Adolescents’ perceptions of school climate: Exploring its protective role in times of economic recession

Abstract

The aim of the study is to explore the way Greek junior high school students perceive school climate as a protective factor against the adversities due to the ongoing economic recession. The randomly selected sample consisted of 746 students from junior high schools (Gymnasia) in the broader area of Athens. The California School Climate Survey (2009), the Questionnaire of Subjective Well-Being/Youth Form (Grob et al., 1991) and the Economic Crisis Difficulties Questionnaire (LSP, 2011) were used for data collection. The findings indicated the existence of statistically significant relations between the effects of economic recession, subjective well-being and school climate. School climate moderated the interaction between economic recession and students’ subjective well-being. Results provide a better understanding of adolescents’ needs during unsettling times contributing to the development of effective evidence-based intervention programs in school communities.

Keywords

at risk students economic recession Greek adolescents school climate subjective well-being

The role of school environment has increasingly raised researchers’ interest during the last decades and data has been advocating for the positive effects of the positive school climate in students’ academic, social, and psychological adjustment, well-being and resilience (Hatzichristou, Issari, Lampropoulou, Lykitsakou, & Dimitropoulou, 2011; Hatzichristou, Lykitsakou, Lampropoulou, & Dimitropoulou, 2010; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’ Alessandro, 2013).

The term ‘school climate’ has been used during the last decades in order to describe the perceptions of school community members regarding school environment (Zullig et al., 2014). Taking into consideration the complexity of domains composing school climate, many studies explored and identified common domains (Ramelow, Currie, & Felder-Puig, 2015).The prevailing approach suggests that significant dimensions of positive school climate include (Cohen et al., 2009; Zullig, Koopman, Patton, & Ubbes 2010): (a) a sense of safety in school that promotes academic performance and students’ resilience (Gietz & McIntosh, 2014); (b) interpersonal relationships that include mutual understanding, positive peer and student-teacher relationships and contribute to a better academic and psychological adjustment of all students (Doll, Brehm, & Zucker, 2014); (c) students’ perceptions of the learning process related to students’ engagement and satisfaction for the school context (Finnan, Schnepel, & Anderson, 2003); (d) school engagement that consists of three interconnected dimensions: (i) behavioral engagement that concerns students’ participation in school life (e.g., excursions, celebrations, etc.), (ii) emotional engagement that refers to emotional responses of students to school, learning and school bonding/attachment, and (iii) cognitive engagement concerning the cognitive strategies that students use in the learning process (Lam et al., 2016); (e) school’s physical environment that comprises of organizational aspects of school life (e.g., students’ number) and physical environment (e.g., school’s facilities) related to better academic performance, sense of belonging and school connectedness (McNeely, Nonnemaker & Blum, 2002).

Positive school climate motivates students to learn (Stewart, 2008), empowers school engagement (Jia et al., 2009; Konishi, Hymel, Zumbo, & Li, 2010), moderates the negative socio-economic impact on school performance (Astor, Benbenisty, & Estrada, 2009), reduces aggressive behaviors or bullying in school (Eliot, Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, 2010;) and acts as a protective factor reducing the likelihood of occurrence of external or internal problems (Batanova & Loukas, 2011).

Subjective well-being (SWB) is an important concept that seems to have a connection with school climate. SWB is defined as the satisfaction of an individual with his/her life deriving from his/her evaluation of his/her life based on personal criteria (Diener, Lucas, & Oishi, 2009). A basic dimension of SWB is the existence of a positive and a negative aspect of the concept, suggesting the necessity of including both as distinct factors in SWB studies (Karademas, 2006).

Data indicate that there is a connection between positive school climate and school adaptation and satisfaction (Biglan, Flay, Embry, & Sandler, 2012; Hatzichristou, Adamopoulou & Lampropoulou, 2014).There is also evidence that when students experience a positive climate in their school, the positive aspect of SWB is enhanced while a negative school climate is linked with the negative aspect of SWB (Guess & McCane-Bowling, 2016; Lampropoulou, 2018; Ruus et al., 2007). However, significant life events that persist over several years and crisis situations seem to have a negative effect on subjective well-being and cause a disruption and alteration in everyday life of people involved. (Lucas, 2007; Luhmann, Hofmann, Eid, & Lucas, 2012).

The ongoing global economic recession had a major impact on school communities since it renders all members of school community highly vulnerable. The experience of economic difficulties has been associated with a sense of insecurity and lack of self-competence, increase stress level, poor school attendance and performance, low school enrollment, feelings of anxiety and fear and lack of self-confidence (Hatzichristou, Lianos, & Lampropoulou, 2017; Shelleby et al., 2014; Williams & Crockett, 2012). Furthermore, researchers indicate indirect effects of economic recession on the quality of teaching and teachers’ commitment to their work (Harper & Jones, 2011; Yur'yev, Värnik, Yur'yeva, & Värnik, 2013).

Several studies have been conducted in Greece trying to explore the impact of the recent economic recession on students’ everyday life (e.g., sport activities, shopping, pocket money, living standards,), school life (participating in learning and social activities within school, e.g., school excursions) (Hatzichristou & Lianos, 2016; Hatzichristou et al., 2017). Results showed problems in school infrastructure, while teachers both in primary and secondary education, perceived changes in students’ lives due to income reduction (e.g., inability to participate in school activities or attend foreign language courses), as well as increased interpersonal and intrapersonal behavioral difficulties and were concerned about how to support their students (Anagnostopoulos & Soumaki, 2012; Hatzichristou et al., 2011, 2017; Simou & Koutsogeorgou, 2014).

