Corinne A. Gregory's Blog, page 2

Why “tolerance” isn’t enough

The news of Rodney King's death is making the rounds of the media today. For those of us who were around during the riots spawned by the police abuse incident, we can all remember King's impassioned plea on TV: "Can't we just all get along?"

It's his words that sparked a memory that leads to today's post. Good question, Mr. King: we can get along...the question is really, why don't we? I'd like to examine that idea today and see what you think about why it is that we have so much dissent and disharmony in this world.

Over the past several years, one of the big buzzwords has been "Tolerance." We are advised to be "tolerant," to "teach tolerance," -- there's even a Museum of Tolerance! Religious tolerance, gender tolerance, cultural tolerance...you name it, we are expected to "tolerate."

But what is this "tolerance" we are preaching anyway? For this, I'd like to share with you some of the concepts we offer our schools and students as part of the SocialSmarts' "Exploring the Virtues" curriculum. In the "Tolerance vs. Acceptance" lesson in Virtues I, we drill down into these two concepts and really get to what they mean, and how they affect us.

In order to understand something, we often have to define it first. And, this is how the lesson begins. From the Lower GradeSchool curriculum track, we provide the following definition for Tolerance -

Tolerance: Putting up with something or someone different from what we are used to.

When you stop to think about it, each and every one of us is "different" in some way. Maybe it's our background, where we came from, how we grew up. Maybe I have a college education but some of the people I hang out with don't. I like gardening, others are into remote-control planes. I have blue eyes and brown hair; my best friend is blonde. I mean, we are ALL different. To make this point to our young students, we suggest the class create a "differences chart" that illustrates, by varying characteristics how no two students (or include the teacher if you like) have exactly the same set of characteristics.

This is all good, but it's only the FIRST step in the lesson. Notice that Tolerance, by definition, means we are "putting up with" others in spite of their differences. "You're different, but I'll deal with it, in spite of your differences." It's like saying that we, ourselves, are the yardstick for "normal." YOU are different; I AM the norm. And, because I'm a great person who is politically correct by being TOLERANT, I'll put up with those differences.

Now, let's take it a step further and move to "Acceptance." By our SocialSmarts definition (for the younger students) we explain Acceptance is...

Approving of something (or someone) and treating it as normal, right, or included.

By this definition, Acceptance means that I consider you to be just as normal and "right" as I am. Differences aside, I include you and welcome you. It comes, partially, from the understanding that we have more in common that we have differences. I may have a particular gender orientation and you have a different one, but ultimately we are both wanting the same thing: love, understanding, and to be caring and cared by someone who matters to us. I may believe in one form of religion or spirituality and what you believe in may be different, but as a rule, we are trying to live a decent, positive life where we don't intentionally hurt others. And, who am I to say whether your way or mine is "more right?" Just because I don't agree or don't practice what you do doesn't make you "inferior."

There's another issue when it comes to the difference between Tolerance and Acceptance. And, it's a VERY important distinction. You see, no matter who we are or how hard we try, at some point in our lives we are going to meet someone whom we don’t like, or with whom we don’t agree. We may have to work with them and get along with them. If we don’t learn to be tolerant of other people’s differences, we just won’t be able to co-exist.

But, merely “co-existing” in the same space really isn't enough. Tolerance really refers to just “putting up” with something or someone, even if we don’t like it. It’s a passive state — one that keeps us stuck in the same spot. We explained to students that it’s the same thing as when we say, “Ok, I will if I have to.” But it’s clear we really don’t like it. Tolerance is a state that focuses on our differences.

Being accepting, on the other hand, is an active state, where we not only understand and tolerate someone’s differences, but we appreciate them and value them. Acceptance recognizes that while we are different, we probably have more things in common than we have differences, and often those differences compliment each other. Acceptance gives us forward movement; it brings people closer together by including both sides.

What we also do in SocialSmarts is relate these concepts back to previous lessons students have learned. In this case, tolerance is, in a way, another form of patience. But acceptance requires not only patience, but empathy, which, in turn, requires understanding that as different as we may be, we’re basically all the same in what we want, what we need, and in our inalienable rights to want those things.

So, while "Tolerance" seems to be what everyone is shooting for, I would like to put forth that this isn't enough. While we probably won't always get along at all times, we can certainly strive to be more accepting and understanding of others, regardless of where they come from and who they are. Oftentimes, we'll find that we are more and better together, because of the different perspectives, life experiences and personalities we bring to the table, than we could ever be on our own. As best-selling author, J.K. Rowling has said, "Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.”

