Family Interactions: The case of Children of Primary School Age with Learning Problems ­- Social Risk Indicators

 

By Associate professor Dr. Silvia Tzvetkova

 

 

Abstract

This paper provides for a systematic in –depth-study of risk factors in childhood. The family is central in this the various interactions between the children, the parents and the family members impact either positively or negatively the risk factors.

The paper is aimed at the modeling of risk prevention and reduction for children.

 

 

 

 

Introduction

The issue of social risk behaviour is usually discussed when its apparent forms are available.

As regards the discussion on the social risk several important points are to be taken into consideration:

Ø      It is necessary to look for the factors that produce social risk in future;

Ø      Preventive social actions should precede all the measures. Therefore a profound analysis of social risk factors that cause destructive behaviour is necessary, as well as duly attention to interpersonal contacts; systematic educational activity on micro- and meso-environmental level;

Ø      Systematic work towards personal responsibility enhancement, not only in activities of service to society, but also training in the area of influencing the others (educational, re-educational and behavioural);

Ø      A lot of actions must be undertaken from an early age to activate on a large scale the phenomenon “active civil position”.

Early indicators of social risk behaviour are connected with the formation of personal characteristics under the conditions of dominating activity. Family relations and interactions have strong and permanent influence upon the personality.

Primary school age is an important period in the ontogenesis because of the sensitivity of building up a set of fundamental skills and habits. We focus out attention on this “small” age group precisely because of the pronounced receptivity not only to educational but also to behavioural influences. The observed tendency toward identification allows the adult to direct, mould and build up the character chosen by the child. The structural distinction of social perception, communication and interaction in the context of the intercourse with children of this age gives the opportunity for work upon each direction to harmonize the influences and to achieve a holistic educational effect.

In case of children that are not able to cope with educational requirements and do not show the expected progress in the educational process different reactions and behavioural specificities in conduct, communication, emotional and volitional sphere are observed. Repeatedly are found cases of combination of permanent problematic learning with aggressive and antisocial behaviour. Educational indicators that determine the group of “pupils with specific learning disabilities” are concerned with the affected areas: oral expressing, writing expressing, reading skills, reading competence (comprehensive reading), mathematical skills and mathematical thinking.

Antisocial behavioural acts (interpreted as “frequent incidents” of self-willed, disobedient, aggressive, bad-mannered, problem children) proceeding from the law marks in school can be considered as well a result from the activated protective and compensation mechanisms for attention attraction and for social positions assertion. Behavioural destructions can be additionally reinforced by wrong family upbringing, misunderstanding by the relatives, lack of support and systematic punishments.

 

 

 

Own Studies

Object of the author’s own studies are pupils from primary school age that have proven diaabilities in mastering the educational competences – pupils and their teachers were inquired. A representative random sample of 283 pupils (grouped by year in school and settlement) was made from the general number of 905 investigated persons.

Along with that a self-administered questionnaire was used to inquire 36 parents (divided in two groups) of students from the same age with leaning difficulties and problem behaviour.

Results and discussion

Educational interaction in the family as a special form of interpersonal communication gives the child an opportunity to internalize a lot of the parents’ views, values and priorities. The availability of deficits and destruction in these relationships inevitably reflects on the conscious, self-conscious, behaviour and socialization of the child.

What do share the children?

The collected data reveal that children from full nuclear family are 117 (39.5%), from reduced nuclear family (with one parent) are 23 (7.8%), from extended full family – 66 (22.3%), from extended reduced family – 31 (10.5%) and five cases of children without parents bred by relatives (1.7%).

The number of children in the family does not affect the findings.

Communication models initially set by the family are confirmed or opposed to the new models in the school institution. Behavioural strategies that are used in the family may restrain or hinder the new model of interactions that is demonstrated.

Data from the cross-tabulation analysis reveal that only 4.6% of the investigated cases ask for and receive help from both of the parents (with evenly distributed responsibility). However 92.2% are not an object of such a complex family assistance. From all of the respondents that say that they share in the family, 41% name the mother as a major person they confide in and receive help from. 19 per cent of the children that share at home receive help from other relatives. The very low percent of the children (4.4%) that name the father as a person they confide in and get assistance from is strongly alarming. Such results are observed mainly in the cases of reduced nuclear family and extended reduced family (where the father is the single parent).

