ELMLE 2018 - Amsterdam Bridge 2018 Amsterdam | Page 5

E U R O P E A N L E A G U E F O R M I D D L E L E V E L E D U C A T I O N they don’t care. This makes it much more difficult for the child to say anything different later—to you or their peers. 2.    We can’t say anything sarcastic, condescending or bullying to the aggressors like, “Wow, now do you feel good about yourself?” Even if the aggressors stop their behavior in the moment, they’ll go right back to what they were doing the moment the adult turns away. Why? Because we used the same strategy (i.e. ridicule) to silence them as they used to silence the target. 3.    We can’t say, “That’s enough” because that communicates that you’re ok with some part of what’s happening. As I have said in Making It Meaningful: Interrupting Biased Comments in the Classroom, it’s a tacit acceptance of what is happening 4.    We can’t say, “How would you feel if that happened to you?” Of course, the purpose here is to teach empathy but that statement is constantly dismissed by people who are abusing their power. It goes right up there with “make healthy choices.” These are sound bites young people ridicule as “adult speak.” Here’s what we can do: 1.     We need to manage ourselves as we approach the group. That means being aware of any triggers we have and then putting them aside to talk about later with a professional mentor or friend. None of these responses are responsible or effective ways to intervene when we see people ridicule or dehumanize each other. Let’s call it our “conflict baggage” and examine how it can affect our interactions with young people (and keep in the back of our mind how this same baggage also affects our ability to face conflicts with our school colleagues). For example, do you describe yourself as someone who just doesn’t like conflict? That would be the avoid strategy. But what this means is, as educators, we would be more likely to convince ourselves to not intervene in situations where we should. In the eyes of our students, we easily look like we are too scared to face the problem or condone abusive behavior. If our strategy is to acquiesce, we intervene without projecting authority or we are vulnerable to debating with socially aggressive or verbal students and losing. If our strategy is to attack, we can come across as “rescuing” the target and going after the aggressors. Our intent may be to make the aggressors know what it feels like to be ridiculed or embarrassed so we say something that cuts them down. We may feel in that moment that we have dispensed justice but what we really have done is continue the cycle: using domination to attack the aggressors and taking away any power the target has to advocate on their own behalf. 2.    We look at everyone in the group and succinctly identify the problem. Succinct means we don’t repeat ourselves, we don’t lecture and whatever we say shouldn’t last more than a few sentences. We are not there to get into a debate with the students. Then, make a “values declaration” statement that communicates every student’s dignity and why we think their behavior is in contradiction to that value. So here’s what we shouldn’t do: 1.     We can’t ask the target in front of others if the other kids are “bothering him or her” or any other question that asks the target how they feel about what the other kids are doing to them. If we do, we reinforce the power dynamic between students. We put the target in the position to say the other kids are playing with her/him and 5