There is a good ad on TV put out by Stopbullyingnow.gov. This is a great website and I wholeheartedly support the work they are doing. It is an excellent resource and provides the materials and information that any school could use to support bullying prevention efforts. The ad is brief and simple- it shows an act of bullying where some kids knocked another kid's books down. It shows a bystander nearby visibly bothered by what happened. The message that follows tells the viewers (parents) to teach kids how to stand up to bullying. The ad is accurate and shows a typical scenario that many kids face however I have some reservations about some of the hidden messages in the ad.
It implies that it is the parents job to teach kids how to stand up to bullying.
I support parents talking to their kids about bullying. I also support them giving their kids specific strategies to use and/or key phrases to say. All of that can do no harm and can help in some cases. The problem is parents really don't know the circumstances that their kids face in bullying situations. Many bullying situations are very ambiguous where the bullying is not so clear. It is hard to teach any person how to do something without being there to support them in the environment where the situation occurs. We don't expect a parent to teach their child how to handle the last two minutes of a basketball game. There is a coach to do that and they practice in a gym similar to the place where games are played. Sure a parent can shoot baskets at home or have a catch or share stories of his/he experiences playing a sport, but that is not a replacement for the coaching that needs to happen in the school with the team.
It can reinforce many teachers' belief that parents should bear the greatest responsibility for addressing bullying.
This also leads to educators blaming parents for not doing a good enough job teaching kids how to stand up to bullying. Anything that perpetuates the blame game that happens regarding bullying only makes substantive bullying prevention harder. If someone thinks that the problem is because someone else has not done the job, it freezes that person from assuming shared responsibility for doing something.
It can imply that a bystander that doesn't stop the bullying is to blame.
It is true that bystanders hold the greatest influence in preventing and reducing bullying, but that doesn't mean that if bullying persists that we should blame the bystanders that did nothing. We need to recognize how hard it is on many levels to intervene, report or help the victim. Some bystanders don't intervene or help because they have determined that they could be at risk. We need to ask ourselves as adults how many times we put ourselves at risk to help others especially if we think that our actions will have little impact. Some bystanders might rightfully conclude that they are so low on the social ladder and that their actions will do little good. In fact, research has shown that the social status of the bystanders is a huge factor in determining if intervention works or not.
It focus too much on the individual and less on the social ecology of the school.
Individual bystander behavior is very dependent upon how far or close intervening/reporting is to the social norms of the school. Do bystanders know that the risk they might take when they intervene or report will be supported by the adults in the school? Do they risk being accused of not minding their own business? How often do kids in a school take a risk in situations that are not well defined by the rules. If kids are used to operating in schools where following the rules is a paramount value, they will naturally shy away from any situation not defined by the rules. The school culture determines how much a stretch a helping behavior is for a kid. How many times have kids seen adult model helping or do they regularly see adults bullying kids?
It reinforces that false notion that social emotional skills are the domain of home while academic skills are the domain of school.
Learning is a social act. The best teachers integrate the social with the academic. Students need to learn how to communicate, express ideas, negotiate in the very act of learning. John Dewey said the very act of living together educates. We don't expect parents to teach their kids the academic subjects at home and then come to school already reading and able to use them. Kid should read at home, talk at home, figure out problems at home but also need the social context of peers and a teacher to refine those skills. A strong case could be made that it would be easier to learn the academic at home and have kids just come to school to use those academic skills, than for thinking the social emotional skills can be learned at home and just used at school. Most homes don't consist of 20-25 kids being together for 6 plus hours a day. Navigating the social world of school requires pretty sophisticated skills.
Please don't take my raising these points as a criticism of the Stopbullyingnow.gov. It raise these points to illustrate how even with the best intentions reducing a complex issue can inadvertently sustain attitudes and mindsets that need more reflection and discussion.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Use it or Lose it
I have yet to meet anyone who has not had this experience: they find themselves in an unexpected situation especially one where someone might be in need or one where they witnessed someone do something mean towards a waitress or checkout person and in that moment they freeze. The moment or situation quickly passes and afterward they wonder why they did nothing and even begin to feel a little guilty for not doing anything.
Remember these are adults who have been around the block so to speak, meaning they have experienced this type of situation before but not on a regular basis. Why do they regret their inaction? It is usually because there was something inside of them- call it whatever you wish-that told them that they should have helped.
Here is alternative example that I experienced. I work two days a week in a office in downtown Albany. I have my now very predictable route that I take that includes an intersection with a traffic light. Recently, there has been someone standing on the side of the road holding a sign saying: Jobless, hungry vet-please help!" Now on some days the light is green and there is traffic behind me and it is cold outside. For me to give this person some money requires that I have my money ready, push the button for lowering the window, slow down and hand the money off to the person. This takes some choreographing and planning ahead. It is so easy not to give or help these people; it is so much easier not to help.
I can justify ignoring these people in many ways-they will only use the money for drugs, alcohol, it is encouraging them not to work, I already give to the poor through legitimate charities etc. Many reasons that many people would say is justified.
I decided however that I would make a personal policy-standard operating procedure for myself not to ignore direct solicitations from people like this. I decided not to judge them but to give them the benefit of the doubt that for whatever reason they were doing it for was ok-they had a need and were asking. I decided that whatever I gave would have literally no negative effect on me.
Once I made this my standard operating procedure I then started to look ahead toward the intersection to see if there was a person there. Once I saw the person there, it gave me enough time to get my money ready and the choreography was much easier. In fact just the other day I noticed the homeless person saw me up ahead holding my bill and he put down his sign ahead of time to help make the hand off even smoother.
This experience of mine has an important lesson when it comes to being an empowered bystander: doing good is not an automatic act and it can't be dependent upon spontaneous action fueled by "will power". We all know that this is the case even for us adults who have been around the block. When it comes to kids, who haven't been around the block so to speak, we somehow expect them to "stand up" to bullying when they see it. Maybe to boost them we provide a motivational speaker to make sure that they will. Maybe some of this might work with some kids, but I think it takes more that than. We as adults have to realize that changing any behavior is a little more complicated that just telling kids what to do. Think of what I had to do just to help out someone asking directly for help:
Recognize the situation.
Interpret it as presenting a moral choice.
Thinking ahead and deciding on a personal policy of responding to a request.
Analyzing the difficulty involved.
Deciding on a plan.
Using the plan.
Getting better at it.
If we want to really do something about bullying, we have to drop the idea that changing kids behavior is a simple matter and really make a commitment to understanding what is involved in change and then planning and working on doing what it really takes.
