Change the record - Part 2

Further to my recent Olympics-related post, the 2016 Rio Olympics are now over and the newspaper sports supplements are full of praise for Team GB's impressive tally of 27 gold, 23 silver and 17 bronze medals - and rightfully so. That's two more medals than at London 2012 and 19 medals than the target set for GB athletes.

As a result, we now know that Rio 2016 is the "first time a host country has increased its medal haul at the following Olympics", and that the event was Team GB's best ever Games. But at London 1908, over a mammoth contest lasting 187 days, Team GB won a whopping 146 medals. This now explains the nebulous descriptions "away Games" or "best performance at an Olympics in the modern era". Those calling it the "best ever Games" are clearly keen to dismiss 1908 as either too long ago or with too many variables, subsequent rule-changes or other differences meaning that no comparison with the Olympics of today can be made. Not that the media spend much time explaining such details, of course! Like the geek I am, I trawled through Team GB history for my own explanation.

The "best away Games" tag is simply shorthand for "best-Olympic-Games-ever-except-for-London-1908-which-went-on-for-six-months-so-sort-of-doesn't-count-really". So there you have it! I'll leave it to others to fill you in on how much each medal has cost relative to the funding for different sports, and the comparisons with China in terms of population, area and medals won. I stand corrected; Rio 2016 was Team GB's best ever away Games. Now let's hope the athletes and those whose names we don't yet know can do even better at Tokyo 2020.

Dedication, that's what you need

When I was 16 and struggling with Maths at school, I had private tuition for eight weeks prior to the final exam. I worked hard and passed the exam with a B grade. But more than any vital life-skills of decoding simultaneous quadratic equations or working out how high a window cleaner's ladder extended up the outside wall of a house, it was the Latin aphorism that the tutor – a retired headmaster – had displayed in calligraphic letters in his study that stayed with me:

Meret qui laborat (He is deserving who is industrious).

Now as a teacher myself, I recently taught two students – both aged 16 – for a year on a course to prepare them for the Cambridge First Certificate exam in English. They both also passed their exam with very good B grades. The course wasn't a breeze, and the two of them had to work hard over many months. One of them is now beginning an apprenticeship to become a watchmaker. I'm sure he'll be excellent at it.  

All of this set me thinking about how we measure success. It seems to me that in the UK over the last 15 years or so, from an educational perspective, people have been preoccupied with quantifying achievement. Former UK prime minister Tony Blair famously wanted 50% of young people to go to university. This policy has proven to be a damaging experiment in social engineering which, in our tougher economic times, is confirmed by the lack of appropriate career opportunities for thousands of graduates. Secondly, tuition fees, debt and the resulting market in tertiary education really are causing many young people to consider whether a degree is worth it. Factor in the recent worrying stories concerning vocational training and employment schemes and you might begin to wonder who actually cares about young people and their potential.

Yet over the past fortnight, we have marvelled at people's potential and achievement in London. Some media outlets have looked into the backgrounds and/or education of Team GB athletes (55% of them are currently at university or are graduates). Others prefer to draw up a medals table of the UK further education and higher education institutions attended by athletes. I could understand if people were using such statistics to highlight potential problems concerning the equality of opportunity for athletes, though in the case of the medals table at least, this doesn't appear to be the motivation.

So what about the medalists from more modest backgrounds? Jade Jones is 19 years old. Is her Olympic gold medal worth less because she left school at 16 to take up taekwondo full time? Is 20-year-old Laura Trott less deserving of her two Olympic golds because she also left school (a specialist sports college) and seemingly went straight into cycling? We need to focus more on people's individual achievements rather than where they came from. For me, the lasting legacy of London 2012 is simply that in spite of their backgrounds, in sport or elsewhere, young people can achieve anything if they have the support of their families, friends and communities – and if they have the desire and determination to succeed.