As a presenter, the unscripted nature of the training allows
me to learn as new problems are introduced. At the NAA training, a youth worker
presented a problem where a parent was defending her child’s misbehavior. The parent believed the child instead of the after-school staff. The discussion between
the staff member and the parent turned into an argument without a resolution.
This type of stand off happens, and there isn’t an iron clad
way to handle it. As we explored how the conversation could have gone better,
we made a key discovery: In the actual conversation between the parent and the
staff person, the child was present the entire time. This probably shaped the
entire conversation, and forced everyone involved to be a little less forthright.
Our trainings focus heavily on the futility of argument and
ways to avoid it, but something we probably don’t emphasize enough is the
importance of one-on-one conversations. Any time a third person is present, no matter
who it is, we run the risk that the conversations won’t be in earnest. In our
case, the parent may have been defending the child because the child was right
there. It’s also possible that the child’s presence caused the tone of the
staff worker to change, making the parent more defensive. Any time and extra
person is present, many more variables are added, and that can impede
efforts to resolve disputes.
Of course, one-on-one time is extremely hard to find in our
busy afterschool worlds. Yet, if we really try, I believe we can make these one-on-one conversations happen more often. After all, nothing is a bigger time waste than a having an unproductive
argument or a conversation that doesn’t lead toward resolution.
Aaron Romens is an education consultant based in Madison, Wisconsin.
