Crystal McClendon
University of Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction

The lack of academic success among some minority students continues to be a serious problem and warrants immediate attention. A large proportion of poor African-American and Hispanic students comprise those considered to be at-risk for negative educational outcomes, such as illiteracy and school dropout (Nettles, 1991).

Of all minority groups, the educational picture is particularly dismal for Native-Americans and African-Americans, although in critical areas such as mathematics, reading, and science, Hispanics and Native-Americans lag behind African-American students. As minority groups go through school, some fall behind Whites in major academic areas such as mathematics, writing, and reading. Statistics from the Education Commission of the States (NAEP, 1997) reveal that the average African-American student answered correctly about 45% of the mathematics items on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test in contrast to the average White student who answered 63% correctly. Furthermore, according to the National Institute of Education (NAEP, 1997), only 66% of African-American 17-year-olds were reading at an intermediate level or higher in contrast to 89% of their White counterparts who read at or above this level. Summarily, 45% of 17-year-old White students were "adept" readers on the NAEP tests, whereas only about one sixth (16%) of African-American students were categorized as "adept".

Statement of the Problem

By the year 2010, African-Americans and Hispanics will comprise 30% of the U.S. population. Labor force projections indicate a severe decline in the number of blue collar jobs and a substantial increase in jobs that require high levels of technical skills, that require a strong academic foundation. We, as a nation, can envision a large unemployed segment of the population and, simultaneously, a severe labor shortage in numerous highly skilled occupations (Denbo, 1990 as cited in Dezmon, 1996). Given this picture, the crisis of underachieving minority students will become a central issue in determining our nation’s economic survival.

Overall, a large percentage of African-American, Hispanic, and Native- Americans populations are not succeeding in school. Over and over again we are reminded that these students are late to school, inattentive in class, are involved in various forms of delinquent behavior and are more likely to drop out of school. Goodlad (1984) and other educators agree that there is a lack of communication between parents, students and school officials regarding what students need to excel in school. A critical examination of the public school system reveals that a significant number of pupils appear not to be interested in learning to gain skills and knowledge or in claiming responsibility for their own education. There is also evidence that most students want to learn, but they reject the context of school. Further, many students may only attend school to achieve economic success (see Ogbu, 1978). For many of them, school is an obligatory chore that wastes their time (ASI, 1995). If one looks at how students spend their out of school time (Jordan & Nettles, 1996) one realizes the disconnectedness between school and other facets of their lives. There are many factors that lead to achievement gaps between groups besides motivational or cognitive processes. Poor reading scores, incompatible home-school environments, exposure to violence, drugs and poverty, low socioeconomic status, lack of person-environment fit and parents’ education are a few of the risk factors that contribute to negative school outcomes of African-American students (see Ogbu, 1985).

One of the many factors that affects academic achievement centers around the types of environments in which students are expected to learn. The academic performance of African-American students is enhanced when they perceive their teachers and other school personnel as supportive and helpful (Patchen, 1982). Thus, the influence of educational environments on student development and outcomes has been an important line of research (e.g., Astin, 1968; Gottfredson, 1987; Moos, 1979). Another related factor is that curriculum is not integrated across subjects, which obviously affects not only African-American students, but all students. Over the course of a school day, students are expected to piece together nearly eight to ten different subject areas, much of which may only be glossed over in subsequent days. Although these students participate in athletics, clubs, jobs and other extra-curricular activities, there is little transference of knowledge across contexts.

Another factor, that contributes to the problem, is that middle and high school students are not taking enough responsibility for their educational outcomes (ASI, 1995; Griffin, 1988). Many adolescents still believe that teachers or schools are accountable for their grades and other educational outcomes. Teachers have an enormous responsibility to instill values, teach valuable lessons and skills and mentor students. However, teachers are principally responsible for disseminating information. Yet, the student has to decide what he or she wants to do with that information.

In contrast to other minority groups, explanations for the lack of academic success among African-American students focus on their motivation to do well, low expectations, feelings of hopelessness, denial of the importance of individual effort, or giving up in the face of failure rather than a defect in intellectual competencies or specific learning skills. These motivational concerns are just as important as the more traditional focus on basic cognitive processes to understanding achievement among African-Americans (Graham, 1994). Academic underachievement in African-American students, therefore, is multifaceted and these adolescents face a unique developmental experience (McKenry 1989). The school environment is a plausible arena which researchers can investigate the interplay between specific school and classroom environments and school success.

Benard (1991) explicates the essential role that schools play in providing a protective environment which, in turn, can be used by the student to ameliorate the risk of negative student outcomes. She specifically illustrates how social institutions such as school can create opportunities, provide techniques to aid students in risk reduction and the pileup of stressors after exposure to risk. These are three characteristics of a protective environment and the two levels (individual and environmental) in which protective mechanisms operate. In general, youth programs and reforms provide protective environments but optimally a program should also foster characteristics which indicate healthy development, i.e. social and academic competence, problem-solving skills, and self-efficacy.

