No winners, no loosers cont'd

[kaypeegee]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_8280000/newsid_8286000/8286029.stm

I can't post to Donal's thread on the General Rugby forum. Perhaps someone can cross post the above link which may be of interest.

 

[OB..]

I put a link to your post on there, suggesting we transfer the discussion to here.

It seems to me blindingly obvious that, as so often, it is a question of finding the right balance. "Win at all costs" is bad; pretending nobody wins a game is impossible.

If all the IRFU is doing is playing competitive games but not arranging for an overall winner, then it may be a sensible to counter the over aggressive approach to winning. In individual matches however, kids will know who won. And they will want to win. You cannot play rugby and ignore that, because it is built into the fundamental structure of the game.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Re: No Winners, No Losers.

The IRFU have introduced a non competitive elemenent upto and including U12 rugby. I dont have a link but basically the concept is something similar like the Ajax football academy introduced where there is no "winner" and no "losers" at festivals and competitions.

It reckons the tournaments should see everyone getting involved and having fun rather than focusing on only one team winning a trophy especially due to the fact it is a childrens game.

This is just the ultimate in PC stupidity!

While its a nice little "feelgood" for the kids who don't win anything, the ones who are very good and put the effort in pretty quickly learn that it doesn't matter how hard you work, and how good you are, those who don't work as hard get as much kudos as you, so they stop trying hard.

Netball in NZ tried the same philosophy 20 years ago. It set the game in this country back years. At the same time, Australia kept their kids fiercely competitive, "winners are grinners" - losers are nowhere. Those kids playing under that regime are now adults playing in the Trans-Tasman Trophy, a 10 team competition - five from each country with home and away ties. It is in its second year.

Last year, no NZ team beat any Aussie team in Australia. The Aussie teams occupied 1st to 5th - The New Zealand teams 6th to 10th.

This year, not a lot different., the Aussies 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th, NZ teams 2nd, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th. The team that got 2nd was a virtual full strength Silver Ferns team.

That is the result of not teaching children the value of competititon and the importance of winning.

 

[Dickie E]

Re: No Winners, No Losers.

While its a nice little "feelgood" for the kids who don't win anything, the ones who are very good and put the effort in pretty quickly learn that it doesn't matter how hard you work, and how good you are, those who don't work as hard get as much kudos as you, so they stop trying hard.

What a load of codswallop.

Kids who are good at activities know that without having to rub the noses of the less-gifted in it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Re: No Winners, No Losers.

What a load of codswallop.

Kids who are good at activities know that without having to rub the noses of the less-gifted in it.

Having been a teacher, and a sports coach at primary school level, I have seen this first hand. I've seen the look of dismay on the face of the child who wins the race when the kid who finished last gets the same reward and gets lavished with praise as well.

Having a competition with no winners and no keeping of score is Politically Correct Bullshit!! Its part of a stated philosophy attributed mainly to a particular group of mostly woman schoolteachers who are easy to spot as they mostly have No.1 haircuts and wear sandals and long dangling earrings. The small number of male schoolteachers in this group are also easy to spot in their kaftans.

Male numbers in the teaching profession, especially at the Primary level in NZ are small because most of the remaining males have been scared out of the profession, or too scared to join. Male teachers are almost as rare as rocking-horse shit in NZ primary schools. In 2004 my daughter graduated from Christchurch College of Education with a teaching degree. There were 179 graduates in her year, 177 of them were women!!!!

 

[OB..]

Having been a primary school governor, I noted that some 90% of teachers were women, but about 50% of head teachers were men. I also know from some scientific studies I read for my union that something similar is the case in nursing.

As a generalisation women join such professions for the caring aspect, whereas men see it as just another career. In careers you try to get up the ladder, whereas a carer finds she is moving into admin and away from the children/patients.

My school played various sports against other schools, and probably lots more than they won. Nobody pretended otherwise, but just kept encouraging them to do their best and enjoy themselves. I don't know how prevalent the "no winners, no losers" policy is, but I saw no sign of it. I suspect a few cases are being over-publicised. Does anybody have any facts?

