By a schoolteacher, one of the most evil things I've ever read

[SapereAude]

http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles...a5044687132.txt

This stunned me.

This person shouldn't be anywhere near children.

[fountainhead777]

And people were agreeing with her. Jeez this is ridiculous.

[L-C]

" Reminds me of the time when early in middle school, my son worked hard to make the Honor Roll. He was so committed to it that when he missed it by only a slight margin on one grade, that he approached the teacher to discuss the grade that he felt should have been higher.

As he approached her desk, she didn't even look up at him. What she did say was, "What did you expect...to make the Honor Roll?"."

Any comments, people?

[Eiuol]

The first paragraph is a mess, I won't even address it.

But in the second paragraph, this part may be of value:

"Regardless of whether you just graduated or are still in the system, believe in yourself, not in the praise (or lack of it) from others. Don’t let someone else decide whether or not you are good enough."

You should worry too much about your grades. It is almost like being a second-hander to want honor roll because other people put value on it. Grades are not the -point- of education. However, it's pretty said that the writer seems to suggest honor roll is actually what the problem is.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Eiuol

[megr.ferg]

I partly agree with the article. The inherent altruism stuff is complete bull, but I do think that he is right about the “carrot and stick strategies.”

Grades are essentially a token economy. If you do assignment or test X to this set of standards, then you will get grade Y. Assigning a grade or reward to the act of learning diminishes the natural enjoyment students get from it. Children are naturally curios and love to learn when give the right environment. There is no need to reward them for their efforts. The progress that they see themselves making is reward enough. A teachers’ only role should be to foster this growth. Giving rewards for learning masks the natural reward, which is devastating to the child. If he does not learn to pursue growth and learning for his own enjoyment he will become a mere shadow of his potential. If he dose not learn to evaluate himself by his own standards and by tracking his own progress, he will become a prisoner to other people’s opinions.

This being said, once a child achieves a cretin level of learning whether it be in sports, academics, or the arts, I think it is natural to want to put these skills to the test in competition. I see nothing wrong with rewarding the winner of a soccer game, spelling bee, or art show.

[JeffS]

The argument is so poorly stated that I'm not sure if I agree with the author or not. I simply don't know what his point is.

If his point is, "[G]etting straight As and Bs, making the varsity, getting on the spirit squad or receiving a certificate of academic achievement does not define success, does not make you a more worthwhile person, does not make you a “winner” and the un-rewarded as “losers.”" Then I agree.

If his point is, "[being] part of the greater under-appreciated majority, perhaps with some wonderful qualities (such as kindness, honesty, generosity, etc.)" defines success, then I disagree.

Success is living a happy and productive life. I homeschool my kids. One reason I do is because I don't want them pigeon-holed into some bureaucrat's definition of "success," or "smart," or "special." Both of my kids are studying material above their age groups. I have to constantly remind others not to call them "smart." They are not smart. They both work hard and that is their success. So many want to effectively dismiss achievers as "smart," or "gifted," or "talented," or "[insert mystic term here]." They don't want to acknowledge that intelligence, or proficiency in anything requires hard work. That way they can comfortably come to terms with their own reluctance to make the tough choices it takes to lead a happy, productive life.

This teacher seems to be of the same cloth. At times he seems to discount the hard work it takes to get on the honor roll, or the varsity team and subscribe to the, "You're special just the way you are. You deserve recognition for just going through the motions. Keep taking in oxygen and we'll give you a medal" mentality. At other times he seems to recognize that hard work is what needs to be recognized, not the achievement of some arbitrary goal.

[Chris.S]

Honour Rolls are made to celebrate achievements. They're supposed to be the by-product of doing well in school, and "doing well" is supposed to be measured objectively through testing. Doing well for the sake of getting on the Honour Roll is a misplaced value, but the rest of what this guy says could be straight out of Tooheys mouth, and some of the comments from other parts of TF.

Thankfully though, many of the comments recognize this guy's douchiness and speak against it.

[Capitalism Forever]

Consistent research shows that altruism is a basic trait among humans (not competitiveness) along with its “side effects” of greed, envy and violence.

Either this person misplaced a closing parenthesis, or he recognizes altruism as the cause of "greed, envy, and violence"--and would like to see more of it!

