View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

School Climate and Resilience Promoting Characteristics: Exploring Latent Patterns of Student Perceptions in California

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: School Climate and Resilience Promoting Characteristics: Exploring Latent Patterns of Student Perceptions in California
Language: English
Authors: Capp, Gordon P. (ORCID 0000-0002-4255-957X), Sullivan, Kathrine S., Park, Yangjin
Source: Oxford Review of Education. 2023 49(5):664-680.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 7
Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Grade 9
High Schools
Grade 11
Descriptors: Educational Environment, Resilience (Psychology), Student Characteristics, Grade 7, Grade 9, Grade 11, Middle School Students, High School Students, Multivariate Analysis, Predictor Variables, Student Development
Geographic Terms: California
DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2022.2146079
ISSN: 0305-4985
1465-3915
Abstract: Few studies holistically examine how students experience the multiple dimensions of school climate and resilience promoting characteristics, or how these two constructs may be interrelated. This study utilised a sample of 78,550 7th, 9th, and 11th grade students in California. Roughly half of the participants were female (52%), and roughly half (49%) were Latino. Latent Class Analysis was used to identify a 6-profile model for school climate and a 2-profile model for resilience promoting characteristics. Students experiencing overall positive climate, those experiencing supportive adult relationships, and those who engage meaningfully in their work at schools were more likely to report higher resilience promoting characteristics. These findings highlight the importance of fostering positive and protective school climate. In addition, findings support a social-ecological theory of resilience, indicating that schools are contexts that may play an important role in developing resilience promoting characteristics for secondary students.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1398549
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGD2GmWJaecLoeMFk9zk74RAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLxIJ3OjsANzXTUE5QIBEICBm1ah1oP2kYnktG1cgGyCTLCRWtnsnbPcsT6-otXEADx0IMJCijU20vhmkWr_OIT7Gvyak1lGETNTUkjnF03Arh5pSyUxHyDhf50wbqvX8xrc_M-PRueJJA2PEjWwAXjhIcmFeCbrH_qqyj2tNAzyTFyYb9wpcNkGlSJqFJHUUPOzSFiEZitKhci_3YUYU0JIqQlTSpvcI8hZFM_t
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0171926365;oxr01oct.23;2023Sep15.05:44;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0171926365-1">School climate and resilience promoting characteristics: exploring latent patterns of student perceptions in California </title> <p>Few studies holistically examine how students experience the multiple dimensions of school climate and resilience promoting characteristics, or how these two constructs may be interrelated. This study utilised a sample of 78,550 7<sup>th</sup>, 9<sup>th</sup>, and 11<sup>th</sup> grade students in California. Roughly half of the participants were female (52%), and roughly half (49%) were Latino. Latent Class Analysis was used to identify a 6-profile model for school climate and a 2-profile model for resilience promoting characteristics. Students experiencing overall positive climate, those experiencing supportive adult relationships, and those who engage meaningfully in their work at schools were more likely to report higher resilience promoting characteristics. These findings highlight the importance of fostering positive and protective school climate. In addition, findings support a social-ecological theory of resilience, indicating that schools are contexts that may play an important role in developing resilience promoting characteristics for secondary students.</p> <p>Keywords: School climate; resilience promoting characteristics; school-based intervention; person-centred analysis; adolescents</p> <p>As schools endeavour to meet the diverse needs of students, school climate remains a key lever for generating positive outcomes for students and school communities. In the wake of COVID-19, there is even more focus on the need to address the social emotional needs of students, even as a prerequisite to academic instruction and progress (Capp et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref1">11</reflink>]; Tan et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref2">39</reflink>]). A positive school climate reflects a school community where students feel a sense of belonging, and experience emotional and physical safety and social and emotional growth (Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref3">44</reflink>]). While school climate reflects the environment that students experience when they attend school, the development of resilience promoting characteristics (e.g. cooperation and communication, empathy, problem solving, self-efficacy, self-awareness, and future goals and aspirations) may be an expected outcome of a positive school climate. In fact, because of their centrality in the lives of students, schools are effective places to provide interventions which foster resilience- promoting social and emotional skills (Durlak et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref4">14</reflink>]). Despite wide acknowledgement of the need to improve social emotional and non-academic instruction in public schools, few studies specifically examine how school climate may influence resilience promoting characteristics in students. Ungar's ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref5">41</reflink>]) social ecological theory posits that microsystems like schools are critical places for the development of resilience characteristics and that examining resilience should focus on context first and youth second.</p> <p>In addition, recent literature emphasises the utility of 'person-centred' analysis, as this method captures the complexity of multidimensional constructs like school climate and resilience (Masten, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref6">28</reflink>]; Nurius & Macy, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref7">31</reflink>]; Rosato & Baer, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref8">35</reflink>]; Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref9">44</reflink>]). Both concepts warrant an approach that captures the reality that students experience all dimensions of school climate and resilience concurrently, and but not all student experiences are the same. Thus, using latent profile analysis, this study aims to identify subgroups of students that share experiences of school climate and resilience promoting characteristics, and then to examine potential relationships between these two constructs.</p> <hd id="AN0171926365-2">Social ecological framework of resilience</hd> <p>Researchers investigating resilience acknowledge that there are many ways to define this construct (e.g. Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref10">26</reflink>]; Rutter, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref11">36</reflink>]), which remains a complex and even 'nebulous' concept (Herrenkohl, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref12">21</reflink>]). This study is informed by Ungar's ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref13">41</reflink>]) social ecological conceptualisation of resilience. As Ungar writes, 'Evidence would suggest ... that children's positive outcomes are mostly the result of facilitative environments that provide children with the potential to do well' (Ungar, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref14">42</reflink>], p 4). This study draws specifically on two elements of Ungar's model: decentrality and complexity. <emph>Decentrality</emph> refers to the need to move beyond individual responsibility for resilience to changing and shaping environments so that they foster positive outcomes (Ungar, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref15">41</reflink>]). This perspective guides our focus on schools, as critical contexts that can, and should, foster resilience in students (Astor & Benbenishty, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>]). Further, Ungar ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref17">41</reflink>]) observes a desire within resilience research to find predictable relationships between resilience processes and positive outcomes; yet this outlook does not necessarily capture the divergent developmental pathways of youth nor the <emph>complexity</emph> of resilience. For instance, youth who experience resilient outcomes may not be resilient at all times in all contexts. Considering Ungar's emphasis on the complexity of these processes, we have chosen a modelling strategy, latent profile analysis, designed to capture rather than summarise the inherent heterogeneity of these experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0171926365-3">Resilience promoting characteristics</hd> <p>In California, student experiences of school climate are assessed with the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS), which offers an opportunity to explore Ungr's conceptualisation of schools as resilience promoting contexts. The Resilience and Youth Development Module of this survey was developed to assess internal assets, or 'personal resilience traits' based on the premise that youth who experience positive environmental assets, including school climate, will be more likely to develop resilience promoting characteristics (Benard, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>]). Though definitions of resilience vary considerably, most emphasise the centrality of protective or promotive personal characteristics (Benard, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref19">4</reflink>]; Masten, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref20">28</reflink>]; Rutter, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref21">36</reflink>]) that constitute an individual's ability to respond to difficulty. Sometimes, these qualities or characteristics of resilient children are described as indicators of positive functioning (Masten, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref22">28</reflink>]), or more generally, as attitudes, skills, or 'ways of being' that help them as they encounter difficulties (Herrenkohl, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref23">21</reflink>]). In the CHKS, resilience promoting characteristics include cooperation and communication, empathy, problem solving, self-efficacy, self-awareness, and future goals and aspirations (Benard, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref24">4</reflink>]). These characteristics can be considered protective factors (Jenson & Fraser, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]) or developmental assets (Sesma et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref26">37</reflink>]), and are on the 'short list' of resilience correlates for students at risk of negative outcomes (Wright et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref27">45</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0171926365-4">School climate</hd> <p>School climate can be defined broadly as the patterns of experiences that make up the school day. School climate shapes the interactions of all people within a school, and also reflects norms, values, relationships, teaching, and learning (National School Climate Council [NSCC], [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref28">30</reflink>]). More simply, school climate may be understood as the 'quality and character of school life' (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>], p. 182). A large body of literature has established that school climate is comprised of multiple dimensions (e.g. Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref30">40</reflink>]; Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref31">44</reflink>]). Although there is variation in how researchers define and operationalise these dimensions (e.g. Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref32">12</reflink>]; Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref33">44</reflink>]), definitions often include school safety, teacher relationships, school connectedness, and meaningful participation (Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref34">40</reflink>]). <emph>School safety</emph> involves physical safety and social-emotional safety, including clear crisis plans, supportive environments, and clear rules and regulations. <emph>Teacher relationships</emph> reflect the idea that learning in school is inherently relational (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref35">12</reflink>]). Positive and supportive relationships with teachers thus demonstrate a respect for diversity, collaboration, and positive norms and values. <emph>School connectedness</emph> is defined as engagement in learning, connection to multiple people in the school including peers, and is also influenced by staff who are enthusiastic about their work (Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref36">40</reflink>]). Lastly, <emph>meaningful participation</emph> refers to student involvement in relevant and meaningful activities that may increase responsibility to contribute to the school community (Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref37">40</reflink>]). Importantly, there is clear consensus that school climate is a school-level phenomenon that is experienced by all constituents in a school (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref38">12</reflink>]; Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref39">40</reflink>]; Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref40">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>Supportive school climate is critical for the academic and social-emotional well-being of children (Astor et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref41">2</reflink>]; Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref42">12</reflink>]; Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref43">40</reflink>]). Evidence shows that students who experience positive