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 todays 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 childrens behavior? Will parents teach their own children responsibility and administer discipline when they dont 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 taughtnot only in Littletonbut 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 "wasnt 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 childrenas young as elementary agevisit 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. (Isnt 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 isnt 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 crazeconflict 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: Dont 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 Americas 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 okayno one is wrong; there are no losersand 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 isnt 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 hell 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 Davids 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 doesnt care if he doesnt eat well, then blames it on him. And Davids friends think its 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 dont 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 Gandhiwe 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 arent allowed to teach; and children arent 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 arent] 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 dont 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 were 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 childrens 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 shouldnt 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 arent comfortable because they dont 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 thats 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. Ive worked with elected officials. They DO respond to constituents who make their voices heard. The problem: parents arent being vocal. (Even Hollywood would change their content overnight if parents stopped going to movies and made sure their children didnt 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.

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: KHolg10296@aol.com