[nanite1018]

You should worry too much about your grades. It is almost like being a second-hander to want honor roll because other people put value on it. Grades are not the -point- of education.

If he dose not learn to evaluate himself by his own standards and by tracking his own progress, he will become a prisoner to other people’s opinions.

I have first-hand experience with the above, and wish my parents and teachers had worked harder to teach me to judge myself by my own standards, not those of other people. In fact, I am willing to say that for most of my life (perhaps even now) I was a second-hander, and worked for high grades not because I necessarily wanted to learn (though I do enjoy it) but because I wanted to prove I was smart and hopefully smartest (as well as a number of other things second-hander-y). If the point is to help children develop and/or preserve their self-motor then I agree with the author (I don't think that was her point however), as I am still trying to rebuild mine.

[whYNOT]

The most savage indictment that I can pass on this issue is that it is commonplace here in S.Africa.

The fact that all of you, and some others replying directly to the article, have identified the inherently 'evil' principles in it, gives me some hope that Americans can stop this surge of egalitarianism. Don't let it happen there.

Years ago, I met and photographed a teen-aged black girl, attending school in the township of Soweto. She ( let's call her Thembe ) was a shy, introverted, and brilliant student.

Thembe admitted to me that, after her teachers had posted the results of an exam onto the blackboard, she would always sneak into the class-room before the other students, and erase the marks off the board.

Why? because she was always top : marks in the 80's and 90's. The amount of attention, derision and even bullying, from her class-mates - but even worse, from adults in her community - had caused her to view her prowess as shameful.

This has long been the African way; don't lift your head any higher than your fellows; don't dare to succeed. The results are now visible, in our politicians, intellectuals and even businessmen.

As I say, it is now the norm, at all levels of our sick society.

Resist it in the U.S.

[whYNOT]

...........at the same time, I totally agree that the emphasis on marks, with the accompanying esteem granted or denied those achievers or 'under-achievers' (terrible phrase), is 'other'- orientated; the whole education system of the world is based on second-handedness, with a few shining exceptions.

What really gets me about this article, though, is the writer holding up 'kindness, honesty,generosity' as a virtuous alternative to getting good grades.

[Zip]

There are an awful lot of people forgetting that no one ever succeed without trying to be better.

You quite literally will never achieve any mark of excellence without trying to be the best, to be a winner, to achieve more than the other guy. If you don't want to be the best in your chosen field then that's fine, that is a personal choice, carry on with your life, no one will notice. But if you want the kind of success that people dream of then you can't Walter Mitty your way through life.

Now some people may say but this is just school they are talking about but it can not be viewed in isolation. If you want to be an engineer then you have to go to university. The best universities have the best professors and are most restrictive of who they allow in, and guess what if you haven't proven that you can succeed academically then you won't get in.

Success breeds success and opportunity.

In my opinion, non-competition (because it is damaging) is exactly the sort of thing that collectivists all over the world would love to see adopted. When people give up on succeeding they become much more docile and it is much easier to control their expectations and them.

You know what posting marks breeds competition and that is a good thing. Here is a story for you.

Way back in the dark ages when I first joined the Army I went on a Tank Gunners course. The Course commander decided that there would be a daily test and that for the entire course the marks would be posted at the front of the main lecture hall for all to see.

So it was, and as a result it became a competition to see who would be the best, everyone checked as the marks were posted each and every day.

At the end of the course we were addressed by the Commandant of the School who informed us that in the 10 years that the course had been run ours had the highest grade point average by far. By way of illustration my average was 94%, I was 10th of a class of 35.

After the course I was pretty stoked about my mark (if not my actual placing) and asked a friend where he ended up. He said that he was "in the bottom 3" somewhat deflated for my friend I went "...oh..." and he added "but I ended up with a final mark higher than any mark I ever got before."

My friend was never going to be a rocket scientist, indeed he was never going to be "the top" of anything in his career in the army but he always gave it his best and competed even if he knew he had no chance of being "the winner" because the act of competing made him better.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Zip

[Thales]

He is pushing "altruism" as the standard of the good, which right away will tell you he is on the wrong track. Altruism is about self-denial, not about values.

