Ecological Theory Typical And Atypical Child Development Social Work Essay

Ecological theory Typical And Atypical Child Development Social Work tryAnalyse the contribution of Ecological theory to our understanding of typical and temporary nestling teaching, and discuss this computer simulation in relation to the f encounterors and possible interpositions for kid outcryThe importance of insight regarding the p bent/ nestling bond has unendingly been a component of fond services custom, but the signifi stopce has non always been indentified of the moveion that the environment plays on a p bents readiness to act in their minors outmatch interests (Department of Health, 1999). A signifi disregardt breakthrough in the acquaintance of fry treat go forths to start out emerged through the application of an ecologic present of child ill-treatment, The ecological paradigm is currently the just about comprehensive model we countenance for understanding child abuse (G every(prenominal)agher 2001 76). Such a stance has generally been derived fro m theory based on Bronfenbrenners (1979) pioneering work, in which he defines to which The bionomics of benevolent using involvesthe progressive, mutual accommodation between an active, increment human being and the changing properties of the immediate settingsthis process is affected by traffic between these settings and by the macroscopic contexts in which these settings be embedded. (Sidebotham, 2001 105).The importance of an ecological standpoint in the perception of abuse is, firstly, that it widens the boundaries of the unfavourable make of ill-usage on children beyond just the pargonnt-child relationship to reckon the familial and favorable context in which such abuse occurs. Second, the ecological model is transactional in the sense that it acknowledges the individual and the immediate and wider affaires as actively interacting with each other. However, it should be noted that this ideology holds some limitations in the sense that it would not take over c are to account very well for child sexual abuse. Any matrimony together of juxtapositions forms of deportment as occurs with child abuse or child maltreatment, is bound to result in some loss of specificityIt would be inadvisable to think that ecological models are the final word on child abuse at that place is not single solution to abuse (Gallagher 2001 77).Specific hazardous factors guide to parents abusing their children. Although maltreatment does not often occur without numerable of these factors interacting in the equivalent household simultaneously. Firstly, the run a risk of abuse increases in any household assailable to significant stress, regard slight if this stress grind aways from unemployment, poverty, vicinity violence, a lack of societal support, or an especially demanding infant (CDC, 2006). Bronfenbrenners predominant layer, or microsystem, refers to the collaborations that occur indoors the childs immediate environment. The childs birth genetic and affe ctionate characteristics affect the habits, conduct and labor of their peers, For example, a temperamentally tiresome infant could disaffect their parents or raze create friction between them that may be sufficient to footing their marital relationship (Belsky Crnic, 1995). Also, the relationship between any two individuals in the microsystem is presumable to be influenced by the introduction of a child. Fathers, for example, clearly influence mother-infant interactions, happily married mothers who boast close confirmatory relationships with their husbands tend to interact much to a greater extent(prenominal) patiently and sensitively with their infants than mothers who experience marital tension, depressed support from their spouses, or feel that they are raising their children on their own (Cox et al, 1992).In regards to the emphasis on family, the notion to which a parent regards their competence and rates the performance of their parenting role is alike a relevant m atter. Parenting competence has been noted as problematic among abusive parents (Marsh Johnston, 1990) and linked with increased abuse possibility. Whilst acknowledging that improvement of parenting capacity is an important objective one must be cautious in concluding that improved competency in parenting immediately results in a reduction in child maltreatment as observations on interactions based under experimental conditions rarely reflect in daily life (Gallagher,2001248).Direct mental picture to abuse can suck up a dangerous tint as abused children tend to function slight adaptively than their non-abused peers in many areas (Cicchetti, Rogosch, 1993). According to Hipwell et al (2008) Children in a caring and loving environment feel much than secure in their immediate surrounds in regard to the microsystem, they develop greater self-confidence, are unselfish and show higher signs of being empathetic. These children are also shown to father larger IQs throughout their schooling life, and show take aim levels of anger and tatterdemalion behaviour. As Bronfenbrenners ecological model would present, higher point in times of affection can even pilot light a child against the shun implications of otherwise precarious environments (Bartley Fonagy, 2008). Several studies of children and teens growing up in lamentable, dangerous neighbourhoods show that the single ingredient that well-nigh clearly distinguishes the lives of those who do not become delinquent from those who do is a high level of maternal love (McCdord, 1982).The Mesosystem is the connections or interrelationship among such microsystems as homes, schools, and peer groups. Bronfenbrenner argues that development go forth be increased by supportive and strong connections between Microsystems. For example, children who grant instigated attached and secure relationships with parents have a tendency to be accepted by others and to have close, supportive peers during their development (Perry, 1999). According to McAdoo (1996) a childs competence to learn in a schooling environment is dependent upon the quality of the teaching provided and also the degree to which their parents place value upon education capital and how they interact with the teacher and vice-versa. However, this can also impact negatively at this level as when aberrant peer groups or friends of the child devalue scholastics, they will tend to demoralize that childs school performance in spite of teacher and parents best efforts. countable question has revealed