School Violence: Is
Conflict Resolution an Answer or Part of the Problem?
Everyone is
writing about, talking about, or hearing about the disaster in Littleton,
Colorado. Kids killing
kids. How could a thing like this
happen? There is certainly enough blame
to go around. Parents, movies, video
games, rock music, police, teachers and school administrators have all been
mentioned.
In an April 24 weekly Republican radio
address, Gov. Owens said about the Littleton tragedy, "…there is no one
place on which we can lay all the blame."
And in reference to the growing acceptance and glorification of
violence, the Gov. said, "We do need to take a hard look at he subculture of violence, death, anarchy and incoherence
that seems, in recent years, to have become so appealing to so many young
people."
Since Littleton, threats against
schools across the nation have become a national epidemic. Everyone is seeking answers to the problem;
seeking to lay blame on someone or something; seeking a way to solve the
problem. But once today’s concern dies
down, will the problems be solved? Will
Hollywood stop making violent movies? Will
"blood and guts" video games end?
Will "rockers" change their lyrics? Probably not. Will parents assume responsibility for their
children’s behavior? Will parents teach
their own children responsibility and administer discipline when they don’t
behave? The truth is that good parents
will continue doing those things; bad parents will not.
Yet for all the attention we are
focusing on those things mentioned above, are we forgetting another major area
of concern? What has not been discussed
nearly enough is the curriculum being taught—not only in Littleton—but in
schools throughout the nation.
Curriculum that is mandated, in part by federal law (Goals 2000 and
School-to-Work) and, in part, by educators who believe that schools must fill a
void they perceive as being vacated by parents.
However good their intentions, are the
programs that were designed to help children actually contributing to the
problem? The time has come to examine
the curriculum being taught daily in classrooms across America. Some of these include, but are not limited
to, death education, values clarification, self-esteem
and conflict resolution.
Matt Drudge recently wrote that death
education was nothing new at Columbine High School. He reported that in 1991, an ABC NEWS, 20/20
profile included a statement from one Columbine student, Tara Becker. Ms. Becker said that while she had thought about
suicide, she would never "have gone through with it." She said she "wasn’t brave
enough." But she went on, in the
interview, to say that her death education class (often called "suicide
prevention") taught the students how to be "brave enough to face
death" and included discussions about how the students would look in their
caskets.
This type of exercise is not
unusual. Some classes have children—as
young as elementary age—visit cemeteries; write their own obituaries, write
their date of birth and date of death, along with an appropriate epitaph, on
their own headstones. In one Ohio third
grade classroom, these tombstone legacies were hung for display around the
classroom. (Isn’t that what mom and dad
want their child surrounded with at school all day?)
In 1998, a high school student in Santa
Monica, California, reported that after her death education class, she found
herself thinking about suicide every time she had a problem. She said it frightened her because she had
never thought about suicide before the class.
After several weeks, she finally asked some of her friends if she was
the only one who was having these dark thoughts. She was both scared and relieved when her
friends admitted they too had thought about suicide since the class.
(The National Institute of Mental
Health has said about these programs:
Most school-based,
information only, prevention programs focused solely on suicide have not been
evaluated to see if they work. New
research suggests that such programs may actually increase distress in the
young people who are most vulnerable … ALL suicide prevention programs need to
be scientifically evaluated to demonstrate whether or not they work.)
It isn’t enough that our schools are
bringing death into the classroom, at the same time they are also teaching
children "values clarification;" a process where children are taught
to form their own values, that there are no absolutes. Out of this thinking comes the latest
education craze—conflict resolution.
Conflict resolution
is based on the flawed thinking that all disputes, disagreements and fights can
be resolved in a manner in which everyone wins.
The purpose of these "win-win" situations is so that everyone
can "feel good about the solution … choose a solution that will meet the
interests of everybody involved." [1] and is often accomplished through
"peer mediation." (One 6th
grade teacher said that when conflict arises in her
classroom, she must first try to get a "peer mediator" to
intervene. She is not supposed to
interfere.) The potential for harm to
these "mediators" seems too apparent to even be raised, but the
question must be asked: Don’t teachers, administrators and parents worry about
placing children in such a precarious position?
The Resolving
Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP), by
William J. Kreidler, promotes the idea that there are
six principles that should be utilized in order to create a "peaceable
classroom." These principles:
cooperation, a caring community, appreciation of diversity, appropriate
expression of feelings, responsible decision making, and conflict resolution,
should be incorporated throughout the curriculum and integrated into all
subjects for all students "from social studies and reading and language
arts to math, science, and health." [2]
While there are certainly times when
compromise is warranted, nowhere in conflict resolution, as it is being taught
in America’s classrooms, or touted in RCCP, is it
pointed out that some behaviors demand discipline; that it is important for
children to learn there are consequences for bad behavior. No, instead these programs stress there are
no losers. The tragedy in Littleton
belies this fallacy.
Conflict resolution programs teach
children that adults accept any behavior as long as the child can justify it,
rationalize it, or get someone else to agree with it, i.e., mediate it. On one hand it tells bullies that their
behavior is okay—no one is wrong; there are no losers—and at the same time
sends the very dangerous message to another child that there is no
justice. Each receives the message,
"There are no consequences for wrong behavior." In fact, we tell them, by example, that there
are no boundaries; that there is no right and wrong … period. This, of course, is true not only in the
schools but far too often, in homes as well.
Conflict resolution includes pushing
nutty ideas such as eliminating those things that might foster conflict, such
as competition. In their book, Waging
Peace in Our Schools, Linda Lantieri and
Janet Patti tell us,
In our curriculum,
children are taught that cooperation is about working together toward a common
goal, and that it has many advantages over competition because it allows people
to help one another.
