What Parents Need to Know About Conflict Resolution and Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)

Dear Parents: Your son/daughter has been chosen to participate in peer mediation training…

When parents read this, they make judgments based on how they would define peer mediation or conflict resolution: teaching children to get along with one another. Who wouldn't want children to learn to get along together? What parents don't realize is conflict resolution and peer mediation training are not what they believe them to be.

…conflict resolution is rarely about honesty or establishing truth it is more about unifying perceptions. [1]

What is meant by unifying perceptions? Obviously when a conflict occurs, each participant takes a position which brings about that conflict. A conflict occurs when these positions are opposite.

Enter the Hegelian Dialectic of thesis — an idea or proposition; antithesis — the opposite idea or proposition; and synthesis — the bringing together of opposites or the unifying of perceptions to form a new thesis. The process then begins all over again.

The Hegelian Dialectic is the basis of consensus, defined as solidarity of belief — the unifying of perceptions. Under consensus, each participant in the consensus circle is to abide the decision of the group, adjusting his/her attitudes, values, and beliefs to conform to the group. [2] Through a process of continual consensus building to higher levels (termed continual evolution), Oneness of Mind — the synthesizing of the thoughts of the collective — theoretically occurs.

The same is true with conflict resolution/peer mediation. It is stressed in these curriculums that they seek to provide a win-win situation; no right, no wrong, no winners, no losers, just the unifying of perceptions.

As with facilitated community meetings, etc, the facilitative process of conflict resolution is intended, specifically, to move the child away from a belief in absolutes, in right and wrong, to a belief that everything is relative, situational. What parents need to understand is that this process also moves a child away from Judeo-Christian principles to a belief in humanism; from a belief that man is an individual, unique in his own right in the eyes of God, to the belief that man is devoid of spirituality and self-determinism as part of the collective of man.

What parents are not being told about conflict resolution/peer mediation programs is that they are intended to produce the cooperative, collaborative team player. While parents may find no argument with these terms as they themselves would define them, they may not realize that these curriculums are intended to produce the collectivist child with a philosophy totally counter to the Judeo-Christian foundations on which this nation was founded. How will the people continue to know the freedom and liberty that they have known when the very foundation upon which that freedom and liberty depends is being eroded and destroyed? The children of today will be the leaders of tomorrow.

One of the terms parents hear in the context of education reform is something known as higher order thinking skills. This is being "explained" to parents as a comparison between the "old education system," where rote memorization of facts was the name of the game, and the "new education system" (or new paradigm) where children will be expected to be critical thinkers/problem solvers/decision makers. While this sounds good to parents who have really seen that the old education system was nothing more than rote memorization without the child being challenged to use what he/she had learned to formulate a reasoned conclusion, parents do not realize two things:

the old education system and the traditional education system (which did challenge children to use what they had learned to formulate a reasoned conclusion) are not the same thing, and

higher order thinking skills have nothing to do with a child being able to use the knowledge he/she has learned to formulate a reasoned conclusion.

According to Richard Paul of the Foundation for Critical Thinking,

Children enter school as fundamentally non-culpable, uncritical and self-serving thinkers. [3] The educational task is to help them to become, as soon as possible and as fully as possible, responsible, fairminded, critical thinkers, empowered by intellectual skills and rational passions. [4]

According to Paul, we don't want a Selfish Sam or a Naive Nancy, we want a Fairminded Fran. But what does Fairminded Fran look like? In studying Paul's Critical Thinking Handbooks, it becomes obvious that they are working to produce the child who, again, believes right and wrong are relative, a matter of perception, situational.

Again, as with conflict resolution/peer mediation, we are talking about a child that has been moved away from Judeo-Christian principles to humanism. If the parents [5] do not care, no problem. But what about the parents who want to raise their child as a Christian with Christian moors and principles? Isn't it the right of the parents to raise their child in accordance with their belief system? What right does the school have to interfere with or undermine the parents right to raise their child as they see fit? Is it time we clearly label public education as we do a packet of cigarettes —

Warning — It has been determined that public schools are counter to the inherent right of parents to raise their children according to their faith.

If parents of the Christian faith cannot send their children to the public school without having to fear that their child will be turned into a humanist, does this not constitute discrimination? Does this not constitute a violation of their rights as granted by the First Amendment? [6]

Is this mandatory in the schools? In a word — yes. Via state and federal reform initiatives, a child is ready to learn when he/she comes to school on the first day and every day thereafter ready to learn. Ready to learn means mentally, physically and emotionally capable of learning. A child who comes to school with any stress is considered "at risk" and not ready to learn. Children are being labeled "at risk" for any number of reasons, including divorce, unemployment, shyness, getting in an argument with a parent or sibling. To address this "at risk" status, the school, as community provider of services, has assembled a team of agencies to address the problem as they perceive it. In too many cases, to the detriment of the child/family relationship, and in the name of prevention, children are being accessed on school premises without the knowledge or informed consent of the parents.

