Elizabeth Allan, professor of higher education at the 91爆料 College of Education and Human Development, will partner with acclaimed PBS filmmaker Byron Hurt to develop a collection of hazing prevention resources to accompany Hurt鈥檚 2022 documentary, 鈥淗AZING.鈥�

The materials will include a viewing guide that will accompany the film and offer an overview of hazing as a form of interpersonal violence, as well as discussion questions and a series of short-form resources that focus on prevalent themes from the film, such as mental health, bystander intervention, leadership and power dynamics. Each resource will connect the film to hazing prevention and provide suggested activities to extend reflection and learning from the film鈥檚 content.

is a 90-minute first-person documentary in which weaves his story with those of a diverse mix of individuals whose lives have been impacted by hazing, including victims, their family members and perpetrators. Throughout the film, Hurt makes the case that hazing is a widespread, far-reaching and systemic problem, fueled by tradition, secrecy, groupthink, power and control, and the desire to belong. It also offers voices hopeful for and resistant to a hazing-free culture.

The film cites Allan鈥檚 research and features an interview with former 91爆料 faculty member Mary Madden, who collaborated with Allan on the landmark 2008 .

鈥溾�楬AZING鈥� is a powerful film that ignites reflection and dialogue that can help shift cultures,鈥� says Allan, who will work with colleagues from , an organization she founded to work on hazing prevention, as well as Hurt and the film鈥檚 producer Natalie Bullock Brown to develop the viewing guide and other resources. StopHazing鈥檚 operations manager Meredith Stewart will coordinate the project. Stewart earned her bachelor鈥檚 degree in secondary education in 2017 and her master鈥檚 degree in higher education in 2020 from the 91爆料 College of Education and Human Development.

鈥淲e appreciate Byron and Natalie鈥檚 thoughtful and courageous exploration of this complex topic and it is an honor to collaborate with them to help amplify the film鈥檚 use as an educational resource,鈥� Allan says.

The viewing guide and other resources will be available in September on the StopHazing website. September is and includes National Hazing Prevention Week.

鈥淚鈥檓 very excited to work with Dr. Allan and the StopHazing team in an effort to advance discussion about how to prevent hazing,鈥� says Hurt. 鈥淥ur partnership creates an incredible opportunity for those who are truly committed to educating students to use the film as a media tool to spark dialogue hazing culture.鈥�

鈥淗础窜滨狈骋鈥� debuted last year on the PBS series It will be available to stream on other platforms, including Prime Video, Comcast and iTunes, starting September 12.

Contact: Casey Kelly, casey.kelly@maine.edu

The School of Learning and Teaching offers several programs for graduate study, from graduate certificates through doctoral degree programs, in areas such as Curriculum, Assessment and Instruction; Master of Arts in Teaching; Instructional Technology; Literacy Education; Prevention and Intervention Studies; Special Education; and STEM Education.

All forums will be held in 204 Shibles Hall from 4鈥�5 p.m. Feb. 25, March 13 and April 16. Refreshments will be served, and prospective students are welcome to attend. RSVP with the date you wish to attend to Gail Agrell, 581.2492; gail.agrell@maine.edu.

Educators have long recognized the power of poetry to inspire an enduring passion for language in children. But over time, poetry instruction for beginning readers has declined in favor of other teaching methods. Now, some scholars are trying to revive it.

In an article, 鈥淲hy Poetry for Reading Instruction? Because It Works!鈥� published in the International Literacy Association journal The Reading Teacher, 91爆料 professor of literacy William Dee Nichols and four colleagues discuss why early reading teachers ought to be using poetry in their classrooms.

鈥淧oetry is one of the more personal genres of writing, and has been used for centuries to provide us with beautiful and interesting language,鈥� according to the researchers.

Nichols and his co-authors define poetry in a broad sense, including traditional verse, nursery rhymes, playground chants and Dr. Seuss. Poetry鈥檚 rhythmic and musical qualities make it especially adaptable to children of different ages and learning abilities, they say.

Many poems also are short enough that they can be reviewed repeatedly during lessons, making them effective tools for developing skills such as fluency and understanding. In addition, use of performance and attention to language in poetry instruction can enhance enthusiasm for reading and writing.

