Cultivating Empathy - 3-Minute Video with Transcript, Discussion Questions, and Selected References

 

Discussion Questions

1. How would you describe your level of empathy right now? 

2. How would you describe the level of empathy in your school?

3. Where have you seen compassionate empathy during the COVID-19 crisis - in your home, in your community, or in the nation?

4. In light of current events, which element of empathy do you feel is most difficult for people? Why is that?

1st Frame:

Hello! I’m Julie McDaniel-Muldoon, Safety and Well-Being Consultant at Oakland Schools. I created the Supportive Strategies Series with 3-minute episodes of strategies I think might be helpful to you, especially during this extraordinary time. These short and sweet episodes are based on research and best practice. Episode 5: Cultivating Empathy. Let’s begin.

2nd Frame:

To explore empathy we need to understand where it lives within social-emotional core competencies. The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning describe these competencies self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making. Empathy lives in the social competencies, requiring us to understand ourselves before we understand others.

 3rd Frame:

Teresa Wiseman has helped us understand the 4 elements of empathy. 1st, we must see the world as others see it. 2nd, we accept others without judgment. 3rd, we understand another’s feelings. 4th, we are able to communicate this understanding. Brene Brown teaches us that "Empathy is communicating that incredibly healing message of 'You're not alone.'" 

4th Frame:

Daniel Goleman has pushed our thinking to describe three different types of empathy. Cognitive empathy lives in the executive functioning part of our brain and is dependent upon our thoughts, understanding, and intellect. Emotional empathy lives in the limbic system, starts with our mirror neurons, and relies on our senses and feelings. Compassionate Empathy requires both emotional and cognitive empathy but goes deeper. It motivates us to take action on someone else’s behalf. Compassion is empathy is action.  As Goleman suggests, “With this kind of empathy we not only understand a person’s predicament and feel with them, but are spontaneously moved to help, if needed.” 

5th Frame:

We cultivate empathy -By empathizing with students -By modeling empathy -By making caring for others a priority -By setting high ethical expectations -By practice, practice, practice

In an online environment,

-Use live video and chat whenever possible -Practice and model self-compassion -Link content to empathy whenever possible -Be mindful of pace

Final Frame:

 All of this content is based on solid research and best practice. Please contact me for selected references, more resources, and suggestions for topics for future episodes. julie.mcdaniel@oakland.k12.mi.us

Selected References

Goleman, D. (2017). Empathic concern. Retrieved from https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27176.

Goleman, D. (March 1, 2008). Hot to help: When can empathy move us to action?  Retrieved from https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hot_to_help.

McDaniel-Muldoon, J.E. (2019, September 17). The Complexity of Empathy. International Bullying Prevention Association Blog and News. https://ibpaworld.org/blog/the-complexity-of-empathy/.

The RSA (2013, December 10). Brene Brown on empathy. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXSjc-pbXk4&feature=emb_title&disable_polymer=true.

Sevilla, V.J. (2019, June 23). Teaching empathy in an online class. ELearning Industry. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/empathy-development-teaching-online-class.

Wiseman, Theresa. (1996). A concept analysis of empathy. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 23. 1162 - 1167. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1996.12213.x.

Trust Is the Beginning Place - 3-Minute Video with Transcript, Discussion Questions, and Selected References

Episode 4: Trust Is the Beginning Place

Discussion Questions

1. Describe the level of trust in your school:

1. between staff and students

2. between staff and parents

3. among staff

4. among students

2. What can you do individually and as a staff to increase the levels of trust?

1st Frame:

Hello! I’m Julie McDaniel-Muldoon, Safety and Well-Being Consultant at Oakland Schools. I created the Supportive Strategies Series with 3-minute episodes of strategies I think might be helpful to you, especially during this extraordinary time. These short and sweet episodes are based on research and best practice. Episode Trust Is the Beginning Place. Let’s begin.

