I'm not impressed by his after-the-fact "falling on his sword." As many of you already know, I have some real issues with these armchair "true confessions," particularly by celebrities and public figures. Whether it's Tiger Woods' press conference where he admits to his infidelity or Bill Clinton admitting to "improper relations" with Monica Lewinsky or John Edwards finally acknowledging his affair and lovechild while wife Elizabeth battled cancer, it just seems like a media moment that's scripted to try to salvage a seriously-eroding public image. When the Titanic is goin' down...let's point out that the iceberg wasn't supposed to be there, huh?

Particularly with sports figures, it seems that what they did is somehow understandable given their positions. Look at Barry Bonds: he breaks the home run for a single season record, but it's all been done with the assistance of steroids. When asked about his usage, he admitted to it sort of: his excuse is that his personal trainer "misled him" by making him believe the drugs were really flax seed and arthritis cream. Lance Armstrong implies that it is the expectation of winning at the level top-notch athletes that drives them to win at all costs.

Oh, so are they saying that other people are essentially to blame because they cause the immoral actions?

I can understand pressure to perform.  Really I can.  But you have to consider the bigger picture: it's not just the celebrities and athletes that are taking this attitude of "hey, as long as I don't get caught, it's ok."  Consider cheating amongst our children as an example. In the most recent Josephson Institute report on cheating and ethics (2012), these are some of the results published:

• 51 percent of students admitted they had cheated on an exam in the past year; a third admit to doing it more than two times
• 55 percent said they lied to a teacher in the past year about something significant
• 20 percent of the students said they had stolen something from a store in the past year
• One in three students admit to having used the Internet to plagiarise an assignment

And, While 92 percent of students believe their parents want them to do the right thing, more than eight in ten confessed they lied to a parent about something significant (2010 Report)

Of course, these are only the kids who had admitted it. My worry is that there are many more kids out there who are lying, but aren't willing to 'fess up to doing it!

That's where we get to the heart of the matter: it's not just the bad deed that's the problem, it's the lying and deceit that makes it worse. As human beings, we all mess up, really, we do.  We are blessedly imperfect.  But when we screw up -- whether intentionally or accidentally -- the right thing to do is to come clean and be accountable for your actions.  I've previously shared in a post about sneakiness and the damage it does that, my personal mantra has been that I'd "rather take a bad truth than a good lie."  When people lie to you, they are saying that they don't respect you, don't really care what you think and that sticking to the falsehood to preserve their "dignity" makes them much cleverer than you!

These people are often proud that they are such good liars. They will look you straight in the eye (because, after all, any of us who have watched crime shows or know anything about body language knows that someone lying will break eye contact and look downwards and to the left) and tell you something that is not true. Or, it may be only partially true. It might even be vaguely true, if you put the right "spin" on it.  And they think they can get away with it because it's "my word against yours."

Problem is, a liar's word is no good, even long after the truth has been found out and the confession has been made (if it has). Trustworthiness is a fundamental character trait; most people will assume that others are being honest with you. "Innocent until proven guilty" is one way we express that. But, "once burned, twice shy" is a saying in response to what happens once someone has been labelled a liar. Also, the common phrase "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" demonstrates how others feel toward someone who has lied to them.

The point is lying undermines any credibility the liar may have had. We may "forgive" someone who has been caught lying -- Tiger Woods is back on the PGA Tour and earning his millions, albeit at a lower rate since sponsors dropped him, -- but do we really forget?  Bill and Hilary Clinton may still be husband and wife, and Bill is certainly back in a high-profile position "saving the world," but do you really think that the rift that the cheating and lies cause (oh, we didn't even get to the Whitewater scandal) have been forgotten? Don't you now wonder how much of Hilary's recent "concussion" was true and valid without wondering if there's a more plausible explanation having something to do with the matter at Benghazi?

I guess this is why we are often cynical: we are a culture of believers in a society of liars. And when the lie is found out, why are we to believe that this is the truth, really, this time? When the "truth" contradicts the previous lies -- particularly when that lie has been going on for years and staunchly defended, even in a court of law, -- you can't help but wonder:

"Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

Here, based on views over the past 12 months is the 2012 Top 10 list. I'd love to hear from you individually what you would have picked as your #1!

1. Memorializing Memorial Day
2. Leadership and the Iceberg
3. To end bullying requires a cultural change
4. Got the back to school blues
5. Rotary 4-Way Test: Don’t just recite it — live it
6. Why “Anti-Bullying” Doesn’t Work – Part I
7. What if schools were run like a business?
8. How would YOU like to be remembered?
9. Teen burning victim Michael Brewer’s assailants get jail
10. “Change” requires DOING something different

I find it interesting to see how many of these made last year's "Top 10 List!" Would you have predicted that? And, even more curious will be what the coming year holds for us as we strive to make this world a more respectful, compassionate and considerate place in which to live.

