|
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
(According to the School)
By Lon Woodbury, MA, C.E.P.
Lon@woodbury.com
Reprint: The Woodbury Reports, Inc.
Newsletter, issue #89, January 2002
Every school that works with children with behavioral/emotional
problems has a basic philosophy. Though perhaps not formalized
into a written statement, this philosophy, or worldview, is
the basis for the way in which a program attempts to answer
the question: “Why?” Why do some children make self-destructive
decisions, while others make constructive or positive decisions?
The school's basic philosophy then determines the kind of
intervention they think will best change a child's thinking
and behaviors from negative to positive.
When a parent is comparing schools or programs, the usual
custom is to look at externals, for example, the staff's credentials,
counseling techniques and amount of structure provided. Important
as these are, a more basic way of comparing schools would
be to examine their philosophy. This will reveal what the
school considers to be the underlying cause of the child's
problem, along with the type of intervention the school is
likely to emphasize. Only when a school's philosophical assumptions
match your child's actual problems will the chances for success
be maximized.
Schools and programs that work with struggling teens seem
to adhere to one of three basic philosophies: Therapeutic,
Emotional Growth, or Behavior Modification. Of course most
schools and programs have a mixture of two or all three philosophies,
so it might be difficult to tell which one dominates. However,
if parents can determine the dominating philosophy of a school
or program, they can anticipate how the school or program
handles specific situations.
THERAPEUTIC:
This theory dominated our society's approach for working with
negative behaviors since the early 1960s when alcoholism was
legally determined to be a disease instead of a moral weakness.
Based largely on studies in abnormal psychology, in its pure
form it assumes negative behavior is caused by a disease or
disorder, which must be cured, or at least treated. The assumption
is that only after the “disorder” is controlled, is there
a chance for healthy behavior.
This theory is considered to be “science-based”, partly from
its apparent precision as reflected in the DSM-IV, and is
well accepted by the public for that reason. It is also a
great tool for relieving parental guilt: “No wonder my parenting
didn't work, he is ADHD.”
This is also the dominant expectation of legislative bodies
and regulatory agencies: “How can a school or program possibly
be safe or effective without a lot of credentialed therapists
on staff?”
A program with this as its underlying philosophy has the
goal of removing the disease, which in this case is considered
the obstacle to healthy behavior.
EMOTIONAL GROWTH:
This term, coined by pre-1990 CEDU schools, is based largely
on the principles of healthy living as found in personal growth
books, studies and self-improvement seminars. It assumes self-destructive
decisions are caused by delayed emotional development or immaturity,
and the solution is to help the child grow up. Its key approach
is to maintain a tight structure with immediate and appropriate
consequences for negative behavior. Through consequences and
a strong basic sense of right and wrong on the part of the
staff, these schools attempt to duplicate as closely as possible,
the typical growth and development of a child within a healthy
family.
The goal of this approach is consistent with what philosophers
such as Plato described as, “the virtuous life” and is comparable
to “Character Education,” which became popular in public school
reforms in recent years.
Its goal is to change self-destructive and limiting attitudes.
BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION:
This was a leading concept in psychology in the 1950s, and
is still a very influential concept. The explanation for why
a child behaves the way he/ she does would be, “Who knows?”
Claiming that behavior is the only thing a person can really
know about another person, the intervention through behavior
modification is to require certain behaviors of the students.
The assumption is that if the students start behaving in positive
ways, the reinforced behavior is likely to stay with the child
once the program is completed. The goal of a program with
this philosophical orientation is for its students to achieve
immediate conformity to staff expectations.
EXAMPLES OF EACH APPROACH:
The techniques used by a program in a given situation will
vary depending upon a program's basic philosophy. The following
are examples of how each of these three program philosophies
will cause a situation to be handled differently.
A Behavioral Modification school or program will rely heavily
on punishment, since in the short run that is the fastest
way to achieve conformity. Often the punishment will be pointless
physical work. An Emotional Growth school or program will
reject punishment as counterproductive, especially in the
long run, and develops its structure to emphasize consequences.
