ATTENTION TERM PAPER WRITERS: The format you find here is slightly different from what I'm looking for from you. I don't have any of my actual term papers since they were written in the days of 5 inch floppy disks and who has those any more. So, take a look here for basic writing style and use of quotes.

4

On August 6, 1945 the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later, a second bomb of different design was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. Since those dates, no nuclear weapon has been used for combat. However, in the time between then and now the world has seen the development of the most destructive arsenals in history. Today there are over fifty thousand nuclear weapons in existence, mainly held by the United States and the Soviet Union. Leading theorists including Carl Sagan and Jonathon Schell have concluded that the detonation of but a fraction of these bombs would wreak almost irreparable damage to the world's ecosystem, quite possibly bringing an end to the human race. The threat of global annihilation hangs over us like a cloud.

Imagine for a moment that you are a child growing up in our nuclear world. Through the media you hear and see constant talk of missiles, bombs, and mushroom clouds. You hear about Trident subs and Star wars; a brand of gum and a movie? There is MX and MAD and Peacekeeper and Cruise missiles and a host of other names. You may not know just what exactly all these things are, but it is quite apparent that there is the potential for mass destruction. All of your family would be dead and you wouldn't have anyone to play with or any place to play.

These are fears that all of us, young and old, have. Most adults have developed elaborate denial systems in order to remain sane in this increasingly insane situation. Dr. George Albee, a noted psychologist and researcher, emphasized in the class "Perspectives on Peace and Nuclear War" that this type of denial is harmful to the human psyche. Children are unable to do this and to some kids the fears are very real. These fears can potentially have a detrimental effect on psychological development (this is outlined later, specifically in the study summary).

The broad issues that are being dealt with here are those of education and nuclear war. The combination of the two is done simply by combining them to form a question. The question is this: should we educate our children about the nuclear issue? The verdict is not completely in yet, but the majority of experts both in the field of education and in the field of psychology say yes. A number of organizations have made the spread of knowledge about nuclear issues, especially in schools, part of their goals. Parents and Teachers for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Educators for Social Responsibility are a few of the more prominent examples. The need for education of this type is quite obvious (see summary of studies further on in this work). The question now becomes: are schools educating about the nuclear issue? once again, the importance here is quite obvious. The purpose of the study is to investigate whether or not Vermont schools are touching on the subject. The topic has been further narrowed to involve only Vermont middle schools. Given all of the above, the hypothesis is as follows.

HYPOTHESIS: The curricula of Vermont middle schools are not adequately addressing the issue of nuclear war.

The key word of the whole statement is adequate. In what context is it being used. The notion of adequacy in this research is based upon two criteria. The first is whether or not the schools in question are dealing with the issue. What is

9

Over the last 22 years concern has been increasing about how the threat of nuclear war is affecting children. Along with the numbers of organizations formed to take a stand on the issue in general, several have come together specifically with children in mind. Educators For Social Responsibility and Parents and Teachers for Social Responsibility have made efforts to help children deal with the threat. In addition the body of knowledge concerning children's fears of war has also been growing. During this span of time since about 1965 quite a few studies have been conducted to determine what kids actually think. The most common type of study has been of the interview type. These have given adults a haunting vision of the fear children feel along with some conclusive evidence. The other type of study (to be discussed later), systematic and statistical in nature, has been much more rare, but has brought some real concrete evidence to light.

The pioneering work was done by Milton Schwebel in the early 1960's. After the Berlin Crisis(1961) and the Cuban Missile Crisis(1962) a combined total of 3300 students were surveyed

about nuclear war. The respondents were between the grades of four and twelve. The group represented a good mix of sex, race, and socioeconomic status (Schwebel 1982, p.609). In the first survey, during 1961, almost 50% thought there would be a war within a year. During the next crisis, surprisingly, less than 25% thought a nuclear war was imminent. The researchers thought that this was due to an "irrational optimism" because of the terrible nature of the threat(Schwebel 1982, p.610). Regardless of these percentages the responses to other questions showed the fear that these children had. "When asked what they expected if there were to be a nuclear war, many responses were eloquent in their simplicity: 'I will die.' We will all die.Ill(Schwebel 1982, p.609). The responses also showed a great deal of pessimism about what would happen if some people did survive. when asked if they cared about the nuclear threat some said:

Anyone who doesn't is insane.

