ALP Could Lose the Unlosable Election

It seems unthinkable that a Government as corrupt and incompetent as the current Liberal/National coalition led by Morrison and Joyce could be returned to power but it is a real possibility.  The question is why is Labor rejected bALPy their traditional voters, the ‘true believers’, the very people they claim to support? 

As a young Labor Party member, in the early 70’s I have fond memories of my involvement in the ALP.  We felt part of the movement but this was the time when two ‘clever’, inter-related social changes emerged that changed the way organisations were managed and it marked the beginning of a drift away from the Party and the Unions. 

Prior to this time intellectual thought was dominated by the physical sciences.  In universities those academics who taught ‘social’ subjects felt the dismissive attitudes from those who did real research with numbers.  Economists, psychologists, all the social sciences who were craving the same status adopted a rationalist approach to their studies; they started to measure.  Amongst the changes emerged the famous Harvard University’s Master of Business Administration where the application of the ‘scientific method’ became the benchmark for all things related to business organisation. 

If this rationalist approach defined the ‘how to approach’ to organisation, the answer to what to organise was supplied by the emergence of neoliberalism, the reliance on market-oriented reforms.  In industry, and in the public service a new class of leader materialised, those driven by targeted efficiency and pleasing the ‘market’.  These new ‘leaders’ became the ruling class of their organisations: they know what is best and believed in their right to dictate the strategies of their organisation.  The resulting sense of self-importance put them at risk of becoming arrogant and disconnected from their base.

The result of these two paradigm shifts meant corporations and associations were controlled from the ‘top-down’, a change from the previous organisational style that was ‘bottom-up’, the grass roots providing the purpose of the enterprise and management ensuring these goals were the target of their efforts.  

The ALP, always looking to improve soon adopted this change.  From this time on Labor progressively became a top-down organisation and a new class of leaders infiltrated head office using their position power to impose policy, replacing the strategies desired by the branch membership.  Over the following years there has been a gradual but consistent erosion, not only of the relevance of branch membership but a resulting decline in the enthusiasm for the Party.  Although this disenchantment was slow however, there were a few significant markers that symbolised this change.

The most telling period of this disconnect and one that will be disputed was during the leadership of Hawke and Keating.  These two have been and still are held-up as true heroes of the Labor Movement; they are still revered by the Party faithful.  Even today Albanese, who could potentially lose the unlosable election still clings to their reforms.  He constantly refers to their reforms as the way of the future with his sermons on productivity projects as the way back to prosperity.  He still clings to the failed, neoliberal practices on which those reforms were built.

Of course Hawke and Keating were very popular and both excellent parliamentary performers and they managed to take the Party along with their adoption of free market policies.  Their leadership teams understood the new approach and dominated powerful positions in the Party organisation or Union leadership.  The myth of their positive contribution to the ‘economy’ was promoted by the big end of town, the favourable media coverage they enjoyed, and still do is the wealthy class perpetuating the lie that keeps them in a privileged position.

Granted, there was an apparent initial boost in the economy with the adoption of market-economics that are at the heart of their reforms.  Each evening the financial reports indicated the improvements, especially for the share market and companies making record profits.  Business thrived but these changes did nothing for the working class.  Keating and Hawke’s policies reflected the ambitions of big business but, in their defence, they always referred to the lie that you need a strong economy to improve the pot of the working class.  This faulty belief has its roots in Economics 101 – where the goal is to maximise profits.  They, as all neoliberals only see the economy in this light, they are oblivious to the idea that it would be as valid to have a goal of say minimise poverty, a choice that would come from the ALP rank and file!

If they used their reliance on the rationalisation of the data they would discover that this shift was the beginning of the ever-widening income gap between the lowest paid workers and those at the top until we are at the point where the highest 20% has more than twice the average of the middle 20% and this middle group has almost three times the income of the lowest paid workers, hardly a policy of any Labor Government.  This data should put to rest any belief in the neoliberal maxim of benefits of the ‘trickle-down’ effect, the rich will pass on benefits to the poor! 

The evidence of the Labor leadership’s appreciation of the market economy is in their post- parliamentary careers.  At the time of their retirement the Labor luminaries such as Hawke and Keating, along with others such as Neville Wran and Bob Carr smoothly transitioned from the leadership of the ‘worker’s party’ onto the Boardrooms of big business!  These heroes of the workers sat down with the architects of worker’s poverty.  

The decline in the welfare of the working class coincides with the fall in the support for the ALP.  Fifty years ago, Labor got between 45% to 50% of the primary vote.  Today this has dropped to 35% to 40%.  Branches struggle to get enough members to man polling booths or do the letter box drops prior to elections.  

The overt or even unintended arrogance of the leadership is there for all to see.  In some cases that self-importance allowed party representatives to succumb to the temptation of criminal activities, considering they were above the law.  There was a time, not long ago when the NSW Labor Party was a standing joke.  The trials of Edie Obeid and his cronies is well documented but what has to be understood is that their behaviour was carried out while they were in Parliament, representing the ALP.  The question must be asked, how did this happen?  Was it an acceptance that they were amongst the entitled, above the law?

These events marked the time when most of the true believers had left and the ALP became an organisation made up of those who see the Party as a way to get into politics.  Despite the rhetoric the focus is no longer on social justice but on what will win votes; pragmatism has replaced principle. 

Some telling events where this is evident are failure to support the refugees on Tampa, a cowardly decision that has held the party hostage to a ‘stop-the-boats’, off-shore detention - refugee policy.  The ‘market driven’ decisions on fossil fuels, etc. demonstrates their lack of honest leadership.  The latest support of tax cuts for the rich makes real supporters cringe!  

The ‘clever- boys/girls’ of the ALP somehow understand they need the branch members and have produced plenty of enquiries into how they can re-engage with the grass roots.  John Faulkner was critical about the alienation of the older supporters probably vocalising the problem of the marketing approach of the leadership – ‘like us on Facebook’!  And, following the latest loss at the ballot, Jay Weatherill and Craig Emerson analysed how the Shorten campaign got it so wrong.  Having such entrenched insiders ensured they would not get to the issue highlighted by Faulkner, they don’t see the membership in terms other than they ‘must be led’.  All the suggested reforms are ‘top-down’ solutions and do nothing to re-establish any power to the branches.

The motivation for this essay has been the latest in a long line of ‘captain’s choices’ for preselection for the up-coming election.  The Labor elite are again demonstrating that they know best.  The selection of Daniel Repacholi in Hunter is one example.  I doubt branch members would have selected a candidate whose first actions was to remove pictures of naked women in sexually provocative posing with assault rifles from his Instagram account.  More telling is the appointment of Christine Keneally over the community candidate Tu Le in Fowler.  This is a blatant demonstration of the believed privilege of the leadership group.  The shame of their stated policies on ethnic diversification is ignored while a resident from the wealthy North Shore makes bare-faced claims that she really belongs to that electorate, after all she has committed to move in.  

The ALP has lost its way driven by a desperation to get back into power but if they succeed or more to the point when this pitiful excuse for a government is thrown out, the resulting Labor will not know what to do!  Ben Chifley’s Light on the Hill has been replaced by the harsh florescent light in the latest focus group. 

Multi-Tasking

The hustle and bustle of life in our schools seems to be growing at an ever-increasing rate of knots; already there is really too much we have to do.  This chaos is intensified by the reliance on digital devices.  The constant demands for our attention results in us having to move from one seemingly important task to the next just to get through our work.  This switching of our focus can give us the impression that we are able to get everything done but the evidence clearly demonstrates that our so-called multitasking results in a reduction of the quantity and quality of our output.  This demand on time and the resulting efficiency loss is a problem across our economy but for schools the loss of productivity has distressing outcomes for student’s learning.