Remember these are adults who have been around the block so to speak, meaning they have experienced this type of situation before but not on a regular basis. Why do they regret their inaction? It is usually because there was something inside of them- call it whatever you wish-that told them that they should have helped.
Here is alternative example that I experienced. I work two days a week in a office in downtown Albany. I have my now very predictable route that I take that includes an intersection with a traffic light. Recently, there has been someone standing on the side of the road holding a sign saying: Jobless, hungry vet-please help!" Now on some days the light is green and there is traffic behind me and it is cold outside. For me to give this person some money requires that I have my money ready, push the button for lowering the window, slow down and hand the money off to the person. This takes some choreographing and planning ahead. It is so easy not to give or help these people; it is so much easier not to help.
I can justify ignoring these people in many ways-they will only use the money for drugs, alcohol, it is encouraging them not to work, I already give to the poor through legitimate charities etc. Many reasons that many people would say is justified.
I decided however that I would make a personal policy-standard operating procedure for myself not to ignore direct solicitations from people like this. I decided not to judge them but to give them the benefit of the doubt that for whatever reason they were doing it for was ok-they had a need and were asking. I decided that whatever I gave would have literally no negative effect on me.
Once I made this my standard operating procedure I then started to look ahead toward the intersection to see if there was a person there. Once I saw the person there, it gave me enough time to get my money ready and the choreography was much easier. In fact just the other day I noticed the homeless person saw me up ahead holding my bill and he put down his sign ahead of time to help make the hand off even smoother.
This experience of mine has an important lesson when it comes to being an empowered bystander: doing good is not an automatic act and it can't be dependent upon spontaneous action fueled by "will power". We all know that this is the case even for us adults who have been around the block. When it comes to kids, who haven't been around the block so to speak, we somehow expect them to "stand up" to bullying when they see it. Maybe to boost them we provide a motivational speaker to make sure that they will. Maybe some of this might work with some kids, but I think it takes more that than. We as adults have to realize that changing any behavior is a little more complicated that just telling kids what to do. Think of what I had to do just to help out someone asking directly for help:
Recognize the situation.
Interpret it as presenting a moral choice.
Thinking ahead and deciding on a personal policy of responding to a request.
Analyzing the difficulty involved.
Deciding on a plan.
Using the plan.
Getting better at it.
If we want to really do something about bullying, we have to drop the idea that changing kids behavior is a simple matter and really make a commitment to understanding what is involved in change and then planning and working on doing what it really takes.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Is Empathy Enough?
Empathy is an antidote to bullying, but is it enough for bystanders to intervene or report bullying? Do schools need to develop empathy in students as part of the solution to bullying? These are important questions and they can lead us to some productive thinking on the issue of bullying.
Here are some things to consider about empathy and its role in bullying prevention:
Current research with babies as young as 5 months seems to suggest that humans are wired to be attentive to the needs of others. This research was featured on a recent 60 Minutes episode that showed babies reacting more favorably to a puppet who helped another puppet. This seems to make some sense since babies need to be attuned to their caretakers and ultimately learn from others. Learning is ultimately a social act as much as an individual act.
This same research also revealed a tendancy for babies to prefer others whom they see as similar to themselves. Babies who observed a puppet eating their favorite cereal seemed to prefer that puppet to one that ate a different cereal. This research supports the research of Robert Thornberg who found that the key reason why bystanders didn't intervene was because they saw the victim as being "different" from them. He said it was like members of a tribe only caring for other tribe members. I think this can also work in reverse. Bystanders can be afraid that if they help a victim who is different (from another tribe) that they risk losing their identity in the tribe they want to belong to. They risk being viewed as being associated or connected to someone who is not well regarded: instead of guilt by association-it is unpopularity by association.
Developmentally the ability to step outside of ourselves and look at the world through the eyes of another is part of the growing awareness that kids have of peers and the need for peer approval. Seeing the world through the eyes of another also helps kids project and think about how others view them. This new developmental ability becomes a double edged sword for kids-they rely on and need their peers but they risk losing their own identity in the process. (This is why learning through stories is integral to being human-we need to step outside ourselves in a safe way and see how others have balanced this tension between individuality and community.) This growing awarenss of others or empathy can create confusion and tension for kids.
Research is pretty clear that empathy in students decreases as they advance through the grades. I attribute this to a need for self protection. If a student feels for another student and at the same time is not able to help that student, it can be hard to live with guilt or remorse day in and day out. I think students will tend to see the victim as different or undeserving of help as a way of relieving themselves of any guilt for not acting.
If empathy decreases a student could also just become resigned to doing nothing -that is just the way school is. Some students could still retain some empathy but become cynical about the whole culture of school run by adults who are out of touch, indifferent or incompetent. If the adults don't seem to care, why should they.
Do we have to develop empathy in students or nurture what is already there? Probably a little of both, but first we need to reflect on the current culture of most schools and understand the "forces" that seems to be working against caring for others who are targets of bullying.
Schools are designed more for individual achievement than community growth. School is really about individuals. The hidden message (sometimes not too hidden) is just care about your own grade and success. In fact, schools are a zero sum organization where there is a limited amount of success to go around-kids are graded on the "curve". As more students pass tests, new tests are designed to do a better job of sorting kids out.
Schools are designed for the adults to be in charge so it can be easy for students to feel that all problems should be solved by adults. This is a misperception on the part of students but it is probably the default perception also when it comes to the problem of bullying. Unfortunately most schools view students as the source of problems, they are the ones that need to change, rather than be part of the the solution to problems.
Rewards and consequence systems sharpens the focus on individuals and not on the needs of others- community. In schools that rely on rewards and consequences the message is "follow the rules as an individual and our community with be ok". It develops community through motivating individuals for personal rewards-this only gets them thinking more about "me" and less about "we". This approach gives kids a very mixed message about empathy. It also strenghtens the message about responsibiltiy to authority (the source of rewards and consequences) not the community as being what is most important. There is no way around the key message of rewards and consequences being "what is in it for me?"
A behavioral approach to student management when you trace its roots in academic research is based upon the premise that concepts like empathy or conscience are only figments of our imagination. They are only mental constructs that people project on a clusters of behaviors. People only change when their behavior is controlled through a well designed sequence of positive or negative reinforcements.
These elements that I just discussed are so much a part of the DNA of schools that it is very difficult to imagine schools being any other way. This is why bullying is such a persistent problem-in a way its DNA matches that of most traditional schools-that it why it is so easy for it to hide in plain sight in many schools. There are altenative ways to imagine schools so that its DNA can be clearly different from bullying. This reimagining might be thought of as radical but in reality it more closely matches what we know about what works best in child rearing or what the "wisdom of the ages" have told us about passing on civilization generation to generation.
