(NL1920apr04G) 29 June 2004

A report on a BICE - R&D mission to the Netherlands:

an example of how resilience may function in school,
for the benefit of the institution and of the people: staff, pupils, parents.

By Stefan Vanistendael, R&D

BICE, rue de Cornavin, CH 1201 Geneva, Switzerland
Telephone: -41-(0)22- 731 32 48
Email: stefan.vanistendael@bice.org

With many thanks to Mr Jo Morreel from Akros, an office for technical support, coaching and
guidance of schools, based in Bergen-op-Zoom, Netherlands. The final responsibility for the
report is the author’s.

Dates of mission: 18-21 April 2004

Place: Bergen-op-Zoom and Roosendaal + region (SW Netherlands)

Objective:
Visit of some Catholic schools working with a “resilience inspiration/approach”, so as
to see what can be learnt from their experience, because I had been receiving some very
positive feedback from this Dutch “experiment”.

Summary:
Experience suggests that the introduction of a resilience based philosophy in at least 5
Dutch primary schools - with more following - has a considerable positive impact on both
the institutional functioning of the schools and on the happiness of staff, children and
parents of the children.

Overview of content:

1. Context and general overview

2. Some lessons learnt from the Dutch experience

2.1. Why resilience?

2.2. How do you get started in a school?
2.3. Why the “casita” model?
2.4. Is resilience merely an inspiration? What concrete change does it bring about?
2.5. What can we learn for some other fields of commitment and work?
2.6. How is the resilience inspiration received?
2.7. From resilience to resilience inspiration

3. Realism and hope meet: Loesel’s intuition

Annex 1: Organisation of the mission

Annex 2: Basic scheme of the Casita-Model (=House-Model)

1
1. Context and general overview:

A few Catholic schools in the SW of the Netherlands have been introducing the resilience
concept as the basis for their school’s philosophy and mission for a couple of years now.
This is part of a process of building the identity of the schools, of rethinking and
implementing their mission. This is based on a clear decision made by each individual
school itself. No school is forced or obliged to do this. Once the process starts a school
develops its own way of implementing resilience, based on the flexible Bice “casita”-
model, with the guidance or coaching of Mr Morreel (+colleagues) from the Akros office
for technical assistance to schools. The Dutch translations of the two Bice cahiers1 on
resilience, prepared by Mr Morreel with Bice’s technical support but with no Bice
funding, have been helpful in introducing resilience.

This process has to be seen in the context of Dutch education. The central government is
slowly decentralizing education, and there are offices such as Akros which take care of
technical support for the schools in a region, such as: managing the school
administration, advice with construction projects for new buildings, or coaching of school
development and school identity.

The process is the square opposite of a top down approach. What motivates a school to
rethink its philosophy and practice in terms of resilience is the success of such an
approach in another school. The very first school to try this was advised - but not forced -
by Akros2 to begin this process. Very slowly but very solidly a network of schools has
been building up, all of them inspired by resilience. Each school is at a different stage of
implementation and has its own specific challenges: integration of migrant children,
unrest, staff confused by the wide diversity of new ideas… It really is a slow step by step
process, in the field, with the direction of the school, with the technical guidance staff
from outside, with the teaching and other staff, with the children, with the parents.
According to this experience, the complete change to a resilience philosophy and its
implementation can take between 3 and 5 years.

The schools presently concerned are primary schools, some of them for children with
special needs. There is some interest in starting this approach in a secondary school. At
the present time at least 5 schools work with this resilience approach. At least 10 other
schools show an interest for the introduction of a resilience approach.

Parallel to the interest in the Netherlands the French Catholic education has shown some
interest in resilience for schools. First, a school in Brive la Gaillarde had organized with
R&D of Bice an intervention about resilience with staff, pupils and some parents. Later
the review of the French Catholic education published a special issue on resilience in
September 2002 with the help of R&D in Bice, and also referring to the Dutch experience
1
“Growth in the Muddle of Life”, Bice, 3d edition 1998, a booklet on resilience, translated in more than 10
languages, and a more recent booklet on resilience and spirituality (2002) which has been published in
French, Spanish and Dutch until now; an English version is being prepared.
2
At that time Akros was called KOWBZ

2
and the school in Brive. Following that publication a small private school in Chauffailles
organized with R&D a resilience training workshop for all staff (about 40 people) one
evening in Autumn 2003. The same school has asked R&D back for the Autumn 2004.
One idea currently being explored is to see if direct bridges can be made between the
Dutch experience on the one hand and the French interest on the other hand, starting
with the small school in Chauffailles, taking into account the differences in culture and in
context, and bridging the language gaps.

