BuildingResilience

inSchools

AnEvidenced-BasedReviewoftheKentHeadStartProgrammeDraft

‘ResilienceToolkit’

BuildingResilienceinSchools

AnEvidenced-BasedReviewofthe

KentHeadStartProgrammeDraft‘ResilienceToolkit’

ResearchCentreforChildrenSchoolsandFamilies

FacultyofEducationandHealthUniversityofGreenwich

LondonLondon.SE92PQ

©UniversityofGreenwich2016

In this documenta reviewof evidence in relation toaDraft ‘ResilienceToolkit’developedbyKentHeadStartProgrammeinKentCountyCouncilis reported.The reviewwascarriedoutby staff in theResearchCentrefor Children Schools and Families at the University of Greenwichhttp://www.gre.ac.uk/eduhea/research/groups/ccsf.Resilience isan importantfactor inthehealth,wellbeingandeducationofchildrenandyoungpeople,weweredelightedtocarryoutthisworkasitdemonstratesKent’scommitmenttosupportingchildrenandyoungpeopleinthecountytoachieveandflourish.ThereviewwasoverseenbyDr.BonnyHartley.JayTamplin-Wilsonwasthemainauthorofthereviewandhisworkonthiswasexemplary.

ProfessorPamMarasDirectorofResearchandEnterprise

FacultyofEducationandHealthUniversityofGreenwich

August2016

HeadStart Kentaims to “by2020Kent youngpeopleand their familieswillhaveimprovedresilience,bydevelopingtheirknowledgeandlifelongskills to maximise their own and their peers’ emotional health andwellbeing;sonavigatetheirwaytosupportwhenneededinwayswhichworkforthem”Youngpeoplehavebeenclearonwhattheyneedtosupporttheirmentalwellbeing,andHeadStartaimstofocusonbuildingasustainablesystemwhereeveryyoungpersoninKentwillbeabletosaywithconfidence:

• Peoplearoundmeunderstandwellbeingandhowtopromoteit• My overallwellbeing is not impacted by the pressure to achieve

andtobeperfect• Thereisalwayssomeoneformetotalkto.

TheHeadStartResilienceToolkitaimstoprovideusefultoolsandmodelsfor schools to assess their approach to the building of resilience andwellbeingofchildren,youngpeople,families,communitiesandtheirownschool,sotodevelopfurtherappropriateresponsestobuildresilienceinyoungpeopleintheirsettings.The Resilience toolkit developed by HeadStart Kent as part of the BIGLotteryInvestmentduring2014-2016andhasbeentestedbyschoolsona practical level. Greenwich University was asked to explore therationale for thetoolkitandensuretheapproach issetwithinevidencebase,andtomakerecommendations.ThisreportisanevidencedbasedreviewoftheHeadStartKentResiliencetoolkit. The recommendations of this review along with changesrecommendedbyschoolsandayouthsetting,whotesteditwillsupportfinal version of resilience toolkit, which will be implementedthroughHeadStartKent.FormoreinformationpleasecontactHeadStartKent@kent.gov.uk

ExecutiveSummaryThemainaimof this report is toprovidean independent reviewof thedraftKentHeadStartResilienceToolkitfromanevidenced-basedperspective.This document is the report of that review and includes information and relevantpublishedsourcesinregardstotheToolkitanditsframework.Anextensiveliteraturereviewfromavarietyofsourceswasconductedandincludedinthisreportundersectionsthatconsider:

• Introductiontoresilience• RationalefortheToolkit• TheoreticalsupportfortheToolkit• Academicresilience• Thewholeschoolapproach• Existingframeworksandinterventions• Areasforconsideration• Limitations• Conclusions• RecommendationsThe main conclusions of the review are that the Toolkit provides a useful,evidence-basedframeworktopromoteresiliencewithinschools.Considerationsandrecommendationsareincludedwithinandattheendofthereport.The main recommendations that may allow the Authority to strengthen anddeveloptheToolkitareoutlinedandincludeaneedtofocusupon:

• Clarity between models and examples of protective factors to cross-referencewithdomainsmodel

• Incorporationofculturalsensitivethemesandintervention• The importance of supporting transitions and school-to-school

communication• Cautionintheuseoftheterm‘academicresilience’• Considerationof the roleof virtualworlds and thebenefits and risks in

digitaldomains• Theimportanceofappropriateteachertraining• Theroleof interagencyworkandtheneedforamorestandardisedand

stableprogramme• A comprehensive evaluation carried out by external independent

researchers.

TableofContents

1.Methodology............................................................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.2

2.IntroductiontoResilience......................................................................................................32.1ProtectiveFactors.......................................................................................................................32.2RationaleforToolkit..................................................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.4

3.TheoreticalSupportfortheToolkit........................................................................................53.1ResilienceDomainsModel........................................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.53.2IndividualCharacteristics..........................................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.6

3.2.1SocialCompetencies...........................................................................................................63.2.2Self-Efficacy.........................................................................................................................63.2.3Self-Worth...........................................................................................................................6

3.3InterpersonalFactors.................................................................................................................73.3.1SecureBases......................................................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.73.3.2TheFamily..........................................................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.73.3.3CaringandSupportiveRelationships..................................................................................83.3.4Friendships..........................................................................................................................8

3.4SupportiveCommunity..............................................................................................................93.4.1TeachersandSchoolStaff...................................................................................................93.4.2TheSchoolasaCommunityHub........................................................................................93.4.3SchoolBelongingandConnectedness..............................................................................103.4.4SchoolCultureandEthos..................................................................................................113.4.5Education..........................................................................................................................113.4.6Engagement......................................................................................................................113.4.7HealthyBehaviours...........................................................................................................12

4.AcademicResilience............................................................................................................13

5.TheWholeSchoolApproach................................................................................................15

6.ExistingResilienceRelatedInterventionsandFrameworks..................................................166.1TheTeamofLifeProgramme...................................................................................................166.2FamiliesandSchoolsTogether(FAST)......................................................................................166.3StrengtheningFamiliesProgramme(SFP)................................................................................166.4BuildingEmotionalResilienceProgramme..............................................................................17

7.AreasforConsideration.......................................................................................................187.1School-to-SchoolCommunication............................................................................................187.2Culture......................................................................................................................................187.3VirtualRealms..........................................................................................................................19

8.Limitations..........................................................................................................................218.1EnvironmentalFactors.............................................................................................................218.2TeachersandSchoolStaffTraining..........................................................................................218.3Universalvs.TargetedProgrammes.........................................................................................21

9.Conclusion...........................................................................................................................239.1RationalesandApproach.........................................................................................................239.2TheModels...............................................................................................................................239.3AcademicResilience.................................................................................................................239.4PreviousInterventions.............................................................................................................249.5AreasforConsideration............................................................................................................24

10.Recommendations............................................................................................................26

1.MethodologyIn approaching the task of producing an evidence-based reviewof the Toolkit thepresent report made an extensive use of The University of Greenwich librarydatabases.Databases used included: platforms such as PsychARTICLES, EBSCOhost ResearchDatabases,PsycINFO,SageJournalsandScienceDirect.When searching for journals and articles, searches were conducted withinpsychological and educational publications. The document made use of academicjournals,reviews,independentreports,articlesanddocumentsthathaveproducedbothquantitativeandqualitativefindings.

2.IntroductiontoResilienceTheHeadStartResilienceToolkitaimstoprovideusefultoolsandmodelsforschoolsto improve their approach to the issue of pupils’ resilience and wellbeing, whilstenabling schools to become increasingly self-sufficient in addressing children andyoungpeople’sresilience.TheToolkitdefinesitsuseoftheterm‘resilience’as: “Overcomingadversity,whilstalsopotentially,subtlyaltering,orevendramaticallytransforming(aspectsof)thatadversity”Indeed, this definition of resilience displays some consistency with the generaldefinitions of resilience within the literature, which describe it as the capacity toachieve good outcomes, or to ‘bounce back’ from adverse factors (Masten, 2001;Bonanno,Brewin,Kaniasty&LaGreca,2010;Tedeschi&Calhoun,1995),suchasalack of positive opportunities or difficult circumstances that may be caused byvariousmental, social, or physical deficits (Hidon, Smith, Netuveli & Blane, 2008).The importance of using correct terminology in regards to resilience has beenoutlined by Hart and Heaver (2013), who have argued that the use of the term,especially when used in school-based resilience frameworks has tended to beconceptually weak and as a result determining whether a framework is actuallyresilience-basedcanprovedifficult.Resilience isprimarilyaphenomenon thathasbeenstudied in childrenandyoungpeopleandhas tended to focuson individualswhoareat risk frommentalhealthissues,ratherthanfocusingonhowresilienceisusedasacopingmechanismagainstdaily setbacks. Although resilience has previously been argued as an individualpersonality trait that is dependent on innate characteristics, it is now widelyregardedasanoutcomeofvariousenvironmentalconditionsandinfluencesthatareformedby the child’sownexperiences, relationshipsandopportunities (Masten&Garmezy, 1985;Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Schoon & Bartley, 2008), with suchareasasthechild’sfamily,peergroups,schoolsandcommunityplayingkeyrolesintheformationofresilience.2.1ProtectiveFactorsThe Toolkit correctly refers to ‘protective’ factors in regards to building andstrengthening resilience.Theexisting literaturebasecommonly focusesonwhat isknown as protective factors that contribute to positive outcomes despite risk andadversity (Bernard, 1995; Kirby & Fraser, 1997; Masten, 1994; Werner & Smith,1992). These protective factors are vastly important when considering theeffectiveness of any resilience based intervention or framework, as they are thefundamental building blocks of resilience formation. Protective factors that havebeen associated with resilience can be categorised into three broad domains:Individual Characteristics, such as self-efficacy, self-worth, problem solving skills,socialcompetenceandtemperament:InterpersonalFactors,suchasqualityoffamily

support,friendshipsandpeergroups:andlastly,aSupportiveCommunityoutsideofthefamilyenvironmentthatprovidesopportunityforpositive involvementandthepromotionsofhighexpectationsandachievement(Bernard,1995;Masten&Reed,2002).However,ithasalsobeensuggestedthatculturemayalsoplayanimportantroleinfacilitatingresilience(Ungar,2008).2.2RationaleforToolkitEstablishingaclearrationalefortheToolkitisimportant,asitoutlinestheneedandpotentialofaschool-basedresilienceframework,evidenceforwhichcanbefoundthroughoutthe literaturebasewithintheprotectiveareaofsupportivecommunitythat includes schools as one of its aspects. For example, the literature clearlyhighlights that the individual characteristics of a child or young person are asignificantfactorinfacilitatingresilience,however, it is importanttorecognisethatthesecharacteristicswillgenerallybeproductsofenvironmentalfactorsasresilienceisprimarilyanecologicalphenomenon (Greene,2002; Jozefowicz-Simbeni&Allen-Meares, 2002; Richman & Frazer, 2001). This provides some support for therationaleofaschool-based frameworkasschoolsare inaposition tobearenasofwellbeingandresilience,astheypossessthepotentialtoharnessandcapitaliseonmanyof the subsetsof theprotective factorsof resilience (Brooks, 2006). Indeed,schoolshaveincreasinglybeenexploredfortheirpotential inregardstopromotingandfacilitatingresilienceinchildrenandyoungpeople(Minnard,2002;Henderson&Milstein,2003;Challen,Machin&Gillham,2014).A further issue that may highlight the rationale for the Toolkit is that numerousinnovationsinschool-basedprovisionshaveillustratedthekeyrolethatschoolscanplay in mental health provisions that stress the importance of interagency workbetweentheschoolandmentalhealthspecialists (Eames,Shippen&Sharp,2016).However,despitetheneedforthesepartnershipsbetweenschoolandservice,manylocal authorities have scaled back due to budget cuts and financial restraints.Therefore, the Toolkit and the integration of the framework within schools mayassist in promoting wellbeing and resilience and also reduce the need for theseservices to be used. For example, interventions methods that have attempted tobridge the gap between mental health services and schools (see Team of LifeProgramme) have illustrated the success of health and education servicespartnerships. Additionally, findingways to integratetheseservices intotheschoolframeworkmayalsoreducetheproblemsassociatedwiththeaccessibilityofmentalhealthprovisions,suchastheirclinicaldeliveryandalsothestigmaaroundseekinghelpformentalhealthissues(Wolpertetal.,2015).

