This war on Participation Trophies is completely overblown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If it was important to you that your kid have experience running races, why didn't you set them up in your backyard, or sign her up for track, or in some way take responsibility for her learning this? Blaming the school for the fact that your kid didn't figure out that some people run races is a little bizarre.

I'm guessing that the fastest kids in your kid's class know that they're the fastest. They don't need races in PE to figure it out. They know who gets to the ball quickest in soccer, and who looks like the wind when they run down the sidewalk at the end of the day.

I think you are missing my point. I never gave it much thought until she mentioned to me that they had never raced. I think it would be kind of strange for me to set up races with her peers in my backyard, but thanks for the suggestion...

I'm not the PP, but my point is that I'm seriously surprised that your child evidently went through elementary school without ever running in PE or at recess. I know who the fast runners and the slow runners are in my child's class, because she's told me. And how does she know? A lot of the PE activities involve running, and they also run races at recess, organized by themselves -- after which they have arguments about who won.

Once again, my children did not get to race their peers in PE. All of their PE activities were set up to be non-competitive so that you couldn't really tell who was better. They ran all the time in PE. But they did not have to run their absolute fastest against their peers. They couldn't race at recess because their playground is full of tire chips.

Yes, the kids who were already interested in running in ES probably knew if they were fast. They probably raced on their own. DD did not have any interest in running/track until she saw it listed as an option in MS. Thinking back, she realized that she never HAD to race anyone at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Once again, my children did not get to race their peers in PE. All of their PE activities were set up to be non-competitive so that you couldn't really tell who was better. They ran all the time in PE. But they did not have to run their absolute fastest against their peers. They couldn't race at recess because their playground is full of tire chips.

Yes, the kids who were already interested in running in ES probably knew if they were fast. They probably raced on their own. DD did not have any interest in running/track until she saw it listed as an option in MS. Thinking back, she realized that she never HAD to race anyone at school.

I don't perceive this as a problem.

[Anonymous]

My concern isn't "everyone is a winner" trophies...it's how competitive things are. My kids are 8 and 12. If one of them got interested in soccer tomorrow, I think we have already completely missed the boat. It's like that for lots of things around here--so many kids either have the desire and parental support to excel in something early...or the parents push them...but for those of us who aren't pushy, our kids are already locked out of stuff. It's stressful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't mind if there were participation certificates given without much hoopla. The money spent on throw-away trophies is ridiculous. Leagues could fill a whole bin with that junk.

This is my issue with them. I don't need (nor my children) more junk. They go right in the trash at my house. I used to let them keep them, but the trinkets have no sentimental value to my kids and just ended up at the bottom of the toy bin or under the bed.

same reason i throw away any and all art/writing/etc projects that come home.

[Anonymous]

I am kind of staggered by the juxtaposition of trying to keep everything non-competitive for kids in this, the most competitive region in which I've ever lived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If it was important to you that your kid have experience running races, why didn't you set them up in your backyard, or sign her up for track, or in some way take responsibility for her learning this? Blaming the school for the fact that your kid didn't figure out that some people run races is a little bizarre.

I'm guessing that the fastest kids in your kid's class know that they're the fastest. They don't need races in PE to figure it out. They know who gets to the ball quickest in soccer, and who looks like the wind when they run down the sidewalk at the end of the day.

I think you are missing my point. I never gave it much thought until she mentioned to me that they had never raced. I think it would be kind of strange for me to set up races with her peers in my backyard, but thanks for the suggestion...

I'm not the PP, but my point is that I'm seriously surprised that your child evidently went through elementary school without ever running in PE or at recess. I know who the fast runners and the slow runners are in my child's class, because she's told me. And how does she know? A lot of the PE activities involve running, and they also run races at recess, organized by themselves -- after which they have arguments about who won.

Once again, my children did not get to race their peers in PE. All of their PE activities were set up to be non-competitive so that you couldn't really tell who was better. They ran all the time in PE. But they did not have to run their absolute fastest against their peers. They couldn't race at recess because their playground is full of tire chips.

Yes, the kids who were already interested in running in ES probably knew if they were fast. They probably raced on their own. DD did not have any interest in running/track until she saw it listed as an option in MS. Thinking back, she realized that she never HAD to race anyone at school.

In my experience as a teacher, the change in PE has little to do with not being competitive, and a lot to do with the goal of keeping kids moving every minute. When I was kid in elementary school P.E., we spent a lot of time waiting our turn to shoot the basketball, or waiting our turn to run the lap in the relay race. There were studies that came out that showed that kids got very little physical benefit from P.E. since they were sitting or standing still for most of it. So, there's been a change in P.E. programming to more activities where every kid is moving for most of the class. This pretty much rules out running races.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last week, a FB friend posted a long rant about participation trophies/medals, and how they are ruining our kids. Yesterday, the same guy posted a photo of himself proudly wearing a 5K finisher's medal...

