Walter,
By "traditional" I mean that children tended to be presented with a certain range of "good" literature, proverbs, biblical parables, historical facts about their country, and behavioural norms involving courtesy and sportsmanship. Much of this is now "foreign territory" to children, whether or not they speak English at home which many do not.
Children cannot be treated like adults, because there is a difference in physical, and especially mental, development between these two groups.
I think positive criticism is all around a better way of giving feedback to children then negative criticism, but that does not mean that negative criticism should be banned altogether. Both have their place in rearing a person. To me, it seems that more and more children are being treated as delicate little crystal flowers, capable of shattering at the slightest hint of aversion. That is simply ridiculous.
Growing up is a process of learning, and most learning is done by trial and error. We learn from the error part until we find the right way to do things. If a child learns something wrong it should be pointed out to it. That is, after all, what tests are for, to see if children have correctly interpreted the information presented to them in class. So if they do it wrong, give them a bad grade and try to teach them the right way. The bad grade should be a clear signal to the child that it was doing something wrong, and the prospect of failing the class enough of a motivation to try and learn how to do it right.
But we aren't graded for our social behavior. And that is the crucial part IMHO where the educational system, and the family, fails more and more in nowadays. Those skills need to be developed as well, just as learning math and physics and the languages. In fact, social skills may very well be more important then anyhting else they learn in childhood.
I think much of the problems mentioned in this thread come from the lack of social skills more then anything else.
I believe that children should be given the same respect as adults. They are humans too. Maybe a little less mature mentally but they should be given the same respect as anyone else. Some children do need extra discipline but they do have a right to speak out their own minds. It was that everyone was created equally and in the image of God.
I agree, baseballchic. Children are as human beings as adults are. Just smaller (mostly, at least).
Okay.
For those who advocate "equality" why is it that legal codes allow for the "non-culpability" of children below a certain age ? Is this not clear evidence of the view that moral principles such as "respect" are beyond the comprehension of children ?
??
Can you define "respect", fresco?
I consider it something completely outside of a legal framework, like "love."
.......as a first shot I would say respect is an empathic appreciation of the rights of others. Since children tend to be egocentric such empathy tends to be absent and "rights of others" are seen as "restrictions to self".
I think, at five, my daughter is probably safely under the adult threshold, and she shows plenty of empathy. (I can give examples if you'd like.)
fresco wrote:Okay.
For those who advocate "equality" why is it that legal codes allow for the "non-culpability" of children below a certain age ? Is this not clear evidence of the view that moral principles such as "respect" are beyond the comprehension of children ?
I think it's possible to treat students with respect without teachers & student being considered "equals", fresco. Clearly (to me, anyway) teachers have considerably more expertise, knowledge of the world & responsibility within the education environment) than the students they teach. I think a lot of confusion & conflict is caused by confusing the notion of treating students with respect with "equality" (i.e. that they have the same "rights" as their teachers.)
Sozobe,
Ah yes.....but we intellectuals blessed with bright children are perhaps not a statistically appropriate sample !
Please excuse temporary suspension of replies due to UK sleep time
It's a very wide-spread misconception, soz. And many students & their parents
totally believe it. Can you imagine teaching 25 lively 16 year olds, all or many of whom believe they have the same "rights" in the classroom as you? It's a tough call, trust me: The negotiating skills of Henry Kissinger, the tolerance of Mother Teresa, the wisdom of Solomon ....
:wink:
Oh, I've been there. I taught young adults, which was trickier yet as some of them were legally adults (and some weren't, and they were all grouped together). I found that showing them basic respect went a long way towards earning their respect, though.
Absolutely.
Showing disrespect or behaving "unfairly" is a sure recipe for failure!
.... say nothing of BIG trouble!
My "Devil's Advocate" position to the above exchange is that it sounds like teacher's methods for "getting through the day" rather than addressing the the issue that anti-social behaviour by pre- and post- adolescents seems to have increased partly as a function of relaxed discipline. To my mind all this seems to stem from the "Flower Power" period when more laissez-faire methods were adopted in schools. Whereas challenging of "repressive authority" between adults made perfect sense, children began to suffer from lack of structure by the dilution of all authority.
Isn't that an oversimplification, fresco, to point to one single period and mind set as the source of something as complex as the lack of respect and anti-social behavior of teenagers?
I'd say liberalism, humanism, individualism, the gradual disappearance of the nuclear family and the gradual erosion of social control that grows out of showing interest for the neighbors and their children are also factors here.
And that is leaving the growing marketing industry which focuses almost exclusively on teenagers out of the picture.
Naj.
Yes Naj, a conscious oversimplification but one which functions as a focus for debate. The factors you bring in undoubtably contribute to the issue.
At the end of the day "education" is a political concept which attempts balance the "rights of the individual" with "the needs of society". My argument may simply be that such attempts do not seem to be working, at least in my locality.
