To understand the policy of the Department of Job and Family services, it is important to first understand the social learning theory itself. Albert Bandura was one of the first and most influential theorists that developed the theory. According to him, learning goes beyond traditional theories. Direct reinforcement is an important variable in determining the structure of learning, but at the same time it does not holistically explain all forms of learning. Based on that premise, he added another element to traditional models, claiming that people learn based on observation. This was later developed into a separate learning method observational learning.
Albert Bandura claimed that when children watch adults behave in a certain manner, they imitate similar behavior in similar situations (Bandura, 1979). Thus, a violent adult can instill in his children the influence of violence to deal with situations. However, an important aspect of his study was that related to mental state of the observers. Environmental reinforcement influence learning and behavior to a certain extent. What really matters is intrinsic reinforcement which involved the form of internal rewards. These internal rewards are sense of accomplishments, success and pride, unrelated to monetary or extrinsic rewards. Finally, he also noted that a change in behavior does not require learning as a prerequisite (Bandura, 1979). According to him, people can observe situations and learn, but not exhibit similar behavior.
Department of Job and Family Services Policy
The policy enacted by the said department has its pros and cons. The basic concept behind the policy is separation of the child from a home where he or she is prone to domestic violence, or an unhealthy growing environment. The child is removed from the custody of his or her parents or guardian and is handed over to the state or foster parents. Legally, the solution seems clear and implementable and does hold its merits. However, at the same time, an ethical dilemma exists that hamper some of the intended efforts of the policy.
Benefits
Child protection policies such as the one developed by the Department of Job and Family services provide children an opportunity of escape from dangerous lives. Often, during the course of growing up, children are exposed to violence, drugs and other ills detrimental to their development. If parents are the cause, then separation is the best answer.
Children in many homes are battered by their parents who have anger issues. Based on the social learning theory, these children are more prone to commit violence when they grow up. At the same time, those children who see their mothers beaten up by their husbands are 6 times more likely to commit suicide. To keep children safe from such atmosphere is a good idea.
Often, parents are abusive, unconcerned and inattentive to the needs of their children that they willfully produced. Their indulgence in drugs and alcohol, result in them leading substandard lives where they cannot properly provide for their dependent children, neither can they satisfy them emotionally. In the end, the child faces an atmosphere where they are emotionally taxed, financially drained and constantly under pressure to break free from their social environment. The result leads to children underperforming in schools, being more prone to substance abuse and in extreme cases suicide (Appelbaum, 1999). Every child has the right to a stable childhood. Based on that premise, legally, separation of the child from such families is in the best interest of the child at stake. Instead of risking the children having a similar life like their parents, social welfare organizations and legal laws protect the children in the hope that they can lead successful lives, regardless of their experiences.
Finally, foster families or state care ensures that a child grows up with a stable atmosphere. Often this means financial freedom, better education and more emotional attention. Using the learning theory, theorists claim that by interacting in families that are well groomed, children end up the same through observation and learning. Thus, in the future, the children can be expected to take a responsible role in society.
Ethical-Moral issues
The biggest issue arises in the reporting of child abuse cases. Often, most people tend to forget the issue exists either due to fear or intrusive involvement into another persons affair. Others fear that their interference might make the abuser more violent, and in the end, the child faces the circumstance without them. Sometimes the reports are just false.
In such circumstances, it is becoming highly difficult to monitor and gain substantive proof on child abuse by social workers. The bureaucratic nature of the issue and the documentation involved offers hinders the process entirely. At the same time, it makes the abuser more aware of the circumstance and results in a difficult situation for the child. If the report was falsely reported, it can often leave families with emotional voids (Appelbaum, 1999). An element of suspicion and lack of trust occurs in a perfectly healthy family. Due to which abuse might occur in the future.
