Christian camps and retreat centers have not been unaffected by the recession. As families' disposal income drops, trips and camps often get cut. But Christian camps face another challenge - the generational job of convincing kids and parents that they're not just another activity among equals, vying for kids' time and parents' money. Camps aren't just a weekend's worth of fun - they're an investment. And it would be a shame to lose them, because I can't think of anything that's even a close second.
By "generational job", I'm referring to a much shorter period of time than 30 or even 20 years. I'm reminded every year that fully one-third of the kids we minister to in 4th-6th grade are brand-new at this, that camp is a developmental milestone most haven't yet crossed, and that we get to walk them through it. But first we have to get them there.
Take a few minutes to view this video, produced by Forest Home, on what they call "core essentials" - the philosophy from which they operate their programs. Then I'd like to suggest seven reasons why Christian camps offer something kids can't easily get elsewhere - not even in church.
Here's what happens at camp that you won't find anywhere else:
1. Kids get almost 48 hours unplugged. The loss of wide-open spaces and the hurried pace of modern life deprives us of, to borrow the phrase of one of my seminary professors, "our best apologetics partner". To see the dramatic rise of the mountains on either side of the camp, to leap across rocks in the creek, or to smell fresh air reestablishes our place in the created order, bringing us closer to our true selves. We were not meant to be enslaved by cell phones, computer screens, or even school textbooks. We are people who labor under the illusion that we've tamed nature. Wrong. Technology has tamed us. We need to be set free. This happens at camp.
2. Kids genuinely play. Some will say that kids these days have forgotten how to play, because they're too busy, too scheduled, too programmed. Don't you believe it. They may be busy and programmed, yes, but in an outdoor camp setting, the ability to make great fun from very little quickly re-emerges. This, again, is connecting us to our true selves. Play stimulates their imagination, requires compromise and conflict resolution, and invites them to approach other kids who it might not be "cool" to affiliate with in their schools. Play is a great leveler. This happens at camp.
3. Kids are surrounded by God, and godly influences. Adults sometimes focus solely on "the moment of decision" at camps, when a kid either does or doesn't respond to an invitation. This misses the point that a camp environment is itself evangelistic - all the time! From morning wake-up until "lights out" (quotation marks are deliberate), kids are in the presence of caring staff and counselors who want to see their experience maximized. The counselors who will be spending the weekend with your kid are not strangers - they are the small group leaders who give their time to serve our kids every weekend in Surge, and who want to deepen their relationships by investing a weekend of their time. Forest Home's staff is made up mostly of summer camp veterans who sacrifice ten weekends January-March to make winter camp happen. They wouldn't be there if they didn't love your kids. I have never seen a discipline or medical situation handled poorly at Forest Home. Instead, kids receive empathy and kindness. This happens at camp.
4. Questions get asked, and answered. We cover a lot of ground in our weekend program, but we are inevitably rushed, and one thing I regret is that we can't be more responsive to the immediate interests of all of the kids. But because the time at camp is so relationally intensive (kids are constantly in the presence of their leaders), it creates a great forum for informal conversation, or for a leader to follow up with someone who had more questions than the nightly small group time could accommodate. What better way to model that God doesn't live "in church", and that our learning and thinking and talking about him doesn't have to stay within the walls of a church, either? Instead, God-as-a-way-of-life can go on display, even if it's only for a couple of days. This happens at camp.
5. Kids get connected in a hurry. If your son or daughter attends weekend services every weekend for a year, they'll log about 65 hours of church time annually. If your family comes every other week, that's 32.5 hours annually. Our ministry is made up of kids from more than 75 schools. It is not uncommon for a student new to our ministry to be the only kid from his or her school in the classroom on a given Saturday or Sunday. Hard to run into kids you know? Yes. Hard to meet other kids? It can be - it depends on how regularly a new family attends and what other outside events they engage in.
In a camp weekend, we're talking about 48 hours of sustained interaction with other kids and leaders, making it all the more easier to return to church when camp's over. Kids relax when they don't have to worry about being knew, when they recognize other faces, when they themselves are know. This happens at camp.
6. Kids make memories. Think about the most outstanding events of your life. Were a number of them from before you were in high school? I hope so. Every kid deserves that pack of loyal childhood friends, the thrill of family vacations and amusement parks, the freedom of after-school play, the hilarity of stupid jokes, the raw adventure of pillow fights. Enough bad stuff will happen to them as they get older - let's let childhood be reserved for safety and successfully trying new things. Kids now in middle school still ask me, "Remember that time at Forest Home...?" I often don't. But no matter. The memory is theirs. Kids need those. This happens at camp.
