In “Juvenile Crime”, Albert S. Beckham seeks to analyze the factors that contribute to adolescent criminality. His discussion includes immaturity, group dynamics, sexuality, level and type of intelligence, success in school, gender, race, living conditions, and individual constitution of character. His analysis of the impact of the school environment is particularly insightful, and still relevant to understanding juvenile delinquency. He says, “Through the whole period of growth, during the whole course of his immaturity, he is held to be plastic, capable of infinite modifications... ‘The school as well as home...needs to undertake a more specialized type of training to prevent the delinquency and at the same time to eradicate the anti-social reactions that have been formed.’” Beckham seems to adhere to the “youth-as-dependents” and “youth-as-objects-of-saving-and-study” perspectives. He clearly endorses a Parens Patriae approach, insisting that the school must take on a particularly involved role to ensure the well-being of the child (especially when he or she exhibits social and/or behavioral problems). While his perspective is certainly an adult-centered on, Beckham recognizes that individual variation necessitates specialized attention and treatment, and that expecting all types of young people to thrive under the same kind of instruction is unrealistic. “The public school system concentrates on educational service for normal children...The problem child is lost in this mass instruction.”
The ability to succeed in an educational environment is of extreme value to any young person, and is especially critical in determining future potential. As was established by the Supreme Courts in Goss v. Lopez, students have a direct property interest in being able to attend school, in part because it bears so significantly on which opportunities will or will not be available to them during the course of their adult life. Considering Beckham’s perspective, this property interest is not only in being able to attend, but in at least having the opportunity to succeed. It would not be realistically possible to ensure that every young person graduate with a high school diploma or a stellar GPA (you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink), but Beckham is correct in his assertion that a standardized system of education disadvantages any child that isn’t “normal,” or that displays an aptitude for things outside the realm of traditional education, like mechanics and professions commonly taught in trade schools. While a more individualized approach to education and school discipline would not remedy juvenile delinquency entirely (as Beckham clearly states, it is a multifaceted issue), it could certainly minimize one part of the problem.
I feel that the author presents a good summary of Beckham's "Juvenile Crime" and offers her own insight into why a more individualized approach to education would minimize parts of juvenile crime. What I find interesting is that I believe we have made strides in trying to address the individual variation of children. Programs such as ESL and honors programs have allowed different types of children to progress at different levels. When looking at what is called the "problem child" I feel that individualized education can only go so far. The time a youth spends in school compared to the time is minimal to the time he or she might spend at home with parents or with friends outside. Therefore, individualized education would not be very viable in addressing these outside factors. Furthermore, individualized education is simply not practical. Especially in less developed areas, many school don't have enough funding to create these programs to address individual problems. I feel that these problems are one of the major responsibilities of parents, to make sure that their child shapes into a good adult. Idealistically, if a school could attend to each individual's specific needs, it would certainly be beneficial. However, I feel that this is simply impractical and would not accomplish much in remedying youth crime.
ReplyDeleteIn the essay, “Juvenile crime and the Role of Education.” I really liked how Claire made the connection between Albert S. Beckham’s view on the impact the school environment has on adolescent criminality and the idea of “youth-as-dependents” and “youth-as-objects-of –saving –and-study.” Usually, the idea f youth as dependents and subjects of saving and study is criticized but in this essay Claire decides to take a different approach and although she does not agree entirely on the view, she decides to agree with some of the ideas Beckham introduces.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Claire agrees that Albert S. Beckham holds a very adult-centered perspective, she decides to argue that Beckham is right about certain arguments. Just like Claire, I want to agree with Beckham when it comes to the idea that a standardized system of education disadvantages any child that is not considered to be a typical or “normal” student or any student that displays a skill for things outside the idea of a typical education. Although I agree with this view, I also want to add that although many children do not have the same way of learning style and interests, it is very difficult for s teacher with a classroom of over 40 students to approach a more individualized teaching method that can help every student.
-Karen Ruiz Pina
Claire summarizes and argues partly for and partly against Beckham's theories. The essay is very interesting and raises many important questions and possible solutions. Claire's last comment about individualized education made me compare youth-as-individuals and youth-as-society. Putting aside financial and emotional issues that would need to be addressed if public schools did adopt this method, I am not sure if a more individualized (almost, like home schooling?) education would actually benefit youth in the long run. Of course, it is important to help students understand and learn, but it seems like suggesting an individualized program for each and every student would "alienate" individuals from being a society. Also, education/schools prepare youth for an adult-life, where individualizations are not very common. Perhaps, i misinterpreted the comment. However, I do believe that students should learn to adapt to "social environments" without forgetting their identity and rights.
ReplyDeleteBeckham, as you mention, above believes in the plasticity of youth, which allows them to be molded by societal institutions. It seems that these institutions are not properly socializing youth, though. Adult crime is just as rampant as youth crime, if not more. As you have mentioned, Beckham believes that individual attention would more properly shape the individual. Is this not the responsibility of the family and the home, though? I agree that much is lost through mass instruction, but it is unfair to ask the state for the personalized that Beckham envisions. The home should be reinforcing the ideals learned in schools. I do agree that schools should become more personalized, but the entire responsibility of youth delinquency prevention cannot fall on the education system. It is, as Beckham says, a multifaceted issue. There most be a dialogue between the institutions that socialize youth. Disparity between the institutions contributes to the demise of youth. Mixed messages only serve to confuse and corrupt youth.
ReplyDelete