Conflict Resolution Education in Teacher Education: The Most Important Step

CRE is also beneficial for teachers in desper­ate need of constructive conflict communities that enable them to concentrate on teaching and remain in the teaching profession. If that sounds overly dramatic, consider the follow­ing facts about teacher challenges and teacher attrition.

With these data, it is not surprising that many teachers are deciding to leave the teach­ing profession. In 2008-2009, about 8% of public school teachers and 16% of private school teachers left the teaching profession (Aud et al., 2011). As Graziano (2011) con­cludes, with an average 10% attrition each year, we have a crisis in the United States:

About 30 percent of new teachers flee the profession after just three years, and more than 45 percent leave after five... according to the National Education Association... the [annual] cost to school districts nationwide is staggering—an estimated $5.8 billion. (p. 1)

The bottom line, as Levine (2006) describes, is an annual shortage of about 200,000 teachers each year in the United States, with population shifts promising to worsen that shortage in the coming years (Carlson, 2007).

The increasing percentage of public school students identified as special-needs students, who require more intensive and specialized teaching support, exacerbates teachers’ stress. The attrition rate for special educators is actually greater than for general educators. McLeskey, Tyler, and Flippin (2004) reported that more than 13% of special education teachers leave the profession or transfer to general education classrooms each year. In a recent report, Griffin, Winn, Otis-Wilborn, and Kilgore (2003) identified a number of fac­tors contributing to the stresses of special edu­cation teachers in their first year of teaching, and lack of collaborative work environments, inability to handle conflicts with parents and other teachers, and overwhelming caseloads were among the most important reasons cited.

Teachers need to be equipped with the skills, either through teacher preparation programs or through targeted professional development, to effectively communicate, collaborate, and problem solve regarding decisions that directly affect the education of students (McLeskey & Waldron, 2002). Many CRE and SEL pro­grams exist for students, although they are often not well implemented due to lack of teacher training. The focus should be on sys­tematic provision of CRE instruction in pre­service and in-service teacher education.

New teachers complain that teacher edu­cation programs are not properly preparing them in classroom management. Leighfield and Trube (2005) completed a survey of fac­ulty in 2-year and 4-year teaching institutions in Ohio during Spring 2003 and reported that 89% report being completely or seri­ously underprepared in their teacher prepara­tion programs in the areas of CRE and SEL. Ninety-two percent of the respondents indi­cated that “it is important that teacher can­didates in my licensure area have knowledge and skills in conflict management” (p. 411).

Motivation to incorporate CRE and SEL is increased when state standards change. In Wisconsin, an applicant for a teaching license is required to demonstrate competency (as verified by a professional education pro­gram or school district supervisor) in resolv­ing conflicts and assisting pupils in learning methods of resolving conflicts.

On the policy front, a series of hopeful signs indicate that the U.S. government and state educational agencies are becoming more supportive of SEL and CRE. In the United States, the Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning Act of 2009 (House Resolution 4223) was introduced in December 2009. If passed, the bill will build teacher capac­ity to deliver conflict resolution skills in the classroom (Shaw, 2010). Several states, most notably New York and Illinois, have teach­ing standards for SEL (Barth, 2010). While these policy efforts continue to build, it is imperative that teacher education programs, especially in preservice teacher education, be developed and tested.

CRETE Program. CRETE is a national ini­tiative, funded by the U.S. Department of Education and private foundations (2004­2012), helping approximately 30 teacher education programs in higher education institutions educate preservice and in-service teachers in 12 states and the District of Columbia about CRE. CRETE curriculum and protocols were developed in 2004 to 2006; and from 2006 to 2012, CRETE was field-tested with more than 3,000 preservice and in-service teachers. CRETE content is the­oretically grounded in social climate theory, social cognition and perspective-taking theory (Selman, 1980), and emotional competence theory (Saarni, 1999).

CRETE introduces teachers to the entire field of CRE so they can think about how to develop their own conflict management skills, how to incorporate CRE into their classroom management and as part of their regular curriculum, and how to help build systems of programs in the school that create a con­structive learning community. CRETE materi­als and protocols incorporate best practices in teacher professional development (Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007) to develop their knowledge and skills in CRE/ SEL so they may transfer this learning to classroom practices and infuse CRE/SEL into teaching of core curricula.