The author of the article doesn't seem to realize there is a real world out there that everyone must contend with. If he looks at academic achievement is having nothing to do with learning things that will better allow one to contend with the challenges of life, then what exactly does he think an education is for? It would be a waste of time. I mean, doesn't he know how valuable brilliant chemists are to our lives? How about brilliant engineers or doctors? How about competent engineers, doctors, and scientists? And of course, the chemist, engineer and doctor would be their own highest value, and an early life of being pushed to achieve at a higher level will invariably help them immensely later in life.

Competition can be a great thing, because it allows us to improve our game and make us better at dealing with real world obstacles. I did well in sports, and this has given me quite a bit of confidence in all areas of life, although I've always preferred science and engineering. As to the "winners/losers" rhetoric, I've never liked it. The way to view ones own life is to live as an achiever and value pursuer.

I also find it amusing that modern educators have destroyed and watered down public education immensely and this guy is still not satisfied. Why doesn't he get out of his limited way of thinking, pull back, and look at how well kids were educated 100 year and more ago. Things are getting worse, no thanks to people like him.

Well, I think his altruistic premise is dictating his views and that has nothing to do with pursuing ones happiness and thriving on earth. So, yes, what he says is evil.

[TheEgoist]

There are an awful lot of people forgetting that no one ever succeed without trying to be better.

You quite literally will never achieve any mark of excellence without trying to be the best, to be a winner, to achieve more than the other guy. If you don't want to be the best in your chosen field then that's fine, that is a personal choice, carry on with your life, no one will notice. But if you want the kind of success that people dream of then you can't Walter Mitty your way through life.

Now some people may say but this is just school they are talking about but it can not be viewed in isolation. If you want to be an engineer then you have to go to university. The best universities have the best professors and are most restrictive of who they allow in, and guess what if you haven't proven that you can succeed academically then you won't get in.

Success breeds success and opportunity.

In my opinion, non-competition (because it is damaging) is exactly the sort of thing that collectivists all over the world would love to see adopted. When people give up on succeeding they become much more docile and it is much easier to control their expectations and them.

You know what posting marks breeds competition and that is a good thing. Here is a story for you.

Way back in the dark ages when I first joined the Army I went on a Tank Gunners course. The Course commander decided that there would be a daily test and that for the entire course the marks would be posted at the front of the main lecture hall for all to see.

So it was, and as a result it became a competition to see who would be the best, everyone checked as the marks were posted each and every day.

At the end of the course we were addressed by the Commandant of the School who informed us that in the 10 years that the course had been run ours had the highest grade point average by far. By way of illustration my average was 94%, I was 10th of a class of 35.

After the course I was pretty stoked about my mark (if not my actual placing) and asked a friend where he ended up. He said that he was "in the bottom 3" somewhat deflated for my friend I went "...oh..." and he added "but I ended up with a final mark higher than any mark I ever got before."

My friend was never going to be a rocket scientist, indeed he was never going to be "the top" of anything in his career in the army but he always gave it his best and competed even if he knew he had no chance of being "the winner" because the act of competing made him better.

Giving it your best and judging yourselves compared to others are two different things. I think competition, by which I mean social competition, can be dangerous psychologically. Humans should always judge themselves based on their own values, not what a teacher or peer thinks. I think the current grade system, and many other things about current childhood education, are at the least not optimal choices. However, I'm not opposed to a merit based system in general.

[Thales]

Giving it your best and judging yourselves compared to others are two different things. I think competition, by which I mean social competition, can be dangerous psychologically. Humans should always judge themselves based on their own values, not what a teacher or peer thinks. I think the current grade system, and many other things about current childhood education, are at the least not optimal choices. However, I'm not opposed to a merit based system in general.

Two things competition can do is push you to achieve and measure your level of achievement. Those are real positives. Those things alone are not enough, since you must also be pursuing a rational goal that furthers your life. If you are competing to see who can drink the most beer the fastest, then that's not going to lead to good things. If you are pushing to see who can write the best song or build the best boat, that has real positive value.

Some people are self-motivated, and don't need to be pushed by others. Leonard da Vinci obviously had some sort of inner drive that few people had. Other people want and need to be pushed by others.