An accepted definition of multitasking is the practice of performing two, or more tasks simultaneously or more accurately in very quick succession.  Examples are when you are perhaps marking an essay in the staffroom and someone comes in and asks about an event that happened last week.  You stop your assessment, address the issue and return to the marking.  Of course, too often many more ‘tasks’ must be addressed before you get back to the original assignment.

Fundamentally there are lots of things our brain simultaneously controls; things like our need to breathe, change our sugar levels, etc., things that are reflexive and there are some habits that are so ingrained, we act on them without consideration.  At this level we do multitask.  However, in the past we needed to concentrate when we were hunting for food, not only was this important for survival but when stalking dangerous prey any mistake could be fatal.  So, for higher order tasks, the work we do at school the evolutionary formation of the functions of our brain, dictates that we can only seriously focus on one thing at a time. 

There is plenty of evidence that multitasking degrades the quality of any one’s work.  It is estimated that there is up to a 40% reduction in productivity.  This occurs because of:

1. The increased time it takes to get through the task.  It is more that an aggregation of the actual time taken to do the task, if you added the minutes spent either uninterrupted or tallied the actual time you were ‘on task’  would not be the same.  You lose time going back to pick-up where you left off.
2. Our accuracy level decreases; when we shift our focus, a change referred to as context switching, we tend to forget the last part of the work from which we were distracted.  We rarely go back to clarify assuming it will come back and besides we don’t have time.

This productivity loss increases as the complexity of the task we have at hand increases.

With all the extra demands placed on teachers by their employer and despite the demonstrated loss of overall productivity it is impossible to avoid multitasking, it is not a practical option.  The Education Department puts more significance into volume of work they can get out of a teacher over the quality of the work from that same teacher.  It is illogical but we have to live with it!

I suggest we approach this problem in two ways, the first is to manage those tasks you know you have to address, our fixed work and then also how to survive the unexpected interruptions.  Let’s deal with the first challenge.

There are tasks we know we have to do in the day ahead.  In a sense we have some control over these and so we can plan our time to deal with them in a structured way.  Here are some suggestions:

• Make a to-do list and get the things that you least want to do over with first.  When I was a child I had to eat my cabbage, I always left it until last.  The fact was that I knew I had to eventually eat the cabbage and this realisation spoiled the rest of my meal.  Since I have sort of grown up I get the things I don’t like done first and then I can look forward to the rest of the day. 
• Prioritize your tasks - of course, there might be reasons to put some tasks at the top of the list; say a report might be due by recess, then this will be at the beginning of your day sheet.  The thing is to get some structure into your plan
• Group similar tasks, some of your work will require the use of supporting resources so it makes sense to use them when they are available.  Those resources also include your cognitive skills.
• Reduce distractions, the staffroom might not be the best place to get work done, other teachers will be there resulting in plenty of interruptions to take you away from your work so, if possible find a quiet place to operate.
• Monitor your progress – set yourself little short-term goals so when your reach them you get a little intrinsic reward.  For example, if I have to mark 30 exams I might divide these into blocks of five.  Even checking the five off in a box can give you a lift!
• Delegate tasks, if needed – there are many things you have to do that are just part of a combined task.  Don’t do work that is other’s responsibility, they won’t really thank you and you’re not helping them.

At first, you will need to plan to make your to-do list but eventually it will become your ritualised approach to the day.  At the end of my career creating my to-do list was in draft form at the end of the previous day and in the morning, after I checked ‘overnight events’ I finalised my ‘day sheet’.

However, in the real world of teaching no day can be planned, everyday throws-up challenges that have to be dealt with IMMEDIATELY and so whatever task you were on must be left!  This is stressful and so I go to the very process I recommend whenever you are facing a challenging situation and that is to put on your boundaries (see Newsletter - Teaching Practical Boundaries – 31 July 2017).  In summary, do the following:

• Stay Calm – this is always the critical step but particularly when switching your focus.  Remember, it is the last thing you were focusing on that is least remembered so while you are take taking a breath, think seriously about where you are up to in your task.  This allows you to return with a bit more certainty and at least know you should back-track to revise this part of the work. Of, course sometimes things are extreme so make it your practice to always revise the last processes you made when you return.

The following deals with the boundaries.

• What is Really Happening – once you have closed the previous task then deal with the current issue.  Ask the question what is really happening and when you have this you ascertain the following:
  • Who is Responsible, if it’s my responsibility then I have to do something to make things right
  • If it is someone else’s fault, I have to know what I want and then decide what I have to do to make that happen.
• Take-Action, if you want things to change you have to act.  Eventually your involvement in the distraction will be over and so you can return to your current task. 

Just as you made sure you closed down the task before you were distracted it is very important that you closed down the distraction before you get back to work.  If the event has been stressful you might need some time to debrief and gather your thoughts.  Don’t rush back straight away because the quality of your efforts will be diminished because you are still thinking about that event.

The need for multitasking is inevitable in today’s schools.  However, the loss of efficiency could be reduced by your ability to plan your approach to the tasks you must do. 

Dealing with Students with Severely Dysfunctional Behaviours

Integrate or Special Placement

Previously I discussed the issues that need to be addressed regarding the discipline and welfare practices within schools (see Newsletter - Student Discipline – What About Welfare – 7 September 2021).  This is relevant considering the current review on student discipline, being conducted by the Education Department.  The draft proposal makes a series of vague recommendations that promises increased support but imposes diminished access to consequences that would be targeted at specific students with highly disruptive behaviours. 

The document discusses behaviour in general terms and would be acceptable for the vast majority of students.  However, it fails to address the difficulty schools confront dealing with those students whose behaviour is outrageous and threatens not only their own safety and security but also endangers all other members of the school community.  It must be noted that these students are most in need of support and more importantly compassion from everyone in the community but their offensive behaviour repels such management.  

The foundations of the dysfunctional behaviours that clash with that which is acceptable in a school community is varied and as always, I do not include those students who have a psychotic or biological disorder.  Regardless, the beginnings of this dislocation occurs in the early years of their development.  I identify three fundamental causes which I will now describe briefly but for a more detailed account I have posted Chapter 2 of my book Neuroscience and Teaching Very Difficult Kids (Austin Macauley, London 2021) in the resources of our webpage Frew Consultants Group. 

The causes are:

• Abuse – this includes physical, sexual, emotional/social and the less acknowledged intellectual and spiritual.  When children are abused the elevated stress levels inflicts real physical damage to the brain with decreases in those areas that assist cognition, the hippocampus, prefrontal lobes, the cerebellum and the corpus collosum along with an increase in the size of the amygdala.  The result is these students struggle to comprehend the messages coming from their environment and becoming super-sensitive to perceived external threats. 
• Neglect – children need to learn how to behave and this learning is a result of being exposed to situations that threaten their security.  They either learn by trial and error to behave in ways that restores their equilibrium or are taught by a parent or carer how to behave.  There are two ways this process can undermine normal development: 
  • The first is that the parent/carer provides an environment that is at odds with what is considered ‘normal’.  If, for instance a child wants its mother’s attention it may be that the only way to achieve this is to scream loudly and hit out at the mother.  If this works then the child has acquired the behaviour for getting attention.  However, later, at school when the child is excluded and becomes desperate for acceptance they will employ those behaviours that worked in their childhood but these are ‘dysfunctional’ in the classroom!
  • The second is when children are not stimulated enough.  The brain develops throughout life but will never be as active as in the first three years.  To develop, it requires the stimulus so the appropriate behaviours can be learned.  For many behaviours there are critical periods of time when the conditions in particular parts of the brain are primed for this development.  The most cited is for sight – a child born with cataracts is blind they will not receive light as a stimulus and so will not learn to see.  In the real world, children who have experienced this and have not had the cataracts removed by about the eighth month will not be able to interpret sight even when the cataracts are removed despite there being nothing wrong with the neurological circuitry for sight.  It is just that when the opportunity to learn to see is past, the brain removes the neurological matter for the sake of efficiency.  A less dramatic but more common is the absence of appropriate attachment to others in the first years.  This results in relationship problems later in life. 

