Compulsory Cycle Training

David Martin said:

p.k. said:

Withdrwaing from simming for cultural or religious reasons relating
to modesty is well established.

Did anyone else misread the third word for all n's?

..d

LOL!

Doncha just love some typos! Well spotted!

pk

David Martin said:

p.k. said:

Withdrwaing from simming for cultural or religious reasons
relating to modesty is well established.

Did anyone else misread the third word for all n's?

..d

No, I saw it as slimming.
--
Cheers
the.Mark

p.k. said:

Bertie Wiggins said:

p.k. said:

Cycling is not a compulsory element of the Curriculum. Swimming is.
The primary PE curriculum is focussed on skill acquisition (ball
control, balance, team work, tactics) not specific sports, in
preparation for more formally structured sports & team games

I do not dispute anything you say. However, schools have the
flexibility to make many activities part of their curriculum. They
could make learning the recorder a compulsory part of the music
curriculum, for example. What I propose is that cycle training be
made a compulsory part of the PE curriculum.

Parents would have the right to withdraw their child from cycling,
just as they do from any non-statutory part of the curriculum, such as
learning to play the recorder. As you suggest, swimming may still
have a slightly higher status - but parents can and do withdraw their
children from swimming lessons for cultural and other reasons.

Withdrwaing from simming for cultural or religious reasons relating to
modesty is well established. Or from RE for religious reasons ditto.
Withdrawing form other parts of the curriculum is not the norm

The distinction between swimming, RE and cycling is noted and valid.

I still maintain that swimming lessons and cycle training offer a fair
comparison. Cycling lessons are to the PE curriculum as recorder
lessons are to the music curriculum, so perhaps a fairer comparison.

Quoted message said:

Anther issue: If you make it part of the curriculum, you need to suppy the
bikes!

Indeed. The school already has 8 bikes, two adult, two 24" wheels,
two 20" wheel and two 16" wheels. The four 20 & 16 inch wheel bikes
are suitable for 6/7 year olds. I'd need another six bikes at a cost
of about £400. External funding for that is available, and if it
wasn't the money would be available from the parent-teacher
association.

Quoted message said:

That is not a glib point but from a govenenace perspective (eqaul access to
all, no child disadvantaged in school due to parent not being able to afford
etc etc) an important issue. If cycling is so important that it must be
compulsory, then the school must provide the necessary equipment. You would
not ask parents to pay entrance to the swimming pool. why shopuld they have
to buy a bike? do you want to commit school funs to buy a stock of bikes and
maintain them?

Yes! The successful £1860 bid for bicycles was specifically to make
cycle training socially inclusive. In the event, the bid was based on
retail prices, TfL supplied the bikes at trade price, so I still have
about £800 to spend on spares (or more bikes).

My one issue with the £90 (retail price) Raleigh Striker is that is
has only one gear. I'd like a three gear bike so that a start could
be made to teach the use of gears to younger children.

Bertie Wiggins said:

I still maintain that swimming lessons and cycle training offer a fair
comparison. Cycling lessons are to the PE curriculum as recorder
lessons are to the music curriculum, so perhaps a fairer comparison.

In a sense you are right. & while I could argue differences between
swimming/water safety (the NC terms) & cycling a case can be made either
way.

The key distinction is the NC requirement: Swimming/Water safety is
compulsory under the NC, Cycling is not. Why should the school divert
resources (lesson time, teacher time & money) from other compulsory
curriculum areas to the non compulsory one you champion? If there is spare
resource why should cycling win instead of (say) more language teaching?

That is the sort of challenge I would expect a GB to put to you and the line
I would argue in GB. Have you answers ready! Remember the Governors will
have to answer the same questions at the next ofsted inspection! Such
decisions have to be clear and robust to challenge - especially when they
may well be adverse comment from some parents (Why waste precious time in
school on cycling lessons when I can do that at home?) on the pre inspection
parents' questionnaire.

pk

Following on from Bertie Wiggins's message. . .

