some legacy commitments are quicker to achieve than others, and rightly so, it shouldn't just be a flash in the pan process. Others will take time such add the cycling cross rail development in London. Others will take time to realise success or failure such as the impact on school sport and participation rates. Dispute the gloom mongers we can't judge too soon, whilst she same time those with responsibly at all levels must remain focused on the legacy cause and steadfast in their approach to achieve legacy commitments.

It will take 10 years to make the population level changes, as young people 'inspired' mature and adults inspired stay involved.

Lack of commitment in the run-up to the Games and a lack of imagination.

I feel strongly that the olympic "legacy" has been very much missed. The thrust of Sport england's initatives are currently 14-25 (at best a difficult age group to engage) - we need to make a concerted effort to (re)introduce "sport" in all its forms to primary school children.

The jumping on the back of other programmes is not a London Legacy. These seems to be little, if anything, that has actually been inspired by L2012 rather than programmes that were in operation already that L2012 has given a polish to.

Much of the legacy aspiration is in talking up something that had never been planned properly in order to ensure that it was achieved. It is now simply and mereley government and organisational rhetoric with no substance at all.

The interest was created in the initial aftermarth of the games, where many people had the drive and motivation to be more active, the amount that have carried that on and the reasons behind that are at presently up for discussion. So a kind of half way house. Personally I believe that as well as what hasdn't been done, what has and what has been effective should be extended / researched.

Issue is twofold - people see the legacy as creating new gold medal winners whilst others see it as a way to address the health of the nation. If the health of the nation was improved dramatically but we got no gold medals in Rio would people be happy with the legacy?

Nothing has really changed outside the east end of London, kids still do to little exercise and are mainly driven to school by their parents The only thing that has really changed is that i have a set of good memories!

Strategy has focussed on activity provision at local level - more of the same. However, what I believe we need in UK is a cultural shift i.e believing, thinking and then doing Health Sport and Education considered in a holistic fashion with investment looked at broad terms not segmented in historical silos and competition on who gets what and why We need all of the spectrum of physical activity, sport and physical education provision If we were starting again we would take an alternative and somewhat radical view of how our current provision is deployed.

All talk and no action.

Cuts completely undermine this. Look around at local level posts of people who have had an impact on youth participation and how quickly they are disappearing.

Not enough investment and activity following the Games to make a meaningful impact from grass roots to elite sport.

I think many factors contribute towards a succussful legacy, from participation rates, regeneration of London, improved and accessible facilities to the nations attitudes towards sport and eachother. This is why it seems almost impossible for us to know if there is a legacy, and how positive the legacy is. The question of timing also needs to asked, at what point do we draw the line and collect data to determine if we have a legacy or not? And if we do that, what do we do as a result of the information. We could celebrate what has been achieved and continue to develop it, or just admit defeat and maybe hope that the best is yet to come. I think a lot of positives have come from the Olympics and Paralympics which is why I believe we are nearly there with the legacy. The main priorities of legacy need to be integrated into the roots of sport to ensure that we have infact inspired a generation, and the next one and the next one … A lot more needs to be done to integrate into a society a culture of physical activity and healthy living to ensure the Olympic legacy is positive, and long lasting.

Sport in school was cut when the Tories came in and no way of making it better has been worked out.

Now that the games are over there is no sign of any legacy. I see no additional attempts to persuade or indeed help fund young people to have ago at new sports.

If anyone mentions actual 'legacy' within months of the games, that's like saying there is a Wimbledon legacy as tennis courts fill up for a fortnight.

So much promise to start with, new facilities, new passion and new opportunities but it seems it was just a phase and now we are left to be independent again and the Olympics is 'put to the back of the draw' as to speak. Would the 'legacy' not indicate continuation and additional effort such as primary school specialists and coaching? Maybe not, maybe the inaccessible arenas will motivate the nation.

Games that inspired a nation but the 'dream legacy ' is an unfulfilled one .We need some government backing, some decisions and some drive. It’s all there. 2012 proved that. But unless something is done - it will all be - a dream.

Most people talk about the Olympics that amazing summer last year... But that's it! No legacy. I thought school would be bombarded with Legacy projects in the new term ... But nothing. The momentum, I fear, has been lost.

It appears that it is all talk and no action. In fact if what we read is true it is going backwards with the selling off of playground space, no expectation of sport and physical education and cuts in funding.

I believe that despite all the percieved good the Olympics have done for participation in Sport, they are still an out-dated institution where able-bodied and disabled competitors are segregated. They also focus on the competitor over any of the other important roles that make the games, events and sports happen, ignoring the whole community of practice as it were.

It would be great to receive further commentary on this important issue via Twitter (@DrDickB).

2012 Legacy: where do we stand so far?

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 07:26:37 PST

I recently saw this news item from the excellent International Platform on Sport and Development that Loe Coe, architect of the London Olympic Games, has been appoint as chair of the newly formed international sports development charity International Inspiration.

I was luck enough to be in Portland, Oregon or week or so ago when Coe gave an impassioned speech on the importance of building on the undeniable sense of excitement from the London Olympics and Paralympics. He was a great communicator, and most of those present had no idea that many of Coe's claims continue to be a matter of heated debate in the UK.

Some people feel that the legacy is now a lost opportunity. Others that government cuts undermine any potential ambitions.

So perhaps Coe's appointment brings a timely sense of leadership?

This is the rest of the story.

The organisation has been formed through a merger of the II Foundation (IIF), the charity established in 2009 to deliver the London 2012 international sport and social legacy programme, International Inspiration, and International Development through Sport (IDS), a charity founded in 1990 to foster the development of and access to sport in developing countries, initially in southern Africa.

Coe said:

“It is an honour for me to be appointed chair of International Inspiration. I am delighted that, through the work of the II Foundation, chaired by my friend and colleague Sir Keith Mills, the promise I made in Singapore back in 2005 has led to millions of children experiencing the inspirational power of the Games. This venture is an opportunity to be involved personally in making sure that the legacy of London 2012 benefits the youth of the world for many years to come, and that the UK continues to blaze a trail as a global leader in enriching lives through sport for development”.

I'm keen to find out what you think about this issue, and have the simplest of surveys for you to complete. I'll publish the results in a later blog post, along with some of the comments made in the box below the question.

Thank you in advance for your contribution (and please encourage others to have their say, too).

Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey , the world's leading questionnaire tool.

Mr Gove's and Mr Hunt's Party Games

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 03:46:30 PST

By a judicial mix of luck and judgement, the last English government arrived at a cluster of policies for Physical Education and School Sport that set England apart from almost every other country in the world. They were not perfect, of course, but compared to the situation around the world – where PE is often twilight subject undermined by poor facilities, badly or untrained staff, and minimal central support – our PE teachers found themselves in the unfamiliar situation of being relatively happy.

The Physical Education, School Sport and Club Links / Young People (PESSCL / PESSYP) scheme drew together a range of initiatives like School Sport Partnerships (SSP) and Gifted and Talent PE and Sport (G&TPES) that evolved over a period of ten or so years into well-designed, well-delivered programmes that benefited millions of children. And the last national evaluation for G&TPES judged the scheme to be the best in the world. I know this because I directed the study. We identified many problems, including the old familiar of wildly inconsistent practice in primary schools, but we also reported highly sophisticated methods in some schools, and a general pattern of good practice.

In light of the fact that most countries’ school-based talent development strategies lie somewhere behind blind luck and voodoo, the English approach provides a rare and slightly uncomfortable source of pride!

And then things changed. The new government immediately started closing schemes and changing income streams. SSPs were blocked, and ripples of uncertainty spread across the country. Since then other schemes have closed, and it is accurate to say the England no longer has a strategy for school sport.

Now we hear that,

The unveiling of a £100m government school sport policy designed to combat criticism over the Olympic legacy has been delayed due to a dispute between the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and the education secretary, Michael Gove.

The standoff between the Health and Education departments over a replacement for the £162m school sport partnerships controversially axed by Gove in 2010 has caused them to miss a pre-Christmas deadline to announce the new scheme.

It had been hoped the strategy would be unveiled this week, coinciding with announcements on investing £492m in grassroots sport and £347m in elite Olympic sports ahead of the Rio Games in 2016.

The use of the word ‘strategy’ is interesting, isn’t it? The word usually refers to some sort of plan or forethought. But it is clear that the Government’s proposals are merely policy fluff designed to pacify the armies of Olympians who condemned the casual killing of a sporting legacy.

And thank heavens for the athletes, as the plaintiff cries of teachers, parents and advocacy groups were simply ignored.

But we should not expect matters to return to the way they were. The funding for schools has been cut, and many of the most successful programmes have been either cut or reorganised. The real problem, though, is the almost total absence of evidence or consultation behind the new policy. The quite substantial body of research into effective practice, and especially into inspiring hard-to-reach groups though sport, seems not to have been touched. Instead, we hear ill-informed ministers parroting simple-minded nonsense of the urgent need for ‘more competition’.

Does it matter? Of course it does.

Evidence of increasingly high levels of sedentary behaviour in both children and adults means genuine cause for concern. Nike’s recent ‘Designed to Move’ report told of an reduction of physical activity levels around the world, and including the United Kingdom.

Inactive children and adults are not just denied the joy of movement and play. They are also vulnerable to increased risk of a host of chronic diseases, such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes, and are deprived of the most effective and cost-effective method for developing effective overall functioning, including intellectual performance, psychological and social well-being.

PE and school sport are the only experiences of physical activity available to every child. So, the importance of the school as a setting for being active, for learning sporting skills, and for developing talents is unequalled by any other context.

School sport is a political football (apologies for the pun!). And it deserves better, as it is too important to leave to the egos and ignorances of politicians. The Government uses the language of evidence-based policies without subjecting itself to its discipline. Instead, they rely on lazy presumptions and an ideologically driven vision of sport that as out-dated as it is impotent.

TALENT DEVELOPMENT AND THE LUCK PROBLEM

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 06:37:24 PST

INTRODUCTION

Interest in the identification and support of the most talented sports players dates back many years, and presumably can be traced to the points in the ancient past when individuals were selected to represent their group or state in competitive activities. Certainly, strategies to predict and promote outstanding performance emerged from the formative years of scientific approaches to sport, and continue to the present day, when rewards for elite performance is often extreme (Abbott, et al, 2002; Miller and Kerr, 2002). In comparison, talent within the context of school physical education has been rather overlooked, with guidance amounting to little more than a suggestion that the teacher directs their most able students towards the nearest community sports club (Bailey and Morley, 2006).
This is starting to change in the UK, however, as recent years have witnessed a radical change in both policy and practice related to the development of our most talented young people in schools, supported by significant financial investment. The UK Government has recently made clear its expectation that schools identify and develop 'Gifted and Talented' (G&T) pupils in all curriculum subjects, including 'Physical Education and Sport' (DfEE, 2000) as part of its Excellence in Cities scheme (DFEE, 2000). The G&T strand required schools to identify the most able 5 and 10% of pupils, and to provide them distinct curricular and extra-curricular programmes. Through this scheme, the Government aimed to bring about “the largest culture shift of any part of the programme” (ibid., p. 16), towards an education system in which excellence and outstanding achievement were identified, developed and celebrated. Implicit within this stated aim was an attempt to deflect a predictable charge: “The idea that all children had the same rights to develop their abilities led too easily to the doctrine that all had the same ability.

