Can We Talk? Reflecting On A Missed Opportunity
Keen readers will know that most of my efforts related to Substack go to producing work for my other Newsletter:
The other day I shared an article on Notes and interacted with a reader who made a comment. Given that the exchange was public (i.e. on notes) I will be sharing the exchange, but will be deleting the other person’s username. In some ways, I think, this shows just how difficult it can be to converse and in other I want to reflect on what I could have done differently. I have also added some reflection between exchanges.
This is what I wrote on a Note
This article is well worth reading. It explores the implications of a determined world, and how the adults we become are often products of our biology plus environment. Consequently, affecting the actions we take. The article dives into the implications of this view with relation to criminal justice.
I still think this is an article you should read,
, was kind enough to share it, via comment if my memory serves. Jobling shared a couple of thought experiments that are helpful when thinking about responsibility and retributive justice (aka punishment).Then, a first comment.
Person A:
More restorative justice bullshit. I’m a parent of a kid in an elementary school in which a new woke principal inexplicably attempted to implement RJ. Chaos ensued, the superintendent tried to get her to adjust but she wouldn’t budge. She was fired, but not before a huge amount of damage had been done to the kids.
Your stupid, naive philosophy has caused a huge amount of harm to schools in the US, has enabled predators to repeat their offenses against so many vulnerable victims.
For shame. For SHAME.
Language can sometimes signal political allegiances; though I think, we need to be really careful about making too many assumptions about the other person. I also think (but often fail) to be charitable with arguments I disagree with.
Anyways, I replied:
I (Christian Orlic) have worked in schools and think school usually handle discipline in the worst ways. Schools may use detention and other forms of punishment thus teaching kids to gain power so they can enact revenge on those who hurt them. Or schools force kids to apologize teaching them that hypocrisy is the way out of trouble.
To me the only sensible way is to think about the long term welfare of each child and that each kid may be engaging in undesired behaviors for different reason. Thus, two kids of the same age that do the same act should not get the same consequence because they are often doing that action for different reasons. The school should seek to create spaces for conversation, learning, and giving children the courage to be imperfect, recognize how their actions and words affect others, and develop a series of principles that guide their actions. In the short term this may mean that kids make more small mistakes, that classrooms are a little less efficient, that kids “misbehave” a little more… but in the long run we can help children become harmonious adults.
I think I was not sufficiently nuanced. I do still very much think that we need to be careful about what we do and what the underlying assumptions / teachings are. I stand by welcoming some short term chaos so that we can help young people become functioning adults. I do think punishment can be seen as revenge and thus teach that we should pursue power to wrong those who wrong us. I also think we should not teach hypocrisy. I suspect that Person A and I actually agree on this last point.
Person A replied:
You have no idea what is age-appropriate for kids, just like that principal.
Grade school kids with behavior problems are little narcissists. RJ just teaches them to manipulate the system to escape accountability by saying the right words.
What they need first and foremost is firm boundaries set for them, with consequences for violating them. They have to learn self-control before they can learn anything else, including all the things you want to teach them.
I have admittedly posited only that punishment and forcing kids to forgive can be a problem. I also suggested that thinking about long term may be better than seeking short-term compliance.
Id argue my comment explicitly condemned kids escaping accountability by saying the right words.
I also think we’ve never made clear how old these kids are. He may be thinking of early years whereas I may be thinking of middle/high school. This is something I should have pointed out.
I wrote back:
Thank you for your comment, I am not quite sure how in disagreement we are. It really depends what you mean by consequences and one need to be careful about what one is teaching. The outside appearance of discipline dot not mean inner discipline or principles. I never said there should be no boundaries, be kind but firm we used to say.
Person A responded:
Consequences have to be a strong enough disincentive to make them not want to do it again of course. Usually temporary loss of some privileges.
Inner discipline comes naturally from love and trust and emulation of our parents and other adults, then experiences in which we learn that discipline pays off, but family discipline didn’t work out well and the school needs to teach discipline while at school, then yes the school is teaching inner discipline through clear, consistent, fair rules and consequences imposed from the outside.
I still think we agree that having kids avoid accountability and growth by saying a combination of words is not a great idea. I also think we agree on outside interventions.
I should not that I did not make any claims about clear rules. I think that an action can elicit different consequences and the system can still be consistent and fair.
I wrote back:
I wonder what you mean by privileges? This can, I imagine, range from going to recess to more draconian measures.
I agree that family has an influence on inner discipline. I also think one can work on long term goals rather than short ones. I think trust, love, admiration, these are good things indeed.
What do we mean by consistency? Two kids doing the same thing may have very different motivations from doing them, and thus applying the same consequence may work in one case and backfire in the other.
Of course this is all context dependent.
I recognized that family is important and that “love, admiration” are good things that can help developing young people become adults.
I made an effort to try and find common ground by having clarity on what we were discussing. My work as a teacher has brought me to schools where “detention is barbaric” and to schools where teachers pulled students by their ears. I have heard from my parents generations that teachers used rulers to hit misbehaving students. I have written about institutions where going to the bathroom was a privilege that was often denied.