CRETE uses training programs and/ or semester-long CRETE courses. CRETE Training is a 4-day, 28-hour training using active learning principles and emphasizing theory-to-practice skills development. The CRETE semester courses are offered at both graduate and undergraduate levels and include foundational theory and research, systems analysis, and skill development. Some col­leges have all of the teacher education majors taking a CRETE course the semester before they do student teaching so they can develop action plans for use during that time. Others infuse CRETE as a seminar structure during the student teaching semester, because being in the teaching environment helps students appreciate how critical CRETE content is to successful teaching.

CRETE instructional materials include a Blackboard website with reading, instruc­tional, and assessment materials; training programs; a clearinghouse website (www.creducation.org); and two searchable CDs with 1,200+ pages of field-tested CRE/SEL lessons. Pretest and posttest data in CRETE versus control groups revealed that CRETE increased teachers’ perceived ability to man­age conflicts, model conflict skills, and teach CRE/SEL skills (Jones, 2008). Preliminary research on CRETE suggests that CRETE and similar CRE teacher education efforts have strong potential to affect students’ social and emotional competencies and academic behav­ior, the building blocks of constructive conflict communities as discussed earlier.

CRETE increases teachers’ CRE infusion in class curricula and classroom practices. Evidence shows clearly that teachers are able to learn how to infuse CRE/SEL and achieve significant effects (Durlak et al., 2011).

CRETE has been adapted to work with teachers in some Caribbean countries, like Trinidad and Tobago, St. Lucia, and Belize. Components of CRETE have been used to provide teacher training in Turkish Cyprus, Thailand, and Costa Rica. The underly­ing CRETE framework was developed into an online course cosponsored by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Association for School Psychologists (www.creducation.org) and subsequently used as the basis for a teacher education initiative in Armenia. Many other global regions are embracing teacher education efforts. For example, in the Philippines, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed Executive Order 570, Institutionalization of Peace Education in Basic Education and Teacher Education, which provides the legislative framework to strengthen peace education in school cur­riculum through courses for teachers and preservice teachers (Shaw, 2010).

Summary

CRE and related fields provide programs that can help address the challenges of unsafe learn­ing environments and educational system dis­tress that currently prevents the development of constructive conflict communities domes­tically and globally. CRE includes valuable initiatives in SEL, multicultural education, and peace education. The research indicates that these programs improve student social and emotional competencies, increase prosocial behavior (including academic achievement), reduce aggression and violence, and increase tolerance and cultural sensitivity. Exemplar programs are discussed in SEL, mediation and negotiation curricula, bullying prevention, and restorative practices. However, to build better educational systems, it is critical that initia­tives in teacher education and global networks are given more attention. One initiative cur­rently focusing on teacher education (CRETE) is discussed as a model of future activity.

Research on CRE initiatives has contin­ued to expand and provide us with powerful insights about what makes these programs work and how to implement them most effec­tively. As indicated in this chapter, there are a number of truly impressive meta-analyses (Durlak et al., 2011; Payton et al., 2008) that attest to the social and academic importance of this work. But what additional research is important? Three areas of research are most critical at this juncture.

First, understanding the most effective ways to prepare teachers and administra­tors to teach CRE is essential. Programs like CRETE are moving in that direction, but there is too little research that specifically compares instructional and professional development approaches for teachers and how that work has an impact on what teachers are doing in the classroom and how that is affecting stu­dents and the community.

Second, CRE programs that build safer communities based on rights and responsibility— bullying prevention and restorative practices— are seriously understudied. Bullying prevention is an acknowledged need but the research demonstrating what works and why is sadly lacking, especially in the United States. There are no large-scale research studies of restorative justice programs in U.S. schools, although evi­dence from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand is encouraging. In both of these program areas, there is much to understand in terms of how to best develop empathy, how to create and support upstander/bystander com­munities, and how to address harassment that borders the school and community (e.g., cyber bullying).

Third, throughout this chapter, the refer­ence to community has been consistent. So it is appropriate that the chapter ends with a call for investigation of how best to involve par­ents, family, and community members in CRE efforts. What program designs work best in when and how community members become involved? What learning situations are most effective for developing conflict competencies in community members? How does commu­nity involvement affect the personal, social, and academic impacts for students, classes, and schools? These questions only begin to identify needs in this area. The hopeful mes­sage is that the field of CRE is mature enough to warrant these efforts. CRE works in helping build constructive conflict communities; the challenges for the next generation of educa­tors is to think in terms of systems change and development to make these programs a reality for all schools.