Does displaying students’ results lead to better performance?

[Prime Dynamics]

At my school during those years, teachers used to display results on the notice board in the order of individual performance. The best appears as number one, and the worst comes last. It is very embarrassing when they read out your name at the school assembly that you were the last in class. Some students perform poorly not because they are not clever but because they play around and do not take academics seriously. Displaying their results or reading them at the assembly hurts their ego and makes them think twice before they waste time. However, displaying or reading learners' performance may not only check students, but teachers as well. For instance, in schools that have streams, once stream B consistently dominates other streams, yet students were allocated to these streams randomly, the teachers of other streams, especially class teachers, are under pressure to improve.
Reading the names of students who have excelled, and the purpose is solely to create a competitive environment both in class and the entire school but reading the names of poor performers hurts learners. Nobody celebrates failure. Displaying weak performers only serves to confirm they are weak. This demoralises a student.
And at times, it psychologically destroys them and they may desire to change school. In extreme cases, they can even commit suicide. It is even worse with girls.
Before teachers display weak students, they should first understand them. Some learners work hard, but things just fail. So it is not their fault that they fail. Instead of parading weak learners in front of the school, they should be grouped and assigned particular teachers to monitor them closely and ensure they improve. This helps them open up to their teachers.
For purposes of helping learners to improve, teachers should only read out the names of best performers. Let us say, the best 10. Then the remaining students will strive to be among the best 10 next time. But reading out the names of weak learners demoralises them.

 

[Anfaal]

At my school during those years, teachers used to display results on the notice board in the order of individual performance. The best appears as number one, and the worst comes last. It is very embarrassing when they read out your name at the school assembly that you were the last in class. Some students perform poorly not because they are not clever but because they play around and do not take academics seriously. Displaying their results or reading them at the assembly hurts their ego and makes them think twice before they waste time. However, displaying or reading learners' performance may not only check students, but teachers as well. For instance, in schools that have streams, once stream B consistently dominates other streams, yet students were allocated to these streams randomly, the teachers of other streams, especially class teachers, are under pressure to improve.
Reading the names of students who have excelled, and the purpose is solely to create a competitive environment both in class and the entire school but reading the names of poor performers hurts learners. Nobody celebrates failure. Displaying weak performers only serves to confirm they are weak. This demoralises a student.
And at times, it psychologically destroys them and they may desire to change school. In extreme cases, they can even commit suicide. It is even worse with girls.
Before teachers display weak students, they should first understand them. Some learners work hard, but things just fail. So it is not their fault that they fail. Instead of parading weak learners in front of the school, they should be grouped and assigned particular teachers to monitor them closely and ensure they improve. This helps them open up to their teachers.
For purposes of helping learners to improve, teachers should only read out the names of best performers. Let us say, the best 10. Then the remaining students will strive to be among the best 10 next time. But reading out the names of weak learners demoralises them.

I agree with you. I remember at one time NECTA stopped displaying the performance of the students, however the general public complained above the move. But this is another topic that needs independent and thorough analysis.
In a last paragraph of your analysis, I can clearly see a contraction of your argument. When you opt to display a top performers is equally the same as displaying poorly or non-performing students. Overall your arguments need an indepth researching, the conclusion cannot be attained amicably.

 

[Kapo Jr]

Better the teachers to reads only top ten students who passed well i think this can encourage other students