Introduction

Contexts that Foster Educational Resilience

Fostering Educational Resilience in Inner-City Schools

Effective School Responses to Student Diversity

Future Directions and Conclusions

References

The research reported herein is supported in part by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) of the U.S. Department of Education through a grant to the Mid-Atlantic Laboratory for Student Success (LSS) at the Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education (CRHDE). The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position of the supporting agencies, and no official endorsement should be inferred. 

As the 1990s unfold, the nation's attention has been captured by the plight of increasing numbers of children and youth in circumstances that place them at risk of educational failure, particularly in inner-city communities.  The quality of life in these communities is jeopardized by poverty, lack of employment opportunities, poor health care, crime, fragmented services, and despair.  But this is only one side of the story; inner cities are also rich in culture, institutions, and other resources that can mitigate against adversity and promote healthy development and learning.  Perhaps more importantly, these resources can further the capacity of individuals to overcome adversity and to develop educational resilience.  Identifying conditions that promote resilience and pathways that lead to learning success is an area of investigation that has gained increasing attention in efforts to improve educational success of children and youth in this nation's inner cities.  The purpose of this chapter is twofold: (a) to provide an overview of the research base on fostering educational resilience among children whose circumstances place them at risk of educational failure; and (b) to describe educational practices that are resilience promoting and their implications for student development and learning success.

Educational resilience in the context of our discussion is defined as the heightened likelihood of educational success despite personal vulnerabilities and adversities brought about by environmental conditions and experiences (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1994).  Furthermore, educational resilience is conceptualized not as the product of a single precipitating event, but of continuous interaction between an individual and characteristic features of the environment.  A key underlying premise is that educational resilience can be fostered through interventions that enhance children's learning, develop their talents and compe-tencies, and protect or buffer them against environmental adversities.

Research on factors that influence learning can be culled to identify protective mechanisms that mitigate against adversity and support healthy development and educational success.  Findings from a research synthesis (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993) demonstrate the range of contextual influences that can be maximized to serve as protective mechanisms that mitigate against negative life circumstances while facilitating development and educational resilience.  Based on results of 91 meta-analyses, 179 authoritative review articles, and a survey of 61 educational researchers, seven characteristics of the learner and 22 features of the home, classroom, and community contexts that influence student learning were identified.  Figure 1 shows the relative influences of the 22 influence categories.  The rankings are based on the calculated scores of the 22 influences which were transformed into T-scores.  (T-scores are standard scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.)  As shown in Figure 1, the influences are depicted along a continuum of proximity to the learner, with those influences and contexts that are more proximal exerting more influence than those that are more distal.

Table 1 presents the average influence scores for the five contexts presented in Figure 1.  Classroom, home and community, and school contexts, which are more proximal to learners and directly affect their day-to-day activities, have larger influence scores, on average, than the state and district policy context, which is more distal and indirect in its influence.
 

 The synthesis findings suggest that classroom, home and community, and school contexts can play a key role in fostering development and educational achievement.  The research base on how each of these contexts impact the development of educational resilience is discussed below.

The Family

Of the 22 contextual influences on learning, "home environment and parent support" is the second most influential category (see Figure 1).  The home environment provides an abundance of resources, even among families that are of limited economic means and/or facing severe hardships such as chronic illness, divorce, or early parental death.  Parents (as well as other adults and older siblings) serve as children's first teachers, filling both nurturing and educative roles.  Families foster not only children's physical growth but also their motivation to master the environment, their competence development, and their self-esteem.  They provide knowledge about the world, opportunities to learn, models of behavior, and social and functional connections to the larger community.

Short-term prospective studies demonstrate that factors protecting against adversity include a positive parent-child relationship, family cohesion, warmth, assigned chores, responsibilities for the family's well-being, an absence of discord, and other secure childhood attachments.  Other family attributes associated with school attendance and achievement among at-risk students include: monitoring television viewing, reading to young children on a daily basis, expressing high expectations for academic success, and helping with homework.  Family dysfunction, including marital instability and frequent relocations, predicts school disruptive-ness and low achievement (Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1991; Wang & Gordon, 1994).

