Justice, Fairness, and Competition...

[yeojungi]

A friend of mine and I were talking about TAG (Talented & Gifted) program--Once you get in, you get in a smaller class with a handful of select kids and get extra educational opportunities. My friend's kid (2nd grader) was allegedly said, it was not "just" to give some kids special education like TAG. I see her point, but I don't believe that TAG is not any more unjust than special resources for learning difficulty kids, or extra curricular programs like musical instruments or sports.

On the other hand, another friend of mine told me the other day that her kid (2nd grader) was very upset with his basketball team because it was too fair-- meaning everyone gets a trophy regardless how many points they score. So, he decided to leave the team and go for more competitive sports that recognize who do better than who! LoL

Now, I am a parent who has been trying to raise my kid (2nd grader) to be politically correct, and have been fairly successful with that. She's always said no one is better than others and everyone in her class is smart. I've never seen her saying any put downs toward any body whether the person is around or not. The flip side of that is she doesn't try to impress others. In fact, she is a little indifferent to what others say/ do to influence her. She has said, she doesn't care what others say, stickers are not really rewards, what can you do with them after all? etc....

While I am glad my daughter is not arrogant egomaniac and tries to be fair and respectful for everyone, I am a bit concerned that she lacks the competitiveness that will motivate her to do better. Based on what I hear from my friends, I guess second graders are developing the sense of justice and fairness. I wonder how to help her form a balanced view on this issue. After all, the world is not perfectly just or fair. But I don't think I should teach her that. She will learn that through experience (or she already knows). On the other hand, I don't want her to be too idealistic and get too disappointed when the real world bites her.

How do you all handle this issue?

 

[Choppy]

I've notice a movement in sports for young people recently where the focus has shifted from competition to skill development. And I have to admit, I support the general philosophy.

The point isn't to diminish competition.

A pattern that's been identified in the more traditional approaches to sports is that the kids that start off with a small initial advantage get the extra coaching, they get more time on the court, or ice etc. whereas other kids get ignored, and despite later catching up developmentally with their peers, don't get the same opportunties and ultimately give up on the sport. From a national perspective, it ultimately reduces the 'talent pool' of young athletes, leads to teens rejecting sports, and doesn't exactly help the obesity epidemic.

So the idea is to shift the focus. Six year olds aren't even really going to appreciate what provincial (or state) championship is because they don't know what a province etc. is yet. Instead, divide up the time the kids get on the field equally and focus on developing particular skills, that will help them later on.

On the issue of developing a sense of justice and fairness - it comes in baby steps. Discipline, for example, I think often forms a basis for a child's understanding of justice.

On a fundamental level, we as parents introduce rewards for good behaviour and punishments for bad behaviour. But even from a very young age, children learn that not ALL bad behaviour is punished (despite efforts to reinforce the contrary in popular media). They learn that sometimes you get away with cheating and are even rewarded, that the punishment is not always equal, and that sometimes punishment occurs for good behaviour.

I think the best we can do is strive for consistancy in discipline. Because even if we don't attain it, we inadvertantly teach our children there is value in the pursuit.

 

[TabascoNatalie]

Now, I am a parent who has been trying to raise my kid (2nd grader) to be politically correct, and have been fairly successful with that. She's always said no one is better than others and everyone in her class is smart. I've never seen her saying any put downs toward any body whether the person is around or not. The flip side of that is she doesn't try to impress others. In fact, she is a little indifferent to what others say/ do to influence her. She has said, she doesn't care what others say, stickers are not really rewards, what can you do with them after all? etc....

I think you should separate two things:

1) one person CAN do things better than the other. nothing is wrong with that. some are smarter, others are physically stronger, etc.
2) Being better at something doesn't make you a better person. If somebody isn't as smart as you, doesn't mean you can't be friends.

you mentioned that she doesn't care what others say. and what do YOU say? for example, that you are proud of her? :wubclub:

A pattern that's been identified in the more traditional approaches to sports is that the kids that start off with a small initial advantage get the extra coaching, they get more time on the court, or ice etc. whereas other kids get ignored, and despite later catching up developmentally with their peers, don't get the same opportunties and ultimately give up on the sport. From a national perspective, it ultimately reduces the 'talent pool' of young athletes, leads to teens rejecting sports, and doesn't exactly help the obesity epidemic.

the thing with sports and arts is that either you "have it", or you don't. skills and techniques can be learned, but that doesn't make one successful. If a kid feels like this on the basketball court, maybe basketball isn't his thing? Why not try, for example, boxing or swimming instead?

 

[MomoJA]

I have no problem with "fair" teams in the younger ages. However, when it becomes the culture, we end up celebrating mediocrity, and I'm sure everyone can understand the danger in that.