Quoted message said:

The school policy is not due for review until June 2007, and by then
the current policy should be fully implemented. I am already thinking
of ways to increase the uptake rate from 50%. One change I'm
considering putting to the governors is making Level 1 training opt
out, rather than opt in. Thus, instead of asking parents if they want
their child to have Level 1 training, they are asked if they don't
want their child to have Level 1 training. This would put cycle
training on a par with swimming lessons and sex education, and just
below that of religious education, where parents aren't specifically
offered a choice, but can withdraw their child from RE lessons.

Hmmm. I am 100% for cycle training - for adults as well as children.

If the objective is to increase the % cycling then I would suggest
different methods.

Firstly I would get the _whole school_ to 'want more'. Hearts and minds
and all that. You presumably have many trained salesboys and salesgirls
and salesparents who (a) enjoyed the experience and (b) value the skills
learnt [only by using them] and can (c) cockily show off their 'why
cycling is such a good idea' knowledge. The best advertisement and sign
of success in this department is a long waiting list.

Better to have volunteers who will hopefully get the bug and keep
cycling rather than conscripts (or refugees from French verbs) who are
filling in time with no motivation for applying their skills.

If at a later stage some parents say "Oi why isn't my little Chardonnay
being given cycling lessons" that's the [sort of] right pressure.

Secondly I would be absolutely clear what skills the training is to
teach and why these are valuable and _will be valued_. [1] Round our
way (Essex) there are road safety which purport to be cycle training 🙁
If you have cycling for everyone then 'to accommodate everyone' meet
and targets etc you could be looking at a quantity -v- quality trade off
by the time everyone has cut your resources. Not what you want.

So my suggestion is to build the demand organically not artificially.

[1]
A skill won't be values if it isn't used. (As you know you can have
intermediate objectives such as "You can't go on the sponsored cycle
ride until ..." and if that's a cool thing then hey-presto!) I would be
concerned that (for sake of argument) "it helps balance" might be used
as a justification for using bikes when there are simpler ways and
anyway the objective of cycle training is ... to use a bike ... which
means more than Dodge in the playground.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the pancake business flopped
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

Bertie Wiggins said:

Putting Level 1 cycle training on a par with swimming lessons will
probably be uncontroversial here, but, playing Devil's Advocate, what
objections am I likely to come up against?

As I understand it, the purpose of compulsory swimming lessons is to teach
what could be a life-saving skill if one falls into water. By contrast, one
is unlikely to fall onto a bicycle and find oneeslf suddenly cycling down
the road, wondering how to control the confounded contraption.

--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Wally said:

Bertie Wiggins said:

Putting Level 1 cycle training on a par with swimming lessons will
probably be uncontroversial here, but, playing Devil's Advocate, what
objections am I likely to come up against?

As I understand it, the purpose of compulsory swimming lessons is to teach
what could be a life-saving skill if one falls into water. By contrast, one
is unlikely to fall onto a bicycle and find oneeslf suddenly cycling down
the road, wondering how to control the confounded contraption.

I have found myself in unexpectedly life-threatening situations when
cycling along a road many orders of magnitude more frequently than I've
found myself unexpectedly floundering in water.

Not that the former is particularly frequent, you understand.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

James Annan said:

I have found myself in unexpectedly life-threatening situations when
cycling along a road many orders of magnitude more frequently than
I've found myself unexpectedly floundering in water.

That wasn't the point I was making. You can find yourself *having* to swim
without deciding to get into the water, but you're unlikey to find yourself
*having* to cycle without deciding to get on a bike - because you're
exremely unlikely to find yourself on a bike by accident.

--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Wally said:

James Annan said:

I have found myself in unexpectedly life-threatening situations when
cycling along a road many orders of magnitude more frequently than
I've found myself unexpectedly floundering in water.

That wasn't the point I was making. You can find yourself *having* to swim
without deciding to get into the water,

I suspect this is a very unlikely event.