All too often, these children are the casualties of both abuse and neglect and it is vital that we understand this damage has been done to these kids, they are victims and should attract our compassion, However, their actions challenges those who are subjected to their threatening, dysfunctional behaviour.

Although these behaviours that arise from their malicious environment they manifest in various ways.  The result of the behaviours is that they can’t effectively interact with their peers in a way that benefits themselves and their contemporaries.  As an aside, the best thing, in fact the main task of a parent is to teach their child how to interrelate with their friends and their parents by about age three.  After this, it is the quality of the contact with others that determines their sense of self.  Using this understanding, the most helpful thing we can do for these damaged kids is teach them to re-engage with their classmates in a way that nurtures all parties.  The question is how do we do this?

This has resulted in a clash of tactics between those who believe in dealing with the problem while maintaining the child’s presence in the school against those who advocate the removal for a period of time until the student ‘learns’ how to behave in a manner that allows them to return to school where they, and their peers can access their lessons; inclusion versus exclusion!

Almost exclusively, academics and bureaucrats support a policy of inclusion.   Academics are extremely vocal in their advocacy for full integration and it is difficult to argue with their reasons for supporting this approach.  However, they are naive about the reality that exists in public schools particularly in poor socio-economic areas.  To implement their models would require a significant increase in resources that don’t exist in any public school.  The current proposal from the department promises increased support without releasing details.

The department has made similar guarantees and allocated extra funding in the past but to paraphrase a former, leading consultant and principal ‘the promised support for schools in the 1990s that was provided rarely, if ever made it beyond District and Regional Offices.  The increased necessary workload for teachers involving reports from specialist, doctors, counsellors, year advisors and teachers (repeated annually for each child) was a total inefficient use of resources.  District and Regional personnel had to be employed to review all the material with schools receiving the pittance left over after all their salaries had been paid.  Their role seemed to deteriorate into periodically telling teachers how they were getting it wrong’!  Experience suggests they will not deliver the support required at the school level and, as always imposing the responsibility for dealing with these kids back onto the school. 

The bureaucracy cites the position of the academics for their support of inclusion, but I would contend the cost of providing alternate settings for these students is prohibitive compared with any cost of support in an existing facility.  The cynic in me suspects they also cater for the parents who fervently challenge any suspension, let alone exclusion. 

Neither the academics nor the bureaucrats consider the damaging effect the extreme behaviours have on the teaching and learning of the other members of the classroom.  This population that has always been disregarded but it is these students who also suffer from the presence of these students.  It has been established that students with extreme behaviours and the chaotic classrooms that are a product of those behaviours is a significant retardant to learning outcomes not to mention the potential psychological and/or physical damage classroom members could suffer.  Authorities continue to look at the damage these children inflict on a school in an abstract manner, for teaching practitioners their presence presents a serious challenge they can’t ignore. 

Before we continue this discussion, it is important to seriously examine what is best for the student involved.   The key questions that are never really forensically addressed are presented below:

• What is best for the child – these severely dysfunctional students require intensive therapeutic interventions to help them deal with their mental health issues.  Where can these be best delivered?
• What is best for their peers – the presence of these students in a class presents a significant barrier to all learning outcomes regardless of the motivation of the remaining students. 
• What is best for the teachers and the school community – in the existing state of affairs all concerns are on the offending student with equity being put forward as the reason they should be retained.  I would contend that equity applies to everyone in a community and the presence of any child with a disability should be provided with the required support where ever that can best be delivered so that everyone can reach their potential.

I would argue that these are questions never really considered by those who are responsible for the policy.

I would strongly note that the position I advocate is primarily to give these damaged students the most effective support, the whole purpose of our Group is to provide resources to teachers to help them achieve this.

As pointed out in the previous Newsletter, schools can have as many as six children who would attract a diagnosis of severe dysfunctional behaviour, such as conduct disorder for every 100 students.  The absolute minimum requirement to affectively deal with even one of these students would be:

• One support officer – someone who is always available to look after the child when the inevitable ‘melt-down’ occurs.  Allocating a certain number of hours may appear to be supportive but the timing of any outburst rarely matches with the presence of that support officer
• A qualified mental health professional appointed to every secondary and large primary school to deliver appropriate, ongoing therapy for these students.  An important point must be acknowledged around the provision of suitable mental health interventions.  Most existing programs refer to providing ‘trauma informed practice’.  This catch-all label is meaningless unless you understand what this practice refers to.  In all my research the only effective intervention to deal with complex trauma, and these kids are inevitably in this category is long term intense one on one therapy.  This is just not available in public schools and in damaged, remote areas the presence of any qualified psychologist/psychiatrist, never mind in sufficient numbers is improbable
• Intensive training and development for all teaching staff – teachers are barely trained in adequate techniques for dealing with the expected disruptive behaviours in any classroom but there is no effective and appropriate training I have seen.  As mentioned in the point made above, there are some courses offered to teachers that advocate ‘trauma informed practices’ but I strongly maintain that teachers should never get involved in any form of therapeutic interventions with these students.  There is a real potential to make matters worse; I advocate training in providing an effective learning environment that presents structure and expectations while retaining a professional relationship (see Newsletter – Competence and Warmth - 31 August 2021)
• An on-site pleasant and secure setting where the student can be located when they are inevitably psychologically overwhelmed

The number of resources outlined as being required is not an exaggeration, these kids are extremely damaged and to deal with the potential numbers in a large secondary school in poor socio-economic areas is being quoted as high as twenty-six per 100 students.  These extra resources, that would be required would be extremely significant.  There is nowhere near any effective support in the current administration and I would argue they will never be provided. 

The provision of off-site settings for these students to attend has always been the reluctant compromise for addressing this problem.  The drawback is that these special facilities require buildings, fully trained staff and effective programs.  The current programs offered by existing settings are ad hoc and at best a reflection of the opinion of existing staff, particularly the principal. 

Regarding these facilities, apart from the requirements outlined above other current issues would need to be addressed.  These are:

• The lack of sufficient places – schools are desperate to find a suitable place for these students and all would have a substantial waiting list.
• There is an inability to access such placements in rural and remote areas.
• Inconsistent access to programs.  Staff who are not school based and know the students control the Placement Panels
• Special training and development for all staff appointed to these setting.  There is no such training available and teachers appointed are just expected to manage these most difficult students
• Integration is variable.  For example, the 4:1 Model, that is four days at the setting and one day at the referring school is very unpopular with schools and are extremely difficult to justify for all students.  Integration should only occur when the student has gained the skills to form real friendships.  A strong case could be made for that integration not to occur at the referring school, their history will bring unfair challenges from staff and students they have previously damaged.
• There is no recognition of the skills and experiences of the personnel in these school and is not seen as a ‘good career move’

This is a time when the department is inviting comments on their proposed Discipline Policy.  I would suggest that the critique presented here should form the foundation of that policy, the draft promises much in the way of support but unless that is spelled out and reflects the bare minimum outlined above, history would suggest the ‘promises’ will not materialise while the reduction in schools’ abilities to provide meaningful interventions, that is time out is reduced.  Real investment into effectively dealing with this problem may incur a short-term cost but the long term benefit for the student and their community lasts a life time.

Student Discipline - What About Welfare?

NSW Department of Education is currently reviewing its Welfare and Discipline Policy and the proposed change reflect the Department’s preoccupation with providing flattering statistics rather than a focus on the students who need support.  The proposed policies are designed to reduce the statistics of suspensions etc. without providing schools with any functional alternative consequence to help those students whose behaviour interferes with their learning, their cohort’s learning and the teacher’s ability to present their planned lesson.

