Scarecrow Child

2009-08-04T10:36:00.000-04:00

And When I'm Gone.... - A Story of Child Abuse and Desperation

2008-03-04T10:34:00.018-05:00

Shhhhhh...! - A Story of Child Abuse and Love

2008-03-04T10:19:00.015-05:00

Lazy-bones Jones - A Story of Child Abuse and Perseverance

2008-03-04T09:29:00.015-05:00

Nonnie's Doll - A Story of Child Abuse and Understanding

2008-03-04T09:10:00.016-05:00

The Lilacs Will Bloom - A Story of Child Abuse and Faith

2008-02-29T11:31:00.015-05:00

The Schoolhouse Mouse - A Story of Child Abuse and Resilience

2008-02-29T11:20:00.012-05:00

Yesterday - A Poem

2008-02-28T13:55:00.006-05:00

Yesterday
A book
An empty shelf
Shroud of dust
Left behind
So long ago.

Another self?

We meet
Greet
Aware Divine
Silver thread spun fine
Sensed more than seen
Intuitively surmised lacking

Substance?

Something real defined
No doubt
Trembling hand
Reaches
Opens
Lingering sense of me

Inspired?

Shared within
A treatise
My Little Book of Love
In child's hand
Dust brushed away
Trust rising

A link?

Innocence
Lost
Recognized key
Unlocks dark places
Child within
Who knew

Love?

Look

Nothing
Turn

Disbelief

Turn turn turn

Empty pages

All?

All
She believed
Love would fill a book
But not a word
Not a word
She knew no more of love than I.

Surprised?

*******************************************

The Kitchen Witch - A Story of Abuse and Love

2008-02-28T11:46:00.008-05:00

Kicking the Dog - A Poem

2008-02-25T13:15:00.011-05:00

"Stop that!
"You better stop that now!
"Why are you kicking that dog?" he cried in disbelief.

"Because, he's bad."
"Really, really, really bad," she said.
"And because he makes me very, very, very mad."

"That's no reason,
"No reason to kick a dog.
"There's never a good reason to kick a dog."

"There's not?"
"Never? Ever? No matter what?"
Eyes opened wide, surprised, she asked, "But..."

"But... if it's wrong to kick a dog,
"For no reason, not even if he's very bad,
"Or when I'm feeling really mad, then why" she cried,

"Why, when it's me that's bad,
"Or when he's feeling screaming crazy-mad,
Says he's seeing red, 'cause of something I did or said,

Why is it okay then when it's Dad that's kicking me?"

*************************************************

Children's Books List with Abused or Neglected Child Characters

2008-02-25T12:42:00.022-05:00

Child Abuse, Neglect, Literature Bibliography

2008-02-23T15:58:00.045-05:00

Child Abuse, Neglect and Picture Books - Part V - pp 224-251

2008-02-21T09:21:00.018-05:00

Child Abuse, Neglect and Picture Books - Part IV - pp 204-223

2008-02-19T08:37:00.028-05:00

Child Abuse, Neglect and Picture Books - Part III- pp 186-203

2008-02-18T08:30:00.031-05:00

Child Abuse, Neglect and Picture Books - Part II

2008-02-17T10:44:00.025-05:00

Child Abuse, Neglect and Picture Books - Part I

2008-02-16T07:25:00.022-05:00

Although nearly a decade has passed since I completed this paper, little has changed on this subject. I continue to believe this is an important issue that needs more attention.

Abused and neglected children deserve to see themselves portrayed as positive characters in picture books.

Several more picture books have been published addressing sensitive issues including child abuse and neglect since I completed this paper, but nowhere near enough to satisfy the still growing need.

Literature for older age groups now includes many more books with well written believable stories, in which children who are abused and neglected are portrayed as believable children surviving and succeeding in spite of living in believable but terrible situations. The best of these books entertain, as all quality literature does. They aren't the didactic books of earlier times.

Many of the stories have believable endings, unlike so many of the earlier fairy tale, happily-ever-after endings. They reflect the reality of millions of children who continue to hope, but know there are no simple solutions in a world that continues to talk about the importance of all children, but act as if these children do not exist.

I expect that may change soon as child abuse has become the cause de'jure globaly for everything from Hedge Funds fund-raising galas, to Get-Rich-Quick Pyramid-Scheme company conventions. More books and articles are written, more products and services become available, even in the Blog world child abuse serves as an increasing focus. Child abuse is no longer a hidden epidemic.

More and more organizations related in some way to research, prevention, treatment, public policy, and so forth dedicate ever increasing funds to making a difference for abused and neglected children. Unfortunately, ever more organizations dependent on some form of government funding to continue effective programs for abused and neglected children struggle to offer those services in the face of ever decreasing funding.

Change is in the air... I hope that change includes a new look at child abuse and neglect related issues and subjects, including those I address in this paper. More importantly, I hope that change includes more actions that benefit the millions of children who continue to suffer every day that passes.

I offer this work here as an additional word to the ever-opening dialogue that I consider more important than most others.

A Child is Waiting.
Take Care...Be Aware.
Nancy

All Life Suffering... - A Poem

2008-02-10T12:52:00.002-05:00

All Life Suffering...

All Life
Mystics Say
Nothing Suffering

Along the Way
Timeless Space
Nothing Supreme

No Thing Is
More Real Dream
Call Life Everything

But Illusion
Birth Death
Spring Forth Silent Collusion

Conspire Lightly
Drifting Dark
Less Notice Less Growth

Suspect
Singing Morning Lark
Notice Child Living Flower Dying

Know
Absent Lying
Less Truth

Cowardly Aged Lion
Lacking Claw
No Tooth

Stalk
Night Tide Hunter
Lesser Beast of Prey Pray

No Suffering
Bruised Children
No Pain No Rainbow

No Illusion
Children Hiding
Crying Dying Not.

All Life Suffering
Not
No Thing No Suffering.

**************************************

Scarecrow Lies? - A Poem

2008-02-03T15:43:00.003-05:00

sometimes
i
lie
but never scarecrow!

because
you
see
he could never lie!

you
have
to
know what truth is

before you ever lie about it.

*****************************

Conflicting Times: Multiculturalism, Individualism and Diversity

2008-02-03T14:40:00.000-05:00

I appologize for this sloppy-copy draft, with it's messed up formatting, but offer the thought process here as another point of view on a controversial subject. The debate continues and broadens as the global family stretches.

Multiculturalism and Individualism: Creating a
Foundation for Recognition of Diversity in Pre-Kindergarten

Nancy Gray
Capella University
June 20, 2004

Abstract

The dichotomous relationship that frequently results when multiculturalism and individualism are viewed as separate when considering the foundational definition of diversity when determining curriculum choices is examined at the Pre-Kindergarten level of educational cultures. Positive and negative considerations and barriers related to teaching in an environment predominantly disposed toward an emphasis on multiculturalism or individualism are explored through a review of existing literature. Macro-multicultural programs that are based on generally globally diverse elements that emphasize group cooperation, collaboration and community while minimizing individualism are contrasted with micro-multicultural programs based on promoting an integration according to local community demographics as represented within the classroom. The micro-cultural program focuses attention first on diversity as it is represented in the classroom and the extended environment of the children. Next, higher lever thinking related to individual diversity as a natural occurrence for everything in and out of the classroom is encouraged. Once the concept of diversity is firmly developed and accepted as both natural, nonthreatening, and beneficial, diversity as related to groups in general, and finally as cultures, is introduced.

Table of Contents

Abstract 2

Table of Contents 3

Introduction 4

Multiculturalism or Individualism:
Dichotomy or Dichotomy? 8

Pre-Kindergarten: Putting the Pieces together 20

The Pre-Kindergarten Classroom Culture:
The New Family 21

Macro- Versus Micro-culturalism in the PreK Classroom:

The Natural Way of Learning 22

Conclusion 24

References 25

Multiculturalism and Individualism:

Creating a Foundation for Recognition of

Diversity in Pre-Kindergarten

The first step

In any multicultural transformative process

Is to examine

What issues, biases, prejudices, and assumptions

I carry into the classroom
And how these inform my curriculum.
In fact, I must constantly engage in a process of

Examining and critiquing my own perspective
Because this will also affect the way

I approach transformation.
(Gorski, 2004b)

Multicultural education is "at risk." A crisis of legitimacy threatens what Banks describes as an "idea, an educational reform movement, and a process (Banks, 1997). Emerging evidence suggests that the new light on the horizon of education, segregation based on religion, will continue development in the glare of media interest, pushing multicultural education as formerly conceived into the shadows. But as an African proverb reminds us, today is not yesterday. Nor is it tomorrow.

And, for today at least, multicultural education remains a favorite topic for research and discussion. The range of discussions is broad and diverse. Perhaps it is as diverse as people or everything else known in our universe, although indications are that in general the discussions have polarized into for, against, and who cares, rather than why, how and who will benefit from education that is multicultural. Perhaps the key to opening more minds to diversity in teaching and learning as natural, nonthreatening, and beneficial will be in changing the focus of educational idea, reform and process from multicultural to egalitarian. Perhaps then educators will focus less on the political, social and economic rights related to education and more on a purpose of education as a means to enable all to achieve at the highest levels possible to each.

For those still firmly embedded in a belief system that puts multicultural in the preeminent position, multicultural education is as Bank defines it akin to a trifecta. To win, one must correctly pick the first, second and third place finishers in a race. The idea, the educational reform movement and the process must win, place and show, albeit not necessarily in that order.

"Multiculturalism has largely failed," says student Ibrahim Hewitt. "We are not all the same. Why should we all be moulded to be the same? It is a very misguided approach. Integration should not be mentioned in a democracy." (Berliner, 2004)

Teachers and students in the mid-range "believe that racially integrated schooling is important." But, "when asked what effect racially diverse environments have on achievement, half of teachers and three-quarters of students responded that integrated classes have no impact on student learning."(Reid, 2004)

At the far end of the continuum of opinions, Locke says "multiculturalism is a grave threat to this country. Multiculturalism is a threat to education;" He too points out a recurring theme. "People are individuals; they are not interchangeable ciphers in an amorphous collective."(Locke, 1998)
In the following, Banks offers descriptions of what each of his three facets of multicultural education must attempt to do in order to succeed.
As an idea, multicultural education seeks to create equal educational opportunities for all students, including those from different racial, ethnic, and social-class groups. Multicultural education tries to create equal educational opportunities for all students by changing the total school environment so that it will reflect the diverse cultures and groups within a society and within the nation's classrooms. Multicultural education is a process because its goals are ideals that teachers and administrators should constantly strive to achieve. (Banks, 2004)

Unfortunately, as clear as the descriptions seem to be, closer examination reveals that the term "multicultural" is superfluous to the primary concept. Quality education as an idea, educational reform movement and process serves as well. The missing element from Banks definitions about multicultural education appears to be the individual.

Multicultural education as proposed by many of its proponents is oppositional. In a the existing culture of the United States, founded on diversity as evidenced through an Individualism that suggests the individual is a free agent, entitled to succeed or fail according to his or her own choices, a school culture emphasizing multicultural as a diversity of preference for curriculum development that displaces the responsibility of the individual, placing responsibility on a "group" divides more than it integrates.

The dichotomous relationship that frequently results when multiculturalism and individualism are viewed as separate when considering the foundational definition of diversity when determining curriculum choices at the Prekindergarten level is examined. Positive and negative considerations and barriers related to teaching in an environment predominantly disposed toward an emphasis on multiculturalism or individualism are explored through a review of existing literature. Macro-multicultural programs that are based on generally globally diverse elements that emphasize group cooperation, collaboration and community while minimizing individualism are contrasted with the possibility of micro-multicultural programs. The micro-programs are based on promoting an integration according to local community demographics as represented within the Pre-K classroom. Such a program focuses first on diversity as it is represented there, regardless of the demographic "mix" of students and faculty.

After thoroughly developing an understanding of the concept of diversity through every subject that arises naturally through teacher facilitated/student centered discussions and teacher-guided, curriculum specific, learning experiences the class proceeds to higher lever thinking related to diversity as a natural foundation for everything in and out of the classroom from the children's home culture to the emerging global culture of which they are a part. Finally, around the age of 4, when the children have acquired the capacity to "understand that they and others can have false beliefs" (Perner et al.,1992 in (Campbell & Christopher, 1999)the foundation of diversity as natural, beneficial, and desirable will be easier to apply to themselves and others, both as individuals and as groups, deemed somehow unlike them.

Multiculturalism or Individualism: Dichotomy or Dichotomy?

…it is very helpful to suggest that
diversity is not so much an end in itself
as it is a condition of our society
and a condition of the world in which we live.
Frank Wong

In Sedona, Arizona a red rock formation stands silhouetted against the sky. It is easy to believe the Native American peoples of the area who tell the tale that the formation that appears to be one red rock sculpture actually represents a man and a woman, standing back to back. According to legend the reason is that the man and woman learned doing so did not mean as generally suggested that they were in opposition, perhaps standing in hostility and resistance to one another, seeing things differently and unwilling or unable to look at anything in the same way. On the contrary, the man and woman stood that way because they learned by doing so they doubled their capacity to see their world in all directions. They were equal partners in spite of their differences, gaining from their willingness to work together while trusting the vision of each regardless of differences to benefit them as partners.

Multiculturalism and Individualism could be such equal partners. Even the word dichotomy, usually used to suggest opposition in its negative sense, is used in a biological sense as a dividing into two equal parts in a positive sense. Unfortunately, in their zeal to change society some proponents of multicultural education, prefer to stand arms firmly locked together in an impenetrable wall against everything this country was founded on as though nothing good is there. How would they know as long as they look in only one direction?

Sonia Nieto is one of the major proponents of multicultural education, as she sees it. According to James A. Banks, Sonia Nieto is considered one of the leading theorists in multicultural education.(P. xi). (Nieto, 1999). She is introduced that way when she appears on panels, lectured, and other public venues. She begins her book on "creating multicultural learning communities" with the basic declaration that "Many children today live in circumstances so difficult that they would have been unthinkable even a decade or two ago." Few would dispute the assertion that children today live in difficult circumstances. However, she then qualifies the statement by continuing, "…conditions including abject poverty, disrupted families, homelessness, neglect, violence, and drug abuse," (P. xxi), none of which are circumstances new to today's children. History is replete with references to Lloyd Demause's "nightmare of childhood" (Demause), to Elizabeth Barrett Browning's "children weeping," and Alice Miller's "poisonous pedagogy" and "hidden cruelty" toward children. (Miller, 1981, 1984, 1990, 1991, 2002). The fact is "Thanks to researchers from Duke University and the Foundation for Child Development, there is now a Child Well-Being Index (C.W.I.), according to which kids were faring 5 percent better as of 2003 than they were in 1975. (Hulbert, 2004)

If Nieto is no more knowledgeable about multicultural education than the quote above indicates she is about children's circumstances today or decades ago, her credentials as a leading authority may be equally as questionable, possibly even "unthinkable" to others in this heavily debated field. Perhaps Nieto and others who choose to look in one direction could learn something important from the red rock formation.

Nieto develops her concept of multicultural education through a series of questions based on the "premise that context is always implicated in learning." P. 1 (Nieto, 1999)In her book(Nieto, 1999)the social and political context of education that Nieto constructs serves her as a straw man towards which she aims her vitriolic ammunition and upon whose supine remains she then heaps her scorn. When she quotes Paolo Freire, "Reading is re-writing what we are reading," (In Nieto, p. 14)she offers a clue about the source of her own perspective on the context within which she views multicultural learning. Postmodernists do say that the reader writes the text, but that is not quite the same thing as Nieto suggests.

The intensity of Nieto's disdain for what she labels "cultural capital," that economic privilege and advantage that she maintains automatically accrues to "students from socially and culturally dominant groups," those "intangibles as values, tastes, and behaviors and through cultural identities such as language, dialect, and ethnicity" p. 6 (Nieto, 1999)serves to blind the reader to the shallowness of her arguments. Left to her unquestioned position she spins securely bound in place as she weaves her dangerous web.

Culture, Nieto claims, influences learning. Substitute "learning environment" for the now inflammatory word "culture" and Nieto's arguments are similar to the "static thinking" she accuses "teachers" of developing as a result of their "aversion …to focusing on the cultural differences of their students." p. 9 (Nieto, 1999) Apparently she does not consider the influence of teachers' justified fear of failing to be "politically correct" on their "aversion…to focusing on the cultural differences of their students" in the classroom. She ignores their context, a context unfortunately resulting from unintended consequences of well-intentioned efforts to create "conditions...in schools that can help most students learn." (p.25) Culture, and most things related to it have become the most dangerous of "dirty words" within the educational environment!

Nieto also ignores consideration of the influence exerted on textbook and test publishers by both left and right wing ideologues, to be "politically correct." Multicultural committees at MacMillan/McGraw-Hill check for "relevancy, authenticity, stereotypes, and historical accuracy" and insure that all textbook programs are infused with multicultural material." (Jones, 2002)
In order to appease myriad such special interest groups that might deem some materials politically incorrect by someone, somewhere, sometime, suspect are vetted out of educational products. That artificially restricted context leaves little beside innocuous pap as content from which teachers are expected to teach and children to learn...anything… least of all anything interesting or remotely related to diversity or challenging multicultural information.

Literature, long believed the gateway to abstraction and difficult thinking is "dumbed down." Whereas children used to be challenged with works from the now denigrated whiteman's canon of Western literature, today Eighth graders get to teethe on "safe" writings such as "Hilda: The Hen Who Wouldn’t Give Up." (Hull, 2000). Why? Researchers find that "exposing children to literature that includes characters, settings, and events similar to their lived experiences produces positive academic, personal, and social results virtually identical to those generated by the Multicultural Literacy Program." P. 132 Gay To whom is Hilda the hen meaningful?

The president of Harcourt Brace expresses frustration at "pressure from a multitude of special-interest groups" so that "various sensibilities…can be accommodated" but they "give in to these demands." The results give children a "double dose of irrationality." And the lesson learned in this context? "The group's wishes are omnipotent," math is animated "by consensus" and history by "group agreement."(Hull, 2000).

For Neito "the ugly realities of racism and social class bias, among other forms of discrimination, and the ways in which these are manifested, are a taboo subject to discuss because they challenge the ideal that advancement and achievement are based on merit, not on social class status or racial privileges." P. 21 (Nieto, 1999)
Nieto's "Unearned privilege" certainly exists, but it is not as narrowly applied as she suggests. In fact, it is spreading across all boundaries. Recently, a former president of Princeton called for "preferences like those granted to minorities" for all students(even white ones!) as long as they are "low income." He said "such affirmative action…is necessary if the top colleges are to be 'engines of opportunity' rather than 'bastions of privilege.'" (Arenson, 2004)

Before now, "affirmative action" as seen by the poor white is as unearned a privilege as is being born to a rich stupid white man, or famous beautiful black woman, or favored Latino entertainer. Being created and born equal does not mean one is guaranteed equal measures of opportunity or success by whatever definition. In fact there seems to be no guarantee by any standard, least of all the bastion of privilege, or its opposite. (Eakin, 2004)Oprah, Powell, Rice do not share the same roots and yet they achieved success by most standards. Bill Clinton and his brother do. One can be born to every possible "unearned privilege" and yet fail to achieve anything considered of value. Likewise another can be born to poverty and considered "at risk" because of every identifiable characteristic. Neither condition assures a child of a certain future. Condoleeza Rice recently told a group of graduating students to beware of ever thinking that just because they deserve something, they will get it. And, she added, "Don't ever assume that just because you get something it means you deserve it."

Educators and theorists do all children a disservice to suggest otherwise. Those of the "in" group lead to believe that they have all the advantages struggle under expectations by themselves and others of achieving levels of success that may be beyond their capabilities. Self-guilt and low self-esteem result. The "out" group lead to believe that nothing they do will make a difference because they lack the advantages of others, struggles against low expectations by themselves and others. Feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and eventually blame against those perceived responsible result. There are few winners for either "side" in this sad scenario.

Multicultural education, intended to improve life for some, misapplied threatens all. In attempts to "foster positive self esteem" [words from a resolution from the National Education Association] artificial means are used to inflate poor self-images. Unearned praise is substituted for encouragement to achieve, regardless of research that Alfred Adler's notion that "encouragement promotes the most healthy self-concepts and behavior patterns in children." (Carns & Carns, 1998).

One author,(Ghate, 2000),who views multiculturalism as potentially destructive, and individualism as the way to offer all students positive alternatives suggests:
Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself. It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success.

Seeing from the other side, Gorski, says "The underlying goal of multicultural education is to affect social change." Gorski explains that the direction "toward this goal" requires three things. First is the "transformation of self." Second is the "transformation of schools and schooling." And third is the "transformation of society."(Gorski, 2004a).

Whether intentionally or not, Ghate and Gorski appear to see only one direction. Like a horse with blinders on whose view is limited, restricted to one narrow goal… with one way to reach it. A horse so blinded has a rider, someone who sees more and holds the reins, prepared to make adjustments if necessary. Proponents of Multicultural education who wear blinders restricting vision of alternative directions that may reach the goal they see as the only one have to avoid anything that interferes with it. Suggest racism is not something that only applies to minorities, or groups of color, as for the white student who said "My circle of friends is so integrated -- Asian, African-Americans, Latino -- all the different colors of the rainbow." Unlike, she continued, "In seventh and eighth grade, race was more of a problem because people called me cracker and Saltine."

She explained the change not as a result of multicultural education but because "Two weeks into freshman year, people stopped looking at race because there are so many different races at the high school." (Gordon, Chilson, & Randall, 2004) In other words, a natural change occurred when given an environment in which it could. A recent poll indicates "An overwhelming majority of public school teachers and students believe that racially integrated schooling is important." Ironically, given the insistence of its importance on the proponents of multicultural education and integration, "half of teachers and three-quarters of students responded that integrated classes have no impact on student learning.(Reid, 2004). Even Nieto mentions the "Catholic Effect" and disappointing results in various excellent multicultural education programs implemented throughout the country but fails to make the simple connection that maybe something is missing.

Nieto suggests "multicultural education has failed to have an immediate and direct connection to student learning because for the most part it has not broken out of a rather shallow 'holidays and heroes' mold." P. 163. She admits "Unraveling the mystery of how particular conditions and beliefs interact to support or thwart learning is difficult at best," but she does not consider the possibility that it has failed because essentially as an idea, educational reform and process it is flawed. If children are taught that the "system" is against them, that they are victims and must create change that seems beyond them, else nothing they do will succeed in bringing them the "fair fruits of their labors," where are their options? Why should they apply themselves?

Some theorists, researchers and educators suggest "school evaluation, competition, and social comparison make it difficult for many children to maintain the belief that they are competent academically. " Covington (1992) The "failure avoidance strategies developed by children may be attributed to efforts "to avoid appearing to lack ability…[including] procrastination, making excuses, avoiding challenging tasks, and perhaps most important, not trying." Covington & Omelich (1979) Others add: "Although trying is important for success (and is encouraged by both teachers and parents), if children try and fail, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that they lack ability. Therefore, if failure seems likely, some children will not try, precisely because trying and failing threatens their ability self-concepts." (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).

Not surprisingly findings suggest that "Rather than responding to a challenging task with greater effort, these students may try to avoid the task in order to maintain both their own sense of competence, and others' conclusions regarding their competence." (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).

Unfortunately, the solutions suggested for changing these behaviors involved "reducing the frequency and salience of competitive, social comparative, and evaluative practices, and focusing instead on effort, mastery, and improvement" as a means for "children to maintain their self-worth without having to resort to these failure-avoiding strategies." (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).

Again, there appears to be a blind spot evident in these popular Multicultural education proponent conclusions. These same children hear at home, in their neighborhoods, even in classrooms that the "system" is against them. They believe they can't succeed because of something over which they have no control. Unlike Edison who is said to have failed some 500 times or more before "inventing" the light bulb these children are said to be unwilling to risk even one more failure for no other reason than that they "failed" at something? Something seems illogical about that to anyone who has spent time with children learning to walk. Personal failure possibly isn't the source of the problem of children not applying themselves in school. But the emphasis on past and present injustices as unassailable barriers, without equal exposure to those who succeed when faced with the same situation might be.

Researchers insist "there is an urgent need for research that identifies relationships among emergent competencies and school adjustment for vulnerable populations of children." Age-appropriate competencies and significant contexts need to be distinguished. Activities to "build capacities across contexts to foster these competencies" need to be identified. (Cicchetti & Lynch, 1993). (Fantuzzo & McWayne, 2002) Once these are known, they need to be used in the environment at a stage of development where maximum benefits will result.

Pre-Kindergarten: Putting the Pieces Together

…despite research
linking good pre-K programs with later academic success,
early care and education in the United States
is essentially a nonsystem consisting of
a "patchwork of programs."
Shore

According to Boris Sidis, the problems of education are "fundamental." He mentions historically that the ancient Greeks knew that. Plato, he says, insisted on "education as the foundation of a new social, moral and intellectual life." And speaking through Socrates, Plato said:

Then you are aware that in every work the beginning is the most important part, especially in dealing with anything young and tender? For that is the time when any impression which one may desire to communicate is most readily stamped and taken."(Boris SidisJournal of Abnormal Psychology, 1919)

In the United States, the nineteen million children under the age of five could benefit from early education (Staresina, 2004). Longitudinal studies such as The High/Scope Perry Preschool project provide "comprehensive evaluations of the lasting impact of prekindergarten." (Staresina, 2004). Head Start, the "premiere" preschool public program, created in 1964 as "part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's anti-poverty agenda, provides economically deprived preschoolers with education, nutrition, health and social services" for nearly 900,000 children. (Staresina, 2004). Head Start longitudinal studies indicate that attendees achieve greater academic success and experience lower occurrences of criminal activity later. (Oden, et al, 2000 in Staresina, 2004).