school climate have accompanying short- and long-term academic and social/emotional benefits (Astor et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref44">2</reflink>]; Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref45">12</reflink>]; Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref46">40</reflink>]), and that supportive school climate may actually protect the mental health and well-being of youth (Bond et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref47">6</reflink>]). Positive school climate is also associated with lower substance use and other risk behaviours (e.g. Thapa et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref48">40</reflink>]), and with decreased bullying and victimisation at schools (Eliot, Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref49">15</reflink>]; Gendron et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>]; Klein, Cornell, & Konold, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref51">27</reflink>]). These findings suggest that schools with positive school climate are likely to be resilience promoting contexts. In addition, research shows that improvements in climate are associated with school-level academic achievement (Berkowitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>]; Hopson & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref53">22</reflink>]) and school safety (Astor & Benbenishty, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>]; Espelage & Hong, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref55">16</reflink>]); these results highlight the potential and importance of efforts to improve school climate and not just individual experiences. However, as the school environment is complex and students come with complex histories, there is a need to understand variation in student's experiences of school climate as this may be associated with the school's capacity to be a facilitative environment for resilience promoting skill development.</p> <hd id="AN0171926365-5">Exploring unobserved person-centered heterogeneity</hd> <p>There is a growing body of research discussing the importance of exploring complexity and heterogeneity within a population using person-centred methods, like latent profile analysis (Nurius & Macy, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref56">31</reflink>]; Rosato & Baer, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref57">35</reflink>]; Rutter, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref58">36</reflink>]). Guided by Ungar's social ecological framework of resilience, we have applied these methods to better understand the relationships between students' experiences of multiple dimensions of climate and the resilience promoting assets they possess (De Pedro et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref59">13</reflink>]; Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref60">44</reflink>]). This study contributes to the literature by responding to calls for research which accounts for contextual diversity and heterogeneity in individual perceptions and experiences (Boxer & Sloan-Power, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref61">7</reflink>]; Herrenkohl, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref62">21</reflink>]; Ungar, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref63">42</reflink>]). Similarly, previous studies of school climate utilising latent profile analysis indicate that multiple perspectives of climate do exist within schools, and that student experiences are not homogenous, and that not all students experience positive climate (De Pedro et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref64">13</reflink>]; Romero & O'Malley, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref65">34</reflink>]; Shukla et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref66">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>This study aims to 1) explore the concurrent experiences of school climate and resilience promoting characteristics for secondary students, and 2) examine the relationship between these constructs. Previous studies of school climate suggest that there are students experiencing very positive school climate, negative school climate, and potentially multiple profiles that are neither wholly positive nor negative, but represent some other combination of experiences (De Pedro et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref67">13</reflink>]; Romero & O'Malley, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref68">34</reflink>]; Shukla et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref69">38</reflink>]). Based on Ungar's ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref70">41</reflink>]) assertion that environmental factors are critical for the development of resilience characteristics, we expect that students who perceive high levels of school climate (or positive climate) will also report higher levels of resilience promoting characteristics. Students who experience low, or poor, climate, will report lower levels of resilience promoting characteristics.</p> <hd id="AN0171926365-6">Methods</hd> <p>California has the largest population in the United States, followed by Texas, Florida, and New York (United States Census Bureau, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref71">43</reflink>]). In 2021, there were 1,029 school districts in the state serving just over 6 million students (California Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref72">8</reflink>]). More than 50% of California public school students identify as Hispanic, 22% White, 5% Black, 9.5% Asian, and 4% two or more races (California Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref73">8</reflink>]). According to the California Department of Education, 60% of students are socioeconomically disadvantaged, defined as being eligible for free or reduced priced meals or who have parents/guardians who did not receive a high school diploma; and nearly 18% of students are English Learners, those students who are learning to communicate effectively in English (California Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref74">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Data for this study come from the 2013 administration of the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) in school districts across the state of California. The CHKS is a biennial survey developed by WestEd under contract with the California Department of Education (CDE); the CDE required districts receiving Title IV funding (85% of districts statewide) to administer the survey to a representative sample of students in 5<sups>th</sups>, 7<sups>th</sups>, 9<sups>th</sups>, and 11<sups>th</sups> grades. Additional information about the CHKS administration is described elsewhere (Austin & Duerr, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref75">3</reflink>]). The present analysis included 7<sups>th</sups>, 9<sups>th</sups>, and 11<sups>th</sups> grade students (the resilience module is not administered to 5<sups>th</sups> grade students) and utilised the core and resilience modules of the CHKS. The final sample of students completing both of these modules was 78,550.