Too, parents are seeing the advent of "parent contracts" with schools. While these are presented as partnership contracts, they, more than anything else, make demands on the parents with regard to what they will and will not do with respect to the child. While these contracts may seem harmless or even reasonable to parents at the time they sign them, parents do not realize that these contracts have the force of law and are legally binding. In other words, if the parent fails in the eyes of the school to fulfill the terms of the contract, the school has the legal obligation, in the name of the best interests of the child, to intervene. Close scrutiny of these contracts disclose specifics of what the parent is expected to do, but becomes very non-specific with regard to what the school is expected to do. Under the "total quality" school concept, where the purpose of education is to provide for the needs of the new ultimate customer of education business, parents need to realize that the school is no longer there to respond to what they want in the education of their child. The new role of parents in the "total quality" concept is to provide a ready to learn product to the school. Parents are advised not to sign these contracts.

Is it mandatory that your public school child participate? In a word — yes. Conflict resolution, peer mediation and higher order thinking skills are part of the new curriculum of education. Although it may vary somewhat state to state, most laws are currently written such that all students must have a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) in order to work or go on to higher education. The CIM will be based on the assessment. The assessments measure, specifically, whether the child is being moved, via the curriculum, instruction and teaching methodologies, to mastery of the state defined exit outcomes what every child should know and be able to do as the end result of his/her educational experience. The exit outcomes are based on future trends — what "we" want the world to look like in x number of years. In Washington state, the exit outcomes are known as the state essential academic learning requirements. The ultimate goal of this process is to attain the future trends. As stated by Dr Shirley McCune [7] at the 1989 Governor's Conference on Education held in Wichita, Kansas,

… we have to anticipate what the future is and then move back and figure out what it is we need to do today. That's called anticipatory socialization or the social change function of schools.

Will any child be able to take a test and obtain the CIM? No. Unless the child has gone through the very structured and very strictured process of outcome-based [8] education, he/she will not be able to pass the assessments to receive the CIM, more especially since the assessments are of three types: projects, portfolio, and performance tasks. At least one of these — portfolio — will be a compilation of work over time.

What should parents do? To begin, the "total quality" concept of education, embodying the whole of education reform, school-to-work and workforce training is not about producing an innovative, creative, intelligent individual; it is about producing "workers" for the benefit of business and ultimately the global economy. Thus the new basics — teamwork, critical thinking, making decisions, communication, adapting to change and understanding whole systems [9] — that parents are seeing that have nothing to do with educating a child as parents would define education. If parents want their child to be an innovative, creative, intelligent individual, their only recourse at this time is to remove their child from the public schools; either home school or put the child in a good private or parochial school that is not aligning with the education reform agenda.

This is, however, only the short-term cure. Parents, citizens and taxpayers also need to become educated and involved. It is only through an educated and involved citizenry that the battle for the hearts and minds of America will be won. What is at stake is the future of our children, ourselves, and our nation.

__________________

[1] Creating the Peaceable School; A Comprehensive Program for Teaching Conflict Resolution; Bodine, Richard J., Donna K. Crawford, and Fred Schrumpf; Champaign, Illinois: Research Press; 1994. [Back]

[2] In some schools, teachers are actually being required, as a condition of being hired, to sign a charter in which they agree not to sabotage the process. [Back]

[3] This is another way of saying that these children are very narrow-minded in their attitudes, values, and beliefs. [Back]

[4] Critical Thinking Handbook: K-3rd Grades; Paul, Richard, A.J.A. Binker, and Daniel Weil; Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking; 1995. [Back]

[5] As used here, parents denotes either parent or parents. [Back]

[6] Torcaso vs Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) (n. 11). [Back]

[7] McCune is, as of this writing, working for the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington State. In 1996, she co-authored a book with New Age author and practitioner of the metaphysical, Norma Milanovich, entitled The Light Shall Set You Free, in which she channels for the cultic Ascended Masters. [Back]

[8] Also known as performance-based (PBE), standards-based (SBE), or competency-based education (CBE); also as outcomes driven education (ODE) or outcomes driven developmental model (ODDM). [Back]

[9] High Skills, High Wages; Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board; Washington State; 1994, 1996. [Back]

©April 1997; Lynn M Stuter

╪