However, evidence of the positive outcomes for children who have access to high quality Pre-Kindergarten programs has not resulted in the support necessary to ensure universal availability of such programs. Although forty-three states do fund them, there are disparities in the funding, teacher requirements,(Quality Counts,2002), wages paid, outcome standards, transportation available, language requirements, and so forth.

The Pre-Kindergarten Classroom Culture: The New Family

Historians have been traditionally committed to

explaining continuity and change over time
And ever since Plato it has been known that

child-hood is a key to this understanding;
The importance of parent-child relations for

social change was hardly discovered by Freud;
St. Augustine's cry, "Give me other mothers and

I will give you another world,"
Has been echoed by major thinkers

for fifteen centuries…

Lynch and Hanson (1998) tell us that "cultural understanding in one's first culture occurs early and is typically established by age 5" (p. 24). They go on to say, "children learn new cultural patterns more easily than adults" (p. 25). (Aldridge, Cohen, & Aman, 2000). The majority of young children today spend some part of the first five years in environments that are not their homes. Many do so from birth. Some of these children are in Pre-K programs, of one kind or another. If a "universal" early care and Pre-K program is developed that allows natural development of awareness of diversity within a curriculum that provides encouragement and reinforcement of developing relationships among the children and avoids introducing many of the negative concepts presently being taught in homes and neighborhoods, children may follow natural inclinations of curiosity and bonding.

Macro Versus Micro-culturalism in the Classroom:
The Natural Way of Learning

Content without context is pretext
Jesse Jackson

According to Graue and Walsh, "a context is a culturally and historically situated place and time, a specific here and now." They are relational. "Individuals, tools, resources, intentions and ideas in a particular setting, within a particular time." shape and are shaped by contexts. "Contexts are fluid and dynamic, constantly reconstituting themselves within activity (Graue and Walsh, 1998, pp. 9-11 in "Not the United Colors…) although many believe cultural and linguistic diversity influence young children's' social processes, little research has been done. However one study clearly indicates "The major factor influencing the children's peer group structures was language…. ("Not the United Colors of Benetton: language, culture, and peers.," 2003).

Although Nieto, speaking of multicultural education, says:
If we understand teaching as consisting primarily of social relationships and as a political commitment rather than a technical activity, then it is unquestionable that what educators need to pay most attention to are their own growth and transformation and the lives, realities, and dreams of their students." P. 131. On the other hand, Ayn Rand speaking of educating the individual says:

The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life — by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past — and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.

Conclusion

When we recognize the constraints that children face,
We will be better able to figure out what to do

In order to help them move beyond boundaries,
And to create a peer culture

That broadens their sense of belonging and solidarity
With people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
("Not the United Colors of Benetton: language, culture, and peers.," 2003)

Fraser maintains "It is believed by many that the key to overcoming racial hatred and prejudice is education. It is not! Education is very important but it's not the key. The key is close personal friendships." In (Harvey & Allard, 2002).
If attitudes change only as behavior changes," (Harvey & Allard, 2002) and behavior changes most easily in the young, and close personal friendships do not happen as a result of education and learning about another's historical or present "culture" then perhaps the shortest way to effective multicultural education passes through a Pre-Kindergarten program that encourages getting to know each other as individuals, each with all the diversity and idiosyncrasies that come with humans being and becoming.

References

Aldridge, J., Cohen, C., & Aman, R. (2000). 15 Misconceptions About Multicultural Education. Focus on Elementary, 12(3).
Arenson, K. W. (2004, April 8). Ex-Princeton chief urges admissions edge for poorer students. New York Times.
Banks, J. A. (2004). Multicultural Education: Goals and Dimensions. In J. A. Banks & C. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (Vol. 2004, pp. 3-24). New York: Macmillan.
Berliner, W. (2004, March 16). Education: Wise and wonderful?: Parents and the government alike are fans of faith schools - and of their results. But should schools, as the Archbishop of Canterbury wishes, also be churches? And does their growing popularity mean multicultural education has failed? The Guardian, p. 2.
Boris SidisJournal of Abnormal Psychology, 14, 333-348. (1919). Philistine and Genius. Badger.
Campbell, R. L., & Christopher, J. C. (1999, September 1, 1999). Self and values:
An interactivist foundation for moral development, from http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/values.html
Carns, M. R., & Carns, A. W. (1998). A Review of the professional literature concerning the consistency of the definition and application of Adlerian encouragement. Journal of Individual Psychology, 54(1), 82-99.
Demause, L. Chapter I: The Evolution of Childhood. In Foundations of Psychohistory.
Eakin, E. (2004, February 14). What runs in the family isn't success. New York Times.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-133.
Fantuzzo, J., & McWayne, C. (2002). The relationship between peer-play interactions in the family context and dimensions of school readiness for low-income preschool children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 79-87.
Ghate, O. (2000). Say No to the “Self-Esteem” Pushers: The Problem of Low Self-Esteem Among Students Is Caused by the Very Approach Now Proposed as the Cure. Retrieved May 27, 2004, from http://education.aynrand.org/pushers.html
Gordon, J., Chilson, M., & Randall, L. (2004, January 18). Brown's children's children. New York Times.
Gorski, P. (2004a). The challenge of defining a single "Multicultural Education". Retrieved April 29, 2004, from http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/education/multi/define.html
Gorski, P. (2004b). Understanding curriculum transformation: A multi-cultural Q & A. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/education/multi/curriculum/concept.html
Harvey, C., & Allard, M. J. (2002). Understanding and Managing Diversity: Readings, Cases, and Exercises (Second ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Hulbert, A. (2004, April 11). The way we live now: Are the Kids All Right? New York Times.
Hull, G. (2000). Caution: Textbooks Are Hazardous to Your Child’s Mind In Math, History and Literature, Today’s Textbooks Actively Undermine a Child’s Capacity to Think. Retrieved May 27, 2004, from http://education.aynrand.org/textbook.html
Jones, L. (2002). Why Jamal still can't read. Ethnic News, 4(5), 52-55.
Miller, A. (1981). Prisoners of childhood. New York: Basic Books.
Miller, A. (1984). Thou shalt not be aware : Society's betrayal of the child (American ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.
Miller, A. (1990). Banished knowledge : Facing childhood injuries (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday.
Miller, A. (1991). The untouched key : Tracing childhood trauma in creativity and destructiveness (1st Anchor Books ed.). New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.
Miller, A. (2002). For your own good : Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence (4th ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
Not the United Colors of Benetton: language, culture, and peers. (2003). Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17(2), 201-.
Reid, K. S. (2004). Survey probes views on race. Education Week, p. Education Week
American Education's Newspaper of Record.
Staresina, L. N. (2004). Educational Issues A-Z: Prekindergarten. Retrieved April 22, 2004, from http"//www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=114
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Bureau. (2003). Head Start Program Fact Sheet-Fiscal Year 2002.

Climb Your Mountain: Child Abuse Survivors Do - An Essay

2008-01-28T07:21:00.001-05:00

On my way to a place where I could begin my journey towards making my childhood dream a reality, I climbed Picacho Peak. For some this isn't much of a mountain, but for others it's a mountain equal to any.

I climbed it when I was nearing 50. Alone. Recently divorced. All I knew and had been left behind in California. Living in my car with no place to go, no reason to bother, no time but the present, I wandered and wondered my way around Arizona. I'd always been so scared of heights that being on the second floor of the mall triggered anxiety attacks if I even looked over at the railing so just being camped there on the side of Picacho at the state park was challenge enough for me. But I stared at the mountain for a few days...decided I should just try... didn't see where I had anything to lose. The mountain was there. I was there. Seemed like reason enough.

Early one morning I told the Ranger to take care of my dog and call my daughter if I didn't make it back and set out! Fools rush in.... so the day wore on, food and water ran out, hands bloodied from grabbing any rock or bush or whatever to keep pulling myself up one step at a time, exhaustion like nothing I've ever experienced wrapped around me like some security blanket. All numbed my mind.

Worst was coming to a sheer rock wall that had to be scaled with the help of metal cables that had been installed for those crazy enough to pull themselves up to keep going. Terror like you wouldn't believe. I was never a physical kind of person. Had no idea how to use the cables. Managed it somehow. Then with each step forward I thought, gee I don't know how close I am to the top...what if I quit now? Sounds so simple...NOT!

I kept on though and made it to the top. Small flat space. Awesome view, to say the least. There is a mailbox up there, with pencils and notebook. I rested, read and added my comment. I felt powerful for a moment! But knew I couldn't linger...I had to get down and sure didn't want to be doing that in the dark! Well, call me stupid or just plain ignorant from lack of experience...but I didn't realize going down was worse than anything I could ever imagine. Going up was easy in the sense of not looking down! And trust me I didn't after the first time! But going down means looking down most of the time... so I cried as I slipped, slid, skittered and baby-butted my way. Finally I felt like there was nothing left...I'd just give up, die right there and not give a damn. I sat overlooking a hidden valley. Silence so heavy you wouldn't believe! Cried like you wouldn't believe. Curled into a ball as tightly as we used to do to minimize the pain of Dad kicking us around like a ball. I didn't care. Nothing mattered.

Then a voice! No...not God...well who knows? Anyway out of nowhere this man appeared...a Native American...He asked, "You make it to the top?" I nodded. "You okay?" I nodded. "I thought so. You'll make it down." I looked into this really beautiful, old face looking down at me. No judgment. No pity. No disgust at this stupid woman. No laughing at me. Nothing but quiet reassurance. "I don't feel like I can," I said. "But I know you can," he said. "I climb this mountain every day." With that he smiled, turned and RAN off down the mountain.

And the moral of the story is? ...I climbed a mountain and thought that would mean I wouldn't be afraid of heights anymore! WRONG! Didn't work that way at all. But I learned to manage my fears better. So it is... with a little encouragement we all can keep on keeping on!

Death of Dreams - A Poem

2008-01-26T12:38:00.001-05:00

I threw away
Yesterday
Things I thought were me.
Letters of appreciation
Pictures showing recognition
Records of successful deeds
Certificates
Thick as weeds
Growing wild in garden now forgotten
No longer tended
Fruits all rotten
To the very core of each.

Still I reach
Grope
Seek
Don't find
Meaning.
Blind
I cannot see
Something left of me
Something-not that trash
Burnt quickly to an ash-
Something
Meant
Only to inspire.

Longing.
An other dream?
Tired
I dare not dream
Dare not sleep.
Death of Dreams
Means
Agony
Screams
Wait impatiently.
Be free.
Dare to dream.

*********************************

Getting a Head Start on Child Abuse and Neglect

2008-01-26T10:45:00.000-05:00

The following is a paper prepared for coursework in pursuit of a PhD in General Education from Capella University. The paper hasn't been published or peer reviewed. I offer it here for the purpose of adding to the dialogue on education that continues now, five years later.

Getting a Head Start: On Getting Even for Developmentally Abused and Neglected Children in a Developmentally Abused and Neglected Program

Nancy L. Gray
February 2003

Abstract

Head Start is investigated through an examination of the literature about Head Start, Child Development, and Child Abuse and Neglect as they interrelate. Head Start makes a "significant difference" to children in all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Territories by providing "high quality" comprehensive health, nutritional, educational, social and other services. An estimated 20% of the children who attend Head Start programs are abused and neglected by their primary caretakers. Children's development is negatively impacted by abuse and neglect. The literature indicates Head Start also experiences a form of "abuse and neglect" from the government agencies that serve as its caretakers. Head Start's development is less than its critics expect and demand. There may be a connection.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents 3
Introduction 4
Head Start 6
Child Development and Head Start. 8
Child Abuse, Neglect and Head Start. 9
Connections 12
Bibliography 17

Getting a Head Start: On Getting Even for Developmentally Abused and Neglected Children in a Developmentally Abused and Neglected Program

INTRODUCTION

Head Start, the federally funded national pre-school program, is an anomaly. Talk about getting a head start and the first thought that comes to the average person is about someone gaining an advantage over the competition. Mention getting a head start to Early Childhood educators, pediatricians and other service providers for children, and the subject quickly focuses on Project Head Start, a national program designed not to give an advantage, but to even the playing field for the 60% of those three-to-five-year-old children it reaches, that might otherwise be left out of the game altogether. Ask its critics, and Head Start becomes just another federal program that fails to deliver on its promises. Which is it?

Project Head Start, according to the "Creating A 21st Century Head Start Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion, is "…a symbol of hope for a better life for low-income children and their families." (1993 p2) A Head Start parent giving testimony before the Advisory Committee said "I learned to live again, not just survive. Head Start gave me and my children a chance to succeed, to be winners." (1993 p2) Unfortunately, the anomaly is that Head Start may be the most "successful social program of its time" but find itself, once again, in danger of an early demise through the efforts of critics and the government agencies responsible for its success.
Like the twenty percent of its children who are abused and neglected, Head Start bears the marks of the innocent victim of its environment. When times are good and money is plentiful, Head Start is everyone's darling blue-eyed political baby. When times are rough, Head Start takes a beating. When Head Start personnel have difficulty in "determining when a refusal for treatment may be considered child abuse or neglect," they can see "45CFR 1304.22(a)(5) for guidance." (The Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Bureau, 2003, p12). When Head Start is refused treatment in the form of adequate and necessary funding, neglected through reductions in auxiliary services needed to implement and maintain the quality of the program, or abused in the guise of "Standardized Testing" that won't provide "meaningful data," (Jacobson, 2003, p1). and threatened by abandonment by its federal parent, Health and Human Services, to be placed in the foster care of the states with their "cash-strapped governors" who will "slice off services to make federal money go farther," (Schemo, 2003) who will provide the guidance to determine if, in fact, it is being "helped," as suggested by its critics, or abused and neglected as suggested by its advocates? Who will be its arbiter?

Head Start isn't simply a pre-school program. It serves as a handicap to increase the chances for those children and their families who are struggling with the disability of impoverishment. Head Start is presently a program struggling with its own developmental problems. Just as low-income, disabled, or abused and neglected children need a program that views their "developmental milestones" flexibly, not attempting to force conformity where there are too many uncontrolled factors, but instead seeking "consistent results over time and across users,"(The Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Bureau, 2003, p 6) so too does the Head Start program deserve flexibility in meeting its "Program Performance Standards." Head Start "narrows the gap between disadvantaged students and all other children….improves social skills….leads to continued improvements…relative to other children during kindergarten." (Head Start FACES…, 2001, pi). Head Start does not create an even playing field, but its graduates are at least playing in the game.

This paper considers three issues concerning Head Start. The first issue is Head Start as a program. The second issue is development as it relates to Head Start as a program, and the children it serves. The third issue is abuse and neglect as it relates to Head Start as a program, the children it serves, and perhaps, the future of both.

HEAD START

Project Head Start began in 1965, during an "optimistic period of American history, a time when many believed that government should take a proactive, extensive role in eradicating the negative effects of poverty on children's development." (Zigler/Styfco, 1993, p1) At that time, "much of the country's poverty" was located in "physically or culturally isolated enclave." Children represented half of the "nation's thirty million poor people." President Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty. Johnson was committed to "overcome a lot of hostility in our society against the poor…by going at the children," believing that "education and self-help programs…could succeed in transforming the lives of poor Americans." (Zigler/Styfco, 1993, p 3). Today, Head Start reaches nearly 60% of eligible low-income children between the ages three and five. It's newest addition, Early Head Start, reaches 3% of low-income children from six months to age three.

Head Start didn't begin with "especially unique" components. What Head Start did, that was new, was to combine components "to form a multifaceted intervention" with the intention to "develop ways to serve very young children." The basic program was designed to meet the "developmental needs of the poor children." The program would "optimize their competence in social and school settings" by providing "developmentally appropriate educational experiences, health screening and referral, mental health services, social services, nutrition education, and hot meals, and parent involvement." (Zigler/Styfco, 1993, p 5) Development of "motor, language, social, cognitive, perceptual, and emotional domains" was, and remains, a primary consideration. (The Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Bureau, 2003, p 6).

Head Start has five primary objectives. The first is to "enhance children's healthy growth and development. The second is to "strengthen families as the primary nurturers of their children." The third is to "provide children with educational, health and nutritional services." The fourth is to "link children and families to needed community services." And the fifth is to "ensure well-managed programs that involve parents in decision making." (Head Start FACES, 2002, p4)

In 1993, Health and Human Services announced the formation of an Advisory Committee to "review the program and make recommendations for improvements and expansion." The purpose was to make sure "the vision and potential of Head Start" are renewed, "the program strengthened," and the changing needs of children and families met. The committee's intent was to "develop a set of recommendations that could guide program planning," and ensure that the "powerful legacy of an earlier time continues to thrive into the next century." (Creating…1993, p 2). Among their findings: "Head Start must not be isolated from other providers; it must take its place as a partner in a community and state." (Creating…1993, p 3). Expecting it to do so, at this time when states are struggling with massive budget cuts and reduced services to the poor and their children, is tantamount to inviting the destruction of the one program proven to make a difference in the "school readiness" of low-income children.

CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND HEAD START

Head Start works with a "whole child" approach. Educational preparedness involves the "provision of academic and social experiences that are developmentally appropriate as well as health care and family support services." (Zigler/Styfco 1993, p113). Head Start is successful because its "program performance standards require the use of a developmentally appropriate curriculum keyed to each child's needs and to all areas of the child's development." At Head Start, "teachers facilitate, rather than direct learning." (Zigler/Styfco 1993, p98). Unfortunately, many Head Start programs are "marginal, staffed by people who are poorly paid and have little training." (Vander Zanden, 2003, p291). In spite of that, "seventy-five percent of Head Start classrooms were rated as good or better, nearly one-fifth as very good or excellent, and classroom was of 'inadequate quality'…ratings compare favorably with other studies of preschool and child care…average numbers from both class size and child adult ratios were far better than those required…for Education of Young Children (NAEYC) accreditation standards." (Head Start FACES…2001, piv).

One of Head Start's original planning committee members, Urie Bronfenbrenner, was in the initial stages of developing "his ecological approach to human development." In order to be effective, he said, an "intervention" must involve the "complex interrelationship among children, their families and communities."( Zigler/Styfco, 1993, p4). Young children are "just beginning to construct their personal universes," and experiencing many emotional responses of self and others, "for the first time," so emotional health and "overall mental health" were "central" to the program. Children were to be helped to "learn desirable ways of expressing feelings," and "regulating their emotions." (Vander Zanden, 2003, p290).

"Head Start children have larger gains in "vocabulary knowledge…early writing…and math skills….play became more complex, with children becoming move involved in interactive play with peers, a key indicator of social development," but are "still substantially below national norms at the end of the Head Start year" as critics are quick to note. Head Start children also "showed little progress in letter recognition or book and print concepts over the course of the program year…problem behaviors showed minimal or no change." (Head Start FACES…2001, pii)

Head Start "received the highest rating of any government program" in a 1999 report of the American Customer Satisfaction Index, ((Head Start FACES…2001, piv,) and is called "America's premiere early childhood program," by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Head Start seems to be what its name suggests: an advantage for the disadvantaged. Unfortunately, that promising title has been both a promise and a disconnect for many of its graduates. This politically popular program has experienced cycles of ups and downs. Sometimes vilified for its failures, especially during lean economic times, at other times erroneously glorified for its successes when politically expedient to do so, Head Start is about to face its greatest challenge. The abuse and neglect by the government agencies responsible for its care escalate as administration policies batter the hopes of millions for a Head Start for their children.

CHILD ABUSE, NEGLECT AND HEAD START

Child abuse and neglect are not easily or generally defined. Although the Federal Child Abuse and Treatment Act provides a "minimum set of acts or behaviors that define physical abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse," each state is "responsible for providing its own definitions of child abuse and neglect." (U.S. Depart…, 2/2002, p1). Head Start figures show that "About one fifth of children were reported to have been exposed to community or domestic violence in their lives." (Head Start FACES…, 2001, pii) and this exposure to violence is becoming another form of child abuse and neglect. In 2000, there were "approximately 879,000 children found to be victims of child maltreatment." (U.S. Depart…, 2002, p2) Many experts in the field believe the number represents only a small portion of actual victims. In general, child abuse and neglect are of four main types: "physical abuse, physical or emotional neglect, sexual abuse and emotional abuse."

Children in child abuse and neglect studies "frequently experience" multiple forms of abuse. As many as "90% of the subjects in one study" experienced more than one form of abuse and neglect." (Workshop…, 2002, p 2). Children who live in "grueling environments" cannot learn academic skills. In order to make a difference for these children, to give them an opportunity to benefit from education, they first need early preparation to overcome the negative consequences to their development. "Comprehensive services" are required for that. (Zigler/Styfco, 1993). The comprehensive services provided by Head Start has been shown to make a significant difference for children, including the abused and neglected, to move forward in their development.

Additionally, "Support from parents, the school environment, and peers all play a role in helping children overcome adversity in their world." (Workshop, 2002, p 13). Head Start programs provide all of these to low-income children. Resilience also makes a difference in how children are able to continue in negative situations with less distress and damage to their development. "Factors contributing to resilience include "A strong relationship with a positive, caring adult" is one factor that contributes to resilience. "Community safe havens" are another factor. But "certain characteristics of the child including intelligence, self-esteem, and access to resources" may prove to be the most enduring factors in contributing to a child's resilience. (Workshop, 2002, p7). Head Start provides an opportunity to develop all of them.

The "disadvantaged populations served by intervention programs" have changed over the years, but the children's basic needs remain essentially the same. "Poverty has become more pervasive…increases in…child and substance abuse have grown." (National Head Start Association, 1990, p 24). An estimated 20% of Head Start students have "serious family problems that significantly hinder their learning in school…child abuse and neglect are a problem…poor health and nutrition" are a cause for concern. (Zigler/Styfco, 1993, p 103). All of these issues impact a child's readiness to learn. Head Start improves that dramatically in many cases.

Child abuse and neglect are expensive. Not only do child abuse and neglect have "detrimental effects" on the physical, psychological, cognitive and behavioral development of children, including "physical injuries, brain damage, chronic low self-esteem, problems with bonding and forming relationships, developmental delays, learning disorders, and aggressive behavior" but they are also "linked with long-term negative societal consequences." (U.S. Dept…, 1999, p1). The costs are both direct and indirect. The "investments in prevention" lead to "payback curves" that "extend over a long period of time." Some studies indicate a possible return on investment of as much as 1600% for every dollar spent on child abuse and neglect prevention. (U.S. Dept…, 1999 pp 3-6). Head Start represents an investment with an even greater return for dollars spent, not necessarily in dollars, but in lives changed for the better.

CONNECTIONS

"The original planners had a vision of what every Head Start family should receive. Over twenty-five years later this vision is largely unfulfilled, and the addition of more children will only delay its realization. It much wiser to serve fewer children well than to serve more children poorly, for the literature makes clear that only high-quality programs can produce meaningful benefits." (Zigler/Styfco, 1993, p32)

A connection among Head Start programs, child development and child abuse and neglect is evident even in this partial review of the literature relating to each. But what of the initial suggestion that the Head Start program, its development and any form of "abuse and neglect" may share a similar connection? A brief review of recent occurrences will indicate a viable connection is there.

Head Start is still a developing program. During Head Start's nearly thirty-five year development, its own research has lead to many advances in child development interventions, policies and other important early childhood education and related subjects. Any developmental process has stages. Head Start is no different. And just as an organism's development is impacted by environmental factors, so, too, is Head Start's development impacted by changing funding levels, increasing demands placed on its limited resources, attacks on its infrastructure, including losses of formerly available public school space in which to run its programs, and a drain on its qualified teachers to hastily created state funded preschool with funding to pay much higher salaries. Other situations that have occurred through its developmental period could be construed as evidence of intent to create a "failure to thrive" environment for its graduates, by failing to provided adequate transition services and adequately fund follow up programs, such as Project Follow Through, which results in the loss of gains made by the children while in the Head Start program. Today as the need for the program grows, the "neglect and abuse" continue against the developing program in greater degree than ever.

In April 2002, President Bush, announced an Early Childhood Initiative to improve early education for children that included new steps to further strengthen the Head Start program." (HHS Fact Sheet, 2002). As this paper is compiled, President Bush and his administrations are making decisions that may result in the demise of Head Start. Standardized testing for every four-year-old preschooler is projected for implementation in the fall of 2003. Early childhood educators and experts worry "that federal officials are going too far in their drive to hold local programs accountable for children's performance." Not the least of their concerns is the fear that teachers will begin "teaching to the test," with-the-three year olds, rather than continuing the original, and highly effective Head Start goal to focus on "children's social and emotional development. (Jacobson, 2003).

In addition to the risks associated with the Standardized Testing program, funding is again creating problems in 2003 for Head Start. Because the Bush administration failed to pass the 2003 budget in a timely manner, officials have been running "countless federal programs, from early childhood education to welfare, from setting priorities because they do not know how much money they will get." (Stolberg, 2003).

The Bush 2004, $2.23 trillion budget remains enmeshed in controversy. Bush's budget "reflects his "most urgent national priorities: 'Winning the war against terrorism, securing the homeland and generating long-term economic growth." The budget has "record deficits" and will "speed up billions of dollars in income tax cuts, provide huge increases for the Pentagon and offer a modest jump in spending for NASA." Cuts include, spending on "programs for juvenile delinquency, " money for "public housing…aid to rural schools…and government financed child care." These programs, like Head Start, have all been shown to increase low-income children's opportunities for succeeding.

