Optimizing Olympic education: a comprehensive approach to understanding and teaching the philosophy of Olympism

Conceptualising L’Space Olympique: Tokyo 2020 Olympic education in thought, production and action

“…Such issues, we note, are not necessarily unique to Tokyo 2020, and are evidenced in previous critique of Olympic education (e.g. Chatziefstathiou, 2012aChatziefstathiou, , 2012bKohe, 2010;Teetzel, 2012). The production of a multitude of resources has invariably enriched the education landscape and contributed to new examples, case studies and learning opportunities that teachers and young people may benefit from.…”

“…Educational production in this regard is not necessarily borne out of genuine need, interest or desire from State, domestic or local educational providers, but rather has genesis in the IOC's contractual imperatives that mandate host cities deliver an education and cultural programme that promotes sport and Olympism. Notwithstanding nascent initiatives developed in the late 20th century, the onset of the 21st century saw a substantial increase in the quantity, quality and scope of Olympic educational material, and emergence of key global leaders, trends and modes (Culpan & Wigmore, 2010;Teetzel, 2012).…”

“…While attention has been given to the endogenous aspects (for example, the realignment of Physical Education and sport policy, curriculum design and performance outcomes with neo-liberal market imperatives (Evans, 2014;Evans & Davies, 2015;Kohe, 2010;Pope, 2014), focus has also been on the exogenous privatisation "creep" that has enabled an array of corporate and philanthropic stakeholders (often under the guise of civic altruism, community development and/or social responsibility) to establish footholds in school spaces. This includes, for example: outsourcing specific forms of sport and physical activity to external providers; enabling corporate or philanthropic organisations to sponsor equipment, programmes or initiatives; forging alliance with quasi-educational economic and political entities; and participating in corporate-orientated programmes as part of daily subject provision (Adams & Robinson, 2019;Gard, 2015;Piggin, 2019;Teetzel, 2012). Such is the extent of exogeny that many partnerships have become entrenched as "invaluable" resources to schools and teachers and, in times of Public sector austerity, vital for sustaining the subject and the enrichment and meaningfulness of students' experiences therein.…”

Olympism, physical education and critical pedagogy

“…Bale and Christensen (2004), for instance, argue that there is no indisputable definition and, over time, scholars (e.g. Martinkova, 2012; Parry, 2006; Teetzel, 2012) have all offered varying understandings. Being mindful of the lack of agreement on the definition of Olympism, for the purposes of this article the following working definition extracted from the Olympic Charter provides a general orientation and serves as a basis for this paper to proceed:Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole, the qualities of body, will and mind.…”

The Attitude towards Olympism Values of Pupils in Schools Implementing and Not Implementing Integrated Olympic Education

“…It should be noted that a number of scientists dealt with the theoretical aspect of Olympic education issues (Parry, 2006;Lenskyj, 2012;Teetzel, 2012). Empirical research has focused on pupils' knowledge of the Olympic Movement, the Olympic ideals, Olympic champions (Rychtecky, Naul, 2005), pupils' attitudes towards the Olympic values (Bronikowski, Bronikowska, 2009), approach to fair play as a fundamental value of Olympic education (Žukowska, Žukowski, 2010), Olympians' opinions about the role of the Olympic Games in the development of their personal identity (Baker et al, 2012).…”