This trend of weakening the teacher’s and school’s ability to deliver effective interventions that address a student’s dysfunctional behaviour has persisted for years.  I believe this is in response to the vocal protests of the parents of these children and the condescending attitude of academics who propose ‘alternative’ interventions.  The latter make the assumption that these kids can be ‘controlled’ and more naively the resources required to implement the programs they recommend are provided.  It is this failure of the Department to provide the adequate resources for schools to actually deliver effective welfare interventions that perpetuates the persistent problems severe behaviours present.  It is shameful, but not unexpected that the department ignores or even acknowledges their dereliction of responsibility but continues to place the accountability on to schools!  

This essay examines the role of discipline and welfare, with particular emphasis on the extreme end of the dysfunctional, behaviour scale.  Apart from those few, unfortunate children who suffer from real psychotic illness, the vast majority of students that fall in this category do so because of their aberrant, early childhood development (see Newsletters - The Impact of Neglect – 12 September 2017 and The Characteristics of the Abused Child – 26 September 2017).   Estimates of the numbers of these children with severe, dysfunctional behaviour range from between 3% to 11 % (however, this figure varies according to the socio-economic profile of the school). For most of the school population it only requires minimal use of discipline and welfare but even so some kids are a bit naughtier than others.  It should be no surprise that teenagers in particular do get into a bit of trouble.  It really is part of their responsibility to test boundaries to gain independence but most of these are easily dealt with.  It is at the last two levels where the strength of a school’s program is tested.  The ideal Discipline and Welfare Policy can be summarised in the diagram below.

Integrated Discipline and Welfare Program

It has to be acknowledged that the use of time out is the only practical consequence for disruptive and damaging behaviours and it is this cohort that will be subjected to the more severe form of time out, suspension.   Suspensions are never imposed easily, in some research I conducted it takes on average two hours of the school executive’s time to make use of this action; of course in some cases the amount of time is much more and this comes from the school’s existing budget of personnel.  Over the last twenty years or more there has been a progressive erosion about the application of all forms of time out.   

I have written extensively about the application of Time Out, (see Newsletter - Time Out– 17 July 2017) and I have included a full chapter from my book Insights into the Modern Classroom devoted to that subject (see Resources page - Frew Consultants Group).  These sources outline the practice of using this form of consequence for dysfunctional behaviour.  I am not going to discuss this here except to point out that Time Out is the only discipline tool schools have to deal with these extreme kids and not to use it discounts the value it affords to the school and more importantly the offending student.

Let’s take the example of a student with severe, antisocial behaviours that manifests as physical and/or psychological violence to their class mates or the staff.  No matter how the Department tries to hide the existence of these kids the statistics confirm their existence and most public schools experience this type of behaviour on an all too regular basis. 

As mentioned above, in some areas the numbers are much higher than others.  In the research I cited previously the number of long-term suspensions in a district in Western NSW was 5.8 per 100 children, that is for a school with say 500 students there would have been 29 long-term suspensions while in another district in North Sydney had 0.5 long-term suspensions per 100 students which translated into 2.5 long-term suspensions.  The workload the behavioural problems generated varies immensely yet the department demands the same overall compliance for both districts.  In the latest expulsion statistics I could get (2016) over three hundred students were expelled from the system, this would only occur after multiple suspensions.

We have to accept a couple of facts:

1. That the behaviour of these most damaged kids can not function in regular school until they have learned to socialise in a manner that allows them to join in and to be accepted by their class mates and the school
2. School staff neither has the training nor the time to implement any effective interventions
3. School counsellors would need specialist training, particularly in dealing with early childhood trauma however, even with such training they would not have the time

The only way to effectively address the needs of these children is in specialist settings.

I can already hear the outcry from those who resist such exclusion and I would happily support their position if schools were provided with the appropriate number of extra staff suitably trained in mental health issues along with the capital resources needed to accommodate these.  However, without such support forcing these students to remain at a school exacerbates the suffering for the student and the schools.  As this is the situation across NSW schools, and I expect the rest of Australia the reality is that the current conditions are abusive for the student and the rest of the school community and the Department is responsible for this abuse.

There is no disputing the fact that dysfunctional behaviour continues to be the major impediment to learning outcomes in public schools.  The Department continues to ignore this fact and places it’s faith in ‘compulsory’ training in being a ‘quality teacher’ or more recently a ‘leader’, neither will have any impact on the problems caused by these most difficult kids yet somehow the leadership feel they are making a difference.

A less charitable person than myself would point to the fact that parents have identified the problem caused by these students and have migrated their kids to the private system where these students are either never enrolled or they are ‘expelled’ at the first sign of trouble.  The result is we are left with two different education systems and no prizes for identifying the system available for those in the low, socio-economic communities. 

In no way do we blame the students who display these severe behaviours, the whole approach of our service is to support these kids who deserve our compassion.  It is outrageous that the government’s response, through the department is to continue to ignore the problem while progressively increasing public funding to private schools.  The result is a social residualisation of our comprehensive public schools and a dislocation of our community!

The Failure of Modern Leadership

I have long been of the opinion that modern leadership of organisations is flawed.   The contemporary approach taken by management is disconnected from the purpose of the enterprise.  Modern leaders, in true top-down style impose their strategies on an organisation assuming they understand the conditions at the work place.  This is a departure from the time-honoured approach where problems were solved where they occurred and management existed to support those solutions.  The current disorder in NSW’s schools is an excellent example of this failure.

In NSW public schools, the working conditions have created a crisis across the state with many schools unable to provide teachers for their students.  In May, there was 1,148 teaching positions vacant with too many schools having ten or more unfilled.  For example, in the troubled Walgett Community College there are 12 vacancies for a student population of 117.  This deficit is repeated across the state and these raw statistics ignore the lack of availability of casual teachers who traditionally cover for those on leave.

This shortage is directly linked to the growing and intensifying administrative demands on teachers and these are a result of the managerial style of the Department’s senior leadership.  Teachers’ focus is no longer solely in the classroom but dealing with prescribed compliance hours of training to meet the Teaching Standards, assessment of the School Excellence Framework and unreasonable workloads.  As a result, teachers are leaving in droves; 40% - 50% are leaving within the first five years in the job, up to half those who start a teaching degree leave before completion.  Over-worked teachers’ mental health is in crisis, 58% of teachers suffer what they describe as ‘quite a bit’ of stress with workloads that require 10 – 20 hours of unpaid labour just to get their work done.  

The current conditions are the culmination of changes that began in the late 60’s and early ‘70’s.  These changes resulted from the application of the scientific model of the physical world being applied to the social world.  Academics in the teaching subjects like psychology, economics, etc. longed to be accepted as scientists.   The resulting changes were shaped by two of the giants in the philosophy of science, Karl Popper who believed that theory was legitimised by data and Thomas Kuhn who supposed that theoretical paradigms are discarded when they no longer predict events.  Together, their reliance on data made way to the scientific, physical or social approach was dependent on measurement – if you can’t measure it it’s not worth doing.

With this new approach those ‘social’ faculties in universities, who had long suffered the barely concealed contempt from the pure physical sciences embraced this new approach.  Amongst the most successful was the Business School at Harvard University who scrutinised and ‘measured’ business practices to produce their celebrated Master of Business Administration.  The attractiveness of their course was based on the principles of leadership that focused on data, on costs and profits - more bang for your bucks, value added practices - more from less and marketing.  This approach paid early dividends in the market economy and business enthusiastically embraced the idea of ‘the manager’ who controls everything. This is classic ‘top down’ management.

The adoption of this ‘administrative’ approach swept through the public service and soon ‘would be leaders’ adopted this methodology to run their departments.  The education bureaucracy enthusiastically embraced it with leaders being appointed because of their understanding of administration principles.  This was in direct contrast to the past practice where leaders were promoted from the ranks because of their understanding of that portfolio and the problems faced by those who functioned within that structure.  The focus shifted diametrically from bottom-up practices where those in the classrooms and schools ‘solved’ problems and leadership supported their approach to top-down where leadership defined the problems and directed those below to implement their ‘managed’ solutions.