The news that worries Head Start supporters more than funding cuts, is the Bush administration proposal that "Head Start would become a block grant program." Administration officials, who "dispute the view that Head Start is a success," say that this would "allow states to coordinate Head Start better with their own preschool programs." They "describe the proposal as a logical extension of President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act" (Schemo, 2003) while failing to mention that NCLP appropriations have not been funded.
Critics of the Administration's proposal, including Sarah Green, president of the National Head Start Association, contend "turning Head Start into a block grant program could be the first step toward dismantling it, as governors slice off services to make federal money go further." One example is in Florida where the voters passed a referendum that Governor Jeb Bush "must provide preschool for all children by 2005." The voters gave no clear direction to "how the cash-strapped state would pay for it." New York is another example of a state that might "slice" the Head Start money into pieces. Governor Pataki's "latest budget eliminates universal preschool, and cuts back preschool for poor children." (Schemo, 2003).

The Head Start program is successful "in giving poor children an advantage when they reach school." Some critics fail to note that the "ultimate goal of Head Start…is to promote the social competence of children." (Head Start FACES…2002). Numerous studies demonstrate that the comprehensive approach of Head Start, reaches the whole child and the family. Although "more research is needed on how interventions for parents affect the development of their children," (Workshop…, 2002, 26) Head Start has clearly shown that helping parents, helps children.

When the Bush "administration officials" say of Head Start, "the fairest way to look at data that's been done is to say it's clear children do show some improvement, but they still lag quite significantly behind more advantaged peers when they enter kindergarten" (Schemo, 2003) is politically motivated rhetoric designed to obfuscate the facts. Saying "some improvement" is dismissive of how much improvement actually occurs, especially for the majority of children who "enter Head Start with literacy skills below the national norms," (Head Start FACES… 2002, p14). "Gains in cognitive skills" as well as "on early writing and math tasks," were in fact larger "among children who were initially in the bottom quarter…" (Head Start FACES… p 20).
The statement that children "still lag quite significantly behind" suggests a greater disparity than exists, and fails to account for the fact that the average children in kindergarten also lag behind their "advantaged peers." Children fortunate enough to attend top quality programs can be expected to show the greatest improvements but that is not sufficient reason to eliminate the only program that does make a difference for low-income children. Although Head Start "narrows the skills gap…it does not close the gap."

Quality is an issue for Head Start programs, and when funding is inadequate to proved the best materials and teachers, programs naturally suffer reduction in quality. And "observed quality of Head Start classrooms has been linked with child outcomes." (Head Start FACES…, 2001). In spite of that, no Head Start was found to be of "inadequate" quality. Head Start quality is "better than other center-based preschool programs." (Head Start FACES…p 94).Parent volunteers, community assistance, determination of the teachers make a difference. There is no logical justification to use these known, but correctable disadvantages as an excuse to weaken the Head Start program even more than inadequate funding already does. Part of Head Start's mission is to prepare low-income children to enter Kindergarten, "ready to learn," and they are.
Head Start is "America's premiere early childhood program, providing comprehensive developmental services for America's low-income, preschool children." (HHS Fact Sheet, 2002). If that alone does not make Head Start worth keeping, let the administration provide whatever funding is needed to make any improvements needed so that each and every Head Start program is in fact a head start, or at least an even start, for America's low-income children as they begin their educational race to succeed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Includes projected resources for future research including books, articles, studies, web materials.

Abe, J. A., & Izard, C. E. (1999). A Longitudinal study of emotion expression and personality relations in early development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 566-577.

Adamson, L. (1996). Communication development during infancy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Administration for Children & Families; Administration on Children, Youth & Families; Commissioner's Office of Research & Evaluation and the Head Start Bureau. (2001). Head Start FACES: Longitudinal Findings on Program Performance. Third Progress Report. January 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (1995). Head Start Bureau, Charting our progress: Development of the Head Start Program Performance Measures. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (1997). Head Start Bureau, First progress report on the Head Start Program Performance Measures. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. (1998). Head Start Bureau, Head Start Program Performance Measures: Second progress report. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

Adolf, K. E. (2000). Specificity of learning: Why infants fall over a veritable cliff. Psychological Science, 11, 290-295.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1992). A consideration of social referencing in the context of attachment theory and research. In S, Feinman (Ed.), Social Referencing and the social construction of reality in infancy. New York: Plenum.

Albus, K. E., & Dozier, M. (1999). Indiscriminate friendliness and terror of strangers in infancy: Contributions from the study of infants in foster care. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20(1), 20-41.

Alexander, L.L., & Entwisle, D.R. (1988). Achievement in the first 2 years of school: Patterns and processes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 53. (2, Serial No. 218).

Arnet, J. (1989). Caregivers in day-care centers: Does training matter? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10. 541-552.

America's Children: Key national indicators of child well-being 1998. (1998). ChildStats.gov. Retrieved August 32, 1998, from the World Wide Web: http://www.childstats.gov/ac1998/ac98.htm.

Baldwin, D. A., & Markman, E, M. (1989). Establishing word-object relations: A first step. Child Development, 60, 381-398.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989a). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist. 44, 1175-1184.

Bandura, A. (1989b). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 729-735.

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193-209.

Barnes, H.V., Guevera, M.D., Garcia, G., Levin, M., & Connell, D.B. (1999). How do Head Start staff characteristics relate to parent involvement and satisfaction? Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.

Baumrind, D. (1994) The social context of child maltreatment. Family Relations, 43, 360-368.

Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45, 405-414.

Baumwell, L., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1997). Maternal verbal sensitivity and child language comprehension, Infant Behavior and Development, 20, 247.

Beard, R. M. (1969). An outline of Piaget's developmental psychology for students and teachers. New York: New American Library.

Belsky, J. (1990). Parental and nonparental child care and children's socioemotional development: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 885-903.

Belsky, J. (1993). Etiology of child maltreatment: A developmental-ecological analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 413-434.

Belsky, J. (1996a) Infant attachment, security, and affective-cognitive information processing at age 3. Psychological Science, 7, 111-114.

Belsky, J. (1996b). Parent, infant, and social-contextual antecedents of father-son attachment security. Developmental Psychology, 32, 905-913.

Belsky, J., & Eggebeen, D. (1991). Early and extensive maternal employment and young children's socioemotional development: Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 1083-1110.

Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1987). Temperament and attachment security in the strange situation: An empirical rapprochement. Child Development, 58, 787-795.

Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1993). Non-maternal care in the first year of life and the security of infant-parent attachment. In R. Pierce (Ed.), Lifespan development: A diversity reader. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Balky, J., Youngblade, Rovine, M., & Volling, B. (1991). Patterns of marital change and parent-child interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 487-498.

Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995) Scaffolding children's learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education. NAEYC research into practice series, vol. 7. Washington, DD: National Book Association for Young Children.

Berkowitz, L. (1993) Aggression: Its causes, consequences and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Berrick, J. D., & Gilbert, N. (1991). With the best of intentions: The child sexual abuse prevention movement. New York: Guilford Press.

Besharov, D. J. (1990). Recognizing Child abuse: A guide for the concerned. New York: Free Press.

Bigler, R., Jones, L. C., & Lobliner, D.B. (1997). Social categorization and the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child Development, 68, 530-543.

Biller, H. B. (1993). Fathers and families: Paternal factors in child development. Westport, CT: Auburn House.

Bjorklund, D. F., & Green, B.L. (1992). The adaptive nature of cognitive immaturity. American Psychologist, 47, 46-54.

Blagg, N. (1991). Can we teach intelligence? A comprehensive evaluation of Fuerstein's instrumental enrichment program. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Blakely, K. S. (1994) Parents' conceptions of social dangers to children in the urban environment. Children's Environment, II, 16-25.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215.

Bolland, J. M., McCallum, D. M., Lian, B., Baily, C. J., & Rowan, P. (2001). Hopelessness and violence among inner-city youths. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 5(4), 237-244.

Bornstein, M. H., & O'Reilly, A. W. (Eds.). (1993). The role of play in the development of thought. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge.

Brain facts: A parent's guide to early brain development, (1999). I Am Your Child. Retrieved February 4, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://iamyourchild.org/docs/bf-0.html.

Brain, G. B. (1979). Head Start, a retrospective view: The founders. Section 2: The early planners. In E. Zigler & J. Valentine, (Eds.) Head Start: A legacy of the War on Poverty, New York: Free Press. 72-134.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986, February). Alienation the four worlds of childhood. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 430-436.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1997). Systems vs. associations: Its not either/or. Families in Society, 78, 124.

Bronstein, R. E. (1992). The dependent personality: Developmental, social, and clinical perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 3-23.

Brownlee, S. (1996). The biology of soul murder: Fear can harm a child's brain. Is it reversible: U. S. News and World Report, 12(19), 71-74.

Building their futures: How early Head Start programs are enhancing the lives of infants and toddlers in low-income families: Summary report. (2001). Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. Commissioner's Office of Research and Evaluation and the Head Start Bureau. Administration on Children, Youth & Families. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Bullock, M., & Lutenhaus, P. (1988). The development of volitional behavior in the toddler years. Child Development, 59, 664-674.

Bumiller, E. (2003). Bush's $2.2 Trillion Budget Proposes Record Deficits. The New York Times. Retrieved from World Wide Web, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/politics/04BUDG.html?tntemail0, 2/6/2003.

Burhaus, K. K. & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Helplessness in early childhood. Child Development, 66, 1717-1738.

Bussey, K. (1992). Lying and truthfulness: Children's definitions, standards, and evaluative reactions. Child Development, 63, 129-137.

Campbell, J. J., Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C. P. (2000). Early child care experiences and children's social competencies between 1.5 and 15 years of age. Applied Developmental Science: Special Issue: The Effects of Quality Care on Child Development, 4(3), 166-175.

Candland, D. K.(1993). Feral children and clever animals" Reflections on human nature. New York: Oxford University Press.

Carlson, M. J., & Corcoran, M. E. (2001). Family structure and children's behavioral and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 779-792.

Carr, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Maxwell, S. E. (1991). Motivational components of underachievement. Developmental Psychology, 27, 108-118.

Case, A., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Bem, D. J. (1987). Moving against the world: Life-course patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 23, 308-313.

Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., Jr. & Bem, D. J. (1988). Moving away from the world: Life-course patterns of shy children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 824-831.

Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory and research. Child Development, 65, 971-991.

Chafel, J. A. 1992. Funding Head Start: What are the issues? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 9-21.

Chance, P., & Fischman, J. (1987, May). The magic of childhood. Psychology Today, 21, 48-58.

Chapman, M. (1988). Contextuality and directionality of cognitive development. Human Development, 31, 92-106.

Chess, S., & Thomas, A. (1996). Temperament: Theory and Practice. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Child poverty fact sheet (June 2001). (2001) National Center for Children in Poverty. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York. Retrieved December 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://cpmcnetcolumbia.edu/dept/nccp/ycpf.html.

Collins, R. C. (1990) Head Start salaries: 1989-90 staff salary survey. Alexandria, VA: National Head Start Association.

Comer, J. P. (1980). School Power. New York: Free Press.

Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers, public report, second edition. Denver: Economics Department, University of Colorado at Denver.

Creating A 21st Century Head Start Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion, December 1993. (1993). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Washington, DC. Retrieved from the World Wide Web 2/1/2003. http://www.bmcc.org/Headstart/21Century/index.html.

Dunn, Lloyd M., & Dunn, Leota M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Third Edition. Examiner's manual and norms booklet. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Elliot, S.N., Gresham, F.M., Freeman, R., & McClosky, G. (1998). Teacher and observer ratings of children's social skills: Validation of the Social Skills Rating Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 6. 152-161.

Goal One Technical Planning Group. (1991). Reconsidering children's early development and learning: Toward shared beliefs and vocabulary. Draft report to the National Education Goals Panel. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.

Harms, T., Clifford, R.M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early childhood environment rating scale. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Haskins, R. (1989). Beyond metaphor: The efficacy of early childhood education. American Psychologist, 44(2). 274-282.

Hauser-Cram, P., D. E., Pierson, D. K. Walker, & T. Tivnan. (1991). Early Education in Public Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

HHS Fact Sheet. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from the World Wide Web, 1/23/2003. http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/factsheets/fact20020426b.htm.

Head Start FACES: Longitudinal Findings on Program Performance, Third Progress Report. (2001) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Horacek, H., Ramey. C. Campbell, F. Hoffman, R. & Fletcher, R. (1987). Predicting school failure and assessing early intervention with high-risk children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26. 758-63.

Howes, C. (1980). Peer play scale as an index of complexity of peer interaction. Developmental Psychology, 16. 371-372.

Howes, C. (1985). Sharing fantasy: Social pretend play in toddlers. Child Development, 56(5), 1253-1258.

Howes, C. (1987). Social competence with peers in young children: Developmental sequences. Developmental Review, 7, 252-272.

Howes, C., & Matheson, C. (1992). Sequences in the development of competent play with peers: Social and pretend play. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 961-974.

Howes, C. & Rodning, C. (1992). Attachment security and social pretend play negotiations: Illustrative study #5. In C. Howes, O. Hunger and C.C. Matheson (Eds.), The collaborative construction of pretend: Social pretend play functions. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Howes, C., & Stewart, P. (1987). Child's play with adults, toys, and peers: An examination of family and child-care influences. Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 423-430.

Howes, C., & Unger, O.A., & Seidner, L.B., (1989). Social pretend play in toddlers: Parallels with social play and with solitary pretend. Child Development, 60(1), 77-84.

Hubbell, R., Plantz, M., Condelli, L.& B. Barrett. (1987). The transition of Head Start children into public school. Final report. Vol. 1. Alexandria, VA: CSR.

Jacobson, L. (2003). White House Plan for Head Start Draws Critics. Education Week, 1/15/2003, vol.22, Issue 18, 20-22. Retrieved from the World Wide Web, 1/27/2003. http://library.capella.edu:2165/delivery.asp?tb=1&_ug=dbs+1+1n+en-us+sid+E2DCE112-4…

Jordan, T. J., Grallo, R, Deuthsch, M. & C. P. Deutsch. (1985). Long-term effects of early enrichment: A 20-year perspective on persistence and change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 395-415.

Kagan, S. L. (1991a). Moving from here to there: Rethinking continuity and transitions in early care and education. In B. Spdek & O. Saracho, (Eds.) Yearbook in early childhood education, 2. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Kagan, S. L. (1991b). United we stand: Collaboration in child care and early education services. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Layzer, j, Goodson, B., & Moss, M. (1993). Final report, volume 1: Life in preschool. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc.

McKey; R., Condelli, L. Ganson, H., Barrett, B., McConkey, C. & Plantz, M. (1985) The impact of Heads Start on children, families and communities: Final report of the Head Start Evaluation, Synthesis and Utilization Project (DHHS Publication NO. OHDS 85-31193). Washington D C: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Head Start Association. (1990). Head Start: The nation's pride, a nation's challenge. Report of the Silver Ribbon Panel. Alexandria, VA: Author.

O'Brien, R.W., D'Elio, M.A., Connell, D.B., Hailery, L., & Swartz, J.P. (1999). The impact of Head Start fathers on the lives of their children. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.

Parker, F. L., Piotrkowski, & Peay, L. (1987). Head Start as a social support for mothers: The psychological benefits of involvement. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57. 220-233.

Powell, D. R. (1989). Families and early childhood programs. Research monographs of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, 3.

Ralph, J. (1989). Improving education for the disadvantaged: Do we know whom to help? Phi Delta Kappan. (Jan). 395-401.

Raver, C. C. & Zigler, E. (1991). Three steps forward, two steps back. Head Start and the measurement of social competence. Young Children, 46(4). 3-8.

Scarr, S., Eisenberg, M., & Deater-Deckard, K. (1994). Measurement of quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 131-151.

Schemo, D.J. (2203). Head Start Plan Worries Supporters. The New York Times. Retrieved from the World Wide Web, 2/12/2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/education/12Head.html?tntemail0.

Schorr, L. B. (1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York: Doubleday.

Schweinhart, L.J., McNair, S., Barenes, H., & Larner, M. (1993). Observing young children in action to assess their development: The High/Scope Child Observation Record Study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 445-455.

Shonkoff, J.P., & Phillips, D.A. (eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Seitz, V., Apfel, Rosenbaum, L., & E. Zigler. (1983). Long-term effects of Projects Head Start and Follow Through: The New Haven project. In Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, eds. As the twig is bent: Lasting effects of preschool programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 299-332.

Snow, C.E., Tabors, P.O., Nicholson, P.A., & Kurland, B.F. (1995). SHELL: Oral language and early literacy skills in kindergarten and first-grade children. Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 10(1), 37-48.

Stolberg, C.S. (2003) As Bush Plans 2004 Budget, Parties Haggle Over 2003's. The New York Times. Retrieved from the World Wide Web 1/22/2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/22/national/22SPEN.html?tntemail0.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1980). Head Start in the 1980's. Review and recommendations. Washington DC.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999) Prevention Pays: The Costs of Not Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect. The Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved December 29, 2002, from http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002). National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) Summary of Key Findings from Calendar Year 2000. Children's Bureau Administration on Children, Youth and Families. National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. Retrieved December 29, 2002, from http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Revised 2/2002). What is Child Maltreatment. The Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved December 29, 2002, from http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Revised 3/2002). You Have the Power to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect. The Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved December 29, 2002, from http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm

U.S. House of Representatives. (1990a). Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1990. May 9. (Report No. 101-480).

U.S. House of Representatives. (1990b) Opportunities for success: cost effective programs for children update, 1990, Dec. 21. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (Report No. 101-1000).

Vaden-Kiernan, M., E'Elio, M.A., & Sprague, K. (1999). The FACES embedded case study: Documenting the methodology and early findings. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.

Valentine, J. (1979). Program development in Head Start: A multifaceted approach to meeting the needs of families and children. In E. Ziegler & J. Valentine, (Eds.) Project Head Start: A legacy of the War on Poverty, New York: Free Press. 349-365.

Vander Sandmen, James W. (2003). Human Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

White, K. R., Bush, D. W. & G.C. Casto. (1985). Learning from previous reviews of intervention. Journal of Special Education, 19, 417-428.

Whitebook, M., Howes, C., D. & Phillips, D. (1989). Who Cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America: Final report of the National Child Care Staffing Study. Berkeley, CA: Child Care Employee Project.

Workshop on Children Exposed to Violence: Current Status, Gaps and Research Priorities. (2002). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Zigler, E. (1976). Head Start: Not a program but an evolving concept. In J. D. Andrews, ed., Early Childhood Education: It's an art! It's a science! Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. 1-14.

Zigler, E & S. Muenchow. (1992) Head Start: The inside story of America's most successful educational experiment. New York: Basic Books.

Zigler, E. & J. Valentine, (Eds.) (1979) Project Head Start: A legacy of the War on Poverty Poverty. New York: Free Press.

Ever enough abuse and neglect?

2008-01-25T13:27:00.000-05:00

Ever Enuff?

If you're hungry,
Hungry Enuff,'
Go ahead. Eat that food.
Else child, let someone else,
Someone really hungry enuff,
Eat it 'stead of you.

If you're sick.
Sick enuff.
Go ahead. Lay in bed.
Don't give a thought for those
Who in your stead do the extra work
You ought-ta.

If you're scared,
Scared enuff,
Not fakin' for attention,
Go ahead. Call for help.
Whine and yelp like a
Useless whelp that always needs attendin'.

If you're tired,
Tired enuff,
Not just being lazy.
Go ahead. Rest a bit.
We'll get the work done, all of it,
Even what you left undone.

If you're sad,
Sad enuff,
To cry real tears,
Go ahead. Shed them.
But go where others won't hear,
And feel worse from your selfish wailin'.

If you're cold,
Cold enuff,
Take that extra blanket.
'Tis true if cold,
We'll suffer less,
We're tough enuff to stand it.

If you're askin,'
Asking if I have enuff?
Asking if I'm hungry, sick or scared,
Tired, sad, or even cold? If I need..anything?
No. No. Now I'm old and finally had enuff.
Enuff! Enuff! Enuff!

Child Abuse and Neglect: A Weak Spot in Teacher Education

2008-01-25T13:04:00.000-05:00

Hi!
The following is a paper I wrote for a course while working towards a PhD in General Education at Capella University. The paper explores teacher training in relationship to children who are abused and neglected. Although not published, or peer reviewed, I think the research is sound. I post it here for the general use of anyone exploring the concepts included. However, I remind you that the "teacher detectives programs" probably can track this work, so please feel free to use it, but don't directly copy! I applaud anyone interested in this direction and wish you best of luck in your studies!
A Child is Waiting.
Take Care...Be Aware.
Nancy Lee Gray

Stellar Teachers, Falling Stars:
Creating Teachers that Leave No Child Behind

Capella University Abstract

This paper represents a review of the literature in an attempt to contribute to the debate concerning institutions of higher education, how teachers are educated and the relationship to the No Child Left Behind mandate that by 2005 all schools will have high quality teachers. Within that framework, the focus is on maltreated children as they were, are, and can be affected by teacher education. All 50 states plus the District of Columbia have laws requiring teacher reporting of suspected child maltreatment, and yet the education received by teachers includes little on child maltreatment. Maltreated children, unidentified and disenfranchised, affect classroom environment, test results, teacher enthusiasm and energy. In effect, this affects teacher quality and student proficiency as mandated by NCLB.

Table of Contents

Abstract 2
Table of Contents 3
Introduction 4
Today is Not Yesterday: Educational Precedents 12
The Hand is Quicker than the Eye:
Smoke and Mirrors in Education Today 20
Moving Toward the Light: Conceiving Stellar Teachers for Tomorrow 29
No Child Left Behind: Paradigm or Paradox? 34
References 36
Stellar Teachers, Falling Stars: Creating Teachers that Leave No Child Behind
The public education system in America
Is one of the most important foundations of our democracy.
After all, it is where children from all over America learn to be responsible citizens,
And learn to have the skills necessary to take advantage
Of our fantastic opportunistic society.
~George W. Bush~
Santa Clara, CA
May 1, 2002