3.TheoreticalSupportfortheToolkitThe Toolkit appears to draw upon two theoretical models of resilience in thepromotionandfacilitationofresilienceinschools:(1)TheResilienceDomainsModeland (2) The Academic Resilience Model, both of which are broad derivatives ofvariousmodelsandtheoriesofresilience.Eachofthesearediscussedinturnbelow.FirsttheResilienceDomainsModelandthentheAcademicResilienceModel.3.1ResilienceDomainsModelThe first model, Daniel and Wassell’s (2002) Resilience Domains Model viewsresilience through the context of the child, the family and the wider community,mirroring previous research suggesting the importance of these factors, andsuggeststhatthereareafurtherthree‘buildingblocks’thatunderpinresilienceinachild: a secure base, self-esteem and self-efficacy. Themodel also categorises theantecedents of these building blocks into amodel for assessing resilience into sixbroadareas:socialcompetencies,securebases,education, friendships, talentsandinterestsandpositivevalues.The Resilience Domains Model, although theoretically covering a great deal offactors that can promote resilience may be considered vague and narrow in itscoverageof theseprotectiveresiliencefactors,andalthoughtheprotective factorsthatfacilitateresiliencecanbeplacedwithinthesixdomains,itmaybebeneficialtohavethesefactorsmoreexplicitlystatedwithintheframeworksothatteachersandschoolstaffcanmakebetteruseofthetoolsattheirdisposaltoachievemaximumimpact.Regardless,theexistingliteratureandtheorydoessupporttheinclusionofthesesixareas,whichwillbediscussedwithinthewiderdomainsofindividualcharacteristics,interpersonalfactors,andsupportivecommunity.Summarised below is a section on relevant research that has focused on variousthemesthatoverlapwiththesixdomainsoftheResilienceModel.ThereportthenturnstotheAcademicResilienceModel.

3.2IndividualCharacteristicsTheliteraturebaseclearlysuggeststhatthe individualcharacteristicsthatpromoteresiliencearecommonlyoutcomes fromcertainenvironmentalconditions,andareunlikelytodevelopinachildwithoutarelationshipwithatleastoneotheradultwithwhomtheyfeellovedandworthy(Emery&Forehand,1994).However,areviewofthe literature does highlight some important individual factors that may affectresilience.3.2.1SocialCompetenciesThe inclusionof social competencies is an important factor tohighlightwithin theToolkit as it consistently outlined in the literature as being a crucial resilience-buildingfactor(Bernard,1993;Kirby&Fraser,1997:Masten,1994;Wang,Haertel&Walberg,1998).Theabilitytointeractsociallywithothershasbeensuggestedasacharacteristic of a resilient child (Martinek & Hellison, 1997). Efforts to developsocial competence should provide the environmental context and supportframework that are essential for the development of resilience (Pianta & Walsh,1998), which can be achieved by promoting parent and family involvement andreinforcingskillsandachievements(Brooks,2006).3.2.2Self-EfficacySelf-efficacycanassistindividualsinhighlystressfulsituationswhilstalsofacilitatingthe development of motivation and goal achievement, and thusly, may influencedecision-making throughout life (Betz, Klien & Taylor, 1996; Markham, Balkin &Baron, 2002). Schwararzer&Warner (2013) have suggested that self-efficacymayassistwhenshowing resilience in the faceofadversity,andbyactivatingaffective,motivationalandbehaviouralmechanismsinadversesituations,self-efficacybeliefsmaypromoteresilienceandhasthereforebeenviewedasanelementofresilience(Rutter, 1987; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995. Furthermore, general self-efficacycorrelateswithothercomponentsofresilience(Hinz,Schumacher,Albani,Schmid&Brahler,2006).3.2.3Self-WorthThe importanceof self-worth is alsohighlighted in the resilience framework as animportant resilience factor. Indeed, Maslow’s (1984) hierarchy of needs outlinedself-worth as an essential psychological need due to its importance in mentalwellbeing, and maintenance of self-worth is central to many core psychologicaltheories as a primary determinant of self-efficacy and mental health (Leary,Tambour,Terdal&Downs,1995),anditspreservationisimportantforpsychologicalwellbeing (Greenberg et al., 1992). Self-worth has been argued to play a part inresilienceonanindividuallevel(Kumpfer,1999;Masten&Coatsworth,1998).Otherresearch has also observed that resilient children and young people possessedhigher self-worth and were less likely to be involved in risk taking behaviours incomparison to those who were less resilient (Buckner, Mezzacappa & Beardslee,2003;Gordon,Ingersoll&Orr,1998)

3.3InterpersonalFactorsThe literature clearlyoutlines the importanceof interpersonal factors, suchas thebenefits of a secure base, the advantages of a positive family life, caring andsupportiverelationshipsandfriendshipshaveonfacilitatingresilience.Aspreviouslymentioned, resilience is fundamentallyanecologicalphenomenon,and the roleoftheenvironmentandrelationshipswithinit,especiallythefamily,playavitalroleinresilience(Morrison&Allen,2007).3.3.1SecureBasesThe inclusion of a secure base in themodel is appropriate considering themanyprotectivefactorsthatitcanprovidethatarehighlightedthroughouttheliterature.For example, a secure base can encompass such benefits as caring relationships,social support, family and safe spaces, all of which will assist in nurturing theindividualcharacteristicsthatareassociatedwithresilience.Additionally,DanielandWassell’s Resilience Model emphasises that a secure base provides protectivefactorsinregardstotheindividual,thefamilyandthecommunity.3.3.2TheFamilyThe resilience literature repeatedly suggests that children cannot build resiliencewithoutlove,support,andpositiverelationships,mostimportantlyfromtheirfamilyorprimary careenvironment (Newman,2004). In lightof this, the familyandhowthe framework can assist in strengthening connections with the family and alsopromoting resilience andwellbeing shouldbe amain focusof the Toolkit. Schoolsmay play an important role by building linkswith families and helping parents beengaging and supportive of their children in regards to their education. Buildingcommunication between home and schoolmay assist with increasing interactionsbetweenthechildandtheirparents(Schoon&Bartley,2008).Effective parenting and good parent/child relationships are likely to have asignificant effect on resilience, as this element has been shown to be the mostsignificant predicative factor in changes to wellbeing, with positive relationshipslinked to improvements in behavioural and social wellbeing (Gutman, Brown,Akerman&Obolenskaya,2010).SchoonandBartley(2008)foundthatchildrenfromdisadvantagedbackgroundsthatdisplayedresilienceweremorelikelytohavestableandsupportivefamilyrelationships.Indeed,themostpowerfulfactorthatpromotesresilienceisthebehaviourandattitudeoftheparents(Newman&Blackburn,2002).Aschoolmaybeabletoassistinpromotingresiliencebycreatingpartnershipswithparents, families and the community to increase the availability of resources fortheirpupils(Wang,Haertel&Walberg,1997;1998).Forexample,schoolscantakearoleinincreasingfamilybasedresiliencebypromotingcertainresiliencefactorsthathavebeenshowntocontribute,suchasparentsshowinginterestsandengagingwiththeirchild’seducation, illustratingthebenefitsoftheparentreadingtotheirchild,takingthemoutforactivitydays,gettingtheminvolvedinvolunteering,andofferingthem a high-quality educational environment at home (Schoon & Bartley, 2008;Friedli, 2009). Additionally, schools may also assist in developing parenting skills,suchasillustratingthebenefitsof‘authoritativeparenting,’whichischaracterisedby

support,warmthanddiscipline(Gutman,Brown,Akerman,Obolenskaya,2010).Finn&Rock (1997) suggested that involving familymembers in interventions aremoreeffectivethatthoseaimedonlyatpupils,asparentalinvolvementmayalsoincreasepupils’ commitment to school goals and their senseofmeaning in their educationand school life. Although there may be various challenges in how to encourageparents and wider families to become involved with schools, the Toolkit mayconsider such methods as utilising current activities and designing ways in whichresilience can be incorporated. For example; parent teacher evenings, celebrationandendofyearnightswhereparentsareinvited,charityraisingevents,volunteeringand community fairs, pupil musical performance evenings, and extra-curricularactivities. Furthermore, there may also be features of the Toolkit that may haveelementsthatcanbepartofthepupil’shomework.Additionally,researchfromtheUShassuggestedsuchexamplesasparentaleducationsessionsonhowtoimproveparenting, homes visits and in-home services and after school hours phone calls(Catalanoetal.,2003;Eddy,Reid&Fetrow,2000).3.3.3CaringandSupportiveRelationshipsThecaringandsupportiverelationshipswithinasecurebasewithatrustedadultarenotonlyessential toachild’sdevelopment,butalsoprovidean important formofprotective resilience (Bernard, 1991; Pianta & Walsh, 1998; Schorr, 1997). Theconcept of caring and supportive relationships has firm roots in psychologicaltheories of attachment. The importance of attachment theory in regards toresiliencehasbeenoutlinedbyRutter(1993)whoaddressedtheissueofunderlyingmechanisms that underline the importance of ‘secure and harmoniousrelationships’, whilst also recognising ‘success in accomplishing tasks’ as essentialcomponents in the child’s formation of a self-concept. During the schools years,Masten and Coatsworth (1998) identified important development tasks such associalcompetencewithpeers,sociallyappropriateconduct,academicachievementand involvement with activities, and concluded that a caring and effectiverelationship with a trusted adult was indeed an important protective resiliencefactor.Thequalityofattachmentmayarguablybeinstrumentalinthecentralareasassociated with resilience; individual characteristics, interpersonal factors,supportivecommunity,andtosomedegree,culture(Atwool,2006).3.3.4FriendshipsTheroleof friendships ishighlighted in theToolkitasan important factor thatcanassistinthebuildingandpromotingresilience.Theliteraturethathasexploredtheroleoffriendshipsislimited,however,thereexistssomeevidencethatpeercontactcanassistinresiliencebuilding(Hill,Strafford,Seaman,Ross&Daniel,2007;Schoon,2006) and that friendships can support an individual’swellbeing (Gutman, Brown,Akerman&Obolenskaya,2009).However,peercontactalsobringswithittheriskofbullying, which may undermine resilience in children and young people. TheinclusionoffriendshipsisclearlyanimportantfactortohighlightintheToolkit,asitmay include other benefits to areas of talents, interests and positive values thatcomewithafriendshipgroupthatcanbefacilitatedthroughpeermentorschemes.

