Tag Archives: communication

Parents Today

It’s a catchy title, ‘Parents Today’, an invite to go on a rant and share how society has changed and how parents are the problem. And, yes, this is a bit of a rant, but I want to start by saying this is a trend, not an issue with every parent… but it is indeed something I’ve seen more and more of.

That said, I’ve shared before, and I still believe that parents are our partners in education, and I believe it really does take a community to raise a child. And when we work together as educators and parents we can do great things. I’ve seen this in action. We had two sisters thrive at our school. One of them was able to train 20+ hours a week at her sport, still had time in Grade 12 to follow her passions, compose, produce, and sing an entire album of songs, and get high enough grades to get into the university program of her choice.

Her younger sister joined us and was quiet, and I wasn’t sure if she was enjoying herself. Then at the second PAC (Parent Advisory Council) meeting, her mom pulled me aside afterwards to have a private conversation. She got teary-eyed and thanked me and asked me to thank the teachers. She said that this was the first time in her younger daughter’s entire school experience that she wanted to go to school. She said school from preschool to grade 8 was joyless for her daughter, it was a chore to get her to school, and like pulling teeth to get her to say anything nice about her schooling.

She told me what a delight it was to see her daughter waking up and wanting to go to school. What a joy it was to have her come home and share what she was learning. How heartwarming it was to see her smile when she spoke about school. Her mom didn’t realize that this was equally heartwarming for me and my staff to hear.

We can get things right.

But in all honesty, sometimes we don’t. Sometimes we can have challenges where a kid struggles and we have to work together to make things better. And again, when we approach challenges as a team, we can often make things better. Not always, but frequently… and this is where the rant sneaks in. I’ve noticed that it could be a lot more frequent if it wasn’t for (some) parents today.

We have parents that overshare information and humiliate their children in front of us. They embarrass their kids with private details that makes the kid feel too ashamed to look to educators for support and assistance.

We have parents that blame educators for a student not learning something. Who expect every possible accommodation for their child, and literally expect us to take the challenge out of learning. They fail to see that learning doesn’t stick when there is no effort associated with the process. They’ll watch their kid spend hours on a video game to perfect a level, then the same kid will put zero effort into an assignment and it’s the educator’s fault because he or she doesn’t understand how their kid learns.

We have parents who see themselves as their child’s friend and advocate, and will not parent them when they need a parent. They will let their child have a device in their room so they can play games or socialize until 3am, then claim it’s too hard to get them to school in the morning. ‘Turn off the wifi? Take their device away? We couldn’t do that.’ Make them go to school tired to understand the consequences of their actions? ‘Oh, no. My kid needs his rest, he’d be too upset if we did that.’

We have parents defend their child, claiming they did the work themselves, even when it’s obvious that they cheated or plagiarized. ‘Just so you know, I was sitting next to her when she wrote that.’ Actually lying to protect them like that is some sort of favour. It doesn’t matter that the child can’t define several of the words used, or that all other writing done in a supervised environment is both structurally different, and reads as if it was written by someone with a weaker vocabulary.

In each of these examples, the parent thinks they are doing their child a favour. They believe they are being advocates. Meanwhile, rather than working with educators to help their child, they are adversarial, confrontational, and/or passively harming their child by not being a parent.

The rise in number of parents I saw doing these kind of things in my last decade of education was concerning. Parents will spend more time getting Chat GPT to argue a case for their child’s ‘defence’ than they will actually parenting their child, or listening to a teacher. They will hear only their child’s perspective and come into the school with metaphorical guns blazing to defend them when the issue was minor and could have been resolved with a simple inquiry. They will send a scathing email to a teacher, realize there was a misunderstanding and then send a meek apology or no apology at all when the small concern is cleared up… Then they wonder why a teacher’s future communication to them doesn’t seem warm and caring… and claim that the teacher doesn’t like their kid.

As a principal, no matter how upset a parent was, I always started a meeting thinking, ‘We are on the same team, we both want what’s best for their child/our student.’ I’ve had hard conversations with teachers, students, and parents as a result of those conversations.