All the above consequences of the economic recession in the school community are related with several dimensions of the school climate such as support for learning, students’ engagement, positive peer relationships, social and emotional support and school’s physical environment (Ackerman & Brown, 2006; Fowler, 2007). In this study, junior high school students’ perceptions regarding school climate in times of adversity are examined. The following research question was formulated: How is school climate affecting subjective well-being (SWB) of students experiencing adversities as a result of the economic recession in their everyday and school life? The research hypothesis is that school climate moderates the relationship between exposure to economic recession and SWB so that a more positive school climate limits the negative impact of economic recession on SWB.

Research methodology

Data collection and sample characteristics

To test the above stated hypothesis, a mixed methods approach was chosen, integrating both quantitative and qualitative data, in an attempt to gain a more complete understanding of the research problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Primary data was collected via self-report questionnaires. The list of schools was randomly drawn from the database of schools registered in the Greek Ministry of Education. Permission for the survey was granted by the Ministry of Education and the Institute of Educational Policy. Schools were notified by mail. Participants’ selection was random, since every student was eligible to take part, granted that their parents consented.

The sample consisted of seven hundred and forty-six students (Ν = 746, mean age 14.4 years) attending the first grade (N = 259), the second grade (N = 300) and the third grade (N = 166) of four junior high schools located in the wider region of Attika, representing areas of different socio-economic status. Of the participants, 382 (51.2%) were boys and 352 (47.2%) were girls. Most of the students’ parents were employed, while 13% (Ν = 97) of the fathers and 30.3% (Ν = 226) of the mothers were unemployed for more than two years.

Measures

For the purpose of the study the following questionnaires were used:

School Climate Module Supplementary which is one of the scales that were developed for the California Healthy Kids Survey. It consists of 56 closed questions providing the following factors: Academic mindset and learning engagement (e.g., students pay attention in class); Support for Learning and academic rigor, (e.g., this school is a supportive and inviting place for students to learn); Discipline and Order, (e.g., students are well behaved); Positive Peer Relations (e.g., students enjoy doing things with each other in school activities); Social and Emotional Support (e.g., students are often given rewards for being good); Bullying Prevention (e.g., teachers here make it clear to students that bullying is not tolerated); Respect for Diversity (e.g., my class lessons include examples of my racial, ethnic, or cultural background); Physical environment scale (e.g., my school is usually clean and tidy). The questionnaire was submitted to confirmatory factor analysis (Stasinou, 2018). Cronbach alphas for the present study ranged from 0.60 to 0.91

Berne Questionnaire of Subjective Well-Being/Youth Form (BSW/Y) (Grob et al., 1991). It consists of 39 items providing the following factors: Positive attitude towards life (e.g., my future seems good); Self-esteem (e.g., I can manage as well as others); Joy in life (e.g., during the last weeks I felt completely happy); (Lack of) Depressive mood (e.g., my life has no meaning); Problems (e.g., during the last weeks how often were you worried because of your parents); Somatic complaints (e.g., during the last weeks you couldn’t sleep). The first four subscales are included in a higher order (positive) factor called ‘Satisfaction’ and the two negative subscales are included in a higher order (negative) factor called ‘Ill-being’. Cronbach alphas for the present study ranged from 0.69 to 0.85. The questionnaire was submitted to confirmatory factor analysis in other studies with Greek adolescents and Cronbach alphas were also high ranging from 0.71 to 0.79 (Lampropoulou, 2018).

