Thursday, October 16, 2008

Olympic Games

Interesting to hear the BBC commentator tonight, blathering again about how important Lottery funding was for our recent successes at the Olympics.

Seb Coe's times at the 1984 Los Angeles Games would have won Gold at the 800 and 1500 metres this year. He didn't get any money from the Lottery...

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

all the gazilions poured into the Olympics would do much , more good at SCHOOLS.
The school I teach in is absolutely drelict..teachers teaching in huts, freezing in winter, boiling in summer. Same goes for the school my daugher goes to... sad, derelict building with flaking paint, wobbly furniture (apart from the IT suites.. now how come those are always state of the art? Whilst the humanities and laguages get zero??)
And, ahh. now how we are all rejoicing about the SATS having been abolished but WAHT ON EARTH will the teachers do with the year 9's now?????????? For the last 15 years , yr 9 was a place to sit inand be geared up for your SATS and nothing much else. Uh.....what happens now?

GAS said...

You could have the best of both worlds if you poured the lottery money into the schools. The schools could have reasonable classrooms (such as a simple thing like heat)and also help train future athletes through sports programs run by the schools. I know it is an out there concept so it would need a new age name to garner interest.

Anonymous said...

"The school I teach in is absolutely drelict..teachers teaching in huts, freezing in winter, boiling in summer."

Sounds like the state school I went to.

Yet in my graduating year, around 20% of pupils were admitted to Oxford and Cambridge, which must surely be a remarkable achievement considering how wobbly our chairs were and how flaky the paint; not to mention how we had to huddle around the stove in the hut to stay warm in the winter.

Or perhaps good teaching is more important than good paint.