2nd Frame:

The CDC in collaboration with SAMHSA established 6 guiding principles for trauma-informed care. While safety is the number 1 consideration, trustworthiness is number 2. Trust is an essential part of strong and supportive school cultures. It is integral to effective organizational change, successful school reform and more. As author Barbara Smith writes, “Trust…is the beginning place, the foundation upon which more can be built.”

 3rd Frame:

Placing trust in another involves two considerations. The first consideration is a person’s willingness to be vulnerable to another. It acknowledges the potential for being hurt. The second consideration is placing confidence in another being benevolent, reliable, competent, honest, and open. Both the willingness to be vulnerable and the perception of benevolence are necessary for trust.

4th Frame:

Building the trust needed for healthy and supportive schools requires shifting this interperson concept to an organizational perspective. This trust is relational trust and is found is social exchanges.  It is reflected by respect, personal regard, competence, and integrity. Researchers Bryk and Schneider explain that relational trust is the connective tissue that binds us together to advance the education and welfare of students.

5th Frame:

Research on trust suggests that assuming positive intention is the most important component of building trust. Trust in schools requires psychological safety where people speak freely, honestly, and openly. Building trust in an online context is more challenging, but is possible. It requires predictable patterns of actions, ongoing communication, positive social atmosphere, constant feedback, and transparency of motive. Building trust must be a deliberate and transparent process with ongoing monitoring and adjustment. Trust is the beginning place, the foundation upon which more can be built.

Final Frame:

 All of this content is based on solid research and best practice. Please contact me for references, more resources, and suggested topics for future episodes: julie.mcdaniel@oakland.k12.mi.us

Selected Resources

Bryk, A.S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership 60(6):40-45. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar03/vol60/num06/Trust-in-Schools@-A-Core-Resource-for-School-Reform.aspx.

The Colorado Trust (2008). Build trust, end bullying, improve learning: evaluation of The Colorado Trust’s bullying prevention initiative. Retrieved from Denver, CO: https://www.coloradotrust.org/sites/default/files/COTrust_FINALAPRVD_112408.pdf.

Louis, K.S. (2007). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 6(1), 1-24. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259754500_60_Louis_KS_2007_Trust_and_improvement_in_schools_Journal_of_Educational_Change_61_1-24.

Marcinek, A. (2014, October 22). Digital Citizenship: Developing a Culture of Trust and Transparency. Edutopia. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/digital-citizenship-culture-trust-transparency-andrew-marcinek.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. Francisco, CA:  Jossey-Bass.

The State of the Science of Bullying

The mission of StopBullying.gov, a website created through a partnership of the United States Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, and Education, is to provide "information from various government agencies on what bullying is, what cyberbullying is, who is at risk, and how you can prevent and respond to bullying."  The website is the most comprehensive online resource for bullying. The "Facts about Bullying" page reflects the most current knowledge about bullying, including definition, statistics, bullying and suicide, and laws and policies. Also on this page is the section "The State of the Science."

While bullying research remains a growing field of inquiry, studies have shown the impact of bullying during childhood and adolescence into adulthood and have confirmed the complex nature of bullying. Even though unanswered questions remain, studies have provided conclusive evidence about bullying. Common understanding includes the prevalence of bullying (between 20% to 28%), the peak of bullying (middle school), and the most common types of bullying (verbal and social).

The following is less commonly known, yet confirmed by research:

• The growing awareness of the impact of bullying has led some to believe that bullying behavior is more frequent. There is no evidence to support this; however, the prevalence of bullying is still unacceptable and a public health issue.
• No single profile has emerged those for who engage in bullying behavior. One reason for this is that many who bully others have been bullied themselves; the roles are often changing. Another consideration is the imbalance of power present in a bullying situation. Power is contextual and reflects the norms of the environment. 
• Adults play a critical role in bullying prevention, in simple but powerful ways. Examples include modeling prosocial behavior, providing consistent emotional support, and engaging in open communication. With regard to communication, it is important to note that students are encouraged to tell an adult when bullying occurs; however, adults often do not know how to respond.