It is important to celebrate everyone's strengths, and those vary. Due to the nature of schools, we celebrate academic strengths more than others, but we have to be careful not to reward academic mediocrity in an attempt to be "open" and "fair." We have to find the strengths of the individual to celebrate, not that they are performing at a basic level.

Just my opinion.

 

[Incogneato]

the thing with sports and arts is that either you "have it", or you don't. skills and techniques can be learned, but that doesn't make one successful. If a kid feels like this on the basketball court, maybe basketball isn't his thing? Why not try, for example, boxing or swimming instead?

I disagree with this completely. If Tiger Woods had never been introduced to Golf, given lessons, training, proper instruction and skill set to play, he would have never become a successful golfer. He didn't naturally "have it" (the skills and knowledge to play golf, they were taught and instilled in him through years of practice.) Skills and techniques do indeed make you successful, in sports, in learning, in your job, and in anything else you do.

If a kid tries to play a sport (like basketball), and doesn't appear to immediately "have it" as you put it, it doesn't mean they can't be successful in it (practice makes perfect). Every player on a team doesn't naturally have it and came by their current situation with no skill or technique. They were taught these things and worked at being as good as they are.

 

[TabascoNatalie]

of course you can't really know unless you try and put effort in it. however, coaches are professionals and they see who is capable of learning the skill and who isn't. of course, one can play sports just for fun or for healthy lifestyle, but probably competition isn't the best idea then.

 

[IADad]

I've long struggled with America's education model from early learning through post secondary education. It seems there has long been a focu on the "normal" path and trying to jam as many kids down it as possible. I point to our president who wants to make it possible for more kids to go to college - my response is "OMG No" I deal with college students daily, as well as the offices that deal with them, and I have to say there are a ton of kids who have no business setting foot on a college campus, really. What i do think is needed is the ability to help kids realize their potentil to their fullest and for us as a society to value the contribution people make to a productive society. Vocation Educatio has virtually disappeared as it was too easily viewed as the place for "dumb kids."So, I'd like to see kids grouped with others "like them" for specirfic subjects and rotated around for others. On the one hand school is a place to learn, and be taught at an optimal level. On the lother hand school is also a place for us to learn that not everybody is the same, and we need to be tolerant (and even celebrate) the differences....how to accomplish ALL of that seesm to be a huge challenge. I think technology can play a role, giving individual students resources to more individual challenges while letting classroom time be more about the group and discussion and discovery. Maximizing that kind of model though, would require individual plans for every student. Something the financial structure of our schools, doesn't seem equipped for.

 

[MomoJA]

I Vocation Educatio has virtually disappeared as it was too easily viewed as the place for "dumb kids."So, I'd like to see kids grouped with others "like them" for specirfic subjects and rotated around for others.

THANK YOU!! I couldn't agree more!! There is no question our educational system is struggling. We are not succeeding, but the things we are trying are just bandaids. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the system. Our system is college prep because "everybody should have a chance to go to college." Why? Because if you don't go to college you are automatically a failure? What does that teach?

You are right. We have done away with vocational education, and "tracking" is a dirty, dirty, politically incorrect word. But the notion that "everyone is the same" and "everybody 'could make' it to college if we just gave them the chance" is elitism, pure and simple.

We need good car mechanics and janitors who take pride in their work. Without them, society stops.

 

[yeojungi]

I point to our president who wants to make it possible for more kids to go to college - my response is "OMG No" I deal with college students daily, as well as the offices that deal with them, and I have to say there are a ton of kids who have no business setting foot on a college campus, really. What i do think is needed is the ability to help kids realize their potentil to their fullest and for us as a society to value the contribution people make to a productive society.

While I have the greatest respect for Mr. President, that's one thing I disagree with him as well. If everyone gets college education, who is going to take care of the jobs that do not require college education? We have illegal immigrants who are willing to do anything, but some of this US population should be willing to do those works as well.

The President seems to appreciate South Korean education system, but there, tons of college graduates are left unemployed, often because they are overqualified for jobs that are available. When they take jobs that require less education, they feel ashamed, guilty, and worthless. Those who are unemployed for several years after college graduation, they may end up staying unemployed for lifetime. Now, that's one of the biggest social problems in South Korea. Traditionally, South Koreans have valued education as much as, if not more than, wealth. It sounds great, but it has taken toll on society in a variety of ways-- low self esteem, high suicide rate, very skewed compensation system, and lack of diversity in values, just to name a few.

It's interesting how the discussion on education always ends up addressing the society and values....

 

[yeojungi]

We need good car mechanics and janitors who take pride in their work. Without them, society stops.

I agree with you wholeheartedly and I teach my child to think that way as well. But when it comes to my child, honestly, I hope she gets a job that requires her creativity and intelligence rather than physical labor. And I feel very hypocritical. That's why I've started this thread in the first place.