 ---

Are you planning to provide "Customer Service" training for your staff in the coming year?  See why Corinne's message to your employees about "It's Not Who You Know, It's How You Treat Them" will impact YOUR business like nothing you've ever seen! Mention the "Top 10 Posts of 2012" for a 12% discount on booking fees!

It's not enough to control guns
By CORINNE GREGORY
GUEST COLUMNIST

Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Last week's shooting at Foss High School in Tacoma proves there is a fatal disease in our schools that no one wants to talk about. To say I'm absolutely outraged by this incident is an understatement. Not just because this is yet another senseless killing in schools, but also because of the reaction it generated. Immediately after the shooting, major lawmakers and policymakers such as Gov. Chris Gregoire, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and Seattle police Chief Gil Kerlikowske were essentially quoted as saying that the shooting proved that we need to have a better gun-control policy for our schools.
What? "Control the guns." What about the shooters?

How many more children have to die before people are willing to take a real hard look at our education system and decide that we must address the issue of school discipline, behavior management and social skills? The proposed "solutions" being batted around just won't work. Why? For many differing and varying reasons:
Throwing money at academic performance won't do a whit if kids don't attend schools because they're afraid.

Metal detectors in schools won't help if students shoot one another before they get in the building.
More police on site won't generate more productive learning time and encourage students to pay attention in class, which won't improve academic test scores or educational outcomes.
None of these things will help recruit or retain qualified teachers and
staff. And they certainly won't level the playing field for disadvantaged or minority students and their families or improve the overall educational experience and effectiveness.
While controlling access and use of firearms is necessary, it's not enough.
If we're to make a lasting difference in the level of school violence and discipline, we must address the root of the problem and not simply throw more money at it for metal detectors, police on-site, etc. as a Band-Aid when we're dealing with a systemic disease.
Although it certainly costs money to implement new programs, it is not a matter of "How can we afford it?" but rather, "How can we afford not to?" The cost effects of poor social skills is not only staggering but increases with every year. Schools presently are hemorrhaging money due to the high cost of behavior management and discipline, not to mention the long-term impacts. What may initially be a small cost impact due to disciplining a young student may escalate dramatically through school suspensions, expulsions or, ultimately, incarceration, or worse.

Seattle Public Schools (as well as other schools districts within the state and nation) are in desperate need of reform, and it's my belief that true, effective education reform must deal with the issue of school discipline and inadequate social skills in our children. It's not an add-on; it's a critical, integral part of building not only good students, but good people.
Comprehensive, effective social skills education and its related positive impacts on the entire education process is not a pipe dream. It's been proven to work, repeatedly, in schools across the country. And, while it may not solve every problem plaguing schools today, it will go a long way toward repairing a great majority of them, and providing a long-term solution, at that.
Corinne Gregory is the president and founder of Bellevue-based SocialSmarts (http://www.socialsmarts.com)

"Tish" as she allowed her friends to call her, was an early influence on my work with what was then called "The PoliteChild."  I had always had a philosophy that we should be teaching our kids more than just "behavior" which is what most manners/etiquette classes focus on. I believed that we had to be sure our young people were grounded in the underlying character values -- what I called the "motivators" -- so that their behavior was in line with their attitudes.  It was soon after the first PoliteChild curriculum was completed that I came across Letitia's book "More Than Just Manners" and I was so pleased to learn that she held the same belief!

I don't know what possessed me to write her, but I think the first lettre went to her about Summer 2002 or later that same year. I sent her a package with PoliteChild materials and an outline for our "EarlyLearners" classes and she wrote back soon after, thanking me for the gift and complimenting me on offering a manners class for children as young as 2 1/2. A reasonably steady pattern of communication ensued -- not always through the USPS, but also in emails. She had a definite opinion on things and often shared her frustrations with the continuing decline of civility in the world. There was a real person behind the mannerly advice, but she always believed in practicing what she preached.

In Spring of 2005, I had an opportunity to visit Washington DC. My purpose there was to meet with several legislators and the Department of Education (what a waste of time THAT was...but that's for another day!) to share with them PoliteChild's successes and enlist support for wider adoption in schools. I let Tish know I was going to be in town; imagine my surprise when she insisted I come by to have coffee with her, if my schedule permitted.  Happily, it did.  Early on one of the mornings I was due at the Congressional offices, I arrived at the beautiful home on Massachusetts Avenue and was shown to "Ms. Baldridge's" flat up on the top floor.  I was shown into the main parlor and as I was waiting, heard a voice call out "I'll be right there!"  And...suddenly she was. This icon of civility and I was finally actually meeting her!

