I have come up with 6 reasons why public schools are one of the worst places to learn social skills. If children come out of public school with social graces, I place most of the credit on their parents, communities, and the parents of their friends. NOT on the public school system. I will post these six reasons separately (because I'm very opinionated about this and need space to vent.)
Reason 1: You only associate with children your same age.
Reason 2: You only have friends the same gender as you.
Reason 3: You are not friends with your siblings.
Reason 4: Teachers, in a broken system, have a hard time making a positive influence socially on the children they teach.
Reason 5: Public school monitors do not teach social skills.
In reason four, I talked about how teachers (for their own sanity/I don't blame them) are usually not present for recess, lunch, down time, or most other times that youth are doing the bulk of their socializing.
But it's not like the public school system leaves the kids totally unsupervised. They provide "monitors." These monitors usually must have a high school diploma and a background check, and any experience working with school age children will give them preference, but is not necessary. They usually don't receive much training on how help children have better social skills.
My best friend was a monitor for awhile, and I know she actually played with the kids and tried to get to know as many children as possible, and really got involved, but this is not in the job description, and of course, Jr High and High school monitors don't usually interact much with the kids.
But let's face it. Even if school monitors had doctorates in child psychology, the system is still against them. The child/adult ration is much worse for monitors then it is for teachers. It is closer to 1 in 50 and higher instead of the 1 in 20-30 that teachers deal with. Also, those 50 children aren't specifically assigned to the monitor. You could have 250 children with 5 monitors with the understanding that the five adults are collectively responsible for all 250 children.
Also, I am unaware of any school that really makes an effort for the children/youth to really get to know the monitors. It's up to the personality of the monitors and students to get to know each other.
Basically, monitors are there to take care of emergencies. Broken bones, bleeding, throwing up etc will first be reported by monitors to the proper sources. Physical fights, obvious bullying, etc are expected to be handled by this handful of adults.
In recent events, it's obvious that even this job description is much harder then it may appear. I think most of us know of the infamous youtube video of the school bus monitor being cruelly bullied by the students! I do not envy monitors.
Most likely, monitors don't know your child's name. They might not even recognize your child's face. They usually are not the adult your child would confide in or talk to about what is going on socially in school, and the monitor is most likely not going to inquire of your child about his/her social interactions or try to interfere with what happens between your children and their peers unless there is some kind of physical altercation or something quite drastic.
And so, Reason 5 backs up reason 4's conclusion: Public schoolers teach themselves social skills, instead of being taught social skills by mature adults.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
Why Public School's Social Skills Stink Part 4: Teachers in a broken system
I have come up with 6 reasons why public schools are one of the worst places to learn social skills. If children come out of public school with social graces, I place most of the credit on their parents, communities, and the parents of their friends. NOT on the public school system. I will post these six reasons separately (because I'm very opinionated about this and need space to vent.)
Reason 1: You only associate with children your same age.
Reason 2: You only have friends the same gender as you.
Reason 3: You are not friends with your siblings.
Reason 4: Teachers, in a broken system, have a hard time making a positive influence socially on the children they teach.
Okay people, I want to make this perfectly clear:
THE MORE I HOMESCHOOL, THE MORE I ADMIRE, APPRECIATE, AND STAND IN AWE OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS.
This post is not meant to belittle them or what they do.
Of course, the system they have to work in, is another matter. Teachers are given 20-30 children they most likely have never met before, are given an seemingly impossible expectation by our society of what every single child should know, and then have to say good-by to all of these children after a nine month period, many times to never interact with these children again.
This is not a good breeding ground for attachments that can impact kids socially.
First of all, WHO could be emotionally and psychologically amazing enough to INDIVIDUALLY love, empathize, know, and appreciate 20-30 kids the first day they meet them? No one. It takes a while for teachers to get to know their students every school year, and once they've gotten to know them, can they really influence them?
The child must be able trust, love, and know a teacher before they can really respect what that teacher has to say. Maybe in early elementary years children are more adaptable, but after that, you get jaded kids who prefer to trust, love, and know the peers around them more then the new teacher who will leave their life in 9 months.
