There have been suggestions that too many of Britain’s top Olympians have been educated privately, but the arguments from Left and Right miss one simple truth
The disproportionate representation of UK private schools (confusingly called ‘public schools’) amongst Britain’s Olympians has been causing some controversy.
For some on the Right this highlights the superiority of private sector schooling over state provision – especially as a lot of money has supposedly gone into promoting sports in the public sector. For some on the Left this just goes to show how unequal our society is and how in many sports the elite is only open to those who have rich parents.
There is undoubtedly some truth in both arguments – but they miss one rather simple truth, which I will illustrate from personal experience.
I went to Barrow-in-Furness Grammar School for Boys in the late 1960s. Although being a Grammar School, we were mainly working-class kids because most middle-class kids from Barrow went as day-boarders to private schools in the Lake District.
Also, despite being in a northern, industrial, working-class town we played Rugby Union. For those who don’t know, in England at the time rugby was divided more or less on class lines – Union was for the ‘nobs’ and League for the ‘oiks’. But we had a headmaster who thought we should pretend to be middle-class, even if we weren’t – so Union it was.
Because we played Union there was no-one else to play in Barrow. All the other schools played League. So we had to go off on coaches to play the ‘public (private) school’ boys who did play Union.
The first time, in 1968, that I played in one of these matches we went off to play St Bees (founded 1583) further up the Cumbrian coast. As we rolled into their picturesque grounds we saw them all – including sixth formers – wearing shorts. This was going to be a push-over we thought. Here we were, a bunch of tough working-class lads up against these upper-class twits in shorts! They decimated us. I don’t remember the actual score, but it was humiliating.
The main reason was simple – and it wasn’t directly to do with money. We had as our coach one of the best rugby players in Britain – our chemistry teacher Tom Brophy. Tom had played Union for England before converting to League and been to Wembley with Barrow’s League team the year before. So we weren’t exactly deprived in the coaching department – I doubt St Bees had anyone near Tom’s ability coaching them. And of course playing rugby costs very little – my family was poor but I could play.
No, the real reason was rather simple – St Bees was a residential, 7-days a week, school in an isolated rural location. They practised every day, whereas we only managed a couple of times a week. They had nothing much else to do, we had plenty of distractions – not least the girls’ grammar school next door.
I don’t know how representative this experience was, but I’d guess it is fairly. Residential private schools have an obvious advantage that has little to do directly with their resources, or rich parents, or anything else – they have a ‘captive audience’ for developing sporting prowess. This fact doesn’t play well to either the right-wing or left-wing narrative about public school success in sports, so no-one mentions it. But I can painfully testify to its reality.
This post first appeared on Whitehall Watch
Maybe it is simply a manifestation of choice leading to creaming. Talented individuals self-select to move into private education. The institution itself not being a causal factor in their talent development. I don’t think the captive audience example explains the elite sport development pipeline.
I am guessing but Ruta Meilutyte, the Lithuanian Gold medalist, probabley did not have her talent identified at the private boarding Plymouth College. She was, no doubt, courted and awarded a full scholarship, covering living costs and was then coached to greatness. Could she have won gold without transferring to a private school – we cannot know – maybe.
This scouting and “poaching” of young athelets from state education is common practice amongth both private institutions and specialist state sport colleges – who have both control over school selection and the ability to offer financial incentives to encourage pupils to join their schools.
Private schooling is essentially zero cost to promising pupils – fees are waived and bursaries offered due to the profile added to the institution. The question is why would these individuals choose to switch to a private school from their state school if they are already doing well at sport?
One must be the attraction of facilities. The other is the wider benefits.
Facilities are better – firstly because fees allow for such investment, secondly as with the NHS – concentrating centres of excellence (coaches and facilities) around one school rather than spreading resources across a county makes more sense. So public funds are also probably disproportionately focused around such institutions (The private Plymouth College boasts coaching provided in conjunction with the governing body the ASA a body reciveing public funds).
The key point is that a shorter daily journey to the pool and coach is preferable to an individual, but may not have any extra impact on their development – it is simply a more conveinent commute.
The wider benefits of accommodation through boarding and better academic exam results, make the move an obvious one even if sport coaching is equitable.
Coaches are individuals too. Often “the best” who may have begun by working at clubs at county level will be offered incentives to exclusively provide services to specific schools. Incentives that cannot be matched by state school budgets. If your club coach teaches part time at a certain school, as your talent develops there is obvious pressure applied to switch to their school. This is common practice in the US I believe.
All this means is that those who are talented choose to switch to private schools (or specially funded, selective state schools), it is not that the grass roots sports philosophy, coaching or talent development is any better. It may not be that facilities such as boarding even have any impact at all. 50% of medal winners may have attended private schooling, but how many actually began in private schooling before their talent was identified?
Sport, like any other performance art, releases emotional energy and therefore benefits from an audience – the two feed off each other.
Cheering from the side-lines at sports day at my child’s primary (state, in an NW3 postcode) school was particularly frowned upon by teachers and other parents.
I have one enduring memory, of a band of young girls arms linked walking round
chanting ‘losers are winners’. On the occasions when the swimming coach did turn up to ferry children to the pool, my child, who’d not benefited from private swimming lessons and so was behind the others was put in the water with a ‘helper’ parent who could not swim herself.
Children (boys and girls), who did little more than kick a football around at playtime were ocassionally put in a sporting arena to ‘compete’ with other local schools.
In order to motivate another human been you need to be be able to feel and display a level of competence, self belief and confidence in your own abilities.
Where I live at the children of at least one private school in the midst of three state schools surrounding us are to be seen regularly on Hampstead Heath engaged in games, running as well as playing in all weathers.
These children are regularly exposed to space, fresh air, natural light and the elements stretching and challenging young bodies and minds releasing and channelling physical and emotional energy for free.