The Question of Homework for Elementary Age Students

One of the most frequent questions I am asked, when persons learn I am a psychologist specializing in child development, is “What’s the deal with so much homework these days?”

I finally examined the research on this topic, specifically regarding elementary school children, and this is the short answer:  There is no evidence that homework for elementary school children is worthwhile.

Harris Cooper, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke, researched a multitude of studies on homework and he concluded that there is “little to no relationship between homework and achievement” for elementary school students.

As teachers and the administrators running schools are well educated and presumably research based, it is striking to me why so many schools continue to require young children to engage in homework.

In 2018, there was an article in Huffpost which cited Dr. Cathy Vatterott, a professor of education at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.  From her account, “teachers and possibly schools confuse homework with rigor,” and this is especially the case in “high-income” public schools and private schools.  Thus, perhaps there are potential perceived costs for schools in eliminating homework, i.e., that one’s school will be considered less scholarly.

As a psychologist specializing in children, I can think of 20 things more beneficial to children than doing 30 minutes to an hour an a half of homework, in elementary school, after enduring an entire day of academic work.  We know from the research that stress levels are climbing for children and we know about the benefits of unstructured play, exposure to nature, and the promotion of creativity.

In a recent article by Landry, et al, in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (2017), researchers looked at the relationship between sexual behavior and social media usage for teenagers.  The article discussed potential negative factors of social media, regarding health consequences for teens, and examined if there is an association between how often one utilizes social media and impulsive or risky sexual behaviors.  Risky sexual activity includes unprotected sex, alcohol usage when engaging in sexual activity, and number of sexual partners.  The sample size was over five hundred teens, ages 13-19, of Latino descent.

Teenagers that sent over 100 texts per day were more likely to engage in risky sexual activity.  A mediating variable was that when parents monitored the social media usage of teens, there were substantial declines in risk of sexual activity.  Risk for unsafe sexual behaviors is also reduced if teens view their parents as supportive and parents are aware of their teens’ general whereabouts.

These are important findings.  In my practice, parents often inquire if it is necessary to set limits on social media activity and there are certainly benefits in doing so.  Also, the variable of support as a parent is crucial and comes up in a wide variety of research studies, from resiliency studies to positive outcomes when children are placed into foster placement settings or group homes

Microaggression is a topic that does not receive anything close to the current focus upon bullying and cyberbullying in the media.  Still, there is research indicating that microaggression can be very detrimental to recipients of it.

Derald Wing Sue, a psychologist at Columbia University, defines microaggression as everyday slights and insults that minority persons and marginalized groups encounter.  Persons who enact microaggression often are unaware of their behaviors—the behaviors are revelatory of unconscious bias and are often outside of our awareness.  Also, on the surface, microaggressions can seem benign, innocent, and complimentary, yet there are veiled metamessages that are often demeaning and patronizing.

Let’s look at some examples of this:

1) A Caucasian woman states to an African-American teenager, “Wow, you are so bright!  I can’t believe how bright and articulate you are!”

2) A Caucasian professor indicates to his third generation, Asian-American student:  “I’m very impressed with your English, you speak so fluently!”

3) A female executive in a pharmaceutical company is ignored during a contentious meeting, for the most part filled with white, male executives.

4) Wendy Bell, the former local newscaster, exclaiming to the manager of an African-American restaurant worker, “I wonder how long it had been since someone told him he was special.”

In the first example, the essential metamessage is that it is atypical or unique for an African-American teenager to be bright and articulate.  In the second, that Asian-Americans, even third generation Asian-Americans, typically have a tenuous grasp of English.   In the third, the female executive is rendered invisible by her male colleagues, as her discourse is interrupted and cut short.  Ms. Bell, in the fourth example, was filled with unreflective, patronizing, and demeaning discourse toward the restaurant worker.  As if only from her perspective is one able to deliver legitimate praise to the worker.

In Dr. Sue’s research, he finds that microaggressions, at times, can be more harmful than outright racism, as the slights are subtle and not easily detectible, yet simultaneously demeaning and psychologically damaging, as they can lead to confusion and anger.  They are confusing as one is being complimented and insulted in the same breath!

From Dr. Sue’s perspective, we should be vigilant about our biases and not exhibit defensiveness if another calls our attention to bias or microaggression.  Further, we should be open to changing our attitudes and beliefs.

This paper was published in the March 2017 issue of the Pennsylvania Psychologist:

There is evidence of bullying occurring in ancient times, if we believe our myths and literature to be reflective of actual experience.  In Homer’s great work, The Odyssey, Telemachos appears as a pitiful figure—as a boy, prior to receiving Athena’s support, he is repeatedly humiliated and shamed by the coarse suitors of Penelope, who slaughter his family’s livestock, grow drunk on wine, and curse him with impetuous threats.  He is left powerless, isolated, and distressed.

