School shootings have been on the rise and are more prevalent than ever before. “In less than 18 years, we have already seen more deaths related to school shootings than in the whole 20th century. One alarming trend is that the overwhelming majority of 21st-century shooters were adolescents, suggesting that it is now easier for them to access guns, and that they more frequently suffer from mental health issues or limited conflict resolution skills,”. (Katsiyannis et al., 2018) This leaves us wondering, why did they shoot, could they have been stopped, and what can we do to prevent future shootings? We are not working effectively if we only respond to violence reactively, we must take a proactive stance to combat violence in our schools.
A school shooting is an attack at an educational institution, such as a school or university, involving the use of a firearm(s). (Vossekuil et al., 2004) School shootings in America date all the way back to the 1840s, John A. G. Davis, a law professor at the University of Virginia was shot and killed by a student. (Haggard and the Dictionary of Virginia Biography, 2016) In 1999, 2 students at Columbine High School killed 12 students and 1 teacher before committing suicide. (Cullen, 2010). In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho, a student at Virginia Tech shot and killed 32 students and faculty members before committing suicide. (Webber, 2017) In 2012, Adam Lanza killed 26 people and himself, 20 of those killed were 1st graders at Sandy Hook Elementary. (Finley, 2014) In 2018, a former student shot and killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. (Falkowski & Garner, 2018) These are just a few of the multitudes of shootings that have occured on school campuses in America over the years.
Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject
Order now
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 75% of shootings were motivated by bullying/persecution/threatened, 34% were in attempt to solve a problem and 27% were motivated by suicide or desperation. They also report statistics on the attackers, 95% of attackers were current students, 93% of attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the attack that caused others to be concerned and 68% acquired the weapon used from their own home or that of a relative. School shootings have sparked a debate over gun violence, zero tolerance policies and gun control. CNN has reported that the US has had 57 times as many school shootings as the other major industrialized nations combined, an average of 1 a week in 2018 alone. There have been at least 288 school shootings since January 1, 2009. This alarming rate causes us to take a closer look at what makes school shootings such an issue in America. According to research, shooting massacres in English-speaking countries occur closer together in time. (Towers et al., 2015)
The results from a study done by the Department of Education notes that, when profiling the perpetrators, it is important to note that making a singular profile is difficult because they came from varying backgrounds. Family dysfunction is an important factor of school shootings among social scientists. Harvard sociologist, Robert J. Sampson wrote, “Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor of variations in urban violence across cities in the U.S.A.” Social scientist Bradford Wilcox also observed nearly all “involved a young man whose parents divorced or never married in the first place.” School bullying is common in schools and also seems to play a role in the lives of many of the school shooters. (Lanata, 2003) 75% of school shooters had been bullied or left behind evidence of having been victims of bullying. (Oliver, 2015)
According to the Washington post, school shootings are considered to be “uniquely an American crisis” due to the availability in firearms in the United States. The Washington post also reports that the United States Federal Government does not track school shootings and that addressing school shootings have been difficult since the passage of the Dickey Amendment in 1996, which mandated that no Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds “may be used to advocate or promote gun control” which halted almost all study of gun violence. In 2013, President Barack Obama directed the CDC to research gun violence. While the Amendment still remains, a report accompanying the Omnibus spending bill clarifies that the CDC can conduct research into gun violence, it was signed into law by President Donald Trump in 2018. But public health experts and former CDC officials say that, unless Congress actually appropriates money for that research, no progress will be made. (Weixel, 2018)
One solution that has been suggested at a federal and state level is stricter gun laws, these laws have sparked debate from both parties on what laws should actually be passed. The Red flag law – also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) or Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs) – enable law enforcement, and sometimes family members and other concerned parties, to petition a judge to remove guns from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. 13 States have enacted the Red Flag law; California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Several other states have proposed the same law but failed. (Campbell & Yablon, 2018)
The Times reports that in 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the STOP School Violence Act, the bill reauthorizes a Justice Department program focused on stopping school threats. It provides $50 million per year to: create and operate an “anonymous reporting systems for threats of school violence, including mobile telephone applications, hotlines, and internet websites”, implement improvements to school security infrastructure, develop student, teacher and law enforcement training to prevent violence. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who voted for the bill, said in a statement that, “It should be unacceptable to all of us that we must take steps to train staff and students to protect themselves against these types of incidents, instead of spending more money on actually educating our young people”.