The emergence of this top down model coincided with the time when politicians began to take an interest in education.  They realised that they could influence what was taught and so how it should be taught.  In education, more than other portfolios Ministers had a sense of familiarity: they had all attended school.  This direct action started with Cavalier, followed by Metherell and they really embraced this new-found power.

An example of their self-importance saw Metherell, on a whim mandated that every child should be bi-lingual and so a whole new department was founded just to implement his idea.  This became known as LOTE (language other than English).  Programs were written, resources developed and mandated hours of instruction imposed on each school. Teachers in classrooms across the state wasted hours teaching those mandated hours, students at best learned to count to ten in a variety of languages.  It was a misuse of money that took years to eventually ‘disappear’. 

A more expensive example was the introduction of the Learning Management and Business Reform, the famous LMBR that wasted well over $750 million tax payer’s money.  Schools were pushed through probably the most incompetent and expensive reform I ever witnessed and it made no secret of its purpose, to replace the existing finance, human resources, payroll and student administration systems that had emerged across the state’s 2208 public schools; this lust for control from the top has preoccupied the department since 2006.

The decisive move to take an active role in the education portfolio coincided with the developing practice where the Minister appointed their Departmental Head, their Secretary.  The qualities of that appointment was not necessarily or not even preferably from the education field.  Candidates impressed the Minister with their administrative abilities.  Successful Secretaries are not thoughtless, they understood if you want the job and want to keep the job you serve the Minister above all others.  The most convenient way to impress the Minister was embedded in all the trappings of the MBA, cost-based approach, more bang for the bucks and appeal to the ‘market’; this is music to any politician’s ears.

As the Secretary owed their position to the Minister it was not long before the Senior Executive were appointed by the Secretary and the same loyalty to those above is mandatory.  In theory, these positions are designed to be the link between the classroom and the leadership.  They are specialty portfolios where they apply their ‘administration’ techniques, directly to those below and report how those orders are implemented to those above.

As a result of this insulated approach to senior management, exchanges between these levels of the Department became an echo chamber with each reinforcing the beliefs of the other.  They are almost completely unaware of the problems at the school level. 

In the study of top down leadership by Sidney Yoshida entitled ‘The Iceberg of Ignorance’ he concluded that:

• Front line workers knew 100% of the problems they faced
• Supervisors were aware of only 74%
• Middle managers were aware of just 9%
• Executives were only aware of 4% of the problems

Like a lot of these studies, the actual percentages are arbitrary but they do provide a metaphor that describe the executives’ severely limited understanding of what is wrong within the company.  This incompetence is easily applied to the Department of Education.

In reality, the Minister is completely in the hands of the Secretary and the Senior Executive.  The Secretary soon ‘educates’ the Minister drawing on their 4% of what they know about the problems and before long the Minister becomes an ‘expert’ believing they understand the prepared speeches they read at conferences and in the parliament.

In more recent times, when problems become too obvious to ignore a new and increasing phenomena has been appropriated and that is the use of professional consultancy firms

This brings us to the last desperate effort of the leadership to solve the problems caused by their top down approach and ironically that is to go up to the world of consultancy. 

Millions of public-school funding is now being gifted by the NSW Department of Education to high cost global consultancy firms such as KPMG, PwC, McKinseys, BCG and others.  As the Department uses the top-down approach to management, the use of consultants that sit atop of the Minister and Secretary; puts these firms one more step further away from the problem.  Yet, despite having no prior knowledge about schools they fabricate the most sophisticated analytical tools to investigate any problem.  In reality their investigations are directed by what they know and that is less than the 4% understood by the Secretary.  The fact that they are one step further away from the problem doesn’t seem to matter, they create glossy reports, produce fancy graphs and come to conclusions palatable to the Department leadership. 

In the current situation it is obvious what they, the leadership are doing is not working.  Unfortunately, those at the top have no insight about the cause of this failure.  They conclude that failure is not in their planning but in the implementation of those plans by the schools and teachers, it is the teachers’ fault.  To address what they believe is perceived ‘failure’ bureaucrats have initiated a two-pronged attack to make the them succeed, to get their solution to work.  They have introduced compulsory training particularly in more focused administration and compliance checking of all teachers to make sure they are implementing the dictated solutions.  This has resulted in a substantial increase on the demands on teachers’ time, the very thing that has pushed the teacher’s real professionalism and loyalty over the edge.  With no sense of introspection or irony the current ‘solution’ is to focus on leadership training for all teachers.  They conclude that if the teachers are like them then their problems will be solved.  

The sad thing is the answers to our problems lie at the chalkface, with the teachers and their students.  Teachers see problems first and, if their professional training and experience is trusted they apply solutions and if those solutions don’t work they can be quickly discarded and another approach tried until something works.  This emergence of an organisation is how evolution works, what we currently have is ‘intelligent design’ an approach that embraces theory based on unsubstantiated beliefs requires blind faith.  Schools need more than this.

Competence V's Warmth

At the beginning of most teacher’s careers some wise veteran will give the well-worn advice – ‘start in tough, let them know you’re in charge and then you can ease off’.  The idea is to show the kids who’s the boss in the classroom.  This advice holds some truth, you are the teacher and you should be the leader in the classroom but this ‘being tough’ can be counter-productive especially for young children and those who have a poor sense of self resulting from abuse and/or neglect.

From the very first time you meet a new class you have to be a professional teacher and this means you have to ‘teach’ the kids you have in front of you; you have to provide the optimum environment for all the children.  That environment consists of four factors that underpin a successful learning experience.  Each is important but some more than others depending on the maturity of the student. The diagram below illustrates the relationship between these factors where:

• Pedagogy – This is the lesson content, style of delivery, assessment, etc. those things you should learn in preservice training.
• Structure – This is the system of predictable consequences for the behaviour that is on display.  That behaviour includes the use of appropriate social skills as well application to set tasks. 
• Expectations – In an effective classroom everyone knows what to expect, that is the standards of behaviour and work effort.
• Relationships – Although last on this list, relationships is the most important for developing children, particularly those whose history of abuse/ neglect makes issues of trust tenuous.

(These factors are featured throughout the over 170 past Newsletters but ones for a quick review are:

• Relationships               26February 2018
• Creating Structure      12 August 2019 
• Expectations                17 February 2020)

If you look at the four characteristics three would come under a broad heading of competence, pedagogy, followed by structure and expectation and the relationships represented as the emotional warmth or emotional competence between the student and the teacher.  These are shown below.

If you ask people if they had a teacher that really inspired them most, not all will be able to identify that special person that inspired them and if questioned about why you generally get answers like ‘they believed in me’!  

This connection is particularly important for younger students, they are the more in need of the teacher accepting them.  Schools do this quite well with kindergarten teachers providing a very pastoral approach to their student and as they mature the relationship between the teacher and student evolves into connection with their peers becoming more important.  By the time students are in their final years the subject competence of the teacher becomes much more important.  The following graph illustrates this point.

However, and this is important for those following our work, students who have suffered a history of abuse and/or neglect, do not follow this orderly progression.  They rarely, if ever experience a warm attachment with those who should provide it. 

Having these students in your class presents you with a great challenge.  These kids are hard to like, their behaviour often appals others and so, you need to discipline yourself to accept them unconditionally.  Applying the structure and expectations, the environmental competence allows you to do this.  These kids will ‘break the rules’ but the application of structure and expectations lets you reject the behaviour while completely accepting the child.

Even if you can do, this these kids will fight you at every turn.  They are suspicious of anyone who shows kindness; they are hypervigilant looking to avoid being disappointed by others.  Too often, people try to support them but easily give up and reject them. 

If the teacher is informed and motivated enough they can engage the student and a warm relationship can develop.  When this happens, they will follow the same trajectory as most kids, that is they may be thirteen when they start to trust but they can build from there.  The trust required can only be gained over a long period of time so you need to hang in with them for longer than they expect!

