Kids who are no good at sports should not be force to play sports.

My life at school was one long nightmare and the overriding reason was
because I was no good at sports or gym (apart from running)
I would be constantly humiliated in Pt lessons and then bullied and
picked on by the kids afterwards. My school days were the most
miserabel period of my life.

What is the point of making kids play sport when they can't. Those kids
who are good at sports will natuarlly want to play but why not leave
the rest of us (a minority I know) out of it.
Say will say that kids need Pt to get exercise in which case why make
it so competitive? If the idea is for kids to exercise there is no need
to make it competitive. I suspect its more about fostering a sense of
competitioin in kid and sending out a signal 'if you don't get picked
for the team your a loser'.

Some people will say it helps build character but I don't suppose they
were crap at sports and had their life made a misery.

Does it really matter whether someone is good at sports unless they are
going to work as a footballer of something? But kids in those case will
want to play sports and don't need to be forced.

I used to love reading as a kid, books in advance of my age and I
enjoyed creative writing and loved history. Surley that is more
important that playing mindless games of football?

wrote in message
ps.com...
Say will say that kids need Pt to get exercise in which case why make
it so competitive? If the idea is for kids to exercise there is no need
to make it competitive. I suspect its more about fostering a sense of
competitioin in kid and sending out a signal 'if you don't get picked
for the team your a loser'.

You will be happy to hear that at my kids' school, the gym
classes are fitness-based and very non-competitive. One
of the games is "fitness tag". Everyone runs around in circles
trying to tag others without being tagged. If you get tagged,
you go to the side, do 5 jumping jacks and then get back
in.

Another one is called "capture the flag". The basic idea
is a contest I suppose. Each team has a flag and the
other team is supposed to capture it and take it home.
But the flag isn't the fun part, so the kids mostly ignore
it. Instead, you run around, sort of like in fitness tag.
You can stay on your own side and try to tag invaders,
or you can invade the other side and try to avoid
getting tagged. If you are tagged, you are put in the
dungeon, where you wait to be rescued by one of
your teammates. When a rescuer makes it to the
dungeon without being tagged, he can rescue everyone
in there -- they have to walk back to their own side
with their arms linked. What amazed me most was
seeing boys and girls walking arm in arm.

Oh, and the teacher splits them up -- no picking
teams.

My athletic son, and not-so-athletic daughter both
love gym.

Bizby

I really wish they had that system when I was at school.

I really wish they had that system when I was at school.

Kids do need to have physical activity. I'm in favour of having them
do anaerobic things like swimming and running whether they are good at
them or liked doing them or not.

As for **sports**, it sounds like you are talking about team sports,
specifically school team sports and more specifically in the upper
grades. ??? Did you have these problems in elementary grades, or was
it just in middle or high school?

IMHO, children should be given the CHANCE to try all kinds of
different sports. And try them for long enough to see whether they
can attain the skills - at least one season or more. But it should be
done in a non-competitive atmosphere.

So your contention is partly correct and partly wrong. It isn't that
children shouldn't play sports if they don't like it, because most
people don't like having to do something that they aren't too good at.
You need to give them a clear and sufficient chance to become good at
it. The problem you had was the allowing of bullying, not the
requirement of sports.

I can't throw or catch a ball, so I was crappy at team sports. But we
didn't do much of that when I was in elementary school. In gym I
couldn't do the rope climb thing but I don't think they do that much
now (I don't see any ropes in the gyms). And it didn't really impact
much on my school life - no one picked on me because I couldn't climb
the rope. We did play dodge ball which I was good at because I was
good at dodging. I couldn't throw the ball at all.

Plus, there are all kinds of sports that aren't really team sports, or
there's less of the team in them.

My dh was not good at sports either, so the kinds of sports that my
kids did were gymnastics, ice skating, horseback riding, and swimming.
The last three of these are 'life sports' that you can do throughout
life whether you have someone to do them with or not, although you
have to have access to a rink, horse or pool. Running would be
another one - you don't have to have anything to do that except a pair
of suitable shoes or really tough feet. Some sports you only need one
other person - like tennis, climbing, wrestling, or martial arts
sports.

Other possibilities for some exercise and fun are sailing, golf,
hiking, bowling, skiing, archery-- anything EXCEPT football (any
kind), baseball/cricket, basketball, volleyball, hockey (either type),
or lacrosse.

wrote:

My life at school was one long nightmare and the overriding reason was
because I was no good at sports or gym (apart from running)
I would be constantly humiliated in Pt lessons and then bullied and
picked on by the kids afterwards. My school days were the most
miserabel period of my life.

What is the point of making kids play sport when they can't. Those kids
who are good at sports will natuarlly want to play but why not leave
the rest of us (a minority I know) out of it.
Say will say that kids need Pt to get exercise in which case why make
it so competitive? If the idea is for kids to exercise there is no need
to make it competitive. I suspect its more about fostering a sense of
competitioin in kid and sending out a signal 'if you don't get picked
for the team your a loser'.

