Subscribe to our blog

Your email:

Posts by category

The Social NetWorker

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Better Kids, Better Us, Better Everybody

 | Submit to Digg digg it | Add to delicious delicious | Share on Facebook Facebook | Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn 
(This is a guest post by Megan Elizabeth Morris.)

Not long ago I was introduced to the story of Jane Elliot, who taught elementary school in Iowa and crafted an incredibly effective exercise to teach her class the concept of discrimination. You may be familiar with her story: She divided the students into groups of brown-eyed children and blue-eyed children. The next day, she announced that one group was better than the other.

Jane Elliot's classroom segregation came with all the trimmings. The "better" group sat at the front of the room and were told that they were smarter. The "lesser" group wore collars so that their eye color could be identified at a distance. They were separated from each other physically, emotionally, and conceptually. I quoted Jane Elliot in my personal blog awhile back, but she's worth quoting again to be absolutely clear: "I watched those kids turn into nasty, vicious, discriminating third-graders... it was ghastly."

It sounds ghastly.

You probably already know the drill. "Inferior" kids began to think particularly badly of themselves. They began to behave badly, too. "Superior" kids felt quicker, smarter, and happier. More than that, each group's performance in their schooling was altered accordingly. There was a clear difference in scores between groups, even when the groups were switched (to let the "better" kids have a crack at being "lesser"). When we believe we're better, when we're treated like we're better... we're better.

Now, this isn't news to me or you or any of us. But sometimes experiments like this are treated like fascinating finds, and it gives me a sick feeling in my stomach. Who are the kids who grow up feeling lesser? What would they be capable of if we raised them up? And why would anyone not start out thinking that kids -- that everyone -- should be raised up? Given the benefit of the doubt, and every opportunity to succeed?

I suppose we just reached the axe I'm grinding: We're all kids. We all need some kindness and lifting-up; some of us just have more learned patterns to deal with than kids still in school. Anything less than compassion and understanding is kind of a bum deal, whatever the reason. Letting someone assume they're "lesser" is lame; treating someone like they're "lesser" is cruel and has far-reaching effects. No one should have to go without positive reinforcement, another person's faith in them, social sensitivity and support. It's so obvious that we forget it constantly. It's more than worth remembering -- it's essential.

Who have you lifted up today?

Megan Elizabeth Morris (email)
Ms. Morris writes at Personal Revelations of the Magnificent Megan M. Megan Elizabeth Morris, or The Magnificent Megan M., [proper noun]: Superhuman font of knowledge, skill, determination & resourcefulness. Exudes enzymes that cause others to surpass their potential. Master thinker; writes, designs, manages, ideastorms, markets, inspires, connects, grows, teaches, makes things happen, changes the world, and throws a mean right hook. (Okay. Not the last one. Well! Not literally.)

Comments

Some of the points that have been made about the stratification of society could easily be made about the social work profession. We seem to have embarked on a "professionalization” that declares one specialty is better than the other. 
 
For instance, there is no Licensure for Community Social Work; the foundation of social work has now been lumped into to an "all purpose" designation.  
 
Before getting licensure for Clinical Social Work--the ideal designation to strive toward--one has to become an "all purpose" social worker, and community social work is just what one of many skills one acquires before becoming a clinical social worker. Clinical social work is "specialty" and therefore deserves its own designation. 
 
Not only community social work, but school social work, administration, and forensic social seem not to entail acquiring any specific skills, and therefore does not have to be regulated (licensed). Anyone social worker (generalist) can do it. We have now been stratified into two social work communities--not recognizing the uniqueness or skills set that each specialty requires. And of course, clinical social workers are paid more because, after all, it is not just that they have a different skills set, they know more. 
 
It is a repeated argument from me; but it is one that needs to be addressed. Ladies and gentlemen, WE HAVE A PINK ELEPHANT SITTING IN THE SOCIAL WORK LIVING ROOM, and it one that has become much easier to look away from then to confront. 
 
If we are going to base our licensing process on competency, then let us develop "competency-based" education and examination process. Let us assess each specialty based upon objective and measurable "KSA's." Not on arbitrary popularity contest. After all, isn’t that what social work is supposed to be about? 
Posted @ Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:20 PM by DeMecia Wooten-Irizarry
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics

Receive email when someone replies.