I tried to problematize consistency because I think kids, young adults, and adults may act in the same way for very different reasons. The different in motivation may be key in changing not only that particular behavior, but a series of interconnected ones.
I missed an opportunity to think about how old these children are.
Person A replied:
The same thing everyone else means I’m sure. If you are unclear on the meaning of these simple, very common concepts and how they routinely apply in schooling and child raising, then this isn’t the best issue for you to be talking about since you know so little.
Have a kid or two and be an involved parent in their schooling, and you will have a more useful perspective.
I fully recognize that schools have issues, that school administrators, and teachers make mistakes. I surely have.
My sense is that we are failing to communicate. If we all mean the same, then we should be able to define these terms. Perhaps, not so. Perhaps, there are terms that are hard to define like life, species, and so forth.
My response:
Thank you for your message. I have studied at 3-5 universities. I have worked at several schools and visited dozens. I have had conversations about discipline with several administrators in several countries. And I have studied places that used discipline and talk about privileges to mean very different things. Thus, I may be obtuse, but I have been exposed to such talk, seen it put into practice, and studied its use in the past.
What would you recommend me read so I can begin to understand?
I think I was a little aggressive here. My degrees may, in fact, be irrelevant. Nevertheless, two of them are in education. I have been in schools, and I have conversed plenty with other teachers. I have seen very different approaches to classroom management and staff management.
I honestly do not know who Person A is, or what they know. I am trying to converse, and I am failing.
Person A:
No more reading, except of personal accounts of specific real-life situations by parents and teachers. No more theory, no more academia. No more discussions with administrators, they are not working with the kids and their agenda is to conducive to good kid-focused schooling.
(Re)Learn common sense. Spend significant time working directly with kids in roles requiring you to set and keep boundaries for them.
We are, it seems, at an impasse. Yet, I want to understand, I want to talk, and I want to change my mind if that is what I should do. Part of me wanted to say “We are chatting via text (by definition that means more reading)”.
Administrators do work with kids. This moniker includes principals and staff that handle discipline, and heads of department (who also teach classes). I also mentioned teachers.
Looking back, I was not sufficiently clear that I worked as a teacher for years.
My response,
Once again, I have. I worked with teachers in the US, Spain, and Switzerland. I have also taught a wide variety of subjects from Grade 6 to 3rd year University students (across countries and schools). Ive discussed discipline, boundaries, and limits with leaders and colleagues.
I appreciate your post, and I am sorry you have had rough experiences with perhaps misguided efforts to institute other approaches to discipline. I do not know what this person did or what it was based on. And I fully agree that there are some currents and ways of thinking that may not be the most desirable and that while arguably well intentioned are not preparing kids for adulthood.
I mean almost every word here. I think the “once again” is a tad aggressive. I am also terribly sorry this school had a bad experience. Two relate points:
First, I have absolutely no clue what his principal allegedly did. Second, let’s pretend that this person was a disaster, it does not mean that the system or methodology or theory is bad.
Look, if I were to assemble an Ikea furniture, the result would frankly be crap. This does not mean that well assembled Ikea furniture is bad. It says more about my ability than the quality Ikea furniture.
PS We have plenty of amazing Ikea stuff at home, it just wasn’t built by me.
Person A answered:
And yet you have trouble with the definitions of very common words. I doubt you have been a full-time, full-year teacher of school-age kids some of whom have behavioral problems, for any appreciable amount of time.
Discussing issues is very different than being the person on the ground setting and enforcing the boundaries and seeing how kids respond to them, every day, for weeks, months and years. When you do that, you learn what actually works and doesn't work.
You clearly do not know what works. So please don’t pretend that you have the direct experience that it takes to understand it.
You don’t understand that the theories you are enamored of are hopelessly unrealistic in practice, because real life is not a perfect theoretical world; it never is. Some kids in schools lack empathy, many lack the ability to emotionally regulate, and many lack respect for adults. Many have unresponsive parents who ignore feedback from the school. That will always be true. So unless your theory takes that reality into account in a realistic way, it’s useless.
There is a shift here in the argument being made, because now we are talking about kids that have “behavioral problems.”
I agree that experience is important. I also think context matters immensely.
I do not think I have discussed theories or even defended restorative justice.
I am starting to feel attacked in an ad-hominem way rather than having my ideas attacked.
I then said,
I don’t have trouble with these definitions, they are not as simple as you suggest. This is clear from the fact that people use them to mean vastly different things (in the present). Historically these terms have had very different meanings. I wanted to know what you meant.
What do we mean by behavioral problems? Does this include ADHD, violence, defiance? Talkative students, substance abuse, suicidal ideation?
I have seen great changes through the years and have observed kids flourish and transform. Then again anecdotal evidence (I.e. direct experience only takes me (and everyone for that matter) so far.
We should also think about what we mean by “what works”. Do we mean what gets a kid to sit down and stay quiet and say thank you and please when an authority figure is around? Do we mean a person who becomes a well functioning adult? Do we mean someone who has a sense of right and wrong even when no one is watching?