3.4SupportiveCommunityThepresenceofa supportivecommunityand thevarious systemsof care thatareavailableoutsideofthefamilyunithasalsobeensuggestedasplayingakeyroleinresilience.Researchhassuggestedthatcommunitiesthatfosterresiliencemayalsoprovide opportunities for children and young people to play a valued role in thecommunityinwhichtheyreside(Luthar,2006).Indeed,theroleofschools,whichisencompassedwithinthisdomain,hasalsobeensuggestedasanarenaforresiliencetobepromoted (Horton&Wallander, 2001) and thuslymakes its inclusionwithinthe Toolkit highly significant. As the Toolkit and framework are to be usedwithinschools, the authors of the review focused on a number of potential resiliencefactorsrelevanttotheschoolenvironment.3.4.1TeachersandSchoolStaffInterestingly,MatsonandCoatsworth(1998)havesuggestedthatchildrenwholackastrongparentalpresencemaybeabletoattaincompetenceandguidancefromasurrogateparentalfigurethatservesinanurturingcapacity.Forexample,thiscouldbeanextended familymember, close individuals ina community,or teachersandschoolstaff.Theroleofteachersandschoolstaffwillnotbeascentralofresiliencebuildingasthatofthechild’sparentsandfamily.However,astheindividualsatthefrontlineof theToolkitwillbeteachersandschoolstaff it is importanttohighlighttheliteraturethatsuggeststhepotentialforteachersandschoolstaffforpromotingresilience (Drennon-Gala, 1995; Wang, Haertel & Walberg, 1998; Zimmermann &Arunkumar, 1994). Evidence shows that teacher support and guidancemayplay akey role in a child’s development of wellbeing and resilience (Schoon & Bartley,2008;HillStafford,Seaman,Ross&Daniel,2007;Gutman,Sameroff&Eccles,2002).Theresultsfromawidereachingmeta-analysisfoundthatpositiveteacher/studentrelationships were linked to an increase in cognitive, behavioural and emotionalengagement in learning and also an increase in academic attainment, whereasnegative teacher/student relationships were associated with poorer engagementand achievement (Roorda, Koomen, Split &Oort, 2011). Evidence has also shownthat teacher support and guidancemay play a role in a child’s development andresilience (Schoon & Bartley, 2008; Hill, Strafford, Seaman, Ross & Daniel, 2007;Gutman,Sameroff&Eccles,2002).3.4.2TheSchoolasaCommunityHubThe importance of the schoolmay possess potential in building resilience beyondsupporting,encouragingand recognising theachievementsofpupilsbyactingasacommunityhub.Bytheschoolworkingtoconnectindividualswiththeircommunityand services therein, the school may help build cohesion, cooperation andcommunication within the community, thereby potentially increasing communityactivities,itmaybepossibletoincreasebothindividualandcommunityresilience.Forexample,byschoolsofferingsuchactivitiesasafter-schoolclubs,extra-curricularactivities, community based activities and outings, volunteer schemes, it may bepossible to increase both individual and community resilience (Schoon & Bartley,2008; Newman, 2004). In addition, it has been suggested that schools can alsobecomeplaceswherechildrenandtheirfamiliescangainaccesstovariousservicesto connect and interact (Schoon & Bartley, 2008). The authors of the Toolkit

correctly incorporate elements of the Extended Schools initiative, which althoughnotspecificallydesignedtofocusonresilience,producedpositiveoutcomessuchasfamily involvement, pupil achievement and community development (Cummings,Dyson,Mujis, Papps, Pearson & Raffo, 2007; Carpenter, Cummings, Dyson, Jones,Kassam&Laing,2011).3.4.3SchoolBelongingandConnectednessPositive and supportive learning environments can help build connectedness toschoolswhilstalsopromotingengagementwithlearning.Asenseofconnectednessand feeling like one belongs to a schoolmay be a significant protective factor forchildren and youngpeople in fortifying resilience (Resnick et al., 1997; Jose et al.,2012).Addingtothis,theresearchintoriskandprotectivefactorshaveshownthatasenseofconnectednessandbelongingispossiblyoneofthemostcrucialprotectivefactors in children and young people (Resnick et al., 1997). Castalano andcolleague’s’ (2003) longitudinal research investigated the impact of two multi-component school connectedness interventions in primary schools, the result ofwhich showed an increase in school bonding and achievement and a reduction inproblembehaviours.Although this researchhas focusedon theprimaryyears, theresultsshowedlastingpositiveeffectsinrelationtoimprovedacademicachievementandalsoareductioninriskybehavioursduringschoolyears.Many of the areas that encompass supportive communities and interpersonalfactorsshareathemewithasenseofbelonging.Socialpsychologicaltheorieshavealsosuggestedthatfeelingsofbelongingmayalsobecentraltothemaintenanceofself-esteemandself-worth(Hogg&Abrams,1998;Tajfel&Turner,1986),andisalsoanother important individual protective factor outlined within the ResilienceDomains and the literature as being a crucial resilience factor. Furthermore,Baumeister and Leary (1995) suggested that the lack of intimacy and connectionwith others causes a host of negative consequences, such as depression, anxiety,stressandphysicalandmental illness,and toavoid theseconsequences there isamotivationtomaintainlevelsofsocialconnectedness.Theupkeepofconnectednessand social bondsnotonly leads to fortificationofpositiveemotions, butmayalsoassist in shaping positive behaviours (McAdams & Bryant, 1987). In regards toresearchthathasexploredtheroleofresilienceandpupilsreturningfrommultipleexclusionsandmanagedmoves,theauthorsofthereportnoteacleardeficitinhowbelongingandconnectednesscanbefacilitated inthiscontext.However,exploringwaystokeepthesepupils involvedintheirschoolthroughcommunication,suchasschoolnewslettersandcontactwithteachersandschool,mayaddconsistencyandfeelingsofconnectednessduringthesetimesofupheaval.An early ecological model of development by Bronfenbrenner's (1979) illustrateshowschoolsoffermanyopportunitiesforgroupinvolvementthroughtheirstructureand place within the greater community context. For example, Osterman (2000)highlightsthreeaspectsofclassroompracticethatmayhavean impactonapupilsbelongingandschoolconnectedness:methodsof instruction, teachersupport,andauthorityrelationshipsbetweenteachersandstudents.Expandingonthis,theroleof supportive friendships and peer groups, an environment that promotes

confidence and identity, a positive school culture and an emphasis on talents,interestsandfuturegoalsmayalsoassistinpromotingbelongingwithintheschool.3.4.4SchoolCultureandEthosThecultureandethosofaschoolmayalsohaveanimpactonresilienceinchildrenand young people, and is a factor that encompasses other factors, such asconnectedness, belonging, school and community and the role of teachers andschoolstaff.Ithasbeensuggestedthatschoolscandevelopaculturewheretalkingaboutemotions andaddressing issueswithmental health are thenorm (Weare&Nind,2011),whilstalsocontributingtofeelingsofbelongingandconnectednesstothe school (Millings, Buck, Montgomery, Spears & Stallard, 2012). Additionally,researchhasalsoshownstronglinksbetweenschoolethosandpositivecultureandbehaviourandlearning(Millings,Buck,Montgomery,Spears&Stallard,2012;Powell& Tod, 2004). A schools culture and ethos will again be strongly linked to thecorresponding factors of teachers and staff, school and community and belongingandconnectedness,with itsmajoremphasisbeing focusedonhowthe school cancreate a culture of positive values, supportive student and teacher relations,supportive peer groups, encouragement, individuality and the promotion of highexpectations.TheToolkitmakesastronglinkwiththeimportanceonschoolcultureandethos,whichisappropriateconsideringtheimportanceoftheroleanditsmanycrucialrelatedconcepts.3.4.5EducationThe evidence base provides firm support for a focus on education in regards tobuildingandpromotingresiliencewithintheToolkit.Forexample,previousresearchhas shown that those who do well academically are generally more resilient(Gutman, Brown, Akerman & Obolenskaya, 2010; Hill Strafford, Seaman, Ross &Daniel,2007;Masten,Best&Garmezy,1990).However,achievingacademicallymaynotbe theonlycurriculumsubject thatassists inbuildingandnurturing resilience.Forexample,researchhasshownthatconfidenceinphysicalabilityforboysduringsportisalsoaresiliencefactor,alongwithmorecreativetopicssuchasmusicandartwhichmayalsoholdpotentialtoassistresilience(Sacker&Schoon,2007).Notonlydoesthisresearchsuggestthatachievinginotherdomainsoftheschoolcurriculummay promote resilience, it also provides support for the inclusion of talents andinterestswithin the resilienceToolkit. Thebenefitsof this are that theToolkit candesign ways to incorporate resilience throughout the curriculum and not just inacademic subjects. For example, givingpraise andmerit to creative achievements,displayingpupilartthroughouttheschool,encouragingmusicalgroupsandgettingthewholeschool involved inschoolsports teamsasplayersorspectators.Overall,creatingaculturethatcelebratescreativeandsportingaccomplishmentsasmuchasitdoesacademicsuccess.3.4.6EngagementThere isevidencethatsuggestsbeyondattendance,engagementmayalsoassist inpromoting resilience through positive school experiences (Newman, 2004). Forexample, it has been argued that high-risk children and young peoplewho had apositive experience and enjoyed primary school are more likely to show

improvementsintheirgeneralwellbeing(Gutman,Brown,Akerman&Obolenskaya,2010).Inaddition,ithasbeensuggestedthatschoolscanpromoteengagementandinvolvementthroughtheuseofstrategies thatencourage ‘dispositionsof learning’through creating ‘positive learning architecture’ (Duncan, Jones&Carr, 2008). Byrecognisingandvaluingpupilengagement,schoolsassistinpromotingwellbeingandresilience.3.4.7HealthyBehavioursThe previous research suggests that resilience and risky health behaviours areinterrelated,asthosewholackresiliencearemorelikelytoengageinunhealthyorrisky behaviours. Similarly, engaging in these behaviours is likely to increasevulnerabilityandreduceresilience.Thereforeinterventionsorprogrammesthataimto reduce risky health behaviours may also increase resilience. There is goodevidencethatschoolscanimpactonbehaviours,decreasingthelikelihoodofyoungpeople taking up smoking, drinking, using drugs, eating badly and not exercising(Dobbins, DeCorby & La Rocca, 2013; Faggiano, Vigna-Taglianti, Versino, Zambon,Borraccino & Lemma, 2010). On an individual level, some interventions thatpromotebehaviourchangealsohavefeaturesthatmayincreaseresilience(Foxcroft& Tsertvadze, 2011). For example, school-based programmes to prevent smokingseem to be particularly effective when they focus on improving skills such asproblemsolvingandself-esteem(Thomas,McLellan&Perera,2013).Thenextsectionwillfocusonthesecondmodel:AcademicResilience.