The house was both comfortable and beautiful, but one thing that was notable -- all these pictures on her walls of her with dignitaries, past and present.  Kennedys of course, but so many others that it was mind-boggling.  Some of those I have the blessing to share along with her -- Katie Couric among them. But it really impressed me just what a factor she has been in so many different ways.

We moved to the dining room to take coffee and there were yummy pastries as well.  I don't remember all that we talked about, but some of it was "shop" and other topics weren't. She was hugely encouraging of what I was doing and promised her support. She even offered to write a forward for the book I was planning and gave me contact info for her agent. It was a phenomenal hour and  a half, but I had to leave for my meetings -- she had taken the initiative to order me a car to take me to the Capitol as she said the traffic that time of the morning was "horrific."

Naturally, after that, we were in more frequent touch.  I don't recall what prompted it, but in Fall of 2006 (ironically, dated a week ago six years ago), Tish had had enough of the "ridiculousness" of the schools and youth behavior. She decided that she needed to go "to the top" and call attention to the successes PoliteChild was having.  I think now that she has passed, I can share this:

October 24, 2006

MEMO TO: Maria Miller, The While House

Forgive me for bothering one of the busiest offices in the land, but I thought I would personally forward to you Corinne Gregory's letter and disk on "The Polite Child." I think her project in the field of child education and manners is very worth while, and deserves to be brought to your attention.

I know you get a million of these every week. So do I, because of my writing on manners, but this one deserves to be known about, so I am taking the liberty of forwarding it on to you, thanks to Lea Berman, who lives close by.

Saluti,

Tish Baldridge

She had forwarded a copy of the letter to me; the original she sent "via personal courier" because she knew that the protocol of getting it to its addressee required a lot of twists and turns. By using her own contacts, she was able to circumvent the normal channels. In spite of all her efforts, nothing came of it, but I was so honored and humbled that Tish would actually take this step on our behalf.

 In the past few years, we lost touch. I tried to mail her a copy of "It's Not Who You Know, It's How You Treat Them" but the book was returned by the Post Office. I understood she had gotten in partnership with another individual and while I tried to contact her through those connections, no calls or emails were returned.

In so many ways, I see Tish much like I view Julia Child (and, they were similarly tall, too, go figure!): they were huge influencers in their area of expertise, not just because of their expertise, but because they made it real, personal and available to us, the "regular" folk.  I -- like many others -- was never going to be dining in a Kennedy White House, but because of her, we have the knowledge of what we are expected to do should we ever get that invite.

But beyond her lessons of behavior, were her beliefs about the value of kindness, courtesy and consideration. While it's important to be a mannerly person, if you are a good person, you will generally behave in a way consistent with Good Manners, because that's just how you treat others. All the perfect etiquette in the world will do you no good if you don't act from a center of respect and compassion.

Dear Tish, I'm sorry to hear you have left us. But, know that you have touched many lives and will never be "gone" because your teaching and your wisdom -- and your personality -- has left a real and permanent mark on us and the field we so believe in. God is very lucky to have you making sure everyone eats with the proper fork in heaven tonight!

When I was asked to comment on the ban by Q13 Fox on Wednesday evening, my mind was spinning with the many things that are wrong with Coach Leach's approach. And, apparently, I'm not the only person who takes issue with this move as you can see in the segment Q13's Tom Yazwinski shared that evening.

 As I shared in the interview, I have several problems with how Coach Leach is handling this. While I certainly can empathize with his irritation and frustration at his players' behavior, banning Twitter is not going to solve the problem and may, actually, lead to more.

First of all, while I am not an attorney, I can imagine that the walls of Justice are literally frothing with discussions about the Constitutionality of this kind of ban.  It is a ban against free speech, and as these players are adults (well, at least by virtue of age even if not by maturity), and they do have the right to say essentially what they want.  Even if they have a "non-disaparagement clause" in their contracts, the students aren't trash-talking the school, the program or their coaches as even WSU's coaching staff admits.  True, it does not make the school look good to have its football players publicly behaving like cretins for the whole 'Net to see, but banning Twitter isn't going to change that.