---

Did you like this? Do you know that the SocialSmarts curriculum for students pre-K through High School is available to schools and private groups? Email SocialSmarts for more information on how to get started.

View more on Corinne A. Gregory's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on June 18, 2012 18:29

Education and Politics: Do as I say, not as I do?

It's funny where inspiration for an article can come from. Last Saturday, there was an interesting post and tweet by Timothy Slekar that was retweeted by Diane Ravitch. If you are involved in Education issues, you are probably already familiar with Diane -- she writes the "Bridging Differences" blog for EducationWeek.

Essentially, the tweet was about how Governor Mitt Romney (now the Republican Presidential Candidate) was "another clueless reformer" because of his position that the number of students in a classroom doesn't matter. In Tim's blog, he questioned that position and went further to connect the politicians (Arne Duncan, Romney) and other "leaders" (such as Bill Gates) who send their own children to private schools at the same time they argue the class size issue in public schools.

Needless to say, I had to comment on the blog -- it's not ALL about class size, folks, as you know who have been reading my posts for a while. And, while we have continually reduced class size -- on average -- over the last 30+ years, our students aren't doing measurably better academically as a result of smaller classes. I thought I would share one of my posts with both Ms. Ravitch and Mr. Slekar via Twitter as a counterpoint. And, that's where things got interesting. Ms. Ravitch decided to engage in a debate with me on Twitter and here's how it went:

Me: @slekar @DianeRavitch Romney not totally clueless: classroom size matters less than other things - http://bit.ly/tutTol

Ms. Ravitch then responds with: @sociallysmart @slekar Oh, yes, Romney said 2-parent family important for school success. What about kids who don't have that?

To which I replied: @DianeRavitch @slekar That's a different issue -- I was addressing class size, not all of his opinions in a blanket pass.

I wasn't quite sure why she switched from the classroom size issue to now his stand on 2-parent families. I thought we were discussing class size.

The next tweet I get from Ms. Ravitch is:@sociallysmart @slekar Romney is wrong about class size. He sent his own children to schools with small classes. Hypocrisy doesn't work.

The implication here, I take it is that Romney shouldn't be talking about class size and two-parent families because not everyone can have what he wants? But, particularly when she means "advantages," I believe she is talking about the advantages Gov. Romney has because he sent his kids to private school. Ergo, he shouldn't be talking about class size since private schools "sell" smaller classroom sizes as a benefit to students and families. Ms. Ravitch states that Romney is a hypocrite because he sends HIS kids to private school while he talks about class size not being an issue in public schools. Ok, but I had to point out an important point -- who ELSE sends their kids to private schools? So, I tweeted:

@DianeRavitch @slekar And, Sidwell Friends is the home of Obama's, Biden's, Clinton's kids -- and Gore attended St. Albans. Your Point?

She responds: @sociallysmart @slekar If you don't want other people's kids to have same advantages as your own, you should have the decency to be silent.

So I ask: @DianeRavitch Then Y can Obama make Pub Ed a BIG issue 4 his campaign, then send his kids to Sidwell? Is that different?

To which Ms. Ravitch replies: @sociallysmart Listen to teachers. They don't care where he sends his kids so long as he stops destructive policies like Race to Top.

Wait, we went from classroom size to RTTT? But, in her tweet, there was a huge nugget of information. And, yes, I had to go there...

@DianeRavitch "He" = Obama? RTTT is HIS idea.If teachers don't care where O's kids go,then Romney's not a hypocrite either by your argument.

And, that was the last I heard personally from Ms. Ravitch. However, I did get a bunch of other tweets from other people I never even heard of mostly defending class size as an issue or continuing to bash the hypocrite point. Here's one that I chose to respond to from Arthur Goldstein (@TeacherArthurG):

@DianeRavitch @sociallysmart @slekar Maybe hypocrisy works for Obama and Romney, one of whom will be Prez. For rest of us, not so much.

I couldn't agree more, Arthur. My response: @TeacherArthurG @DianeRavitch @slekar I don't believe hypocrisy is appropriate 4 anyone. Particularly those who deign to lead us.