So what can we do at a school level to educate our students and keep our students safe? Schools can implement different schoolwide programs and tiered interventions to combat and prevent school violence. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2 of the highest motivators for school shootings are bullying and attempts to solve a problem. At a school level we can implement a different curriculums to combat those 2 issues. Research shows that social skills are commonly lacking in people prone to violent and aggressive behavior, including poor impulse control, problem-solving, and anger management (Committee for Children, 1997, p.1). Victims and bystanders of aggressive and angry students often lack assertive communications skills, as well (Marano, 1995). Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation (CRPM) program research shows that programs which address these issues not only reduce aggression and violence in communities and their schools, but also provide “life-long decision making skills” (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1997, p. 55), and enhance the self-esteem of students.
These programs are student centered and can reduce teacher stress and increase instruction time. Such programs also give students multiple opportunities to be responsible for their own actions at a critical developmental period. Through conflict resolution training, students can better understand the dynamics of conflict and become better equipped to deal constructively with interpersonal conflicts, and use appropriate skills in handling their shared problems (Burrell, Zirbell, Allen, 2003). According to Stevahn and Johnson (1997) students learn to negotiate constructive resolutions to their conflicts through conflict-resolution training. They define negotiation as a process by which people who have both shared and opposed interests and wish to come to an agreement attempt to work out a settlement.
Although students are naturally socialized through conflicts and interpersonal exchange, without a CRPM program in place, many school-aged students develop ineffective and destructive conflict resolution strategies. (Johnson & Johnson, 1994) In addition, Johnson et. al. (1992) also claim that most students are not equipped with skills or knowledge about how to resolve conflicts or how to manage their feelings in conflict situations, and mismanagement of interpersonal conflicts usually results in violence. Because some children believe that physical force is the way to resolve conflicts, and others use such procedures as verbal attack, the cold shoulder, giving in, getting even, or responding in kind. This general lack of knowledge and skills is problematic for the quality of school life and forecasts future adult problems (Johnson & Johnson, 1994). Managing conflicts constructively is one of the most important competencies that children, adolescents, and young adults need to master as part of their schooling (Stevahn Johnson, Johnson & Schultz 1997).
Jones (2004), supports this view and reports that exposure to CRPM reduces personal conflict and increases the tendency to help others with their conflicts, decreases aggressiveness, increases prosocial values, and increases perspective taking and conflict resolution competence. There are various research studies on the effectiveness of CRPM training programs that exist worldwide (Savage & Rehfuss, 2007; Smith et. al., 2002; Johnson & Johnson, 2001; Bell et. al., 2000; Johnson & Johnson, 1996, a;). A cumulative result in these studies was that 90-100% of the conflicts brought to peer mediators resulted in agreements accepted by both parties. A meta-analysis of peer mediation studies by Burrell, Zirbell, and Allen (2003) reveals that 93% of conflicts ended in agreement, which shows the success of mediation programs in the schools. The majority of the above studies report positive findings about the effects of peer mediation on student violence from western cultures.
School based programs aimed to reduce bullying have also shown effectiveness in reducing bullying among school aged children. Bullying is a subtype of aggressive behavior characterized by the intent to harm, repetition of attacks, and abuse of power over a weaker victim. (Olweus 1991) Bullying can also be indirect in the form of exclusion or gossip. (Crick and Bigbee 1998), cyber bullying can also occur by means such as email, cellular phones or social media. (Patchin & Hinduja 2006). Children who are victimized tend to display internalizing symptoms, including depression, anxiety, lower self-esteem, or social withdrawal (Nansel et al. 2001). Children who bully others are more susceptible to future problems of violence and delinquency. One study showed that adolescents who bullied others tended to view their partners as less equitable and reported higher rates of aggression in those relationships than non-bullies (Connolly et al. 2000).
