Life-Enriching Education

by Marshall B Rosenberg

  I stressed the importance of the students making clear to the other students that the rule was Will’s suggestion (rather than one created unilaterally by the teachers or administration). I also stressed the importance of making clear that the intention was to protect the students who wanted to learn and not to punish the students who were not in a mood to learn.

  The students did a good job of making these two points clear to the other students and the plan worked beautifully bringing more order into the classroom. A room was designated as the “Do Nothing Room.” If a student is disrupting others, the teacher (and sometimes the students being disrupted) would ask the student to go to the “Do Nothing Room.” Actually there was plenty to do in the “Do Nothing Room” such as music for students to listen to, books to read, etc. We wanted to do everything we could to communicate that the intention of being sent to the room was not to punish.

  A lot of good communication happened in the “Do Nothing Room.” The students creating the disruptions in the classrooms were typically experiencing a good deal of inner distress that led to their disruptive behavior. The teacher was assigned to that room on the basis of his good listening skills, which were put to very good use.

  The first two weeks the rule was in effect the “Do Nothing Room” was packed with students. However, all of a sudden there were fewer and fewer students whose behavior led to their being requested to go to the “Do Nothing Room.”

  Often, when I tell this story and I get to the part about the rattan, I hear: “Well of course, because that shows you, kids want to be punished when they do something wrong. That’s how they know you care for them.” I understand how people might believe this, when they see only two choices: order or chaos. Anarchy, no order whatsoever, is pretty scary, and if kids think their choices are permissiveness, the result of which is anarchy, or punishment and therefore order, my experience has been that even the student who is going to be hit the most would prefer the rattan to chaos. But fortunately, there is a third choice, mutually established rules.

  When rules are established by the people who are going to be affected by them, not handed down unilaterally by some authority, and everyone sees that the intention is to protect, not to punish, these rules are more likely to be respected. This is true regardless of peoples’ ages. Look how many of us adults speed on the highway.

  Mediation

  If participants in a classroom conflict are lacking the communication skills necessary to resolve the conflict, third parties can be enlisted as mediators. For example, in an Israeli school practicing the Life-Enriching principles outlined in this book, I observed two ten-year-old boys requesting a “peacemaker” (the name for mediators in the school). They had had a fight on the playground, weren’t doing so well resolving it themselves, and so they chose to seek a peacemaker.

  The peacemaker on duty that day was an eleven-year-old boy. When everyone was seated the peacemaker requested of the first boy: Observation?

  The first boy knew that this was a request for an observation about what behavior was not in harmony with his needs. He responded, “He pushed me down on the playground for no good reason.” The peacemaker called to the boy’s attention that “for no good reason” was an evaluation and not an observation. The boy corrected himself saying, “He pushed me down on the playground.”

  Peacemaker: Feelings?

  Boy 1: I feel hurt.

  Peacemaker: Needs?

  Boy 1: I need to be treated with respect.

  Peacemaker: Requests?

  Boy 1: I want him to tell me what his reasons were for pushing me down.

  The peacemaker then turned to the second boy and asked him to repeat the observations, feelings, needs, and requests that the first boy had expressed. He did so quite easily. Had he not done so, the peacemaker was trained to help him reflect back accurately what the first boy had said. Then the peacemaker asked the first boy if he felt understood and he indicated that he did.

  Then the peacemaker turned to the second boy asking him to clarify his observations, feelings, needs, and requests and then asked the first boy to reflect back what had been said. Once both boys had been understood by the other, the peacemaker asked the boys whether they saw a way of getting everyone’s needs met. It took only a few minutes of problem solving until they found a mutually satisfying solution.

  Then the peacemaker asked how both felt and the first boy answered: “I feel good. He was my friend before this happened and I would hate to lose him as a friend.” At this point the two boys and the peacemaker returned to their classes.

  NVC in Education

  “You’re Dead”

  A counselor at a high school facilitates a weekly NVC practice group for interested students. One of the students in this group, Kim, came to the counselor’s office one day in obvious distress. The counselor invited her to sit down and asked her what was going on. Kim said that Tess, another student at school (not in the NVC group), had just walked by Kim in the hallway and, looking straight at her, said, “You’re dead.” Kim said that she had had other tense interactions with Tess, but this one really scared her.

  Counselor: Wow, Kim … I see you’re shaking …

  Kim: (nodding her head and taking some deep breaths to calm down) Yeah … I’m scared. What if she really means it?

  Counselor: (listening empathically to what Kim’s feeling and wanting) You’re wondering what was going on inside Tess to say that? And you want to know if she’s really thinking about hurting you?

  Kim: She could. She’s got friends. And she sounded really mad.

  Counselor: (trying to get more clarification about the situation) I’m curious about what she was reacting to—do you know?

  Kim: She’s angry about something I said about her to some kids.

  Counselor: Uh huh …

  Kim: It’s true I said it … but she says stuff about me, too. Lots of stuff! (suddenly angry) She has no right to threaten my life!

