Development Opinions in Schools

[Moustermind]

Teaching has pitfalls that most parents and people outside of the profession are not even aware of. Aside from the requirement that you be an expert in your academic field, teachers must now be aware of all the stringent requlatios involved with EC (not special ed anymore) kids, understand the differences in culture between high, middle and low socioeconomic classes. The cultural differences there are astonishing.

Schools, like businesses are founded on middle class culture, but many children come from poverty culture- one which emphasized completely different values and deals with situations differently (not "you need to behave more appropriaely at school," but "Smack! How dare you embarass me in front of the teacher...oh, little Johnny I am so sorry, here have a big mac," food is love).

At my middle school this year (I teach 7th grade science and social studies) we have institued a school wide discipline plan with only three rules, simple, non-confrontational, and extremely effective.

We are also beginning to use layered curriculum, an approach that allows the students more control in how they complete assignments for a grade, emphazing concept mastery learning, by playing to their individual strengths.

I am looking foward to teaching again.

For those who wonder about the influence of teachers think about this:

If a parent spends three hours a day engaged with a child, and it usually a lot less than that, averaging this time between the ages of birth and 18 years old a parent is spending an average of 1069 hours a year with their child. From school age to graduation age chidren spend an average of 1280 hours a year with their teachers.

 

[teacherforhi]

I will give a quick answer to California Girl. I expected this kind of a personal jab. Nobody ever said anything about a teacher not having adequate control in the classroom. Nope, I have never ever said anything to that effect. But, yes, this teacher is a very clear and obvious control freak. To the point of counting the pencils in the childs pencil box and determining that there are too many pencils. She has used the 'it takes a village' viewpoint to support her view that as a teacher she can have more than a reasonable amount of control over parents. Giving them detailed tasks and assignments and looking over their shoulder to make sure they do everything that is expected, or the child will 'get their name moved'.

I'm a bad teacher! I made a student remove the 37 pencils in his pencil box today and put them in a baggy so that he was able to find his colored pencils in order to complete his assignment. Obviously, this makes me a control freak. I also give my students detailed assignments and expect to be completed as expected. Perhaps I should turn in my resignation Tuesday.

On topic, students won't do well in school if they have emotional problems they're dealing with. Not that I can do anything about parents divorcing (just for example), but at the same time, I can't just say, "Suck it up! Do your math!" We have to deal with the whole child, not just the three R's.

 

[MrsPete]

Self-esteem is greatly over-rated.

I know a couple kids at school who are very openly involved in gangs. It's not a crime, you know, so nothing can be done about it until they're actually caught breaking the law. These kids have NO self-esteem problems. They love who they are. The rest of us can't stand them, and they're not growing towards being profitable members of society, but THEY love themselves. I know other kids who are making horrible choices for their futures: purposefully becoming pregnant while in high school, etc. who think they are the greatest people on earth and no one has a right to say a word to them, even when they're breaking school rules.

Fortunately, these kids are a small minority; most of our kids are good folks.

I think we'd do better if we stopped stressing me, me, me, me, me all the time and encouraged our kids to think of society instead of themselves. We have an awful lot of kids who have been taught to think they can do no wrong.

 

[paigevz]

Yes, off topic, but I also limit the pencils in the pencil box.........second graders love their pencil sharpeners........if I don't limit their pencils, they'll sharpen them all down into the erasers in the first two weeks. I give them enough for the six weeks, and tell them to try to make each pencil last a whole week.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Just a thought about your comments Ms. Pete.

Even though these kids may act all cocky and that they love themselves and who they are, isn't it true, that in reality, underneath, the things that you describe (gangs, purposeful pregnancy, etc.) are done out of low self esteem? The purpose of the gang, or the baby, is to fill that kids need for acceptance and to feel loved and worthwhile. Isn't that basic teen psychology? Hhhhmmmm???

I totally agree with your last sentences!!!!

 

[chobie]

My kids have been in schools in 3 different districts in 2 different states and I have yet to see this over-riding focus on self-esteem everyone seems to think is so prevelant. Most schools seem to be focused on meeting state standards and NCLB requirements. Every school my kids went to (and my DH taught at) did/does try to foster a positive learning environment that encourages kids to do their best. There was/is always awards for kids who did better than others at somethings, and there were/are awards that went to all kids. What's the big controversy?

 

[California Girl]

Just a thought about your comments Ms. Pete.

Even though these kids may act all cocky and that they love themselves and who they are, isn't it true, that in reality, underneath, the things that you describe (gangs, purposeful pregnancy, etc.) are done out of low self esteem? The purpose of the gang, or the baby, is to fill that kids need for acceptance and to feel loved and worthwhile. Isn't that basic teen psychology? Hhhhmmmm???

Actually you are wrong. It's no more low self esteem that drives them to do these things, but rather the innate need all people have to be accepted, loved and worthwhile. Theirs is just misplaced.

This appeared in the New York Times in 2002....
"Recently, however, some psychologists have begun debunking the notion that a poor self-image is the malady behind most of society's complaints - and bolstering self-esteem its cure. "D" students, it turns out, think as highly of themselves as valedictorians, and serial rapists are no more likely to ooze with insecurities than doctors or bank managers.

