buzz wrote:spitalfields wrote:… As I said before, "any notion that an elitist framework is the route to grow participation is utter nonsense, as its very purpose is to do the opposite." I wasn't suggesting that junior squads should be open to all. I was suggesting that any pretence that a 'talent and performance pathway' is the way to inspire the majority of juniors (and indeed adult newcomers) to stay with the sport should be dropped.
If, instead, it is openly acknowledged that- for all the positive reasons there might be to do it- this kind of thing has a negative impact on overall participation and retention, then that could be the starting point for something really positive. Thought could then be given to how to mitigate these negative impacts, and so do something meaningful for everybody's benefit. It's encouraging to hear that there is thought being given to how to fix some of the divides. I hope that will include being honest about the negative impacts, rather than the myth that selective pathways are the route to inspiring participation being perpetuated.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that the purpose of a Talent Pathway is to reduce participation. The aims of the current national Programme is to win medals at junior and senior world championships. The purpose isn’t clear, but I really don’t think they are striving to reduce participation and any negative impact is unintentional. The Workgroup has been discussing the aims of the Pathway (see the link to the Survey for a flavour) and whilst winning medals is certainly one of the goals, the purpose is more about the benefits to the athletes involved in the pathway and the sport as whole including participation.
I don’t think that there’s inevitably a conflict between a Talent and Performance Pathway and Participation. I agree that there is an issue around how selection is managed and mitigating against the negative impacts is important (perhaps a discussion worthy of a separate thread given recent controversy) There’s also a need for alternative routes through the sport for the vast majority who don’t get to run for GB which is where ‘Every Junior Matters’ comes in. But I can’t see how past Talent Pathways have had a negative impact on 'overall participation' given the enormous contribution made to Development by former and current athletes and parents who were inspired by their involvement in the Pathway.
I admit I was clumsy in my use of the word 'purpose'. I don't think for one second that there is an explicit intention to reduce participation; but I do think this is a very real risk that needs to be mitigated. Any selection process runs the risk of (a) demotivating those who are not selected at each stage of the funnel towards to a limited and very small number of 'elite' places, and (b) influencing the culture of the entire sport to favour 'elite success', thus demotivating/alienating those for whom this is of no interest/never an option. There is nothing that turns people off sport more than 'sporty people'. I have done a fair amount of work with projects getting middle-aged and older people involved in sport, many of whom were turned off anything labelled as 'sport' in their teens and twenties because of the culture and attitudes of others. Providing an environment where the enjoyment of the activity is prioritised is a life-changing revelation for many; and the best results are often achieved when the 'sporty types' suddenly realise that there are other ways to enjoy the same activity, and being accessible to others doesn't diminish their own enjoyment- indeed, it's usually enhanced due to the greater opportunities presented by higher participation rates and experimenting with new ideas.
The sorts of things you mention are the sorts of measures I think should be prioritised in order to mitigate the risk of negative consequences from a focus on 'talent' (which in my view is rarely recognised as it is more often than not clouded by the effects of 'previous opportunity') and 'performance'. And in the spirit of optimism I shall focus on these rather than the face-palm moment I had when reading your argument that T+P must be great because people who have benefited from it continue to be involved. That's great- but without any data on how many others have left the sport due to negative experiences, it really isn't an argument. John Finnemore's Souvenir Programme had a brilliant sketch last week on the risk of arguments built on a limited perspective. I highly recommend it to all (and, yes, I also considered my own viewpoint and the way in which I argue this as a result of listening to it).
buzz wrote:graeme wrote:graeme wrote: How does this review relate to the "Every Junior Matters" strategy? They look to be operating rather independently of each other which, given the low number of juniors, doesn't seem like a great idea.
https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/everyjuniormatters
Which doesn't mention the Talent Pathway and the Talent Pathway doesn't mention it. So I guess that answers my question.
Actually I took the trouble to answer your question and you seem to have ignored it. I’ve spoken with members of the team behind the EJM strategy on numerous occasions over the past 12 months and I know others on the Workgroup have as well. If you choose not to believe me then there’s not much I can say.
I've no doubt of the good intentions behind this statement, but despair at the apparent lack of insight it betrays. A cynic might suggest that 'Every Junior Matters' is a trendy phrase adopted to position for certain funding pots. The existence of another strategy related to juniors that is separate from this strategy relating to 'every' junior would be unlikely to make the cynic refresh their view. For the only links between the two to be a few chats is disappointing (though I'm sure they are more than just this).
What's wrong with embedding the one within the other? If every junior really does matter, then those for whom the T+P is designed matter just as much as those who will never have any hope or interest in troubling such plans. And those who will form the bulk of current and future participants (and mappers, and planners, and controllers, and organisers, and coaches) won't be made to feel like second-class citizens because they are only considered within the 'also-rans' strategy rather than the one that (it may appear) the sport favours.