Recently, someone I follow on Twitter directed me to a blog that took on popular Fox News Network talking head Glenn Beck for comments he made about social justice and Christianity. With Beck, there is no middle ground — you either like the guy or you hate his ever-loving guts. And those who hate him really hate him.
Roger Ebert (yes, that Roger Ebert) wrote a blog called “Jesus was a Nazi. So’s your preacher” where he took Beck to task about controversial comments he made regarding Christian churches that preach social justice. Naturally, this post’s title (it’s important to note that the quotes were included) above a photo of one of Beck’s goofy smiles had me intrigued. I never watch his TV show or listen to his radio show but I have read two of his books, and his take on politics — while a bit Chicken-Littley at times — generally seems sensible to me.
The essence of this most recent controversy is that Beck told listeners to his radio show that if they go to a church that preaches social justice or economic justice, that they ought to leave that church immediately and find another. On the surface this sort of statement does seem wildly rash, and if we choose to go no deeper than the surface, anyone could find plenty of nasty things to say about the man who uttered it. And Roger Ebert did just that.
First, let me just clarify that Ebert’s quoted title is automatically misleading. As far as I can tell from reading the post itself, neither those words nor anything like them have been uttered by Beck. None of Ebert’s other posts have quotes, so this was obviously either a ploy to get readers to think that Beck actually said that, or to mock him as if that were totally the sort of thing that he would say if we could really hear his thoughts. Either way, it reeks of misdirection.
Second, the way in which Ebert engages Beck’s statement shows me that he is not interested in being clear on the issue. Rather than attempting to clarify the (admittedly) odd-sounding advice, Ebert takes it completely at face value and then neatly dresses Beck’s motives in his own assumptions. Then he uses those assumptions to mock the man as a fringe zealot. Glenn Beck is a freak. Case closed.
But wait…
If you do a little bit of research (and it really only takes a little), it is possible to get a clearer idea of what Beck is really advocating. Let me try to sum it up:
Beck is saying that if a church takes the position that its members should support the government in its efforts to help the needy, then that church is violating one of its most compelling commandments by allowing its people to shrug off their God-given duty to be the hands and feet of Jesus, and to go out and meet the needs themselves. That’s it in a nutshell. Rather than allowing the government to do the job of caring for people, we are called to do it, and anyone who gives us a way out of this arrangement is not leading us well.
Here are a two additional comments made on Ebert’s post that I found refreshingly clarifying:
The state can’t act in love as the state uses “coercion” via the sword or the AK47 to implement it’s policy. Jesus lived in a day of slavery but never spoke out against it. He lived in a day of oppressive misogyny and never spoke out against that. Greed, violence, poverty, disease, ignorance were rampant and there was no such thing as a middle class. In His day either you were an owner or a slave and Jesus never addressed this. Instead He called for His FOLLOWERS NOT THE STATE to live out His principles which then changed the world.
It amazes me that people don’t get it. Anyone that listens on a regular basis to Beck understands that his problem is with the government being a solution. The government is the problem. As a “clergyman” myself, I know that it is the church’s responsibility to take care of the poor and those less fortunate. If a church is advocating that the government do this through “social justice”, Beck is in fact correct.
In the end you have to look at all the evidence and decide what is true and what is conjecture. Does Glenn Beck actually oppose the idea of church-goers helping the needy (as Roger Ebert believes), or is he really saying that a church who allows its divine calling to be annexed by the government is not a place where dedicated Christ followers should want to be? To me, that answer is clear.
Does my take on this issue persuade you? If you heard Beck’s comment, what was your initial reaction? Do you see things differently now?
Since the beginning of time, people have been discussing, debating, and warring over issues of religion and politics. Taken independently, each subject can create a great deal of fervor and heated banter, but an extra heaping of woe to the one who tries to talk about both simultaneously. Recently, I have been in discussions with a friend of mine (someone who opposes my views as it happens), and I wanted to put some of my thoughts in writing to see how others react to the convergence of religion and politics.
Some might say that politics and religion should always stay separated, but I find that to be a thoughtless position. Since my religion is the central catalyst in forming my worldview, how can someone ask me to separate my understanding of the world from my vote? Do I ask the secular atheist to forget about their worldview before casting a vote? To me, the idea of religion and politics staying separate is silly. On a number of hot-button issues, my religious faith (along with what I consider simple common sense) have helped to form many of my political convictions. Though they are seen as contentious issues, many are pretty black-and-white in my mind.
