Results so far:
| Help | 81% | 971 votes | Total: 1203 votes | |
| Hurt | 19% | 232 votes |
Competition can certainly be helpful to children, but competition can also be harmful if the drive for said competition is directed from parent to child, in conflict with the child's inherent personality.
Competit ion is merely one of a long list of values and qualities that a parent should strive to teach his child. The quest for excellence, or one's personal best, should never be denied or downplayed. What does the goal of distinction teach a child? That he is capable of reaching his dreams, that he is capable of fulfilling his destiny. Frequently these goals are attainable through competition. Competition is not a bad word at all - many modern parents seem to believe that when a child competes, the so-called "loser" will suffer irreparable emotional damage. This is simply not true, in fact, the opposite can often occur.
In recent decades, child-raising has been all about the child's self-esteem. However, there are healthy ways to ensure that a child develops this properly, and there are certain downfalls as well. There is a middle ground, a safe and effective area, which can help parents raise a child to the betterment of that child, as opposed to raising a whiny, entitled brat.
Children have three main areas of competition: the classroom, the sports field, and the home. Let's examine each of these in turn and see what can be learned.
Classroom competition does not have to mean that your child becomes a know-it-all, blurting out answers, being smug and self-righteous. Too many children today are taught to do this or, conversely, to downplay their efforts to avoid the stigma of being educated. The "middle ground" in this instance means that a child should compete against himself, always striving for a better performance, a better grade. Praise for these efforts should be sincere and applicable - applicable to the child's level of labor in his achievement. A parent should not continuously praise for little or no effort, but recognize the work and push for greater accomplishment, while speaking to the child's own ability. Not all children are Einsteins, but many are more capable than parents and even teachers realize.
Sports can be a sore subject to many parents; many remember their own "glory days" on their respective fields and many do indeed push their children far more than the child is capable of or comfortable with. It bears repeating: competition can be harmful if the child is not self-directed to achieve in a particular area.
Once upon a time, children did not begin competitive sports until about age 11 or 12. Yes, tiny two-year-olds look cute in tutus, but surely this has more to do with parental influence - two-year-olds can barely communicate in sentences, let alone decide on a lifetime career choice. Four-year-olds playing soccer receive very little benefit themselves, other than exercise; they have little concept of the game itself, and frequently this "competition" involves herds of children racing up and down the field and culminates in a trophy for each one - and that trophy is relatively meaningless for, after all, what does it recognize? That parents drove miles each week for practices and games, and their child got some exercise.
Older children are more capable on the sports field, usually simply by virtue of size; some are truly talented. But it must be questioned whether or not burnout will occur much faster if those talented few are pushed beyond their limits; would it not be better to wait until a child's interests are more fully developed, until they have a better grasp on the sacrifices involved? One must also consider their still-evolving physical strength and endurance.
Frequently competition at this age still involves the "everyone is a winner" philosophy. Perhaps the reasoning is that, at young ages, children are less emotionally prepared to lose; however, it does them no favors whatsoever to begin learning that no matter how hard they work/practice/perfor m, they are still equal to those individuals who posses lesser talent and ambition. This would be comparable to an adult in a work situation whose potential promotion is drawn out of hat and based not at all on his performance.
Once in high school, competition increases and all bets are off; these teams do not receive awards for anything less than stellar performance and top scores. So a child who has been told how "wonderful" he and his team are, as children, suddenly is thrust into a situation where things are NOT equal, he is NOT talented, and someone must lose....
Competition in the home exists - just as parents, who will never, ever admit it, have "favorites". The truth is, home is where the results of this competition must be tempered with kindness, love, and compassion. In most families, there will be a child who keeps his room neat and one who does not; one child who brings home top grades and one who barely passes; and one child who is obedient and one who actively seeks to break the rules. This does not mean parents should indiscriminately praise all their children, no matter the circumstances; it does not mean that children should not be encouraged to improve in a particular area. It does mean, however, that parents should do these things with compassion and love and tenderness and not engage in comparison and one-up-manship.
Earne st praise for talent, skill, mental abilities, and so forth should be given freely and frequently; false praise or a false sense of achievement should not be engaged in or recognized by parents or coaches or even teammates. A child can distinguish insincerity and mere flattery from honesty, and their so-called self-esteem will become false as well - leading down a path of constant seeking and striving, with few results and little satisfaction. Competition is just that - a contest to ascertain "the best". All children cannot be the "best", but all children can be loved, learn, and participate fully in life.
Learn more about this author, Robin Tidwell.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Competition fosters an unfair advantage for academically-challen ged students. Such students will have a hard time in keeping up with their more academically-gifted counterparts and thus, create unneccessary pain and frustration for themselves and members in their group.
Here's why:
Let's say, for example, that a student who has been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADD) and the teacher issues the final exam and say that a particular section must be turned in within a certain specified time limit. Will the student with attention deficit disorder be able to complete the exam within the allotted time limit? Will he choke up and not fare as well? Or will he be so frustrated that he will not be able to complete that section? He would probably be so frustrated that he would turn the exam in with that one section in incompleted status. So the aforementioned questions will play an equal role in wrecking havoc on our student with ADD.
Furthermore, competition not only hinders the performance of students with ADD and other learning disorders, but also gives them a false sense of their accomplishments. And that false sense fosters nothing but anguish and frustration on the part of this particular demographic group in our nation's public schools. It's no wonder that our schools in this country has become bastians of violence and drugs, havens of refuge for young thugs who have been diagnosed with the aforementioned learning difficulties.
Additio nally, competition further hurt young people when their respective disorder is not adequately diagnosed. We loose more young people who inevitably fall through the cracks in our educational system because of an undiagnosed learning disability that has not been adequately diagnose. Those undiagnosed or undocumented learning disabilities are causing our educational systems to go downhill. Furthermore, they are turning our public schools into veritable prisons. Can we afford to loose our at risk students to this culture of violence?
Finally, Fostering a non-competitive environment and helping students who have been diagnosed with learning disorders/disabiliti es will create better schools and thus, and a better academic future from all our students, not just those who are academically gifted. Furthermore, this approach will make our public schools safer, and provide all our at-risk students with an improved curriculum; and most importantly, a brighter future for their young lives. Indeed, if the aforementioned conditions are not met, then those hurt young lives will inevitably become casualties of the system. Tell me, who would want that on their hands?
Learn more about this author, Roger Crain.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.