In the policy mentioned by the Job and Family Services department, no provision of second chances is given. It is a fact that humans often transgress and need guidance (Appelbaum, 1999). In the case of actual mental patients who need medical attention, this issue becomes ever more pertinent. A person suffering from a mental illness should be treated and rehabilitated to function in society. Under immense pressure already, taking away their children does not fix their problem (Jackson et al., 1991). They need clinical attention and support from the State. Treating them as a person with bad character only helps in discouraging them further from improvement (Garcia et al.1991). Similarly, drug addicts or alcohol abusers need counseling and guidance. Addressing the problem at the root cause can only fix the problem in the long term. Separation of the children from their parents might seem appropriate initially, but in the long term it damages not only the children who need their parents but also the parents who made a mistake once and are made to suffer their entire lives.
Such policies take away the rights of parents. As parents, they need education and awareness on how to raise their young (Jackson et al., 1991). To some, punishment is a way of teaching children. Their ideas of punishment might vary and be illegal, but their intentions might be clear. In such circumstance, the issue is really about who will draw the line between what acceptable punishment is. Legally, grounding children holds no consequence even though you are depriving the child of their constitutional right of freedom. However, forcing a child to eat vegetables for one meal as punishment might constitute as a state offence. In such circumstances, parents need education and not punishment from the state. The policy seems unfair because it has not accounted for differential cases in child abuse. Its concrete, rigid and inflexible nature might punish parents unfairly. The ethical dilemma can be stretched further into abortion laws. Some states allow abortion where as all states punish child abuse. The dilemma exists in the fact that the two laws are contradictory. The later instructs parents to take care of their children whereas the former allows them to willfully kill them through an abortionist.
Finally, though everyone is thinking of helping the children, authorities often end up thinking too much for the children then for the children. Separation from the environment they grew up in, their home, neighborhood, friends, relatives and schools results in a loss of belonging to them, for no fault of their own (Booth, 2000). Because of this, they end up emotional deprived, depressed, and helpless in the situation that unfolds. If not addresses immediately, these children end up feeling guilty and lose their sense of recognition in society. The stigma attached to not being in proper family is another fear that resides in them throughout this process. They might be teased at school or look down upon as inferior by others. In the end, these children have a high tendency to grow up with emotional detachments and strains from their childhood that might hinder them in achieving their true potential, even though the goal of the policy is to prevent the very same thing.
Effect on society
The policy effectively destroys the family structure. Based on research, approximately half of all children with foster families return to their birth parents. The family unit becomes complex and eventually fades away with time for the child. 18 of all foster children leave the system with no sense of belonging to a family (Szilagyi, 2007). When a child is placed into a foster home, he or she will always remember that this is not their own home. Second, the fact that the possibility of them returning to their birth parents exists, they find difficulty in accepting the new situations. Finally, because their birth parents are separated from them, the lack of contact leads to a decreased association with them too (Garcia et al.1991). In the end, the children are left stranded in between with no sense of distinction between a foster home and a family.
Children placed in a foster home can often feel under confident and a burden. They often feel that reporting the crime led to their circumstance and they themselves created a burden on another family. Because of this, they lack the motivation and confidence to take bold decisions (Garcia et al.1991). In eventuality, they end up facing a similar threat that they did with their birth parents, the only difference being the physical nature. These children can often grow up to be shy, timid and under-confident adults.
Often, children face a similar circumstance in a foster home that they did with their birth parents. In such circumstances, the reporting of abuse becomes exceedingly low as children fear that this time they might be held the culprit, while other children end up accepting themselves as the problem. In such circumstances, not only does the policy fail blindly but creates anger amongst the children involved against society.
The policy in light of the social learning theory
Albert Bandura claimed that observation can lead to learning but that does not necessarily mean the exhibition of the same behavior. Various factors must be present to ensure that the behavior takes place. The following factors must be present (Bandura, 1979)
Attentiveness on the part of the learner
Retention
Reproduction
Motivation
Without the presence of these 4 critical factors, learned behavior will not take place. Thus, to simply base that children who witness abuse will be more prone to carry out abuse themselves is unfair.
The policy has unilaterally claimed, with reference to the social learning theory, that children who witness abusive behavior are more prone to abusive behavior. However, various other theories such as psychoanalytic, environmental, cognitive development and labeling offer deep insights as well (Newberger, 1983). Each theory has its own pros and cons but none of them can be applied exclusively to a situation. Social factors, confusion of parenting roles, and social inequality play their roles in the development of children (Newberger, 1983). In some circumstances, these factors might affect their growth and future orientation more so than factors mentioned in the social learning theory.
