Corinne A. Gregory's Blog, page 8

Obama commits $132M to anti-bullying — what will that mean?

At last week's first ever "Bullying Prevention Summit," President Obama committed to providing $132M in funding from the 2012 budget toward anti-bullying efforts in schools. This came in the wake of discussion with several parents who had lost their children due to bullycide along with presentations by administration officials on the growing epidemic of bullying.  The reaction from many people on the front lines of the anti-bullying movement were encouraged, stating that this was a great victory for those of us working on stopping bullying in schools.

Trust me, I am NOT a glass-half-empty kind of person, but I have to admit that I'm not as impressed as others.  Those of you who are regular readers of this blog or have seen me speak know I ask tough questions and want practical explanations, so I thought I'd examine what this supposed windfall really means for schools across the country.

In the US, there are roughly 16,600+ public school districts.  I'm assuming the $132M would only go to the public schools and not private schools, homeschool networks or other "alternative" education options. If you do the math, this means that there would be approximately $8000 allocated to each school district.  Now, we know that most districts consist of multiple schools, covering the gamut of preschool-G12.  It's hard, really, to come up with an average size district because they vary so much. But, for the sake of argument, let's say there are 10 schools total in any given district (we can assume 5 of those are Elementary Schools, 3 are Middle or Junior Highs, and the remaining two are High Schools). If we evenly allocated the $8000 to those schools, you'd see that each school would receive $800 toward their anti-bullying efforts.

$800? What can you realistically do with $800?  Maybe you can get a speaker for an assembly — but what lasting effect will a one-time rally have?  Maybe you can print and reproduce some posters…but again, it's not anything that deals with the underlying problems.

Of course, this money may not be equally allocated across all schools in the country, but even if you doubled the allocation per school assuming that only schools that "needed" it would apply for the funds…well, you can quickly see that this $132M is really just like throwing rocks into the Grand Canyon.

The bigger problem is not the money alone, but what will be done with it.  We know, historically, that many of our schools aren't terribly good at using funds to their best effectiveness.  We also know, based on research and studies, that the majority of "anti-bullying" efforts aren't yielding effective results. And that's not due to insufficient money allocation.  Kevin Jennings' "Safe and Drug Free Schools" initiative has been making grants for years — much of that toward anti-bullying and violence prevention programs.  Yet, we have bullying at epidemic levels.

I'm worried that once again we are throwing money at the "end result" of the problem without really taking into account what is causing the problem to begin with.  We know "more money" has not been the answer to the majority of challenges facing our education system. Why do we think that this time, Bullwinkle, it's going to be any different?

If President Obama had said, "let's dedicate $132M to proven programs that have shown to address the root cause of bullying and other anti-social behavior," I think he would have been on to something. We can't "fix" bullying by adopting more of the same "zero tolerance" and "anti-bullying" programs we've already been using.  Look, if Zero Tolerance was working, why would a student who had defended himself against an egregious attack by a bully be the one expelled?

$132M may seem like a lot of money, and it may seem as though the White House is making a real committment to ending the problem of bullying, but it really isn't much at all once you break it down.  What's more important than just throwing more money at the same problems is to look at why we have that problem to begin with, take a look at how to prevent it. That's using resources wisely. You'll find if you work on building students' pro-social skills and developing positive character that you not only wipe out the majority of bullying, but you'll raise student test scores, increase teacher morale, keep students in school, and develop school-to-work skills that they are so sorely lacking once they leave the school environment.

That, I believe, would be money well spent, and we'd have a whole host of things to show it.  It's called making an "investment" and we'd be amazed at the positive returns, both short- and long-term.

Filed under: Bullying and School Violence, Current Events, Education Policy Tagged: $132M committment, anti-bullying, anti-bullying summit, Kevin Jennings, Obama, Safe and Drug Free Schools

Education Ills: Connecting the dots

This morning's news is interesting: at the same time they are talking about the Obama's announcement of the big anti-bullying summit in September, hearings are underway that reveal up to 82% of our schools would be considered "Failing" under No Child Left Behind.

I'm sure virtually everyone thinks these things are completely unrelated.

But, the reality is that they are related because both issues stem from a common cause.

This is one of the things I point out in my presentations on education reform that I am frequently called to do.  In "Overcoming Failure to Educate," I show how there is one root cause for nearly every problem in education today.  The types of things we're talking about are classroom size, teacher recruitment and retention, the achievement gap, bullying and other anti-social behavior, and even academic achievement.

You might be thinking that this "common cause" is "money," and you'd be wrong. None of this has to do with money…

As a matter of fact, if we dealt with the real root cause, we'd have plenty of money to do the things we needed to do in the classroom because we're bleeding money right and left. You see, the common cause we're talking about here is the problem with our kids social skills, character and behavior. Over the past 40 years, discipline in the classroom has been decreasing at steady and alarming rates. At the same time, we've been investing increasingly larger sums of money trying to educate our kids. Ordinary "disruptive" students in the class whose behavior isn't checked can become the same students who don't care about how they are hurting and taunting fellow classmates. Teachers who can't deal with the discipline problems anymore bail out of the education system, regardless of what you pay them. Students that come from low-income, minority or non-native cultures may not know what they need to in the way of interpersonal skills to be able to participate equally with the mainstream in the classroom, and they then are unable to compete equally in the job market.

When repeated studies show that teachers are losing 20/30/40% or more of productive classroom time due to unruly and disruptive students, that ruins the learning environment for all students. It costs the school system hundreds of billions of dollars annually, not to mention the related side-effects.

Yet, what do we typically do?  We go to the end-result.  If students aren't achieving, it must mean they need better curriculum, different assessments, longer school days or school year, or better teachers.  All of this will most certainly require more money.  To stop bullying we need better Zero Tolerance policies, more money for anti-bullying programs, or even tougher legislation.  Can you see the dollar signs?

However, improving classroom productivity by improving students' social skills does not require more money because the money is already there…it's just "lost" right now due to waste. And, as the recent research from the University of Chicago showed, implementing social skills education directly results in higher academic achievement as well as improvements in student behavior and reductions in discipline problems.

We've seen these results with SocialSmarts so I have first-hand experience with this. It's not an anomaly either; results are consistent across a wide-variety of demographics, geographical regions, and types of schools. Our kids just have lost the ability to understand why school is a place where you sit still, are quiet as appropriate, pay attention and be respectful. As I've been quoted in the past, "Johnny will never learn to read if Johnny won't sit down, hush up, and pay attention."

I just don't see too many people talking about the issue at the root cause level and I wonder why.  If we dealt with things where they start, we'd find we get a lot more done, more efficiently, and with better overall results.  Yes, we'll have exceptions, but then we have the ability to deal with them as exceptions instead of the norm. I know governments aren't know for their efficiency — that's like saying "jumbo shrimp" — but these are our tax dollars and our children, for crying out loud.

Mr. Secretary of Education, I would love to take 1/2 an hour of your time, share what I have to say, and have you explain to me why I don't have a valid point. But, the good news is I have more than a point…I have a solution.  I'm willing to let you in on it so maybe this administration can be successful in its education plans, instead of another one we look back on as a failure.

Filed under: Bullying and School Violence, Education Policy, Education Reform, Social Skills and Character Tagged: Arne Duncan, bullying, failing schools, NCLB, No Child Left Behind, Obama bullying summit, what's wrong with education

The perils of rewarding bad behavior

The headlines are screaming "Charlie Sheen" everywhere you look.  It seems you just can't get away from the latest news about what the former "Two and a Half Men" star is up to.  Our local paper asks, "Did Media Fuel Sheen's Shenanigans?"

Was that meant to be a rhetorical question?

If you don't believe that Sheen's continuing rants and raves aren't based on "media opportunities," then you really don't understand Hollywood, "fame," or human nature.

Let me explain.

Let's talk about Human Motivation 101. This is something I go into when presenting to parents and educators about what causes certain behavior and what is required to change it.  Before you change behavior you have to understand that people are motivated by

Positive recognition/attention for positive behavior or…
…in absence of that, they'll take negative attention/recognition for negative behavior

…over being ignored.

As an example, let's consider the evergreen parenting problem of whiney toddlers.  This is classic Behavior 101 in action.  Toddler whines; gets attention.  Parents decide that want their toddler to stop whining, so they tell the little cherub that he/she should use their big girl/boy voice.  So, cherub tries that in asking for a cookie.  Now, let's say that for whatever reason, mom won't allow the little tyke the cookie at this time. So, since child doesn't get the cookie for the "positive behavior," what do you suppose happens next? RIGHT! Whining begins.  Mom caves and toddler gets cookie.  Perfect, you've just reinforced that negative behavior you were trying to change.

You can use the same model to understand Charlie Sheen's behavior (and, frankly, if you ask me, I don't think he's so far off the "whiney toddler model" as you'd think).  His constant ranting and raving is being picked up by every media outlet, and guess what:  more ranting and raving!

Imagine the reinforcement he's getting from all the media attention, which, of course, then drives public eyeballs to his Twitter account, Facebook, all those other "outlets" he's using to "communicate" to the world. Because of the attention, the media thinks he's a hot commodity, so they give him MORE access, which drives more traffic, etc. His negative behavior is getting lots of strokes via the buzz it's creating, so he ratchets up the controversy, the hype, and the "shenanigans."

He's stuck in the whiney toddler "gotcha game!" And, intentionally or not, the public and the media are part of the dysfunctional cycle.

Imagine, for a moment that instead of gaining all this notoriety and attention, we were to all ignore his bad boy behavior? How long do you think it would last?  He might try to up the ante again, increase the volume or the outrageousness of his language or actions.  But, if we held fast and didn't react, he would get no "reward." When he didn't get any attention for his negative behavior, eventually he might learn that it has no effect, that we don't care about this nonsense.

And, it would stop. Without an audience, the bad behavior would end because it wasn't effective.

What if we just decided that we would stop feeding celebrities' and other people's bad behavior by rewarding positive behavior and examples of good character?  While there are plenty of examples of celebrities doing well, it doesn't get the attention and support from the public as do the "renegades" and trouble-makers like the Lindsay Lohan incidents, Charlie Sheen's outbursts or similar. We know "bad news sells," but clearly, too, does bad behavior.

As long as we participate in this circus by reacting to each self-centered, self-absorbed tirade, we'll continue to see them happen.  If we want the negative behavior to cease, we ourselves have to grow up and say "enough." Otherwise, we're just feeding into this nonsense by giving it the attention it doesn't deserve.

Filed under: Current Events, Social Skills and Character Tagged: bad behavior, Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan, rewarding negative behavior, Two and a Half Men, whiney toddlers

The triumph of principles

"Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.

So goes the poem, "Self-Reliance" by Ralph Waldo Emerson.  This piece by the acclaimed poet discusses the importance of following one's own conscience instead of conforming to the whims and dictates of society.

I was particularly taken by this, particularly as I found it in an unexpected place — a book I'm reading entitled "Where Men Win Glory" by author Jon Krakauer (of "Into Thin Air" fame) on the life and death of former NFL player-turned US Army Special Ops Pat Tillman.  Apparently Pat was a prolific reader and the book goes into the impact Emerson made on him at that point in his life before his untimely death from friendly fire.

Emerson shares in the poem some wise thoughts: "What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think."  Those words are even truer today when so much of the world is going by pursuits that do not bring peace or happiness.  Materialism, selfishness, greed, competitiveness, bullying even — all these things can result from the pursuit of "what the people think" instead of belief and trust in what you think.

By definition, "self-reliance" means "to trust in one's own efforts and abilities." It's a valuable tool because it is a building block of true self-esteem. You have to believe in yourself, in your abilities in order to feel good about yourself.  Self-reliance can be illustrated by the old saying, "If you give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, you'll feed him for a lifetime." It's also a key foundation for something else that is hugely important, "resilience."

Both self-reliance and resilience are traits that are too often lacking in our young people today.  Our ancestors might have called this "backbone" and it's one of those things that the early settlers and pioneers and Founding Fathers of this country couldn't have done without.  In the days of the pioneers, there were no government subsidy programs if the food ran out, you relied on yourself and your neighbors in times of trouble.  Of course this means you were also connected to your neighbor and held their needs and concerns near and dear to your heart. They stuck together, watched each others' backs because their very survival depended on it.

But nowadays, too many look to outside sources to solve their problems. When times get tough, too many give up or cave in. We have lost our ability to trust and rely on ourselves and hope there's a quick fix or simple solution to every challenge we face — even those troubles we've created ourselves.

When you know and can trust in your own abilities and principles, then you know that you have what it takes to deal with the ups and downs in life. Or, if you don't have the ready answer, you know you can find it.  I think that's what Emerson meant when he said "Power…resides in the moment of transition from a past to a new state…." It's our own personal power, our belief in what we can do and in what we stand for.

When "what we stand for" is what supports us, then we can rest assured that our actions will be aligned with our beliefs. That's a great place to be and when you reach that point, you are not only at peace with yourself, you can be at peace with others around you.

Filed under: Social Skills and Character Tagged: "Where Men Win Glory", Emerson, integrity, Jon Krakauer, Pat Tillman, resilience, self-reliance, triumph of principles

The collateral damage of bad behavior

Yesterday and today are two of the worst days I've had in a long time.  If you looked up the word "heartsick" in the dictionary, my face would be next to it.  I have been hurt badly by someone I loved dearly, and someone who had claimed to love me a great deal, too.

No, I'm not talking about a failed romance.  It doesn't require a romance to suffer from a broken heart.  All it takes is someone to treat you badly, in a way you didn't expect and in a way you didn't deserve.  When someone in business violates your trust, it makes you made. When someone in your "family," takes advantage of you, it leaves you reeling.

Yesterday, a wedding took place.  It was the wedding of a dear friend of mine, someone I had known for years and to whom I had become very attached.  I wasn't there yesterday when she pledged her life to her young fiance; for a dozen different reasons, I couldn't support her poor judgement and bad behavior by attending and "celebrating" this marriage with her.

But the bad behavior didn't just occur yesterday. There was a whole series of poor decisions, bad judgment and unintended consequences that resulted in yesterday's fiasco, and today's pain.

This story began 21 years ago, when one of the parents of this young woman had an extramarital fling.  It resulted in the conception of our young bride.  The family stayed together and produced more children, but there was always something "different" about the oldest. 

Now, fast-forward to current times.  The fact of the "different" parentage was withheld from this young lady for nearly all her life, and was only discovered as an accident.  When you keep secrets and then find out later, it changes everything.  It changes the assumptions you made about your life; it affects trust.  It affects relationships, and often that can affect other relationships.

In this case, the lies and bad behavior caused a young girl to grow up without a sense of self — and in trying to help her out of a bad situation, it sucked our family in.  Over the course of several months, we were told lies, we were manipulated, we were taken advantage of. And the worst part of it is, I don't think the young lady was really doing it with any malice aforethought.  It was what she knew.  She lacked the moral fiber to consider the consequences of her actions. As a result, she needed constant bail-outs and help solving problems that didn't need to occur. She never considered the downstream effects of her poor choices, and now she's embarked on a lifetime contract, the implications of which I don't think she's even really considered.

I don't completely blame her; I am also very upset about the role her family has played in my family's pain. A decision and a poor judgement call that was made two decades ago has brought tears, hurt, and feelings of betrayal into my home. Yesterday there were several groups all celebrating what should have been the happiest day of this young lady's life; I and my family sat home shell-shocked and tearful.  They are oblivious to what we went through, and are still going through, and we still have more "damage" to contend with in the coming days, maybe even weeks.

When you love someone and trust them, you open your heart to many good things. You make yourself vulnerable, too. You believe that they care as much for you as you do for them.  Love is a precious thing and you expect other people to cradle that love like they would a fragile newborn chick or a rare gem.  It is shocking to find that it is treated in a cavalier fashion, or worse, completely disregarded.  Then, "I love you so much" is not a declaration of care, it's an insult.

We cannot always predict the consequences of our bad decisions, poor character choices, or mistakes.  I think for most of us, we hope "doing wrong" goes undetected or, worst, we can make it all better by saying, "I'm sorry."  If we had the ability to look into the crystal ball and see what downstream effects our sins might have, I hope we'd consider staying true to positive beliefs and positive actions. It's like I've written before: I don't have to worry about passing a police officer on the side of the road if I know I'm driving the speed limit.

Today a young couple embark on the first day of married life; what should be the happiest day of their lives and that of the people who know and love them has been tainted by a cascading series of consequences from a bad choice made decades ago. My family and me…"collateral damage."

Filed under: Social Skills and Character Tagged: collateral damage, consequences for bad behavior, family treachery, poor choices

John F. Kennedy and the job search

From the title of this post, no doubt you're thinking, "Where the heck is she going with this?"  I hope you'll forgive me "adapting" one of history's most famous quotes to make my point, but the other day I got to thinking about what's "missing" when job seekers go out for a position.  As I've shared previously, 95% of the job seekers out there think getting an interview and landing a position is about selling yourself. Truly, however, it's not.

The problem with trying to sell something is that it kicks in other people's instinctive aversion to being sold.  The job search process is no different. If you believe the process is about your trying to convince a potential employer that they need to hire (buy) you, it can be a tough "sell."  It's not that they don't like you or that you aren't qualified, but so are the likely other multitudes of candidates that are all trying to "sell" themselves.

So, what should you do differently? Simple: don't sell; increase demand. And that's where John F. Kennedy comes in.

You see, Kennedy had it right when he stated in his inauguration speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."  If you substitute the word "company" or "organization" for the word "country" you'll likely see what I mean.

Instead of trying to match YOUR skills and abilities to that of the job you are interested in, turn it around.  Look at it from the employer's perspective: what skills, abilities, special experience does the job require? Then, take a look at how what you have done in the past fits those needs. If you make a list of those "features" that you possess that serves the job, that's a good first step. But it's not enough. You need to do one more thing.

Remember the old marketing/sales saying that you "don't sell features…sell benefits?"  Or, to use the classic example, "women don't buy shoes…they buy style, fashion sense, comfort, elegance."  In other words, it's what they get out of the shoe that makes them buy, not the mere fact that it's a shoe.

So what does this mean for your search? Well, say you've made a list of "features" you have that the job you're after needs.  Now, think about those benefits — if it's a sales position and you've been able to help grow sales at a previous job, that's your "benefit."  Yes, your "feature" may be that you have previous sales experience in a similar type organization as the one for which you are interviewing, but so may a dozen other candidates. Who has the "benefit" of growing sales 20/30/50%?  Or, how about a "benefit" of opening up a new distribution channel? See where I'm going?

Recently I was speaking to a woman who was looking for a job in customer service — her passion. She had been working in several industries for over 20 years…but as an executive assistant. When she was interviewing for Customer Service jobs she kept being told by the recruiters, "oh, you won't want to do this for any length of time…you've never DONE customer service." But she KNEW it's what she wanted to do.

Hearing this story, I told her "But of course you've been doing customer service! As an executive-level assistant, you've had to serve all sorts of customers for years — both internal customers (employees, associates, her boss) and external (customers, vendors, suppliers, business alliances)."  I explained to her that her job was now to go through her resume and highlight what benefits her experience as an Executive Assistant brought to a company needing customer service help.

She had never thought of it that way before…and that's the trick. Everyone is selling features when they should be selling benefits!  Or, to restate Kennedy, "What can you do for your company?"

You'll discover that this approach turns the "selling" process into "helping the customer (recruiter/interviewer/employer) to buy."  And that's a very different value proposition.

Corinne Gregory is a speaker, author, business and social skills coach, and the President of SocialSmarts. Her latest book is "It's Not Who You Know, It's How You Treat Them: Five SocialSmarts Secrets Today's Business Leaders Need to Stand Out and Be Successful" and can be ordered at www.corinnegregory.com

Filed under: Leadership, Social Skills and Character Tagged: effective job search, getting a better job, it's not who you know it's how you treat them, John F. Kennedy

How accountable are schools for bullying?

This question keeps coming up and frankly, it's haunting me.  It came up at a recent speech I was giving at a school on the topic of bullying ("7 Steps to Eliminating Bullying: an Inside Out Approach"); it came up in a discussion on Facebook with several parents who have lost kids to bullycide; it comes up again and again: how do we hold schools accountable for bullying that occurs?

Sadly, there's no easy answer.  The challenge is that this is another part of the "cultural" aspect of bullying I've written about previously. See, we assume that "bullying" takes place between the perpetrator(s) and the victim(s) only, but the reality is that the culture of the school enables it to occur and enables it to continue.

What role, then, does the school play in being effective in ending bullying…or, conversely, allowing it to continue?

Now, understand that this is not intended to be a wholesale condemnation of schools' efforts to curb the bullying epidemic. There are many, many schools and districts out there that take this problem seriously and work actively to solve the problem.  But there are also many — too many — that don't.  And, that's not acceptable.

Most states in this country have laws on the books that require schools to have an anti-bullying policy, program, or other measures in their school intended to address the problem.  However, there's nothing that really indicates whether those programs or policies have to be proven to work.  I've heard of students report that their school has posters up on all the hallways telling students that bullying is wrong, but that's the extent of the "program."  Or, they do an assembly once a year about how to recognize bullying and what adults to report it to when it occurs; again, that's it. The rah-rah is over, and life goes back to normal.

But that's not even the worst of it.  There are schools that, even when their own anti-bullying policies are violated, do not follow-through on the steps they've established. They may preach "zero tolerance," but a student that has been caught bullying receives nothing worse than a lecture in the principal's office and he/she is back "on the street" the next day.  Or, as I've heard from some of the parents whose children have become fatal statistics, school administrators or officials have consistently and repeated turned a blind eye toward what was happening under their noses.

To me, that is the most criminal conduct of all.  But it's very hard to prove, and who is there to police it anyway?  We have over 16,000 public school districts in this country; if the schools themselves aren't willing to take the matter seriously and ensure that their efforts are effective, dependable and properly implemented, who is going to monitor that from the outside?

Look, we're all fallible human beings, and we all make mistakes or miss things.  I'm not talking about those accidental cases or unfortunate oversights. What troubles me is the repeated and seemingly willful disregard to what is going on in certain schools, with certain students. Again, I believe that most schools — teachers, administrators, staff — have the well-being and safety of our children at heart.  It pains me, then, when parents — even in what seem to be GREAT schools — say, "We've reported the problem over and over again..but nothing ever gets done."

Maybe we need to look at those policies we are expecting our schools to implement, to make sure that they are not only sound and reasonable, but are enforced. Theoretically the school districts should be overseeing this, but perhaps we need to enlist the help of those people who have the keenest interest in the children's security — the parents — to work as part of a joint committee at the school or district level.  This joint effort would require open dialog, something that can be a challenge at times, and honest sharing of information.  But when you consider that more than 160,000 students miss school everyday because of fear of bullying, that's a huge financial burden alone on schools, not to mention the "ancillary" effects on academics, reputation, and morale.

We need this partnership — parents and schools have the same common goal.  I don't know when the divisiveness of "us vs. them" started, but I do know that it's not helpful and it's not healthy. Maybe it's the kids that should hold all of us adults accountable because we are letting them down.

Filed under: Bullying and School Violence, Education Policy Tagged: bullycide, bullying, presentations about bullying, school acountability, what can parents do to stop bullying

Need a job? Mind your manners!

This week, I had the opportunity to attend one of the largest Job Fairs here in the Seattle area. No, I wasn't LOOKING for a job… was helping a business partner staff their booth.  It was eye-opening to me because I'd never attended one before.  Yes, certainly I had the basic idea of what occurs in one, but having never attended, I wasn't certain.

My business partner is in the "business" of providing career development services to individuals and organizations.  And, because of that, "we" were in the position of giving candidates advice on their job search. As a content-development partner for them, I had a first-hand look at how the advice I give professionals about their social skills is truly a strategic tool in their job search, and, frankly, at any point in their career.

Some of it is SO basic, or should be.  Yet, too many people just don't have the right tools. For example, it takes 27 seconds to make a first impression.  I had several job searchers approach our booth and the first sentence out of their mouth was, literally, "What jobs are you hiring for?" Uh, where's the foreplay? You could at least start with "hello" or introduce yourself.  Of those valuable 27 seconds you had to make that impression, what picture did your opening sentence present to me?  It is so simple to just use a few different words, a slightly different approach, and you'd have a better chance of getting a foot in the door.

Others asked what advice I could give them about being more successful at the job fair.  Well, it became patently obvious that with 3600 job seekers coming through in a 4-hour span, not a single person was going to get hired on the floor. And nearly everyone was there to try to get their foot in the door with a prospective employer.  It was gun-shot fashion. 