At the same time, high self-esteem, studies show, offers no immunity against bad behavior. Research by Dr. Brad J. Bushman of Iowa State University and Dr. Roy F. Baumeister of Case Western Reserve University finds that some people with high self-regard are actually more likely to lash out aggressively when criticized than those with low-self esteem. The list of groups - neo-Nazis, street toughs, school bullies - who combine preening self-satisfaction with violence belies the power of one to ameliorate the other."

It works for us in our nice worlds to think that those street thugs or gang members are filled with self loathing but that's just not the case.

 

[disykat]

There's a difference between an overinflated sense of self importance and good self- esteem.

 

[California Girl]

There's a difference between an overinflated sense of self importance and good self- esteem.

And your point is.......

 

[Golf4food]

Most schools seem to be focused on meeting state standards and NCLB requirements.

And this is a separate problem altogether. Here in Florida it seems like the only thing that matters is the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assesment Test) that they give each year. Schools are graded on the results of the students' testing on that exam and schools that have an average score below a certain level can be more or less taken over by the state, teachers and administrators changed or fired at will (or manditorily) and everything started from scratch. The problem is that the teachers have to spend all their time preparing the children for the test instead of actually teaching. Trying to cram test questions into a childs mind by rote memory is not teaching. Rote memory is not knowledge. We're raising an entire generation who will know how to bubble in a scantron but won't be able to find the answer to a question after school on their own accord.

One aspect of the whole self-esteem issue that I am always bugged by is "social promotion" whereby lagging students who are academically behind their peers are promoted to the next grade anyway so that they don't feel left out or out of place, etc. That is not doing a favor to the child. I went to school with many people who were social promotions and could barely read or do any simple math by the time we graduated from high school (it helps that the 12th grade graduation examination back then was on an 8th grade level, or thereabouts). What happens to the self-esteem of those kids when we kick them out of school and they hit the real world without any skills or knowledge and have to find a way to survive? I'm sure their "self-esteem" is worth a lot at that point.

 

[disykat]

And your point is.......

pretty obvious I would think. I've never seen a neo-nazi described as having a good self esteem before.

 

[The_Horned_King]

Just to quickly chime in...
If a teacher is teaching properly self estem will be gained by the student. There is no way around this.

 

[barkley]

Just a thought about your comments Ms. Pete.

Even though these kids may act all cocky and that they love themselves and who they are, isn't it true, that in reality, underneath, the things that you describe (gangs, purposeful pregnancy, etc.) are done out of low self esteem? The purpose of the gang, or the baby, is to fill that kids need for acceptance and to feel loved and worthwhile. Isn't that basic teen psychology? Hhhhmmmm???

I totally agree with your last sentences!!!!

with some kids, in some societal groups in the u.s. purposeful pregnancy and gang involvement can demonstrate that (within 'their' societal norm) they are exhibiting very high self esteem.

while i personaly and professionaly found it misguided and inappropriate-many of the kids (and their parents) i worked with in a very depressed urban setting viewed starting a family at an early age as demonstrative of taking on responsibility for one's self (which translated to establishing their own child welfare financial support case) and making the transition into adulthood. while i was raised to believe that having children came AFTER one becomes a legal and responsible adult-their societal norm was that adulthood was achieved by virtue of having a child. many of the children who had children in that particular setting had extreemly high self esteem as based on their and their social groups standards.

i found this to be a totaly perplexing attitude until i looked at the group dynamics on a historical basis-largly, it had been formed (many generations earlier) as the result of an influx of VERY ruralized peoples whose farming/self sustaining practices were reliant on having large families so the family farms could have a constant source of family laborers-more kids meant more people to work, meant the family could better support itself. as the kids became young teens in that setting many started their own families at VERY young ages to further increase 'the work force' and achieve adult status. in. the practice of having kids very young became the societal norm for that group decades earlier and continued to modern day despite the fact it was now very detrimental to all aspects of their lives.


as for the gangs-again this is just the urban setting i worked in. a good portion of those that joined the gangs were largely those who believed the gangs were the means to either protect their neighborhood/family/group or enter into a means to profitable activities. gang involvement was viewed as an indication that a young man had the self esteem and attributes necessary to 'police and protect' the area from other gangs or that they had the skills necessary to successfully work within a highly developed/high risk illegal enterprise. the kids who put themselves forward to join these particular gangs had incredibly high self esteem because failure within that social structure was not an option-failure carried the potential for death personaly as well as to the gang and the area the gang 'protected'.

the guideposts by which most of us view success or esteem were very different in this group-but based on their reality these kids were very secure in their feelings about themselves and their standing in their societal group.