In the meantime the Flemish Catholic education in Belgium (Dutch speaking) shows an
increased interest in working with resilience. The second Bice cahier on resilience (and
spirituality) has played a catalyzing role there. That network organized a resilience study
day on 30 April 2004 under the leadership of Mr Jo Morreel from Akros in the
Netherlands. As the context is completely different from the Netherlands or France, it is
not clear yet what steps towards further implementation can be taken.

2. Some lessons learnt from the Dutch experience:

Two preliminary notes:

(1) There are many ways to think of resilience but the Dutch experience is based on
Bice’s “Casita”-Model (House) of resilience, which presents a series of vital elements
of resilience-building as the rooms of a house: basic physical health, fundamental
acceptance of the person (not the behaviour), discovery of meaning, self esteem,
competences, humour, and others (open model). – cf annex 2.
(2) The Dutch feel that resilience should not be considered as an “additional tool” for the
“ tool kit” of the staff or direction, but as the very basis of the school’s philosophy
and mission.

2.1. Why resilience?

(1) Philosophy of life, meaning - When asked to specify the Catholic or Christian
identity of a school, the staff and the parents come up with lovely humanistic ideas, such
as the importance of value education, but nothing really specific. The Dutch feel that
resilience allows in a very natural and non sectarian way to integrate a philosophy of life
and a discussion of meaning in the functioning of the school, beyond the neutral “biggest
common denominator”. That gives new substance to the Christian or Catholic identity of
the school.

(2) Non perfectionist education and growth - This philosophy of life can be non
perfectionist, integrating failure and weakness while consistently looking for the
positives to be developed. This is not only very liberating for the children, but also - and
not the least- for the staff! It is concretely reflected in a life rule formulated in one of the
schools: “Errors are allowed, we can learn from them”. This is more powerful than
simple “positive thinking”. Please note, that everybody, including the children, is
involved in the – slow – process of formulating such rules. (Cf also infra)

3
(3) Overview and clarity - Resilience is a very integrative concept that allows to bring a
lot of different ideas and experiences together in a coherent way, at a time when many
people cannot see anymore how things hang together: in the whirlwind of ideas teachers
and staff have to deal with, such an integrative concept is a big relief. It offers overview
and clarity while respecting real life. Such integration is greatly facilitated by the use of
the “Casita” (cf infra). As one director puts it: “This model gives us an anchor for our
activities”.

(4) Caring for each other - As fundamental acceptance of each other is generally
considered to be the basis of resilience this helps to create a very positive climate in
schools, for staff and for pupils. People have to support and “to hold and carry each
other”. They feel more responsible for each other.

(5) Child participation – The previous point also leads to strong child participation.
The children are co-responsible for the school, and not just little consumers. Although the
responsibility is adapted to the child, it can be very direct. For example, children give
very sensible advice on how to rebuild part of the school playground. This co-
responsibility can also include the parents of the children. It increases confidence. It
creates a strong “we” feeling, rather than “us” and “them”.

(6) Feasibility - Resilience can be implemented in a very flexible way, adapted to local
realities. People can move slowly and smoothly from the human reality of resilience, to a
new inspiration, and further on to a new way of looking at everyday realities, and from
there to new practices, as mentioned above. The “casita” is very helpful for giving shape
to such processes (cf infra).

2.2. How do you get started in a school?

There is no unique starting up procedure. We can only give a few points, extracted from
the Dutch experience , which illustrate a sequence of how things are done. But in the end
an interested school will have to develop its own ways of implementing a resilience
inspiration.

(1) At the very beginning there must be some interest by direction or staff or the regional
school board, inspired by a positive experience with a resilience approach in another
school, preferably not too far away.
(2) Resilience is accepted (again: never imposed) as a basic philosophy for school life –
and its concrete “casita” model, the house, as a flexible working tool; there should
really be a broad agreement on this between the regional school board, the direction
of the school, the staff . This may require some discussion.
(3) There can be a school study day on resilience as a kick off.

