Family background as it affects student’s academic, social and moral development.

INTRODUCTION

A family, according to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, 8^th Edition, is ‘a group consisting of one or two parents, children and other relations’. Whether nuclear or extended, every member has a say/role to play in a child’s upbringing, which includes:

-                      teaching and inculcating in the child the culture of his people

-                      providing a platform for the child to achieve self actualization

-                      giving the child love and affection.

Family interaction has important association with children’s academic motivation and achievement. Thomas Kellaghan and his colleagues (1993) claim, for example, that the family environment is the most powerful influence in determining student’s school achievement, academic motivation, and the number of years of schooling they will receive¹. Similarly, James S. Coleman (1991) states that parents’ involvement in learning activities have substantial emotional and intellectual benefits for children. He observes, however, that because supportive and strong families are significant for school success, teachers confront increasing challenges as many children experience severe family disruption and upheaval.²

In this view, factors which include family type, size, attitudinal factors, hereditary factors, socio-economic status, educational background, play important role in a child’s academic performance.

CHAPTER ONE

FAMILY BACKGROUND VERSUS STUDENT’S ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT

1.1       Family size:

The size of the family in which a child grows affects his intellectual development. In a large family, a child may not be given maximum attention especially in his academics. The issue of homework, payment of school fees, attending Parent Teachers Associations, and many more may not be convenient for the parents as they have to cater for many children while children are well catered for and perform better in a small size family. The negative effects of family size on intelligence are more pronounced among low and middle socio-economic status than high socio-economic status parents with few children where they devote more time, money and attention to their academic performance.

1.2       Family Type:

Though, there are many types of families in the third world countries, but they all can be congressed under two major types which are Monogamy and Polygamy. In most third world countries, polygamy is more prevalent. In a study conducted, 56% of respondents say their fathers marry more than one wife. Thus, making it competitive for children to contest for limited resources available and parent’s affection.  In a situation where a man marries two or more wives at a time, it tends to lead to unequal treatment of children, jealousy and survival of the fittest. For a child to succeed in life, he has to struggle, which may be detrimental to his academic performance. Because of unplanned children, family caters for certain numbers of children from each wife, often the first son. Other children have to be catered for by their mothers who may be financially incapacitated.

1.3       Socio-Economic Factors:

Ezewu opines that children from high socio-economic families leave the primary school between ages 9, 10 and 11, while low socio-economic families leave between 12, 13 and 14 years of age.³ Macfarland  also opines that 72% of children from lower class families against 28% of children from middle class were placed in Comprehensive schools. 10% of children from lower class against 90% of middle class were placed in modern secondary schools based on intelligence quotient.⁴

From the statistics given, it can be deduced that children from the lower class invariably attend public schools and perhaps, schools without proper government approval. In a bid to survive, these children may be forced into hawking products/goods before going to school in the morning, which in turn causes lateness on arrival and drowsiness during lessons which is not convenient for the learning process to take place.  

1.4       Educational Background

Educational background of parents can be split into literate and illiterate as shown below.

Literate	Illiterate
* A literate parent shows interest in his ward’s academic performance because of his informative knowledge on the fact that the family has perhaps, the most substantial influence on children’s school success.	* The reverse is the case here. The illiterate family sees the school as the only contributing factor to a child’s academic success
* The literate family offers adequate encouragement to their ward(s) through counseling. This counsel goes a long way in keeping the child alert against every step to the path of failure	* The illiterate parents are also seen counseling their ward(s), but there is a slight difference in that, the former counsels out of experience while the latter counsels on mere thoughts or hear-say.

1.5       Attitudinal Factors

According to Adebiyi (2006), attitudes are positive or negative feelings that an individual holds about objects or ideas.⁵ In his own submission, King (1998) declared that attitudes are generally regarded as enduring, though modifiable, by experience and/or persuasion, and are also learnt rather than innate.⁶ According to Crow & Crow (1979), a child’s attitude towards his work affects his worthiness in his activity. A child should be stimulated towards desirable activities through the arousal of interest in worthwhile projects.⁷ The attitude of the parents is important as it acts as that stimulant to the child. The significance of parent’s attitude toward education and school is less well understood, although attitudes are believed to comprise a key dimension of the relationship between parents and school (Eccles & Harrold, 1996).⁸ Parents convey attitudes about education to their children during out-of-school hours and these attitudes are reflected in the child’s classroom behavior and in the teacher’s relationship with the child and the parents (Kellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez & Bloom, 1993)⁹.

CHAPTER TWO

FAMILY BACKGROUND VERSUS STUDENT’S SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

A family is the primary agent of socialization that introduces the child to other agents of socialization.

The way a parent socializes may have a slight amount to do with their genetic makeup, but due to the child's interactions with and observations of, the parents contribute more to the social and empathy related development than heredity does (Zhou et al, 2002)¹⁰. If parents tell their children that they are stupid, that is what they're going to believe because they don't know any better. They have grown up listening to their parents and trusting what they say. Parents, who show concern and compassion for their child, will help their child develop a high level of self esteem.

