We wanted to revisit the issue of owner financing for one major reason:It might just be the last way (and best way) for a budding entrepreneur to purchase a business these days.Face it – banks are not lending to those seeking to purchase a business and, to even get them to look at your deal, you better have twice or three times the collateral in relation to the potential loan amount (regardless if the business is extremely profitable or not) – and just because they might look at your business loan request does not mean they will approve it.Even non-bank lenders are not lending for the purchase of a business unless it comes with a huge amount of real estate and then they will only fund based on a small loan-to-value of that real estate.That leaves two options for most people wanting to buy the business of their dreams:1) Friends and Family (what some call Friends, Family or Fools). However, unless you have a very rich uncle, most of your friends and family are also facing financing restraints and either will not or cannot help you make a big purchase like buying a business.2) Owner financing. Where the current owner of the business is willing to sell it to you on terms (meaning they – not the bank – hold the note).This is what we will discuss here – as this might really be the only way left to purchase a business today.Owner financing can benefit the purchaser (you) in several ways:1) Easier to qualify for as you don’t have to jump through all the hoops that banks or lenders will make you jump through like cash flow analysis, property appraisals, debt-to-income ratios, personal financial statements, etc.2) Better terms than most banks will offer – thus, saving the new owner (the purchaser) both time and money – not to mention less in regards to reporting (ongoing financial statements and tax returns) and fewer covenants.3) More than just financing, since the current owner still has a stake in the business’s success, they will provide invaluable guidance and advice well into the future.Plus, if the current business owner believes in the business (and you can get them to believe in you) – this should be a no brainer for the owner. If they hesitate without giving a very good reason, that might be a red flag to you as it might show that the current owner does not believe in the long-term viability of the business (they know something is wrong or in decline).Let look at an example to show how owner financing works:Let’s say you find a business for sale – a business that you know you will have the necessary passion to work hard at and grow beyond where it stands today.The price of the business is $100,000 – yet, you tried to get a bank loan, a SBA loan and even a non-bank loan and have heard nothing but “NO.”Here is where you approach the current business owner and entice them to sell you the business while carrying the note.How your deal should work:You tell the current owner that you will provide some down payment (this is to show good faith as well as provide a little cash incentive to the current owner).This down payment should be around 10% but could be less depending on how much you can raise. But, raising $10,000 is much easier than raising $100,000. Plus, any bank or non-bank lender would require you put up more than 10% – so 10% is really a win for you!Now, if you put 10% down, that means the current owner would have to finance the remaining 90% or $90,000.Here is how to approach that:State that you will pay both principal and a comparable market interest rate (let’s say for this example – 10% APR) amortized over (7) seven years (choose a term that makes the payments work for you as well as for the current owner).But, you will also include a balloon payment in (3) three years – allowing the owner a full exit if necessary.The longer term (7 years) gives you breathing room by making your payment affordable (the longer the term, the lower the payment).The balloon payment (meaning that even though the loan amortizes over 7 years, the remaining balance after 3 years will be due in full – the balloon term) gives the current owner a way out in a short period as well as provides you time (3 years) to establish yourself in the business – so that when the time does come, you have a track record that you can take to the bank to finance that balloon balance.Plus, if both of you are happy with the way things are going; you can always refinance the balance (balloon) with the current owner at the 3 year anniversary date.Now, if agreed, you get the business (what you were working for to begin with).The current owner not only sells the business – but, (given our example above) earns $22,700 in interest above the original purchase price – interest that you would have paid to the bank anyway if you were approved for a bank loan – might as well pay it to the current owner.From our example, your monthly payment would be around $1,500 a month – very affordable and at the 3 year balloon date, the reaming balance would be approximately $60,000 – much easier to get a business loan approved for than the original $100,000.In the end, you, as the new business owner are no worse off and now have bought yourself some time to show both the selling business owner and the banks that you are a true success.The other side:Why, you might ask, would a current business owner, looking to get out of the business, be willing to owner finance?Two main reasons:1) The business owner, given this economy and the fact that banks are not lending, might not be able to sell the business any other way.2) The business owner benefits additionally as he/she receives not only the principal from the loan (what they wanted in the first place) but will also earn interest from the financing as your interest payments go to them and not the bank (e.g. major selling point).In good times, for a business to succeed, the business owner has to be creative in all aspects of the business. In bad times, like now, to be a successful business owner, you have to get doubly creative, especially when it comes to financing.If you have no other choice or options, it never hurts to go to the current owner and ask them to finance – what do you really have to lose?Just come prepare with a deal that benefits both you and the owner because owner financing just might be the best and last way to finance a business purchase today.