The pursuit of excellence was too often equated with elitism” (DFEE, 1997, p. 11). This difficult balancing act of articulating a vision of schooling in which high ability was celebrated and supported, whilst deflecting accusations of elitism has become a running theme in advocacy statements from politicians and their agencies (Miliband, 2004a; Eyre, 2004b), as it was when Prime Minister Tony Blair first offered his vision of G&T education:“We believe that people should be able to rise by their talents, not by their birth or advantages of privilege. We understand that people are not all born into equal circumstances, so one role of state education is to open up opportunities for all, regardless of their background. This means we need to provide high standards of basics for all, but also recognise the different abilities of different children, and tailor education to meet their needs and develop their potential.” (Tony Blair, 1996, cited in Eyre, 2004a)

Since then, there has emerged a supplementary scheme to promote specifically and uniquely the development of talented students i in Physical Education through its luxuriantly funded Physical Education, School Sport and Club Links scheme (PESSCL; DfES / DCMS, 2003). Launched in 2002, PESSCL involved eight initiatives aimed at raising levels of participation. Alongside an explicit G&T strand, the scheme offered a range of other forms of support for talented players, such as a National Competition Framework, the appointment of dedicated Competition Managers in schools, progressively more selective ‘multi-skills’ clubs, academies and camps beginning in Primary Schools, and a host of new jobs with a clear talent identification remit, based at the new Specialist Sports College (Flintoff, 2003; YST, 2004). These strategies are intended to supplement the existing talent development frameworks already in place in National Governing Bodies for Sport. So, the elements are put in place for spotting talented children early (during infant school, apparently) and “squeezing” them through a joined-up school-and-club system, towards elite sporting success (Campbell, cited in Kay, 2005).

TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Taken together, these strategies and initiatives represent ‘the English Model’ of G&T education (Eyre, 2004a), which offers, or aspires to offer, a coordinated approach to the support of the most able students from all backgrounds so that they might fulfil their true potential (ibid.).I do not wish to examine the details of these specific strategies and their implementation (see, for example, Bailey and Morley, 2006). Rather, I would like to consider some of the implicit assumptions that characterise much of these discussions of high ability among policy makers and their implementers:

That there are talented students who are qualitatively different from the rest of the school population;
That it is relatively easy to spot these talented students;
That early prodigious performance tracks to elite adult performance;
That the point of talent development in Physical Education is preparation for elite adult performance.

The first statement seems, depending on who says it, to be either a metaphysical claim about human nature, or, more commonly, a folk pedagogic theory (Bruner, 1996). This is not a point on which I wish to linger, apart from to say that empirical research suggests that it is an extremely widely held view among coaches and teachers (Gagné and Nadeau, 1985). Interestingly, it is a less commonly held view among the athletes and students themselves, who tend to emphasise the central importance of practice, parental support and mental toughness (Durand-Bush & Salmela, 2002).

With regard to the second claim, it is worth noting that, to date, guidance materials both from central governments and their emissaries (like the Youth Sport Trust in the UK) is almost solely concerned with the provision for and support of talented young people, and barely mention their identification, at all (Dismore, Bailey and Morley, 2005). In other words, teachers and coaches are given lots of ideas for what to do with their talented youngsters; it is apparently taken for granted that they know who they are in the first place. But this is a highly dubious assumption, since a host of environmental factors, such as family, peers and schooling, mean that a significant number of potentially talented children are never able to realise their potential because they have never been presented with the opportunities to do so (Perleth, Schatz and Mönks, 2000). If you have never played tennis, or have never been given the necessary support, encouragement and licence to develop even its rudimentary skills, any ability you might otherwise have exhibited will remain undiscovered.On the third statement, I simply suggest that it is not the case:

The vast majority of young people identified as talented do not go on to elite, or even sub-elite, careers (Abbott, et al, 2002);

Conversely, many adult elite performers were not identified through the standard talent pathways, nor were they precociously gifted as young children (Bloom, 1985).

As for the fourth claim – physical education as a preparation for elite adult sport, what can one say? One might accept elite sports performance as one possible beneficiary of a comprehensive and effective physical education curriculum, without subscribing to the view recently expressed to me by a local government council leader – in a meeting about the future of school physical education in the region – “let’s be honest; we’re talking about more medals”. David Morley and I recently informally surveyed UK National Governing Bodies for Sport, asking about the total number of representative places they were able to support, either through professional status or through funding in amateur sports. We extrapolated that only 0.001% of the current school population could possibly reach the highest level within one of these sports. If adult elite sport is the goal of physical education, it is an extraordinarily inefficient goal.

So, there are certain empirical difficulties with the English model. There is also, I think, a serious philosophical problem, which I will call the “Luck Problem”.

SLICING UP LUCK

I need to be a little cautious in my use of the word “luck” in this context. The word is used in a dazzling variety of ways. Perhaps the best-known discussion of luck in the philosophy literature is from a pair of articles, both called ‘Moral Luck’, by Thomas Nagel (1979) and Bernard Williams (1981), in which they comment on the Kantian notion that morality must be independent of luck in some sense. Both suggest that it is basic to our intuitive moral sense that what people are morally responsible for cannot depend on mere luck. Dennett (1984) criticises both Nagel and Williams for taking the concept of luck for granted, and this seems a fair criticism, since a host of typologies have subsequently emerged which highlight Dennett’s assertion that luck is a curious and treacherous concept. Susan Hurley (2003), for example, distinguishes between ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ luck, with the former being the “inverse correlate of responsibility’; in other words, it refers to those things for which an individual is not responsible: “What is a matter of thin luck for an agent is what he is not responsible for, and what he is responsible for is not a matter of thin luck for him” (Hurley, 2003, p. 107). Thick luck, on the other hand, is not simply the inverse of responsibility. Rather, if something is a matter of thick luck it is a somewhat open question whether an agent is responsible or not for it. An example of this might be a lottery.

approach of slicing up luck is as follows (cf. Lippert-Rasmussen, 2005; Statman, 1993):

Resultant Luck – the outcomes of our actions are affected by luck. E.g., training to be a philosopher of sport just prior to the sudden creation of a number of appointments in the area;
Circumstantial luck – the circumstances in which one acts introduces luck. E.g., by chance, a young athlete finds himself attending a club run by an expert coach for a certain sport, and his career benefits as a result of this.
Constitutive luck – luck affects the kind of person you are. E.g., some long distance runners and cyclists have freakishly low resting heart rates, and because of this, it makes sense to say that they were genetically lucky, within the context of cycling or running.
Antecedent causal luck – there is luck in the way one’s actions are determined by antecedent circumstances. E.g., children born into ‘sporty’ and supportive families are more likely to be motivated and better prepared to engage with sport than those who are not so fortunate ii.

In light of a list like this, one might argue, as does Nagel (1979) that, when we add up these different types of luck, that we are faced with an apparent paradox: on the one hand, it is suggested that we can be held responsible only for what is under our control; on the other hand, when we add up these different types of luck, the space that is left over that is free of luck seems to shrink “to an extensionless point” (p. 35). Eventually nothing seems to be left within our responsibility!

Yet another way of thinking about luck, which highlights what I think is the central issue at stake is that of Dworkin (1981) and Cohen (1989) who distinguish between ‘brute’ and ‘option’ luck. Option luck refers to that for which we are responsible, by choosing to take risks, for example. But we are not responsible for brute luck. There is a significant body of literature within egalitarian and social justice theorising that suggests that their most fundamental aim is to neutralise luck (Roemer, 1998; Arneson, 1989). And this has predominantly been taken to mean brute luck (Cohen, 1989). In other words, egalitarians aim to neutralise the influences on distribution for which we are not responsible.

LUCK AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

So, why is this relevant to the discussion of talent development? It is because the whole presentation of the UK Government’s agenda, from its formal introduction in 1998, to the present day, has been within a discourse of social justice and equality. While there are fairly obvious instrumental arguments for developing our talented youth – such as providing society’s future champions, leaders or innovators - none of these is not the formal, explicit justification, which is summarised by Haight (2004, p. 1): “Issues of distributive justice informed government policy in locating the main funding for Gifted and Talented education in areas of social, economic and educational deprivation”.It might be strange to suppose that the demands for equality and social justice can be met by a policy that only ever intended to reach, by the government’s own reckoning, 5% of the school population (www.nagty.org.uk). But that is certainly the claim being made.

The head of the centrally funded National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth characterises her ‘English Model’ in terms of “equality, social justice, meritocracy” (Eyre 2004a, p. 3), suggesting that it “gives a much better deal for gifted and talented generally and at the same time tackles the social justice agenda” (2004b, p. unpaged).

Interestingly, egalitarian theorists do have something to say about the relationship between talent and equality, but it is somewhat different than Blair, Eyre, et al, imply. This is because, from the social justice perspective, “the fundamental distinction for an egalitarian is between choice and luck in the shaping of people’s fate” (Cohen, 1989, p. 907), and talent is attributable to luck. For example, Dworkin (2000, p. 92) argues that differences in wealth generated by differences “traceable to genetic luck” are unfair, and discusses a hypothetical insurance device that, on the one hand, neutralises “the effects of differential talents”, and on the other is insensitive to the different ambitions people have in their lives. Likewise, Cohen (1989, p. 907) writes that “anyone who thinks that initial advantage and inherent capability are unjust distributors thinks so because he believes that they make a person’s fate depend too much on sheer luck”.

Often implicit in these sentiments is the equation of talent with genetic advantage. Thus Loland (2002, p. 68) suggests that “Abilities develop to a certain extent according to genetic programming in all ‘normal’ human beings. This genetic programming can be ‘read’ from the genome ...”. Consequently talent is to some extent a matter of luck. Effort, commitment and dedication to an activity are not accountable in terms of luck.

So, temporarily putting to one side the fact that one’s present level of talent reflects past effort, and that one’s level of effort reflects, to some extent, good or bad luck (Rawls, 1971) iii, it is possible to summarise the relationships between talent, luck and rewards to the individual as follows, by considering the success of four individuals, with different endowments of talent and who invest different amounts of effort into a certain task (cf. Hurley, 2003; Roemer, 1996).