One reform strategy , that was the impetus for the present study, has been developed by the American Sports Institute (ASI), which posits that students need to be able to take what they already know from sports and learn to transfer those skills and strategies to their schoolwork. This present study investigated the impact of the Promoting Achievement in School through Sport (PASS) program, developed by the ASI. One of the goals of this study was to ascertain what the outcomes were for African-American students who were enrolled in this program.

The PASS program is one that exhibits the key elements in found protective environments. These elements include caring, support, high expectations, and the creation of opportunities in which students can participate. Reforms within the school setting, which create protective environments for students at risk for failure, exceed other reforms that may only emphasize motivational or cognitive achievements. PASS is a daily, year-long, academic class that helps students improve their grades, attitude, and behavior; and it increases their self-esteem and appreciation for learning. PASS integrates several disciplines, including language arts, social studies, philosophy, psychology and physical education. Using reading, writing, speaking, and group work assignments, PASS aims to teach students critical thinking, problem solving, time management, goal setting, self-monitoring, teamwork, and personal responsibility. PASS students are encouraged to transfer the skills related to their successes, gained in sports, to the classroom. In this way, the PASS program aims to increase the self-efficacy of these students by identifying what works in one setting and applying those masteries in other contexts, namely the classroom. PASS invigorates teachers through professional development training that provides new approaches to student-centered and results-oriented learning. Parents are involved as well in scheduled activities throughout the year as an integral part of the curriculum (ASI, 1995).

The major purpose of this study was to evaluate the PASS program by gauging its effectiveness in improving the achievement and behavior of adolescents. The decision to evaluate PASS ensued because it appears to have a promising philosophy and is a model of what good teaching and learning should be in all classrooms.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

School and Classroom Climate

Although the national picture reflects disproportionate failure among African-American students, there are numerous African-Americans experiencing academic success throughout this country (Rumberger and Levin, 1989). Students’ experiences and perceptions, within the school and classroom, may directly affect the risk status of minority, as well as majority cultures for academic achievement. This idea provides the impetus and context for the present study.

School climate involves the physical facility, places, programs, policies, and people which comprise the student’s learning and emotional environment (Brookover, Schweitzer, Schneider, Brady, Flood & Wisenbaker, 1978; Edmonds, 1979; Walberg, 1985). Many researchers have established a relationship between school climate and academic achievement (e.g. Walberg, 1985), however, much less is known about classroom climate or environment.

Researchers have stressed that school climate has a significant effect on academic achievement. Precisely, they assert that schools that have positive, caring, and orderly climates and that recognize the individuality of students enhance students’ social, emotional, and intellectual growth (Comer, Haynes, Norris, Hamilton-Lee, Edmonds, 1981; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, & Ouston, 1979, Perry & College, 1993). Many research studies have also identified student perception of school climate as a primary factor in student achievement (Dezmon, 1996).

Michael Rutter (1979) conducted a landmark study of effective schools in which he tracked students over five years. This study concluded that schools where the students had consistent successful outcomes ( e.g. behavior, attendance, and grades) had marked institutional characteristics among them: an emphasis on academic work, flexibility, systems of incentives and rewards and arrangements whereby students could take responsibility for their own behavior. Rutter found that success was not related to the size of the school or the physical characteristics. Rutter believed that the whole ethos of the social institution seems to be more significant than the sum of its parts, commonly referred to as a "school climate".

Kinney (1995) discussed classroom climate by conducting class case studies and specifically identifying teacher strategies and student perceptions and experiences of a particular curriculum in an urban, vocational high school. The outcomes targeted in this study were student academic engagement and motivation. The sample for this study consisted of 78% Hispanic, 15% African-American, 6% Southeast Asian, and 1% White students in the ninth to twelfth grades. These students attended a large public high school (N’ 2,900) in a neighborhood characterized by high levels of unemployment, abandoned factories, empty lots, dilapidated housing, and frequent crime.

Kinney and her colleagues operationalize the framework for this study around Acaring classroom communities". Solomon et al. (1992) characterizes these environments as those where a feeling of mutual concern exists between the teacher and students and where all students are contributing members. Other researchers have added that these classrooms are depicted by teachers showing concern and interest in students’ ideas, projects, and experiences (see Lewis, et al., 1995; Phelan et al., 1992).