</p> <hd id="AN0171926365-7">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171926365-8">School climate</hd> <p>School climate was composed of four dimensions: school connectedness, teacher relationships, meaningful participation, and safety. Student perceptions of <emph>school connectedness</emph> were assessed with four questions asking how strongly they disagreed or agreed with the following: I feel close to people at this school; I am happy to be at this school; I feel like I am part of this school; and teachers at this school treat students fairly (α =.799). Response options were on a 5-point Likert scale and included: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither disagree or agree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. <emph>Meaningful participation</emph> was assessed with three items: I do interesting activities at school; I help decide things like class activities or rules; I do things that make a difference (α =.759). Response choices were on a 4-point Likert scale: 1 = Not at all true; 2 = A little true; 3 = Pretty much true; 4 = Very true. Student perceptions of <emph>teacher relationships</emph> were assessed with six items: At my school, there is a teacher or other adult who really cares about me; who tells me when I do a good job; who notices when I'm not there, who wants me to do my best; who listens to me when I have something to say; and who believes I will be a success (α =.888). Response options were on a 4-point Likert scale that included: 1 = Not at all; 2 = A little true; 3 = Pretty much true; and 4 = Very much true. For school connectedness, meaningful participation, and teacher relationships, mean scores across items were included in LPA models. <emph>School safety</emph> was measured with a single item: I feel safe in my school. Responses were on a 5-point Likert scale including: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither disagree or agree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree. Other studies using similar methods and data have effectively assessed safety with this single item (e.g. De Pedro et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref76">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0171926365-9">Resilience promoting characteristics</hd> <p>Resilience promoting characteristics were measured with the Resilience and Youth Development Module of the CHKS. Characteristics included: goals and aspirations, problem solving, empathy, cooperation and communication, self-awareness, and self-efficacy (Hanson & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref77">20</reflink>]). Students answered three questions about <emph>goals and aspirations</emph>: I have goals and plans for the future; I plan to graduate from high school; I plan to go to college or some other school after high school (α =.863). Three questions assessed problem solving: I know where to go for help with a problem; I try to work out problems by talking or writing about them; When I need help, I find someone to talk with (α =.784). Another three questions assessed self-efficacy: I can work out my problems; I can do most things if I try; There are many things that I do well (α =.816). Self-awareness was also assessed with three questions: There is a purpose to my life; I understand my moods and feelings; I understand why I do what I do (α =.847). Cooperation and communication were also assessed with three items: I can work with someone who has different opinions than mine; I enjoy working together with other students my age; I stand up for myself without putting others down (α =.758). Finally, three questions assessed empathy: I feel bad when someone gets their feelings hurt; I try to understand how other people feel and think; I try to understand what other people go through (α =.868). Responses for all of these items were on a 4-point Likert scale where 1 = Not at all true, 2 = A little true, 3 = Pretty much true, 4 = Very much true, and mean scores for each construct were included in LPA models.</p> <hd id="AN0171926365-10">Analysis</hd> <p>Latent profile analysis (LPA) is an appropriate tool for this study, as it allows us to examine heterogeneity within a sample and identify subgroups (Rosato & Baer, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref78">35</reflink>]) in this case based on perceptions of school climate and resilience promoting characteristics. Individual LPA models for school climate and resilience were run separately, and after determining the appropriate number of profiles for each, a final model was run that assessed the association between school climate profile membership and resilience profile membership; this model controlled for grade in school, gender, and race/ethnicity. To determine the appropriate number of profiles, a series of models was run: an initial, one-class (with no covariates) model followed by models with increasing numbers of classes. Model selection was initially guided by a lower adjusted Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC) relative to other models, significant Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test (LMR-LRT) values, and quality of classification assessed by Entropy (Nylund et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref79">32</reflink>]). Model selection is also guided by practical and theoretical concerns. After we determined the appropriate number of classes for the school climate and resilience promoting characteristics models, a final model was run with school climate and resilience simultaneously; school climate profile membership was used to predict resilience profile membership, while controlling for covariates including grade, gender, and race/ethnicity. To account for missing data, full information maximum likelihood (FIML) was employed during analysis in Mplus. SAS 9.3 was utilised for data management and for descriptive statistics; LPA analyses were conducted using Mplus 7.3.</p> <hd id="AN0171926365-11">Results</hd> <p>Sample demographics are shown in Table 1. Just over half of the sample (n = 78,550) was female (52.10%). Roughly equivalent percentages of students were in 9<sups>th</sups> and 11<sups>th</sups> grades, while a slightly smaller percentage (23.56%) were in 7<sups>th</sups> grade. Just under half of the sample identified as Hispanic (49.54%), with White being the next largest group (20.31%); race/ethnicity proportions in this study are consistent with the current population in California public schools (CDE Fingertip Facts, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref80">8</reflink>]). Model fit indices for both the school climate and resilience models are presented in Table 2. For school climate, though BIC continued to decrease in the 7-profile solution, a non-significant LMR-LRT indicated a preference for the 6-profile solution. This solution also offered adequate separation between classes, evidenced by an entropy value of 0.775 so this six-class solution was chosen as best fitting. For the resilience model, though BIC continued to decrease, a non-significant LMR-LRT value in the 3-profile solution indicated a preference for the 2-profile solution. This solution also offered good separation between classes, as evidenced by an entropy value of 0.864 so this solution was chosen as best fitting.