Active engagement of family members (e.g., participating in school management teams, involvement in parent-developed workshops, provision of tutoring, and assisting teachers in classroom or after-school activities) is associated with improved student achievement; increased school atten-dance; and decreased student dropout, delinquency, and pregnancy rates.  Furthermore, educational intervention programs designed to involve family members are significantly more effective than those targeted exclusively at students (Epstein, Salinas, & Simon, 1996; Walberg, 1984).  Parents who participate in these programs are more often pleased with themselves, more likely to enroll in educational courses, and tend to provide better support to their children.  The love, interest, and support of a single family member can mitigate against adversities and promote children's educational resilience (Taylor, 1994).

The School

Influences such as teacher actions and expectations, effective instructional methods and curriculum, schoolwide policies, and school climate play key roles in raising student learning, motivation, and attitudes toward school.  These influences are briefly discussed below.

Teachers.  A teacher's concern, high expectations, and role-modeling are key protec-tive factors that mitigate against the likelihood of academic failure, particularly for students in difficult life circumstances.  Sustained, close relationships between the teacher and the student can reduce stress and provide positive supports.  Teachers not only provide institutional support for academic content and skills, but also serve as confidants and positive role models for children.  They help students develop the values and attitudes needed to persevere in their schoolwork and achieve a high level of academic perfor-mance; and promote educa-tional resilience by encouraging students to master new experiences, believe in their own efficacy, and take responsibility for their own learning.  As shown in Figure 1, the relationship between teacher and student is highly important.  "Teacher and student social interactions," for example, is the third most potent of the 22 influences on student learning.

Classroom Instruction and Climate.  Instruction and classroom climate affect student learning in significant ways, as Figure 1 indicates.  Contextual influences, such as classroom manage-ment, quantity of instruction, classroom climate, classroom instruc-tion, and teacher-student academic interactions are proximal to the learner, affect their day-to-day activities, and have a larger influence on school learning than more distal influences.  Furthermore, the research base on classroom instruction indicates selected practices that have consistently produced achievement advantages, including: maximiz-ing learning time; setting high expectations for all students; providing ample opportunities for student-teacher interac-tion; maintain-ing a high degree of classroom engage-ment; tailoring instruction to meet the needs of individual students; engaging students in setting goals and making learning decisions; and participating in group learning activities.  Selected dimensions of classroom climate are also consistently associated with enhanced student cognitive and affective outcomes including cooperation among teachers and students; shared interests, values, and goals; an academic orientation; well-organized lessons with clear learning objectives; and student satisfaction.

Curriculum.  Based on the results of the research synthesis depicted in Figure 1, the influence of curriculum on student learning is moderate.  Of the 22 contextual influences, the three representing curricular influences were the 9th, 14th, and 18th most powerful.  While curriculum influences are less powerful than classroom practices and the home environment, they play a pivotal role in the provision of quality education to children who are placed at risk of school failure.  In fact, providing all students with the opportunity to learn advanced subject-matter content is a tenet of current educational reform efforts and a key resilience-promoting strategy.  This is particularly important to children enrolled in compensatory or remedial programs such as Title I, bilingual, and special education.

Although schools attempt to provide for the greater-than-usual educational and related services needs of students who are not achieving well for a variety of reasons, many continue to experience serious difficulties in attaining learning success.  Research suggests that the curriculum of the prototypical remedial or compensatory education program often contributes to children's learning problems.  Students in pull-out categorical programs often receive watered-down curriculum, including less instruction on higher order skills, comprehension, and problem-solving than their advantaged counterparts receive (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989; Pugach, 1995).
We know now that all children, including those with special needs, can achieve high academic standards when provided with challeng-ing curriculum content and instruction tailored to their individual strengths and learning needs.  Superior curricula contain learning activities and materials that promote higher order thought processes and are responsive to student diversity and needs.  Such curricula enhance students' motivation and serve as protective factors that promote educational resilience and learning success.  By contrast, curricula that are disconnected from students' experiences, culture, and needs can contribute to their learning problems (Wang & Reynolds, 1995).

Schoolwide Practices.  Changes in school life, organization, and culture can improve student learning and motivation (Newmann & Associates, in press; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995).  School-wide practices associated with student achievement and psychosocial benefits include: a schoolwide culture that reinforces students' academic accomplishments; public recognition, awards, and incentives associated with school-level achievement; smaller organizational units (mini-schools, charter schools, and houses); an emphasis on student involvement and belong-ing that reduce feelings of alienation and disengagement; attachment to teachers, classmates, and the school; effective and responsive instructional programs that shield against adverse circumstances; student engagement in school life; and positive social interactions among peers and with adults.

These positive schoolwide practices appear to enhance life satisfaction and general well-being of students, particularly adolescents in schools with a high concentration of students whose circum-stances place them at risk of educational failure.  As shown in Figure 1, school culture was the tenth largest influence on student learning, with a greater impact on students' day-to-day lives than schoolwide policies or school demographics.  Resilience-promoting school-wide practices include those that contribute to a positive school culture, foster academic achievement, and promote a sense of belonging in the school context.

The Community

Figure 1 reveals that community was the 12th most powerful contextual influence on student learning.  Communities with well-developed and integrated networks of social organizations demonstrate how community-based actions can help children and youth who live in high-risk circumstances overcome adversity and facilitate resilience develop-ment and schooling success.  These communi-ties promote social and cultural norms that consistently express high expectations for good citizenship and educational success of children and youth.  This expectation, and the key role the community plays in providing protective mechanisms, are seen most clearly in efforts to establish cultural norms on alcohol and drug abuse (Bell, 1987).  The effectiveness of substance abuse programs is greatly enhanced by integrating community resources.

Local communities can positively affect the social well-being, health, safety, and intellectual life of their residents.  Social support by caring adults in the community helps sustain support for task accomplishments, and increases community-based opportunities for students to develop new interests and skills (Rigsby, Reynolds, & Wang, 1995).  Community-based programs that engage children and youth in activities such as protecting the local environment, conducting food drives for the hungry, and participating in library-based reading programs provide youngsters with first-hand experience cooperating with their neighbors.  These activities not only develop participants' knowledge and skills, but provide powerful evidence that communities support their residents.  Youngsters learn through participating that they are valued community members, can contribute to its well-being, and can help overcome a sense of alienation and disenfranchisement.
 
 

Findings from a long-term program of research on resilience develop-ment at the National Center on Education in the Inner Cities (CEIC) at the Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education are discussed in this section.  The program, designed to address the question, "What conditions are required to bring about massive improvements in the development and learning of children and youth in this nation's inner cities?", encompasses a range of studies, including: synthesis studies of the knowledge base on resilience; comparative field-based studies of low- and high-achieving inner-city schools; correlational studies linking characteristics of resilient students to attributes of their families, classrooms, schools, and communities; survey studies that identify effective practices and policies to promote student learning and other educational outcomes; and intervention studies that demonstrate the impact of resilience-promoting strategies on students' learning, affect, and behaviors (Wang, in press).

Characteristics of Educationally Resilient Students in Inner-City Schools

Using the National Educational Longitudinal Study database, Peng, Wang, and Walberg (1992) found that resilient students had higher self-concepts and educational aspirations, felt more internally controlled, interacted more with parents, and had parents who encouraged them to do their best.  Similarly, a consistent pattern of proactive participation and a high level of academic and social interaction with teachers and peers were salient in the findings comparing educa-tionally resilient and nonresilient students in inner-city schools in Houston and Philadelphia (Wang, Waxman, & Freiberg, 1996).  Resilient students in the study generally perceived their school and classroom environments to be conducive to learning, and deemed the standards established by teachers and parents for their academic performance and conduct as appropriate.  Although both groups of students-"resilient" and "at risk"-reported that a good or bad day depended on the occurrence of classroom fights or disruptions requiring teacher intervention, resilient students tended to perceive the problem from a nonparticipatory perspective, whereas at-risk students often were directly involved.

A consistent characterization of resilient students in inner-city schools has also surfaced from the interview protocols of teachers participating in the study.  Teachers described resilient students as having someone that cares for them, doing well academically despite exposure to a variety of adverse situations, being responsible and more mature socially, completing school assignments, being focused and not distractable, valuing education, and having the ability to draw on personal strengths.  These characterizations are also consistent with those described in the early resilience literature (Masten et al., 1991).