If the public education system in American is as important as President Bush contends, the institutions of higher education as the vertex represents either the sun of a dying educational system or the prime mover of a nascent one. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation of 2002 (White House, n.d.) promotes educational excellence for America's, "estimated 46.8 million public school children, nearly 3 million public school teachers, more than 89, 599 public schools and nearly 17,000 local school districts." The highly qualified teachers required, the proficiency of the students mandated, and the accountability expected by NCLB for that system depend for their sources on institutions of higher education providing higher caliber instruction as a foundation. Maltreated children as a component of success or failure of the NCLB requirements must be included in that instruction to a greater degree. Unacknowledged, marginalized, and disenfranchised maltreated children represent an unstable element that serves as a black hole in the educational system, as they do in society.
According to Miner, (2001) President Bush's NCLB legislation exhibits "faulty assumptions" that "standardized tests are the best way to measure academic success," and "schools are failing because they aren't trying hard enough and that the threat of sanctions will magically transform these troubled schools." Tomlinson (2002) says, "The No Child Left Behind Act does nothing to focus our national conversation, teacher training, or classroom planning on what would be necessary to teach young people to be truly literate." These opinions represent others that suggest NCLB alone will not change what Lucas (1996, p. 203) suggests are "substantial numbers of poorly prepared entering students" that lead to "one in every six collegiate degree holders…missing basic literacy competencies…and [unable to] perform even at a secondary school level."
Imagine, however, a magic that transforms schools to ones where stellar teachers catch falling stars as a matter of due course. Envision an elementary and middle school where Winerip (2003) says "non-testing is the norm." Conjure up a principal who "hates tests as much as the kids do." Fabricate an urban public school where a student is "given two hours to prepare an oral presentation…as part of her final …grade," where another student presents a "three-month-long research paper." Visualize a school where a student's reading progress is determined by taping her reading in kindergarten, where "she cannot pick out a single word in 'Caps for Sale,' and progressing to… fifth grade reading 'Johnny Appleseed' fluently."
No imagination needed. This magic is real. The schools exist. They are not the kind where Koppich (2000, p. 288) claims, "The least able and capable teachers" are usually assigned in "high-poverty schools…. [and in the] highest minority enrollment school." Neither are they schools with "high concentrations of poor students" and "low-track math students." These teachers are stellar, not the kind Barone (2002, p. 13) quotes as saying, "I want to go to a school where the kids have high test scores so I can teach." These students succeed, but to a higher level than where a mandated "proficiency" which Tomlinson (2002) says "can be defined at somewhat minimal levels is good enough." Does it take magic for that to happen?
Not according to Winerip, (2003) who says of the process needed to achieve such results, "You go deep and give it your all." That direction, that going deep and giving it your all, according to a parent of two students attending that school means the difference between a successful school and one that is "deadening for teachers and kids," a school, she says, where "everything there…is teaching to the state tests." A student (In Winerip, 2003) adds, "At my other school, we prepped like crazy, we'd take the test and forget it." There is no need to imagine these other schools where testing is the norm. They exist, too, in far greater numbers, with results far more devastating and less imaginable than many realize. As Bush might say of such schools, "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" (In Weisberg, 2003, Bush, Florence, SC, January 11, 2000). No need to ask. The president has spoken.
Evidence makes clear that students are not learning, apparently at any level of education in the United States. Last fall according to Winter, (2003) The Texas State Board of Education voted to relax its "third-grade reading standards when it became evident that thousands of students would be held back after failing a statewide achievement test." That happened Dillon (2003) says, after reviewing the "results…from a field trial of a new statewide achievement test," while "guards stood outside their locked meeting room, and board members were asked to sign a secrecy pledge." At schools around the country, high school students with passing grades, some qualified to graduate with honors, some already accepted to college, collapse in dismay when informed they will not graduate because they didn't pass a standardized tests as required by state law. New York State was recently "thrown into shock" when "63 percent of students statewide — including thousands of seniors — failed a math test." In Florida, (The New York Times, 2003) "more than 12,000 high school seniors failed to graduate this year because they did poorly on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. The California State Board of Education voted to "postpone the consequences of its high school exit exam for two years…. [because] as many as 92,000 students would have been denied diplomas." Moreover, Winter (2003) states that Georgia pushed "back its 'end of course' exams for a year,"(2003), for similar reasons.
More recently, an audit of the Houston schools, which according to Schemo (2003) had been a "pillar of the so-called Texas miracle in education "recommended lowering the ranking of 14 of the 16 schools from the best to the worst," and also recommended that the "whole Houston school system be ranked 'unacceptable'." Part of the reason was that in order to make the numbers look good, (2003) Houston "cooked the books, Enron style," altered data and pushed "students likely to mar a school's profile--through poor attendance or low test scores--out the back door." Nevertheless, although educational researchers offer "near unanimous agreement that students should never be evaluated on a single test, especially a fill-in-the-bubble standardized test," the 2002 NCLB legislation is expected to depend on nothing more. Bush (U.S. Department of Education, 2001, p.1, 3) calls NCLB the "cornerstone of his Administration." That cornerstone mandates that by the 2005-2006 academic year, (Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002, p. 3) "all students in Grades 3 through 8" will be tested in reading and mathematics. In addition, Corwin (2003, p. 3) explains testing in "at least three grades in science by 2007-2008, with all students expected to test "proficient" by the end of the "2013-2014 school year." NCLB (Linn et al, 2002, p. 3-4) identifies those included as "all students and subgroups of students defined by socioeconomic background, race-ethnicity, English language proficiency, and disability" and provides for adjustments in state standards of what constitutes "proficiency" for each sub-group, although without regard for the fact that "proficient" has "quite different meanings" in different states.
Although, as Corwin explains, "Some people have charged that No Child Left Behind is only about testing." Others as adamantly insist "that absolutely isn't true." Moreover they maintain, "Testing, even good testing, is hardly the only thing, or the most important thing, needed to raise academic achievement of at-risk students." So what does matter? According to Corwin, (2003, p. 5) "Motivated and highly qualified teachers, a strong curriculum, a climate of high expectations, and a safe school environment are all at least as important and must be part of the total package." What important factor is missing from that list? The strengths of the at-risk students themselves receive no consideration.
President Bush (2002, p. 1) says, "Certain kids, they just get quit on. And we know who they are. They're generally inner-city kids, kids whose parents may not speak English as a first language." President Bush and those who drafted NCLB consistently ignore another subgroup of children--children not necessarily identified as minority, lower-income, inner city, disabled or ESL, who "just get quit on." Researchers test, study and label these children in terms of measurable effect academically, psychologically, their impact environmentally, on peer achievement and teacher performance, then lump them all into one category as "maltreated children." These children "aren't just quit on." They are not always identified, or otherwise labeled within the classroom, where they remain "at-risk." They affect test results, safe environments, curriculum implementation, high expectations and even the results that even "highly qualified teachers" can foster in any classroom. Maltreated children, if left unidentified and not accommodated for testing as are the other groups and subgroups mentioned, skew the results of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and "proficiency" levels of every other group of which they are a part.
Child maltreatment knows no borders, respects no boundaries, and (In Gullatt & Stockton 2000, Brodkin & Coleman, 1995, p. 3), "weaves through all segments of society, regardless of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic locale, religious belief, or the age of the perpetrator." No group or sub-group of students is exempt from the presence, influence and unintended consequences of unacknowledged maltreated students in their midst. Maltreated children, and the adults they become, exist in every sector of the educational field, from pre-K through PhD levels. Although research indicates they are frequently ignored, sometimes hidden, rarely addressed in the curriculum decisions of schools, occasionally excluded, marginalized, disenfranchised, or seemingly invisible, maltreated children remain an important factor in education. Any attempt to separate levels of education as though they exist independent of others is a failure in vision, representing a myopic view of the educational process. As Kolodny (1998, p. 217) points out,
Although we speak of our educational system as a series of fragments--daycare, preschool, primary school, middle and high school, with some form of higher education at the apex--in fact, education is a linked continuum, with student success (or failure) at one level presaging success (or failure) at the next. If we don't offer quality education at every level, then all subsequent levels suffer.
Kolodny (p. 242). also claims, "The surest way to improve student achievement across the educational spectrum is to improve teacher preparation." (Such statements suggest the obvious without saying it. Teacher preparation is not adequate. Teacher preparation needs improvement.
Teacher preparation must include an increased emphasis on those taught.
Unfortunately, the recipient-of-teaching, the student, seems less important in teacher education, training and professional development, than an emphasis on the perceived qualities of effective teachers, interesting and dynamic methods and creative activities to be used, applied, or in other ways manipulated to effect desired change in the recipients of the procedures. Such directions in teacher education are not working, if the result expected is educated students. Few would dispute that students, whether children or adults, are complex. Everything they experience contributes to what they learn, how they learn and whether they learn at all. Among the factors not given enough attention in terms of that affect are those contained in the phrase "child maltreatment." Until the highest levels of teacher education, training and professional development in institutions of higher education, account for child maltreatment as a major factor in teaching, little will change at the Primary, Elementary and Secondary levels of education. Although government mandates simply do not change academic achievements, schools, principals, and teachers can. Hill (2000, p.29) explains, "Government has succeeded in what it can do best, which is to create broad movements, make investments, and redistribute opportunities." Nevertheless, Government has not, and cannot, succeed "in doing what it cannot do, which is to create intimate, imaginative, and highly productive institutions." No doubt, according to Hill the major reason for that failure is that "Government programs and prescriptions can inhabit an unreal world in which contrary prescriptions can be smoothly integrated, adult tasks can be easily distinguished, and children can be easily classified." Unfortunately, as Hill points out "teachers, students, and parents do not live in such a world." They actually live in a world where maltreated children are epidemic.
Adult students, parents, teachers and administrators alike, develop measurable cognitive and academic effects from earlier, often forgotten abuse and neglect they experienced as children. Eventually, Hill (2000, p. 37) maintains, the realization may come that "Federal policy must work with, not against, the reality that the only people who can help a student are that child's teachers, parents and neighbors." However, one might add, only then when the "teachers, parents and neighbors," because now they know not what they do, are no longer creating more harm than good through ignorance of the consequences of what they do. In the meantime, institutions of higher education have an obligation to begin making the changes that will contribute to the dawning of that day.
Societal change has long been an important aspect of higher education, an important factor in the purpose of each institution. The mission and goals of the institutions relate to the degree to which the institution accepts that historical mandate, which in turn affects the admission and curriculum decisions that provide the direction of the programs they offer. If teachers are made, not born, hope remains for the creation of others in the image of those mentioned in the beginning of this paper. Institutions of higher education involved in the education, training, and professional development of teachers can reevaluate their mission, goals and policies. They can examine the ways in which their mission, goals and policies affect the governance of the institution, their admission and curriculum standards, and the academic accountability of their professorate in terms of a "trickle down effect" that benefits all children from the bottom, up through the quality of the teachers created at the vertex of the educational system.
This paper does not directly address those changes except in the abstract and peripherally in relationship to their connection to the teaching of teachers who teach the children who represent the future of the United States. The paper reviews recent literature and public awareness that lead to the development of a connection and relationship among institutions of higher education, teachers, maltreated children and the No Child Left Behind Act. It represents an attempt to contribute to the debate concerning the influence of the NCLB legislation at the level of higher education on the education, training and later professional development of teachers as those teachers will affect maltreated children, and every other child by extension.
This additional factor of maltreated children included here, is generally given short shrift in literature and practice regarding the education of teachers. The factor is not mentioned in literature about NCLB. The factor that may ultimately be determined to be a basis for major educational changes that will actually leave no child behind, the one that may lead to the creation of more teachers who go beyond "highly qualified" to stellar teachers who routinely catch falling stars, is the purpose for the effort involved here. If it contributes to critical reflection and continued constructive debate, the paper satisfies the purpose for which it is written. In any case, one caveat needs mentioning; the reader should not assume that this paper represents an objective or neutral analysis of this subject. It does not.

Today is not Yesterday: Educational Precedents
We want our teachers to be trained
So they can meet the obligations, their obligations as teachers.
We want them to know how to teach the science of reading.
In order to make sure
There's not this kind of federal--
Federal cufflink.
~George W. Bush~
At Fritsche Middle School
Milwaukee, WI
March 30, 2000

An African proverb says simply, "Today is not yesterday." Although that is axiomatic, those who strive to surpass the present "low-level of expectation," seen at all levels of education, need first to look at the past. To reach for what Tomlinson (2002) regards as "academic growth" that enhances the opportunity for all children to strive for the "two bedrock values: equity and excellence" that "throughout our history, Americans have stood strong for," demands it. Today is not yesterday. However, whatever education in the United States is today, that past continues to influence mission, goals, governance, tenure of faculty, curriculum and every aspect of institutions of higher education as they relate to teacher education today.
Historically, higher education in the United States had little to do with the subject of teaching teachers to teach. Before the latter half of the nineteenth century, the teaching of teachers was simply not a goal for institutions of higher learning. Until that time, institutions of higher learning focused on "pure" research, scholarship and inquiry. Process, not results, was the core of education. Today a shift has occurred that suggests somehow results in education, as evidenced by test results, are the end that matters, and whatever means used to achieve that end is irrelevant. A brief look at the changes in education through time puts that change in perspective.
Public schools were founded in the1840's and 1850s. (Travers & Rebore, 2000, p. 50). According to Brickman (2003, p.2) as early as1855, institutions such as Brown University "began to offer students courses in the new field of pedagogy, or education." In 1868, the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed equal protection before the law, and provided means for minorities to fight for equal educational practices. "Most of the state legislatures had passed laws providing for the establishment of normal schools" to train teachers by 1875. As entrance requirements became stricter, teacher colleges, which granted college degrees and trained students to teach" were developed. By the end of the 19th century, Travers and Rebore (2000, p. 53) point out that schools were well established and "teacher training was taken more seriously." The states had firm control of public education.
Lucas (1996, p. 67) mentions that the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 lead to the view of "the university as a seat of learning …a place where the specialized knowledge required by emergent professions would be required." In the latter half of the nineteenth century, an increasing number of vocations were "elevated" by having the status of "professional" conferred upon them. This lead to the "installation of an extended preparatory program for a particular career within a university curriculum." Higher education shifted. Not surprisingly, "no occupation aspiring to recognition as a true profession wanted to be left out." Teaching was no exception. Teachers, Lucas explains, (1996, p.69) "began clamoring for a place within the university." With its acceptance as a discipline, teaching found its place among the "professions." Lucas (1996, p. 71) adds, with the increased respect, teaching also became a responsibility as a "third general aim of the university, coexisting somewhat uneasily along with a public service and research." Henceforth, the teaching of teachers would take on a new dimension, adding to the "creeping vocalization" of academe, leading to a focus in education on results without regard to process.
Travis and Rebore (2000, p. 102). State the National Education Association Committee of Fifteen declared in the late 19th century, "Teachers…were not born but made." This position "implied the need for a thorough grounding in academics, child growth and development, and methods of teaching." The early 20th century added "compulsory attendance" for all children, including ever-increasing numbers of "exceptional children, offspring of non-English-speaking European immigrants, and unruly teenagers." Travis and Rebore (2000, p. 107) claim teachers were "not educated to cope with this new population, nor was the curriculum geared to meet all needs…in a sense, the public school failed to serve well the nonwhite, the immigrant, the poor, and the exceptional child." The 1960's brought added emphasis, funding and federal expectations that public schools do more to meet the needs of children beyond the academic.
Child maltreatment did not officially enter the educational scene until 1974 (Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Adoption and Family Services Act 1992, in Gullatt & Stockton 2000, p. 4) when "the U.S. Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, requiring states receiving federal funds…to adopt mandatory reporting Before the 1970's child abuse and neglect were not recognized as problems. Up until the last century, (2000, p. 1) as long as parents did not kill or permanently maim their children, neither the state nor society believed it their responsibility to intervene in the discipline of a child." Today, (2000, p. 4) all fifty states and District of Columbia require teachers, counselors, social service providers, mental health professionals, and physicians to report suspected child abuse and neglect." The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (2003, p. 89) explains that the law defines educational to "include all employees of a public or private educational institution for program; includes teachers, teacher assistants, administrators, and others directly associated with the delivery of education services." In spite of the legal requirement to report, in 2002, (2003, p. 8) only 16.2% of the reports made were by education personnel. Sechrist poignantly reminds the reader (2000, p. 2). "The true numbers and exact nature of the problem remain unknown, and the troubling fact of abuse or neglect often remains a terrible secret that is buried with the child." Where child maltreatment and education are concerned the past offers little evidence of change in process, or change in results.
Schools have made significant difference on other social issues. Schools can make a difference on the issue of child maltreatment. Kessner and Robinson (2002, p. 7) explain, "In today's society schools are becoming agents of social change." Perhaps anticipating the oft-heard complaints of teachers that society already expects too much of them, Kessner and Robinson argue that "rather than ponder the reasons for and propriety of this new role, school personnel should be at the frontline in the battle to address child maltreatment, because no one else is better positioned to ensure the health and safety of children."
Today, the states exercise the constitutional right, and legal responsibility to protect children and to provide public education to children in grades K-12. The questions about who teaches and how they teach once again comes to the forefront with the 2002 passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 legislation (Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002, p. 3), that holds states responsible to insure that schools have "quality" teachers, holds them accountable for what they teach, and expects that teaching to result in all children achieving academic proficiency within the next few years. The question now asked by many is, how can teachers educate children if they are not literate in the subject they presume to teach? Perhaps a more important question might be about how teachers can educate children if they lack knowledge and understanding of the children they presume to teach. According to Travers and Rebore, (2000, p. 98) "teachers especially will be judged by the instructional 'output' of their students. Although this may not seem entirely fair because of the numerous variables involved in successful learning, it is nevertheless going to be a widespread reality."
Although as Barone (2002, p. 22) says "a narrow view of instruction among teachers is not unusual in schools and classrooms where students are considered at-risk," the teachers there are not the only ones who choose to complain about what they perceive as unfair or unreasonable expectations of teachers. Educators in institutions of higher education have voiced the same and similar complaints. Part of the reason stems from the continuing debate in education that pits those who see higher education from ideological poles not easily reconciled against one another. One side seeks to keep higher education from being reduced to nothing more than a result, what Robert Maynard Hutchins (In Lucas, 1996, p. 79) described as "rampant confusion, capitulation to materialism and consumerism, and craven institutions distinguished chiefly for their unabashed vocationalism and unprincipled opportunism." Hutchin's "ideal university" would be a "center of independent thought and criticism," with the objective "to tame the pretensions and excesses of experts and specialists by drawing them into the academic circle and subjecting them to the criticism of other disciplines." (1996, p. 81). The ideal university and the education expected from attendance there would remain a process, unchanged for centuries, unchanging ever.
At the opposite pole, are those who are convinced that higher education in America should follow in the direction suggested by Ernest Boyd (In Lucas, 1996, p. 85). Boyd believed higher education should "be of greater service to the nation and the world." According to Lucas, (1996, p. 85) Boyd also thought "what was needed…was a commitment and a resolve on the part of the professorate to focus its efforts more closely on the production and dissemination of socially useful knowledge to its application to the pressing social issues of the day." Education then must be ever changing to accommodate an ever-changing society. In the nebulous area between these poles are those who seek some balance between them. They believe that institutions of higher learning must also "pay the bills" and "serve a vocational purpose," if they are to survive.
For the purposes of this paper, the debate is to others to continue…, resolve…, or watch as it eventually becomes a moot point in the ever-expanding global view of education as all result--and process is forever damned. According to Lucas, (1996, p. 157). "Most four-year colleges and universities have mindlessly mixed vocational training and academic education, and have done so bereft of any guiding vision of the whole." Perhaps the debate may already be "merely academic" for those institutions without a vision, who stare intently along the track for the first glimpse of a train to catch that will move them forward…not realizing that train already passed them by.
In any case, the direction for today focuses more along that much-maligned "creeping vocationalization" as it relates to the increasing demand for "greater accountability" in the education and training of "quality" teachers. The aspect that most increases pressure on institutes of higher education regardless of which way they are heading or even if, as Clark Kerr (Qtd. in Lucas, 1996, p. 82) said, they are "riding off in all directions and still staying in the same place" is the No Child Left Behind legislation. It mandates "highly qualified teachers" in all classrooms by 2005-6. Implicit is the demand for improved teacher education. Implied is the expectation that the improvement will be quick, and effective, the results reflected in the measurement of proficiency results at all lower levels of education.
In order to meet that NCLB mandate to produce "highly qualified teachers," institutions of higher education must become ever more like Lucas' (1996, pp. 140-141) description of them as "knowledge factories," dispensing knowledge as a "commodity, something to be used or consumed," with ever more emphasis on "all that is objective and quantifiable, precise, and publicly verifiable?" This is so they can pass tests," and enter a "profession" that teaches others to pass tests. The ever more "larger questions of human meaning, purpose, or significance" must be consigned to the "realm of the unanswerable and the insignificant," in order to teach teachers to teach only that which can be tested.
According to Lucas (1996, p. 160), the list of irrelevant goals for institutions of higher learning now include the development of "values and habits of mind considered integral to the academic enterprise, for example, tolerance and respect for honest differences of opinion." He adds, "the importance of critical analysis and logic; respect for the role of evidence in argumentation; intellectual honesty; awareness of the differences among opinions, beliefs, normative judgments and empirical facts; aesthetic facts; aesthetic appreciation of creative works; and so on," to that list of irrelevant goals. NCLB's mandated results of "proficiency" leave no room for an institutional objective "to induct learners into ways of knowing, assisting students to 'pass into' and 'walk around' inside varying fields of study, to explore, as it were, the several worlds of humankind's physical and biological environment, of contemporary civilization and its historical antecedents?" As Lucas (1996, p. 162) suggests, the quest to learn about "the 'inner space' of the human mind, its workings, and the products of its creative imagination" now join other relics of an educational history dismissed by many teachers, as "irrelevant."
Imagine if it could be otherwise. Do institutions of higher education have to do as said in Lucas (1996, p. 158), and "disavow any intent to prepare students directly for employment at the baccalaureate level?" Should they "…disabuse… [any] mistaken notion that the primary purpose of coming to college is to enable a graduate 'to get a better job?" Alternatively, might there be a third option in the educational debate? An option that enables a future for institutions of higher education that embodies the past, learns from the present, and has a mission and goal that no child be left behind in our society?
Will a day dawn when institutions of higher education no longer maintain missions, policies and curriculum that fail to teach present and future teachers how to teach all students that educational proficiency is more than a mandated result measured on a test? Will a sun rise upon a day when teachers learn that education can be rather a process measured eventually by the quality of life each child manifests through the lessons he or she learned in school and make every teaching decision based on that goal? Will the sun shine on every child, even those maltreated ones now lurking in the shadows, because so few care to bring them into the light? As today is not yesterday, today does not have to be tomorrow.

The Hand is Quicker than the Eye: Smoke and Mirrors in Education Today
Oftentimes, we live in a processed world--
You know,
People focus on the process
And not results.
~George W. Bush~
Washington, D.C.
May 29, 2003