that exposure to abuse had a severe negative impact upon a childs academic functioning. Schwab-Stone et al (1995) concluded that as the consistency of maltreatment increased this had a direct negative correlation with academic performance. Likewise, Bowen (1999) appoint in a consume of over 2000 high school students that exposure to community and school violence put limitations on school attendance, behaviour and results. Warner and We ist (1999) revealed that children from low income families who are witnesses to household and neighbourhood violence demonstrated uncharacteristic symptoms of PTSD, anxiety and depression. The symptoms continue upon the latter to include atypical externalising behaviours such as anger, inability to form relationships and a decline in academic performance. survive on a low income in a bad neighbourhood does not make it impossible to be the caring, affectionate parent of healthy, clubby children. But it does, undeniably, make it much difficult (Utting, 1995, p. 40). Children from low-income households may display more behavioural troubles than their better-off peers. However, according to Gorman-Smith (1998) family factors, including parenting practices do not predict childrens exposure to violence. He suggests that other community factors rather than their household income will influence and break away on children and those family factors are not powerful enough to mediate or mod erate their effects. Such studies have often found there to be an important correlation between communities in which citizens have described a high level of community cohesions and children safety, with an increase in child abuse being linked with a negative sense of community identity.Self-care has the most negative effects for children in low-income neighbourhoods with high crime rates (Marshall et al, 1997). Children who amaze self-care at an early age are more vulnerable to preliminary(a) self-care children in their communities who can damage or abuse them. These children are more likely to have adjustment problems in school and are more likely to use after-school with socially deviant peers who do not value school and undergo criminal activities. Predictably, then the positive effects of organised after school programs on academic achievement are greater for children in low-income neighbourhoods (Mason Chuang, 2001).Bronfenbrenners penultimate layer, or exosystem, consists of contexts that children and their peers may not be aware although nevertheless will influence their development. For example, parents work environments are an exosystem influence. Childrens stimulated relationships at home may be influenced considerably by whether or not their parents enjoy their work (Greenberger, ONeal, Nagel, 1994). In a similar fashion, childrens experiences in school may be influenced by their exosystem, by a social integration plan taken on by the school council, or by job cuts in their community that result in a decline in the schools revenue. Negative impacts on development can also result when the exosystem breaks down. For example, Sidebotham (2002) has shown that households that are affected by unemployment, poor housing and poor social networks are more likely to be knotted in increased occurrences of child abuse. Whose comments are confirm next to Beeman (1997) who concluded that a lack of social support and a high consistency of negative attitude s towards available networks all contribute towards the chances of child maltreatment.The majority of the research on the impact of mothers employment concludes towards a small positive influence on most children (Scott, 2004). Children whose mothers are in employment are more self-assured and show more admiration for their mothers in contrast to those mothers who do not work. The effect of the mothers work on influencing attitudes and results in school become less apparent, with many studies video display no difference (Gottfried, Bathurst, 1994). Muller (1995) in his large study on the latter topic distinguished a small but comprehensible negative difference on the effect on maths results if that childs mother was in employment. However, this difference noticemed to be based on the fact that mothers who do not work as much are less engrossed with their childs work and are less likely to negociate the childs work continuously after school, rather than from a long-lasting famin e brought about by maternal employment in the early years. Thus, running(a) mothers who find ways to provide such supervision and who remain involved with their childrens schools have kids who do as well as children whose mothers are homemakers. search evidence intuitively shows that when a man becomes unemployed, it places a strain on his marriage which in turn leads to an increase in marital betrothal and both mother and father show more signs of depression. The effects of these conflicts lastly show the same characteristics as families who are experiencing divorce both parents appear less coherent in their attitudes towards their children, become less loving and less effective at monitoring them. Similarly, children, in turn respond to this blot as they would during their parents divorce by exhibiting a series of atypical behaviours which can include depression, anger or becoming involved in delinquent behaviour. According to Conger et al (1992), the likelihood of abuse at all levels, shows an increase during times of households unemployment. However, according to Berger (2004) parents who are experiencing divorce but who have a supportive framework and steamy support from friends are progressively more likely to provide a safe and affectionate environment for children in analogy to those who are occupied in social isolation.Gorman-Smith and Tolan (1998), in their study of the effects of divorce, did not find that family structure and other familial influences had an independent involvement towards the prediction of exposure to abuse in comparison to that of other risk factors such as the breakdown of traditional social processes in the community. Low income parents are characterised by contributing towards their childs atypical development as Evans (2004) concludes that parents of such a nature are less likely to communicate with their children, spend less time engaging with them in intellectually stimulating activities and in turn are harsher and mo re aggressive in their discipline techniques. Not all children follow the same development pathways and there are certain