4.AcademicResilienceAs well as general resilience, the Toolkit also utilises the concept of ‘academicresilience,’whichisdefinedintheToolkitas:

“Pupilsachievinggoodeducationaloutcomesdespiteadversity”Research shows that resilience is correlated with academic achievement andeducational success (Werner&Smith,1992).Theevidencebase forTheResilienceDomains Model described above suggests that many of the separate protectiveareas may also assist in academic achievement, which may also be linked toresilience.However,theframeworkcitedasreferenceforacademicresilienceintheToolkit,TheResilienceFrameworkwhichhasbeenadaptedformHart,BlincowandThomas(2007)relayssimilarinformationfromtheResilienceDomainsModel,albeitingreaterdepthandmorecateredtowardstheintendeduserbaseofteachersandschoolstaff.As previously discussed, the use of the term ‘resilience’ that is used in a school-basedframeworkthatlacksconceptualfoundationsinevitablycausesproblemswiththevalidityoftheframeworkbeingresilience-based.Thesamemaybesaidwiththeuse of the term ‘academic resilience’ within the Toolkit. In line with this, Smith(2015) has recently argued that within the surge of resilience training andinterventions in schools there exists a dissonance regarding the definitions andunderstandings of the term ‘academic resilience,’ which will not only make theframeworklesstheoreticallyvalid,butwillalsocauseissuesinattainingmeasurableoutcomes.Whereastheresilienceresearchhasprimarilyexploredcasesofextremeadversity,itmay be argued that academic resilience may consist of more minor ‘day-to-day’threatstowellbeing,suchasexamanxietyandpeer-pressurethatexistswithintheschool. Martin and Marsh (2008) have suggested that the ability to copeacademically in regards to daily adversities may be viewed through the lens of‘academic buoyancy’ in order to separate the term from a traditional view ofacademicresilience.Academicbuoyancycanbedescribedastheabilityofstudentstosuccessfullydealwith academic setbacks and challenges that are common within daily school life(Martin & Marsh, 2008). Although the term resilience may be used in differentcontexts,thereisatendencytoassociatelowresiliencewithunderachievementanda variety of other negative outcomes within the school environment. Conversely,academicbuoyancymaybeassociatedwiththeprocessofdealingwithandisolatingpoorperformanceandachievement, and theability toacademically ‘bounceback’afterfailure.Thisdissonancewithintheliteraturebasehighlightsapossibleconcernwiththeuseoftheterm‘academicresilience’withintheToolkit.Thegeneralresilienceresearchthat underpins the Resilience Domains Model does highlight the links between

resilienceandacademicachievement.However,theToolkitmaypotentiallyruntheriskofbeingtoooverlystretched in itsaimsofaddressingboth issuesofresilienceandacademic resilience,andover-loading theuserwithcomplex issues toaddresswhenimplementingtheframework.

5.TheWholeSchoolApproachTheauthorsoftheToolkitaimforaframeworktoadoptawholeschoolapproachinordertoachievemaximumimpact.Thewholeschoolapproachhasbeenshowntobe an effective method in previous resilience intervention studies (Weare &Markham,2005).Awholeschoolapproachaimstomodifytheschoolenvironmentinordertobenefitthepupils,staffandfamiliesbythewholeschoolactingasahubforthecommunity.Wholeschooloruniversalinterventionsaredefinedasinterventionsthattargetthewholeschoolpopulationandthatdonotfocussolelyonindividualsonthebasisofperceived risk. Sutton et al., (2005) have suggested that the benefits of wholeschool/universal approachesare that they can reacha largenumberof individualswhilst also increasing inclusiveness in at risk individuals. School based-frameworksthat use a whole school approach have been shown to contribute to increasingresilience(Stewart,Sun,Patterson,Lemerle&Hardie,2004).Inpractice, thewhole schoolapproachwasakeyelementof theNationalHealthySchools Programme (NHSP),whichwas designed to improve health andwellbeingwithin schools. The programme took action focused on four areas of emotionalhealthandwellbeing,physicalactivity,healthyeating,andpersonalandsocialhealtheducation(PSHE).Thereisafastgrowingevidencebasehighlightingtheuseofmulti-dimensional school wide approaches, which are commonly used as an organisingframeworktoassistschoolsto integrateaction inthedomainsofschoolethosandenvironment,curriculum,partnershipswithparents,communityandhealthagencies(Wyn,Cahill,Holdsworth,Rowling&Carson,2000).

6.ExistingResilienceRelatedInterventionsandFrameworksTheToolkitiswideinitsscopeoftheprotectiveresiliencefactorsthatitincorporateswithinitsframework,whichprovideanarrayofsupportedtheoryandhowitcanbetransported into thearenaof theworkingsof a school system.However,previousexemplarsofresiliencerelatedprogrammeshavefocusedonmorespecificareasofresilienceandwellbeing,asopposedtothemulti-domainframeworkoftheToolkit.6.1TheTeamofLifeProgrammeTheteamoflifeprogrammewasdesignedtoencouragechildrenandyoungpeopletorecognisethestrengthandresilienceintheir ‘lifeteams’(SeeEames,Shippen&Sharp, 2016). The programme uses a universal sporting metaphor that has beenused in a diverse array of cultures and contexts. In the UK, the programme wastestedwitha sampleof secondary school childrenwhowereasked to thinkaboutwhoisintheir‘teamoflife’bymakingalistrepresentingsignificantpeopleintheirlives, for example,who theywould have as their goal keeper, defender or strikerwhilstalsostatingtheir‘goals.’Thefindingsoftheprogrammethatwerepublishedinapeer-reviewedjournalsuggestsbenefitsrelatingtofeelingsofconfidence,peersupport and friendship, all of which are important factors when consideringresiliencewithin schools. Additionally, the use of an interventionwith a universalthemesuchassportmakesthis interventionveryadaptable intermsof itsculturalappeal.6.2FamiliesandSchoolsTogether(FAST)Homeschool-linkshavebeendesignedthataimtopromoteparentalconfidenceandengagement (Newman, 2004), such as the Families and Schools Together (FAST)programme. TheUK based programme, developed byMcDonald (1988; 2009; seeMcDonald& Puniskis, 2013 for a review) from theUniversity ofMiddlesex,workswith children at primary school and their families by supporting them to improvetheirchildren’sskillsinreading,writingandnumeracy,whilstalsoencouraginggoodbehaviourandpositiveattitudes.TheFASTprogramme,reportedthroughnumerousindependentreviews,hashadsuchpositiveoutcomesasareductioninsuchfactorsas:emotionalsymptoms,conductproblemsandpeerproblems,andan increase inparental involvementwitheducation. ThisprogrammeisrelevanttotheToolkit inthat it provides an example of how by building linkswith parents, the school canassistinparentstakingmoreinterestintheirchild’seducation,whilstalsopromotingvariousprotectivefactorsassociatedwiththefamilyandeducation.6.3StrengtheningFamiliesProgramme(SFP)There is some evidence to suggest that ‘multi-domain’ interventions that includeschool, family, individual and community elements can have a positive impact onhealth behaviours. For example, the US based Strengthening Families Programme(Kumpfer,DeMarsh&Child,1989;Kumpfer&Spoth,1996), involvesworkingwithpupils and parents in order to reduce alcohol and drugs usage among pupils bybuildingprotectivefactorsandreducingriskfactors.Aliteraturereviewofanumberof interventions designed to impact behaviour, found that SFP was the most

promising family intervention in terms of reducing smoking, alcohol consumptionand drug use after four years following intervention. The relevance of this toresilience is thatmany interventions that aim to promote healthy behaviours alsowork on an individual level by focusing on self-esteem and problem solving skills,bothofwhichmaybeviewedasprotectiveresiliencefactors.Althoughtheoriginalprogrammewasusedwithchildrenaged6-9, ithassubsequentlybeenused intheUKfor10-14yearoldpupils(SFP10-14;seeCoombes,Allen,Marsh&Foxcroft,2006foranindependentreview).6.4BuildingEmotionalResilienceProgrammeAn intervention based in Scotland, known as the Building Emotional ResilienceProgrammeaimedtodevelopanintegratedholisticapproachtobuildingemotionalresilienceandwellbeingthathadaspecificfocusonsupportingtransitionsbetweenprimary tosecondaryschool.Through theuseof resilienceworkshops forparents,promoting confidence and understanding about resilience amongst teachers andstaff, using peer support to increase confidence in pupils, and enhancing theleadershipskillsofheadteachersintheareaofresilience.Theprogrammemanagedto enhance pupils’ self-esteem and resilience attitudes, raise staff confidence inregards topromoting resilience, raiseparentconfidence in theirability tosupport,andalsoapresenceofgreaterschoolfocusonresilienceandwellbeing(seeMcLean,Moodie&Stevenson,2009foranindependentevaluation).

