Meeting #3

Och! Meeting #3, which was not one, but two weeks ago! It totally slipped my mind, sorry. It's been a little busy around here.

Our third session contained not a high quantity of events or information, but scored pretty high on the quality of what happened.

First, we got fingerprinted. Once for FBI, once for GBI (that's Georgia Bureau of Investigations, for those of you who think Georgia leaves it investigatin' to young and earnest rednecks in the employ of crooked, seersucker-suited, plantation-owning judges, or for those of you who think we live in Guam, that bane of "g" overtapping speediness on web forms). But the ink came off with a little soap and water, and I was able to resume eating my Zaxby's chicken fingers without fear of looking like a slightly darker version of a mentat.

Second, we finally abandoned all pretense of time. Nothing happened until 6:45, when the fingerprinting of the 6 of us commenced. And while one person was fingerprinted, the rest of us ate. Class began at around 7:30. And ended at about 8:30, sharp. 6 to 10 my big fat fanny.

However, third, and finally, I have grown really to admire our instructor. Although she works in public education (she's a contract trainer for BCS), she is a rare person there, one who thinks that parents and children are responsible for their own actions. By her own admission, she is not popular among the staff at the school where she works, which just means I'm not sending my kids there. Because she's great, by which I mean she pretty much agrees with me.

What little content we did cover mostly had to do with Erikson's stages of development. Semi-interesting stuff, and I was surprised to remember that I studied this back in college. It was in one of my education classes, and we studied Erikson along with Piaget and Maslov. Dull and repetitive as theories, with lots of religious-type infighting over minor, minor details. I pity Psych majors.

But I was interested by our instructor's use of Erikson, which was general in its referral to the theory but specific in its areas of application to the child. (That's the trouble with using these theories, you can't take Freud, word-for-word as gospel, for example, and apply it to every part of a person's life.)

Basically, her use of Erikson goes like this: children develop in stages, with certain needs that have to be met in each stage. For example, in the first stage, Trust vs. Mistrust (Birth - 2 y.o.), babies learn that their parents are "there for them", that and that the child can express his or her needs and that they will be met by the parents. In Autonomy vs. Shame (2 - 3 y.o.), children learn to control their bodies in ways such as potty training, and in fine motor skills like picking up Cheerios. They also learn that accidents do happen, as well as what feels good vs. what doesn't feel good. Anyone with sick children knows it's much easier to diagnose a 4 year old ("my tummy hurts") than a 2 year old ("I'm don't feel good").

What happens with the kids DFACS gets is that they are developmentally delayed, and may not have passed through these stages, which they have to go through to be able to begin the next one. So if you get a 5 year old and begin teaching her what her proper role is in the family, it may not succeed, because she may not yet understand that you are there for her, and that you will make sure she's fed, and safe, and held, etc. Then you can work on potty training, then you can work on setting the table, and so on.

Interesting stuff, again, so long as the eggheaded, ivory-tower mush is held at arm's length, and the general framework is applied to real-world situations with prodigal doses of common sense.

All in one hour. Not bad.

There was no meeting #4 last week, because it was Spring Break week for most of Atlanta, and the one family in our class with teenagers was going to have to miss it. But then we said, "Please don't throw us in the briar patch! We'll postpone the class!" And our instructor agreed. Hurray!