鈥淲hen reading poetry, students should be encouraged to explore sound patterns and offered a variety of opportunities to respond to the language of rhythm, rhyme, alliteration, assonance, and onomatopoeia,鈥� write Nichols and colleagues. 鈥淩epeated reading of poetry selections stimulates readers to reflect on deeper levels of language features and their use in poems.鈥�

The article concludes with a discussion of how teachers can incorporate daily poetry into their beginning reader classrooms. Such lessons are 鈥渇lexible, and teachers will probably see many other opportunities to add additional readings鈥� and poetry instruction to other aspects of student learning.

Co-authors on the journal article are Rachael Kellogg, a 91爆料 doctoral student in literacy education who has been a teacher for 12 years, and currently teaches first grade at Ella Lewis School in Steuben; and professors Timothy Rasinski at Kent State University, William Rupley at Texas A&M University and David Paige at Bellarmine University.

Contact: Casey Kelly, 581.3751

Cellphones, email, social media and apps facilitate more frequent and meaningful communication that allows children and fathers who live apart to feel better connected, according to Patrick Cheek, visiting assistant professor of human development and family studies.

Research has long shown that dads who don鈥檛 live with their kids are more likely to grow emotionally detached. That can lead to worse outcomes for children in terms of academics and behavior problems, as well as increased levels of poverty and hardship. However, Cheek says recent studies suggest that nonresident fathers鈥� involvement in their children鈥檚 lives is on the uptick, with fewer fathers having zero contact with their kids.

鈥淗igher involvement is related to things like fathers being more likely to pay child support on a regular basis, and increased social well-being of their children,鈥� says Cheek, lead author of a study published recently by The Family Journal, titled 鈥淭he Facilitating Role of Communication Technology in Nonresident Father-Teen Relationships.鈥�

According to Cheek, previous research on fathers who don鈥檛 live with their children focused on in-person visits or contacts via landline telephone or letter writing. The role of new communication tools hadn鈥檛 been examined as thoroughly. In addition, fathers who are separated from their children geographically may have been unintentionally left out of research focused on face-to-face contact.

鈥淚f you look back just 15 years, or even a decade, the whole arena has changed,鈥� Cheek says.

The number of children in the U.S. with nonresident fathers has grown in recent decades. Four in 10 kids live in a single-parent household, and in about 80 percent of cases the live-in parent is a mother, Cheek says. Factors contributing to the rise include divorce, as well as the increasing number of children born outside marriage.

As communication technology makes it easier for nonresident fathers to stay involved in their children鈥檚 lives, Cheek鈥檚 study looked at the meanings teens attach to those interactions. In interviews with individuals who had grown up in a nonresident father household, he identified three themes associated with father-teen contact through new communication technology.

The first theme was that these new ways to communicate were important and meaningful in a variety of ways. They helped fathers and teens maintain contact despite busy lives. They allowed communication to be ongoing and less sporadic. They even allowed teens and nonresident fathers to circumvent a live-in parent who鈥檚 not on good terms with their former partner.

鈥淭he landline phone might ring and the resident parent 鈥� maybe a mother 鈥� might say: 鈥楧on鈥檛 pick that up, it鈥檚 not your dad鈥檚 time to call,鈥欌�� Cheek says. 鈥淭hat phenomenon has really changed due to technology.鈥�

The second theme was that technology is able to make children and fathers feel part of the same world. Cheek says several study participants mentioned communication technology鈥檚 role in involving dads in events they otherwise wouldn鈥檛 have a chance to participate in, whether due to geographical barriers or poor relations with the live-in parent.

鈥淥ne person talked about sending selfies during graduation, and how that made their dad feel involved even though he wasn鈥檛 physically present,鈥� says Cheek. 鈥淎nother person said when they found out what colleges they got into they were able to text their dad and share the excitement with him.鈥�

The flip side of that was children who talked about using technology to control how much access their fathers had in their lives. A few participants talked about blocking their dads on social media. Some felt judged by their father鈥檚 comments. But Cheek says others talked about wanting to protect their dad鈥檚 feelings.