One research conclusion receives very little attention: bullying is a group phenomenon. The traditional image of a two-person interaction, with one person engaging in bullying behavior and another being targeted, is not supported by research. Identifying and holding accountable one or two does not eradicate bullying behavior, nor does it heal the harm that bullying brings to all within the environment. Bullying is social in nature and emerges from peer groups. For this reason, all effective bullying prevention efforts are system-wide and include every community member. Aggressive and unhealthy peer groups, like bullying behavior, cannot flourish in safe and supportive school environments.

As the research community continues this important work and shares its growing knowledge of bullying, educators must commit to put into practice only that which has been confirmed by the research. Additionally, educators must stay aware of the state of the science of bullying so that they are considering only research- and evidence-based initiatives. 

No research is ever quite complete. It is the glory of a good bit of work that it opens the way for something still better, and this repeatedly leads to its own eclipse. ~Mervin Gordon

Middle School Bullying Prevalence and the Importance of Social Frameworks

All forms of bullying behavior peak during middle school, with the highest percentage of students reporting being bullied in the 6th grade. Several structural or logistical reasons help to explain this, such as the transition between elementary and middle schools, the introduction of passing time with less adult supervision, increased class sizes, and multiple teachers during a school day. Bullying happens, though, on a social level. Bullying behavior might be better understood by also using these frameworks: social engagement theory, social development theory, and social structure.

Social engagement theory. Our nervous system's most important function is to ensure our safety, but as humans, we need more than safety; we need connection. When we are safe, we "spontaneously interact" with one another, using facial expression, eye contact, and tone of voice; in other words, we use our social engagement system. At the moment the brain perceives danger, it seeks reassurance. We look to another in this moment in order to resolve things, gauging expression and tone. Without finding that reassurance, our own facial expression, eye contact, and tone of voice change. All of this occurs because the brain perceives a possible threat. Our connections with one another, a key to our happiness, is not just reliant on a strong sense of safety. The brain seeks to resolve a threat to safety through social connections as well in a perfect feedback loop.

In early years, this autonomic and complex interaction happens between a child and a trusted adult.  As children mature into adolescence and adulthood, they look more to their peers and then to themselves for approval and for this reassurance of safety. This is where social development theory comes in.

Social development theory. Erik Erickson's Theory of Psychosocial Development has eight stages. At age 12, children are moving into adolescence, from "Stage 4: Identity vs Inferiority" to "Stage 5: Identity vs Role Confusion." Stage 4 is a time where children move from finding self-esteem in a trusted adult to finding it in a peer group. Stage 5 marks the phase where the adolescent feels a great need to belong and to fit into the community. This is a time for exploration of identity, values, beliefs. The transition from Stage 4 to Stage 5 happens during middle school. Adolescents move from reliance of adults to seeking approval from peers. Belonging and the need to fit into those peer groups seem to take precedence.

Even though this transition is normal, adolescents still require adult attachment for healthy social development. If extensive peer contact increases as a loss of attachment with a trusted adult occurs, it can lead to abnormal social development, including a delayed development of prosocial behavior, the adoption of health-risk behaviors, and an inability to self-regulate.  In other words, even though adolescents are focused on the peer groups, the relationship with trusted adults continues to ensure normal social development.

Social structure. Researchers have found that infants as early as 10 months old understand social dominance and hierarchy, suggesting that social structure is something recognized at an early age. Simple aggressive behavior is seen in small children as a strategy to get what they want. As children mature, they pick up on the norms of the social group and try to belong. Early research suggested that the home and the school communities provide the social structure for children. In adolescence peer groups create their own social structures, developing group norms and identities.

Middle school is a time when social engagement, social development, and social structure interplay at a critical time. Social engagement theory helps us understand that our sense of safety is reliant on our connections to each other in complex, autonomic ways. Social development theory helps us recognize that middle school, especially 6th grade, is time of great transition, from looking to adults for self-esteem to looking to a peer group for the same. The need for belonging and for fitting in intensifies during this time. Understanding social structure helps us frame this period as a time for creating social groups with norms, values and identities established by the group members. The social structure is also where we learn more about power.

Bullying happens at a social level and peaks at a time when the mammalian need for social connection is met with an intense need for peer approval and the creation of social structures within those groups. All of this is happening to children transitioning to adolescence with newly developed and still developing social skills. During the entire middle school experience, the need for connection with a trusted adult remains essential to normal social development; it is a consistent need until reaching adulthood. By approaching bulling prevention work from these frameworks, we start to understand why some of our previous bullying prevention efforts are ineffective at the middle school level and begin to envision how we might create preventative measures that connect to the social development process of our adolescents.

“Middle school is kind of like Middle-earth. It’s a magical journey filled with elves, dwarves, hobbits, queens, kings, and a few corrupt wizards. Word to the wise: pick your traveling companions well."

-~Kimberly Dana, "Lucy and CeCee's How to Survive (and Thrive) in Middle School”

Feeling Safe at School: A National Downward Trend

Since 1993 the Center for Disease Control's Department of Adolescent and School Health (DASH) has asked high school students the following question on the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS): "During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you would be unsafe at school or on your way to or from school?" Before discussing the 2017 findings and 14-year trend, let's explore the concept of safety

In 1943 American psychologist Abraham Maslow first proposed his Hierarchy of Motivation. This human development theory frames a hierarchy of needs: physiological, safety, belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization. The model asserts that the physiological needs of food, warmth, and more must be met before safety needs are met, and so on. In this sense, safety is a broad term and describes security, stability, order and freedom from fear.

From a trauma perspective, this sense of safety is no less critical in human development. Dr. Bruce Perry, internationally recognized author and expert on child trauma, suggests that a sense of safety is necessary for optimal child development. As he asserts, children will thrive when their world is safe and predictable, in addition to having consistent emotional nurturing.

School violence has put student safety on a national stage for the last twenty years. Despite the perception of our students' increasing vulnerability in school, the evidence suggests our students are very safe in schools.  Dr. Scott Poland, expert of violence preparation and crisis response in schools teaches the difference between psychological safety and physical safety, advocating for a "balanced, comprehensive programs consisting of prevention, intervention, mental health, security and crisis preparedness components." 

Here are the results of a nationally representative sample of US high school students responding to the question of not going to school because they did not feel safe on their way to school, during school, or on their way home from school:

• In 2017, 7% of students reported staying home from school at least one day over the last 30 days because they did not feel safe.
• The prevalence was higher among black and Hispanic students (9%) than white students (4%).
• The prevalence was higher among 9th- and 10th-grade students (8%) than 11th- and 12th-grade students (5%).
• During 1993-2017, a significantly greater percentage of students stayed home from school at least one day, from 4% to 7%.
• Focusing on our students across states and in large urban districts, context matters. The range of students not going to school was 5% to 12%, with a median of 7%.
• Across 20 large urban districts, the range was 6% to 13%, with a median of 10%.

Why is the sense of safety that our children feel in school decreasing, despite our added preventative measures, our increased crisis preparedness, and our improving identification of mental health concerns? Did the focus of accountability and spotlight on test scores distract our attention and divert our actions away from providing a level of school safety necessary to provide optimal readiness for learning? If Maslow's theory holds true and the neuro-development research remains strong, then our children's physiological, safety and love/belonging needs must be addressed first at school, not just at home.

Perhaps it is time to articulate a vision of our children's success that takes into account their well-being. Perhaps it is time to step back from comprehensive and balanced school safety programs in order to consider the community context and its impact on our children. Perhaps our children are telling us that despite our attempts to protect them, our personal sense of safety may be more influential on their own sense of safety than the precautions and measures that we provide for them.

This issue is deserving of a larger conversation.

The Puzzling Persistence of Bullying Behavior

Since 1990, the Center for Disease Control's Division of Adolescence and School Health (DASH) has surveyed over four million US students on health behaviors that contribute to physical, social, and emotional problems in adolescence and adulthood using the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). The survey has evolved over the years, reflecting growth in our understanding about youth behavior and technology use. For example, the YRBSS now includes questions about and adverse childhood experiences. The YRBSS included questions about bullying behavior in schools beginning in 2009 and about cyberbullying (electronic bullying) in 2011.

In June 2018 DASH released "YRBSS Data Summary and Trends Report: 2007-2017," presenting  trends of bullying and cyberbullying since each was added to the survey. The following are a few highlights:

• Overall, the rate of bullying on school property has remained stable since 2009. About 20% of US students report being bullied.
• The number of males reporting being bullied significantly decreased from 19% in 2009 to 16% in 2017.
• No significant changes were found in females reporting bullying, and the number reporting being bullied remains stable, around 22%.
• Overall, the rate of cyberbullying remained stable since 2011. About 15% of US students report being cyberbullied.
• No significant changes were found in cyberbullying for either males or females.

These highlights are limited to overall trends and gender focus; even so, they bring the impact of our  bullying prevention efforts into question. The rates of students being bullied and cyberbullied remain stable. Since 2015 every state in the US has anti-bullying school policies. In 2016 the National Academies of Science declared bullying a serious public health issue. By 2017 the CDC categorized bullying as an Adverse Childhood Experience. We have research- and evidence-based programs proven to reduce bullying, some with 40 years of proven effectiveness. We know that bullying cannot flourish in safe and supportive environments, and that developing social-emotional core competencies within those safe schools is the best line of defense.

Are we really putting into practice what we know? If so, then why do one in five of our young people continue to report being bullied on school property?

Maya Angelou told us that when we know better, we do better. Why aren't we doing better?

More Misdirection in Bullying Prevention

In addition to zero tolerance and advice-only support, other misdirection in bullying prevention is important to discuss.

Expecting bystanders to solve the problem is problematic and irresponsible. As Barbara Coloroso has suggested, the bystander role is complex, holding varying degrees of complicity in bullying. The following cannot be overstated: adults are the first line of defense in a bullying situation. The power imbalance that separates bullying from other acts of aggression needs adult intervention. Children/young adults need to identify power structures and understand social injustice, and they will need guidance for this process. Bystanders alone cannot solve the bullying problem.

Implementing piecemeal efforts can bring more harm to the school culture and to the most vulnerable in a school population. Motivational speakers and special assemblies are often used in schools as bullying prevention strategies. While students and staff may report being entertained, inspired, even moved by these events, unfortunately, no evidence exists that they reduce bullying behavior in schools. Furthermore, because they do not take into account differing student needs in the schools, schools should avoid large group assemblies on sensitive issues presented by an outsider. Finally, without adequate staff preparation and investment in the event, students are left more vulnerable than they were before the assembly. Effective bullying prevention needs a whole-school, carefully- planned initative; piecemeal efforts should be avoided.

Finally, peer-only conflict resolution can leave our targeted children more vulnerable. We must continuously remind ourselves several things. First, while we wish for our students to have solid social-emotional skills and strategies, the process of developing them occurs under the guidance of a trusted adult. More importantly, bullying is different from other forms of conflicts because of the power imbalance. Peer mediation and conflict resolution provide no benefit in resolving a bullying situation. Adult intervention is needed to erode the power struggle between students. We must not leave our vulnerable and targeted youth alone to resolve a bullying situation with the person engaging in the aggressive behavior.  This cannot be stressed enough. Conventional wisdom such as “they will work it out” and “this is natural peer conflict” erodes any progress we have made as a society in preventing bullying behavior.

History will judge us by the difference we make in the everyday lives of children. 

~Nelson Mandela

Misdirection in Bullying Prevention

Before embarking on a bullying prevention path, schools should take stock of what is already in place and reflect on how effective these efforts have been. This is especially important, as some of the traditional ways of approaching bullying prevention result in more damage to the school culture and to students themselves.

For example, zero tolerance, the rigid and inflexible approach to enforcing school policy, was listed in 2016 by the National Academies of Science as a non-approach to bullying prevention. Zero tolerance damages a school culture with its emphasis on control and an absence of growth and support. It also becomes interconnected with disproportionality, as students of color are suspended and/or expelled at higher rates than white students. Reports of bullying incidents decrease, not only because of the harsh penalties imposed, but also because of the fear of retaliation. The stakes are just too high.

Some adults believe that bullying is best resolved by the children and young adults and engage in another misdirection: giving advice only.  Giving advice without any other assistance and support may be more harmful than doing nothing at all. Adults are the first line of defense, as they are responsible for providing the safe and supportive environments that deter bullying behavior. Because they are also the ones who establish and enforce policy that address bullying behavior, adults should be the ones to intervene in a bullying situation. In a study from Stan Davis and Charisse Nixon, students reported that traditional advice from adults, such as demanding the behavior to stop or sharing with the aggressor how it makes the targeted young person feel, is perceived as making an already bad situation worse. The NAS Panel concluded that one particular ineffective piece of advice, fighting back, translated into action may “escalate the level of violence” and bring more harm to those involved. 

The most effective bullying prevention efforts are a part of a systemic and comprehensive school culture initiative. When we engage in practices such as zero tolerance and giving advice only, we are doing more harm than good.

As Maya Angelou has taught us, "Do the best you can until you know better. 

Then, when you know better, do better.

Bullying 101

October is National Bullying Prevention Month. It is a time to unite us in our efforts across the United States in keeping our children and young people safe, happy, and healthy. As we begin this month-long bullying prevention focus, it is also a good time to bring forward some essential understandings.

1. What is bullying? Bullying is an act of aggression with three specific characteristics: it is intended to do harm, it is repeated or has a high likelihood of being repeated, and it involves an imbalance of power. All three characteristics must be present in order for a behavior to be considered bullying.

2. What are the types of bullying? Bullying can be physical, verbal (oral and written), social (or relational), or cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is bullying through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices. 

3. Is bullying a rite of passage? In 2016 the National Academies of Science concluded that bullying is not a rite of passage. Furthermore, because of the negative short- and long-term effects on anyone involved in a bullying situation, they declared bullying to be a national public health issue.

4. How prevalent is bullying? Bullying is reported from Kindergarten through 12th Grade. It peaks in 6th grade at 39%. One in five US students report being bullied on school property, a fairly stable statistic. This does not include bullying that occurs in neighborhoods, the home, or other places.

5. Who is most at risk for being bullied? While there is no single factor that puts a child at risk for bullying, some groups are most at risk of being bullied: LGBTQ youth, youth with disabilities, and socially isolated youth. Because bullying is rooted in power, a person engaging in bullying behavior perceives him/herself to be in a superior position to someone who is perceived as different or "less than."

Awareness is only the first step in bullying prevention. Knowing what to do and then taking action are the next steps. As Goethe said, "Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do."

Strategies for Preventing Bullying

 

One characteristic of bullying that sets it apart from aggression in general is the perceived imbalance of power between the child engaging in bullying behavior and the child who is targeted. Those who bully focus on others they perceive as inferior in some way.

Young people who are perceived as "less than" have characteristics that set them apart from the rest. Some of these characteristics make children more vulnerable to bullying, such as our LGBTQ children and those on the spectrum, but any of a host of reasons place our children at risk, from food allergies to gender and ethnicity.

Cheryl Dellasega, PhD, and Charisse Nixon, PhD, co-authors of Girl Wars: 12 Strategies That Will End Female Bullying, offer two powerful strategies for bullying prevention. Although written for girls and young women, these research-based strategies are applicable for all young people, regardless of gender.

1. Build social-emotional skills at an early age. Begin your child's social education as early as preschool. Instill in young children the value of their unique qualities and respect for that uniqueness in others. Also, model empathy and kindness, and recognize them in your children. The authors urge us to remember that "behaviors that are rewarded are repeated, and those that are not are abandoned." Finally, frame bullying in a "moral context": bullying hurts and can damage others. This will help to prevent the social/relational bullying that reaches its peak in middle school. 

1. Give children and young people the courage to be kind: Help your child understand the qualities that make up a good friendship and the disadvantages of relationships that exclude others. Support your child in becoming a good friend, encouraging connections that are supportive and caring. Teach your child/young person to be assertive, rather than aggressive. Help them to see the difference between expressing feelings, thoughts, and ideas versus pushing them on others. Finally, nurture in them the confidence and courage to speak up and to speak out when they feel they should do so. 

A 2001 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association surveyed over 15,000 American young people about bullying behavior. Dr. Tonja Nansel and her associates found that those who bully and those who are targets of bullying have social and psychological difficulties making and keeping friends. In bullying prevention the importance of human connection as the context needed to build social-emotional fitness and to nurture kindness and compassion cannot be ignored.

Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential of turning a life around.   ~Leo Buscaglia

Buffering Potential Bullying Behavior

Just like having our children wear a winter coat and mittens on a cold day, we can buffer our children from potential bullying situations. This buffering helps to protect all of those involved, but especially those engaged in bullying behavior and those who are targeted.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) urges us to understand why certain children and young people have potential to engage in bullying situations. Recognizing those potential risk factors will allow us to strengthen protective factors that may prevent children and young people from engaging in aggressive behavior.

The following are some examples of the social, family, and school protective factors for those children most at risk. These are factors that are within our circle of influence.

1. Strong social-emotional skills and competencies
2. Healthy relationships with adults outside the family
3. Parents with high educational expectations
4. Frequent, shared activities with parents
5. Strong and positive relationships with people at school
6. Strong engagement with the school
7. Involvement with positive, social activities outside school

Again, the importance of the school culture should not be minimized. Over and over, we are reminded that a healthy, safe, and supportive environment provides a culture where bullying cannot flourish. Students who are connected - to adults, to their peers, and to their school - are less likely to engage in aggressive behavior. The most powerful protective factors require no sophisticated training, college degrees, or additional funding. They require only for us to connect with all of our children, especially with those at risk.

“When we know ourselves to be connected to all others, acting compassionately is simply the natural thing to do. ”     ~ Rachel Naomi Remen

Bullying: Who Is Most at Risk?

Once aware of our bullying problem in schools, the next question people often ask is "Who is most at risk?" The simple answer is that every young person everywhere is at risk of being a target of bullying behavior. However, bullying is a complex problem, and we need to dig deeper.

The US Department of Health and Human Services suggests that students who are most at risk for being targets of bullying have one or more specific characteristics.

1. Students perceived as different from the dominant peer group. These students have body sizes or outward appearances that set them apart. Race and ethnicity different from the dominant peer group may play into this perceived difference.
2. Students seen as inferior or "less than." These young people are perceived to be fragile and unable to protect themselves from aggressive behavior.
3. Students perceived to be sad and/or nervous. These students also may suffer from a poor self-image and seem unsure of themselves.
4. Students socially isolated, appearing to have few friends. These students may not be well-liked by their peers. 
5. Students having difficulty in group settings. These students appear uncomfortable in social situations. 
6. Students identified as learning differently. This includes students with learning disabilities. 

The US Department of Education's stopbullying.gov site highlights two groups that are at increased risk of being bullied. First, the LGBTQ population is often the target of bullying behavior. Schools and communities alike must work together to provide safe space for these students where they are protected from harm. The second group includes those with disabilities and special health needs. Recently, bullying behavior in school has been aimed toward those who have received accommodations for life-threatening food allergies. Again, schools and communities must partner to create environments where these students are safe.

Because bullying cannot flourish in safe and caring environments, we must do whatever we can to strengthen these environments for all of our children, especially for those students and groups who have the greatest risk of being harmed. 

I think we have a moral obligation to our children that can be easily summarized:

 number one - protect them from harm.    

 ~Tom Allen