7.AreasforConsiderationThis review has revealed a wealth of theory and research that provides a strongevidencebase for the Toolkit. The literature reviewalso revealed some importantfactorsthatmaybeareastoconsiderinthefurtherdevelopmentoftheToolkitandframework.Thefollowingisasummaryofthoseareas.7.1School-to-SchoolCommunicationAn important factor in how resilience can be promoted and built in schools issupporting transitions and school-to-school communication. Schools have anopportunity as sites of transition to provide a key chance to build resilience andreduce vulnerability (Newman & Blackburn, 2002; Weare & Markham, 2005;Jackson, Henderson, Frank & Haw, 2012). For example, the experiences oftransitionsbetweenprimaryschoolandsecondaryschoolhavebeenshowntoaffecthealthandwellbeing inthechild’s future(West,Sweeting&Young,2010). Indeed,transitions into school also offer a good opportunity to engage with and supportparents (Brown, Kahn& Parsonage, 2012). However, transitions are also times ofelevatedrisks,duringwhichchildrencansufferemotionaldistressandadecline inprogressandcommitmenttolearning(Galton,Gray&Roddocck,1999),whichmayalso undermine their resilience. This stresses the importance of the framing infocusingonhowinformationwillbesharedacrossorganisationsinorderforschoolsto understand the background and circumstances of the children coming to theirschools.An understanding of the importance of transitions also highlights the issue ofensuring that interventions are correctly timed to increase their impact. Forexample,evidencesuggeststhatthereisawindowofopportunityforinfluencingthecourseofdevelopmentduringtimesofmalleability(Cicchetti,2010;Masten,Burt&Coatsworth,2006;Masten,Obradovicetal.,2006;Masten,Long,Kuo,McCormick&Desjardins,2009).Timingan interventionwellmayalso lead to long-lastingeffects(Heckman,2006).7.2CultureAcriticalprotectivefactorofresiliencethatisoverlookedintheToolkitistheroleofculture. For example, studies across differing cultureshavehighlighted the roleofculture,communityvalues,historicalcontextandgeographicalsettingsonresponsetoadversity(Castro&Murray,2010).Indeed,protectivefactorsmayexistwithintheroots of many cultural practices, such as: cultural and religious traditions andpractices, rituals and ceremonies, and cultural community support services(Crawford,Wright &Masten, 2006). Similarly, amongminority groups in society,factorssuchasstrengthofethnicidentity,competenceandcomfortinengagingwithothergroups,andculturalsocialisationaresignificantlyimportantwhendealingwithissuesofdiscriminationandoppressionwithinsociety(Szalachaetal.,2003;Wright&Littleford,2002).Thedeviationfromanindividualisticviewofresilienceandmoretowardscontextuallysituatedframeworkshasbeenpropositionedbyvariouscross-culturalresearchers(Aponte,1994;Boyd-Franklin&Bry,2000).Indeed,manyofthe

individual characteristics that promote resiliencemay be products not of just theenvironment,butalsocontextualculturalpracticesandvalues.Indeed, considering a resilience domain that addresses the importance of culturewithin the Toolkit may be highly beneficial to the overall impact of promotingresilience. Focusing on cultural sensitivity, religious diversity, and a school cultureandethosthatpromotesculturaltoleranceandreligiousacceptancewillcontributeinnurturingtheprotectiveresiliencefactorsassociatedwithresilience.Additionally,theToolkitcanensurethattheinterventionsandmethodsdeployedbyteachersandschoolstaffareuniversalintheirthemes.Forexample,theTeamforLifeprogrammeillustratesamethodthatcanbeadaptedtodifferingculturalandcontextualfactors. 7.3VirtualRealmsAnareathatrequiresconsiderationisthatofvirtualrealmsandthedigitalworldthatincludes such factors as social networking, E-learning, gaming and technology.Childrenandyoungpeople’suseoftheinternethasundergonerapidexpansionoverthe past decade,with growing use of social networking sites,mobile technologiesand gaming platforms. Changing modes of social interaction online and theintegration of technology into all areas of life may provide both benefits toresilience, but also risks, such as cyber-bullying. This area of research is still in itsinfancy,andthereisacleardeficitintowhatrolethevirtualworldplaysinchildrenand young people’s resilience. However, there does exist some research thatexploreshowvariousformsoftechnologycanbeusedtoimprovemood,emotionsandfeelingsofwellbeing.TheconceptofindividualsusingdiverseformsofmediatoregulatetheirmoodandenhancetheirmotivationalandemotionalstatesisrootedinthetheoryofUsesandGratification (Ruggerio, 2000). This can be reflected in many young peopleconsideringtheInternetandtechnologyasplayingapositiveroleintheir livesthatmakes them feel part of a community online (YoungMinds, 2015). Indeed, socialmedia may provide and reinforce such protective factors as friendships andsupportive relationships,whilst also functioning as an arenawhere individuals canseekhelpandadviceintimesofadversity.Recently,therehasbeenanincreasedfocusofresearchintovideogamingthathassuggestedthattheremaybeaplethoraofbenefits,asopposedtothenegativesofvideogameplay.Forexample,Granic,LobelandEngels(2015)recentlyarguedthatvideo gameplay might provide; cognitive benefits, such as problem solving skill,spatialawarenessandcreativity(Jacksonetal.,2012);motivationalbenefits,suchasthecultivationofapersistent,optimisticmotivationalstyle;emotionalbenefits,suchas the promotion of positive emotions and mood (Russoniello, O’Brien & Parks,2009; Ryan, Rigby & Przybylski, 2006), and; social benefits, such as groupmembership andwellbeing (Kaye, 2015). In regards to education, several studiesexistonthelearningoutcomesassociatedwitheducationalgames(O’Neil,Wainess&Baker,2005;Vogeletal.,2006).

Theroleofthevirtualworldandtechnology isvastlynewintermsof itsrelevanceand application to resilience. The benefits of these realms must be taken intoconsideration aswell as the possible disadvantages and threats to resilience theymay also possess. Schools may possibly use virtual realms and technology topromoteresiliencebyinstillinganonlinepresenceandpositiveonlinecommunityviasocial networking, an online blog that is run by pupils that promotes talents andinterestswhilstcommunicatingthepositivevalues,cultureandethosoftheschool,using awide varietyof technology andonline teaching aids, andalsomaking surethat E-safety is taught by teachers who understand the potential risks to studentwellbeing,andpossiblyresiliencethatexistinvirtualrealms.

8.LimitationsThis review of the existing literature has also identified potential limitations andissues that may potentially affect the outcomes of any school-based resilienceframework. Through identifying these limitations and issues, theymay be used toinformthedevelopmentoftheToolkitandstrengthenitsimpact.8.1EnvironmentalConstraintsBoisture (2003) has stated that an ecological model of resilience involvessurroundingchildrenandyoungpeoplewithanetworkofsupportiveandnurturingrelationships that include the family, community and religious organisations thatconnectchildrenandyoungpeoplewithcaringandsupportiveadultswhoserveaspositive role models whilst encouraging positive values and high expectations(Brooks,2006).Althoughschoolscanbeaninfluentialpartofsuchanetwork,theyare one part of the environment that surrounds children. Families still have themajor responsibility of nurturing their children. Indeed, the quality of theparent/child bond during infancy and preschool plays a major role in developingcaringrelationshipswithadultsbeforethechildreachesschool(Durlak,1998).8.2TeachersandSchoolStaffTrainingA recent, but widely criticised resilience programme called the UK ResilienceProgramme (UKRP) highlighted the importance of teacher and staff training. Forexample, a possible cause for the weak results of the programme has beensuggested as a reduction in effect as a result of teacher implementation (Challen,Gillham &Machin, 2014), In other words, many of the interventions that can beemployed to increase resilience rely on certain theoretical understandings of themodels,not tomention the sheer complexnatureof resilienceasaphenomenon.Indeed,manyinterventionsmayproducesignificantresultswhenadministeredbyatrainedpsychologist/psychotherapist,butwhenrolledoutbyteachersandstaffwhohave not received sufficient training in the area the effect is noticeably diluted.Therefore,this limitationhighlightstheneedfortheToolkittoensurethatthere issufficienttrainingfortheteachersandschoolstaffonhowtouseandintegratethemodelsandconceptswithintheToolkit.8.3Universalvs.TargetedProgrammesAnother issue that has been highlighted is the issue of targeted vs. universalprogrammesinregardstohowstudentsreceiveresilienceintervention.Simplyput,howwillpupilsbe‘picked’toengageinresiliencetraining;willallpupilswithintheschoolbeenrolled,orwillitspecificallyfocuson‘atrisk’individuals.Theliteraturehighlights that a mixture of both methods of selecting pupil engagement can bebeneficial in building resilience (Merry, Hetrick, Cox, Brudvold-Iverson, Bir &McDowell,2011).However,theliteraturealsosuggeststhatusingtargetedmethods,orspecificallyfocusingonatriskpupilsmayalsocontributetothestigmaaroundthefactorsthatcauserisk,suchasmentalhealthoreconomicstatus.Inotherwords,thepupilmayfeelsingledoutorpossiblyashamedofbeingtheonlyoneof theirpeergroup being enrolled in such a programme. Additionally, the issue of targeted

programmesoutlinesthepossibledangerofaddingtotheatriskchild’spre-existingsituations and thwarting the chances of building resilience (Merry., et al, 2011;Offord,Kraemer,Kazdin,Jensen&Harrington,1998).AlthoughtheToolkitaimsforthe whole school approach, the authors must consider both the advantages anddisadvantagesoftargetingatriskpupilsforintervention.

9.Conclusions9.1RationalesandApproachTheHeadStartResilienceToolkitaimstoprovideusefultoolsandmodelsforschoolsto improvehowtheyapproach the issueofpupils’ resilienceandwellbeing,whilstenabling schools to become increasingly self-sufficient in addressing children andyoungpeople’s resilience.Thereappears tobeclear support for the rationaleofaschool-based resilience framework, given the opportunity schools have to engagewith and support their children, families and the wider community, whilst alsoplayinga role in reducing risk andbuilding interagency connections. Theuseof awholeschoolapproachwillassist intheToolkitachieving itsaims,asthe literaturesuggests it to have been an effective method in previous intervention methods(Weare&Markham,2005).9.2TheModelsThe main model referenced within the Toolkit, Daniel and Wassell’s ResilienceDomainsModel,providesausefultemplateforteachersandschoolstaffinassessingresilience.Thereisstrongtheoreticalbackingforthegreaterviewofresilience(child,family, supportive community; Brown & Rhodes, 1991; Bernard, 1995; Matson,2001), and the six domains: social competencies, secure bases, education,friendships,talentsandinterestsandpositivevalues.However, as the literature reveals many of these domains are interrelated andoverlap,whichmaybeconfusingforteachersandstaffinhowtheseconceptscanbeseparatedintothemesofindividualfactorsofresilienceandinterpersonalfactorsofresilience. The second framework referenced within the Toolkit, the ResilienceFramework under the link of ‘Academic Resilience,’ however, does provide someusefulinformationofmorespecificwaysresiliencecanbenurturedwithinaschoolenvironment. Nevertheless, these models use differing terminology, which mayagain cause confusion when trying to cross-reference the models when planningschool/classinterventionsandactivities.9.3AcademicResilienceThe Toolkit aims to incorporate a theme of academic resilience within theframework. Although the literature does suggest a correlation between resilienceand academic achievement, the Toolkit is weak in how it separates these twothemes. The general research into resilience highlights how various protectivefactors can contribute to both resilience and educational achievement despiteadversity;however,theareaofacademicresilienceintheliteratureisoftenviewedas differing to that of general resilience. For example, being academically resilientmay be the ability to bounce back from minor daily setbacks in school life (badgrades, examanxiety),whereas general resilience ismore focused on chronic andmajorlifeadversities(poorfamilycare,poverty,mentalillness).Asuggestionbasedonthe literaturewouldbetoeither incorporatethethemeofacademicbuoyancy,whichemphasisesafocusonhowtodealwithminorsetbacksinschoollife(positive

emotions, problem-solving skills), or to simply ‘playdown’ the academic resiliencecomponentandreinforcethebenefitsoftheeducationdomainoftheToolkit.9.4PreviousInterventionsThe authors of this report thought it useful to outline a number of existingframeworkstohighlighttheimportanceofsomeprotectivefactorsthathaveproventobesuccessfulininterventionswhenapproachingtheissueofresilienceinschools,particularly the Families and Schools Together Programme and the Team of LifeProgramme.Forexample,theFASTprogrammehighlightsthatthefamilyisthemostpowerful factor in regards to resilience, andprogrammes that focuson the familywillhavethegreatestimpactonresilience.TheTeamofLifeprogrammealsoshowshowaninterventiondesigntobeusedacrossdifferingculturesandcontextcanbebeneficialandhowitcanbeappliedacrossschoolsthatdifferculturallyandsocially.These previous interventions have commonly focused on one area of protectiveresilience, whereas the current Toolkit incorporates a multitude of domains andfactors of resilience. This approach may have the result of increasing a generalawarenessofresilienceinpupils,families,teachers,schoolstaffandthecommunitythat may be reflecting in qualitative investigations. However, when trying toquantitatively ‘pin down’ successful interventions or activities that the school hasusedto increaseresilience, theopennessandflexibility forschools tousedifferingmethodsmayproveproblematicdue to inconsistency.Therefore, if theauthorsofthe Toolkit are looking for a highly quantifiable and measurable outcome of theToolkititmaybeadvisedtoprescribeconcreteinterventionsandreducetheschoolsabilitytousetheirownmethodsandinterventions.Theprevious resilience interventionshavealsohighlightedan importantmatter inregardstotheToolkitanditsintendedusers:teachersandschoolstaff.Thematterofappropriatetraininginunderstandingthetheoriesandconceptsofresilience,aswellasconfidenceinthemselvesandheadteachersinregardstoresiliencetopicsisvastly important when considering the reduction in effect of the UK ResilienceProgramme. Although it may seem obvious that professionals would be moreefficient inadministering resilience training, theeffectivenessof theToolkitwouldbeincreasedwithsubstantialteachertrainingandcompetenceinresilience.9.5AreasforConsiderationAreviewofthe literaturehighlightedsomeareas forconsiderationthathavebeeneitherbeenoverlookedintheToolkitorareworthyofgreaterattentionduetotheirimportant role in resilience. Although the Toolkit includes an emphasis on schoolculture and ethos, it does not take into the account the role of an individual’scultural beliefs or contexts that may be more salient than a schools culture. TheToolkitdoeshighlighttheneedforcontextinhowschoolswillindividuallycatertheframeworkfortheirspecificschool,however,achildoryoungperson’sownculturealso plays an important role in nurturing and forming resilience. Given thatmulticulturalismissuchanimportantandrelevantissuewithinoursociety,andthatmanystudentswilldifferinethnic,religiousandculturalbackgrounds,theinclusion

of culture and its benefits, as well as the use of interventions that are culturallysensitivemustbeaddressed.Another consideration identified is thatofhelping transitionsand school-to-schoolcommunication. The literature base has shown that transitions between primaryand secondary school affect health and wellbeing in the child’s future (West,Sweeting&Young,2010),andarealsogoodopportunities toengagewithparentsand families (Brown, Kahn&Parsonage, 2012). Therefore, a recommendation fortheframeworkmovingforwardwouldbetofocusonhowcommunicationbetweenschoolscanbedevelopedandincludedwithintheframework.Lastly, thevastandnewareaof virtual realmswasalsohighlightedasanarea forconsideration. Indeed, such factors as social networking, E-learning, gaming andtechnology may play roles in building resilience, but also threatening resilience.There exists research that suggests individuals use forms of media to regulateemotional states (Ruggerio, 2000). Furthermore, recent research in socialnetworkingandvideogamingsuggestthatpreviousenquiryhasfocusedmainlyonthenegativesofthesevirtualdomains,andthattheremayalsobepotentialbenefitsinregardstowellbeing,self-esteemandfeelingsofsocialbelonging(Granic,Lobel&Engels, 2015) and that these benefits may also have educational applications.Schools may possibly use virtual realms and technology to promote resilience byinstillinganonlinepresenceandpositiveonlinecommunityviasocialnetworking,anonline blog that is run by pupils that promotes talents and interests whilstcommunicating the positive values, culture and ethos of the school, using a widevarietyoftechnologyandonlineteachingaids,andalsomakingsurethatE-safetyistaught by teachers who understand the potential risks to student wellbeing, andpossiblyresilienceinvirtualrealms.

10.RecommendationsBasedontheconclusionsofthepresentreporttheauthorshavesummarisedalistofrecommendations with suggestions on how to adapt the Toolkit based on theevidenceprovided.1.ClarityofProtectiveFactorswithinToolkitA review of the resilience literature has illustrated the vast amount of protectivefactors that exist within the wider domains of child, family and community. TheResilienceDomainsModeldoescontainsixareasthatarerelevanttomanyoftheseconcepts; however, the delivery of these is quite vague and reductive. ArecommendationfortheToolkitwouldbetocreateaframeworkforhowandwherethese factors can be facilitated that can be cross-referenced with the resiliencedomains.Forexample,thedomainof‘PositiveValues’canincludeschoolethosandthe enforcement of positive school values, teachers and staff and theencouragement of positive values within the class, families and importance ofpositiveparentingandencouragement,andalsothecommunityandpositivevaluesassociated with volunteer work, The second framework referenced in the Toolkitincorporatesasimilarapproach,however, therearedifferences intheterminologywhichmaycauseconfusionforteachersandschoolstaff.2.CultureTheroleofindividualcultureisanimportantfactorthathasbeenoverlookedbytheToolkit.Arecommendationwouldbetoensurethatallmaterialsandmethodsusedareculturallysensitiveinregardstothelanguageusedandthethemestheycontain.Furthermore, ensuring that the school culture and ethos is one that promotesculturalandreligiousdifferencesbycreatinganinclusiveandsupportiveclimatethatappreciates the importance of religious, cultural and historical practices amongpupils.Furthermore, it is also recommended that the Toolkit explore the use ofinterventionsthatareuniversal in regards tocultural themes,suchas theTeamofLife Programme, as these methods have shown to be beneficial in an array ofdifferingculturesandcontexts.3.TransitionsTheliteraturebasehighlightsthattransitionsfromprimarytosecondaryschoolaretimes of heightened risk to resilience, but also provide good opportunities forschoolstoengagewithparentsandfamilies.Theauthorsofthisreportrecommendthat the framework explores ways that school-to-school communication can bedevelopedinordertocapitaliseonthisimportanttransitionalperiod.Furthermore,opendays, taster lessonsand inductiondayscanbeused toconnectwith familiesandprovidechildrenwithasenseoftheschoolcultureandethos.

4.AcademicResilienceThe authors of this report recommend caution with using the term ‘academicresilience.’Indeed,resiliencedoesprovidesomebenefitsinhowchildrenandyoungpeople can achieve good educational outcomes despite adversity, however, thesefactorswillbethatofgeneralresiliencethatviewsadversityinitsextremecases.Theliteratureoutlinesthemesassociatedwith‘academicresilience’asmorefocusedonminor setbacks that occur in the daily school life of the pupil and are moreappropriately described as academic buoyancy. Academic buoyancy exploreswaysto help pupils bounce back from such factors as exam stress, anxiety and failureavoidance by reinforcing internal cognitive appraisals that can be encouraged bypositiveemotions.Theauthorsofthisreportrecommendeither‘playingdown’theelementofacademicresilienceandsubsumingthebenefits intothegeneralthemeofresilienceorexploringtheinclusionofacademicbuoyancy.5.VirtualDomainsTheuseoftechnologyandtheInternetarenowprominentfactorsinmanychildrenand young peoples’ lives and the authors of this report thought it appropriate torecommendthattheroleofvirtualdomainsbeconsidered.Althoughtheroleofthevirtualworldandhowitrelatestoresilienceisanextremelyunderresearchedarea,various theories and findings from sociology, positive psychology andcyberpsychology illustrate not only the potential risks to resilience this virtualdomain may contain (cyber-bulling, cyberostracism), but also how it may nurtureand reinforce resilience. For example, social networking provides an arena forchildrenandyoungpeopletoconnectandfeelasenseofbelonging,andvideogameplaymayalsoprovidecertaincognitive,motivational,socialandeducationbenefits.Indeed,theToolkitmaycapitaliseonthesesuggestionsbyhavinganonlinestudent-runblog, a socialmediapresence for schoolnewsandevents, incorporatingmoretechnological teachingaidsand introducinggamessuchMinecraft to teachcoding.Additionally, including information on online safety and online risk during PSHEsessionsmayalsohelpinreducingtheriskstoresiliencethatmayexistinthevirtualdomains.Also,theToolkitmayexplorewaysinwhichsomeofitselementsmaybeusedinavirtualcapacityincorporatedintoavirtuallearningenvironment.

6.TeacherTrainingPrevious research has suggested that appropriate teacher training is an issue thatmay affect the success of an intervention. Therefore it is recommended thatteachersandschoolstaffbeprovidedadequatetraininginregardstotheconceptsofresilience and any methods or interventions that are chosen for their respectiveschools.

7.InteragencyWorkPreviousinterventionshaveillustratedtheimportanceofinteragencyworkbetweenschoolsandmentalhealthservices.TheauthorsofthisreportrecommendthattheToolkitexplorehowitcanfacilitate interagencyworkandcommunicationbetweenschools andmentalhealth services, suchas EarlyHelp, Live itwell, Social Servicesand numerous other services that are available throughout Kent. There may bewaysinwhichtheframeworkcanutiliseresilienceinterventionsmethodsthataimtoassisttheseinteragencyworkings,suchastheTeamofLifeProgramme.8.StabilityofdeliveryoftheProgrammePrevious interventions have commonly focused on one element of resilience,however, the Toolkit focuses on a multitude of resilience related factors, withschools being able to explore interventions andmethods that suit their individualcontextual needs. As previously discussed, this method may yield qualitativefindings such as an increase in the awareness of resilience, or feelings of generalwellbeing. Conversely,when attempting to pin down the outcomes of the Toolkitquantitatively, the issue of consistency and stability will prove problematic whenanalysing the data. Therefore, it is recommended that the Toolkit apply astandardisedapproach in the interventions schoolsuse toapproach resilienceandsupplyschoolswithsetinterventionswhichtheymustuse,whichwouldheightenedtheconsistencyandstabilityoftheToolkit,whilstalsoprovidingameanstocomparedataandstrengthenthevalidityofthefindings.9.EvaluationTheAuthorsofthereportrecommendthatacomprehensiveevaluationbebuilt infrom the start of the delivery programme by an independent and externalresearcher. This will further assist in accurately measuring the outcomes of theprogramme.

AnnexA:ReferencesReferencesAbrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroupdiscrimination.European Journal of SocialPsychology,18,317–334.Aponte, H. (1994). Bread and spirit: Therapy with the new poor. New York, NY:Morton.Atwool, N., (2006). ‘Attachment and Resilience: Implications for Children in Care’inChildCareinPracticeJournal,12(4),pp.315-330.Baumeister,R.F&Bryant,F.B.,(1995)TheNeedtoBelong:desirefor interpersonalattachmentsasafundamentalhumanmotivation.PsychologyBulletin,117(3)497-529.Bernard,B.(1995).Fosteringresiliencyinkids:Protectivefactorsinthefamily,schooland community. San Francisco: FarWest Laboratory for Educational Research andDevelopment.Betz,N.E.,Klein,K.L.,&Taylor,K.M.(1996).Evaluationofashort-formofcareerdecisionmakingself-efficacyscale.JournalofCareerAssessment,4(1),47-57.Boisture, R. (2003). Hardwired to Connect: The New Scienfic Case for AuthoritiveCommunities:SummaryoftheCommisiononChildrenatRisk'sReport.NewYorkBonanno,G.,Brewin,C.,Kaniasty,K.,&LaGreca,A. (2010).Weighing theCostsofDisaster: Consequences, Risks, and Resilience in Individuals, Families, andCommunities.PsychologicalScienceinthePublicInterest,11(1),1-49.Bond, L., Butler,H., Thomas, L. Carlin, J.,Glover, S&Patton,G., (2007) Social andSchool Connectedness in Early Secondary School as Predictors of Late TeenageSubstance Use, Metal Health, and Academic Outcomes. Journal of AdolescentHealth,40(4)357.Boyd-Franklin,N.,&Bry,B.H.(2000).Reachingoutinfamilytherapy:Home-based,schoolandcommunityinterventions.NewYork,NY:Guilford.Brofenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments byNatureandDesign.Cambridge,MA,US:HarvardUniversityPress.Brooks, J.E. (2006) Strengthening Resilience in Children and Youths: MaximizingOpportunitiesthroughtheSchools.Children&Schools,28(2)69-76.

Brown,E.,Khan,L.&Parsonage,M.(2012).Achancetochange:deliveringeffectiveparentingprogrammestotransformlives.London:CentreforMentalHealth.Buckner, J,C.,Mezzacappa,.&E.,Beardslee,W.R(2003)Characteristicsofresilientyouths living in poverty: the role of self-regulatory processes. DevelopmentalPsychopathology,15(1)139-162.Catalano,R.F.,Mazza,J.J.,Harachi,T.W.,Abbott,R.D.,Haggerty,K.P.,&Fleming,C. B. (2003). Raising healthy children through enhancing social development inelementary school: Results after 1.5 years. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 143-164.Challen, Amy R.;Machin, Stephen J.; & Gillham, Jane E. (2014) The UK ResilienceProgramme:Aschool-baseduniversalnonrandomizedpragmaticcontrolledtrial.JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychology,82(1),75-89.Cicchetti, D. (2010). Resilience under conditions of extreme stress: A multilevelperspective.WorldPsychiatry,9(3),145–154.Coombes, L., Allen, D., Marsh, M., & Foxcroft, D. (2006). Implementation of theStrengtehening Families Programme (SFP) 10-14 in Barnsley: The Perspectives ofFacilitatorsandFamilies.SchoolofHealthandSocialCare,OxfordBrooks.Crawford,E.,Wright,M.O’D.,&Masten,A.S.(2006).Resilienceandspiritualityinyouth. In E. C. Roehlkepartain, P. E. King, L.Wagener, & P. L. Benson (Eds.), Thehandbook of spiritual development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 355–370).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Cummings,C.,Dyson,A.,Muijs,D.Papps,I.,Pearson,P.,Raffo,C.,...Todd,L.(2007). Evaluation of the full service extended schools initiative: Final report.London:DepartmentforEducationDaniel,B.,&Wassell,S.(2002).TheEarlyYears:Assessingandpromotingresilienceinvulnerablechildren.London:JessicaKingsley.Debra,M.H, Jozefowicz-Simbeni, & Allen-Meares, P (2002). Poverty and Schools:Intervention and Resource Building through School-Linked Services. Children &Schools24(2)123-136.Dobbins,M.,Hudson,H.,DeCorby,K.,&LaRocca,R.L.(2013).School-BasedPhysicalActivty Programs for Promoting Physical Activity and Fitness in Chidren andAdolescentsAged6to18.CochraneDatabasesSytemsReview,28(2).McDonald, L., & Puniskis, M. FASTUK Aggergate Evaluation Report. MiddlesexUniversity,London.

Drennon-Gala,D.(1995).Delinquencyandhighschooldropouts:Reconsideringsocialcorrelates.NewYork:UniversityPressofAmerica,Inc.Duncan,J.,Jones,C.&Carr,M.(2008).Learningdispositionsandtheroleofmutualengagement:factorsforconsiderationineducationalsettings.ContemporaryIssuesinEarlyChildhood,9(2),107-117.Durlak, J. A. (1998). Common risk and protective factors in successful preventionprograms.AmericanJournalofOrthopsychiatry,68(4),512-520.Dyson, A., Carpenter, H., Cummings, C., Jones, L., Kassam, N., Laing, K. (2011)ExtendedServicesinPractice–Asummaryofevaluationevidenceforheadteachers.ResearchReportDFE-RR155.London:DfEEames, V., Shippen., C, Sharp. (2016). The Team of Life: A narrative approach tobuildingresilienceinUKschoolchildrenEducational&ChildPsychology,33(2)57.Eddy, J. M., Reid, J. B., & Fetrow, R. A. (2000). An elementary school-basedprevention program targeting modifiable antecedents of youth delinquency andviolence:LinkingtheInterestsofFamiliesandTeachers(LIFT).JournalofEmotional&BehaviouralDisorders,8(3),165-176Emery, R. E., & Forehand, R. (1994).. Parental divorce and children’s wellbeing: Afocusonresilience.InR.J.Haggerty,L.R.Sherrod,N.Garmezy,&M.Rutter(Eds.),Stress, risk,and resilience in childrenandadolescents:Processes,mechanisms,andinterventions(pp.65–99).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Faggiano, F., Vigna-Taglianti, F., Burkhart, G. et al. (2010). The effectiveness of aschool-basedsubstanceabusepreventionprogram:18-month follow-upof theEU-DAPcluster randomizationcontrolled trial.DrugandAlcoholDependence,108,56-64.Finn,J.D.,&Rock,D.A.(1997).AcademicSuccessAmongStudentsatRiskforSchoolFailure.JournalofAppliedPsychology,82(2),221-234.Foxcroft,D.R., Tsertsvadze,A. (2011).Universal school-basedpreventionprogramsforalcoholmisuseinyoungpeople.CochraneDatabaseSystematicReview,28(2).Friedli, L (2009) Mental health, resilience and inequalities WHO Europe London;CopenhagenGalton, M, Gray, L & Ruddock, L. (1999). The Impact of School Transitions andTransfers on Pupil Progress and Attainment. Department for Education andEmployment.131.

Gordon Rouse, K. A., Ingersoll, G. M., & Orr, D. P. (1998). Longitudinal healthendangering behaviour risk among resilient and non-resilient early adolescents.JournalofAdolescentHealth,23,297-302.Granic, J., Lobel, A., & Engels., (2014) ).The benefits of playing videogames.AmericanPsychologist,69,66-78Greenberg,J.,Solomon,S.,Pyszczynski,T.,Rosenblatt,A.,Burling,J.,Lyon,D.,Pinel,E. (1992).Whydopeopleneedself-esteem?Convergingevidence that self-esteemserves an anxiety-buffering function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63,913–922.Greene,R.R.(Ed.).(2002).Resilience:AnIntegratedApproachtoPractice,Policy,andResearch.Washington,DC:NASWPress.Gutman,L.M.,Brown,J.,Akerman,R.&Obolenskaya,P.(2010).Changeinwellbeingfromchildhoodtoa:riskandresilience.London:InstituteofEducation.Gutman,L.M.,Sameroff,A.J.,&Eccles,J.S. (2002).TheacademicachievementofAfricanAmericanstudentsduringearlyadolescence:Anexaminationofmultiplerisk,promotive, and protective factors. American Journal of Community Psychology,30(3),367–400.Hart,A.,&Heaver,B.(2013).Evaluatingresilience-basedprogramsforschoolsusingasystematicconsultativereview.JournalofChildandYouthDevelopment,1(1),27-53.Hart, A., Blincow, D., & Thomas, H. (2007). Resilient therapy with children andfamilies.London:BrunnerRoutledgeHeckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing indisadvantagedchildren.Science,312,1900–1902.Henderson,N.,&Milstein,M.M.(2003).Resiliencyinschools:Makingithappenforstudentsandeducators.ThousandOaks,CA:Corwin.Hidon, Z., Smith,G.,Netuveli,G.,&Blane,D. (2008).Understandingadversity andresilienceatolderages.SociologyofHealthandIllness,30(5),726-740.HillM,StaffordA,SeamanP,RossN.,&Daniel,B. (2007)Parentingandresilience.York:JosephRowntreeFoundation.HInz, A., Schumacher, J., Albani, C., Schmid, G., & Brahler, E. (2006). Population-representativenormforgeneralself-efficacyscale.Diagnostica,52(1),26-32.Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology ofintergrouprelationsandgroupprocesses.London:Routledge.

Horton,T.V.,&Wallander,J.L.(2001).Hopeandsocialsupportasresiliencefactorsagainstpsychologicaldistressofmotherswhocareforchildrenwithchronicphysicalconditions.RehabilitationPsychology,46,382-399.Jackson, C. A., Henderson, M., Frank, J. W., & Haw, S. J. (2012). An overview ofpreventionofmultipleriskbehaviour inadolescenceandyoungadulthood.JournalofPublicHealth,34,131-140.JoseP.E,RyanN.PryorJ.(2012).Doessocialconnectednesspromoteagreatersenseofwell-being inadolescenceovertime?JournalofResearchonAdolescence,22(2):235-251.Jozefowicz-Simbeni, D. M., & Allen-Meares, P. (2002). Poverty and Schools:Intervention and Resource Building through School-Linked Services. Children andSchools,24(2),123-136.Kirby,L.D.&Fraser,M.W.(1997).Riskandresiliencyinchildhood,InFraser,M.W.(Ed.),RiskandResiliency(pp.10-33).Washington,DC:NASWPress.Kumpfer,K.L.(1999).Factorandprocessescontributingtoresilience:Theresilienceframework. In Meyer D. Glantz & Jeannette L. Johnson (Eds.), Resilience anddevelopment:Positivelifeadaptations(pp.179-224).NewYork:Kluwer.Kumpfer,K.L.,Molgaard,V.,&Spoth. (1996).TheStrengtheningFamiliesProgramfor thePreventionofDelinquencyandDrugUse. InR.D.Peters,&R. J.McMahon(Eds.), Preventing Childhood Disorders, Substance Abuse and Delinquency (Vol. 3).ThousandOaks,CA,US:Sage.Kumpfer,K.L.,DeMarash,J.P.,&Child,W.(1989).StrengtheningFamiliesProgram:Children'sSkillsTrainingCurriculrmManual,ParentTrainingManual,Children'sSkillTrainingManual,andFamilySkillsTrainingManual(PreventionServicestoChildrenofSubstanceAbusingParents.UniversityofUtah,SocialResearchInstitute.Leary,M.R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S.K.,&Downs,D. L. (1995). Self-esteemasaninterpersonalmonitor:Thesociometerhypothesis.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,68,518-530.Luthar S.S. (2006). Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across fivedecades. In: Cicchetti D, Cohen DJ, editors. Developmental Psychopathology: Risk,Disorder,andAdaptation.NewYork:Wiley;pp.740–795.Markham,G.,Balkin,D.,&Baron,R.(2002). Inventorsandnewventureformation:The effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking.Entrepreneurship TheoryandPractice,27(2)149-165.