Let’s imagine three more modern scenarios: 1) an unemployed woman rages at her recently laid off husband in a moment of frustrated fury, as she has entreated him to empty the overflowing trash bins for the past three days, yet he has spent the days in a self-pitying stupor, 2) a popular third grade child, June, is able to direct four other children to not play with Julie, an extremely shy and self-conscious girl, or even interact with her, whenever the children are present on the school yard, and 3) a first grade boy, Iver, strikes his older brother, a fourth grader, after the older brother steals a piece of Iver’s Halloween candy.

I will attempt, in this short paper, to define bullying and briefly discuss the effects of bullying and risk factors for one who bullies.  Further, I will briefly touch upon why one may bully another and ways to address bullying.

What is Bullying?

In the extensive research on bullying, bullying typically must contain the following components:  a) a power differential between the bully and the one who is bullied, b) the bullying encounter occurs repeatedly and over a period of time as opposed to isolated incidents, and c) the bullying act is intentional.

If we consider these factors, the second of the three scenarios, noted above, exemplifies bullying, as the other scenarios lack the power differential and repeated actions inherent in bullying.  The early figure of Telemachos also incorporates these elements of bullying.

When these three factors are not present, we are seeing something other than bullying, perhaps a violent act, an episode of aggression, reactive aggression, or mobbing behavior, to name some alternatives.  It is beyond the scope of this small paper to differentiate bullying from related terms.

Factors of Bullying and Being Bullied:

The CDC has compiled very useful information regarding the factors associated with one who bullies and the effects of being bullied. Regarding one who bullies, he or she is at greater risk of experiencing family conflict, substance abuse, learning disorders, exposure to violence, lack of a connection or belongingness to school, and emotional distress.

Children who bully others, according to the ongoing research project by C. Bradshaw at the Johns Hopkins Center for Prevention of Youth Violence in Baltimore, are more likely to engage in delinquent activity, including carrying a firearm, exhibiting truancy, and belonging to a gang.  W. Copeland et. al, found that children who bully are four to five times at increased risk of antisocial personality disorder, have more relational and employment difficulties, are at risk of substance abuse, and are more likely to be involved with the police.

There are also several negative outcomes associated for one who is bullied, according to the CDC, including depression, anxiety, aggression, substance abuse issues, poor school performance, and interpersonal issues.

Dan Olweus is often considered the primary researcher of bullying.  In his work, he characterizes the typical victim as follows:  “The typical victims are more anxious and insecure than other students in general.  Further, they are often cautious, sensitive, and quiet.  When attacked by other students, they commonly react by crying (at least in the lower grades) and withdrawal.  Also, victims suffer from low self-esteem, they have a negative view of themselves and their situation; they often look upon themselves as failures and feel stupid, ashamed and unattractive.” (p. 1178)

According to a study by Kim and Leventhal, victims of bullying are two to nine times more likely to consider suicide than non-victims of bullying.  In a study in the United Kingdom, half of suicides among young persons was associated to bullying. Copeland et. al, found that being bullied places one at five times greater risk for depression and three to five times greater risk for psychological problems.

Why Bully?

We have research, noted above, that references risk factors associated for persons who bully.  Still, this leads us to a question that has not been sufficiently researched:  Why does the presentation of vulnerability in another influence some children to respond with malice (bullying) instead of empathy?

In my clinical experience of working with children and families for approximately 20 years, I have arrived at the following hypotheses.  There is an assumption that victims of bullying are passive and unobtrusive, yet to the one who bullies, there is an allure to this passivity.  Psychological projects of humiliation and domination, for the bully, are much easier to attain within this dynamic of passivity—it is much safer for the one who bullies when the object of bullying does not strike back. There is clearly a reciprocity between the aggressor and victim, which is something that Freud articulated in Beyond the Pleasure Principle.  I’ve often found an interplay between the bully’s previously experienced powerlessness or vulnerability (via exposure to violence, abuse, or a significant learning disorder, for example) and his or her psychological projects of dominance and power, and the focal point of this interplay is the passive other.  In a sense, the bully possesses limitations to his or her psychological freedom precisely because the other’s passivity is so visible and obtrusive, as the bully is given back himself/herself on different levels of vulnerability—there is subsequently something of a compulsion to dominate this passive other.  In the transformation that occurs in the bullying encounter, the weakness of the other that is preyed upon and exploited gives to the bully, who is often responding to a threatening world, his or her comparative strength.

What Can be Done?

There are a variety of bullying prevention programs that exist, and these programs attempt to assess the level of bullying that is occurring, educate parents, teachers, and students about bullying behaviors, and monitor subsequent bullying activity.  Bystander training is very helpful in addressing bullying, as this can shift power differentials and provide a unified response to bullying acts.

