|
|
|
|
|
|
A Challenging Future: Current Barriers and Recommended Action for Our Field
|
Expanding Social Risk Factors A primary contributor to the increase in unhealthy child development pertains to families and communities. The traditional family structure has changed in the postmodern world (Elkind, 1995). The nuclear family is but one of many family forms as divorce, single-parent families, multiple marriages, and blended families have become the norm. In 1994, only 50.8% of all youths lived with both biological parents (Coontz, 1995). Fifty-nine percent of all children will live in a single-parent household by the age of 18 (Edelman, 1995), and poverty is on the rise. Approximately 22% of all children live at the poverty level, and it is estimated that close to one million children will be homeless in a given year ("By the Numbers," 1995; Harris, 1991). An additional one million or more children will run away from home due to family conflict (Edelman, 1995). Substance abuse in children and adults is approaching crisis levels. It is estimated that nearly 10 million children under age 18 are negatively affected by substance-abusing parents and that 10% of all children born in the United States are exposed to prenatal drug abuse (Edelman, 1995). One study found that 39% of high school seniors reported getting drunk regularly, and over one million adolescents are regular marijuana users (National Commission, 1990). Children and youth who are poor, male, and nonwhite are especially at risk in our society. Since many students labeled EBD fit this profile, we must wonder what it is about our society that jeopardizes the health, well-being, and educational and social success of such a specific population. At the same time that societal risk factors are increasing, support services for children and their families are continually targeted for funding cuts or elimination. Members of the 104th Congress entered their session vowing to severely cut human service programs, believing they had this mandate from their constituencies. Fortunately, as a result of intense efforts from advocacy groups and individuals who would be most affected by such cuts, most programs were left intact. However, certain welfare programs were significantly reduced, particularly for individuals with mental impairments, thus weakening the safety net for these individuals (Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, 1996a). While fiscal year 1997 funding allows most existing mental health programs to continue, it does not allow for expansion to new sites as originally planned (Koyanagi & Schulzinger, 1996). There are promising models for integrated service delivery using a "wrap-around" approach in which needed services are provided in neighborhood schools (e.g., the CASSP model, Stroul & Friedman, 1986); however, these programs often face stiff opposition on several fronts, particularly from groups opposed to increased spending for social services and groups opposed to such programs being placed in schools. In addition, existing programs fall short of meeting the mental health needs for all students. For example, mental health services for incarcerated children are almost nonexistent (Federation of Families, 1996a). Unfortunately, for most children and youth with EBD, the few services they receive are too little, too late, and often too fragmented to be of real value. Not only is there a dearth of support services, there a growing attitude of vengeance for children who are victims of the many negative societal influences. The recent trend in the United States has been to cut spending for proactive, preventative approaches to EBD such as family preservation and nutrition programs, comprehensive educational services (i.e., school counselors, supported inclusion, separate therapeutic settings), integrated service delivery, and effective levels of mental health treatment. Instead, the trend is to build more prisons, including juvenile detention centers (Butterfield, 1992; Walker et al., 1995); to escalate punishments (e.g., increased calls for caning, state policies to create alternative schools for "disruptive" students, boot camps, the return to chain gangs, prisoners housed in tents); and to erase the distinction between juvenile and adult crimes and punishment (e.g., juvenile offenders being housed with adult offenders, capital punishment considered for juveniles). Perhaps most frightening is that legislative reform follows public sentiment and that we have large segment of our population calling for such drastic, largely ineffective measures. One reason behind this punitive public reaction is the ever more terrifying acts of violence pervading our society — from the legalized violence of professional sports and the graphic violence displayed in movies and television to family abuse and random aggression in neighborhoods and schools. Too many children are exposed at an early age to violence in their homes (Edelman, 1995) and to negative, harsh, coercive disciplinary tactics that perpetuate aggressive behavior (Larson, 1994; Patterson, 1982). Children are bombarded daily with violent episodes on television, in music, and in movies (Evans, 1996; Wulf, 1995), acts which some children tend to imitate (Wartella, 1994). Neighborhoods are often unsafe because of gang activity, drug dealing, guns, and frequent homicides. This is especially true of inner city neighborhoods where many of our poor, male, nonwhite children live. Schools, too, are no longer safe havens. One of the most obvious indicators of violence in schools is the fact that approximately 135,000 students bring guns to school each day (Edelman, 1995). Less obvious is the fact that many schools function as setting events for aggressive, antisocial behavior due to overcrowding; harsh, punitive, and inconsistent disciplinary practices; inexperienced teachers; weak staff support; and few allowances (in teaching strategies, curriculum, and discipline) for individual differences (Mayer, 1995; Walker et al., 1995). Such situations may have little negative effect on the behavior of students with well-developed self-control and social skills and students who are sufficiently motivated and skillful to overcome such antecedents. However, students with, or at risk of, EBD do not have these skills. These students are the ones who react inappropriately to negative setting events, and who then may be severely punished. The mood of vengeance toward challenging students and their families also is caused by funding shortages. For example, a family in South Dakota whose autistic son has been placed in an expensive residential setting at local taxpayer expense has been receiving hate mail from former friends (Allis, 1996). Due to inadequate federal funding, local taxpayers have been increasingly "footing the special education bill." Perhaps this explains the rapid move by school administrators to incorporate full inclusion practices. On the surface, inclusion appears to cost less than separate classrooms with low student-teacher ratios (Allis, 1996). Fund depletion also explains the general move to reduce the number of referrals to special education, to reduce accountability requirements, and to define "appropriate education" in terms of minimum effects. Next
Section - Previous Section |