I think that families and schools need to work together to build upon what kids are wired for. We need to focus more on community and responsibility to others as the primary source of responsible individual behavior. Kids need to have adults point out to them how their behaviors affect others, so that kids decide how they want to act based upon how their actions affect the greater good. Adults need to guide kids about how they perceive differences and help them discover commonalities in people they might initially perceive as different. Kids need to know that they are needed and have influence so they need to be involved as agents and real participants in the life of their school. Kids need to see and hear adults caring not just for the high achievers, best athletics but for the kids who don't fit in easily. They need to see that schools are inclusive places where every member is valued and the success of everyone is important. Schools and parents need to be specific with kids about how to "operationalize' empathy-what to say or do when they see someone being hurt. Kids need to see that people are "works in progress" and that even kids who forget and bully others are not criminals or villians but are capable of learning better ways of interacting. Schools need to inspire kids and have them aspire to doing great things-things that integrate the "me"' with the "we". This type of greatness is what all great and enduring stories are really all about.
To sum it all up, we need to have education really be about educating human beings rather than just be a training program to get them to act the way we want them to act. If we educate rather than train, we are saying that kids start out having something good inside of them, we don't have to create the goodness out of thin air or from fear that they will be out of control. Education is giving kids the best environment for growing and learning what it means to being a responsible caring person in the context of learning with other human beings.
Here are some things to consider about empathy and its role in bullying prevention:
Current research with babies as young as 5 months seems to suggest that humans are wired to be attentive to the needs of others. This research was featured on a recent 60 Minutes episode that showed babies reacting more favorably to a puppet who helped another puppet. This seems to make some sense since babies need to be attuned to their caretakers and ultimately learn from others. Learning is ultimately a social act as much as an individual act.
This same research also revealed a tendancy for babies to prefer others whom they see as similar to themselves. Babies who observed a puppet eating their favorite cereal seemed to prefer that puppet to one that ate a different cereal. This research supports the research of Robert Thornberg who found that the key reason why bystanders didn't intervene was because they saw the victim as being "different" from them. He said it was like members of a tribe only caring for other tribe members. I think this can also work in reverse. Bystanders can be afraid that if they help a victim who is different (from another tribe) that they risk losing their identity in the tribe they want to belong to. They risk being viewed as being associated or connected to someone who is not well regarded: instead of guilt by association-it is unpopularity by association.
Developmentally the ability to step outside of ourselves and look at the world through the eyes of another is part of the growing awareness that kids have of peers and the need for peer approval. Seeing the world through the eyes of another also helps kids project and think about how others view them. This new developmental ability becomes a double edged sword for kids-they rely on and need their peers but they risk losing their own identity in the process. (This is why learning through stories is integral to being human-we need to step outside ourselves in a safe way and see how others have balanced this tension between individuality and community.) This growing awarenss of others or empathy can create confusion and tension for kids.
Research is pretty clear that empathy in students decreases as they advance through the grades. I attribute this to a need for self protection. If a student feels for another student and at the same time is not able to help that student, it can be hard to live with guilt or remorse day in and day out. I think students will tend to see the victim as different or undeserving of help as a way of relieving themselves of any guilt for not acting.
If empathy decreases a student could also just become resigned to doing nothing -that is just the way school is. Some students could still retain some empathy but become cynical about the whole culture of school run by adults who are out of touch, indifferent or incompetent. If the adults don't seem to care, why should they.
Do we have to develop empathy in students or nurture what is already there? Probably a little of both, but first we need to reflect on the current culture of most schools and understand the "forces" that seems to be working against caring for others who are targets of bullying.
Schools are designed more for individual achievement than community growth. School is really about individuals. The hidden message (sometimes not too hidden) is just care about your own grade and success. In fact, schools are a zero sum organization where there is a limited amount of success to go around-kids are graded on the "curve". As more students pass tests, new tests are designed to do a better job of sorting kids out.
Schools are designed for the adults to be in charge so it can be easy for students to feel that all problems should be solved by adults. This is a misperception on the part of students but it is probably the default perception also when it comes to the problem of bullying. Unfortunately most schools view students as the source of problems, they are the ones that need to change, rather than be part of the the solution to problems.
Rewards and consequence systems sharpens the focus on individuals and not on the needs of others- community. In schools that rely on rewards and consequences the message is "follow the rules as an individual and our community with be ok". It develops community through motivating individuals for personal rewards-this only gets them thinking more about "me" and less about "we". This approach gives kids a very mixed message about empathy. It also strenghtens the message about responsibiltiy to authority (the source of rewards and consequences) not the community as being what is most important. There is no way around the key message of rewards and consequences being "what is in it for me?"
A behavioral approach to student management when you trace its roots in academic research is based upon the premise that concepts like empathy or conscience are only figments of our imagination. They are only mental constructs that people project on a clusters of behaviors. People only change when their behavior is controlled through a well designed sequence of positive or negative reinforcements.
These elements that I just discussed are so much a part of the DNA of schools that it is very difficult to imagine schools being any other way. This is why bullying is such a persistent problem-in a way its DNA matches that of most traditional schools-that it why it is so easy for it to hide in plain sight in many schools. There are altenative ways to imagine schools so that its DNA can be clearly different from bullying. This reimagining might be thought of as radical but in reality it more closely matches what we know about what works best in child rearing or what the "wisdom of the ages" have told us about passing on civilization generation to generation.
I think that families and schools need to work together to build upon what kids are wired for. We need to focus more on community and responsibility to others as the primary source of responsible individual behavior. Kids need to have adults point out to them how their behaviors affect others, so that kids decide how they want to act based upon how their actions affect the greater good. Adults need to guide kids about how they perceive differences and help them discover commonalities in people they might initially perceive as different. Kids need to know that they are needed and have influence so they need to be involved as agents and real participants in the life of their school. Kids need to see and hear adults caring not just for the high achievers, best athletics but for the kids who don't fit in easily. They need to see that schools are inclusive places where every member is valued and the success of everyone is important. Schools and parents need to be specific with kids about how to "operationalize' empathy-what to say or do when they see someone being hurt. Kids need to see that people are "works in progress" and that even kids who forget and bully others are not criminals or villians but are capable of learning better ways of interacting. Schools need to inspire kids and have them aspire to doing great things-things that integrate the "me"' with the "we". This type of greatness is what all great and enduring stories are really all about.
To sum it all up, we need to have education really be about educating human beings rather than just be a training program to get them to act the way we want them to act. If we educate rather than train, we are saying that kids start out having something good inside of them, we don't have to create the goodness out of thin air or from fear that they will be out of control. Education is giving kids the best environment for growing and learning what it means to being a responsible caring person in the context of learning with other human beings.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Fidelity to What?