鈥淭here would be all of these family events with pictures and everything, and of course, dad wouldn鈥檛 be part of those. So one participant limited what dad could see, so he wouldn鈥檛 feel bad,鈥� he says.

In family studies, Cheek says that although it鈥檚 generally good to monitor children鈥檚 technology use, the ability for teens to control their parents鈥� access could in some cases be beneficial to their development 鈥� for instance, if they have lots of instability in other aspects of their lives. Cheek says this is something he wants to explore in future research.

The third theme Cheek found in his research was that technology helped children and nonresident fathers do family process 鈥� what he calls 鈥渢he act of doing family.鈥� For example, when a nonresident father is no longer part of the physical family unit, it can be hard to involve both parents in decision-making.

鈥淥ne participant talked about how technology helped circumvent the 鈥榤om-said-this, dad-said-that鈥� phenomenon,鈥� Cheek says. 鈥淥ne participant recalled wanting to go to a school dance and be out after curfew for the first time, and mom said it was too big of decision for her to make alone, so she added dad to the text conversation.鈥�

Besides having implications for families, Cheek says his research could be applied by family therapists to increase involvement of nonresident fathers in co-parenting relationships regardless of existing barriers such as geography.

Cheek warns that communication technology should not be thought of as a replacement for in-person contact.

鈥淚n my research, most people actually prefer in-person contact with their nonresident father. The catch is that in-person contact is low or nonexistent in many situations,鈥� he says.

Previous research has shown that forcing families to do things together can be harmful in when there鈥檚 a lot of conflict. In these situations, forcing kids to FaceTime with dad, for example, could make things worse.

鈥淚 would say communication technology is most useful in relationships that are positive. Father-teen relationships that are heavily strained or have a lot of tension might not benefit from technology,鈥� Cheek says.

Although research has shown that communication between nonresident fathers and their children is increasing, further study is needed to show how much overall. In addition, Cheek says it is difficult for researchers to keep up with the constantly changing fads in communication technology. Since mobile phones and the like were not part of everyday life for previous generations, future studies would also benefit from including fathers鈥� perceptions of technology鈥檚 role in their relationships with kids.

Contact: Casey Kelly, 207.581.3751

Ten years ago, Allan and 91爆料 colleague Mary Madden published a nationwide survey of college students鈥� experiences, attitudes and perceptions about hazing on campus.

In September, the 鈥淛ournal of Student Affairs Research and Practice鈥� published of a more recent survey looking at the same questions.

Whereas the previous survey was a national sample of more than 11,000 college students, this one involved about half that number and looked at seven schools involved in the Hazing Prevention Consortium, a group of colleges and universities collaborating on research-informed practices designed to stop hazing.

鈥淚t鈥檚 still a lot of students,鈥� Allan says. 鈥淏ut it鈥檚 a little different because it鈥檚 a subset of campuses that made a strong commitment to the Hazing Prevention Consortium for three years and may not be fully representative of all colleges and universities.鈥�

According to the new study, 26 percent of students involved in campus organizations, clubs or teams reported experiencing at least one behavior that meets the definition of hazing in order to join or maintain membership in the group.

Allan defines hazing as 鈥渁ny activity expected of someone joining or participating in a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers them regardless of a person鈥檚 willingness to participate.鈥�

The 26 percent is a significant change from results of the study a decade ago. Then, more than half of students reported experiencing such behavior.

But Allan cautions against attributing the decline to any one factor. 鈥淲e can鈥檛 really say that it鈥檚 a direct result of the consortium,鈥� she says. 鈥淚t could also be a level of awareness that students are maybe more savvy and not wanting to report certain behaviors compared to 10 years ago. We just don鈥檛 know.鈥�

The new survey points to ongoing concerns noted in the previous research, including the prevalence of hazing across a variety of organizations on the campus.

Hazing is not just a fraternity or sorority problem, Allan says. It also occurs in academic clubs, service clubs, marching bands and other performing arts organizations, faith-based groups, and more.

