Maslow with Fresh Eyes - 3-Minute Video with Transcript, Discussion Questions, and Selected References

Episode 3

YouTube Link

Discussion Questions

1. How does your school community tend to the pre-conditions of a healthy social environment (i.e., freedom to speak, freedom to defend one’s ideas, freedom to express, fairness, honesty)?

2. How does your school provide opportunities for students and staff to gather, to work around, and to solve issues of the school community?

3. What would it take for your school community to shift from wanting to be the best in the district, county, etc. to being the best “for” the district, county, etc.?

Transcript

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 3: Maslow with Fresh Eyes. Let’s begin.

2nd Frame:

In previous episodes we have looked at safety and belonging from a neurobiological lens. The brains first seeks safety and then belonging. Once these are perceived to be secure, the brain can learn.

 3rd Frame:

Let’s look at this from the lens of psychology. In the 1940s, Abraham Maslow, an American psychologist, created a hierarchy of needs. It was based on the premise that the basic needs- physiological and safety- must be mostly satisfied before individuals are able to meet the psychological needs of belonging and self-esteem. When psychological needs are mostly satisfied, humans can reach self-actualization. Although Maslow’s Hierarchy is often presented in triangle, his theory allowed a flexibility that might better be represented as a ladder. 

4th Frame:

Twenty years after his seminal piece, Maslow suggested that self-actualization allowed individuals to transcend personal concerns into a community perspective. We begin to see ourselves as a part of a greater whole. It allows strong positive emotions like joy, peace, and a well-developed sense of awareness. The means are greater than the end, the perspective moves from individual (growth) mindset to community (benefit) mindset, there is a desire and power to make a difference in the world. In sum, it is a shift from wanting to be the best “in” the world to wanting to be the best “for” the world.

5th Frame:

Maslow presented preconditions that are necessary for satisfying even the most basic needs. The social environment must ensure honesty, orderliness, justice, and fairness. There are freedoms to express, to speak, to investigate, to choose. When these preconditions are disrupted, individuals feel threatened. As we think about the social online environment, then, it becomes necessary to ensure these preconditions before we are able to satisfy even the most basic needs of our students. Our new online culture is as important as our traditional classroom culture.

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 at julie.mcdaniel@oakland.k12.mi.us

Selected Resources

Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York, NY, US: Arkana/Penguin Books.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. 

McDaniel-Muldoon, JE (2019, July 23). (A Sense of) Safety First. International Bullying Prevention Association Blog and News. Retrieved from https://ibpaworld.org/blog/a-sense-of-safety-first/.  

McIntyre, S. (2007, February 16). Maslow’s Theory Revisited. Greater Good Science Center Magazine. Retrieved from https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/maslows_theory_revisited.

Rutledge, P. (2011). Social Networks: What Maslow Missed. Retrieved from https://mprcenter.org/blog/2011/11/social-networks-what-maslow-misses/

Trust as the Beginning Place

(First posted September 17, 2019 for the International Bullying Prevention Association)

Over the last five years or so, government agencies, research institutions, training organizations and more have established guiding principles for trauma-informed work, most notably the US Center for Disease Control in collaboration with the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration. While safety is usually the number one consideration, trust or trustworthiness is also found in these guiding principles.

Before the focus on trauma, however, trust was described as an essential part of strong and supportive school cultures. The solid body of research around trust has also shown it as integral to effective organizational change, successful school reform efforts, transformative educational leadership, and much more. As author Barbara Smith writes, “Trust...is the beginning place, the foundation upon which more can be built.” The purpose of this article is to explore the concept of trust from the beginning place, with the goal of finding a common understanding of trust and identifying the research-based ways to increase trust in places where our children and young people live and learn. Unlike many articles that highlight recent research, this article focuses on a few seminal pieces on trust and the work of researchers who paved the way for current research on student engagement and more.

What Is Trust?