factors that influence their development. For example, children below the poverty line are half as likely to recall the alphabet and have the ability to count by the time they enter the first years of schooling. This development according to Brooks-Gunn (1995) also applies, and is maintained through to adolescence as older children in poverty are twice as likely as their counterparts to relieve a year of school and are less likely to go onto higher education.In keeping with Bronfenbrenners model, parental values on the best way to deal with discipline will be largely in coherence with the larger culture in which they reside. According to Lockhart (Ecology of Development 345), by striking a child it will usually stop the chid from repeating the behaviour. Although research evidence suggests that children who are spanked, like children who are abused at later age s are less popular with their peers and show higher levels of aggression, unhorse self-esteem, more emotional instability, higher rates of depression and distress, and higher levels of guilt and later criminality (Mostow Campbell, 2004).Bronfenbrenners concluding layer is that of a macrosystem which entails a broad, overarching ideology in which the child is embedded, and whose principles dictate how a child should be handle and how discipline should be distributed. These principles differ across macrosystems (cultures) and sub-cultures and social classes and can have a direct influence on the types of experiences a child will have in all levels of their ecological system. To cite one example, Belsky (1993) discusses how the incidence of child abuse in families (a microsystem experience) is much lower in those cultures (or macrosystems) that deter physical punishment of children and advocate nonviolent ways of resolving social conflict. Similarly Clarke (1997) revealed how at the level of the macrosystem, a Government policy that ensures parents have the option to take paid or unpaid leave from their jobs to see to family matters could provide a significant intervention towards child abuse allowing parents more free time to observe their childs development and resolve difficulties that may arise within their child.The debate that encircles the surrounding links between culture and child abuse is a complex notion, which has resulted in a myriad of concerns. For instance, upstart statistics of child maltreatment has indicated that ethnic minority children are substantially more at risk of abuse than their Caucasian counterparts (U.S Department of Health, 2006). However Lassiter (1987) has countered, showing that these minorities may be over-represented to the relevant services. Lassiter argues that biased statistics do not take into consideration other influencing factors such as socioeconomic status and the level of schooling received. Without considerin g socioeconomic factors that may also influence the parent and child, research risks inadvertently concluding that factors that increase abuse potential are because of run for or ethnicity, or are universal.The contextual risk variable that looks to have the biggest part in forecasting child maltreatment is having a family penis who has also been a direct victim of some form of previous abuse. For example, A parent suffering from the stress of having been victimised herself or having another(prenominal) family member who has been victimised may be overwhelmed and more disturbed by the childs behaviour and may, therefore, have a lower threshold for viewing the childs externalizing behaviour as problematic. Primary or universal support targets the community as a whole, with generic initiatives, campaigns and community-based services that support parents and families without entry criteria. Their aim is to continue problems such as child abuse and family breakdown (Healy Darlington , 1999).MacMillan (1994) in describing child abuse interventions found it necessary to distinguish between the differing forms of legal community, including that of primary intervention to which he describes as any manoeuvre that is provided to the general population or a sample of the general population or a sample of the general population to reduce the incidence of child maltreatment, and indirect prevention, early detection of a condition with the aim of shortening the while of the disorder, and ordinal prevention, prevention of recurrence of maltreatment and impairment resulting from abuse. MacMillan further explained the difficulties in prevention in regards to psychological and emotional maltreatment, which accounts for a high keep down of reported cases but difficulty arises when evidence needs to be collated, and if emotional abuse is accepted as a form of abuse, then the tuberosity between primary and secondary prevention or indeed tertiary prevention becomes less cl ear.Osofsky (1995) in his research on primary prevention has called for a nationwide campaign that would address to change the attitudes toward maltreatment and lower peoples tolerance of child abuse. Support for an ecological approach to child well-being is evident in the Framework for the Assessment of Children and their Families (Department of Health et al, 2000), which stresses the need to consider not only the factors relating to the child and their parents, but also the wider context in which children live when assessing their needs, acknowledging the impact of social and community factors on childrens welfare. This is also justified through the all Child Matters document which refers to the concept of Making a positive contribution being involved with the community and society. Involving local communities in the prevention of child abuse was acknowledged by Nelson and Baldwin (2002) who asserted that the Every Child Matters model has the potential to involve communities ent husiastically in compact with agencies in identifying problems and seeking solutions and that the process can help to build communities which are more informed, aware and thoughtful about child protection. Although the presence of risk factors, such as a poor environment or contradictory relationships with primary caregivers, or being looked after outside the family, increases the likelihood of a negative outcome for the individual, studies of competence and resilience have shown that, regardless of background, children are generally resourceful. Competence has been shown to be a mediating variable that predicts positive or negative outcomes (Smith, Cowie, Blades, 2001 569).