29 School-Based Scenario: Mia Follows the Golden Rule

As we discussed in earlier chapters, every interaction and communication is an opportunity to strengthen a relationship. As you read through the school-based scenario below, write down what you notice. What words are said? If you can imagine this playing out in real life, what might you observe? Think about the tone potentially conveyed, the facial expressions and body language that accompany the words, and the proximity between Mia, the teacher, and Bess, the important adult.

At the end of the school day, as buses pull away from the building and small groups of students move to the PE department for sports or various classrooms for extra-curricular clubs, Mia logs into her email to review any messages received while teaching. To her surprise, Bess, a parent of one of her students, walks into her classroom, eyes narrowed and arms crossed. “I need to talk to you,” Bess says while standing in the classroom doorway. Mia responds, “Of course. Please sit down.” Mia lifts a chair and places it beside her desk. Mia then sits down in her chair, turning it to face Bess.

Bess takes a deep breath and says in a direct tone, “Because of what you said, my child came home embarrassed about us, her parents. You told them that they shouldn’t do what we do to earn our money and put food on the table?”

“Wait. what?,” asked Mia immediately feeling defensive after being accused of something she didn’t understand.

“What did you tell the class about earning higher grades?” asks Bess.

Mia genuinely doesn’t remember what she specifically said, but responds, “I always encourage all students to do the best that they can and make a point to let them know that I’m here to help them. I help them imagine the future careers they can have when they are successful in school. I want them to dream big and imagine bright futures for themselves!”

Bess, tears in her eyes, says, “You told them that if they don’t work harder, they might not be able to do anything but be someone’s assistant or a custodian.”

Mia immediately responds to defend herself, “While I respect what you do, I work to support our students’ success. Our school focuses on laying the foundation so that every student can be successful in high school and, later, attend college. When I help them be successful here, they can go on to earn more money and have fulfilling professional careers.”

Bess stands up quickly, but before walking out of the classroom says to Mia, “You have no place telling our children what they should or should not do. We are their families. Not you.”

What happened here? When we introduced Bess and Manny in chapter one, we shared that they came to the U.S. as refugees. For many refugees, their education or professional licenses don’t immediately transfer and they must find whatever work they can while concurrently moving through the credentialing systems. For others, the U.S. provides the first opportunity to advance their education, yet they also must balance the immediate needs of supporting themselves and their families. Let’s imagine that Bess and/ or Manny were in one of these situations. They might be working as administrative assistants, custodial staff, technicians, or other roles that require minimal prerequisites. Or perhaps another family’s important adults entered the workforce as teenagers for other reasons and continue to work in roles that don’t require a college degree. There is no shame in honest work, yet Mia implied judgment and a misunderstanding of the career trajectories possible without an undergraduate or graduate degree. However well intended, Mia’s words had a negative impact.

Let’s consider Mia’s intent and thought process.

Mia had developed a positive mentor-mentee relationship with a more experienced teacher, Alex. Shortly after Bess leaves her room, she walks down to Alex’s classroom, relieved to find him there. “I don’t suppose you have a few minutes to talk?” Mia asks. Alex has a flexible schedule that day and invites Mia to sit down. Mia recounts the situation, asking Alex to help her understand what she did wrong or if Bess was the one who was wrong. Alex pauses for a moment. He asks, “Tell me what led you to think someone was wrong or right.” Mia considers his question and mumbles, “Well, I guess I assumed that in arguments, someone is usually wrong, and the other person is right.” Alex reassures her that there are some scenarios where that might accurately reflect behaviors and interactions. For example, behavior deemed illegal in the workplace is a fairly clear line we don’t cross. But he then says something she hasn’t considered, “If our goal is to strengthen a relationship, then it really doesn’t matter who is wrong or right. In fact, focusing on that might only serve to weaken a relationship.” He then invites Mia to share more about her thought process, “What led you to choose that strategy to motivate students to achieve greater academic success?” Mia immediately responds that some of the teachers she learned from in school said those things and she knew that her family wanted her to be a professional, defining it by earning a college degree that led to a specific occupation. In her case, she majored in education and became a teacher. Alex repeats back what he thought he heard her say by summarizing, “So it sounds like you used similar strategies to what worked well for you. Do I understand that?” Mia responds yes and adds, “It’s important to me to always follow the Golden Rule: treat others the way you want to be treated.” Alex pauses again and asks, “What if they want to be treated differently than you do?”