In summarizing case studies from these classroom, Kinney (1995) identified recurring themes which persisted in many of the classrooms observed. Relating to teacher performance, this study found that teachers created a comfortable learning environment by working one-on-one with students, listening attentively to their questions and concerns, and exhibiting sensitivity to student adversities related to economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Another set of recurring themes centered around the style of instruction used by these teachers (learner-centered). Teachers in this study indicated that they tailored most instructional activities to students’ experiences and interests. These themes were consistent with teachers’ views of the climate of the classroom which, for them provide the foundation for other strategies they use to encourage motivation and achievement. Student indicators of academic engagement and motivation are reflected by displayed concentration and exhibited creativity. Also these students showed a great deal of respect and support of other students hard work and dedication, cites Kinney et al. (1995).

Kinney concluded that the students in this study expressed high levels of motivation in combination with strong aspirations which, are crucial in developing an important aspect of resilience. This study notes that Benard’s work directly addresses this issue of classroom environment and academic achievement of students. Benard (1991) identifies social competence, problem solving skills, autonomy, and a sense of purpose and future as four main characteristics that resilient children possess. Similarly, Lewis et al.(1995) speculate that educators who nurture these elements of resilience by offering students a curriculum that is personally worth learning, challenging and relevant to their future goals are more likely to help students become motivated, lifelong learners. In addition to these researchers, Krovetz and Speck (1995 ) argue that in order for a school to be successful in fostering student resilience, teachers need to create a caring environment where students feel they have the necessary support to reach their goals.

The purpose of the present research was to evaluate the overall effects of the PASS program. This work will contribute to the understanding of the academic achievement of African-American high school students by investigating the effects of the PASS program. Resiliency theory was the conceptual framework examined in this study. The population from which the sample was drawn consisted of students from two large American metropolitan areas. The total evaluation consisted of three major sets of analyses. The first was an examination of the impact of the PASS program on the PASS students’ grades (including gender differences) and attendance over the school year. The second was a comparison of the PASS students’ performance and attendance with that of a performance and ethnicity-matched control group. The third analysis was comprised of a performance comparison between African-American PASS students with (a) other PASS participants and (b) African-American students in the comparison group. PASS and non-PASS classrooms are described , analyzed and comprise the major focus of this chapter.

METHOD

Classroom Observations

Classroom site visits to six schools were used to provide a description of what occurs in PASS and non-PASS classrooms. ASI provides technical assistance and support for the PASS program. These observations were intended to evaluate and expand the effectiveness of the teacher training component, to provide evidence of fidelity of implementation, and to provide information to the school and ASI as to the strengths and weaknesses of the PASS class. The researcher used the observation form developed and used by ASI (ASI conducts observations to provide technical assistance to the school sites).

The eight PASS observations, conducted by the researcher, focused on PASS classroom ambiance, PASS routines, teacher presentation, and teacher support. The observation protocol for the PASS classrooms is presented in Appendix C. The observation consisted of four main areas: (1) PASS room ambiance, (2) PASS routines, (3) teacher presentation, and (4) PASS support. In each PASS class, various aspects of teaching and learning such as material on bulletin boards, what the students were doing, instructions given by the teacher, and group work and interaction were rated.

Observations were also conducted (by the researcher) on three other classrooms (non-PASS) within the same school as the PASS class in order to describe non-PASS classes. The observation protocol (Appendix C), which has been specifically devised to observe the PASS classroom, was not used to observe the non-PASS classrooms. The researcher devised an observation form designed to share some similar characteristics featured within the PASS class and capture basic classroom dynamics such as class control. The non-PASS observation form was similar to the PASS form, with the exception of PASS activities, curriculum, and routine which would not typically be found in non-PASS classrooms. For each observation, the observer documented the number of instructional cues, symbols, displays, and bulletin boards found in the classroom. A measure of class control constitutes one component of the observation. The researcher tallied the number of times the teacher had to redirect the class to remain on task or assert other forms of discipline, i.e. asking students not to disrupt the class. The researcher took field notes including the instructional styles of the teacher, (e.g., lecture vs. lecture and discussion). Part of the observation involved tallying the number of times students worked together on tasks. Scoring of PASS and non-PASS observations are discussed in the methodology section. Eight PASS class observations and three non-PASS class observations were analyzed. In the non-PASS classes observed by the researcher, there were no PASS students enrolled.

To score the classroom observation data, the Madison framework for authentic instruction (Newmann and Wehlage, 1993) was used. This framework was developed at Wisconsin’s Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. This framework has been used in elementary, middle and high schools to learn how authentic instruction and student achievement are facilitated or impeded by the content of particular programs aimed at curriculum, assessment or staff development. Teachers in both PASS and non-PASS classrooms were not specifically incorporating the Madison authentic instruction framework into their classes; however, this method for scoring classroom observations was used because of this framework’s emphasis on authentic student achievement. The goal of authentic student achievement is to assess complex, important, real-life outcomes (see Hambleton, 1996; Worthen, 1993). This method is also useful to help understand what types of instruction take place in PASS and non-PASS classrooms. Importantly, Newmann and Wehlage (1993) obtained .7 correlations between raters and for precise agreement, they obtained 60% or higher for each of the dimensions in three semesters of data collection. These authors contend that authentic achievement relies on three criteria: (1) students construct meaning and produce knowledge, (2) students use disciplined inquiry to construct meaning and (3) students aim their work toward production of discourse, products, and performances that have meaning beyond success in school. The rationale for using this approach, according to these authors, is to counteract two persistent maladies that make conventional schooling inauthentic: (1) often the work students do does not allow them to use their minds well; and (2) the work has no intrinsic meaning or value to students beyond achieving success in school. To the extent that this approach addresses what types of instruction engages students in using their minds well, the researcher chose this approach because it articulates standards for instruction that should lead to quality intellectual work.