Magicians know the hand is quicker than the eye. They count on that as they practice to create an illusion intended to keep people focused on anticipated results. The magician counts on people as willing accomplices to the success of the deception. They ignore the process and eagerly anticipate the results. They see what they expect to see. Creators know the hand is quicker than the eye, too. They count on that while they practice skills to reach a level of proficiency that enables them to manifest unimaginable levels of excellence through their efforts. Those watching are amazed and with all evidence to the contrary, insist no process but only magic can account for what they see. Some already suggest that NCLB is about smoke and mirrors. Is the warning enough to cause more people to open their eyes?
Everyone, not only children, is left behind when education becomes a result, not a process, when the end, as in testing "proficient" under "qualified teachers" justifies the means. No one wins when The California State Board of Education (School Wise Press, 2002, p. 1) is sued "for trying to deem almost all teachers 'highly qualified' by edict." All lose when anyone forgets as AAC&U President C. G. Schneider (Qtd. In Carnegie Foundation Press Release, 2003) explains, "Success in fostering education requires intentionality and interconnection at every level of the education system." This is a "complex world." As J. Holmgren, chair of The Carnegie Foundation's board of trustees, (Qtd. in Carnegie Foundation Press Release, 2003) clarifies for those who might not understand the need for intentionality and interconnection,
The ability to integrate learning from different sources is incredibly important for professional success, for civic responsibility, and for one's own understanding. One of the defining features of liberal education is achieving this solid connection--among courses, between academic course work and life experiences, between theory and practice, understanding and action, ideas and values.
Although education, today, chooses to focus on results rather than process, life continues according to natural laws of connectivity, and relativity, not controlled by man's mandates. Process continues whether the Bush administration believes in it or not.
The lessons learned by maltreated children, the values, ideas, understandings, strengths, and skills developed from surviving their life experiences, and the unique perspectives they develop are the result of a process. Their lessons learned offer connections and relationships not recognized by others lacking such experiences about "understanding and action, ideas and values" of others. Ironically, the lessons learned by maltreated children may have more to do with understanding and developing "professional success, civic responsibility," and education of the "masses" of societal maltreated children in the global economy and world of the future. Associate Deputy Under Secretary Corwin (2003, p.1) said at the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Annual Conference, "a very pervasive theme of No Child Left Behind is to hold States, school districts, and schools accountable for educating all children to high academic standards." He specified all children as "all children of all racial and ethnic groups and including those who are economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, or disabled." All children by definition include maltreated children. They are part of every other group of children identified by the No Child Left Behind legislation.
Child maltreatment knows no boundaries. Brodkin & Coleman (In Gullatt & Stockton 2000, p. 3) found it "among all segments of society, regardless of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic locale, religious belief, or the age of the perpetrator." Not surprisingly, research indicates that maltreated children share similar characteristics with other more studied groups of children. For example, Tabors and Snow (In Barone, 2002) found children from minority and low--income backgrounds are "difficult to teach." Others "(Allington & Walmsley, 1995; Au, 1993; August & Hakuta, 1997; Delpit, 1995; Fitzgerald, 1995; Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Natriello, McDill & Pallas, 1990; Walker-Moffat, 1995 in Gullatt & Stockton, 2000) find they "experience difficulty learning in schools." Research also indicates (Cates, Markell, & Bettenhausen 1995; in Gullatt & Stockton, 2000) "Child abuse often leads to a full range of problems in children, from poor academic performance and social maladjustments to varied physical and cognitive disabilities. In addition, research (Reyome & Gaeddert 1998; in Gullatt & Stockton 2000) has consistently "linked child abuse with educational failure,"
Other research findings (James-Weagraff 1998; in Gullatt & Stockton 2000) indicate that, "disability, developmental delay, or problem adjusting to the school environment may be directly related to an abusive home environment." Romeo (2000, p. 1) finds that "all forms of child abuse… [affect] "their ability to focus their energy upon the task of learning" and adds, (2000, p. 3) any form of abuse "interferes with the child's ability to learn." Brodkin and Coleman (In Gullatt & Stockton, 2000) determined that child abuse may lead a child to "lose ground academically, socially and behaviorally," may cause "wariness around adults, frequent school absences, proneness to accidents, poor concentration, academic failures, increased aggression, hanging around school before and after classes, and poor peer relationships." Overall, Staudt (2001, p. 6) found "maltreated children were 2.5 times more likely than non- maltreated children to have experienced grade repetition…lower scores on the standardized math… lower English grades than did no maltreated children…[and] more discipline referrals and suspensions." Even more evidence exists to demonstrate that maltreated children's life experiences affect every aspect of their academic experiences, which in turn affects the environment of the classroom for teachers and peers as well.
As failures of students increased in classrooms, efforts to change that without first determining what causes are involved, lead to more "results oriented" decisions in the educational community. Koppich (2000, p. 268) explains "early reform (1983- mid 80's) efforts were based on the notion that if educators continued to do what they had always done--but did it harder, faster, and generally under stricter state scrutiny--improved student achievement would result." According to Koppich, policy changes and actions taken "centered primarily on four aspects of education improvement." One is "higher and more rigorous academic standards for students." A second is "designing new curricula around these standards." A third involves "ensuring that all students take larger numbers of academic courses." The fourth requires the creating "of new kinds of assessments aligned with new standards and curricula." A "second reform cycle" [late 1980's-mid-1990's] criticized "teachers' limited professional decision making authority and the relatively low level of teachers' salaries."
By the end of the "1980's, policymakers and reformers began to zero in on the conditions of teaching." Koppich (2000, p. 268) adds the preposition was:
If teaching began more closely to resemble a profession, with better compensation, and a taste of the kind of discretion professionals in other fields enjoy, more competent people would be attracted to teaching and good teachers…would remain. Improving student achievement was the desired result."
Unfortunately, Koppich (p. 269) continues, "state departments of education and local school districts clearly had made the choice, in the way they expended Eisenhower funds, to trade quality for quantity." They elected to pay for "low-intensity in-service training," staff development that was both "generic and benign," and had "little impact on improving teaching, or, by extrapolation, on increasing student achievement." By the mid 90's, Koppich (2000, p. 271) explains, "Improved teaching quality…came to encompass three fundamental elements." Better "teacher preparation," definite "standards for both beginning and accomplished teaching," and "higher quality professional development, using research about effective teacher learning to shape programs designed to increase teachers' expertise in ways that lead to improved student performance
Today, Brickman (2003, p. 2) says, "A wave of educational reform…has begun to affect teacher training." Brickman adds that "Several hundred teachers colleges in the U.S., as well as private schools that train teachers… [In addition, universities] have established departments of education." In spite of these important changes in education today, learning and understanding more about the students, the supposed recipients of teaching, remains off the lists of ways to improve teaching. Given that, and the tendency to avoid learning about child maltreatment and its effects on teaching and learning, it is not surprising that so many (Hazzard & Rupp, 1983 Maher, 1987; David, 1993; Birchall & Hallett, 1995; in Hodgkinson & Baginsky, 2000) confirm, "Little attention has been paid to the provision of child protection training within courses of initial teacher training." Even when there is any teacher training about maltreated children it "mainly concentrates on concerns for teachers' legal and professional responsibilities and school procedures." Few teacher-training courses "include any specific child protection element." Some courses referred to child protection "when other general issues were covered." Others "did not think it was necessary at all." Comments of respondents about existing "training make clear how devastatingly inadequate many are….We deal with it [child abuse] in passing rather than as a separate issue." Another respondent said "We thought of it late and just stuck it in….We don't deal with child abuse in the home context, except through chance….we are not specifically targeting….it will come up in a haphazard manner." One summed up the opinion of many by saying, "We have to keep it short and snappy."
Sadly, although there seems little time or inclination presently to teach or learn about maltreated children and the impact they have on educational results, the same is not true about training for testing. Schwartz and Robinson (2000) point out that The Higher Education Act reauthorization requires "teacher education programs…to prepare their students to teach in a standards-based environment." Standardized testing is a means for measuring linear learning. Students learn specific information culled from their learning materials with the intention to enable them to pass tests. Students claim they frequently forget the information before they leave the testing facility. Whatever else one might call such "learning" Schulman (2002) indicates it isn't based on Bloom's taxonomy of Educational Objectives, with its six categories of "knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation." There is no indication that the follow-up Affective Taxonomy comes into play either. Where is the "receiving, responding, valuing, organizing, internalizing" of information taught to pass a test…an objective that research indicates is not met anyway? As Linn, Baker and Betebenner (Linn et al, 2002) explain "it is not uncommon for the percentage of students scoring at currently identified levels for proficient or better on a state test to be 50% or 40%, or even less for the state as a whole." This hardly represents successful learning through the present emphasis on preparing teachers to prepare students for testing.
The teacher/principal (Winerip, 2003) described in the introduction to this paper said she "is offended that many politicians leading the standardized testing charge, including President Bush and his brother Jeb, the governor of Florida (graduates of Phillips Academy in nearby Andover, Mass.), are products of private schools that are exempt from state testing." She added, "It's like they're saying a safe mediocre education is good enough for public school." Because she was not willing to accept that, some students today have the opportunity to prove they can succeed far beyond expectations of what children "at risk" are capable of accomplishing.
Unfortunately, more may be necessary than positive examples of teachers who choose an alternative pedagogy before change becomes less newsworthy in the field of education. Barone (2002) mentions studies that document "even systemic support may not be sufficient to bring about sustained change in instruction, especially when there is increased pressure for students to do well on standardized tests," as is likely to occur with NCLB. Others in the teaching profession might more easily follow positive examples if they understand the importance of alternative forms of teaching and learning in practice rather than briefly glossed in theory, and played with on a superficial level in teacher education classes.
Consider alternative pedagogies of engagement (Herbert, 2003) as ways to involve the minds, the hearts, the hands and feet, the passions and interests of students who are otherwise inclined to learn passively. In addition, they may motivate those who resist learning because family or peer influence dictates that learning is not as important as "chillin' and playin' around in school." Can the pedagogies of engagement provide enough to overcome the pressure of "friends and sometimes relatives" who see the "courageous act" of studying as "a threat and react bitterly?" Is the hallmark of these pedagogies the fact that they grab the student's interest? Alternatively, is their purpose not only to grab but also to hold that interest, not only to entice, but also to instruct?
Schulman (2002, p.3) wanted to know if "engagement is a worthwhile end in itself," not simply "a means to some other end?" Could it be, Schulman wondered, that process perhaps is more important than results? This questioning lead Schulman to develop his "pedagogical content knowledge" category of knowledge needed for teaching. In essence, Schulman (2002, p.2) advocates a form of teaching that combines both knowledge of content and knowledge of pedagogy that lead a student to make a "commitment which, in turn, make new engagements possible--even necessary." His "taxonomy" makes the following assertion:
Learning begins with student engagement, which in turn leads to knowledge and understanding. Once someone understands, he or she becomes capable of performance or action. Critical reflection on one's practice and understanding leads to higher order thinking in the form of a capacity to exercise judgment in the face of uncertainty and to created designs in the presence of constraints and unpredictability. Ultimately, the exercise of judgment makes possible the development of commitment. In commitment, we become capable of professing our understandings and our values, our faith and our love, our skepticism and our doubts, internalizing those attributes and making them integral to our identities.
Schulman (2002, p.11) is convinced "In both the emotional and collaborative aspects of learning, the development of trust becomes central. Learners must learn both to trust and to be worthy of trust." Maltreated children, who have learned the importance for survival of learning to trust no one, will not easily reach the level of trust necessary to learn in the classroom, but Schulman's methods offer more incentive to such children to do so. In a world where survival is a daily mission, whether one passes a test or not is hardly relevant, and serves as no incentive at all. Learning as a process enjoyed and mastered for its own sake could be.
No doubt, to those opposing teaching to the test, "the best rejoinder" is to ask, '"why not?" as well. As Lucas explains, "if comprehensive examinations were assembled such that student performances on them were valid and reliable indicators of what had been learned (or a reasonable sampling thereof)," then why shouldn't the testing process itself "be considered unobjectionable." (1996, p. 163). Unfortunately, for those with such a perspective, research does not support that view. Countless studies attest to the fact that "far too many professors implicitly treat teaching as a simple, linear 'information-transfer process, a straightforward matter of getting information or knowledge directly into students' heads…" (1996, p. 170) Sadly, many studies demonstrate the "students" of those professors lack sufficient knowledge to teach any differently in pre-school, elementary and secondary schools.
Apparently, for many today--perhaps even for the majority--"testing is not the problem." Rather they are inclined to say it is the imposition of tests, combined with the failure "to invest the necessary money and attention to make sure that students in the poor districts have qualified teachers and decent schools" (The New York Times, June 30, 2003) that is the problem. Ironically, a supply of "qualified teachers" is not available for that. Teachers are made, not born. In the beginning, teachers create in the image of those who taught them. While those at institutions of higher education who are teaching future teachers are not necessarily qualified to do so, what can change for those who follow?
Whereas Lucas (1996, p. 213) says "the underlying objective of statewide planning in higher education is easier to articulate than it is to achieve or enforce," the fact remains that there is enough research available today to provide alternative methods to try, to test, and to research. These actions in turn provide directions in a search for ways to achieve change in higher education that can "trickle down" through other levels of education, and return with the next generation of students as advances, which in turn lead to more and better changes. Teacher education can be recursive rather than linear. Basically what is needed is political consensus in support of the notion that, ideally publicly colleges and universities should function as elements of an ecologically balanced, interdependent whole." [Emphasis, Lucas'].

Moving toward the Light: Conceiving Stellar Teachers forTomorrow
I want it to be said
That the Bush Administration was a results-oriented administration,
Because I believe the results of focusing our attention and energy
On teaching children to read
And having an education system that's responsive to the child
And to the parents,
As opposed to mired in a system that refuses to change,
Will make America what we want it to be--
A literate country
And a hopefuller country.
~George W. Bush~
Washington, D.C.
January 11, 2001

If teacher conception doesn't begin in schools attended, doesn't gestate in institutions of higher education and doesn't reach term on the threshold of the first classroom door through which the would-be-teacher crosses, but rather, a teacher is made, not born, as suggested by so many, then what makes a stellar teacher/principal like Ms. Meier and her cohort mentioned in the introduction? What factors contribute to their excellent performance in teaching, their ability to save falling stars? Lucas (1996, p. 237) states "Traditionally teaching has been considered a private activity." and yet, without a transparency in the classroom how will inadequate teaching methods be identified, exceptional methods as those used by Meier, et al, be learned from and taught to others? That "privacy" so long a tradition of teaching may be a contributing factor to low student achievement evidenced at all levels of society today. Certainly it deserves investigation.
Bush, (GWB aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003 in Weisberg, 2003), the self avowed "master of low expectations" the power behind the NCLB mandates for testing, reminds the country, he GWB, Florence, SC, January 11, 2000 in Weisberg, 2003) will "not stand for the subsiation of failure." Perhaps it is time for someone to suggest that if teachers must sacrifice their privacy in teaching for the good of the order, well, then so be it. Bush (GWB, CNN online chat, Aug. 30, 2000 in Weisberg, 2003) says, "As governor of Texas, I have set high standards for our public schools, and I have met those standards." Given that prime example, some might easily assume the setting of standards, the requirement for testing, the mandating of schedules for student proficiency is not enough to ensure positive results. Presumably, the process of teacher education is paramount to the results now in evidence, the processes now lacking as means to create high quality teachers. According to Lucas, (1996, p.232) "The fact of the matter is, most novice teachers teach as they themselves have been taught or as they observe others around them teaching." Browne (1999, p. 1) says "College students develop the skills and attitudes that faculty encourage." (Nevertheless, teacher education is only the beginning of what makes a stellar teacher.
Obviously, if teacher education generally isn't creating teachers of the caliber of Meier, and others like her, over time they apparently refined and modeled their philosophies of teaching, honed and polished their skills accordingly, selected tools and methods to enhance the achievements and successes of their students through other means and processes. Along the way they learned from others' experiences and from self- evaluations what "higher quality teaching" encompasses. Kolodny (1998, p.166) claims, "When faculty examine our own learning styles, we are reminded that we all tend to teach in the modes through which we ourselves learn best." Meier, and those teachers like her, obviously expanded beyond that limited mode of teaching defined by Kolodny, which suggests by extension that teachers can effectively teach only those students who learn as they do.
Additionally teachers can teach only what they know. Studies reveal the importance of teacher preparation and expertise. According to Koppich (2000, p. 286-287) "Teacher qualifications….are said to account for 50 to 90 percent of the variation in student achievement." Yet, Koppich adds, "More important, beyond these general standards, studies confirm that teachers' subject matter knowledge counts." Research on effective professional development exists as well. From that, "something of a consensus…has emerged about what constitutes effective professional development. Programs that are "likely to increase teacher knowledge and skill and contribute to improving student learning have a set of common qualities." These qualities include "effective staff development programs [that] revolve around the subjects teachers teach, the curriculum for which they are responsible, and the standards they are to help students meet. In addition teachers need opportunities "to become deeply immersed in subject matter," and "continuous, sustained, and cumulative [training]."
Whereas research indicates, "one-shot workshops, one day courses, and one-time lectures do little to improve teaching practice," they need to be "directly linked to what teachers do in their schools and their classrooms." Ultimately, Koppich (2000, p. 290) insists, what matters most, is that "effective professional development makes the connection between subject matter and pedagogy." Parsons (2000, p. 290) simply says, "Knowing and believing in what you teach helps make you a powerful educator in the lives of children." Koppich quotes Cohen and Hill (Qtd. in Koppich, 2000, p. 291).as saying "The content of professional development…makes a difference to teachers' practice, and that practice makes a difference to student achievement."
Unfortunately, according to Lucas, (1996, p. 219) "What the public appears to want more than anything else from higher education of all types and at all levels is, simply, direct job training." Lucas (p. 221) explains, "Part…of the movement for greater accountability in higher education is the demand for renewed attention to matters of pedagogy." He adds, "More attention should be paid to teaching per se…. [and] efforts should be made to improve the quality of learning." Travers and Rebore, (2000, p. 14) say, "many educators by modern standards think of a profession in terms of a core criteria….[that includes] a lifelong career commitment, social service, intellectual techniques, code of ethics, [and] independent judgment relative to professional performance." Some may notice that quality teaching, subject knowledge, and student achievement are not on that list. A possible reason for that absence is something not new to the teaching profession.
Keim (1989) says, "A major obstacle to committing to instructional development is the high degree of satisfaction most faculty members have with their teaching performance. Browne and Keeley (In Browne, 1999) present evidence that "on self-appraisal surveys 90 percent of faculty members described their teaching performance as either above average or superior." Others (Browne and Keeley 1988; Milton, Pollio and Elson, 1986; in Browne, 1999) claim that "college faculty habitually overestimate their instructional performance is unfortunately extensive." Given the apparently inflated opinions of themselves and their knowledge, how many will pursue the quality of professional development shown to make a measurable difference in teaching and learning? Lucas (1996, p. 224) acknowledges that
"The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NACTE) functions as a type of imprimatur, supplying its own detailed and extensive list of requirements to which individual programs must conform…. ….evaluates a teacher's content knowledge and skills in the classroom….serves as a symbol of teaching excellence.
Education is failing too many. Teachers are not teaching. Students are not learning and the President of the United States offers as a direction to improving the situation, the following advice: "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test." (GWB, Townsend, TN, Feb. 21, 2001 in Weisberg, 2003). One cannot argue with the intent of that, or of the intent of his NCLB Act and legislation. However, research certainly has established that results-oriented education, with testing as the preferred indicator of "learning," at every level from PreK through early undergraduate studies, fails to meet its mission of educating students. As higher education fails to make the changes needed to "trickle down" through better trained and professionally developed teachers, with testing as the preferred indicator of learning at every level, there seems little reason to expect results-oriented education to lead to the making of higher quality teachers at any level.
Those convinced that the education of tomorrow must not be the education of today-- or yesterday--agree that any significant change must come from the vertex of institutions of higher education. According to Schuster (1997) having an administration "dedicated to improving the teaching skills of its faculty can provide faculty with not only the empowerment but also the resources necessary to effect change in their pedagogical methods." Browne (1999) suggests, "Only when a university's upper administration devotes itself to improving its faculty's teaching with both its rhetoric and its budget will the faculty truly be motivated to better their teaching." Never the less, administrations of higher education cannot be held accountable for all the failings of today's teachers, or expected to make all the difference for tomorrow. As Browne (1999) suggests, teachers at all levels must "wish to improve, they must constantly question their understanding and mastery of both society and education as well as commit themselves to perpetual instructional development."

No Child Left Behind: Paradigm or Paradox?
You've got to measure
In order to begin to effect change that's just more—
When there's more than talk, there's just actual—
A paradigm shift--
~George W. Bush~
Washington, D.C.
July 1, 2003

Vinovskis (2000, pp. 374-375) maintains, "The education and socialization of children involve highly sensitive decisions not only about how students should be educated, but also about what they should be taught." Again, the element not mentioned is the differences among the recipients of that teaching. One child is not another. Teachers educated to professional levels not now reached by the majority, will be able to take what they have learned about using the curriculum to address minority and low-income children exhibiting the same or similar symptoms of their problems, to the needs of maltreated children regardless of income or minority status.
Barone (2002) explains "numerous studies (e.g. Moll & Gonzalea, 1997; Nieto, 1999; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988) have demonstrated that in spite of being considered at risk, children from low-income and minority backgrounds can and do succeed in school." Evidence to date, Barone adds, indicates maltreated children also "can and do succeed in school when intervention is initiated early and in effective ways."
Moreover, according to Barone (2002), the studies on low-income and minority children consistently show, "it is crucial that teachers support children's out of school cultures by inviting these rich backgrounds into their classrooms." Maltreated children also have an out of school culture that binds them as a sub-group of students as much as do any other group of children labeled as low-income, minority, disabled, learning impaired, or whatever. This culture needs to be treated with respect and brought into the classroom, too.
Barone adds that teachers also need to "value the strengths of students, rather than focus on potential difficulties identified by demographers or researchers, in order for students to succeed." Research indicates that maltreated children have strengths and abilities not common to non-maltreated children. Bear and Barone (In Barone, 2002) explain "the most appropriate instruction for children" is based on assessing "the knowledge that children bring to the classroom," then developing "instruction based on the student's strengths." Everyone benefits from diversity.
Before No Child Left Behind becomes more than empty rhetoric institutions of higher education that take upon themselves the responsibility for educating teachers must make changes. They must no longer "vocationalize" by filling squares once thought sufficient for teacher education, but rather must gather the stuff of stars to create teachers that can catch the falling stars of tomorrow. Then it can be said of institutions of higher education who teach teachers…Today is not yesterday and tomorrow is not today.

References
Barone, D. (2002). Literacy teaching and learning in two kindergarten classrooms in a school labeled at-risk. The Elementary School Journal, 102.5, 415-438. Chicago: University of Chicago. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Browne, M. N. (1999, June). Teaching how to teach critical thinking. College Student Journal. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from Findarticles.
Bush, G. W. (2002, September 9). Remarks on implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Weekly compilation of presidential documents. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Carnegie Foundation. (January 23, 2003). Make liberal education a national priority from kindergarten through graduate school, urge national leaders. [Press Release]. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from http://www.caregiefoundation.org/newsroom/press-releases/03.01.2.htm
Corwin. (2003). The No Child Left Behind Act: Where are we now? Where are we going? Presentation by Associate Deputy Under Secretary Corwin at the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Annual Conference. U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 22, 2003 from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OII/pr/20030308.html
Dillon, S. (2003, May 23). States cut test standards to avoid sanctions. The New York Times. Retrieved May 27, 2003, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/education/22EDUC.html
Gullatt, D. E. & Stockton, C. E. (2000). Involving educators in the identification and reporting of suspected child abuse. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 84.619, NASSP Bulletin; Reston. 79-89. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Gullatt, D. E. & Stockton, C. E. (2000). Recognizing and reporting suspected child abuse. American Secondary Education, 29.1, 19-. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu. Herbert, B. (2003, June 10). Breaking away. The New York Times. Retrieved July 10, 2003, from http://nytimes.com'2003'07/10/opinion/10Herb.html
Hill, P. T. (2000) The federal role in education. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2000, (pp. 11-58). Brookings.
Hodgkinson, K. & Baginsky, M. (2000). Child protection training in school-based initial teacher training: A survey of school-centered initial teacher training courses and their trainees. Educational Studies, 26.3. 269-279. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Kesner, J. E. & Robinson, M. (2002). Teachers and mandated reporters of child maltreatment: Comparison with legal, medical, and social services reporters. Children & Schools, 24.4, 222- . Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Kolodny, A. (1998). Failing the future: A dean looks at higher education. Durham, NC: Duke.
Koppich, J. (2000). The federal role in teacher professional development. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2000, (pp. 265-306). Brookings.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31.6.
Lucas, C.J. (1996). Crisis in the academy: Rethinking higher education in America. New York: St. Martin's.
Miner, B. (2001). Bush's Plan is shallow and ignores critical details. RethinkingSchools: An Urban Education Resource. Retrieved June 29, 2003 from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/bush.shtml
Parsons, A. (2003). The importance of professional development. Childhood Education, 79.3, 160N-. Retrieved May 2, 2003 from XanEdu Research.
Romeo, F. F. (2000). Child abuse and report cards. Education, 120.3. 438-441. Retrieved from
May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Schemo, D. J. (2003, July 11). Questions on data cloud luster of Houston schools. The New York Times. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/national/11HOUS.html
School Wise Press. (2002). Passive opposition to 'No Child Left Behind' as negotiations begin. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
http://www.schoolwisepress.com/smart/news/rotation-news/nclb.html
Schulman, L. S. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change, 34.6. 36-44. Reprinted by Carnegie Foundation eLibrary. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/docs/printable/making_differences.htm
Schwartz, R. B. & Robinson, M. A. (2000). Goals 2000 and the standards movement. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2000, (pp. 173-214). Brookings.
Sechrist, W. (2000). Health educators and child maltreatment: A curious silence. The Journal of School Health, 70.6. 241-243. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Staudt, M. M. (2001). Psychopathology, peer relations, and school functioning of maltreated children: A literature review. Children & Schools, 23.2, 85-98. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from XanEdu Research.
Why Testing Can't Fail. (2003, June 30). The New York Times. Retrieved July 1, 2003, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/30/opinion/30MON.html
Tomlinson, C. A. (2002). Proficiency is not enough. In National Association for Gifted Children, Education Week Commentary, reprinted from Education Week, 22.10. 36, 38. 36. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from http://www.nagc.org/Policy/tomlinsonarticlenov62002.htm
Travers, P. D. & Rebore, R. W. (2000). Foundations of Education: Becoming a Teacher. Fourth ed. Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
U. S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration on Children and Families. (2003). Child maltreatment 2001. Washington D. C.: Government Printing Office. (Publication also available on line, from http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb ).
Vinovskis, M. A. (2000). The federal role in educational research and development. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2000, (pp. 173-214). Brookings.
Weisberg, J. (2003). The complete Bushisms: Updated frequently. Slate. Retrieved June 13, 2003, from http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/
White House. (2001). President Bush signs landmark education reforms into law: Bipartisan effort reaps historic freedom and flexibility for America's schools.
Retrieved December 27, 2002 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/education
Winerip, M. (2003, June ). Going for depth instead of prep. The New York Times. Retrieved June 13, 2003, from http://www.nytimes.com'2003'06/11/education/11EDUC.html
Winter, G. (2003, July 10). California postpones exit exam. The New York Times. Retrieved July 10, 2003, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/national/10EDUC.html

Child Abuse and Neglect: Learning Another Way

2008-01-19T15:40:00.001-05:00

An Understanding of Human Learning:
Keystone of Comprehending Human Behavior Gone Awry

Nancy Lee Gray
A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements of
ED7700 Learning Theory and the Educational Process
March 14, 2004

Abstract

Child maltreatment as a family-culture and environmental factor during development, with its concurrent psychosocial aspects as influential to early human learning, and subsequent learning within a school-culture and environment is examined through existing literature. Research indicates the links between parenting beliefs and parent-child relationships are the only statistically significant predictor to children's mastery levels. Never the less, research is not yet focused on child maltreatment as a significant factor within that paradigm. The possible links between early child maltreatment and early learning are examined within the context of various learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, and motivation and memory. Potential links between that early learning and subsequent learning difficulties within the school-culture environment are posited in the same context of learning theories.

Table of Contents

Introduction 4
Behaviorism 13
Cognitivism 22
Memory and Motivation 29
Conclusion 42
Reference 46

An Understanding of Human Learning:
Keystone of Comprehending Human Behavior Gone Awry