Capital Punishment - I am 100% in favor of capital punishment. Some might challenge me by saying that all life is sacred and that my support of society killing another human being, for any reason, must mean that I don’t truly value life. On the contrary, because I value innocent human life so much, I support a system that requires the most heinous murderers to pay the ultimate price for their deeds — the forfeit of their own life.
Abortion - I support a woman’s right to choose, and when she chooses to sleep with someone and gets pregnant, I don’t think a quick-fix abortion is an acceptable remedy. The idea that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body is fine by me, but once you get pregnant, you’re dealing with someone else’s body. Just because it’s growing inside you, that doesn’t mean it is you. 100% of babies turn out to be someone different than the woman who carried it. I want each child to have the opportunity to live, because you never know which unwanted baby might be the next Mother Theresa.
Admittedly, however, sometimes I struggle with the crossroads between religion and politics. I freely admit that there are times when my stance on a political issue is difficult to justify through my faith. When people challenge me on some of these issues, I have to admit uneasiness. Here are three random political issues that give me pause:
War - War is hell, and the idea of supporting it makes me a bit uneasy. I don’t think its easy for our troops, and I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable killing another person. Unfortunately, the other end of the spectrum — sitting down and having a friendly discussion with people who hate us — is laughable. If I’m at home when someone breaks in with a weapon, no amount of Constant Comment tea will help me succeed in protecting my family. This reasoning seems even more persuasive on an international level. Am I uneasy about the taking of human life? Yes. Do I think that God supports war? Honestly, I’m not sure either way. What I do know is that war has been the catalyst through which many of the world’s greatest evils have been thwarted. My tendency is to believe that, in rare cases, military intervention is the only answer we have as a nation.
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques - This is one that came up in a discussion last week. From a political standpoint, I have no issues with water boarding terrorist masterminds like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — I think its valuable in helping to save lives. I fully support sleep deprivation and other techniques that interfere with or disrupt a person’s rhythm and balance. I’m against physical torture (like drilling a hole through someones skull). Oddly enough, from a religious perspective, I’m a little more uneasy with this issue than I am with war. Do I like coercive methods that make a person feel like he is drowning? No. But there is no doubting that this technique — done to a handful of men who are the personification evil — has saved thousands of innocent lives. In this case, I lean slightly more toward an “end justifies the means” stance, but I’d be lying if I said that my faith didn’t give me pause.
Homosexuality - My belief about homosexuality is not where my struggle lies; I simply have a hard time knowing exactly how to handle the rise of the gay movement in our society. I believe that our nation gives mentally healthy adults the right to do just about anything he or she wants, as long as it doesn’t injure or corrupt others. What I have a hard time with is knowing what to do when I see what used to be considered an “alternative lifestyle” given the same value as traditional man/woman relationships. Do I want our government to oppress gays? No. But I have a hard time with the thought that our government is being asked to take the stance that heterosexual marriages are no different than homosexual ones. While I support the freedom of lifestyle, I cannot support the idea that they are the same. My compassion for gay people doesn’t trump what I consider to be the best organism for a healthy society — a healthy traditional family.
What are your thoughts? Do you have similar religio-political battles that you deal with? If you are of a secular persuasion, do you have similar struggles when you try to combine your political and irreligious beliefs?
Dear CNN, I am writing this letter to inform you that penguins are not people, and to let you know that running news stories about penguins and talking about them as if they were the Kowalskis next door is assinine. Furthermore, trying to compare a pair of male Magellanic Penguins to a gay human couple in an attempt to show how natural it is to be gay is a bit of a slap in the face to homosexuals. Besides, the analogy totally backfired. Can we get back to the real news, please?
Just over three months ago, I decided to give Twitter a try and created an account for myself. From the very beginning, I have been skeptical about whether or not Twitter could add value to my life or enhance my leadership influence, and participating in the twitterverse still has not convinced me.
Michael Hyatt, the CEO of Christian book publisher Thomas Nelson, Inc. is the one who ultimately convinced me to give Twitter a try. His blog is one of the best places to find great posts on leadership, social media, customer service, publishing, personal productivity, and about a dozen other important topics (go there now and subscribe to his posts, you won’t regret it). Mr. Hyatt is a strong believer in Twitter’s ability to build influence and expand leadership, and he’s an avid Twitterer.