What Coach has done is essentially what we, as a culture, tend to do -- take away the toys when we have abused them.  Problem is, it doesn't address the underlying reason for that abuse. No matter how this kind of communication is conducted, it's inappropriate and wrong. And these young men don't seem to understand that.  Just because you take their tweets away, doesn't mean their attitudes have changed.  I can pretty much guarantee that these kids have new Twitter ids that they are cleverly cloaking to keep anyone at WSU from recognizing them. All Coach has done is run one communication vehicle to ground. It's a Bandaid he has applied to a surface lesion while the cancer causing it remains alive and festering.

But, even if they do stay off Twitter, nothing "inside" has changed I'll bet you.  The players likely still engage in communication that would not be "approved by the Parent Teacher Association" as one article described the controversial tweets. Part of that, sadly, is part and parcel of the male-dominated pro-sports culture. Locker room talk doesn't even really belong in the locker room, but it certainly does NOT belong in public forums. Is Coach now going to put bugs in the locker room to make sure his "boys" are behaving themselves in there, too?

The bigger picture here is that you can't change behavior by dealing with "externals."  If you take away Twitter, what are you going to do about Facebook?  Or, if that doesn't work, will you confiscate cell phones because they might be sending derogatory texts?  Heck, you really want a ban: take away video games, television and all but G-rated music (if you can find that anymore!)  The point is: garbage in-garbage out.

The fact that these young men seem to see nothing wrong with this kind of communication points to a lack of courtesy, compassion and respect for others. That's a character flaw, not a technology problem. I don't know how they were raised at home, but now that they are on their own, they show a remarkable lack of good judgement. You don't "fix" that by taking away their Twitter privileges, folks.  Rather than see Coach Leach now suspend them if they are caught on Twitter (for any reason), why couldn't he just suspend them from the team for ANY incident showing lack of character?  If playing football is a privilege as Graham Watson mentioned in a recent article, then impose the requirement that all players conduct themselves in a manner deserving of the investment and committment that playing for a noted and respected school represents? Heck, if you're going to school on a full- (or even partial-) ride, then EARN it. Be the type of student, athlete and person that is worthy of that privilege!

Now, Tweet that, Coach Mike!

 ---

Did you like this? You can read more about Corinne Gregory's tips for positive social skills and professional success in  her acclaimed book: "It's Not Who You Know, It's How You Treat Them"

So true as another school year is already beginning to show.

A few days ago, Monica Ann Thomas, one of my Facebook friends and another person outspoken about the problem of bullying posted this on one of the bullying groups' wall:

Well this school year has really started with a sad start. 11 suicides, 3 school shootings and who knows how many other incidents that were not reported on. Something has to be done and it can't wait either. We have to do more to prevent such senseless acts. Please take a moment each and every day to speak with your children. Let them know they are not alone and that there are many who can and want to help. The latest statistics even show that almost half of the teachers agree with us. If teachers are seeing a need that makes me wonder why the schools deny the problem. Teachers are the closest to the kids to see the issue so why won't the administrators admit the problem? Please take a stand and help us to save the children.

 
I had to reply to her comment that much of why the problem of bullying isn't being adequately addressed is because, as a rule, if an individual school admits it has a problem, then it is obligated to really DEAL with it. I called it the "ugly baby" problem -- in other words, no one wants to admit they have an ugly baby. I can understand that a school doesn't want to be known for having an issue with bullying because it looks bad, but let me tell you this...pretty much EVERY school in this country HAS A BULLYING PROBLEM.  No surprise!

The surprise is when a school really takes the time to analyze the problem and deal with it. Heck, here we go again with more comments about "adequate legislation" that will supposedly curb the problem, but haven't we learned that laws do NOT fix bullying?

At the same time the problem is rampant, schools feel they can't do more about it.  "Heck, we already HAVE an anti-bullying policy in place," or "we do an anti-bullying assembly each year to raise awareness."  How MANY times have you heard that, and how many times have we talked about this here in this blog? Yet...has ANYTHING changed?

One of the reasons I wrote my most recent book, "Breaking the Bullying Culture" was because I wanted to not only point out how pervasive and engrained bullying is, I wanted to really examine what's not working in the "war" against bullying, but more importantly talk about what DOES work.  I was very fortunate to receive this review from Walt Gardner. For those of you who don't know Walt, he writes the regular "Reality Check" blog for Education Week.  I sent Walt a copy of the book for his reading and here's what he had to say:

It's hard to find an author who goes beyond bemoaning a front-page problem in education to provide realistic strategies as a solution. Corinne Gregory pulls no punches in presenting readers with a disturbing picture of bullying in all its forms, including its latest cyber manifestation. Yet despite the formidable challenges confronting schools, she doesn't despair. "Education Reform and Other Myths: Breaking the Bullying Culture" is indispensable reading.