[JeffS]

I'm all for competition, but I don't think this situation fits. School, by and large, is not a competition. There's nothing in the structure of education which precludes everyone from getting 100% - that is, there's nothing inherent in the model itself preventing everyone from being #1. Yes, there are limited slots on sports teams, but the Honor Roll could conceivably contain every student's name.

It's been a long time for me, but I never looked to my peers to determine how well I needed to do. Grades, throughout highschool and college, were simply a way for me to validate to me how well I understood the material. I never changed my behavior based upon how well (or poorly) my friends did. I think there's a danger in doing so. Suppose you have a child with the capabilities of Einstein (for whatever reason), and you put him in a school of children with, shall we say, dramatically lower expectations. If this young Einstein is only going to do well enough to just beat out his classmates, well he won't have to try very hard. The end result is not 1 genius and hundreds of dolts. The end result is hundreds of dolts, plus one king of dolts. As I said, it's been a long time since I've been in a public school, but from what I've read I don't think my hypothetical is very far from the truth. With all the pressure to safeguard children's self-esteem, to make every child a winner, to destroy real values by making all values equal, we have a public school system where everyone is racing for mediocrity. Judging from the quality of highschool and college graduates these days, it appears they're all succeeding.

If you put a flea in a jar, the flea will jump out. If you put a lid on the jar, the flea will try to jump out for a few days, but will eventually learn jumping hard just hurts his back. He stops jumping as high. If you then take off the lid, the flea will never jump out of the jar.

[Zip]

Here is a little life secret. People are going to judge you at work, no matter what... usually by <gasp> scoring you against your peers.

[Jake_Ellison]

Grades are (or should be) there to evaluate a student's individual performance, not their position in the pack. And, at that, it is a very good system, if used properly.(meaning constantly, making it a natural part of the process of studying, rather than as a completely separate, rare occurence, meant to put pressure for one night or a few days of the semester on students. Also, to the extent that grades are used to spark competition, that is wrong.

But that is not what the main purpose is, for grades. They are supposed to evaluate students, and then their parents can reward them accordingly. What the person writing the article seems to be missing is that honor roll students are better, and they should be rewarded. Obviously, not by society as a whole, but by their parents, or symbolically by a private school, and later by getting into a better college.

Children should be kept away from government as much as possible-I definitely won't be sending my child, if I'll have one, to a public school, to be thaught or evaluated by anyone working for "society" and the "common good". But I will want his/her teachers to evaluate him, and constantly tell him and me how he's doing. No matter how curious children are, that is not the same as having a good work ethic. The latter is also necessary, and requires constant attention:

Does anyone have a better method than grades to constantly be aware if a child has a consistent performance?

I really don't think micro managing his life and studying sessions would be better, quite the opposite. Any thoughts?

[megr.ferg]

I have first-hand experience with the above, and wish my parents and teachers had worked harder to teach me to judge myself by my own standards, not those of other people. In fact, I am willing to say that for most of my life (perhaps even now) I was a second-hander, and worked for high grades not because I necessarily wanted to learn (though I do enjoy it) but because I wanted to prove I was smart and hopefully smartest (as well as a number of other things second-hander-y). If the point is to help children develop and/or preserve their self-motor then I agree with the author (I don't think that was her point however), as I am still trying to rebuild mine.

Unfortunately, I am in the exact same spot.

Some people are self-motivated, and don't need to be pushed by others. Leonard da Vinci obviously had some sort of inner drive that few people had. Other people want and need to be pushed by others.

This seems to get at the heart of the issue. Wanting and needing to be pushed by others are two very different things. Wanting to see the potential of other men, being inspired by their work, and using that inspiration to fuel your own work is very normal healthy human behavior. On the other hand, needing to be pushed by others shows a lack of passion for your work. If you need an external source of motivation you must not deem your work valuable enough to justify the effort. You are looking for others to give it value.

I think all mentally healthy people can be self-motivated, but it is a skill like any other that needs to be learned, and the earlier you are able to learn it, of course, the easier it is. This is where most education systems fail miserably. Instead of tapping into a child’s natural tendency to explore and work, as a Montessori school does, they inhibit self-motivation by providing external motivation from the very start. By the time a student leaves grade school he has completed thousands of mandatory assignments and received a grad for every one. And it doesn't stop there. In my schooling I read books for pizza, studied for spelling tests for candy, and worked to be in the high math group for social status. If a child makes it though school with their self-motivation intact it is in spite of the education they received not because of it. The current school system does nothing to foster self-motivation or self-evaluation.

