Many programs and punishments have been implemented as a way to reform perpetrators of domestic violence, as well as to help victims: we’ve placed abusive individuals in jail, sentenced them to mandatory anger management and couples therapy, and even evaluated them psychologically to find why they abuse. Although these tactics have proven beneficial for a handful, most of these perpetrators continue to abuse their partners. Moreover, 66 percent of the victims of domestic violence in 2008/2009 in the United Kingdom (UK), according to the British Crime Survey/CPS, were repeat victims.[1] It is apparent that the majority of violators and victims of domestic violence are not affected by any kind of current punishment or program. Perhaps a better way to approach the problem of domestic violence is to prevent it from occurring in the first place.
On November 25, 2009, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) published a story detailing one of their plans to prevent domestic violence in the UK. “Every school pupil in England is to be taught that domestic violence against women and girls is unacceptable.”[2] This is a government strategy aiming to lower the occurrence of violence that may potentially infect these pupils’ lives in the future. Under this plan, children will be taught from the age of five to prevent violent relationships. At this young age, it’s unlikely that any violent behavior they’ve engaged in is gender-specific, or has anything to do with power and control (which is noted as one of the main reasons people commit domestic violence in a previous blog, “Why They Abuse”). Rather, it more than likely has to do with a bully on the playground, or perhaps stems from a child being excluded from an activity, leaving them feeling alone and angry. Whatever the reason for playground violence, the faculty will be more equipped with the knowledge to teach their kids to prevent bullying and name-calling. These children will be taught to share and not to exclude anyone from any activity for any reason. The goal is to carry this behavior into their adult relationships. Of course, the instructors will be trained to appropriately teach the age-level student which occupies his/her classroom. “The appropriateness of what you do with someone who is five years old is totally different in terms of content and how you will be taught to someone who is 15 or 16.”[3]
This government strategy to prevent domestic violence makes as good of sense as any; the younger a child and the more frequent s/he is taught good morals and behavior, the more that behavior will be ingrained in his/her character. However, there are some critics to this strategy. Margaret Morrissey, of the Parents Outloud campaign group, argues that “this political correctness is turning our children into confused mini-adults from the age of five to nine.”[4] In her view, children should be taught to read and write instead of focusing on the things that should be taught by the child’s family. Anastasia de Waal, director of family and education at the think-tank Civitas, makes the same type of arguments. She believes that domestic violence is a huge problem and that something needs to be done to prevent it, but that the classroom is not the place to teach that. She points out that domestic violence is the product of dysfunctional families and poor educations. “There is a link between family dysfunction and domestic violence and the best way of tackling that is to make sure kids have a good education." Highly educated media figures have shown, however, that Waal’s belief is inaccurate. For example, New York State Senator Hiram Monserrate was charged with domestic violence in September, 2009.[5] Although he is an intelligent man, spent time in the military, the NYPD and the Senate, he lacked the tools to avoid violence with his companion. It’s impossible to say whether this would have happened had domestic violence prevention been part of the curriculum during his school tenure, but there is nothing negative that would have carried into his adult relationships as a result of these teachings.
Perhaps the only sound argument for keeping the prevention of domestic violence out of the curriculum comes from the standpoint of the teachers. They feel that they are being held responsible for solving all of society’s problems, but they just don’t have the resources to add anything else. John Dunford, head of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), argues that domestic violence is an important issue, but that the school curriculum is already overcrowded. "The curriculum is over-stuffed at the moment. Teachers are not able to focus on the things that make a difference. By adding another subject, you are in danger of over-burdening teachers.”[6]
The prevention of domestic violence is crucial for a long-term change. Although there are compelling arguments against bringing the issue into the public schools’ curriculum, it’s important to prepare children for their future relationships. A good education is vital for success, but so are good relationships. Children need to be taught that relationships should be based on equality and respect at a young age. They need to be taught about healthy relationships so they have the skills to develop their own in the future. Some children are lucky enough to get this lesson at home; not all are as fortunate.
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8376943.stm
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/nyregion/22monserrate.html
[6] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8378341.stm
No comments:
Post a Comment