Let’s consider what Alex kindly shared and what he graciously modeled during this exchange. He approached Mia’s difficult conversation with curiosity. Instead of evaluating her choices, he provided opportunities for her to share more; by asking her to tell him what instead of asking why, he allows her to share her thought processes and creates a psychologically safe space to do so without judgment. He modeled exactly what researchers and practitioners in conflict mediation suggest: Approach other humans with curiosity. Seek to understand instead of to reply. Now let’s consider his guidance regarding the Golden Rule. Without telling her she was wrong, he asks a question with embedded guidance: consider how someone else wants to be treated. If we focus only on what works for us, we miss the opportunity to learn with and from those around us. We reference only our cultural and structural experiences, not those of the families we aim to serve. We, the authors of this text, invite you to consider an updated version: treat others how they want to be treated. By doing so, you create the space for culturally responsive practices as you de-center yourself and your experiences, centering instead the members of our diverse communities who bring a wealth of wisdom to the conversations.

We want to reimagine this conversation ending more positively. But first, let’s take a moment to think about what went well. At the beginning, Mia invited Bess into the room, placed a chair beside her, and turned to face her. This proximity, invitation, and physical focus on an upset individual is important. After all, everyone wants to feel seen, valued, and heard.

Let’s consider three important steps when emotions are strong:

Let’s see how Mia might put all of this together in this re-imagined version:

At the end of the school day, as buses pull away from the building and small groups of students move to the PE department for sports or various classrooms for extra-curricular clubs, Mia logs into her email to review any messages received while teaching. To her surprise, Bess, a parent of one of her students, walks into her classroom, eyes narrowed and arms crossed. “I need to talk to you,” Bess says while standing in the classroom doorway. Mia responds, “Of course. Please sit down.” Mia lifts a chair and places it beside her desk. Mia then sits down in her chair, turning it to face Bess.

Bess takes a deep breath and says in a direct tone, “Because of what you said, my child came home embarrassed about us, her parents. You told them that they shouldn’t do what we do to earn our money and put food on the table?”

Mia takes a slow breath to calm her nerves, remembers that it isn’t helpful to respond defensively, and apologizes. “I’m sorry. I can see how upset you are.” In this brief response, she validates Bess’ emotions and notices Bess uncross her arms. Mia then says, “Please tell me what happened so I can learn more.” Bess takes another deep breath and shares, “You told them that if they don’t work harder, they might not be able to do anything but be someone’s assistant or a custodian.”

Mia takes another slow breath to maintain her composure. She reminds herself that being right isn’t important. It’s about regaining trust and strengthening the relationship. She then asks her to help her understand, specifically, what caused the embarrassment. Bess explains that since coming to the U.S. as refugees, it is taking a great deal of time to find better work and to transfer professional certification from their prior country. At this time, Bess works as an assistant in an office, and while the position doesn’t require a college degree or pay as much as her manager earns, it is a good job with a steady salary and benefits. Mia realizes the pain she inadvertently caused with her comments that she intended as motivation. She apologizes again and asks how Bess recommends approaching this differently moving forward.

Bess immediately says that she appreciates Mia’s apology and requests that Mia apologize to her daughter as well. Mia agrees to do so. Bess then begins to share more about her work and about the many career paths that the refugee center shared with her, many of which don’t require a college degree. Mia begins to take notes, asking more questions and putting an action item for herself: to talk to the school counselors about how they view postsecondary career paths and what she could do to help support the entire school community.

At the end of the conversation, Bess smiles and thanks MIa for being so responsive. She thanks her for apologizing to her and reminds her to apologize to her daughter tomorrow before class starts. MIa asks if she might call them at home tonight to apologize and Bess says yes. They end the conversation calmly, both feeling better about the situation and about their future interactions.

What worked well here? Mia used a basic, yet effective, strategy to regulate her own emotional response. She reminded herself to respond calmly, rather than react defensively. She then used the three steps to deescalate the situation: 1) apologize, 2) validate emotions, and 3) invite a conversation. She approached the conversation from a place of curiosity, rather than defensiveness. She wanted to understand, rather than to reply. This avoided the game of who’s right and who’s wrong. And finally, she asked Bess to collaboratively construct a way forward.