Tag Archives: rules

More bubble wrap

Leave a reply

Back in 2009, while living in Dalian, China, I wrote ‘Bubble Wrap‘ about how overly protected we are in the West compared to other places in the world. Here is the first half of the post:

“After a month in China, I’ve come to realize that North Americans live in a bubble wrapped world.
In the ‘Western’ world we walk around oblivious to our surroundings, going about our business feeling safe and secure. I don’t mean safe in the sense of being cautious of others, since in actual fact, I have always felt safe in China (other than in the occasional taxi), and in fact Dalian feels safer than downtown Vancouver or Toronto when I’m out late at night.  I mean safe, in the West, in the sense that there are laws and bylaws and rules in place to make sure that we are ‘protected’ from unexpected harm: Guardrails and warning sign and lit-up crosswalks with pedestrian controlled lighting abound.
In the bubble wrap West we occasionally read or hear about someone who slips right next to a ‘wet floor’ sign or trips on an uneven curb and they end up blaming and suing others: “It wasn’t safe”, “It was faulty”, “The step was too high” or “The railing was too low”. Our day-to-day environment is safe, secure, sheltered… and sterile.
In China, things are different. Pedestrian walkways are a suggested crossing location and give no rights to the pedestrian. White and yellow lines on the roads are mere suggestions for where a pedestrian should stand as cars zip by at speeds up to 60km/hr, the occasional horn blast reminds you not to make any unexpected moves.
Here, doorways have immediate steps going up or down as you cross the threshold. You must walk with your eyes on the curb as a missing tile, or a sudden step may appear, unexpected by Western terms but fully expected here.”

Since then, I think things have gotten worse rather than better when it comes to safety. Case in point, the ban on cell phones in schools that has happened in other provinces and is about to happen in British Columbia. I can understand that they are a distraction, and I have no problem with schools or teachers having policies about using them appropriately and at appropriate times. But when one of the issues being discussed is student protection, a ban is not the answer.

As quoted in the Premier’s announcement:

“Today, kids live with different challenges than they did a generation ago, and they face them all in the palm of their hand,” said Premier David Eby. “While cellphones, the internet and social media help us connect with each other, they also present risks that can harm kids. The impact and influence of these tools is so great, and the corporations so powerful, it can be overwhelming for parents. That’s why we are taking action to protect kids from the threats posed by online predators and the impacts of social media companies.”

This reminds me of the filtering of websites, which I also was quite opposed to, (beyond porn and gambling as easy examples of things that should not be in schools, as compared to social media and web tools that were being blocked at the time). How do we help teach things like appropriate use when use isn’t allowed? Both my posts that I link to relate to issues at school, but here is another, totally unrelated and quite humorous example:

Last night I went to a washroom in a hotel in downtown Vancouver and saw this sign above a urinal.

Seriously?

We need a sign above a urinal… one that flushes with the water running along the walls of the basin we pee in… to remind us not to drink it. Oh, and not only because that’s not a smart or normal thing to do, but because the water is ‘non potable’?!?

Silly warnings, silly bans, silly attempts to bubble wrap the world.

The 4 ‘D’s leading to office discipline

It was early on in my first job as a vice principal. The position was in a middle school just a few kilometres away from the middle school I taught at for 9 years to start my career. Our secretary came to tell me that a student had been sent down to the office. I sat down with him in my office and he told me why he was sent there.

“Really, that’s all you did?” (I was sure he was leaving something out, I’d never send a kid down to the office for this.)

“Yes!” He said defensively.

We worked out an apology, and rehearsed it, and I sent him back down to his class. Minutes later he was back up at the office. I looked at him quizzically and he quickly responded to my unspoken question, “Mr. Truss, I did exactly what you told me to!”

After a bit of back-and-forth I took him back down to the class and waited for a an appropriate moment to talk to him and the teacher together. It became very evident that she had no interest in letting him back in the room. This surprised me for two reasons:

First, as mentioned, this minor altercation was nothing me or my peers at my previous middle school would ever have sent a kid to the office for. In my eyes, sending a kid to the office was essentially telling the kid, “I cant manage you,” which takes away any leverage I may have the next time this student has any challenging behaviour.

Secondly, why not take him back? I verified with the teacher that the students wasn’t downplaying the behaviour, he was apologizing, and he wanted to come back to class. But the teacher was not interested. I offered to come in with him and that got us passed the impasse.

When I started writing this, my intention was going to be on empathy and growth in understanding that not every student, teacher, or principal is just like me, and how important it is to understand this. But as I was sharing the story above I remembered my 4 D’s that led to the rare occasions I’d send a kid to the office. I wrote about this back in 2008, and I’ll share them here:

________

In 9 years as a teacher I have made very few classroom issues into office issues. I have 4 D’s that I think are issues that should be dealt with at an office level. The first two D’s are cut-and-dry/immediate office issues. These are ‘no-brainers’, you break these rules and you go to the office!

1. Drugs- Alcohol is included in this category;

2. Dangerous- Not just weapons, but physical violence too. The best policy is a zero-tolerance policy… We don’t solve problems this way.