The hum and buzz of the crowded room turns instantly to silence as though someone yelled FREEZE! during an impromptu game of statues. No one moves. No one breathes. All eyes turn towards the chair just thrown down across the room. A high-pitched NO! shatters the silence. The four-year-old screamer kicks a chair, hurls another to the floor, sweeps art supplies from the table.
"It's your fault," she yells, as she lunges at a nearby child still frozen in his place.
"Not a good day for Misty," mutters the aide as she steps between the children. The near-victim scurries away toward shelter behind the Head Start teacher. He intends to live another day. For Misty the decision is more complex.
Tensed arms cross in determined self-protective hunch, eyes squint with intent to survive any challenge, mouth pinches and distorts as if from some gut-wrenching pain from unseen wounds, as the child breathes with the quick sharp snorts of a cornered bull. Unblinking, she returns the unfathomed, unsteady, puzzled gaze of the aide. Helplessness holds them fast. The red flag hangs momentarily suspended between them.
Seized by the drama of the moment, captured by demands to quickly restore an environment more conducive to learning, imprisoned by ignorance of yesterday's learning as the keystone to today's learning, few recognize the child's palpable fear that her survival is at risk. This failure can be rectified by increasing understanding of the effects on children's learning within "family-cultural environments" that include maltreatment of the children or other members of the family.
Those who choose to learn about this environment will soon note a "foreign" language learned in a family culture of violence or neglect known to result in behavior problems and aggression,(Levendosky, Huth-Bocks, Shapiro, & Semel, 2003). They will acknowledge an environment that models the "tendency to become highly self-critical when confronted with negative feedback (e.g., criticism from others; perception of doing poorly on a task(Kistner, Ziegert, Castro, & Robertson, 2001) that results in a "correlation between a child's low efficacy and higher help avoidance behavior,(Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988; in Ryan, Green, & Midgley, 1998.) They will recognize patterns that multiply the chances for ever increasing inappropriate behaviors in a child's attempt to salvage whatever remnants of self-worth remain. (Covington, 1992, 1998; Covington & Omelich, 1979 in Ormrod). And they will accept that children do not acquire the capacity to understand "that they and others can have false beliefs" (Alison Gopnik and Janet Astington, 1988), until around age 4, (Perner et al., 1992) so attempts to alter a young child's behaviors through that avenue are fraught with frustration for all.
Ridiculed by the jeering crowd, taunted by the matador, the bull, already exhausted, weakened and in pain, bleeding from wounds inflicted by the picadors, expects no help, and seeks none. To move is to die. But the matador moves. The gleaming sword raised overhead plunges down, appears to meet its target. The bull staggers, falls to the ground. The audience roars its approval, forgetting the bull never had a fighting chance to begin with. Maltreated children's odds are not any greater.
Frustrated, enraged, in pain and uncomprehending, the maltreated infant lacking any known means to modify the environment, much like the wounded bull still alive through the hands of the inept matador, bellows and thrashes about without cognitive intent. Some maltreated children retain this response. Others are actually clinically depressed. Their behaviors come across as defiant. The children are "saying something to you when they act like that, but instead of seeing what the behavior is saying, we punish it."(Hurst, 2004). Or we attempt to change behaviors on the surface for our immediate benefit without regard to the long-term outcome for the child. We choose.
With the bull down, the matador turns expectantly toward the silent crowd. Now they will decide. Not pity, not empathy not sympathy will determine their will. If the downed bull fought fiercely and with valor, proved himself a worthy adversary to his opponent, a thunderous roar of approval will signal their choice. The bull is given the chance to live. He will receive every assistance to do so. His strength of spirit will determine the rest.
As the bull appeared to give up, may have even participated through its failure to take any action to avoid its own destruction, so, too, do some children seem to make choices that contribute to their own destruction academically and socially. Lacking a healthy "help-seeking" behavior that would combine "aspects of cognitive and social engagement" as part of an effective "learning strategy and social interaction with others,"(Ryan, Gheen, & Midgley, 1998), the child is at-risk for resorting to early learned behaviors in response to present stimuli.
For some maltreated young children, any natural inclination towards goal-seeking relief disappears into a learned helplessness that surfaces whenever the child feels thwarted or endangered. Research indicates no significant gender differences "related to helplessness" among children. (Kistner et al., 2001). Whether boy or girl, the maltreated child responds as he or she has learned to do through his or her perceived personal experience. To make a sound is to be noticed. To move is to risk death.
This "early emergence of helplessness" in boys or girls, with its attendant negative consequences may be "particularly pernicious, with negative implications for children's psychological adjustment."(Kistner et al., 2001). There is no scientifically based reason to believe it will have positive implications for any academic or later life adjustments either.
The cries, salient or silent, of maltreated children who haven't yet given up all hope of being heard by the time they enter the academic community and culture are often lost in the cacophonous "noise" of disparate, competing professional theories, dissenting research conclusions, amateur "instincts" of many on dealing with children. The surrounding din includes thinly veiled lies and deceit by "caregivers" too ashamed or afraid to admit what goes on behind closed doors. Sound walls erected with the denials and excuses of professionals required by law in the 50 states plus Washington DC, to report suspected child maltreatment, but fail to do so, grow higher. In fact, although researchers believe teachers are in the best position to report, eighty-four percent of cases identified in schools are never reported. (Kesner & Robinson, 2002; Sechrist, 2000; U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003)
The infant's natural enough sense of helplessness that sometimes serves him well for learning to survive in the home-culture environment grows into the maltreated child's learned helplessness or manifests as inappropriate and frequently aggressive behaviors.
Ameliorating the effects of learning gone awry, mediating between the family-culture and environment that served as spawning ground for inappropriate behaviors, and facilitating opportunities for development of more socially established, effective ways to behave become goals for many academic professionals. Their efforts are directed and focused. Their intentions are good… good enough to pave the way to hell. Their results abysmal.
Unfortunately, the belief that the child is free to choose another way of being belies the basis for the early learning for maltreated children that choice is often dangerous. Freedom is an illusion at best. Chances for survival frequently increase in direct proportion to doing nothing…or at best doing nothing significantly different from the already-known-to-be-safe behaviors learned the hard way.
Motivation and self-regulated task behavior affect "early school achievement differences among young, economically at-risk and not-at-risk children."(Howse, Lange, Farran, & Boyles, 2003) Research also supports the idea that "family variables contribute to the development of motivational patterns and influence academic success." (Turner & Johnson, 2003). Additionally, research indicates "children from economically disadvantaged family-cultures lack adequate scholastic skills and are considered at greater risk for school failure than their affluent peers." (e.g., Alexander & Entwistle, 1988; Goldenberg, Reese, & Gallimore, 1992; Jordan, Huttenlocher, & Levine, 1992; St. Pierre & Layzer, 1998; Stipek & Ryan, 1997 in Howse, Lange, Farran, & Boyles, 2003). But child maltreatment knows no boundaries, is found among "all segments of society, regardless of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic locale, religious belief, or the age of the perpetrator." (Gullatt & Stockton, 2000)
Never the less, few research studies exist of these relationships with later "school-related behaviors…learning processes…poor school readiness…and low achievement profiles of at-risk children." (Howse et al., 2003) And few studies exist that explore child maltreatment as a factor that may equal or surpass the others in determining school-related behaviors, and subsequent plans for modifying behaviors for preschool students and beyond.
When faced with inappropriate behaviors, some educators may ask, "What's wrong with this child?"
Others may ask, "How can we motivate this child to change, empower this child to strive for success?"
Those who seek to make a difference may take workshops, participate in seminars, read and study with sincere intent to learn how best to change the children to increase their odds for success. They ask their questions with intent to find answers, but the answers seldom work as expected if the source of the child's behaviors is rooted in maltreatment.
Perhaps in order to receive answers that do work, the questions should change direction; might ask for example: what elements of the original learning environment, the child's "home-culture," led to the development and maintenance of the behaviors exhibited by this child? What can be learned from the child's "self-initiated actions on and interactions with the environment?"(Odom & Wolery, 2003). What changes to the academic learning environment can contribute to an alternative that enables this child to thrive and develop in new directions? What adult mediations of the children's experiences will "promote learning?" (Horn, Lieber, Li, Sandall, & Schwartz, 2000; Losardo & Bricker, 1994; Wolery et al., 1998; Davis et al., 1994; Venn et al., 1993; in Odom & Wolery, 2003) Who can best assist the child in learning new uses for whatever strengths have already developed? What means of communication will enable the child to ask for help in modifying weaknesses that can only serve in his or her own destruction. Where and how does one begin?
This paper examines the problem of child maltreatment as a family-culture and environmental factor with its "psychosocial aspects" as influential to human learning (Serpell, Sonnenschein, Baker, & Ganapathy, 2002). Implications for academically at-risk children entering school are considered within the context of the probability of on-going maltreatment and unchanged home/family cultures.
Parent(s) cooperation is presumed not available, as is so often claimed by teachers of at-risk children.(Leroy & Symes, 2001)Never the less, parents' influence is not absent. According to Turner and Johnson, "the parent-child relationship was the only statistically significant predictor of links between parenting beliefs and parent-child relationships to children's mastery." (Turner & Johnson, 2003). In spite of that finding, little if any research takes that factor into the realm of a parent-child relationship of maltreatment and its link to children's mastery.
Accepting that link as a high probability for the basis of this discussion, possible connections between the learning of the early years within a parent child relationship as it relates to inappropriate school behaviors and failure of young children to achieve expected mastery are considered from various perspectives of learning through concepts related to behaviorism, cognitivism, motivation and memory.
Opportunities for the at-risk child to flourish within alternative environments as they might be restructured and reconstructed within the existing academic culture and environment are suggested. A base-line theory for providing a real chance for the maltreated child to capitalize on his or her strength of spirit is offered as a starting point for future directions of research.
Behaviorism
The child, Misty, during her first three years of life learned primarily through a series of stimulus-response experiences she can't tell you about. Each year over five million reports are made to Child Protective Services Agencies. Over twenty-seven percent of the yearly one million officially designated victims of maltreatment are aged birth to three. Over fifty percent suffered neglect, eighteen percent were physically abused, nine percent were sexually abused and twenty six percent were associated with additional types of maltreatment, including "abandonment," "threats of harm," and "congenital drug addiction." (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003)
Each day, three to five children die from child maltreatment in the United States. Nearly half of them are younger than one year old. Nearly eighty-five percent were younger than six. (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003). These sad statistics don't tell the whole story. The majority of maltreatment victims survive. They have no voice with which to speak. Sometimes their stories make the news. Most of the time they live on in silence, witness-less victims of what one author calls "soul murder." (Shumba, 2002) Silent, or otherwise, these children are learning from their experience, from the stimuli of their lives, and later when they enter Kindergarten, their responses to other stimuli tell plenty. To those who choose to listen the children's behaviors will tell much of what they learned.
For behaviorists, learning is a fairly permanent change in an organism's behavior, caused by an outside occurrence, identified through observation of the overt effect on the organism, objectively measurable, and modifiable by others. The environment, according to behaviorists, acts as a stimulus that affects the organism. The organism responds. Learning is the observable change in the behavior. (Ormrod)
At the baseline of behaviorism, learning is either an unintended consequence resulting from an uncalculated encounter, as for the maltreated child in his or her infancy, toddler hood, and pre-school years, or learning is a predetermined objective resulting from contrivance in the educational culture that follows when he or she enters an institution of formal education. The organism, according to this perspective, is an unwitting object in either scenario, a receptacle or victim depending on factors totally unrelated to its being or doing. According to behaviorists the principles of learning have equipotentiality to all species. (Ormrod) Therefore, the assumption is made that the principles apply to all young humans of varying potential developing in diverse environments as well. The principles also depend on an objectivity that is promulgated on studies using stimuli and responses, excluding any internal processes, and including an overt behavior change. Where humans are concerned, such studies do not include the kinds of stimuli maltreated children experience. The law does not allow it.
What is known about aversive stimuli with the young is based on animal studies. Abandoning, neglecting, or abusing an infant effects "actual structural changes" on the brain that "last a lifetime." (Nemeroff, 1998)in (Maisel, 2002) For purposes of discussion Maisel's assumption that those structural changes and their lasting effects also occur in maltreated children is accepted. They are "biologically altered in such a way that life becomes dark." The maltreated infant develops a "toxic brain structure." His or her neurons are "at the ready to overreact to stress and to see the glass not as half-empty but as completely empty and impossible to fill."(Maisel, p. 20). Recent brain imaging on adults who were maltreated as children reinforce this concept. They clearly show abnormalities and changes in the brains not seen in those not maltreated. While examining learning theories as they may relate to maltreated children, this growing body of information needs to be considered in context.
In general, theories based on Behaviorist learning principles are most useful when they are concise. The applications based on the theories are most useful when they, too, are concise. As much as possible, the information relating to maltreated children will be kept concise as well, containing limited factual, theoretical and anecdotal information. Those seeking additional information will find it readily available today, unlike thirty years ago when child maltreatment officially entered the educational scene with the U.S. Congress passage of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in 1974.
In Behaviorism, the organism is seen as a blank tablet, a Tabula Rasa, on which learning is "written" as the record of environmental occurrences, often beyond its control, to which the organism is exposed.(Ormrod, 2004). However, unlike theories based on learning principles, these "records" are not necessarily concise or useful, either. The "records" of the maltreated child are far more complex than those of an organism objectively observed within a carefully contrived environment, subject to the application of specific, theoretically based learning principles… concise, consistent and controlled stimuli and response relationships. For the maltreated child the environment may be more akin to the amorphous semi-soft Jello released from the confines of its container than to the geometric black box suggested by behaviorist theory.
One moment there are stimuli, eliciting the same response as the day before, in the next moment, the same stimuli is without relationship to the expected response, or new stimuli appear to which the child seeks ineffectively to respond with whatever behaviors are developmentally possible. One time, Mom scoops up the infant child and smothers him in kisses. The next time, in a rage, she scoops him up, screams and shakes him, throws him into a crib. The next time she picks him up his behavior seems erratic. He stiffens and screams as she attempts to give him his bottle.
One moment there is the unlimited, unfettered, unstructured freedom without internal or external boundaries of the neglected child, the next moment the environment is restrictive, the child's responses thwarted from every direction. The toddler, hungry and unsupervised as Dad watches the game, climbs onto counters and eats whatever she finds. Depending on his mood she is laughed at for her behavior, or punished. Later, Dad leaves her, hungry and strapped in her car seat while he runs in the bar for a "quick one" with friends, only to return hours later, gushing with concern over her tearful condition. Subsequent attempts to put her into a car seat result in aggressive behaviors as she tries to avoid a recurrence. She may also begin exhibiting the same aggressive behavior at any attempt to put her in any seat, including her high chair at the table. Later in preschool she may refuse to sit for snacks, lunch, even activities, and exhibit aggressive behaviors towards anyone attempting to modify that behavior.
Classical conditioning involves the learning of involuntary responses and attitudes, after one or more pairings. (Ormrod, 2004). The maltreated child, whether abused or neglected, learns from many "pairings" that initially elicit involuntary responses. Over time, the repetitions and inconsistencies create a complex web of behaviors that at least often appear irrational or bizarre to others, and at most suggest to others a demand that the behaviors be changed. The "records" for these children are never as clear as some would like.
Given this situation what can the aide or teacher attempt when confronted with inappropriate classroom behaviors. Extinction, the disappearance of a Conditioned Response, is one possibility for behavioral change, as in the stiffening and screaming of the abused child when touched by the Conditioned Stimulus, a consistently comforting daycare provider, who is repeatedly presented without the unconditioned stimulus, the mother, is unpredictable and yet is frequently the basis for expecting modifications of behaviors in children at the PreK level. However, even when it occurs. Spontaneous recovery, the recurrence of the Conditioned Response when a period of extinction is followed by rest period, is common.
Higher Order Conditioning, a complex form of learning that depends on a neutral stimulus, paired with an unconditioned stimulus elicits an unconditioned response, is another possibility. For example, the car-seat victim is identified as enjoying story time at preschool. She is provided a new and different "seat," on an oversized cuddly bear strapped to a child's chair on which she only sits at story time. After she reaches a state of responding to the cuddly-bear on a chair with comfort and eager delight at story time, the cuddly-bear chair is brought to the table when her favorite snack is offered.
Extinguishing undesirable responses is an important aspect of learning theories based on classical conditioning. Unfortunately, the speed of accomplishing this is unpredictable, especially when inconsistency in the Conditioned Stimulus and Unconditioned Stimulus pairing is a factor. Another factor that affects extinction involves the tendency to avoid feared stimulus, which minimizes the chance of experiencing Conditioned Stimulus without Unconditioned Stimulus. The maltreated child is subject to have experienced many unidentified and little suspected-as-feared stimuli, which increases their tendency to avoid anything new, frustrates those who attempt to manipulate them into something new. And, as indicated, even with some positive results, spontaneous recovery of the Conditioned Response is also possible.
Counter conditioning by replacing one Conditioned Response with a "more desirable, productive" response is another method. Systematic desensitization is usually more effective than extinction as a means for changing inappropriate responses. The process includes identifying an incompatible response, a stimulus that elicits the incompatible response, and a gradual introduction of the new stimulus to the organism.
For John Watson (1913), who believed "past experience accounts for virtually all behavior," nurture, not nature is the deciding factor in learning.(Ormrod, 2004).
Clark Hull offers a more organismic view that posits certain characteristics are unique to different individuals. These include which rewards are deemed important by an individual, the motivation and incentive concepts included in the learning, intervening variables [habit strength, organism's drive, stimulus intensity, inhibitory factors] that affect "likelihood and strength of a response's occurrence" and "habit-family hierarchy."
One child, consistently beaten with any thing handy to the moment, may exhibit similar behaviors to another who experiences corporal punishment infrequently but is punished with situations deemed to fit the child's "crimes" as in burning a child for playing with matches, feigned abandonment of him for not coming when told, or being closed in a dark closet for playing with light switches. In such situations it matters little whether the learning is identified as occurring through "positive" or "negative" reinforcement… the results, in terms of effect in later learning situations, is negative. The reinforcers, due to the unknown and underlying experiences may differ broadly from child to child, however.
Even though material reinforcers can be tangible objects such as food, trinkets and toys, for the maltreated child those same objects may also be objects of abuse, sources of neglect. Children have been force-fed until they choke into unconsciousness to "teach them to eat" or so they "learn" they "eat like pigs" and need to change eating behaviors. Destruction of favorite toys is used as means for psychological power, trinkets used as bribery to ensure the child's silence or cooperation in sexual abuse activities.
Social reinforcers such as gestures and signs that show positive regard may also have distorted meanings for maltreated children. A pat on the head may be a precursor to hair pulling or lifting a child by the hair to "get his attention." Activity reinforcers are opportunities to engage in a favorite activity, but for the maltreated child may trigger anxieties related to occasions when doing the activity related to one horror or another. Positive feedback informs "which responses are desirable and which are not," but may lack sufficient power to reinforce consistently if the maltreated child's experiences include sarcasm as a precursor to violence or other negative events as in praising a child for sharing a treat with a sibling, only to then be put down by being "reminded" that she is "always so selfish" that she should give the other half of the treat away to make up for it.
Intrinsic reinforcers are internal good feelings. Maltreated children may have few opportunities to experience them, or again may have experienced them in ways that lead to what others consider irrational expectations as is the case for children who frequently or even consistently "learn" that feeling good is only an invitation to abuse or neglect of one type or another to follow in short order and from the least likely direction.
Additionally, whereas timing, magnitude, appeal and consistency generally do influence the effectiveness of reinforcers, for maltreated children these factors, too, are apt to be fraught with unknown, unexpected and uncommon negative connections. One child's father was inclined to wake her and her sister, in the middle of the night, hold a gun to her head while accusing her of some "crime," imaginary or otherwise, and ask "Do you want me to kill you now, or later?" He'd leave the room laughing, then greet them in the morning with a favorite breakfast, pancakes and syrup, as though the nightmare of the night before had never happened.
Unfortunately, whereas Behaviorist learning theories explain much about the undesirable behaviors educators would like to modify or change, behaviorist-based methods aren't very effective with maltreated children.

Cognitivism

It is the challenges of life
Rather than the easy successes
That promote cognitive development.
~Vygotsky via Ormrod~

Cognitivism remains the predominant perspective from which learner theories evolve. Perhaps these learning theories offer more effective means for changing behaviors in the classroom. However, because Misty and children her age are the focus of this investigation, cognitivism theories may be less applicable overall than learning theories based on Behaviorism, simply due to their ages. Never the less, the maltreated child is not in stasis. He or she has developed cognitively, albeit research indicates maltreated children experience cognitive delays along with other disabilities, emotional and behaviors problems related to abuse and neglect, and continues to develop and change accordingly.
Social cognitive theory, the learning by observation and modeling, evolved from behaviorism and includes cognitivist ideas. The theory focuses on the how, what and why people learn. Observation of the behavior and consequences of others, in combination with cognition, is involved in learning. A change of behavior does not necessarily result. Reinforcement and punishment indirectly affect learning through awareness, expectation, attention and retention.(Ormrod, 2004)
The cognitive processes related to learning are affected by the expectation of reinforcement and punishment. The extent to which a learned behavior is exhibited is also influenced by the degree of attention paid to the behavior and its consequences.(Ormrod, 2004) Vicarious acquisition of a behavior through observation does not necessitate immediate performance.
A child, therefore, may learn a behavior but not use it until he or she has "a reason for doing so." (Ormrod, 2004) Maltreated children frequently develop high levels of attention to environmental stimuli. Attention, rehearsal and memory codes may be used to develop the information related to the behavior. However, expectations, including efficacy expectations, incentives, and awareness of response-consequence contingencies, increase response only if the child understands which response is related to the reinforcement. These factors are important considerations when determining means and methods for modifying or changing maltreated children's inappropriate behaviors in the school environment.
Live models, symbolic models, and verbal instructions serve as means to learn through modeling. Research on the impact of modeling on learning academic skills, aggression and morality demonstrates its effectiveness. In order to be effective, attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivation are necessary processes. Assistance in developing memory codes assists in learning from a model. Ormrod mentions that observation of a model had profound effects on children's moral judgments. Children, she said, "Began to make moral decisions similar to those the model had made and opposite to their own previous judgments." [Emphasis mine]. (Ormrod, p. 136).
Modeling "teaches new behaviors," affects "the frequency of previously learned behaviors," may "encourage previously forbidden behaviors," and "increases the frequency of similar behaviors." Effective models must be "competent," have "prestige and power," behave in "stereotypical 'gender-appropriate' ways," and model a behavior "relevant to the observer's situation." (Ormrod, pp. 140-2).
Self-efficacy is the belief that one is capable of "executing" specific behaviors, "particular domains, tasks, or situations," whereas self-concept applies to a "wide variety of activities." According to Ormrod and others, "people's feelings of self-efficacy affect several aspects of their behavior, including their choice of activities, their goals, their effort and persistence, and ultimately their learning and achievement." Prior "successes and failures…messages that others communicate, the successes and failures of others, and thee successes and failures of the group as a whole," affect the development of self-efficacy. (Ormrod, p. 143). The maltreated child brings an odd-mixture of successes and failures, many of which will not be identified by those outside of the environment.
Ormrod also contends that before children develop personal ideas about appropriate and inappropriate behavior," they learn which "behaviors are and are not acceptable to the people around them" by means of "direct and vicarious reinforcement and punishment." In the dysfunctional environment of the maltreated child these "personal ideas" may be appropriate while being considered inappropriate in other situations.
Social cognitive theory implications for classrooms, include student observation of others, descriptions of consequences of behaviors, appropriate and various modeling, increasing students self-efficacy, assisting in setting "realistic expectations for their academic accomplishments," and teaching self-regulation techniques.(Ormrod, pp. 152-153). In order for those observations to occur and to be internalized by the maltreated child, two considerations are important. The first is an awareness that the child will not be an unbiased observer…and others will not likely see as he or she sees, either. The other is that the child not feel threatened while observing or attempting to model new behaviors.
Jean Piaget's interest in the "origins of knowledge" (epistemology) led to clinical studies with children that resulted in his Developmental Theory. Piaget's stage theory is based on the ideas that "structures that change with development," result from constant processes for "interactions that children have with their physical and social environments" in their attempts to "try to make sense of the world around them" as they strive to maintain a state of "equilibrium." Piaget's contention that for learning to occur, "a new experience and prior knowledge must overlap" continues as an important idea in contemporary theories of learning. (Ormrod, pp. 163-168). Where the maltreated child is concerned new experiences might be more effective if there is no overlap with his "prior knowledge."
Lev Vygotsky's "sociocultural perspective" developmental theory contrasts with Piaget's position that "learning is an individual enterprise." For Vygotsky "the adults in a society foster children's learning and development in an intentional and somewhat systematic manner." Society and culture promote "cognitive growth." Through a process called "internalization" children develop "complex mental processes [that] begin as social activities," and "use them independently of the people around them."
Vygotsky saw childhood arguments as a means through which they " discover there are often several points of view about the same situation" and later "internalize the 'arguing' process" by which they then develop the "ability to look at a situation from several different angles on their own." Vygotsky also maintained that "thought and language are distinctly separate functions for infants and young toddlers," before two years of age. Language is first used as a means to communicate and only later becomes a "mechanism of thought," which leads to "self-talk" and "inner speech" by which children "learn to guide and direct their own behaviors through difficult tasks and complex maneuvers in much the same way that adults have previously guided them." According to Ormrod, research supports Vygotsky's view. Again however, for the maltreated child, the possibility that prior learning in the home-culture environment is contrary to the preferred attitudes and behaviors in the classroom is very high. Communication attempted when there is not a shared agreement to meaning of language or its usages isn't apt to be as productive as anticipated or desired. Due to earlier learning experiences, the possibility for misunderstandings is inherent in any communication between the maltreated child and others.
Findings of verbal research include that serial learning is "characterized by a particular pattern," "paired associate learning involves learning pairs of items" and "learning in one situation often affects learning and recall in another situation." (Ormrod) Again the potential for miscommunication and learning gone awry is greater for maltreated children who may have experienced bizarre "patterns," pairs of items associated in ways not even imagined by others, and learning in one situation that simply will not relate to other situations no matter how often the attempt to do so is repeated.
According to theories of individual constructivism and social constructivism the learner is responsible for directing learning. No doubt, people do a great deal with the information they acquire, actively trying to organize and make sense of it, often in unique, idiosyncratic ways. For Vygotsky learning and thinking are influenced by the physical and social contexts in which people are immersed" (Ormrod, pp. 180-181). Maltreated children may be doing a great deal of this type of learning in an attempt to "make sense" of information from the outside world. As Ormrod points out "as children grow, they become capable of increasingly more sophisticated thought." (Ormrod, p. 182)
But what conclusions will maltreated children reach given their prior knowledge when it is suddenly "immersed" in a new culture, with differences in language meanings and applications, modeling that doesn't bear any relationship to that which they have experienced and learned from?