Aside from following a few friends and family members, I specifically chose to follow Mr. Hyatt’s Twitter feed so that I could get a clearer insight into what makes him a great leader. Unfortunately, I have grown to realize that the things he tweets don’t impact me at anywhere near the level that his blogs do. Sure, some of his tweets link to his great blog posts, but I already subscribe to his RSS feed, so the Twitter link is redundant. On occasion, he’ll post a link to an article that I find interesting, and its fun to hear him talk about his morning runs, but few of those tweets challenge me beyond the exact moment I read them.
And its definitely not just him.
I follow a number of people who I consider big-time influencers, but I generally get the same reaction to their tweets. Their influence on me exists more in their books, articles, and blog posts, not in their tweets. Does that make sense? I think it’s the inherent lack of depth combined with having to comb through a collection of too many pointless messages that continues to turn me off. I realize that this post has a “me, me, me” timbre to it, but when it comes right down to it, should I invest my time in something that isn’t directly challenging me and making me better?
I’m not going to call it quits with Twitter, and I will continue to read the tweets of Mr. Hyatt and all the other people I currently follow. I’ll even continue making tweets of my own. While I’m not currently prepared to say that Twitter is pointless, I am confessing that, after more than three months, I’m still not a convert.
Am I still missing something? Do you agree or disagree with my take on Twitter’s value?
This post is going to be about you talking and me listening. Today I’m going to tap you for some ideas and thoughts on a subject that has been rolling around in my mind for a few weeks now: the potential of using of social media in public education.
Like it or not, social media outlets are transforming the way we interact with people. From Facebook to Twitter to personal blogs, more and more people are starting to recognize the value in making social media a key part of their marketing and communications strategies. With these tools gaining such a vast amount of attention and usage in the corporate world, in churches, and even in politics, I was wondering how it might be leveraged to improve public education from any or all of these perspectives:
Student Perspective - How can teachers and administrators utilize social media in a way that positively involves students? What social media products could we use to enhance their education while still maintaining their innocence, privacy, and safety?
Parent Perspective - How can we more effectively involve parents in education through social media? If you are a parent, where do you see the school system falling short in communicating with you? Could social media effectively bridge that communication gap?
Teacher Perspective - How might teachers use social media to generate a higher level of collaboration with each other? How can they leverage it to improve their teaching? If you are a teacher, what features of social media interest you and how do you see it helping you in your job?
You definitely don’t have to be involved in education to answer these questions — in fact, I’m most interested in hearing from people who regularly use social in a field outside of education. Please take a few moments to comment below. Your responses could lay a foundation to help educators more effectively close the growing gap between where public education is and where it should be.
On my last birthday (October 11), Heidi bought me the entire first season of 24. Now, after about nine months and 168 hours in front of our television, we can finally say that we have caught up to the current season. What a great show!
Normally, Heidi and I aren’t big TV watchers, but this series is addicting. For years, I have known that 24 would be the sort of show that I could get into, but I hate getting involved in the middle of a series when I don’t know the whole story. With 24 covering one day’s worth of action, I wasn’t about to start somewhere in the middle — and I certainly didn’t want to start by watching season three. We had to see it from the beginning.
Our key phrase for this show became, “You’ve got to be freaking kidding me!” because that is the reaction we had at the end of just about every episode. The script is well-written, the characters are well-played, and the makers of 24 have no problem throwing curve balls that flip the story on its head and back again. Though this classifies as a “better late than never” situation, I’m glad that we decided to become part of the 24 crowd.
I think now that Heidi and I will have much more free time on our hands, I’ll gather up the half dozen or so books that I have been meaning to read and enjoy a form of entertainment that doesn’t require a remote control.
I wonder how many books I could read in 168 hours…
Despite the fact that I have written three different posts dealing with some key shortcomings I have seen in public education, it would be wrong for me not to acknowledge the things that are positive. I’m sure there are more positives than the ones I list, but these are the three biggest things I see that have the potential to make public education better.
1. The teachers truly love the kids. Of all the teachers I have met, I can’t say that I’ve known one who is in this career for the money. The people who educate our kids day after day truly love their students — that’s why they spend countless hours preparing and planning, that’s why they stay after school to tutor kids for free, that’s why they attend school carnivals and science fairs, that’s why they volunteer to coach the basketball team.