So, here's the thing I got out of this -- some candidates who talk about improving public education that take positions contrary to what we've been fed by the Education Establishment are hypocrites because they say one thing then do another. In other words, they "preach" about problems in public education then send their own kids to private schools that don't have the issues plaguing public Ed. But, in Romney's case, his comments on class size weren't even on the same par as saying "class size doesn't matter." Here is what he is reported to have said taken from a recent Los Angeles Times article

...if you had a class of five, that would be terrific. If you had a class of 50, that's impossible." But he [Romney] said a McKinsey Global Institute study had compared U.S. student performance with countries like Singapore, South Korea and Finland and found that class size didn't matter.

The consultants found that, "gosh, in schools that are the highest-performing in the world, their classroom sizes are about the same as in the United States. So it's not the classroom size that's driving the success of those school systems," Romney said. Instead, parental involvement and top-flight teachers and administrators make the difference.

And, he's right. Class size is NOT the most important factor in determining academic success for our kids. But why does it make him a hypocrite who shouldn't be talking on the subject since he sends his kids to private school when President Obama is doing the same thing (and apparently NOT a hypocrite?)

Frankly, I don't think either of them are. Not for that reason. I've personally been accused of being the same sort of hypocrite because I am speaking out on the issues plaguing public education and urging people to take a hard, honest look at its problems yet I now have my children in private school as well. But, I'm not as much a hypocrite as a parent. While I continue to push the public education system to transform itself, at the same time, I came to the hard realization that it will not happen while my own children attend school. My first obligation as a parent is to do what I can to ensure my children receive the best education they can get. Which is not to say I don't believe that others don't deserve the same thing. I do. And I realize that the "private" options such as independent, religious, charter schools or homeschooling, online or any other "alternative" choice isn't available to every child -- I couldn't do it without the help of significant financial aid (and, I still support the public education system with my tax dollars). Yet, every child deserves that same level of quality education. Our public education system should be a high-quality system where students get an excellent educational opportunity. That's what the politicians are (we hope) pressing for, and it's what I believe in and why I continue to do what I do in spite of the odds.

Providing our children with a terrific education should not be a "Democrat" vs. "Republican" issue. We are all Americans, we're all adults, and we have an obligation to work toward that same goal -- that of preparing our kids, the "next generation," for their turn participating in and running our country. If Ms. Ravitch and others believe that Romney is a hypocrite because he's talking about one thing and doing another, yet President Obama isn't (when he's doing the same thing) then this IS becoming a political issue that does nothing to solve education's problems and certainly does NOT help our children.

---

Did you find this interesting? There's more like this in my Amazon #1 Seller, "Education Reform & Other Myths." You can get it on Kindle now here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0071NAX2O

View more on Corinne A. Gregory's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 30, 2012 14:11

2012 Election and Political “good sportsmanship”

I know this is virtually old news considering it occurred two weeks ago, but the incident left a lasting impression on me. On May 7th, former Republican candidate for President, Rick Santorum "officially" endorsed front-runner Mitt Romney. Well, if you can call sending an email an endorsement. You see, Mr. Santorum decided he would communicate his message in an email. While it's not quite as tacky as breaking up with someone over a text message or IM, I don't consider this the appropriate actions of a gracious loser.

On the heels of that, I was invited again to the be the guest on our local Q13 Fox to discuss political mudslinging and negative campaigning. I think the two issues are linked -- our leaders have forgotten how to be civil and respectful of one another.

Mr. Santorum's email wasn't even sent to Governor Romney. It was actually sent to his supporters, and rambled on for over 1,000 words. The endorsement of the presumed Republican nominee didn't even come until well down into the 13th paragraph. This is not usually how candidates and those that have exited a race treat one another, at least not publicly. Typically, when it comes time for an endorsement, it is made publicly -- often at a press conference -- and frequently in person where there's a chance for a photo opp.

Not this time. And, to me, that says a lot.

You see, I think it's easy to be gracious when things are going your way. But a true test of character comes when things don't turn out the way you want. It's almost more important to see how people behave under pressure and in times of loss or defeat than it is to see when things are golden. To me, Rick Santorum's email constituted being a poor loser. Regardless of how he felt -- both personally and professionally -- the right thing to do is to be civil in public, congratulate the winner and be supportive of that "win." I don't mean he has to become Romney's best new buddy overnight, but he should at least show enough decorum (rhymes with "Santorum" but only coincidentally) and class to be supportive.

