Every Saturday morning, at 9 am, more than 50,000 runners set off to run 5km around their local park. The Parkrun phenomenon began with a dozen friends and has inspired 400 events in the UK and more abroad. Events are free, staffed by thousands of volunteers. Runners range from four years old to grandparents; their times range from Andrew Baddeley's world record 13 minutes 48 seconds up to an hour.
Parkrun is succeeding where London's Olympic "legacy" is failing. Ten years ago on Monday, it was announced that the Games of the 30th Olympiad would be in London. Planning s pledged that the great legacy of the Games would be to lever a nation of sport lovers away from their couches. The population would be fitter, healthier and produce more winners. It has not happened. The number of adults doing weekly sport did rise, by nearly 2 million in the run-up to 20 12 - but
the general population was growing faster. Worse, the numbers are now falling at an accelerating rate. The opposition claims primary school pupils doing at least two hours of sport a week have nearly halved. Obesity has risen among adults and
children. Official retrospections continue as to why London 20 12 failed to "inspire a generation." The success of Parkrun offers answers.
Parkun is not a race but a time trial: Your only competitor is the clock. The ethos welcomes anybody. There is as much joy over a puffed-out first-timer being clapped over the line as there is about top talent shining. The Olympic bidders, by
contrast, wanted to get more people doing sport and to produce more elite athletes. The dual aim was mixed up: The stress on success over taking part was intimidating for newcomers.
Indeed, there is something a little absurd in the state getting involved in the planning of such a fundamentally "grassroots" concept as community sports associations. If there is a role for government, it should really be getting involved in
providing common goods — making sure there is space for playing fields and the money to pave tennis and netball courts, and encouraging the provision of all these activities in schools. But successive governments have presided over selling green spaces, squeezing money from local authorities and declining attention on sport in
education. Instead of wordy, worthy strategies, future governments need to do more to provide the conditions for sport to thrive. Or at least not make them worse.
With so much focus on children's use of screens, it's easy for parents to forget about their own screen use. "Tech is designed to really suck you in," says Jenny Radesky in her study of digital play, "and digital products are there to promote maximal engagement. It makes it hard to disengage, and leads to a lot of bleed-over into the family routine."
Radesky has studied the use of mobile phones and tablets at mealtimes by giving mother-child pairs a food-testing exercise. She found that mothers who used devices during the exercise started 20 per cent fewer verbal and 39 per cent fewer nonverbal interactions with their children. During a separate observation, she saw that phones became a source of tension in the family. Parents would be looking at their emails while the children would be making excited bids for their attention.
Infants are wired to look at parents' faces to try to understand their world, and if those faces are blank and unresponsive — as they often are when absorbed in a device — it can be extremely disconcerting for the children. Radesky cites the "still face experiment" devised by developmental psychologist Ed Tronick in the 1970s. In it, a mother is asked to interact with her child in a normal way before putting on a blank expression and not giving them any visual social feedback: The child
becomes increasingly distressed as she tries to capture her mother's attention. "Parents don't have to be exquisitely present at all times, but there needs to be a balance and parents need to be responsive and sensitive to a child's verbal or
nonverbal expressions of an emotional need," says Radesky.
On the other hand, Tronick himself is concerned that the worries about kids' use of screens are born out of an "oppressive ideology that demands that parents should always be interacting" with their children: "It's based on a somewhat fantasised, very white, very upper-middle-class ideology that says if you're failing to expose your child to 30,000 words you are neglecting them." Tronick believes
that just because a child isn't learning from the screen doesn't mean there's no value to it — particularly if it gives parents time to have a shower, do housework or simply have a break from their child. Parents, he says, can get a lot out of using their devices to speak to a friend or get some work out of the way. This can make them feel happier, which lets them be more available to their child the rest of the time.
13题 | 被引用0次