Quoted message said:

but you're unlikey to find yourself
*having* to cycle without deciding to get on a bike - because you're
exremely unlikely to find yourself on a bike by accident.

OTOH the vast majority of children _will_ find themselves riding a bike,
and it seems sensible to give them some training.

You might as well say that no-one is going to find themselves *having*
to speak a foreign language (or add up a sequence of numbers) by
accident, so there's no point giving them lessons to help them in that
either.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

in message <[email hidden]>, p.k.

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Parents would have the right to withdraw their child from cycling,
just as they do from any non-statutory part of the curriculum, such as
learning to play the recorder. As you suggest, swimming may still
have a slightly higher status - but parents can and do withdraw their
children from swimming lessons for cultural and other reasons.

Withdrwaing from simming for cultural or religious reasons relating to
modesty is well established. Or from RE for religious reasons ditto.
Withdrawing form other parts of the curriculum is not the norm

Matter of interest, Tilly/Bertie, back when you were choosing bikes one
of the reasons for buying some step through frame bikes was because of a
feeling that some of your potential students would not ride a crossbar
frame because of cultural dress codes.

Do you find there are some people who won't ride a bike /at/ /all/ for
modesty reasons? Do you find people's attitudes change once they have
ridden a bike - by which I'm saying, to what extent is 'modesty' used as
an excuse for not trying?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left

in message <[email hidden]>, Wally

(') said:

James Annan said:

I have found myself in unexpectedly life-threatening situations when
cycling along a road many orders of magnitude more frequently than
I've found myself unexpectedly floundering in water.

That wasn't the point I was making. You can find yourself *having* to
swim without deciding to get into the water, but you're unlikey to find
yourself *having* to cycle without deciding to get on a bike - because
you're exremely unlikely to find yourself on a bike by accident.

But you are extremely likely to find yourself *having* to use the roads
in one mode or other, and cycling is a very good way of learning general
road skills: learning how to understand the 'rule of the road' and how
traffic flows work, and consequently where danger is likely to come
from. These skills are transferable to general road safety situations
such as crossing the road, and I would argue that children have to cross
roads more often than they fall in rivers.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit
;; patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a
;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that
;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous

Simon Brooke said:

Matter of interest, Tilly/Bertie, back when you were choosing bikes one
of the reasons for buying some step through frame bikes was because of a
feeling that some of your potential students would not ride a crossbar
frame because of cultural dress codes.

Do you find there are some people who won't ride a bike /at/ /all/ for
modesty reasons? Do you find people's attitudes change once they have
ridden a bike - by which I'm saying, to what extent is 'modesty' used as
an excuse for not trying?

All the children's bikes have crossbars. One of the two adult bikes
has a step through frame. I have not encoutered anyone who wouldn't
ride a bike out of modesty. If there was such a child put off
cycling, I would do all I could to fund a bike to accommodate her,
likewise with a child with a physical disability.

59 children have so far taken part in cycle training, or will take
part next term. Of those 59:
22 are boys
37 I would describe as white European
14 are entitled to free school meals
Based on school figures, I would expect:
27 boys
34 white European
15 free school meals

Girls appear to be over represented, and white European children
slightly over represented.

Of a greater concern to me is that of the 8 boys and 9 girls who have
taken part in Level 3 training, I have assessed 6 boys and 3 girls as
having met the standard. Is this a bias of mine because boys show a
greater confidence at difficult junctions, rather than their safety on
the road?

Mark Thompson said:

On the other hand a link to .jpg's of Norfolk's famous Cycling Christmas
Tree...

I have been provided with such a jpg, which, with Helen's permission, I
now make available for public viewing. Helen has asked me to warn that
it is unsuitable for children. Personally, I think she looks like a
morris dancer (either that or a white witch getting ready for dancing
nekkid round the willow tree):
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/z-Festive-lid.jpg>

BTW, happy birthday Helen.