I am very honored and humbled by Walt's review, but I wish I could share this message of hope with more schools, administrators and lawmakers.  We CANNOT take a late-game approach to bullying and make any real impact. The problem starts so much earlier than when bullying itself has erupted. If you wait until then, the problem is SO much harder to fix, much more expensive, and less effective.

Maybe therein lies the problem.  By the time it's gotten to the point of bullying, maybe it IS so  much easier to ignore it and hope it goes away...after all, the kids WILL graduate and leave some day, right? Next year may be better...

---

Did you like this? More about why anti-bullying doesn't work can be found here: http://corinnegregory.com/blog/2012/02/28/why-anti-bullying-doesnt-work-part-i/

Dang, but

This book documents her years in France, where she learned to cook and also chronicles her evolution from budding chef to cookbook author to culinary media star. What I love about this book was not just the talk about food and how she developed as a chef, but also how her philosophy and "voice" can be heard in its pages.  (Now, I have to say that so far I haven't read any of Julia's other books -- although I have one poised on my nightstand -- so maybe this is typical of Julia's books).  I never had a chance to meet the woman, but through her book, I feel like I am getting to know the character that she was.

There was a passage that struck me early on in the book that I think we can all take a lesson from.  Julia is discussing how shopping for food in Paris was a "life-changing experience." According to her, it was during these daily shopping excursions that she learned "one of the most important lessons of my life: the value of les human relations."

As she writes...

The French are very sensitive to personal dynamics, and they believe that you must earn your rewards.  If a tourist enters a food stall thinking he's going to be cheated, the salesman will sense this and obligingly cheat him. But if a Frenchman senses that a visitor is delighted to be in his store, and takes a genuine interest in what is for sale, then he'll just open up like a flower. The Parisian grocers insisted that I interact with them personally: if I wasn't willing to take the time to get to know them and their wares, then I would not go home with the freshest legumes or cuts of meat in my basket.

I think Julia's experiences are something we can learn from today: that the connections we make with people are hugely valuable. People are more likely to treat us well if we treat them well to begin with. Think about it: have you ever had the occasion to be given a little extra attention, maybe been treated to an additional "something" (tangible or not) simply because you took the time to smile, be nice, maybe chat up the person you were dealing with?  I've even had the experience of being upgraded to Business Class on a trans-Atlantic flight when I was holding a Coach ticket because I was friendly to the ticket agent when so many other passengers were surly and rude.

I believe whole-heartedly in treating others like they matter -- it's just part of my operating DNA. My kids have observed that "Mom, you just have a way of connecting with people."  But it's not a trick and it didn't always come natural. It comes from practice.  I know the names of most of the people at the grocery store I frequent.  When I'm checking out, I ask them how THEIR day is (they are trained to ask me about mine as part of Customer Service).  I smile and wave thank you to the flaggers directing traffic in construction zones.  I compliment the vendors at our local Farmer's Market about their wares, the quality of their produce, or their displays. People appreciate it when you notice what they do or who they are.  We all want to feel like we matter, like what we do and who we are is somehow important to someone else.

I don't have any agenda or ulterior motive for doing it. I just genuinely like and value other people. We all need one another and really, life is better when we can be cordial and caring.  Julia was known for being brash and rough at times, and definitely had an opinion, but she also worked very hard to feed people's bodies and souls. I think the takeaway from her message onles human relationsis that if we expect to GET the best, we have to be willing to GIVE the best. Certainly when we do take the time to connect with people, to be kind, to be...well, just NICE, it doesn't guarantee that people will respond in kind. But, by doing our best to "Treat Others the Way You Want to Be Treated," we can guarantee that we have done our part. And, if others don't match that,tant pis,as Julia would say.  Too bad.

---

Did you like this? Find more lessons on the importance of human relations in It's Not Who You Know, It's How You Treat Them -- available both in print and in ebook form. Follow this link (http://www.ItsNotWhoYouKnowBook.com) for details and ordering information.

During the interview, Margaret asked me what parents should do if they are alerted by school officials that there may be a problem with their child -- either as a bully or a victim. This is a really tough situation and I've had to answer this question many times.  As I explained in the interview, a parent's natural reaction is to say, "Oh, no, not MY child."  I went on to further comment that while it's natural to be defensive and feel this way initially, parents have to be open to finding out what's going on and becoming part of the solution. It may be, for example, that there is a misunderstanding, or perhaps their child got caught up in something that was going on. But, as I pointed out, we can't just assume that the teachers/administrators have it out for our kids -- that helps no one, particularly not your child if there IS a problem.