The importance of this connection between warmth and competency is not confined to the classroom, although I would say it is critical in the classroom it is considered essential in all activities where leadership is involved.  Amy Cuddy, professor at Harvard Business School points out that workers require their leaders to be both warm and competent but the warmth must come first.  The illustration below is a modification of the model she and her colleagues presented.

This shows that:

• Teachers high on warmth and competence are appreciated by the students
• Teachers that are high on warmth but are incompetent disappoint the students
• Teachers who are competent but lack attachment create resentment because the students don’t think they care
• Teachers who are incompetent and detached are disliked by the students

 It’s worth reviewing the things I think underpin a professional relationship a teacher can have with their student. These are:

• Consistency, students get a sense of security and control if they can trust that they will know what happens when they make a mistake
• Mutual trust and respect – this is paramount in building positive relationships
• Understanding and meeting students’ needs
• Taking the time to communicate and this does not only mean talking to them but actively listen to what they have to say
• Maintaining consistently high standards in your behaviour
• Responding to and nurturing a child’s passions or talents
• Not taking setbacks personally
• Showing vulnerability – show that you are not perfect and accept the consequences of your mistakes

So, returning to that ‘wise advice’ given to so many beginning teachers, ‘starting hard and establishing your authority before you show your warmth’ is not the best way to start with any class or student.  Sure, this approach will work for older, resilient students but for youngsters, and those damaged students, being tough risks losing the chance to make that emotional connection and you might never get this back. 

Always let your warmth come through from the beginning BUT always understand you have to set up all your competencies, pedagogy, structure and expectations.  This takes time and while you do this the relationships will hold everyone together!

Rewards and Punishments

Controlling people’s behaviour has been a quest by those who seek to have others behave the way they prefer.  Throughout time punishment was seen to be the preferred option, being able to punish infers you are more ‘powerful’ than those you wish to control.  This feeling of superiority is intoxicating but unrealistic.  You are never better, or worse than anyone else!

Throughout history punishment was often extremely cruel particularly in the dark ages where the most hideous forms were handed out to ensure the peasants conformed!  As we became more ‘civilised’ those ‘in charge’ witnessed the malice in punishing and started to try the opposite approach, reward those who conformed.  Even today you hear managers say things like ‘we’ll take the carrot/stick’ approach to solve the problem.  One of the best bits of advice I every received was you can’t make anyone do what you want them to do so, unfortunately, both rewards and punishments will fail in the long run.

It was easy to believe that rewards and punishments work, after all if I had to do my homework or get the cane, doing the homework seemed a choice that suited me.   But, that’s the reason rewards and punishments are only marginally successful.  I know plenty of times I didn’t do my homework and got the cane.  The reason was I chose to spend my time more productively while understanding the cost involved – stinging fingers.  

In the 1960’s, Skinnerian psychology developed a significant influence on education theory, particularly in rewards and punishments.  He believed that changes in behaviour are the result of an individual’s response to events that occur in the environment.  I agree with this observation with one significant difference and that is with Skinner the manipulation is based on the idea that the person who wants control defines that environment.  The student will conform to the beliefs of the teacher.  I contend that our memories and beliefs define the environment and that is the way we decide what is best to do for us in the presenting circumstances.

As a young teacher, I remember students being hit, caned when they misbehaved and given early marks, certificates, etc. when they did the ‘right thing.'  This idea did meet Skinner's requirements but limited moulding of the behaviour of students.  Of course, most students will act to get a reward or avoid punishment, but the driving force of a student's internal motivation can over-ride this.  If we want to change this internal motivation, it will require the child to take responsibility.  The only real discipline is self-discipline.  

Punishment

Punishment is an imposition of power-over ‘another' person, the teacher over the student.  This intervention is an expression of authority by the teacher who assumes the responsibility for behaviour in the classroom.  This power-over limits the options for the student when modifying their behaviour. The student is disempowered, and for those students with severe behaviour disabilities, this reinforces their feelings of inadequacy. For those students who are struggling the use of punishment is associated with blame and only reinforces their weak sense of self.

In my experience punishment is often used because the behaviour of the student has threatened the teacher.  Students’ behaviour can be very offensive and can threaten those around them.  Often the punishment dealt out is a form of revenge resulting from the teacher’s open or concealed anger. 

Using punishment as a control mechanism will result in the following:

• Teaches the student what not to do
• Diverts student’s attention from intended lesson
• It focuses the student’s attention on how not to get ‘caught’
• Teaches students to be punitive towards others
• Eliminates risk taking, students will not take a chance on getting things wrong

Rewards

Criticizing teachers for using rewards to motivate students is not a straight forward proposition.  In the past, when I challenged teachers for using rewards, I was invariably met with enthusiastic protests.  Giving kids something, they like for doing something you want them to do seems to be a win/win situation, and I agree that in the short term it probably is.  But I challenge this practice to have a long-term benefit for the children. 

Using rewards as the goal of the lesson significantly changes the focus of the lesson.  The real objective of any lesson, including learning how to behave appropriately is the value of what is learned not what you get if you conform.  Reward focused management, in reality, is no better than the use of punishment.

The use of rewards results in the following:

• Creates an attitude that learning has no intrinsic value, you only learn to get something
• Stifles creativity, as with punishments it eliminates risk taking essential for creativity
• Creates reward driven people, what’s in it for me
• Validates manipulation, you can buy anything
• Decreases self-directed learning.  Students give the teacher what they want

The elemental message is that the subject of the lesson has no intrinsic value.  The kids do the work for the reward not to learn the content.  Instead of becoming inquisitive they become reward driven.  This approach eliminates risk-taking, stifles creativity and like punishment the teacher is the focus of the behaviour, not the student.  Students will not become self-directed learners in the future.

Having said that I am fully aware that working with students who are disengaged from learning the use of rewards, certainly not punishment can be used to ‘capture' a student’s interest.  Rewards at least can make the student feel good for a short time, and this gives us a window of opportunity to begin to engage them in education.

For extremely damaged students the simplest of rewards can be enough to begin this process.  In the illustration below, based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs there is a pyramid of rewards that start with those that satisfy student’s primary needs.  This type of reward would not be of any use but for the most extreme cases.

The use of tokens, certificates are the most popular reward systems and are used extensively even in the Senior Years of schooling, and this method of motivation is used in the very highest levels of the academic world.  Every year we see the awarding of Certificates of Achievement most of which remain in the filing cabinet only to be accessed when constructing a Resume.

Ask any successful self-directed student how important these are you will most likely get a ‘not very’ response.  All too often the Certificates’ are for the parents and grand-parents.

The next level, activities or privilege moves from a token-style reward to a reward that provides a benefit for the student.  This type of reward is still toxic but is consumed within the immediate time and not kept as a reminder.

Above this, we move into the relationship zone where praise is used, any reward depends on the connection between the teacher and student (See Newsletter - The Danger of Praise - 12 September 2018).  On the surface, this is not a ‘bad' thing, but there is a real danger that in this one the teacher's approval can become the prize.  There is a temptation that the teacher will exploit this.

Of course, we need to teach he students that their actions do have consequences but these need to be linked to the behaviour not the person who ‘delivers’ the ‘consequences (see Newsletter - Consequences not Punishment or Reward – 2 April, 2018).

Girls - They are Different

In the last newsletter we discussed the Queen Bee incidents as a form of bullying and manipulation.  Initially it could be thought that the difference is cultural, girls and boys have been taught to behave that way.   We give boys aggressive toys and girls things like dolls and toy kitchens to prepare them for their future roles.  Or maybe we just see what we expect to see, boys being boys and girls being girls. Despite this inclination to dismiss differences except on the grounds of an undeniable misogynistic norms of society I contend there is an evolutionary history that has resulted in differing responses to stress.