Martin,A.J.&Marsh,H.W.(2008).Academicbuoyancytowardsanunderstandingofstudents’everydayacademicresilience.JournalofSchoolPsychology,46(1),53–83.Martinek, J.L & Hellison, D.R (1997). Fostering Resiliency in Underserved YouthThroughPhysicalActivity.Quest,4934-49.Maslow,A. (1943).Atheoryofhumanmotivation.PsychologicalReview,50(4);pp.370–96.Masten,A.S.,&Reed,M.G.(2002).ResilienceinDevelopment.InC.R.Snyder,&S.J. Lopez (Eds.), The Hadbokk of Positive Psychology (pp. 74-88). NY, US: OxfordUniversityPress.Masten,A.(2001).OrdinaryMagic:ResilienceProcesses inDevelopment.AmericanPsychologist,56(3),227-238.Masten A. S. (1994) Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptationdespiteriskandadversity.In:WangMC,GordonEW,editors.EducationalresilienceininnercityAmerica:Challengesandprospects.Erlbaum;Hillsdale,NJ:pp.3–25.Masten A, Best K, Garmezy N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributionsfrom the study of children who overcome adversity. Development andPsychopathology,2,425–444.Masten, A. S., Burt, K. B., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2006). Competence andpsychopathology indevelopment. InD.Cicchetti&D.Cohen(Eds.),Developmentalpsychopathology(Risk,disorderandpsychopathology2nded.,Vol.3,pp.696–738).NewYork,NY:Wiley.MastenA.S.,CoatsworthJ.D.(1998).Thedevelopmentofcompetenceinfavorableand unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children.AmericanPsychologist,53,205–220.Masten A. S., Garmezy N. (1985) Risk, vulnerability, and protective factors indevelopmentalpsychopathology. In:LaheyB,KazdinA,editors.Advances inclinicalchildpsychology.Vol.8.PlenumPress;NewYork.pp.1–52.Masten,A.S.,Long,J.D.,Kuo,S.I.,C.,McCormick,C.M.,&Desjardins,C.D.(2009).Developmentalmodelsofstrategicintervention.EuropeanJournalofDevelopmentalScience,3,282–291.Masten, A. S., Obradović, J., & Burt, K. (2006). Resilience in emerging adulthood:Developmentalperspectivesoncontinuityandtransformation.InJ.J.Arnett&J.L.Morrison,G.M.,&Allen,M.R.(2007).Promotingstudentresilienceinschool

contexts.TheoryIntoPractice,46(2),162-169.

MastenA.S, ReedM.J. (2002). Resilience in development. In: Snyder CR, Lopez SJ,editors.Handbookofpositivepsychology.OxfordUniversityPress;NewYork:pp.74–88.McAdams, D.P., Bryant, F.B (1987). Intimacy, motivation and subjective mentalhealthinanationwidesample.JournalofPersonality55(3)395-413.Merry,S.N.,Hertrick,S.E.,Cox,G.R.,Brudevold-Iversen,T.,Bir,J.J.,&McDowell,H.(2011). Psychological and Educational Interventions for Preventing Depression inChildrenandAdolecents.CochraneDatabaseSytemsReview,7(12).Millings, A., Buck, R., Montgomery, A., Spears, M., & Stallard, P. (2012). SchoolConnectedness, Peer Attachment, and Self-Esteem as Predictors of AdolescentDepression.JournalofAdolescentResearch,35(4),1061-1067.Minnard,C.V. (2002)Astrongbuilding: foundationofprotective factors inschools,ChildrenandSchools,24,(4),233-46.Newman,T.&Blackburn, S. (2002). Transitions in the LivesofChildrenandYoungPeople;ResilienceFactors,Interchange78.Newman,T,withYates,TandMasten,A(2004).WhatWorksinBuildingResilience?Barnardo’s,Barkingside.Offord,D.R,Kraemer,H.C,Kazdin,A.E,Jensen,P.S,&Harrington,R(1998).Loweringthe burden of suffering from child psychiatric disorder: trade offs among clinical,targeted,anduniversalinterventions.TheJournaloftheAmericanAcademyofChildandAdolescentPsychiatry,37(7)686-694.O'Neil,H.F.,Wainess,R.,&Baker,E.L.(2005).ClassificationofLearningOutcomes:EvidencefromtheComputerGamesLiterature.TheCurriculumJournal,16(4),455-474.

Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community.ReviewofEducationalResearch,70,323-367.

Pianta RC,Walsh DJ. (1998).High-risk children in schools: Constructing sustainingrelationships.NewYork:Routledge.Powell,S.,&Tod, J. (2004).ASystematicReviewofHowTheoriesExplainLearningBehaviourinSchoolContexts.InResearchEvidenceinEducationLibrary.London,UK:EPPI-Centre,SocialScienceResearchUnit,InstituteofEducation.Resnick,M.D.,Bearman,P.S.,Blum,R.W.,Bauman,K.E.,Harris,K.M.,Jones,J.,etal.(1997). Protecting adolescents fromharm. JAMA: Journal of theAmericanMedicalAssociation,278,823–832.

Roorda, D.L., Koomen, H.M.Y., Spilt, J.L. & Oort, F.J. (2011). ‘The influence ofaffective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement andachievement: A meta-analytic approach’. Review of Educational Research, 81(4),493-529.Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and Gratifications Theory. Mass Communication &Society,3(1),3-37.Russoniello,C.V.,O'Brien,K.,&Parks,J.M.(2009).TheEffectivenessofCasualVideoGames in Improving Mood and Decreasing Stress. Journal of CyberTherapy &Rehabilitaion,2(1).Rutter, M. (1987), Psychosocial Resilience and Protective Mechanisms. AmericanJournalofOrthopsychiatry,57:316–331.RutterM.(1993).Resilience:Someconceptualconsiderations.JournalofAdolescentHealth.14:626–631.Rutter, M. (2001). Psychosocial adversity: Risk, resilience, and recovery. In J. M.Richman&M.W.Fraser (Eds.),Thecontextof youthviolence:Resilience, risk,andprotection(pp.13–41).Westport,CT:PraegerRyan, R.M., Rigby, C. S.,&Przybylski, A. K. (2006). Themotivational pull of videogames: A self-determination theory approach.Motivation and Emotion, 30, 347–364.Sacker, A., & Schoon, I. (2007). Educational resilience in later life: Resources andassetsinadolescenceandreturntoeducationafterleavingschoolatage16.SocialScienceResearch,36,873–896.Schoon, I. (2006). Risk and resilience: Adaptations in changing times. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Schoon, I.,andBartley,M.(2008).Theroleofhumancapabilityandresilience.ThePsychologist,21,(1)24-27.Schorr LB., (1997).Commonpurpose: Strengthening familiesandneighborhoods torebuildAmerica.NewYork:AnchorBooks,Doubleday.Schwarzer,R.,&Warner,L.M.(2013).Perceivedself-efficacyanditsrelationshiptoresilience. In Prince-Embury A., & D.H. Saklofske (Eds.). Resilience in Children,Adolescents,andAdults:TranslatingResearchintoPractice(pp.139-150).NewYork:TheSpringerSeriesonHumanExceptionality,Springer.

Smith,M.(2015).FromAdversitytoBuoyancy.ThePsychologist,28,pp.690-695.StewartD,SunJ,PattersonC,LemerleK&HardieM(2004).'Promotingandbuildingresilience in primary school communities: evidence from a comprehensive ‘healthpromoting school’ approach', International Journal ofMental Health Promotion, 6(3),26-33.Stice,E,Shaw,H,Bohon,C,Marti,C.N,Rhode,P.(2009).Ameta-analyticreviewofdepression prevention programs for children and adolescents: factors that predictmagnitude of intervention effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,77(3)486-503.Szalacha,L.A.,Erkut,S.,GarcíaColl,C.,Fields,J.P.,Alarcón,O.,&Ceder, I. (2003).Perceived discrimination and resilience. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience andvulnerability:Adaptationinthecontextofchild-hoodadversities(pp.414–435).NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.Tajfel,H.andTurner,J.C.(1986).Thesocialidentitytheoryofinter-groupbehavior.In S.Worchel andL.W.Austin (eds.),Psychologyof IntergroupRelations. Chicago:Nelson-Hall.Tedeschi,R.G.,&Calhoun,L.G. (1995).Trauma&transformation:Growing in theaftermathofsuffering.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.Thomas, R.E.,McLennan, J., Perera, R., (2013). Cochrane in context: School-based programs for preventing smoking. Cochrane Database SystematicReview,8(5)2041-2043.Ungar,M(2008).ResilienceAcrossCultures.BritishJournalofSocialWork38,218–235.Wang, M.C.; Haertel, G.D.; Walberg, H.J. (1998). Models of reform: acomparative guide.Educational leadership (Alexandria, VA), vol. 55, no. 7, p.66–71.Weare, K., & Markham, W. (2005). What do we know about promoting mentalhealththroughschools?Promotion&Education,XII,118–122.Werner, E. E., & Smith, R.S. (1992).Overcoming the odds: High-risk children frombirthtoadulthood.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.WestP.,SweetingH., &YoungR. (2010).Transitionmatters:pupils'experiencesoftheprimary-secondaryschooltransition intheWestofScotlandandconsequencesforwellbeingandattainment.ResearchPapersinEducation2521-50.

Wright, M. O., & Littleford, L. N. (2002). Experiences and beliefs as predictors ofethnic identity and inter- group relations. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling andDevelopment,30,2–20.Wolpert,M., Harris, R., Hodges, S., Fuggle, P., Janes, R.,Wiener, A., et al. (2015).THRIVEelaborated:TheAnnaFreudCentre-TavistockmodelforCAMHS.TheAnnaFreudCentre.London:CAMHSPress.Wyn, J., Cahill,H.,Holdsworth,R.,Rowling, L., Carson, S. (2000). MindMatters, awhole-schoolapproachpromotingmentalhealthandwellbeing.AustraliaandNewZealandJournalofPsychiatry,34(4),594-601.YoungMinds.(2009).BuildingEmotionalResilienceinDennySchools(BERDS):APilotIntervention:EvaluationReport.London.Zimmerman, M. A., & Arunkumar, R. (1994). Resiliency research: Implications forschoolsandpolicy.SocietyforResearchinChildDevelopment,8,1–19.