If the teacher says it's not cool to pick on Jane, but their peer says it is cool, you have a pretty sure bet that the kid will take the side of the peer over the teacher.
And perhaps even more to the point-Are the public school teachers even "social graces" teachers? Besides anti-bullying, I'm not aware that social graces are on the syllabus. They have TONS that they are required to teach, and when there is any recess, lunch, or other down time, do you blame them for going off on their own to plan or relax or go to the faculty lounge to talk with other adults?
In other words, when youth are doing the bulk of their socializing, the teachers are not even there.
Yes teachers can teach respect in the classroom, and good teachers try to have group interaction, but for the most part, public school children teach public school children social skills, and let's just admit it-children are very often selfish, rude, and not sure how to love unconditionally. They need grownups that they are emotionally attached to, to show them how to be mature. It's very hard for teachers to be those grownups.
And of course, there is a small percentage of teachers that you wouldn't WANT your child to learn social skills from. There are rude, arrogant, agenda-filled teachers out there mixed in with the good.
Chances are, you will never really get to know your child's teacher very closely. Doesn't that bother mothers? Sending your child off for most of the day, five days of the week, to someone who you don't know? That would bug me.
As for homeschoolers, well the ratio of adult to child is, of course, a lot lower. Closer to 1 in 5 then 1 in 25. All the adults are there for the long haul. They have known your kids for years, you have know their kids for years. You are emotionally attached to the kids in your homeschool group and the kids are attached to you. Very often, adults are there to witness fights, disputes, and/or misunderstandings and can step in to be the conflict manager. One on one talks take place after socializing, about what went on, and how the child felt, and what appropriate responses there could be.
So, in wrap up, home schoolers are taught social skills by mature adults, while public schoolers teach themselves social skills.
Reason 1: You only associate with children your same age.
Reason 2: You only have friends the same gender as you.
Reason 3: You are not friends with your siblings.
Reason 4: Teachers, in a broken system, have a hard time making a positive influence socially on the children they teach.
Okay people, I want to make this perfectly clear:
THE MORE I HOMESCHOOL, THE MORE I ADMIRE, APPRECIATE, AND STAND IN AWE OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS.
This post is not meant to belittle them or what they do.
Of course, the system they have to work in, is another matter. Teachers are given 20-30 children they most likely have never met before, are given an seemingly impossible expectation by our society of what every single child should know, and then have to say good-by to all of these children after a nine month period, many times to never interact with these children again.
This is not a good breeding ground for attachments that can impact kids socially.
First of all, WHO could be emotionally and psychologically amazing enough to INDIVIDUALLY love, empathize, know, and appreciate 20-30 kids the first day they meet them? No one. It takes a while for teachers to get to know their students every school year, and once they've gotten to know them, can they really influence them?
The child must be able trust, love, and know a teacher before they can really respect what that teacher has to say. Maybe in early elementary years children are more adaptable, but after that, you get jaded kids who prefer to trust, love, and know the peers around them more then the new teacher who will leave their life in 9 months.
If the teacher says it's not cool to pick on Jane, but their peer says it is cool, you have a pretty sure bet that the kid will take the side of the peer over the teacher.
And perhaps even more to the point-Are the public school teachers even "social graces" teachers? Besides anti-bullying, I'm not aware that social graces are on the syllabus. They have TONS that they are required to teach, and when there is any recess, lunch, or other down time, do you blame them for going off on their own to plan or relax or go to the faculty lounge to talk with other adults?
In other words, when youth are doing the bulk of their socializing, the teachers are not even there.
Yes teachers can teach respect in the classroom, and good teachers try to have group interaction, but for the most part, public school children teach public school children social skills, and let's just admit it-children are very often selfish, rude, and not sure how to love unconditionally. They need grownups that they are emotionally attached to, to show them how to be mature. It's very hard for teachers to be those grownups.