4
(4) The resilience philosophy and the house-model may appear in official school
documents, also for the parents
(5) The house model is gradually implemented. For example: staff, pupils, parents discuss
(separately, together) what the different rooms in the house concretely mean. This can
be visualised in drawings, one for each room.
(6) Such discussion may lead to the setting of common school rules, discussed and
carried by all (or almost all).
Example 1: the foundations of the house (fundamental acceptance of the person,
caring for each other,…) have lead to the following rules in one school:
. We are allowed to make mistakes, because we are in school to learn
. We respect each other, but also animals and flowers and plants and things
. We listen to each other. (This implies that teachers also must listen to the
children)
Example 2: the room “humour” cleverly avoids a “rule” but is implemented by a
question: “Have you already laughed today?”
(7) Such rules can also be visualised in pictogrammes to be used in a variety of places,
documents and situations. One rule may be useful in implementing several aspects of
resilience (= several rooms of the house-model).
(8) Such rules can be further discussed and fine tuned, sometimes specifically for
children or for teaching staff.
(9) Such a process, structured around the house-model (“casita”), gradually introduces
changes in focus and attention, in behaviour, and hence in the school climate.
(10) This change in climate can lead into being better prepared when unexpected
disaster happens, such as with the sudden death of a young boy on the playground (Cf
infra).

The lack of a clear and precise starting up plan may be frustrating, but such clarity and
precision will gradually develop – in a way specific to the school - as the process starts
and develops, in a regular dialogue between the various partners, including the coach.

The implementation process is normally coached or guided by one outside person (in this
case Mr Morreel from Akros), and monitored by another person within the school. Mr
Morreel feels the outside person should be available at least once every six weeks, for
private or group discussions, or for another impulse, such as a workshop on a specific
aspect of resilience.

5
2.3. Why the “casita” model?

Some of what follows repeats what has been said above, because it is hard to separate a
concept from a tool used for communication and implementation related to that concept.

(1) Practical, understandable synthesis -The image of the house gives a good synthesis
of a series of important elements for school life and for resilience. It is also easier to
understand for everybody, including children and parents, including less intellectually
minded people. Other and more verbose syntheses are possible, but the image of the
house makes resilience more practical, easier to understand, more ready for use, and even
easier to relate to emotionally. People can even redraw the house based on their own
experience.

(2) Communication tool - The house is a powerful communication tool. It facilitates

discussions in various teams, among staff, but also with parents or children. It may even
facilitate the opening up of communication in situations that are awkward and blocked.

(3) Coherence - The house allows in a concrete way to implement the integrative powers
of resilience, because various ideas and tools the staff has to learn find a logical place in
the different rooms of the house. Direction and staff see again coherence and structure in
what they learn and do. One director even said it enabled the school to set coherent
priorities and to stick to them.

(4) General and specific - The “Casita” is a means of combining two opposites which are
both very needed in practice: the need for some general elements cutting across situations
(the rooms in the house) and the need to be specific and to do some individual tailor-
made things which cannot be generalised as such (what you concretely do in the rooms,
the furniture in each room, if it were). This allows for great flexibility, without losing
orientation and vision. In doing so the “Casita” makes it also possible to take into account
strategic ways of thinking - so needed and so widely used by people in (re)building life,
but often so absent in some forms of scientific thinking which implicitly presume a purely
mechanical view on life.

Having said this, nobody pretends the Casita is the only possible way of synthesizing or
implementing resilience.

6
2.4. Is resilience merely an inspiration? What concrete change does it bring about?

The examples below are some concrete consequences attributed to the changes in
philosophy and practice inspired by resilience. They are a sample of possible results,
which vary according to situation. They are not specific results to be expected in all
situations. Nobody claims that such changes could not have been caused in any other
way. People have just found this resilience approach and the Casita – model (House) an
effective and practical way of moving forward and of creating positive change in a
coherent way.

(1) As one director put it: “When I first came to this school, there was a lot of
restlessness; there were no major problems, but people were not happy. Resilience and
the “casita” have helped us all to bring back some peace and happiness among staff and
pupils.”

(2) Less risk of staff burn out.

(3) Development of precise and concrete life rules for the school. Everybody participates
in the process, including the pupils. It is a slow process but at the end the rules are
respected. This process is under way in various schools, in various stages of
development.

(4) Some problems come into focus and can be worked on. For example, while discussing
among teachers how pupils perceive one of the school rules “under construction”, the
question has come up of the balance between some positive social control on the one
hand and pupils betraying each other to the staff on the other hand.