How many times have you driven by a car dealership to find salespeople huddled or lined up by the showroom door like vultures waiting to pounce on the next customer?In today’s market, spending has significantly decreased, and dealerships must be more proactive in creating a maximized sales environment and managing sales activity if they want to sell more cars and generate profit.On top of this current problem affecting auto sales, in-store traffic is at an all time low, as many that need to purchase a vehicle do the majority of their research and kicking of the tires online to determine what they want and can afford, and then call the dealership, rather than browse the showroom like the good old days.The advent of the internet has changed how people shop for cars. Isn’t it time your sales training changed to adapt to get current with the times?Sales training in the auto industry typically used to just be for the sales team. The managers would send their crew to a seminar where they would learn about the latest and greatest tactics and techniques in showroom behavior. The salespeople would return to their dealerships all pumped up and ready to implement what they just learned. Then two weeks later, it is back to business as usual.
Why This Does Not WorkBottom Line: You need effective automotive sales management to have effective salespeople. Managers need automotive training as well as the auto sales staff.Most sales managers became sales managers because they had high success as a salesperson. That does not necessarily make them good at managing a staff, in the same way that the best player may not make the best coach.
Think of the auto sales manager as sales coach. A coach oversees performance and creates strategies based on a player’s ability to execute. The sales manager should oversee his or her staff in the same manner and get trained on how to manage effectively to increase automotive sales.Automotive management training ensures that the managers can comprehensively supervise the showroom and track the individual progress of his or her staff. They will train with the sales staff and should then learn how to set up an in-house continual training regimen.Salespeople may indeed learn valuable skills from seminars, but the main difference between training and learning is that training is the repeated application of learned skills. There is not a lot of opportunity for salespeople to repeatedly apply what they learn in the period of a single day, or even a week. Training is something you do, not something you did.Automotive BDC and Telephone TrainingCar dealers need to know how to handle inbound sales calls and talk potential customers into the showroom instead of out. While many salespeople do not want to talk about price, customers will inevitably bring it up, so it is crucial to be prepared and know how to handle the issue of price when it comes up.Furthermore, auto dealerships, and especially the sales staff, need to be informed about current programs. For example, the last hot topic of the auto industry was Cash for Clunkers. Salespeople should know, first off, whether their dealership is participating in a certain program. Then, they should know the exact requirements of the program, and what kind of rebates or incentives their dealership is offering. Once they are sufficiently educated, they need to practice explaining the ins and outs of the program, so that by the time they have a customer on the line or in the showroom, it feels like second nature to them.This is where telephone sales training comes into play. Although many auto salespeople feel at home in the showroom, they are ill at ease when it comes to handling the phones. There is great debate about the pros and cons of the automotive BDC or business development center. For many dealerships, the BDC staff is made up of telemarketers. On one hand, they have experience with handling inbound and outbound calls. On the other hand, they may know very little about the automotive industry. What if you could combine your auto sales staff with your BDC? With telephone sales training, you can.With effective telephone training, the auto sales staff will not only be able to handle inbound calls, but also follow up with unsold prospects, and call back sold customers to generate repeaters and referrals. Although there are many good training programs out there, one of the best, in my opinion, is FirePhone, which is part of Proactive Training Solution’s ADAPT VT virtual training program.One of the main elements of FirePhone is the virtual role-play, which allows salespeople to get ample practice with virtual callers before moving on to real callers. FirePhone also provides scripts for almost any situation, so that the sales staff always knows what to say. Whether your dealership uses FirePhone or another program, having a sales staff that is skilled on the phone will allow you to cut costs and save money that would otherwise be spent on an outside BDC.In SummaryAn ongoing automotive sales training program that incorporates both the showroom and the phone lines is what will keep your dealership efficient and productive during these tough economic times. Through much practice and sound management coaching, the auto sales staff will become more at ease with various situations, have more confidence with the potential customer, and close more sales transactions.