I am currently reading the book, Sticks and Stones by Emily Bazelon. It is well written and does a good job of integrating specific stories of school bullying with current theory and practice designed to address the problem. I think that it helpful to have someone who does not work in schools, nor is an "expert" in the field to present a picture of what is going on in schools. The author raises some important questions about bullying and about how it fits into our culture and society. I still need to finish it but have skimmed ahead to her review of various methods/solutions for addressing the problem.
In her introduction she makes the following statement: "Another lesson in the book is that for better or worse adults play a crucial role in bullying stories. When the narrative spins out of control, it is usually not because of the errors of and wrongdoing of the kids. They are the originators, the first movers. But when their private screw-ups turn into public debates, it's often because adults either did too little or too much in response." Later on in the first story she tells of a girl named Monique, a seventh grade student, she makes the following statement: 'With notable exceptions, the relationships between staff and students were also tainted by a culture of mistrust. "The teachers curse," one seventh grader told me. "They can be be real rude. The drama with the kids here is too much and the teachers have come not to care."
I applaud the author for both of these observations and especially for interviewing the students for their perceptions. However, these quotations from the book only a few pages apart illustrate why bullying seems to be so resistant/immune to all of the treatments currently being used in schools. The statement that the kids are the originators and that things only get really bad when adults don't respond the correct way assumes that bullying behavior in the school developed in a vacuum. I would assert that the culture of mistrust and the rude behavior of adults in the school had very much to do with the prevalence of bullying in the school and the failure of the adults to effectively address it. Schools not only have a blind spot for bullying as I have described in my book and in previous posts, they can inadvertently provide camouflage for bullying. Bullying thrives when it can't be seen and proved. If I had to recommend a solution for bullying in this school I would strongly recommend that either/both of the perceived or real culture of mistrust be addressed first and foremost.
This is where the real problem of bullying gets too hard too see, becomes threatening to the staff, and simplified to the point of looking for solutions that are distant from the source of the problem. The real problem of bullying in schools is not really bullying it is why schools are resistant to change. This is where principals are left alone to change a culture that they themselves can't see. Where they continue to use the same tools that were designed for a different set of problems- tools that ironically are "artifacts' of the same culture that camouflage the bullying.
The author of the book devotes a significant part of it to solutions and guess what two key ones emerge: Olweus and PBIS. She does not recommend one over the other. She finds places where these solutions work. In this sense she provides a service to the reader for showing a degree of hope following some sad stories.
PBIS and Olweus can work in schools. They also don't work in schools. Both programs would agree that the reason why they work or don't work is directly related to the degree of fidelity the school has to the program. This is where I depart seriously from both programs: I think that difference between working and not working is not fidelity to program but rather the leadership of the school that can empower all of its members to use any tool to transform its culture and climate. If you were to look at the key ingredients of that leadership, you would not find insistence on fidelity to program, but fidelity to a strong set of principles and values that guide how people consistently view and treat each other. I think you would find a leader who didn't impose any program, but who involved members of the community in learning about the problem and exploring together the best way to meet the needs of the school.
When a leader believes in the members of the community and sees them as the true agents of change, the members of that community themselves change how they view themselves and then the culture/climate changes. The funny thing though is that successful schools using any program would probably attribute success to the program and overlook the true factors in that success: fidelity to the values and principles of how people treat each other-values and principles that are incompatible with the "culture of mistrust" described by the author. Rather than let students become the originators of bullying and then trying to respond the right way, let's have adults become the originators and agents of the values that incompatible with bullying. When there is fidelity to believing in people and empowering them that is when true change happens.
In her introduction she makes the following statement: "Another lesson in the book is that for better or worse adults play a crucial role in bullying stories. When the narrative spins out of control, it is usually not because of the errors of and wrongdoing of the kids. They are the originators, the first movers. But when their private screw-ups turn into public debates, it's often because adults either did too little or too much in response." Later on in the first story she tells of a girl named Monique, a seventh grade student, she makes the following statement: 'With notable exceptions, the relationships between staff and students were also tainted by a culture of mistrust. "The teachers curse," one seventh grader told me. "They can be be real rude. The drama with the kids here is too much and the teachers have come not to care."
I applaud the author for both of these observations and especially for interviewing the students for their perceptions. However, these quotations from the book only a few pages apart illustrate why bullying seems to be so resistant/immune to all of the treatments currently being used in schools. The statement that the kids are the originators and that things only get really bad when adults don't respond the correct way assumes that bullying behavior in the school developed in a vacuum. I would assert that the culture of mistrust and the rude behavior of adults in the school had very much to do with the prevalence of bullying in the school and the failure of the adults to effectively address it. Schools not only have a blind spot for bullying as I have described in my book and in previous posts, they can inadvertently provide camouflage for bullying. Bullying thrives when it can't be seen and proved. If I had to recommend a solution for bullying in this school I would strongly recommend that either/both of the perceived or real culture of mistrust be addressed first and foremost.
This is where the real problem of bullying gets too hard too see, becomes threatening to the staff, and simplified to the point of looking for solutions that are distant from the source of the problem. The real problem of bullying in schools is not really bullying it is why schools are resistant to change. This is where principals are left alone to change a culture that they themselves can't see. Where they continue to use the same tools that were designed for a different set of problems- tools that ironically are "artifacts' of the same culture that camouflage the bullying.
The author of the book devotes a significant part of it to solutions and guess what two key ones emerge: Olweus and PBIS. She does not recommend one over the other. She finds places where these solutions work. In this sense she provides a service to the reader for showing a degree of hope following some sad stories.
PBIS and Olweus can work in schools. They also don't work in schools. Both programs would agree that the reason why they work or don't work is directly related to the degree of fidelity the school has to the program. This is where I depart seriously from both programs: I think that difference between working and not working is not fidelity to program but rather the leadership of the school that can empower all of its members to use any tool to transform its culture and climate. If you were to look at the key ingredients of that leadership, you would not find insistence on fidelity to program, but fidelity to a strong set of principles and values that guide how people consistently view and treat each other. I think you would find a leader who didn't impose any program, but who involved members of the community in learning about the problem and exploring together the best way to meet the needs of the school.