 

[Dickie E]

Re: No Winners, No Losers.

Having a competition with no winners and no keeping of score is Politically Correct Bullshit!! Its part of a stated philosophy attributed mainly to a particular group of mostly woman schoolteachers who are easy to spot as they mostly have No.1 haircuts and wear sandals and long dangling earrings. The small number of male schoolteachers in this group are also easy to spot in their kaftans.

Male numbers in the teaching profession, especially at the Primary level in NZ are small because most of the remaining males have been scared out of the profession, or too scared to join. Male teachers are almost as rare as rocking-horse shit in NZ primary schools. In 2004 my daughter graduated from Christchurch College of Education with a teaching degree. There were 179 graduates in her year, 177 of them were women!!!!

It sounds like there's a whole PhD worth of issues swirling around here.

I've seen the look of dismay on the face of the child who wins the race when the kid who finished last gets the same reward and gets lavished with praise as well.

Better that look of dismay than the look of dismay on the kid's face because his teammates ostracise him because he's not good enough to be part of their team.

I've seen teachers who are only interested in being part of the alpha group. Ian, were you that type of teacher? If so, I think your kids would have been the poorer for it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Re: No Winners, No Losers.

Better that look of dismay than the look of dismay on the kid's face because his teammates ostracise him because he's not good enough to be part of their team.

I would encourage that child to look for another sport where they might have a better chance of success.

I've seen teachers who are only interested in being part of the alpha group. Ian, were you that type of teacher? If so, I think your kids would have been the poorer for it.

Turning out successful, well motivated children is what school should be about.

► Reward those who succeed.
► Encourage those who do not to do better next time.

There is nothing wrong with this philosophy, and I will stand by it 100% to the day I die, but the very idea of rewarding everybody equally, regardless of their performance, is a complete anathema to me. It is tantamount to giving all the children sitting a maths test a 100% pass mark whether they got the answers right or wrong.

We now have the ridiculous situation in our schools where there is no such thing as failure. The word "failure" is a forbidden term, instead they call it "deferred success", another politically correct piece of bullshit terminology. The education system seemingly allows people to defer their success indefinitely.

The problem is, that when these kids, who have been protected by an education system that tolerates their failures, finish school and end up confronting the "real" world, they suddenly find that failure is not tolerated at all and they are totally unprepared for it. When they grow up they need to be able to deal with success and failure. Education is about creating well-rounded young adults who can deal with this. It is important that young people to grow up with the ability to achieve success, but they also need to experience what is is like to fail.

 

[dave_clark]

amen sir. it's pretty much the same over here. i don't work in education, but my mrs is a private tutor covering GCSE & A level maths and science, and she's amazed, shocked and disgusted that a large element of what we studied (13 years ago) for GCSE is now on the A level syllabus. standards going up all the time? bollocks. it's not fair for kids to fail, so everyone is going to pass.

i blame Tony Blair :biggrin:

 

[barker14610]

Re: No Winners, No Losers.

The problem is, that when these kids, who have been protected by an education system that tolerates their failures, finish school and end up confronting the "real" world, they suddenly find that failure is not tolerated at all and they are totally unprepared for it. When they grow up they need to be able to deal with success and failure. Education is about creating well-rounded young adults who can deal with this. It is important that young people to grow up with the ability to achieve success, but they also need to experience what is is like to fail.

Excellent point Mr Cook. What happens when these people don't get into medical school, law school, PhD programs, etc? What happens when they want to be teachers, policemen, nurses, etc? What happens when someone more talented or better at ladder climbing beats them out for promotion? Do they whine to their boos " I tried. I should get that too?"
Not everyone can be the starting scrum-half for the All Blacks or the starting center fielder for the NY Yankees.

 

[Donal1988]

As I said on previous threads I think some people are drawing WAY too much comparison between a 10 year old sampling a sport and a 30 year old pushing for international sport, job promotions etc. Its for children. It isnt across the board. I reckon see how it goes before branding anything stupid.