Well, apparently one of the viewers of New Day didn't get what I was saying. Her comment on the show's Facebook page read:

I liked this segment but I don't like that Corinne Gregory's first response would be "that can't be!" if someone came to her about her child doing something wrong. That just adds to the problem! Until you know what really did happen, you should not just assume that it couldn't be your child. Your child needs to know that his parents will hold him accountable if it turns out he really was wrong. If he really is a bully and the parent is not aware of it, it does not help fix the problem if the parent says "that can't be!"

Well, that wasn't AT ALL what I said, and I'm sorry that the viewer misunderstood me. I am keenly aware and support the position that if the child is really a bully, they need to be held accountable for their actions. I'm a huge fan of personal accountability in all areas; frankly, I think there is WAY too little of that going around.

But the problem is that too many parents will just automatically assume that the educational "establishment" is out to get their child.  And part of this is due both to the natural feeling of wanting to protect your child. You don't want to be told that your kid is a BAD KID and that's what you hear when someone tells you that Little Johnny or Little Suzie have been involved in an "incident."

The other issue is that we frequently relate our children's behavior with our "success" or failure as a parent. When our kids do well, we feel great about our parenting. When they are having issues, we feel that others will interpret that as a personal reflection on our parenting skills. Sometimes that is true; not all parents are doing what they should be to raise kids who are living up to their potential and developing positive behavior and habits. But, there are also situations where parents are doing the very best they can...yet things "go wrong" for varying reasons.  Maybe, as I said in the interview, the child got caught up in something bigger than him- or herself. Much of bullying is a cultural thing where there is a sort of pack mentality that makes it easier for kids to participate once others have started the bullying.  Maybe your child is acting out because of stress -- is your family going through some troubled times like a divorce, death of a loved one or pet, a sudden move?  There are also times where there is something emotionally disconnected or truly a clinical issue that causes anti-social behavior. The point is, it's not necessarily anyone's particular "fault."  But if you take it that way, and respond accordingly, you are just helping propagate the problem.

It's often the knee-jerk reaction of overly-defensive parents that prevent the problem getting stopped in its tracks.  I do agree there are some people on the educator/administrator side who have a hair-trigger when it comes to bullying. My goodness, there is so much in the media about the problem that I think we also can over-react to situations -- not that I'm saying we don't need to take bullying seriously. We DO.  But we ALL need to realize that we are working toward the same goal -- that of stopping bullying and creating positive environments for all kids and adults alike.  Putting up barriers and making assumptions about "who is the enemy" is not productive and only adds to the problem rather than solving it.

If it turns out that the reports are true, then you, as a parent HAVE to get involved to correct your child's behavior. How you do that is dependent on what happened and its severity, but can include evertying from just talking to your child about why bullying is wrong, to imposing consequences, to, if the situation or behavior warrants, seeking professional help. Remember that you are not just helping the victim if you hold your child accountable -- you are helping your child understand why this behavior is wrong and will not be tolerated.

To the New Day viewer who clearly misinterpreted what I said: I hope this clears it up.  I believe in accountability; I believe in responsibility. Even though it's tough to hear that our child has messed up, we owe it to everyone involved to uncover and accept the truth -- whatever it is -- and work toward an effective solution.

It's his words that sparked a memory that leads to today's post. Good question, Mr. King: we can get along...the question is really, why don't we? I'd like to examine that idea today and see what you think about why it is that we have so much dissent and disharmony in this world.

Over the past several years, one of the big buzzwords has been "Tolerance."  We are advised to be "tolerant," to "teach tolerance," -- there's even a Museum of Tolerance!  Religious tolerance, gender tolerance, cultural tolerance...you name it, we are expected to "tolerate."

But what is this "tolerance" we are preaching anyway? For this, I'd like to share with you some of the concepts we offer our schools and students as part of the SocialSmarts' "Exploring the Virtues" curriculum.  In the "Tolerance vs. Acceptance" lesson in Virtues I, we drill down into these two concepts and really get to what they mean, and how they affect us.

In order to understand something, we often have to define it first. And, this is how the lesson begins.  From the Lower GradeSchool curriculum track, we provide the following definition for Tolerance -

Tolerance: Putting up with something or someone different from what we are used to.

