At Risk Label example essay topic

"At Promise": Children and Families When an individual hears the words, 'at risk', they immediately think of all the negative characteristics of terminology: teen pregnancy, troubled teens, gang bankers, drop outs, substance abusers, and so on. I know I sure did. In reading Beth Blue Swadener's article, "Children and Families "at Promise": Deconstructing the Discourse of Risk", I've learned that there are so much more to labeling at student 'at risk'. There is actually a history behind the meaning and how 'at risk' became such a dangerous label. In rethinking the meaning of 'at risk' and changing it to 'at promise', places an entirely new meaning and may give hope to those who are lost and forgotten. There is much of Swadener's article that I agreed, disagreed, and in some instances, just appalled with.

The beginning of her article, Swadener makes the following statement that struck out at me, .".. there is an emerging ideology of risk, which has embedded in it interpretations of children's deficiencies or likelihood of failure due to environmental, as well as individual, variables". This statement hit me hard because I never thought of 'at risk's tudents as having "deficiencies" or being destined to fail due to variables beyond their control. I may be na " ive in my thinking of what 'at risk' truly meant but I would have never labeled students as having "deficiencies". Swadener continues with some of the child advocacy organizations that work to dismantle the harsh beliefs about children and families living in poverty stricken areas.

They create and / or improve governmental policies as well as programs to aid address specific needs of 'at risk's tudents and families. In reading what they do, I was happy to see that the organizations are working to solve the problems rather than pointing the finger at how the students' lives became to be such a way. Also, I knew that there are programs out to help 'at risk's tudents, but it never occurred to me that families are labeled 'at risk' as well. Swadener listed some of the 'at risk' programs which I was surprised to see that I am enrolled for most: Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and Head Start which is a program that helps pregnant women obtain prenatal insurance before enrolling for governmental insurance such as Title 19, Badger Care, and / or Managed Health. Seeing these programs listed in Swadener's article gave me twisted emotions.

I didn't know whether to pity myself for being 'at risk' this whole time and never realized it or be thankful that somebody pushing hard enough to get help for people like me who is barely making it. Continuing on, Swadener makes a statement that I completely agreed with. She states, .".. all children are at risk to some degree and therefore will require prevention or intervention services at one point or another". This is a new perspective of looking at it and I strongly believe that it is true. I say this because children are 'at risk' of being illiterate, for example, when they are young until they undergo some form of intervention from parents, teachers, and / or friends who are willing to work with them.

Same goes for prevention of teen pregnancy, students have to be educated as early as the age of twelve-as scary the thought is-but it is true, including many other preventive life scenarios. Other statement I agreed with is, "One cannot suppose that all of those from a certain background run the risk of failure; often the failures do not occur". I enjoyed this statement because it shows that not every student / family is promised to fail because of their present or past living conditions or of the life choices they have made for their selves or for their families. Swadener gives the reader a historical view point of 'at risk', from the medical aspect, social policy and how to deconstruct the effect of the label.

In the reading, Swadener gave an example of "premature screening" of children who may have a learning disability later in life. The study involved children at the age of six weeks old which were labeled 'at risk' if the infant did not perform specific developmental tasks. Needless to say, this study upset me greatly. My first thoughts were, 'from who standards are these people going by! And not all babies develop the same way!' Oh, I was flaming and hope that these improvident tests are not undergoing today. Same goes for the first grade assessment that Swadener continued to use as further evidence.

One of the statements that Swadener made I agree with greatly is, "many medical model intervention programs for children have begun to concentrate more on the prescription than the diagnosis and even refer to children by their treatment regiment". I have seen this many times while attending grade school and further into my education. I had teachers bluntly tell me, "oh she / he needs their Ritalin" because the child wasn't listening or some off the wall negative comment about a fellow student needing some form in intervention. I also have seen the difference how the teacher treated an 'at risk's student verses any other student. Some teachers, parents, and some neighbors do behave differently towards students who are labeled 'at risk'.

Reading on, Swadener makes a statement of a myth that is labeled as a fact by society. She states, "crack cocaine is primarily a drug of inner-city women of color" and that there is going to be a need of creating an entirely new curriculum for children who have been prenatally exposed to drugs and / or for developmental delays. Sad as it is, society does see minority individuals as people who have nothing more to do than bringing children into this world who quickly undergo a substance withdrawal from birth, lazy and uneducated drop outs. Swadener is making the point of needing to change this perspective for it isn't helping any one.

Swadener makes a statement that I have always known to be a fact from personal experience growing up. She points out, "what is particularly troubling and problematic is the degree to which children's race, gender, class, first language, family makeup, and environment all target them" as 'at risk' thus needing associated interventions". This I believe is true. In today's society, before seeing the student for who they really are and what they could do, people are quick to think that he / she is 'at risk' from the color of their skin, the environment in which they live in, their nationality or even who their parents are and what they do.

For my understanding, I think Swadener's piece is not telling the reader whether she is for or against 'at risk' programs but she is clearing up the misconception of society's thinking of 'at risk' and how it has changed over the years. In reading the article in its entirety, I had various emotions from agreeing to some of her statements to getting severally upset and found myself yelling at the article as if was going to respond back. Seeing that I am beginning to understand the meaning and history of 'at risk' truly is, I can not know what is missing from her article, what would I add or delete. However, after reading Swadener's article, I propose a question, "If a child is considered 'at risk' from a very young age, regardless of race, creed, and / or living conditions-does that make them 'at risk' for life or when does the 'at risk' label dissolve? Overall, Swadener's thinking of removing the label of 'at risk' to 'at promise' is to have a positive outcome for the children, parents, teachers, and everyone involved. She appears to know that having the label 'at risk' is not helping society from both ends of the spectrum.

It is having a negative outcome and doesn't serve the children and families validity and need to change things, even if it's the smallest change such as the usage of terminology. In changing the terminology to "at promise" conveys the possibilities in all children, parents, community members, and policy makers from various backgrounds. "At promise" eliminates ethnic background, sex, and more. It gives a promising path to those who are forgotten for reasons beyond their control. There are so many points that I agreed and disagreed with in Swadener's article. I also have learned a lot from simply reading this piece or what 'at risk' really means and what it entails, who does it involve and who does it effect.

There were things that were always there in my life but never truly seen them for what they really are because it is the only thing I have known. Getting governmental insurance, obtaining WIC when someone's pregnant, and so on aren't being 'at risk' for someone like me. Now that I see that I am labeled as 'at risk', I have mixed emotions of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. Whatever the outcome may be, I hope it is a means to a beginning of establishing a better life for my son and I.