This reminds me of the same feeling I get when I watch the Food Network program "Chopped." If you haven't seen it, it's a competition between four chefs who are supposed to cook three meals (appetizer, entree and dessert) using three different mystery baskets. After they cook the course, they are judged and one chef is eliminated after each round if their dish is rated lower than the others. In other words, as host Ted Allen says, "If your dish doesn't cut it, you will be chopped."

The comments and reactions of those chefs that are chopped in each round are very interesting. While some of them take their defeat graciously, regardless of how disappointed they are, some of the "losers" are really poor sports, talking down to the judges (all celebrity chefs who have made their names in their respective industries or specialties), even claiming that "they don't know what they are talking about." I find that I don't want the arrogant and cocky contestants to advance because, in my mind, they are not good competitors. Of COURSE we are disappointed if we lose or fail to achieve a goal, but accept your loss with grace, learn from the experience, and leave a positive impression on everyone involved. THAT is the mark of good character.

It will be interesting to see how this election year progresses -- how many more examples of poor character we will see from our leaders and prospective leaders. I truly believe we learn more about them in the "down times" than we do when they are on top. When the polls reflect certain ups and downs, let's pay attention to the reactions to those numbers and maybe we'll see a side of a candidate that we wouldn't otherwise experience. Take THAT into account because, as Stephen Covey has said, "Public behavior is merely private character writ large." And I don't need to see poor sportsmanship "writ large" by those who deign to lead us.

View more on Corinne A. Gregory's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on May 21, 2012 18:09

Students create fake online identities to bully peers

This was the title of an article in Education Week that I stumbled upon today. I looked at it in shock, not because I couldn't believe it was happening, but more because I had a sort of "No kidding, duh!" reaction to it.

Does it surprise you that kids are doing this? It shouldn't. It's one of the unintended consequences of enacting laws to deal with cyber bullying and online harassment. The kids who are doing the bullying and harassing are trying to cover up who is doing it because they want to evade laws and policies that forbid and punish this kind of behavior.

What we are seeing then, is the problem being compounded. Not only is it bad enough that students are doing the bullying -- online or off, -- now we add sneakiness and subterfuge to the list of "bad behavior."

Nearly two years ago, I called attention to the problems with isolating cyber bullying as a separate "thing" from off-line bullying, something that somehow needed a different solution. While there are some things that make cyber bullying somewhat unique, the basic root cause of why people bully and harass online is the same as what drives off-line behavior (and, as a matter of fact, frequently online bullying LEADS to offline, in person bullying as well!)

The people who bully lack the sensitivity, compassion and consideration that allows them to understand that treating others like this is just plain wrong. Before you go off telling me I'm wrong, let me qualify this: I'm not saying that bullies don't know it's wrong when they bully; I'm saying they lack the basic character development that allows them to care.

Further, bullying is about power. It's about a zero-sum game that says, "Hey, in order for me to be a bigger deal, I have to make you a lesser deal." If I write you a hurtful note on paper and stuff it in your locker, I may hurt you, but you and I are the only ones to know. If I do it on the Internet, though, a whole "universe" can know.

Now, take the fake id action and you see that these students will use the anonymity of the Internet to do their damage without any obvious way of being held accountable for their actions. I say "obvious," because kids don't usually realize how traceable the Internet really is. I myself (and I'm not a cyber-expert by any means) was able to track down and isolate who was cyberbullying and harassing me back in the past, using just a simple set of tools and basic knowledge of IP addresses and web logs. You can bet that the police and other "enforcers" have that ability magnified a zillion times over.

Most cyberbullying will never reach a level where the local police or even FBI (yes, they do have jurisdiction, too, depending on how, where and when the bullying takes place) will get involved. But, it is imminently possible that they can.

But rather than argue about what should be done once the problem occurs, we really need to start looking at how we prevent it. We continue to think "anti-bullying" when by the time it has reached a bullying stage, we're dealing with the problem too late. And, in the case of cyberbullying, putting in fancy and high-fallutin' electronic "mousetraps" to identify and catch cyberbullies is really too little, too late. When people want to do bad, they find a way to do it. In this case, they get anonymous userids and create fake Facebook pages or similar.

