Suicide and Self-Injury, Continued

(Ross, S., & Heath, N. (2003). Two models of adolescent self-mutilation. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 33, 277-286. )

The gist: "Two models, the hostility and anxiety reduction models, were simultaneously tested in order to determine whether SM in adolescence was characterized by greater feelings of anxiety and hostility" (Ross & Heath, p.1, 2003).

• even after further reading, I still feel unclear regarding the anxiety reduction model and the hostility model - I need to keep working at it
  
• beginning understanding: anxiety reduction model relates to feeling overwhelmed, a need for release and for feelings to stop -- hostility model relates to an inability to express hurt/anger/pain and as such, individual cuts 'to feel'
• state variable - more anxious as a direct result of SI behavior
  
• trait variable - more anxious to begin with, SI somewhat secondary
• seriously, I'm just not connecting with this article and I can't see the relevance of the research - Why is this an assigned article over countless others? - I'll have to come back to it, I suppose

Hurry, J. (2000). Deliberate self-harm in children and adolescents. International review of psychiatry, 12, 31-36.

The gist: This is a British article discussing deliberate self-harm in children and adolescents. In this instance, deliberate self-harm seems to refer to both self-injury as well as parasuicide. Given the year, this article is rather dated in many respects, but I think it serves as an interesting comparison to research, definitions, and practice here in the United States.

• my understanding of parasuicide is as follows: parasuicide refers to repetative, near-lethal behavior that exists without the explicit intend of suicide - driving too fast, dangerous work without the right equipment, binge substance abuse, etc.
• in my mind, parasuicide is not the same thing as self-injury
• parasuicide, deliberate self-harm, uncompleted suicide, attempted suicide - these are sometimes used interchangeably, but don't necessarily mean the same thing - why such messy operationalization?
  
• similar patterns in reporting to child abuse and neglect (i.e. severe underreporting)
• impulsive vs. compulsive behaviors - DSM-IV classifications
  
• the UK seems to lump in SI with everything else. Why?
• N. (Australian) suggests that the Commonwealth tends to lag behind the states by about a year in regard to such things - also made a fine point questioning whether this lumping relates, in part, to differences in health insurance policies - private vs. socialized and so on
• factoring in age and cognitive development
  
• "Adolescents can understand the concept of death cognitively. However, it is not clear that they internalize the end of their own lives, particularly younger adolescents. It would not be uncommon for students even as old as 16 to view death as magical, temporary, and reversible" (Lieberman, Poland, & Cassel, in press)
  

English Learners

So:
I need to learn Spanish.
According to the official data, there are 877 children at my school, 677 of whom are classified as English Learners. The majority of the staff is bilingual and a handful of the classrooms are taught almost expressly in Spanish. The chart paper with brainstorming sessions about Astronomy is covered with words I don’t know. The work stapled to the bulletin boards outside of the class is much the same. Kids ask questions in Spanish and the teacher answers in English. And I love it. But I also have questions.

“Fair play”, my fellow intern N. would say, as she is from Australia and her speech is peppered with a number of other such charming expressions. These kids need the opportunity to learn problem-solving skills and pull apart concepts as much as they can. Not knowing English doesn’t make them stupid. Nevertheless, their tests are in English, they are effectively judged based on their English proficiency, and I wonder when and where that transition is made. I want to talk with the kiddos in Spanish, and in my head I begin to try, but I stop myself from speaking because I don’t remember any more than my numbers, colors, and names of some barnyard animals. This is obviously a problem. I’m realizing that my French is actually more present and accessible than I thought possible, which is a pleasant surprise, but it’s not as if that really helps me in this context. I started a list of phrases/words I’d like to pick up as soon as possible. (“good thinking”, “I like the way you. . . “, “good listening”, “I need you to keep your chair flat”. . . .) Is this going to be enough?

Random sort-of thoughts relating to English Learners in the context of schooling:

• How to approach the subject of difference -- particularly culture and specifically language -- within the context of individual, as well as group sessions

• My thoughts and experiences as a white, monolingual, young woman working in a bilingual school setting
  

• When I'm teaching a lesson in the classroom and a student is reluctant to participate, is it because he/she is shy, does not relate to the subject at hand, isn't listening or does he/she not understand. And if the child does not understand, is it because of my volume, my pacing, my word choice, or is it a language-related barrier? This last bit is a completely new experience for me.
  

• I'm taking a Spanish class at the city college beginning next week and I ask the impressionables to help me at every turn. This builds rapport and trust, but is it going to be enough to really improve my conversational skills?
  

A Systems Approach to the School

1. The system is greater than the sum of its parts. Think of a car that is shiny and new and ready to drive off the dealer's lot. Then picture a pile of car parts -- all the same ones that are in the new car. Given the choice, which would you like to have? Most people would choose the fully assembled car because it is more than just a pile of parts. It is a fully operational system.

2. In a system, all people and all parts of the system are connected. Everyone in the system has a role in how it functions. In other words, it is not likely that there are simply "bad" kids in the school without all the other components of the system (including the parents) making a contribution to their failure or their acting-out, even if that contribution is inadvertent.

[couldn't the same could be said for "good" kids and prosocial behaviors?]

3. The system will always work towards maintaining itself, for better or worse. This state is called homeostasis, meaning that the system, in this case, the school, will strive for some kind of balance. Systems may sacrifice individuals, even whole groups, to achieve that homeostasis.

4. The system will discourage change. In an attempt to keep the balance of the system, the system will discourage change; it will discourage differences or unusual and atypical behaviors. Difference is punished; conformity is rewarded.

5. Interactions between people are circular, not simply a series of causes and effects. To make positive and lasting improvements, we must look at the whole network of interactions between and among people in the organization. For example, expelling a student who acts out will rarely bring an end to the problem; usually someone else will fill that problem role. That is the same as saying A (the acting out) leads to B (getting expelled) leads to C (resolution of the problem), and that is the end of the process. From a systems perspective, that is only a small fraction of what is happening in the system. The interactions that happened before the child acts out at school and the programs and planning that must be put into place after the child is expelled are equally important, and essential to figuring out how the system is functioning.

[in this situation the problem is the behavior and how it is negatively affecting the classroom environment. as such, the point stands that a new student will inevitably rise to step into the abandoned role of "attention-seeker". what is not considered, however, is the additional lack of problem-solving for the initial student whose needs are certainly not met through expulsion.]

6. Some systems have scapegoats. Systems that are not working well, or are unhealthy in some meaningful way, tend to produce scapegoats.

Taken from: Garbarino, J., & Delara, E. (2003). An educator's guide to school-based interventions. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.