quote:Assistant Superintendent of Schools Linda Newman said the decision to scuttle the event was reached shortly after the January 2004 bee in a unanimous decision by herself and the district’s elementary school principals.
The administrators decided to eliminate the spelling bee, because they feel it runs afoul of the mandates of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
"No Child Left Behind says all kids must reach high standards," Newman said. "It’s our responsibility to find as many ways as possible to accomplish this."
The administrators agreed, Newman said, that a spelling bee doesn’t meet the criteria of all children reaching high standards -- because there can only be one winner, leaving all other students behind.
"It’s about one kid winning, several making it to the top and leaving all others behind. That’s contrary to No Child Left Behind," Newman said.
A spelling bee, she continued, is about "some kids being winners, some kids being losers."
As a result, the spelling bee "sends a message that this isn’t an all-kids movement," Newman said.
Furthermore, professional organizations now frown on competition at the elementary school level and are urging participation in activities that avoid winners, Newman said. That’s why there are no sports teams at the elementary level, she said as an example.
The emphasis today, she said, is on building self-esteem in all students.
"You have to build positive self-esteem for all kids, so they believe they’re all winners," she said. "You want to build positive self-esteem so that all kids can get to where they want to go."
A spelling bee only benefits a few, not all, students, the elementary principals and Newman agreed, so it was canceled.
Well that gets a big from me.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually, my high school principal did much the same thing with senior awards my senior year.
Not that I was on the list, mind.
-Trevor
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
For everyone to be a winner, I thought that kids have to, you know, win something. This is how communism fails, it makes everyone poor. I've never won a spelling bee in my life, and I've lost quite a few. Spelling bees, sports, and just about everything else I've competed in and lost have taught me that winning isn't everything, and there is a virtue and dignity in merely getting in the game.
[ March 08, 2005, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh dearie, dearie me...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, good GRIEF!
I never made it into the spelling bee, even though I'm a good speller, because I have trouble spelling without writing the word out. My friend, who won all the years she was in it, went home two different years before the spelling bee, because the stress made her throw up.
I think spelling bees -- in fact, most academic competitions -- are a great way to motivate students to learn.
Not everyone can win. Well, welcome to the real world! Not everyone can be the best, but everyone can TRY their best, and do their personal best.
A from me too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow. Talk about missing the point.
Of pretty much everything.
The real ridiculousness is comparing the self-esteem movement to NCLB. NCLB states that everyone should be measured against the same standards. That is, people who are less capable should receive a lower "score" on its tests and should be ranked regardless of other factors. The self-esteem movement essentially gives everyone the same score no matter how they perform.
[ March 08, 2005, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
It is impossible for children to achieve excellence if there is no means of defining excellence for them to aspire to.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
wow, talk about really being confused about the purpose of a policy.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Although I think that this is a gross mis-application of the NCLB, I strongly dislike watching spelling bees, and here's why.
Children get up, one by one, and spout out the exact correct spelling of a word, letter by letter, verbally. To me, it teaches nothing: it rewards only those who memorise well and visualize words in a specific way.
It does not reward creativity, like an art demostration or competition. Unlike school year awards it does not reward talent with writing or mathematical skills or depth of understanding. It does not reward athletic dedication. It does not reward the ability to speak well in public.
Children should not need to spend their time focussing on spelling words exactly in front of an adult. See above for awards that give children something in return, regardless of whether they win or not.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Children get up, one by one, and spout out the exact correct spelling of a word, letter by letter, verbally. To me, it teaches nothing: it rewards only those who memorise well and visualize words in a specific way.
I imagine that most of the spelling bee champions know the sense of the words they spell. I think it's a charming and academic exercise.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
As I said, that spelling method is not useful for me. However, I still think spelling bees are useful, because they teach kids that spelling is important and valued.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I know I'm treading on dangerous ground- I know the Spelling Bee is deeply rooted in American society . Let me just add, then, that this particular practice is very particular to the United States and is not practiced in the same dedicated manner anywhere else.
Personally, I despise it, but I come from a very different society .
quote: However, I still think spelling bees are useful, because they teach kids that spelling is important and valued.
I think this can be taught in many other ways.
[ March 08, 2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Annie was a State-Speller (not the official title but I like the alliteration). Growing up I was friends (and still am actually) with a kid who always won the spelling bee, and came in first in the state written round (also came in first in the state in a mathematics test bar none but that's another story) and he did it through having an almost photographic memory and preparing for months, reading lists of words that can be used, Greek and Latin bases. I think that level of preparation really does serve as a very effective learning technique, but to say he was the exception and not the rule is more than an understatement.