Recently I read an article that suggested "Internet etiquette" training was essential for teens and pre-teens to help them understand how to conduct themselve online. If you ask me, the rules of conduct online should be no different than those offline, so why offer a "special" course? Something as simple as "don't say anything online that you wouldn't say to someone's face" is really no different than saying "don' t say something behind someone's back that you wouldn't say to their face," is it? In either case, it's gossip at best case, bullying at worst.

So, rather than spend all this separate energy (and time and, yes, money) treating cyberbullying at its end-result, how about we work on developing positive behavior and character with our kids at the foundational level? I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp, but yet it is still a very evangelical sale to try to convince schools and communities to invest in a pro-active approach.

Until we do, we'll continue to see that kids find new ways to elude the consequences of negative behavior, and when cyberbullying is no longer the "in" and happening new thing, I promise you they will find another new and interesting way to hurt others because of their lack of compassion, consideration and appreciation of the feelings of others.

---

Did you find this article helpful? If so, check out the on-demand video "7 Steps to Eliminating Bullying in Schools, An Inside-Out Approach."

View more on Corinne A. Gregory's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 11, 2012 16:53

Why the “Bully” Movie Rating Doesn’t Matter

For weeks now, there has been significant outrage from parents, educators and others about the Motion Picture Association of America's assignment of an "R" rating for the upcoming movie "Bully." This is a movie that is created by The Bully Project intended to show audiences the type of living hell kids who are being bullied go through.

The movie is getting some good reviews, but it's the "behind the scenes" action that is getting all the attention. There has been a strong response from the public that the "R" rating given the movie by the MPAA is going to prevent those people who need to see it the most from getting that opportunity.

That's where I say, "What????" Are you serious?

Now, let's break this down, shall we? An "R" rating means that the subject matter is not intended for children under 17. This might include content involving violence, language, sex and nudity...any or all of the above. But, if you examine what the rating MEANS, it specifically says that children under 17 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian.

So, then, where's the problem? I can tell you that most kids under 17 (the ones that, according to the supporters of changing the rating), aren't going to go see "Bully" because it's the hottest thing to hit the teen market. You won't see a group of 15 year olds weighing the pros and cons of seeing this movie, over, say "The Hunger Games." Not gonna happen.

The kids that go to see this movie will be going there largely because their parents want them to see it -- and they will take them to see it. I do not expect a long line of 9 year olds in front of the theater to see "Bully" on their own -- no, that line is for "The Lorax."

As far as not being able to show it in schools with this rating, that, too, is ridiculous. Movies with "questionable" content are shown all the time. If a school is progressive (or if the movie violates their normal policy), they inform parents who can opt-in or opt-out. Heck, even my own kids were shown "An Inconvenient Truth" in their SCIENCE class as "proof" of global warming (remember how "valid" all that research has been shown to be lately?), and we didn't know about it until after the fact. Comparatively, "Bully" could be seen as much less "questionable" because we SEE first-hand proof, that bullying occurs in every school across the country today.

But, media types and celebrities are jumping on the outrage bandwagon. Ellen DeGeneres has done a segment praising Katy Butler's attempts with Change.org to get the rating changed.

I just have to ask another unpopular question: is this movie about SOLUTIONS, or is it more "awareness?" Raise your hand if YOU don't know that bullying is horrible, is at epidemic proportions and frequently causes lasting trauma and even death? I'll bet not a hand in the room goes up! Why, then, do we need a MOVIE to show us more? Is this intended to be entertainment or educational? I don't object to calling attention to the problem, but the problem with this approach is that we all walk away saying "oh, how AWFUL," agreeing we all have to do something about it...and then we don't. Or, won't. Or, we decide we need a better policy. How about another, tougher law? Let's hold an assembly at school...and then the kids listen (maybe) for 1/2 an hour, go back to their classes, and later, home...and life goes on as normal.

When will we understand and admit that these visuals and story-telling do not constitute "behavior change?" Ellen doesn't want to talk about how we change behavior; but she does invite parents of bully victims on the program to talk about their tragedies. Anderson Cooper commits a whole show to the problem, and nothing to the solutions. We talk about "anti-bullying" when we should talk "pro-social skills." Now, when we stop calling attention to the problem, and start focusing on the solution, then I think we'll see change. In fact, I'm staking my career on it!

---

Did you like this post? For more on the problems with "anti-bullying" and what to do about it, see http://corinnegregory.com/blog/2012/02/28/why-anti-bullying-doesnt-work-part-i/ And, share it with your friends!