In my experience, it is foundationally important to examine the intentionality of the bullying behavior, to view the bullying act as communication about the projects that are psychologically necessary and relevant for the one who bullies.  As children who bully are often victims themselves in other arenas, it is counter-indicated to blame, shame, and criminalize the bullying behavior, although it is simultaneously important to set limits with regard to this behavior.  Bullying behaviors are possibilities of all of us, whether we are researchers, clinicians, or parents, given the right combination of experiences, and it is important, in my opinion, to emphasize an approach of understanding and empathy in the face of the bullying encounter.

I advocate for bullies and victims to participate in comprehensive evaluations to articulate treatment needs and for family members, teachers, and school counselors to be involved in these interventions.  Victims of bullying can often benefit from treatment by skilled clinicians.

For bullies, it is essential to determine what he or she is getting from bullying and examine ways to discover this power, control, esteem, etc. in another manner.  For victims, it is essential to increase assertiveness, communication, and esteem. Increasing one’s sense of belonging to a school or group is also essential, for both bullies and children who are bullied.

References:

1) Homer.  The Odyssey, translated by S.H. Butcher and A. Lang. Vol. XXII. The Harvard Classics.  New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909-14; bartleby.com, 2001.

2) Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program.  Journal of Child Psychiatry, 35, 7, 1171-1190.

3) W. Copeland et. al. Adult Psychiatric Outcomes of Bullying and Being Bullied by Peers in Childhood and Adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013; 70(4): 419-426.

4) Y-S. Kim and B. Leventhal. Bullying and suicide. A review. Int J Adolesc Med Health, 20 (2), 2008.

5) Freud, Sigmund. Beyond the Pleasure Principle; Trans. by C.J.M. Hubback. London, Vienna: International Psycho-Analytical, 1922; bartleby.com, 2010.

A psychologist’s exploration and assessment of a child’s attachment to a caregiver can be extremely useful for Family Court Judges in making determinations in dependency, delinquency, and child custody matters.  Unfortunately, this is an overlooked topic for many evaluators, even though the research is clear regarding the benefits of a secure attachment for a child and the risks for children when attachments are insecure, anxious, or disorganized.

Many researchers specify two elements of a secure attachment:  1) the notion of the safe haven and 2) the secure base.  The safe haven emphasizes the importance of consistency, reliability, and responsiveness in the caregiver while the secure base refers to the foundation for a child’s exploration, curiosity, and autonomy.

When caregivers are experienced as safe, reliable, and nurturing, children are able to generalize these experiences  to other relationships and situations and there are better outcomes for children academically, socially, physically, and with regard to emotional regulation–children are able to move through the world with more confidence, interpersonal ease, and hope.

In my work as a psychologist specializing in forensic concerns, I often see children who lack this safe haven and secure base from which to exhibit autonomy.  There can be a multitude of reasons influencing this, including families in extreme poverty, exposure to violence, abuse, parents who are overwhelmed, parents possessing significant mental health concerns and/or substance abuse issues, and placement are common examples.

Winnicott, the great psychoanalyst and theorist, talked of caregivers who respond to the spontaneous utterances or displays of an infant, as compared to an infant who must respond to the caregiver in order to receive attention. There is an enormous gulf between these positions, these dialectics, and these positions exemplify the essence of attachment.  In the former, the child’s spontaneous explorations are acknowledged and celebrated, while in the latter, the child must direct herself and respond instead of simply “being,” to borrow the Polish filmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski’s expression in the film, Red.

If we invent an example of a child raised by an extremely depressed father, one can imagine how the child must struggle to be acknowledged and seen.  The child must direct herself toward her father and respond to his needs.  Most days, he stays asleep yet rages easily when drinking throughout the evenings. At a young age, the child learns to cook and clean for her father.  She has learned that there is no use in crying or showing despair.  Moreoever, she learns to be invisible, unless she is assisting him when he is suicidal and threatening.  Any emotions experienced by her are submerged as they are not able to be shared, understood, or tolerated;  any autonomy is truncated, as there is no figure to reassure and encourage.

In Jude Cassidy’s substantial work in the attachment field, she discusses how transformations can occur for parents who are unable to be safe havens and secure bases for their children.  A crucial element is an affective understanding and realization of one’s emotional neglect of the child. This is a complex finding which is beyond the scope of this paper to unpack. However, this finding speaks to the limits of approaches like cognitive behavioral theapy in understanding and remedying complex dynamics such as attachment (CBT can be uselful in identifying distorted representations of the other, however).  One must articulate and affirm the psychological defenses that arose from a developmental position of responding instead of being.  Finally, articulating these dynamics is an example of how evaluators can be helpful to Judges in using attachment theory to potentially remedy confusing, complex, and problematic family issues.