Hi friends,Here are some additional resources to spark your exploration of the themes covered in this chapter. You are welcome to pick and choose depending on which area interests you:
1. Introduction
a. The Century of the Child
b. PBS Frontline Documentary: Juvenile Justice
2. The Origins of the Dilemma
a. Who Invented Adolescence? - by Mardi Keyes
b. Overview, Historical Background and Theoretical Perspectives
c. Teen Chicago
d. The Opportunity of Adolescence
3. A New Type of Adolescent
a. 4-H History
b. Youth Organizations and the Changing Landscape of Adolescence
c. Boy Scouts History
A statement which really stood out to me was Ellen Key's warning that "...parents who are obsessed with obtaining wealth will raise degenerate children as surely as if parents were addicted to alcohol or opium." (p.7)
And later: "...Without adult attachments, bonds to peers are much stronger than in cultures where families still raise the children. But when the primary source of values comes from the youth subculture itself, children are left without a moral compass." (p.7)
When I think of at-risk youth in marginalized urban, rural contexts, it doesn't seem that their 'at-riskness' is due to their parent's material greed, but rather due to the inability to make ends meet. To pay the bills, parents have to work multiple jobs. So while this might be accurate for some households, other motivations might prompt the emergence of the latch-key phenomena in other settings.
I find it interesting that gangs are often perceived of as a surrogate family. They serve as an alternative form of protection, community, mentoring etc. when parents are absent.
JoEllen Fisherkeller (in her book, Growing up with television) talks about how television provides this too for kids growing up in at-risk communities, but from the perspective that this can be positive.
Is it possible that after-school programs, community centers, churches etc. can provide an alternative safe-space for kids to grow? Is this helpful or not? Are we just perpetuating the disintegration of family systems?
What are your thoughts?
10 comments:
Hi Lourdes,
I agree. Take a look at my posting to see.
Steve
let me just say, i was a latchkey kid. my parents dropped my siblings and i off at the babysitters at 6am, by 7am we were at latchkey and by 8:30 we were at school. afterschool, i was at latchkey till 4pm, then at the babysitters til 6pm at least. i don't remember seeing much of my parents then. the latchkey teachers helped me with my homework, they even had us brush our teeth and eat snack. at the babysitters, the tv was the nanny. i really do believe that the role of family life was not fulfilled in my life until i was about 13, not a good time for me. and that left me lost and confused. my childhood and "midadolescence" were so vastly different, i had a very difficult time adjusting. and frankly i still have trouble with accepting my family as just that, a family. my bonds to peers were not strong at all. i was the suck-up slash teachers' pet. though it didn't pay off grade wise. my most important and treasured relationships were with my teachers and other leaders older than me. they offered the guidance and suppport i was foreign to. and for me that worked and it was enough. but looking back on that time now, i think that it hurt me more than it helped. i feel that's it's important for all youth to have family ties of some sort. sure we hope that all have a strong nuclear family, but not all do. like me. so then we hope that the kid has at least one influential adult in their life to mentor and guide them through life's difficulties. a lot of them don't. that's where i believe, we as youth workers need to step in. we are called to minister to them. to help. that's what ministry is. so we must build those relationships and teach them. and of couse listen.
sure after school programs do provide a safe place for kids to grow up in, but we can't just unlock a building and let them run free on the inside. no. we must take an influential role in their lives and even in their communities and households. do people still visit the children's homes to meet the family? do people conduct seminars to teach others parenting skills? are we even tending the seedlings in our care, and helping them to grow?
as you can probably tell, i do worry about the youth that grow up in programs instead of relationships. they are truly the disenfranchised ones.
-jenn
Yes it is possible for these programs to helping in the growing of youth. but it can not stop there. Kids who do not group up witht hat family support do not grow up in a well behaved way.
the book starts off by talking about how youth that did crimes were being trown into adult jails and being killed. there is something really wrong here when a kid can be in jail with a grown man and be killed likea lab rat.and the US being the higest showed something. Other countrys are more family center than we are it is not just work work work. the family lives and works togehter in those places.
and it talks about how kids us to have to work with there parents. because the family. and then how the kids stop working and start these programs.
but the gave the kids something. and it got them off the streets and they were not in trouble or having to work to help the family. yet some of them still worked so that they could buy things, things that they did not need.
but here we can help with these programs by getting the whole family. so it is a process that the kid grows and grows with there family.
Hi Jenn,
Thank you for your honesty and self-disclosure. it was really brave for you to be so open about your personal story.
A couple of thoughts about programs vs. relationships:
1. Buildings: These are important because the provide a physical public space where kids know they can come.
2. Programs: These are also important because they provide a reason/justification for coming back. If done correctly, these can provide transformational experiences.
3. Relationships: These are the most important. If kids cannot connect with somebody, then regardless of how good a program is, they will quickly become bored and continue their search for hope in different places.
4. Transformation: This is the reason why we have buildings, why we create programs, why we build relationships with kids... This is why we have invested our lives, our time, our energy, our careers for this - because we want to help bring hope to kids who live in the midst of hell.
To build a building, a program, a relationship without intentionally pursuing transformation is to miss the point. I would define transformation as increasing moral, intellectual, social, emotional, physical, psychological, economic, political or spiritual possibility. Anything we do should intentionally pursue one of these goals within the child/teen's life.
A program requires relationship, and a transformational relationship requires a program - maybe not a structured program with bells and whistles. What I mean by program is something designed to pursue the goal of transformation.