	Effort: workaholic (W)	Effort: slacker (S)
Luck: talented (T)	Best off	2^nd Best Off
Luck: untalented (U)	3^rd Best Off	Worst Off

Table 1: Relationships between Luck, Effort and Rewards

The difference between being a member of T and U is a matter of luck. The difference between being a member of W and S is not.

How might this relate to matters of social justice? According to Roemer (1996), distinctions of this kind form the basis of our judgements about how to redistribute justly. If, as is assumed by this position, differences in effort ought to be rewarded, but differences in talent should not, we are in a position to identify a ‘luck-neutralising’ distribution (Lippert-Rasmussen, 2005). To illustrate this, we might consider again our four hypothesised individuals, who are blessed with different levels of talent and who invest a different amount of effort into their shared activity. How might they be rewarded by an egalitarian, luck-neutralising policy?

	Luck	Effort	Unadjusted Rewards	Luck-neutralising distribution of rewards
1	Talented	Workaholic	40	30
2	Talented	Slacker	30	20
3	Untalented	Workaholic	20	30
4	Untalented	Slacker	10	20

Table 2: Luck-neutralising distribution associated with talent and effort

Individuals 1 and 3, despite different levels of talent, put in the same amount of effort and get the same level of reward. The same is true of individuals 2 and 4. The rewards for 1and 3 are highest, reflecting their higher levels of effort.

The advocates of the UK’s approach to G&T education seem to share the view that talent is, to some extent, the result of brute luck. David Miliband (2004b), when Minister responsible for Schools, said that talent is “randomly distributed” among the population, whilst Prime Minister Tony Blair (1996, cited in Eyre, 2004a) somewhat self-contradictorily stated that “we believe that people should be able to rise by their talents, not by their birth”, but ultimately came down in favour of a luck-based view of talent when he concluded that “we need to … recognise the different abilities of different children” (unpaged).

The UK government’s policy of providing additional or enhanced opportunities for the most able pupils, that is, opportunities that are not available to the rest of the school population, seems to turn the luck-neutralisation equations on their heads. In fact, they actually result in luck exaggeration because they reward something for which individuals are not responsible.

Consider what this might look like in terms of the equations of redistribution, used above. Once again, we have our four individuals, with different levels of talent and effort.

	Luck	Effort	Unadjusted rewards	Luck-exaggerating distribution of rewards
1	Talented	Workaholic	40	45
2	Talented	Slacker	30	35
3	Untalented	Workaholic	20	15
4	Untalented	Slacker	10	5

Table 3: Luck-exaggerating distribution associated with talent and effort

In this scenario it is talent that is rewarded rather than effort. In other words, the redistribution of rewards favours those already benefiting by luck: advantage is mounted on advantage; those untouched by talent are left untouched by the redistribution of rewards. In other words, the consequences of the UK government’s ‘English Model’ of talent development seem to be precisely the opposite of those one might expect of a strategy founded on a social justice philosophy.

TALENT, LUCK AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

I have not sought to argue against the advocates of talent development in their policy of seeking to support G&T young people. Nor am I suggesting that talent development is wrong or indefensible, in some way. I accept that there are other forms of justification for such provision that are not vulnerable to my central argument (Bailey and Morley, 2006; Winstanley, 2006). Rather, I am questioning the justification of such actions primarily in terms of egalitarianism and social justice political theory. It is not difficult to see why these advocates have turned to social justice: such claims are made as rhetorical ripostes to what is presumed to be the critic’s immediate line of attack: talent development is elitist (Ball, 2003). This rhetorical strategy seems to underlie ex-Secretary of State for Education, Estelle Morris’ complaint that “Britain has always confused elitism with excellence” (2002, unpaged iv). Likewise, the government’s National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth report: “Ideology has played a part .. in that making special provision for G&T pupils is commonly constructed as elitist in academic discourse” (Campbell, Eyre, Muijs, Neelands and Robinson, 2004, p. 2 v).

The language of equality and justice, in this context, seems to be little more than adopting ‘success words’ to ward off attacks, by using words and phrases with which many of the likely critics would associate. But that will not do. Since we are talking about policy that relatively disadvantages the great majority of young people (and will absolutely disadvantage them in a context of constant sum of rewards), a rather more complete justification is required than has been offered to date.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A version of this article appeared in the journal 'Sport, Ethics and Philosophy'.

REFERENCES

Abbott, A., Collins, D., Martindale, R. and Sowerby, K. (2002) Talent Identification and Development: an academic review. Edinburgh: Sport Scotland.
Arneson, R. (1989) Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare, Philosophical Studies56, p. 77-93.
Bailey, R.P. and Morley, D. (2006) Toward a Model of Talent Development in Physical Education. Sport, Education and Society, 11(3), pp. 211-230.
Bailey, R.P., Tan, J.E.C. and Morley, D. (2004) ‘Talented Pupils in Physical Education: Secondary School Teachers’ Experiences of Identifying Talent Within the ‘Excellence in Cities’ Scheme’, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 9 (2), pp.133-149.
Ball, S. (2003) Class Strategies and the Education Market: the middle class and social advantage. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Bloom, B. S. (1985) Developing Talent in Young People. New York: Ballantine.
Bouchard, C., Malina, R. and Pérusse, L. (1997) Genetics of Fitness and Physical Performance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Bruner, J. (1996) The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Campbell, R.J., Eyre, D, Muijs, R.D. Neelands, J.G.A. and Robinson, W. (2004) The English Model of Gifted and Talented Education: policy, context and challenges. Coventry: National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth.
Cohen, G. (1989) The Currency of Egalitarian Justice. Ethics, 99, pp.906-944.
Dennett, D. (1984) Elbow Room. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
DFEE (1997) Excellence in Schools. London: The Stationery Office.
DFEE (2000) Excellence in Cities. London: Department for Education and Employment.
DfES / DCMS (2003) Learning through PE and Sport. London: Department for Education and Skills / Department for Culture, Media ad Sport.
Dismore, H., Bailey, R. P. & Morley, D. (2005) A National Audit of Talent Development Practices in Physical Education. Paper presented to the British Educational Research Association annual conference. University of Glamorgan.
Durand-Bush, N. & Salmela, J. H. (2002) The development and maintenance of expert athletic performance: Perceptions of World and Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, pp.154-171.
Dworkin, R. (1981) What is Equality? Part Two: equality of resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10, pp. 283-345.
Dworkin, R. (2000) Sovereign Virtue. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Eyre, D. (2004a) Gifted Education: The English Model. Coventry: NAGTY.
Eyre, D. (2004b) Making Gifted Education work: a gifted dimension to national policy. Coventry: NAGTY.
Flintoff, A. (2003) The School Sport Co-ordinator Programme: changing role of the PE teacher? Sport, Education and Society, 8 (2), pp.231-250.
Gagné, F. & Nadeau, L. (1985) Dimensions of attitudes toward giftedness (pp. 148-170). In A. H. Roland (Ed.), Gifted and Talented Children, Youth, Adults. New York: Trillium Press.
Haight, A. (2004) Inclusiveness and Teacher Attitude in the Identification of Gifted and Talented Pupils in Excellence in Cities and Excellence Cluster Schools. Available from http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/rescon/cpdgifted/docs/a_haight_g_t_identification.pdf! (accessed 20/11/06)
Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Innate talents: Reality or myth? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, pp.399-442.
Hurley, S. (2003) Justice, Luck, and Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kay, W. (2005) A Rose is a Rose by any other name, but physical education and sport are not the same. Bulletin of Physical Education, 41(1), pp. 15-22.
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2005) Justice and Bad Luck. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-badluck/ (accessed 20/11/06).
Loland, S. (2002) Fair Play in Sport: a moral norm system. London: Routledge.
Miliband, D. (2004a) Taking Forward The Educational Revolution, Available from: http://www.davidmiliband.info/sarchive/speech04_05.htm (accessed: 20/11/06).
Miliband, D. (2004b) Excellence or Equity. 3rd Chesworth Memorial Lecture, Toynbee Hall, 8 November.
Miller, P. and Kerr, G. (2002) Conceptualising Excellence: past, present, and future. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, pp.140-153.
Morley, D., Cobley, S. and Bailey, R.P. (2006) Pupils’ Perceptions of Talent in Physical Education. Paper presented to the British Educational Research Association annual conference, Warwick University.
Morris, E. (2002) Excellence Across Sectors: Speech By Estelle Morris, Secretary Of State For Education And Skills, Thursday 16 May 2002, available from www.dfes.gov.uk/speeches/media/documents/ excellenceacrosssectors.doc?s=!B121cf29d70ec8a3d54a33343010cc2 (accessed on 31/12.06)
Nagel, T. (1979) Moral Luck, in Mortal Questions (pp. 24-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Perleth, C., Schatz, T. and Mönks, F.J. (2000) Early Identification of High Ability (pp. 297-316). In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg and R.F. Subotnik (Eds), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (Second Edition). Oxford: Elsevier.
Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rescher, N. (1995) Luck: the brilliant randomness of everyday life. New York:
Farrar/Strauss/Giroux.Roemer, J. (1996) Theories of Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Roemer, J. (1998) Equality of Opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Starkes, J.L. and Ericsson, K.A. (2003) Expert Performance in Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Statman, D. (Ed.) (1993) Moral Luck. New York: State University of New York Press, Albany.
Williams, B. (1981) Moral Luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
YST (2004) Multi-skill Academies for Gifted and Talented pupils - Information and
Guidance. Loughborough: Youth Sport Trust.
Winstanley, C. (2004) Too Clever By Half: What is it fair to do for the gifted? Stoke: Trentham Books.1920

FOOTNOTES

i In this paper, ‘G&T’, ‘talented’, ‘gifted’ and ‘very able’ are used as synonyms.
ii Typologies luck are, as might already be apparent, rather numerous and sometimes incommensurable. However, it is worth adding to the mix reference to the work of Rescher (1995), who, who distinguishes between pure chance, which cannot be predicted and controlled (like genetic variation) and forms of luck that merely seem unpredictable and incontrollable due to ignorance. I mention Rescher’s work because it seems to have influenced Sigmund Loland’s (2002) nuanced discussion of the role of luck in sports competitions. Whilst this discussion does not relate directly to the concerns of the present paper, it might be reasonably be supposed to be of interest to many of the same readers.
iii The empirical difficulties of separating ability from effort is not as problematic for the present discussion as it might first appear, since the analyses that follow are based on those aspects of performance / outcome for which individuals can be held responsible and those for which they cannot. Much the same applies to the insuperable empirical difficulties of factoring out environment conditions from genetic ‘dispositions’ when discussing athletic performance.
iv Indeed in this short speech, she distances herself from charges of elitism seven times!
v No evidence is given in support of this bold claim. Empirical research with both teachers (Bailey, Tan and Morley, 2004) and pupils (Morley, Cobley and Bailey, 2006) do not offer support for the assertion of elitism is confused with excellence.