(5) Pupils become less aggressive.

(6) Generally: increased participation and responsibility by everybody, including the

children. This again leads to better solutions for a variety of practical problems, such as
for example the concrete rearrangement of the playground in a school.

(7) The relatively serene way in which the school and the family of a boy who suddenly
died in the playground could cope with that dramatic event, was also attributed to the
fact that it happened in a school that had been reviewing its functioning for a long time
inspired by resilience, introducing a very strong sense of mutual care and support. This
example is developed towards the end of the report (cf par. 2.7).

7
2.5. What can we learn for some other fields of commitment and work?

Apart from what has been said above, some aspects of this particular Dutch experience
may inspire other areas of work, such as social work or some forms of institutional care.

For example:

(1) The idea that the inspiring and driving force of an institution is a clear vision and
sense of mission; the concrete organisation of the institution should be in function of
the vision and mission, not the other way round; this is the confirmation of something
which is often stated in other contexts, but…often neglected;
(2) The possibility of integrating a philosophy of life via the dimension of meaning into
an institution and into work, in a way which is both non sectarian and yet beyond the
– often bland and uninspiring - largest common denominator;
(3) The idea that you can work with an overall model, based on the “Casita”, allowing to
integrate in a coherent vision a wide variety of skills, tools, ideas, activities;
(4) The practical usefulness of a visual model (in this case the house), beyond words and
theories – and not against them – which can function as a strong symbol people can
even emotionally relate to, which can help to share experience with others, and which
people can make their own.
(5) Practice in schools confirms the wider experience that it remains awfully difficult to
move away from a problem focused way of working to a more balanced vision that
does not deny problems but that is more positive and knows how to detect and
mobilise resources. Almost as if we are naturally obsessed with negative things in
life.
(6) It appears that such a resilience approach can be an effective and concrete way of
implementing…children’s rights, without directly saying so. This is logical, as
resilience mobilizes and connects so many responsibilities of so many people, adults
and children. In that sense, children’s rights and resilience are two very
complimentary sides of the same coin. This perspective deserves to be further
explored and articulated.

8
2.6. How is the resilience inspiration received?

According to the school experience of Mr Morreel the resilience inspiration can be

received in 3 distinctive ways:
(1) It is received as a nice and inspiring story, that may or it may not have a concrete
impact on practice. Sometimes we cannot go any further.
(2) It is considered as a system or technique that has to be applied. As Mr Morreel
remarks, in case this becomes apparent “you better stand on the brakes”. Resilience
as a “technique” is not considered desirable, because there is a risk it would fail to
respect local and individual realities and turn into an ideology.
(3) It is received as an inspiring vision that is taken on by people and that will gradually
change attitudes and concrete practice, in the sense of more coherent vision, more
positive ways of working, more mutual support, more participation. What this
precisely means in the end can vary between different situations, which is in itself
positive.

The latter third point helps to clarify the specific catalyst role an international
organisation can and should play with great effectiveness and relatively limited resources.
It is the careful articulation between a broad international horizon, nourished by a wide
variety of experiences and ideas from across cultures, countries and types of commitment
on the one hand, and the very specific local competences related to local circumstances,
culture, problems, commitments and interests on the other hand, that seems to lead to
very effective and efficient work. This implies that competences are respected both ways –
international and local - that both sides are always open to learn from each other. It
requires a very non ideological way of thinking that stays close to real life.

2.7. From resilience to resilience inspiration

(1) An ordinary primary school in the Netherlands is obviously not a hotbed of highly
traumatised people. Some resilience purists would argue that hence we cannot talk about
resilience. This touches upon an interesting point. Life seems to teach us that the basic
elements of resilience are in fact also the basic elements of “ordinary” human happiness,
expressed in different ways and in different circumstances. This confirms and old insight.

(2) As mentioned before, a young boy suddenly died in the school playground, more or
less in view of the fellow pupils and staff. Emergency services moved in, even with a
helicopter, which was needed but also added to the drama of the situation. That certainly
is not an easy event to cope with, neither for the family, nor for the pupils, nor for the
staff. The boy who died had a frail health, but people were no less shaken, shocked and
sad. Yet it seems that in spite of shock and sadness the climate remained serene
afterwards. According to Mr Morreel this was probably due to the fact that this school
had already been working for a while with this resilience model. Mutual support was not
difficult to tap in to, and the profound questions such an event raises could be addressed
serenely. It is probably impossible to really prove a causal link between the resilience

9
approach and such serenity. It is possible or perhaps even probable that the school might
have achieved that level of functioning via another path. But if the interpretation of Mr
Morreel is correct, it would mean that such a practical resilience approach could also
have strong positive preventive effects. It would be a case of resilience – as a capacity to
grow in the face of adversity - being built up quietly, but only becoming clearly visible
and active when a traumatic event happens. This comes close to the analysis Dr Paul
Bouvier from Geneva has made of how resilience can inspire and renew our concepts of
prevention. (In: Enfance Majuscule, Sept-Dec 2003).

(3) The Dutch experience clearly operates at an institutional level. This use of resilience
is perhaps less common, but not less interesting. Thanks to the careful way in which the
experience progresses it goes hand in hand with an improved well being at the individual
level. But it is different from an individual showing resilience in the context of an
institution.

3. Realism and hope meet: Loesel’s intuition

This report reflects a profound experience in a handful of schools in a specific setting. It
is not yet a very widespread experience, but it is growing. The experiences reported here
are not captured by standard scientific research – although the Dutch play with the idea to
start such research - but that does not mean such experiences are not real. At the
beginning there is an inspiration, resilience, with a sort of tool, the “casita”. The specific
implementation of resilience inspired work in a few schools gives some interesting
evidence, directly from practice, which can gradually grow as the resilience inspired
process of change continues. This process is – in principle – self correcting.

In that sense the present report may inspire new ideas, stimulate new experiences, but it
must not be considered as something to be copied elsewhere. The Dutch would be the
first to say so. They prefer that schools make up their own mind, develop their own
implementation, and that slowly a network of resilience inspired schools may grow.

It was professor Friedrich Loesel’s (university Nürnberg-Erlangen) intuition that the best
thing resilience could offer, is a sense of realistic hope. This Dutch experience seems to
confirm that intuition. Put in a time frame: in order to face a future which is in principle
unknown we need hope; but our experience which always refers to a more or less remote
past keeps us realistic. In the Dutch experience the careful step-by-step way of working
with no hurry and no arrogance, always in close touch with life, with a maximum number
of people involved, shows a lot of sober realism. Yet as positive results gradually emerge
from this prudent and realistic approach, it seems that the hope which has inspired the
action in the first place is gradually transforming itself into a solid piece of… reality!

10
Annex 1: Organisation of the mission:

As of Monday 19 April, the visit was organized locally by mr Jo Morreel, of the Akros
office in Bergen-op-Zoom (technical assistance to Catholic Schools in the region of
Roosendaal in SW Netherlands). He is the person who has started introducing Bice’s
resilience thinking into different Catholic schools in that region, and who has organized
the translation and publication of the two Bice resilience cahiers into Dutch without any
Bice subsidies. The first cahier is in a second edition already.

Schedule:

Sunday 18 April

- travel to the Netherlands

Monday 19 April

- Visit to two different schools

- Two rounds of discussions with two sets of staff working in or with the schools
- Evening meal with some of the people met during the day.

Tuesday 20 April

- Discussion with Mr Jos Roemer, colleague in Akros of Mr Jo Morreel, who

(a) had pointed out early on that resilience as developed by Bice was the only
model he had seen that allowed to define a clear and specific identity for a
Catholic (or Christian) school,
(b) wants to reinforce the epistemological basis for resilience thinking and
(c) wants to extend the applications of resilience thinking beyond the region he is
now working in (SW Netherlands)
- Evening meeting with an interested group of people – mainly school staff - in a third
school
- Note: the programme of Tuesday had to be changed in the last minute because of the
sudden death of a small boy in the playground of one of the schools.

Wednesday 21 April: travel back to Switzerland.

11
Annex 2: Basic scheme of the Casita-Model (House-Model)

« Casita »: Resilience Building.

attic

Other experiences
to be discovered

first self skills humour

floor esteem competences

capacity to discover sense,

ground meaning and coherence
floor

base-
ment, networks of informal relations (family, friends...)
foundations
fundamental
acceptance of person
( not behaviour)

site on which to build: basic physical health

(Stefan Vanistendael, Bice, 1998)

12