Page 147 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Training Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 147
preventing esl by enhancing resiliency
theory on resilience, which understands resilience as an outcome of indi-
vidual–context relations and not as a resilience trait that is inherent to the
individual (Kaplan, 2013; Masten, 2016). Some children who face stressful,
high-risk situations fare well in life, but their chances of doing so depend
on the extent to which the risk factors in their lives are balanced by protec-
tive factors, both individual and environmental (Jackson & Martin, 1998).
A key feature of resilience in the face of adversity is that it requires the ex-
istence of protective factors that reduce the prospect of a negative outcome
or increase the likelihood of a positive one (Sacker & Schoon, 2007).
Resilience and ESL
Educational resilience is defined in terms of educational success despite
personal attributes and environmental circumstances that reduce the like-
lihood of succeeding (Sacker & Schoon, 2007). Due to the complexity of
resilience itself, the question of how we can use resilience theory to pre-
vent ESL is multifaceted. Students more prone to ESL are also students who
come from an at-risk environment (e.g. low SES, harsh parenting…) or
have individual vulnerabilities (e.g. mental health issues, learning difficul-
ties…). ESL may be understood as a non-resilient outcome – the interplay
between individual characteristics and the context has not yielded positive
outcomes. Therefore, the intervention or change can be directed to enhanc-
ing one or possibly several protective factors.
The main findings in relation to remaining in education beyond the
mandatory leaving age and preventing ESL follows the hypothesis that pro-
motive factors (either at the individual or contextual level) can act inde-
pendently and cumulatively to support educational aspirations. Regarding
ESL prevention, the compensatory model of resilience (fostering protective
factors in order to reduce the effect of risk factors for ESL) is more useful
(Sacker & Schoon, 2007). When looking at the important protective factors,
these vary according to the developmental period one is in. For instance,
in early life, reserve capacity for education was topped up predominant-
ly from interpersonal (i.e. family) resources whereas in later life it is pre-
dominantly from individual assets (i.e. self-regulation, peer acceptance…)
(Grolnik, Friendly, & Bellas, 2009; Sacker & Schoon, 2007).
Further on, we will examine the promotive factors that assist young
people from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds to remain in ed-
ucation or increase their chances of gaining further qualifications later
in life. As mentioned, promotive factors that help young people avoid the
147
theory on resilience, which understands resilience as an outcome of indi-
vidual–context relations and not as a resilience trait that is inherent to the
individual (Kaplan, 2013; Masten, 2016). Some children who face stressful,
high-risk situations fare well in life, but their chances of doing so depend
on the extent to which the risk factors in their lives are balanced by protec-
tive factors, both individual and environmental (Jackson & Martin, 1998).
A key feature of resilience in the face of adversity is that it requires the ex-
istence of protective factors that reduce the prospect of a negative outcome
or increase the likelihood of a positive one (Sacker & Schoon, 2007).
Resilience and ESL
Educational resilience is defined in terms of educational success despite
personal attributes and environmental circumstances that reduce the like-
lihood of succeeding (Sacker & Schoon, 2007). Due to the complexity of
resilience itself, the question of how we can use resilience theory to pre-
vent ESL is multifaceted. Students more prone to ESL are also students who
come from an at-risk environment (e.g. low SES, harsh parenting…) or
have individual vulnerabilities (e.g. mental health issues, learning difficul-
ties…). ESL may be understood as a non-resilient outcome – the interplay
between individual characteristics and the context has not yielded positive
outcomes. Therefore, the intervention or change can be directed to enhanc-
ing one or possibly several protective factors.
The main findings in relation to remaining in education beyond the
mandatory leaving age and preventing ESL follows the hypothesis that pro-
motive factors (either at the individual or contextual level) can act inde-
pendently and cumulatively to support educational aspirations. Regarding
ESL prevention, the compensatory model of resilience (fostering protective
factors in order to reduce the effect of risk factors for ESL) is more useful
(Sacker & Schoon, 2007). When looking at the important protective factors,
these vary according to the developmental period one is in. For instance,
in early life, reserve capacity for education was topped up predominant-
ly from interpersonal (i.e. family) resources whereas in later life it is pre-
dominantly from individual assets (i.e. self-regulation, peer acceptance…)
(Grolnik, Friendly, & Bellas, 2009; Sacker & Schoon, 2007).
Further on, we will examine the promotive factors that assist young
people from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds to remain in ed-
ucation or increase their chances of gaining further qualifications later
in life. As mentioned, promotive factors that help young people avoid the
147