Rethinking Physical Activity - new article

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:59:08 PST

The language we use to describe the things that are important to us often reveals hidden assumptions. It is interesting, then, that so much discussion about physical activity is about 'fighting' sedentary behaviour, 'combatting' obesity, and generally knocking the doo-dah out of unhealthy behaviour. Negativity characterises so much of current discourse.

I have recently written a short article with some of the leading physical activity researchers in the United States on the need to reframe our discussions of physical activity. It has been published in the Journal of Physical Activity and Health, and is available here:

Here is the opening paragraph ...

The use of metaphorical language in discussions of physical activity and health is pervasive. For example, policy documentation and academic literature alike are littered with metaphors, most of which have a martial character –e.g., society must ‘combat’ obesity;; it needs to ‘fight’ and ‘defeat’ heart disease;; susceptible populations must be ‘targeted’ and we must ‘battle’ with the determinants of sedentary behavior. Such terminology is understandable in light of the evident threats to health and well being resulting from inactivity; however, it also frames the discourse in a negative manner. A consequence of negatively-framed arguments is that they tend to be narrow and restrictive. NIKE, Inc. recently brought together a group of sports scientists, medical researchers, psychologists and others to articulate and to validate a new conceptual model- the Human Capital Model (HCM) of physical activity.1 We propose that this alternative model better represents the full scope of the positive contribution of regular physical activity to human development and well being.

The commentary is part of a huge, international project led by Nike, aiming to encourage a fundamental re-think of our approach to activity and sport. Anther part of this work is the impressive 'Designed to Move' campaign.

We will also be publishing a comprehensive review of the literature on the outcomes of physical activity, based on our Human Capital Model. More on this to follow...

How to become an Olympian

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:40:18 PDT

As the thrills of the 2012 London Olympic Games still linger in our minds and the excitement of the Paralympics beckons us on to hours more TV viewing, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves of a few facts about the most watched public event in the world.

For a start, the Modern Olympics have very little to do with Ancient Greece. They were actually the idea of a French aristocrat who was inspired by the ethos of the English Public School sports of the Victoria era. Baron Pierre de Coubertin looked to the ‘muscular Christianity’ of Rugby and other Public Schools, and concluded that, “organised sport can create moral and social strength”. The youth of France – indeed the whole world – urgently needed some of this strong medicine, and so he travelled the world gathering support for his vision. De Coubertin called this the ‘Olympic’ idea because he believed that it was the Ancient Greeks who have first developed the core philosophy.

The Baron’s vision was that the Games competition would be only one of a series of activities that take place during the Olympic year. The ‘Cultural Olympiad’ was a marriage of sport and the arts, and included music, dance, visual arts and other wholesome activities. This broader conception of the Olympics continues to exist, despite an almost total lack of interest from the national media … or anyone else.

__________________________________________________

Quick Quiz: Which of the following activities have appeared in the Modern Olympic Games?*

Cricket Solo synchronised swimming

Pistol Dueling Long Jump for horses

Sculpture Literature

Singing Tug of War

* Answers are given at the end of this blog

__________________________________________________

Finally, and most importantly for our purposes, the elite sport aspect of the Olympics is just the outward expression of philosophy of life called Olympism. This philosophy is built on three core values – excellence, friendship and respect – and aims to use the Olympic activities to inspire education and development in all people around the world. De Coubertin wrote:

“Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of a good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.”

Ultimately, then, the razzamatazz of two weeks in the summer are just the tip of the iceberg. The Olympics are a metaphor for something much bigger and more important, namely the potential of sport and the arts as vehicles for the realisation of human excellence. And excellence can take different forms. As we all know, it can refer to successful performance in high-level competitions. What educationalists might call this the ‘summative’ view! However, as we all know, it’s the ‘formative’ that makes the real difference in the long term. This second form translates as personal excellence, and refers to on-going achievement against personal goals throughout one’s life.

It seems to me that, in launching the Olympics on the world, De Coubertin was offering a powerful metaphor for personal excellence. The champions have their day, and in doing so, elite sport represents a laboratory for the rest of us. We can see before our eyes the effects of someone pursuing excellence. We can learn from their successes and challenges.

Fascinatingly, recent research seems to support this position: there is a great of similarity between the processes used by elite sports people in preparing for the Olympics and those used by the rest of us trying to improve in our own terms. At least, this is the view of Professor David Collins, from the University of Central Lancashire. Prof. Collins is a ‘Performance Psychologist’ and was National Coach for Athletics at the Beijing Olympics. His research suggests that there are ‘champion behaviours’ that can be learnt by children (and by anyone else). Starting with explicit teaching and reinforcement from others, eventually children learn to take responsibility for setting and monitoring their own personal development.

According Collins and his colleagues, champion behaviours include the following:

Goal setting - establishing specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-targeted goals.

Performance evaluation – regularly assessing your performance against your goals.

Imagery – going through an event or activity in your mind, using all of your senses, including sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, and movement to recreate performance.

Planning – articulating the steps necessary for on-going improvement.

Commitment and role clarity - learning to understand and accept your responsibilities with the group.

Focus and distraction control – remaining focused, despite pressure or failure.

Evaluating and coping with pressure – managing stress and learning to use it for positive purposes.

They have found that each of these behaviours can be learned, and they go further. They argue that all children should be taught the skills, so that all of them have at the skills and behaviours of champions at their disposal. Then, if they choose to aspire to excellence, they will have the psychological foundations necessary.

The most fundamental requirement of any attempt to develop excellence is the simplest: practice. Forbes magazine summarized the view of many researchers like this:

“The best people in any field are those who devote the most hours to what the researchers call ‘deliberate practice’. It's activity that's explicitly intended to improve performance, that reaches for objectives just beyond one's level of competence, provides feedback on results and involves high levels of repetition.”

It is quite easy to find support for this view among those who have excelled in their work. For example, here is the actor Will Smith:

“I’ve never really viewed myself as particularly talented. I’ve viewed myself as slightly above average in talent. And where I excel is ridiculous, sickening, work ethic. You know, while the other guy’s sleeping? I’m working. While the other guy’s eatin’? I’m working. While the other guy’s making love, I mean, I’m making love, too. But I’m working really hard at it,”

And here is the genius footballer Pele:

“Everything is practice.”

Famously, some studies examining expert performance have found that a minimum of 10 years, or 10,000 hours, of sustained practice appears to be a necessary. But not just any practice will do. According to Dr K. Anders Ericsson, the ‘expert on expertise theory’, the key is ‘deliberate practice’, which is done with the specific goal of improving performance, is effortful and attention-demanding, is not necessarily enjoyable, and does not lead to immediate social or financial rewards. So, according to Ericsson’s expertise theory, every athlete at the top level has invested huge amounts of high quality practice into their sport. The same can be said of professional musicians, chess grandmasters, and leading scientists.

There are many things about Ericsson’s theory that are admirable, not least his attempt to differentiate between practice and deliberate practice, and his corrective of the default position of sport scientists to explain every phenomenon in terms of biology. However, there are problems too. One is the status of the magical 10,000 hours rule. As a metaphor, it works quite well. But the briefest perusal of the careers of champions (including those at the 2012 Games) reveals that 10,000 hours is not the threshold value it is often claimed to be. Some champions have managed to excel in their sport remarkably quickly (such as the Olympic Gold Medalist HeatherStanning or the Ironman goddess Chrissie Wellington), whilst others have taken much, much longer to succeed at the top (such as almost every Golfer). Also, the portrayal of deliberate practice – hours and hours of exhaustive and boring repetition) simply does not match the accounts of most champions.

My own research with elite sports people and dancers has provided some detail to the understanding of deliberate practice. The figure below shows three of the key characteristics.

Supported Learning - It is sometimes said that practice does not make perfect; practice makes permanence. A task that is repeated for an extended length of time becomes progressively more automatic and unconscious. This is fine if the task being learned is quite simple and done correctly, but if not, practice can cement ineffective skills. This is why feedback is so important for learning, as it nudges the performer back to proper form. This is also why teachers and coaches are vital to high quality learning. They guide, direct, and correct practice.

Mindful Learning - An second problem with any repeated task is that is can quickly become boring. The psychologist Ellen Langer calls this mindlessness, and suggests that it is a barrier to motivating, effective learning. Mindfulness, on the other hand, occurs when the individual is actively involved with task, constantly makes small changes and variations, and is open to new ideas. Langer describes this mindset like this:

“Mindfulness is a flexible state of mind in which we are actively engaged in the present, noticing new things and sensitive to context.”

Our studies have lead us to conclude that mindful learning is a powerful component of personal excellence.

Contextual Learning - The third factor is probably the most important from the point of view of effective learning: learning that reflects the real context of performance. In other words, contextual learning is learning that is designed so that learners can carry out activities and solve problems in a way that reflects the nature of such tasks in the real world. Research supports the effectiveness of learning in meaningful contexts. This means that the best way to learn to play cricket is to play a lot of cricket games; and learning to play the piano happens when learners play music. This is especially worth emphasizing, as decontextualised practice is extremely popular in many activities, especially in education and sport, where drills often take up a great deal of time in sessions. Research suggests that such activities are mostly valueless.

The implication of these ideas seem clear: practice is not enough. Excellence requires high quality learning experiences that are characterized by meaningful, attentive practice supported by great teachers or coaches. This is a necessary condition of excellence.

Taken together, these strands of research suggest that the achievements of top sports people reflect fundamentally similar processes to those used by the rest of us as we battle with our own pursuits of personal excellence. There is nothing magical about Olympic performance; it simply shows what is possible if practices that are available to all of us are taken to extremes.

So, Baron Pierre de Coubertin’s early insight seems to have been right. The glory and spectacle of the Olympic Games can act as a metaphor for personal excellence, giving evidence of the possibility of the realization of potential. Skills like goal setting and role clarity are used everyday by likes of Jessica Ennis, Tom Daley and Michael Phelps. Most exciting, however, is the fact that they can also be learned by children, and applied to their own sport and their own schooling. They might also be used by you, Dear Reader, in supporting your own ambitions.

Finding out more?

Ellen Langer The Power of Mindful Learning

Daniel Pink Drive: the surprising truth about what motivates us

David Shenk The Genius in All of Us

Quick quiz answer: Answer: ALL of them!