 When you stop to think about it, each and every one of us is "different" in some way. Maybe it's our background, where we came from, how we grew up.  Maybe I have a college education but some of the people I hang out with don't. I like gardening, others are into remote-control planes. I have blue eyes and brown hair; my best friend is blonde.  I mean, we are ALL different. To make this point to our young students, we suggest the class create a "differences chart" that illustrates, by varying characteristics how no two students (or include the teacher if you like) have exactly the same set of characteristics.

This is all good, but it's only the FIRST step in the lesson. Notice that Tolerance, by definition, means we are "putting up with" others in spite of their differences. "You're different, but I'll deal with it, in spite of your differences." It's like saying that we, ourselves, are the yardstick for "normal."  YOU are different; I AM the norm. And, because I'm a great person who is politically correct by being TOLERANT, I'll put up with those differences.

Now, let's take it a step further and move to "Acceptance."  By our SocialSmarts definition (for the younger students) we explain Acceptance is...

Approving of something (or someone) and treating it as normal, right, or included.

By this definition, Acceptance means that I consider you to be just as normal and "right" as I am. Differences aside, I include you and welcome you.  It comes, partially, from the understanding that we have more in common that we have differences.  I may have a particular gender orientation and you have a different one, but ultimately we are both wanting the same thing: love, understanding, and to be caring and cared by someone who matters to us. I may believe in one form of religion or spirituality and what you believe in may be different, but as a rule, we are trying to live a decent, positive life where we don't intentionally hurt others. And, who am I to say whether your way or mine is "more right?" Just because I don't agree or don't practice what you do doesn't make you "inferior."

There's another issue when it comes to the difference between Tolerance and Acceptance. And, it's a VERY important distinction. You see, no matter who we are or how hard we try, at some point in our lives we are going to meet someone whom we don’t like, or with whom we don’t agree.  We may have to work with them and get along with them.  If we don’t learn to be tolerant of other people’s differences, we just won’t be able to co-exist.

But, merely “co-existing” in the same space really isn't enough.  Tolerance really refers to just “putting up” with something or someone, even if we don’t like it.  It’s a passive state — one that keeps us stuck in the same spot.  We explained to students that it’s the same thing as when we say, “Ok, I will if I have to.”  But it’s clear we really don’t like it.  Tolerance is a state that focuses on our differences.

Being accepting, on the other hand, is an active state, where we not only understand and tolerate someone’s differences, but we appreciate them and value them.  Acceptance recognizes that while we are different, we probably have more things in common than we have differences, and often those differences compliment each other.  Acceptance gives us forward movement; it brings people closer together by including both sides.

What we also do in SocialSmarts is relate these concepts back to previous lessons students have learned. In this case, tolerance is, in a way, another form of patience.  But acceptance requires not only patience, but empathy, which, in turn, requires understanding that as different as we may be, we’re basically all the same in what we want, what we need, and in our inalienable rights to want those things.

 So, while "Tolerance" seems to be what everyone is shooting for, I would like to put forth that this isn't enough. While we probably won't always get along at all times, we can certainly strive to be more accepting and understanding of others, regardless of where they come from and who they are. Oftentimes, we'll find that we are more and better together, because of the different perspectives, life experiences and personalities we bring to the table, than we could ever be on our own. As best-selling author, J.K. Rowling has said, "Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.”

---

Did you like this? Do you know that the SocialSmarts curriculum for students pre-K through High School is available to schools and private groups?  Email SocialSmarts for more information on how to get started.

Essentially, the tweet was about how Governor Mitt Romney (now the Republican Presidential Candidate) was "another clueless reformer" because of his position that the number of students in a classroom doesn't matter. In Tim's blog, he questioned that position and went further to connect the politicians (Arne Duncan, Romney) and other "leaders" (such as Bill Gates) who send their own children to private schools at the same time they argue the class size issue in public schools.

Needless to say, I had to comment on the blog -- it's not ALL about class size, folks, as you know who have been reading my posts for a while.  And, while we have continually reduced class size -- on average -- over the last 30+ years, our students aren't doing measurably better academically as a result of smaller classes.  I thought I would share one of my posts with both Ms. Ravitch and Mr. Slekar via Twitter as a counterpoint. And, that's where things got interesting. Ms. Ravitch decided to engage in a debate with me on Twitter and here's how it went:

Me: @slekar @DianeRavitch Romney not totally clueless: classroom size matters less than other things - http://bit.ly/tutTol

Ms. Ravitch then responds with:  @sociallysmart @slekar Oh, yes, Romney said 2-parent family important for school success. What about kids who don't have that?

To which I replied: @DianeRavitch @slekar That's a different issue -- I was addressing class size, not all of his opinions in a blanket pass.