Τhe effects of the economic recession in schools were measured using the Economic Crisis Difficulties Questionnaire (LSP, 2011), a questionnaire evaluating the impact of the economic recession in Greece which has been designed by the Laboratory of School Psychology, University of Athens for studying the results of the economic recession in Greece. It consists of 22 items using a four-point Likert scale. The questionnaire was submitted to factor analysis which produced the following factors: ‘Difficulties in everyday life’ (e.g., reduction of pocket money); and ‘Difficulties in school life’ (e.g., less participation in extracurricular activities) (Stasinou, 2018). Cronbach alphas for the present study ranged from 0.67 to 0.87. Finally, demographic data were also collected.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and the correlation matrix between all variables are presented in Table 1. The correlations between school climate factors and subjective well-being were significant but modest, ranging from −0.10 to 0.34. The highest correlation was noticed between positive attitude towards life and the two factors of school climate, Positive Peer Relations and Social and Emotional Support. The correlations between school climate factors and the economic difficulties were significant and higher but again at a moderate level ranging from −0.10 between Positive Relationships with Peers and Negative Emotions to 0.26 between Bullying Prevention and Difficulties in School Life. The highest significant correlations were found between SWB and financial difficulties ranging from −0.11 (Ill-being and Difficulties in School Life) to 0.90 between Negative Feelings and (lack of) Depressive Mood.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and inter-correlations of the variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
SWB
1 Satisfaction	1
2 Positive attitude towards life	0.79**	1
3 Self-esteem	0.70**	0.60**	1
4 Joy in life	0.85**	0.69**	0.57**	1
5 (Lack of) Depressive mood	−0.24**	−0.52**	−0.61**	−0.46**	1
6 Ill Being	−0.34**	−0.42**	−0.50**	−0.34**	0.50**	1
7 Problems	−0.29**	−0.32**	−0.40**	−0.27**	0.38**	0.86**	1
8 Somatic complaints	−0.29**	−0.39**	−0.46**	−0.32**	0.49**	0.87**	0.49**	1
School Climate
9 Academic mindset and learning engagement	0.18**	0.24**	0.13**	0.17**	−0.11**	−0.16**	−0.13**	−0.12**	1
10 Support for Learning and academic rigor	0.29**	0.33**	0.19**	0.32**	−0.18**	−0.15**	−0.14**	−0.11**	0.58**	1
11 Discipline and Order	0.29**	0.32**	0.15**	0.28**	−0.12**	−0.12**	−0.12**	−0.10**	0.55**	0.60**	1
12 Positive Peer Relations	0.28**	0.34**	0.19**	0.31**	−0.19**	−0.16**	−0.15**	−0.13**	0.57**	0.49**	0.52**	1
13 Social and Emotional Support	0.31**	0.34**	0.20**	0.32**	−0.18**	−0.15**	−0.10**	−0.15**	0.56**	0.74**	0.63**	0.51**	1
14 Bullying Prevention	0.22**	0.29**	0.18**	0.22**	−0.20**	−0.14**	−0.13**	−0.12**	0.49**	0.64**	0.51**	0.49**	0.65**	1
15 Respect for Diversity	0.17**	0.14**	0.08*	0.16**	−0.02	0.03	0.04	0.02	0.37**	0.39**	0.39**	0.36**	0.45**	0.42**	1
16 Physical environment scale	0.12**	0.12**	0.07	0.12**	−0.03	−0.06	−0.06	−0.03	0.49**	0.51**	0.40**	0.34**	0.48**	0.43**	0.28**	1
Economic Recession
17 Difficulties in everyday life	−0.25**	−0.26**	−0.31**	−0.25**	0.30**	0.34**	0.31**	0.28**	0.04	−0.01	−0.01	0.04	−0.00	−0.05	0.09*	0.02**	1
18 Difficulties in school life	0.17**	0.24**	0.15**	0.20**	−0.19**	−0.11**	−0.12**	−0.80*	0.10*	0.22**	0.20**	0.20**	0.20**	0.26**	0.09*	0.15**	−0.14**	1
Mean	3.24	3.74	3.61	3.55	2.10	2.26	2.53	1.20	2.90	3.35	3.20	3.28	3.22	3.61	3.09	3.00	1.80	3.14
Standard deviation	0.39	0.63	0.73	0.86	0.85	0.69	0.78	0.82	0.39	0.77	0.51	0.83	0.79	0.80	0.58	0.58	0.66	0.61

Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Moderation by school climate

Regression analyses were performed to assess whether economic difficulties interact with school climate to predict students’ well-being. The macro PROCESS Procedure for SPSS (v. 2.04) was used (model 1) (Hayes, 2013) for the analysis. Bias-corrected bootstrap tests with a 95% Confidence Interval were conducted in order to evaluate the significance level of the indirect effects in Figure 1. Using random samples with replacement from the original data set, 5,000 bootstrap samples were estimated.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of the family economic crisis-well-being association moderated by school climate

School climate dimensions and economic recession difficulties separately for everyday and school life were entered in the first step of the regression analysis. In the second step, the interaction between economic recession difficulties and school climate dimensions was entered. Several interactions explained significant increases in explained variance in dimensions of adolescents’ well-being in school.

A significant increase in positive attitude towards life was identified, due to the interaction between positive peer relations and economic difficulties in everyday life, R²= 0.18, F(3,654) = 30.955, p < 0.001. Thus, positive peer relations were a significant moderator of the relationship between difficulties in everyday life and positive attitude towards life. The unstandardized simple slope for 1 SD below the mean was −0.34 [t(654) = −5.54, p < 0.01], the unstandardized simple slope with a mean level was −0.24 [t(654) = −5.74, p < 0.01], and the unstandardized simple slope for 1 SD above the mean was −0.13 [t(654) = −2.56, p < 0.05] (see Figure 2a). The Johnson-Neyman technique showed that the relationship between positive attitude towards life and difficulties in everyday life was significant when positive peer relations were less than 0.98 SD above the mean but not significant with higher values of positive peer relations.

Figure 2.

Simple slopes of School climate dimensions (Positive peer relations, Support in learning) predicting Positive attitude towards life for 1 SD below, the mean and 1 SD above the mean of Difficulties in everyday life.

Similarly, the interaction between support in learning and economic difficulties in school life increased significantly the explained positive attitude towards life variance, R²= 0.17, F(3, 605) = 39.831, p < 0.001. Support in learning was a significant moderator of the relationship between economic difficulties in school life and positive attitude towards life. The unstandardized simple slope for 1 SD below the mean of the DV was 0.06 [t(605) = 0.78, p > 0.05], for the mean level was 0.23 [t(605) = 4.93, p < 0.001], and 1 SD above the mean was 0.39 [t(605) = 5.73, p < 0.001] (see Figure 2b). The Johnson-Neyman technique showed that the relationship between positive attitude towards life and difficulties in school life was significant when support in learning was more than −0.49 SD above the mean but not significant with lower values. Adolescents who experienced average and high economic difficulties in school life, with average and high (but not low) levels of learning support, displayed a more positive attitude towards life.