Cultural differences have an effect on the extent of sharing and on the behavioural interactions in the family. It is empirically proven that many of the children, belonging to an ethnical community that is different from the official one, demonstrate different communicative ability of problem sharing. The percentage distribution of the children that have answered positively that they share with all relatives their difficulties in school is as follows: Turkish self-awareness – 25.9%, Bulgarian – 10.9%, Bulgarian-Mohammad – 7% and Gipsy – 5.7%. The remaining percentages are for children that do not share with wide range of relatives that have they problems with their main activity – studying and with its relevant interactive interactions, all the same concerning the members of family, institutional or friend community.

The answers of the question: “Who is the one from your relatives that you are afraid to tell about your problems in school?” show that only in 53 (19%) of the cases the mother strikes with respect (frightens) the child and it does not confide in her. 118 (42%) of the children claim that they are afraid to talk with the father. Percentages of respect for grandmothers, grandfathers and relatives are low. And only 29 (10%) of the respondents share with everybody.

Taking into consideration the ethnicity it was found out through the cross-tabulation method that in Bulgarian-Mohammad families the mother (28.6%) and the father (64.3%) strike the children with respect to the highest degree (bring fear of sharing), followed by parents with Turkish and Gipsy ethnicity: respect from the mother 14.8% and for the father 45%. Data for the Bulgarian families show that even though mother actively supports the child with learning problems the respect for her is on second place (19.7%) and for the father ranks with lowest rate - 37.4%. The results are with good level of significance .005, with Cramer .239, which shows that there is a weak relationship between the observed variables.

Children and punishment

The further processing of data from randomly selected 83 questionnaires (from the total of 905) revealed that 61 (73%) of the children are object of quarrels, 34 (41%) are physically punished for poor marks and 33 (40%) for bad discipline. From all of the inquired 83 children every seventh one always is punished with hands straighten up or standing still against the wall, every fifth child is punished in a different way, 17% of the children are punished physically which is every sixth child. Different forms of punishment, including combination of punishments are found for 16 (19%) of the investigated children. Other ways of punishment pointed out by the children are: ban on watching television, ban on playing, ban on food, ban on money.

The discussion on studying difficulties in most of the cases involves verbal or physical aggression by the parents. It is obvious that these pupils are witnesses and participants in an unhealthy family climate where usually no other alternatives of interaction are being observed.

Pupil with learning difficulties does not receive quality help necessary for dealing with its problems and is systematically attacked (including aggressively) for its revealed coping disability. Psychological discomfort and inadequate building up of the I-image under the conditions of neurological hypofunction additionally aggravate the situation.

Our previous studies prove high percentage of direct and indirect aggression in the initial stage of secondary school for 64% of the inquired in another survey of 230 cases. The children’ aggression was ascertained by the means of self-administered questionnaire, Pigem test and drawing method “My family”. The processed data from the projective methods display pronounced problems in the family, that are noticed and experienced by the child but that often cannot be defined and analyzed by the children at this age.

 

Parents

In addition a self-administered anonymous questionnaire was carried out with 36 parents of problem pupils (with studying problems and destructive behaviour) 18 for each group. The pupils’ problems are not directly related to the structure of the family but rather they are affected by the parents’ attitude toward the child.

The answers from the parents’ questionnaire to the question “Who is the one that the child shares with?” are distributed as follows: 83% (first group) and 72% (second group) name the mother. The percentage distribution of the answers in favour of the father is of interest – only 16% for the second group. From the children’ answers it is obvious that pupils with discipline problems do not find the required contact with the father. Personal example is very important at this stage of growing up in terms of stability, personal interest and safety.

It is of interest to examine in parallel the questions how the family solves problems of domestic and school character.

