what precisely is the problem with adolescence? - response to Steinberg & Eccles

[The comments of the instructor are inserted as footnotes; an email exchange follows]

"Young people are the solution, not the problem," reads a t-shirt that we stock at the local bookstore co-operative. As Steinberg notes, this idea does not seem to be very prevalent in U.S. society (Steinberg 2002, p. 16). Nonetheless, the t-shirt sells well: people of all ages pounce on it excitedly, commenting how pleased they are to find a rare positive slogan about youth.

Steinberg describes in some detail the variety of negative stereotypes that constantly re-appear in media depictions of adolescents: delinquents, hormone-driven idiots, or tortured misfits (ibid, p. 16). He comments that perhaps young people are portrayed this way because adults want to see them as different, for a variety of economic and/or social reasons (ibid, p. 17-18). Although he does not elaborate on a detailed refutation of these ideas, he implies that we will not finish the book with these stereotypes intact. Indeed, these stereotypes bear little resemblance to my own experience.

As Steinberg notes, adolescents can be very mature in one area while seeming childish in another (ibid, p. 3). When I think about my experience with middle school students (as a tutor and summer-camp counselor while I was in college) and high school students (volunteering at Shabazz for the past year), it seems to me that they exhibit this variability more than any other defining characteristic. One individual can seem very mature in one way, or at one time, and very immature in another way or at another time.

Especially with middle-schoolers, I felt that one of the things they needed from me was a sense of consistency, a solid and predictable sounding board against which they could play out their changing identities and emotions. It seemed to me that they needed to feel safe and loved, so that they could push limits and explore new territory. They still needed structure, in the sense of order and routine and rules, even if only to question and challenge and evaluate that structure. Although they seem to be demanding liberation from the structure, in middle school they are not quite ready for that, and indeed many would be lost if their demands for complete independence were suddenly fully realized. [note 1]

In the context of the Eccles reading, I wonder—what is the impact of the above-mentioned negative stereotypes on adults’ ability to be solid and safe for children, to maintain the balance between structure and growing autonomy? The Eccles article implies two answers to this question. First, Eccles et al report that seventh-grade teachers tend to have less confidence in their efficacy as teachers and concurrently seem to spend a lot of time trying to “maintain order” in the classroom (Eccles et al.1993, p. 95). Could it be that this lack of confidence is related to a perception that they are facing down a pack of wild, uncontrollable delinquents or some other such negative concept? [note 2]This is particularly unfortunate when we see what a large impact this lack of confidence has on the students’ confidence and motivation levels (ibid, p. 95).

Second, Eccles et al report that as adolescents develop a sense of autonomy, it benefits them psychologically to have more opportunities to be involved in decision-making both in school and at home. At the same time, Eccles reports that decision-making opportunities for children actually seem to decrease right at this crucial time (Eccles 1993, pp. 96-8). Could this also be, in part, due to the negative stereotypes outlined by Steinberg? Certainly, from my own observation, parents and teachers seem inclined to behave as though adolescents are extremely dangerous, and/or that they are extremely vulnerable to other dangerous adolescents in their environment. Are negative media stereotypes causing parents and teachers to clamp down in fear, precisely when they should be providing the kind of steady, supportive, open framework that students need in order to safely experiment with their developing identities? [note 3]

In closing I recall listening to a fragment of a speech on the radio some years ago, when I lived in Brooklyn, New York. The speaker seemed to be an older African-American pastor or educator talking about African-American youth in New York City. One of his strongest and most pleading messages was that African-American adults should not believe the media stereotypes about the next generation, but instead should reach out and try to form meaningful connections with younger people. He told how he had, several years previously, mustered the courage to just walk up and introduce himself to a group of young men hanging out in his neighborhood. He had been surprised, even shocked, by their eagerness for a mentor and guide, and had formed a strong and positive relationship with the young men. This was the first time it had occurred to me that people could be afraid, not only of other people’s children, but of their own. What a tragedy if media stereotypes can succeed in driving us away from our children right when they need us most.

---

Instructor's Notes

Note 1:
Nice summary of the reading and connection with your own experience. [back to text]

Note 2:
Excellent question--how much of this change in structure is due to teachers’ personal perceptions/stereotypes/lack of informationa about adolescent development versus administrative structures and school district mandates and expectations for teachers? Eccles et al. don’t address WHY there exists a shift in teachers’ confidence in their teaching abilities.[back to text]

Note 3:
Another good question. I also wonder if parents and teachers inherently desire more structure and less autonomy for adolescents or if they are reacting to the adolescents themselves--given the rapidity of the pubertal, social, and cognitive changes during this age, might a normal reaction from adults be “fear” and the desire to maintain the child-like qualities parents and teachers are used to or expect? Or perhaps adults and authority figures realize that adolescents will be exploring their growing selves and in attempts to curb negative outcomes, overcompensate by highly structuring adolescent lives? We need to be careful in making cause and effect statements in development for individuals and the environment often have reciprocating effects on each other. [back to text]

---

[email back to instructor]

Date: 2/2/03 9:16 pm

Thanks for your comments. I just wanted to respond briefly to one...

"We need to be careful in making cause and effect statements in development for individuals and the environment often have reciprocating effects on each other."

I agree completely, and I did feel that Eccles et al often made these types of connections with insufficient data. There is a lot of discussion of the differences between seventh- and sixth-grade teachers (less caring, less confidence, less challenge to students' higher-order thinking skills), but Eccles doesn't mention what I think is the most obvious possible reason for this--the fact that subject-area teachers are more likely to have "fallen into" their career because they like their subject area and aren't sure what to do with this interest, whereas the general-education teachers in elementary school are less likely to have gone into teaching because they like a specific subject and more likely to have done so because they like students.

Also, when they talk about the mismatch between "should you have input into decisions" and "do you," and then go on to say that students who perceive the greatest mismatch also have the greatest problems, this also seems to me like a chicken-and-egg problem (as in, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"). One could imagine a student who is, for personal reasons (personal trauma, substance use, mental illness, anything), inclined to rebel, act out, resent authority etc.--such a student will naturally identify any restriction on their behavior as too much, will say they should be able to do whatever they want and that they are unfairly restricted, etc. In other words, the problems might cause the desire for more freedom from restrictions, rather than the restriction of freedom causing the problems. And, on the contrary, if a student is mellow, well-adjusted, and trustworthy to begin with, that student might receive more freedom (or have a more accurate view of his/her own need for structure) and consequently feel that the amount of input s/he has into decisions is appropriate. Of course, one can reasonably imagine scenarios illustrating either direction of causal relationship. Eccles et al do not advance solid evidence that the causality is more in one direction than the other, at least as far as I can see (I realize I have infinitely less training and information than you or Eccles & co so I am happy to be corrected if I'm overlooking anything).