But the hardest conversations where with parents who I had to walk on eggshells around because their child, who was not being a good student, was being ruthlessly defended… And anything I said to suggest their kid had work to do was dealt with as evidence that a collective ‘we’, everyone at school, was at fault… Meanwhile I had a team of exasperated educators doing all they could with a supportive lens.

Schools can still work when there is a kid or two with parents like this, but I watched their number rise. I saw the pressure it put on educators… especially after the challenges of Covid. We are at a time when kids need the whole community to support them, and I’m seeing too many parents work against rather than with the school community.

It’s these kinds of parents that are one of the biggest problems in education today.

Missed the point

One of the most challenging things about being a leader is watching a simple miscommunications lead to big issues that could have easily been avoided. It’s watching people come from different points of view, all with the same objectives, all wanting the same goals, but approaching the issue believing that the end goal is something they want but others don’t. Or just failing to see a similar perspective from a vantage point other than their own.

I’ve tried to live by the mantra, ‘The meaning of your communication is the response that you get.’ …Putting the onus of responsibility on myself when my message was not received the way I intended it. Yet I too still mess up. I have to take a step back and question where my error was? And when I don’t see an error in thinking, I can still often see an error in my communication.

But ‘error’ might be too strong of a word. It might only be a mistake after the idea was shared and received. Only after an unexpected response am I able to look back and see how my words could be misunderstood, how my message could be perceived differently than expected. This is the work I try to do.

However, when the miscommunication happens before I’m involved my entrance is even more delicate. When the temperature has risen before I enter, it’s often hard to get others to see that their communication did not align with their intended message. It becomes an issue where even to suggest some responsibility for miscommunication can seem like blame, rather than a means to reach a resolution. And so my communication becomes even more challenging. If my point is missed then I’m not being supportive, I’m not helping the issue, I’m missing the point.

And if that’s the message I’m giving off, then that’s the meaning of my communication, and the undesired response is my fault. If I’m not willing to take that responsibility, then I’m not modelling what I’m expecting of others.

Haven’t the words

In keeping up with the last 12 hours, I have to once again say, ‘I don’t have the words’. There are circumstances that we come across where those are the only words you have to give. You want to say more, but you can’t. You want to show support, but you don’t know how. You want to make sense, but it seems senseless.

Unapologetically vague. Sorry, haven’t the words.

Do not disturb

For almost a year now I’ve left my phone on ‘Do Not Disturb’ all day. I only ever change it when I’m expecting a call. Other than that it stays muted. I have gone into my settings and set up ‘Allow Notifications’ so that, “Notifications from selected people will be allowed, all others will be silenced.”

This is a game changer for me. My phone is not the distraction it used to be. At home, I still get family notifications. At work my family, bosses, secretaries, and teachers can still get messages through. But everyone else has to wait until I look at my phone. My attention is no longer dictated by other people’s schedules and expectations to communicate with me. I don’t get distracted by spam calls and texts. I check my messages at my convenience not someone else’s.

It’s amazing how this little choice has made me more efficient and less distracted.

What it means to be literate?

Can you read? Can you do basic math? Is that enough?

The critical thinking required to make sense of the world today is ever increasing. We have a world leader using magical math to make a trade deficit calculation into a reciprocal tariff calculation, and claiming that this is, “Kind reciprocal, not full reciprocal.”

What? Help me make it make sense?

Meanwhile, I saw a video that someone created using AI. He uploaded a pdf article for two AI‘s to discuss, one of the AI’s was a version of himself, with his voice, and the other was a female at a desk. The only thing that suggested to me that the conversation was between two AI’s was some awkward hand gestures. Take those movements away, or make them a bit more natural/realistic and I would have no idea that I was watching an AI conversation.

Meanwhile, in Egypt, there are some wild claims about structures under the great pyramids, and while the evidence is unclear, I’ve seen many videos explaining these not-yet-proven structures. These claims include that they are a network of power sources connected to other structures around the world, and another theory claiming that aliens created them.