If we accept that early childhood abuse and the consequential Post Traumatic Stress Disorders drives dysfunctional behaviour then we need to look at some information.  When you study the school level data around abuse and dysfunctional behaviour, despite the incidents for abuse being higher for girls than boys, the number of boys being suspended or placed in a specialist setting far outweighs that of girls.  This is because the boys act out, are aggressive while the girls internalize, are compliant.   The reality is there is a difference that is impossible to ignore.

The best explanation I have heard about this difference is an evolutionary view that in early times, once humans generally became the dominant species one of the greatest threats for survival was attack from another tribe.  When this occurred, the victors would kill the males and take the women and children as trophies.  Sadly, this practice has echoes in modern conflicts where atrocities such as the killings in Bosnia were predominantly of males and the recent incidents of the abduction of school girls in Africa reflect this difference.

When you examine the suspension data in schools, the boys do outnumber the girls across the age ranges but at the onset of puberty, the time we move from childhood, the number of boys suspended for aggressive behaviour dramatically increases.  This implies that for the best chance of survival the children of both genders have adapted certain behaviours; women would become compliant and the men fight or flight.  Not always were male children taken in some instances they were also killed.  This behaviour is not confined to our species; it is common practice in a lot of herding animals such as the great apes and lions.

One of the tragedies of this ‘difference’ is that despite suffering more abuse the girls are neglected.  Because the boy’s behaviour demands attention the bulk of the resources provided for dysfunctional students are focused on dealing with boys.  As a teacher, a compliant girl frozen in her mind, is so much easier to deal with than a boy who is abusing you.  However, both boys and girls are in serious need of attention and support but only boys tend to get it.

This explains why the girls use more covert, passive methods to get their needs met albeit in dysfunctional ways.

Although we referred to some of the tactics when discussing the Queen Bee phenomena these are not only used for that social arrangement, the girls can use them in isolation.  The following is some of the ways they are used:

Put Downs

• These can be a judgmental remark or a passive gesture where the opinion of one girl is ignored. Most effective when carried out in front of the whole group.
• Making jokes that are funny to everyone else but not the victim.  When challenged instigator often appears indignant, “Can’t they just take a joke?”

Exclusion

• Any type of physical, social or psychological rejection is hurtful to the victim.  It has been demonstrated that the same parts of the brain are activated as when they are physically hurt.
• The cold shoulder, this is subtle and therefore effective. Easy for the instigator to deny any involvement.  Another way to achieve this is to attract the victim’s friends away by welcoming them into what appears to be a more attractive group.

Scandalize

• Destroy the girl’s network of friends isolating her.  The easiest for adolescent girls is to destroy her sexual reputation.  The use of technology has made this so much easier to do and the lack of direct contact somehow makes the aggressors more blazon in their attacks.

Attachment is undoubtedly one of our most powerful drives and during these adolescent years these are in a state of flux.  It is a time when we move away from our parental homes and a major instinct is to begin to search for a partner.  This begins with the formation the group that we think reflects our needs.  As mentioned at the beginning girls and boys are different, that is not to say boys have it easy to establish these attachments but I would contend that their ‘roles’ are more defined, girls have to work within their cohort to find where they fit.

For girls with a history of abuse and neglect this means they come to the cohort already at a great disadvantage.  Their sense of shame (see Newsletter 14 - Toxic Shame – 3 July 2017) makes them believe they are not as good as the other girls and will always be vulnerable.  However, all girls will benefit from being taught the dynamics of group interaction and using the Queen Bee as a model we can make all the girls aware of the dynamics of relationships.

Some of the ‘topics’ can be:

• ‘Good popularity’, what is it and how is it different from ‘bad popularity’?
• Fear is not the same as friendship
• The need to respect each other’s right to a safe, secure and happy learning environment
• What are the characteristics of the girl everyone wants to be. Discuss what is right, and wrong with this
• What are the characteristics of the girl everyone does not want to be. Discuss what is right, and wrong with this

Throughout these Newsletters I promote the belief that happy, safe and secure students are better learners and will succeed at school.  At my last school we ran a program exclusively for the girls which included surveys, meetings with parents and placing those girls identified as playing the roles in the Queen Bee Model and teaching each group about the dynamics and consequences of their behaviour.  This was extremely successful except for those who were identified as ‘Queens’.  They showed little or no remorse and were quite satisfied to be identified as the ‘top’ even if it was top of a toxic grouping.  I suspect other drives are at play with these girls.

Another thing we did at my school and suggest all schools should adopt this policy.  Every proactive program we initiated to address antisocial behaviour had to have at least equal numbers of girls and boys.  This meant we had to learn to identify those girls who hid their suffering as opposed to the boys who readily demonstrated theirs with acting out behaviour.  Girls do get abused more than boys and in our patriarchal society girls get less chance to access help.  Great teachers know this and all teachers should know this!

The Queen Bee

In our last newsletter we discussed indirect bullying as a more passive form of manipulation of others through aggression.  This week I want to discuss a more specific form of bullying used primarily by girls.  Although, there is some point of view that question gender difference I will contend that, at this time there is a difference in the expression of aggression and that difference is evidenced in the imbalance between boys and girls in suspension data and enrolment at ‘behaviour’ schools.  That is not to say there is a proportion who adopt behaviours that are not customary to their gender and I suspect, over time adjustment to the, albeit slow changing of our environment in regards to equity this imbalance will evolve.  But, for now the discussion is about a specific behaviour of girls.

This work was first discussed by Rosalind Wiseman in her 2002 book Queen Bees and Wannabes and this was followed up by Valarie E Besag Understanding Girl’s Friendships, Fights and Feuds.  In my work with girls at my last school we produced a program under the supervision of an outstanding teacher, Fiona Bell that attempted to help alleviate this problem with some success and some interesting observations I will share.

The underlying feature of the queen bee phenomena is fear and control and the way this is achieved is through the exploitation of the dynamics of cliques.  Cliques are complex and everyone with them has a function.  These positions are hierarchical with the power concentrated towards the apex of the group, the Queen.  These positions are not static but girls can move up or down but for those with a poor sense of themselves they are really stuck in the one position.

The Queen

Wiseman describes the queen as “a combination of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland and Barbie.”  The queen is popular, usually ‘pretty’ and has a level of personal power that allows her to dominate others including boys.  Others do what she wants, she reigns supreme.  In our work, we identified what we called ‘hives’ and discussed the role each had in the hierarchy.  The group of ‘Queens’ saw no problem with what they were doing and if anything formed a very unhealthy elite within the school.

The power rests in her ability to isolate and exclude others.  The fear of rejection is her weapon, she can easily enmesh or exclude and will do so to other individuals as the situation requires.  The victims are in a state of unease not knowing how to know just where they fit.  These girls are skilled at either manipulating the teacher or slipping under their radar.  When challenged they are reluctant to take responsibility for their actions.

Being Queen comes with a cost.  Although they gain power and attention their position requires constant commitment and this can make them feel isolated and trapped in their ‘image’, they lose their sense of self.

The Sidekick

This is the deputy sheriff, the 2IC of the hive.  The Side Kick mimics the actions of the queen making sure she doesn’t overstep her position.  In a sense she does the dirty work for the queen thus placing some distance away from the ‘crime’ for the queen. 

Although any challenge to the queen may come from the Side Kick this would be risky and so she is happy to take orders form the queen.  She gains a sense of power form the queen but at the expense of expressing any opinions of her own.

The Banker

The position of the Banker is interesting.  This girl uses information as currency to acquire her position in the group.  She gathers ‘secrets’ and ‘gossip’ treating everyone as her confident, she is friends with everyone.  Then she uses this intelligence to consolidate her position. 

Bankers are good strategists and even the queen is reluctant to upset her.  Her information gives her power and security; she is rarely threatened or excluded but although she may appear harmless the girls all sense the danger she poses.

The Banker plays a dangerous role because she becomes vulnerable to everyone and, if exposed the trust she trades in is lost.