Within each of the six dimensions, there are five standards for rating instruction used in this framework. Newmann and Wehlage (1993) conceptualized these standards as continuous constructs from "less" to "more" of a quality rather than as a categorical (yes or no) variable. Specifically, these researchers expressed each standard as a dimensional construct on a five-point Likert scale. To score classroom observations using this scoring rubric, researchers are instructed to distinguish between high and low scoring lessons and then offer examples of criteria for specific ratings. Further, raters are asked to consider both the number of students to which the criterion applies and the proportion of class time during which it applies.

The six dimensions which were used to score each class include higher order thinking (HOT), depth of knowledge and student understanding (DK), connectedness to the world beyond the classroom (CWC), substantive conversation (SC) , social support for student achievement (SSSA), and academic engagement.

Each Madison classroom dimension was rated on a scale of one to five (five being the highest score) by the observer and another graduate student. Each classroom was rated on each dimension based on the criteria mentioned previously, using specific sections of both the PASS and non-PASS form. Scores for each class, for each dimension were tabulated and the researcher analyzed these scores. A mean score was computed for each dimension for PASS (N=8) and non-PASS (N=3) classes and is included with the description of the classes. The Madison scoring rubric and the observation forms (with observation notes) were distributed to the other rater and both observer and other rater independently scored all 11 classrooms .

The researcher and the other rater scored each observation to establish inter-rater agreement. To establish inter-rater agreement, the researcher calculated the total number of matching and adjacent (scores which are one point away from each other) scores for each dimension in each class. These scores were then divided into the sum of scores for all 11 classrooms. For the scoring of all eleven classes on the six dimensions, the proportion of total inter-rater agreement is 66% whereas the proportion of adjacent agreement is 86%. Descriptions of PASS and non-PASS classrooms are based on the six dimensions of the Madison scores for authentic instruction.

The researcher took field notes, recording the main activities, student interaction, and class atmosphere evident in each classroom. Analyses of classroom observations were conducted by scoring PASS and non-PASS classes, using the Madison scoring rubric and citing examples from researcher field notes.

Classroom Observations—Results of Qualitative Analyses

One research hypothesis involves the comparison of PASS and non-PASS classes on six dimensions: higher order thinking, depth of knowledge, substantive conversation, connectedness to the real world, social support for academic achievement, and academic engagement. Madison scores for authentic instruction assessment were used. This following section will present the results for the PASS classes first (by dimension) followed by the results for the non-PASS classes. In conjunction with the reporting of these scores, the researcher will offer specific examples which characterize recurring themes found in the PASS and non-PASS classes to give the reader a clear sense of the activities in these classrooms. A summary of the average scores(by dimension) on the Madison assessment are shown for PASS and non-PASS classes in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1
Madison Scores for Authentic Instruction: PASS & Non-PASS
Six Dimensions
HOT DK CWC SC SSSA AE
______________________________________________________________________
PASS (N=8)
3.5 3.7 4 3.5 4.5 4
Non-PASS (N=3)
2 2 2.5 3 3 3
______________________________________________________________________
+1.5 +1.7 +1.5 +0.5 +1.5 +1.0
______________________________________________________________________
-Avg. scores by dimension; scale=1-5(5 being the highest)
-(HOT)=Higher Order Thinking;(DK)=Depth of Knowledge; (CWC)=Connectedness to the World beyond the Classroom; (SC)=Substantive Conversation; (SSSA)=Social Support for Student Achievement; (AE)=Academic Engagement

Results revealed that PASS classes scored higher on all six dimensions of the Madison scores for authentic instruction. This result implies that the instructional settings of PASS and non-PASS classes are quite different. Because these observational data were collected after the information about grades, attendance and tardiness were collected, we are not able to determine how these differences manifest in the lives of these students. However, this finding may suggest that it is the features and routines, embedded within the PASS classroom that account, at least in part, for the variance found in the grades of PASS versus non-PASS students. Quantitative and qualitative observations suggest that there are specific features, e.g. instructional strategies, social support embedded within the PASS class (which differs from non-PASS classes) that moderately impact learning. The researcher conjectures that from these findings we can conclude that PASS classrooms are interesting and meaningful to students and this may reflect the differences found in grades of PASS and non-PASS students.