Dr. Megan Tschannen-Moran, Professor of Education at William and Mary, has studied trust for over 20 years and defines trust this way: “One party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another based on the confidence that the other is benevolent, reliable, competent, honest, and open” (2004). Probing deeper into that definition, trust is understood as a two-fold process. Trust first involves a choice to be vulnerable to another, to acknowledge the potential for being hurt by that person. The second part of placing trust in another is perceiving that person to be of good will, genuine, accepting, and capable. Both the choice to be vulnerable to another and the perception of the benevolence of another are necessary to build trust.

Building the trust needed for healthy and supportive schools and agencies requires shifting this interpersonal concept to an organizational perspective. This is not the trust established around an institution and its purpose, rather it is relational trust, a set of interdependencies among people within the organization. Relational trust is found in social exchanges and is reflected by respect, personal regard, competence, and personal integrity (Bryk & Schneider, 2003).  To explain, respect is evident through deep listening, perspective-taking, and acknowledgment, and personal regard refers to a perceived willingness to go beyond established expectations. Competence in core role responsibilities inspires faith that desired outcomes will be realized, and personal integrity reflects a set of moral-ethical standards that guide behavior. Relational trust allows for collective decision making, shared ownership, and more. As Professors Anthony Bryk and Barbara Schneider  (2003) explain:  "relational trust is the connective tissue that binds individuals together to advance the education and welfare of students" (p. 45).  

When thinking about school reform, organizational change, and culture building, establishing trust should be a deliberate and transparent process. Through their research on school change, Bryk and Schneider (2003) identified several conditions that foster relational trust in schools. First, building leaders play a crucial role in strengthening relational trust by setting the standards for behavior and reflecting the respect, personal regard, competence, and integrity found in relational trust. Second, teachers must be acknowledged as the crucial element in engaging parents; in order to build relational trust with parents, they must be supported and empowered in this effort. Other conditions that Bryk and Schneider suggest are smaller school communities that allow for more face-to-face interactions with central leadership, stable school communities where staff have longevity within buildings, and voluntary association, meaning that students and their families have some school choice and school officials avoid forced building assignments.

Research on Trust in Schools

In studying the role of educational leadership on effective school change, Karen Seashore Lewis (2007), focused specifically on the importance of trust at the high school level. She was able to expand the previous work of Bryk and Schneider (2003) which focused on elementary schools and found that complex change was likely to occur in high schools where teachers had high levels of trust in their administration. These teachers noted integrity as the most important aspect for that trust. 

Among other recommendations, Lewis suggests pre-assessment and monitoring of trust levels during a change process and teacher involvement and ownership in decision making. One important finding is the need for trust within the teaching staff. She notes that teachers who do not trust each other “cannot work together effectively to create systemic change” (Lewis, 2007, p. 19).

Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (2007) studied the impact of staff trust on school culture and climate with findings that are important to consider in current trust-building efforts. First, they found that trust is spread throughout a building, meaning that in schools where teachers trust their administrators, they also tend to trust each other and to trust their students. This also works in places of distrust, where “broken trust is likely to ripple through the system” (p. 109). When thinking about both parent and student engagement, these researchers found that distinguishing the difference in trust of parents and students was impossible. In short, when teachers trust students, they also trust parents, and vice versa, leading the researchers to consider students and their families as one entity.

The final study highlighted here is The Colorado Trust (2008) study. The report Build Trust, End Bullying, and Improve Learning describes the impact of a school and community bullying prevention initiative that touched the lives of over 50,000 students. The report cites increases in academic achievement and highlights the critical role of adults in effective bullying prevention. With particular attention to the impact of trust, however, students reported the importance of teachers and administrators showing genuine concern about student issues and being knowledgeable about and appropriately responding to issues of bullying. These students self-reported the aspects of trust that Bryk and Schneider (2003) describe: respect, personal regard, competence in roles, and integrity.

Final Thoughts

Before the current focus on trauma-informed approaches, there was ample research confirming that the most successful school reform efforts have evidence of strong relational trust.  In these efforts, trust will be found across school buildings and will be identified within student populations, across the school and district staff, between schools and their parents, and so on. Building trust is a deliberate and transparent process that requires continuing monitoring and adjustment. By looking at trust as the beginning place, it remains a part of the foundation of all efforts to improve the health and well-being of students and their families.