“A national longitudinal study on adolescent health found that parental connectedness (including feelings of warmth, love, and caring from parents) was protective against many adolescent health risks including emotional health” (Halloran, Ross & Carey, 2002, p. 202)¹¹. It has been proven that children feel better about themselves when they know their parents are interested in their lives and what they do. In the same experiment, these researchers found that family variables are associated with diagnoses of Major Depression, Conduct Disorder, and ADHD (Halloran, Ross & Carey, 2002)¹². The way a parent behaves around their children has a large part in how children's emotions will develop and how they will see themselves.

Halloran, Ross, and Carey (2002) have proven that children often imitate their parents’ actions, especially in riskier behaviors such as smoking and drinking¹³. These social behaviors can become dangerous and harmful to the children but if they see their parents doing it, they think it is alright because they are the role models that they have always been taught to observe. Parents need to be careful because as the saying goes, ‘actions speak louder than words’. Even if they tell their children that it is wrong to be involved in such behaviors, when the children see their parents practicing such behaviors they figure that it can't be that bad. Parents influence children through social behaviors which are not very beneficial.

In order to promote "prosocial" behaviors in children, their parents must show active interest in their lives, through both parental warmth and responsiveness. When children have this encouragement from their caregiver they get a sense of security, control, and trust in their surrounding environment (Zhou et al, 2002)¹⁴. If a parent shows genuine concern and care for his/her children and what they are doing with their lives, it will increase the children's self esteem, which in turn allows them to have been social relations with others. It is hard to make a friend won't you don't like yourself, how can you expect someone to like you if you don't like yourself?

Parents who shows too much concern for their children and are overprotective, may end up causing more problems for the children instead of helping their development. A story is told of a young boy who was afraid to leave his house, even just to play with his friends outside, because his family members portrayed the outside world as dangerous. He was constantly sheltered by his parents and only informed of the bad in the world so he was very antisocial and withdrawn from his peers (Cytryn & McKnew, 1996)¹⁵. Parents influence how children see their surroundings and if the only thing children hear is how bad the world is, that is what the children are going to believe and therefore withdraw from society in fear. The way the parent reacts about situations has a large impact on how their children will react since parents serve as role models.

Not only do parents influence how children interact with their social surroundings, but they also play a part in children's social behaviors. In today's world, alcohol use among teenagers is growing and becoming more and more of a problem. It has been proven however, that growth oriented fun families were associated with decreased odds of males using alcohol. This is in part because these families have a tendency to teach social behaviors such as expressiveness and independence which help them resist peer pressure and have fun in other ways (Halloran, Ross & Carey, 2002)¹⁶. Parents teach children what is acceptable in the world and ways to avoid unnecessary problems. Those teenagers who have been taught to be expressive learn to follow their own beliefs and not be afraid to speak up and tell someone that they don't want to do something if they know it is wrong. Independent youths don't feel that they need to be followers and do what the crowd is doing; if they know something is wrong, they will find something else to do that will make them unique. Parents teach what is right and what is wrong so their children can apply those beliefs in the social world around them.

A parent who suffers from a mental illness will also have an effect on children's social development. "Maternal depression during babies' first 12 to 14 months is associated with children's behavior problems at age 3½." (Timko, Cronkite, Berg & Moos, 2002, p.166)¹⁷. Children tend to display more hostile behavior at school and are more fearful and withdrawn from those around them. Children of parents who are depressed don't always have a great family life. If a parent suffers from depression, the family will most likely be disorganized and have a less cohesive environment. Children raised in this kind of family environment have a problem with communication and trust (Timko, Cronkite, Berg & Moos, 2002)¹⁸. Children look to their families for examples of how they should feel about others and if they can't trust their own family, it will not be easy for them to hold trust in other people, forming poor friendships and relationships.

CHAPTER THREE

FAMILY BACKGROUND VERSUS STUDENT’S MORAL DEVELOPMENT

In view of this segment, we shall be using the immoral act of drug addiction as a key study.

Addiction is referred to as a chronic, relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful circumstances. It is considered a brain disease because drugs change the brain; both its structure and how it works (function).

The world view shows that students are the most drug addicted people in the world. It also shows that students who abuse drugs often develop poor social behaviours and their academic and personal relationships suffer.

In general, people begin taking drugs for a variety of reasons:

·                     To feel good

·                     To do better

·                     To feel better

·                     To find out what it’s like and to fit in

Limiting the scope, the family background influences a student’s moral development as it relates to drug addiction in the following ways:

-                      Neglect: Lack of love and affection from the parents, little or no time given to a student’s welfare, etc. All these boils down to nursing a sense of neglect on the side of the child, thereby leading to depression. To this end, it has been generally noted that people suffering from depression begin abusing drugs in an attempt to lessen feelings of distress.

