Do kids need to learn early in life that they can't be good at everything

Irish Steve · 31-01-2014 12:48PM

Esteban Old-fashioned Crane wrote: »

Very true. I also think the 'points race' has taken the educational aspect away from school and just turned it into some kind of cramming exercise. If you can figure out what's likely to come up this year and retain the information you need long enough to get it down on the page, it doesn't matter a damn if you forget it all five minutes after the exam.
It would be nice if our education system also measured things like interpersonal skills, teamworking, creativity, and other skills that are just as (and often more) useful in a working environment as a string of As and Bs in academic subjects.

Very true, and can I add another thing, Education should also be about LIFE skills. That means mundane but important things like how to change a fuse, or replace a tap washer, or change a battery in a door bell, or how to get the air out of a radiator so that it works, the sort of things that should be second nature to modern living, but seem to defeat increasing numbers of people, if the threads in the plumbing and electrics forums are anything to go by.

Life is not about how many points you get on a hot sweaty afternoon one June, to determine so much of what will follow on the basis of that one event, or series of events, is to devalue so much of human experience, and degrade the person.

At one stage, inter school games were banned in the UK, as losing might traumatise the child or team that lost. If 2 people run a race, 99% of the time, one will finish before the other. There's nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with encouraging children to compete, as long as the manner in which they do it is not combative, and the "loser" is not made to feel inadequate as a result of participating.

If the "winner" is inappropriately rewarded, or the loser excessively punished, then the system is wrong.

Kids are not all equal, neither are adults. That does not mean they are superior or inferior, they are just simply different. Once that is recognised, so much of the rest of life is easy.

anncoates · 31-01-2014 12:48PM

I wasn't aware that giving all the kids a bit of encouragement and praise in, say, an art class in primary school will immediately lead them to believe they'll win the Turner Prize 20 years later.

I don;t think it's a bad idea to keep kids free for merit-based competition as long as possible and allow them to have fun and be creative.

One thing you see it in is team sports for little kids here like football. At an age where they should be having fun, enjoying camaraderie and keeping active, you instead see all these parents and coaches screaming at them to win and ignoring the kids of lesser ability as to win games.

The Pheasant2 · 31-01-2014 12:52PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

Very true, and can I add another thing, Education should also be about LIFE skills. That means mundane but important things like how to change a fuse, or replace a tap washer, or change a battery in a door bell, or how to get the air out of a radiator so that it works, the sort of things that should be second nature to modern living

My Dad actually taught me all these, but we did eventually do them in Junior Cert physics...so those who can't do it now are just forgetful or weren't paying attention at the time!

Tombo2001 · 31-01-2014 12:55PM

Esteban Old-fashioned Crane wrote: »

Just two stories I heard lately:

A friend who's putting on a play for her class of 9 year olds is having trouble putting a script together because every child in the class must have a speaking role. In that school there's no putting most of the kids in the chorus or telling them they're 'villagers' or whatever; they all have to be given an opportunity to speak.

Another friend's child told me he got a prize for 'artist of the week' at school. I said to my friend that she'd never told me her son was so good at art and she said the school makes sure a different child gets it each week so no one was left out. She said it's the same with 'student of the week' and sports day. Every child gets to win something.

Part of me thinks 'fair play' as I remember when I was at school it was the same people getting the lead roles in plays or having their paintings displayed on the notice board all the time. But another part of me wonders if these children are being set up for disappointment later on if they don't start to learn in primary school that different people have different talents and you can't be good at everything.

Just wondering if you think schools are being fairer now than years ago, or giving children an unrealistic view of the world?

Makes an improvement on the traditional Irish educational approach of knocking the bejasus out of everybody......

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 31-01-2014 12:57PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

Very true, and can I add another thing, Education should also be about LIFE skills. That means mundane but important things like how to change a fuse, or replace a tap washer, or change a battery in a door bell, or how to get the air out of a radiator so that it works, the sort of things that should be second nature to modern living, but seem to defeat increasing numbers of people, if the threads in the plumbing and electrics forums are anything to go by.

Life is not about how many points you get on a hot sweaty afternoon one June, to determine so much of what will follow on the basis of that one event, or series of events, is to devalue so much of human experience, and degrade the person.