In the opinion of the family representatives approximately equal percentage of them discuss family and school problems in the presence of the child. Parents are not willing or are unable to solve their children’ problems alone. Inference that is not realized by the parents though (61% of the inquired do not need any additional information). The stereotype approach for implementing of family approved norms for education and upbringing based on the principle “experienced influences in the childhood” determines the behavioural strategies of the majority of the parents of problem pupils.

 

Parents about children’ respect

Table №1 presents parents’ appraisal of children’ respect

  Table №1

Who Your child has respect for?

 

in %

 

in %

1st group

2nd group

1st group

2nd group

a) mother

28

39

f) teachers

44

17

b) father

33

39

g) school governing body

22

11

c) grandmother and grandfather

33

33

h) police

11

11

d) another relative

0

0

i) cannot answer

0

0

e) friends

0

0

j) nobody

0

5

 

By devolving rights upon the respective institution parents rely on external influences for coping with conflict situations concerning their children without realizing well the requirements for taking responsibility.

 

Parents and educational strategies

It is interesting to examine the results from the questions about how the parents encourage and punish their children.

Parents declare preference for the forms of encouraging and punishment through praises and bans on favourite activities instead of material incentives and privations, usually because of explicable reasons. The isolation in the family is not realized as a form of effective influence for preventive educational measure. Parents do not declare awareness of other educative approaches. Part of them do not encourage (5-6%) and do not punish the child (16%). They acknowledge that physical punishment is preferred by 5% in both groups.

 

Conclusions

The empirical investigations of 1135 cases prove that there is relationship among the problems of the pupils at primary school age, social risk indicators and family interactions. Interpersonal relationships in the micro-social environment are basic determinants for the development mechanisms not only in the sphere of gender behavioural identification, but also in the sphere of social contacts, communication style, social perception, empathy and conforming attitudes. The study findings are grounds of serious anxiety: 1. Parents are not ready for adequate completion of the accepted social roles. An explicit tendency is observed for devolving rights upon the representatives of the institution in which the child is educated.

2. We came upon explicit national psychological schemes, concerning upbringing and education of children where the mother is obliged to take on the care for the offspring. 3. We do not find well the father’s place in the family. He is with the lowest rating according to the results. Veneration (psychological fear related to the social role executed by the adult) is not identical with respect, experienced respect and authority. Family relationship crisis reflect on the child – on one side it is an object of daily reproaches, remarks that maintain the mechanism of quilt in institutional setting, on the other hand – the child is an object of systematic reproaches from its closest relatives, expressed through different kinds of punishment. 4. The findings of the survey do not present families of the investigated category as a single entity that is able to realize its child’s problems and seek for competent advice for coping with them. Thus the family itself produces a number of social risk indicators that according to child’s individual abilities can be suppressed or developed into antisocial acts (which has been proven in practice repeatedly).

Parents are not prone to accept the real pattern of the problems of their child. Depreciation is another tendency that is proven by our surveys. Parents as a “reliable” and “valid” source of information for the child are in the position of not acknowledging its actual difficulties (respectively its potential abilities).

Why children with learning difficulties produce antisocial behaviour? Firstly, they do not receive the expected dialogue and understanding from their closest relatives. Secondly, the educational institution does not support them by the relevant methodical approaches. Thirdly, social models that are offered to them are usually intangible. Fourthly, the mechanisms for self-defence and self-assertion are reasonably activated (unfortunately not according to the established social rules). Children with learning disabilities in fact do not bear a quilt that they cannon be in line with educational norms for their year in school and stage of general education. Very often in practice they are alluded to as repeaters, poor, difficult and unreliable pupils.  

The unacknowledged in our educational realities heterogeneous category of failing pupils from primary school age is a category towards which the educational system should input quality efforts for preventing pupils’ destiny of social outcasts, choosing drug addiction or revolt against the system that stamps them as unreliable.

Prevention and analysis of daily studying problems, education and social interactions with the rising generation should start from an early age. For prevention of the final stigmatizing stamps the important problems concerning not only the growing up but also their relatives and all the people that are directly involved in their upbringing and education in institutions, should be revealed and solved in due time.