  Counselor: (hearing Kim’s feeling beneath the anger) It’s really scary for you to hear that and think she might be serious?

  Kim: Yeah! I don’t want to get hurt!

  Counselor: Yeah… (now reflecting Kim’s need) you want to be safe.

  Kim: Yeah. I just want to live my life, come to school, not have to watch my back all the time.

  Counselor: Sounds like you’d like to feel safe enough so you can focus your attention on other things at school besides your safety … like schoolwork and friends and soccer … ?

  Kim: Yeah … This is a total waste of time. I don’t know how it got so out of control! I know I’m partly to blame because I do talk crap about her. I don’t know why I do that. It’s stupid.

  Counselor: (translating Kim’s judgment into feelings and needs) Sounds like you’re feeling regret about your part in this and would like to do some things differently in the future?

  Kim: Yeah. I really don’t want to gossip about people. It just hurts everybody. Tess talks crap behind my back and I hate it.

  Counselor: Sounds like you’re seeing how painful it is for everyone when people talk about one another in these ways?

  Kim: (nodding her head) Yeah. I really want it to stop

  Counselor: (noticing that Kim has relaxed now that she has received this much empathy, she expresses her own feelings and needs) Hearing you say that, I feel relieved and pretty excited, because I’m confident you can stop this conflict with Tess by choosing to do things differently—using your words to heal instead of to hurt. It begins, as you know, with a desire to connect. So I’m wondering if you’re ready to try and connect with Tess today? Or do you need more understanding first?

  Kim: (pausing a moment to check in with herself) I think I’m ready. I’m scared, though, to talk with her. I’d like you to be there.

  Counselor: I’d like to be there. I’d like to hear you tell her your feelings and what you want just like you told me. And I’m betting she needs some empathy first before she can really hear you. Are you up for conne
cting with her feelings and needs in this matter?

  Kim: I’d like to try.

  The counselor arranges for Tess and Kim to meet in her office later that day. Kim arrives first and is seated when Tess comes to the door and looks in. Tess glares at Kim, then walks in and sits on a chair that faces Kim, her shoulders slumped forward, her arms crossed in front of her, and her eyes fixed on the floor.

  Counselor: I’m glad you both could make it. I’m guessing you’re both a bit scared to be here right now, wondering how this is going to go? (looking at Tess) Tess, I’d like to first give you a little background. Earlier today Kim came to my office for some empathy, because she had a lot of feelings stirred up by what’s going on between you. After getting the empathy she wanted, she said she wanted to talk with you. She asked me to be here to help you both hear each other the way you want to be heard. To get to the deeper feelings and needs you each have. The way I do this is by helping translate anything that might sound like blame or criticism into present feelings and needs. How does this sound so far?

  Tess: (still looking down) OK.

  Counselor: Great. I’d like each of us to feel safe, so please, either one of you, speak up if at any time you’re not comfortable with what’s happening here. OK? (seeing them both nod their heads, she then turns to Kim) So, Kim, will you start by telling Tess what you’re feeling and what your needs are?

  Kim: OK. (looking at Tess) Tess … I’m feeling a little scared right now, but not as scared as I was today in the hall when you said “You’re dead.” I came to see Paula [the Counselor] because she helps me sort things out by listening to me. What I see now is I really want to stop the war between us.

  Counselor: (reminding Kim to make a present request after saying this much, to see how Tess is receiving her message) So, Kim, what would you like back from Tess right now in relation to what you just said?

  Kim: I guess I’d like to know how you feel when you hear me say this.

  Tess: (looking up for the first time, eyes fixed on Kim) What you said about me was a lie and now everyone believes it.

  [Note: Tess’s response did not answer Kim’s question about how she felt. Instead, Tess expressed her pain, making clear that what she needs right now is empathy.]

  Kim: (shifting from expressing to listening) Sounds like you’re angry about what I said. You want people to know the truth and not believe something bad about you that’s not true.

  Tess: Yeah. People are angry at me now, including my boyfriend, because of what you said.

  Kim: It’s awful when people close to you are mad at you. And frustrating when it’s about something that’s not true?

  Tess: Yeah. Why did you say that, anyway?

  Kim: (taking a couple of deep breaths to connect with herself) I wasn’t sure if it was true or not, what I said about you. And why I said it? I think I was just hurting bad because of things you said and the way we were with each other. When I said it, I just wanted to hurt you back. … You know what I mean?

  Tess: Yeah. I know how it feels to hurt and want to hurt back. It feels better … for a while.

  Kim: Yeah, I feel real sad about all the hurt for both of us. I wish I hadn’t said what I did … and other stuff I’ve said, too. I’d like to stop the fighting and see if we can get along.

  Tess: So what about the lies people believe about me?

  Kim: Would you like to talk about what we can do to clear them up?

  Tess: Yeah. You think we can really do that?

  Kim: (smiling now, with tears in her eyes) Yes. I really do.

