AIBU to think the wording in this high school transition book isn't great?

[Whatswiththesmalltalk]

Dd recieved a transition booklet to look through, I'm assuming most kids transitioning to high school recieved these. The part that bothered me in particular was the are you an average or an awesome kid? It listed attributes of average kids such as not putting your hand up. I get the idea behind it but I don't understand the need for labelling kids who feel uneasy raising their hand or lacking in confidence as average. Surely that will only do the opposite of what was intended. I've attatched an image.

It’s classic growth mindset - Matthew Syed book Kid Awesome. I think it’s great.

I think that's awful on so many levels. The terminology - 'awesome' - is one of those overused, hyperbolic terms of approbation. I'm not keen on 'kid' used for 'child' either.

Fundamentally what's wrong with it is that there's nothing wrong with being 'average'. By the definition of 'average' most people are average. If everyone were (to use their term) 'awesome' then 'awesome' would be the average.

I agree, OP, as well that the so-called 'average' traits may be just part of a child's natural personality. Risk-taking isn't always a good thing. Waving your hand in the air isn't always the right thing to do.

Personally I'd want nothing to do with a school that didn't have a basic understanding of what the words 'awesome' and 'average' actually mean.

Fudulinayes that's what the transition is based on, I agree with the growth mindset, it was more that the terms awesome and average are used when there just seems no need for it. I imagine going up to high school with all the pressures of today is daunting enough without being labelled as average before you even start.

Sorry for the name typo fufulina my phone must have corrected to it, to what I'm not sure

That's bollocks for so many reasons.

Most people are average. Few are awesome. By definition! If everyone was awesome then awesome would be average.

I also think saying some really negative traits are average rather than rubbish is unhelpful.

DD is doing some kind of awesome thing at school at the mo, she'll be going into year 7.

She's good at maths so if it's this I'll see if she can spot the massive logical fail.

Ofgs, it's very intense. I think a bit of grit is needed in life but it doesn't need to be so goddamned smug, surely?

Yes I agree, I couldn't put my finger on why it bothered me, but like a few of you have said there is nothing wrong with being average.

Yes absolutely, I'm of the mindset that kids need some grit to get them through but it did just seem unnecessary to me.

That's horrid. There are naturally reticent children who don't want to draw attention to themselves.

DS1 has SpLDs and autism. Some of those "average" traits would probably apply to him. He is very not average, and he is awesome in some ways and struggles with others.

That description can be very demoralising to quieter personality types.

Even a kid too shy to put their hand up doesn't have to be lazy and have a negative attitude. I think it's ok.

That's not even a list of things that makes a 'kid' awesome.

I'd expect most of those attributes in school as a bare minimum.

If that's a list of awesome traits I'd hate to see average. It's setting the bar low.

The awesome kids are generally the ones who like to take the lead and do things like arrange the prom, sort yearbook, run library sessions etc.

That's the sort of thing that's above expectation and things are are particular to certain people's personalities and skills.

Listing 'lazy' as an attribute of 'kid average' means 'most children are lazy' - an appalling mindset for a learning institution in the 21st Century - it sounds like a philosophy from Dotheboys Hall.

That's not the transition guide my DD got, thankfully. I'm on the yuck side.

It reminds me of something I read by Carol Dweck, who popularized and has had regrets on growth mindset getting so popular, as 'false growth mindset' which is just about putting in effort and praising that. It ignores praising strategy and being willing to try another one if it's not working to get you where you want, not just trying or focusing hard. Those things on on their own don't make anyone 'awesome' and this is going to backfire with the kids who are or would be happy to make it to average academically.

Listing 'lazy' as an attribute of 'kid average' means 'most children are lazy'

it's the complete opposite:
if you are not lazy, you are not average - whilst clearly not accurate, it's a good boost for the kids.

I agree that leaflet is setting up really low standard, but it's hardly labelling or damaging.

it's the complete opposite

It isn't, really. Look up the definition of 'average'.

We that’s awful.
Why could t they have said something along the lines of “at secondary school it is important to....xyz”.

If I was given that as a child I was have immediately thought “I’m kid average, I know I am. I’m not good enough to be kid awesome”.

Doesn't bother me.

It's pretty much saying to try hard isn't it?

It is in a sense former babe and i agree completely with kids trying hard but being shy to speak up and not putting you hand up isnt necessarily not trying hard. It's just the personality trait of some children.

It's pretty much saying to try hard isn't it?

Well, why not just say that then, instead of wrapping it up in utter gobbledygook? The only thing in favour of that 'transition book' is that it might prepare children for the corporate world, should they fall into it. 'Your introduction to management-speak' would be a better name for it. They could send the DC on a 'team building' exercise to complete the experience.

I think that's a rubbish thing to give to kids about to start secondary!

I don't like that some traits such as not putting your hand up and being scared to talk in class are deemed as bad by the school. Some children are naturally very quiet or shy. Doesn't mean they aren't awesome.

I had a Y7 this year who at the start of the year wouldn't talk in class and was even very shy talking to a teacher one to one. He's a great kid and with patience and encouragement from teachers, he was talking in class before lockdown happened and even volunteering answers. That sort of booklet wouldn't have encouraged him, it would have made him feel even worse!

Quite aside from how it’s phrase it just doesn’t seem the right place to put this sort of thing. At that age I was concerned with what classes I’d be in, how I’d find my way around, what happened if bigger kids were mean etc. This seems to be adding to the things for young people to worry about

It's an odd cluster of traits for "average" kids - with lazy, shy and anxious lumped together. I don't think any anxious or shy adult would appreciate the insinuation.

It's clearly a list of personal attributes that make a child more or less pleasant to teach. Yes, I'm sure teachers would love a room of kids who put their hand up, who are never afraid to start new things and who work tirelessly at the topic in hand. But unfortunately, the people in front of them will be as complex as all the other humans on the planet.

This would devastate my incredibly shy, nervous and anxious child. She is terrified of putting her hand up in class and being noticed. She really tried her hardest but the thought of everyone laughing at her if she gets an answer wrong ,(she doesn't and she knows it wouldn't happen even), well......I think that's really not thought through and could actually knock confidence in quiet and shy children.

Kapps123 that was my first thought when I read it. It is very confidence knocking in children who already struggle with it.

Yes, I'm sure teachers would love a room of kids who put their hand up, who are never afraid to start new things and who work tirelessly at the topic in hand.

Would a class of children who were all the same type really work, though? I'm not a teacher so I don't know, but generally in life groups function better when there are a mixture of personality types. Yes, working hard and being keen would be universally desirable, but everyone being a risk-taker, for instance, probably wouldn't. Everyone putting their hand up all the time would serve no purpose - the teacher can't spend the whole lesson hearing everyone give answers.