Image obtained from IMSI's Master Photos Collection, 1895 Francisco Blvd. East, San Rafael, CA 94901-5506, USA.

Using Technology as a Tool for Promoting Healthy Development in Middle School Students

Linda C. Greene and Charles F. Blackburn
North Carolina State University

NOTE: Be sure to read the Introduction to the Living Article before you continue.

"You say you want to bring about some kind of change in the schools. Start by putting a sign over the entrance of every school building that reads: "School May Be Harmful to Your Emotional and Social Well-Being. Enter at Your Own Risk. This School Does Not Assume Responsibility for Your Sense of Belonging or Your Sense of Place." (Quint, 1994, p. 10)

This commentary on our educational system by a young man who had dropped out of school was made in response to questions from a researcher investigating the needs of homeless students. His scathing assessment of the ways that schools routinely fail to meet the needs of students is disturbing. It is uncomfortable for those of us in education to hear such an indictment of our work. Unfortunately, if we are honest, we must recognize that there is some truth in this statement. Many of our schools have indeed become toxic environments for the souls of the students whom they purport to serve. With the current emphasis on accountability and measuring the success of our educational system in terms of scores on end-of-grade tests, how are we to account for the emotional and social well-being of the children entrusted to us?

There is no easy way to do this and there is certainly no way to quantify our success at developing emotionally stable, well-adjusted children. Unfortunately, too often it seems that the only time the public becomes aware that schools should be concerned with the emotional well-being of children is when something goes terribly wrong. Events such as the ones in Littleton, Colorado, Jonesboro, Arkansas, or Pearl, Mississippi, spark sudden public outrage that schools are not meeting the emotional needs of students. Simply hearing the names of these towns summons frightening images of teenagers gone wrong—teenagers who committed the most extreme forms of violence against their teachers and classmates in public schools. What went wrong? Why didn't anyone at the school do something to stop these boys before they killed? Why didn't someone at the school notice that something was wrong? Why did the teachers, counselors, and administrators fail to help these boys? How could they have let this happen? In the wake of tragedy, the public demands answers.

Although more than a year has passed since the tragedy at Columbine High School, no simple answers to the questions surrounding that event have emerged. While it is easy to second guess the actions (or lack of action) of the school personnel in Littleton, none of us knows for sure how we would have behaved had we been in their shoes. Obviously, there were many small failures that paved the way for the tragedy that occurred the day that these boys finally exploded. We can speculate about the various points in these boys' lives that an intervention on the part of school personnel might have taken them off of the path that led to their deaths and the deaths of their classmates.

As a result of these incidents and the fear that they have inspired, numerous explanations and potential solutions have been offered. Proposed solutions have ranged from so-called "zero-tolerance" policies to posting the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom. Others,  particularly as a result of the Columbine incident, have argued for banning video games or imposing other limits on students' access to technology. The fact that the students who committed the violence at Columbine were heavily involved in technology (playing video games, using the Internet, and making home videos) has been used by some as evidence that there is inherent danger when teenagers become interested in technology.  Following this line of reasoning, the solution must lie in limiting or banning students' access to technology.

While these actions may in some cases ameliorate the symptoms, the root of these problems will likely remain intact. These solutions ignore the internal realities of the students who commit the violent acts that demand our attention. They also ignore the internal realities of the students whose actions may be just as troubling but do not demand our attention. Are there students in our schools who are just as troubled as the young men who killed their classmates and teachers but who direct their violence toward themselves rather than toward others? What about the students who are victimized every day by words rather than bullets? What are we doing to protect them? Are their wounds of less concern simply because they are less visible?

As we begin to explore these questions and attempt to generate possible solutions in answer to these concerns, perhaps a shift in focus would be helpful. Rather than focusing on what we don't want students to do, a more useful approach might be to focus on what we do want students to do. In other words, how do we expect students to behave? How do we expect them to think about things? How do we expect them to go about making decisions and setting priorities? If we are to begin to answer these questions, we need an understanding of adolescent development and the age-appropriate developmental tasks during the middle school years. The field of development includes a number of specializations. We have provided a very brief synopsis of some developmental theories, focusing primarily on the developmental tasks involved in enhancing problem-solving abilities, self-reflection, and the capacity to take another's point of view. We hope that this brief introduction to developmental theory will stimulate further thought and discussion.