There are many people, and more than a few educators and psychologists, who would say kids who act out in school, at home or in the community are not in pain. They would say kids who act out are making poor choices about behavior, or want attention, or are simply flaunting the rules. Viewed from those perspectives, it gets easy to punish kids for their actions and to consider the problem solved. That is what we have been doing for several decades. Yet, we still have kids who act out. Just who are we trying to fool? Or maybe the question should be, "Just who is the fool?"
Over 25 years ago, social psychologist Philip Brickman and his colleagues at the University of Michigan described four approaches helpers characteristically take towards people with problems. The approaches are based upon the assumptions helpers make about people's responsibility for having caused their problems, as well as for solving those problems. I have fallen back on Brickman's (1982) model of "helping and coping" many times, using it to think about what we do as helpers, and how we do it. It certainly finds good application here.
Schools and some less-than-effective child care centers often tackle children's emotional and behavioral problems from one of two of Brickman's four approaches.
The Moral model is often applied, and assumes that the child is (1) responsible for his or her "problem" behavior, and (2) for finding some way to correct it. In schools, the Moral model is probably best exemplified by Character Education. The purpose Character Education is to help children understand and live by basic human values such as honesty, generosity, etc. Otherwise, the Moral model finds informal application through exhortation to children to "do the right thing," "play by the rules," and so forth. Under the Reagan administration, adolescents were instructed to "just say 'no'" to sex, drugs, and other temptations prevalent in modern society.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the Moral model, for it reinforces the instruction many children have received at home, in church, and in organizations such as the scouts. It does place the responsibility for "moral" behavior squarely on the child's shoulders, however, and the weight may simply be too much for some children. For example, children and youth raised in emotionally or physically abusive situations may find it difficult to restrain themselves and to "do the right thing" when provoked. Making morally correct decisions proves impossible for certain children who have not had the advantage of seeing adults do so. Although certain approaches to intervention are based upon the Moral model (Dr. William Glasser's Choice Theory comes to mind), they may not be very useful with the troubled and troubling children we are discussing here.
When the Moral model fails to work in schools and elsewhere, as it does with increasing frequency, would-be "helpers" often turn to the Enlightenment model. The Enlightenment model assumes that (1) the child is responsible for his or her maladaptive behavior, but (2) leaves adults responsible for finding the "solution" for that behavior. Enlightenment solutions are often punitive. So, the child who has failed to master his own demons becomes subject to whatever consequences superiors deem necessary. Detention, suspension and expulsion are the stock in trade of schools; in child care institutions, deprivation of privileges, confinement and/or restrictions are commonplace.
It is understandable that even well-meaning adults turn to punishment when appeals to a child's sense of right and wrong fail; after all, that is the way our society works. Unfortunately, in schools and child care institutions as in society, the Moral and Enlightenment models of helping and coping Brickman describes help only those who know the difference between socially acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and who can contain their emotions and impulses to act before matters get out of hand. Not all children and youth are capable of such self-control.
In a forthcoming section of this blog I will describe the remaining models of helping and coping Brickman and his colleagues named: the Medical model and Compensatory model. Now, however, I will turn my attention to children and youth who act out their pain in obvious, and often self-defeating, ways.
When the Moral model fails to work in schools and elsewhere, as it does with increasing frequency, would-be "helpers" often turn to the Enlightenment model. The Enlightenment model assumes that (1) the child is responsible for his or her maladaptive behavior, but (2) leaves adults responsible for finding the "solution" for that behavior. Enlightenment solutions are often punitive. So, the child who has failed to master his own demons becomes subject to whatever consequences superiors deem necessary. Detention, suspension and expulsion are the stock in trade of schools; in child care institutions, deprivation of privileges, confinement and/or restrictions are commonplace.
It is understandable that even well-meaning adults turn to punishment when appeals to a child's sense of right and wrong fail; after all, that is the way our society works. Unfortunately, in schools and child care institutions as in society, the Moral and Enlightenment models of helping and coping Brickman describes help only those who know the difference between socially acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and who can contain their emotions and impulses to act before matters get out of hand. Not all children and youth are capable of such self-control.
In a forthcoming section of this blog I will describe the remaining models of helping and coping Brickman and his colleagues named: the Medical model and Compensatory model. Now, however, I will turn my attention to children and youth who act out their pain in obvious, and often self-defeating, ways.
0 comments:
Post a Comment