The Spring Term is often an unsatisfactory one for school games. It's always dark and cold, and often frozen, wet or snowy as well. Outdoor games are not obviously appealing.
There is nothing that can be done about the weather, but the problems are exacerbated by self inflicted complications in many schools. Many relate the the broader issue of choice and compulsion. This is particularly the case in schools where Hockey has historically been the main boys' game of the term.
Since Hockey came to be played on plastic pitches, no school has enough capacity to give adequate pitch time to pupils of all abilities. So, one of two things has to happen: either some players have to play on grass, or else not all pupils can play hockey and some have to take part in alternative activities. Given that Hockey on grass is widely regarded as unsatisfactory, the obvious solution was to introduce Soccer. The previous term's rugby pitches are easily adapted, required staffing ratios are favourable and large numbers can be comfortably accommodated.
As a logistical exercise, it made complete sense, and has come to be adopted by a majority of schools. However, Soccer is a door that cannot be half open. It is either closed completely - or it blows wide open. The idea that this (popular) opportunity could be confined to those lower ability pupils who would not contribute to the school's hockey reputation was always going to fail.
Inevitably, many of the better Hockey players prefer to play Soccer. Then the problem begins. There is something fundamentally illogical in confining the opportunity to play one game to those who have proved, beyond reasonable doubt, their incompetence at another. Particularly when both are structurally very similar. Parental requests for equal opportunity cannot be intellectually disputed. Free choice is logical and reasonable.
So, why not free choice? The tyranny of the fixture list and competitive reputation requires that many pupils be compelled, reluctantly, to take part in Hockey matches. Often against teams of similar conscripts from rival schools. The frequent alternative to free choice is called "guided" choice. What this means is that less able pupils can have a a much choice as they like, but anyone with ability in hockey gets no choice at all.
Is this sustainable? Almost certainly not. It is intellectually indefensible. But what is the alternative? Market forces? Free choice? Why not?
Certainly far fewer boys would choose to play Hockey, and more would choose Soccer. That is exactly what happens in wider society: Hockey has never been a game of majority appeal. There would be fewer Hockey teams in each school, and a smaller programme. Would that be a national disaster? There would be pressure to make the Hockey experience as exciting and attractive as possible, to encourage pupils to choose it. And there would be a requirement to make the Soccer provision more extensive and demanding, and of a higher quality. There may be also be a wider selection of activities, many of which might be indoor.
That is exactly the world of adult leisure: people choose activities which appeal to them - the higher the quality of the provision, the greater the appeal. This has never been the approach of schools. If participation in games generally, and specific sports in particular, is compulsory, the there is no pressure to make the experience attractive. Since the 19th century, British Independent schools have hidden shabby provision (especially for the less able) behind compulsion. And the unproven, but widely held, concept that being cold, wet, miserable and in pain is somehow positive and "makes a man of you".
Until the principle of choice is adopted, there will be no end to the annual start-of-Spring-Term battle to levy unpopular and illogical compulsion. Who is allowed to do what, when and why? Trying to maintain a 19th century model, which becomes less logical every year. There is an opportunity for forward thinking schools to accept the inevitable, and start again with market-led games provision. This would have the advantage of making sense, meeting modern aspirations and consuming the energy of organisers in the positive task of driving forward quality, rather than in endless energy-sapping battles defending the indefensible.