View more on Corinne A. Gregory's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 20, 2012 11:35

Why the "Bully" Movie Rating Doesn't Matter

For weeks now, there has been significant outrage from parents, educators and others about the Motion Picture Association of America's assignment of an "R" rating for the upcoming movie "Bully." This is a movie that is created by The Bully Project intended to show audiences the type of living hell kids who are being bullied go through.

The movie is getting some good reviews, but it's the "behind the scenes" action that is getting all the attention. There has been a strong response from the public that the "R" rating given the movie by the MPAA is going to prevent those people who need to see it the most from getting that opportunity.

That's where I say, "What????" Are you serious?

Now, let's break this down, shall we? An "R" rating means that the subject matter is not intended for children under 17. This might include content involving violence, language, sex and nudity...any or all of the above. But, if you examine what the rating MEANS, it specifically says that children under 17 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian.

So, then, where's the problem? I can tell you that most kids under 17 (the ones that, according to the supporters of changing the rating), aren't going to go see "Bully" because it's the hottest thing to hit the teen market. You won't see a group of 15 year olds weighing the pros and cons of seeing this movie, over, say "The Hunger Games." Not gonna happen.

The kids that go to see this movie will be going there largely because their parents want them to see it -- and they will take them to see it. I do not expect a long line of 9 year olds in front of the theater to see "Bully" on their own -- no, that line is for "The Lorax."

As far as not being able to show it in schools with this rating, that, too, is ridiculous. Movies with "questionable" content are shown all the time. If a school is progressive (or if the movie violates their normal policy), they inform parents who can opt-in or opt-out. Heck, even my own kids were shown "An Inconvenient Truth" in their SCIENCE class as "proof" of global warming (remember how "valid" all that research has been shown to be lately?), and we didn't know about it until after the fact. Comparatively, "Bully" could be seen as much less "questionable" because we SEE first-hand proof, that bullying occurs in every school across the country today.

But, media types and celebrities are jumping on the outrage bandwagon. Ellen DeGeneres has done a segment praising Katy Butler's attempts with Change.org to get the rating changed.

I just have to ask another unpopular question: is this movie about SOLUTIONS, or is it more "awareness?" Raise your hand if YOU don't know that bullying is horrible, is at epidemic proportions and frequently causes lasting trauma and even death? I'll bet not a hand in the room goes up! Why, then, do we need a MOVIE to show us more? Is this intended to be entertainment or educational? I don't object to calling attention to the problem, but the problem with this approach is that we all walk away saying "oh, how AWFUL," agreeing we all have to do something about it...and then we don't. Or, won't. Or, we decide we need a better policy. How about another, tougher law? Let's hold an assembly at school...and then the kids listen (maybe) for 1/2 an hour, go back to their classes, and later, home...and life goes on as normal.

When will we understand and admit that these visuals and story-telling do not constitute "behavior change?" Ellen doesn't want to talk about how we change behavior; but she does invite parents of bully victims on the program to talk about their tragedies. Anderson Cooper commits a whole show to the problem, and nothing to the solutions. We talk about "anti-bullying" when we should talk "pro-social skills." Now, when we stop calling attention to the problem, and start focusing on the solution, then I think we'll see change. In fact, I'm staking my career on it!

---

Did you like this post? For more on the problems with "anti-bullying" and what to do about it, see http://corinnegregory.com/blog/2012/02/28/why-anti-bullying-doesnt-work-part-i/ And, share it with your friends!

View more on Corinne A. Gregory's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 20, 2012 11:35

Civility in the Workplace: A strategic move for business success

I was reminded today about the importance of civility, particularly in the business world where so much involves less-than-respectful behavior and a lot of rudeness and discourtesy. Instead of writing about it, I thought you migh find this video an interesting piece -- maybe you can take a few nuggets of information out of it that will help you get your week off to a great start! To your success!

---

Was this helpful? You can more about civility and social skills in business in the acclaimed book, "It's Not Who You Know, It's How You Treat Them" available in print at www.ItsNotWhoYouKnowItsHowYouTreatThem.com, for Kindle at http://www.amazon.com/Its-Know-Treat-Them-ebook/dp/B005XARZW8/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1332185953&sr=8-6, for Nook at http://www.amazon.com/Its-Know-Treat-Them-ebook/dp/B005XARZW8/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1332185953&sr=8-6 and other ebook formats.