Memory and Motivation

As Misty stands frozen in time awaiting the action from the aide that will determine whether she lives or dies, her mind may be flooded with memories of other similar situations… similar at least from her perspective. Whatever the aide does, Misty's response will be predetermined by her learning through early stimulus-response experiences, those "relatively permanent changes in mental representations or associations," modified to some degree by her cognitive processing of those experiences. Her memories, stored, retained and recalled, will relate to the learning process as it is manifested. Her motivation towards action, the "state" rather than a process that arouses her to action, pushes her in a particular direction, and keeps her engaged may well determine the environment she will help to create and experience both for the foreseeable future and beyond.(Ormrod).
One might liken learning and memory to the relieving scratching in response to an intolerable itch. The itch is motivation. The degree of motivation determines the intention and attention of the child towards the experience or information available. The educationally at-risk child is frequently considered learning delayed, and difficult to motivate. Perhaps the child simply has an itch so intense that intention and attention cannot be brought to bear on other things? For Misty the primary motivation of the moment may be intense…an extension of the need for survival. Given the most opportune stimulus, her response might lead to learning and remembering entirely new information upon which she will begin to build.
Ormrod devotes a great deal of intention and attention to the dynamics of memory in relation to learning. She makes several generalizations in relation to educational practices. First, because attention is considered essential for learning, she suggests variety in topics and presentation styles, frequent breaks, asking questions, the minimization of distractions when independent work is assigned, seating of "students near the teacher if they have difficulty paying attention," and the monitoring of student's behaviors. Additionally she suggests that differences in attention to various stimuli, information processing ability, selectivity of memory and the limited capacity of working memory be considered.
These factors may all be appropriate for some students, some times. However, in the case of maltreated children there is a strong potential for a disconnect between what Ormrod proposes and the results expected. Consider the attention factor. If a maltreated child is hungry and wondering if there will be food at home or how he will get something to eat, there is little else that will hold his or her attention for very long. For Misty, the question of whether her behavior will result in the loss of a much-needed snack could be an important factor.
Similarly, if the child is sitting on belt welts across his bottom, sleep deprived because of frequent violence in the home at all hours of the day or night, afraid about the safety of his mother, worried about what is happening to his little sister, obsessing over whether others can smell the accident in his pants that he was made to wear to school to teach him a lesson, Ormrod's suggestions to increase attention or decrease distractions are not likely to have much impact.
In fact, those efforts may be counter-productive. Will a child concerned about his mother's safety attend to variety in topics and presentations or will the multiplicity of distractions increase his or her anxiety levels? Do frequent breaks benefit the child teased and bullied by classmates because clothing is "inappropriate," social skills are sub-par, personal hygiene is inadequate, his mother shows up at school, intoxicated and belligerent, his father is in jail, or of any of the other possible aspects of maltreated children's lives? Will a child frequently slapped across her face focus more when seated within striking distance of a teacher? Will the child confronted with an enraged parent screaming questions as a routine behavior prior to beating respond positively to questioning? What happens to a child's ability to pay attention to school work while her behavior is "monitored" if that child lives in an environment where someone watching means someone looking for an excuse to relieve his anger by kicking the dog or pummeling the child?
Obviously these examples serve as a basis for understanding that different people really do attend to the same stimulus for different reasons. Misty's attention is on the aide. This is an observable behavior. Beyond that little is known to the outsider. The above examples also provide an explanation for a maltreated child's inability to "process only a limited amount of information at a time." Misty's mind may be so intently focused on the risk of losing out on food that she is unable to attend to whether her behavior is appropriate or not, to be concerned if someone might have been injured by her behavior, or whether her attribution of blame to the other child is accurate. Ormrod points out that long-term memory "provides a knowledge base from which to interpret new information." For the four or five year old maltreated child that knowledge base is apt to be inappropriate or even inaccessible in terms of entering an academic situation. Humpty-Dumpty said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." (Lewis Carol in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland). For maltreated children, among others with similar discontinuities between themselves and the school culture, that line is often more akin to fact than fiction. The knowledge base they bring to school often includes so many distortions of language, meaning, and experience, that any new information encountered in school will likewise be subject to the same distortions. (Slaughter-Defoe & Brown, 1998). Misty may be in the habit of "throwing temper tantrums at home" with no negative consequences, may be laughed at, or may be ignored as though she is invisible to those around her. She may be modeling a parent's behavior when he or she is angry and think it appropriate.
Teachers may not realize the unique interpretations of maltreated children to whatever they have experienced, and however they processes it are a part of the child's knowledge base, against which all in class behaviors will be considered. The concept of Tabula Rasa at birth is debated. At five, there is no chance of a Tabula Rasa. The slate is written upon.
The process of construction, where a child uses "bits and pieces" of information in an attempt to "build a reasonable understanding of the world" takes on even greater meaning when as for the maltreated child, the world experienced is so far removed from "reasonable." Understanding it may result in ever more unreasonable interpretations based on the perceptions of sensation that for others lacking similar experiences may fit neatly into a schema resembling more closely the usual definitions of "reasonable." To adulterate a common cliché': One child's meaningful learning may be another's nonsense rhyme, or another's keystone to all that follows.
Sadly, maltreated children do not only have distorted learning, they frequently have been deprived of experiences like "pretend play" that facilitate other children learning to "develop story-telling and memory abilities that contribute to emergent literacy (Pelerine & Galda, 1993). They often are denied life-experiences that also limit the development of a meaningful information base. Research indicates that children from low-income families seldom have experiences such as going to museums, trips, even shopping experiences that offer exposure to variety and the chance to develop an understanding of differences on any level. These deprivations affect cognitive and social development.
Maltreated children from any economic level may be equally as deficient in experiences deemed positive from developmental perspectives, even more-so in some cases where children under five are not only abused and neglected, but also deprived of any peer or other relationships. When low-income deficiencies in experiences combine with dysfunctional family experiences the child has even fewer chances to develop cognitively and socially.
Today some theories of human development conceptualize it in terms of systems of social activity and cultural meaning (Serpell, 1993, 1999). For them development can be understood as "adaptations" (Super and Harkness (1986, 1997) to "cultural models" (Holland & Quinn, 1987 in ) or "ethnotheories" (Harkness & Super, 1992) based on structures of "physical and social settings," in which patterns of child care customs and socialization, and beliefs about timing (Goodnow & Collins, 1990)"parental goals…and preferred strategies of intervention to cultivate the child's appropriation of various valued, cultural practices," (Serpell et al, 1997) " result in "developmental
niche's" within which each child develops. Each niche leads to a "developmental process of participatory appropriation (Rogoff, 1993). (Serpell et al., 2002), that serves as a "filter between larger cultural formations and the developing child" Lomnitz-Adler (1992) and Levinson (1996), and is referred to "as an intimate culture." (Serpell, 1997, 2001). This culture must be addressed and researched in terms of child development in much the same ways that other group cultures are. Research has established that belief systems, rituals, and other culturally driven behaviors such as parenting styles affect the child's adaptation to a school culture that is measurably different from that in which they have developed.
Today, it is generally assumed that students can be motivated in multiple ways and therefore should not be labeled as 'motivated' or 'not motivated.' The important issue, according to Ormrod, is "understanding how and why students are motivated for school achievement." For this reason, assessments that do not generate "a more multifaceted understanding of student motivation" can be misleading. Motivation is no longer assumed to be a stable trait, but is "more situated, contextual, and domain specific," that involves factors such as self-efficacy, attributions, intrinsic motivation, and goals. (Ormrod, 2004) If those factors are considered only in the abstract rather than from the perspective of how they may have developed in a child's home culture any attempt to motivate is likely to fail for reasons not understood, and therefore be not correctable within the school-culture learning environment.
During development, during those periods when a child is learning and beginning the complex transition from more stimulus response type learning to cognitive knowing about knowing responses, the home environment "colors" the way every thing is perceived by the child. Whereas another child begins life learning that discomforts can be alleviated through the mediation of another as in Mother bringing a bottle, Father changing a diaper, siblings offering entertainments that help change "moods," the maltreated child seeking similar results may instead experience continued hunger, physical pain, isolation. What is learned will be different.
For Tolman, one role of motivation involves the ways it "affects which features of the environment are paid attention to and therefore what is learned." (Daniels) What the child has learned about responses to his or her behaviors, the expectancies of nurturing ones…or not…or the more difficult to comprehend inconsistencies more common among the maltreated young affect the ways each child focuses on various aspects of the environment. The maltreated child who experiences frequent hunger may be listening intently for delivery of morning snack than the details of a story that holds the rest of the children enthralled. If the child experiences frequent physical abuse, attention may be on the moods of those around him, a distant footfall in the hall. The child who has known more psychological abuse than not, may be intent on protecting herself from more in the school environment.
There is growing evidence that "extrinsic incentives and pressures can undermine motivation to perform even inherently interesting activities," (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002)Deci & Ryan Self-determination theory integrates "two perspectives on human motivation." The belief that "humans are motivated to maintain an optimal level of stimulation (Hebb 1955)," and the other perspective that "humans have basic needs for competence (White 1959) and personal causation or self-determination (deCharms 1968)," may be effective means for determining more effective means for motivating maltreated children.
Before "optimal stimulation and challenging activities" can be identified for them, however, their early environments must be acknowledged and examined in light of what is known about learning and motivation. "Competence" must be redefined from within their experiences. And maltreated children need to be accepted as "competent and self determined" in those ways in which they are. Doing that will enable those working with them to minimize external control and negative competence feedback that is known to reduce intrinsic motivation. (Cameron & Pierce 1994; Deci & Ryan 1985; Deci et al. 1999; in(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002)
Interested people can determine what activities provide an opportunity for a child to be intrinsically motivated through careful, open-minded observational assessments of what the child does by choice. A child who appears to be non-interested in peer play, choosing instead to remain intent on watching may have highly developed people-observation skills. Another may have developed listening skills beyond the norm… but not for listening to stories that have no meaning to him. The child unable to manipulate pencil and scissors may be able to peel a potato with a knife most children aren't even allowed to use.
"Interest" as individual or situational is being studied more recently. (e.g., Alexander et al. 1994, Hidi & Harackiewicz 2001, Schiefele 1999). Whether a child responds to an activity with feelings of "involvement, stimulation, or flow," or because the activity has "personal significance or importance" (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) is especially important to evaluate in open-minded ways with maltreated children. A hungry child will become very interested in learning to use scissors if she understands doing so will make access to food products easier. Learning to manipulate a can opener will hold attention when being asked to develop or demonstrate that the child can coordinate the turning of paper while simultaneously manipulating scissors to cut out a teddy bear.
Motivation among preschoolers is an important issue because of the immediate link to achievement and the likely cumulative effect that mastery motivation may have on learning and achievement across time. The alternative is that children with "low mastery motivation make smaller academic gains in preschool," and then "face school with a combined situation of lower achievement and lower mastery motivation."(Turner & Johnson, 2003)
Research does show the neglected child often has a greater chance and likelihood of discovering and developing "environmental control," of having an "action orientation," and exercising "volitional strategies," in order to motivate his own behavior. Unfortuantely, the abused child is more like the "state-oriented" individual.
According to Locus of control theories, one should expect to succeed to the extent that one feels in control of one's successes and failures. (Crandall et al. 1965; Findley & Cooper 1983; Rotter 1966; Weisz 1984 ). The maltreated child often does not know the causes of his successes and failures, and seldom feels in control of them when he does. His experiences might include being blamed for things over which he had no control, having any successes ignored or denigrated. He may lack the pre-learning of positive reinforcement or constructive feed back. Locus of control theorists call this "unknown control" and suggest that this not knowing can undermine his motivation to apply himself to other tasks. (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002)
Tolman/s view has been characterized as a "what leads to what" theory, a theory of signs, guideposts, and behavior roots. The theory is that with repeated experiences, the probability is learned that the given behavior will lead to the expected end result.
Generally a child before the age of five will not know herself as a "self" (Campbell & Bickhard, 1986, p. 118). Around that age a child begins to understand the self. However, whereas the "knowing" may be expressed as beliefs, it is more often demonstrated as "metastrategies for managing the child's being in diverse kinds of life situations," (Campbell & Bickhard, 1986, p. 118)
The maltreated child's goals and strategies have developed within an environment unlike that of the school-culture. He may appear "shy" or otherwise disinclined to become involved when in fact he is attempting to find equilibrium by relating what he "knows" to the unknown situation. Maltreated children have fewer opportunities to develop social skills at the peer level. For reasons of secrecy, maltreated children are frequently kept as virtual prisoners within the house. Again, time for the child to observe without feeling threatened can prove beneficial.
Attribution theory is also helpful when working with maltreated children. Attribution theorists emphasize that individuals' interpretations of their achievement outcomes, rather than motivational dispositions or actual outcomes, determine subsequent achievement strivings. Beliefs can be changed through teacher's reactions, feedback and environmental manipulations. (Graham, 1984; Licht, 1983; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; in Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002). Study skills, and engagement can be increased by relating activities to children's interests. (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002) However, the key to understanding maltreated children's interests is in identifying through sustained, objective observation what each child's interests may be within the school environment, and not jumping to conclusions, or judging the interest based on what is "known" about children's' interests in general.
Maltreated children's experiences are far removed from those of the average child. Their interests frequently reflect those differences. The neglected child with free reign in the kitchen at home is likely to exhibit little if any interest in a play kitchen or pretend food, but be totally absorbed in participating in snack preparation. If others with less interest distract or interfere with his focus during the snack activity, his inappropriate, even aggressive, response may appear irrational. The reaction can be an added indication of the degree of interest. In this child's context, nothing could be more rational or motivating than his interpretation that learning skills and knowledge related to food preparation improves his eating opportunities, or the feeding of younger siblings.
The maltreated child, particularly the one considered "amiable," with her eyes solidly locked on the teacher as an activity is explained, may be assessed as a "good listener" but the child is not listening as much to words as tone, not intent on learning as watching for eye change that serves as a warning to escape in a hurry.
Ultimately, students should not be labeled "motivated" or "unmotivated." Instead, teachers should consider alternative learning environments that enhance all student's motivation.
Since "context shapes students' motivation, engagement, strategy use, and achievement," changes to the environment make more sense than "citing lack of motivation for a particular student as a reason for lower than expected academic performance." (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002)

Conclusion

Historically, research has been focused on identifying the specific risk factors that predict children's deficiencies and dysfunction (Fantuzzo & Mohr, 2000). However, there is an urgent need for research that identifies relationships among emergent competencies and school adjustment for vulnerable populations of children, including maltreated children. (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Bronwyn, 2000). This research agenda is twofold: first, to distinguish age-appropriate competencies and significant contexts and second, to build capacities across contexts to foster these competencies (Cicchetti & Lynch, 1993). (Fantuzzo & McWayne, 2002)
Today, psychologists are more inclined to look at behavior in larger contexts and over longer time. Complex environments rather than specific stimuli, choices made by organisms, and persistence in spite of change in environment are among the new directions of study. These directions offer positive alternatives to consider in terms of behaviorism as it relates to maltreated children.
Extinction is not the "most dependable method" of eliminating unwanted behavior for similar reasons to those previously mentioned. With maltreated children, because of the complex web of unusual stimulus response learnings, the specific consequence that is reinforcing is not always identifiable, nor is it always one, or even the same one. Presenting desired consequences noncontingently, reinforcing other behaviors and reinforcing incompatible behaviors can offer greater chances for "success" in eliciting behavior change from maltreated children.
When reinforcement doesn't work, several factors need to be considered. One is whether the reinforcer is reinforcing. Consistency is another. Attempting shaping too quickly is another.
Research indicates that students with a "history of academic failure, poorly motivated students, anxious students, and students for whom nothing else works," may benefit from classroom reinforcements. Children identified with "developmental delay" or "learning disability" or those with "chronic behavior problems also benefit. Presumably, children at-risk due to maltreatment can, too.
Adults convey to children the ways in which their culture
interprets and responds to the world. In their interactions with children, adults share the meanings they attach to objects, events, and more generally human experience. In the process they transform, or mediate, the situations that children encounter. These meanings are then conveyed through a variety of mechanisms, including language, symbols, mathematics, art, music, literature, and so on. (Ormrod, p. 170) Unfortunately for Misty and other maltreated children these meanings are frequently bi-polar as well as disparate and disconnected. The meanings conveyed aren't necessarily the meanings received.
Until we know more about maltreated children's early stimulus-response experiences, early cognitive directions, memory and motivation developments, assessments are necessarily skewed, plans and goals not particularly appropriate, applications of learning theories to modify and change school-culture behaviors, we need to tread carefully where even the angels may fear to go.
Research is needed to look at new ways of guiding Misty and her peers away from an automatic academic at-risk determination to one of motivated and excited lifelong learner status beginning at as early an age as possible. One possibility may be to stop all but the most important attempts at behavior modification until a child has been given an alternative set of learning experiences upon which to build. As some might say… we need to choose our battles more wisely.
Head Start accomplished a lot with their goal of preparing children to learn, rather than focusing on meeting artificial academic standards as is now required of them. Perhaps that needs to be revisited along with reexamining the concepts of when a child is ready to learn academically and through what methods.
If "nothing works" with these children as so many teachers lament, in article after article, then perhaps the answer lies right there. Do nothing…or do nothing more than protecting her and others from her inappropriate and aggressive in-school behaviors. If a child is unable to process new information because maltreatment has created a flawed foundation, build another one. Prepare the child for a time when he or she can compare both perspectives from the inside out, and make a choice for positive outcomes.
Provide an environment in which she feels safe and can focus on learning rather than survival. Telling her school is a safe place is not enough. She needs the opportunity to learn that for herself. Use those learning theories most likely to lead to new learning at first. Set simple achievable goals at which the child can succeed, provide the opportunity and allow the necessary time for that child to do so, and in the process help the child build a new foundation, a new set of learning behaviors that are effective in the school-culture. Once that stage occurs, a child's natural curiosity and desire to learn will surface again.
For now, a good first step in dealing with these harmed and vulnerable children may be borrowed from the medical community. First, do no harm.

References

Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., & Murnan, J. (2003). Evaluation of a child abuse prevention curriculum for third-grade students: Assessment of knowledge and efficacy expectations. The Journal of School Health, 73(2), 76-.
Daniels, D.EDWARD CHACE TOLMAN-THE THINKING MAN'S RAT, or-GETTING TO KNOW YOU,SAYS THE RAT TO THE SITUATION: AN INTRODUCTION TO "PURPOSIVE BEHAVIORISM". Retrieved January 28, 2004, from http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/tolman_lecture.htm
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-133.
Fantuzzo, J., & McWayne, C. (2002). The relationship between peer-play interactions in the family context and dimensions of school readiness for low-income preschool children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 79-87.
Gullatt, D. E., & Stockton, C. E. (2000). Recognizing and reporting suspected child abuse. American Secondary Education, 29(1), 19-.
Howse, R. B., Lange, G., Farran, D. C., & Boyles, C. D. (2003). Motivation and self-regulation as predictors of achievement in economically disadvantaged young children. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(2), 151-.
Hurst, M. D. (2004). Lifelong battle. Education Week
American Education's Newspaper of Record, 23(22), 22-25.
Kesner, J. E., & Robinson, M. (2002). Teachers and mandated reporters of child maltreatment: Comparison with legal, medical, and social services reporters. Children & Schools, 24(4), 222-.
Kistner, J. A., Ziegert, D. I., Castro, R., & Robertson, B. (2001). Helplessness in early childhood: Prediction of symptoms associated with depression and negative self-worth. Merrill - Palmer Quarterly, 47(3), 336-355.
Leroy, C., & Symes, B. (2001). Teachers perspectives on the family backgrounds of children at-risk. McGill Journal of Education, 36(1), 45-.
Levendosky, A. A., Huth-Bocks, A. C., Shapiro, D. L., & Semel, M. A. (2003). The impact of domestic violence on the maternal-child relationship and preschool-age children's functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(3), 275-287.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313-328.
Maisel, E. (2002). The Van Gogh blues: The creative person's path through depression.: Rodale.
Nemeroff, C. B. (1998). The neurobiology of depression. Scientific American, 278(6), 42-49.
Odom, S. L., & Wolery, M. (2003). A unified theory of practice in early intervention/Early childhood Special Education: Evidence-based practices. Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 164-174.
Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human Learning (4 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for help?: An examination of the interplay among students' academic efficacy, teachers' social-emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 528-535.
Sechrist, W. (2000). Health educators and child maltreatment: A curious silence. The Journal of School Health, 70(6), 241-243.
Serpell, R., Sonnenschein, S., Baker, L., & Ganapathy, H. (2002). Intimate culture of families in the early socialization of literacy. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(4), 391-405.
Shumba, A. (2002). Teacher conceptualization of child abuse in schools in the new millenium. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(4), 403-415.
Turner, L. A., & Johnson, B. (2003). A Model of mastery motivation for at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 495-505.
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, A. o. C., Youth and Families. (2003). Child Maltreatment 2001. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

I Am The Altar...

2008-01-16T10:23:00.001-05:00

I am the altar
Wherein I worship mighty gods.
Gods who dwell on highest places
Of this paper-thin
Colorless
Formless
Mountain
That I Am.

No substance here.
I am so much more
Than dust and water.
Mud.
I am.
Mud.
From the spaces
Where rocks hide many faces
And show you only one.
You see?

Shadows cast about.
Light shines.
Waters of my soul shimmer.
In that formless temple of gods
We meet.
Join in worship.
Power once beyond
Never yet begun
I seek you yet.

Morning sun touched
Needles of pine
Never crawled upon.
No cradle for babe unborn.
Child lost.
Shadows.
Setting sun.
In the end
I am
Altar.
Sacrifice my self
Worship false gods
Unknown.

***********************************

I saw a snail today... - A Poem

2008-01-15T14:18:00.001-05:00

I saw a snail today!
That's nice.
And what was he doing?
Nothing.
Just like me.
Only enjoying the warm sunshine.
The colors.
The smells.
The sounds.
The tastes of the world.
We shared a moment together.
That's nice.
Be sure to wash your hands before dinner.

*********************************************

Out of Many, One Child's Story of Abuse

2008-01-08T11:40:00.000-05:00

While a student at Capella University I wrote the following paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements of a class on the prevention and causes of child abuse.

E Pluribus Unum:

Out of Many, One Child's Story of Abuse

Abstract

This paper attempts to present an analytical look at child maltreatment as presented by one of its victims, Dave Pelzer in his book, A Child Called "It": One Child's Courage to Survive. The purpose of using the memories of this one victim of child maltreatment as presented in his book is to consider the child's perspective more directly than is usually possible in explorations of child maltreatment by various professionals and members of other discourse communities whose biases and ideologies naturally affect their perceptions. Third party observations and attempts to determine a child's perspective of abuse and neglect from his or her behaviors may fail to account for individual actions and interactions within the abusive environment that affect what occurs there as well as conclusions drawn from the experiences, and subsequent decisions about how to apply what is learned and what information to share about the experience.

Table of Contents

Abstract 2
Table of Contents 3
ntroduction 4
Child Maltreatment:
More than sticks, stones, and broken bones. 4
Dave Pelzer's Story: Peace or war on the home front? 7
Today is not yesterday:
Prevention, Intervention and Amelioration 20
Conclusion 22
References 23
..................................................................................................

E Pluribus Unum:
Out of Many, One Child's Story of Abuse

The Talmud and the African tribe, the Masai tribe,
Both teach a wisdom for our wounded world.
They both taught:
Sticks alone can be broken by a child,
But sticks in a bundle are unbreakable.
Rabbi Marc Gellman~
A Prayer for America
Yankee Stadium
September 23, 2001
(Bundle of Thirteen Arrows: The Power of War, 2004)

Out of many, one abused child's story of betrayal serves as a symbol of child maltreatment throughout the United States. Dave Pelzer's story, from his book A Child Called "It": One Child's Courage to Survive, (Pelzer, 1995), also serves as a beacon to guide a society of too many such children and those who join them to strive toward a freedom that becomes possible when out of many, one unified voice cries no to child maltreatment.

Child Maltreatment:
More than Sticks, Stones, and Broken Bones

The world is a dangerous place
Not because of those who do evil
But because of those who look on and do nothing.
Albert Einstein

Child abuse is not a modern phenomenon, some bizarre reaction resorted to by an overstressed society with fewer familial and community support systems to assist in child rearing. Throughout recorded history child abuse has left its indelible mark as clearly as a wooden spoon used to discipline a child leaves its mark.(Demause) Children were considered property to be used, abused or discarded without interference. (Crosson-Tower, 2002) Infanticide, corporal punishment, child labor, sexual exploitation including incest, and child abuse as amusement are not unique to the societies of this twenty-first century.
According to Crosson-Tower, (Crosson-Tower, 2002) today we do more to protect children than ever before. As evidence she points to higher levels of awareness by professionals and public alike, improved communication among those who work in the fields related to child maltreatment, ever-increasing research, and media attention. (Crosson-Tower, 2002).

Never-the-less, child maltreatment is a major problem of epidemic proportions (Alliance: Factsheets: Child Abuse, 1997; U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003), affecting every socio-economic level of society, (Berdik, 2003), every organization, (Sechrist, 2000b) every culture. (Chalk, Gibbons, & Scarupa, 2002; Tsukahara, 2004; Vasquez). Records attest to in excess of three million children whom are abused and neglected each year in the United States. (Crosson-Tower) That number only hints at the possible number of maltreated children not reported. Some have suggested that reported cases represent only the tip of an iceberg.

Currently, in the United States, all 50 states have faults and failings in their child welfare programs. (Pear, 2004). Some consider that a government failure to invest enough in child welfare. (Child Welfare Spending: A Moral Failure to Invest, 2004)Twenty-two states still allow corporal punishment in schools. And the United States is one of only two countries that didn't sign a UN convention that obligated them to protect children's rights (Miller, 2000). The direct and indirect costs to society of a continuing failure to correct this situation in the United States is staggering. Some estimates exceed a conservative estimate of $94 billion per year. (Fromm, 2001). The potential return on investment to change is correspondingly high. (Fromm, 2001). Dave Pelzer estimates the costs to society of rescuing him from an abusive home environment at $100,000. In exchange, he says, society now gets the yield of a functional, taxpaying adult. And he points out, there are more than ten million others out there just like him. (Mikalonis, 1996).

Research confirms that abused children can grow into adults with serious mental health problems, lifelong mental health and emotional problems. However, recovery is possible, if the trauma is identified and treated early. (Dante Cicchetti, 2004; Sechrist, 2000a; What can happen to abused children when they grow up--if no one notices, listens or helps? Some statistics from the research, 2001).

Records, reports, vivid accounts of horrific mutilations and deaths of children by their primary caretakers, statistics involving numbers too large for the average mind to grasp, and voluminous amounts of research have not done a great deal to change child maltreatment in the United States, or elsewhere for that matter. Reports of child abuse and neglect continue to climb. Some blame the faltering economy, rising unemployment, and its greater burden on families, who are falling apart more. (Anderson, 2003).

The costs, the causes, the blames and responsibilities related to child maltreatment matter little if anything to those millions of children who cry out in pain in this moment, who struggle to survive day after day, or to the five who will breathe their last breath today because of child maltreatment. Ask those who live to tell their story as Dave Pelzer did what matters most to the maltreated child.

Dave's Story: War or Peace on the Home Front?

An Eagle was soaring through the air.
Suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow,
And felt the dart pierce its breast.
Slowly it fluttered down to earth.
Its lifeblood pouring out.
Looking at the Arrow
With which it had been shot
The Eagle realized that the deadly shaft
Had been feathered with one of its own plumes.
Moral: "We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction.
~Aesop~
(Bundle of Thirteen Arrows: The Power of War, 2004)

Dave Pelzer's book, A Child Called "It": One Child's Courage to Survive, (1995) is the first of a biographical trilogy. The book details his life from ages four to twelve as an abused and neglected child within his birth family. According to words applied to himself throughout the book Dave as a child, in addition to being mal-treated, was also imaginative, creative, noisy, wild, self-destructive, rebellious, disobedient, and inclined to lie, sneak, steal and in other ways behave in a manner that lead to him being identified as a problem child by many. (D. Pelzer, 1995).