 

[California Girl]

with some kids, in some societal groups in the u.s. purposeful pregnancy and gang involvement can demonstrate that (within 'their' societal norm) they are exhibiting very high self esteem.

while i personaly and professionaly found it misguided and inappropriate-many of the kids (and their parents) i worked with in a very depressed urban setting viewed starting a family at an early age as demonstrative of taking on responsibility for one's self (which translated to establishing their own child welfare financial support case) and making the transition into adulthood. while i was raised to believe that having children came AFTER one becomes a legal and responsible adult-their societal norm was that adulthood was achieved by virtue of having a child. many of the children who had children in that particular setting had extreemly high self esteem as based on their and their social groups standards.

i found this to be a totaly perplexing attitude until i looked at the group dynamics on a historical basis-largly, it had been formed (many generations earlier) as the result of an influx of VERY ruralized peoples whose farming/self sustaining practices were reliant on having large families so the family farms could have a constant source of family laborers-more kids meant more people to work, meant the family could better support itself. as the kids became young teens in that setting many started their own families at VERY young ages to further increase 'the work force' and achieve adult status. in. the practice of having kids very young became the societal norm for that group decades earlier and continued to modern day despite the fact it was now very detrimental to all aspects of their lives.


as for the gangs-again this is just the urban setting i worked in. a good portion of those that joined the gangs were largely those who believed the gangs were the means to either protect their neighborhood/family/group or enter into a means to profitable activities. gang involvement was viewed as an indication that a young man had the self esteem and attributes necessary to 'police and protect' the area from other gangs or that they had the skills necessary to successfully work within a highly developed/high risk illegal enterprise. the kids who put themselves forward to join these particular gangs had incredibly high self esteem because failure within that social structure was not an option-failure carried the potential for death personaly as well as to the gang and the area the gang 'protected'.

the guideposts by which most of us view success or esteem were very different in this group-but based on their reality these kids were very secure in their feelings about themselves and their standing in their societal group.

Exactly my point. Thanks for an intelligent post!

Oversimplistic statements such as if the teacher is doing a good job, a student's self esteem can't help but be raise cannot be supported with any hard evidence. It's simply a cliche which sounds good.

If education isn't valued within a family or a particular aspect of that society, there is little a teacher or school can do to change that. It's almost as foolish as saying that by 2014, all student will be proficient on state mandated tests.

 

[JoyG]

I have a hard time reaching someone who isn't motivated.

"Self Esteem builders" like "student of the month" and various award certificates help build motivation and make it easier for me to teach and the student to learn.

In a different but related issue:

I find it nearly impossible to teach students who are deficient in social skills and character development. These should be a parent's job, but when kids come to my class without these skills, I need to spend time building them. If I don't, nothing will get done in the class all year except managing behavior problems.

 

[Aidensmom]

I think that the foundation of a child's self esteem has pretty much been built by the time they enter kindergarten......a child's personality and sense of self really start being established before they enter school.

Honestly, I think a child with low self esteem is not going to have that self esteem change all that much (maybe slightly, but not much) by their experience in school. Same thing for one with high self esteem. If a child is put down all the time at home, does well at academics, but goes back home everyday to be put down....well, theh academic success isn't going to have that great of an effect. Just as a child who is told he is the center of the universe and better than anyone else who fails all his classes, yet goes home to hear he is still the greatest person in the world is going to change much. I think self-esteem is a much more complicated issue than can be "fixed" by a child's school experience.

 

[graygables]

Many parents are ill-equipped to have children and have readily handed over *ALL* of the child's rearing to the public schools for whatever reasons, be it socio-economic, poor parenting themselves, or whatnot. As a former high school (summer school, night school) English teacher, I saw it all the time. Basic skills were grossly neglected even by the time they had reached high school. Gang involvement, lack of respect for authority, and a general non-valuing of education began in the home in the formative years. Those things are difficult for a teacher to overcome, esp in this day and age of not being able to discipline in the classroom or even award grades that the student has *earned*.

This is why I quit and why I homeschool my own children now. I've seen the village and I don't WANT their help, thank you.

 

[rt2dz]

Personal, Social, and Emotional Development

Question: Some prominent thinkers believe that schools’ concerns for children’s self-concepts and their self-esteem are misplaced, and the business of the school is to teach knowledge and cognitive skills. What is your position regarding this issue? ​

I'm going to answer this without reading the thread first, I'll read after I post.

School's go overboard on some of this stuff. I believe in competition--sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. And a school's primary focus is to teach. Not be nutrition police. Or whatever.

However, there are certain things that are important for the schools to do to help minorly with these things. Kids need to be taught in age appropriate manner. This means recess for elementary kids and a socialization aspect in K. Kids should have class parties. Schools should start general and gradually weed into a more study program that leads them to college and the adult world. And certainly, bullying SHOULD NOT be tolerated. Or drugs. School should be a safe place. Not that I believe in zero tolerance though, but that is another thread.

 

[DisneyFan06]

Woah, this was such a great discussion! I didnt mean to create such a fuss among some of the posters. Well, with that said... I do have another topic. Instead of creating a new thread I will just post it here...

Several take the position that moral issues cannot be avoided, and the most appropriate approach is for schools and teachers to deal with the issues openly and honestly. Do you agree or disagree with that position?

 

[DisneyFan06]

Any thoughts on this subject?