View more on Corinne A. Gregory's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 19, 2012 12:44

Why “Anti-Bullying” Doesn’t Work – Part I

As I sit down to write this, I'm already imagining the controversy this post is going to generate. But before I go too far down the path, let me say that this is not an anti-bullying bashing party. It's an attempt to explain what is fatally wrong with our attempts to end the bullying epidemic in our schools and communities.

I believe the "anti-" approach is wrong.

In many of my presentations that I give across the country to parents, educators and administrators, I use a quote that Mother Teresa once said about our attempts to end global conflict and a request that she appear at an event. She responded by saying

"I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there." - Mother Teresa

I use this quote a lot because it seems we have the same problem with "anti-bullying." We're calling attention to the wrong thing, and, very much too late in the game.

If you know much about brain functioning, you may have heard that our human brains have difficulty computing negatives. It's as though the brain has to do a double-take and "reprocess" the information when it encounters something like "don't" or "can't." The study of neurolinguistics is finding some very interesting results that seem to back this up. An article I recently came across may suggest that using the words "don't" when trying to change negative behavior may be actually unwittingly supporting that negative behavior.

I'll try to summarize this but you can read the full article here. One example the author uses is the effect of telling yourself, when in a stressful situation, "Don't panic." If you hear a fire alarm in a crowded gymnasium and repeatedly tell yourself "Don't panic, don't panic" you may find yourself breaking into a run in spite of your best intentions. This effect is referred to as "negation."

Now, imagine you are a young child in the same situation. Children are believed to be more susceptible to negation's effects, so the "don't" message that we are trying to teach them. Tell a toddler, "Don't touch" invariably causes that child to want to reach out even more strongly.

I can personally vouch for my brain's "don't" disconnect. Any of you play golf? Ok, in that case, here's a real-life scenario for you and tell me if this hasn't happened to you: You're teeing off at a particularly challenging spot, where you just KNOW if you hit the ball right, it's a goner. You tell yourself, "Don't hit right, don't hit right, don't hit right." What happens...chances are that ball goes zooming as right as rain. We also know that our brains tend to process messages that we tell ourselves and "miraculously" we find ourselves acting out just what we were thinking.

Ever find yourself carrying a tray of something fragile and you tell yourself "oh, don't DROP that!" Next thing you know...shards. Your brain has managed to filter out that "don't" and has rewarded you with exactly what it picked up, i.e. "Drop it."

Now, what does this have to do with bullying? Well, look at the messages most anti-bully approaches have: "Don't bully," "No Bully Zone," "You Can't Bully Me," "Don't be Mean," "Don't make fun of people." They are negation messages that are also, at the same time calling attention to negative behavior.

And, if you know anything about human motiviation it's this:

We respond to positive attention for positive behaviors, but...
We'll respond to negative attention for negative behavior over being ignored.

In essence, by making "bullying behavior" the focus of our attention, we are also reinforcing that negative behavior. We may have these rallies and put "policies" in place (which, I'm not saying aren't needed, but stick with me here), thinking that if we "raise awareness" the problem will stop.

But folks, let me tell you...the kids ARE aware. They know this behavior is wrong. These are some of the key questions I ask students in assemblies I do with them on the topic, and I can assure you that virtually every child in this country KNOWS that bullying is wrong.

All well and good you say...so what CAN we do about the problem? I'll talk about that in my next post because, just like this is a long topic for discussion, the solution also leads to lengthy analysis. I don't want to bore you to death with a 2000 word post. We'll talk about the upside in the bullying message next time.

---

If you found this post interesting and want to learn more about the problem of bullying and what to do about it, Amazon Best Seller "Breaking the Bullying Culture" can be ordered today for Kindle: get your copy at http://www.amazon.com/Education-Reform-Other-Myths-ebook/dp/B00772XLHS/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1328796163&sr=1-3

View more on Corinne A. Gregory's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 28, 2012 13:28

Why "Anti-Bullying" Doesn't Work – Part I

As I sit down to write this, I'm already imagining the contreversy this post is going to generate. But before I go too far down the path, let me say that this is not an anti-bullying bashing party. It's an attempt to explain what is fatally wrong with our attempts to end the bullying epidemic in our schools and communities.