Another similarity to the previous study is the disconnect between students鈥� hazing experiences and their willingness to label it as such.

鈥淲e don鈥檛 ask them directly鈥攈ave you ever been hazed?鈥攗ntil the end of the survey,鈥� Allan says. 鈥淚nstead, we ask about behaviors. And only one in nine students who said they experienced behaviors that meet the definition of hazing acknowledge being hazed.鈥�

David Kerschner, a doctoral candidate in higher education at 91爆料 and one of Allan鈥檚 collaborators on the new study, says the study builds on the national survey in the analysis of descriptive data as it relates to hazing. For example, researchers found a significant relationship between gender and attitudes and perceptions toward hazing.

Students who identify as female were more likely to agree with statements like: 鈥淚t can be hazing even if someone agrees to participate鈥�; 鈥淗azing is not an effective way to create bonding鈥�; and 鈥淭here is no good reason to haze new members of a group.鈥�

鈥淪tudents who identify as male were generally more likely to be supportive of hazing or indicate that it serves a purpose,鈥� Kerschner says.

Publication of the survey research comes on the heels of another journal article in which Allan, Kerschner and co-author Jessica Payne laid out a hazing prevention framework based on the work of the Hazing Prevention Consortium.

The first group of institutions to participate in the collaboration wrapped up its work in 2016. Last year, the consortium started working with a new cohort of colleges and universities from across the country.

鈥淲e鈥檙e continuing to collect data,鈥� Allan says, 鈥渢o analyze specific strategies and their effectiveness at changing attitudes and behavior, and preventing hazing at the individual, group and campus-wide levels.鈥�

Contact: Casey Kelly, 207.581.3751

Schools in Maine and across the country face a wide variety of complex challenges as they seek to provide effective and equitable educational opportunities for their students. Teachers are tasked, both in state and federal legislation and in public discourse, with educating all students and adhering to high standards of achievement. While these are laudable goals, the challenges inherent in their accomplishment are widely underestimated.

A growing body of research has demonstrated what educators have long alleged: mental health and social/behavioral competence play a significant role in academic achievement, as well as in each student鈥檚 capacity to meet educational standards (DiPerna & Elliott, 2002; Diperna, 2006). Further, decades of research have confirmed that complex and interrelated biological, familial, community, and school risk factors can create pathways toward a host of negative school and life outcomes for far too many students (Reid, Patterson, & Snyder, 2002). Addressing such concerns typically requires schools to expand their capacity to identify, implement, and sustain effective mental health and behavioral services, as well as increase their collaboration with related community agencies.

A greater understanding of the serious and often long-lasting effects of complex risk factors has led to the development of systems-oriented models of prevention and intervention. Researchers over the past 30 years have demonstrated that evidence-based practices implemented through the coordinated efforts of knowledgeable and skilled professionals, nurturing family members, and other caring adults can have profound positive effects on students at risk. Over time, prevention and intervention have proven to be a coherent conceptual model for guiding research and practice aimed at addressing the multifaceted needs of students considered to be at risk and their families.

More recently, district and school-wide multi-tiered systems of prevention have emerged as the primary organizational framework for the delivery of evidence-based services to meet the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of all students. Two prime examples of multi-tiered systems of prevention in schools are Response to Intervention (RtI) and Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support (PBIS), which are utilized in a growing number of schools across the country, including Maine. It is important to note that PBIS and RtI are not programs; they are organizational frameworks for the systematic implementation of the effective practice. Each district and school chooses the specific approaches to be included in their support system. Recently, researchers and practitioners have shown an increased interest in integrating various methods into the system of prevention. While many practices can be successfully integrated (and studies have indicated that this is a promising direction), trying to implement too many programs too quickly is a common pitfall. Not surprisingly, this often leads to a sense of initiative overload among staff members, a duplication of efforts, the inefficient use of limited resources, and most importantly, unsatisfactory student outcomes. This is particularly evident when schools attempt to integrate multiple large-scale initiatives, such as PBIS, trauma-informed care, restorative practices, and schoolwide bullying prevention, along with a host of social skills curricula. Successfully assimilating such approaches is a complex undertaking that should be done with a great deal of pre-planning. Given the organizational structure provided by multi-tiered systems, such as PBIS, it makes sense to begin by implementing that framework and then integrating approaches, such as trauma-informed practices. It is essential that the addition of new practices does not get ahead of establishing a system to support their implementation adequately. Further, when building multi-tiered systems of support developing a strong foundational tier is the key to success.

