Understanding resilience in educational ... - Wiley Online Library

14 downloads 1560 Views 1MB Size Report
University of California, Santa Barbara. A growing body of literature on risk and resilience, school engagement, and positive psychology offers school ...
Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 43(1), 2006 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/pits.20126

UNDERSTANDING RESILIENCE IN EDUCATIONAL TRAJECTORIES: IMPLICATIONS FOR PROTECTIVE POSSIBILITIES GALE M. MORRISON, MEGAN BROWN, BARBARA D’INCAU, STACY LARSON O’FARRELL, AND MICHAEL J. FURLONG

University of California, Santa Barbara A growing body of literature on risk and resilience, school engagement, and positive psychology offers school psychologists new perspectives with which to consider students’ progress through school. This literature emphasizes the importance of monitoring student internal and external assets. In this article, a framework is reviewed that highlights student strengths and contextual protective factors, moving beyond an exclusive focus on student deficits. It offers school psychologists a systematic set of empirically derived categories for thinking about, collecting, and presenting information about the strengths of students that (a) help to focus not only on risks but on protective factors, (b) facilitate a “developmental trajectory” perspective, and (c) recognize the role of important school, peer, and family contexts. The concepts reviewed in this article are intended to provide a template for use by school psychologists interested in thinking about student development and how schools can foster protective possibilities. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Although the primary concern of educators and parents for student school performance is the learning or academic domain, academic achievement without personal and social competence on the part of students is undesirable and rarely feasible (Zins, Elias, Greenberg, & Weissberg, 2000). Academic achievement is best fostered in an environment that supports the child across multiple contexts. Knoff (2002) provided a useful model for conceptualizing the many influences on learning including behavior, social skills, adaptive behavior, and student characteristics as well as academic characteristics and outcomes. Further, Zins et al. (2000) argued for expanding beyond an academic focus to recognize the importance of educating knowledgeable, responsible, and caring citizens, which requires systematic attention to children’s social and emotional learning. Socioemotional well-being influences academic growth and progress; that is, happy children who feel competent, autonomous, and connected to others typically make good students (Harniss, Epstein, Ruser, & Pearson, 1999). This article presents an empirical approach to understanding student school adjustment that focuses on resilience or protective factors (both within the child and within important contexts). Additionally, a framework for organizing and collecting information about these protective factors will be presented. This framework provides structure for viewing student educational progress from a developmental, ecologically based perspective, emphasizing student strengths and protective possibilities in educational environments—an approach applicable to monitoring student responsiveness to educational practices over time. Empirical Traditions That Suggest a Focus on Resilience, Strengths, or Assets Risk and resilience. The risk–resilience research literature has emphasized the identification of what Barnett, Bauer, Ehrhardt, Lentz, and Stollar (1996) and Jimerson, Sharkey, Nyborg, and Furlong (2004) referred to as “keystone” behaviors. In this context, keystone factors are those identified areas of competence that act as mechanisms to “protect” children from the adverse influences of their community, home, and school environments (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998).

Work on this article was supported by Grant H324C000072, Turning Point Effects for Students With and Without Disabilities Who Are Involved in School Disciplinary Actions, awarded to Gale Morrison by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Correspondence to: Gale M. Morrison, Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, Center for School-Based Youth Development, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. E-mail: [email protected]

19

20

Morrison et al.

The research on risk and resilience has identified likely student traits and family, social, and environmental circumstances that might buffer a child from risk and thereby serve as targets for strength-based intervention. These protective factors, when present for children who experience risk, distinguish those students who are likely to have positive outcomes from those who may be negatively affected by such conditions. Utilizing strengths as a basis to intervene for these children may enhance the chance that they will experience “turning points” or make a change in their developmental trajectory (see also Pickles & Rutter, 1991; Sampson & Laub, 1993). School bonding/engagement. A growing body of research indicates that efforts to support and nurture students’ cognitive and affective bonds to school may reduce the incidence of negative developmental outcomes and enhance academic and social-emotional outcomes (Blum & Libbey, 2004). As summarized by Klem and Connell (2004), “Studies show students with caring and supportive interpersonal relationships in school report more positive academic attitudes and values, and more satisfaction with school. These students also are more engaged academically” (p. 262). Although the importance of school engagement is now increasingly recognized, researchers still need to develop a better understanding of how engagement is fostered on a day-to-day basis and how it ebbs and flows over the school years (Furlong et al., 2003; O’Farrell, 2004; O’Farrell, Morrison, & Furlong, in press). Fostering school engagement is one strategy for taking students from risk status and enhancing their resilience; school engagement also may be described (as we do in this article) as being a protective possibility. Positive, strength-based orientation. Parallel with expanding attention to the topic of school engagement is a focus on positive psychology and student wellness (Huebner, Suldo, Smith, & McKnight, 2003). This emerging interest is reflected in a special issue of Psychology in the Schools devoted to this topic (Chafouleas & Bray, 2003). The related case for a strength-based orientation to student assessment has been made by Epstein and colleagues (Epstein, Rudolph, & Epstein, 2000; Rudolph & Epstein, 2000) and applied specifically to the field of school psychology by Jimerson et al. (2004) and Rhee, Furlong, Turner, and Harari (2001). These authors based their rationale on two primary approaches. First, educators’ perspectives about students who struggle in school historically have been deficit focused. Eligibility categories for qualification for special education services are based on documentation of deficits in cognitive, physical, sensory, language, and/or emotional domains. Students who are seen by school psychologists for assessment or intervention are typically those who experience a challenge that prevents them from being able to profit from typical classroom experiences. Proponents of a strength-based perspective have suggested that this deficit focus also prevents educators from viewing these students in a positive light and creating interventions or educational environments that capitalize on their strengths (Benard, 1991; Epstein et al., 2000). A focus on strengths represents a different perspective on how to conceptualize student adaptation to school. Although this perspective is drawn from research on risk and resilience, evidence for practices grounded in strength-based principles, and which yield demonstrated effects for improved student outcomes, is lacking. Despite the attractiveness of a strength-based orientation and the strong research support for identification of protective factors and resilient trajectories, the development of “ways of thinking” about or assessing resilience in individuals and in contexts is somewhat limited. Rhee et al. (2001) and Jimerson et al. (2004) reviewed existing quantitative measures that provide information on strengths. Rhee et al. noted that school psychologists often collect descriptive or observational information about student strengths, yet find few concrete examples that provide specific guidance on what information to gather, particularly information derived from empirical research. This article offers a way of conceptualizing and organizing information about the strengths of students for whom school psychologists are developing comprehensive assessment reports and Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

Understanding Resilience

21

interventions. Emphasis is placed on understanding risk and protective factors in students and their critical school and family contexts. This information is then applied to generating ideas about protective possibilities within these critical contexts. Constructing an Organizing Rubric for Understanding Student Strengths and Protective Possibilities within School Environments In delineating critical factors that positively influence student outcomes, a number of rubrics for organizing factors have been suggested by scholars interpreting research findings about risk and resilience. For example, Masten and Coatsworth (1998) identified domains of competence for school-age children including academic, social behavior/peer acceptance, and conduct (rulefollowing behavior). Their research suggests that conduct, in particular, is a strong mediating factor for academic performance, with conduct problems in elementary years having a particularly deleterious effect on the academic performance of adolescents. MacDonald and Validivieso (2000) proposed a framework for understanding assets and resilience related to desirable outcomes that can be used in assessment plans. The areas within the framework include aspects of identity, areas of ability, developmental opportunities, emotional, motivational, and strategic supports. Benard (1991) and Waxman, Gray, and Padron (2003) suggested that four personal characteristics of resilient children include social competence, problemsolving skills, autonomy, and a sense of purpose. These domains, if included in assessments and psychological reports, can provide the opportunity to understand mechanisms of resilience when creating a plan for educational growth. However, protective factor and risk reliance domains cannot be fully discussed without recognition of the role that contexts play in the development and enhancement of student assets. Masten and Coatsworth (1998) noted that individual competence is defined within an ecological context. McMillan and Reed (1994) likewise listed motivation and positive use of time as factors in educational resilience, but added that family support and expectations as well as school and classroom learning environments are important protective factors as well. Waxman et al. (2003) emphasized that educational resilience should not be viewed as a fixed, individual attribute but as “something that can be promoted by focusing on ‘alterable’ factors that may impact an individual’s success in school” (p. 1). Alterable factors include the critical contexts created by policies and practices that permeate instruction, classrooms, and schools. Additionally, Wang, Haertel, and Walberg (1999) provided comprehensive lists of risk and protective factors related to educational resilience in the family, school, peer, and community areas. Similarly, Knoff (2002) challenged school psychologists to encourage their colleagues and study teams to look at students from an ecological perspective. School psychologists should extend the assessment process beyond the educational context (e.g., teachers and classrooms) to broader ecological systems that influence student learning (e.g., family, neighborhood, and community conditions). In addition to emphasizing the importance of an ecological view of competence, Masten and Coatsworth (1998) noted that historical perspectives are important as well. Assessments conducted by school psychologists are often static measures of competence that may fail to provide a developmental or historical perspective on a child’s performance in school. For example, in their study of students with special education needs who also were involved in school discipline processes, Morrison and D’Incau (2000) found that behavioral outbursts or rule-breaking offenses were rarely a complete surprise to school officials. Examination of student cumulative files for these special education students, which Keogh, Kukic, Becker, McLoughlin, and Kukic (1975) referred to as chronicles of disaster, revealed that the developmental trajectories for these students were a complex interweaving of student characteristics and educational events. For example, a student who has recently been dismissed from special education services may not get the support Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

22

Morrison et al.

needed for academic and behavioral success in the general education environments. Sameroff, Seifer, Baldwin, and Baldwin (1993) referred to these patterns and interactions as transactional; that is, student characteristics and educational interventions influence each other bidirectionally across time. In summary, the importance of considering the long-term educational trajectories of students in attempting to understand their present educational performance and behavior must be recognized along with an ecological perspective when building a rubric for understanding student strengths and protective possibilities within school environments. Tools for collecting and organizing information about resilience domains. We present here two tools for thinking about and organizing information regarding student strengths and protective possibilities within their critical contexts of school and family. The first is an interview format (see Figure 1). This format contains interview questions from multiple informants (students, teachers, and parents). These prompts give the school psychologist the opportunity to inquire about what the student does well now as well as his or her preferences and hopes for the future. By querying about family, peer, classroom, and school assets, the practitioner may begin to form a picture of the availability of protective relationships and settings that can become the basis for developing interventions. Based on the previously cited research, a list of student characteristics that are important indicators for school adjustment is provided in Table 1. Information about some of these characteristics may be found in the student’s cumulative file, which should contain a wealth of information including teacher comments, academic progress, discipline history, and documentation of education, mental health, and family interventions. Also note that these characteristics can be viewed from a negative or a positive perspective. If a characteristic is seen as a risk for a student, it suggests focusing on an intervention to reduce the risk. In contrast, if it is seen as an asset, it suggests a source of strength that can be reinforced and further strengthened. For example, a student’s sociability may be seen as an asset for making friends, but a risk if used “to excess” in a classroom situation that demands quiet and concentration. The intervention for this would be to help the student recognize situations that require different utilizations of social skills. Either perspective suggests a need for continued building of that characteristic to become an asset rather than a risk. This can be done through enacting protective possibilities. For example, student independence and autonomy may be enhanced through providing students with choice in daily activities and constructing environments where student success is maximized. A sense of future and hopefulness may be enhanced through opportunities to interact with role models and to see possibilities for future education and career. In other words, although students may experience risk in these domain areas, growth and enhancement within domains are enhanced by focusing on the protective possibilities that can be brought to bear through schoolbased interventions. A case example. The information presented in Figure 1 and Table 1 can be used to integrate and organize cumulative file information across time. Although information may not be available for all categories for each grade, the accumulation of information across time can be displayed. Our example using this information is Jennifer, who was considered at risk for school failure and exclusion (data obtained from the cumulative record were part of a larger research project.) In Figure 2, information integrated from the tools is presented to understand her kindergarten through Grade 6 educational history. As noted in Figure 2, of particular interest is the dearth of positive comments found within her cumulative records. Note that the categories in the left-hand column are derived from Table 1. Additionally, the shaded rows at the bottom reflect information gathered from student interviews. The italicized comments represent positive notes from her teachers. The longitudinal perspective indicates an ebb and flow of data and teacher perspectives on Jennifer’s progress and adaptation to school. Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

Understanding Resilience

Figure 1.

23

Assets Interview

Although Jennifer was described as social (a positive temperamental characteristic), the reader will note that this sociability gets her into trouble as expectation in school for compliance and order increases over time. In particular, her sociability is exacerbated by attention challenges and overactivity. By upper elementary school, her behavioral issues are displayed in schoolwide settings and eventually lead to suspensions and exclusion from school. The patterns documented in Jennifer’s case are dependent upon perceptions of different teachers across time. It is evident that some teachers found a way to comment on Jennifer’s assets even though she was obviously struggling with her adaptation to school. From this record alone, however, without other corroborating data, we cannot determine whether the ebb and flow of positives has to do with changes in her behavior or differences in how the behavior is perceived by school Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

24

Morrison et al.

Table 1 Protective Factor and Protective Possibilities Risk and Protective Factors Domains Temperament Adaptability/flexibility Activity level Moods Self-control Attentional focus

Autonomy Self-esteem, efficacy Locus of control Independence

Sense of Purpose and Future Hopefulness Sense of humor

Social Competence Communication skills Social interaction skills Make and maintain friends Empathize, perspective take Group affiliations Respect toward authority Influenced by peers Liked by others Leadership skills Feelings of belonging Teased, victimized Bullies others, picks fights

Protective Possibilities

Build on positive traits Recognize accomplishments Validate efforts Use positive behavior supports Introduce humor in teaching and social interactions Teach conflict-resolution skills Construct opportunities to develop self-regulation Motivation, positive reinforcement when on task, availability of preferred activities, schedule activities according to students’ activity/mood patterns Give choices Construct opportunities to succeed Provide scaffolding Reflect upon choices and consequences Foster responsibility for self and others Reward successive approximations Record goals and chart progress Vocational education Create examples of future possibilities Read for inspiration Seek positive role models and heroes Learn how others overcame adversity Explore careers and vocations Imagine multiple possibilities Relationship building (use as a way to identify with child) making school/classroom fun Adult mentors Job shadowing Teach social skills Provide opportunity to practice positive interactions Search for available peers with similar interests Utilize positive peer models Provide service learning opportunities Seek adult mentors Look for the positive in others Student is liked by teacher(s) Provide opportunity for attached relationships Teach students to develop empathy Employ cooperative learning strategies Allow student to be a helper to younger students Model personal respect for all students and adults Create a safe and positive school climate Catch students “being good” continued

Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

Understanding Resilience

25

Table 1 Continued Risk and Protective Factors Domains Social Competence (continued ) Bullies others, picks fights (continued )

Other Assets Involvement in athletics Interests outside of school

Problem Solving Resourcefulness Creativity Planning

Achievement Motivation Attitude towards school Effort Persistence Help-seeking Goals for future education Homework completion Initiative Special interests Favorite subjects

School Behavior Knowledge/understanding of rules Choice to follow rules Understand consequences of behavior

Protective Possibilities

Use and model “character traits” Admit mistakes Actively intervene in bullying situations tutoring/teaching Social skill training, participation in sports to release anger/tension

Availability of extracurricular activities Ask about others’ interests and share own Engage in crafts or explore hobbies Spend a day shadowing a mentor Write your autobiography Trace family genealogy

Opportunities to explore Add art, music, and science to after school programs Work in groups to achieve a goal Introduce camping, hiking, outdoor education Generate questions Try creative writing Keep a journal Read for enjoyment Read aloud to students Various means to express (writing, dancing, art, drama) Vocational education

Adjustments made in work difficulty Help available when needed (e.g., tutors) High/positive expectations Recognize/build on strengths Challenge (with support) Mastery opportunities Frequent feedback SSTs, special education Culturally responsive curriculum Assess strengths Include student voices in decision making and developing rules Create group incentives for achievement Ask students what motivates them Encourage individual projects Create choices and options for extended learning

Effective classroom management Schoolwide positive behavior support Consequences administered fairly, respectfully (continued ) Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

26

Morrison et al.

Table 1 Continued Risk and Protective Factors Domains School Behavior (continued ) Responsive to consequences

Protective Possibilities

Supervision in unstructured time Individual behavior plans Range of discipline options Provide inservice to all school staff on positive behavior supports Include students in making rules and determining consequences for rule violations Provide extended learning opportunities Increase supervision for students with difficult behaviors Catch students “being good” Teach expected behaviors Provide praise and constructive feedback; minimize punishment Offer activities that students enjoy

Family Parent–school cooperation Availability of supervision at home Parental view of importance of school Help at home with homework Role models at home & community Family–school language match

Supervision at home Parent education: parenting, ESL Parent advocates for student needs Parents invited and welcomed at school in their own language Family counseling and other community services Church community Provide social supports and wraparound services for families through Healthy Start or Family Resource Centers Invite families to student performances, family, math/science/literature nights Send positive notes home Make phone calls to share “good news” or just to update parents on student/class activities Respect parents’ concerns Involve multiple generations as school volunteers (grandparents’ program)

SST ⫽ Student Study Team; ESL ⫽ English as a second language.

personnel. Nevertheless, the existence of notations in a school record of assets provides an anchor for potential interventions. For example, in Grade 5, there is a notation about Jennifer’s love for drawing and painting. Perhaps this could have been an avenue for efforts to engage her positively in activities involving art at school. The fact that multiple teachers commented on her potential and her early liking for school suggests that there was hope that she still could be connected to school in a positive fashion if the appropriate strategies were found. The services/intervention row (see Figure 2) provides the perspective from school staff on interventions that have been attempted to help Jennifer. From the assessment notes, it appears that her academic struggles were not associated with a disability beyond speech/language impairment; however, her academic struggles led to her retention after Grade 1. Eventually, speech and language services were refused despite eligibility. Involvement in an after-school program was noted in Grade 2, but not in subsequent years. This format is helpful for documenting efforts on the part of school personnel to address Jennifer’s challenges and capitalize on her assets. A student Assets Interview was obtained over 3 consecutive years (4th– 6th grade). Jennifer’s perceptions of her relationships with school personnel, recognitions received, and perceptions of skills are highlighted in the bottom three rows of Figure 2 for Grades 4 through 6. Jennifer recolPsychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

Understanding Resilience

27

lects being rewarded for improvements in her school performance despite continued teacher comments about her academic struggles. In Grades 4 and 5, she saw math as a strength, but highlights her sociability in Grade 6. In Grade 5, she saw a teacher as someone who serves a protective, supportive role in her life. The student perspective provides a valuable juxtaposition to the perspective provided by teachers and cumulative file information. Putting It All Together The previous section presents a systematic way to collect and present information that will (a) help to focus not only on risks but also on protective factors; (b) facilitate a “developmental trajectory” perspective; and (c) recognize the role of important school, peer, and family relationships and contexts. This information provides a structure for thinking about concrete suggestions for interventions, highlighting the context of what has and has not worked thus far in a child’s educational history. Note that this method of charting data will not allow a “complete” picture of the complexities and interplay between a student’s individual characteristics and the ecologies of the school and home. Supplementary and corroborating evidence is required to understand the student in context. However, the format enables educators and school psychologists to begin to conceptualize educational and developmental trajectories across “school time.” Although this is not a method for providing definitive answers, it highlights student trajectories within the academic context and provides a framework to begin problem solving. Such a developmental framework will become increasingly important as the reauthorization of IDEA (the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004), with its increased focus on response to intervention procedures, is implemented by state and local education agencies. A worksheet to facilitate this process is available from the first authors. The data representations derived from the formats described earlier might be useful in the following school processes: (a) as an ongoing student success team’s review process (i.e., use for problem solving about student needs and previous interventions attempted), (b) development of hypotheses for cases undergoing eligibility determination for special education, (c) understanding cases for psychological counseling, (d) a format to elicit different ways of thinking about students during teacher consultations, and (e) speaking with parents about the educational history and trajectory of their child. The common element across the uses in these various contexts is that these data organizers help to stimulate thinking about the student, the challenges that he or she has faced over time, the areas of strength and positive development that have occurred, and possible ways to further capitalize on strengths and foster resilience. By highlighting student strengths and contextual protective factors, the frame through which educators think about students can potentially be directed away from a deficit orientation to one where strengths and protective possibilities are recognized. Additionally, recognition can be given to the tremendous complexity of development interacting with important contexts to contribute to current student behaviors. In summary, we have argued for gathering information about strengths, challenges, and protective contexts that exist for students in schools, especially those who may need the services of school-based professionals. We also have suggested a format that highlights trajectories and patterns across time. We propose these formats as prompts for thinking about the complexities that surround student development, with a particular interest in the story they tell about the variations in student connectedness and bonding to school. This approach is intended to increase attention to student strengths, yet not at the cost of ignoring weaknesses or deficits. In addition to a focus on finding and supporting strengths, educators also must increase the protective possibilities that are available on a daily basis in the classroom, on playgrounds, within peer groups, and in interactions with school personnel, particularly teachers (see Klem & Connell, 2004). Our intention is to Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

28

Psychology in the Schools

Morrison et al.

DOI: 10.1002/pits

Figure 2.

Jennifer’s protective/risk and protective possibilities profile

Understanding Resilience

Psychology in the Schools

29

DOI: 10.1002/pits

30

Morrison et al.

provide a template for enhancing student development and how schools can foster positive student connectedness and protective possibilities. References Barnett, D.W., Bauer, A.M., Ehrhardt, K.E., Lentz, F.E., & Stollar, S.A. (1996). Keystone targets for change: Planning for widespread positive consequences. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 95–117. Benard, B. (1991). Fostering Resiliency in Kids: Protective factors in the family, school, and community. Portland, OR: Western Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities. Blum, R.W., & Libbey, H.P. (2004). Executive summary. Journal of School Health, 74, 231–232. Chafouleas, S.M., & Bray, M.A. (2003). Introducing positive psychology: Finding a place within school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 1–5. Epstein, M.H., Rudolph, S., & Epstein, A.A. (2000). Strength-based assessment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32, 50–54. Furlong, M.J., Whipple, A.D., St. Jean, G., Simental, J., Soliz, A., & Panthuna, S. (2003). Multiple contexts of school engagement: Moving towards a unifying framework for educational research and practice. The California School Psychologist, 8, 99–114. Harniss, M.K., Epstein, M.H., Ruser, G., & Pearson, N. (1999). The Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale: Convergent validity. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17, 4–14. Huebner, E.S., Suldo, S.M., Smith, L.C., & McKnight, C.G. (2003). Life satisfaction in children and youth: Empirical foundations and implications for school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 81–93. Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004), Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004) (amending 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.). Jimerson, S.R., Sharkey, J.D., Nyborg, V., & Furlong, M.J. (2004). Strength-based assessment and school psychology: A summary and synthesis. The California School Psychologist, 9, 9–20 Keogh, B.K., Kukic, I., Becker, L., McLoughlin, R., & Kukic, M. (1975). School psychologists’ services in special education programs. Journal of School Psychology, 13, 142–148. Klem, A.M., & Connell, J.P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262–273. Knoff, H.M. (2002). Best practices in personality assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV (pp. 1281–1302). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. MacDonald, G.B., & Validivieso, R. (2000). Measuring deficits and assets: How we track youth development now, and how we should track it. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development, Center for Youth Development and Policy Research. Masten, A.S., & Coatsworth, D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments. American Psychologist, 53, 205–220. McMillan, H.G., & Reed, D.F. (1994). At-risk students and resiliency: Factors contributing to academic success. The Clearing House, 67, 137–140. Morrison, G.M., & D’Incau, B. (2000). Developmental and service trajectories of students with disabilities recommended for expulsion from school. Exceptional Children, 66, 257–272. O’Farrell, S.L. (2004). Exploring school belonging trajectories in upper elementary students using latent variable growth curve modeling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. O’Farrell, S.L., Morrison, G.M., & Furlong, M.J. (in press). School engagement. In G. Bear & K. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Understanding and addressing the developmental needs of children. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Pickles, A., & Rutter, M. (1991). Statistical and conceptual models of “turning points” in developmental processes. In D. Magnuson, L.R. Bergman, G. Rudinger, & B. Torestad (Eds.), Problems and methods in longitudinal research: Stability and change (pp. 133–165). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Rhee, S., Furlong, M.J., Turner, J.A., & Harari, I. (2001). Integrating strength-based perspectives in psychoeducational evaluations. The California School Psychologist, 6, 5–17. Rudolph, S.M., & Epstein, M.H. (2000). Empowering children and families through strength-based assessment. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 8, 207–209. Sameroff, A.J., Seifer, R., Baldwin, A., & Baldwin, C. (1993). Stability of intelligence from preschool to adolescence: The influence of social and family risk factors. Child Development, 64, 80–97. Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

Understanding Resilience

31

Sampson, R.J., & Laub, J.H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, M.C., Haertel, G.D., & Walberg, H.J. (Eds.). (1999). Psychological and educational resilience. Washington, DC: CWLA Press. Waxman, H.C., Gray, J.P., & Padron, Y.N. (2003). Review of research on educational resilience. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. Zins, J.E., Elias, M.J., Greenberg, M.T., & Weissberg, R.P. (2000). Promoting social and emotional competence in children. In K.L. Minke & G.C. Bear (Eds.), Preventing school problems—Promoting school success: Strategies and programs that work (pp. 71–99). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits