Tag Archives: consequences

3 parts to an apology

I’ve used this with grade 2 students, and I’ve used it all the way up to grade 12. I’ve been using it as a teacher and principal for close to 20 years now and find it very effective. When a student needs to do an apology, I prep both students first.

The apology receiver:

This prep involves two parts, first, being clear about what they are upset about. This is something that can be explicit like ‘he hit me’ but sometimes the victim is hurt about something very specific and if it isn’t clear, then the apology might not actual satisfy the receiver of the apology.

Also important is prepping their response. “You don’t have to say anything, it’s their choice to apologize. If you do feel like saying something, please don’t say, ‘That’s OK’ or anything like that. What they did wasn’t ok, that’s why they are apologizing. If you choose to say something, you can thank them for saying what they said, you can share why you felt hurt, but it’s not your job to tell them what they did was ok.”

I sometimes also tell them about the 3 parts of the apology, but I don’t share this with both people at the same time.

The apology giver:

In advance I share the 3 parts of an apology, and they share what they plan to say. Rehearsal in advance helps a lot! Here are the 3 parts of an apology:

1. Saying “I’m sorry”.

2. Saying what you are specifically sorry for.

3. In the future…

For part 1, I make sure the apologizer is ready to truly apologize… it needs to be authentic.

For part 2, I explain, “I’ve heard an apology before where the person just said sorry sarcastically, and it sounded like the only thing they were sorry about was getting caught. If you are going to truly apologize, you need the person to know what you are sorry for.”

For part 3, I have them think in advance about what they would do if the same situation were to arise in the future (this is called future pacing and it provides alternative possibilities if a similar situation arises again). Example, “If I get upset at you again I’ll use my words or talk to a teacher instead of hitting.”

After the apology is done, I’ll make sure the receiver is satisfied, then I’ll share that I’m satisfied too but if it happens again, then I’m not going to be convinced the apology was authentic.

The best part of this 3-step apology process is that when it’s specific and authentic like this, I find repeat offences rarely occur. And, the receiver of the apology will often share more than they need to. Sometimes this evokes empathy. Sometimes the receiver will admit they had a part to play in the incident too, and might even apologize as well. This is really powerful because then I can use it as a bit of leverage saying something like, ‘We didn’t come together for you to apologize, it wasn’t necessary as part of this process, and so I really want to thank you for seeing how you can help make things better in the future too.’

Sometimes an apology isn’t enough and there needs to be further consequences. When that’s the case, I always make sure the consequences are shared before an apology. If an apology happens then the person apologizing receives a consequence after the apology, they might feel the apology was a waste of time. They might blame the victim for the consequences because they thought the apology was authentic (they honestly tried) then still got punished. So, any consequences beyond the apology need to be clearly dealt with before the apology.

In the end this isn’t about punishment and consequences. A good apology is about letting go of the past and ‘making things right’ in the future.

Good kid, bad choices

Sometimes good kids make bad choices. They do things they shouldn’t, and when they are caught they have to face some consequences. But when they do, it’s a lot easier to work with them, to come to an agreement about how behaviours need to change, when dealing with a good kid. It’s easier to work on what wrongs have to be righted, when you know they are good kids. It’s not hard to deal with good kids when they make bad choices, the bad choices don’t make them a bad kid.

The thing is… all kids are good kids. When you start with the premise that every kid is inherently good, then the important thing becomes dealing with the issue. The focus becomes restitution and not punishment. The discipline becomes logical consequences. The issues and circumstances that led the good kid to make bad choices becomes the thing being dealt with.

Making things right might include the student doing something they don’t want to do. It might include challenging consequences, this isn’t about giving a good kid a break. It’s about seeing the good in someone and asking ‘how can I help this kid see that they are good and help them realize they made a bad choice?’ It’s about making the situation better, then laying the groundwork for the student to make better choices the next time.

Good kid, bad choices. If that’s where the conversation begins, if that’s what you see, then the work done to make things better feels authentic, and is more likely to foster better behaviour in the future… Because you expect good things from good kids, and good kids learn to do good things when they believe they are good.

Revenge of the herd

I’ve been noticing a new trend on social media. Some ‘Karen’ acts out and does something inappropriate on video. That video goes viral. Someone with a large following asks their audience to identify the person, or they dig into what the ‘Karen’ thinks is an anonymous profile they posted on, and their real identity is discovered. Then the viral video or mean/racist/rude comment is shared with their boss or the company they work for, and the person is fired. Then the person that did this gloats, often going viral with the news of the person losing their job.

There is no doubt that some of these people deserve this. If you are choosing, in this day and age, to be blatantly racist, or to ridicule someone handicapped or less fortunate than you… and you work representing a company who does not (and should not) share the same lack of values… well then that company should be able to say they no longer wish to have you work for/represent them.

That’s the power of living in a connected world. When enough people are involved in looking for you, you can’t be anonymous on the internet. Act poorly in public, and that behaviour can be traced back to you, even if you don’t share your name or any other personal information.

Some behaviour is truly deserving of this. For example, someone spewing racial slurs, or physically abusing a store employee for getting an order wrong. However this trend concerns me a bit. It is about revenge rather than restitution. Where is the line? If a person says something in anger should their entire livelihood be destroyed? How bad does the transgression need to be? Who decides?

When it comes to issues like this, I’m not sure the herd mentality is always appropriate? When does the herd become a mob? At what point does a bad decision equate to someone being a bad person? And again, who decides?

Are many of these people deserving of the consequences? Probably. Maybe not all of them though. Furthermore, I don’t think this kind of retribution necessarily changes attitudes and behaviours.

The trend often ends with the line, “Enjoy the day you deserve.” But the aftermath of losing a job, and trying to support a family, and social ridicule, and embarrassment seems like it could be worse than a short term prison sentence. How big a transgression should it be to go through this? Again, I think some people act in a truly reprehensible way and deserve to have consequences, but I worry that some people will suffer far more than they deserve. When this happens the point seems to be more about inflicting suffering rather than creating an opportunity for forgiveness and restitution. I don’t want to live in a world where revenge is the first form of conflict resolution.

In whose eyes?

The term ‘firm but fair’ has two components. First, it suggests that if a child or a student, (in the case of a parent or an educator), is not acting appropriately, then a firm consequence is put in place. The second part is that the consequence is fair. This means that the consequence is fitting, rather than either soft or overly harsh, and it also means there is consistency in what the consequences look like for similar instances.

The often overlooked aspect of this is that fairness needs to be measured by the person who is receiving the consequence. It should be ‘firm but fair’ in their eyes. If you think you are being fair but the person dealing with the consequence does not, then that mismatch will undermine the value of the consequence, and likely not deter the kind of behaviour you are hoping to reduce.

For a parent, this can often be an issue where anger levels can undermine consistency, where the consequence is unfairly harsher because your kid was driving you crazy for an hour before the issue came up, compared to a less harsh consequence just because you are in a good mood. For an educator, this issue can often come up when consequences are not consistent between different students for similar issues.

An important concept to remember is that if you are wanting to be fair, fairness needs to be perceived by everyone involved. In whose eyes are you being firm but fair?