When a leader believes in the members of the community and sees them as the true agents of change, the members of that community themselves change how they view themselves and then the culture/climate changes. The funny thing though is that successful schools using any program would probably attribute success to the program and overlook the true factors in that success: fidelity to the values and principles of how people treat each other-values and principles that are incompatible with the "culture of mistrust" described by the author. Rather than let students become the originators of bullying and then trying to respond the right way, let's have adults become the originators and agents of the values that incompatible with bullying. When there is fidelity to believing in people and empowering them that is when true change happens.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Managerially Loose but Culturally Tight
I mentioned in my last post the phrase the Tom Sergiovanni used to describe how schools should be organized. In his writings he articulates how schools because they are places of learning are different from businesses and bureaucracies. Unfortunately, schools seemed to be drifting farther and farther away from their special status and are viewed more and more as organizations that need tighter controls and management. It is understandable that some assume that the problem with schools is that they are too loosely run with little accountability and monitoring. In many other organizations tightening up leads to greater efficiency, lower costs and greater profits. If this works for business why shouldn't it work for schools. Here is the sad irony: as businesses struggle to stay ahead of the innovation curve and keep up with incredible technological change, the strongest companies are the ones that embrace "learning" as the central feature of how they operate. Traditional business management is seen as impeding growth so companies are loosening up so to speak giving their employees greater freedom and autonomy combined with the impetus to communicate openly and honestly. Companies know that to move in this direction, their whole approach to leadership and management need to change. They need to change so that they can keep up with change.
Schools are changing to become like business used to be while businesses are changing to what schools should be - learning organizations. Books like Drive by Daniel Pink, the works of the Heath brothers, Malcolm Gladwell and the research of Amy Edmondson provide the theory and empirical research that could be used to promote policies that would actually raise the level of learning for all members of the school community. Unfortunately this research has not been heeded. In fact most of the current policies driving school reform seem more designed to decrease the learning of all members of the school community. (I once heard someone say that maybe policies makers want schools to fail so that the entire system could be scraped and a private approach could take hold.) In all of my time as an educator I have never seen morale among teachers be so low and hear so many people talk about retirement.
There are viable alternatives that can also make work more meaningful and creative for all involved. It can start by believing in people first, believing that people change people not programs, rules or regulations. Moving away from tight management toward cultural coherence involves taking the time to get people to talk to each other. Not every person in a school will or should have the same values or principles but there should be a professional dialogue where people can discover what they do have in common and where they might differ. When people encounter problems, if they avoid jumping to quick solutions and fixes, and instead invest time in learning about their problems, they not only discover their own values and principles they begin to shape and influence each other's in a good way. As a staff discovers this "process" for solving problems (this could also be called "learning") they begin to value and understand the process itself more and arrange the conditions for it to happen more consistently. When this happens over time people's decisions and actions tend to converge toward principles and values and these then set the parameters for how people treat each other. Schools or organizations can be surprised by how few rules, regulations or other forms of management would be needed when people can communicate in a trusting environment and where problems can be resolved by talking, working and learning together. Just as individuals need certain conditions for being creative so do organizations. The best advice I could give any school leader for being culturally tight is pretty simple: lead the learning by being a learner yourself. Every problem that you encounter is a great opportunity to lead the learning for your school, once you start this process it can just take over and once your school becomes a learning organization it sustains itself.
Schools are changing to become like business used to be while businesses are changing to what schools should be - learning organizations. Books like Drive by Daniel Pink, the works of the Heath brothers, Malcolm Gladwell and the research of Amy Edmondson provide the theory and empirical research that could be used to promote policies that would actually raise the level of learning for all members of the school community. Unfortunately this research has not been heeded. In fact most of the current policies driving school reform seem more designed to decrease the learning of all members of the school community. (I once heard someone say that maybe policies makers want schools to fail so that the entire system could be scraped and a private approach could take hold.) In all of my time as an educator I have never seen morale among teachers be so low and hear so many people talk about retirement.
There are viable alternatives that can also make work more meaningful and creative for all involved. It can start by believing in people first, believing that people change people not programs, rules or regulations. Moving away from tight management toward cultural coherence involves taking the time to get people to talk to each other. Not every person in a school will or should have the same values or principles but there should be a professional dialogue where people can discover what they do have in common and where they might differ. When people encounter problems, if they avoid jumping to quick solutions and fixes, and instead invest time in learning about their problems, they not only discover their own values and principles they begin to shape and influence each other's in a good way. As a staff discovers this "process" for solving problems (this could also be called "learning") they begin to value and understand the process itself more and arrange the conditions for it to happen more consistently. When this happens over time people's decisions and actions tend to converge toward principles and values and these then set the parameters for how people treat each other. Schools or organizations can be surprised by how few rules, regulations or other forms of management would be needed when people can communicate in a trusting environment and where problems can be resolved by talking, working and learning together. Just as individuals need certain conditions for being creative so do organizations. The best advice I could give any school leader for being culturally tight is pretty simple: lead the learning by being a learner yourself. Every problem that you encounter is a great opportunity to lead the learning for your school, once you start this process it can just take over and once your school becomes a learning organization it sustains itself.
Friday, March 8, 2013
No Problem with Problems?
Schools need to be orderly, organized and predictable environments. It is hard if not impossible to learn in chaotic environments that are confusing and unstable. Any time you put hundreds of students together in one physical space there is great potential for chaos. Lurking in the back of every educator's mind is the fear of a class or worse yet school that is out of control. Viewed from this perspective schools are remarkable places that are able on a daily basis to move kids from place to place, stay on a schedule and get a high percentage of kids to cooperate on a wide variety of expectations and directions. Schools generally provide a predictable and organized environment for the great majority of students to learn and grow.
When even one student openly defies the the rules of behavior that are supposed to, keep the school orderly and predictable the whole equilibrium of the school can be easily throw off thereby disrupting the learning environment for all students. These students who act out and break the rules on a regular basis don't just have problems of their own; they become a problem for the whole school and can very easily send teachers and administrators, if not into a panic mode, at least put them on a high level of alert and emotionally color their judgments. As the number of students who can potentially threaten the order and stability of the school increases, the need to a have system in place for maintaining order becomes the highest priority for the school. This is the reason why programs like PBIS have such appeal to schools and also why they receive high levels of federal, state and local funding.
If a school is beset with behavior problems, that school is at great risk of failure in all domains. I would agree that these schools have little time to analyze the deeper reasons why so many students might be acting out or misbehaving on a regular basis. It might be true that student misbehavior are a symptom of a larger and deeper problem related to curriculum and instructional issues. Student misbehavior could also be a signal that a student's developmental needs are not being met by the school. Students who have consistent difficulty in attending and engaging in school also have problems that they carry with them when they walk through the school door. Schools that are trying to survive sadly don't have the time or the luxury to probe these issues-they legitimately need a quick fix-they need to first stop the bleeding. These schools need to get every staff person on board and following the same script; they can't afford to have a collection of individuals each trying a different way to address student misbehavior. They can't afford such inconsistency since it only adds to the chaos. Staff need to respond in a predictable and non emotional way and begin to focus on the positive behavior that occurs in even the most dysfunctional school. For these schools PBIS fits the bill: it brings stability, predictability and organization to schools in dire need of them.
