The fear and concern that antisocial behaviour is on the increase within the society seems unequivocal and unanimous. For example, the perennial problems at the Boys Training Centre provide testimonies to that concern. What is not clear is the best or even the better solutions that are available to us.

Peter Greenwood and his colleagues at The Rand Corporation argue that most of the money and effort devoted to dealing with instances of antisocial behaviour are restricted to one approach - incarcerating persons who have already committed crimes. Greenwood compared the efficiency of other approaches that have been utilized in the American society to help students develop pro-social behaviour at school in particular and within the society in general. Alternative approaches included: Home visits by child-care professionals beginning before birth and extending through the first two years of childhood, followed by four years of day care; training for parents and therapy for families with young children who have shown aggressive behavior in school; four years of cash and other incentives to induce disadvantaged high school students to graduate; and monitoring and supervising high-school-age youths who have already exhibited delinquent behavior. For the record, he concluded that, “None of this suggests that incarceration is the wrong approach.” I find this a particularly chilling conclusion. I note however that his analysis placed particular emphasis on monetary consideration and did not pay attention to longevity of gains made, characteristics of persons who experienced the programmes and so on.

Various philosophical positions are used to explain the spate of crimes within the society. Some argue those human beings are inherently corrupt. Robert Lee accurately describes that view in the Mirror of May 9, 2003, “The Bible does not beat around the bush when it reveals the nature of man. He has a heart that is ‘deceitful and desperately wicked.’ The Lord Jesus Christ gave a catalogue of ‘evil things’ that emerge out of the heart of man. The Bible does not present a picture of man (or woman) as a nice guy, good by nature. Man is born a criminal, in need of deliverance, by God, from his evil nature.”

Humanists view human nature from a more wholesome perspective. Some of the major proponents of this view include Erasmus, Rousseau and Montessori. This perspective maintains that human beings are essentially good and that when left to their own device they are only capable of good deeds and intentions. Indeed the website for a group of Progressive Humanists proudly proclaims that, “The philosophy of humanism stresses the dignity and value of the individual, while rejecting the need to submit to the authority of some divine being or creator whose existence we can only postulate, not demonstrate. A basic premise of humanism is that people are rational beings who possess within themselves the capacity for truth and goodness.” Rousseau saw human beings as the ‘noble savages’ who were inherently good but made to be unhappy and corrupted by their experiences in society.

Fortunately, regardless of one’s position regarding the cause of anti-social behaviour, there is increasing hope that schools can serve as the foremost dyke against the tide of criminality that surges towards and threatens to destroy our 21st century civilization. Karen L. Campbell summarizes the current state as follows, “Among the manifold expectations placed on public schools, one in particular is that they serve as a place where children learn to interact with one another in a positive and supportive manner as they prepare for their roles as well-adjusted members of society. While few would argue about the importance of cultivating a caring school environment, there is some discrepancy around how such ideals ought to be advanced and about the ability of school-based initiatives to accomplish this lofty goal.”

As we seek to utilize our schools to improve our society we must be mindful that we court failure if we place total emphasis on single outcomes such as academic or vocational competence (the “credentialed” competencies) and dismiss the value of social and personal skills (“non-credentialed” competencies). We cannot afford to lose the essential insights of how competencies interact to result in positive outcomes. Clearly, it isn’t enough to teach the traditional three R’s—reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic. To adequately prepare students to succeed, we need to integrate the three emotional R’s—respect, responsibility, and relationships.

See Part II next week!