</p> <p>Table 1. Sample characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>n</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Demographics</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>36,661</td><td>46.67</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>40,925</td><td>52.10</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 7</td><td>18,506</td><td>23.56</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 9</td><td>24,036</td><td>30.60</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 11</td><td>23,891</td><td>30.42</td></tr><tr><td>American Indian/Alaska Native</td><td>874</td><td>1.11</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>8,892</td><td>11.32</td></tr><tr><td>African American</td><td>3,007</td><td>3.83</td></tr><tr><td>Latino</td><td>38,911</td><td>49.54</td></tr><tr><td>Pacific Islander</td><td>1,765</td><td>2.25</td></tr><tr><td>White</td><td>16,068</td><td>20.46</td></tr><tr><td>Mixed</td><td>7,562</td><td>9.63</td></tr><tr><td><bold>School Climate (Possible ratings 1–5)</bold></td><td><bold>M</bold></td><td><bold>SD</bold></td></tr><tr><td>School connectedness</td><td>3.54</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>Meaningful Participation</td><td>2.27</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher Support</td><td>2.98</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>I feel safe at this school</td><td>3.59</td><td>1.10</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Resilience (Possible ratings 1–4)</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Problem Solving</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>I know where to go for help with a problem.</td><td>3.26</td><td>0.96</td></tr><tr><td>I try to work out problems by talking or writing about them.</td><td>2.90</td><td>1.12</td></tr><tr><td>When I need help, I find someone to talk with.</td><td>3.02</td><td>1.05</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>I can work out my problems.</td><td>3.20</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td>I can do most things if I try.</td><td>3.27</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td>There are many things that I do well.</td><td>3.16</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><td>Goals</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>I have goals and plans for the future.</td><td>3.44</td><td>0.84</td></tr><tr><td>I plan to graduate from high school.</td><td>3.69</td><td>0.69</td></tr><tr><td>I plan to go to college or some other school after high school.</td><td>3.55</td><td>0.81</td></tr><tr><td>Empathy</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>I feel bad when someone gets their feelings hurt.</td><td>3.35</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>I try to understand what other people go through.</td><td>3.31</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>I try to understand how other people feel and think.</td><td>3.26</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td>Self-awareness</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>There is a purpose to my life.</td><td>3.33</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>I understand my moods and feelings.</td><td>3.18</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><td>I understand why I do what I do.</td><td>3.22</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>Cooperation</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>I can work with someone whose has different opinions than mine.</td><td>3.07</td><td>0.98</td></tr><tr><td>I enjoy working together with other students my age.</td><td>3.20</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><td>I stand up for myself without putting others down.</td><td>3.18</td><td>0.94</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Model fit indicators.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>School Climate</td><td>Resilience</td></tr><tr><td>Model</td><td>Adjusted BIC</td><td>LMR-LRT p-value</td><td>BLRT p-value</td><td>Entropy</td><td>Adjusted BIC</td><td>LMR-LRT p-value</td><td>BLRT p-value</td><td>Entropy</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>One class</td><td>794378.208</td><td>-</td><td /><td>-</td><td>1119922.017</td><td>-</td><td /><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Two class</td><td>738934.397</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.702</td><td>932788.002</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.864</td></tr><tr><td>Three class</td><td>717643.981</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.742</td><td>828195.731</td><td>0.3333</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.908</td></tr><tr><td>Four class</td><td>707182.145</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.765</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Five class</td><td>698991.724</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.775</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Six class</td><td>695790.161</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.765</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Seven class</td><td>692147.520</td><td>0.0513</td><td>0.0000</td><td>0.746</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0171926365-12">School climate model</hd> <p>Conditional probabilities and means for school climate are presented in Table 3. Profile 1 (Negative Climate) accounted for 5.34% of the sample. Students in this class were likely to report low levels of school connectedness, teacher support, meaningful participation, and safety. Students in Profile 2 (Higher Support) accounted for 1.46% of the sample; these students were likely to endorse low levels of connectedness and were likely to report feeling unsafe at school. However, teacher support and meaningful participation were comparatively high. Profile 3 (Academically Disconnected) accounted for 21.35% of the sample and represents students who endorsed moderately high ratings for connectedness but lower ratings for support and participation. In contrast to Profile 2, roughly 40% of these students 'agreed' that their school was a safe place. Students in Profile 4 (Typical Climate) accounted for 44.04% of the sample. Students in this profile were more likely to report that their school was safe and had better perceptions of connectedness and teacher support on average. However, they were likely to report moderate levels of meaningful participation. Profile 5 (Moderate Climate) accounted for 8.66% of the sample. Compared to Profile 4, students in this profile were likely to report slightly lower levels of connectedness, teacher support, and meaningful participation. Students in this profile were most likely to report that their school was neither safe nor unsafe. Finally, Profile 6 (Positive Climate) accounted for 19.16% of the sample. Students in this class were likely to report high levels of all dimensions of school climate and overwhelmingly reported that they felt their school was safe. Multinomial logistic regression was utilised to examine the relationship between student characteristics and school climate class membership (Table 4).