final discussion

After doing some digging, I found an article from the Journal of Law and Criminology that discusses theories about juveniles and their tendencies to become or not to become delinquent. As far as factors go for becoming a “problem child”, there are several ways to look at them that could contribute. According to the journal article, there are psychological, social, legal, religious, and ethical perspectives (McDavid and McCandless, 1962). These particular points of view the authors discussed are similar to the factors posted. Whether it is peer factors, parent factors, individual factors or environmental factors we are discussing, they are all important and share different impacts for children delinquencies. I think that we should prioritize Environmental and Social factors above all else because a significant amount of affects trace back to this. Lower SES and environmental effects can lead to psychological distress, peer rejection, more difficult family lives, and lack of individual controls as well.  

McDavid, John. McCandless, Boyd. Psychological Theory, Research, and Juvenile Delinquency, 53 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 1 (1962)

final post

The most changeable/controllable factor is the individual factor.  One's own self, can decide to change their actions and shape up.  No one can do this for them.  Although, parent/family factors contribute greatly to their kids' choice in becoming a delinquent, but it is very hard to change an adult's ways.  If a child comes from an abusive home, more than likely that home won’t stop being abusive.  That’s why I believe it is up to the individual self to decide to change their ways and not follow in the parent's footsteps.  With that being said, the parent/family factor is very uncontrollable.     

Final blog

I believe that the one that you could control easily would be the parent and family factors. You can, as a parent, control how your child acts and monitor them to do so. You can change the way the act in certain settings if you are around. The way that you  discipline your children could be changed and also have an effect on their behavior. The one that I think would be the hardest to control would have to be the peer one. A child's peers are going to believe  and do what they want, whether it is treating another kid bad or not, so as even a parent that is kind of out of your control.

Juvenile Deliquents

I think the most changeable factors contributing to juvenile delinquency is the "Parent/Family Factors."  Parents can change how they raise their child and how they control their children.  They can monitor their child better, discipline them correctly when needed, and refrain from physical abuse of their child.

Juvenile Delinquency

There are many factors that can contribute to juvenile delinquency. Some of these factors can be influenced while others cannot. One factor I believe is the most changeable is parental monitoring. Parental monitoring means knowing where your children are, what they're doing, and who they're with. However, parental monitoring can be many other things as well. One thing parents can do is spend as much time with their children as they can. It is proven that there are better child outcomes for families that have dinner together with meaningful conversations. There are also several factors that are not controllable. These factors include peer, individual, and environmental factors. Parents cannot control their children's peers. Children who have a rejected peer status are more likely to become delinquents. The peer group that they hang out with can also influence the group norms. Intelligence level is also a factor that cannot be controlled. The children's family's socioeconomic status can make them gravitate toward juvenile delinquency as well.

Juvenile Delinquency

            When considering all the factors that come into play when trying to predict the chances of a kid becoming a delinquent, there are some that may have more controllable outcomes than others. One of the more controllable influences is having a deviant friend group. Unless the child comes from a tiny school where they have zero control over who they surround themselves with each day, they get to choose who they associate with and befriend. But choosing whether their peer group has a positive or negative influence is very important. Another factor that could be controlled is what group norms the child allows themselves to conform to. If there are ‘norms’ that a child doesn’t necessarily agree with, then they shouldn’t act on those norms.

            Though some factors are avoidable, others require attention and help from other people to help the child through it. A couple of these are experiencing physical abuse from a parent or trusted adult, not having enough attention, and having a rejected status in the eyes of their classmates. When looking at the parental influences on juvenile delinquency, a lot of them are hard to see or help because a lot of it happens in a home setting. Unless a child is being physically abused or is living in intolerable conditions, there is not much an outside friend or adult can do to help the kid. Poor monitoring and inconsistent/inappropriate discipline are completely based on the parents/guardians. How the parents treat their children is completely uncontrollable to anyone else, which I think is very unfortunate because it has a big influence on who they become as teenagers and adults.

Prompt for the final blog post

This is a "potato" view of the studied factors that developmental psychologists and criminologists believe influence an individual's risk of juvenile delinquency. For this post, talk about which of the above you think are the most changeable/controllable: the factors that you think we should focus our attention, time and resources. Lastly, identify one or more factors that you think we should not focus on, not because they are unimportant, but because we may not be able to change or ameliorate them.

