Considering the contemporary ideologies that have permeated into the education system over the years, I wonder if there has ever been one which has impacted educational philosophy with such detrimental effects, as much as our obsessive focus on a child's self-esteem.
 |
| Image from www.billboardmama.com |
I don't know how 'recent' this change in the system is. I remember early in my primary school days rumours of kids being 'left behind', but not so much in high school. Despite the fact that I knew some of my classmates had failed certain classes, some of them were sitting across from me the following year.
Apparently one of the ideas underpinning this move is the potential damage that the child in question could sustain with regards to his or her self-esteem, or self-image. We don't want to tell a child he has 'failed' out of a concern that he will see himself as a 'failure'. Rather, some would prefer the term 'deferred success' (such was a laughable move by one educational institution some years ago). We are afraid to compare children to one another, because it may mess with their perceived value of themselves in comparison to others. Any benefits derived from the competitive motivation this may inspire aren't considered worth the risk of 'harm'.
The lack of discipline seems to run along a similar vein. 'Discipline damages self-esteem. Discipline shouldn't be necessary. Children really DO want to learn - we just need to create the right environment and it will happen.' Needless to say, anecdotes from a family friend who used to do supply teaching at a public school which followed this framework have left me somewhat unconvinced. Remove the discipline and chaos ensues. But I digress; this piece doesn't intend to focus on the bizzarre ideas driving discipline in schools these days.
So we push our younglings through the education system, despite their performance, remaining determined that their self-esteem is the most important thing.
In that case, what happens when, ten to fifteen years down the track, this self-assured individual discovers that he cannot exercise a basic grasp of mathematics which might enable him to manage his finances? This assumes he can get a job, which he probably can't, because his resume was so full of spelling and grammatical errors, that every employer tossed it aside.
What happens to his self-esteem then? How will his self-assurance hold up in the unemployment line, whilst his competent colleagues are out earning a steady income? Where does he go then? The education system is finished with him.
Those happy-clappy, group-hugging feel-goods who pushed him through the system for the sake of his ego, well-meaning though they may have been, have ended up failing this child. Not just in his education, but in giving him some atrociously misguided expectations about life in the real world. Outside those four walls of the school building, if you are not competent at your job, not only do you not get promoted; you most likely get fired.
So then what of self-esteem? Do we educate an individual to within an inch of his life with no regard for their mental health? Of course not, but let's consider how these humanistic ideologies might be creating the very problems they seek to resolve.
Many children come from broken homes; a large proportion of which may endure physical, sexual and emotional abuse of every kind. Their perceived value of themselves already cops a beating from mum and / or dad, which doesn't get them off to a good start. Likewise, discipline may be minimal, inconsistent or even non-existent. 'Parent's don't discipline their children - that's what school is for, right?' (Sorry Mum and Dad - the teacher's job is to teach.)
The child then spends twelve years of his life in an institution pervaded by atheism, learning a curriculum which reeks of evolutionary thinking like rancid parmesan, under which he learns that he is simply the result of random chance, spawned from the primordial sludge of yesteryears to become "stardust with a conscience" (as one of my past physiology lecturers would say), with no more inherent value or worth than the chair he is sitting on.
We rob our children of the divine truth that they are lovingly created in the image of their heavenly Father, and are shocked when their fragile ideas of self-worth collapse under the assault of the everyday realities of life.
To my colleagues in the teaching profession, you certainly have your work cut out for you. I sincerely hope that God blesses each of you in your endeavours to shape and mould the children of society. You have been called to a service of supreme importance, and may you be encouraged and strengthened daily in your efforts, as you work in an education system such as ours.
I was encouraged by a video on YouTube, taken from a conference in the UK earlier this month. While our system in Australia does not appear to be this bad (although some may disagree), I admired the courage this woman had to speak up about some of the issues which prompted this piece.