Representing sport and education: the Art of Infographics

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:09:04 PDT

We live in an information-rich understanding-poor environment. There is so much knowledge around that it can be difficult to make sense of it all, and to separate the good stuff from the rest.

Infographics are those charts, posters and diagrams that try to address these problems. A good infographic summarises key information on a topic in a way that is immediately accessible. Of course, the issue of quality control remains: the infographic is only as good as the data within in. But at least the technology opens the door to new ways of thinking about and representing a vast array of knowledge to different audiences.

I have tried and failed to produce some infographic of my own. There is much more to them than meets the eye! But my person artistic limitations only make me admire them all the more.

Here are some infographics on topics related to sport and education. I would love to hear about others.

Can You Benchpress a Tiger? - Source: Bodybuilding Warehouse

So What Is Developmentally Appropriate Sport?

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Mon, 28 May 2012 16:20:04 PDT

I have written a guest blog for the sports coach UK site. It's on a perennial, but challenging issue ofDevelopmentally Appropriate Sport.

Click on the image to directly to the site, or enter http://www.sportscoachuk.org/blog/so-what-developmentally-appropriate-sport-richard-bailey

http://www.sportscoachuk.org/blog/so-what-developmentally-appropriate-sport-richard-bailey

Sport has still got a long way to go, Mr Gove

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Sun, 13 May 2012 08:26:04 PDT

I don't think I was the only person surprised by the tone of the recent speech by Michael Gove, English Secretary of State of Education, at Brighton College. He took the opportunity to highlight the inequalities that remain characteristic of British society, and especially advances offered those able to attend independent schools.

"It is remarkable how many of the positions of wealth, influence, celebrity and power in our society are held by individuals who were privately educated."

I was surprised because Mr Gove has never struck me as someone especially bothered by our evident social biases. A great deal of Mr Gove's speech focused on the inequalities inherent within our sports systems. Yet, in dismantling the Physical Education and School Sport programme in English schools, and especially the School Sport Partnerships, he was directly responsible for sabotaging one of the very few national policies to successfully break down barriers to participation of state-school pupils.

And the proposed solution of 'more competitive sport in schools' would be simply laughable if it was not for its promise of reversing many of the advances we have seen during the last decade, with the negative health consequences that will bring.

Simple solutions are great for dealing with simply problems. But even Mr Gove is starting to recognise that the problems of participation and talent development are not simple.

At Brighton he said:

Take sport – where by definition the biggest names are in their teens, twenties and thirties.

As Ed Smith, the Tonbridge-educated former England player, and current Times journalist, points out in his wonderful new book “Luck”:

Twenty-five years ago, of the 13 players who represented England on a tour of Pakistan, only one had been to a private school. In contrast, over two thirds of the current team are privately educated. You’re 20 times more likely to go on and play for England if you go to private school rather than state school.

The composition of the England rugby union team and the British Olympic team reveal the same trend.
Of those members of England’s first 15 born in England, more than half were privately educated.

And again, half the UK’s gold medallists at the last Olympics were privately educated, compared with seven per cent of the population.

All of this is true. And it has been known from at least the 1980s.

Here is a summary of some of the social and economic factors linked to high performance in sport:

Variable	Source
Parents achieved high standards in domain	Rotella and Bunker, 1987; Radford, 1990; Feldman and Goldsmith, 1986
Relatively high socio-economic status	Rowley, 1992; English Sports Council, 1997; Duncan, 1997
Ability and willingness to financially support participation and specialist support	Rowley, 1992; Kirk, et al, 1997a; Kay, 2000
Ability and willingness to invest high amounts of time to support the child’s engagement in the activity	Yang et al., 1996; Kirk et al., 1997b; Kay, 2000; Holt and Morley, 2004
Parents as car owners	Rowley, 1992
Relatively small family size	English Sports Council, 1997
Two-parent family	Rowley, 1992; Kay, 2000
Attendance at Independent School	Rowley, 1992

Table: social and economic influences on youth talent development in sport (based on Bailey and Morley, 2006)

These, and other, factors show why any ambition of a fair and equitable sports development system in countries like the UK will always be difficult.

Think of these data this way: imagine a child who is talented in a sport; the absence of each factor listed in the table above becomes a barrier to that child's development NO MATTER HOW TALENTED, OR COMMITTED HE OR SHE IS.

Mr Gove's speech acknowledges the unfairness of the UK sports system. But there is another side to the matter: it is also stupid. It is stupid because participation and advancement in sport are always undermined by factors that have absolutely nothing to do with interest or ability.

So it is a refreshing to read Mr Gove's speech. Perhaps it will bring about renewed awareness of the problems inherent with the UK sport system (and all other Western systems). But this awareness needs to be coupled with an acknowledgement that simple solutions will not do.

We need a root and branch re-evaluation of the whole system, and a suite of solutions based on evidence. And we are a long way from adopting that sort of approach in sport.

How should we feel about the 'feelgood factor' at the London Olympics?

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Fri, 04 May 2012 07:38:14 PDT

Just because you feel good

Doesn't make you right

Just because you feel good

Still want you here tonight.

Skunk Anansie, Hedonism

Prime Minister David Cameron thinks that the Olympics will create a legacy for the whole of the UK and not just London. But, true to his earlier statements about importance of feelings and what-not, he warns that some of this legacy will be “hard to touch”.

The concept of 'hard to touch' is a strange one in an era of evidence-based policy, in which, in the words of one civil servant (presumably in thrall to the early philosophy of Wittgenstein), 'if I can't measure it, it don't exist'. As you know, Wittgenstein abandoned his early ideas and adopted a broader view, and perhaps Mr Cameron has also been persuaded to take a more inclusive conception of reality. Or maybe he is just worried that the only legacies of London 2012 will be immaterial.

Cameron's touchy-feeling tones when discussing the Olympics are not without precedent. Consider this neat piece of verbal gymnastics from New Labour's Game Plan policy document, when it suggests that whilst the quantity of medals won at the Olympics is of great importance, one must not neglect the “quality” of a victory:

“‘Quality’ can be taken to be the extent to which victory produces the feelgood factor and national pride (as these are the main public benefits of high performance sport). If it is accepted that the more popular the sport, the greater the amount of feelgood which follows, then “quality” medals are those obtained in the most popular sports.”

So, according to Game Plan, the feelgood factor is a quality that can be created and changed in amount over time, and although it is admitted that it is “difficult to quantify”, there seems little room for doubting that it can have a powerful causal effect.

So what is the feelgood factor, then? In case you thought it was something to do with happiness, or satisfaction, or well-being, or other philosophical fluff, the authors of Game Plan tell us it can all be explained with hard science:

“The biological explanation for the feelgood sensation is due to the release of endorphin in the brain. Endorphin has been called the ‘happy hormone’ and is released for different reasons, mainly physical, but also from laughter and joy, experienced by, for example, your team winning a match. Endorphin helps to reduce pain and has even been found to enhance treatment of many illnesses and diseases.”

Remember that this piece of pseudo-scientific woowoo comes from a government document; a document that is primarily concerned with justifying the future of sport in the UK, and the billions of pounds it says are needed to ensure it.

The feelgood factor has been repeatedly cited by governments and other agencies as one of the arguments for investment in elite sport in general, and the London Olympics. In Game Plan, for example, it is listed as the first of three 'virtuous outcomes' of elite sporting success (the others are economic benefits and increased grass-roots participation).

If the Game Plan account is to be accepted, the feelgood factor really means 'improved mood'. Perhaps you think that is a rather feeble justification for close-to £10,000,000,000,000 expenditure from London alone.

The weediness of the feelgood defence for investment in elite sport is partly due to the fact that we can easily think of more economical alternatives for generating good feelings and lifting our mood, from old episodes of Dad’s Army to Christmas with family and friends, to a smile from a secret crush.

There is a second, more fatal difficulty with the feelgood defence. Improved mood following nice experiences is almost always short-lived. Humans are adaptive creatures (like all creatures, in fact), and we readily adapt to changing environments. So improved mood or satisfaction eventually results in a ‘hedonic treadmill’ by which the elevated state will not continue, even if the circumstances that promote it are maintained.

In other words, the good mood that we hope will come with the Olympic success will be short-lived, and will certainly last a lot less time than it will take to pay off the debt from the Games.

And let’s not forget that moods – like interest rates and skirt lengths – can go up as well as down. John Steele, former CEO of UK Sport, spoke of the “the euphoria of a full Lord’s Cricket Ground … when a single Ashes test was won”. But by the same logic, any of England’s subsequent defeats would seem destined to result in national despair. What will happen to the feelgood factor if any of our Olympic hopefuls under-performs or is injured?

If success in elite sport (let alone second-hand, spectated success) has a potent positive effect on our mood, presumably failure has the opposite. And if this is true, then this is a real cause for concern, as the nature of sports competition is that most players lose in the long-run.

These are not new arguments, nor particularly scholarly. I am sure there are those among the governments and their policy makers who know that the public has been offered some pathetically weak rationale for their investment in the Games. Personally, I’d prefer an honest explanation like, ‘Hey, it’s the Olympics. We beat the French!’ I’d even take, ‘Look, I was a bit of a spotty geek at school; if we get the Olympics, I get to hang out with Jessica Ennis and Victoria Pendleton!' I just wish they didn’t treat us like fools. It doesn't feel good at all.

Are the London Olympic Games Really Such a Good Idea?

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 07:09:58 PDT

Discussions of the legacy of the London 2012 Olympics have been an ever-presented theme of commentary since Sebastian Coe first made it a distinguishing feature of the UK's bid to host the Games.

Coe said:

We can no longer take it for granted that young people will choose sport. Some may lack the facilities. Or the coaches and role models to teach them. Others, in an age of 24-hour entertainment and instant fame, may simply lack the desire. We are determined that a London Games will address that challenge. So London's vision is to reach young people all around the world. To connect them with the inspirational power of the Games. (Singapore, 6 July 2005)

Ever since these stirring claims were first made, advocates have turned to the L-word every time a shot-in-the-arm of enthusiasm has been needed.

It is not difficult to imagine why such support is needed. Increasing numbers of commentators are questioning why London, a city with no obvious problem attracting tourists or business would, is to align itself with "the Olympic movement, a juggernaut controlled by an unaccountable sporting elite".

The original London costing was a little over £3 billion, and this grow exponentially up to £9 billion, before a new government insisted on a more suitably austere budget by changing virtually nothing (and actually doubly the funding for the 'Slumdog' opening ceremony).