[SapereAude]

"No one seems to want to hear that the sacred cow of competition is not natural, nor instinctive. It is taught. (See the book “No Contest: The Case Against Competition”) Consistent research shows that altruism is a basic trait among humans (not competitiveness) along with its “side effects” of greed, envy and violence. "

This is absolute BULLSHIT. Apparently this person never read The Territorial Imperative.

Competetion not natural or instinctive?

Perhaps winning a spelling bee isn't natural or instinctive but competing for resources and mates is at the core of everything we are as human animals

Altruism has proven throughout all of society's grand experiments to be the cause of, not solution to, greed and envy.

The teaching of altruism is what makes class warfare, slavery & the destruction of the free peoples of the Earth.

This person is the ultimate second-hander.

Without all those competitive over-achievers rebelling against socialism & mediocrity over the years this fool couldn't have the leisure to sit at a computer writing this drivel. (ok this is the first good argument I've ever made against progress )

Perhaps he should try writing his essays on a computer built by people of no ability who are nontheless equal in value because they are kind or funny or underpriveleged. Perhaps if they need an operation they should get it done by someone who had altruistic intentions but just didn't have the grades to get into med-school.

[JeffS]

Here is a little life secret. People are going to judge you at work, no matter what... usually by <gasp> scoring you against your peers.

No doubt. My point is that if a student, and someday worker, only uses those around him as his measuring stick he's going to fall short of his potential. Look at recent college graduates. Less than 50% are proficient in math or reading. Or here. And something a little more dated. What's more, employers know it.

I can't remember where I read it, but I remember an article which discussed how employers have lowered their hiring standards. Not because of need for more workers, but because the crop of graduates simply gets worse and worse each year. Few of them have basic math skills, so math skills become unimportant. Few can write a cogent sentence, so writing becomes unimportant.

Of course we're going to be evaluated by those we work around. My argument is those we work around are getting easier and easier to compete against (unless they're educated in China or India). Since standing out around a bunch of idiots isn't very difficult, the only reason one would stand out significantly is if they aren't measuring themselves against others. They must measure themselves against their own ability, drive, and values.

[Zip]

No doubt. My point is that if a student, and someday worker, only uses those around him as his measuring stick he's going to fall short of his potential. Look at recent college graduates. Less than 50% are proficient in math or reading. Or here. And something a little more dated. What's more, employers know it.

I can't remember where I read it, but I remember an article which discussed how employers have lowered their hiring standards. Not because of need for more workers, but because the crop of graduates simply gets worse and worse each year. Few of them have basic math skills, so math skills become unimportant. Few can write a cogent sentence, so writing becomes unimportant.

Of course we're going to be evaluated by those we work around. My argument is those we work around are getting easier and easier to compete against (unless they're educated in China or India). Since standing out around a bunch of idiots isn't very difficult, the only reason one would stand out significantly is if they aren't measuring themselves against others. They must measure themselves against their own ability, drive, and values.

That to me sounds like putting the onus for how hard one works to achieve ones goals (and for how well one does personally) onto those doing the evaluating and those you are evaluated against and that is second-handed. Competition isn't. It pushes everyone, even the idiot to realize their own potential.

There can be only one winner, and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is coddling and emotionalizing with the looser to the point where those that don't win see the winner as someone to be derided, and their victories as something to be hidden, ignored.

[~Sophia~]

I have first-hand experience with the above, and wish my parents and teachers had worked harder to teach me to judge myself by my own standards, not those of other people. In fact, I am willing to say that for most of my life (perhaps even now) I was a second-hander, and worked for high grades not because I necessarily wanted to learn (though I do enjoy it) but because I wanted to prove I was smart and hopefully smartest (as well as a number of other things second-hander-y). If the point is to help children develop and/or preserve their self-motor then I agree with the author (I don't think that was her point however), as I am still trying to rebuild mine.

Although proper upbringing helps a person to move toward the state of consistent first handishness it does not by itself get anyone there. Most of the work required (and EVERYONE has to go through the process) is done by self.