Three dimensions of school climate (learning support, discipline and order, social and emotional support) interacted with economic difficulties in school life, increasing significantly the explained self-esteem variance, R²_{learning support} = 0.07, F(3, 611) = 14.27, p < 0.001, R²_discipline = 0.06, F(3, 585) = 11.34, p < 0.001, R²_{social-emotional support} = 0.07, F(3, 646) = 15.37, p < 0.001. Therefore, learning support, discipline and order, and social-emotional support could be considered significant moderators of the relationship between economic difficulties in school life and self-esteem. The unstandardized simple slope 1 SD below the mean of learning support was 0.02 [t(611) = 0.23, p > 0.05], at the mean level was 0.17 [t(611) = 3.47, p < 0.001] and 1 SD above the mean was 0.33 [t(611) = 4.67, p < 0.001] (see Figure 3a). The unstandardized simple slope 1 SD below the mean of discipline and order was 0.08 [t(585) = 1.18, p > 0.05], at the mean level was 0.18 [t(585) = 3.56, p < 0.001] and 1 SD above the mean was 0.29 [t(585) = 4.26, p < 0.001] (see Figure 3b). The unstandardized simple slope 1 SD below the mean of social and emotional support was 0.04 [t(646) = 0.65, p > 0.05], at the mean level was 0.16 [t(646) = 3.28, p < 0.001] and 1 SD above the mean was 0.28 [t(646) = 3.75, p < 0.001] (see Figure 3c). The Johnson-Neyman technique showed that the relationship between self-esteem and difficulties in school life was significant when support in learning was more than −0.38 SD above the mean but not significant with lower values. For discipline and order the cut-off p-value (< 0.05) was −0.34 and for social-emotional support was −0.38. Adolescents with average and high (but not low) levels of learning support, discipline and socio-emotional support who experienced average and high economic difficulties in school life, displayed higher levels of self-esteem.

Figure 3.

Simple slopes of School climate dimensions (Support in learning, Discipline and order, Social and emotional support) predicting Self-esteem for 1 SD below, the mean and 1 SD above the mean of Difficulties in school life.

Two dimensions of school climate (learning support, social and emotional support) interacted with economic difficulties in school life, increasing significantly the explained joy in life variance, R²_{learning support} = 0.14, F(3, 613) = 33.19, p < 0.001, R²_{social-emotional support} = 0.13, F(3, 647) = 31.51, p < 0.001. Therefore, learning support and social-emotional support could be considered significant moderators of the relationship between economic difficulties in school life and joy in life. The unstandardized simple slope 1 SD below the mean of learning support was 0.05 [t(613) = 0.49, p > 0.05], at the mean level was 0.22 [t(613) = 3.77, p < 0.001] and 1 SD above the mean was 0.39 [t(613) = 4.62, p < 0.001] (see Figure 4a). The unstandardized simple slope 1 SD below the mean of social and emotional support was 0.07 [t(647) = 0.73, p > 0.05], at the mean level was 0.21 [t(647) = 3.90, p < 0.001] and 1 SD above the mean was 0.36 [t(647) = 4.27, p < 0.001] (see Figure 4b). The Johnson-Neyman technique showed that the relationship between self-esteem and difficulties in school life was significant when support in learning was more than −0.37 SD above the mean but not significant with lower values. For social-emotional support the cut-off p-value (< 0.05) was −0.41. Adolescents with average and high (but not low) levels of learning support and socio-emotional support who experienced average and high economic difficulties in school life, displayed higher levels of joy in life.

Figure 4.

Simple slopes of School climate dimensions (Support in learning, Social and emotional support) predicting Joy in life for 1 SD below, the mean and 1 SD above the mean of Difficulties in school life.

Figure 5.

Simple slopes of School climate dimensions (Academic mindset/Learning engagement, Support in learning, Discipline, Positive peer relations, Social and emotional support) predicting Depressive mood for 1 SD below, the mean and 1 SD above the mean of Difficulties in school life.

The interaction between five dimensions of SWB (i.e. academic mindset, support in learning, discipline, positive peer relations, social and emotional support) and economic difficulties in school life decreased significantly the explained depressive mood variance, R²_{academic mindset} = 0.06, F(3, 639) = 11.04, R²_{learning support} = 0.09, F(3, 613) = 19.55, p < 0.001, R²_discipline = 0.08, F(3, 586) = 16.68, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, R²_{positive peer relations} = 0.08, F(3, 628) = 16.13, p < 0.001, R²_{social-emotional support} = 0.09, F(3, 647) = 22.38, p < 0.001. Learning engagement/academic mindset, learning support, discipline, positive peer relations and socio-emotional support are dimensions of the school climate that could be considered as significant moderators of the relationship between economic difficulties in school life and depressive mood. The unstandardized simple slope 1 SD below the mean of learning engagement/academic mindset was −0.17 [t(639) = −2.30, p < 0.05], at the mean level was −0.28 [t(639) = −4.77, p < 0.001] and 1 SD above the mean was −0.38 [t(639) = −4.56, p < .001] (see Figure 5a). The unstandardized simple slope 1 SD below the mean of learning support was −0.05 [t(613) = −0.78, p > 0.05], at the mean level was −0.26 [t(613) = −4.24, p < 0.001] and 1 SD above the mean was −0.48 [t(613) = −5.40, p < 0.001] (see Figure 5b). The unstandardized simple slope 1 SD below the mean of discipline and order was −0.12 [t(586) = −1.85, p > 0.05], at the mean level was −0.30 [t(586) = −4.85, p < 0.001] and 1 SD above the mean was −0.48 [t(586) = −5.61, p < 0.001] (see Figure 5c). The unstandardized simple slope 1 SD below the mean of positive peer relations was −0.11 [t(628) = −1.52, p > 0.05], at the mean level was −0.26 [t(628) = −4.20, p < 0.001] and 1 SD above the mean was −0.41 [t(628) = −4.43, p < 0.001] (see Figure 5d). The unstandardized simple slope 1 SD below the mean of social and emotional support was −0.09 [t(647) = −1.34, p > 0.05], at the mean level was −0.28 [t(647) = −4.99, p < 0.001] and 1 SD above the mean was −0.48 [t(647) = −6.13, p < 0.001] (see Figure 5e). The Johnson-Neyman technique showed that the relationship between depressive mood and difficulties in school life was significant when learning engagement/academic mindset was more than −0.88 SD above the mean but not significant with lower values. For support in learning the cut-off p-value (< 0.05) was −0.53 but not significant with lower values; a second cut-off p-value = −1.62 was identified but not significant with higher values. For discipline and order the cut-off p-values (< 0.05) were −0.50 and −1.65 but not significant with lower values. For positive peer relations the cut-off p-value (< 0.05) was −0.69 and for social-emotional support was −0.65. Adolescents with low, average and high levels of academic mindset/learning engagement, discipline, positive peer relations and socio-emotional support who experienced average and high economic difficulties in school life, displayed lower levels of depressive mood. Adolescents with average and high (but not low) levels of learning support, discipline, positive peer relations and socio-emotional support who experienced average and high economic difficulties in school life, displayed lower levels of depressive mood.

Discussion

A crisis situation can affect the psychosocial and academic adjustment of students. The findings of this study indicate that an economic recession is related to a lower level of adolescents’ SWB; it seems that there is an important systematic relationship between the adversities that adolescents experience due to the economic recession, which is an ongoing situation for Greece over the last years, and their feeling of satisfaction from their life and their self. The more adversities they experience, the more the negative aspect of SWB seems to stand out.

It is noteworthy that the correlations found between the negative factors of SWB with the economic difficulties were higher than the remaining correlations. This is indicative of the fact that when a crisis occurs the negative aspect of SWB is more prominent. The fact that this negative impact of the economic recession, although it is not at its peak, is evident in adolescents highlights its long-term effects on the members of the school community. In addition, taking into consideration that Greece confronted with the refugee flow, a ‘double crisis’ situation has been created that poses additional ‘challenges’ to schools especially for students and classes/schools that are considered more vulnerable or at risk.

This finding can be supported by a number of other studies where economic recession is negatively associated with well-being (Rözer & Kraaykamp, 2013; Sacks, Stevenson, & Wolfers, 2010). It seems that the stress derived from the economic recession influences the well-being of adolescents and makes them feel less satisfied from their life and more worried about themselves and their families.

Under these circumstances, the need to support school communities is more intense than ever. In this respect the present study aims at highlighting a possible protective role of a positive school climate. The hypothesis of the study was that school climate would act as a moderator of the relationship between the dimensions of SWB and the impact of economic recession. The results confirmed the hypothesis of the study indicating the importance of school climate as a protective factor that can enhance adolescents’ resilience. In the present study, positive peer relations seem to moderate the relationship between economic recession as experienced by difficulties in everyday life and adolescents’ positive attitude towards life. This aligns with findings that highlight the importance of peer relations in maintaining a supportive and optimal school environment (Lester & Cross, 2015). The aspect of connectedness with each other and with oneself proves to be one of the most important elements in fostering greater attachment to school and psychosocial well-being (Thapa et al., 2013), albeit economic difficulties. In addition, support in learning seems to act as moderator between difficulties in school life and adolescents’ positive attitude towards life. A number of studies suggest that positive school climate promotes positive psychosocial development of adolescents (Bear, Gaskins, Blank, & Chen, 2011; Way, Reddy, & Rhodes, 2007). In particular, the existence of a positive school climate, contributes to positive intrapersonal relationships, respect between all members of school community and a sense of safety on behalf of the students (Wilson, 2004).

The relationship between SWB and school climate is also supported by the results of the study. Most of the dimensions of the school climate were positively related with the positive dimension of SWB and vice versa. Especially, support in learning, discipline and socio-emotional support contribute to the association of difficulties in school life and adolescents’ self-esteem, while support in learning and socio-emotional support also contribute to the association of difficulties in school life and adolescents’ joy in life. These findings agree with other studies suggesting that when adolescents perceive the existing relationships and the school environment in a positive way it is more likely to feel more satisfied with their self and their lives (Lester & Cross, 2015).

There is increasing evidence that recession and significant life events have an impact on multiple aspects of an adolescent life (Michl, McLaughlin, Shepherd, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2013). The results of this study indicate a means of protecting adolescents’ SWB and mental health especially during unsettling times. Experiencing the school environment as supportive for learning and socio-emotional adjustment, as promoting of learning engagement and positive peer interactions, and as adhering to rules and regulations proves beneficiary for adolescent students who face economic difficulties in school life by decreasing depressive mood levels. The emotional aspect of the school experience has always played an important role in students’ development and adaptation; a crisis situation makes this role even more imperative for students as well as for teachers (Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey, 2012).

The findings of the study can help school psychologists have an insight into the interaction between school climate and psychosocial adjustment of students hence resulting into developing more effective interventions and practices. Promoting a positive school climate for students is obviously of great importance as it seems that it can reduce the crisis repercussions and act as a protective factor against hardships. Social and emotional learning programs can promote a positive school climate strengthening the role of the school in supporting adolescents and all the members of the school community (Doll et al., 2014; Hatzichristou et al., 2014, 2010; Hatzichristou, Lampropoulou, Georgouleas, & Mihou, 2017; Hatzichristou & Lianos, 2016).

This is further supported by evidence provided by a number of evidence-based intervention programs that have been developed, implemented and evaluated by the Laboratory of School Psychology (LSP, University of Athens) in an effort to enhance and promote resilience in schools and cater for the newly emerged needs of school communities as a result of the crisis. It is a university-based center for provision of school-linked psychological services with the lead author being the director (Hatzichristou, 2004; Hatzichristou & Lampropoulou, 2004). These programs have followed the guidelines of a constantly evolving conceptual framework that combines current trends and theoretical approaches as well as the specific needs of the school community (Hatzichristou & Lianos, 2016).

Responding to the current situation LSP developed Connecting4Caring (C4C) project (http://www.connecting4caring.gr/en) with the generous donations of esteemed organizations. It is a multilevel prevention, awareness building, education and intervention project, that uses a holistic approach to foster positive development, adjustment, and support of children and adolescents in school and family settings. Three school-based intervention programs of C4C have been designed, implemented, and evaluated: (a) ‘Supporting in Crisis’ (2011), a teachers’ training program for the psychological support of children in the period of economic recession; (b) ‘Ε.Μ.Ε.Ι.Σ’ (2012–2013) [Ενδιαϕɛρόµαστɛ (Care) – Μοιραζόµαστɛ (Share) – Ενθαρρύνουµɛ (Encourage) – Ισχυροποιούµαστɛ (Empower) – Συµµɛτέχουµɛ (Participate)], a teachers’ training program for the promotion of a positive school climate and resilience in the school community; and (c) ‘WeCARE’ (2012–2016), an international e-learning specialized teachers’ training and intervention program for the promotion of positive school climate and resilience in the school community. The results of the programs’ evaluation verify their effectiveness in promoting and enhancing resilience during unsettling times especially for at risk students (Hatzichristou et al., 2011; Hatzichristou et al., 2016; Hatzichristou & Lianos, 2016).

Findings have important implications for school psychological practice. However, it should be taken into account that there are certain limitations of this study such as the reliance on self-reports solely by students. Also, economic recession effects concern mostly Greek students and the specific characteristics of the Greek context; results may be different in other national and cultural contexts. Further research, ideally employing a longitudinal design, is needed in order to fully understand the underlying relationships among the factors under research. This will provide further insight especially in relation to different educational and cultural contexts and the characteristics of specific groups of the student population, such as vulnerable and at-risk groups of students.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Chryse Hatzichristou is Professor of School Psychology and Chair of the Department of Psychology at the National and Kapodistrian University, Athens, Greece (NKUA). She is also Director of the Graduate Program in School Psychology and the Laboratory of School Psychology at the Department of Psychology. Her primary research interests include mental health and resilience promotion in school communities, psychosocial adjustment of at-risk and vulnerable groups, crisis intervention, school-based consultation, evidence-based interventions in schools, and cross-cultural and transnational issues in school psychology training and practice. She has served as secretary of the executive committee of ISPA, member and co-chair of the Committee of International Relations in Psychology of APA. She is a member of the Graduate Education Committee of the National Association of School Psychologists, member of the Executive Board of the Trainers of School Psychologists and co-chair of the ISPA School Psychology Trainers Interest Group.

Vasiliki Stasinou, PhD in School Psychology, is working in a municipality Diagnostic Center. She is a member of the scientific committee of the Laboratory of School Psychology at the Department of Psychology (National & Kapodistrian University of Athens). Her primary research interests and work experience include promotion of academic and psychosocial adjustment and well-being, intervention programs, counseling/consultation with teachers and parents.

Aikaterini Lampropoulou, PhD, is a School Psychologist working in a clinical setting. She obtained her MA in School Psychology at National & Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA), and she is a member of the scientific committee of the Laboratory of School Psychology at the Department of Psychology. In addition, she has been teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in school psychology. Her research interests and work experience include mental health promotion, intervention programs, counseling/consultation, and family–school partnership. Dr Lampropoulou has many research publications and presentations and has conducted many workshops.

Panayiotis Lianos, PhD, is a School Psychologist working in a Diagnostic Center of the Ministry of Education. He is also teaching at the Graduate Program of School Psychology in the Department of Psychology, National and Kapodistrian University, Athens, Greece (NKUA). He is a member of the scientific committee of the Laboratory of School Psychology at the Department of Psychology. His research interests and work experience span from psychosocial adjustment in the school setting, parent-children relations, counseling/consultation and family-school-community partnership to mental health promotion, prevention/interventiοn programs and group dynamics.

References

Ackerman

B. P.

Brown

E. D.

(2006) Income poverty, poverty co-factors, and the adjustment of children in elementary school. Advances in Child Development and Behavior 34: 91–129. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2407(06)80005-4.

Anagnostopoulos

D. K.

Soumaki

(2012) The impact of socio-economic crisis on mental health of children and adolescents. Psychiatriki 23(1): 13–16.

Astor

R. A.

Benbenisty

Estrada

J. N.

(2009) School violence and theoretically atypical schools: The principal’s centrality in orchestrating safe schools. American Educational Research Journal 46(2): 423–461. doi:10.3102/0002831208329598.

Batanova

M. D.

Loukas

(2011) Social anxiety and aggression in early adolescents: Examining the moderating roles of empathic concern and perspective taking. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 40: 1534–1543. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9634-x.

Bear

G. G.

Gaskins

Blank

Chen

F. F.

(2011) Delaware School Climate Survey-Student: Its factor structure, concurrent validity, and reliability. Journal of School Psychology 49(2): 157–174. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.01.001.

Biglan

Flay

B. R.

Embry

D. D.

Sandler

I. N.

(2012) The critical role of nurturing environments for promoting human well-being. American Psychologist 67(4): 257–271. doi:10.1037/a0026796.

California School Climate Survey (2009). Main report. San Francisco, CA: WestEd Health and Human Development Program for the California Department of Education. Retrieved from:http://chks.wested.org/

Cohen

McCabe

Michelli

N. M.

Pickeral

(2009) School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record 111: 180–193.

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

(2017) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi.org/10.3316/qrj0602205.

10.

Diener

Lucas

R. E.

Oishi

(2009) Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. In: Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(eds) Handbook of positive psychology, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 187–194. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.013.0017.

11.

Doll

Brehm

Zucker

(2014) Resilient classrooms : Creating healthy environments for learning , New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

12.

Eliot

Cornell

Gregory

Fan

(2010) Supportive school climate and student willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of School Psychology 48(6): 533–553. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.07.001.

13.

Fowler

(2007) School life and community economic challenge: A Newfoundland case study. Canadian Journal of Education 30(1): 239–268. doi: 10.2307/20466634.

14.

Finnan

Schnepel

Anderson

(2003) Powerful learning environments: The critical link between school and classroom cultures. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk 8(4): 391–418. doi:10.1207/S15327671ESPR0804_2.

15.

Gietz

McIntosh

(2014) Relations between student perceptions of their school environment and academic achievement. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 29: 161–176. doi:10.1177/0829573514540415.

16.

Grob

Luthi

Kaiser

Flammer

Mackinnon

Wearing

(1991) Berner Fragebogenzum Wohlbefinden Jugendlicher (BSW–Youth Form). Diagnostica 37: 66–75.

17.

Guess

P. E.

McCane-Bowling

S. J.

(2016) Teacher support and life satisfaction: An investigation with urban, middle school students. Education and Urban Society 48(1): 30–47. doi:10.1177/0013124513514604.

18.

Harper

Jones

(2011) Impacts of economic crises on child well-being. Development Policy Review 29(5): 511–526. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2011.00544.x.

19.

Hatzichristou

Adamopoulou

Lampropoulou

(2014) A multilevel approach of promoting resilience and positive school climate in the school community during unsettling times. In: Prince-Embury

Saklofske

D. H.

(eds) Resilience interventions in diverse communities, New York, NY: Springer. doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0542-3_14, pp. 299–325.

20.

Hatzichristou

Issari

Lampropoulou

Lykitsakou

Dimitropoulou

(2011) The development of a multi-level model for crisis prevention and intervention in the Greek educational system. School Psychology International 32(5): 464–483. doi: 10.1177/0143034311402918.

21.

Hatzichristou

Lampropoulou

Georgouleas

Mihou

(2017) A multilevel approach to system level consultation: Critical components and transnational considerations. In: Hatzichristou

Rosenfield

(eds) The international handbook of consultation in educational settings, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc153&4_7, pp. 70–93.

22.

Hatzichristou

Lianos

P. G.

(2016) Social and emotional learning in the Greek educational system: An Ithaca journey. International Journal of Emotional Education 8(2): 105–127. https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar//handle/123456789/14459

23.

Hatzichristou

Lianos

P. G.

Lampropoulou

(2017) Cultural construction of promoting resilience and positive school climate during the economic crisis in Greek schools. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology 5(3): 192–206. doi: 10.1080/21683603.2016.1276816.

24.

Hatzichristou

Lykitsakou

Lampropoulou

Dimitropoulou

(2010) Promoting the well-being of school communities: A systemic approach. In: Doll

Phohl

Yoon

(eds) Handbook of prevention science, New York, NY: Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9780203866412.ch13, pp. 255–274.

25.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: Α regression-based approach, New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

26.

Jia

Way

Ling

Yoshikawa

Chen

Hughes

(2009) The influence of student perceptions of school climate on socioemotional and academic adjustment: A comparison of Chinese and American adolescents. Child Development 80: 1514–1530. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01348.x.

27.

Karademas

E. C.

(2006) Self-efficacy, social support and well-being: The mediating role of optimism. Personality and Individual Differences 40(6): 1281–1290. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.019.

28.

Konishi

Hymel

Zumbo

B. D.

(2010) Do school bullying and student-teacher relationships matter for academic achievement? A multilevel analysis. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 25(1): 19–39. doi: 10.1177/0829573509357550.

29.

Lam

S. F.

Jimerson

Shin

Cefai

Veiga

F. H.

Hatzichristou

et al. (2016) Cultural universality and specificity of student engagement in school: The results of an international study from 12 countries. British Journal of Educational Psychology 86(1): 137–153. doi: 10.1037/spq0000057.

30.

Lampropoulou

(2018) Personality, school and family: What is their role in adolescents’ subjective well-being. Journal of Adolescence 18: 12–21. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.05.013.

31.

Lester

Cross

(2015) The relationship between school climate and mental and emotional wellbeing over the transition from primary to secondary school. Psychology of Well-being 5(9): 1–15. doi: 10.1186/s13612-015-0037-8.

32.

LSP (2011) Economic Crisis Difficulties Questionnaire, Athens: Center for Research and Practice in School Psychology.

33.

Lucas

R. E.

(2007) Adaptation and the set-point model of subjective well-being: Does happiness change after major life events? Current Directions in Psychological Science 16: 75–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00479.x.

34.

Luhmann

Hofmann

Eid

Lucas

R. E.

(2012) Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102(3): 592–615. doi.org/10.1037/a0025948.

35.

McNeely

C. A.

Nonnemaker

J. M.

Blum

R. W.

(2002) Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Journal of School Health 72(4): 138–146. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2002.tb06533.x.

36.

Michl

L. C.

McLaughlin

K. A.

Shepherd

Nolen-Hoeksema

(2013) Rumination as a mechanism linking stressful life events to symptoms of depression and anxiety: Longitudinal evidence in early adolescents and adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 122(2): 339–352. doi: 10.1037/a0031994.

37.

Ramelow

Currie

Felder-Puig

(2015) The assessment of school climate: Review and appraisal of published student-report measures. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 33(8): 731–743. doi: 10.1177/0734282915584852.

38.

Reyes

M. R.

Brackett

M. A.

Rivers

S. E.

White

Salovey

(2012) Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 104(3): 700–712. doi:10.1037/a0027268.

39.

Rözer

Kraaykamp

(2013) Income inequality and subjective well-being: A cross-national study on the conditional effects of individual and national characteristics. Social Indicators Research 113(3): 1009–1023. doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-0124-7.

40.

Ruus

Veisson

Leino

Ots

Pallas

Sarv

Veisson

(2007) Students’ well-being, coping, academic success, and school climate. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 35(7): 919–936. doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.7.919.

41.

Sacks, D. W., Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2010). Subjective well-being, income, economic development and growth NBER Working Paper 16441. National Bureau of Economic Research.

42.

Shelleby

E. C.

Votruba-Drzal

Shaw

D. S.

Dishion

T. J.

Wilson

M. N.

Gardner

(2014) Income and children’s behavioral functioning: A sequential mediation analysis. Journal of Family Psychology 28(6): 936, doi: 10.1037/fam0000035.

43.

Simou

Koutsogeorgou

(2014) Effects of the economic crisis on health and healthcare in Greece in the literature from 2009 to 2013: A systematic review. Health Policy 115: 111–119. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.02.002.

44.

Stasinou, V. (2018). Διαστάσɛις ψυχοκοινωνικής προσαρμογής μαθητών Γυμνασίου και η σχέση τους μɛ το σχολικό κλίμα και τις σύγχρονɛς κοινωνικοοικονομικές συνθήκɛς στην Ελλάδα [Dimensions of psychosocial adjustment of junior high school students and their relation to school climate and contemporary socioeconomic conditions in Greece]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Department of Psychology, Athens, Greece.

45.

Stewart

E. B.

(2008) School structural characteristics, student effort, peer associations, and parental involvement: The influence of school-and individual-level factors on academic achievement. Education and Urban Society 40(2): 179–204. doi: 10.1177/0013124507304167.

46.

Thapa

Cohen

Guffey

Higgins-D’Alessandro

(2013) A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research 83(3): 357–385. doi: 10.2307/1170423.

47.

Way

Reddy

Rhodes

(2007) Students’ perceptions of school climate during the middle school years: Associations with trajectories of psychological and behavioral adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology 40: 194–213. doi: 10.1007/s10464-007-9143-y.

48.

Williams

S. A. S.

Crockett

D. P.

(2012) Institutional barriers: Poverty and education. In: Shriberg

Song

S. Y.

Miranda

A. H.

Radliff

K. M.

(eds) School psychology and social justice: conceptual foundations and tools for practice, New York: Routledge, pp. 137–154.

49.

Wilson

(2004) The interface of school climate and school connectedness and relationships with aggression and victimization. Journal of School Health 74(7): 293–299. doi.10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08286.x.

50.

Yur'yev

Värnik

Yur'yeva

Värnik

(2013) Alert for suicide prevention in Greece: Remember lessons from Eastern Europe!. International Journal of Psychiatry 59(1): 101, doi: 10.1177/0020764012464005.

51.

Zullig

Collins

Ghani

Patton

Huebner

Ajamie

(2014) Psychometric support of the school climate measure in a large, diverse sample of adolescents: A replication and extension. Journal of School Health 84: 82–90. doi: 10.1111/josh.12124.

52.

Zullig

Huebner

E. S.

Patton

J. M.

(2011) Relationships among school climate domains and school satisfaction. Psychology in the Schools 48(2): 133–145. doi: 10.1002/pits.20532.

53.

Zullig

K. J.

Koopman

T. M.

Patton

J. M.

Ubbes

V. A.

(2010) School climate: Historical review, instrument development, and school assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 28: 139–152. doi: 10.1177/0734282909344205.