April 15th

Having students in specialized classrooms comes with its benefits, but also not. Having these classrooms costs money. Hiring teachers to teach them and having all the accessibility for those students. You need to hire the right teachers for each students learning disabilities, so that each and every one can learn. But, the benefits out weigh the reasons not to do it. Children with specific disabilities need a room so that they can learn just like all of the other students in their school. For child with autism, it may be hard for them to learn in a room full of so many children, or that they need that specific one on one time with a teacher to learn,  so it is only fair for them to be in a room where they can do so. Being in a classroom where there are others like this child could make it so much easier for them to learn. Children who do not have a learning disability get the education they deserve, therefore children with learning disabilities should get the same treatment. Yes, it may cost more money but everyone deserves and equal education.

An Experience

I had the very fortunate experience of substitute teaching in the Westfield-Washington School Elementary district in Westfield, Indiana. I tried a few different jobs, kindergarten, third grade...and then I found Life Skills. Immediately I was hooked. Life Skills was a large classroom divided into multiple sections with various learning levels and simple daily life tasks that a person can benefit from knowing. For instance, how to spell your name, recognize danger signs, brush your teeth...I didnt have twenty-five students to stand up in front of and herd throughout the day. Generally, I would have one or sometimes three students hanging out with me. Each student hand an IEP and many of the students had cerebral palsy, autism, and an array of immune deficient issues, seeing difficulties, non-verbal, and motor control , like MS. 

The reason they needed a substitute became clearer to me each time I returned. The days were hard and challenging in ways people generally only have to deal with with their own kids...the kids in my Life Skills class were just that, kids. Funny, clever, would get frustrated, laugh, play...only they were trapped inside these bodies that didn't work how they wanted them to. Often I would see them want to play or stay outside...and what do you suppose a child who wants to be heard that can't speak or yell or run away does? They each do their own thing. Flop on the floor, spit on you, wet themselves, spin around in circles, take of their clothes, bite... Most days were great, the kids and I got to know each other and I did occasionally get in trouble for following the child and not sticking to the IEP but we had fun and they learned. So, the implications of free, public, and appropriate education are a huge challenge. I came to realize that block shifts would be more beneficial to these students and teachers. They would get frustrated and as a sub I could relieve them, but I had other jobs and then moved to Montana.

The other children in the school were very friendly and helpful so it appeared as though they had some insight and empathy. Although, some children were frightened by the outbursts, and lunch time was always interesting and occasionally icky. All in all it seems that if the classrooms are fully staffed appropriately and have some form of rotating work schedule the students appear to benefit and learn helpful life tools. As with any community, there are varying ability levels that need to be considered wherever you may be. With these levels, resources and educators would do well to implement a system that works best for their situation. The possibilities are endless!

Mainstreaming

          When it comes to teaching strategies for children with learning disabilities, there doesn’t seem to be one right answer because each child has needs unique to themselves. There are times when it is beneficial to the kid having a hard time to stay in the classroom with everyone else but more often than not, a one-on-one teacher situation has better outcomes. An individual, child-specific learning environment allows each child to learn at their own rate with learning tools that challenge them academically. But understanding that each situation is completely unique is also very important. Some kids would actually benefit from staying in the classroom with the rest of their classmates, while others could have the completely opposite outcome. In the high school that I graduated from, the classes that were individualized for those who had a harder time were conditional. Say they had a very hard time with math and science but was able to handle history or music, they would be in individual classes for math and science. Then they would be with everybody else in history and music. This allowed us to have amazing relationships with every single person in our school as well as allowing each person to have an equal opportunity at scholastic achievement.

Mainstreaming

I think that allowing students with learning disabilities in classrooms can have benefits and disadvantages. Classroom settings can push children to do better with school work. However, classrooms can create distractions for students especially with learning disorders, such as ADHD. These distractions can prevent them from learning. This can cause these children to fall behind other students and cause frustrations which can make them fall even further behind. Trying to teach students at different academic levels can make teachers' jobs very difficult. I think that schools can make compromises to meet the needs of students with learning disabilities. These students can have specialized lessons in areas that they struggle. For example, a student with dyslexia is placed in a specialized reading group, then for math returns to the classroom with the rest of the students. This would allow the students to get the most out of their education as possible.

Week of Apr 15

All children in the United States should have access to an education whether they live with a disability or not. Mainstreaming a child with a disorder such as autism could have a positive impact on that child’s outcome. Depending on the severity of their case, being in an average classroom environment would likely be beneficial to them. A child with Asperger syndrome could do quite well in a normal classroom environment, this also gives them the opportunity to work on their social skills with other students. This could help the other children become more understanding of others with disabilities if they are around them more often. Rather than only seeing or interacting with them in the hallways of their school.  Severe cases of autism would have to be treated differently, if the child was a disturbance to other students then a separate classroom with more attention on the single student would be appropriate. This type of student would make teachers lives more difficult and take away from the learning experience of the other students.

