NEGOTIATING SCHOOL CONFLICT TO PREVENT STUDENT DELINQUENCY (FROM SCHOOL CRIME AND DISRUPTION, 1978, BY ERNST WENK AND NORA HARLOW - SEE NCJ-51386)

• NCJ Number: 51395
• Author(s): J DECECCO; J ROBERTS
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 9 pages
• Corporate Author: Responsible Action
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THE PRINCIPLES OF A NEGOTIATION MODEL FOR CONFRONTING SCHOOL CONFLICT ARE PRESENTED AS THE MOST EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE FOR PREVENTING INEVITABLE CONFLICT FROM EVOLVING INTO DELINQUENCY.

Abstract

AVOIDANCE AND FORCE ARE SEEN AS THE PREVALENT WAYS SCHOOL STAFF DEAL WITH PROBLEM BEHAVIOR OF STUDENTS. AVOIDANCE IGNORES THE BEHAVIOR, HOPING THAT IT WILL STOP WITHOUT INTERVENTION OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THIS HOPE IS SELDOM REALIZED, BECAUSE THE REASONS FOR THE DEVIANT BEHAVIOR ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AND RESOLVED. FORCE ATTEMPTS TO INTIMIDATE STUDENTS INTO THE PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR DESIRED BY SCHOOL STAFF, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION FOR THE PERSPECTIVES OR FEELINGS OF THE STUDENTS INVOLVED IN PARTICULAR CONFLICTS. INTIMIDATING TREATMENT IS BELIEVED TO NURTURE HOSTILITY THAT WILL LEAD TO OVERT AND COVERT REBELLIOUS BEHAVIOR, TENDING TOWARD PATTERNS OF DELINQUENCY AD THE CREATION OF A DEVIANT STUDENT SUBCULTURE. CONFLICT WITHIN SCHOOLS IS VIEWED AS INEVITABLE DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE SOCIAL DYNAMICS INVOLVED IN THE INTERACTION BETWEEN STUDENTS OF DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS AND BETWEEN ADOLESCENTS AND ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT AGENDAS OF NEEDS AND GOALS. SPECIFIC SOURCES OF CONFLICT ARE IDENTIFIED AND BRIEFLY DISCUSSED. A NEGOTIATION MODEL IS PROPOSED AS THE MOST SATISFACTORY WAY OF DEALING WITH SUCH CONFLICTS. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MODEL ARE AS FOLLOWS: (1) BOTH PARTIES IN A CONFLICT SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DIRECT VERBAL EXPRESSION OF ANGER OVER THE ISSUE; (2) BOTH PARTIES SHOULD ANALYZE THE CONFLICT IN TERMS OF THE ISSUES AS STATED BY EACH PARTY AND POSSIBLE OR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF EACH PARTY'S CIVIL LIBERTIES; (3) BOTH PARTIES SHOULD AGREE TO COMMON STATEMENTS OF THE ISSUES; (4) BOTH PARTIES SHOULD AGREE TO GAINS AND CONCESSIONS FOR EACH SIDE; (5) BOTH PARTIES SHOULD AGREE TO THE ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILTIES FOR IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENTS; AND (6) BOTH PARTIES SHOULD AGREE TO THE CONDITIONS FOR EVALUATING IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENTS. AN EXAMPLE OF THE NEGOTIATING PRINCIPLES IN ACTION IS DESCRIBED. (RCB)