Ian perhaps the NZRU should be considering such measures. I hear Henry rabbitting on about how playing numbers all falling in NZ, how interest in the sport is declining and law changes are the solution. I had a look on the NZ website about the "Smallblacks" module and the following is in the variations of the mini game (up to and including 13 year olds). If there is a margin of 35 between teams "both coaches must meet and come to an agreement as to how they can generate a more even contest". It also says that subs are rolling and "All players must play at least half a game". The game also allows for (at instruction of referee or if no referee is present) "no tackling and no contested scrums."

Surely if the star players were forced to be replaced due to this it discourages them from playing? Is this equal oppurtunty nonsense. I wouldnt say so I would imagine its productive but your logic seems to suggest to me they would.

 

[Dixie]

i blame Tony Blair :biggrin:

A generally sound policy, and one which, if rumour is correct, you'll be able to espouse and implement to great effect at the European level in the coming years.

As I said on previous threads I think some people are drawing WAY too much comparison between a 10 year old sampling a sport and a 30 year old pushing for international sport, job promotions etc. Its for children. It isnt across the board. I reckon see how it goes before branding anything stupid.

Probably also a sound policy, though there's a lot of solid experience among the nay-sayers.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian perhaps the NZRU should be considering such measures.

They'll be snowboarding in Hades first

I had a look on the NZ website about the "Smallblacks" module and the following is in the variations of the mini game (up to and including 13 year olds). If there is a margin of 35 between teams "both coaches must meet and come to an agreement as to how they can generate a more even contest". It also says that subs are rolling and "All players must play at least half a game". The game also allows for (at instruction of referee or if no referee is present) "no tackling and no contested scrums."

And it is a policy I agree with. There is at least one sport that employs a "mercy" rule even at international level. A Softball match ends at the 5th inning if one team has a 10 run lead. Similar mercy rules are used a various levels of Baseball, American Football, Soccer, Hockey, and Amateur Boxing.

In all of these, score is still kept, and there is still a winner and a loser.

 

[SBCornwall]

I totally agree with Ian as I've said in other posts. When young, it's not like it has to be harsh criticism that knocks their development, but constructive words to help them improve. I just think that well fostered competition is really good and develops the person.

 

[Donal1988]

They'll be snowboarding in Hades first

Could be closer than you think - http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=50421761 - (read the username)!

 

[SimonSmith]

My son is 5, and I just spent the weekend with him.

Plays in the local soccer league, as well as every other sport. Regardless of the sport's "winner/loser" philosophy (T-ball, for example, has a no loser policy...) he always knows if his team got more than the opposition. And tells me that they won/got beaten.

 

[Ian_Cook]

...T-ball, for example, has a no loser policy...

Is that anything like Pegball?

It a game we see played in schools here. Its like softball with either a tennis ball or an indoor cricket ball sitting on a cricket wicket topped with a piece of bicycle inner-tube.

 

[Donal1988]

So in essense Simon what your saying is that to the competitive child it has no effect at all? I would agree with that and say that it allows the less competitive child to enjoy it all the more.

I see a lot of people slate the Magners League for example as being something similar - i.e. Cardiff doing poorly in it last year and it being ignored as they had good European run. Munster getting 6th place of 10 in the past but winning the cup so it was ok.

 

[SimonSmith]

I'm saying that there are no losers/winners is a pretence, and one that is demeaning to children, particularly smart competitive ones.

I'd love someone to point out one incontrovertible benefit to the policy. Because i'd put money on them not being able to. For every 'loser' who isn't made to feel like one, there's a winner being denied their win; and I would argue that THAT is the greater crime.

 

[Donal1988]

Believe it or not Im not actually a wild advocator of the policy. For all I know it could well be rubbish. But I really really really think that most people here and in other mediums have jumped the gun a lot claiming blah blah blah kids are gonna grow up thinking its ok to lose and its just grinding my gears a bit.

I dont think anyone is being denied a win or told they didnt lose. As I understand it they are simply just not having competitive fixtures until age 13. Thats all. Not parading a team drubbed 50-0 about as a champion. Not pretending to any kids that they didnt do well. Just not being all that bothered about the score until a certain age.