And speaking of aliens, wasn’t it just a few short months ago that we ‘discovered’ aliens living in our oceans? What ever happened to that story?

It’s becoming almost impossible to be informationally literate today. By the time you have time to seriously fact check something the story is already old, and there are new crazy claims that require your skeptical attention. What’s the source of this information? Where did they get their data from? What’s the bias of the news source? How is this data being manipulated? Who paid for the study? Is this a real quote? Is this video real, or CGI, or AI?

Who is fact checking the fact checkers? Meanwhile, here in Canada, a fact checker hired by one of our news stations was let go because trolls that don’t like their favourite political party being fact checked brought so much negative attention to her that the news station let her go.

What? Help me make it make sense?

The reality is that reading and writing and doing basic math is not enough to be functionally and informationally literate today. The critical thinking required to simply consume the information being thrown at us is overly demanding. I think the way forward for the short term is to find trusted sources and rely on them… and yet that’s the very thing that has seemed to get us into trouble. How many people get their news from just one or two biased sources? I’m literally now suggesting to find an echo chamber to sit in… hopefully you can find one that echoes facts, common sense, and some semblance of the truth.

Free Speech and Audience

For most of my life I’ve been a bit of a free speech absolutist. I believe, or maybe believed, that even idiots had the right to free speech. You want to deny the holocaust or believe the earth is flat? You are an idiot. You are free to express your beliefs and people are free to ridicule your unsubstantiated beliefs. You want to share your stupidity, go ahead and do so to the cost of your social credibility.

But social media has changed, or is changing, my view. If you wanted to stand on a soap box and share dumb ideas, you will likely be ridiculed in the community you live in, and no one will take you seriously. You will essentially ostracize yourself and your message would fade as people got fed up listening to your nonsense.

But move from a town square to the metaphorical global town hall of Twitter and Facebook, and suddenly you get these echo chambers of stupidity that feed off of each other. Throw religious absolutists into the mix and some really silly beliefs start to get amplified. Essentially, there is an opportunity for idiots to find their tribe.

“A theory isn’t a fact,” is a common theme used to debunk scientific explanations. But then pseudo facts that are invented by these people are not held to nearly the same standard. So, on social media, bad ideas spread, gain popularity, and start to build an audience of believers. Instead of ridicule, these fools find a community. Instead of being ostracized, these morons find followers.

So the incentives are there to be inauthentic and to spread misinformation, instead of the disincentives of ridicule and shame. And so absolute freedom of speech no longer has the consequences it once had, and bad information ends up spreading faster than good information.

Even the debunkers and scientific thinkers speaking out against these charlatans peddling misinformation end up feeding the algorithm that puts the bad messages in front of more people. So bad ideas get spread, and this happens at a faster rate than good ideas.

I don’t know how to fix this, and I struggle to think that censorship is the answer. But allowing bad ideas to spread freely seems wrong too. Who decides? Who censors? What criteria do we use? The reality is that censorship is a slippery slope… but we are already on a slippery slope where the current social media models and the algorithms that promote more time on these apps already seem to favour the spread of bad ideas. And the tools used to elevate ideas effectively are being used to share and amplify bad ideas faster than good ones.

Ultimately, despite this, I am still a free speech absolutist. I just think free speech and the right to an audience are two different things. How we police this is not something I think can or will be solved any time soon.

Invisible shield

The reason casinos give you chips instead of using cash is because chips are not money. Losing a $25 chip doesn’t feel as bad as losing 25 dollars. The chip is a chip, it’s not money. I think there is a similar thing going on with rude comments on the internet and the brazen use of email, messaging, and commenting of the kinds of things people would never say face-to-face.

It’s like there is an invisible shield that people think goes up when they communicate online. People feel that they are given permission to say whatever (the ****) they want to say because they are not actually saying it to someone’s face. Like somehow it’s not a real insult because it’s not in-person. It’s once removed, like the poker chip, it isn’t ‘as real’.