</p> <p>Table 3. Means and conditional probabilities for 6-profile school climate model.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Profile 1</td><td>Profile 2</td><td>Profile 3</td><td>Profile 4</td><td>Profile 5</td><td>Profile 6</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Negative Climate</td><td>Higher Support</td><td>Academically Disconnected</td><td>Typical</td><td>Moderate</td><td>Positive Climate</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Class Prevalence %</bold></td><td>5.34</td><td>1.46</td><td>21.35</td><td>44.04</td><td>8.66</td><td>19.16</td></tr><tr><td><bold>School Connectedness</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mean (1–5)</td><td>1.758</td><td>1.320</td><td>3.227</td><td>3.815</td><td>2.622</td><td>4.527</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Teacher Support</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mean (1–4)</td><td>1.704</td><td>3.553</td><td>2.272</td><td>3.201</td><td>3.039</td><td>3.689</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Meaningful Participation</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mean (1–4)</td><td>1.513</td><td>3.009</td><td>1.694</td><td>2.359</td><td>1.970</td><td>3.077</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Safe at this School</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Strongly disagree</td><td>0.463</td><td>0.799</td><td>0.043</td><td>0.012</td><td>0.146</td><td>0.004</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>0.215</td><td>0.103</td><td>0.109</td><td>0.035</td><td>0.231</td><td>0.008</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>0.220</td><td>0.036</td><td>0.445</td><td>0.218</td><td>0.371</td><td>0.035</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>0.074</td><td>0.029</td><td>0.346</td><td>0.598</td><td>0.187</td><td>0.276</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly agree</td><td>0.027</td><td>0.033</td><td>0.057</td><td>0.138</td><td>0.066</td><td>0.678</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4. Odds ratio results for multinomial logistic regression models for school climate.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>School Climate Classes (vs. High Climate)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>OR (95% CI)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Negative</td><td>Higher Support</td><td>Academically Disconnected</td><td>Typical</td><td>Moderate</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Covariates</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>American Indian/Alaska Native<sup>a</sup></td><td><bold>3.06 (2.10,4.45)</bold></td><td><bold>1.98 (1.04,3.77)</bold></td><td><bold>2.11 (1.57,2.83)</bold></td><td>1.22 (0.93,1.60)</td><td><bold>3.00 (2.12,4.24)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Asian<sup>a</sup></td><td>1.17 (0.99,1.39)</td><td><bold>1.28(1.01,1.64)</bold></td><td><bold>1.80 (1.63,2.00)</bold></td><td><bold>1.41 (1.29,1.54)</bold></td><td><bold>1.20 (1.02,1.40)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>African American<sup>a</sup></td><td><bold>4.38 (3.53,5.44)</bold></td><td><bold>2.39 (1.63,3.49)</bold></td><td><bold>1.98 (1.62,2.41)</bold></td><td><bold>1.75 (1.47,2.07)</bold></td><td><bold>4.42 (3.60,5.42)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Pacific Islander<sup>a</sup></td><td>1.22 (0.87,1.72)</td><td>1.45 (0.90,2.35)</td><td><bold>1.67 (1.36,2.05)</bold></td><td><bold>1.59 (1.33,1.89)</bold></td><td><bold>1.71 (1.30,2.26)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Mixed<sup>a</sup></td><td><bold>2.11 (1.80,2.48)</bold></td><td>1.19 (0.89,1.59)</td><td><bold>1.85 (1.65,2.07)</bold></td><td><bold>1.43 (1.30,1.57)</bold></td><td><bold>1.97 (1.69,2.29)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Latino<sup>a</sup></td><td><bold>2.63 (2.35,2.94)</bold></td><td><bold>1.65 (1.38,1.97)</bold></td><td><bold>2.93 (2.72,3.16)</bold></td><td><bold>1.77 (1.66,1.89)</bold></td><td><bold>2.13 (1.91,2.37)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>9<sup>th</sup> Grade<sup>b</sup></td><td><bold>1.80 (1.61,2.01)</bold></td><td><bold>1.50 (1.25,1.81)</bold></td><td><bold>1.96 (1.82,2.11)</bold></td><td><bold>1.31 (1.23,1.40)</bold></td><td><bold>1.17 (1.04,1.30)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>11<sup>th</sup> Grade<sup>b</sup></td><td><bold>1.92 (1.72,2.15)</bold></td><td><bold>1.90 (1.59,2.28)</bold></td><td><bold>1.66 (1.54,1.79)</bold></td><td><bold>1.24 (1.16,1.32)</bold></td><td><bold>2.01 (1.81,2.22)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Male<sup>c</sup></td><td><bold>1.23 (1.12,1.34)</bold></td><td><bold>1.17 (1.02,1.35)</bold></td><td>1.06 (1.00,1.13)</td><td>1.02 (0.96,1.07)</td><td>0.78 (0.72,0.85)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note. Reference categories: a= white; b = 7<sups>th</sups> Grade; c= Female.</p> <p>2 <bold>Significant odds ratios in bold</bold>.</p> <hd id="AN0171926365-13">Resilience promoting characteristics model</hd> <p>Conditional probabilities for the resilience model are presented in Table 5. Profile 1 (Lower Resilience Indicators) accounted for 32.77% of the sample; means scores across all six resilience characteristics were lower in this profile. In Profile 2 (Higher Resilience Indicators), students were likely to report higher means scores across all resilience promoting characteristics; this class accounted for 67.23% of the sample.</p> <p>Table 5. Means for 2-profile model of resilience promoting characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Profile 1</td><td>Profile 2</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Lower Resilience Indicators</td><td>Higher Resilience Indicators</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Class prevalence %</td><td>32.77</td><td>67.23</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Problem Solving</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mean (1–4)</td><td>2.252</td><td>3.471</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Self Efficacy</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mean (1–4)</td><td>2.494</td><td>3.637</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Goals</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mean (1–4)</td><td>3.047</td><td>3.879</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Empathy</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mean (1–4)</td><td>2.626</td><td>3.681</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Self Awareness</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mean (1–4)</td><td>2.491</td><td>3.670</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Cooperation</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Mean (1–4)</td><td>2.412</td><td>3.556</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0171926365-14">Combined LCA model</hd> <p>Finally, we