The next 2 D’s have some grey area between being an issue for the office and being an issue that I handle myself. They are:

3. Defiance- an absolute refusal to participate and/or co-operate. If you don’t come to class prepared to learn, or if you aren’t willing to participate with the class… If you can’t offer me 5% of what I am offering you, then that probably hinders my ability to give everyone else the time and attention they deserve. I obviously can’t help you, so there is no reason for you to be here. I’ve only ever had one student absolutely refuse to engage in learning to this point. I honestly felt that it was a disservice to keep him in the class and made this the reason to send him to the office. (I have used this as ‘leverage’ with other students in the past- not an ideal strategy, but sometimes a student needs to know that you have limits);

and the final ‘D’,

4. Disrespect- If you are going to treat me, or others in a way that is hurtful, if you are going to ‘injure’ others emotionally/socially… then we have a problem. Hitting someone, or physically hurting someone puts you in the ‘Dangerous’ category and becomes an immediate office referral. Disrespect on the other hand is a little different. If you emotionally or socially injure someone then you are defying one or two of our school beliefs : Respect and/or Inclusion.

________

In ‘administering’ these rules, #3 and #4 had to be pretty extreme to get sent to the office. Otherwise, I handled them myself. But that’s me. Some teachers would be faster to send students away to be dealt with out of class. I just always felt that the most important relationship was between me and the kid. So, while #1 and #2 were likely immediate grounds for an office visit, #3 and #4 only resulted if the relationship was broken such that the defiance and/or disrespect didn’t allow me to be the teacher anymore. At that point the student is clearly a disruption to the class and I’m unable to manage it.

I think in my time as a teacher, I could count on one hand how many kids I ended up sending to the office, but looking back now, I probably should have asked for help a few more times. It’s good to try to hold on to the relationship with a kid, but sometimes a little help and support could go a long way. And I think having clear lines of what constitutes needing that help is a good place to start.

The unwritten rules

I have three unwritten rules:

1.

2.

3.

🤣

—–

Jokes aside, there are certain unwritten rules and expectations we follow that have evolved over time. Here are 3 examples:

1. People used to pop by unannounced. There would be a knock on the door and the explanation would literally be, “I happened to be in the neighbourhood and thought I’d drop in.”

No cell phones, no way to give advanced notice. No social awkwardness that would surely come into play if someone did this now.

2. Don’t leave me a voicemail, leave a text.

Quite literally, the only time I leave messages now is because I’ve called someone and I’m driving. Besides that, the etiquette is to hang up when you hear the message, before you get to the beep, then text your message. Or don’t leave a message because you know the person saw your unanswered call on their call display. That’s enough to get a callback.

3. Don’t ‘Reply All’ to an email. I was tempted to say, “Don’t ‘Reply All’ to an email except when…” but just don’t.

Some people didn’t get the memo on this unwritten rule. I think it needs to be written.

—-

It’s funny how etiquette changes over time. I wonder what things we do today, that will just seem wrong to do 10 or 20 years from now? What new unwritten rules will there be?

Know the rules to break them

On Friday afternoon one of my teachers invited me in to talk a bit about portrait photography. I had told him that I did a lot of photography and that I’d be happy to pop in at some point, but I hadn’t planned a lesson. And so I shared a few key concepts like the rule of thirds, and moving subjects away from the background to eliminate the look of a mug shot, and gave a few more suggestions.

As I did so, I surprised myself with how much I knew as a result of years of doing wedding photography. Except that when I did weddings, I did them on film. I didn’t have the instant feedback of seeing a photo right after I took it. I wasn’t sure that I got the shot that I wanted. It was a lot more challenging to photograph a wedding 25 years ago.

The students had an assignment to replicate a few photos from well known photographers, and so after explaining some key composition rules, I told the that they will probably notice that a number of the photographs they were emulating broke the rules I was sharing. I told them that the reason good photographers could break the rules is because they understand them extremely well. “You need to know the rules in order to break them and still get a good shot.”

To explain this further, I shared some artwork rather than a photograph. I showed the Picasso’s bull.

I described how Picasso truly understood art, and that for him to draw a bull and give the full essence of it with just a handful of lines, he had to understand and appreciate what else he saw and understood about the essence of his subject. And he had to know his craft well, to be able to see what was needed to represent the minimalist view.

Most new photographers are better off sticking to the rules and paying attention to them until they really understand them. Only then can the break the rules well and still take a good photo. I also talked a bit about the uncanny valley in photography. For example, if you are taking a photo and the horizon is off of horizontal by 3-4 degrees, then the photo looks awful. We know it’s crooked. But take that same photo and tilt it over 30 degrees to focus on something in the foreground and the photo can work.

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but when it comes to photography, and the composition of a good shot, there are certain rules that make a shot aesthetically pleasing. Unless you really understand these rules it’s not easy to break them and still pull off a great shot.

I think this rule about breaking rules applies to a lot more than just photography.

The wrong hill to die on

I came across this Tweet and felt compelled to discuss it,

“Can someone please explain why a student wearing a hat or a hood in class is so bad?

Why is that a hill so many teachers are willing to die on?” @ryanr_lester

I’ve worked in schools where ‘No hats’ was the rule, I’ve worked, and still work, in schools where it doesn’t. Students appreciate the freedom to wear hoodies and hats, and while I’ve dealt with policing this in schools where it is policed, I can’t think of an instance where this was a major issue in the schools where it isn’t.

Could a kid pull the rim of a hat down low to hide their face? Yes, but that might be something that helps them cope in a stressful situation, and that might also be something a teacher addresses… it depends on the moment. And if you think that moment that needs addressing would have vanished if the hat wasn’t on, well then you probably haven’t worked with that many kids who would do this… they would find another way.

Rules like this are about control and compliance, masked as issues of respect. Respect is neither earned nor demonstrated through control and compliance.

This is an uphill battle. You are better off choosing a different hill, and taking the high ground.