RESULTS & IMPLICATIONS

There are various explanations for the differences found between PASS and non-PASS classrooms in part because of the nature of the PASS program (as an intervention as opposed to a traditional high school course). Although the goal of this study was not to investigate authentic instruction as a conceptual framework, PASS classrooms seem to be more characteristic of authentic instruction than non-PASS classrooms. This is fundamentally important when one contemplates interventions which take place during the school day. Perhaps an investigation of other intervention programs which operate during the regular school day as elective classes is a crucial next step for future study. This comparison may provide a clear sense of the relative amount of authentic instruction taking place in PASS and other classrooms.

There are a number of factors to consider in the discussion of the PASS and non-PASS classrooms. Keeping in mind that the PASS students probably maintained statistically higher grade point averages than the students in the non-PASS class, the classroom climate of these two classes is starkly differentiated. It is clear that the course subjects addressed in the PASS and non-PASS classes were also quite different which also affects the interpretation of the results.

In the PASS class, students sat with excellent posture, and were attentive, and engaged. In one instance, the math students (non-PASS students) were mildly disruptive, sat slumped in their chairs, and only passively engaged in class discussion as witnessed in classroom observations. Structurally, the math class contained no instructional displays, motivational cues, or other material on the walls or bulletin boards.

Overall, the math students (non-PASS students) were not able to stay on task. They were not only comical but insulting to other students as manifested by their rude laughter and remarks; however, the teacher managed the class by using frequent re-directs to keep the class discussion going. This produced an immediate change of behavior for most students. Calm, yet firm in his verbal reprimands, this teacher was also able to continually remind them of classroom rules for behavior. This sense of consistency seemed to aid the students in staying with the math lesson even if one or two individual students had their own "agendas" and tried to disrupt the class.

The researcher recognized some definite patterns within the PASS and non-PASS classes. Non-PASS classes, while instructional in content, were not immersed with forms of social support, higher order thinking(HOT), connectedness to the "real" world, or substantive conversation. Within PASS classes, teachers facilitated more and guided learning rather than acting as lecturer or instructor. PASS students seemed to take more ownership of the class and the teachers focused students’ attention in a way that allowed for the class "agenda" to flow smoothly. The PASS class appeared to be centered solely around the student. Students are actively engaged as reflected by attention, participation, enthusiasm, and discipline. Off-task and disruptive behaviors were rare relative to non-PASS classrooms. Generally, the enthusiasm and energy for learning, manifested by the PASS students, was not evident in the non-PASS classes observed. Some of these messages were also communicated by PASS instructors who taught PASS and non-PASS classes. It is unclear what activities, routines, etc. are included in the math classes in which PASS students are enrolled because this data was not collected.

After having unstructured conversations with six out of the eight PASS teachers, the researcher concluded that the PASS teaching experience resonated three recurring themes. First, the researcher speculates that there is something about the instructional strategies, classroom climate, and student involvement within the PASS class that changes students in a positive way. Second, the researcher surmises that PASS teachers experienced success in getting students actively involved in the educational process. Finally, this study conjectures that there is an indescribable bond between students that is created by this experience. The cooperation and support given by these teachers, in this study, also suggests their willingness to share their PASS experiences with other interested students and teachers. Perhaps the observation of a "mainstream" classroom, e.g. regular English, math, or science would render more commonalities and similar characteristics as compared to the PASS class. Interpretations from the Madison scores alone are limited by the selection of a remedial math class as a comparison classroom to observe.

The observations, suggest that PASS classrooms appear to capture more of the tenets of authentic instruction than the non-PASS classrooms observed in this study. This notion is reflected in the authentic instruction scores of PASS classrooms which scored higher on each of the six dimensions which includes higher order thinking, academic engagement, social support for student achievement, depth of knowledge, substantive conversation, and connectedness to the world beyond the classroom.

PASS classrooms feature caring and support, high expectations, problem-solving strategies and skills, opportunities for youth participation, engagement, and involvement, as witnessed in the classroom observations. Overall, the results of these data indicate that within the PASS classroom, we find an excellent model of what a protective environment looks like for students who are at risk for academic failure.

Overall, PASS students reported positive or favorable responses when asked how they felt about the PASS program. This finding is not surprising; however, this point is important to consider within the context of classroom observation results as well as the expectations of the students. Importantly, students enjoyed this experience and report that this program was worthwhile with regard to academic and athletic development.

The message of this study is one of optimism for reform in the education of students placed at risk for academic and school failure. One should always keep in mind, that even active participation in programs like PASS cannot adequately address or counteract all the other situations a student may experience. There are so many other familial, school, and personal factors which together interact to compose a students’ life experience.