Although there are many challenges, schools have well-researched, system-oriented organizational frameworks to guide the development of prevention and intervention in their schools. Moreover, there has been a dramatic increase in the availability of effective emotional and behavioral practices that schools can incorporate into their systems of prevention. That said, it is essential to keep in mind that the benefits of well-conceived systems and evidence-based methods of prevention and intervention are best achieved when implemented by compassionate adults, ready and willing to create supportive and caring environments. According to the Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child, a single stable and committed relationship with a parent or other caring adult is the most frequently cited factor in the lives of children that develop resiliency to risk. They advocate the creation of “an environment of relationships” to support mental and emotional well-being and behavioral growth. Similarly, Anthony Biglan, noted Senior Scientist at the Oregon Research Institute, reminds us in The Nurture Effect: How the Science of Human Behavior Can Improve Our Lives and Our World that the science of prevention and intervention has dramatically expanded our ability to support students at risk, but it is not a replacement for genuine caring relationships and nurturing environments. He maintains that nurturing environments are an essential component of prevention and intervention services.

This brief closes with a list of core features of prevention efforts in schools and questions to consider.

Cornerstones of prevention in schools include:

• Caring adults
• Nurturing environments
• Culturally responsive programming
• Systems orientation
• Theory-driven evidence-based practice
• Family involvement
• Early intervention for young children
• Rapid response for later-onset concerns
• Intensity and duration of services that match student needs
• Delivered across multiple settings (e.g., individual, home, school, community)
• Collaboration between key stakeholders in home, school, and community and mental health agencies.

In Maine, schools have partnered with faculty from 91爆料, University of Southern Maine, and 91爆料 at Farmington to implement systems of prevention and intervention, particularly PBIS. At this time, students from 91爆料’s doctoral program in Prevention and Intervention Studies are also playing a pivotal role in securing grant funding, collaborating with the , and providing professional development and coaching to 46 schools throughout the state, including remote rural locations.

Questions for Consideration

Despite the progress described in this paper, important questions remain:

1. Given the rural nature of Maine, how can educators in rural areas access sufficient professional development and ongoing support to make sustainable implementation possible?
2. How can Maine organize and utilize its professional development resources to initiate and sustain district and schoolwide systems change efforts over time, especially in remote, rural areas?
3. How do districts and schools in rural and/or impoverished communities identify and capitalize on local strengths to implement evidence-based approaches given limited resources, both in schools and in the community?
4. Given the broad array of environmental factors that affect the development of children and youth, what are effective strategies for building trusting relationships and improving collaboration between schools, families, community mental health services, and other interested community members? Moreover, how do schools and researchers more effectively disseminate successful experiences and recent research findings regarding this foundational component of effective prevention and intervention?

Readers interested in this topic are also encouraged to read previous MSiF contributions by Catherine Biddle and Ian Mette, and Courtney Angelosante, which address issues closely related to those discussed in this brief.

References

Biglan, A. (2015). The nurture effect: How the science of human behavior can improve our lives and our world. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University (2016).聽From Best Practices to Breakthrough Impacts: A Science-Based Approach to Building a More Promising Future for Young Children and Families.聽Retrieved from聽.

DiPerna, J. C. (2006). Academic enablers and student achievement: Implications for Assessment and intervention services in the schools.聽Psychology in the Schools, 43, 7-17.

DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Promoting academic enablers to improve student achievement: An introduction to the mini-series. School Psychology Review, 31,听293-97.

Reid, J.B., Patterson, G.R., & Snyder, J.J. (Eds.). (2002). Antisocial behavior in Children and Adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Recommended Online Resources

Any opinions, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in the Maine Schools in Focus briefs are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect institutional positions or views of the College of Education and Human Development or the 91爆料.