Self motivation, for example, requires, having a long term vision of one's self interest. Not only your approach has to be long term but you also have to have a good grasp of a huge array of cause and effect relationships. We are not born with any knowledge so all of this has to be learned and internalized (which adds a whole another layer of challenge - which is the difference between knowing something conceptually and what I call "feeling it as true in every bone of your body" which makes you LIVE it consistently (hope you grasp what I mean)) and young children do not even have the mental capacity to do so. This requires certain level of maturity.

Children can be (and are) self motivated when it comes to things that are more basic, more immediate in "pay off", with a clearly observable cause and effect relationships. Montessori method helps in this respect. But a lot of very important values (I would even go as far as to say MOST) and character traits do not fall into this category. The "pay off" is not so apparent to a young mind, the benefits are more long term. It is a part of life that sometimes we have to endure not so fun activities for the long term benefit. Interesting thing is that the more you are integrated the less "painful" those actually appear but againg that is not automatic state you just find yourself in.

So ... to my point. From my experience, which includes being a parent - first handishness is mostly achieved through self development which starts at certain level of maturity. It is a process for everyone. So although a rationally raised child has a bit of an advantage - in order to actually become a first hander they have to go through similar self directed development and before they reach that point in development (mental and intellectual) they will have moments of second handishness (same way as everybody else).

Therefore I would pay less significance to where you have been (your childhood and ubringing) and more to where you are taking yourself. You only have to do slightly more work than my child, for example, will have to some day.

------------

I really love that statue Self Made Man by Bobby Carlye. The fact of having to go though the process of "carving ourselves" is an existential truth for us.

[Thales]

This seems to get at the heart of the issue. Wanting and needing to be pushed by others are two very different things. Wanting to see the potential of other men, being inspired by their work, and using that inspiration to fuel your own work is very normal healthy human behavior. On the other hand, needing to be pushed by others shows a lack of passion for your work. If you need an external source of motivation you must not deem your work valuable enough to justify the effort. You are looking for others to give it value.

Here is the way it can help, even if you are motivated. By competing with others you can learn from their example. Others who are better than you in some area will teach you better ways of getting things done. You can even learn from the passion of others and be inspired by that.

And, the truth is that none of us are motivated 24/7, and sometimes a kick can really help. This is why I believe in self-discipline when I’m not motivated.

I think all mentally healthy people can be self-motivated, but it is a skill like any other that needs to be learned, and the earlier you are able to learn it, of course, the easier it is.

Just to be clear, I'm a very self-motivated person. I've taken on big projects all on my own and worked for months to get them done, with little in the way of recreation. Interestingly, part of the process required that I work to motivate myself all the more, because you can increase your level of motivation even if you are already motivated. I also had to work on being goal oriented, setting deadlines, and being highly focused. I believe in being self-motivated, absolutely, but I also believe competition can be very good and push you to do better. It will give you an existential push and will likely inspire you as well.

The competition has to be the right kind and not the sort that pulls you down, to be sure.

[megr.ferg]

Does anyone have a better method than grades to constantly be aware if a child has a consistent performance?

I really don't think micro managing his life and studying sessions would be better, quite the opposite. Any thoughts?

I think Montessori schools are an excellent alternative. Most Montessori schools start around 3-years-old (some as young as infancy) even at this young age the child is completely self directed within the class room. There are specially designed materials all around the room that the child can work with at his leisure. The teacher shows how the material is used and the rest is up to the child. The materials are self correcting, if the child uses them incorrectly it will be obvious to him and he will be able to correct his own mistakes without a teacher stepping in. For example the cylindrical blocks material is a set of cylindrical pegs of varying sizes that fit in to corresponding holes. The child can tell right away if he has placed a block in the wrong hole because it will either stick out or wiggle loosely.

Here’s a link to a video of a child using this material and self correcting.

As children get older and learn to write they keep journals of the work they do in class and meet weekly to discuss their progress with the teacher. There is no copyright on the Montessori name so any school may use it but the original schools did not assign grades. This is not to say that they do no have standards. The child is expected to be at work and is corrected when he plays with the materials or is idle.

For a better overview of the approach I recommend “Montessori Today: A Comprehensive Approach to Education from Birth to Adulthood” by Paula Polk Lillard