I’ve long been fascinated by resiliency—why some seem to have it and some don’t, what nurtures it, and the way this one quality can totally change how life events are experienced. As a teacher, I’ve encountered many students who seem permanently crippled by the adverse circumstances into which they were born and in which they grew up, and others who seem to almost miraculously rise above everything and not just survive, but thrive.
Just this week I’ve talked with several young people who seem to be growing in resiliency, finally, in their mid-late 20’s, after horrendous experiences in their teens. Is it, for them, simply a matter of brain growth and development, the “frontal lobes finally kicking in” as I’ve sometimes put it? Is it that somewhere in their youngest years they experienced acceptance and encouragement that built an understanding of their personal strength and that despite their detours for a decade or more in the middle, that core sense of self was just waiting to be rediscovered? I wish I knew more about the convergence of brain science and sociological research, because it’s probably a combination of factors at work.
Educators in the past 25 years or so have been more intensely investigating resiliency, but often what happens is that by the time the research makes it into a teacher workshop, it’s been filtered through the constant dun of accountability, outcomes, and test score requirements. To often the suggestions of what teachers can do to enhance resiliency are just bromides which sound pretty much like what any good teacher does already. In one example I found, educators are encouraged to build a “web of resiliency” around students being sure to include:
“1.Opportunities for meaningful participation and contribution
2.High expectations communicated
3.Increased prosocial bonding
4.Clear consistent boundaries
5.Life skills taught and practiced”
I can picture my colleagues rolling their eyes in the distance. Any teacher who doesn’t do these things on a regular basis at any level K-12 should have their license revoked! Duh!
What I did find interesting and helpful in perusing the research is actually a work from 1992 that, for once, took the long view—into adulthood.
THE RESEARCH OF EMMY WERNER AND RUTH SMITH
1. They began studying all the children born on Kauai in 1955-- 700 babies.
2. 1/3 of these children were considered "high risk" due to multiple risk factors at birth.
3. Of these "high risk" children, 70 seemed "invulnerable" to the risk--developed no problems.
Two main reasons for this "invulnerability" were identified:
“ They were born with outgoing, social dispositions.
“ They therefore were able to recruit several sources of support for themselves.
4. The other 2/3 of the "high risk" group did develop problems, but the majority were doing well by their mid-30s by their own and others' reports, psychological tests, and
community records (5/6 of the original "high risk" group, 166 of 200, had therefore "bounced back").
How did this process of "bouncing back" happen?
“ They told researchers that someone along the way reached out with the messages: "You matter" and "It doesn't matter what you have done in the past”. Sources of this support, other than family members, were most often neighbors, teachers, and informal youth workers.
“ The person was more important than the program.
“ The programs that assisted most provided support simil
ar to an extended family.
“ The group that bounced back from having problems also had some kind of competence.
"Our findings and those by other American and European investigators with a life-span perspective suggest that these buffers [protective factors] make a more profound
impact on the life course of children who grow up under adverse conditions than do specific risk factors or stressful life events. They appear to transcend ethnic, social class, geographical, and historical boundaries. Most of all, they offer us a more optimistic outlook than the perspective that can be gleaned from the literature on the negative consequences of perinatal trauma, caregiving deficits, and chronic poverty. They provide us with a corrective lens--an awareness of the self-righting tendencies that move children toward normal adult development under all but the most persistent adverse circumstances."
--Emmy Werner and Ruth Smith, Overcoming the Odds: High Risk Children from Birth to
Adulthood, 1992
I’m not sure exactly how they defined “doing well” in the research, but I believe that several points
are worth emphasizing.
First of all, “the person was more important than the program” and the programs that worked best “provided support similar to an extended family.” Functional families provide acceptance for you as an individual, and consistent encouragement to move forward beyond your mistakes and poor choices. They convey an attitude that, to quote another researcher,
“I see what is right with you, no matter what you have done in the past, no matter what problems you currently face. Your strengths are more powerful than your “risks.” And whatever risks, problems or adversity you are facing, you are on the road to bouncing back—you are not at the end of the road.”
Secondly, doing well wasn’t measured by academic test scores, but by psychological testing and life circumstances in the subjects’ 30’s! In other words, despite any earlier brushes with the law, failures in school, or other inadequacies as we normally measure them, by their 30’s these subjects had “bounced back” and were living typical productive lives as adults in their community. Their lives were not necessarily “perfect,” but they were “doing well” by community standards.
Clearly one thing we need to work to create is more programs that attempt to serve “at-risk” youth by creating a “family” atmosphere, with wrap-around services, not just academic coaching to pass the latest state required test. Youth need life skills, practice in problem solving and flexible thinking, clear expectations encased in a loving, accepting group. And then we need to measure the success of these programs by the long view---years later, in adulthood, are the students/clients involved in the justice system? Are they employed? Are they functioning as independent adults? Are they moving forward, contributing to their communities?
One reason I’ve become so enamored of my husband’s work with YouthBuild
programs is that they are constructed just this way, focused on transforming lives. I’ve seen what they can do and met students who’ve totally turned their lives around. And even those who are not “Stop the Presses!” successes, seem to have found a confidence in their own ability to solve problems, developed resources to support themselves, and ways to move beyond old habits and into a positive future.
YouthBuild alumni are among the most energizing group of young adults I’ve ever met. Dorothy Stoneman, founder, Terry, and I only wish the funding existed for this kind of programming wherever there is need.