And of course, there is a small percentage of teachers that you wouldn't WANT your child to learn social skills from. There are rude, arrogant, agenda-filled teachers out there mixed in with the good.
Chances are, you will never really get to know your child's teacher very closely. Doesn't that bother mothers? Sending your child off for most of the day, five days of the week, to someone who you don't know? That would bug me.
As for homeschoolers, well the ratio of adult to child is, of course, a lot lower. Closer to 1 in 5 then 1 in 25. All the adults are there for the long haul. They have known your kids for years, you have know their kids for years. You are emotionally attached to the kids in your homeschool group and the kids are attached to you. Very often, adults are there to witness fights, disputes, and/or misunderstandings and can step in to be the conflict manager. One on one talks take place after socializing, about what went on, and how the child felt, and what appropriate responses there could be.
So, in wrap up, home schoolers are taught social skills by mature adults, while public schoolers teach themselves social skills.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Why Public School's Social Skills Stink Part 3: Siblings
I have come up with 6 reasons why public schools are one of the worst places to learn social skills. If children come out of public school with social graces, I place most of the credit on their parents, communities, and the parents of their friends. NOT on the public school system. I will post these six reasons separately (because I'm very opinionated about this and need space to vent.)
Reason 1: You only associate with children your same age.
Reason 2: You only have friends the same gender as you.
REASON 3: You are not friends with your siblings.
I never saw my brother at school. We never sought each other out. Is there anyone out there that did see their siblings at school? On purpose? My brother always walked me home, but that was it. I blame this on Reason 1 and Reason 2. Your siblings are not your same age, and they might not be your same gender, thus it is not cool to hang out with them. And so, twins are usually exempt from this social regiment.
It seems that in the real world, siblings should be your first link in social networking. Siblings should be able to learn from each others financial success and/or failures, because they should be candid with each other and tell each other the whole story. They could be your confidents, your investors, your support group, your mentors, your beneficiaries, and/or even your business partners.
Domestically, siblings should be there for each other. They are the ones who are actually interested in ever detail of your birthing stories. They are the ones that will watch your kids. They are the ones to tell you how to get permanent marker off of that oil painting. They will tell you weather or not you need to go to the hospital if you think your child's pinky toe is broken. They are the ones who care about nurturing your kids, and having you nurture theirs. They are the parents of your children's cousins!
Yes, we are all individuals, and yes all of us have different views and opinions despite growing up in the same household, and yes some of the most heated arguments you will have in life will probably be with siblings, but there is something very true about "blood is thicker then water." We need our siblings.
Public school does not support this, and the natural social system that is set up by peers, tends to try to tear sibling bonds apart. Instead of working together with siblings throughout childhood and protecting and lifting each other, you are taught that your sister is so "mean, annoying, ugly, stupid" (these are the first things that show up when you google "my sister is so") and that my brother is so "annoying, stupid, selfish, weird." Siblings should never matter more then your peers, or you are threatening that peer relationship with rivals. True? Come on, you know it's true in many kids minds even if they don't conscientiously realize it.
Not all public school children don't want to be friends with their siblings, but it takes more effort as a family OUT of school to make sure that family ties are respected and cherished. It's not the public school system that teaches that.
Home schooled kids? Well, yet again, they are forced to do things as a family. They are big families too. Statistically, a home schooled kid has an average of three siblings. Of course, the Duggars are home schooled and they have, what? 19 kids? so I'm sure there are some home schooled only-child scenarios too.
When you are habitually with your siblings and have learning, cleaning, and everything else shared between you, you learn how to get along or at least cooperate with each other. (Don't get me wrong, there are fights and BIG frustrations along the way.) But the sibling relationships that I first saw with my sister-inlaws' children was one of the main things that drew me to homeschooling in the first place.
Reason 1: You only associate with children your same age.
Reason 2: You only have friends the same gender as you.
REASON 3: You are not friends with your siblings.
I never saw my brother at school. We never sought each other out. Is there anyone out there that did see their siblings at school? On purpose? My brother always walked me home, but that was it. I blame this on Reason 1 and Reason 2. Your siblings are not your same age, and they might not be your same gender, thus it is not cool to hang out with them. And so, twins are usually exempt from this social regiment.