Please tell me you said something witty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, the focus on participation serves a valuable purpose.

Some kids are just crappy at sports -- they have lousy hand-eye coordination, fall over their feet when they run, etc. When the focus is on winning, those kids quickly learn to bow out of team sports, for the good of their teammates. They learn not to do things they aren't good at, and they are discouraged from physical activity. Is that what we want kids to learn?

Just because a kid isn't good at soccer - or anything with a ball - doesn't mean they shouldn't try physical activity. There are a ton of sports that do not involve as much coordination. But a child should not be forced to play a team sport he/ she isn't good at.

I think the real issue is when kids do enjoy playing the team sports, but they aren't very good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's a boy/girl thing, but my 9 year old son can tell you who are the most athletic boys in his class with an amazing amount of detail. They know, trust me.

Yup. My son could tell you who ran the fastest mile in P.E. and every field day was all out war in terms of racing starting in 1st grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, the focus on participation serves a valuable purpose.

Some kids are just crappy at sports -- they have lousy hand-eye coordination, fall over their feet when they run, etc. When the focus is on winning, those kids quickly learn to bow out of team sports, for the good of their teammates. They learn not to do things they aren't good at, and they are discouraged from physical activity. Is that what we want kids to learn?

Just because a kid isn't good at soccer - or anything with a ball - doesn't mean they shouldn't try physical activity. There are a ton of sports that do not involve as much coordination. But a child should not be forced to play a team sport he/ she isn't good at.

I think the real issue is when kids do enjoy playing the team sports, but they aren't very good.

Yes, exactly -- I don't think kids should be forced to play something they dislike, but if they do like it, and also suck at it, a focus on participation (versus winning) might encourage their peers to tolerate their enthusiastic ineptitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't mind if there were participation certificates given without much hoopla. The money spent on throw-away trophies is ridiculous. Leagues could fill a whole bin with that junk.

+ 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't mind if there were participation certificates given without much hoopla. The money spent on throw-away trophies is ridiculous. Leagues could fill a whole bin with that junk.

+ 1.

I think that a certificate of participation with a team group picture printed on it (maybe even the names of the players) would be more valuable and emphasize the team spirit. It would be a nice momento of participation, but would steer away from being a trophy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only ones who thinknitis an actual award is the five to six year old set, and that is okay.

Why is that OK? I completely disagree with you. There is no reason to tell a five or six year old into thinking that s/he is a valuable member of the team if s/he has not put in the same amount of effort that other kids have. That's what participation trophies do. "You're all so special."

Guess what. Some of them are not. Some of them are painful brats who don't want to be there in the first place and make playing the game more difficult for other kids.

It's not really telling them "your so special." It's telling them that they showed up every Monday at 7:00 for 6 weeks just like all the other kids. so, just like every other kid, they get a memento.

I think the pp is saying that it's the 5-6 y.o. set that is proud of participating. Not that they think they won. at that age, they realize that trying something new is something to be proud of.

No, many kids don't show up every week. Some miss more then half the games. Some parents force them to go and play when they don't want to. Do they all deserve the trophies too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only ones who thinknitis an actual award is the five to six year old set, and that is okay.

Why is that OK? I completely disagree with you. There is no reason to tell a five or six year old into thinking that s/he is a valuable member of the team if s/he has not put in the same amount of effort that other kids have. That's what participation trophies do. "You're all so special."

Guess what. Some of them are not. Some of them are painful brats who don't want to be there in the first place and make playing the game more difficult for other kids.

It's not really telling them "your so special." It's telling them that they showed up every Monday at 7:00 for 6 weeks just like all the other kids. so, just like every other kid, they get a memento.

I think the pp is saying that it's the 5-6 y.o. set that is proud of participating. Not that they think they won. at that age, they realize that trying something new is something to be proud of.

No, many kids don't show up every week. Some miss more then half the games. Some parents force them to go and play when they don't want to. Do they all deserve the trophies too?

+1 - all kids, even in just participation are not created equal and shouldn't be thought of that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only ones who thinknitis an actual award is the five to six year old set, and that is okay.

Why is that OK? I completely disagree with you. There is no reason to tell a five or six year old into thinking that s/he is a valuable member of the team if s/he has not put in the same amount of effort that other kids have. That's what participation trophies do. "You're all so special."

Guess what. Some of them are not. Some of them are painful brats who don't want to be there in the first place and make playing the game more difficult for other kids.

Wow, someone must have peed in your breakfast this morning.

Or are you always that harsh and black-and-white?

The little kids who are not so good will drop out of the sport in time.

And those who don't want to be there in the first place don't deserve to be called brats, because it's not their choice they're there, they propably hate every second and they're there only because their parents' ego needs stroking.

You hateful rhymes-with-witch.