Although there is much more we need to know about how and why programs like PASS are relatively effective for its participants, what we already know can and does make a significant difference in the lives of adolescents. Negative school-related outcomes are not inevitable even for those seriously placed at risk for school failure. PASS is one example of program implementation that has short-term positive impact on student achievement. The researcher strongly posits that if we, as a nation, are serious about school and education reform, then we need to spend much more time revamping our educational strategies based on what we know works as opposed to what we know does not work.

REFERENCES

Aber, J.L., Seidman, E., Allen, L., Mitchell, T., & Garfinkel, R. (1992). Poverty, life events and the psychosocial adaptation of urban youth: Testing mediational models. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Allen, J.P., Aber, J.L., & Leadbeater, B.J.(1990). Adolescent behavior problems: The influence of attachment and autonomy. Psychiatric Clinics of New America, 13(3), 455-467.

Allen, J.P. Leadbeater, B.J., & Aber, J.L. (1992). The development of problem behavior syndromes in at-risk adolescents. Manuscript submitted for publication.

American Sports Institute. (1992). PASS—Promoting Achievement in School through Sport: A Teacher’s Guide.

American Sports Institute (1992). PASS Follow-Up Visit Evaluation.

American Sports Institute. (1996). 4-Year Impact Study.

Astin, A.W. (1968). The College Environment. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Barbarin, O.A. (1993). Coping and resilience: Exploring the inner lives of African American children. Journal of Black Psychology, 19(4), 478-492.

Bay, M. & Bryan, T. (1992). Differentiating children who are at risk for referral from others on critical factors. Remedial and Special Education, 13(4), 27-33.

Benard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school, and community. Western Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities, 1-27.

Benson, P.L. & Donahue, M.J. (1989). Ten-year trends in at-risk behaviors: A national study of black adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4(2), 125-139.

Boykin, W. & Toms, F.D. (1985). Black child socialization: A conceptual framework. In H.P. McAdoo & J.L. McAdoo (Eds.), Black Children: A Social, Educational, and Parental Environment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Braddock II, J.H., Royster, D.A., Winfield, L.F., & Hawkins, R. (1991). Bouncing back: Sports and academic resilience among African-American males. Education and Urban Society, 24(1), 113-131.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brook, J.S., Nomura, C., & Cohen, P. (1989). A network of influences on adolescent drug involvement: Neighborhood, school, peer, and family. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 113, 125-143.

Brookover, W., Schweitzer, J., Schneider, J., Brady, C., Flood, P., & Wisenbaker, J. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 301-318.

Brooks-Gunn, J. and Furstenberg, F. (1993). Who drops out of and who continues beyond high school? A 20-year follow-up of black urban youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3(3), 271.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1996). Great Transitions: Preparing Adolescents for a New Century. NY, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Clark, P. (1995). Risk and resiliency in adolescence: The current status of research on gender differences. Equity Issues, 1(1), 13.

Comer, J., Haynes, N., Norris, M., Hamilton-Lee, M., Boger, J.M., & Rollock, D. (1985). Psychosocial and Academic Effects of an Intervention Program Among Minority School Children. New Haven, CT: Yale University, Child Study Center. (ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ED 286 946).

Connell, J.P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life span. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds.), The Self in Transition: Infancy to Childhood (pp.61-97). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Connell, J.P., Spencer, M.B., & Aber, J.L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in African-American youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child Development, 65, 493-506.

Connell, J.P., & Wellborn, J. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar & A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Development, 22, 43-77. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

The Consortium for Research on Black Adolescence (1987) Black Adolescence: Topical Summaries and Annotated Bibliographies of Research.

Cooper, D.H. & Speece, D.L.(1988). A novel methodology for the study of children at risk for school failure. The Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 186-198.

Cowen, E.L., & Work, W.C. (1988). Resilient children, psychological wellness, and primary prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 591-607.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. NY, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
Dezmon, B. (1996). Perceptions of school climate: A comparison of high achieving and low achieving and African-American suburban middle school students. (unpublished dissertation, UMCP).

Dryfoos, J.G. (1990). Adolescents at Risk: Prevalence and Prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 124-133.

Eccles, J.S., Adler, T.F., Futterman, R., Goff,S.B., Kaczala, C.M., Meece, J., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J.T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and Achievement Motives. (pp. 75-146). San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.

Eccles, J.S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s achievement self-perceptions during the elementary school years. Child Development, 64, 44-47.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective Schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-24.

Edmonds, R. (1981). The last obstacle to equity in education: Social class. Theory into Practice, 20(4), 269-272.

Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 2, (1992), 476-481.

Garmezy, N., Masten, A.S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in children: A building block of developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97-111.

Garmezy, N. (1987). Stress, competence, and development: Continuities in the study of schizophrenic adults, children vulnerable to psychopathology, and the search for stress-resistant children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 159-174.

Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience in children’s adaptation to negative life events and stressed environments. Pediatric Annals, 20(9), 459-466.

Gensheimer, L.K., Ayers, T.S., & Roosa, M.W. (1993). School-based preventive interventions for at-risk populations: Practical and ethical issues. Evaluation and Program Planning, 16, 159-167.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Gottfredson, D. (1987). American education: American delinquency. Today’s Delinquent, 6, 5-71.

Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in African Americans. Review of Educational Research, 64 (1), 55- 117.

Griffin, R. (1988). Underachievers in Secondary School: Education off the Mark. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Griffin, R. (1997). The PASS program: Teaching engagement skills. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 33(4), 132-134.

Griffin, R. (1998). Sports in the Lives of Children and Adolescents. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Hambleton, R.K.(1996). Advances in assessment models, methods, and practices. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.) Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 899- 925). New York: MacMillan.

Hawkins, R. (1992). Athletic investment and academic resilience among African-American females and males in the middles grades. Research report no.3. Cleveland, OH: Cleveland State University. Urban Child Research Center. (ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ED 361 450).

Huang, S.L., Waxman, H.C. (April 8-12, 1996). Learning environment differences between high- and low achieving minority students in urban middle schools . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA, Texas.

Jordan, W.J. & Nettles, S.M. (1996, April). How students use their out- of- school time. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York.

Kinney, D.A. (1995, August). Nurturing urban adolescents’ motivation to learn: A teacher’s strategies and his students’ perceptions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C.

Krovetz, M. & Speck, M. (1995). Student resiliency: Toward educational equity. The High School Journal, Dec./Jan., 111-114.

Levitt, M.Z., Selman, R.L., & Richmond, J.D. (1991). The psychosocial foundations of early adolescents’ high risk behavior: Implications for research and practice. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1(4), 349-378.

Lewis, C., Schaps, E., & Watson, M. (1995). Beyond the pendulum. Phi Delta Kappan (March), 547-554.

Linquanti, R. (1992). Using community-wide collaboration to foster resiliency in kids: A conceptual framework. Western Regional Center for Drug-Free School and Communities, 1-13.

Llewellyn, G., (Ed.). (1993). Real Lives: Eleven Teenagers Who Don’t Go to School. Eugene, OR: Lowry House.

Maehr, M.L. & Fyans, L.J. (1990). School Culture, Student Ethnicity, and Motivation: Project Report (Contract No. RI 17C8003). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, National Center for School Leadership.

Masten, A.S., Best, K.M., & N. Garmezy. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425-444.

McClendon, C. & Wigfield, A. (1998). Group differences in African American adolescents’ achievement-related beliefs about math and science: An initial study. Journal of Black Psychology, 24(1), 28-43.

McCombs, B.L., & Lambert, N. (Eds.) (1997). How Students Learn: Reforming Schools through Learner-Centered Education Washington, DC: APA Books.

McCombs, B.L., & Whisler, J.S. (1997). The Learner-centered Classroom and School: Strategies for Increasing Student Motivation and Achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McKenry, P.C., Everett, J.E., Ramseur, H.P., & Carter, C.J. (1989). Research on Black Adolescents: A legacy of cultural bias. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4(2), 254-264.

McLaughlin, M.W., Irby, M.A., & J. Langman. (1994). Urban Sanctuaries: Neighborhood Organizations in the Lives and Futures of Inner-City Youth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

McLaughlin, T.F. & Vacha, E.F. (1992). School programs for at-risk children and youth: A review. Education and Treatment of Children, 15(3), 255-267.

McMillan, J.H. (1992). A qualitative study of resilient at-risk students. Review of Literature. Richmond, VA: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium. (ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ED 389 779).

McPartland, J.M., Legters, N.E., Jordan, W.J. & McDill, E.L. (1996). The talent development high school: Early evidence of the impact on school climate, attendance, and student promotion. Baltimore & Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University and Howard University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Report No. 2.

Moos, R.H. (1979). Evaluating Educational Environments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

National Center for Education Statistics (1997). NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress. U.S. Department of Education: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Neisser, U. (Ed.). (1986). The School Achievement of Minority Children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nelson-LeGall, S. & Jones, E. (1991). Classroom help-seeking behavior of African-American children. Education and Urban Society, 24(1), 27-40.

Nettles, S.M. (1989). The role of community involvement in fostering investment behavior in low-income black adolescents: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4(2), 190-201.

Nettles, S.M. (1991). Community involvement and disadvantaged students: A review. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 379-406.

Nettles, S.M. & Pleck, J.H. (1994). Risk, resilience, and development: The multiple ecologies of black adolescents in the United States. In R.J. Haggerty, L.R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents: Process, mechanisms, and intervention (pp. 147-181). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nettles, S.M. (1997, June). How resiliency works. Workshop presented at the Kaiser Permanente Conference on Building Hope: Exploring Resiliency in Youth and Communities, College Park, MD.

