The Dangers of the Self-Esteem Rhetoric in Educating Children with Disabilities

Self-esteem: the American panacea The evolution of the self-esteem debate regarding if and how schools should improve student self-esteem is fairly elaborate. According to Beane (1991), the concepts that schools could impact self-esteem has been around since the early part of the twentieth century. Recently, however, self-esteem has been linked not only to academic achievement but also to substance abuse, antisocial behaviors, teenage pregnancy, suicide and other self-destructive behaviors (E.G., Black, 1991; Kohn, 1994: Mitchell, 1986;). As Rosemond (1994) observed, self-esteem, or the supposed lack of it, has come to be the standard explanation for many, if not all, problems American children face. Consequently, under the banner of self-esteem, children are being uncritically accepted the way and then provided with unlimited compliments and praise. Moreover, all criticism and difficult work are being avoided to make children feel good about themselves in today's American schools (Leo, 1990). False self-esteem and its insidious nature In recent years, an increasing number of researchers (e.g., Marshal, 1995; Sarler, 1992; Stevenson, 1992) convincingly have begun to reveal the fallacy and the danger of the popular self-esteem approaches being relentlessly pursued in schools. The critics of the self-esteem movement alerted educators that current approaches tend to breed false self-esteem bordering on egocentric narcissism, thereby, having minimal, if not detrimental effects on children's learning for the following reasons: First of all, contrary to the claims of self-esteem advocates, enhanced self-esteem is a consequence of, not a requirement for, achievement (Young, 1993, Burr & Christensen, 1992). It is the effect, not the cause. Because self-esteem arises from within, from a genuine sense of achievement and competence (Adler, Cohen, Houston, Manly & Wingert, 1992), false self-esteem derived solely from outside validation will not provide the confidence necessary to take on new task or skill (Hitz & Driscoll, 1994). More importantly, educators' excessive attention to the fostering of self-esteem may lead to a satisfaction with mediocrity among American school children with or without difficulties (Leo, 1990; Wolfrum,). In fact, an inflated self-image resulting from the current self-esteem rhetoric has caused many children to try less in both regular or special education classrooms. Children have been taught that they are great the way they are regardless of what they do or how well. Many youngsters have come to believe that anything better than great is unnecessary and probably too much work. A Leo (1990) questioned, if children believe that they are perfect and lovable just he way they are, why should they want to change and strive These skeptical views about self-esteem. rhetoric are further supported by Krathhammer's (1990) rather satirical analogy between self-esteem and its alleged relationship with student achievement: A standardized math test was given to 13-year-olds in six countries ... Koreans did the best. Americans did the worst ... The kids were shown the statement `I am good at Mathematics.' Koreans came last in this category, Americans were No. 1 ... (p. 78). Further, as Dewhurst (1991) pointed out, self-esteem is a commodity which is not and cannot be equally distributed throughout the population, since self-esteem is essentially of a comparative nature (p. 6). If the teacher makes the forced assertion that every child is outstanding, this will be untrue. The impossibility of everyone being outstanding raises another critical issue. The likelihood that all children will internalize a message which tells them they are exceptional, while the same message is sent to everyone else around them is slim. Children are more likely to be somewhat conscious of the uneven distribution of aptitude, athletic ability, artistic talent and other virtues in society. …