------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:03:40 EDT
Subject: Littleton & Conflict Resolution classes
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Friends:
I know we've all be inundated with Littleton articles. Everyone has an idea
about what (and who) to blame. And it is all valid. But let's not forget to
also examine classroom curriculum. The following is often taught in lieu of,
and at the expense of, academics. Karen
This and other education articles: http://paul-revere.org/pr/holgate
School Violence:
Is Conflict Resolution an answer or part of the problem?
by
Karen Holgate
Parents National Network
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.
- 30 -
Footnotes:
1 Waging Peace in Our Schools, Linda Lantieri and Janet Patti.
2 Ibid
3 Ibid
4 From Where I Stand: A Teenager's Voice fom Inside the Culture of Death,
April 21, 1999.
Parents National Network
Karen Holgate
President
PO Box 428
Palm Desert, CA 92261
760-360-9949
fax 760-360-8949
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