Albert Bandura claimed that when children watch adults behave in a certain manner, they imitate similar behavior in similar situations (Bandura, 1979). Thus, a violent adult can instill in his children the influence of violence to deal with situations. However, an important aspect of his study was that related to mental state of the observers. Environmental reinforcement influence learning and behavior to a certain extent. What really matters is intrinsic reinforcement which involved the form of internal rewards. These internal rewards are sense of accomplishments, success and pride, unrelated to monetary or extrinsic rewards. Finally, he also noted that a change in behavior does not require learning as a prerequisite (Bandura, 1979). According to him, people can observe situations and learn, but not exhibit similar behavior.
Department of Job and Family Services Policy
The policy enacted by the said department has its pros and cons. The basic concept behind the policy is separation of the child from a home where he or she is prone to domestic violence, or an unhealthy growing environment. The child is removed from the custody of his or her parents or guardian and is handed over to the state or foster parents. Legally, the solution seems clear and implementable and does hold its merits. However, at the same time, an ethical dilemma exists that hamper some of the intended efforts of the policy.
Benefits
Child protection policies such as the one developed by the Department of Job and Family services provide children an opportunity of escape from dangerous lives. Often, during the course of growing up, children are exposed to violence, drugs and other ills detrimental to their development. If parents are the cause, then separation is the best answer.
Children in many homes are battered by their parents who have anger issues. Based on the social learning theory, these children are more prone to commit violence when they grow up. At the same time, those children who see their mothers beaten up by their husbands are 6 times more likely to commit suicide. To keep children safe from such atmosphere is a good idea.
Often, parents are abusive, unconcerned and inattentive to the needs of their children that they willfully produced. Their indulgence in drugs and alcohol, result in them leading substandard lives where they cannot properly provide for their dependent children, neither can they satisfy them emotionally. In the end, the child faces an atmosphere where they are emotionally taxed, financially drained and constantly under pressure to break free from their social environment. The result leads to children underperforming in schools, being more prone to substance abuse and in extreme cases suicide (Appelbaum, 1999). Every child has the right to a stable childhood. Based on that premise, legally, separation of the child from such families is in the best interest of the child at stake. Instead of risking the children having a similar life like their parents, social welfare organizations and legal laws protect the children in the hope that they can lead successful lives, regardless of their experiences.
Finally, foster families or state care ensures that a child grows up with a stable atmosphere. Often this means financial freedom, better education and more emotional attention. Using the learning theory, theorists claim that by interacting in families that are well groomed, children end up the same through observation and learning. Thus, in the future, the children can be expected to take a responsible role in society.
Ethical-Moral issues
The biggest issue arises in the reporting of child abuse cases. Often, most people tend to forget the issue exists either due to fear or intrusive involvement into another persons affair. Others fear that their interference might make the abuser more violent, and in the end, the child faces the circumstance without them. Sometimes the reports are just false.
In such circumstances, it is becoming highly difficult to monitor and gain substantive proof on child abuse by social workers. The bureaucratic nature of the issue and the documentation involved offers hinders the process entirely. At the same time, it makes the abuser more aware of the circumstance and results in a difficult situation for the child. If the report was falsely reported, it can often leave families with emotional voids (Appelbaum, 1999). An element of suspicion and lack of trust occurs in a perfectly healthy family. Due to which abuse might occur in the future.
In the policy mentioned by the Job and Family Services department, no provision of second chances is given. It is a fact that humans often transgress and need guidance (Appelbaum, 1999). In the case of actual mental patients who need medical attention, this issue becomes ever more pertinent. A person suffering from a mental illness should be treated and rehabilitated to function in society. Under immense pressure already, taking away their children does not fix their problem (Jackson et al., 1991). They need clinical attention and support from the State. Treating them as a person with bad character only helps in discouraging them further from improvement (Garcia et al.1991). Similarly, drug addicts or alcohol abusers need counseling and guidance. Addressing the problem at the root cause can only fix the problem in the long term. Separation of the children from their parents might seem appropriate initially, but in the long term it damages not only the children who need their parents but also the parents who made a mistake once and are made to suffer their entire lives.