examined the association between school climate profiles and resilience profiles. Binary logistic regression was used to predict the odds of resilience profile membership based on school climate profile membership, while controlling for gender, grade in school, and ethnicity. Table 6 shows model results expressed as odds ratios. Compared to those in the high climate profile, students in the Negative Climate profile had higher odds of being in the Lower Resilience Indicators (vs. Higher Resilience Indicators) profile (OR = 48.47, 95% CI = 41.60–56.48). Students in the Academically Disconnected profile had increased odds of being in the Lower Resilience Indicators (vs. Higher Resilience Indicators) profile (OR = 3.43, 95% CI = 2.57, 4.58). Again, compared to the Positive Climate profile, students in the Higher Support profile had increased odds of being in the Lower Resilience Indicators profile (vs. Higher Resilience Indicators; OR = 50.30, 95% CI = 43.68, 57.92). Furthermore, compared to those in the Positive Climate profile, students in the Typical Climate profile had increased odds of being in the Lower Resilience Indicators (vs. Higher Resilience Indicators) profile (OR = 7.60, 95% CI = 6.40, 9.03). Finally, compared to those in the Positive Climate profile, students in the Moderate Climate profile had increased odds of being in the Lower Resilience Indicators (vs. Higher Resilience Indicators) profile (OR = 18.10, 95% CI = 15.14, 21.64).</p> <p>Table 6. Binary logistic regression for resilience indicators.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Lower Resilience (vs. Higher Resilience Indicators)</td></tr><tr><td /><td>OR (95% CI)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Covariates</bold></td><td /></tr><tr><td>American Indian/Alaska Native<sup>a</sup></td><td><bold>1.33 (1.07,1.64)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Asian<sup>a</sup></td><td>1.07 (0.99,1.16)</td></tr><tr><td>African American<sup>a</sup></td><td><bold>1.16 (1.03,1.31)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Pacific Islander<sup>a</sup></td><td>0.93 (0.80,1.08)</td></tr><tr><td>Mixed<sup>a</sup></td><td><bold>1.14 (1.05,1.23)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Latino<sup>a</sup></td><td><bold>1.31 (1.24,1.39)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>9<sup>th</sup> Grade<sup>b</sup></td><td><bold>1.06 (1.01,1.12)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>11<sup>th</sup> Grade<sup>b</sup></td><td><bold>0.91 (0.86,0.96)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Male<sup>c</sup></td><td><bold>1.29 (1.24,1.35)</bold></td></tr><tr><td><bold>School Climate</bold></td><td /></tr><tr><td>Negative</td><td><bold>48.47 (41.60,56.48)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Higher Support</td><td><bold>3.43 (2.57,4.58)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Academically Disconnected</td><td><bold>50.30 (43.68,57.92)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Typical</td><td><bold>7.60 (6.40, 9.03)</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Moderate</td><td><bold>18.10 (15.14,21.64)</bold></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 Note. Reference categories: a= white; b = 7<sups>th</sups> Grade; c= Female.</item> <item>4 <bold>Significant odds ratios in bold</bold>.</item> </ulist> <p>Another way of articulating the relationship between school climate and resilience is to examine the conditional probability of resilience indicator class membership by school climate class. In other words, if students are in a particular school climate class, they have a probability of being in either resilience indicator class (see Table 7). These probabilities help articulate a pattern of potential resilience building influences in a school context. Among those students classified as perceiving Negative Climate, the probability of being in the Lower Resilience Indicators profile was 66.5%. However, this same climate profile had a 33.5% probability of being in the Higher Resilience Indicators profile. Students in the Higher Support profile had an 87.8% chance of being in the Higher Resilience Indicators profile in contrast to a 12.2% chance of being in the Lower Resilience Indicators profile. Students in the Typical Climate profile, the largest in the sample, had a 76.5% chance of being in the Higher Resilience Indicators profile and only a 23.5% chance of being in the Lower Resilience Indicators profile. Finally, those students in the Positive Climate profile had a 3.8% probability of being in the Lower Resilience Indicators profile and a 96.2% probability of being in the Higher Resilience Indicators profile.</p> <p>Table 7. Conditional probabilities of class membership.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Lower Resilience Indicators</td><td>Higher Resilience Indicators</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Negative Climate</td><td>0.665</td><td>0.335</td></tr><tr><td>2. Higher Support</td><td>0.122</td><td>0.878</td></tr><tr><td>3. Academically Disconnected</td><td>0.673</td><td>0.327</td></tr><tr><td>4. Typical</td><td>0.235</td><td>0.765</td></tr><tr><td>5. Moderate</td><td>0.415</td><td>0.585</td></tr><tr><td>6. Positive Climate</td><td>0.038</td><td>0.962</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0171926365-15">Discussion</hd> <p>Two primary objectives guided this study. The first was to explore the concurrent experiences of school climate and resilience promoting characteristics for secondary students. These separate profiles are valuable because they provide a way to understand students' complex experiences of these multidimensional constructs. Secondly, this study aimed to examine the relationship between these constructs without losing their complexity. Our findings support a social ecological theory of resilience where contexts are critical for the development of resilience promoting characteristics (Ungar, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref81">42</reflink>]). Findings also support the assertions that positive school climate may act as a protective factor for students and offer one potential pathway for this protective influence. In particular, our findings from conditional probabilities (Table 7) affirm the importance of connections with adults in school contexts and the potential power of these relationships to influence student experiences at school.