At one stage, inter school games were banned in the UK, as losing might traumatise the child or team that lost. If 2 people run a race, 99% of the time, one will finish before the other. There's nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with encouraging children to compete, as long as the manner in which they do it is not combative, and the "loser" is not made to feel inadequate as a result of participating.

If the "winner" is inappropriately rewarded, or the loser excessively punished, then the system is wrong.

Kids are not all equal, neither are adults. That does not mean they are superior or inferior, they are just simply different. Once that is recognised, so much of the rest of life is easy.

I totally agree. Kids should also be taught about basic finance eg how a mortgage works, the difference between current and savings accounts, the risks of living off credit, basic budgeting techniques etc.

The Pheasant2 · 31-01-2014 12:59PM

Esteban Old-fashioned Crane wrote: »

I totally agree. Kids should also be taught about basic finance eg how a mortgage works, the difference between current and savings accounts, the risks of living off credit, basic budgeting techniques etc.

They get taught this in junior cert business...a lot of the stuff people are suggesting already happens, I did my junior cert 5 years ago and they had it then anyway

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 31-01-2014 01:03PM

Esteban Old-fashioned Crane wrote: »

Just two stories I heard lately:

A friend who's putting on a play for her class of 9 year olds is having trouble putting a script together because every child in the class must have a speaking role. In that school there's no putting most of the kids in the chorus or telling them they're 'villagers' or whatever; they all have to be given an opportunity to speak.

Another friend's child told me he got a prize for 'artist of the week' at school. I said to my friend that she'd never told me her son was so good at art and she said the school makes sure a different child gets it each week so no one was left out. She said it's the same with 'student of the week' and sports day. Every child gets to win something.

Part of me thinks 'fair play' as I remember when I was at school it was the same people getting the lead roles in plays or having their paintings displayed on the notice board all the time. But another part of me wonders if these children are being set up for disappointment later on if they don't start to learn in primary school that different people have different talents and you can't be good at everything.

Just wondering if you think schools are being fairer now than years ago, or giving children an unrealistic view of the world?

Technically, no, but the education system is so narrow-minded it overcompensates.

For excample, a kid who might not be academically bright but very creative artistically will not get the same recognition as the kid who gets straight As but can't do a dam nothing with the information he's learnt.

You can give awards to the best people without leaving kids out - as long ast he kids that get left out get the same praise for the genuine achievements they make in other fields. Sadly, this doesn't always happen.

whatdoicare · 31-01-2014 01:11PM

It's really weird that what happens to a child in school in primary can shape them. I'm not sure though I like this policy of everyone getting a trophy or of rewarding effort.

When I was in junior infants I remember killing myself every week to get full marks in the end of week spelling competition the teacher would have and win whatever she gave, I think a gold sticker star and a bag of sweets or something.

I won it the first time and delighted with myself I continued to get full marks every single week. Now, it didn't come natural to me, I plagued my dad to study with me every night to get the marks,so I put in the hard work. I got my prize the first three weeks and then nothing! I kept getting the marks but no prize and I was starting to getting upset about it so my dad went up one dad to ask what was going on.

The teacher explained that I'd won so many times it felt unfair to those who didn't get full marks but tried hard to not be rewarded. Fair enough my dad said and went home to try explain it all to me.

Obviously my four/five year old mind couldn't understand the concept of working hard for no reward, sure sesame Street told me if I work hard I'll get my prize, fair and square, so I took from the conversation that no matter what I did I wasn't getting a prize so I stopped wanting to work.

When my dad called me for lessons I'd just start roaring crying, I now associated my lesson with a sort of punishment and wanted to be away from it. My grades of course started dropping,I was being given out to all the time by parents and teachers and I stopped playing with my other class mates. I'd lost all confidence in myself.

It took until I went into third class and a fabulous teacher who recognised what was actually going on and actively bucked me up to start repairing the damage caused by that seeming innocent competition.

By that time I was so shy and inside my own head that I spent my days hiding from my classmates in the school yard and my grades were just awful. I was afraid to try for anything (not because I was afraid I'd win but that I'd win and somehow be punished for it, I didn't remember why that was but I remembered that I did well in a test and mum and dad were mad at me over it) or put my hand up in class.

I was terrified of everything because I was confused about the half remembered debacle that happened in junior infants. My mom would often reminisce about the confident girl I was when that age and couldn't understand what happened. My folks didn't remember that competition or its affect on me so didn't see the connection. Sure how could they know what was going on in my head,in hind sight sure but at the time it wasn't so clear.

