Social camouflage harms children’s moral development

Recently I was working with some primary school teachers on how you can teach fundamental British values – democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs.

My session focuses on positive interpretations of those concepts - encouraging understanding of and commitment to civic – not nationalistic – values; principles that protect our rights and enable us all to flourish in a spirit of community and inclusivity.

I asked people to identify what was already going on in their school that promoted these values.

One teacher said she thought competitive sports like football, cricket, hockey etc promotes an understanding of ‘the rule of law’ because it shows how young people learn “that life has boundaries and rules” within which one can thrive and flourish, but once you transgress and “start breaking the rules, then penalties and punishments follow”. I thought it was a brilliant analogy.

Another teacher said he ran the school football team and thought that it was an example of promoting democracy. I asked him to say more. He explained that he thought it was democratic for team members to be rotated so everyone had the opportunity to play. When I asked for clarification, he confirmed this was a team of ten and eleven-year-old boys who played competitive football matches against other schools.

I challenged this, courteously of course. I said I thought “electing someone on the basis of who was the best candidate was the basis of democracy, not rotating them” but then asked: “Shouldn’t competitive sports teams be selected on the basis of merit?” He disagreed. “Not at that age,” he said. “Getting the opportunity to play and join in is more important than who is, or is not, the best.”

I agree that may be a justifiable criterion for five or six-year-olds starting out. It may also be justifiable for ‘play’ – ‘kicking about’ casually in the playground - in my view, it is not for justifiable for ‘sport’ - which by its nature is competitive and hierarchical.

By the time children are at the top of Key Stage 2, many have developed not only the requisite advanced skills to play sport competitively but the moral principles to distinguish what should be the appropriate selection criteria for who gets in the team. In my view, children know – instinctively - it should be those with the best ability.

While ‘rotating’ a competitive sports team may be done from the best of intentions, doing so only enables those with lesser ability to join in for the purpose of ‘play’ – which is valid for the activity of ‘playing’. Those children with better ability are disabled from improvement through competition.

Competing for a merited place in the team develops character. Gifting one on any other basis teaches children an inversion of the moral order.

Socially camouflaging competitive sport does no-one any favours.

Alan Newland runs practical discussion workshops on how to teach fundamental British values and how to respond to challenging and controversial incidents in schools and universities. He is the author of "Becoming a Teacher - the legal, ethical and moral implications of entering society's most fundamental profession" (published by Crown House Publishing).