During a recent episode of Shogun (a great remake…so far) Lady Mariko briefly explained to John Blackthorne the concept of the “eightfold fence,” a coping mechanism that the Japanese use for dealing with pain or hardship. By retreating inward into a “walled-off area” inside the self a person may withstand anything. It is a form of stoicism not unlike the British “stiff upper lip.” The morning after the episode I awoke to a story describing proposed changes to graduation ceremonies being weighed by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board which highlight a vastly different approach to hardship than that described in Shogun. If adopted, the proposals would replace graduation ceremonies with commencement ceremonies so that "students of all levels of achievement will be able to cross the stage with their peers." In case this inclusive language is too vague let me clarify, students would not need to pass in order to participate.
The “common sense” portion of my personality immediately thought “why would we be celebrating failure?” Of course, that is not the way that anyone who uses the term “inclusive” would think it. In fact, the OCDSB states that the policy reflects it’s “commitments to inclusivity, social responsibility, and authentic community engagement.” While “inclusivity” is usually associated with gender, race, or sexuality, in this case it is entirely about those failing to meet the standards of graduation. Similar efforts appear to be underway in the US with The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) stating that “only nine states have graduation tests in place for the high school class of 2024, down from a high of 27 that had or planned such tests.” While standardized tests in the US have a mixed reputation, much of the argument put forth by FairTest comes down to the dropout rate being higher when there aren’t alternative pathways to graduation for those who fail the tests. When put that way, the goal seems less about ensuring a standard of education and more about giving students a piece of paper and sparing anyone the “hurt” associated with failure.
Note: There also appears to be an effort to eliminate SAT requirements at many colleges however this appears to have less to do with student feelings than it does with the Supreme Court strike-down of affirmative action, which benefited blacks and Hispanics at the expense of Asian Americans. As the College Board sees it, “standardized tests and grades as “potential roadblocks” to furthering ‘diversity’ on college campuses.”
From a philosophical standpoint the prioritization of “feelings” over “standards” does raise an interesting question, what is the best approach for dealing with hardship? While I would not leap at the opportunity to live like a Japanese peasant during the 1600s, I do wonder if people at that time were more resilient than they are today and if shielding students, and people in general, from every possible harm is causing more problems than its solving.
As a child I remember running out of the house on weekends and summer holidays and disappearing for the day. Did my mother worry? I don’t know, but she didn’t stop us if she did. My kids did not have the same freedom and I doubt many children today do. In fact, stories exist of people reporting parents for letting their kids play in a park or ride the bus alone. The map below provides some indication of how much the “wandering range” of children has shrunken over the years:
This “shrinking” might lead one to assume that the world has become a more dangerous place but if anything, the world is much safer today than it was in the past. Crime and accident statistics show that children have never been safer.
Arguing that it is the restrictions on children that have driven these trends ignores the fact that crime has been falling across the board for decades.
The fact is that society as a whole is getting safer. Why then do we insist on shielding children from almost any possible “harm?” Part of the problem is perception. While violent crime has fallen the majority believe the opposite is true.
However, while misperceptions of crime rates might help explain the “shrinkage” of play ranges, they do not explain the push to shield children from emotional harms. Fear remains the likely culprit, but it is not fear of real or imaged physical harm, but fear of “emotional trauma” that is driving efforts to shield children from disappointments at school. To decipher this mystery, we must look elsewhere.
Few, if any of us live our lives free of fear. We worry about many things, our health, our finances, and our loved ones. Worry is a healthy response to concerning situations. Worry urges us to imagine what could go wrong and to put in place plans to avoid it or to deal with it should it occur. Worry, however, should be temporary and if it isn’t it becomes something harmful, it becomes anxiety. Anxiety is persistent, can compromise one’s ability to function, and is often focused on the unrealistic. In the extreme it is a mental health issue, and it is anxiety, not worry, that is driving parental responses to the largely imagined dangers of “emotional trauma.” Looking at the following chart tells us that anxiety is driven by age, gender, and political affiliation. To be specific, young people, women, and liberals have higher levels of anxiety.
“No harm” schooling, for lack of a better name requires the support of two groups, parents and teachers and an examination of the demographics would seem to lend credence to the theory that overprotection is being driven by adult anxiety.
In the United States 74.3% of all teachers are women and the average age is 42. While it is widely known that college professors are overwhelmingly liberal, data regarding public school teachers is more difficult to obtain. However, as 79% have a bachelor’s degree or higher and as college educated voters are almost twice as likely to vote Democrat than they are Republican, it is probably safe to say that teachers are likely more liberal than conservative. The age, gender, and political leanings of teachers appear to align with the highest levels of anxiety shown in the graphs above and would therefore support the theory that the anxiety of teachers is in play when it comes to “no harm” schooling. Can the same be said for parents?
At first look, the demographics of parents would seem likely to mirror that of the general public, about 50/50 male and female and 50/50 liberal and conservative and so we would expect an average level of anxiety rather than an elevated one. This, however, is an overly simplistic view. Conservatives do tend to have more children, so the split isn’t exactly 50/50 but they also tend to have children at a younger age, so the politics and age factors likely cancel each other out. However, the gender dynamics of parenting is not as clear cut as it may first appear. A Pew poll reveals that, with the exception of discipline, both sexes agree that mothers do the majority of the child care tasks, including scheduling and schoolwork.
What’s more, even when “in charge,” fathers tend to be less worried than mothers.
So, once again the data seems to support the theory that, just as in teaching, adult anxiety in parents is likely driving much of this “harm reduction” schooling.
Conclusion
Parents love their children. As sociologist Viviana Zelizer puts it, children have become “economically worthless but emotionally priceless” so it is little wonder that parents worry so much. But it can be easy to let worry become all consuming, for it to transform into anxiety. There is also evidence that overprotecting children harms rather than helps children and it is clear that the mental health of the young is getting worse.
Albert Einstein is reputed to have said that if he had an hour to save the world, he’d spend 55 minutes identifying the problem and 5 minutes solving it. While I am confident that I know what is causing the obsession with overprotecting kids, and that this overprotection is contributing to the youth mental health crisis, I am even more confident in saying that there is no easy solution. We cannot as a society wave a magic wand and fix the problem nor has telling someone not to worry ever been effective. That said, parents and teachers who support “no harm” schooling need to be made to understand that shielding children from failure does not prevent it but rather just pushes it into the future when the consequences will be more severe. Vince Lombardi once said that “winners never quit and quitters never win,” but in society’s pursuit of “equity” and “no harm” schooling, children are being taught that there’s no point in even trying.
I have two things to say about this: first, Paulo Freire ensured education in Brazil remained one of the worst in the world thanks to that kind of approach. When teachers are forbidden from pointing out mistakes so the students don't feel oppressed, we have people in college who don't even know how to write or speak properly, much less do anything more critical.
Second, I'm proof that overprotection is extremely harmful to a child. It took me years of my adult life to even begin walking with my own legs without questioning myself whether my mother would allow me. It's ridiculous, and I don't wish that life on anyone.
Will check out! Thank you