The Floater

Of all the members of the group, The Floater is probably the only authentic one.  She is friends with everyone and easily moves amongst them.  Because she doesn’t base her self-worth on the acceptance of others she is comfortable within herself. 

Her peers like her and she does have influence over others but she never uses it against others, she is always positive.

The Floater has the ideal position and if anyone can challenge the queen it is this girl.

Torn Bystander

The Torn Bystander is an insecure member of the group.  She is desperate to belong and gives up any sense of independence for the sake of keeping the status quo in place.  She will apologise for the Queen and the Side Kick’s behaviour even if she knows she is on the wrong side of a disagreement.  This creates a conflict for the Torn Bystander as she is not good at saying no to her friends.

This desperation to keep the group together means she has to give up any sense of personal power.

The Pleaser / Wannabe

These are the foot soldiers of the Queen and Side Kick because they will do anything for the Queen so they belong to the group.  Their weakness is the fear they have on disapproval.  The opinions of the more influential members of the group are more important than their own.

This rejection of their own importance for the sake of being accepted makes these girls feel insecure and have trouble developing effective boundaries.

The Target

This is the victim, the person on whom the Queen and Side Kick can demonstrate their power.  The Victim can be a member of the group or an outsider, it doesn’t matter.  All that does matter is that she is humiliated and excluded.  The result is a feeling of helplessness with nowhere to turn for support.  Any girl who does feel an empathy for her risks the same treatment.

The Victim may, or may not try to mask the feelings she has over the rejection, she might say she doesn’t care but the Queen picks her Victims well knowing they are not likely to fight back.

In the next Newsletter I will discuss the particular tactics the girls use to establish control over others and how to support girls who become the victims of the Queen.

v

Indirect Bullying

The first two Newsletters in this series addressed a major problem in most schools – bullying (There’s More to Bullying than Meets the Eye – 21 March 2017 and Bullying and Power – 27 March 2017).  I was recently going back through my work and I was reminded about the phenomena of Indirect Bullying presented by Anna Wallace who was at the UTS Psychology Unit.

There are many definitions of bullying and the NSW Department’s definition sums it up in the following way.  Bullying behaviour has three key features:

• It involves the intentional misuse of power in a relationship
• It is ongoing and repeated
• It involves behaviours that can cause harm

It is relatively easy to identify direct bullying, when you see it, it is over and is directed at the victim.  Of course, direct bullying does happen in the playground and before or after school and it is not easy to eradicate.  The advantage in dealing with direct bullying is the perpetrator really has no defence when their behaviour is exposed.

Indirect bullying can be expressed openly but more likely to be a sneaky attack on another’s self-esteem or social relationships.  In most cases, all aggression is designed to get the other person to change their behaviour, there are exceptions with students diagnosed with narcissism or socio/psychopathy; dominating others is their primary drive.  However, bullying is a cover for those who are being challenged by the presence of another and they behave in a way that they hope will force the ‘victim’ to change.  Those who feel superior to others will directly attack them with threats of physical or psychological aggression.  There is no real subtlety in their behaviour.

Indirect bullying more often than not enlists the support of others.  They do this by:

• Talking About the Victim – gossiping, spreading rumours and breaking confidences, they do this in a way they know the victim will find out.
• Exclusion – They commandeer the group to ignore the victim, hang out in a ‘special’ part of the playground, etc.  Exclusion is an extremely powerful technique and taken to extremes will devastate the victim.

The silent treatment is another classic attack.  How can I be in trouble because I didn’t speak to him/her?

• The ‘Death Stare’ – Every teacher worth their salt has had a student complain that another child in the room was ‘looking at me’!  This non-verbal behaviour seems ridiculous but the effects of being stared at are damaging.  The easy advice is to tell them to ignore it but that won’t solve the problem.  Along with this non-verbal behaviour is the use of sarcasm, ‘why would I look at you’ and when the teacher’s back is turned they use an intimidating gesture!
• Social Media – the telephone has been around for years and the prank call has been a weapon for bullies however, the explosion of social media and the almost universal ownership of mobile phones provides the ‘perfect’ medium for indirect bullying.  All the techniques mentioned above are catered for through all of the media platforms.

If there is an ‘advantage’ to be found in the use of social media is that victims can and should collect the messages, they can use a ‘screen shot’ of the offending message and present it as evidence.

Dealing with indirect bullying is difficult for the teacher.  In a class of over twenty there is plenty of opportunity for the most determined bully to make a move on their victim without the teacher knowing.  It is also difficult for the teacher to understand just how damaging it is for the victim.  As an adult, receiving a ‘death stare’ from a child should not be threatening.  However, one thing we often overlook when dealing with aggression towards a child is the difference in physical presence between the perpetrator and victim.  I use the following example when presenting workshops on child abuse.  As a full-size adult (say about 1.8 metres tall) you go and stand under a basketball hoop and then imagine someone about 3.0 metres, fill out in proportion with muscles, etc. was attacking, you would be scared.  For children the contrast is even more frightening. The point is we should never under estimate how vulnerable little kids are, not just physically but psychologically.  Never dismiss things like the ‘death stare’.

Teachers understand that physical and verbal assaults or forcing people to do things they don’t want to do is bullying!  There is less agreement about the seriousness of name calling, gossip or non-verbal behaviour.  They agree this is not good but, in some cases, they feel dealing with this level of bullying is not their ‘business’ it is part of ‘toughening-up’ and think the kids should learn to sort out these behaviours.

There is an assumption that all kids come with the same level of resilience and healthy sense of self.  Followers of these Newsletters understand that so many of our children come to the classroom already suffering a range of mental health issues we unite under the designation of suffering toxic shame (see Toxic Shame – 31 August 2020).  These kids have the common belief that they are bad and not deserving of belonging.  Being excluded by others adds to this destructive belief pattern and takes them away from any form of rehabilitation.

This is not to suggest that children with a history of abuse are not capable of bullying.  On the contrary they can be unrelenting in their attacks on others.  You have to remember ‘in most cases bullying is a cover’ for how the obvious success of a particular student will show-up the bully’s insecurities.  This is not an excuse for bullies but a clue for dealing with them.

So, what to do.  First the teacher should teach their class about bullying, what it is, what people do it and the damage it can do.  The students need to understand that bullying is real and what might be happening to them now is not a ‘unique’ behaviour.

The next thing I would do is teach the kids about boundaries, I would contend that teaching effective boundaries to your students would provide them with one of the most powerful defence mechanisms they could have (see Teaching Practical Boundaries – 31 July 2017).  It would pay to remind us of what these are:

1. Recognition that your Boundaries are being Challenged

Be conscious of your feelings towards the class and the lesson. If you can sense your feelings are changing, becoming frustrated or worried your boundary is being challenged; this change of feelings is a ‘stress attack’.

2. Actively Stay Calm

We are well aware that if we become too stressed we lose our objectivity but be grateful for the initial onset because it alerts you that there is a problem.

It is important that you learn to quickly control that stress.  There are many techniques to learn how to evoke a quick relaxation response. The use of neuro- linguistic programming is excellent for this however any short relaxation technique followed by the establishment of an associated cue (the anchor) will do.

3. Ask the Questions

• ‘What is really happening’?  This is often not the obvious event.
• ‘Who is responsible’?
  • If ‘me’ then I must take responsibility, take action to address the cause of the stress.
  • If not ‘me’ then I ask a further two questions:
    • ‘What is causing the attack’?
    • 'What do I have to do to change this situation in the long run’?

4. Take Action

Assert your right without threatening the other person.  You can use the statements:

• ‘When you ……’
• ‘I feel…………….’
• ‘Because………’

Other follow-up newsletters on boundaries are:

• Boundary Considerations – 22 October 2018
• Respecting Other’s Boundaries – 26 November 2018

Bullying occurs across our community, in schools, work places and homes.  Teaching kids to stand-up to bullies in an appropriate way not only builds their sense of self it also strengthens the bonds across our community.