Sure, there are days when our students wear us out and make us wonder if we should just call in sick tomorrow, but deep down we all know that making a difference requires that we are there day after day to give the future adults of America the tools they need to be successful, productive, and ethical citizens.
2. No child is left behind. This well-known line from the Bush administration’s educational policies certainly rings true in the hearts of teachers, staff, and administrators all across America. Every student, no matter his or her race, culture, background, academic capabilities, family situation, physical handicap, or just about any other overt trait can get the educational services he needs in the public school system. From speech and language specialists to school psychologists to resource and special education classrooms, American education has paved the way for all students to get their needs met. Even school breakfast and lunches are available for students who don’t get fed at home.
Personally, I have issues with the school system (more specifically the government) being the ultimate need-meeters of society, but the increase I see of an irresponsible, increasingly dependent and entitled citizenry can’t be blamed on schools. They’re just picking up the slack where the traditional American values of responsibility and self-sufficiency have fallen by the wayside (but that’s another post).
3. Parent-teacher communication and teamwork. I see a higher level of openness and cooperation between teachers and parents than I remember my parents having when I was a kid. Through systematic communication through notes, emails, progress reports, phone calls, conferences, and in-class observations, teachers can more clearly articulate their expectations, and parents can get a better picture of their child’s progress. Teachers are more reachable than ever before, and that translates into stronger partnerships between school and home.
One of my favorite ways of promoting a partnership with parents is through in-class observations. Anytime I meet a parent, I extend to them the opportunity to come in and observe the class in order to get an idea of what it’s like with me at the helm. I know a lot of parents who think they know what sort of teacher I am based on their child’s contracted perspective, but who are surprised when they see me live. Obviously, not all teachers are comfortable with this sort of thing ( after all, would you like it if someone shadowed you at work for an hour or two?), but I see an increased willingness to give parents more opportunities to get within the walls of the school, and that generally helps form a stronger bond between both worlds.
What are some of the positive practices you have seen in public schools?
This post is the last of a three-part series dealing with some of the biggest problems I have seen throughout my experience in public education. I am obviously generalizing and would never try to have you believe that these problems are inherent in all teachers or schools, but I do believe that the issues are deeply rooted and widespread. If you have any personal insight on, or arguments against these issues, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
The War on Boys
This particular topic is bound to cause extreme reactions one way or he other, but I think it’s important to look at some of the ways education has worked to stifle boys by punishing behaviors typically associated with male nature. Unlike the other issues I mentioned in my two previous posts, this is definitely not something that the vast majority of teachers do intentionally, but it is done on a frequent basis nonetheless.
I believe that males and females are vastly different. Some highly-educated professors would tell you that the only differences between boys and girls are physical, and that apparent divisions are the result of upbringing, not nature. As my favorite radio personality Dennis Prager says, “You have to have a graduate degree to believe such nonsense”. If one starts from the premise that boys and girls are essentially the same, then treating them the exact same way seems reasonable. Unfortunately, public education has bought into the nature vs. nurture lie and teachers have become experts at treating each student “the same” — and boys typically pay the price.
Here’s an example: When a boy gets frustrated with another boy on the playground, his natural inclination is to do something physically to express his annoyance — usually by throwing a few punches. In just about every public school in the nation, fighting will result in an automatic suspension. On the other hand, when a girl gets frustrated with another girl on the playground, she’s not naturally inclined to react physically. Instead, she will use her words to inflict harm. Rather than slugging the other student, girls might react by making fun of her hair or clothes, or saying something catty about her personality or looks. Generally, this behavior will only result in a “you girls be nice” from the teacher and little else.
I’m not saying that we should be more lenient on fighting, but I think we should be consistent in enforcing proper behavior from both boys and girls. I have seen example after example of boys getting into small fights and then playing well together later that day. For them, fighting is a quick-resolution activity. When girls fight verbally, however, there is usually no quick resolution because the pain is inflicted day after day, and little is done by teachers to make it stop. You see, we routinely train boys to control their natures, but tend to look the other way when it comes to the female nature — and even if we don’t look the other way, the consequences for girls are certainly disproportionate to the consequences we dish out to boys. When was the last time you heard about a girl getting suspended for calling another girl fat?
