On Violence-tolerance at schools: Letter I wrote to the Superintendent of my school District

I would like to introduce myself.  My name is X.  Our son is new to the school district and is attending his repeated (he was a bit too young the first time) kindergarten class at [elementary school].  We have a newborn son (4 weeks).  So soon we will have two fresh children eager to learn and grow in this community.

The reason I am contacting you is because I have a serious concern with the disregard of violent words or violence-promoting acts at schools, specifically [school].  I have been attending and volunteering in the kindergarten classroom since the beginning of the school year.  I find it incredible how children have already developed words such as "kill," "guns," "attack," and other violent words (they cannot even spell love yet).  Another disturbing regular occurrence is the immediate separation of children into the "good guys" and "bad guys" and their need to create conflict.  In lunch period, kindergartners talk about violent movies and violent games.  In the class room, they draw and present violent toys and art.  Why does this have to be the case?  Why do we allow such acts and speech?

My background has convinced and taught me that violence and suffering in our society starts by our tendencies to create conflict and our utter disregard to the basis of such conflict.  Can you see that perhaps our allowance of violence and conflict at an early stage of schooling can contribute to our society's proclivity towards violence? 

I have addressed this concern with [the principal] and as of now (our second year in kindergarten), I have not noticed any enforcement of any kind.  I would have hoped that this issue would be treated with the seriousness it deserves.  However, I feel that the violent tendencies of our children is not a primary concern to our academically superior district.  It seems as if we rather present society with academically prepared students than to present our community with students who can contribute to our society's woes: our lack of compassion, our willingness to differentiate and separate, and our tendency for violence.

Unfortunately, the consequences of our disregard towards violence has hit home.  The forwarded letter is the story of a situation between my son and another child in kindergarten.  I hope you can review it at your convenience.  You will see that my son was frightened by this child's threat that his father would "crush his skull" if President Obama won.  What kind of society do we live in that allows parents and children speak in these terms?  Even if some details of the conversation would be made up or misconstrued, why would a child be comfortable to threaten another child?  Why is that acceptable?  Why would he be comfortable with the usage of such harsh words?  My son no longer is comfortable at [school] and wishes to leave the school in fear of this parent's potential harm.  Why did it have to go that far?  We, me and our family included, are dropping the ball on this issue.  I for one will no longer stand idle.

Violence is an issue in our schools.  I believe that we can find a solution to ameliorate the problem.  The question to you Mr. X, is whether you believe that a child should be sentenced to fear school in kindergarten?  Should children be allowed to speak violently without any repercussions?  For the sake of our children, our community, and our society, somebody needs to start to do something about it.  I am willing and able to help.  Are you?

Sincerely and with the utmost respect,

X

Compassion and the Individual | The Office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama

I am working on an essay defining wisdom and compassion and how it relates to our children at schools. I quote The Dalai Lama. If you are interested, please review his take on compassion.


Compassion and the Individual The Office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama

Journal Entry for Oct.: The PTA (Parent-Teacher Association) and its possible place in compassion and wisdom

Journal Entry for Oct.:  I continue my drive to clarify my stance and spread the word.  I am investigating if the PTA can play a role.  (This is more a rant than a cohesive claim)

I am a new member of the PTA and I am naive about what their mission and goals entail. Thus far, the local PTA has listened to my concern but they would rather defer to the principal for a response and possible action.

I do not believe it is solely the responsibility of the principal or the school administrator to take action. Parents and their selected representatives need to participate in the discussion and implementation of philosophy in the school place.

The way a child's wisdom and compassion is exercised is generally unchallenged at home. They enjoy playing and pretending in different worlds and possibilities without too much interference. If there are multiple children in the house, their wisdom and compassion are in practice by playing and expressing their views of the world to each other.  When they share feelings, concepts or stories with parents, they are often granted the freedom to express themselves without too much challenge. Entertainment, such as watching TV, reading, listening to music, or simply observing the world unfold, is subject to their own criteria of interpretation and judgment. The way they view the world at home, for the most part is open for their own interpretation and relationship.

Children engage the world through a process of reaching-out and bringing-in things of the world.  They formulate and create imaginary worlds.  They play with new objects and determine their place and value.  They reach-away, engaging the world but not necessarily accepting anything.  They concoct, amalgamate, construct, and destroy—play—with the things, feelings, notions, and other beings that they engage with without a definitive determination of what these things stand for, what they mean, or what system they belong in. 

Slowly, this process gets challenged by society’s need to “educate” children.  Parents, understanding the child’s unavoidable (as it may seem) educational fate, prepare the skill sets necessary for learning. Preschools and kindergarten focus on altering the behavior of children from a mode of play to a mode of learning.  Educators introduce the particular way that children will acquire new information.  They instruct (discipline?) how a child will learn and what they are going to learn.[1]  Children arrive to a learning institution and are confronted with determined paradigms and established "realities," and new rules on how to observe and view the world.