I'm glad I came through it by secondary school but it did have a profound effect on me and my whole young life, my relationships with my class mates, my association with learning and my self confidence.

I think you have to be so careful what you teach a child at that age they're sponges and they don't understand the world outside home. Something innocent could become very ingrained in their little heads.

Bounty Hunter Dan · 31-01-2014 01:15PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll8KTae3AA0

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 31-01-2014 01:18PM

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

They get taught this in junior cert business...a lot of the stuff people are suggesting already happens, I did my junior cert 5 years ago and they had it then anyway

Well that's good to hear because when I was at school we learnt nothing like that. We knew all about the causes of WW1 and the reproductive system of rabbits but hadn't a clue how to manage a bank account, work out a budget, balance a cheque book or all the other simple but important things that you need to know in day to day life.

stmol32 · 31-01-2014 01:20PM

I think this belongs here.
Sean Locke is like the lone voice of reason in a sea of delusion.

The Pheasant2 · 31-01-2014 01:31PM

Esteban Old-fashioned Crane wrote: »

Well that's good to hear because when I was at school we learnt nothing like that. We knew all about the causes of WW1 and the reproductive system of rabbits but hadn't a clue how to manage a bank account, work out a budget, balance a cheque book or all the other simple but important things that you need to know in day to day life.

Yeah it's good that they're moving towards more relevant education. Ah c'mon the causes of WW1 is an important part of history! One thing I would fear of if we were to go too far with purely practical education is that people won't know anything except for how to "live" their lives.

I would always get a bit annoyed at the kids who would shout "When are we ever going to use this in real life?" when we were doing algebra or poetry or learning the capitals or other countries etc. Without having that general education and having a decent grounding in most subjects I think there's a danger that our education system will be churning out ignorant philistines who only want to earn as much money as possible (a pattern which I've already noticed to be growing among young people) rather than educated people. (Not saying that you were saying that - just saying there are risks involved with education being too..."useful" for lack of a better term.

Earthhorse · 31-01-2014 01:40PM

Kids don't need to learn this early in their lives if, by early, you mean before the age of around 12 or so. They have so much development to go through at that stage it's better to let them developed un-inhibited by this knowledge.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 31-01-2014 01:58PM

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Yeah it's good that they're moving towards more relevant education. Ah c'mon the causes of WW1 is an important part of history! One thing I would fear of if we were to go too far with purely practical education is that people won't know anything except for how to "live" their lives.

I would always get a bit annoyed at the kids who would shout "When are we ever going to use this in real life?" when we were doing algebra or poetry or learning the capitals or other countries etc. Without having that general education and having a decent grounding in most subjects I think there's a danger that our education system will be churning out ignorant philistines who only want to earn as much money as possible (a pattern which I've already noticed to be growing among young people) rather than educated people. (Not saying that you were saying that - just saying there are risks involved with education being too..."useful" for lack of a better term.

I agree. We just happened to be talking about the centenary of the first world war in work yesterday and started reminiscing about history lessons in school which is why that example came to mind.I was just trying to make the point that coming out of school with lots of theoretical knowledge but no education in how to deal with the ordinary everyday aspects of life is not ideal. A balance between the two and giving due credit to pupils who may not be A students academically but are very creative, have excellent leadership skills, are full of initiative etc would be a better, more rounded system.

anncoates · 31-01-2014 02:03PM

It's also a case of gauging how important is "excellence" for a given pursuit.

You don't have to in the very upper level of ability to enjoy creative activities, sports or education, not do we have to distil participation in same against some utilitarian list for usefulness in careers and whatnot.

Sadly, there's time enough for any child to realize where they stand in the meritocratic scheme of things so just let childhood be a time of innocence, encouragement and fun.

Liger vs Tigon · 31-01-2014 02:14PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

Kids don't need to learn this early in their lives if, by early, you mean before the age of around 12 or so. They have so much development to go through at that stage it's better to let them developed un-inhibited by this knowledge.

Replace 12 with 6 or 7 and you'd be right.

SPS1 · 31-01-2014 02:16PM

Motivation, effort & talent are required throughout life to reach goals (in that order). We as a society award this in the form of job status, benefits in kind etc.
Competition is the driving force behind this.

Teaching a child that participation alone regardless of effort put in , is worthy of reward, is not going to help them in their attitude to life. It's not how the world works.