Another example of where I think public schools target boys is the ADHD movement. Modern education has developed a very unhealthy love affair with the various pharmaceutical drugs used for treating ADHD. A 2003 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 2.5 million kids ages 4-17 years were taking medication for ADHD, with boys being treated at almost twice the rate of girls. Why the disproportion? I believe that society has found a round-about way to stifle male nature through medication, and it has become more acceptable because it’s cloaked in medical terminology.
Instead of working with a boy’s tendency toward more active behaviors, we give them drugs until they act like girls (who are naturally compliant, cooperative, still). Now, I like a quiet student as much as the next teacher, but if we decide to give a boy pills that chemically change his behavior rather than taking the time to teach him self-control and respect, we are doing that boy a tremendous disservice. I have had students that are so over-medicated that you would think they are strung out on cocaine. It saddens me to see a boy with glazed over eyes who doesn’t have an appetite at lunch or the energy to play on the playground because it has been sapped by Ritalin. For my own part, I’d much rather have a boy who is over-active, than a kid who is has had his personality altered by drugs.
I think the issue of trying to eliminate male nature is a society-wide pandemic and not just an issue in schools. Unfortunately, the public schools are where teachers unwittingly begin this process and where the downward spiral starts. Teachers need to be aware that boys and girls are very different and we need to be sure we don’t always treat boys and girls the same. Let’s meet kids at their level.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree with me that schools target males in an unfair way, or do you think I’m off-base?
As a public school teacher, I have been on the front lines of the battle to educate children to become literate, well-balanced, intelligent, and productive members of society. Unfortunately, many aspects of public education today seem to do more toward undermining this goal than meeting it. My last post dealt with the problem of creating artificial self esteem by finding new ways to celebrate mediocrity. Today, I’ll discuss another aspect of why the public school system is failing our children.
All Feelings, No Common Sense
At one time, education in America was all about teaching children key academic and ethical principles that they would need in order to prepare them for life; things were relatively straightforward. But today, many Utopian philosophies of education, combined with feelings-based decision making, have threatened to undermine an educational foundation that once put America at the top of the world academically.
The first and most destructive philosophy I see in education is the whole language movement, which gained momentum in the late 1960s and is now a mainstream practice in education. On the surface, the basic philosophy sounds harmless enough — that humans are predisposed to language and have an incredible capacity to develop language skills naturally (as opposed to the belief that language needs to be systematically taught). When this philosophy is put into practice, however, it begins to fall apart.
A child who is taught using the whole language system is presented regular opportunities to read various pieces of literature in the hope that exposure will cause him or her to develop language experimentally. What’s the harm in that? Well, oftentimes, the “basics” of reading — learning letter sounds for example — are not taught because they are seen as tedious or boring and do not enhance a student’s enjoyment of literature. Whole language is focused on giving students the opportunity to learn by feeling their own way through the English language, with the belief that the fundamentals will develop naturally.
What if we educated surgeons that way? Instead of requiring hours and hours of instruction and study of the basics of human anatomy, what if a doctor-to-be shows up to the first day of class, is handed a scalpel and told, “Mr. Jones, we want you to enjoy being a surgeon, and since studying anatomy is not particularly fun, we’re going to kick-off your education by letting you operate on this lady. Don’t worry about making mistakes, and don’t worry if you’re unsure what each part of the body does, you’ll figure it out in time.”
Despite the obvious lack of common sense, whole language proponents might have a solid case if their approach actually produced large amounts of literate, literature-loving students. Unfortunately, my experience is that the vast majority of students who are taught via whole language are very poor readers and generally do not enjoy quality literature; Captain Underpants books are the cream of the crop to them. Is it any wonder they can hardly read when they have never been taught the basics of the English language? I believe that language is innate, but I do not believe in the theory of allowing kids to figure it out on their own.
Here are a few other brief examples I’ve seen of theory trumping common sense in our schools:
Student-led Conferences
Theory: Students and parents meet together each quarter to discuss academic performance. The child leads the conference and tells the parent how he or she is progressing. The teacher isn’t even present. It’s supposed to make students feel “empowered”.
Common Sense: I am the expert, not the nine year old. While it’s good practice to have students participate in their own conferences, we teachers have the tools necessary to properly evaluate and understand a student’s progress, and to clearly communicate any deficiencies to parents. Leaving that task in the hands of a child is ridiculous.
Bi-lingual Education
Theory: A child is more well-rounded when he or she can read, write, and speak in both Spanish and English. Bilingual studies also help students to understand and appreciate their native culture and gives them cultural pride.