The resilience construct has also provided the conceptual base for a series of studies on the capacity of adolescents from minority back-grounds to maintain a positive self-concept and constructive attitudes toward school and education despite exposure to adverse social circumstances (Taylor, 1994).  For example, Taylor has found that, despite perceived discrimination, many African-American adolescents maintain a positive self-concept.  This finding contradicts the argument that African-American adolescents' perceptions of discrimina-tion result in low academic achievement, a devaluing of the importance of school performance, and a social and racial identity at odds with academic achievement.  Taylor's research suggests that African-American adolescents do not necessarily internalize negative messages, rather, awareness of racial discrimination may cause them to attach greater importance to educational accomplishment.  Even in the face of threats to self-concept, such as discrimination, individuals may be able to maintain positive views of them to react in constructive ways that advance their development and learning success.

Characteristics of Inner-City Classrooms and Schools
that Promote Educational Resilience

Research on effective inner-city schools (Wang et al., 1996; Zetlin, Reynolds, & Wang, 1995) has found consistent patterns of organizational and behavioral characteristics that are reflective of findings from the general literature on effective schools.  Among the effective organizational features were strong leadership by the principal, shared decision-making, and esprit de corps among staff.  Instructional features linked to positive educational outcomes included: well-managed classrooms, challenging instruction, and student choice in selecting instructional activities.  The schools had strong parent involvement programs and were described as having a pleasant school climate and attractive physical facilities.

Inner-city schools with these features also are linked to more positive classroom processes and higher academic performance compared to other schools with high concentrations of students living in adverse circumstances (Wang, Waxman, & Freiberg, 1996).  Students in the effective schools spent more time working independently, teachers spent more time interacting with students, and students expressed more positive perceptions about their schools overall.  Students were more satisfied with their schoolwork and peer relationships, felt classroom rules were made clear to them, felt more involved in school, perceived their parents as more involved in their schoolwork, and believed their teachers were supportive and held high expectations of them.  Further, students had higher aspirations, more achievement motivation, and better social and academic self-concepts than students at risk of school failure enrolled in ineffective schools.

These findings are consistent with recent studies of effective schools that identified organiza-tional and instructional practices that enhance student achieve-ment, motivation, and positive attitudes and promote educational resilience among socially and economically disadvantaged children (Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993).  Greater achievement than one would predict from SES was obtained at schools that devoted a high percentage of time to academi-cally focused tasks.  The atmosphere in these schools is generally described as friendly; principals and teachers protect the time spent on academic tasks and ensure that students' academic programs are well coordinated; and principals are engaged in school events, lead the selection and retention of their faculties, value high academic achievement, and support library activities in the life of the school.  Teachers whose students achieved higher levels of academic attainment employ planning, clearly specify management and disciplinary rules, set high academic standards for all students, actively teach higher order thinking skills, and utilize direct instruction when appropriate.

Similarly, high-achieving inner-city schools show evidence of enabling conditions that result in high levels of student engagement (Freiberg, Stein, & Huang, 1995; Wang et al., 1996).  These include, for example, an orderly and safe school campus; student-centered and highly responsive classroom learning environments with well-structured classroom management systems; a site-specific and ongoing professional development program for the school staff, based on implementation needs identified by teachers and administrators; and parents with high educational aspirations for their children.  These enabling conditions, coupled with an organizational capacity for continuous learning and renewal, produced high levels of student engagement and achievement.

Research and practical wisdom suggest that when competently implemented, effective schoolwide strategies serve as protective factors that mitigate against the adversity that abounds in inner-city environments.  As noted by Rutter and his associates (1979), children living under conditions that are not supportive of psychosocial well-being may experience their school as a force for good or for bad, depending on their programs and internal conditions.
 

Schools today, particularly urban schools, are challenged to serve an increasingly diverse student population.  In the past, schools have responded to the diverse needs of students through specially designed categorical programs.  Albeit well intentioned, these narrowly framed approaches to serving the often multiply co-occurring needs of students frequently place children at even greater risk.  Recent research on effective school responses to student diversity suggest the need for major--in some cases revolu-tionary--institutional changes (Wang & Reynolds, 1995; Wong & Wang, 1994).  These changes require a broad-based approach that considers all organizational and operational features of the school context: classroom practice, curricu-lum, school organization, restructuring of service delivery, and school and district policies.  These essential components of schools can be coherently joined to create nurturing learning environ-ments that are responsive and effective in fostering educational resilience and learning success of every stu-dent.

Meta-Analysis of Inclusive Approaches to Provide for Student Diversity

Historically, categorical or so-called second systems programs have been used to provide services to special education, Title I, limited English proficiency, and other students with diverse needs, including gifted and talented children.  The benefits of the categorical approach to addressing the needs of diverse student populations have been challenged, particularly the use of extra-class placement.  In 1982, a National Academy of Science report (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982) specified that children should be placed in separate classes only if they could be accurately classified and if the noninclusive practices demonstrat-ed superior benefits.  Disturbingly, Heller et al. reported that not only does placement of large numbers of children in special programs not lead to improved learning, it adds further risk through demean-ing labels and increased educational segrega-tion.

The educational segregation of students who require greater-than-usual educational and related services support is particularly troubling in urban schools where over 50% of students are in pull-out programs (Wong & Wang, 1994).  Rules and regulations put these programs largely out of local control, and procedural requirements often overshadow attention to educational substance and learning progress.  Furthermore, the requirements do not ensure the kind of accountability intended for achieving better educational outcomes of children and youth from ethnic and language diverse backgrounds, or for those considered at risk of educational failure.

The inclusion of children with special needs in regular classrooms and schools has received increasing support as a systemic educational improvement strategy (Commission on Chapter 1, 1992; Wang & Reynolds, 1995).  Implementing inclusion requires changes in educational philosophy, curriculum, instructional practices, and school organization.  Further, such approaches respond to the increasing demands for schools to address the scientific and legal basis for noninclu-sive prac-tices and to explain why so many students are set aside in categorical pro-grams where they continue to fall behind their peers.  Findings from a recently completed meta-analysis (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1994) indicate that inclusive practices confer small-to-moderate benefits on the standard-ized achieve-ment test scores of special-needs students and on their social outcomes as measured by self, peer, teacher, and observer ratings of classroom behaviors and interactions.  Outcomes for non-special needs children indicate that many benefit socially from their relationships with disabled students and from participating in a caring school community (Staub & Peck, 1995).

School Restructuring of Curriculum and Service Delivery

Using an action research design, a series of intervention studies were conducted on how schools can be more responsive to student diversity by changing their organization and using innovative approaches to service delivery.  A series of studies in an inner-city comprehensive high school and a middle school examined the feasibility and effects of implementing small unit organization to improve student engagement, curriculum articulation across disciplines, and cross-disciplinary collaboration and collegiality among school staff (Oxley, 1994).  Findings suggest the following requirements: (a) a consistent pattern of changes that modify the school culture (e.g., changing the mindset of administrators and the teaching staff on how learning takes place); (b) implementation of coordinated approaches to organizing school resources; and (c) staff development that focuses on developing strategies and expertise for meeting the diverse needs of students.  These changes produced signifi-cant improve-ments in teacher atti-tudes toward school and in their ability to institute radical changes in the service of students, as well as enhanced student motivation and improved student achievement.

Collaborative studies have focused on improving the learning of individual students by providing a systematic process of learning needs assessment and coordinated service delivery in five inner-city elementary schools (Zetlin & MacLeod, 1995).  These studies involved planning and implementation activities to adapt school programs and related services to meet the unique needs of a large number of students from ethnic and language diverse backgrounds.  The findings suggest five common features that facilitated program implementation at the study sites:
 

1. The school staffs believed that students of diverse backgrounds and educational histories can succeed, and they tailored their teaching methods for those who did not adapt well to traditional schooling.  No students were intentionally screened out, nor were any programs permitted that would attract only certain groups of students.
2. Schools using either small unit organization or the restructuring of school curriculum, resources, and service delivery had a stable, intimate, and collegial context for teaching and learning that helped meet the needs of students at the margins.
3. A decentralized system of school manage-ment was employed in which school staff had greater authority and flexibility, and engaged in collaborative group processes; parents accessed teachers more readily; students' academic programs were more coherent; and all teachers shared a sense of responsibility for student success.
4. The school staff had access to the knowledge base on effective classroom and school-wide practices and systemic reform strategies.
5. The schools employed systematic, site-based professional development.

Forging Family-School-Community Connections:
A Coordinated Approach to Radical Improvements

It is widely acknowledged that working alone, neither schools, social and health agencies, nor the fundamental unit of children and youth in circumstances with co-occurring risks.  Thus, an organizational, professional, and institutional movement has emerged from the current wave of school reform efforts to address the multiple and intercon-nected needs of inner-city children and their families.  Referred to variously as the "inte-grated," "collaborative," "coordinated," or "school-linked" services movement, its goal is to harness the resources of the family, school, and community to create contexts that support students' learning success by meeting the physical and social wellness needs of students and their families (Dryfoos, 1995; Flaxman & Passow, 1995; Rigsby, Reynolds, & Wang, 1995).

Though a variety of innovative programs have emerged across the country, all of them emphasize coherent and seamless child and family services that promote education-al resilience and improved life circumstances of children and youth placed at risk.  Ranging from local grass-roots community efforts to state- and federal-level initiatives, these programs seek to transform fragmented, inefficient systems of service delivery into a network of coordinated partnerships that cross programmatic and agency lines.  Despite unprecedented national attention and a myriad of programmatic initiatives at all levels, solid information on the features, scope, and effectiveness of these programs is just becoming available.

A practical savvy about what does and does not work is emerging.  Although many of the coordinated service programs are still in the formative stage, the extant database suggests some insights and practical guidelines.  Crowson and Boyd (1993) concluded that cost savings from service coordination should not be expected.  Further, implementation of service coordination can be an extremely difficult undertaking in terms of organizations (with legal complications, bureaucratic immobility, turf battles, and communication breakdown) and the deep structures of schooling (the fundamental ways schools work and professional role interpretation).
 

Advances in resilience research have led to more detailed descriptions of educationally resilient inner-city children and the identification of protective features of their families, schools, and communi-ties.  These protective factors mitigate against risks, vulnerabili-ties, and adversities while promoting academic and later life success.  Evidence from these research studies has informed the design of resilience-promoting interven-tions for inner-city environments.  Based on the research studies described in this chapter, we suggest two potentially fruitful areas for further development: (a) implemen-tation of an inclusive delivery system that is responsive and effective in meeting the diverse needs of students; and (b) forging coordination and connections through family-school-community partnerships.

Implementing an Inclusive Approach to Respond to Student Diversity

Educational environments that are responsive to human diversity treat differences among students as strengths that can be built upon or needs that must be accommodated.  Unresponsive and ineffective systems of delivery ignore individual differences or, even worse, treat student differences in a stigmatizing manner that reduces learning opportunities.  Research on educational resilience stresses the importance of responding to children's diversity not as deficiencies but as the starting point for uniting the resources, talents, and efforts of families, teachers, schools, and communities in order to overcome adversity and promote learning success.  A major premise of implementing inclusive practices is the restructuring of curriculum and service delivery to promote academic and social benefits for children at risk of school failure and to enhance the sense of communi-ty among all participating students.

Taking stock of what is known from research and practical knowledge of educational reform, specific recommendations were made by participants in one of CEIC's invitational conferences on making a difference for students at risk (Wang & Reynolds, 1995).  The recommendations serve as a provocative list of strategies for improving schools' capacity for addressing the diverse needs of individual students:
 

• Make public schools inclusive and integrated;? Organize schools into smaller educational units-mini-schools, charter schools, or houses-in which groups of students and teachers remain together for several years of study;
• Augment research on "marginal" students to provide a growing knowledge base and credible evaluation system;
• Implement new approaches based on what is known about teaching in schools with high concentrations of students with special needs;
• Expand programs for the most able students;
• Integrate the most current findings in general and special education and special language learning areas into teacher education;
• Apply concepts of inclusion and integration to the bureaucratic structure of education-al govern-ance, professional organizations, and advocacy groups;
• Challenge federal and state authorities to create broad, cross-departmental "empower-ment zones" for delivering coordinated, comprehensive child and family services; and
• Encourage public dialogue about education.

Implementing Family-School-Community Partnerships

The multiple risks and adversities faced by many children and youth cannot be addressed by the family, school, or community alone.  Rather, the resources within these three contexts must be harnessed if we are to advance toward solving the education-al, health, psychological, and social problems that confront families and their children.  Strategies for successful partnerships have been culled from the research base on implement-ing family-school-community partnerships (Grey, 1995; Kirst, Koppich, & Kelley, 1994; Rigsby, Reynolds, & Wang, 1995; U.S. Department of Education, 1995).  These strategies can be used to build the capacity of inner cities and their institutions to promote healthy development and educational resilience among children and youth.  Research-based knowledge and a philosophy of cultural diversity serve as the foundation of successful partnerships.  The research community provides school practitioners, parents, and community service providers with easy access to the knowledge base on the contexts, processes, and outcomes for successful family-school-community partnerships.

Prior to establishing successful partnerships, participants must realistically assess the money, time, and tangible resources needed for sustained successful operation.  Effective partnerships are site specific and designed to meet the local needs and co-occurring risks that are prevalent in the lives of the children and families being served.  Their program design takes into account stakeholder interests, staff expertise, resource availability, and policy guidelines.  Administrative mechanisms are created that manage the partnership's processes and authorize actions to implement agreements.  Participants in the partnership should be provided ample opportunities to learn about the cultures of participating clients, agencies, and organizations.  While high engagement of all participating groups is encour-aged, long-standing difficulties among participating groups need to be addressed and differences among clients' levels of active participation should be acknowledged.  Successful implementation of partnerships depends on a shared responsibility among all local stakeholder groups.

Research also indicates that long-term resources, support, and follow-through for the partnership depend on the establishment of a constituency that supports its efforts.  In particular, partnership stability can be enhanced through changes in funding that would reduce the currently fragmented grant structure and new noncategorical ways to support services.  A final strategy for successful implementation is to conduct formative evaluations of the partnership program and redirect program efforts based on results.  Summative evaluations can be conducted when the program has been in place long enough to allow a fair evaluation of effects.

Educational resilience is a potentially powerful construct for fostering resilience and educational success of children and youth enduring stressful life circumstances.  Research has identified a compelling set of protective factors within the child, family, classroom, school, and community that mitigate against failure and promote healthy development.  The family, school, and community environments are overlapping contexts in which the events and conditions that influence one context also influence the others.  Resilience is promoted when the resources in these contexts are united and dedicated to the healthy development and academic success of children.  The likelihood of successful educational outcomes further increases when the values and norms expressed in these three contexts are congruent.

Using resilience-promoting strategies, schools can enlist the tangible and intangible resources of families and communities to better meet students' needs.  Research results suggest a portrait of a resilience-promoting inner-city school that includes the following characteristics:
 

• Inclusive practices;
• Small school size;
• Heightened engagement of students and teachers in the life of the school;
• Effective instructional practices that are empirically linked to achievement advantages;
• An orderly and structured academic school climate;
• Sustained, caring, supportive interactions among teachers and students;
• A challenging curricula that is tailored to meet the needs and talents of individual students;
• Active parent-school-community partnerships that make health, social, and educational resources more accessible to students and families;
• Sample opportunities for students to participate in valued activities;
• Site-specific professional development program; and
• Organizational capacity for change and renewal.

The picture of U.S. cities that emerg-es out of the resilience research should encourage hope, not despair.  The research findings are contrary to the picture of inner-city life that stresses deficiency, negativity, and hopelessness.  As the research on educational resilience expands, inner-city educators will have more information on how to construct positive, healthy environments that advance the psychological and social abilities of their most vulnerable students.  In this way the research community contributes to revitalizing our nation's inner cities.

Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). School response to reading failure: Instruc-tion for Chapter 1 and special education students in grades two, four, and eight. Elementary School Journal, 89(5), 529-542.

Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J.  (1994).  The effects of inclusion on learning.  Educational Leadership, 52(4), 33-35.

Bell, P.  (1987).  Community-based prevention.  Proceedings of the National Conference on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention: Sharing knowledge for action.  Washington, DC: NICA.

Commission on Chapter 1.  (1992).  Making schools work for children in poverty.  Washington, DC: Author.

Crowson, R. L., & Boyd, W.L. (1993). Coordinated services for children: Designing arks for storms and seas unknown. American Journal of Education, 101(2), 140-179.

Dryfoos, J. G.  (1995).  Full-service schools: A revolution in health and social services for children, youth, and families.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Epstein, J. I., Salinas, K. C., & Simon, B.  (1996, April).  Effects of teachers involving parents in schoolwork (TIPS)--Interactive homework in the middle grades.  Paper presented at the 1996 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City.

Flaxman, E., & Passow, A. H.  (Eds.). (1995).  Changing populations/changing schools: The 94th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Freiberg, H. J., Stein, T. A., & Huang, S. L. (1995).  The effects of classroom manage-ment intervention on student achievement in inner-city elementary schools.  Educational Research and Evaluation, 1(1), 33-66.

Grey, B.  (1995).  Obstacles to success in educational collaborations.  In L. C. Rigsby, M. C. Reynolds, & M. C. Wang (Eds.), School-community connections: Exploring issues for research and practice (pp. 71-99).  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S.  (Eds.) (1982).  Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity.  Washington, DC: National Academy of Science Press.

Kirst, M. W., Koppich, J. E., & Kelley, C.  (1994).  School-linked services and Chapter 1: A new approach to improving outcomes for children.  In K. Wong & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Rethinking policy for at-risk students (pp. 197-220).  Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.

Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1991).  Resilience and development: Contribu-tions from the study of children who overcome adversity.  Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425-444.

Newmann, F. M., & Associates.  (in press).  Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G.  (1995).  Successful school restructuring.  Madison, WI: Center for Organization and Restructuring of Schools, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Oxley, D.  (1994).  Organizing schools into small units: Alternatives to homogeneous grouping.  Phi Delta Kappan, 75(7), 521-526.

Palmer, R. B., Dakof, G. A., & Liddle, H. A. (1993). Family processes, family interventions, and adolescent school problems: A critical review and analysis. In K. Alves-Zervos & J.R. Shafer (Eds.), Syntheses of research and practice: Implications for achieving schooling success for children at-risk. (CEIC Publication Series, 93-5c). Philadelphia: Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education.

Peng, S. S., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1992).  Demographic disparities of inner-city eighth graders.  Urban Education, 26(4), 441-459.

Pugach, M. C. (1995). Twice victims: The struggle to educate children in urban schools and the reform of special education and Chapter 1.  In M. C. Wang & M. C. Reynolds (Eds.), Making a difference for students at risk:  Trends and alternatives (pp. 27-52). Thousand Oaks, CA:  Corwin Press.

Rigsby, L. C., Reynolds, M. C., & Wang, M. C.  (Eds.). (1995).  School-community connections: Exploring issues for research and practice.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rigsby, L. C., Stull, J., & Morse-Kelly, N. (1995, April).  Resilience in schooling performances: Analysis by race/ethnicity.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Rutter, M., Maugham, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith.  (1979).  Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children.  Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press.

Staub, D., & Peck, C. A.  (1995).  What are the outcomes for disabled students?  Educational Leadership, 52(4), 36-40.

Taylor, R. D.  (1994).  Risk and resilience: Contextual influences on the development of African-American adolescents.  In M. C. Wang & E. W. Gordon (Eds.), Educational resilience in inner cities: Challenges and prospects (pp. 119-130).  Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learned from a 10-year study of school effects. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

U.S. Department of Education & American Educational Research Association.  (1995).  School-linked comprehensive services for children and families: What we know and what we need to know.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Walberg, H. J.  (1984).  Families as partners in educational productivity.  Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 397-400.

Wang, M. C.  (in press).  Next steps in inner-city education: Focusing on resilience development and learning success.  Education and Urban Society [special issue].

Wang, M. C., Freiberg, H. J., & Waxman, H. J.  (1996, April).  Case studies of inner-city schools.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Wang, M. C,  & Gordon, E.W. (Eds.) (1994). Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects.  Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993, Fall). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249-294.

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J.  (1994).  Educational resilience in inner cities.  In M. C. Wang & E. W. Gordon (Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challeng-es and prospects (pp. 45-72).  Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wang, M. C., & Reynolds, M. C.  (Eds.) (1995).  Making a difference for students at risk: Trends and alternatives.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Wang, M. C., Waxman, H. C., & Freiberg, H. J.  (1996, April).  Classroom and shadowing observations: An integrative analysis.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Wong, K. K., & Wang, M. C.  (Eds.) (1994).  Rethinking policy for at-risk students.  Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Zetlin, A. G., & MacLeod, E.  (1995).  A school-university partnership working toward the restructure of an urban school and community.  Education and Urban Society, 27(4), 411-420.

Zetlin, A. G., Reynolds, M. C., & Wang, M. C.  (Eds.) (1995).  Special and remedial education: Future directions [special issue].  Education and Urban Society, 27(2).