Discussion Week Apr 15

I believe that the fact that children with disabilities and autism spectrum disorders are integrated into public schools is important for both them and the other children around them. It helps their peers understand what it’s like to be around someone with disabilities and it also helps the people with the disability to better acclimate to the atmospheres of other people. I think that as far as teachers go, children with difficulties are obviously going to propose new challenges but I don’t think that should be an excuse for not including them. Learning disorders are very different from autism spectrum disorders and require different teaching styles and techniques. However, both students with learning disabilities and with autism should be given the same opportunities as other students and have the opportunity to attend public schools. 

Mainstreaming

The topic of public education for students with developmental and/or learning disabilities is an important topic to discuss. The moral and ethical imperative in the United States is understood that we allow for free and appropriate education for everyone regardless of disability, gender, race, or any other factor. Unfortunately, the resources for public education are limited. Finding the right balance of truly equal opportunity with limited funding is a practical nightmare. Mainstreaming, which is integrating students with learning disabilities into the same classrooms as students without learning disabilities to be taught using similar methods, is a great solution if we look at the issue solely from a financial perspective. The issues that arise from mainstreaming children with learning disabilities come from the idea that we are teaching every student equally and to a set standard without acknowledging individual differences. In students with learning disabilities, these individual differences are often exacerbated, and these standards that we have set are much less attainable. From a social standpoint, however, it may be detrimental to split up kids who are the same age. It is apparent that social interaction in school is important beyond just facilitating learning. If these students are separated based on learning ability, they may be ostracized further due to their apparent differences. On the flip side of that coin, integrating students with disabilities into the same classrooms as non-disabled students may build resentment of the former from the latter because of a perceived "slowing down" of the curriculum. Even if the students are taught individually in the same room, the special attention that is required from teachers to students with disabilities may seem unfair to the students without disabilities. This also means that there is a greater strain on the teachers who must find a healthy balance in their own teaching styles and time spent with students. We could put every student with a disability into a separate class specific to their disability, but the prevalence ratings of each disability are low enough that it is hard to justify the costs of doing so. This becomes especially true in areas with smaller population or lower general income. We could lump children with any form of disability ranging from ADD to an ASD into one classroom and separate them from the children without disabilities, but once again we have arrived at the issue of treating every child as the same but under slightly more refined categories. It is also much harder to find teachers willing to work with these students to the individual capacity that they need because of the notoriously low pay for teachers in the United States. Overall, it is incredibly difficult to determine what the best possible route for providing an appropriate education to children with disabilities is. Mainstreaming may help these kids to have a more involved experience both socially and educationally, but it is not without its downfalls.

Prompt for the week of April 15th

Federal regulations state that children with developmental disabilities will have free, public, and appropriate education, but what are the practical implications of this practice? Does the student benefit from being "mainstreamed?" Do their peers gain insight or empathy? Do we enrich classrooms, or make teachers' lives more difficult? Consider either a learning disorder or an autism spectrum disorder in your discussion. This site has a more detailed description of autism, and autism spectrum disorders.

Critical and Creative vs. "Drill and Kill"

The “drill and kill” method of teaching seems to be most effective when it comes to preparing for standardized tests. But there is a lot more to education than just being able to pass national tests. So, when people say that “drill and kill” is the best method of teaching, I have to disagree. “Drill and kill” is all about being able to absorb information long enough to be able to pass a test on it then move on to new information. Its memorization, memorization, memorization. Then once the test is over, the information is forgotten and it’s time to memorize the next set of information. If administration and teachers allow students to have the chance to exercise their ability to think creatively and critically, it would only enhance the child’s ability to truly understand and expand on the information they are being taught.

There have been many studies that have encouraged people to allow children to explore creative thinking. Critical and creative thinking have many proven positive elements. Some of those elements include improving “learning skills, health, personality development, making new friends and new interests” (The Importance of Creative Expression for Children, 2015). Some argue that an education is more important than having a creative mind because an education leads to success, but it seems as though the previously mentioned would be extremely important to life and happiness. Yes, public school education teaches people things that people need to know to get into college but being able to think creatively and critically allows them to take that knowledge to the next level.

Reference:

Moore, G. (2015, June 17). The importance of creative expression for children). Retrieved from https://newmelodies.com/the-importance-of-creative-expression-for-children/