There are certainly times when children
benefit by working together to achieve a common goal. However, there are other times when healthy
competition is just as beneficial for children (and adults). The real world is all about competition. Competition builds character. Experiencing the disappointment of defeat and
the elation that comes with victory are emotions that children must learn
early. It is these life situations, and
how to deal with the emotions, that teaches children that each is
fleeting. Competition teaches children
how to become "good sports," that victory is short lived, and defeat
isn’t forever. Eliminating competition
is both unnatural and unhealthy.
In promoting the idea of a "caring
community" Lantieri and Patti suggest an
exercise in which a teacher holds up a big red paper heart and then tells a
heart wrenching story about a young boy who gets up late and is then subjected
to only negative comments from members of his family (sister and mother). For instance he is told by his sister that
his choice of clothing is horrible; that he looks "nerdy" and
"terrible." His mother scoffs
at his request for breakfast saying that if he wants a warm breakfast he’ll
have to get up earlier. He grabs a
banana and rushes for the bus, but misses it. A friend on the bus yells back, "Tough
luck, David. Have a great walk to
school."
As the story
continues, it is recommended that the teacher tear off a piece of the heart and
throw it on the floor every time David hears another negative remark. Lantieri and Patti
tell how children sit speechless, "eyes on the heart, as they feel David’s
pain, bit by bit." [3] (Talk about manipulation!)
Several things come to mind over this
suggested classroom activity. First it
depicts family life in a negative context; sister is insensitive to David;
mother is an unfeeling, lousy caregiver who not only can't get her son up for
school in time for a good breakfast, but doesn’t care if he doesn’t eat well, then blames it on him.
And David’s friends think it’s funny that he missed the bus.
This example, as well as the suggested
heart-rending pathos it recommends for teaching children, is deplorable. It encourages teachers who are not trained
psychologists to engage in dangerously depressing psychological practices. Some psychologists say that children who are
troubled may only be thrust further into depression with this kind of
psycho-babble and healthy children don’t need it.
Most teachers know when children have
problems and are more than ready to comfort those who have occasional bad
days. It would be a far better use of
classroom, teacher and time—and certainly better for the children, to have
teachers refer troubled children to those who are professionally trained. This is the only real way to help families in
trouble.
Lantieri and Patti tell teachers who plan to teach conflict resolution
that
conflict resolution
requires [an] inner work of subtlety and
depth, a journey within. Like Gandhi…we
must struggle, change and work on ourselves…
Is this what
teaching has become? Does this sound
like the requirements for being a good math, science, phonics or history
teacher? Since when does teaching
academics require mystical self-examination and struggle? Have we really strayed so far away from the
purpose of education? No wonder teachers
and children are frustrated. Teachers
aren’t allowed to teach; and children aren’t allowed to learn. Their classrooms have become psychological
experimentation labs.
A young lady from
Wisconsin, eighteen year-old Sarah Roney, wrote about
Littleton. In her excellent treatise, [4] she talked about
the breakdown of society and the pressure placed on youngsters faced daily with
scenes saturated with
sex and violence so intense that
if [children aren’t] playing killing video games at 14,
then [they] are trying to choose between contraceptives beforehand or
abortion afterwards.
Miss Roney
correctly stated that "we are falling apart as a society" and asks,
"Am I, some random normal teenager in Farmertown,
U.S.A., the only one who sees that?"
She then goes on to say how important it is for parents to set limits,
to tell their children, "If you don’t shape up by the time I count to
three…" and then "really count to three." In describing her peers, she says, "we
are running wild and pretty soon we’re going to be too far from home to ever
get back."
The answer, of course, is for parents
to reassert their authority over their own children. Too many have forgotten that they are the
experts in raising their children and have bought into the lie that
government-supported programs know best.
It is easy to understand the concern of
legislators and educators who are frustrated by parents who are increasingly
abdicating their roles as their own children’s primary guardians,
disciplinarians and teachers of values.
Yet by continually taking over the role that should be exercised by
parents, schools are exacerbating the problem.
Government can never replace parents.
They shouldn’t try.
Lantieri and Patti admit that many teachers are uncomfortable with
teaching values and attitudes to their students. The following should send chills down the
backs of parents. In speaking about
teachers, Lantieri and Patti say,
They aren’t
comfortable because they don’t feel they have the skills to help young people
share and disclose in appropriate ways … And often they are supported by
members of the public who feel that the responsibility to teach young people
social and emotional skills belongs in the home alone.
(Maybe that’s because these teachers
and members of the "public" rightly believe that parents really do
know what is best for their own children.)
Many teachers oppose the programs
discussed above and they deserve support from parents. But unless parents are actively involved with
their children, unless they know what is being taught, they will continue to
live in ignorance of the dangerous attitudes, values, and behaviors that are
being fed into the minds of children.
And people who believe they know better than mom and dad will continue
directing the paths of children.
Parents have the power to change
education today. It could, and would,
change overnight if parents demanded it.
Parents have the power to alter the kinds of movies being made. Parents have the power to take back
society. If every parent would start
going to the school to complain and would call their state representatives and
members of Congress, education would return to its true purpose, true academic
enrichment, overnight.
I’ve worked with elected officials.
They DO respond to constituents who make their voices heard. The problem: parents aren’t being vocal. (Even Hollywood would change their content
overnight if parents stopped going to movies and made sure their children
didn’t go.)
Unfortunately, parents think "I’m
only one person…who would listen to me?"
The truth is that crowds are made up of individuals. Over this issue, parents do have
control. The solution is easy. BUT, until individual parents speak up,
nothing will change.
Parents National Network
President
California
____________________________
[1] Waging Peace in Our
Schools, Linda Lantieri and Janet Patti. [Back]
[4] From Where I
Stand: A Teenager's Voice from Inside the Culture of Death,
April 21, 1999. [Back]
© May 1999
╪