Dave's position is that these behaviors were survival mechanisms used to defeat a mother he believed intent upon his destruction. His mother is dead. We cannot ask her position.

This is Dave's story, so other perspectives are not readily apparent within the book. However, the astute reader will keep in mind that memory development in children often contains distortions, conscious and otherwise, (Alessi & Ballard, 2001), so will view the facts presented from Dave's memories accordingly. That is mentioned in no way to suggest or imply that Dave was not an abused child, as others have claimed. (Plotz, 2000). Enough recorded evidence exists, in addition to Pelzer's accounts and after affects to confirm that he was severely maltreated as a child.

Therefore, Pelzer's story serves as an important vehicle in which to explore child maltreatment from the perspective of one of its victims rather than through the perspective of detached, objective and sometimes disinterested third party observers. Although one child's experiences and perceptions of those experiences do not represent those of all maltreated children, for purposes of comparison to existing theories, they may well serve as a reflection of many.

The Pelzer family consisted of two adults and four, later five, children. They lived together in a two-bedroom house. Sometimes the boy's bedroom is directly off the garage/basement where Dave sleeps much of the time on an old army-cot, but other times it is "upstairs" (D. Pelzer, 1955; pp. 96,120). Regardless of the details, by most standards these are crowded accommodations that may have contributed to the family dynamics.

Another factor contributing to the family dynamics is the "code" of the Pelzer family. According to Pelzer, it is "if we don't acknowledge a problem, it simply does not exist" (D. Pelzer, 1955; p.91). Additionally, "parents and children influence each other in a reciprocal manner," creating in the process negative "feedback loops" that increase child behavior problems. (Maccoby and Martin, 1983; in Nicholson, et al. 2002; p. 362). Dave's story provides a graphic illustration of that loop in action. Over time, as his behaviors worsened, the abuse and neglect inflicted on him escalated.

Pelzer insists that the first four years of his life were idyllic. His "perfect" parents were devoted to each other and the well being of their three (at that time) children. Some details suggest a different possibility.
David Pelzer's parents drank together. Their drinking had elements of romance and ritualism. When Dave's father wasn't available to join her, his mother drank alone. Dave saw their drinking as a means of communicating their feelings toward one another. When the parents weren't drinking together they communicated through heated arguments. (D. Pelzer, 1955).

Dave's Father, Stephen Joseph, is described as supporting his family as a San Francisco fireman. Although Dave frequently refers to his father as his hero, he is presented throughout the book as ineffectual. Although Dave recounts attempts by the father to stand up to the mother, it is the father who enforces her order for Dave to eat the vomited hotdogs and tater tots retrieved from the toilette, when he could have flushed them away. He stands by "lifeless" as she forces Dave to drink a spoonful of ammonia a second time, appears "dispassionate" as Dave evacuates in a bucket,(D. Pelzer, 1995) pp. 66,77-8).
His only response is to ask why, after Dave tells him that Catherine stabbed him. Then Steve tells Dave to go in and do the dishes.

Throughout the book, Steve's primary goal is to not do anything to make Catherine upset, and to keep Dave from doing so because he can't "go through that." Dave's perspective of his father is that Catherine "controlled him like she controlled everything that happened in her house." (D. Pelzer, 1995) pp. 89-90).
Sometimes Dave feels "more angry at his father than his mother. While at other times he still perceives the father as his hero and the one person who keeps him safer in an unsafe environment. Perhaps the best the father could do was offer Dave the advice "to try to make her happy and stay out of her way," which apparently was his own solution to any difficult situation he encountered. His frequent promises to rescue Dave were probably offered as his way to make Dave happy more than as any serious intent to ever take action in that direction. (D. Pelzer, 1995; pp. 91, 102, 127).

In a 1996 interview,(Mikalonis, 1996) Dave explained that his mother was reared in a religious Mormon community in Utah, where because her parents were divorced they were treated as outcasts. There she began drinking at the age of thirteen, hiding in the outhouse to drink bootleg whiskey during the Prohibition. (Mikalonis, 1996).

As Catherine would later repeat with her son, Dave, she experienced child maltreatment such as food deprivation, forced confinement and derogatory, degrading comments about her self.(Mikalonis, 1996). Apparently Catherine knew what hell was like before accusing Dave of making her life a "living hell," when she used that as justification for in turn showing him "what hell is like!"(Pelzer, 1995; p.41). Certainly the early family and cultural values she experienced as a child can be expected to have influenced those she continued in her later family relationships. (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).

Dave's Mother had dreams of being a nurse before meeting Stephen, (D. Pelzer, 1995; p. 88). Her tearful comment about having a "real family," and her bizarre habit of having kids search for unidentified "lost" things that are never found may have as much to do with her own childhood as with anything going on in the episodes of which Dave speaks.(D. Pelzer, 1995).

Dave's story presents examples of an irrational logic to Catherine's choice of bizarre discipline and punishment. The abuses aren't as random as Dave suspects. Neither are they as likely to be little more than random, meaningless assaults on an innocent child as they are out-of-control attempts to exercise control by an out-of-control disabled mind. When she says, "you're a quick little shit, aren't you?….. Well… we'll just see how fast you really are," in response to Dave running to school fast in order to have time to beg food from neighbors, she requires him to do everything faster or do without food. (D. Pelzer, 1995) p.71) She forces him to swallow a spoonful of ammonia (D. Pelzer, 1995) p.74-6)while telling him only speed will save him. Again, she says it is to teach him not to steal food. Within her disabled mind there is an apparent connection between his behaviors and her choices of discipline.

Dave was the second or third of five children, depending on which account is accurate. Dave, Stan, Ronald, Russel, Baby Kevin and the father all experienced yelling and screaming from the mother. A forthcoming book by Dave's brother suggests they all experienced degrees of abuse and neglect, as well, although until Dave left home, he apparently received the most. Whereas in some cases, parental abuse leads to closer sibling relationships, in Dave's case the opposite appears more often true.

For example, Russel, called "mother's little Nazi" by Dave, calls him "the Boy, " makes up stories to get Dave punished, (Pelzer, 1995; pp. 85-6). The boys refuse to acknowledge Dave's presence in the house, "took turns" hitting Dave, and "throwing their weight around, stomped on him as he lay on the floor of the back seat of the car. When seeing Dave in victimized situations, the brothers simply glare at him, shake their heads and turn away, or bring their friends in to see him as when he is confined in the bathtub of cold water. (Pelzer, 1955; pp. 114, 118, 142).

According to the personal account provided in the first book of his Biographical trilogy, (Pelzer, 1995), Dave Pelzer experienced various types of abuse as a child between the ages of four and twelve. Within his home, Dave's mother, father and siblings committed various forms of familial abuses. In his community, Dave's peers abused him at school. Other forms of societal abuse and neglect were evident by others such as extended family members, neighbors, and school personnel who failed to identify the maltreatment, seek assistance or take any action to protect him from harm. In spite of nurses records, school complaint records, reported community experiences that indicate prior knowledge of his insecure and unsafe life,(D. Pelzer, 1995). Dave was twelve years old when one substitute teacher finally triggered on his behalf. (D. Pelzer, 1995)

Dave's mother, Catherine Roerva, committed the most obvious forms of physical maltreatment against him. According to Dave, over time she resorted to various forms of physical abuse and neglect. He specifies that she hit, punched, smacked him in the face, pushed his head against the countertop, smashed his face into a mirror, dragged him, picked him up by the ears, beat him "black and blue" held his arm over the open flame of a gas stove until it burned, kept him submerged for hours in a bathtub of cold water, forced him to ingest soap, ammonia, Clorox, and feces, closed him in the bathroom with a Clorox and ammonia mixture, smeared excrement on his face, whipped him "with the dog's chain" and a broom handle, choked him, (D. Pelzer, 1995) pp. 3, 4, 30, 34, 35, 37, 40, 41, 52, 55, 107, 109, 113, 116, 142).

She also failed to get timely treatment for the "accidental" injuries when she dislocated his arm and stabbed him in the stomach. She denied Dave the physical nurturing that would lead to good health and normal physiological development, deprived him of sleep, food, protection against physical abuse by herself and others.

The mother emotionally abused Dave by calling him sickening, an incompetent loser, a bad boy, wished him dead, and referred to him as "the Boy" and later simply as "it," rather than by his name, thereby negating his existence as a human being or member of the family (D. Pelzer, 1995) pp.32, 50). Dave received fewer Christmas presents than the other children, was kept in forced isolation from the rest of the family, and excluded from most family activities, including meals. His mother had him call himself a bad boy, and repeat "I hate myself, I hate myself" (D. Pelzer, 1995) p. 136). She also denied him the nurturing and acceptance necessary for healthy development.

By failing to defend or protect Dave, simultaneously sharing a victim role with him, and offering empty promises of an eventual escape, the father also emotionally abused him and contributed to Dave's sense of having no worth. In turn, his brothers followed the modeling they were exposed to and treated Dave abusively.

Although, eventually the mother moves into the boys' bedroom and has Dave move into the master bedroom where he sleeps in a bed with his father there are no indications that there was a sexual element to the arrangement. No mention is made of whether the mother sleeps with any of the boys or alone in a bed in their room, either. If there are any overt sexual abuse problems in this family, they are not addressed or insinuated in this book.

Psychological maltreatment was a constant part of Davis' childhood. Catherine resorted to psychological maltreatment when she used food, which should have been nurturing as a weapon to control him. She repeatedly resorted to requiring him to call himself a bad boy, ordered him to climb up and lie on the flames of the gas stove so she could watch him burn, waved a knife at him while threatening to kill him (D. Pelzer; pp. 85)

Catherine continuously neglects Dave's basic needs for survival. Dave repeatedly refers to receiving no food, or inadequate leftovers from other family member's meals over extended periods of time. He claims she even starved him "up to about ten consecutive days (D. Pelzer, 1995) pp. 3,4,104). And yet it deserves mention that while bemoaning the fact that he won't have time to steal food before school, Dave also complains about having the same bag lunch of two peanut sandwiches and a few carrot sticks for three years. Within lines of one another he then tells of not being able to steal food before school, stuffing his sandwiches down his throat during lunch, and his father sneaking scraps of food to him. (D. Pelzer, 1995; p. 58).

Dave claims he had to wear the same pants, shoes with holes in the toes, and Swiss-cheese-holey shirt for two years. That was a way, he explains, for his mother to humiliate him. But again, as with the food insufficiency discrepancies, he later explains how after school he changes into his "Work clothes" before doing his chores. (D. Pelzer, 1995; p.70). Understandably, Dave's perceptions of Catherine's behaviors are all related to his belief that there was a war between them and that war, along with Catherine's determination to win it, dictated her choices of action. However, the possibility exists that along with other unidentified but acknowledged destructive behaviors, Dave may have been destructive of his clothes which would lead to an irrational-logic decision for Catherine to not allow him to wear new clothes which were available by his accounts. Dave and his mother each seem unable or unwilling to see the other except through the fog of their war.

For David, food is not simply sustenance for the body. As he explains, in the early years of his life, his mother was a "gifted cook" who delighted in treating her family to special and fantastic meals. Then food was "wolfed" down, and barely noticed. Later he steals food, dreams of food, and uses food as descriptors, metaphors and analogies throughout his story. (D. Pelzer, 1995; pp. 48).

For Dave Pelzer getting food is less about satisfying a physiological hunger than it is about meeting an emotional/psychological hunger to be the one in control. Food is power. For Catherine and Dave food is the ultimate weapon in a war without end for either of them. At seven, Dave begins stealing food from school, in response, he says, to his unsatisfied hunger, but the food he steals is Twinkies and other desserts, causing classmates to "hate him" and a principal's report to his mother. He steals trays of frozen cafeteria lunches, begs food from neighbors, steals from a store. (D. Pelzer, 1995; pp. 48, 49, 64, 68).

Other discrepancies in the book include the claim that his mother is obsessed with cleanliness and yet they have all those pets, the kitty litter is kept under the kitchen table, and during the dirty diaper scene, she puts the diaper on the kitchen counter (D. Pelzer, 1995; pp. 56, 68).

During the summer when Dave was around eight years old, he mentions that he got along better with his mother, but he doesn't provide any clues as to why. That statement immediately precedes the dirty diaper episode, which seems to indicate the truce, whatever its reason, didn't last long between them. (D. Pelzer, 1995).

Societal abuses, too, abound for Dave. While he was experiencing maltreatment at home, neighbors, relatives, den mother, school personnel, police knew "the conditions" under which Dave lived and did nothing to effect change or attempt to protect him. Few bothered to report what they knew or suspected. Even fewer took action of any kind. Such failures might be considered in the context of a time when child maltreatment was not much of an issue, but even today reporting is encouraged but seldom the action of choice. (Gannon, 2004). Peers "at times took over where Mother left off." Clifford beat him. Angie tormented him. John encouraged him to jump into the bay and drown himself.

Within his world of abuse and neglect, Dave developed a variety of coping behaviors. Dave exhibits hyper vigilance. His ears work as "radar-antennae" to keep track of where mother is and what she is doing. (D. Pelzer, 1995; p. 70) He dissociates, disconnects from physical pain, hides his emotions, and gains strength from his "fear and intense anger." (D.. Pelzer, 1995; pp. 70, 73, 131).

Although Dave uses a natural resiliency, creativity, and spirituality as coping mechanisms, his predominant survival mechanism is his "power." He claims that at 4 he knew he was the problem (D. J. Pelzer, 2000). In that knowing he found his primary defense against the maltreatment, and developed his strength and determination to survive.

For Dave the maltreatment represented a game of war between him and his mother. He repeatedly shares his belief that winning against her was the goal. He says, "the more Mother slugged me, the more I began to realize I won!" Later, he adds, "For the first time I had won." He explains that he "would use any tactic" he could think of "to defeat Mother." He believed he "could never give in to her!" Even while being slapped around, with feces smeared on his face by his mother, he still thinks he "might win," and attributes her behaviors to getting to him before he "could think of a way to defeat her…" (D. Pelzer, 1995; pp. 55, 72).

Dave also finds strength in his perceived successes. He feels proud that he fed himself, when he steals frozen trays of cafeteria food. He recounts other times she didn't win, when he felt "proud for beating mother at her own game," as he felt proud when he cleaned and treated his infected stab wound "willed the wound to heal," and when he refused to cry because he didn’t want to give his mother the satisfaction of his defeat. Eventually he admits, that stealing food makes him feel "like a king on his throne." (D. Pelzer, 1955; pp. 78,79, 98, 132).
When Dave's father leaves he says "I can't take it anymore. The whole thing. Your mother, this house, you. I just can't take it anymore." (D. Pelzer, 1995)P.149). His words tell the story of a family at war within itself, where maltreatment leaves casualties as it spreads, and peace eludes all who play the game. The problem is that child maltreatment cannot be left behind as easily as Dave's father thinks. The results and aftereffects permeate the being of all who are touched by it.

Today is not yesterday: Prevention, Intervention and Amelioration

An old African proverb says that today is not yesterday. Unfortunately, where child maltreatment is concerned that is less than true. Too much remains the same. Real change requires that the subject of child abuse cannot only be looked at in the abstract as in many research projects, pilot projects, added-as-after-thoughts in existing programs, (Brogan, 2003), ignored or disregarded policies (Billman, 2002), deliberately manipulated-for-profit and political power organizational decision, (Gootman, 2004) or superficially as many burnt-out professionals may unwittingly begin to see it(Azar, 2000).

Change requires that it will take many willing to look at the reality of child abuse in order for the power of one united front to find the strength and courage to demand an end to it. Only then may peace and freedom be available to all. Those who would contribute to a future without child maltreatment must first be committed to financially support an in-depth and multi-year continuing program of child well-being designed to prevent, ameliorate the existing effects of, and reduce the interminable life-long ravages (Kempe, 2002; Teicher, 2002) related to child maltreatment. They also must be committed to using all resources available to influence schools, libraries, and child-related programs to take a risk and provide the time and facilities for the implementation and continuation of such programs over time. Additionally, continuing training of any adults working with or in frequent contact with children must be recognized as essential. (Bugental et al., 2002). A commitment by all to prevention, early identification, amelioration of effects, and continual non-maltreatment of children must become a consistent and natural part of children's formal developmental environment whether at home or elsewhere. (Fantuzzo, Stevenson, & Source; 1997, 1997; Gullatt & Stockton, 2000).

Research already indicates some strategies and interventions that are effective with maltreated children. (Dubowitz, 1999). However, unless these become known and practiced by those working with children, little benefit for the children actually occurs from the research. (Jones, 2002; Lowenthal, 2001; Nicholson, Anderson, Fox, & Brenner, 2002). Additionally, those working with children need the ability to work with maltreated children from the child's view of the world rather than to attempt to reach such children from a world-view unknown to them. (Marston, 2001) Activities to modify child and adult perspectives to increase empathy toward abused and abusers, (Wiehe, 1997) increased development of social competencies, and ego resiliency have fully mediated behavior problems in maltreated children. (Shonk & Cicchetti, 2001). Eventually change today will make truth of the idea that where child maltreatment is concerned, today is in fact not yesterday.

Conclusion

After much occasion
To consider the folly
And mischiefs of a state of warfare
And the little or no advantage obtained
Even by those nations who have conducted it with the most success
I have been apt to think that there has never been
Or ever will be any such thing
As a good war
Or a bad peace

(The olive branch: The power of peace, 2004)

Today there may be as many perspectives about child maltreatment as there are those touched by it to one degree or another. Whether posited as individual or group views, all are biased according to educational foci, theories and practices, and further modified by individual ideologies. Professional, (Azar, 2000; Greenwalt, Skylare, & Portes, 1998; Southal, Samueals, & Golden, 2003; Straus, 2000), societal, political, (Brogan, 2003), medical,(D Cicchetti, 2002; Goodman, 2000) educational, (Shumba, 2002; Staudt, 2001; Turner & Johnson, 2003)(Billman, 2002;(Hinson & Fossey, 2000; Hodgkinson & Bagindky, 2000)), developmental (Ormrod, 2004; Pollak, Cicchetti, Hornung, & Reed, 2000), and other discourse communities claim unique-to- them successes and failures in addressing the subject of child maltreatment. Some people, such as Alice Miller disassociate their ideas from firmly entrenched traditional foundations, struggling to be heard by a world that needs to hear what she is saying. Others attempt to revisit those same foundations in search of some misplaced concept to use in their fight.(Blum, 2004) As these wars of words continue, peace for those impacted by child maltreatment remains as illusive as the substance of Dave's father's empty promises to rescue him. Perhaps the time has come for an olive branch among the many who are interested in seeing change to be extended in all directions (Hamovitch, 1996)so that one child like Dave Pelzer can look forward to a tomorrow unlike yesterday or today.

References

Alliance: Factsheets: Child Abuse. (1997). Retrieved October 28, 2004, from http://www.nycagainstrape.org/survivors_factsheet_13.html

Alessi, H. D., & Ballard, M. B. (2001). Memory development in children: Implications for children as witnesses in situations of possible abuse. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79(4), 398-315.

Alliance: Factsheets: Child Abuse. (1997). Retrieved October 28, 2004, from http://www.nycagainstrape.org/survivors_factsheet_13.html

Azar, S. T. (2000). Preventing burnout in professionals and
Paraprofessionals who work with child abuse and neglect. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(5), 643-664.

Berdik, C. (2003, December). Poor Little Rich Kids. Boston Magazine.

Billman, L. W. (2002). Child abuse and neglect: The school's response. American Secondary Education (Summer), 70-.

Blum, H. P. (2004). The wise baby and the wild analyst. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 21(1), 3-15.

Brogan, P. (2003). Child abuse legislation offers far less than needed, advocates say. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?

Bugental, D. B., Ellerson, P. C., Lin, E. K., Rainey, B., Kokotovic, A., & O'Hara, N. (2002). A cognitive approach to child abuse prevention. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(3), 243-258.

Bundle of Thirteen Arrows: The Power of War. (2004). Retrieved December 13, 2004, from http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/arrows.html

Chalk, R., Gibbons, A., & Scarupa, H. J. (2002). The multiple dimensions of child abuse and neglect: New insights into an old problem (Research brief). Washington DC: Child Trends.

Child Welfare Spending: A Moral Failure to Invest, House of Representatives (2004).

Cicchetti, D. (2002). The impact of social experience on neurobiological systems: Illustration from a constructivist view of child maltreatment. Cognitive Development, 17(8), 1407-1428.

Cicchetti, D. (2004). An Odyssey of Discovery: Lessons Learned Through Three Decades of Research on Child Maltreatment. American Psychologist, 59(8).

Crosson-Tower, C. (2002). Understanding child abuse and neglect (5th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Demause, L. Chapter I: The Evolution of Childhood. In Foundations of Psychohistory.

Dubowitz, H. (1999). Neglected children: Research, practice, and policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-133.

Fantuzzo, J. W., Stevenson, H. C., & Source: 1997, V. I., p298, 16p, 1 diagram. (1997). A partnership-directed school-based intervention for child physical abuse and neglect: Beyond mandatory reporting. School Psychology Review, 26(2), 298- 314.

Fromm, S. (2001). Total estimated cost of child abuse and neglect In the United States statistical evidence. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from http://www.preventchildabuse.org/learn_more/research_docs/cost_analysis.pdf

Gannon, P. (2004, April 13). See abuse? Report it; Social workers say child s safety too vital to ignore. Star News, p. 1B & 3B.

Goodman, T. (2000, December 14, 2000)
Web posted at: 3:41 PM EST (2041 GMT)). Researchers: Child abuse, neglect can trigger permanent brain damage. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/children/12/14/child.abuse.brain/

Gootman, E. (2004, January 29). Dirty and broken bathrooms make for a long school day. New York Times.

Greenwalt, B. C., Skylare, G., & Portes, P. (1998). The therapeutic treatment provided in cases involving physical child abuse: A description of current practices. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(1), 71-78.

Gullatt, D. E., & Stockton, C. E. (2000). Involving educators in the identification and reporting of suspected child abuse. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 84(619), 79-89.

Hamovitch, B. A. (1996). Socialization without voice: An ideology of hope for at-risk students. Teachers College Record, 98(2), 286-306.

Hinson, J., & Fossey, R. (2000). Child Abuse: What teachers in the '90's know, think and do. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 5(3), 251-266.

Hodgkinson, K., & Bagindky, M. (2000). Child protection training in school-based initial teacher training: A survey of school-centered initial teacher training courses and their trainees. Educational Studies, 26(3), 269-279.

Jones, K. D. (2002). The impact of learning about child abuse trauma. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 41(1), 45-51.

Kempe, R. (2002, July 28). Protect our children How did we get here? Retrieved May 2, 2003, from http: proquest.umi.com/pqdlink

Lowenthal, B. (2001). Teaching resilience to maltreated children. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 10(3), 169-173.

Marston, J. R. (2001). Living in the reality of children who hate. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 10(3), 179-181.

Mikalonis, G. (1996). David's story. Retrieved December 13, 2004, from http://www.metroactive.com/sonoma/pelzer95.html

Miller, A. (2000). Letter to college students of all nations. Retrieved April 15, 2004, from http://www.naturalchild.com/alice_miller/letter_college.html

Nicholson, B., Anderson, M., Fox, R., & Brenner, V. (2002). One family at a time: A prevention program for at-risk parents. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80(3), 362-371.

The olive branch: The power of peace. (2004). Retrieved December 13, 2004, from http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/olives.html

Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human Learning (4 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Pear, R. (2004, April 26). U.S. finds fault in all 50 states' child welfare programs. New York Times.

Pelzer, D. (1995). A child called "it": One child's courage to survive. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.

Pelzer, D. J. (2000). Help yourself: Finding hope, courage and happiness. New York: Penguin.

Plotz, D. (2000, September 29, 2000). The child-abuse entrepeneur. Retrieved November 4, 2004, from slate.msn.com/id/90532

Pollak, S. D., Cicchetti, D., Hornung, K., & Reed, A. (2000). Recognizing emotion in faces: Developmental effects of child abuse and neglect. Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 679-688.

Sechrist, W. (2000a). Health educators and child maltreatment: A curious silence. The Journal of School Health, 70(6), 241-243.

Sechrist, W. (2000b). Why teach about child abuse and neglect? The Educational Digest, 66(2), 45-49.

Shonk, S. M., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Maltreatment, competency deficits, and risk of academic and behavioral maladjustment. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 3-17.

Shumba, A. (2002). Teacher conceptualization of child abuse in schools in the new millenium. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(4), 403-415.

Southal, D. P., Samueals, M. P., & Golden, M. H. (2003). Classification of child abuse by motive and degree rather than type of injury. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 88(2), 101-.

Staudt, M. M. (2001). Psychopathology, peer relations, and school functioning of maltreated children: A literature review. Children & Schools, 23(2), 85-98.

Straus, M. A. (2000). Corporal punishment and primary prevention of physical abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(9), 1109-1114.

Teicher, M. H. (2002). Scars that won't heal: The neurobiology of child abuse. Scientific American, 286(3), 68-76.

Tsukahara, M. (2004, February 21). Many child abusers still beyond reach of law. The Daily Yomiuri, p. 13.

Turner, L. A., & Johnson, B. (2003). A Model of mastery motivation for at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 495-505.

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, A. o. C., Youth and Families. (2003). Child Maltreatment 2001. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vasquez, M. J. T. Latinos and violence: Mental health implications and strategies for clinicians. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 4(4), 319-334.

What can happen to abused children when they grow up--if no one notices, listens or helps? Some statistics from the research. (Descriptive report)(2001). Augusta, Maine: Maine State Dept. of Behavioral and Developmental Services.

Wiehe, V. R. (1997). Approaching child abuse treatment from the perspective of empathy. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21(12), 1191-1204.