(I'm taking it as a given that the ruling was stupid and I don't need to add my voice to that movement. )
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:spelling is important and valued.
To quote JB, you're just a lying liar who lies!
Hobbes Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
as, shall I say strange, as this is, it was put back like two weeks later
Though the fact that it was canceled in the first place makes it seem like the administrators hadn't read much more than the title of NCLB Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I just want to be clear that I'm not condemning spellers- they are the people with the amazing memories .
I just don't feel like it's something that's as good for children as it is sometimes said to be. Especially when it enters the realms of heavy competition.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
That article is actually about my home town. It came out sometime in January and man was there an uproar. We're not too fond about everyone's favorite assistant superintendant here. Basically when the news hit the local papers, parents were furious, as was the school committe who was NOT involved or notified of this decision at all (and heard it first from the local papers). I can't remember much of dates when it all happened, but I went on vacation for two weeks, but in the end the spelling bee was reinstated. My dad is on the school committee, and he had a bit to do with that part, though I'm not exactly sure how much. The best part was that the bee was reinstated in time for the winner to go to the state level.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, I read a few years back -- around the time Spellbound came out, I think -- that most national-level spelling competitors do not know the meaning of more than 50% of the words on the list, but rather memorize the constructions and roots without seeking to understand the word.
While I can't verify this anecdotally myself, I AM familiar with international Scrabble competitions, and am intimately familiar with the fact that this is the case. Almost NO ONE who plays Scrabble at this level knows the definitions of the words they use, and neither do they expect the other players to do so. In fact, Koreans do remarkably well in world competitions precisely because they do nothing but memorize valid letter combinations -- completely devoid of meaning -- and are therefore unfettered by bias towards words they find familiar or emotionally satisfying.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I think the lack of Spelling Bees in fourin cultures is more a factor of the more uniform pronunciation rules of other languages than a sign of the inneficcency of the compitishun as a teeching tule.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
I'm all for an English derivative called Common that has rules that make more sense.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
EDIT: Never mind, I misread the post to which this post was responding .
[ March 08, 2005, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: The self-esteem movement essentially gives everyone the same score no matter how they perform.
I don't know of a "self-esteem movement," but I do know a lot of people who don't know what it means to build self esteem.
Self esteem isn't feeling good about yourself because someone told you you did a good job. It means that you have a realistic understanding of your capabilities that comes from your own experience. No one can give you self esteem, you have to build it for your self.
What people (especially teachers and parents) CAN do is to destroy self esteem. We usually think of this in terms of calling kids stupid or whatever. That's a real way to do it, but from standpoint of the field of educational psychology, one of the worst ways to destroy self esteem is to give false compliments. For example, if you were to tell a 5 year old that their drawing is "good enough to be an artist," the 5 year old is capable of comparing their work to adult art work and realizes that they are being lied to. Then they learn not to trust someone who praises their work. Consequently, they learn to be overly critical of their own work, hence low self esteem.
So although you can't give someone self esteem, you can give a kid opportunities for success, and then give them valid criticism of their work, which gives them a reasonable benchmark against which to judge their own capability. Part of self esteem includes an awareness of your own weakness, without a feeling that weekness is a failing. Rather, a weakness is something that needs additional work.
So to return to the 5 year old's art work, you could say: "It looks like you worked very hard on that. I can see that this is better than what you drew for me last year. If you continue to practice drawing, you could grow up to be an artist."
Notice that criticism includes comparisons against previous work that indicates that work will lead to improvement, and suggests a goal toward which the child can work.
As far as NCLB is concerned, (IMO) the name is completely innappropriate. It has nothing to do with helping children, and everything to do with penalizing school districts.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yeah, but we all know the Brits are a buncha illiterates. I mean look at the fuss they make over the "genius" of Shakespeare. And that boy cain't spell worth a hill of beans.
[ March 08, 2005, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
What struck me as odd though, was that when my sister was in the Lincoln spelling bee, years and years ago, it was a big deal, but there didn't seem to be a huge sense of competativeness about it at all. Each entrant had merely beaten out their grade, which contained three classes of 20 to 27 kids. The qualifying bees just kind of happened one day. It was just a normal district wide event, not one where you would see the type of competition with those weird kids on national TV. Although I do remember that the kid who won in my sister's year was quite good.
It's quite funny to see my small hometown of 20000 get noticed on Hatrack, though.
On a sidenote, me and a lot of people I know are none too enamored with our assistant superintendant. Actually I could fill threads upon threads about what is ill in our town, the politics and school system. But I digress. Anyway, she wants to get rid of homogenous grouping (classes based on ability and intelligence) at the middle school level (leaving just math). How do you feel about that Hatarackers? Good? Bad?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Yeah, but we all know the Brits are a buncha illiterates. I mean look at the fuss they make over the "genius" of Shakespeare. And that boy cain't spell worth a hill of beans.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"most national-level spelling competitors do not know the meaning of more than 50% of the words on the list"
That's impressive feat for kids in itself. I'd suspect that the most literate half of the adult audience who saw Spellbound -- who were probably more literate as a group than the general public as a group -- do not know the meaning of more than 50% of the words on the list.
Then consider knowing the word roots well enough that being given a definition helps the contestant select out those roots which lead to the probable spelling of the word. That's more than a minor bit of interpretive/creative brain power at work right there.
[ March 08, 2005, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
There's too many pros and cons to list regarding homogeneous vs. heterogeneous groupings. But I'll discuss a couple of them.
My feeling is that it has less to do with ability, and more to do with behavior.
A slower student can benefit greatly by being grouped with students that are better at the material, if that students interacts well with those other students. At the same time, the better students can benefit, because they have the opportunity to explain the material to the slower student, which consolidates their learning, and also gives them something constructive to do once they've finished their work. (While I'm on the self esteem kick, this would probably be a slower student who has good self esteem). This helps especially if the teacher is able to coordinate a lot of group activity.
On the other hand, students who have poor self esteem generally use avoidance behaviors to keep from appearing "dumb" in front of the class. They'd rather be "bad" than "dumb." These avoidance behaviors generally waste a lot of class time, and the better students suffer for it. The poor student can't deal with being compared to the better students, so heterogeneous groupings don't serve them well.
Then there are students with legitimate emotional disturbance, autism, or learning disabilities, where some instances of homogeneous groupings work well, and sometimes heterogeneous groupings work better. In one of the schools I work in, a group of kids on the autistic spectrum are generally expected to go to inclusion classes, but if it's not working they can decide on their own to go to a self-contained classroom just for them where they work with a special ed teacher. It seems to be a good system, but I think it's really expensive.
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
quote:At the same time, the better students can benefit, because they have the opportunity to explain the material to the slower student, which consolidates their learning, and also gives them something constructive to do once they've finished their work.
This *largely* depends on who the students are. In my personal experience, the "slower students" often have no desire to listen to a "smarter" peer explain something to them (at lower level grades anyway). While the consolidation and constructive time-filler may be worthwhile for some of the quicker students, some may not need that consolidation nor be comfortable telling a classmate how to do something. "Smart kids" often get made fun of by everyone else for being quick and forcing them to display this by teaching others and to possibly appear to look down on slower students (from the slower students' view) can create problems too. I'm certainly not saying it never works, but it varies a lot depending on the kids.
On another note, I'm so jealous! When I was a kid, I was always grades ahead in spelling and would read American stories about kids in spelling bees and *always* wanted to be in one. But we don't have them... *sigh*
Hey! We could have a Hatrack spelling bee! Spell "antidisestab... Oh. Wait... Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
It is true that many top Scrabble players don't know the meaning of all the words they play. I know that when I study, I'm studying things like anagrams of the word, whether or not it takes an S or a D, things like that. There are an awful lot of words to know. Some of us are trying to know them ALL, and it feels like our brains are filling up faster and faster. Definitions are not needed to play the game.
Having said that, the definitions don't hurt, either. It helps to know whether a word is a noun or an adjective or a verb.
I liked Spellbound, a lot. I identified with the kids who studied and studied for this silly event. Doing just one more flashcard, learning just one more, one more, one more. That drive to be the best at this one thing, even if it is nerdy, even if your relatives don’t understand it, even if it won't get you money or a date. I grok that.
Tom, I played one of the Thai players at Nationals this year. He spoke enough English to announce the scores of his plays, and that was all. He played a killer game, however. Slapped down words like "ovicidal" seconds after I made my play. It was pretty cool.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I was not a "State Speller," Hobbesy. I got 24th place.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
The article wasn't a joke?
*appalled*
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
B-A-N... Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:So to return to the 5 year old's art work, you could say: "It looks like you worked very hard on that. I can see that this is better than what you drew for me last year. If you continue to practice drawing, you could grow up to be an artist."
Or you could smile and say, 'Wow! That's really cool!' and hang it up on the fridge.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I was not a "State Speller," Hobbesy. I got 24th place.
And you competed in the state spelling bee, you were a state speller.
Hobbes Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, Astaril! Thanks for your input and update on this situation. I guess next time I'll read the post date more carefully on my link!
-o-
I don't know that spelling bees are particularly central to American educational culture, but it's nice to have an endeavor that allows brainy kids to succeed in a competitive atmosphere, giving them the kind of opportunity we afford athletic kids constantly.
I disagree that it only rewards memorization. I am an absolutely terrible memorizer. I have severe short-term memory issues. But I won my school's bee in elementary school. I did not study; I was simply a good speller. Why? Because I read constantly.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
As Tesh has observed, it is a cultural difference.
Not one that I particularly object to as competition is inherent to society and human interaction, but again - cultural differences.
I don't think the alleged negative impacts are all that severe - while I have never been tagged as a winner, I've never particularly envied the golden children who were.
In some respects it's like physical beauty - some people are magazine cover models. Some aren't. Deal.
-Trevor
Edit: And I realize my comparison base is amazingly shallow, but what the heck - I wasn't a championship debater either. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Astaril
quote: This *largely* depends on who the students are.
That was essentially what my post said. Rather than relating it to who the students are, I related it to behaviors (of different students). That's why I gave two examples, not just the one you referred to.
Scott R
quote: Or you could smile and say, 'Wow! That's really cool!' and hang it up on the fridge.
The point being that depending on HOW you say "That's cool," you can either do damage do self esteem, or give a child a frame of reference with which to build self esteem. Your example is sort of neutral.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
The constant leveling of the field, so to speak, in our school systems...
BAH!!! This frustrates me to the point where I'm being incoherent. I'll re-post later when my frustration level has dropped.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
And the argument that spellers only know the meaning of something like 50% of the words is actually saying a lot. Because, and I guarantee, their peers know the definitions of maybe 5% of those words.
Because of my spelling bee studying, I was familiar, at the age of 12, with words like horripilation, kwashiorkor, and lyceum. I wouldn't call that meaningless competition.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Because of my spelling bee studying, I was familiar, at the age of 12, with words like horripilation, kwashiorkor, and lyceum. I wouldn't call that meaningless competition.
Hmmm...use those words in context, and then you've made your argument against meaningless competition Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Ha ha. I didn't study enough. I got first in the district spelling bee, but was knocked out of the semifinals for state with words like "recalcitrant" and "scarabenous", which I know I spelled wrong, but I think they made up. (of or relating to egyptian scarabs.) (other kids got words like "isle" and "jaguar".)
I guess I didn't study hard enough.
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
Hi Icarus! I think it was actually xtownaga and theamazeeaz that gave the update but...uh, you're welcome for the input? And I also was simply good at spelling because I read like a demon as a child.
I think spelling bees could be good things. They're like science fairs, sports, debating teams, writing contests, music competitions, etc. They each give kids who are good in that area a chance to shine. Although, if they're apparently phasing out competitive sports in public schools too, then I guess it could be argued spelling bees and science fairs and things should go too. I don't personally agree with any of that though. Arguably, there are non-competitive ways to showcase a lot of these things, like music recitals or poetry readings, or sports games where you don't keep score. For spelling, however, watching kids stand up on stage and spell things for fun is going to get old pretty fast for even the most devoted parent... Also, healthy competition encourages hard work. I think as long as the winning part doesn't start to outweigh the learning/doing your best part, they're really great incentives for kids to work hard at something they're good at.
Glenn, I was agreeing with you. I was just trying to elaborate on your point because I think it's far more likely that a heterogenous grouping will lead to both the behavioural problems you mentioned for the slower group and also other problems for the better students that you didn't specify than that it will benefit either group, although this is a possibility with the right mix of students.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I made state spelling bee for Virginia, and lost on the first word (nauseous - always pronounced as nawseeus by my family, and pronounced nawshuss by the moderator). Darn mis-pronunciation. Everyone else got words like automobile and crescent... Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Glenn:
All of my WOW's are sincere and exuberent. I wasn't aware they could be in any other shape.
I feel so bad for you, that you've grown up with occasionally scrawny, bedraggled WOWs. Here-- have one of mine, I've got plenty.
WOW!
I have no neutral colored WOWs-- if that's your bag, you'll have to find them elsewhere. Sorry.
My point being-- no five year old is going to hang around while you give them the dull speech that you outlined before. Good heavens-- do you think every time a child draws a picture of a cat and a house, you need to subject them to a thorough examination of their developing artistic prowress?
[ March 09, 2005, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I will never forget the word I missed in the city spelling bee. I made it to the round where it narrowed down to 4 people, but I was one of the ones eliminated. And I could have spelled every word in the following rounds too.
The word I misssed: vintner and to this day I've got a bit of a grudge against the moderator, because they didn't enunciate the "t" and said vinner. The "t" is clearly marked in the pronounciation key. But considering my parents were teetotallers it isn't surprising that I didn't know the word. Now that I drink wine, I see it all the time.
AJ
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Dag wrote: "The real ridiculousness is comparing the self-esteem movement to NCLB."
I laughed very hard when I read the super's take on NCLB. It does anything BUT build self esteem.
I am not big on spelling bees, nor am I really big on teaching spelling. For the most part, kids can spell, or they can't. No amount of list-studying helps a nonspeller, except for getting an OK grade on the Friday test, unless those words are seen and used in context. This has been my experience.
Good spelling comes more from reading and writing.(And I know many very good writers who cannot spell their way out of a paper bag.)
The best spelling program I ever saw came from Australia. Children were given a list of words they were responsible for each year, starting in first grade. They had to spell those same words right in fifth grade that they learned in thierd grade. They were frequently used words.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
This must just be my thread for not reading carefully!
I saw the recent join-dates and two of you seemed very familiar with the case, and I just combined you in my mind into one person!
My apologies!
Welcome all!
Posted by JaneX (Member # 2026) on :
quote:I will never forget the word I missed in the city spelling bee. I made it to the round where it narrowed down to 4 people, but I was one of the ones eliminated. And I could have spelled every word in the following rounds too.
The word I misssed: vintner and to this day I've got a bit of a grudge against the moderator, because they didn't enunciate the "t" and said vinner.
I had the exact same experience in my city spelling bee in fifth grade. The moderator had a Midwest accent that made "garrison" sound like "gerrison." And I spelled it wrong because of that.
I, too, still have a grudge against that moderator.
~Jane~
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The moderator had a Midwest accent that made "garrison" sound like "gerrison."
*blink* I fail to see how these aren't pronounced exactly the same way, unless the "g" sound in "garrison" is a "j" sound in "gerrison." The vowel, as I've grown up pronouncing it, is exactly the same. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Scott R
quote: I feel so bad for you, that you've grown up with occasionally scrawny, bedraggled WOWs. Here-- have one of mine, I've got plenty.
Not at all. My self esteem is fine, thank you.
But I see parents and teachers giving the kind of hyperbolic compliments that (whether they are sincere or not) children recognize as being unrealistic. Even sincere WOWs can damage a child's self esteem, if the *child* is able to make a comparison of their own work to someone who is obviously better.
Your example, as I said, is fairly neutral. It clearly shows you value the child's work, but doesn't make any attempt to compare it - favorably or unfavorably - against the child's other work, or someone else's work.
On the subject of heterogeneous grouping, something that has been looked at recently is heterogenous *age* grouping. The old one room schoolhouse had many children working at different levels, but they were not merely different abilities, they were also different ages. So expectations were less clear cut.
Today an 6th grade student operating at a 4th grade reading level has no one to compare themselves to than other 6th graders. By mixing age groups, a student could easily see people working at their own level of ability, but because there was an extra variable, it was not so obvious that one person was "ahead" of the other in terms of their own age.
While I'm not aware of any mixed age classes in public school, there are lots of programs where children of different grade levels are assigned "reading buddies" so a fifth grader can read easier books to a younger child who is at an appropriate age to appreciate them. This can give a struggling 5th grade reader a chance to get some practice reading books they otherwise might not be caught dead reading, while still retaining the authority of the "expert" 5th grader.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"While I'm not aware of any mixed age classes in public school,"
There are. Usually, two grades are combined.
There is also looping, which I really like. The teacher has the same class for two years, then starts again at the younger level. Teachers who have done this claim they save about six weeks of "getting to know you" time. The students know the routine, and just start right in.
Sure, it does not always work out. Sometimes, the teacher is not the right match, and two years is too much. I would love to do this.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Glenn, I think I'm understanding what you're getting at.
When I was pregnant with my first, I read a book given to me called "Bringing up Kids without Tearing Them Down" and it talked about how the extreme exuberance can actually be harmful.
One thing I try to do is praise my children honestly - I don't over gush on things, but I tell the truth and let my children know I respect their efforts on things. And of course, age is a factor - I am certainly more likely to say "Wow that's cool!" and hang it on the fridge if it's from my four year old rather than my 12 year old.
With the 12 year old, she doesn't need platitudes, she needs honest appraisal of her efforts and more than anything she needs me to pay attention to what she's done. So when she brings home a project she did at school, she doesn't get "WoW Natalie! That looks awesome! I'm so proud of you!" She gets "Tell me about this, why did you decide to do this particular thing." And if I think she's done a good job she is usually told something like "Good job, Honey that showed a lot of creativity."
Even with the four year olds, they can smell fake praise a mile away. When I get handed a picture, the first thing I always say is "Tell me about it." That way I get the child talking about what they drew and why. They don't get told "That's the most beautiful picture of a dinosaur I've ever seen!" They get "Thank you for my dinosaur picture. I'm going to put it here by my computer so I can look at it while I'm working."
I'm no psychologist or perfect parent, but I think it's worked very well so far. Natalie, while she does have her adolescent moments, is a very confident and self-assured young lady. She believes in herself, and she's not afraid to admit her faults - she came home yesterday and told me she got a B on a project and told me why - "Mr. S counted me off because it wasn't very creative and he's right - I could have used more graphics, and more color. I just didn't put as much effort in it as I could have." She also talked to me about a girl that is in her class who think's she's fat and Natalie said "I don't understand why she's obsessed over her weight Mom, she's still growing and trying to diet isn't going to do her any good. Besides, I think she looks great, and if she's fat so am I - and I know I'm not. I like the way I look and wouldn't want to be too skinny."
Now, she's by no means the perfect kid, but I think she's in a better place than a lot of other 12 year old girls. So, maybe I've done the occasional thing right as a mom. Then again, it's more likely that I've just been blessed with awesome kids. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Then again, it's more likely that I've just been blessed with awesome kids.
Yeah, same here. But you can take some credit. Sounds like you've got a good handle on it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Belle, You touched on one of the of why even relatively genuine praise isn't necessarily a good thing for kids when it's by itself. More than approval, kids want/need attention and interest. A parent who just says "Wow!" when his kid shows him something that he made isn't giving this attention and interest. Talking about the thing, how he made it, why he chose to it one way instead of another, what he learned because of it gives him these things and shows that it's the process of creating and learning that is important, not just turning out products. Or, to take a school example, it's the learning and thinking that's important, not the grades.
I've found that the people who push empty praise/self-esteem tend to be telling a lot about themselves. For one thing, they rarely know what they are actually talking about and are the type of people who will get huffy if you ask them for the scientific or systematic support for their position. They are trying to give kids the world they want, where quality and standards aren't important. For another, they tend to be self-absorbed and thus somewhat lazy when it comes to other people. Empty, automatic praise is a really easy thing to give and it gets you off the hook of actually trying to relate to the child and what he is doing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:
quote: The moderator had a Midwest accent that made "garrison" sound like "gerrison."
*blink* I fail to see how these aren't pronounced exactly the same way, unless the "g" sound in "garrison" is a "j" sound in "gerrison." The vowel, as I've grown up pronouncing it, is exactly the same.
And you're from what part of the country, Tom?
Listen here.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
He's from Wiscyaaaansin, Rivka.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Exactly.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Your example, as I said, is fairly neutral. It clearly shows you value the child's work, but doesn't make any attempt to compare it - favorably or unfavorably - against the child's other work, or someone else's work.
Comparison, com-shmarison. Fingerpainting isn't a competition. The child doesn't want an evaluation of every cat-and-dog-and-me drawing she makes; she wants interest and approval (which Belle posted an example of).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And you're from what part of the country, Tom? Listen here.
I'm confused. The sound clip provided pronounced "garrison" exactly the way I pronounce it. But it's also exactly the way I would pronounce it if it were spelled "gerrison." How would you pronounce it if it were "gerrison?"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
gerrison would be like the er in "hunger." More like gurrison, I think.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
from me.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. Let me just add, then, that this particular practice is very particular to the United States and is not practiced in the same dedicated manner anywhere else.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)