This is so the child can learn the consequences of his/her
behaviors, and thus grow in maturity. Consequences might be
physical work, but always with a useful purpose so the child
can have something to point to with pride that he/she had
accomplished. How to discipline in a therapeutic school or
program is not an integral part of their primary philosophy
so discipline can vary widely among therapeutic institutions,
depending on the attitudes of management and key staff. The
philosophies can be a blend: the use of physical restraint
is an extreme Behavioral Modification, which might be necessary
in any institution. On the other hand, many successful therapists
will integrate emotional growth attitude techniques to help
create more positive attitudes as part of therapy.
The role played by staff differs in a fundamental way. Behavioral
Modification staff plays an authoritarian role. The Drill
Sergeant in a Boot Camp is a classic example of this role.
“You do it my way or it will be painful.” Emotional Growth
staff act as mentors, trying to duplicate the kind of advice
that might ordinarily come from a kindly Aunt, Uncle or Grandparent.
They are authority figures, but not authoritarian. “It is
your decision, but this is what will happen if you decide
to do this.” In a therapeutic school or program, staff and
especially therapists, are the ultimate authority figure,
but whether they carry their role out as mentors or authoritarian
figures depends on the personality of the therapists and the
customs of the school or program.
The only decision allowed a student in a Behavioral Modification
school or program is whether or not to conform to expectations.
Even when a child is given increased responsibility and privileges,
it is always dependent upon keeping the staff satisfied. Students
in an Emotional Growth school or program can make many decisions,
but must live with the consequences of their decisions. As
their responsibility level increases, the choices they can
make will expand. Again, therapeutic schools and programs
can vary, from a popular image of beefy orderlies enforcing
the rules, to another popular image of kindly therapists and
staff sensitively helping children work through their issues.
In the many years I've worked in this field, it is my observation
that residential treatment for struggling teens has and is
still drastically changing, reflecting changing philosophies
in our society. In the early 1980s, students I interviewed
that had been in therapeutic institutions usually reported
they had either too much time on their hands with little to
do between therapy sessions, or that in between therapy sessions
they were subject to Behavioral Modification's detailed expectations
and punishment if they did not conform.
The quality therapeutic schools and programs I now encounter
have dropped many of their Behavioral Modification techniques
and achieved a good balance using both therapy and motivational
techniques to cause attitudinal change. I think this reflects
a change in treatment concepts in this country. The success
of Emotional Growth schools made the point that there were
better and more effective ways to work with young people between
therapy sessions - techniques and concepts that could better
supplement therapy. Of course, it is still debatable whether
it is the therapy or structure that has the most important
impact on the patients/students. Though the popular vision
is it is the therapy that produces the miracles, it is now
obvious that therapy by itself is usually not enough. In other
words, effective therapeutic institutions will need the two-fold
approach of both working to remove pathological obstacles,
AND creating a shift towards more healthy attitudes, if they
want to be successful.
Of course the above, relates to residential intervention
for young people suffering from serious mental disorders or
diseases. How about the child that is just spoiled, angry
or rebellious without a serious diagnosis? In that case, intensive
treatment isn't necessary, and the child can be better served
in a school or program with Emotional Growth as a primary
philosophy. If a child's behaviors can't be explained by obvious
trends in psychological tests, an intensive therapeutic institution
could be harmful; the child would be better served in a program
that was primarily based on an Emotional Growth philosophy.
Behavioral Modification? It certainly seems to dominate juvenile
justice systems, and I know few that are satisfied with the
living environment or its effectiveness.
Hopefully this discussion has served to illustrate how a
program's philosophy can affect its overall approach, and
why it is vital for parents to understand the causes of their
child's problem so they can make a more informed program choice
- before they jump for the first plausible school or program
they encounter.
Copyright © 2005,
Woodbury Reports, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(This article may not be reproduced without written approval
of the publisher.)
Return to Strugglingteens.com
Home
|