Integrating bullying prevention into schoolwide positive behavioral intervention support (SWPBIS) has shown to be an effective way to combat school violence and aggression. SWPBIS is an alternative to the zero-tolerance policy, the zero-tolerance policy uses automatic expulsion to combat bullying but has not been proven to be effective. (Boccanfuso at al., 2011) Through direct instruction, positive reinforcement, and consistent consequences, SWPBIS teaches behavioral expectations and promotes acceptable social and classroom behaviors. A study done by Wassdorp et al. (2012) showed a significant interaction emerged between grade level of first exposure to SWPBIS and intervention status, suggesting that the effects of SWPBIS on rejection were strongest among children who were first exposed to SWPBIS at a younger age. The results indicated that SWPBIS has a significant effect on teachers’ reports of children’s involvement in bullying as victims and perpetrators.
Another factor that we should be focusing on is the mental health of our students. The general lack of knowledge surrounding mental health puts our youth a greater risk of threats like school shootings. A survey of 9,000 homes revealed that about 50% of all Americans will meet some sort of diagnostic criteria for a mental disorder at some point in their lifetime, with the age of onset typically occurring during childhood or adolescence (Kessler et al., 2005). Schools are not clinical settings and therefore, are not authorized to provide treatment services, however there are other services that school counselors/psychologists can provide. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires schools to provide special education placement and related services to students who are eligible.
Under IDEA, emotional disturbance is condition in which a child exhibits one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child’s educational performance: an inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors, an inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers, inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances, a general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression, and a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems (2004).
School-based mental health promotion programs have been implemented using different approaches. Indicated programs are implemented to help children who are already manifesting signs of mental health problems, targeted programs aim to improve the mental health of children at increased risk of mental health problems, and universal programs aim to improve the mental health of the whole population of children. (Wells et al., 2003) School counselors/psychologist can also facilitate individual or group counseling to address bullying, grief and loss, anger management, depression, poor problem-solving skills and low self-esteem, which a high percentage of perpetrators have struggled with. The goal is to provide students with the tools that they need to deal with their emotions in a more constructive manner (Vossekuil et al, 2002). Counseling can teach students to avoid internalizing their negative emotions and pain,which can later manifest in projecting and externalizing their inner conflict in an aggressive manner (Miller, 2014).
The statistics on the significant increase of gun violence within the school setting is staggering and alarming. Essentially, schools were created to be safe havens for students and staff, a place where everyone can feel protected and work in an environment that encourages learning. When acts of violence are committed, including school shootings, trust and security are compromised, leaving staff and students feeling traumatized and defeated. It is evident that school violence is progressing problem in America and that no one person or strategy can fix this issue, rather, it is a collective of adults advocating on the behalf of our youth to create new laws and implement a variety of interventions in and out of the school setting. It is not sufficient enough for us to take action after a tragedy has taken place, we need to be proactive about solutions to mitigate these acts of violence.
Immanuel Kant-The Greatest Thinker
Biography
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was considered by philosophers to have been one of the greatest thinkers of all time. Kant lived in remote province where he was born for his entire life. He was the fourth of nine children but the oldest surviving child to obtain an education. His parents were devoted followers of Pietistic branch of the Lutheran church, which taught that religion belongs to the inner life expressed in simplicity and obedience to moral law. From the age of eight to sixteen, Kant entered the Pietist school where his pastor directed. The influencer of the pastor made it possible for Kant to obtain an education. Similarly, like his mother, Kant throughout his life became highly respectful of the inner peace Pietists. (Verkamp, 2009) In 1740, at the age of sixteen, he enrolled in the University of Konigsberg’s school of theology as a theological student. Although, Kant attended courses in theology, and even preach on a few occasions, he spent his time devoted most of his early years studying science, mathematics and physics. The death of Kant father had a significant impact on his life. The failure to obtain the post of undertutor in one of the schools attached to the university compelled him to withdraw and seek a means of supporting himself It was during that time that he decided to pursue an academic career. (Verkamp, 2009).
Context
Immanuel Kant was considered one of the Enlightenment’s greatest philosopher. The Enlightenment began in Europe and was a part of the changes associated with the renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and the Protestant Reformation, all taking place between 1450 and 1750. The 1700s were sometime referred to as the “Age of Enlightenment”, because philosophical and political ideas were begun to seriously question the assumptions of absolute governments. The Enlightenment invited people to use their reason (Szalay, 2016). For instance, people can figure things out, and they can come up with better governments and societies.
Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject
Order now
At the end of the period, philosophers began to consider exactly what they meant by the term “enlightenment.” Immanuel Kant offered his definition in his essay” What is Enlightenment?” He responded by saying “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage”. Nonage is the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance. Many interpret nonage as “immaturity” (Szalay, 2016). According to Kant’s theory, “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.” He believed that immaturity is the hindrance in the way of a human life towards enlightenment. According to Kant’s theory man can overcome his immaturity. Other philosophers such as John Locke, Voltaire and Jean- Jacques Rousseau were part of the enlightenment. John Locke wrote that a ruler’s authority is based on the will of the people. He also spoke of a social contract that give subjects the right to overthrow the ruler if he ruled badly. On the other hand, Voltaire and Jean- Jacques Rousseau spread the new ideas to France, where they began uproar in a land that epitomized absolutism (New Political Ideas and Revolution, n.d.).
Kant’s was known for his notable works of “Critique of Practical Reason”, Critique of Judgment, Critique of Pure Reason”. Kant’s opinions on science changed and evolved over a period with both current scientific developments and his own philosophical development. His writings began with “Critique of Pure Reason” which addressed philosophical issues rather than science. Kant’s early writings addressed scientific questions directly. For instance, his “Universal History and Theory of the Heavens” set forth the nebular hypothesis of the origin of the solar system, which was later known as the Kant-Laplace hypothesis. In addition, his Latin “Physical Monadology” set forth an atomistic matter theory he later renounced in favor of the idea that matter was infinitely divisible and filled space. Kant also taught many scientific subjects, including physics (Burns, 2003).
In the 18th century, Immanuel Kant developed the Kantian ethics which had an impact on Christian theology. Kant taught that natural theology was an illusion, but that the voice of conscience would establish truth where reason could not. He felt that a sense of duty assures one that the idea of freedom is real, and since God is requires to establish justice and freedom, there must be another world in which he can redress the balance (McLeish, 1993).
Kantian ethics are based on three fundamental ideas:
• Moral principles are priori knowledge- one is not taught the difference between right and wrong. One knows instinct what is right. How one does what is right, the application of moral principles, may depend on experience and observation. For instance, in Kantian ethics it is wrong to lie, as conscience declares it is, then it is always wrong to lie even if someone will be injured if the truth is known.
• Kant stated, “Act to treat humanity both in your own person and that of every other man always as an end and never only as a means.” The high value set on every individual treating fellow human beings as ends in themselves meant no slavery, exploitation and the denial of human rights.
• The idea of the will of every rational being as universally legislating will- This is the pinnacle of the Protestant principle that each individual is responsible for making his or her own ethical decisions in the light of their conscience, and is little more than the restatement of the principle of universalism (McLeish, 1993).
Kant’s educational background may have had profound effect on his life. However, how much influence his Pietistic education had on Kant’s intellectual development is still debatable. Throughout his life he would remain highly respectful of the inner peace Pietists. The experience at the Collegium Fridericianum only served to trigger the resistance he would show for the rest of his life to any kind of servile, emotional form of religious practice. Although Kant wrote about the existence of God and personal immortality in his writings, there is reason to doubt how much credence he himself any longer put in such religious ideas. For he consistently declined participating in any kind of public prayer or worship service. Kant was confident to the end that he had fulfilled his duty and to that account he could only hope that any God that existed would still be with him. He had expressed no fear of dying (Verkamp, 2009).
Kant’s thought on religion was rationalists were wrong in thinking that reason alone can deliver innate knowledge of God’s existence and nature. He claimed that dogmatic empiricists were wrong in claiming that reality consists of nothing more than sensible phenomena (Verkamp, 2009). Kant’s claimed that we are by nature obliged to obey the categorical imperative of acting always as one would want everyone else to act and treating all one’s fellow human beings as ends in themselves, is to imply that we are free. He stated since the highest good is not, and cannot, ever be achieved in this life, we have good reason to hope that as humans we are immortal, and that there is holy, omniscient, and just God who will reward those who do their duty and punish those who do not (Verkamp, 2009). Kant asserted that religion was no more than the recognition of all our duties as divine commands. The moral law had no purpose beyond itself. He felt that there was no need of a personal savior, and a moral person had no need of prayer (McLeish, 1993).