The figures usually cited for the 2012 Games are misleading, as they do not include the substantial investment needed to transform the UK's elite framework to its current position as one of the leading half dozen sporting nations in the world. In the four years prior to the Athens Games (2000) the UK government invested £70.1 million. With a haul of 30 medals (9 Gold medals), which means that each medal cost the tax-payer about £2.3 million each. For the Beijing Games investment increased to £75 million, and the total medals won increased to 47 (£1.6 million per medal).

The pattern of spending is revealing: the more money invested, the more medals Britain wins. This has been likened to a type of ‘sporting arms race’, as governments in pursuit of more medals invest further into elite sport because rival nations do, which in turn ratchets up further investment. So it was that UK Sport, the government agency responsible for distributing elite sport funding, was allocated £304.4 million for the Olympic funding cycle 2008-2012.

This figure is unprecedented, and signals a remarkable commitment to the cause of elite sport.

Why?

Even outside of difficult times, we might expect the case for such expenditure to be clear and compelling. We sports nuts are often mocked for losing our sense of proportion, but even we would hesitate from ranking a few medals about hospitals and schools.

Well, some of us would. There are others whose uncritical love of all things Olympic reminds of Alan Partridge's justification of the outrageous cost of building a model of his own house in BBC Television Centre by betting:

"If the British public were asked whether they would prefer an Alan Partridge Christmas special to 14 kidney dialysis machines, the response would be unanimous."

The clearest statement of justification for investment in elite sport in the UK comes from a document called Game Plan, which was published in 2002. In fact, its defence is the only one I have been able to find from central government. Perhaps no further statement is necessary, as Game Plan's claims continue to be made and - with a few exceptions - repeated by the media.

It is claimed that elite sport produces a number of benefits to the wider population:

1. a ‘feelgood factor’ (among the population) and a positive ‘national image’ abroad;

2. economic benefits (from spending after events and so on);

3. as a driver for grass-roots participation.

As for the claim that Olympic Games make financial sense, for the moment I will simply cite the New York Times:

The 1992 Barcelona Games left Spain with a $6.1 billion debt;
Athens estimated that the 2004 Games would cost $1.6 billion, but in the end it was $16 billion;
It took Montreal nearly 30 years to pay off the $2.7 billion it owed after the 1976 Summer Games.

It doesn't follow that London will suffer a similar fate. But it's worth bearing in mind, isn't it?

So, what about the other claims? Will the Olympics develop positive feelings across the nation and around the world? If it does, do these feelings balance the significant financial investment?

And will the Games drive up mass participation?

I will discuss these two vital questions in subsequent blog entries. In the meantime, it would be fascinating to hear your thoughts.

Comments very welcome!

Moving Towards Coaching Expertise

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:34:29 PDT

How do coaches progress from beginner to expert?

According to some frameworks, coaches pass through a series of stages or levels. The knowledge and skills at each stage are, of course, more advanced. But they are different in other ways. In other words, the formal processes of coach education in most countries assumes punctuated development.

According to Pierre Trudel and Wade Gilbert, though, most coach education is based on an unchallenged presumption that coaches exist on a single continuum from novice to expert. My own research, on behalf of the PGA and others, suggests that coaches tend to share this view. Specifically, they conceive of their professional development in terms of a gradual improvement powered primarily through experience.

So, there are at least two views of the trajectory of coach education: stage-like or incremental.

If we assume for a moment that all coaches need some sort of professional development, the choice between these two positions is important. If coach educators assume one stance, but their students another, frustration is almost inevitable. Even if both parties agree, who’s to say they bet on the right theory?

Where do you stand on this matter? What is your view?

To help you articulate your reflections, here are some questions for you to consider:

o How might we distinguish between novices in a domain and so-called experts?

o What types of experiences are associated with learning and progression towards expertise?

o Is learning, either in general or specific domains like golf coaching, really stage-like? In other words, are there discrete stages with their own distinctive characteristics? Or is learning actually an incremental development, with any stages nearly arbitrary assessment points?

o If learning is stage-like, how can these stages be differentiated?

o What is the relationship between such stages and any associated teaching and assessment?

There is convincing evidence that novices (and for that matter competent performers) and experts respond to challenges in fundamentally different ways. In addition to obvious differences in terms of the amount of experience, research suggests that expert coaches deal with the challenges of their work in qualitatively different ways than their less skilled colleagues.

The influential report How People Learn identifies key principles of expert knowledge and their potential implications for learning and instruction.

o Experts notice features and meaningful patterns of information that are not noticed by novices.

o Experts have acquired a great deal of content knowledge that is organised in ways that reflect a deep understanding of their subject matter.

o Experts' knowledge cannot be reduced to sets of isolated facts or proposition, but instead reflect contexts of applicability, so that the knowledge is set within the context of certain circumstances.

o Experts are able to retrieve important aspects of their knowledge flexibly and with little attentional effort.

o Experts have varying degrees of flexibility in their approach to new situations.

To what extent are findings like these reflected and used in coach education programmes? If it is true that expert coaches operate in qualitatively different ways than others, how is such expertise assessed?

The evidence from research seems quite clear that expert coaches are not just competent coaches with a lot more experience. They coach in essentially different ways than others.

The question still remains: beyond bureaucratic expedience, are there genuine reasons to distinguish intermediate phases between coach novice and expert? This is not just an academic matter. If it is the case that there are distinctive stages, then practical implications follow. For example, different stages of learning suggest different methods of teaching and different methods of assessment, don’t they?

The most influential model of expertise outside of sport is probably that of the American philosopher Hubert Dreyfus. His model was based upon detailed observation and experiments with a range of contexts, including nursing, chess players, aeroplane pilots and car drivers. Dreyfus identified five stages of development towards expertise. Each of these stages has its associated components, perspectives, decision-making and commitment.

Level	Stage of Expertise	Characteristics
1	Novice	At novice stage it is all about following the rules. The novice thinks in terms of rules but has no context or ability to modify rules. At this stage the energy is focusing on following the rules rather than thinking.
2	Advance Beginner	This stage is still rule based but rules are now situational based. So instead of blindly using the rules at this stage you start using a set of rule in an A situation and different set of rules in B situation.
3	Competent	At this stage you start to realize that performing this skill has more to it than just following rules or changing rules according to situation. You start to see patterns and principles and start realizing rules are not absolute and they are guidelines or rule of thumb. You start performing the skills more by experience and active decision-making rather than strict rules.
4	Proficient	At this stage you start thinking in terms of complete picture. You develop a perspective about your area of skill or focus.
5	Expert	At this stage it is intuitively appropriate action without being conscious of you skills.

Dreyfus's model is clearly useful, and it is quite easy to see how it might be translated into coach education frameworks.

How does the Dreyfus model relate to your own existing coach education frameworks?

However, one potential weakness of Dreyfus model – a surprising one for a philosopher – is that it does not properly specify the nature or type of the knowledge acquired at the different stages. On other words, the model is explicit about the development of skilled performance, but does not really tell us much about what is being learned.

From the perspective of coaching the most useful attempt so far to extend Dreyfus’ account to include proper reference to knowledge is that of Paul Schempp and his colleagues. They settled on a four-staged framework - beginner - competent - proficient – expert - to describe the developmental stages of expert sports coaches. This work identifies skills, knowledge, characteristics and perspectives that are common to coaches at each stage of development.

So where does this discussion leave us?

It seems to me that in this case there are lots of reasons for thinking of coach development as stage-like. Not the least among these reasons is the rather substantial empirical base supporting the view that there are qualitative differences between different stages of development.

If this is true, it follows that professional learning is far more complex than often thought. Not only must the type of learning be considered when thinking about pedagogy, but it is also important to think about the different outcomes desired. In other words, the teaching methods used ought to be appropriate to the phase of learning reached by the learner. This need not be the case if learning were linear and continuous, apart from a commonsensical differentiation in terms of, maybe, the amount of the teaching. But with a stage-based model of learning, coach educators are forced to think in terms of discrete types of learning experience for the different stages of learning.

And, if it is accepted that the development of coaching expertise is somewhat stage-like, then it follows that different teaching and assessment strategies need to be used to capture the different types of learning and competences being exhibited.

So, the question of whether coach development is incremental or stage-like is important practical consequences. Why? Simply because assumptions about the character of professional development track into decisions about frameworks and awards.

Remember the Cheshire Cat …

‘Cheshire Puss,’ she began, rather timidly … ‘Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?’ ‘That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,’ said the Cat. ‘I don’t much care where,’ said Alice. ‘Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,’ said the Cat. ‘So long as I get somewhere,’ Alice added as an explanation. ‘Oh, you’re sure to do that,’ said the Cat, ‘if you only walk long enough.’ (Lewis Carroll, 1865, ‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’)

If we are going to escape cycles of reproducing traditional approaches to learning and education, we will need to reflect on our assumptions and the ways they translate to practice.

Which way should we go from here?

Further Reading

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. and Cocking, R. (Eds)(2000) How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Dreyfus, H. (1992) What Computers Still Can't Do? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ford, P. Coughlan, E. and Williams, M. (2009) The Expert-Performance Approach as a Framework for Understanding and Enhancing Coaching Performance, expertise and Learning. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 4, 3, pp. 451-463.

Schempp, P., McCullick, B. and Mason, I. (2006) The development of expert coaching in R. L. Jones (Ed.), The sports coach as educator: reconceptualising sports coaching. London: Routledge.

Trudel, P. and Gilbert, W. (2006) Coaching and coach education (pp. 516-539). In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald and M. O'Sullivan (Eds) The Handbook of Physical Education. London: Sage Publications.

PLAYING AWAY FROM HOME

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:34:29 PDT

I've written a blog entry for the brand new SPORT section of the Huffington Post.

Click on the image to go straight there.

Wilshaw And Gove's Wobegon Daze

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:34:30 PDT

Education commentators have had much fun recently at comments made by Sir Michael Wilshaw, England's Chief Inspector of Schools.

Speaking on Newsnight, he said:

"Our standards should be higher. What that in effect means is something like one in five children in primary schools at the age of 11 are leaving primary school without the national average. What that really means is that they can't access the curriculum in secondary school, they find it difficult to pass examinations, they find it difficult to proceed to the next stage of their education and training, and of course they find it difficult to get jobs."

The context of his comments was a damning report by his Office on the standards of English in schools. Of course, all OfSTED reports are damning. That is their style. They are the policy equivalents of radio shock jocks: 'you're useless'; 'you're incompetent'; 'you can't read well enough'.

Sir Michael has taken on this mantle rather well, and clearly enjoys telling parents how hopeless their children's schools and teachers are. The Newsnight interview was a classic example.

But this time, rather like a headteacher farting in the middle of assembly, Wilshaw tripped:

".. one in five children in primary schools at the age of 11 are leaving primary school without the national average .."

