(From the UCLA Center on Mental Health in Schools) In the ASCD-ISHN sponsored discussions about integrating health and social programs more effectively within schools, we have identified a set of challenges associated with the contradictory or competing demands and constraints placed in teachers and schools by society. The UCLA Center on Mental Health in Schools has discussed one of these challenges in a recent paper on Helping and Socialization. The paper notes that a significant concern or dilemma arises when the teacher and the school are asked to both help the child displaying deviant behaviour while also serving the school's mandate to socialize children and to exercise the social controls necessary to ensure that other children can continue to learn. An example is presented in the paper as follows:
" One major reason for compulsory education is that society wants schools to act as socializing agencies. When a child misbehaves at school, the teacher's job is to bring the deviant and devious behavior under control. Interventions are designed to convince the child he should conform to the proscribed limits of the social setting. The child's parents valued the school's socializing agenda, but also wanted him to receive special help at school for what they saw as an emotionally based problem. The child, like most children did not appreciate the increasing efforts to control his behavior, especially since many of his actions were intended to enable him to escape such control. Under the circumstances , not only was there conflict among the involved parties, it is likely that the teacher's intervention efforts actually caused the child displaying deviant behaviour to experience negative emotional and behavior reactions (e.g., psychological reactance). It is commonplace for policy makers, practitioners, family members to be confronted with situations where socialization and helping agenda are in conflict. Some resolve the conflict by clearly defining themselves as socializing agents and in that role pursue socialization goals. In such a context, it is understood that helping is not the primary concern. Others resolve the conflict by viewing individuals as "clients" and pursuing interventions that can be defined as helping. In such cases, the goal is to work withthe consenting individual to resolve learning and behavior problems, including efforts designed to make environments more accommodative of individual differences. Some practitioners are unclear about their agenda or are forced by circumstances to try to pursue helping and socialization simultaneously, and this adds confusion to an already difficult situation."
This role conflict or dilemma is not limited to children who are misbehaving. If teachers are asked to spend inordinately more time helping other children with special medical needs or to help children with social isolation or family stress issues, their time is taken away from the other students. In the "helping professions" such as nursing or social work, there is no conflict, because their priority is clearly with the more vulnerable child. However, educators are mandated to enable every child to reach their full potential, so the maxim is often to try to spend an equivalent amount of time and energy with each and every child, even if they have fewer health, social or even learning needs. To access the UCLA paper Read More>>
" One major reason for compulsory education is that society wants schools to act as socializing agencies. When a child misbehaves at school, the teacher's job is to bring the deviant and devious behavior under control. Interventions are designed to convince the child he should conform to the proscribed limits of the social setting. The child's parents valued the school's socializing agenda, but also wanted him to receive special help at school for what they saw as an emotionally based problem. The child, like most children did not appreciate the increasing efforts to control his behavior, especially since many of his actions were intended to enable him to escape such control. Under the circumstances , not only was there conflict among the involved parties, it is likely that the teacher's intervention efforts actually caused the child displaying deviant behaviour to experience negative emotional and behavior reactions (e.g., psychological reactance). It is commonplace for policy makers, practitioners, family members to be confronted with situations where socialization and helping agenda are in conflict. Some resolve the conflict by clearly defining themselves as socializing agents and in that role pursue socialization goals. In such a context, it is understood that helping is not the primary concern. Others resolve the conflict by viewing individuals as "clients" and pursuing interventions that can be defined as helping. In such cases, the goal is to work withthe consenting individual to resolve learning and behavior problems, including efforts designed to make environments more accommodative of individual differences. Some practitioners are unclear about their agenda or are forced by circumstances to try to pursue helping and socialization simultaneously, and this adds confusion to an already difficult situation."
This role conflict or dilemma is not limited to children who are misbehaving. If teachers are asked to spend inordinately more time helping other children with special medical needs or to help children with social isolation or family stress issues, their time is taken away from the other students. In the "helping professions" such as nursing or social work, there is no conflict, because their priority is clearly with the more vulnerable child. However, educators are mandated to enable every child to reach their full potential, so the maxim is often to try to spend an equivalent amount of time and energy with each and every child, even if they have fewer health, social or even learning needs. To access the UCLA paper Read More>>
RSS Feed