Agree or disagree?
Steve
Hi Magrizzle,
Great point! Why do we compartmentalize work with youth and work with families??? I think an integrated approach has some great potential - particularly when you think of the role of youthworker as reconciler.
I think that many of our ideas of youthwork/afterschool programming have been fueled by the modern idea of the factory. Industrialism created the modern school in order to free up parents so that they didn't have to stay at home. Fast food meals freed parents from having to cook time-consuming meals. Television provided instant entertainment which could easily replace conversation. Disposable income served as guilt money to pay off kids for parents absenteeism.
The industrial revolution sparked the modern idea of the individual and the need for compartmentalized, fragmented existence. Dad does what he wants. Mom does what she wants. Kids do what they want. Why? Because that will make them happy?
And so, like the Sims game, we get onto our little wheels and run a furious existence of staying in the same place, uncritical of what we do.
At some point, we need to get off this wheel and ask ourselves WHY we are doing this? I'm glad to see you are critically reflecting on this - seeking to find an alternative solution.
As youthworkers, we also need to ask whether our programs continue to fuel the fragmentation of the family or reconcile the family.
Maybe this requires a new paradigm within which to think about youthwork?
Steve
Hi Kyle,
Thanks for your posting. These are wonderful comments.
I think that they have a good point. Why work without a purpose? We do seem to give kids chores/jobs that appear to be more a token than a much needed part of citizenship.
This is why I love the idea of social entrepreneurship. This gives kids an actual purpose. It looks at their assets and seeks to identify jobs which they can do. This is (in my opinion) a much better solution.
Job creation programs (art-based, media-based, maintanence-based, culinary-based etc.) are something we should really explore in greater detail in class. I'll try to integrate this into the curriculum.
The juvenile situation is also really interesting. Scott Larson is the president of Straight Ahead Ministries. We are ordering some really great video series for our library on work with juvies which you might find well worth exploring.
Steve
steve,
yes i do agree to an extent that we need to have programs intetionally set in place to bring the people in so they can begin the transformation process. but i worry about a program just being a program. with no motives other than just b/c one has to do it. i've seen many a "bad" program. or mis-managed. it happens. when i get onto the feild, i'd like to establish a type of counseling or mentoring program at the corps. such as parenting classes, or other types of support groups. something to mend broken relationships or develop trust. then i think transformation can begin. i'm not totally sure exactly how or what. but something different. but you've got me thinking....
~jenn
Hi Jenn,
True. A program that is not transformational (in my opinion) is an ineffectual program and therefore a waste of time and money! Programs CAN be redeemed, but this moreoften is less about the program and more about the intentionality of the person USING the program. Only people can make programs transformational!
Steve
Can I just say that I do not agree with the authors in regards to chores being incapable of building character?!? It says, “Instead of having youth do real work because their labor was needed, chores were invented for them with the purpose of teaching them responsibility, helpfulness, order, and unselfishness. But pseudo-work does not develop character. In fact, it generally does the opposite.”
When I started 5th grade, my mom had just shut down the Day-Care that she ran out of her home. She started working for law offices, and my dad was busy with his job at an electro-plating plant. It then became the responsibility of my sisters and I to take care of the house. I was also put to work taking care of my sisters in the afternoons until my parents came home. In payment for those chores, my sisters and I received 25 cents for each item on the list that we had completed (this later went to a certain amount of dollars each week, but stayed at $5 for several years, probably well into high school). From this, my sisters and I learned the value of a dollar, and learned to appreciate what we had. Also, from doing such chores as Laundry, Dishes, Floors, Bathrooms, and Making Dinner, my sisters and I were given a sense of ownership of the house.
Never once did I think that my work was meaningless, and never once did I doubt that I was being shaped into who I am today by that work. I think that giving children something to do, something that earns them rewards (suitable to the amount of work done) is a necessary part of their development. I can tell you that my cousins, who lived next door, were never given set chores, and never really earned their allowances. Those cousins were unable to cook anything other than rice or macaroni and cheese. Whereas, my sisters and I can now look at a recipe of any sort and make it (especially the sister who is becoming a chef).
In a child’s development, it is necessary to keep things on the right level, but also to recognize that if they are not challenged they will never learn or grow (mentally). This is also known as stimulation. Working towards a goal (be it money, a trip to Chuck E. Cheese’s, or a desired toy) gives a child a chance to come up with solutions in which the goal can be accomplished. It teaches time management, and a sense of worth. I don’t believe that it is unnecessary or meaningless. Today, too many kids are just handed what they want (guilt money anyone?) with no stipulations. To me, that is more meaningless, but is the fault of the adult, not the child.
Hi Melissa,
Great point! I'm glad to see that you're thinking critically about the book and not just swallowing everything you read.
Sharon and I have the same principle. Work and chores are a great way of teaching responsibility and developing life-skills.
With that being said, I don't think Larson and Brendtro are necesarily saying that chores are bad. They are situating that statement in contrast to youth who were perceived of as active citizens capable of doing a lot more than what we entrust to kids these days. To shift from 'bringing in the bread' to being given token responsibilities could have motivational repurcussions.
In other words, to simply do something in order to keep kids out of trouble is not necc. an effective way of making adolescents active participants in society.
However... A family can accomplish this through chores. It all depends on why/how this is done. It sounds like your parents did a really good job!
Steve
Post a Comment