Social Needs with Homelessness: Educational Impacts in Children, Family, Schools and Communities - Research Paper Example

? Social Needs with Homelessness: Educational Impacts in Children, Family, Schools and Communities First Last of Social Needs with Homelessness: Educational Impacts in Children, Family, Schools and Communities Introduction The learning capabilities of children are quite endless, where their inquisitive minds are like sponges that absorb interesting facts for present and future references. In the case of Brooklyn, New York, the increasing figures of homeless families may impact the educational status of children. More formally known as an infamous borough in King County, Brooklyn area is said to be situated adjacently in the north and east of another borough, the Queens, and faces an extensive deep water systems on the rest of the side (“Brookly, Kings County,” 2011). The city covers an area of approximately 71 square miles, where population is considered quite dense, as 34,919.6 individuals cover every square mile (“Brookly (Borough), New York,” 2009). The general household figures in Brooklyn reaches to 21,544, with typical incomes average at 56,293$ (“Brooklyn: City Profile,” 2011). Considering the demographic background, the combination of lower median incomes and densely populated area appeared to converge on one critical issue, family homelessness. Brooklyn City had been recorded to have one of the highest percentages of family homelessness in the state of New York, with a result of 2.86 families, in overall result of 2.90, utilizing shelter programs (“Brooklyn, n.d.”). While families in such category struggle to meet the basic needs of food, water and safe shelter, and basic education of the children (among other child needs) appeared to be neglected in the process. Children, unlike the adult groups, require consistent guidance and protection, as they are not yet equipped with developmental maturity to hold stable jobs. At most, they are at high risk for failure, as their homeless status makes them more liable to experience “economic deprivation, family loss or separation (and) social and emotional instability” (Mickelson, 2000, p. 66). As they cannot afford to enroll in exclusive middle schools, most go to public middle schools, such as the Seth Low School. Situated in Brooklyn’s Bensohurst area, Seth Low School is classified as a middle school catering to students from grades six to eight. The said school is considered a vital educational institution in Brooklyn communities, as it has provided quality service for over 80 years (“Seth Low,” 2010, p. 5). On average, students enrolled in the school frequently reach to more than a thousand, while the teaching staff in-charge in classroom lessons totaled to 74 instructors. Majority of the students are Asians, closely followed by White Americans, and some small percentages of Black Americans and Hispanic children (“I.S 96 Seth Low,” 2011). Committed to achieve the ultimate goal of the school for academic excellence, a variety of programs had been offered to support students in their studies, such as “special education students.” In line with this, other academic improvements also aimed at involving the families of the school’s students in learning, including the two-year project on integrated computer education, providing computer sets to selected families as part of the “Computers for the Youth Initiative.” More importantly, community involvement had been considered for the development of its students, partnering with “FIAO (Italian-American Organizations)” for the sponsorship of student programs that takes place at the end of the day and during weekends. Significantly, collaboration in community settings does not end here, as formal links had been forged to promote initiatives on “Counseling in Schools, Creative Connections, and the Leadership” (“Seth Low,” 2010, p. 5). Such activities demonstrated the multi-dimensional approach that the school had employed, focusing on the environment factors, such as the family and community that shape their students’ learning. This paper seeks to examine the scenario surrounding the involvement of different environmental levels and factors on the structured educational initiatives instigated by Seth Low School, its general impact, and areas for improvements. Family and Community Involvement Practices Learning in school does not signify that achieving such goals does not extend outside the school campus. The Seth Low School accepted that to reach out to their students and be effective in such academic attempts, they must first forge an association with the influential entities in students’ lives, their parents and the community where they supposedly reside. At most, the said institution had facilitated an informal family program, called the Project Boost, where school faculties secure the participation of families in scheduled travel trips on various museums and restaurants as a way to establish an informal relationship, where parents can get to know their children’s teacher and subsequently communicate their desires and school-related opinions (“Quality Review Report,” 2010, p. 4). In such strategy, the program may be successful if it can encouragingly get parents to take active participation in school activities that may benefit towards their children’s learning. More formal approaches can also be enforced to get parents interested in school activities, such as organized conferences and brief meetings between faculties and parents, a number of organized family gatherings, and even team meetings with administrators (“Seth Low,” 2010, p. 22). There is the continued emphasis on the engagement of family members, especially the concerned parents, on the initiatives for school learning for they are viewed as the constant figure in children’s lives, hence, parents are at an advantaged position in guiding and facilitating learning in their offspring. In a related survey on the type of communication patterns predominant in Seth School, the parents of students had been queried on the efficacy of communication approaches employed. Subsequent results were quite promising, as most parents agreed