Just is case you went to the same school as Sir Michael, let me explain: there will always be children performing below average. Average is a measure of central tendency; it measures the middle value of a collection of data.

Most commentators have been quite forgiving of Wilshaw's error, and have accepted the official explanation that it was a slip of the tongue. I suspect that is because most of them are arts graduates, for whom numbers are fearsome strange beasts.

But this really is not a complex idea. Most Primary School children would understand it. On a good day, my cat gets it.

As the Guardian's Polly Curtis points out, though, the Chief Inspector is in good, innumerate company. Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, such an accomplished school-rubbisher that Sir Michael must observe with envy, also struggles with infant maths, as is revealed in his exchange with the Education Select Committee:

Chair: .. if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible?

Michael Gove: By getting better all the time.

Chair: So it is possible, is it?

Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time.

Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State?

Michael Gove: I cannot remember.

Mr Gove looks like a Muppet that's been given to the dog as a chew-toy. But looks are deceptive. He is clearly made of stronger stuff. His comments here give us a clue to his origins, as a small boy in far-away Lake Wobegon where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average".

Why I am (mostly) glad I am a man. And why nice girls don't do sport

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:40:06 PST

Every now and then I am overcome with a feeling of resentment towards women. I look at them with their shoes and their scatter cushions, and feel .. what is the word? Oh yes, jealous.

By most objective measures, women are the superior gender Taken as a population, women are more socially intelligent than men. They are better able to deal with conflict, and less likely to be lead by their ridiculous egos. They work harder than men, often at more than one thing at a same time (a skill that many men would condemn as witchcraft). And most importantly of all, women are much, much nicer than men,

Obviously, they are not especially nice to each other. I've taught in a girls school, so I have seen things that would make your toes curl. And if you haven't, trust me: the evil that men do is nothing compared to what two thirteen year old girl friends will say and do to each other.

But such behaviour is merely an anomaly. My personal theory is that it is a result of excessive intelligence. Human brains evolved to deal with the harsh, Machiavellian social settings of early hominids, and we have essentially the same brain architecture than our ancestors had 40,000 years ago. It seems to me that most women just have a lot of that Machiavellian intelligence to spare.

I am, of course, aware that I am making wild generalisations that are crude and stereotypical. And I know that for every Hillary Clinton there is a Sarah Palin, and for every Noel Edmonds there is a Stephen Fry.

Overall, weighing up and the pros and cons, I am happy to stick with my theory. Women are best. Men are rubbish. So, every now and again the loser in me whispers in my ear "Look at them, with their intuition and social grace. See their under-stated humour and their kindness? Compared to them, you and your kind will always be oafs. Hairy, smelly oafs. Who start wars."

What's stopped me from switching sides? Of taking the unkindest cut of all?

Well, women don't have it all their way. Nature always strives for balance. For all their virtues, they have to deal with a variety unpleasant biological afflictions that are best not discussed in civilised company.

And they have to cope with the Daily Mail. There are many popular newspapers in the UK, but the Mail stands out. Partly because of its stout defence of all things that are great about modern Britain, like Princess Diana and the death penalty. And partly because it markets itself primarily to women. The Mail claims to be The Newspaper for Women.

The extent to which the Mail stands FOR women can be judged by its content on 8th March. International Women's Day. Whilst other media were banging on about women's achievements or the prejudice of patriarchal society, The Daily Mail cut right to the chase.

The movie star Cameron Diaz's attempts to be 'girly' were undermined by the fact that she had clearly done some exercise: "... sporting an LBD [no idea, sorry] with an asymmetrical neckline [er], Cameron Diaz was unable to disguise her toned arm and shoulder. The actress looked more tomboy than feminine at a promotional event ..."

The author of this social commentary, Alanah Eriksen, doesn't really mean 'tomboy', does she? By claiming a degree of androgyny about the actress' appearance, she is feeding into a long-standing cultural theme: sport and exercise are boys' activities, and girls who choose to break this basic rule probably break other, more serious, social taboos too.

Nice girls don't play sport. Girls who play sport are not nice.

And this principle must be right because we witness it every day: from increasingly early ages, girls drop out of sport and physical activity, often never to return.

I wonder if it was a coincidence that the Mail choose this particular day to publish this diarrhea. I don't read it, and for all I know, the paper usually has features by Germaine Greer on the joy of menopause, and the sports pages are full of women's boxing and international netball.

If so, it is simply unfortunate that it printed an article that demeans and insults women on the very day that the world was celebrating the extraordinary advances that women have made this century.

But I suspect not. This nonsense is ridiculous but not without precedent. Women are bombarded with messages that tell them how to behave in order to remain 'girly'. And some of the messages, like this one, are positively harmful to women's health, because exercise is a necessary ingredient of well-being.

And this is why I grudgingly choose to remain a man. I can live with being a bit slow and useless. And I look forward to my inevitable decline into ridiculousness.

And if I decide to play some sport or do some exercise, I know that I won't be condemned by an evil hate-rag that makes its money by reinforcing society's prejudices and playing on people's fears.

How do sports coaches use social media?

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:05:10 PST

Hi!

We are gathering information relating to sports coaches’ use of Social Media platforms as part of an international survey.

For the purposes of this survey, ‘social media’ is a general term to describe all kinds of internet platforms or forums whose contents are created, published, improved and commented on by the users themselves.

We are asking sports coaches, whether voluntary or paid, to complete the online questionnaire at www.surveymonkey.com/s/sport-media and would appreciate your help and support in reaching the largest possible target audience from around the world, and from different sports so PLEASE circulate this message to any coaches within your networks.

We would like to thank you for your support in advance.

Yours in Sport,

Richard Bailey and Matthew Reeves

The blog of lists: 101 summaries of important/interesting research into sport (Part 1)

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 11:06:29 PST

Research is a complex and time-consuming activity. It can involve years of data-gathering, and its findings are often subtle and difficult to reduce to a few simple recipes.

BUT, if it wasn't ...

This entry tries to summarise some important research studies in sports coaching and related areas like physical education, youth sport and sport development. I have also included some lists that just seem interesting to sporty folk. In all cases, the summaries are in the form of lists.

My ambition in doing this is twofold: I hope this lists are useful and interesting in their own right. But I also hope the reader will go from here to the original research papers, many of which readable.

The lists are not in any particular order. Why? Because it seems to me that we come across some of the most insightful ideas when we are looking for something else.

[Oh, I should acknowledge straight away that there are nowhere near 101 lists!]

What are the minimum requirements of sports programmes aiming to foster positive sporting experiences for young people?

a clear mission;
developmentally appropriate content;
a safe and healthy environment;
suitably trained staff;
integrated family and community partners; and
on-going assessments.

Sources: E.g., Bodily, S., and Beckett, M. K. (2005) Making out-of-school-time matter: Evidence for an action agenda. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education and Rand Labor and Population. Coatsworth, J. D., and Conray, D. E. (2007) Youth sport as a component of afterschool programs. New Directions for Youth Development, 115, pp. 57-74. Eccles, J. S., and Gootman, J. A. (eds) (2002) Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Why were Olympians first attracted to their sport?

a love of the sport
an intrinsic love of activity
early success in the sport

Once introduced to their sport, why did these Olympians continue to participate?

the challenge and love of competition
fun
a desire to be successful

As the level of competition increased, why did these Olympians continue to participate?

the challenge and love of competition
a desire to be successful
the need for a competitive outlet
fun

What are the most important qualities of a coach?

the ability to teach
the ability to motivate or encourage
training knowledge
skill competence
strategic knowledge of sport

What are the least important qualities of a coach?

assistance with goal setting
management and organisational skills
assistance with balancing the lives of athletes

Source: Gibbons, T., Hill, R., McConnell, A., Forster, T., Moore, J. (2002) The path to excellence: a comprehensive view of development of U.S. Olympians who competed from 1984-1998. Colorado Springs, CO: United States Olympic Committee.

How do Female Athletes Want their Parents to Behave?

The study found three categories of parental behaviour across different phases of competition (before, during, after):

preparation for competition

parental support and, encouragement during competition

the provision of feedback after competition

Source: Knight, C. J., Neely, K. C., & Holt, N. L. (2011) Parental Behaviors in Team Sports: How do Female Athletes Want Parents to Behave? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23(1), pp. 76-92.

Why Do Children Want to Take Part in Gymnastics Classes?

Being with and Making Friends
Developing Physical Fitness
Learning and Improving Skills

Source: Wald, J. (2003) Parental Motivations for Enrolling their Children in a Private Gymnastic Program. The Sport Journal. 6(3).

World's Most Popular Sports (for fans)

Soccer / Football
Cricket
Field Hockey
Tennis
Volleyball

Source: http://www.mostpopularsports.net/

Highest Paid Sportspeople (2011-2012)

Tiger Woods, golf - $75 million
Kobe Bryant, basketball - $53 million
LeBron James, basketball, $48 million
Roger Federer, tennis, $47 million
Phil Mickelson, golf, $46.5 million
David Beckham, football, $40 million
Cristiano Ronaldo, football, $38 million
Alex Rodriguez, baseball, $35 million
Michael Schumacher, motor racing, $34 million
Lionel Messi, football, $32.3 million

Source: http://www.forbes.com

Books on the Body-Mind Connection

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:40:28 PST

I am really pleased to say that the next blog entry has been written by Dr Jennifer Leigh, an expertise on yoga and somatic education. I asked Jennifer to recommend five books on a genuinely fascinating topic - and one that is of great relevance to both sport and education - the body mind connection.

When I was asked to recommend five books on mind-body connection I have to say that my brain froze. I looked at the (shelves and shelves of) books that I own on aspects of this and was completely flummoxed. I could recommend lots of them. Others I wouldn’t touch with a bargepole. My main concern though, was who I would be recommending them for.So I have decided to recommend one book from five sections of my bookshelves (bar the really freaky ones) with a little bit of an introduction as to why it may be relevant to the mind-body discourse.

The idea of a mind-body connection is not exactly universally accepted. The ascendancy of the mind over the body and its importance in the development of Western philosophy and later medicine, psychology and sport can be traced back to the days of Plato, the Orphic and Socrates: “the body is an endless source of trouble...only the mind can reach existence”. For example, Descartes’ dualism was firmly anti-organic, built on earlier notions of the physical world, and described in the words of Alan Watts as, “the domain of corruption and evil”. The division or schism between mind and body can thus be seen to have affected Western society from its earliest days, with the body being seen as inferior to the mind.

In contrast, in yoga philosophy and practice a mind-body connection is an assumption. The purely physical aspect of yoga, asana, has been emphasised in recent years, sometimes to the exclusion of all else, turning yoga practice into an exercise form. Yoga could be a valuable practice for any sports person. But which book on yoga to recommend?