The commercial loans have been offered by the bank and many other financial institutions to their potential customers by keeping in view their business history with them. The commercial loans have been segregated by the financial institutions in two categories i.e. small & medium enterprises commercial finances as well as the corporate commercial loans. The said categories have been designed by keeping in view the amount given to the borrowers as the commercial finance. For example, some banks / financial institutions categorize the SME finances up to 100.00 million of the finances and the amount over & above the 100.00 million would be categorized as the corporate finances. All the DFIs deal the customers of SME finance and corporate finance separately.It could be observed while visiting any of the bank of your vicinity that there are separate benches to deal with both kinds of the customers and corporate customers have always been given the prime as well as top most priority, because the corporate clients have been a source of earning huge profit for any of the financial institutions. A detailed procedure is involved in knowing about the ways that how bank has sanctioned and disbursed said huge finances to its customers.First of all you should know that all the said commercial loans are the secured loans which have been given against having sufficient securities in the shape of stocks and mortgage of the property. The property which is being mortgaged by the bank as a security of its funds could be residential or commercial. But commercial property will not be accepted, particularly in the home finance given by the bank for the purpose of Purchase of the house or for the construction of the house.
An enormous amount of research shows the importance of self-determination (i.e., autonomy) for students in elementary school through college for enhancing learning and improving important post-school outcomes.
Research by psychologists Richard Ryan, PhD, and Edward Deci, PhD, on Self-Determination Theory indicates that intrinsic motivation (doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable), and thus higher quality learning, flourishes in contexts that satisfy human needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Students experience competence when challenged and given prompt feedback. Students experience autonomy when they feel supported to explore, take initiative and develop and implement solutions for their problems. Students experience relatedness when they perceive others listening and responding to them. When these three needs are met, students are more intrinsically motivated and actively engaged in their learning.
Numerous studies have found that students who are more involved in setting educational goals are more likely to reach their goals. When students perceive that the primary focus of learning is to obtain external rewards, such as a grade on an exam, they often perform more poorly, think of themselves as less competent, and report greater anxiety than when they believe that exams are simply a way for them to monitor their own learning. Some studies have found that the use of external rewards actually decreased motivation for a task for which the student initially was motivated. In a 1999 examination of 128 studies that investigated the effects of external rewards on intrinsic motivations, Drs. Deci and Ryan, along with psychologist Richard Koestner, PhD, concluded that such rewards tend to have a substantially negative effect on intrinsic motivation by undermining people’s taking responsibility for motivating or regulating themselves.
Self-determination research has also identified flaws in high stakes, test focused school reforms, which despite good intentions, has led teachers and administrators to engage in precisely the types of interventions that result in poor quality learning. Dr. Ryan and colleagues found that high stakes tests tend to constrain teachers’ choices about curriculum coverage and curtail teachers’ ability to respond to students’ interests (Ryan & La Guardia, 1999). Also, psychologists Tim Urdan, PhD, and Scott Paris, PhD, found that such tests can decrease teacher enthusiasm for teaching, which has an adverse effect on students’ motivation (Urdan & Paris, 1994).
The processes described in self-determination theory may be particularly important for children with special educational needs. Researcher Michael Wehmeyer found that students with disabilities who are more self-determined are more likely to be employed and living independently in the community after completing high school than students who are less self-determined.
Research also shows that the educational benefits of self-determination principles don’t stop with high school graduation. Studies show how the orientation taken by college and medical school instructors (whether it is toward controlling students’ behavior or supporting the students’ autonomy) affects the students’ motivation and learning.
Self-determination theory has identified ways to better motivate students to learn at all educational levels, including those with disabilities.