It can be hard to argue with the success that PBIS brings to many schools. PBIS has a record of success and data to prove it. If I had to choose between a school barely managing to survive on the edge of chaos and one that gains stability via PBIS, it is a no-brainer-PBIS is the way to go. This is the position that many schools are in. They are sinking and PBIS is the life saver that they can't refuse to latch onto and use. Even schools that are far removed from the edge of chaos and are functioning fairly well would still be attracted to PBIS and its evidence of success. PBIS to these schools would be like life insurance to healthy people. It would offer added protection and would address those lurking fears that all educators have about losing control of students.
So What's the Problem?
When so much money, time and energy becomes invested in a program that is viewed as clearly preferable to life without the program in place, it becomes a very threatening proposition to even raise the slightest question or objection to that program. Like with any orthodoxy, questions, doubts, misgivings, objections are not welcomed as opportunities for reasoned discussion leading to deeper understandings, they are considered heresy and labelled as such. The success of PBIS and the hard data that "proves" that it works, also makes it extremely difficult to discuss its merits because it is not possible to argue with facts.
The main problem (among many problems) that I have with PBIS is that it does work, not that it doesn't. My concern is represented with the more problematic question: "For whom does it work?"
PBIS allows the status quo of schools, as we know them, to continue and function more smoothly. This makes it harder if not impossible for those in leadership positions to even begin to reimagine schools-or see them in any form other than their present form. It only makes it more difficult for school leaders to see the possibility of schools being transformed into something new of different. To quote Jim Collins, "the good is the enemy of great", PBIS by stabilizing schools settles for a level of mediocrity that ultimately blocks them from becoming something great. To further quote Collins, PBIS prevents schools from confronting the "brutal facts" that our schools as they are currently designed are not meeting the needs of educating students for the world as it exists. It is sort like a horse and buggy company making minor adjustments to survive when the world is moving towards the automobile. Students need to be problem solvers, self starters, team players, innovative thinkers, people who raise questions and not just answer them. Does PBIS promote those skills and qualities?
PBIS is designed to fix the problems that offer schools the opportunity to grow. Not every problem should be fixed. Robert Keegan said that we shouldn't just solve problems but some problems should solve us. Problems have always been the source of creativity and innovation especially when they propel us to go deeper and lead us to more questions rather than answers. Ask most people about the experience that taught them the most and they would point to a problem not to when everything was going smoothly in their life. PBIS by a providing a quick fix to problems actually prevents schools from digging deeper into problems and emerging transformed for the better. This might sound a little too philosophical especially in the light of practical and pressing problems that many schools face, however, failing to look deeper at the source of the problems often creates a situation where long term substantial improvement is traded away for short term quick fix. Stopping the bleeding is an important first step but ongoing health needs to involve a lot more than that. Schools shouldn't settle for just stopping the bleeding. To put this another way: PBIS may work for the adults in the short term but not for kids in the long term.
What concerns me the most, however, about PBIS is the hidden message that it sends to kids. This message is particularly present when PBIS is successful or "works" in a school. The most prominent message is about the nature of problems themselves and about those who have problems. Problems are not as Michael Fullan says "friends". They are things to be avoided.
Problems in PBIS schools are aberrations -things that shouldn't happen. When problems occur it is because somebody did something wrong. Think of this way: if PBIS was implemented with the fidelity that it is supposed to be implemented with, it desired state of being would be a problem-less school where nobody broke the rules and everything operated smoothly. Anyone who breaks the rules is ultimately preventing this desired state of being from occurring. Problems when they occur need to be corrected as quickly as possible so that the status quo can be restored and maintained. The school never really has to change only the people in the school have to change-change from breaking the rules to following them. Those who comply get rewarded, gain approval and are viewed as successful; those who don't comply get less reward, less approval and are not viewed as successful. This state of being feels pretty good to those in charge when things go smoothly, problems are kept to a minimal and the real teaching of content knowledge can proceed as planned.
It is hard to imagine an alternative to vision of success that PBIS promises without triggering the false alternative of chaos. This is also why it is so hard to argue against PBIS. The values of order, efficiency and convenience also fit neatly with the prevailing culture of our society. The problem with this attitude towards problems and the values of order, convenience and efficiency is that schools are not stores or restaurants but are supposed to be places of learning, places where children learn. Children are not finished products but are works in progress. They are experience life for the first time and whenever any human experiences something for the first time mistakes will and must happen-problems cannot be aberrations but are the norm, the expected, and are inherent in the process of learning. There shouldn't be any "should" involved when it comes to learning. The message that problems or mistakes shouldn't happen and smoothly sailing is the desired state of being does all of us a great disservice but it is especially a disservice to children who are very vulnerable and impressionable to our interpretations of the world. They need and want our approval so if they feel that they we want a problem free environment they will do their best to give it to us. This puts them in a terrible bind: learning is by its very nature messy and full of problems, it happens by trial and error, and its timetable for mastery naturally varies from individual to individual. Most schools, especially ones that rely on PBIS, imply that learning should be neat and clear, mistakes kept to a minimum, and mastery evaluated on an arbitrary one size fits all timetable. Educators may tell kids that it is ok to make mistakes but their words will be drowned out by the loud hidden message that kids encounter in how schools are managed.
As troubling as it might be to rethink "success", educators need to consider the long term implications of the hidden message that programs like PBIS send to students about how to view problems. If the message is that problems should be aberrations and undesirable and fixed as soon as possible, how will that message prepare students for a work environment and a creative life where order, convenience, and predictability are not the prevailing values. In fact, a creative life and work environments in the 21st century value initiative, risk taking, thinking outside the box, questioning, and teamwork. It is unrealistic to think or expect students to spend 12 years in a system that has one set of values to be prepared for a life, a career and world that has a very different set. Ironically it is no coincidence that the the innovators in our world are often the people who were not successful in traditional schools but people to had to find a different venue for success that was usually outside of school.
Since PBIS is so tempting and so much better than chaos, educators need to find a better approach that can keep a reasonable amount of order and predictability while creating an environment that can accept and even embrace problems as opportunities for learning. Schools, as Tom Serigiovanni said, should be "managerially loose but culturally tight" so that they can influence, guide, support and educate students and resist the temptation to control and manipulate them.