7. It's the easiest thing in the world to invite your friend to. Let's face it: it's not always appealing to ask your friend to come to "Sunday school" (shudder; we don't use that terminology, but lots of people still do) or anything where the default model is "school". But an outdoor camp in the mountains where you get to sleep in bunks and play outside a lot? Yeah, kids will go for that. Four years ago, a couple of boys at our church invited their whole hockey team to camp. Today, most of those kids (now in high school) still attend our church. And research shows that kids who are comfortable sharing their faith, talking about what they believe (and this includes the openness to bring someone to the place they experience it all) are more likely to hold onto that faith when the going gets tough. And for a first-timer, a weekend at Forest Home puts a great impression in their mind, because it's church camp without being churchy. This, too, happens at camp.
And I haven't even mentioned the teaching. But that's because the cognitive benefits are harder to assess, and in any case, they shouldn't be separated from the overall experience. They will soon forget where they learned what they know; but they will long remember what they did at camp.
There are ways in which camps are very primitive places. But then, we're primitive people, aren't we? And every kid who's dirtied their jeans hiding in a muddy spot or windburned their nose or soaked their socks completely when snow got into their boots knows this is so. More and more, these things happen only at camp.
Info, articles, and thoughts for parents of kids at North Coast Calvary Chapel.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Will Your Kid Use Drugs?
What's the news on kids and drugs? Is the battle being won or lost? What's working and what's not? These are questions that researchers into student drug use and wellness concern themselves with. But it's not the questions a parent is - or should be - asking. To them, the only question worth asking is, "Will my kid use drugs?"
As Fred Becker of the Becker Institute in Carlsbad notes, when it's your kid who is addicted, it doesn't matter if the statistics are one in ten or one in a thousand. Still, the trends matter, insofar as they create a culture that reaches into schools. Researchers from the University of Michigan, who have been studying teen drug use and attitudes for 34 years, make it a point to ask kids their perceptions of the risks and social acceptability attached to particular substances. In this way, they can often predict which drugs will be more widely used in just a few years. (For instance, the number of 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students who believe ecstasy is a dangerous drug has declined, and sure enough, ecstasy use is on the rise.)
Actually, the overall news on kids and drugs is encouraging. Although use is not as low as 1992, the lowest point in the Monitoring the Future Survey's history, it continues a decline that started in 1998. And drug use among high school seniors is considerably lower than its high in 1979.
The problem with survey measures is that they report what's already happened, which may or may not be useful in stemming future use. And while the questions about perceived risk and social acceptability allow for some intriguing predictions, ultimately every parent's interest is not drug use in general, but drug use as it pertains to one individual - their son or daughter.
So what if we had another tool, one that reflected not what had already happened, but that gave us a good picture of the stuff kids were made of, so as to better predict who they'll become? Enter the work of the Search Institute. I have been aware of Search's framework for healthy child and adolescent development since the late '90s, when I was teaching high school and when our district looked at using their materials with an eye toward improving student wellness. Unfortunately, it didn't go anywhere, because teachers (and I was one of them) tend to be provincial, well aware that the demands they make on students' time are not without competition. The only person with a holistic interest in your child's wellness is - and properly ought to be - you, the parent. Only parents are in a position, as the most willing, consistent, and persistent influences in a child's life, to see to it that kids are on a healthy path.
But what is that healthy path? More to the point of drug use, what do kids need to deter them from being substance abusers? Is it D.A.R.E.? Just Say No? Red Ribbons? Do they need to role play with us how to resist peer pressure? Do they need to be threatened with harsh punishments if they use drugs, and do they need to have their social activities closely monitored to ensure they're not falling under bad influences?
The beauty of the work that Search Institute has done is that it's not narrowly tailored to intercept problem behaviors, yet its effectiveness is remarkable in doing just that. To be clear: what Search has developed is descriptive, not predictive. Started in 1959 as Lutheran Youth Research, its founder was the far-sighted Merton Strommen, who convinced the Lutheran Church to commission a study of teenage attitudes and behaviors. Years later this ongoing effort would become the Search Institute, and its hallmark contribution to child and adolescent development is what's known as the 40 Developmental Assets.
