The Myth of Self-Esteem

MYTH: Good feelings flow from good works, it stands to reason, therefore, that good works will naturally flow from good feelings. If children are made to feel good about themselves, they will work harder, learn more, and treat others with more respect and dignity.

Self-esteem is an idea that was introduced into the schools for the purpose, we were told, of creating positive self concepts within children so that they will be more productive, willing to try new things, and be less afraid of failing. However, the results of the self-esteem movement have not produced the results that were promised. In the name of good intentions, teachers, parents, psychologists, and others have attempted to reverse a growing pattern of falling test scores, and increasing adolescent emotional and behavioral problems by making children feel good about themselves.

At first glance, the idea of creating self-esteem in children has merit. And indeed, self-esteem, as it was originally conceived nearly four decades ago, was based on sound logic. Its founding precept states that self-esteem is a result of good performance. The knowledge that one has done a good job on a given task creates confidence (self-esteem) within the individual with regard to similar tasks. If the individual has developed confidence with regard to the task, the level of performance will improve as will the level of confidence with the completion of each successful task. In other words, good feelings flow from good works.

However, certain liberal groups have mistaken the order of events that naturally flow from good performance and have reinterpreted them in an effort to bring about rapid change. These groups believe that if good feelings are the result of good works that it stands to reason that good works will naturally flow from good feelings. Create the good feelings first and avoid the disappointments and failures encountered during the confidence building curve.

The major difference between the two concepts is that the first is “earned” self-esteem while the second is “forced” self-esteem. Earned self-esteem is a process of building confidence over time based on successful achievements. The goal of forced self-esteem is to first make children feel good about themselves so that they will perform at higher levels of achievement without the investment of time and energy. Sounds good.

Well meaning teachers, the perennial tools of the left, are more than willing to apply the convoluted logic of forced self-esteem. This is not an indictment against all teachers. All teachers do not engage in or believe in the self-esteem movement as it is being implemented in the schools. It just happens that many teachers have liberal leanings and feel obligated to follow the liberal line. Under pressure from courts, politicians, parents, and school administrators to improve outcomes, some teachers will lock onto almost any process that promises academic improvement.

Only dedicated liberals believe they can circumvent the natural order of things with impunity. Forced self-esteem is a seductive idea that seems to make sense from a liberal perspective. With little practical research to support its claims, promoters of forced self-esteem introduced it into the schools. The results of the self-esteem movement are a generation of children with artificially inflated self-concepts based on no actual achievements, and continued downward trends in both test scores and behavior.

One of the basic foundational elements of the self-esteem movement requires that children be insulated and protected from disappointment and failure in any form. Wrong answers in a class discussion and poor performance on tests or projects are viewed as negatives that adversely effect the fragile psyches of young children. They are detrimental to the development of high self-esteem so they are never acknowledged as such. Children never feel the sting of failure. Good feelings must never be impacted by any disappointment.

Teacher advocates of self-esteem honestly believe that saying “No” to a child will prevent or impede the child’s self-esteem. Children are encouraged to respond to questions with any answer, to write without regard to spelling, punctuation, or grammar, to perform without regard to effort. Wrong answers are never acknowledged but are as enthusiastically accepted as are correct answers. One performance is not acknowledged over any other, but all performances are equally rewarded in an effort to create good feelings. To prevent the disappointment of allowing a child to make a mistake, teachers do all the work, answer all the questions, and praise all the children for the wonderful jobs they all did. Even expecting children to comply to certain behavioral expectations is tantamount to child abuse and not conducive to the development of high self-esteem. Children must be permitted to express themselves as they desire no matter how outrageous that may be. The promoters of self-esteem expect teachers to accept any answer, any effort, any behavior. No child is wrong. Remember, good performance flows from good feelings.

The flaw in this plan is that while the children are developing a strong sense of self, they are also learning that any effort, any answer, any performance is acceptable. Because of the emphasis on feeling good, children develop shortened attention spans since they have never been taught to vest themselves in the learning process. Why should they? When any effort is rewarded, there is not much sense in putting forth more than minimal effort. Learning is simply not a priority over feeling good. These kids have high self-esteem, but low ability. Their self-esteem is based on empty performance and minimal effort. But at least they feel good about it.

Can the recent eruption of school violence be traced to the self-esteem movement? It may not be such a stretch. Evidence has been presented that indicates that high self-esteem may have serious psychological consequences. One of the original guiding principles of self-esteem held that low self-esteem was responsible for violence and criminal activity. Those who held low self opinions of themselves often engaged in antisocial conduct in an effort to offset their lack of confidence in themselves. This view of cause and effect was widely accepted and contributed to the argument in favor of introducing self-esteem curricula into the schools. If children can be taught to feel good about themselves, so the argument went, they will be less likely to engage in violent or antisocial behavior.

Recently, however, this idea has come under scrutiny by some who are beginning to question the continued decline in test scores and increased violence in the schools. In an article published in The Psychological Review, researchers Roy F. Baumeister, Joseph A. Boden, and Laura Smart found that individuals who react violently in certain situations do not suffer from low self-esteem, but have instead, inflated opinions of themselves. In short, they have high self-esteem. The researchers theorized that violence is a compensatory reaction to perceived threats to the individuals’ egotism. The requirement to verify the truth about their actual abilities gives way to the need to protect their self-esteem. They defend their forced self-esteem with violence if necessary. This applies to school yard bullies as well as school house terrorists. The possibility of school violence increases when children are fed a steady diet of self importance without substance; when they are indulged and allowed to express themselves in ever more outrageous ways without criticism for years. Their self-esteem is high, but their judgment, self-control, responsibility, and empathy for others are nonexistent.

As would be expected, self-esteem is not limited only to academics. The doctrine has spilled over into extracurricular activities. From no-score athletic events to no-cut chearleading competitions, children are protected form the disappointment of losing. Non-participation in any competitive activity from student art exhibits to music competition is encouraged because competitions create winners, and where there are winners, there are also losers. Children must not be exposed to the stigma of losing. In other words, they must be protected from the horrors of reality.

An entire industry devoted to marketing this mind numbing concept has sprung up. There are commercially available self-esteem curricula for sale to schools. A search of the Internet will turn up scores of sites dedicated to the sale and promotion of self-esteem products such as books, posters, and T-shirts. According to one sales pitch from a leading self-esteem web site, “There is no greater reward than to teach someone to feel good about himself/herself.” As a teacher, this writer has always believed that the reward was in teaching people how to do something that they could not do before, or to lead students to a discovery of knowledge previously unknown. This belief has caused cries of outrage among some colleagues, but I digress.

Self-esteem attempts to level the playing field by making every one equally inefficient. Teachers should recognize that every child is good at something. They should work at helping each child discover his or her individual potential. It should not be the job of the schools to turn out legions of egotistical nit wits with minimal abilities good only to serve as interchangeable cogs for some imagined utopian machine. As long as teachers, and parents continue to accept the psycho babble of the left, programs like forced self-esteem will remain to infest the curricula of the schools, and stifle our children’s intellectual promise.