It seems that in the real world, siblings should be your first link in social networking. Siblings should be able to learn from each others financial success and/or failures, because they should be candid with each other and tell each other the whole story. They could be your confidents, your investors, your support group, your mentors, your beneficiaries, and/or even your business partners.
Domestically, siblings should be there for each other. They are the ones who are actually interested in ever detail of your birthing stories. They are the ones that will watch your kids. They are the ones to tell you how to get permanent marker off of that oil painting. They will tell you weather or not you need to go to the hospital if you think your child's pinky toe is broken. They are the ones who care about nurturing your kids, and having you nurture theirs. They are the parents of your children's cousins!
Yes, we are all individuals, and yes all of us have different views and opinions despite growing up in the same household, and yes some of the most heated arguments you will have in life will probably be with siblings, but there is something very true about "blood is thicker then water." We need our siblings.
Public school does not support this, and the natural social system that is set up by peers, tends to try to tear sibling bonds apart. Instead of working together with siblings throughout childhood and protecting and lifting each other, you are taught that your sister is so "mean, annoying, ugly, stupid" (these are the first things that show up when you google "my sister is so") and that my brother is so "annoying, stupid, selfish, weird." Siblings should never matter more then your peers, or you are threatening that peer relationship with rivals. True? Come on, you know it's true in many kids minds even if they don't conscientiously realize it.
Not all public school children don't want to be friends with their siblings, but it takes more effort as a family OUT of school to make sure that family ties are respected and cherished. It's not the public school system that teaches that.
Home schooled kids? Well, yet again, they are forced to do things as a family. They are big families too. Statistically, a home schooled kid has an average of three siblings. Of course, the Duggars are home schooled and they have, what? 19 kids? so I'm sure there are some home schooled only-child scenarios too.
When you are habitually with your siblings and have learning, cleaning, and everything else shared between you, you learn how to get along or at least cooperate with each other. (Don't get me wrong, there are fights and BIG frustrations along the way.) But the sibling relationships that I first saw with my sister-inlaws' children was one of the main things that drew me to homeschooling in the first place.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Why Public School's Social Skills Stink Part 2: Gender
I have come up with 6 reasons why public schools are one of the worst places to learn social skills. If children come out of public school with social graces, I place most of the credit on their parents, communities, and the parents of their friends. NOT on the public school system. I will post these six reasons separately (because I'm very opinionated about this and need space to vent.)
Reason 1: You only associate with children your same age.
REASON 2: You only have friends the same gender as you.
In my elementary school that I went to when I was growing up, there were cafeteria tables that lined two walls. One wall of tables was the boy's side, and the other wall of tables was the girl's side. It was social suicide to cross that line unless you were very popular.
I know that my school's social habits were not unique. Just watch the first 15 minutes of "Little Manhattan" to get a clear picture of what I'm talking about. Okay, okay, this movie exaggerates the reality of boy and girl relationships (or lack of) in school, but the truth is, in the vast majority of public elementary schools out there, it is very uncool to be friends with the opposite sex. They have cooties. They are into different things then you. It's just not done.
That is, you can't unless it's romantic. Oh yes, having crushes, having a "boyfriend" you write secrets letters (or texts) to, kissing tag, are all within the "okay" social category.
Is it just me, or does something seem wrong here? I know most adults don't see anything wrong with this senario. In fact, many societies present and past have encouraged total gender segregation until marriage. It's completely natural for kids to want to be with their own gender, but in my mind, it should not be socially unacceptable to also be friends with those of the opposite sex before puberty.
What if there's no "first boy/girl party" or fist outing with both boys and girls? What if parties and outings always included both genders from the get go? Then when they get to the age of puberty, multi-gender parties and outings won't be awkward or about flirting or anything a parent might worry about. It would just be natural because, well, that's what they've always done.