References

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.

Hoy, W., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). The conceptualization and measurement of faculty and trust in schools (pp. 87-114). In W. Hoy and M. DiPaola (Eds.) Essential ideas for the reform of American schools. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

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.

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

More Information

Social Media Director, International Bullying Prevention Association (IBPAWorld.org)

Advanced Trauma Practitioner and Trainer, Starr Commonwealth (www.starr.org)

Student Safety and Well-Being Consultant, Oakland Schools (Waterford, Michigan)

Licensed Trainer and Certified Practitioner for the International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP.edu)

Email: julie.mcdaniel@oakland.k12.mi.us

Twitter: @jemmuldoon

A New Lens for Bullying Prevention

First appeared July 30, 2019 at https://ibpaworld.org/blog/a-new-lens-for-bullying-prevention/.

Bullying behavior remains prevalent in American schools and a persistent problem for students. The results of two surveys given every two years help to explain this prevalence. First, results from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (2007-2017) show the rate of bullying as stable over the past decade for high school students, with about 20% of students reporting being bullied on school property (Center for Disease Control, 2017). The second survey, the National Crime Victimization Survey (2005-2015), includes all secondary students and allows for a break down of bullying data by grade level. According to the results of this survey, students in grades 6-8 report higher incidents of bullying when compared to high school students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). The following chart shows bullying frequency by grade levels 6-12:

Why does bullying remain a stable and unacceptable issue for young people, especially for middle school students, despite our best efforts, proven practice, solid research and more?  Perhaps the barrier to reducing bullying is the type of lens through which we view bullying behavior and our prevention efforts. To explain, the most effective research- and evidence-based bullying prevention programs are comprehensive and systemic approaches. While building strong and supportive school cultures is essential in bullying prevention, bullying is a complex social issue. Considering adolescent neurological and social development may bring a wider lens for understanding bullying and might provide new insight into this pernicious issue for young people.

Neurological Development and Social Dominance

In his 2015 book “Brainstorm: The Power and Purpose of the Teenage Brain,” Dr. Daniel Siegel explains four qualities of the adolescent brain: novelty seeking, increased emotional intensity, creative exploration, and social engagement. The social engagement feature inspires young people at a psychophysiological level to strengthen their peer connections and to develop new peer relationships. As Siegel explains, there are positive and negative results from this intense social feature. The positive results are strong social connections that will lead to greater well-being and happiness. However, the disadvantages to enhanced peer connectedness is adolescents isolating themselves from adults, rejecting adult knowledge, and engaging in behaviors that pose greater risk to them. Siegel explains this separation from adults during adolescence as a process “vital for our survival” (p. 27). However, while the new relationships are taking precedence in adolescents’ lives, the continued adult attachment will ensure healthy social development as adolescents create their own communities.

If looking at bullying behavior from an adolescent neurological development lens, we understand that bullying might emerge in adolescent communities without healthy adult attachments. Trusted adults provide continued guidance for healthy individual and social behaviors for adolescents. Using this lens, adults make concerted efforts to model and teach children and young people that bullying is an unacceptable and harmful behavior while also supporting their efforts to create strong peer communities. As we know, bullying cannot flourish in strong and supportive communities.

In addition to considering neurological development in bullying prevention efforts, it is also important to include a framework for social structure and power. Adolescents learn who they are in context of their environment. They learn not just self-awareness and self-management, but have a growing understanding of who they are in their peer groups, schools, families, and society. Every social group has power, and a power imbalance is at the root of bullying behavior.

Dr. Patricia Hawley, an evolutionary developmental psychologist, explains how children learn social dominance, which may lead to a better understanding of why bullying behavior occurs and how it emerges from social structures (Hawley, 2015). Because humans think in hierarchies, it is natural for them to organize socially in hierarchical fashion. Hawley’s research with children 4-5 years old shows how children organize as a group, documenting how those who assumed dominant positions were those who were also able to control resources. Those children who exhibit a more coercive type of dominance engage in aggressive control. Interestingly, these children engaging in more aggressive control want peer approval, yet they also avoid close relationships. Even in early childhood, strong and healthy leadership engages in prosocial behavior that serves both the individual and the community. She summarizes what children learn about social power this way: “You can get what you want in a social group while being nice to others. As a consequence, they will accept you, support you when you are in need, and help you achieve your goals” (Hawley, 2015, p. 835).

