For the record, I am grateful to have been quoted in the July 6, 2019 The New York Times article about how parent coaches are helping parents with screen issues. In fact, I was eager to be interviewed because I thought, “This time it could be different. This time, because it’s the The New York Times, PCI parent coaches will be accurately described and parents won’t be cast as incompetent victims, but will be portrayed as the amazingly heroic people they are, doing the most difficult job on the planet with so much against them in this technology saturated society.”
Yes, I thought it would be different this time, because since 2002, starting with the Wall Street Journal’s story, my interviews about parent coaching and PCI parent coaching in particular, have not resulted in what I had meant to say. One exception in all that time is a 2003 article for Spirit Magazine of Southwest Airlines. The interviewer did outstanding job writing about what I had actually told her. As I talked with her, I could tell she had really cared to get the record straight.
As I reflect on that interview and this recent one with Nellie Bowles, tech and popular culture editor for The New York Times, I am reminded of this quote from Nora Bateson in her insightful book, Small Arcs of Larger Circles: “…it is the meaning-maker inside the listener who defines the relationship.” (p. 44)
So dear reader, I am hoping the meaning-maker inside you can understand that I write this to clarify to you because our relationship is one of mutual trust, openness, and respect.
Maybe it was the fact that Mercury was about to go retrograde (it has today, July 7) that communication with Ms. Bowles went awry.
Not sure. In any case, here is what I intended:
Printed in The New York Times:
“Gloria DeGaetano was a private coach working in Seattle to wean families off screens when she noticed the demand was higher than she could handle on her own.”
What I Intended:
I told Ms. Bowles that I started the Parent Coaching Institute because I have worked since 1987 on helping parents with screen-related issues. I believe that the parent coaching model is an effective way to help individual families with their unique needs because coaching is specific and personal—everyone has different circumstances and varying factors that merit attention to help families with tech issues. I did not use the phrase, “wean families off screens” because I do not believe that is desirable. I include media/digital literacy as integral to make reducing screen time effective. In fact, my first book published by Houghton Mifflin was titled, Screen Smarts: A Family Guide to Media Literacy.
Also, I said, “need” not demand…the need is great…the demand is growing. For instance, currently I have one coaching client, a mom of a teen playing video games, 6-8 hours a day and not doing much of anything else. I would not say that the demand for parent coaching regarding screen time is as strong as this article suggests.
Printed in The New York Times: “Her coaches”
What I Intended:
When contacted for fact-checking, I had requested in writing that Ms. Bowles change this to “PCI Coaches” because legally the graduates of the Parent Coach Certification® Program are not affiliated with PCI or me after they complete the program. They develop their own parent coaching businesses completely separate from PCI or me. I was astounded she didn’t change that. It causes a lot of confusion. After I write this, I have to respond to e-mails requesting “employment opportunities” from professionals seeking to enter the program. There are no employment opportunities and if Ms. Bowles had made a 3-letter change as requested from “her” to PCI, this confusion could have been avoided.
Printed in The New York Times:
“…rates range from $125 to $250.”
What I Intended:
I told Ms. Bowles that I know of one PCI graduate who told me she receives $250 per session, only one. This rate is not at all typical. The article makes it sound that wealthy parents are the only clientele. I told Ms. Bowles that many coaches work for non-profit organizations in order to help needy parents. This was not mentioned in the article.
Printed in The New York Times:
“Movement,” Ms. DeGaetano said. “Is there enough running around that will help them see their autonomy?”
What I Intended:
I requested in writing that Ms. Bowles change this to: “Is there enough real-world engagement that will help them experience their autonomy?” But as you see, she didn’t make that change either. Movement is a subset of what I meant. Also during the interview, I explained about sensory experiences, and how experiences in the tactile 3-D world are absolutely necessary for optimal brain development. Running around doesn’t do much to help kids “see” their autonomy. Real-world engagement of various sorts provides a myriad of off screen experiences that enable kids to go within and experience their interior life and identity in deep ways—not accessible to them during screen time.
Throughout my interview with Ms. Bowles I stressed that PCI coaches do not give advice. PCI Coaches co-create with the parents solutions that the parents think will work for them. We offer our suggestions with the utmost respect for parents who day in and day out must address tech challenges constantly, draining and overwhelming them in so many ways.
I think what has disappointed me most about this article and the others like it since 2002 is that coaching for parents is seen as frivolous, and parents who hire a parent coach are viewed as incompetent. The underlying assumption remains: “They can pay good money for help with tech issues rather than do it themselves.” “They are incompetent, lazy parents if they need a coach.”
This inaccurate assumption is profoundly telling of how we as a society view the most important, most sacred and most difficult job in the world. We don’t ask, “Why would a CEO or a manger need business coaching?” We don’t castigate, “Oh, so you are starting a business, how lazy and incompetent of you to want to hire and spend good money on a business coach.” No, instead we applaud business minded folks for their good sense to hire coaches. We see them as innovative, able to understand that coaching will bring a return on investment in the near and distant future.
Yet, struggling moms and dads who have the courage to reach out for non-judgmental and compassionate support are shamed, blamed and considered less than. When in truth, they are just as resourceful and innovative as any businessperson who hires a coach. This theme, unfortunately, has yet to be addressed in a media article about parent coaching.
For the next media interview I am going to keep the above in mind, along with 3 questions Nora Bateson poses for reflection before entering any communication with another person:
“How do we travel through this emotional and intellectual landscape?
Are you kindred?
Are you safe?” (p. 44)