I appreciate immensely your response because it is helping me think more deeply about the fuzziness if these terms and how institutions can deploy them to help children flourish.
I am pleased that I allowed for experience to be important, but also highlighted the problem with anecdote based conclusions.
I think the second point is also an important one. What does it mean for school to work? I think is is very hard to define. Perhaps we could do a checklist of characteristics. I bet that if Person A and I did this list. There would be significant overlap. I also think if you were to make such a list, dear reader, that yours would also significantly overlap with mine and Person’s A.
And I sustain that these are fuzzy terms.
Person A Responded,
If you had sufficient direct experience, you wouldn’t be getting caught up in all the potential theoretical meanings of words, because you’d understand what’s applicable and what isn’t. You lack the context of experience.
For example, “behavioral problems”. Clearly that means behavioral problems that disrupt class or the school or otherwise harm others and thus must be addressed. Beyond that the details don’t matter in this context.
It’s clear that you use your “But what do you mean by ____” approach as a way to avoid talking about and facing the implications of IRL situations, and keep things theoretical, where you are comfortable. That’s not helpful, at all.
Again, you need real-life, direct experience in order to be useful to anyone.
Well, you are going to have to exit your comfort zone.
I re-read this, and I now think that all schools then have kids with behavioral problems.
I am distraught that conversation may not be helpful. It is really hard to use single anecdotes to make wider points. I should not they did not use examples either. Perhaps we could have agreed on an example and discussed it.
My response seems to have ended the exchange.
As I said anecdotes aren’t the best way to reach conclusions about the world. My sense is that I likely dislike many of the things you would also likely dislike.
The effort to understand your meaning is, frankly, all about the real world implications. The real life application of discipline/punishment/privilege/boundaries/behavioral issues precisely requires understanding what we mean by these and more.
I have worked in schools. I’ve taught grades 7 through University students. I’ve seen different approaches. I know many teachers, talk to them often, and I have been one. I’ve taught at schools with absolutely no punishment (where the only consequence was a chat) and I’ve taught at ones where kids were physically dragged from their ears. I’ve seen different classroom management styles, and more.
I applaud your commitment to thinking, discussing, and exploring real life impact and application. After all that is what matters. I also think that direct experience can be helpful, but on occasion, it can also be misleading.
I suspect he got frustrated. I did too.
I am sharing this because I am unhappy about this interaction. In some ways I think Person A made a series of assumptions about me. I made assumptions about them as well. I really do value the fact we exchanged a series of comments.
But it seems that we really could not talk to one another. I tried, I made some concessions, I offered opportunity to find common ground, but this did not happen. Maybe my offers were ineffective or lacked clarity. Maybe I am totally wrong.
There was a time when it seemed to me that conversations could be had. I suspect talking through a screen makes it more difficult.
I hope this was not a bore and I don’t envision many posts like this one. Id love to talk, and I am open to changing my mind. What could I do differently?
Because I am interested, and because I have time, I read or at least scanned the exchange. When I got to the bottom, I saw a potential source of the conflict, Christian, in your address. Where did Person A come from? Different, even only slightly different cultures and assumptions can bring people to talk past one another. Everyone involved is interested in the role of discipline in the raising of young people but that may mean we are going to have a hard time discussing the subject. Education is discipline and it also is understanding the person being educated.
In a Minnesota high school 60 years ago, the new German teacher was an Austrian exchange. In the first few days, it became clear that some of the young jerks, I mean students, were going to test him. One, named Mark, spoiled son of the local undertaker, went out of his way to create disturbance. On the third day, this big Austrian football player carefully positioned himself behind Mark. He held a hardback textbook in his hand and at the first indication Mark was going to act up, the teacher struck him on the back of the head with the textbook. And I mean he struck, hard. The gasp from other students was audible and Mark was clearly stunned, both physically and mentally. The teacher had broken the rules Mark thought were in force. New rules in force based on different assumptions.
I've never forgotten the incident because Mark, in addition to other things, was a guy who bullied me at a time when I was more vulnerable to bullying than I am now. Herr Professor had a mean streak, no question, but many of us in the room secretly applauded the comeuppance he administered. I doubt Mark ever forgot it, either. The incident did have an effect, though I don't know whether that effect was long lasting.
So that's an anecdote, not conclusive but instructive. Maybe both you and Person A are right in your own ways. I do believe that some people in general remember life as anecdotes and others build theories. Make allowance for both processes, I say. And thanks for sharing.
Thanks for sharing this! Person A does not seem to have read my article at all. He complains that I am advocating for restorative justice, a term that I do not use a single time in the article. Also, my argument does not imply that it is inappropriate to discipline children at schools, as Person A seems to think it does. I discuss two justifications for discipline policies, the quarantine principle and deterrence. My argument is just that retribution is not an appropriate basis for discipline policies, not that discipline itself is illegitimate. It's a really interesting example of how readers project their own concerns onto a piece of writing and totally ignore what it's actually saying.