Such policies take away the rights of parents. As parents, they need education and awareness on how to raise their young (Jackson et al., 1991). To some, punishment is a way of teaching children. Their ideas of punishment might vary and be illegal, but their intentions might be clear. In such circumstance, the issue is really about who will draw the line between what acceptable punishment is. Legally, grounding children holds no consequence even though you are depriving the child of their constitutional right of freedom. However, forcing a child to eat vegetables for one meal as punishment might constitute as a state offence. In such circumstances, parents need education and not punishment from the state. The policy seems unfair because it has not accounted for differential cases in child abuse. Its concrete, rigid and inflexible nature might punish parents unfairly. The ethical dilemma can be stretched further into abortion laws. Some states allow abortion where as all states punish child abuse. The dilemma exists in the fact that the two laws are contradictory. The later instructs parents to take care of their children whereas the former allows them to willfully kill them through an abortionist.
Finally, though everyone is thinking of helping the children, authorities often end up thinking too much for the children then for the children. Separation from the environment they grew up in, their home, neighborhood, friends, relatives and schools results in a loss of belonging to them, for no fault of their own (Booth, 2000). Because of this, they end up emotional deprived, depressed, and helpless in the situation that unfolds. If not addresses immediately, these children end up feeling guilty and lose their sense of recognition in society. The stigma attached to not being in proper family is another fear that resides in them throughout this process. They might be teased at school or look down upon as inferior by others. In the end, these children have a high tendency to grow up with emotional detachments and strains from their childhood that might hinder them in achieving their true potential, even though the goal of the policy is to prevent the very same thing.
Effect on society
The policy effectively destroys the family structure. Based on research, approximately half of all children with foster families return to their birth parents. The family unit becomes complex and eventually fades away with time for the child. 18 of all foster children leave the system with no sense of belonging to a family (Szilagyi, 2007). When a child is placed into a foster home, he or she will always remember that this is not their own home. Second, the fact that the possibility of them returning to their birth parents exists, they find difficulty in accepting the new situations. Finally, because their birth parents are separated from them, the lack of contact leads to a decreased association with them too (Garcia et al.1991). In the end, the children are left stranded in between with no sense of distinction between a foster home and a family.
Children placed in a foster home can often feel under confident and a burden. They often feel that reporting the crime led to their circumstance and they themselves created a burden on another family. Because of this, they lack the motivation and confidence to take bold decisions (Garcia et al.1991). In eventuality, they end up facing a similar threat that they did with their birth parents, the only difference being the physical nature. These children can often grow up to be shy, timid and under-confident adults.
Often, children face a similar circumstance in a foster home that they did with their birth parents. In such circumstances, the reporting of abuse becomes exceedingly low as children fear that this time they might be held the culprit, while other children end up accepting themselves as the problem. In such circumstances, not only does the policy fail blindly but creates anger amongst the children involved against society.
The policy in light of the social learning theory
Albert Bandura claimed that observation can lead to learning but that does not necessarily mean the exhibition of the same behavior. Various factors must be present to ensure that the behavior takes place. The following factors must be present (Bandura, 1979)
Attentiveness on the part of the learner
Retention
Reproduction
Motivation
Without the presence of these 4 critical factors, learned behavior will not take place. Thus, to simply base that children who witness abuse will be more prone to carry out abuse themselves is unfair.
The policy has unilaterally claimed, with reference to the social learning theory, that children who witness abusive behavior are more prone to abusive behavior. However, various other theories such as psychoanalytic, environmental, cognitive development and labeling offer deep insights as well (Newberger, 1983). Each theory has its own pros and cons but none of them can be applied exclusively to a situation. Social factors, confusion of parenting roles, and social inequality play their roles in the development of children (Newberger, 1983). In some circumstances, these factors might affect their growth and future orientation more so than factors mentioned in the social learning theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment