I Trust You

“I trust you,” she says as we end the conversation. My heart plummets for the moment, as the weight and import of that responsibility seeps into my being. Every interaction—whether it is with a teacher, a parent or a student—that ends with these words demands substantial attention.

As a future forward thinker, leading with intentionality and a metacognitive mindset, I am acutely sensitive to the foundational trust relationship that must precede growth and change. Yet, I am a fallible human being, so how does an educator navigate the trust conundrum and what does it look like in school?

Can Trust Be Defined?

How do we define trust? Is it transparent or opaque? Is trust synonymous with trustworthiness? Is trust an attitude or observable behaviors—or perhaps an emotional vulnerability? The concept of trust is complex and the literature is vast. However, several ideas are worth exploring in the context of the school environment.

Trust as Vulnerability

As educators, often the earliest reference to trust that we learn is the famous first stage of psychologist Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development. Babies from birth to age one are referred to as engaging in the trust-versus-mistrust stage of development. When a baby’s physical and emotional needs are consistently met, this basic trust that others can fulfill one’s needs is the cornerstone of the positive virtue of hope. Students, teachers and parents have the capacity to hope when there is a foundation of trust.

Trust in the Unexpected

“Trust in the Unexpected,” wrote Emily Dickinson in one of her poems. In the social sciences, this approach is sometimes referred to as a “leap of faith,” because of the dependence on an “expert.” There is a positive expectation that through multiple iterations of observation and verification through actions, the other person is dependable. Trust requires vulnerability and has a moral element. Conversely, breaching trust can engender feelings of betrayal. Understanding this mindset helps educators have conversations with parents that are underpinned by trust.

Although trust and trustworthiness are often used interchangeably, trustworthiness may imply additional elements of integrity and benevolence. This means that the focus is primarily on the other person’s interests and consistent commitment to our words. The more educators evidence these additional qualities, the greater the capacity for partnership with parents.

Trust as Social Capital

School communities depend on trust as a bedrock of social capital. Commonly shared behavioral norms with honest cooperation create trusting relationships. This mutual trust can initially be fragile. It takes time to progress from a risk-benefit kind of relationship, to a knowledge-exchange kind of relationship, and ultimately perhaps even to a more complete trust relationship where parties support each other’s views unilaterally.

Trust and Transparency

Interestingly, at a certain point, transparency, accountability and trust are no longer a clear-cut linear relationship. For adults, more extreme external accountability measures can be counterproductive. If everything is required to be known, shared or regulated, this can actually sometimes erode trust between adults. There is an element of balance between externally imposed requirements and building trusting professional relationships. This is often a contributing factor to tensions around teacher evaluations.

Trust and Communication

When entrusted with someone else’s children though, that balance may differ, and a parent may require more transparency and accountability to trust the educator. Practically speaking, that would be typified by increased and dependable communication. Because of the unique nature of school being in loco parentis by the parents delegating their children’s education to their chosen institution, some of these ideas about trust from the adult, professional world may not be an exact match when dealing with children. Dependable communication that evidences knowledge of the whole child builds trust.

We Trust Each Other

What does “we trust each other” look like for parents and school personnel (teachers and principals)? This is a commitment to “best intentions assumed.” It is a commitment to transparency about how a child’s individual needs are being met. What spark of joy have we found for your child’s day? Whether it is joyous singing in davening, robotics, computer coding, an extra period of advanced chumash, dance or myriad other possibilities, parents want to trust that we truly “see” their child, and understand them as whole human beings. Parents want to trust that their child’s areas of challenge or advancement are being addressed in a systematic, data-based fashion and that their child’s areas of strength are being cultivated. How are we building up a child’s self-worth and vocabulary to describe his/her inner self?

Quiet Strength

Ultimately, as observant Jews, keeping Shabbos is the model of trust to which we all aspire. Shabbos is the symbol of our trust relationship with Hashem. As error-prone human beings who will be imperfect in our trust relationships, we nonetheless model for our children the vulnerability, consistency and integrity inherent in our daily, trusting interactions with them. As Emily Dickinson wrote, “We trust…/For such, the Angels go—”

References:

Castaldo, S. Premazzi, K. & Zerbini, F. (2010). The meaning(s) of trust. A content analysis on the diverse conceptualizations of trust in scholarly research on business relationships. Journal of Business Ethics. 96(4), pp.657-668.

Leith, D. (2013). Representations of the concept of trust in the literature of library and information studies. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 54 (5).

Chana Luchins is a principal at Rabbi Pesach Raymon Yeshiva in Edison.