So, my best word of advice was: don't do what others are doing. Everyone is there pitching themselves, and as I explain in my book, people have a natural aversion to being "sold."  So, don't go to the Job Fair with the plan of trying to sell yourself.

Instead, consider just making contact with potential employers. I suggested they do this: ask the recruiter this question – "What are three things you would say an ideal candidate for your company would have?"  Listen to what they have to say, and, make a note of it.  Get a card, keep this information handy so that when you contact the recruiter to follow up a few days after the Job Fair, you have a way to connect with him/her in a direct way that is head-and-shoulders better than just foisting a resume on them.

If you follow up with a note later that says, in essence "I met you at XYZ Job Fair this week to discuss opportunities with you." Then, you indicate that the recruiter named three things/skills the ideal candidate would possess and then highlight how your job experience, skills or talents fit those ideal characteristics, you stand a much better chance of making a positive impression.

However, when you cite those three things, make sure they genuinely match who you are or what you've done. Don't stretch the truth because it will come out at some point in the interview process. You must be genuine. That also means being genuinely interested in the job they have. If you just want an informational interview, by all means say that. But don't lead them on just to get a foot in the door.  If you don't fit their needs, don't waste your time…or theirs.

It's all basic Manners 101 — "Treat others the way you want to be treated."  It's very simple, but there are lots of ways you can use that in both your interviewing process and all throughout your career. That's how today's business leaders "…stand out and be successful."

Filed under: Leadership Tagged: first impressions, how to get a better job, it's not who you know, job fair success

The Bullying Conundrum

This morning two separate headlines in a weekly digest dedicated to issues of bullying caught my eye:

"Popular Kids Aren't Likely to be Bullies"

and

"Popular kids more likely to be bullies, study finds"

Ironically, both of these articles are citing recent research defending their respective positions.

I think what this tells us is that we still aren't sure how to profile potential bullies and their victims. It's one of the most frequent questions I get when I talk with parents and educators: who is likely to be the bully? What makes a bully?

We all want someone to paint a specific picture for us of why it happens, what we can do to stop it.  Sure, we know there are some common denominators of who is a bully. Bullies generally tend to have control issues, low self-esteem, have issues with boundaries. No surprises there.  But whether they are at the top of the social "food chain" or near the middle isn't clearly defined, as we see.  Nor, does it really much matter.

Again, all this discussion has  us looking at the extreme end of the problem. To stop bullying, we need to look at the source.

What do all bullies have in common (besides the fact that they are breathing?):  inadequate or ineffective social skills.  Kids that bully lack appropriate levels of empathy, compassion, courtesy and caring toward the people they bully.

You see, bullying is about power.  Both ends of it — negative and positive.  This point was really made exceptionally well by a principal who wrote to us requesting our SocialSmarts program (now, disclaimer here…I'm not embedding his full quote to serve as an infomercial for SocialSmarts. I tried to find a way to excerpt his comment in such a way I could omit the part about SocialSmarts but the quote makes no sense that way. So, please just take it in context.)

Socials Smarts seems to be the first program I have seen in my 34 years in education that truly addresses the need children have for power.  I am not speaking of power in a negative way.  But, all of us need to feeling we are in control of our lives.  To me when a child is exhibiting bullying behaviors, he or she is expressing a desire to satisfy his need for power and belonging in his or her life. Social Smarts, from what I have seen so far, addresses this need by letting children gain power in their lives though using manners and in turn allows more academic success which is also a power fulfilling.

The power play is two-fold. The bully believes that somehow life is a zero-sum game where in order for the bully to have and be "more," he/she has to make someone else "less."  The bully needs to wield negative power to feel more powerful.  At the same time, victims themselves feel powerless — it's one of the reasons they become and continue as victims. Then, if you'll recall from my post last week about the "cultural" aspect of bullying, the rest of the school community fails to use its power appropriately to take effective measures.

So, you see, it does all come down to social skills. When you know what's expected of you, have the character foundations to make good decisions, understand why it's important to be kind and generous to others, and know how to conduct yourself, you develop real self-esteem as a result. Nowadays, "self-esteem" does not mean self-confidence or social adeptness.  Too often, it's a fancy label for "overblown ego" and "exaggerated sense of self."  Yes, kids need to feel confident of their abilities, but they also need to understand that they must co-exist with others.