The imbalance of power manifested in bullying behavior stems from the belief that resources are finite, that people are not equal, and that shared power will never result in individual satisfaction. Hawley offers a different way to look at social dominance. By modeling and teaching prosocial behavior as a way for children and adolescents to achieve both individual and community goals, bullying might be viewed as an ineffective method of meeting individual needs and a behavior that weakens the strength of the community. Hawley also suggests that adults play the pivotal role in instilling prosocial behaviors and helping children understand the power of community. These ideas can become a part of the foundation of the K-12 experience; students are empowered through prosocial behavior and a community mindset.

An Alternative Way to Approach Bullying Prevention

By using a lens that takes into account the complex social nature of adolescents as well as their unique neurodevelopmental stage, bullying prevention can be viewed in a new way. Adults act on this new understanding, providing continued guidance in helping adolescents develop those strong and healthy relationships needed to thrive. By modeling, instilling and strengthening prosocial leadership qualities, educators are helping students create their own communities which brings them a stronger sense of belonging. When school leaders approach bullying behavior with this same mindset, all prevention efforts begin with cultivating and strengthening safe and supportive school environments.

Bullying prevention efforts should meet young people where they are. It is in this place where the social and emotional harm of bullying is healed and the sense of community is restored. It is also in this place where the solid research- and evidence-based bullying prevention programs become more impactful, and schools are finally able to reduce the unacceptable and persistent rates of bullying, especially at the middle school level.

References

Center for Disease Control (2017). Youth Risk Behavior Survey: data and trends report 2007-2017. Retrieved from Washington, DC: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/trendsreport.pdf.

Hawley, P. H. (2015). Social Dominance in Childhood and its evolutionary underpinnings: why it matters and what we can do. Pediatrics, 135.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school during the school year, by type of bullying and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 2005 through 2015. In Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey (Ed.), Digest of Education Statistics (August 2016 ed.). Washington, DC: NCES.

Rutledge, P. (2011). Social Networks: What Maslow Missed. Retrieved from http://mprcenter.org/blog/2011/11/social-networks-what-maslow-misses/

Siegel, D. J. (2015). Brainstorm: The Power and Purpose of the Teenage Brain. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin.

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.

In Support of the Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) Model

 The most effective bullying prevention initiatives are always a part of a systemic and comprehensive school reform effort.  Successful educational reform expands a school-only focus to include the greater community. The Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) Model provides the template for successful school reform efforts.

The WSCC Model was developed through the powerful partnership of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). It joins health and well-being with education and learning.

For 30 years, the CDC's Coordinated School Health Model has provided the blueprint for health education policies and practices across the United States at district, regional, state, and national levels. The WSCC Model reflects an expanded and updated Coordinated School Health Model.

The ASCD's Whole Child Initiative was launched in 2007 as a way to shift from focusing on academic achievement as a measure of student success to promoting the "long-term development and success of all children." The five tenets of the Whole Child Initiative is the core of the WSCC model, ensuring that each student is healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged.

The alignment of school, health, and community efforts around the health and learning of every child was the focus in an issue of School Health in November 2015.  This issue explores community partnerships and the educational attainment and health development of students.

Because of the comprehensive scope of the WSCC Model, funding for implementation can be found in grants for coordinated school health, safe and supportive environments, and even school climate transformation.

Despite our best efforts using research- and evidence-based bullying prevention programs, 20-30% of US students continue to report being bullied on school property.  A combined health and education approach within a coordinated home-school-community template shows promise in reducing bullying in our schools and in our communities.

"Health and education affect individuals, society, and the economy and, as such, must work together whenever possible. Schools are a perfect setting for this collaboration." ~WSCC