The opposing arguments all seem to have some parallel to communism vs capitalism in mindset

.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 31-01-2014 02:20PM

SPS1 wrote: »

Motivation, effort & talent are required throughout life to reach goals (in that order). We as a society award this in the form of job status, benefits in kind etc.
Competition is the driving force behind this.

In an ideal world, yes. but society is not like that in reality. Know of people pick up credit and job beenfits despite not really beign all that good at theor job.

Teaching a child that participation alone regardless of effort put in , is worthy of reward, is not going to help them in their attitude to life. It's not how the world works.

The opposing arguments all seem to have some parallel to communism vs capitalism in mindset .

More of a social that economic argument I would have said, but I see the parallel.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 31-01-2014 02:21PM

SPS1 wrote: »

Motivation, effort & talent are required throughout life to reach goals (in that order). We as a society award this in the form of job status, benefits in kind etc.
Competition is the driving force behind this.

Teaching a child that participation alone regardless of effort put in , is worthy of reward, is not going to help them in their attitude to life. It's not how the world works.

The opposing arguments all seem to have some parallel to communism vs capitalism in mindset .

What about job satisfaction; using your talents; working with likeminded people whose company you enjoy? Not everyone is driven by jobs with status, big salaries, company cars, large houses etc. Some people want to earn enough to support themselves and their families in reasonable comfort and, beyond that, other things are more important.

anncoates · 31-01-2014 02:23PM

SPS1 wrote: »

Motivation, effort & talent are required throughout life to reach goals (in that order). We as a society award this in the form of job status, benefits in kind etc.
Competition is the driving force behind this.

Teaching a child that participation alone regardless of effort put in , is worthy of reward, is not going to help them in their attitude to life. It's not how the world works.
.

You can still encourage children to achieve their potential without turning their childhood into some dreary, funereal, corporate foundation course.

vitani · 31-01-2014 02:34PM

It goes both ways. In primary, I was one of those annoying little children that found schoolwork easy and always had my homework done, so I often won prizes and awards, or was picked to do jobs and I had my hand up first in class more often than not. The other children hated me for it, and I didn't have the self-preservation skills necessary to stop openly trying so hard. It also meant that I found it difficult to take when other kids were picked for things like the school fashion show or the class play. Part of it was that the teachers felt because I got so much attention for being good at schoolwork, it was time for other kids to shine. Which is fair enough, but it pigeonholed me even further and isolated me from the rest of the class.

SPS1 · 31-01-2014 02:34PM

Esteban Old-fashioned Crane wrote: »

What about job satisfaction; using your talents; working with likeminded people whose company you enjoy? Not everyone is driven by jobs with status, big salaries, company cars, large houses etc. Some people want to earn enough to support themselves and their families in reasonable comfort and, beyond that, other things are more important.

Somebody post that famous Alec Baldwin scene from "Glengarry Glen ross".I'm on my phone & new to posting links to YouTube on a forum.

You give somebody an incentive, a goal to reach that others are competing for & productivity goes through the roof.
No person will turn down a higher paying job, higher status etc where all things else are equal (same working hours, same responsibility etc) because they are content with earning "just enough".

In fact Russia this is seen best, doctors and ballet dancers iirc were removed from conscription. Lo and behold they produce some of the finest dancers & doctors the world has seen.
They also trounce countries in the Olympics in their national sports.

I do not buy this "sunshine & rainbows, everybody wins" teaching to kids.

Earthhorse · 31-01-2014 02:39PM

SPS1 wrote: »

Somebody post that famous Alec Baldwin scene from "Glengarry Glen ross".I'm on my phone & new to posting links to YouTube on a forum.

You give somebody an incentive, a goal to reach that others are competing for & productivity goes through the roof.
No person will turn down a higher paying job, higher status etc where all things else are equal (same working hours, same responsibility etc) because they are content with earning "just enough".

In fact Russia this is seen best, doctors and ballet dancers iirc were removed from conscription. Lo and behold they produce some of the finest dancers & doctors the world has seen.
They also trounce countries in the Olympics in their national sports.

I do not buy this "sunshine & rainbows, everybody wins" teaching to kids.

There doesn't have to be any false dichotomy between two extremes. The real world isn't "sunshine, lollipops and everybody wins", nor is it a pure meritocracy where talent and hard work always pay off.