Some people will say it helps build character but I don't suppose they
were crap at sports and had their life made a misery.

Does it really matter whether someone is good at sports unless they are
going to work as a footballer of something? But kids in those case will
want to play sports and don't need to be forced.

I used to love reading as a kid, books in advance of my age and I
enjoyed creative writing and loved history. Surley that is more
important that playing mindless games of football?

grandma Rosalie

On 18 Aug 2005 06:49:25 -0700, wrote:

I used to love reading as a kid, books in advance of my age and I
enjoyed creative writing and loved history. Surley that is more
important that playing mindless games of football?

PE is important too. I believe in the idea of a sound mind in a
sound body. While I agree that some kids are not going to be
good at sports, they can learn to play and have fun even if they
are not good at it. Perhaps some choices about what sports
they learn and what kinds of activities they do would help. My
dd did modern dance as one of her PE classes in high school
Some kids did swimming, others did bowling, others did ice
skating, tennis, golf, etc. Each of these were more individual
than team sports. Sports can be cooperative instead of competitive
as well if the right teacher organizes them. I don't think we should
throw out the baby with the bath water because PE has been
done poorly in the past. Perhaps the school can offer aerobics
and jazzercize as well as the traditional sports oriented class.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In article ,
toto wrote:

On 18 Aug 2005 06:49:25 -0700, wrote:

I used to love reading as a kid, books in advance of my age and I
enjoyed creative writing and loved history. Surley that is more
important that playing mindless games of football?

PE is important too. I believe in the idea of a sound mind in a
sound body. While I agree that some kids are not going to be
good at sports, they can learn to play and have fun even if they
are not good at it. Perhaps some choices about what sports
they learn and what kinds of activities they do would help. My
dd did modern dance as one of her PE classes in high school
Some kids did swimming, others did bowling, others did ice
skating, tennis, golf, etc. Each of these were more individual
than team sports. Sports can be cooperative instead of competitive
as well if the right teacher organizes them. I don't think we should
throw out the baby with the bath water because PE has been
done poorly in the past. Perhaps the school can offer aerobics
and jazzercize as well as the traditional sports oriented class.



I wish my kids' middle and high schools had had options like that! All
of my kids hated PE (for different reasons). My oldest ended up not
finishing it, but getting passed anyway. (Long story, ending with a
horrid kidney infection and a doctor's order to NOT participate in PE
for some period of time -- and the school deciding it wasn't worth
hasseling her over any more.)

Unfortunately, I'm told it costs more $$ to offer different classes, so
everyone had to take the same PE class, which meant everyone had to do
all the same stuff.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

wrote in message
ps.com...
My life at school was one long nightmare and the overriding reason was
because I was no good at sports or gym (apart from running)
I would be constantly humiliated in Pt lessons and then bullied and
picked on by the kids afterwards. My school days were the most
miserabel period of my life.

What is the point of making kids play sport when they can't. Those kids
who are good at sports will natuarlly want to play but why not leave
the rest of us (a minority I know) out of it.
Say will say that kids need Pt to get exercise in which case why make
it so competitive? If the idea is for kids to exercise there is no need
to make it competitive. I suspect its more about fostering a sense of
competitioin in kid and sending out a signal 'if you don't get picked
for the team your a loser'.

Some people will say it helps build character but I don't suppose they
were crap at sports and had their life made a misery.

Does it really matter whether someone is good at sports unless they are
going to work as a footballer of something? But kids in those case will
want to play sports and don't need to be forced.

I used to love reading as a kid, books in advance of my age and I
enjoyed creative writing and loved history. Surley that is more
important that playing mindless games of football?


Physical fitness is a priority, but not *sports*. I went to a school for a
bit that did not have a mandatory phys ed class requirement for kids who
participated in physical fitness activities, whcih included team sports and
other things like I think they called it field club or something which
involved hiking.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:37:59 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:

Unfortunately, I'm told it costs more $$ to offer different classes, so
everyone had to take the same PE class, which meant everyone had to do
all the same stuff.

The high school my kids went to was very large, but even so the
options were not available to freshman and sophomores - they
were available to juniors and seniors and since 4 years of PE
was required, we were very glad that was the case.

It does seem that elementary and middle school PE classes are
changing to be less *sports* oriented in at least some schools and
that's all to the good too.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Stephanie wrote:
Physical fitness is a priority, but not *sports*

I agree. Given the obesity epidemic in this country, and the general
lack of fitness, I think the trend in physical education is what they
call "lifetime sports" -- the kind of activities you can take part in
without a team long after you get out of school -- tennis, golf,
aerobics, running/walking, swimming, etc.

Though many phy ed teachers are on board with this others won't be
because they see nothing wrong with the traditional approach, and
others are worrying that with their classes being squeezed out of
curriculum, school boards aren't going to want to spend big bucks for
some of the equipment needed.

Lori G.
Milwaukee, WI