Christian’s Blog

Scenario I: Cops and Robbers

The ‘zero tolerance’ being used is an unfair punishment for most, but in saying that, we all need to realize that there is always going to be a situation that is not under anyone’s control.  I feel that ‘zero tolerance’ does not take into account students social, economical and racial differences. It applies severe penalties, without allowing for judgment or considering circumstances. In this scenario we are dealing with three students who are approximately five years old and having “fun”.  At this age Erikson feels children are in a stage of social development called, “initiative versus guilt” and in this stage they are adding onto their previous stage of “autonomy” with the “qualities of undertaking, planning, and attacking a task for the sake of being active and on the move” (Erikson, 1963, p.255).  This leads to the question, did these children know that playing ‘cops and robbers’ meant they were going to get in trouble or was it just that they were “being active and on the move” (Erikson, 1963, p.255)?  ‘Zero tolerance’ does not lend to the fact that children are children and that and they just need to be able to play and express themselves.  Piaget stated that children at this age were in a state called ‘moral realism’ and at this stage 5 and 6 year olds believe that rules about conduct and games are absolute and can’t be changed.” At this stage they believe that “the punishment should be determined by how much damage is done, not by the intention of the child or by other circumstances (Woolfolk, 2007, p.95).  In this situation the young boys are not ‘hurting’ anyone and are just playing, therefore if they are suspended from school for this under ‘zero tolerance’ these children more than likely will not understand why they are being suspended. In their eyes it is for possibly having fun and because they never had the intention to hurt anyone they did nothing wrong.  Now with this being said, if the school feels that playing ‘cops and robbers’ is inappropriate or there may be underling issues these boys should be called aside and have it explained to them that this is not appropriate play.  If need be the teacher could even ask why they like the game and explain how and why they play it, and depending on their answers, take further action as needed. This could be a parent conference; a meeting with a school counselor, or administrator, and from there a decision could be made on whether these students need to be suspended or whether it was truly just innocent play. I feel it is important to take this step in evaluating the boys because intervention at such an early age is important with the realization that if you accuse a child of doing something wrong and there was no intent, this could cause the children to feel guilty about playing and this can in effect make them feel that everything they do is wrong (Woolfolk, 2007, p.68). 

Dr. Flannery states that, “the majority of school-based violence prevention programs are in the middle schools of high schools, but there is ample evidence that intervening earlier in elementary school can have greater effects on both educational outcomes and risk behaviors (Flannery et al., 2008).   This leads me back to the fact that these children need to be taught why this is not appropriate play, not suspended just because that’s the one size fits all rule for intent for or simulation of violence.  At this stage in development they are not likely to ever believe that it was a fair decision and it may even cause more negative problems down the road. Intervention not suspension is what is needed.

Scenario II: Moral Dilemmas

When talking about moral dilemmas I first feel that a teacher needs to be careful about imposing judgment.  In the case of stealing, the students feel it is ok if they don’t get caught, but I guess my first thought is how many have actually stolen anything before and second what do they consider “stealing”.  In this setting the first thing I may do is ask a few questions, such as what do you consider stealing, I’m sure the answers we receive will vary depending on their own moral compass and what they have learned, seen or done. It is mentioned in the chapter that the “relationship between moral reasoning and moral behavior in not very strong, but that many other factors besides reasoning affect behavior (Woolfolk, 2007, p.101).  In this case the students may say it is ok because they are reasoning that they didn’t get caught so it’s not wrong or even reason it away as being ok because everyone else is saying it.  The real question is do they honestly believe it. 

It is said that children first learn their moral behavior from adults who care about them and that they are taught moral behavior through “direct instruction, supervision, rewards and punishments, and correction” and then they will internalize this information and this will in turn help them create or adopt their own standards.  So if these students have been taught that stealing is wrong, more than likely they will feel it’s wrong whether they are caught or not.  This could be a great learning opportunity for the teacher as well as the students. By posing the earlier question about “what do you consider stealing” you can learn a lot about your students which is good in getting to know them. You can take this conversation further as long as it seems that everyone is comfortable. This is a talk not a confession, and you are not there to pass judgment, but to teach, or at least try not to pass judgment. I would probably then ask the students; why they thought it was okay, a lot of the time you’ll find that those who don’t believe this tend to listen and not participate.  Once you have gotten a few answers, you can explain that stealing doesn’t have anything to do with getting caught or not, but with hurting another person. I can use the example of my wedding ring which was stolen this summer from my home and although this may not have hurt anyone else, it did hurt both my husband and me because it is a symbol of our love and commitment to each other. This also a good lesson in that stealing does not have to hurt someone because of its monetary value, but because of sentiment or other reasons they may not have considered.  You could then ask a few of the students what their favorite item is and how they would feel if someone stole it from them.  I’m not sure in this case I personally would change the way I handle this scenario regardless of their socioeconomic level because this scenario was based on assumption and hence the conversation that followed.  Stealing is wrong regardless, and although socioeconomic level could and often does play a part in learning, reasons for doing so can vary due to needs and wants. Stealing is simply not a morally or legally correct thing to do, and those values are learned.

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 21st, 2008 at 11:10 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.