Educational Self-Esteem

I just read this article in NRO. As much as NRO is a pro-Republican propaganda machine, they also have some interesting analyses of different social phenomena. This is why I read NRO and The Weekly Standard at the same time as I read The Nation and Counterpunch. But I digress... In the NRO article, Suderman makes the observation that gratuitous positive reinforcement, especially the type that is not based on actual performance, is detrimental. This is shown, for example, in handing out sports "participation" trophies to every team, as opposed to rewarding the winning team with a championship trophy. I happen to agree with him on this, but not for the reasons that he may think. The real problem with any type of positive reinforcement is that is must, at least loosely, be based on actual performance. Spotting phony praise is an easy thing to do - even most children can do it. So, if we are looking to allow someone to achieve a level of performance worthy of praise, we must allow that person to pursue something that that they do well. Here is a simple example. I have a friend who serves as a very interesting educational specimen. He has excellent language and writing skills, as well as good reading and comprehension abilities. He is, however, borderline retarded (in the measurable sense, not the euphemistic sense) in mathematics, science, and spacial relations. Standardized tests have supported this observation multiple times - maximum scores on the language and writing sections, with very poor scores in math and logic. A person like this can have good self-esteem, and that self-esteem can be fostered and nurtured in the educational process. It cannot, however, be done by the math teacher. For him, positive praise in math has two problems. 1. The praise is not based on performance, and it is obvious that the praise is gratuitous. 2. Improved self-esteem will not make him learn math better in the classic educational process. What we see is that, in order to both improve my friend's self-esteem and to help him in the educational process, he needs to be allowed to pursue subjects that he has both aptitude for, and that have the support of the educational institution. Unfortunately, our current educational system does not work this way. A year or so ago, this article announced the arrival of the "School of the Future", sponsored by MicroSoft. The article is mostly factual, and focuses on the wonderful opportunities that the school provides. It does not, however, look at MicroSoft's motivation. To me, it is fairly obvious that MicroSoft is interested in creating "good employees". I would expect the curriculum to focus on technology and computer skills, math, science, and "inter-personal skills". For the students that have a high aptitude in these areas, the school will no doubt be beneficial, and the positive reinforcement that these students receive will help to elevate their self- esteem. But what to do with those children whose aptitude may lie somewhere else? Perhaps in literature, music, or (gasp) perhaps even in Auto Shop? The "School of the Future" is not really so far removed from mainstream education. Students are highly focused on math and sciences, purportedly to prepare them for the challenges of the economy and industry that they will be unceremoniously bombarded with upon graduation. But really, the entire education system is about creating good employees, not educated individuals. I wrote about this at length in my post Fear, Education, and Indoctrination. Educated individuals (those who use their knowledge and experience to cut through the propaganda and indoctrination that surrounds them) are not the type of people the industry wants. Industry wants people who arrive on time, follow instructions, respect authority, and generally follow the corporate guidance, since we all know that the company will re-train the employee with the particular skill set that the corporation requires. People who follow their own path and pursue the types of activities that they enjoy and excel at are not especially valuable, especially if the chosen activities are not of the type that the company values. The propaganda machine has done an excellent job of marginalizing people who do not fit the corporate mold - musicians, writers, psychologists, and other highly-educated people are said to have earned a "worthless degree", since their skills are not marketable to large corporations. Those people who have learned skilled trades and arts are thought to be of a lower "class", since manual labor has been relegated far down the list of desirable positions. This does not mean, however, that the educational system has failed. The people mentioned above have gained skills that are in harmony with their personalities and abilities. These skills have helped to increase their self-esteem and made them better people as well. It is incumbent on our public education system to put as much effort and care into educating and reinforcing these people as it does into the people with the "right" skills and priorities. Unless, of course, we admit that schools are just the "minor leagues" for eventual employees of major corporations, and everyone else in unimportant. But we would never let that happen... Would we?