that there had been considerable patterns of communication with parents regarding the academic progress and accomplishments their children had executed. At some point, participative communications had been further enhanced by way of language interpreters and multiple meeting schedules that enable most parents to adjust their time in accommodation to school meetings. Admittedly, most parents listed the various means of communication they are most comfortable and in favor with: “mail, paper sent home with (the) child, phone, parent teacher conference, E-mail” (“NYC School Survey,” 2009, pp. 3-4). As observed on the list, one can surmise that parents would like to get updated on the educational progress, but on a conditional status. Most of the enumerated means of communication, such as paper and online mails and sending school report on students’ homes, possess the one-way characteristics, where messages are sent without considering the reaction of the recipients of provided messages. This is the opposite of two-way communication as such concept seeks to establish a form of response for the messages given (“Communication Process,” n.d., pp. 84-85). In such category, communication through phone and conferences are the identified tactics that are more dynamic and collaborative in value. However, one can observe that the parents’ preference delves more on indirect contact with school faculties and actual visibility in schools, as only during school conferences can parents and teachers communicate, albeit more personally as phone conversations do not provide detailed information on facial expression and bodily gestures that indicate actual mood and sincerity of parents compared to face-face conversations. Relevantly, survey outcomes demonstrate the extent of parents’ willingness to extend time and efforts in monitoring and intervening on their children’s educational status. In reference to the favored communication pattern most parents would want to participate in, it would appear that more aggressive strategies would be required to draw more parent in actively participating in their child’s learning--through increased support and visibility in school vicinity, as advised. School administrators must not take a passive stance towards encouraging parents in school programs, as their roles are vital, not only during the planning of school projects, but also in facilitating the coordination of their staff, the parents, and community linkages for better learning dynamics of students. Further outcomes on surveys exhibited that majority of parental respondents had been invited to school activities once in every month, while a handful had been given numerous requests of school attendance for often within a single month (“NYC School Survey,” 2009, p. 2). Through the strategic assessment and planned interventions performed by school administrators, potential shortcomings can be redirected with student and teacher projects towards better institutional events, while collected information can be translated into structured programs that enhance parent participation. Critical in their function is the effective forging of community partnership. For the part of Seth Low’s administrators, their partnership with several of Brooklyn’s community organizations had enabled the construct of “21 Century grant,” where significant after-school provisions are conducted, including “academic support, enrichment programs...individual, group, and family counseling” (“NYC School Survey,” 2009, p. 4). Focusing on socio-emotional conditions of children and families in communities, the said community linkages provided the indicated stakeholders with necessary resources they need to enhance understanding and awareness on education learning and accomplishing them through the institution’s goals and planned activities. Integrated Family Involvement Program with Homelessness The nature of the programs initiated by Seth Low School for family and community collaboration in students’ learning appeared inflexible in addressing the problems of some of their students, such as the lack of stable homes for several students and their families. In some ways, the school had targeted more on the family households in secured neighborhoods, and in the process, there appeared a grave disregard on the special needs of homeless children. According to Vostanis and Cumella (1999), children with no definite homes are in danger of developmental delays and poor health conditions (p. 169). Realistically, the lack of shelter indicates more than the absence of a roof on the head, as young students would also lose a safe place to accomplish their assignments, as well as the shortage of funds for resources in learning. Unfortunately for these young groups, academic success in institutions is graded according to scholastic and social performance, neglecting to take into account the struggles that children face with their families and prejudice in schools (Vissing, 1996, p. 92). An educational bill had been passed, called the McKinney Act of 1987, where amendments had been ensued to support the educational needs of children and youth, from financial funding to educational systems that safeguard the needs of intended populations (Kushnick & Jennings, 1999, p. 176). Basing from situations of schools in Brooklyn area, implications of high incidence of family homelessness appeared to reflect on the education of their children. Most reports demonstrated that children are barred from going to school since their shelters may either be excluded from district boundaries, or the nature of their temporary residence does not define a stability required to meet regular school studies and programs (Boxil, 1990, p. 94). Despite the outreach educational programs instigated by Seth Low School, this may not work since the focus can be on children and families with permanent residences, disregarding those in sheltered homes or families with separate welfare homes. It is apparent, then, the presence of supportive loopholes observed in the family programs the said school sought to establish. As observed in Figure 1 (please see Appendix A), instead of preparing an extra support approach