Nettles, S.M. (1997, October). Children and schools: Perspectives on risk and resilience. Seminar on America’s Families of the Knight Center for Specialized Journalism at the University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Nettles, S.M. (1997). The resilience of African-American adolescents: Issues pertinent to alcohol and other substance use. In E. Norman, Ed. Drug-Free Use: A Compendium for Prevention Specialists. Hamden, CT: Garland Press.

Newcomb, M.D., & Felix-Ortiz, M. (1992). Multiple protective and risk factors for drug use and abuse: Cross-sectional and prospective findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 280-296.

Newmann, F.M. (1996). Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Publishers.

Ogbu, J.U. (1978). Minority Education and Caste: The American System in Cross Cultural Perspective. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Ogbu, J.U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child Development, 52, 413-429.

Ogbu, J.U. (1985). A cultural ecology of competence among inner-city blacks. In M.B. Spencer, G.K.Brookins, & W.R. Allen (Eds.), Beginnings: The social and affective development of black children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Patchen, M. (1982). Black-White Contact in Schools: Its Social and Academic Effects. West LaFayette,IN: Purdue University.

Pelligrini, D.S. (1990). Psychosocial risk and protective factors in childhood. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 11, 201-209.

Phelan, P., Davidson, A., & Cao, H.T. (1992). Speaking up: Students; perspectives on school. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(9), 695-704.

Purkey, S.C., & Smith, M.S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 426-452.Perry, T. & College, W. (1993). Toward a theory of African-American School Achievement: Report 16. Boston, MA: Center on Families, Communities, Schools, & Children’s Learning.Randolph, S. (May 12, 1998). Personal Communication. UMCP.

Rumberger, R.W., & Levin, H.M. (1989). In S.V. Brown & B.C. Clewell (Eds.). Building the Nation’s Workforce from the Inside Out: Educating Minorities for the 21st Century. Normon, OK: Center for Research on Multiethnic Education.Rutter, M. (1976). Cycles of Disadvantage: A Review of Research. London: Heinemann.

Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598-611.

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J. (1979,1994). Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and their Effects on Children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sadker, M., Sadker, D., & Steindam,S. (1989). Gender equity and educational reform. Educational Leadership, 46, 44-47.

Schwarz, P.A. (1980). Program devaluation: can the experiment reform? In E.H. Loveland (Ed.), New Directions for Program Evaluation (pp.65-91). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Segal, J. (1986). Winning Life’s Toughest Battles: Roots of Human Resistance. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Slavin, L.A., Rainer, K.L., McCreary, M.L., & Gowda, K.K. (1991). Toward a multicultural model of the stress process. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 156-163.

Soloman, D., Watson, M., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Delucchi, K. (1992). Creating a caring community: Educational practices that promote children’s prosocial development. In F. Oser, A. Dick, & J. Patry (Eds.), Effective and Responsible Teaching: The New Synthesis, pp. 383-396. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Spencer, M.B. (1992, April). Neighborhood, self-esteem and achievement orientation. Paper presented at the Society for Research on Adolescence, Washington, D.C.

Spencer, M.B., & Markstrom-Adams, C.(1990). Identity processes among racial and ethnic minority children in America. Child Development, 61, 290-310.

Walberg, H. (1985). Effective schools: A quantitative synthesis of constructs. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 20(2), 12-17.

Wang, M.C. et al. (1993). Educational Resilience in Inner Cities. Nairobi, Kenya: Coordinating Centre for Regional Information Training.

Wang, M.C. (April, 1995) Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association ( San Francisco, CA).

Werner, E.E. (1990). Protective factors and individual resilience. In S.J. Meisels, & J.P. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Werner, E.E.(1993). Risk, resilience, and recovery: Perspectives from the Kauai Longitudinal Study. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 503-515.

Werner, E.E., & Smith, R.S. (1982). Vulnerable but Invincible: A Study of Resilient Children. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Werner, E.E., & Smith, R.S. (1989). Vulnerable but Invincible: A Longitudinal Study of Resilient Children and Youth. New York: Adams-Bannister-Cox.

Williams, B. (1996). Closing the Gap: A Vision for Changing Beliefs and Practices. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wilson-Sadberry, K.R., Winfield, L.F., Royster, D.A. (1991). Resilience and persistence of African-American males in postsecondary enrollment. Education and Urban Society, 24(1), 87-102.

Winfield, L.F. (1991). Resilience, schooling, and development in African-American youth: A conceptual framework. Education and Urban Society, 24(1), 5-14.

Worthen, B.R. (1993). Critical issues that will determine the future of alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 444-457.

Zimmerman, M.A. & Arunkumar, R. (1994). Resiliency research: Implications for schools and policy. Society for Research in Child Development, 8(4), 1-17.