 

[yeojungi]

you mentioned that she doesn't care what others say. and what do YOU say? for example, that you are proud of her? :wubclub:

She likes it when she gets genuine compliments, but she typically doesn't work for them. It's more often that she likes the task very much and does an excellent job. Then, the genuine compliment is a bonus.

 

[yeojungi]

A pattern that's been identified in the more traditional approaches to sports is that the kids that start off with a small initial advantage get the extra coaching, they get more time on the court, or ice etc. whereas other kids get ignored, and despite later catching up developmentally with their peers, don't get the same opportunties and ultimately give up on the sport. From a national perspective, it ultimately reduces the 'talent pool' of young athletes, leads to teens rejecting sports, and doesn't exactly help the obesity epidemic.

I'm familiar with Malcom Gladwell and his writings. Thank you for reminding me that. From the perspective of those who show talents early on, the shift may seem unfair or too fair, I guess. From the perspective of those who are possibly late bloomers, the shift must be welcomed. Interesting.

 

[IADad]

We need good car mechanics and janitors who take pride in their work. Without them, society stops.

Oh, and recently I've had to put my money where my mouth is...I was ticked off because a guy I graduated from HS with, who could barely write his own name at the time, and was just kind of passed through, well, now he's a government employee and making nearly as much as me, a college educatied middle manager...but you know what? I'm pretty sure I don't want to go out and work in the cold like he does, he's obviously devoted himself to his work given the longevity, so why should I begrudge him his salary...if I want to do better, maybe I need to get off my butt and go do better.

I've long said that people shouldn't be concerned with what others make, only our own satisfaction with what we make for our jobs...so, maybe we in society need to be glad we have janitors making good money to d a good job andplace good value in techincal feilds so that people who are good at providing those services get conpensated well enough to raise a family. I don't have the answers, but I think I'm starting to see more about the problems.

 

[MomoJA]

I agree with you wholeheartedly and I teach my child to think that way as well. But when it comes to my child, honestly, I hope she gets a job that requires her creativity and intelligence rather than physical labor. And I feel very hypocritical. That's why I've started this thread in the first place.

I understand what you mean, but there are people with particular talents and tendancies, and there is nothing wrong with that. In other words, there is nothing wrong with some people striving to be engineers while others are happy being bus drivers (currently that's what my 4 year old wants to be?) I think the key is being happy.

Of course, we would have to be very, very careful that we allow everyone who wants to pursue a particular field every opportunity to do so. And we would have to take special care that those born into families of laborers are exposed to other opportunities and the sorts of things that might pique their interests at an early age.

 

[MomoJA]

The President seems to appreciate South Korean education system, but there, tons of college graduates are left unemployed, often because they are overqualified for jobs that are available. When they take jobs that require less education, they feel ashamed, guilty, and worthless. Those who are unemployed for several years after college graduation, they may end up staying unemployed for lifetime. Now, that's one of the biggest social problems in South Korea. Traditionally, South Koreans have valued education as much as, if not more than, wealth. It sounds great, but it has taken toll on society in a variety of ways-- low self esteem, high suicide rate, very skewed compensation system, and lack of diversity in values, just to name a few.

...

In my last school, nearly all of my students were South Korean (NOT Korean American,) so I know what you are talking about. I saw the good side and the bad side about the value for education in your culture. I do wish, though, that we had some of that value for education in the US.

 

[TabascoNatalie]

One thing I maybe don't understand about USA, or probably I just don't know... everybody "should have a chance" to go to college, but tuition fees aren't really affordable to everybody... so where is that fairness?
or is it colleges that prefer accepting less capable students who are willing to pay?

 

[IADad]

One thing I maybe don't understand about USA, or probably I just don't know... everybody "should have a chance" to go to college, but tuition fees aren't really affordable to everybody... so where is that fairness?
or is it colleges that prefer accepting less capable students who are willing to pay?

phew...that's a loaded inquiry...there are a lot of different layers to the question and a lot of potential answers. In essence everybody does have a chance to go to college, colleges all charge their individual tuition and fees that depend on your geography, whether it's a public (state supported) or private (and within that either not for profit or for profit) school etc. So, that's the cost of education side, it varies widely. On the paying for it side, there are federal grants, state grants, private scholarships, federal loans and private loans, as well as tax depudctions and tax credits. So, to receive any of the public money, the student (if they are independent or their family if they are still dependent) has to fill out a form with their income information, and the government determines an "Expected Family Contribution, so if it's determined that your family should contribute $1000 to your education and you go to a school that costs $1000, you get no aid, if you go to a school that costs $40,000 you may get lots of aid, and from lots of different sources.) So, the area that it's probably the most problematic are two areas, the very poor, who can't afford the other basic costs of living even though school may be entirely paid for, or the middle class who are living paycheck to paycheck, yet their EFC says they should be able to pay something toward college.

To me, the bottom line is that it's easier, financially, for some than others, but everybody, if at least somewhat industirous CAN go to college.