Schools throughout the country are using self-determination instruction as a way to better motivate students and meet the growing need to teach children and youth ways to more fully accept responsibility for their lives by helping them to identify their needs and develop strategies to meet those needs.
Researchers have developed and evaluated instructional interventions and supports to encourage self-determination for all students, with many of these programs designed for use by students with disabilities. Many parents, researchers and policy makers have voiced concern about high rates of unemployment, under-employment and poverty experienced by students with disabilities after they complete their educational programs. Providing support for student self-determination in school settings is one way to enhance student learning and improve important post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. Schools have particularly emphasized the use of self-determination curricula with students with disabilities to meet federal mandates to actively involve students with disabilities in the Individualized Education Planning process.
Programs to promote self-determination help students acquire knowledge, skills and beliefs that meet their needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness (for example, see Steps to Self-determination by educational researchers Sharon Field and Alan Hoffman). Such programs also provide instruction aimed specifically at helping students play a more active role in educational planning (for example, see The Self-directed Individualized Education Plan by Jim Martin, Laura Huber Marshall, Laurie Maxson, & Patty Jerman).
Drs. Field and Hoffman developed a model designed to guide the development of self-determination instructional interventions. According to the model, instructional activities in areas such as increasing self-awareness; improving decision-making, goal-setting and goal-attainment skills; enhancing communication and relationship skills; and developing the ability to celebrate success and learn from reflecting on experiences lead to increased student self-determination. Self-determination instructional programs help students learn how to participate more actively in educational decision-making by helping them become familiar with the educational planning process, assisting them to identify information they would like to share at educational planning meetings, and supporting students to develop skills to effectively communicate their needs and wants. Examples of activities used in self-determination instructional programs include reflecting on daydreams to help students decide what is important to them; teaching students how to set goals that are important to them and then, with the support of peers, family members and teachers, taking steps to achieve those goals. Providing contextual supports and opportunities for students, such as coaching for problem-solving and offering opportunities for choice, are also critical elements that lead to meeting needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness and thus, increasing student self-determination.
The jigsaw classroom technique can transform competitive classrooms in which many students are struggling into cooperative classrooms in which once-struggling students show dramatic academic and social improvements.
In the early 1970s, in the wake of the civil rights movement, educators were faced with a social dilemma that had no obvious solution. All over the country, well-intentioned efforts to desegregate America’s public schools were leading to serious problems. Ethnic minority children, most of whom had previously attended severely under-funded schools, found themselves in classrooms composed predominantly of more privileged White children. This created a situation in which students from affluent backgrounds often shone brilliantly while students from impoverished backgrounds often struggled. Of course, this difficult situation seemed to confirm age-old stereotypes: that Blacks and Latinos are stupid or lazy and that Whites are pushy and overly competitive. The end result was strained relations between children from different ethnic groups and widening gaps in the academic achievement of Whites and minorities.
Drawing on classic psychological research on how to reduce tensions between competing groups (e.g., see Allport, 1954; Sherif, 1958; see also Pettigrew, 1998), Elliot Aronson and colleagues realized that one of the major reasons for this problem was the competitive nature of the typical classroom. In a typical classroom, students work on assignments individually, and teachers often call on students to see who can publicly demonstrate his or her knowledge. Anyone who has ever been called to the board to solve a long division problem – only to get confused about dividends and divisors – knows that public failure can be devastating. The snide remarks that children often make when their peers fail do little to remedy this situation. But what if students could be taught to work together in the classroom – as cooperating members of a cohesive team? Could a cooperative learning environment turn things around for struggling students? When this is done properly, the answer appears to be a resounding yes.