I wasn't quite sure why she switched from the classroom size issue to now his stand on 2-parent families. I thought we were discussing class size.

The next tweet I get from Ms. Ravitch is:@sociallysmart @slekar Romney is wrong about class size. He sent his own children to schools with small classes. Hypocrisy doesn't work.

The implication here, I take it is that Romney shouldn't be talking about class size and two-parent families because not everyone can have what he wants?  But, particularly when she means "advantages," I believe she is talking about the advantages Gov. Romney has because he sent his kids to private school.  Ergo, he shouldn't be talking about class size since private schools "sell" smaller classroom sizes as a benefit to students and families.  Ms. Ravitch states that Romney is a hypocrite because he sends HIS kids to private school while he talks about class size not being an issue in public schools. Ok, but I had to point out an important point -- who ELSE sends their kids to private schools?  So, I tweeted:

@DianeRavitch @slekar And, Sidwell Friends is the home of Obama's, Biden's, Clinton's kids -- and Gore attended St. Albans. Your Point?

She responds: @sociallysmart @slekar If you don't want other people's kids to have same advantages as your own, you should have the decency to be silent.

So I ask: @DianeRavitch Then Y can Obama make Pub Ed a BIG issue 4 his campaign, then send his kids to Sidwell? Is that different?

To which Ms. Ravitch replies: @sociallysmart Listen to teachers. They don't care where he sends his kids so long as he stops destructive policies like Race to Top.

Wait, we went from classroom size to RTTT?  But, in her tweet, there was a huge nugget of information. And, yes, I had to go there...

@DianeRavitch "He" = Obama? RTTT is HIS idea.If teachers don't care where O's kids go,then Romney's not a hypocrite either by your argument.

And, that was the last I heard personally from Ms. Ravitch. However, I did get a bunch of other tweets from other people I never even heard of mostly defending class size as an issue or continuing to bash the hypocrite point.  Here's one that I chose to respond to from Arthur Goldstein (@TeacherArthurG):

@DianeRavitch @sociallysmart @slekar Maybe hypocrisy works for Obama and Romney, one of whom will be Prez. For rest of us, not so much.

I couldn't agree more, Arthur. My response: @TeacherArthurG @DianeRavitch @slekar I don't believe hypocrisy is appropriate 4 anyone. Particularly those who deign to lead us.

So, here's the thing I got out of this -- some candidates who talk about improving public education that take positions contrary to what we've been fed by the Education Establishment are hypocrites because they say one thing then do another. In other words, they "preach" about problems in public education then send their own kids to private schools that don't have the issues plaguing public Ed. But, in Romney's case, his comments on class size weren't even on the same par as saying "class size doesn't matter."  Here is what he is reported to have said taken from a recent Los Angeles Times article

 And, he's right. Class size is NOT the most important factor in determining academic success for our kids. But why does it make him a hypocrite who shouldn't be talking on the subject since he sends his kids to private school when President Obama is doing the same thing (and apparently NOT a hypocrite?)

Frankly, I don't think either of them are. Not for that reason.  I've personally been accused of being the same sort of hypocrite because I am speaking out on the issues plaguing public education and urging people to take a hard, honest look at its problems yet I now have my children in private school as well. But, I'm not as much a hypocrite as a parent. While I continue to push the public education system to transform itself, at the same time, I came to the hard realization that it will not happen while my own children attend school. My first obligation as a parent is to do what I can to ensure my children receive the best education they can get. Which is not to say I don't believe that others don't deserve the same thing. I do.  And I realize that the "private" options such as independent, religious, charter schools or homeschooling, online or any other "alternative" choice isn't available to every child -- I couldn't do it without the help of significant financial aid (and, I still support the public education system with my tax dollars). Yet, every child deserves that same level of quality education. Our public education system should be a high-quality system where students get an excellent educational opportunity. That's what the politicians are (we hope) pressing for, and it's what I believe in and why I continue to do what I do in spite of the odds.

Providing our children with a terrific education should not be a "Democrat" vs. "Republican" issue. We are all Americans, we're all adults, and we have an obligation to work toward that same goal -- that of preparing our kids, the "next generation," for their turn participating in and running our country. If Ms. Ravitch and others believe that Romney is a hypocrite because he's talking about one thing and doing another, yet President Obama isn't (when he's doing the same thing) then this IS becoming a political issue that does nothing to solve education's problems and  certainly does NOT help our children.

---

Did you find this interesting? There's more like this in my Amazon #1 Seller, "Education Reform & Other Myths." You can get it on Kindle now here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0071NAX2O