Baron Kurtz · 31-01-2014 02:43PM

Stupid, sexy children.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 31-01-2014 02:44PM

SPS1 wrote: »

Somebody post that famous Alec Baldwin scene from "Glengarry Glen ross".I'm on my phone & new to posting links to YouTube on a forum.

You give somebody an incentive, a goal to reach that others are competing for & productivity goes through the roof.
No person will turn down a higher paying job, higher status etc where all things else are equal (same working hours, same responsibility etc) because they are content with earning "just enough".

In fact Russia this is seen best, doctors and ballet dancers iirc were removed from conscription. Lo and behold they produce some of the finest dancers & doctors the world has seen.
They also trounce countries in the Olympics in their national sports.

I do not buy this "sunshine & rainbows, everybody wins" teaching to kids.

A lot f people have no wish to work in high pressured, highly competitive environments where they are doing something they have no particular interest in. I have actually turned down a promotion in the past because the job on offer meant leaving a field of work that I loved and had a creative dimension that was important to me. I doubt I am unique in that. What about people who have the brains and the points to study subjects like medicine or law at University but opt to do primary school teaching or nursing, because that's where their interests and abilities lie?

Knex* · 31-01-2014 02:47PM

The, "Every child is special", stuff that you often hear annoys me sometimes.

At exactly what age do kids stop being "special" and are instead regarded as being just another Joe Soap?

The percentage of kids that were once regarded as special, and yet have turned out to be remarkably less than so, must be staggering.

OK, so some of that is tongue in cheek. Sure, kids needs to be encouraged and guided along the right path. But they also need constructive guidance, and criticism, not just pull the wool over their eyes, "You can be president of America", stuff.

SPS1 · 31-01-2014 02:53PM

Esteban Old-fashioned Crane wrote: »

A lot f people have no wish to work in high pressured, highly competitive environments where they are doing something they have no particular interest in. I have actually turned down a promotion in the past because the job on offer meant leaving a field of work that I loved and had a creative dimension that was important to me. I doubt I am unique in that. What about people who have the brains and the points to study subjects like medicine or law at University but opt to do primary school teaching or nursing, because that's where their interests and abilities lie?

You seem to think I'm arguing that, regardless of where personal interest lies. A person will go for a better paying job outside of their field. I am not.

Lets say your job is a scientific researcher studying in labs & you love it. If I offered an opportunity to the staff (you included). To become head honcho of the research team, where you oversee the study that you love doing, are paid more money & have better credentials from it....that you would turn it down?
Do you honestly believe that now there is a goal & competition, you won't try harder to win it compared to if say it was a random name drawn from the hat for each lab project?

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 31-01-2014 02:58PM

SPS1 wrote: »

You seem to think I'm arguing that, regardless of where personal interest lies. A person will go for a better paying job outside of their field. I am not.

Lets say your job is a scientific researcher studying in labs & you love it. If I offered an opportunity to the staff (you included). To become head honcho of the research team, where you oversee the study that you love doing, are paid more money & have better credentials from it....that you would turn it down?
Do you honestly believe that now there is a goal & competition, you won't try harder to win it compared to if say it was a random name drawn from the hat for each lab project?

Fair enough. It was the use of the word capitalism in your first post that threw me off. I certainly agree that in a work situation hard work and ability should be rewarded and it is demotivating for staff if they see people getting promoted because they a*se lick, are related to someone or have more impressive paper qualifications.

anncoates · 31-01-2014 03:06PM

SPS1 wrote: »

I do not buy this "sunshine & rainbows, everybody wins" teaching to kids.

I don't think anybody is saying this - at least I'm not.

I was thinking more of childhood in the Ludic sense where it should be a 'suspension of consequence' where everything you enjoy and try should not be stymied by adult notions of usefulness, expertise and long term merit.

That an entirely different thing to dodging teaching your kids the value of achieving the goals that they wish to achieve.

A simple way of looking at it is if your kid likes sports.

Should they train and participate with all of their ability? Yes.

Should it matter how good they are? No.

Should they never play because they're not likely to become professionals? No.

Mardy Bum · 31-01-2014 03:10PM

Any kid who puts a lot of effort into something should be rewarded no matter how bad/good it is because they then learn that it is effort that is the important quality rather than innate ability.

Do kids need to learn early in life that they can't be good at everything

Comments