Our study is devoted to the analysis of educational policies and management strategies that can ensure successful and widespread inclusion. Under successful inclusion we mean the unification of children with different social status and different levels of abilities in the contingent and ensuring the highest possible achievements for all students. Such a view of inclusion is most interesting in the context of schools working with children in adverse social conditions. Schools that work with disadvantaged contingent often have to use special strategies to show high results regardless of the context characteristics. If schools succeed, then such schools can be classified as resilient.

Resilience has recently been introduced into the PISA study as a significant indicator of the effectiveness of educational policy. In this regard, studies of various factors of resilience at different levels and their comparison in different countries become especially important. PISA 2015 results show that, across all participating countries and economies, 26% of the variation in science performance is observed between schools, and it is shown that schools, which can compensate for socio-economic disadvantage (resilient schools), may use different strategies (OECD, 2017). In that context, the most common and close definition of school resilience would be the ability of the school to demonstrate high educational achievements despite its challenging circumstances by parity of reasoning with the definition of individual or personal resilience (Masten et al, 2008). Based on numerous studies “resilience” was transferred from the individual level to the institutional level (schools) (Richardson, 2002).

In their recent study in fifteen European countries in 2017 (based on PISA 2009 results), Agasisti and Longobardi show that not only the student's personal qualities are important for his resilience, but also the very different characteristics of the school in which he or she studies (Agasisti & Longobardi, 2017). Resilient schools help their students to achieve higher educational goals in the face of unfavourable conditions. It is important to notice that researchers are interested not only in the resilience of students but also in the resilience of principals and teachers, which can also lead to school resilience. It is also usually mentioned that “resilient” school factors may vary between different countries (Henderson and Milstein, 2003; Patterson, Collins and Abbott, 2004; Day and Gu, 2014; Steward, 2014).

The focus of our study is schools that perform beyond expectations, which allows us to focus on the characteristics of resilient schools. The research of school educational strategy, allowing to overcome adverse influence of a family context and to perform function of the social elevator, increasing success chances of students, remains significant in educational policy of the majority of the countries. The study of the educational strategies that are used in such schools is an important part of overcoming educational inequalities around the world.

Researchquestions

1. Can we identify specific characteristics of resilient schools, which are supposed to help them overcome the unfavorable conditions and ensure high educational results for all students?
2. What are the particular qualities and strategies of principals and teachers in resilient schools and how do they compare with those of other countries?

Data for the analyses was received from a longitudinal study called Monitoring of Education Markets and Organizations (MEMO - http://memo.hse.ru/en/). In particular, our analysis is based on a survey of principals and teachers from the 2014-2016 academic years (analytic sample contains 1236 observations for principals). To determine the extent of adversity of schools and to estimate school achievements with respect to context factors we used a contextualisation model which was based on previous studies in other countries (OECD, 2008; National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). Multiple regression modelling was used to analyse the relationships among social-economic characteristics of students and the average Unified State Exam scores and to create ISA (index of social advantage). The analysis of principals’ strategies follows the descriptive format. A multiple univariate analysis of variance was used to analyse the differences between principals and teachers of different groups of schools. All statistical tests were set at level 0.05.

Conclusion The resilient group of schools was distinguished from the representative national sample using the contextualisation model. The policies and educational strategies of principals of such schools differ substantially from the policies and strategies of all other schools. They differ from the policies pursued by selective schools that ensure high results, but only for those who have been selected (socially advantaged children). They also differ from the managerial strategies of school principals who are close in terms of complexity and heterogeneity of the contingent, which show the lowest results, depriving their students’ chances for successful socialization. School educational policies are based on a purposeful school body formation strategy even if the conditions they are working in are very restrictive and selection is limited. Schools have to accept children from the nearest locality but they also attract the most successful children from other areas on the condition of free places. The principals of resilient schools are oriented on creation of intense learning environment and educational opportunities, which compensate for the shortage of educational resources inside the family. This is also correlates with the EU-15 results (Agasisti & Longobardi, 2017). Some results obtained in our analysis repeat those that can be seen in the publication «How do schools compensate for socio-economic disadvantage?», PISA in Focus (OECD, 2017). For example, we can assume the same conclusions about parents who require a high level of education for their children and about school formation and climate. Principals in resilient schools more than their colleagues focused on the distribution of their and school staff working time. They are more confident supervisors with more strategic ways of thinking, which is also can be found in previous research in other countries (Muijs, Harris, Chapman, Stoll, & Russ, 2004)

References Agasisti, T., & Longobardi, S. (2017). Equality of Educational Opportunities, Schools’ Characteristics and Resilient Students: An Empirical Study of EU-15 Countries Using OECD-PISA 2009 Data. Social Indicators Research, 134(3), 917–953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1464-5 Day, C., and Q. Gu. 2014. Resilient teachers, resilient schools: Building and sustaining quality in testing times. Routledge. Henderson, N., and M.M. Milstein. 2003. Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for students and educators. Corwin Press. Improving the Measurement of Socioeconomic Status for the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Theoretical Foundation. Recommendations to the National Center for Education Statistics, 2012; Measuring Improvements in Learning Outcomes: Best Practices to Assess the Value-Added of Schools. OECD, 2008 Masten, A. S., J.E. Herbers, J.J. Cutuli, and T.L. Lafavor. 2008. Promoting competence and resilience in the school context. Professional School Counseling 12, vol.2: 76—84. Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving Schools in Socio-economically Disadvantaged Areas: a Review of Research Evidence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(April), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.15.2.149.30433 OECD (2017), "How do schools compensate for socio-economic disadvantage?", PISA in Focus, No. 76, OECD Publishing, Paris. Patterson, J. H., L. Collins, and G. Abbott. 2004. A study of teacher resilience in urban schools. Journal of Instructional Psychology 31. No.1. Richardson, G. E. 2002. The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of clinical psychology 58. no.3: 307-321. Steward, J. 2014. Sustaining emotional resilience for school leadership. School Leadership & Management 34, no.1: 52-68.