Anyone who doesn't is inhuman.

It's a naive question.

It keeps me awake at night (Schwebel 1982, p.610).

 

Sibylle Escalona was the next to do such a study. Again, the format was to use a questionnaire to elicit open ended responses. One important point is the fact that it did not contain any references to the bomb or war. The kids were asked simply: "think about the world as it may be ten years from now; what are some of the ways in which it may be different from what it is today?"(Escalona 1982, p.602). Over 70% of those questioned (350) spontaneously described a future in which the bomb played a role (Escalona 1982, p.602). The work of Escalona and

18

Schwebel represents significant early findings.

During the years 1978, 179, and 180 Drs. William Beardslee and John Mack conducted a task force study for the American Psychiatry Association. They sampled 1143 students from public and private high schools in 3 cities. The students were found to have a wide mix of political opinion(Beardslee and Mack 1983, p.81). Their responses were anything but mixed. The majority thought that a war was possible within their lifetimes. In addition, most were concerned about some aspect of the nuclear threat (Beardslee and Mack 1983 p.81). One student put it this way: "as I learned more and more, I became more and more negative about the whole thing"(Beardslee and Mack 1983, p.81). The researchers were quite surprised, at first, by the nature and force of the responses.

One of the organizations mentioned previously, Educators for Social Responsibility, conducted its own survey called a "Day of Dialogue" in 1982. The nature of the questionnaire was much like the one used in the previous study. Two thousand surveys were randomly chosen for interpretation. They came from students in Massachusets, Wisconsin, Oregon, and California. The results are rather startling. Eighty-seven percent thought that there would be a war within 20 years; 90% of these kids said that the world would not survive such a conflict. The survey also tried to examine what affect these feelings were having on the kids. Eighty-one percent responded that the threat of nuclear war affected hopes for the future(Beardslee and Mack 1983, p.82).

20

The startling results of this study probably arose from the fact that the survey was administered after a day of discussion about

the nuclear issue.

This same group conducted a series of interviews with several classes in a school outside of Boston. These interviews were videotaped for use in the organization's "Listening to Children" video. They deliberately chose classes in which no previous discussion of nuclear issues had taken place. The children ranged in age from 8 to 14. In general they were shy at first but as soon as one of them spoke up it "let out a flow" (Bart and Snow 1984, p.7) of discussion and feelings. The younger kids had less knowledge of the specifics, but were concerned all the same. one from the group of 8 and 9 year olds said: "I always keep thinking that when I grow up I'm going to be an astronaut, but I think I'm never going to be one" (Bart and Snow 1984 p.18). The older kids knew more details about the bomb and war, but still exhibited the same concern. This is exhibited in the response of a 13 year old boy;

I'm planning to get married. If this does happen, right, if radiation does get to my wife while she's pregnant, right, you know, what then? It's like, what's my baby going to turn out to be, like a monster or something (Bart and Snow 1984, p.23)?

The children were not directed to respond this way. They were merely asked what thought and feeling they had connected to the word nuclear. The videotape of these interviews delivers a very powerful, if slightly unsystematic, view of how children feel.

The more systematic and statistical analyses are rare but

21

also show that children are worried about nuclear war. Dr. Jerald Bachman surveyed the graduating classes of 130 public and private high schools from 48 states during the period of 1976 1982. This study used a 3-stage probability sampling approach to analyze these students' attitudes on a broad range of topics (Beardslee and Mack 1983, p.99). The results of the questions concerning nuclear war showed a significant rise in concern during the testing period. In 1976 19.9% of the males responded that they never worried about the nuclear threat. This contrasts with only 4.6 % responding similarly in 1982. There was also a rise in the frequency of worry. The number that said they worried often rose from 7.2% to 31.2% (Beardslee and Mack 1983, p.99). Girls showed a similar rise. Perhaps even more dramatic, the statement "Nuclear or biological annihilation will probably be the fate of all mankind within my lifetime" received the following responses. Boys agreeing or mostly agreeing rose from 23.1% to 35.3% over the course of the study; girls showed a larger rise from 20.2% to 36.0% (Beardslee and Mack 1983, p.99). This research shows quite reliably that concern about nuclear issues is rising in our children.