In response to real educational dilemmas, Aronson and colleagues developed and implemented the jigsaw classroom technique in Austin, Texas, in 1971. The jigsaw technique is so named because each child in a jigsaw classroom has to become an expert on a single topic that is a crucial part of a larger academic puzzle. For example, if the children in a jigsaw classroom were working on a project about World War II, a classroom of 30 children might be broken down into five diverse groups of six children each. Within each group, a different child would be given the responsibility of researching and learning about a different specific topic: Khanh might learn about Hitler’s rise to power, Tracy might learn about the U.S. entry into the war, Mauricio might learn about the development of the atomic bomb, etc. To be sure that each group member learned his or her material well, the students from different groups who had the same assignment would be instructed to compare notes and share information. Then students would be brought together in their primary groups, and each student would present his or her “piece of the puzzle” to the other group members. Of course, teachers play the important role of keeping the students involved and derailing any tensions that may emerge. For example, suppose Mauricio struggled as he tried to present his information about the atomic bomb. If Tracy were to make fun of him, the teacher would quickly remind Tracy that while it may make her feel good to make fun of her teammate, she is hurting herself and her group – because everyone will be expected to know all about the atomic bomb on the upcoming quiz.
When properly carried out, the jigsaw classroom technique can transform competitive classrooms in which many students are struggling into cooperative classrooms in which once-struggling students show dramatic academic and social improvements (and in which students who were already doing well continue to shine). Students in jigsaw classrooms also come to like each other more, as students begin to form cross-ethnic friendships and discard ethnic and cultural stereotypes. Finally, jigsaw classrooms decrease absenteeism, and they even seem to increase children’s level of empathy (i.e., children’s ability to put themselves in other people’s shoes). The jigsaw technique thus has the potential to improve education dramatically in a multi-cultural world by revolutionizing the way children learn.
Since its demonstration in the 1970s, the jigsaw classroom has been used in hundreds of classrooms settings across the nation, ranging from the elementary schools where it was first developed to high school and college classrooms (e.g., see Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Rosenfield, & Sikes, 1977; Perkins & Saris, 2001; Slavin, 1980). Researchers know that the technique is effective, incidentally, because it has been carefully studied using solid research techniques. For example, in many cases, students in different classrooms who are covering the same material are randomly assigned to receive either traditional instruction (no intervention) or instruction by means of the jigsaw technique. Studies in real classrooms have consistently revealed enhanced academic performance, reductions in stereotypes and prejudice, and improved social relations.
Aronson is not the only researcher to explore the merits of cooperative learning techniques. Shortly after Aronson and colleagues began to document the power of the jigsaw classroom, Robert Slavin, Elizabeth Cohen and others began to document the power of other kinds of cooperative learning programs (see Cohen & Lotan, 1995; Slavin, 1980; Slavin, Hurley, & Chamberlain, 2003). As of this writing, some kind of systematic cooperative learning technique had been applied in about 1500 schools across the country, and the technique appears to be picking up steam. Perhaps the only big question that remains about cooperative learning techniques such as the jigsaw classroom is why these techniques have not been implemented even more broadly than they already have.
In the early 1960s, social psychologist William McGuire published some classic papers showing that it is surprisingly easy to change people’s attitudes about things that we all wholeheartedly accept as true. For example, for speakers armed with a little knowledge of persuasion, it is remarkably easy to convince almost anyone that brushing one’s teeth is not such a great idea. McGuire’s insight into this curious phenomenon was that it is easy to change people’s minds about things that they have always taken for granted precisely because most people have little if any practice resisting attacks on attitudes that no one ever questions.
Taking this logic a little further, McGuire asked if it might be possible to train people to resist attacks on their beliefs by giving them practice at resisting arguments that they could easily refute. Specifically, McGuire drew an analogy between biological resistance to disease and psychological resistance to persuasion. Biological inoculation works by exposing people to a weakened version of an attacking agent such as a virus. People’s bodies produce antibodies that make them immune to the attacking agent, and when a full-blown version of the agent hits later in life, people win the biological battle against the full-blown disease. Would giving people a little practice fending off a weak attack on their attitudes make it easier for people to resist stronger attacks on their attitudes that come along later? The answer turns out to be yes. McGuire coined the phrase attitude inoculation to refer to the process of resisting strong persuasive arguments by getting practice fighting off weaker versions of the same arguments.
Once attitude inoculation had been demonstrated consistently in the laboratory, researchers decided to see if attitude inoculation could be used to help parents, teachers, and social service agents deal with a pressing social problem that kills about 440,000 people in the U.S. every year: cigarette smoking. Smoking seemed like an ideal problem to study because children below the age of 10 or 12 almost always report negative attitudes about smoking. However, in the face of peer pressure to be cool, many of these same children become smokers during middle to late adolescence.
Adolescents change their attitudes about smoking (and become smokers) because of the power of peer pressure. Researchers quickly realized that if they could inoculate children against pro-smoking arguments (by teaching them to resist pressure from their peers who believed that smoking is “cool”), they might be able to reduce the chances that children would become smokers. A series of field studies of attitude inoculation, conducted in junior high schools and high schools throughout the country, demonstrated that brief interventions using attitude inoculation dramatically reduced rates of teenage smoking. For instance, in an early study by Cheryl Perry and colleagues (1980), high school students inoculated junior high schools students against smoking by having the younger kids role-play the kind of situations they might actually face with a peer who pressured them to try a cigarette. For example, when a role-playing peer called a student “chicken” for not being willing to try an imaginary cigarette, the student practiced answers such as “I’d be a real chicken if I smoked just to impress you.” The kids who were inoculated in this way were about half as likely to become smokers as were kids in a very similar school who did not receive this special intervention.
Public service advertising campaigns have also made use of attitude inoculation theory by encouraging parents to help their children devise strategies for saying no when peers encourage them to smoke. Programs that have made whole or partial use of attitude inoculation programs have repeatedly documented the effectiveness of attitude inoculation to prevent teenage smoking, to curb illicit drug use, and to reduce teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. In comparison with old-fashioned interventions such as simple education about the risks of smoking or teenage pregnancy, attitude inoculation frequently reduces risky behaviors by 30-70% (see Botvin et al., 1995; Ellickson & Bell, 1990; Perry et al., 1980). As psychologist David Myers put it in his popular social psychology textbook, “Today any school district or teacher wishing to use the social psychological approach to smoking prevention can do so easily, inexpensively, and with the hope of significant reductions in future smoking rates and health costs.” So the next time you think about inoculating kids to keep them healthy, make sure you remember that one of the most important kinds of inoculation any kid can get is a psychological inoculation against tobacco.
National Head Start program conceptualized while psychologists were beginning to study preventive intervention for young children living in poverty.
As a group, children who live in poverty tend to perform worse in school than do children from more privileged backgrounds. For the first half of the 20th century, researchers attributed this difference to inherent cognitive deficits. At the time, the prevailing belief was that the course of child development was dictated by biology and maturation. By the early 1960s, this position gave way to the notion popularized by psychologists such as J. McVicker Hunt and Benjamin Bloom that intelligence could rather easily be shaped by the environment. There was very little research at the time to support these speculations but a few psychologists had begun to study whether environmental manipulation could prevent poor cognitive outcomes. Results of studies by psychologists Susan Gray and Rupert Klaus (1965), Martin Deutsch (1965) and Bettye Caldwell and former U.S. Surgeon General Julius Richmond (1968) supported the notion that early attention to physical and psychological development could improve cognitive ability.
These preliminary results caught the attention of Sargent Shriver, President Lyndon Johnson’s chief strategist in implementing an arsenal of antipoverty programs as part of the War on Poverty. His idea for a school readiness program for children of the poor focused on breaking the cycle of poverty. Shriver reasoned that if poor children could begin school on an equal footing with wealthier classmates, they would have a better of chance of succeeding in school and avoiding poverty in adulthood. He appointed a planning committee of 13 professionals in physical and mental health, early education, social work, and developmental psychology. Their work helped shape what is now known as the federal Head Start program.
The three developmental psychologists in the group were Urie Bronfenbrenner, Mamie Clark, and Edward Zigler. Bronfenbrenner convinced the other members that intervention would be most effective if it involved not just the child but the family and community that comprise the child-rearing environment. Parent involvement in school operations and administration were unheard of at the time, but it became a cornerstone of Head Start and proved to be a major contributor to its success. Zigler had been trained as a scientist and was distressed that the new program was not going to be field-tested before its nationwide launch. Arguing that it was not wise to base such a massive, innovative program on good ideas and concepts but little empirical evidence, he insisted that research and evaluation be part of Head Start. When he later became the federal official responsible for administering the program, Zigler (often referred to as the “father of Head Start”) worked to cast Head Start as a national laboratory for the design of effective early childhood services.
Although it is difficult to summarize the hundreds of empirical studies of Head Start outcomes, Head Start does seem to produce a variety of benefits for most children who participate. Although some studies have suggested that the intellectual advantages gained from participation in Head Start gradually disappear as children progress through elementary school, some of these same studies have shown more lasting benefits in the areas of school achievement and adjustment.
Head Start began as a great experiment that over the years has yielded prolific results. Some 20 million children and families have participated in Head Start since the summer of 1965; current enrollment approaches one million annually, including those in the new Early Head Start that serves families with children from birth to age 3. Psychological research on early intervention has proliferated, creating an expansive literature and sound knowledge base. Many research ideas designed and tested in the Head Start laboratory have been adapted in a variety of service delivery programs. These include family support services, home visiting, a credentialing process for early childhood workers, and education for parenthood. Head Start’s efforts in preschool education spotlighted the value of school readiness and helped spur today’s movement toward universal preschool.
The Teaching-Family Model changes bad behavior through straight talk and loving relationships.
In the late 1960′s, psychologists Elaine Phillips, Elery Phillips, Dean Fixsen, and Montrose Wolf developed an empirically tested treatment program to help troubled children and juvenile offenders who had been assigned to residential group homes. These researchers combined the successful components of their studies into the Teaching-Family Model, which offers a structured treatment regimen in a family-like environment. The model is built around a married couple (teaching-parents) that lives with children in a group home and teaches them essential interpersonal and living skills. Not only have teaching parents’ behaviors and techniques been assessed for their effectiveness, but they have also been empirically tested for whether children like them. Teaching-parents also work with the children’s parents, teachers, employers, and peers to ensure support for the children’s positive changes. Although more research is needed, preliminary results suggest that, compared to children in other residential treatment programs, children in Teaching-Family Model centers have fewer contacts with police and courts, lower dropout rates, and improved school grades and attendance.
Couples are selected to be teaching-parents based on their ability to provide individualized and affirming care. Teaching-parents then undergo an intensive year-long training process. In order to maintain their certification, teaching-parents and Teaching-Family Model organizations are evaluated every year, and must meet the rigorous standards set by the Teaching-Family Association.
The Teaching-Family Model is one of the few evidence-based residential treatment programs for troubled children. In the past, many treatment programs viewed delinquency as an illness, and therefore placed children in institutions for medical treatment. The Teaching-Family Model, in contrast, views children’s behavior problems as stemming from their lack of essential interpersonal relationships and skills. Accordingly, the Teaching-Family Model provides children with these relationships and teaches them these skills, using empirically validated methods. With its novel view of problem behavior and its carefully tested and disseminated treatment program, the Teaching-Family Model has helped to transform the treatment of behavioral problems from impersonal interventions at large institutions to caring relationships in home and community settings. The Teaching-Family Model has also demonstrated how well-researched treatment programs can be implemented on a large scale. Most importantly, the Teaching-Family Model has given hope that young people with even the most difficult problems or behaviors can improve the quality of their lives and make contributions to society.
In recent years, the Teaching-Family Model has been expanded to include foster care facilities, home treatment settings, and even schools. The Teaching-Family Model has also been adapted to accommodate the needs of physically, emotionally, and sexually abused children; emotionally disturbed and autistic children and adults; medically fragile children; and adults with disabilities. Successful centers that have been active for over 30 years include the Bringing it All Back Home Study Center in North Carolina, the Houston Achievement Place in Texas, and the Girls and Boys Town in Nebraska. Other Teaching-Family Model organizations are in Alberta (Canada), Arkansas, Hawaii, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Thinking about intelligence as changeable and malleable, rather than stable and fixed, results in greater academic achievement, especially for people whose groups bear the burden of negative stereotypes about their intelligence.
Can people get smarter? Are some racial or social groups smarter than others? Despite a lot of evidence to the contrary, many people believe that intelligence is fixed, and, moreover, that some racial and social groups are inherently smarter than others. Merely evoking these stereotypes about the intellectual inferiority of these groups (such as women and Blacks) is enough to harm the academic perfomance of members of these groups. Social psychologist Claude Steele and his collaborators (2002) have called this phenomenon “stereotype threat.”
Yet social psychologists Aronson, Fried, and Good (2001) have developed a possible antidote to stereotype threat. They taught African American and European American college students to think of intelligence as changeable, rather than fixed – a lesson that many psychological studies suggests is true. Students in a control group did not receive this message. Those students who learned about IQ’s malleability improved their grades more than did students who did not receive this message, and also saw academics as more important than did students in the control group. Even more exciting was the finding that Black students benefited more from learning about the malleable nature of intelligence than did White students, showing that this intervention may successfully counteract stereotype threat.
This research showed a relatively easy way to narrow the Black-White academic achievement gap. Realizing that one’s intelligence may be improved may actually improve one’s intelligence, especially for those whose groups are targets of stereotypes alleging limited intelligence (e.g., Blacks, Latinos, and women in math domains.)
Blackwell, Dweck, and Trzesniewski (2002) recently replicated and applied this research with seventh-grade students in New York City. During the first eight weeks of the spring term, these students learned about the malleability of intelligence by reading and discussing a science-based article that described how intelligence develops. A control group of seventh-grade students did not learn about intelligence’s changeability, and instead learned about memory and mnemonic strategies. As compared to the control group, students who learned about intelligence’s malleability had higher academic motivation, better academic behavior, and better grades in mathematics. Indeed, students who were members of vulnerable groups (e.g., those who previously thought that intelligence cannot change, those who had low prior mathematics achievement, and female students) had higher mathematics grades following the intelligence-is-malleable intervention, while the grades of similar students in the control group declined. In fact, girls who received the intervention matched and even slightly exceeded the boys in math grades, whereas girls in the control group performed well below the boys.
These findings are especially important because the actual instruction time for the intervention totaled just three hours. Therefore, this is a very cost-effective method for improving students’ academic motivation and achievement.
Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2001). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1-13.
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002), Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In Mark P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 379-440. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Blackwell, L., Dweck, C., & Trzesniewski, K. (2002). Achievement across the adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Manuscript in preparation.
Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
I firmly believe that fashion is the ultimate form in which one can express themselves. An awareness of what is in trend is necessary to be with the times. People try to put comfort over fashion but I feel that fashion does not only exist in a dress but it has to do with a combination of trendy ideas. The whole ideology of fashion is to synchronize things around us and to make us look beautiful. However fashion does not mean over dressing as that makes us look like clowns. A person can look nice when he/she wears a dress which compliments his/her personality.
Fashion seems to be the most important aspect in a women’s life. It is something that the females can do much better than men. It enhances the life and when the end results are good it gives pleasure. The concept of fashion cannot be same for the entire Diaspora of society. However fashion cannot be treated in singular terms, it is a collection of bits and bobs which are in vogue.
In my point of view fashion has a widespread diversity in it. Two people with opposing ideas can still be fashionable in their own ways. Fashion has many layers to it and with the increasing awareness about fashion many people have started indulging in it. Those who detest fashion may be the ones who need fashionable clothes in order to improve their looks. The fact is that when women do not like their appearance they criticize fashion but the dissatisfaction of women about their appearance is what fuels the fashion industry.
There are three basic rules in order to dress well which are:
1) Be comfortable in whatever you wear as that is what adds beauty automatically
2) Do not go overboard for dressing up as that may just be a fashion glitz
3) Follow the latest trends by keeping an eye on what celebrities wear
If you follow these three fundamental rules then you can be sure that you will definitely land up being well dressed wherever you go.
The new era of fashion has seen a lot of changes. It is no longer for stereotypes but it is all about the individual style and there are no rules. You can easily select your own fashion trend and go along with it. After all the beauty of fashion is that it has lot of variety and character and it can lend its fragile grace to anyone who seeks it.