When even one student openly defies the the rules of behavior that are supposed to, keep the school orderly and predictable the whole equilibrium of the school can be easily throw off thereby disrupting the learning environment for all students. These students who act out and break the rules on a regular basis don't just have problems of their own; they become a problem for the whole school and can very easily send teachers and administrators, if not into a panic mode, at least put them on a high level of alert and emotionally color their judgments. As the number of students who can potentially threaten the order and stability of the school increases, the need to a have system in place for maintaining order becomes the highest priority for the school. This is the reason why programs like PBIS have such appeal to schools and also why they receive high levels of federal, state and local funding.
If a school is beset with behavior problems, that school is at great risk of failure in all domains. I would agree that these schools have little time to analyze the deeper reasons why so many students might be acting out or misbehaving on a regular basis. It might be true that student misbehavior are a symptom of a larger and deeper problem related to curriculum and instructional issues. Student misbehavior could also be a signal that a student's developmental needs are not being met by the school. Students who have consistent difficulty in attending and engaging in school also have problems that they carry with them when they walk through the school door. Schools that are trying to survive sadly don't have the time or the luxury to probe these issues-they legitimately need a quick fix-they need to first stop the bleeding. These schools need to get every staff person on board and following the same script; they can't afford to have a collection of individuals each trying a different way to address student misbehavior. They can't afford such inconsistency since it only adds to the chaos. Staff need to respond in a predictable and non emotional way and begin to focus on the positive behavior that occurs in even the most dysfunctional school. For these schools PBIS fits the bill: it brings stability, predictability and organization to schools in dire need of them.
It can be hard to argue with the success that PBIS brings to many schools. PBIS has a record of success and data to prove it. If I had to choose between a school barely managing to survive on the edge of chaos and one that gains stability via PBIS, it is a no-brainer-PBIS is the way to go. This is the position that many schools are in. They are sinking and PBIS is the life saver that they can't refuse to latch onto and use. Even schools that are far removed from the edge of chaos and are functioning fairly well would still be attracted to PBIS and its evidence of success. PBIS to these schools would be like life insurance to healthy people. It would offer added protection and would address those lurking fears that all educators have about losing control of students.
So What's the Problem?
When so much money, time and energy becomes invested in a program that is viewed as clearly preferable to life without the program in place, it becomes a very threatening proposition to even raise the slightest question or objection to that program. Like with any orthodoxy, questions, doubts, misgivings, objections are not welcomed as opportunities for reasoned discussion leading to deeper understandings, they are considered heresy and labelled as such. The success of PBIS and the hard data that "proves" that it works, also makes it extremely difficult to discuss its merits because it is not possible to argue with facts.
The main problem (among many problems) that I have with PBIS is that it does work, not that it doesn't. My concern is represented with the more problematic question: "For whom does it work?"
PBIS allows the status quo of schools, as we know them, to continue and function more smoothly. This makes it harder if not impossible for those in leadership positions to even begin to reimagine schools-or see them in any form other than their present form. It only makes it more difficult for school leaders to see the possibility of schools being transformed into something new of different. To quote Jim Collins, "the good is the enemy of great", PBIS by stabilizing schools settles for a level of mediocrity that ultimately blocks them from becoming something great. To further quote Collins, PBIS prevents schools from confronting the "brutal facts" that our schools as they are currently designed are not meeting the needs of educating students for the world as it exists. It is sort like a horse and buggy company making minor adjustments to survive when the world is moving towards the automobile. Students need to be problem solvers, self starters, team players, innovative thinkers, people who raise questions and not just answer them. Does PBIS promote those skills and qualities?
PBIS is designed to fix the problems that offer schools the opportunity to grow. Not every problem should be fixed. Robert Keegan said that we shouldn't just solve problems but some problems should solve us. Problems have always been the source of creativity and innovation especially when they propel us to go deeper and lead us to more questions rather than answers. Ask most people about the experience that taught them the most and they would point to a problem not to when everything was going smoothly in their life. PBIS by a providing a quick fix to problems actually prevents schools from digging deeper into problems and emerging transformed for the better. This might sound a little too philosophical especially in the light of practical and pressing problems that many schools face, however, failing to look deeper at the source of the problems often creates a situation where long term substantial improvement is traded away for short term quick fix. Stopping the bleeding is an important first step but ongoing health needs to involve a lot more than that. Schools shouldn't settle for just stopping the bleeding. To put this another way: PBIS may work for the adults in the short term but not for kids in the long term.
What concerns me the most, however, about PBIS is the hidden message that it sends to kids. This message is particularly present when PBIS is successful or "works" in a school. The most prominent message is about the nature of problems themselves and about those who have problems. Problems are not as Michael Fullan says "friends". They are things to be avoided.
Problems in PBIS schools are aberrations -things that shouldn't happen. When problems occur it is because somebody did something wrong. Think of this way: if PBIS was implemented with the fidelity that it is supposed to be implemented with, it desired state of being would be a problem-less school where nobody broke the rules and everything operated smoothly. Anyone who breaks the rules is ultimately preventing this desired state of being from occurring. Problems when they occur need to be corrected as quickly as possible so that the status quo can be restored and maintained. The school never really has to change only the people in the school have to change-change from breaking the rules to following them. Those who comply get rewarded, gain approval and are viewed as successful; those who don't comply get less reward, less approval and are not viewed as successful. This state of being feels pretty good to those in charge when things go smoothly, problems are kept to a minimal and the real teaching of content knowledge can proceed as planned.
It is hard to imagine an alternative to vision of success that PBIS promises without triggering the false alternative of chaos. This is also why it is so hard to argue against PBIS. The values of order, efficiency and convenience also fit neatly with the prevailing culture of our society. The problem with this attitude towards problems and the values of order, convenience and efficiency is that schools are not stores or restaurants but are supposed to be places of learning, places where children learn. Children are not finished products but are works in progress. They are experience life for the first time and whenever any human experiences something for the first time mistakes will and must happen-problems cannot be aberrations but are the norm, the expected, and are inherent in the process of learning. There shouldn't be any "should" involved when it comes to learning. The message that problems or mistakes shouldn't happen and smoothly sailing is the desired state of being does all of us a great disservice but it is especially a disservice to children who are very vulnerable and impressionable to our interpretations of the world. They need and want our approval so if they feel that they we want a problem free environment they will do their best to give it to us. This puts them in a terrible bind: learning is by its very nature messy and full of problems, it happens by trial and error, and its timetable for mastery naturally varies from individual to individual. Most schools, especially ones that rely on PBIS, imply that learning should be neat and clear, mistakes kept to a minimum, and mastery evaluated on an arbitrary one size fits all timetable. Educators may tell kids that it is ok to make mistakes but their words will be drowned out by the loud hidden message that kids encounter in how schools are managed.