We can continue to try to find the magic clues that help us predict which individual child is likely to turn into a bully and deal with each of those cases as a one-off. That is going to be an inexact science as well as be labor-, time- and resource-intensive.  Alternatively, we can treat the root cause of the problem by providing positive social skills education for all students; in that way, we'll reach the bully, the bullied, and the bystanders all at once.  We know that the ounce of prevention is worth the pound of cure — it's true here as well. Yet, we continue to bandage the wound hoping it will lead to a cure.

Filed under: Bullying and School Violence Tagged: aggression in kids, bullying in schools, popular kids bully, study of popular kids

Academics + Social Skills = Better Results

It's something I've been saying for years because we've seen it first-hand in schools using SocialSmarts. But, now another independent study has proven it: schools that implement broad spectrum social skills programs see significant improvement in academic test scores.

The EdWeek article "Study Finds Social-Skills Teaching Boosts Academics,"  results from a study just released by the Loyola University Chicago  showed that students who took part in social-emotional learning improved their academic test results by 11 percentile points compared to students  that did not receive the SEL education.

This is similar to what we have seen for schools using SocialSmarts.  I was asked two years ago by one of the State Senators if I could do and "apples-to-apples" comparison and show the impact SocialSmarts had on academic test scores against schools that didn't use our program.  The chart below is what we found.  Of 8 public Elementary schools in the same district, in the same city, the three schools on the left used SocialSmarts; the five to the right did not.

Now, as much as I'd like to, I am not going to be so cocky as to say that SocialSmarts is the ONLY thing that made this happen. We haven't yet been asked to participate in a research study examining specific impacts. However, the data strongly indicate that schools using our program are able to accomplish things that they aren't able to without it, which is still a good thing. And, this is consistent in a wide variety of schools, under diverse conditions, in 12 states across the country so far.

But, more importantly, let's get back to the research: I hear from schools all the time where the administration says it can't implement social skills education because they have to spend all the time they have on academics. Maybe they haven't met their AYP or they are really pushing to increase academic achievement.  So, they think "we don't have the 'luxury' of adding anything more to the curriculum."

It's a classic assumption that we're talking about "academics OR social skills." However, the Loyola research shows, once again, that it should be "academics AND social skills." When done properly, an effective social skills program not only builds critical lifeskills and develops character but it boosts academic achievement at the same time.

I had one reader comment on the study, saying that it wasn't the social skills education that made the difference.  It was because the kids cooperated and that minimized disruptions. Yes, exactly…BUT — and that's the big "but" — we have to teach kids these days how to cooperate, how to pay attention, what is expected of them and, more importantly,  why.  The reader seemed to think it was all about "discipline," but how can you impose discipline from the outside if they kids don't have self-discipline on the inside?

For schools that haven't been able to justify a social skills program because it appeared to "detract" from their academic teaching, this should be an important wake-up call. We can accomplish things with a good social skills program that we are unable to do through academic teaching alone.

But the next challenge will be money, of course.  Last week, I testified before Washington State's House Education Committee on HB 1004, a bill that seeks to make social-emotional a mandate in Washington State. As I testified, we all know about the benefits of SEL in schools, but mandating such education will not overcome the two biggest objections schools have – that of time and of money.  The "time" argument may have been mitigated somewhat by the Loyola study, but the reality exists that schools still don't know how to pay for it (never mind that effective SEL education is self-funding…I've written a report that shows exactly how — email me through the www.corinnegregory.com website and I'll share it with you), but schools will continue to resist these kinds of programs if they feel they can't pay for it.

That's one of the reasons I committed to donating up to 1,000 SocialSmarts programs in schools across the country.  We know it helps everyone in the school system — the students, the teachers, the staff, the families — and there's no reason why ANY school that wants it shouldn't be able to benefit.  If you are interested in applying for the donated program, email us here.

And, let's see how much your test scores can improve by implementing a "non-academic" program.  I'll even offer a challenge: the school that increases test scores the  most will receive a SocialSmarts license for life!

Filed under: Current Events, Education Reform, Social Skills and Character Tagged: EdWeek, HB 1004, increasing test scores, Joseph A. Durlak, Loyola University, social skills boost academics, SocialSmarts