But it is.

The invisible shield is not really a shield. It’s a facade, it appears to be a sort of shield or protection but it’s not. The rude and condescending email is an insult even if it wasn’t said directly in a conversation. The rude, misogynist, hateful, and/or insulting comment online isn’t funny, it isn’t appropriate, and it could have consequences. Anonymity is not guaranteed, and consequences can be significant.

There is no invisible shield. Words matter no matter where you say them. More and more people are finding this out the hard way.

The Saying – Hearing Gap

Communication is about what is received, not what is intended. If there is a gap between what you are saying and what they are hearing, you have to find a new way to say it.” -@JamesClear

This quote reminds me of the NLP saying, ‘The meaning of your communication is the response that you get.’

When there is a gap between what your message is and what a person hears, it’s easy to assume that the mistake is on the receiving end, but in reality, that becomes a game of pointing fingers and blame. The better thing to consider is how to improve the message. How do you convey intentions more clearly, in a way that the listener can better hear?

This acceptance of responsibility for the message empowers the speaker. This responsibility to better express what was miscommunicated allows for clarity to prevail. But this doesn’t mean you speak louder. It’s not about enunciating words more clearly. No, it about understanding the perspective of the other person. It’s about having empathy for the viewpoints of the person you are communicating with.

The gap between what you say and what is heard is ultimately your responsibility, because if the message you say is not the message that’s heard then who miscommunicated? If you don’t take at least part of the responsibility, then you are not solving the problem.

Good pushback

Yesterday I wrote Winning is Everything and on LinkedIn I got a couple really good comments that (justifiably) pushed back on this idea. Here are the comments and my responses:

Manuel Are:

Thought provoking!

While the mindset of “winning is everything” can drive success and achievement in various contexts, it’s important to balance this with ethical considerations, personal well-being, and long-term sustainability. Sometimes, focusing on personal growth, collaboration, and enjoying the process can lead to more fulfilling outcomes than solely prioritizing winning.

Is this the cultural condition of the times? Is this the societal and cultural pressure that we have now? The standards of the time? The psychological satisfaction?

What about if we teach the future of the value of losing? Of ethical perspectives? Of relationships? Of outcomes?

What if I gained the world but loses my humanity in return?

Dave Truss:

Yes, so true. I work at a school where we show the value of learning through failure. I describe a bit about this here: Educon 17 Conversation

You’ve probably read enough of my blog to know that this is not a typical post for me. I’m very focused on collaboration, teamwork, community, and belonging. This post might seem out of character for me and invited the wonderful counterbalance that you shared…

But I think sometimes we push too much on being ok with just doing our best, and the message of striving, pushing, and thriving from going the extra mile is somehow undervalued or missed.

While collaboration and teamwork are essential life skills, I don’t think we should teach these at the expense of those individualized skills that winning athletes all seem to exude… these too are attributes that help people get what they want out of life.

Mona Haraty:

Doesn’t it serve us all better to believe that everyone can be a winner if they engage more in non-zero-sum games in their lives? It’s easy to lose perspective in zero-sum games like sports.

Dave Truss:

Yes… and no. We do so much in our schools to promote collaboration and teamwork, and we spend a lot more time praising students for what they can do. But how often do we put students into competitive situations where they have to push themselves farther than they think they can go?
We see kids getting ‘A’s all through high school who can’t hack 1st year university because they never understood how to push themselves despite their glowing marks.
This is a bit of a push-back post. Most of my readers will disagree, and I value the time and attention it takes to comment (thank you)… Most of what I do as a school leader is contrary to this philosophy, but I think the pendulum has swung a little too far. We (also) need to praise students who seek individual accolades and who put themselves out there to be the best… while also teaching non-zero-sum games and activities.
Not everyone wins, but most who do win know how to push beyond most who don’t… do we teach that at all these days? Do we let students shine far above others who can’t?
Again, I’m not disagreeing with you, but I wonder if sometimes we aren’t crushing the excellence out of high performers?

