One intriguing proposal to explain some of the origin of this phenomenon is rooted in television viewing habits of younger generations, specifically the quantity and nature of violence they view. Notice that I said both "quantity" and "nature". In The Disappearance of Childhood, Neil Postman has proposed a distinction between the violence portrayed on television dramas, movies, sitcoms, etc. versus the violence portrayed on news shows, talk shows, and other "reality" types of viewing.
In discussing the difference, he says,
...we must keep in mind that the stylized murders, rapes, and plunderings that are depicted on weekly fictional programs are ... clearly marked as fiction or pseudo-fairy tales, and we may assume (although not safely) that some children do not take them to be representations of adult life. Far more impressive are the daily examples of violence and moral degeneracy that are the staple of TV news shows. These [news and talk shows] are not mitigated by the presence of recognizable actors and actresses. They are put forward as the stuff of everyday life. These are real murders, real rapes, real plunderings.
So what's the difference? Mainly, that while the "stylized" shows portray reality as it might be for some, the news and talks shows present life as it really is for some one in particular. Added to this is the sheer volume of shows and hours that reveal to children what the adult world is like. The result, not surprisingly, is that as children watch more and more television, they are exposed more and more to the world of adults and its deficiencies. Postman continues:
[There are] two items of particular interest as examples of how television is unsparing in revealing the secrets of adult life. The first concerns the incompetence or at least vulnerability of political leaders. In [television's] quest for material, especially of a "human interest" variety, never before have so many people known so much about the wives, children, mistresses, drinking habits, sexual preferences, slips of the tongue, even inarticulateness of their national leaders. Those who did know at least some of this were kept informed by newspapers and magazines, which is to say that until television, the dark or private side of political life was mostly the business of adults. Children are not newspaper readers and never have been. But they are television viewers and therefore are continually exposed to accounts of the frailties of those who in a different age would have been perceived as without blemish. The result of this is that children develop what may be called adult attitudes - from cynicism to indifference - toward political leaders and toward the political process itself. [emphasis mine]
To this less than perfect picture of adulthood (which children are largely spared except for television's influence) is added the "ineptitude, strife, and worry" that fill the adult world. Postman adds that "...the causes of marital conflict, the need for life insurance, the infinite possibilities of misunderstanding, and the myriad afflictions of the human body" are all reason to think that the adult world isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be. And when it comes to education (whether national, state, or local districts), much of what we via television hear has less to do with good news and success stories in general and more to do with perennial financial deficits, contract disputes, physical or sexual abuse of students by teachers, administrators, or coaches, unqualified or "out of field" teachers, or chronic failure of an entire school, district, or state to "move" its students academically. Whether such pessimistic realities are true or not is beside the point. Rather, these are the circumstances and mindsets to which children are exposed via television which they would be spared if such reports and complaints and problems were communicated via media not so easily and conveniently accessed by children.
No wonder, then, that many of my students begin the year sounding more like their parents or the news than like children when they criticize me, the school, the district, or education in general. They have not entered my room with expectant attitudes of discovery, intellectual growth, academic achievement, or more fully realizing their human potential as learners. What they do bring, however, is plenty of demands that I justify my existence as a teacher and mathematic's existence as a "practical" subject worth their time.
Herein lies no small obstacle to education: a student's predisposition to not trust those placed over him or her. And parents know this at least as well, if not better, than teachers: a child who will not trust you will not obey - whether it's for their good or not. They simply will not entrust themselves to the judgment of another if they do not trust him. As it turns out, one of the best ways that parents best prepare their children both to be learners as well as fruitful members of a society of any kind (civic, religious, social, leisure, etc.) is to teach them to trust those who come to them with worthy credentials. This will not cure the abuse of trust that evil men and women will commit, but it will pave the way most effectively for children to enter adulthood in a way that permits, rather than inhibits, learning and growth.
BHT