The other side of things is academic excellence. The standards can be very different to get into a particular school, but for most people any college will get you a degree to put of your resume, you may need a more prestigous degree if you need to get into a professional program or are fighting for a prestigous job, but that's kind of a different argument than simply "access."

Does that help?

 

[MomoJA]

One thing I maybe don't understand about USA, or probably I just don't know... everybody "should have a chance" to go to college, but tuition fees aren't really affordable to everybody... so where is that fairness?
or is it colleges that prefer accepting less capable students who are willing to pay?

Just to make IADad's answer a little more explicit: there are needs-based and skills-based scholarships in addition to grants and loans. Some scholarships are based on heritage or even special situations, like survivors of cancer or Katrina, etc. Many colleges also have a work/credit system in which they have agreements with certain companies that hire students during off semesters and the monies go partly to the university and partly to the student. These students end up taking a little longer to graduate, but they are able to pay for their schooling and living expenses.

In my state, currently, students who make above a certain GPA are able to go to school tuition free. They still have to pay for living expenses, books, etc., but they can get grants and loans for that.

The very high achievers in academics, sports, music, dance, community works, etc., are sought after by schools. There is often competition among schools to "sign" these students.

I know in some EU countries, universities are free, but are limited to only the top 20% or fewer students according to a particular test they take. While I don't really like our system in the US, I see major problems with that sort of system. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't like it when getting into a college/university is held up as the highest achievement a student can aspire to.

 

[singledad]

I disagree with this completely. If Tiger Woods had never been introduced to Golf, given lessons, training, proper instruction and skill set to play, he would have never become a successful golfer. He didn't naturally "have it" (the skills and knowledge to play golf, they were taught and instilled in him through years of practice.) Skills and techniques do indeed make you successful, in sports, in learning, in your job, and in anything else you do.

True, training etc, is as important as natural talent. However, if I received all the golf lessons, training etc that Tiger Woods received, I would still suck at golf. I just don't have any aptitude for it. On the other hand, I, with only a few part-time programming courses on my CV, am better at my job than some of the university graduate, SUN-certified programmers I have worked with. I have seen many junior programmers come and go in my carreer. Most who go into I.T. for the money, get out again as fast as they got in when they discover how hard it really is. (A perplexing number of them go on to open restaurants LOL.)

Anyway, to get to a point - I belief that there is nothing wrong with recognising, and nurturing special talents in kids. I also believe that when a child tries to do something he is clearly not good at, we should do two things -
1) We should help him find his real talents, and develop them, regardless of what it is.
2) We should encourage him to keep playing the sport/instrument/whatever that he is trying to play, though without telling him he's the next Ronaldo, or a future Grammy winner. I think it is very important that kids should learn that you can do something you aren't very good at, just for fun, and still have a good time. Eg - I suck at tennis. Fortunately, I have a friend who, like me, has a passion for tennis matched only by his lack of talent. We go out every now and then and have an absolute blast. Its good fun and even better exercise. Why should we stop just because we aren't any good?

As for the "everyone is a winner" approach - I strongly disagree with it. Everyone is NOT a winner in everything, and kids learn that by themselves soon enough. I think it is appropriate to congratulate the winner, but not to make too big a deal of it when the kids are still small. Of course a child will be upset if she doesn't win, but I think we as parents should approach that as a teaching opportunity - the perfect time to teach them that everyone is different, everyone is special in their own way, and just because someone is good with one particular activity, doesn't make them a better person, or give them the right to look down on anyone else.

This brings me to my last point - I believe that it is very important for schools to recognise achievements in ALL activities, not just academic or in particular, "main stream" sports. I remember how it made me feel when I won a poetry competition in high school. I wasn't really good at anything else at the time, and that just made me realise that hey, this is something I'm actually good at! It did wonders for my self-esteem. Every kid deserves that, because every kid is good as <U>something</U>.

 

[TabascoNatalie]

Does that help?

yes, thx for explaining. anyway I still assume, that those scholarships or aid don't apply to people who don't care for education at all, and come to college just to party.

I know in some EU countries, universities are free, but are limited to only the top 20% or fewer students according to a particular test they take. While I don't really like our system in the US, I see major problems with that sort of system. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't like it when getting into a college/university is held up as the highest achievement a student can aspire to.

in EU there's another thing -- the same name as "college" and "university" can stand for a very different level of education depending on a country. As far as I know, for example, in Sweden, it is only about 2% of population go to universities. there universities are purely academic institutions, and everything that doesn't fall into category of "academic", belongs to "vocational training", even such as engineering or IT. Meanwhile, in other countries even craziest names of professions can get an academic title.
as for unversity education being free in some coutries -- that is true, but usually it is still very expensive, because it involves living costs, textbooks, etc. and normally you can't have a full-time job, so you still need to be able to afford all of that.