Another systematic study was done by Dr. Scott Haas in 1983. The researchers chose the Hartford, Connecticut and Deerfield, Massachusetts areas to distribute 100 surveys about issues. These communities were chosen because of the lack of anti-nuclear activism (Beardslee and Mack 1983, p.100). The children were asked to rank the following issues in order

22

of concern:- economy, employment, energy, marriage, and nuclear conflict. The last item was ranked first 24 times out the of the 58 surveys chosen to analyze (Beardslee and Mack 1983, p.100). This is not a majority, but it does indicate that the nuclear issue ranks fairly high on children's' concerns.

The final study to be outlined here is similar to the last but took the ranking principle further. John M. Goldenring designed his piece of research to eliminate the possible biases of others. It was "...specifically to be biased in the opposite direction of showing that teenagers were concerned about nuclear war"(House of Representatives 1983, p.61). the survey involved 913 students in Southern and Northern California with an even distribution of grade level, race, sex, and socioeconomic background(House of Representatives 1983, p.62). After the demographic questions the subjects were asked to list their top three concerns (the results of this open-ended section have not been published). Then they were to rate 20 concerns on a scale of 1 to 4 with the latter being the most concerned. These worries included such things as parents dying, getting pregnant, and parents getting divorced. The list also included nuclear war, but it was constructed so that the subjects couldn't perceive that the survey really focused on this issue. The next section involved rating in order the top five from the list of twenty. Finally, there was a section specifically dealing with nuclear war(House of Representatives 1983, p.61). Using mean scores, fear of nuclear war was third behind bad grades(#2) and parents

23

dying(#l). Percentage-wise the nuclear threat was second only to parents dying. From the latter part of the survey they @-found that 58% of the respondents were worried or very worried; one third thought about nuclear war often; finally, 42% thought there would probably be a nuclear within their lifetime(House of Representatives 1983, p.64). These results are startling. The researchers were planning to use the same procedures elsewhere in the U.S. and abroad to replicate the results (published findings were not available at this writing). This study indicates in a very strong way, because of its design, that a good portion of kids are concerned about the threat of nuclear disaster.

Even though the amount of data is not tremendous, the implication is that a large number of kids are worrying about nuclear war. What effect is this having on them? Some of the people who have undertaken the research feel that there is a potentially detrimental effect. Escalona thinks "this awareness is likely to encourage an investment in the here and now. It weakens the readiness to invest energy and self control in the attainment of distant goals"(Escalona 1982, p.606). The affect can be dramatic when one considers that "the teenage years are a period when identity and ideas about future roles become a major developmental task"(Reifel 1984, p.77). The threat of nuclear war makes the future uncertain and could possibly instill- a "live-for-the moment" attitude. This would have a terrible effect on society. Mack found that over half of the youth he surveyed said that the nuclear threat had made them think twice

24

about getting married and planning a family(Reifel 1984, p.77). Compounding these problems is the fact that kids see adults as being apathetic about the issue. This could develop into a real defeatist attitude. It is apparent that there are some potentially devastating effects. What can be done?

Education is one of the best ways to reach children. The schools are especially important because most parents seem unwilling to deal with the issue. Parents should definitely be included in this process, but there is a need for more. Schwebel suggests that

professionals(teachers] set as their goal that young people be informed, and be helped to deal with their reactions, through knowledge about adult action to protect them and the world from nuclear war, and about actions they might take appropriate to their age(Schwebel 1982, p.614).

in addition, he suggests that nuclear issues should be incorporated into school curricula. Goldenring feels that talking to kids about this issue is especially important(House of Representatives 1983, p.65). Alexander, Meier, and others also feel that schools are a good place to start dealing with these fears.

It is clear from the studies outlined here that there is a problem. We must do something to help children with their fears.

25