I have chosen Dynamic Yoga by Godfrey Devereux (1998). Devereux’s approach to yoga is physical, strong and active. His explanations of the poses are clear, and if you can get over the extremely revealing shorts he wears, the photos are helpful. The book is comprehensive, covering the poses you would encounter in most Hatha, Ashtanga or Iyengar yoga classes.

Eastern philosophy has a different starting point and language when talking of the mind and body, illustrating “the irrelevance of Western theories to non-Western contexts”. The traditional Eastern view of the body and mind is that they are inseparable aspects of the same human existence. A book that explores the martial mind-body connection is Peter and Laura Ralston’s Zen-Body Being (2006). It is a bit of a how-to manual with exercises designed to help the reader experience a greater sense of their body-being.

The importance of the body-mind (or embodied mind) as opposed to a body/mind split in the philosophy of psychotherapy can be traced back through Freud and his discovery of the power of the unconscious over the conscious and his work on the power-relationship between therapist and client. Linda Hartley’s Somatic Psychology (2004) traces the history of psychology and its sorry relationship with the body, which has tended to either ignore it (in the context of cognitive or social psychology), or treat it as exclusively functional (in biological and neuro-psychologies).

In a discussion of Eastern philosophies and their resemblance to Western psychotherapy, Alan Watts states that both are concerned “with bringing about changes of consciousness”. Western psychotherapy has as a primary concern with the study of the mind or psyche as a clinical entitity, whereas “Eastern cultures have not categorized mind and matter, soul and body, in the same way”. By increasing awareness of the body-mind and its movements, it is possible to increase awareness of that boundary of and relationship with the world (and all others in it). Alan Fogel’s The Psychophysiology of Self-Awareness (2009) explores how the physiology of the body and psychology interact within a therapeutic situation. He illustrates this with the use of psychology, neuro-biology and the Rosen Method, a form of somatic bodywork.

My final book is a collection of writings on the principles and techniques of somatics in Don Hanlon Johnson’s Body, Breath and Gesture (1995). The book forms a history of the field, including how it has fragmented into the disparate approaches and techniques that are found today. Johnson focuses on Western somatic body awareness disciplines, many of which were developed after the turn of the last century. Some of the practices outlined may fall into that ‘hippy’ section, however I find it to be a book that gives a very clear sense of the broadness of the somatic field and the scope of work and practice that people are engaging in to increase their sense of a mind-body connection.

__________________________________________

Jennifer Leigh is an accredited Somatic Movement Therapist, a Qualified School Teacher and an experienced Yoga Instructor. Her doctoral research was a study on children’s perceptions of embodiment. She is currently working as a Research Associate at the University of Kent on a study looking at Costs and Outcomes of Skilled Support for Individuals with Complex Needs and an evaluation of ‘Imagining Autism’, a drama intervention for primary school children with autism. She also has a killer pair of legs.

The Arts of Storytelling and Learning

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:31:58 PST

I recently came across an interview with the US radio and TV host Ira Glass. He was talking about the art of storytelling, and his basic message was this:

hard work, grit and stick-to-it-ness are needed if you are going to create great work.

Not a radical idea, I know. Especially in the era of 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. But Glass introduces another element that I've never seen mentioned in the literature of expert performance, and that is TASTE.

Here is what he says:

“Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit."

This sense of frustration will be familiar to anyone who has ever tried to learn something. Especially something complex.

For example, in the last few years I have tried to learn a number of difficult things including golf, sketching, and Italian. Each of these activities had their own challenges. My main difficulties with Italian were linked my my apparent inability to hear the differences between many of the sounds and 'phonemes' that made up the language. In my head I was speaking like a character in a Fellini film, whilst to my teachers I sounded like Phil Mitchell in a pizzeria. With sketching, I had to learn to overcome my tendency to impose my preconceived ideas rather than what I was observing. Chairs have four legs; faces have two eyes; those are the facts, whichever way they are facing.

And don't even get me started on golf!

Yet, as expertise theory (and common sense) would predict, the more I did these activities, the better I got, more or less. And the pace of my improvement seemed ti be strongly associated with the quality of support and feedback I received from my teachers and coachers.

Ira Glass' discussion of storytelling is relevant to those interested in learning and expertise because it hints at a principle behind both practice and feedback: taste, or (if you prefer) AESTHETICS. In other words, movement towards competence or even expertise in these areas is only possible because the learner and the teacher have their senses of aesthetic judgement - some attempts are better than others; some actions are desirable, not just because of the outcome, but because of an intrinsic value; generally speaking, grace, and fluidity and poise are preferable to their opposites.

Aesthetics are STANDARDS.

It seems to me that taste acts as a powerful motivator for both learners and teachers. Both are inspired by a sense of the way a skill or technique is supposed to be, and - from time to time - their senses coincide! If we wish to get better at our chosen activity - if we want to bridge the gap between ability and ambition - we need to be clear that we need to do the work. There are no short cuts.

It is the responsibility of teachers and coaches to make this clear to the learner from the beginning. Nothing of value is learned easily.

Glass again:

Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take awhile. You’ve just gotta fight your way through.”

So practice and feedback are vital elements in the development of expertise. But both of these, I suggest, assume a sense of taste or aesthetics. Practice, if it is for any purpose, must have some ambition. And feedback is always with reference to a standard of performance or imitation.

Knowing helps explain our frustrations as we learn AND teach, and it helps explain why practice and feedback are so important in the first place.

To finish off, he is a recording of Ira Glass himself talking about storytelling, accompanied by some beautiful typography.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the issues raised in this entry. Criticisms, too!

Ira Glass on Storytelling from David Shiyang Liu on Vimeo.

Heroes and Zeros: who have been the best and worst Education chiefs in the UK?

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:22:26 PST

The Secretary of State for Education is one of those government positions destined to attract a lot of attention. Holding overall responsibility for the nation's schools and pupils is difficult enough. It is made much more difficult by the evident fact that none of us seem able to agree on the aims, character or organisation of schools, in the first place1 Indeed, whether we need schools, at all!! Which raises some interesting questions: What has been the 'best' Secretary of State? And who has been the worst? In the name of impartiality, I offer no commentary on the candidates (I will almost certainly do this after the poll has closed, as I am only human). If you want to remind yourself of the basic facts, you can go use Wikipedia . Thanks you for your contribution.

Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey, the world's leading questionnaire tool.

Coaches' Cross-Training: 10 steps to becoming a better coach (and human being)

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:36:05 PST

According to Wikipedia ...

Cross-training (also known as circuit training) refers to an athlete training in sports other than the one that athlete competes in with a goal of improving overall performance. It takes advantage of the particular effectiveness of each training method, while at the same time attempting to neglect the shortcomings of that method by combining it with other methods that address its weaknesses.

Why should athletes have all the fun?

Research suggests that coaches tend to rely on a relatively narrow range of professional development practices. It also shows that these practices rarely lead to significant improvement in performance.

So, perhaps we need to try something new ...

Learn something new. By far the best way to understand your students is to become a student yourself. It doesn't really matter what you learn, although the less 'relevant' the better. Experience being a beginner, and all that it entails.

Read. There is a huge amount of information available today, and some of it is not completely crazy! The internet, in particular, gives mostly free access to endless books, articles, blogs and newspapers. Quick tip: if you are searching for something wholesome and challenging to read, don't use Google; turn, instead, to its geeky, bookish half-brother Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com). Your life will never be the same again.

Take time considering your own body. Apart from the obvious benefits of practices like Yoga or Tai Chi, or other 'somatic' methods, these practices encourage attention on the internal experience of the body. And the body, after all, is the thing all sports people have in common.

Watch others coach. By all means, watch those who do your sport. When you do that, you pick up tips and ideas from those who have followed - more or less - the same training programme as you. But if you are looking for radically new ideas that force you to rethink your whole philosophy of coaching, you really need to connect with those from completely different backgrounds. For a start, how about one of the following: a golf professional; a PE teacher; a martial arts instructor.

Go to conferences. Sport conferences are a mixed bag. Some are great; others are poor. The best events have inspirational keynotes from leaders in the field, stimulating workshops and seminars, and good food. But even the most desperate affair has one compelling reason to attend: other coaches to talk to. Oh, and the bar.

Keep a journal. In this modern world, it is possible to keep a journal online, and there are some excellent IT programs to help you structure your thoughts, and even remind you to write in the first place. Personally, I prefer old-fashioned paper (Moleskine, to be precise). Either way, there is little doubt that keeping a regular journal helps record and clarify thoughts in way that simple reflection sometimes cannot. As the great philosopher Karl Popper once said, "My pen is cleverer than I am!"

Learn to spot bullshit. Sport, like almost every other of life, is bombarded by bullshit: from special training gizmos, from physio-neuro-psycho-bollocks, to gurus. There are some great books discussing the dangers of bullshit, such as Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, and Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things, and countless websites [search "skepticism"]. Next time someone claims that a little crystal in a magical wristband improves balance or coordination or 'energy', hit them with one fo the books.

Read business books. Business books have two great virtues. First, they talk about many of the topics that occupy sports coaches. Obviously, some of them talk specifically about coaching, and it is a fascinating exercise to compare the assumptions and practices of sports and business coaches. But there are also books about communication skills, leadership, change, values and vision; all topics of interest to sporty folk. Second, most business books seem to be aimed at a Primary School reading age. They tend to be short, to the point and accessible. Different people seem to have different tastes in these books. My favourites include The One Minute Manager, Influence, and FIsh!

Use social media. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, Google+, and their kin have become enormously popular in recent years, with hundreds of millions of people around the world signing up. Whether or not a 'FB friend' is a real friend or not is an interesting question for late-night discussion (on FB!). But it is difficult to argue that social media offer sports coaches a remarkable access to information and insights from professional colleagues from every corner of the globe.

Learn to drink proper, Italian espresso. This is nothing to do with coaching. It is just one of those things every civilised person needs to learn!

So, what do you think? What would you add to the list? What practices have you found particularly helpful?

Please share your insights.

Baby Plays Ping Pong Like a Pro

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:53:06 PST

This video of a baby table tennis protege is going viral. But just in case you've missed it ....

Please let me know if you know of any similar remarkable early specialisers.

A couple of great pictures - science and exercise

noreply@blogger.com (Richard Bailey) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:30:52 PST

(Alastair Dryburgh via Daniel Pink)

The first image is a lovely representation of the growing evidence of the value of behavioural prompts for physical activity.

I like the second image partly because it is just funny! And partly as it hints at a world where the sane and the reasonable cause as much fuss as the crazies.

(thanks to Prof Glynis Murphy, via Dr Jen Leigh)