-                       Family attitudes and practices about substance abuse: Family members' attitudes about and use of substances influence youth substance use. For example, an analysis of the 1997 household survey on substance use found that youth ages twelve to seventeen who perceived that their parents would be "very upset" with marijuana, cigarettes, and binge drinking reported the lowest prevalence of use of these substances in the past year (Lane et al. 2001)¹⁹. Similarly, the protective influence of strong family sanctions against alcohol use reduced the use of that substance among girls in in some countries e.g Hungary.

-                      Problematic family and partner relations: Family and partner conflicts tend to increase risk for substance abuse. The national household survey in the United States found that adolescents who argued with their parents at least several times a week were more likely to have used marijuana in the past year than those who argued with their parents only once a week to once a month. Internationally, family conflict and lower perceived family caring increases the risk for adolescent substance abuse.

-                      Family structure: Studies of family structure around the world have found that youth who live with both biological parents are significantly less likely to use substances, or to report problems with their use, than those who do not live with both parents. However, family structure alone does not appear to explain substance abuse. The characteristics of these family structures offer some clues. For example, boys who are in care of their mothers and whose fathers are drug abusers are at increased risk for drug abuse but this is due to the genetic transmission of risk and lack of resources for effective parenting for single mothers. Studies in Brazil and Saudi Arabia have noted that the quality of family relationships was more important than structure in explaining substance abuse.

Disruptions in the family life cycle seem to characterize these single-parent households. An unstable family environment (i.e., father absence, one or both parents who had immigrated, or death of parents) was associated with substance abuse among a nationwide sample of youth in Greece.

Protective family factors that mitigate risk for substance abuse

Although they may place members at risk of substance abuse, family factors may also be protective. As noted above, two-parent households appear protective. High levels of perceived support from family members seems to protect against youth alcohol use and drug use. Researchers have found that effective family relationships (e.g., family involvement and communication, proactive family management, or attachment to family) protect against adolescent substance abuse across racial and cultural groups. Further, the positive effects of family support during adolescence seem long lasting. Greater family support and bonding during adolescence has predicted less problem alcohol use in adulthood.

In families with substance-abusing parents, there may be influences that protect from abuse. Preliminary research has suggested that a factor that provides some protection for children in homes with substance-abusing parents is the availability of a stable, nurturing relative such as grandmothers or aunts. In a research in Colombia, the adverse effects of parental substance abuse were buffered by effective parent-child rearing practices.

Protection extends beyond parents to siblings. One study reported that older brother abstinence from drugs, as well as strong attachment to parents, explained reduced drug use among younger brothers.

In sum, the risk and protective factors suggest that family relationships have a significant impact on substance abuse and dependence. However, the research is not sufficiently developed to indicate which or how much of these protective factors are necessary to reduce risk. There are variations across groups and in timing in their importance for preventing or reducing risk. Further, the risk and protective factors at other levels, such as community or societal, may mitigate or attenuate risk.

END NOTES

¹ Adebiyi (2006)

² Crow & Crow (1979). Maintaining evolvability. Journal of genetics 87 (4): 349–353.

³ Cytryn & McKnew, (1996). Growing Up Sad. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

⁴ Eccles & Harrold, (1996) Supporting America's children and adolescents. Macalester

International, (29), 1-23.

⁵ Edward Ezewu (1983). Philosophy and social aspects. Sociology of Education. Longman.

⁶ Halloran, Ross & Carey, (2002) The relationship of adolescent personality and family

environment to psychiatric diagnosis. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 32 (3), 201-216

⁷ James S. Coleman (1991) The Adolescent Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

p. 149.

⁸ Kellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez & Bloom, (1993). The home environment & school learning:

Promoting parental involvement in the education of children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

⁹ Timko, Cronkite, Berg & Moos, (2002) Children of parents with univocal depression: a

comparison of stably remitted, partially remitted, and non-remitted parents and  non-depressed controls. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 32 (3), 165-185

¹⁰ Zhou C., Eisenberg, N., Lasoya, S.H., Fabes, R.A., Reiser, M., Guthrie, I.K, (2002) The

relations of parental warmth and positive expressiveness to children's empathy-related responding and social functioning: a longitudinal study. Child Development, 73 (3)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cytryn, L., & McKnew, D.H.. (1996). Growing Up Sad. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &

Company.

Gerhold, M., Laucht, M., Texdorf, C., & Shmidt, M.H. (2002, Summer). Early mother-infant

interaction as a precursor to childhood social withdrawal. Child Psychiatry and Human

Development, 32 (4), 277-293.

Halloran, E.C., Ross, G.J., & Carey, M.P. (2002, Spring). The relationship of adolescent

personality and family environment to psychiatric diagnosis. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 32 (3), 201-216.

Hart, S., Jones, N.A., Field, T., & Lundy, B. (1999,Winter). One-year-old infants of intrusive

and withdrawn depressed mothers. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 30 (2), 111- 120.

Timko, C., Cronkite, R.C., Berg, E.A., & Moos, R.H. (2002, Spring). Child Psychiatry and

Human Development, 32 (3), 165-185.