Mona Haraty:

I agree that we should definitely encourage excellence, and that we are crushing the excellence out of high performers precisely because they are being compared to their classmates using the same tests or challenges. I tell my kids that if the problems they are working on are too easy, they should skip them because there’s no learning in that—there’s no point in getting an A without being challenged.

Once we encourage excellence and take into account the level and growth of each student, grades become even less relevant.

As you said “most who do win know how to push beyond most who don’t” and we can help students build perseverance and resilience by challenging them at their own appropriate level.

I love this kind of professional learning dialogue. This is the kind of conversation that pushes thinking. This is the kind of dialogue I used to see on my Pair-a-Dimes educational blog regularly 10-15 years ago. The pushback is framed positively, and the intent is to shed light… and learning. I don’t see a lot of this on social media anymore. In fact, I seldom even go to comments on other’s writing anymore. For that reason, I truly thank Manuel and Mona for taking the time to question what I said, and to invite further conversation.

When I wrote ‘Winning is Everything’ I fully intended on following up with a post titled, ‘Winning ISN’T Everything’ to counterbalance it with points shared in the comments above. However, to me the better topic is that others beat me to the punch. Their comments and my responses did more to counter balance, to provide pushback on, yesterday’s post than I could have done on my own.

So please, I invite feedback and pushback whenever I say something that doesn’t resonate with you… or simply to ask a clarifying question. And like Manuel and Mona, it can be on a platform besides my blog. While I like blog comments because then the comments are archived with my post, I also appreciate the feedback wherever you are willing to share it.

_____

*UPDATE* – One more comment and response came in on LinkedIn, which is like to add here: 

James Linzel:

I’m glad you describe the importance of collaborative skills. An excellent argument can be formed that winner take all systems dominate our society. Schools are literally designed to rank humans rather than maximize potential. Sports focuses on winning. Politics has become winner take all by leveraging voter blocks. Nationalism is given more importance than humanism.
I’d like to see a 180 from the present competition focused society to a more equity, collaborative, competency based society. I’m not saying eliminate competition, but prevent it from having the pedestal its presently given.
When your original post claimed winning is more important than sportsmanship, then I cannot agree. That position leads to the worst in humanity.

Dave Truss:

Excellent points.
I have competed in sports at a fairly high level. I’m not a natural athlete and had to work my butt off at every level, and was never the best player playing. But I had games and moments where I felt that drive and that competitiveness that pushed me harder than I thought I could go, where winning the game was everything, and the hours of hard practice paid off. That’s not something you can easily achieve in an environment that doesn’t foster competitiveness, and those moments are powerful memories of achievement through hard work… that’s what I was trying to describe in my post.

But in reality, I think your points are extremely relevant. I think people like Andrew Tate and many others including a particular political leader, glorify the idea of selfishness and being first, or being losers. Your point that, “Nationalism is given more importance than humanism,” is so on point, and strikes a counterpoint that I wholeheartedly agree with.
I invite you to see my follow up post: Good pushback

I have now included your comment and this response there as an update.
Thank you for sharing your insights!

You have my divided attention

There is no such thing as ‘full attention’. Our minds don’t work that way. The questions to ask yourself are how much attention am I truly giving? And, am I sustaining that attention?

A perfect example is listening to someone telling you a story. You can tune out distractions and be mostly paying attention, but if you are listening carefully you will also be creating visuals to go with the story, thinking of what’s happening, what’s unsaid, asking questions in your head… and making connections to your own experience. None of this is truly full attention. Even if it’s related or connected, the things you think are distractions.

There are moments of clarity, focus and determination, but those are internal moments. The moment someone else enters the equation, attention is divided.

So, you have my divided attention, but I will do my best to give you as much of it as I can. Some days you can get quite a bit, other days the hamster wheel in my mind is spinning too fast, and you won’t get as much of it.

This isn’t an apology, it’s an observation. You never get someone else’s full attention.

____

Inspired by Joe Truss.