Common Sense: Study after study shows that a child learns a second language best when he or she is already proficient in their first language. Most Mexican immigrant children are functionally illiterate in their native language, so presenting them with a mixed bag of superficial Spanish and superficial English is only going to teach them to be illiterate in two languages. Also, consider what bilingualism does to students from other countries. Now a child from Romania or Kenya is expected to learn two new languages?
No Grading in Red Pen
Theory: When a child sees his paper all marked up in red ink, its going to make him feel bad, and he’ll begin to associate red with negative feelings. To alleviate the pain that can come when a child earns a failing grade, it’s best to use other colors such as purple or green.
Common Sense: The color of the pen is not what causes the bad feelings, it’s the student having to confront his poor performance. Instead of being so concerned with what color might produce what feeling, teachers should take that disappointment and teach students to pick themselves up and try again. If the pen color is changed instead of the student’s effort, eventually he’ll begin to feel bad when he receives papers all marked up in green, and then green pens will have to be banned.
Have you noticed anything in education that seems to toss common sense right out the window? What did I miss? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Whether your political views fall on one side of the aisle or the other, one thing that most Americans can agree on is the fact that our current public educational situation is in a state of crisis. For decades, politicians have spent thousands of hours and billions of taxpayer dollars batting this issue back and forth with no real significant improvement to show for it. I’m no politician, but as someone who is a part of the public education system, I’d like to offer my insight on what is wrong with education in America.
Artificial Self Esteem
Let me be clear: kids need a healthy self esteem. The fact that teachers and administrators desire to nurture a student’s sense of confidence is not the problem — its the mode by which self esteem is delivered. Instead of showing kids how to develop self esteem through hard work, perseverance, and character, educators tend to have a genuine, but misguided drive to infuse all aspects of education with badges of artificial self-esteem. This issue has become so pervasive in public education that it can be found in just about every nook and cranny of the public school system.
The most alarming place I see this happening is on student report cards. I have known many teachers who will pad a student’s (or a whole class’) grade by intentionally giving a high point value to an educationally meaningless project. If the class’ Science grades are looking low, many teachers will think up some sort of art project that their kids can easily complete and the “A” grade for that mindless project will balance out the “F” she received on the chapter test earlier in the week.
Another similar practice is work modification. This is when teachers decide to require a smaller portion of the work from “low students” and grade their progress based on what they have done, not what the rest of the class is expected to complete. Basically, this means a low student can earn an “A” by completing only a portion of the work while a high kid might earn a “B” after being required to finish all of it. To me, grade modifications show a tremendous lack of compassion to the students who worked hard to learn and properly apply the information in the lesson.
Both of these practices cause what I call grade inflation. Grade inflation is harmful because both the student and his parents are kept in the dark about the child’s real academic ability in a subject area. They may think he is earning an average “C” when in reality he is failing to meet the curriculum requirements. Just because he can color a picture of a butterfly, doesn’t mean that he is able to describe its four life cycle stages. Grade inflation doesn’t help the student in the long run, it only masks deficiencies.
These things are typically done with a heart that says, “If I give Johnny the “F” he earned on his math test, he is going to feel bad about himself, and since I am supposed to be the one who boosts his self esteem, I’m going to give him a break so that he’ll feel like he accomplished more.”
Where is that in adult life, huh?
“Stanley, as your boss I feel it’s my duty to help you become more confident in your job, so even though you spend hours a day checking your Facebook account and going on smoke breaks, I’m only going to evaluate your performance based on the work you actually complete. I saw that you only filled out half of this expense report from last month. Boy, you sure did a good job on that half. Way to go! I know I ask my other employees to stay on task and earn their promotions through old-fashioned hard work, but I think you’ll have a better chance at becoming the company CEO one day if I require next to nothing from you.”
That mentality obviously does not work in the real world, so why on earth are we trying to pull this sort of thing on our kids?
Students know when they are being handed their self-esteem on a silver platter, and while that may produce some false sense of accomplishment for a short time, inevitably they have to come face to face again with the fact that they never actually earned anything of significance.
I have found that the best way to produce genuine self-confidence in students is to push them to overcome their roadblocks, not for us to pick them up and carry them around to the other side. Sure, being held to a high standard can be frustrating for students, but when a kid begins to work extra-hard and after time is finally able to accomplish something that has been dogging him for months, you can’t beat the confidence that comes from that experience.