This confrontation may or may not challenge the way they engage the world.  Many factors are involved and I am not in a position to assert.  However, I am able to show that this confrontation is drastic.  From having the ability to play, create, and manage the things of their world, children are now engaging in a system that only allows information to be received and not inter-manipulated.  Creativity is limited to particular given things.  Play is limited to given times, ways, and spaces.  Imagination is reduced to a “fake” state-of-being.  This drastic engagement may greatly increase the chances that the way they comport to the world will be altered in schools.

One can argue that the way they engage the world needs to be altered so that they can survive in society.  I disagree with that claim for reasons that I hope the entirety of this blog and my entire opus can explain.  It will be sufficient here to claim that if our attributes of compassion and wisdom continue to be healthy from childhood, society and the world would benefit.  Altering this mature function of our being only increases our suffering.

The interaction between a child's established mental capacities and the way material is being introduced falls delicately between school activities and the home life.

What is dreadfully important to note is that this confrontation usually falls between the cracks: It is not attended by the educators who worry primarily about pushing the established curriculum through their itinerary and strengthening particular skills that children develop; and parents often overlook the clash because of neglect or the need to get positive results from their child’s learning.  Children’s established capacity to be wise and compassionate may be getting tainted, and neither the parents nor the educators seem to be in a position to make the appropriate harkening.

A liaison between the home life and the life of school would be beneficial.  Such a liaison would encourage parents, teachers, and administrators to cooperate in sharing how children’s wisdom and compassion are practiced at home and how it is engaged at school so that we can continue to allow their mindset without too much interference.

As I present above, school’s operations will face the exercise of a child’s philosophizing.  This unavoidable reality does not necessarily have to hinder their compassion and wisdom.  Wisdom and compassion can flourish in a school place if the child is allowed to develop, in his own terms, his or her world.  What is needed is active co-creation—a way that children can use their compassion and wisdom to figure out how they will deal with the material that is being presented at schools.  What is needed is someone to relay those particular nuances to the educators and the parents.  I do not see why the PTA cannot find a way to be such a facilitator.  I do not see why, these liaisons cannot be trained and educated on the elements of compassion and wisdom in children.

For a very simplistic example, in the next PTA meeting, a liaison would ask parents if their child is asking questions.  They would inquire about how the question is asked, its content, and the way it is being addressed.  The liaison in turn would discuss whether the parent is approaching the questions and answers in a way that would fortify that child’s wisdom and compassion.  Also, the liaison would address the educator and inform them on the nuances of that child’s curiosities, explaining to the educators how they can continue what they discussed at home.

This is a mere suggestion and I am certain not a well polished one.  As I investigate the responsibilities, missions, and goals of the PTA, from the national, state, and district branches, I will report and determine whether they can or cannot play a role in implementing philosophy in the school place.  Perhaps they may provide much more organized and refined suggestions.

(To be continued)

---

[1] I do not intend to present teachers and educators in negative light.  Most of them deeply care for children and do an exceptional job in education.  I am simply pointing-out what they are trained to do with no mal intention on their part.  If society requires them to teach in a certain way so that children gain the required knowledge to help society, then that is their job and an honorable one at that.

Video on Philosophy for Children

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x5wuHRyHez0

Philosophy, Education, and Our Children

(This is the first part of my introduction, I was advised to add it as a post)

Philosophy is widely known and understood as “the love of wisdom.”  The general populace would argue that such a love of wisdom is too much for the everyday “grind.”  Philosophy is viewed as a practice studied by fanatics of abstract or theoretical concepts that conventions passed them by long ago.  For most people, philosophy is like a troll on a bridge not often crossed.

There are many reasons philosophy is set aside as an inferior priority in one’s life.  One possible explanation is that it seems as if “the love of wisdom” is understood as “the adoration expressed as study and analysis of wisdom.”  Many people think that when one loves wisdom, one admires wisdom, examines wisdom, and fastidiously studies wisdom’s history, relevance, and its most accomplished participants.  I would like to present an alternate perspective of philosophy. 

We are driven most of our life by two major forces: Love and Wisdom.  These two forces are understood in broad ways.  Love is generally understood as a desire or state of deep affection.  Wisdom is commonly known as the collection of knowledge that enables effective judgments and actions.

One element of love that is often overlooked is the feeling of sympathy for the welfare of others—compassion.  Compassion is an integral affection that drives us to alleviate the suffering of others.  In order for one to be compassionate, one needs to understand the circumstances of others, requiring one to reach-out and invite-in for understanding.  It is imperative for those who wish to alleviate the suffering of others, to understand the reality of others.

The common understanding of wisdom is slightly skewed because of its emphasis on the acquisition of knowledge to make efficient and effective decisions and actions.  Wisdom, as understood in some of the oldest philosophical traditions of the world—the Greek and Chinese, is an active process that examines the dynamic nature of reality in the present time to act accordingly.  Socrates never assumed that he has gained any degree of knowledge that can assist him in his drive for wisdom.  The Chinese sages Laozi (Lao Tzu) and Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu) asserted that any determination of reality is an illusion that hinders the mental process of wu-wei (non-forced action) and ziran (spontaneity).  To be wise, one needs to understand the present reality as it unfolds, without any preconceived dogmas that might hinder comprehension.  This means that wisdom ultimately requires one to be active in the co-creation of reality.  To be wise, one changes others and others also affect oneself.  Wisdom is an aptitude that allows an exchange amongst people that, through clarity and expression, ultimately develops a refined worldview.

As such, instead of defining philosophy as "the love of wisdom," I present an alternative definition: philosophy="compassionate wisdom."This alternate perspective into the meaning of philosophy presents philosophy not as an archaic practice to examine past knowledge, concepts, theories, and personages, but as a fresh and active mental exercise spearheaded by the elements of compassion and wisdom.  Therefore, “compassionate wisdom” and “philosophy” will be used interchangeably, using the former more frequently than the latter.

Education or learning is a process of acquiring knowledge from society’s vault of collected information and experience.  Educational institutions prepare students, mainly young adults and children, to enter the general public with a set of refined skills that will benefit the whole of society and the individual.  Depending on the level of the student and society’s needs, various subjects will be covered.

I often find myself in a quandary.  I ask myself, “Why is the subject of philosophy not taught in lower level schools?”  Then, I challenge that thought by thinking, “Compassionate wisdom is not the acquisition of knowledge so philosophy does not belong in educational institutions.”  I persist with my dilemma by adding, “Yet, students/children spend so much time in school, where else can they develop their worldview and continue their wisdom?”

The reality is that we prepare our children to fulfill the needs of society through our educational institutions.  These institutions require an enormous amount of time to educate and prepare students to enter society.  Our children spend a large amount of their development being a student at a school.  The remaining time should be dedicated by family members or intimate relationships to develop their sense of compassion and wisdom.  Yet, the time spent with family et. al is usually dedicated to rest, homework, and superficial distractions.  It is one of the greatest ironies and tragedies that the time we spend with our children is not sufficiently spent on honing their ability of compassion and wisdom.  It would be an added travesty to allow our educational institution to neglect or interject on children’s capacity to be wise and compassionate.

Many ancient philosophers all over the world professed that the wisdom of children should not be taken for granted.  In fact, many of them believed that to be wise one would see reality with the eyes and behavior of a child at play.  Generally, we believe that children need to be taught how to be wise and how to be compassionate.  We believe that we need to educate children in all aspects of the human condition, including love, compassion, and wisdom.  Recently, there has been added focus from psychologist, neuroscientists, and philosophers in the mental capacities of children.  Findings are showing that children—infants on up—have well established mental capacities.  Some philosophers and scientists proclaim what the ancient philosophers knew all along: Children have well established mental capacities of wisdom and compassion.

If children have a mature facility of wisdom and compassion, what happens when that facility faces the demands of educational institutions?  How is this confrontation and interaction handled by parents and educators?  How are the children dealing with these challenges?

Journal Entry on Observations in September

Journal Entry:  My son is undergoing a project where he needs to present to the class his favorite bear.  This project encourages students to speak in class and share their thoughts.  Although I like the fact that children are encouraged to speak in class, I am not too fond of forcing kids to pick a favorite.  There are many situations where educators ask the student to share what their favorite something or other is.  I wonder why it is necessary to ask such a question.  I fear that as one asks a child to pick a favorite, one is forcing a child to select and defend a whimsical fancy that now has a potential to be fomented as an integral part of the child's being.  Why do we encourage children to narrow their realm of possibilities to get behind a "favorite?"

Larger Essay on this Topic is in Progress.  (See Future Posts Page)

Journal Entry of August Observation

Journal Entry:  I noticed that at my son's kindergarten, children are not encouraged to ask questions.  When they raise their hands, the teacher fails to acknowledge their raised hand, or they say "not now."  Although I understand that there is a structure or a busy itinerary in the class that must be met for the students to excel, I wonder whether we should dedicate a small amount of time for the kids to ask questions.

Larger Essay on this Topic in Progress (See the Future Blogs Page)