for children with educational problems of coping due to their homeless situation, special education had been centered more on children with disabilities, exhibiting where priorities lie--and it is not on children in homeless states. In a categorized concept on the areas of struggles faced by homeless children, Reganick (1997) emphasized five contexts that requires close attention in supporting this deprived groups: poor physiological impact of nonconstructive environmental elements, behavioral acting out as part of survival coping defenses, social skills impairment due to perceived shortcomings in both house and needs resources, psychological coping adjustments that may result to poor mental conditions, and developmental interruptions due to instability in constantly changing environmental patterns (as cited in Jozefowicz-Sembeni & Israel, 2006, p. 42). Basing from such concepts, the problem of children with lack of educational support needs to address the wholeness of the person, as well as the environmental factors that mold their personalities and capabilities. Summary and Recommendation Clearly, the attempts of Seth Low School for strengthening family bonding through planned tours cannot be possible as several poor parents need to work and scrape every resource they have to meet their needs first, before performing leisurely activities that relate to the improvements of their children in school. To address the educational problem of homeless children relegates the elimination of factors that disturb their personal equilibrium first, before proceeding them the value of education in their lives. Before proceeding towards the psychological aspects of learning, the physiological aspects must be stabilized first, as children cannot concentrate on school activities when they are of poor health conditions, and with no secured shelter to come home to by the end of the day. Although this is the responsibility of national and local state systems, schools can collaborate with integrated communities to provide services that address the housing needs of children. Furthermore, suggestions on school programs should include special supportive programs that address the developmental delays that children may encounter due to homeless conditions. More than this, teaching should be more flexible in adjusting to the behavioral defenses that these children may have adapted to protect themselves, instead of severely punishing them for minor transgressions. In doing so, training of teachers on how to handle such dilemmas with homeless children can be instigated, where this is duly counteracted by individual and family counseling to determine the origins of homelessness, its impact on the children’s educational status, and their lives in the process. Lastly, schools and community collaboration needs to ensure projects that empower families to act against homeless states, by providing livelihood schemes, and even training initiatives that can enhance capabilities and qualifications for relevant occupations. This promotes better chances of removing families from the problem of homelessness, and in later developments, correcting the identified shortcomings that children suffer, which duly reflect on their performance in school activities and participation. Communication Artifacts (adapted from Walcott, 2011 ) (adapted from Klein, 2009, p. 1) References Boxil, N. A. (Ed.). (1990). Homeless children: The watchers and the waiters. United States of America: The Haworth Press. Brooklyn. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://home2.nyc.gov/html/endinghomelessness/downloads/pdf/brooklyn.pdf Brooklyn (Borough) New York. (2009). U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3651002.html Brooklyn: City profile. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.fizber.com/sale-by-owner-home- services/new-york-city-brooklyn-profile.html Brooklyn, Kings County New York. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.longislandexchange.com/brooklyn_ny.html Communication Process. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.cls.utk.edu/pdf/ls/Week1_Lesson7.pdf I.S 96 Seth Low. (2011). Public School Review. Retrieved from http://www.publicschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/56640 Jozefowicz-Sembeni, D. M., & Israel, N. (2006). Services to homeless students and families: The McKinney-Vento Act and its implications for school and social work practice. Children & Schools, 28 (1), 37-45. Klein, J. L. (2009). Family guide 2009-2010. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FFD175C2-C291-4965-9D64-2D32568F3AC0/0/FamilyGuideEnglish.pdf Kushnick, L., & Jennings, J. (Eds.). (1999). A new introduction to poverty: The role of race, power, and politics. United States of America: New York University Press. Mickelson, R. A. (2000). Children on the streets of Americas: Homelessness, education, and globalization in the United States, Brazil, and Cuba. New York: Routledge. NYC School Survey 2009-2010 Report. (2009). Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/OA/SchoolReports/2009-10/Survey_2010_K096.pdf Quality Review Report 2009-2010. (2010). Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/OA/SchoolReports/2009-10/Quality_Review_2010_K096.pdf Seth Low: 2010-2011 School Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP). (2010). Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/documents/oaosi/cep/2010-11/cep_K096.pdf Special Education Service Delivery Report. (2010). Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/documents/teachandlearn/sesdr/2010-11/sesdr_K096.pdf Vissing, Y. M. (1996). Out of sight, out of mind: Homeless children and families in Small-Town America. United States of America: The University Press of Kentucky. Vostanis, P., & Cumella, S. (1999). Homeless children: Problems and needs. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Walcott, D. M. (2011). SES program timeline for 2010-2011. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/RulesPolicies/NCLB/SES/Parents/CalendarDatesandEvents/ Par_Calendar.htm Appendix A Figure 1. Seth Low School Report on Children with Disabilities (“Special Education Service,” 2010) Read More