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:51:30 +0000 someone who may be Danny Colyer
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I have been provided with such a jpg, which, with Helen's permission, I
now make available for public viewing. Helen has asked me to warn that
it is unsuitable for children.

Both owner and hat seem fine to me.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark Thompson said:

On the other hand a link to .jpg's of Norfolk's famous Cycling Christmas
Tree...

I have been provided with such a jpg, which, with Helen's permission, I
now make available for public viewing. Helen has asked me to warn that it
is unsuitable for children. Personally, I think she looks like a morris
dancer (either that or a white witch getting ready for dancing nekkid
round the willow tree):
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/z-Festive-lid.jpg>

BTW, happy birthday Helen.

Ta muchly, Danny. I take no responsibility for the sanity of any viewer of
said picture ;-)

Cheers, helen s

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:51:30 +0000 someone who may be Danny Colyer
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I have been provided with such a jpg, which, with Helen's permission, I
now make available for public viewing. Helen has asked me to warn that
it is unsuitable for children.

Both owner and hat seem fine to me.

Wot a nice chappie... do have a slice of this here cake I made earlier.. ;-)

Cheers, helen s

Quoted message said:

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

James Annan said:

Quoted message said:

That wasn't the point I was making. You can find yourself *having*
to swim without deciding to get into the water,

Quoted message said:

I suspect this is a very unlikely event.

I tend to agree.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but you're unlikey to find yourself
*having* to cycle without deciding to get on a bike - because you're
exremely unlikely to find yourself on a bike by accident.

OTOH the vast majority of children _will_ find themselves riding a
bike, and it seems sensible to give them some training.

Doesn't seem unreasonable.

Quoted message said:

You might as well say that no-one is going to find themselves *having*
to speak a foreign language (or add up a sequence of numbers) by
accident, so there's no point giving them lessons to help them in that
either.

Sure. I don't particularly object to compulsory cycle training - I think
learning to ride a bike is a good thing for every kid to do, and that should
come with awareness of the risks and dangers.

Bertie asked for devil's advocate responses, so that's what I offered. The
argument is that one gets on a bike by choice. In choosing to undertake the
task, there is an implied onus / expectation / argument from common sense
that one should acquire the relevant skills. Unlike falling into water, only
those who undertake the task need be trained - falling into water could
affect anyone, so everyone should be trained.

As I understand it, this is why swimming is compulsory (or very nearly). To
make the argument that cycling should be compulsory, one also has to make
the argument that sufficient kids will get on bikes - essentially, show that
cycling dangers 'could happen to anyone', in the same way that a watery
mishap 'could happen to anyone'. I think that argument is no stronger than
the proportion of cycling (or cyclists) compared to other means of getting
about (or people using those other means). IOW, if 95% of people cycle, then
fine, if 5% cycle, then it's a hard case to make.

--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:26:47 +0000 (UTC), "wafflycat"

w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

"Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark Thompson said:

On the other hand a link to .jpg's of Norfolk's famous Cycling Christmas
Tree...

I have been provided with such a jpg, which, with Helen's permission, I
now make available for public viewing. Helen has asked me to warn that it
is unsuitable for children. Personally, I think she looks like a morris
dancer (either that or a white witch getting ready for dancing nekkid
round the willow tree):
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/z-Festive-lid.jpg>

BTW, happy birthday Helen.

Ta muchly, Danny. I take no responsibility for the sanity of any viewer of
said picture ;-)

Cheers, helen s

Very Nice christmas pic. Happy Birthday.

Mike

"MikeJ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Very Nice christmas pic. Happy Birthday.

Mike

Thanks 🙂 The photographer has a lot more to do with the pic than the
subject though!

Cheers, helen s

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:29:18 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Both owner and hat seem fine to me.

Wot a nice chappie... do have a slice of this here cake I made earlier.. ;-)

I do hope it's coffee and walnut cake, like my mother used to
make:-)

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54