Kant’s view on politics was posted as the first definitive article of an eternal peace that the “the civic constitution in every state should be republican, by which he meant a representative one. He believed that a state was not a dynastic patrimony, but a society of human beings, over whom only themselves had the right to order or dispose of. Kant also believed that citizens should have the right to make decisions on war, given the effect it would have upon citizens. Furthermore, Kant believed that the international law should have been best established in a federation of free states in which he believed would have been broaden out eventually (Mansergh, 2004). That would of involve loss of a lawless freedom or sovereignty, which would have been necessary to prevent war. He also believed that rulers should not be expected to be philosophers, as power would have inevitably polluted the free exercise of reason. He concluded by saying that rulers should not silence or object the class of philosophers, but to allowed them to speak openly. In addition, Kant recognized politically that while human wanted peace, nature wanted disagreement to make human beings work to resolve conflict (Mansergh, 2004).
Analysis
Kant’s was one of the most challenge philosopher to understand. The complexity of his prose made it difficult for many to understand. The philosopher idea was central around religion and Science. Kant attacked natural theology and the idea that God’s existence was demonstrable from science. His philosophy is often seen as clearly distinguishing between science and religion without subordinating either to the other. Kant’s views as a philosopher may have be seen as radical as many critics find his work very hard to understand. His critics regarding Issacs Newton and Leibniz dealt with the conflict between Newtonian absolute space and time and Leibnizian relational space and time.
Kant tried to reconcile by transcending both space and time, rather than compromising between the two. He did this by identifying both space and time as mental categories. Kant believed that there can only be one priori knowledge of the properties of space. That was the spatial properties of the world must be contributed by the knowing subject. Kant felt that the world as it is was not made up of objects arranged in space. He believed that world as it appeared to us was spatial and that was because space was nothing more that our way of representing the world to ourselves (Baggini & Stangroom, 2004). Kant’s own terminology was space and time was nothing more than a form of intuition or perception. He referred to space and time as features of the phenomenal world. That is the world as it appears to us only. The noumenal world was the world of things as they had appeared in themselves was a spatial and temporal (Baggini & Stangroom, 2004). While Kant believed that we had no theoretical knowledge of such things, he maintained that we can have a practical knowledge of them which he had considered to be free will. Although Kant may not have believed in the existence of things in themselves. He never denied the possibility existed, except he believed we have no means of knowing them as we perceived everything from a different angle.
Kant was one of the greatest thinkers of all time. Some may have found his theory very complexed and difficult to understand, while others may have found his theory very intriguing. Kant’s idea can be viewed differently from different perspective depending upon how we each see the world. Some of us have been grounded on a foundation of our belief such as religion and the nature of our faith. Some may tend to belief in a higher power, others may belief in scientific theory and the nature of its existence, while others may base their foundation on ethical principles that may guide us as we believe to be right or wrong. Since none of us know exactly what we should considered to be right or wrong, everyone deserves a chance to be heard. With that said, Kant’s theory or philosophical ideas may have been connected to us in some way or the other whether it’s for religion purposes, politics, scientific or teaching purposes. One of the things that was intriguing with Kant was the way he based his reasons.
To fully understand Kant philosophical teaching, one must first understand the problems he and other philosophers faces at that time. The meaning the philosopher idea may have upon us is that one must be willing to open our mind to different reasoning. For instance, Kant’s view on utilitarianism was that it judges actions by our consequences. He noted that if our action makes people happy, then it should be good but if it does the reverse then it should be bad. We would all think that to be common sense, but if consequences are all that matter, then a millionaire who donates one million dollars to charity just to impress his girlfriend should be better over the man that donates a day pay just because he wants to help the needy. So, a lot can be learned from Kant’s teaching such as having a moral obligation or a sense of duty or good will. In every case, one might encounter a situation in which good is not good after all. For instance, a person can be corrupted by wealth that this may cause them to abuse others or take advantages.