The 40 Assets are experiences and qualities that kids possess (or lack), each of which contributes to healthy development. Think, "How do I give my kid what they need?" and you're on the right track. The assets are divided into two classes: internal assets and external assets. As the names suggest, the internal assets are related to the child him or herself - what do they believe, value, and think about - while the external assets relate to the support structure around the child. Each class of assets has four sub-categories, so that in discerning internal assets, for instance, consideration is given to their commitment to learning, having positive values, having a positive identity, and possessing social competencies. The four subcategories of external assets are support, empowerment, boundaries and expectations, and the constructive use of time. Variations of the 40 Assets have been developed for adolescents, young children ages 3-5, those in grades K-3, and kids in middle childhood ages 8-12 (see that list here).
The assets and their effect on healthy development have been studied many times. It is nothing short of compelling to read Search's follow-up research and to see that there is an inverse relationship between the number of assets a kid possesses and his or her engagement in high-risk behavior. Some examples: nearly half of the adolescents who possessed ten or fewer assets reported either using alcohol three or more times in the previous month or having been drunk in the prior two weeks. What percentage of youth who had 31 or more assets did the same? Three percent. Among those with the fewest assets, 61 percent were involved in acts of violence three or more times in one year; seven percent of those having the most assets did the same. 32 percent of the kids with the fewest assets had been sexually active three or more times; three percent of the kids with the most assets had.
The relationship also bears out, but in the positive direction, when it comes to desirable qualities and behaviors. Those with 31 or more assets showed more leadership, took better care of their health, valued getting along with people of other racial and ethnic groups, and got higher grades in school, than kids with fewer assets did any of those things. (By the way, Search's studies also show the average sixth grader possessing 23 assets, and that number declines as kids get older.)
Again, it must be stressed that Developmental Assets are a descriptive measure: Search has isolated some qualities and practices thought to contribute to healthy development, and quantified them, and there is a relationship between the presence or absence of assets in a child and his or her healthy behavior. Assets don't predict drug use, or any other problem behavior. But the relationships Search has demonstrated are too strong to ignore.
Overall, I like Search's approach because it underscores that kids' development is a process that needs to be sustained. Periodic campaigns are insufficient to give kids what they need. The "best" kids (and I use that word deliberately) are those to whom positive practices have been applied consistently, and who are nurtured by people who are interested in them - every part of them. It is a sin that those institutions entrusted with nurturing kids' physical health, their intellects, their moral development, their artistic talents, and their spiritual lives have ended up in competition with one another, each vying for as much time as a family will afford them with scant regard for the child's whole development. Only parents have the clout to turn this ship, and I think the 40 Development Assets are a great game plan for fostering the kind of holistic environments and practices that truly benefit kids.
It's our choice whether to shake our heads in dismay every time some survey comes out documenting the waywardness of youth (the next installment of the University of Michigan study is due in December), or to act preemptively in establishing healthy life skills, attitudes, and supports in our youth and kids. Some people are naively confident that kids' drive to succeed will ultimately steer them away from self-destructive behaviors; the answer, it is thought, is to dangle enough motivation in front of them to turn them into success-driven robots. But others are overly pessimistic about human potential. Christians should be neither. We should harbor no illusions about the power of innate sin to drag us down, but we should honor those elements of our humanity that are capable of doing great good and yearning for redemption. The 40 Assets are an intelligent blueprint for identifying what successful kids have, and pointing us toward what we ought to give.
As Fred Becker of the Becker Institute in Carlsbad notes, when it's your kid who is addicted, it doesn't matter if the statistics are one in ten or one in a thousand. Still, the trends matter, insofar as they create a culture that reaches into schools. Researchers from the University of Michigan, who have been studying teen drug use and attitudes for 34 years, make it a point to ask kids their perceptions of the risks and social acceptability attached to particular substances. In this way, they can often predict which drugs will be more widely used in just a few years. (For instance, the number of 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students who believe ecstasy is a dangerous drug has declined, and sure enough, ecstasy use is on the rise.)
Actually, the overall news on kids and drugs is encouraging. Although use is not as low as 1992, the lowest point in the Monitoring the Future Survey's history, it continues a decline that started in 1998. And drug use among high school seniors is considerably lower than its high in 1979.
The problem with survey measures is that they report what's already happened, which may or may not be useful in stemming future use. And while the questions about perceived risk and social acceptability allow for some intriguing predictions, ultimately every parent's interest is not drug use in general, but drug use as it pertains to one individual - their son or daughter.
So what if we had another tool, one that reflected not what had already happened, but that gave us a good picture of the stuff kids were made of, so as to better predict who they'll become? Enter the work of the Search Institute. I have been aware of Search's framework for healthy child and adolescent development since the late '90s, when I was teaching high school and when our district looked at using their materials with an eye toward improving student wellness. Unfortunately, it didn't go anywhere, because teachers (and I was one of them) tend to be provincial, well aware that the demands they make on students' time are not without competition. The only person with a holistic interest in your child's wellness is - and properly ought to be - you, the parent. Only parents are in a position, as the most willing, consistent, and persistent influences in a child's life, to see to it that kids are on a healthy path.