Homeschool by nature lends itself to constant boy/girl contact and friendship. Again, families get together with families, and although for the most part boys split off with boys and girls with girls, there's just not that many people in a homeschool group to choose from, and boys and girls are forced together more often. Parties and outings include siblings getting together with another family's siblings, and gender is usually mixed.
In my experience of watching many homeschoolers throughout the years and from my own bias theories, it seems to me that when a children are in an environment where they are able to be friends with those of the opposite gender from birth through adolescence, they are less likely to be a sexually charged youth.
Also (now this really is a Lindy thesis, and I am no expert) it seems to me, that if the definition of what a boy or girl SHOULD be is not so regimented, that there is less "gender confusion." Hear me out with this one: In public school, your friends should be your own gender, and boys are all about sports, super heroes, war games, and bugs. Girls are all about dance, disney princesses, hair and clothes. If a child didn't fit in the right category, then I can understand how that child might start questioning their gender orientation (especially in a world like ours.) But if home schooled Mike wants to play dress up with his homeschool buddy Jenny, no one's making fun of him or telling him he's acting like a girl. Chances are, he's thinking "it's quite obvious I am a boy, and I really like playing with Jenny, and that's just fine."
Okay, so "Reason 2" is more of an opinion then a fact. But I feel (obviously) that it is a valid opinion none the less.
Reason 1: You only associate with children your same age.
REASON 2: You only have friends the same gender as you.
In my elementary school that I went to when I was growing up, there were cafeteria tables that lined two walls. One wall of tables was the boy's side, and the other wall of tables was the girl's side. It was social suicide to cross that line unless you were very popular.
I know that my school's social habits were not unique. Just watch the first 15 minutes of "Little Manhattan" to get a clear picture of what I'm talking about. Okay, okay, this movie exaggerates the reality of boy and girl relationships (or lack of) in school, but the truth is, in the vast majority of public elementary schools out there, it is very uncool to be friends with the opposite sex. They have cooties. They are into different things then you. It's just not done.
That is, you can't unless it's romantic. Oh yes, having crushes, having a "boyfriend" you write secrets letters (or texts) to, kissing tag, are all within the "okay" social category.
Is it just me, or does something seem wrong here? I know most adults don't see anything wrong with this senario. In fact, many societies present and past have encouraged total gender segregation until marriage. It's completely natural for kids to want to be with their own gender, but in my mind, it should not be socially unacceptable to also be friends with those of the opposite sex before puberty.
What if there's no "first boy/girl party" or fist outing with both boys and girls? What if parties and outings always included both genders from the get go? Then when they get to the age of puberty, multi-gender parties and outings won't be awkward or about flirting or anything a parent might worry about. It would just be natural because, well, that's what they've always done.
Homeschool by nature lends itself to constant boy/girl contact and friendship. Again, families get together with families, and although for the most part boys split off with boys and girls with girls, there's just not that many people in a homeschool group to choose from, and boys and girls are forced together more often. Parties and outings include siblings getting together with another family's siblings, and gender is usually mixed.
In my experience of watching many homeschoolers throughout the years and from my own bias theories, it seems to me that when a children are in an environment where they are able to be friends with those of the opposite gender from birth through adolescence, they are less likely to be a sexually charged youth.
Also (now this really is a Lindy thesis, and I am no expert) it seems to me, that if the definition of what a boy or girl SHOULD be is not so regimented, that there is less "gender confusion." Hear me out with this one: In public school, your friends should be your own gender, and boys are all about sports, super heroes, war games, and bugs. Girls are all about dance, disney princesses, hair and clothes. If a child didn't fit in the right category, then I can understand how that child might start questioning their gender orientation (especially in a world like ours.) But if home schooled Mike wants to play dress up with his homeschool buddy Jenny, no one's making fun of him or telling him he's acting like a girl. Chances are, he's thinking "it's quite obvious I am a boy, and I really like playing with Jenny, and that's just fine."
Okay, so "Reason 2" is more of an opinion then a fact. But I feel (obviously) that it is a valid opinion none the less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)