Finally, I will leave you with a passage from Gary DeMar's foreword in Douglas Wilson's Letter from a Christian Citizen, in which he quotes C.S. Lewis. I think it nicely captures the frustration many of us feel toward the humanistic ideologies of today:
"We make men without chests and we expect of them virtue and enterprise," C.S. Lewis writes. "We laugh at honor and we are shocked to find traitors in their midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful." We strip men and women of the certainty that they are created in the image of God, and we are surprised when they act like the beasts of the field.
SG
6 comments:
This is one of my favourite topics, although I haven't come to a conclusion that I'm happy with. Working with children who have special needs has shown me just how complicated the age-based progression through school is.
I'll use an example, because I think that it illustrates the complexity well. Last year I spent a fair amount of time working in a grade one class as a special needs teacher aide, as their usual aide had gone on holidays. One of the little boys I was looking after was 6 years old, and operating at the intellectual level of a two and a half year old. He also had a significant hearing impairment and a rare genetic disorder, so there were lots of limiting factors to his education. It is unlikely that his mental functioning will ever progress beyond the early primary years. If the education system was a merit-based system, would he successfully progress to year two after one year? No. Definitely not. Perhaps after a few years, but by then he will be a 9 year old boy in a class of 5/6 year olds. Very few parents would see this as ideal. If this boy progresses through schooling in an age-based system, will this meet his social/emotional/academic needs? No. Definitely not. From my observations, this boy would spend most of his time sitting in the back of the room, excited to be with people but completely confused about what he was doing there. When I visited the class again a few months after my first stint, he hadn't completed any work in his books since I had last worked with him. Both systems will fail this little boy. This story might seem like an exception, but it's really not. There are many many children like this in our schools. I'm not sure that we're doing all that we can to give them what they need.
Anyway... this brings up issues about the inclusion system, and all sorts of things. But going back to the age-based system, I think that it's intention is certainly to be equitable. And in many cases I think that it is. However when it comes to children with special needs, we're too afraid to keep them back because they will be older than their peers, and therefore they don't receive the help they need. As an (almost) early childhood teacher, it's difficult to keep young children back because of an academic standard, because there are so many other developmental issues to be considered. However, this doesn't mean that a purely age-based system is the right answer. As I said, I haven't yet figured out what a better alternative would be, as I don't like a purely age-based system or a purely merit-based system would work.
There's lots more to consider, but I must run, study calls, and its voice is particularly shrill today.
"I don't know how 'recent' this change in the system is. "
Oh, it's been happening far, far too long. Even when we were at school being kept down was a rarity, though it did happen. My friend's little sister (who is now 15) repeated Grade 2 but only because her mother insisted on it; the school still wanted to move her up to Grade 3 despite the fact she had not grasped many of the Grade 2 concepts. (Or it might have been Grade 1 - Grade 2; either way, a very young age). Since then, I've not heard of any children being "kept back".
I also once read about a junior soccer competition (in Canada if I remember correctly) where, if a team won by more than X points, they automatically lost the game so as not to make the losing team feel so bad. What a crock. Let them lose, let them fail and teach them how to deal with it.
I think that independent schools are more likely to keep children back (in consultation with parents). This happens at Annandale if necessary. Ed QLD is pretty strict though.
Right, yes.. study, good idea.. off I go...
Thanks for your thoughts, Miss Carly. Great thoughts. Yes, it is indeed a complex issue, and perhaps I'm going a little overboard in getting on my horse about it.
I suppose in some cases you need to pick your battles, and in the case of those where there is little hope for progression intellectually, perhaps it is more important to focus on a child's social development.
I guess what I find frustrating in the system (and this may be moving the discussion onto a slightly different topic) is the way resources for special needs are focused. Maybe I'll use an example from when I was in primary school ('91-'97). Perhaps things have changed now, though Carly's example sounds similar to my experience.
During my time, also in the public school system, we had a few special needs kids; two of whom I remember well. Both were learning impaired, though the biggest problem for one (who was a friend of mine) was an incredibly pronounced stutter. Now my mate went through to graduate high school, though he still had a strong stutter. The other went to a different high school, so I don't know her progress, but it was very limited in primary school. Both received a great deal of one-on-one teacher aide time.
We also had another student whose problems were mainly disciplinary. ADD, ADHD, autism or poorly disciplined; it may have been any of these things. He could not be kept in a classroom. He would wander around the school grounds all day, take off up the creek, etc. He was assigned an aide full-time simply to follow him around and keep an eye on him. Very hard scenario - the school cannot lock him in a room, but since his parents continued to drop him off at school so he was the school's responsibility.
So it seems you have a number of bands of students.
1. Students who will learn regardless - you can't stop them from learning, and they rise above any challenge.
2. Students who can keep up and maintain adequate grades.
3. Children who borderline pass/fail.
4. Children who cannot or will not learn, due to reasons intellectual or behavioural.
It seems that so many resources get poured into the few children who constitute this fourth band for little or no result (such as Carly), when there are so many in the third band who would benefit from just a little bit of one-to-one time with people like Carly to get them performing well.
Carly, I don't mean to discredit the value of your work with this boy, nor rob it of any meaning. That would have been a very hard job to do, and I'm sure it hit you emotionally. I also don't want to suggest that we should neglect these children.
However, I do think it's sad that the system focuses its resources in a way which sacrifices a greater result in a larger number of children, for a smaller group in which benefit may be minimal.
What's the solution? Get more teacher aides? Maybe if money grew on trees. Carly's right; it's a complex issue.
I don't have a solution, and perhaps that makes me one of these opinionated prats who spends his time baying at the moon. However, it is a problem and I wish teachers well as they tackle this issue, with patience, love and grace for the kids involved.
Thanks for your thoughts Scoot, and for sharing that example! It's really interesting (and helpful!) to read the thoughts of people who aren't in the education field. It can be really easy to forget that other perspectives exist when you are drowning in educational policy all of the time.
This is probably leading to a discussion on inclusion policy, which is another one of my favourite topics :) I have just been researching inclusion policy (for a project that I am writing about ASD), and it seems that the push for inclusion, therein creating a school environment accessibly to ALL students, is mainly driven by two things:
1. Parent's desire to provide their children with a normalised environment
2. Budget cost cutting, as individualised educational assistance for the growing number of children with significant impairments is simply too expensive.
I find it interesting the Queensland Health's stance on inclusion isn't as positive as Education Queensland's. Particularly for an impairment such as ASD, the best known form of treatment is intensive, individualised education. Many students do not have access to this in a mainstream school.
On the whole, I am pro-inclusion, however I am very aware that the current system is not working. Inclusion will probably continue, because this is the desire of many parents. However I also think that closing special schools entirely is wrong, because for some students, this is what they need. I know a boy with Downs Syndrome who has progressed through TCLC (the special school in Aitkenvale). He is about to graduate from the school, and he has already gained full time employment for when he leaves school. Going to the special school led to opportunities that wouldn't have occurred elsewhere. There is a fantastic clip produced by four corners called "breaking point" that talks about the issues concerning closing special schools. You can watch it here:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2817123.htm
Really worth watching.
Just quickly, I know this is getting long, but your comment "What's the solution? Get more teacher aides?" made me laugh, because in many ways this is what we are relying on. Here's how inclusion works, in a nut shell (this is very brief, so just bear with me)
Children with one of the 6 recognised disabilities gain a diagnosis (by the way, according to Ed QLD, a stutter isn't classified as a speech language impairment, so your friend would struggle to receive teacher aide time these days) -> children who have a diagnosis receive funding -> the funding goes towards resources, professional development, learning support and teacher aide time (generally). Are the teacher aides trained? Rarely. The concept of inclusion relies heavily on support in order to be successful, and in many cases this equates to teacher aide time. Yet the teacher aides are usually parents or people who are somehow involved in the school, rather than people who are trained in special needs. This strikes me as a major MAJOR problem, and doesn't give me much hope for inclusion, even though I think this is something we should keep working hard at.
I hope that this has made sense, sorry that it's a bit of a rant. I'm trying to type quickly so that I can push on with study. :) Really good things to think about Scoot, I really hope that as a teacher, I can have a positive impact in these areas.
Post a Comment