  This dialogue demonstrates how a very “charged,” and possibly dangerous, situation can be defused in a relatively few exchanges of empathy and honesty. The level of trust and connection that was created in this conversation between Kim and Tess is common in NVC dialogues, though the process may take longer and involve more exchanges in some situations. As can be seen here, the connection can be made even when only one of the participants in the dialogue is familiar with NVC.

  Avoiding Moralistic Judgments and Diagnoses

  The process of communication that empowers people to resolve conflicts so that everyone’s needs are met is hampered by teachers whom the Domination system has taught to make moralistic judgments and diagnoses about students. Moralistic judgments and diagnoses imply that something is wrong with students who aren’t learning or cooperating, or in some other way are failing to act in harmony with the needs of the teacher.

  I have noticed five types of diagnostic categories commonly used by teachers to explain the behavior of students in their classrooms who are not behaving as the teachers would like.

  Diagnostic Category 1: “Learning Disabled” or “Special Needs”

  I hear teachers using this diagnosis to describe students they interpret as unable to learn or who are not learning as rapidly as the teachers would like.

  Diagnostic Category 2: “Behavior Disordered”

  I hear teachers using this diagnosis to describe students they interpret as able to learn but lacking the motivation or self-control to learn. The implication is often that such a student has not been sufficiently disciplined at home, has “character” issues.

  Diagnostic Category 3: “Emotionally Disturbed”

  I hear teachers using this diagnosis to describe students they believe have the capacity to learn but who have emotional pathologies which keep them from learning, usually as a result of being in “dysfunctional families.”

  Diagnostic Category 4: “Culturally Disadvantaged”

  I hear teachers using this diagnosis to describe students who they believe have the intellectual capacity to learn but whose cultural experience has not sufficiently prepared them to perform in school.

  Diagnostic Category 5: “Hyperactive/Attention Deficit Disorder”

  I hear teachers using this diagnosis to describe students who have an abundance of energy and appear unable to concentrate on anything for an extended period of time.

  Other students are delivered to a classroom teacher already so labeled. Parents may send a child to kindergarten with Ritalin in his book bag, because he was labeled at preschool as ADD-ADHD.

  Anyone who goes through the schooling I went through comes to think there are such things as “special needs” students, and that there is such a thing as being good at math or not good at math, a poor reader or an excellent one. So many good students have a negative image of themselves that they are worried, do people think I’m stupid?

  When we have our consciousness so focused on what people might think of us, and what we think of ourselves if we make mistakes, then any kind of learning is frightening. That’s why about 15 percent of students follow the philosophy; you can’t fall out of bed if you sleep on the floor. Many of those we call underachievers are so fearful of not getting things right, they have decided it’s easier and safer not to do anything.

  I agree with Kenneth Clark when he suggests that such diagnostic categories frequently lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. “… once one organizes an educational system where children are placed in tracks or where certain judgments about their ability determine what is done for them or how much they are taught or not taught, the horror is that the results seem to justify the assumptions.

  The use of intelligence test scores to brand children for life, to determine education based upon tracks and homogeneous groupings of children impose on our public school system an intolerable and undemocratic social hierarchy, and defeat the initial purposes of public education. They induce and perpetuate the very pathology that they claim to remedy. Children who are treated as if they are uneducable almost invariably become uneducable. … Many children are now systematically categorized, classified in groups, labeled slow learners, trainables, untrainables, Track A, Track B, the ‘Pussycats,’ the ‘Bunnies,’ etc. But it all adds up to the fact that they are not being taught, and not being taught, they fail.” Clark (Dark Ghetto, 1965, p. 128)

  I find that teachers do not feel encouraged to see
possibilities for developing their own constructive actions when such diagnoses are made. In fact, another of the dangers I perceive in such diagnoses is the unspoken assumption that the teacher, to protect herself from overwhelm, should “pass the buck” to others. For example, when students have been labeled as “learning disabled,” a frequent implication is that they need to be referred to a special education teacher who is better prepared to deal with such students.

  When students have been labeled as “emotionally disturbed,” a frequent implication is that they need to be referred to a social worker, psychologist, or psychiatrist whose job it is to help them with their problems so that they can return to the classroom free to learn. If teachers received the classroom support they needed from a system that valued such efforts, they could be empowered to create a positive learning environment to accommodate students with a diversity of needs.

  The Protective Use of Force

  When teachers and students are able to empathically connect with one another’s feelings and needs in a conflict situation, a resolution can usually be reached in which the needs of both parties are fulfilled, or at least the parties can agree in goodwill to disagree.

  However, in some situations the opportunity to engage in such dialogue does not exist, and the use of force may be necessary to protect life or individual rights. For instance, a teacher may want to talk with students about something the students are doing which could be injurious to themselves or others, but the students are unwilling to talk. Or perhaps the threat of injury to people or property is immediate, and there is not time to communicate. In these situations, the teacher may choose to resort to force. If so, it is important that the teacher knows the difference between the protective and the punitive use of force.