But what is that healthy path? More to the point of drug use, what do kids need to deter them from being substance abusers? Is it D.A.R.E.? Just Say No? Red Ribbons? Do they need to role play with us how to resist peer pressure? Do they need to be threatened with harsh punishments if they use drugs, and do they need to have their social activities closely monitored to ensure they're not falling under bad influences?
The beauty of the work that Search Institute has done is that it's not narrowly tailored to intercept problem behaviors, yet its effectiveness is remarkable in doing just that. To be clear: what Search has developed is descriptive, not predictive. Started in 1959 as Lutheran Youth Research, its founder was the far-sighted Merton Strommen, who convinced the Lutheran Church to commission a study of teenage attitudes and behaviors. Years later this ongoing effort would become the Search Institute, and its hallmark contribution to child and adolescent development is what's known as the 40 Developmental Assets.
The 40 Assets are experiences and qualities that kids possess (or lack), each of which contributes to healthy development. Think, "How do I give my kid what they need?" and you're on the right track. The assets are divided into two classes: internal assets and external assets. As the names suggest, the internal assets are related to the child him or herself - what do they believe, value, and think about - while the external assets relate to the support structure around the child. Each class of assets has four sub-categories, so that in discerning internal assets, for instance, consideration is given to their commitment to learning, having positive values, having a positive identity, and possessing social competencies. The four subcategories of external assets are support, empowerment, boundaries and expectations, and the constructive use of time. Variations of the 40 Assets have been developed for adolescents, young children ages 3-5, those in grades K-3, and kids in middle childhood ages 8-12 (see that list here).
The assets and their effect on healthy development have been studied many times. It is nothing short of compelling to read Search's follow-up research and to see that there is an inverse relationship between the number of assets a kid possesses and his or her engagement in high-risk behavior. Some examples: nearly half of the adolescents who possessed ten or fewer assets reported either using alcohol three or more times in the previous month or having been drunk in the prior two weeks. What percentage of youth who had 31 or more assets did the same? Three percent. Among those with the fewest assets, 61 percent were involved in acts of violence three or more times in one year; seven percent of those having the most assets did the same. 32 percent of the kids with the fewest assets had been sexually active three or more times; three percent of the kids with the most assets had.
The relationship also bears out, but in the positive direction, when it comes to desirable qualities and behaviors. Those with 31 or more assets showed more leadership, took better care of their health, valued getting along with people of other racial and ethnic groups, and got higher grades in school, than kids with fewer assets did any of those things. (By the way, Search's studies also show the average sixth grader possessing 23 assets, and that number declines as kids get older.)
Again, it must be stressed that Developmental Assets are a descriptive measure: Search has isolated some qualities and practices thought to contribute to healthy development, and quantified them, and there is a relationship between the presence or absence of assets in a child and his or her healthy behavior. Assets don't predict drug use, or any other problem behavior. But the relationships Search has demonstrated are too strong to ignore.
Overall, I like Search's approach because it underscores that kids' development is a process that needs to be sustained. Periodic campaigns are insufficient to give kids what they need. The "best" kids (and I use that word deliberately) are those to whom positive practices have been applied consistently, and who are nurtured by people who are interested in them - every part of them. It is a sin that those institutions entrusted with nurturing kids' physical health, their intellects, their moral development, their artistic talents, and their spiritual lives have ended up in competition with one another, each vying for as much time as a family will afford them with scant regard for the child's whole development. Only parents have the clout to turn this ship, and I think the 40 Development Assets are a great game plan for fostering the kind of holistic environments and practices that truly benefit kids.
It's our choice whether to shake our heads in dismay every time some survey comes out documenting the waywardness of youth (the next installment of the University of Michigan study is due in December), or to act preemptively in establishing healthy life skills, attitudes, and supports in our youth and kids. Some people are naively confident that kids' drive to succeed will ultimately steer them away from self-destructive behaviors; the answer, it is thought, is to dangle enough motivation in front of them to turn them into success-driven robots. But others are overly pessimistic about human potential. Christians should be neither. We should harbor no illusions about the power of innate sin to drag us down, but we should honor those elements of our humanity that are capable of doing great good and yearning for redemption. The 40 Assets are an intelligent blueprint for identifying what successful kids have, and pointing us toward what we ought to give.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)