Stephen Vasciannie TWO COLLEAGUES have pointed out to me that there appears to be an inverse relationship between academic performance and sporting achievement at the secondary level. They actually mean two separate, but related, things. First, they suggest that specific schools have a reputation for sports, and invariably falter in terms of intellectual achievement; but, secondly, they also imply that in specific years, particular schools may do well in school work or sports, but it is unlikely that they will excel in both areas of endeavour.
Is this true? The first part of the contention seems correct with respect to a number of traditional secondary schools which, in times past, appeared able to balance the rigours of both intellectual and sporting effort. Nowadays, schools that consistently flourish in both areas are a rarity. True, there will be the Glenmuirs, Munros, Clarendons and Titch-fields that provide the exception to the rule. But the rule prevails.
SECOND LEG
Similarly, there is increasing evidence to support the second leg of the contention: in some years, a Kingston College will rise to the top of the boys schools in mathematics, but in that year, we can be confident that it will not take the Manning Cup. Similarly, this year Calabar and Excelsior are doing the utmost for the highest on the football field, but in fairness, one would not (for this year) automatically place either school in the same academic league as Campion or Immaculate. Nor is this pattern built on the pervasive structure of gender.
When the great Vere Technical teams appeared capable of winning Girls' Champs ad infinitum, it could not fairly have been said that this outstanding level of achievement was replicated in bookland. This general situation should not be encouraged. It has come about in part by the tendency of schools to specialise in this or that activity, but when pushed too far, it undermines the basic purposes of education.
FOOTBALL FAILURE
Schools are primarily about the transmission of knowledge, but they must also be dedicated to the nurturing of talent and the inculcation of values. If the school produces a muster of nerds, it has failed just as much as if it generates a confederacy of dunces.
On the football field, many of us have been silenced by Jamaica's failure to reach the next round of the World Cup preliminaries. One view publicly advanced on this issue is that Jamaica's failure to move on is evidence that the success story of the Road to France was a fluke. Is that so? In 2004, we failed to make progress. This is linked to, but nonetheless distinct from, what happened 1998. For one thing, there are differences at the level of coaching, with technical issues at play. Secondly, Coach Lazaroni noted that for an early, important match his tactical scope was limited by the fact that he did not yet know the team members well. Thirdly, Lazaroni and Carl Brown in 2004 showed many strengths; but, in fairness, the degree of national fervour for the football programme is now significantly less than it was six years ago.
I cannot therefore share the view that 2004 shines retrospectively on to 1998 to confirm that 1998 was a "buck-up". I believe, however, there is something in the view that we have not done enough to develop young potential in the period since 1998. Football remains exceedingly popular and, unlike cricket, appears to have reclaimed its territorial dominance over basketball. But we must not take it for granted.
CONFUSED CRICKET
There seems to be a fair bit of confused thinking going on in cricket these days. At home, the West Indies Cricket Board, acting presumably on behalf of West Indies cricket, have decided to select a non-West Indian as the coach. The Board has also given this coach authority and powers significantly beyond what was on offer to West Indian coaches. With the exception of the Champions Trophy victory the other day, we have obviously been floundering; I wonder though if a knight from the outside can be the saviour. I wonder, too, if this is not just another example of the shallow assumption that we are not ready to do our own work. On this issue, Tony Becca is absolutely, and unquestionably correct: C.L.R. James must be turning in his grave.
Finally, away from home, the cricket authorities want to change the rule for chucking, to make things easy for those who want to put their elbows into their bowling action. This makes no sense, but my time is up.
Stephen Vasciannie is a professor at the University of the West Indies and a consultant at the Attorney-General's Chambers.