As troubling as it might be to rethink "success", educators need to consider the long term implications of the hidden message that programs like PBIS send to students about how to view problems. If the message is that problems should be aberrations and undesirable and fixed as soon as possible, how will that message prepare students for a work environment and a creative life where order, convenience, and predictability are not the prevailing values. In fact, a creative life and work environments in the 21st century value initiative, risk taking, thinking outside the box, questioning, and teamwork. It is unrealistic to think or expect students to spend 12 years in a system that has one set of values to be prepared for a life, a career and world that has a very different set. Ironically it is no coincidence that the the innovators in our world are often the people who were not successful in traditional schools but people to had to find a different venue for success that was usually outside of school.
Since PBIS is so tempting and so much better than chaos, educators need to find a better approach that can keep a reasonable amount of order and predictability while creating an environment that can accept and even embrace problems as opportunities for learning. Schools, as Tom Serigiovanni said, should be "managerially loose but culturally tight" so that they can influence, guide, support and educate students and resist the temptation to control and manipulate them.
Monday, March 4, 2013
The Road Less Travelled
After a presentation I made, some asked me if discipline was ok to use in bullying prevention. Of course it was I reassured him. I was arguing in my talk that discipline by itself was woefully inadequate in addressing the the problem of bullying. I advocated for shifting from a criminal justice mindset to an educational mindset. Since discipline for bullying after it happens is still something that needs to be addressed, I was glad the person sought clarification. Schools cannot ignore acts of bullying and must hold students accountable for their actions, so traditional discipline as it is typically thought of still has a place in comprehensive bullying prevention.
In my book, I propose the term "discipline in the right climate" to avoid to false dichotomy of traditional discipline versus no discipline. This alternative approach reclaims the word discipline from its Latin roots. Discipline means learning and as the word disciple means learner. As a principal, I based the decisions I made for " discipline" on a very simple question: what decision will best insure that the student will learn from the experience and prevent it from happening again. Answering this question required me to know the student ( background, motivation, relationships etc.), know the environment where the problem occurred and know the resources we had to supervise and or support the student. Did this require more work and judgement on my part and the part of staff? Would it have been safer and easier to follow a prescribed one size fits all response? The answer to both questions is yes. Perhaps I did choose the road less travelled as Frost would say, but I also found that it made all the difference, in that my decisions involved a variety of approaches used in various combinations so the student didn't just learn "not" what to do, but learned why he/she did it, how what he/ she did affected others. The student could start to acquire skills that would allow him/her to make better choices in the future. Such an approach also leaves no doubt in the student's mind that he/she is not "a bully" but rather someone who made a mistake, someone who is a work in progress and could and would do better in the future.
This example of an alternative approach to bullying shows that the current conflict between the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program and Positive Behavioral Intervention Support is ultimately a splitting of hairs that detracts from a more productive discussion. In brief, PBIS claims that OBPP advocates using negative consequences to kids who bully others. They instead advocate for using positive reinforcement for kids who follow the rules of respecting others. Of course to most people the positive approach makes the most sense. This is a misperception because it over focuses on just one small part of OBPP that says that there should be some type of negative consequence for acts of bullying. Most of OBPP however advocates using data, educating students and staff about the problem, building classroom communities and community awareness and support. The goal of all of that is to prevent and reduce the number of bullying incidents. Given the choice of the two approaches, I think that OBPP provides a greater flexibility and potential for transforming a school environment.
Both programs however operate on the premise that bullying in schools should be addressed via a "program". School change is really about culture change and neither program or any program can be added to the status quo and expect to change the culture of schools. True change cannot happen by following a program but requires strong shared leadership, strategic actions, and a commitment to learn and do what it takes to educate students. This means that students need to develop the skills, knowledge and attitudes for being empowered, caring and responsible citizens. Schools that go this route are presented with less of a clear cut path than either of the roads that PBIS or OBPP promise. This approach requires new ways of thinking and acting, many new and varied tools to use, and ultimately changes every member of the school community for the better-which is just another way of saying everyone learns together as they move forward together.
In my book, I propose the term "discipline in the right climate" to avoid to false dichotomy of traditional discipline versus no discipline. This alternative approach reclaims the word discipline from its Latin roots. Discipline means learning and as the word disciple means learner. As a principal, I based the decisions I made for " discipline" on a very simple question: what decision will best insure that the student will learn from the experience and prevent it from happening again. Answering this question required me to know the student ( background, motivation, relationships etc.), know the environment where the problem occurred and know the resources we had to supervise and or support the student. Did this require more work and judgement on my part and the part of staff? Would it have been safer and easier to follow a prescribed one size fits all response? The answer to both questions is yes. Perhaps I did choose the road less travelled as Frost would say, but I also found that it made all the difference, in that my decisions involved a variety of approaches used in various combinations so the student didn't just learn "not" what to do, but learned why he/she did it, how what he/ she did affected others. The student could start to acquire skills that would allow him/her to make better choices in the future. Such an approach also leaves no doubt in the student's mind that he/she is not "a bully" but rather someone who made a mistake, someone who is a work in progress and could and would do better in the future.
This example of an alternative approach to bullying shows that the current conflict between the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program and Positive Behavioral Intervention Support is ultimately a splitting of hairs that detracts from a more productive discussion. In brief, PBIS claims that OBPP advocates using negative consequences to kids who bully others. They instead advocate for using positive reinforcement for kids who follow the rules of respecting others. Of course to most people the positive approach makes the most sense. This is a misperception because it over focuses on just one small part of OBPP that says that there should be some type of negative consequence for acts of bullying. Most of OBPP however advocates using data, educating students and staff about the problem, building classroom communities and community awareness and support. The goal of all of that is to prevent and reduce the number of bullying incidents. Given the choice of the two approaches, I think that OBPP provides a greater flexibility and potential for transforming a school environment.
Both programs however operate on the premise that bullying in schools should be addressed via a "program". School change is really about culture change and neither program or any program can be added to the status quo and expect to change the culture of schools. True change cannot happen by following a program but requires strong shared leadership, strategic actions, and a commitment to learn and do what it takes to educate students. This means that students need to develop the skills, knowledge and attitudes for being empowered, caring and responsible citizens. Schools that go this route are presented with less of a clear cut path than either of the roads that PBIS or OBPP promise. This approach requires new ways of thinking and acting, many new and varied tools to use, and ultimately changes every member of the school community for the better-which is just another way of saying everyone learns together as they move forward together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