</p> <hd id="AN0171926365-16">Resilience promoting characteristics</hd> <p>The two profiles of resilience promoting characteristics in this study reflect a group of students with lower resilience indicators and a larger group with higher resilience indicators. It is encouraging that 67% of the sample is likely to be in the higher resilience indicators group, and thus likely to positively assess their level of empathy, cooperation, problem solving, goals for the future, self-efficacy and self-awareness. A student with this profile is likely to be able to build and maintain friendships with peers, interact positively with teachers and other school staff members, and to problem solve both academic and social emotional issues. In addition, they are likely to be able to recognise and regulate their emotions – this is a necessary prerequisite for navigating the complex social interactions at schools, and for future-oriented thinking and planning. This combination of skill development and interpersonal awareness is likely to be beneficial for multiple post-secondary outcomes (Sesma et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref82">37</reflink>]). In contrast, roughly a third of the students in this sample were likely to be in the lower resilience indicators profile. These students are likely to indicate lower levels of empathy, cooperation, problem solving, goals for the future, self-efficacy, and self-awareness. Using the same goals of academic and social emotional success, there is reason to be concerned about students in this profile and their ability to develop appropriate skills.</p> <hd id="AN0171926365-17">Concurrent experiences of school climate</hd> <p>The profiles of school climate experiences presented in this study reflect the reality that students experience distinct combinations of school climate dimensions. Fluctuations that seem small may actually reflect substantial differences in their experience of the school day. Consider that two students walking into the same school may have different experiences based on their interactions with peers, teachers, and whether they felt safe as they approached campus. A student in the Academically Disconnected profile is likely to feel that school is a safe place and feel somewhat connected to the school. Perhaps this student has good attendance because of their social connections but does not feel particularly connected to teachers and does not feel like they are engaged in meaningful work. In contrast, a student in the Positive Climate profile is likely to feel very safe at school, very connected to the school, to feel strongly supported by multiple teachers, and to feel like the work they are doing is meaningful. Given the differences in how these students engage and are engaged by the school, their potential to develop resilience promoting characteristics may also be quite different.</p> <p>Three groups which emerged from our analyses are consistent with prior literature: the positive, negative and typical profiles (De Pedro et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref83">13</reflink>]). Nearly 20% of the students in this sample reported positive climate across all dimensions, indicating a safe environment where students feel strongly connected to the school, positive and consistent support from teachers, and feel their work is meaningful. These students are clearly indicating that their schools are safe places that facilitate learning and development. The Typical Climate profile is the largest, and generally indicates a positive school experience for almost half of the sample in this study. Most of these students are likely to report safe schools, good connection, strong relationships with teachers and meaningful activities. When combined with the Positive Climate profiles, this accounts for well over 60% of students in this sample. Further, students in the Typical and Positive Climate profiles have a 76% and 96% chance (respectively) of being in the Higher Resilience Indicators profile. This suggests that for the majority of students, their schools are in fact social ecologies where resilience may be fostered (Ungar, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref84">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the promise evidenced by a large proportion of our sample, other profiles of school climate experiences suggest some student experiences in schools are less positive; these profiles are linked to lower resilience characteristics. Students in the Negative Climate profile are likely to experience school as a place that is unsafe, unengaging and where they feel disconnected from the staff and students. While it is somewhat encouraging that only 5% of the sample characterised their school experience as so powerfully negative, this still represents approximately 3,300 students in this sample.</p> <p>Three other profiles that emerged from our analysis represent more nuanced configurations of school climate elements, including the academically disconnected, moderate, and higher support profiles. One emerging pattern in these three profiles may help explain how school environments are protective and support the development of resilience characteristics. Students in the Academically Disconnected profile are likely to indicate higher scores for school connectedness, but lower scores for teacher support and meaningful participation. These students may feel some connection to the school environment, perhaps because of peers or other activities, but may not feel connected to meaningful mentorship from teachers or academic experiences. These students, similar to students in the Negative Climate profile, are likely to be in the Lower Resilience Indicators profile. Students in the Moderate Climate profile indicate slightly more positive reports of teacher support and meaningful participation, and students in the Higher Support category report even higher teacher support and meaningful participation. Thus, resilience promoting indicators seem to parallel student reports of teacher support and meaningful participation. As student ratings of these two climate indicators increase across the Academically Disconnected, the Moderate, and the Higher Support profiles (see Table 3); so does the likelihood that students in that group will also be in the High Resilience Indicators group. Conditional probabilities (Table 7) for being in the Higher Resilience Indicators profile similarly increase from 33% to 59% to 88%, respectively, for these three profiles.</p> <p>These findings suggest that combinations of certain climate dimensions (i.e. teacher support and meaningful participation) may be particularly important for explaining the capacity of the school to promote resilience characteristics. Teacher support in particular has an ample body of evidence as a factor that supports the development of student academic competencies and social emotional well-being (Capp et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref85">10</reflink>]; Jennings & Greenberg, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref86">24</reflink>]; Murray & Greenberg, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref87">29</reflink>]). The importance of meaningful participation in the current study may also reflect the importance of specific attention to learning outcomes (Patrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref88">33</reflink>]). Effective teacher relationships in the classroom incorporate structured support for learning and skill acquisition and help students engage with their learning (Furrer et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref89">17</reflink>]; Jennings, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref90">23</reflink>]). The complexity of resilience and resilience promoting characteristics is again evident here, as the profiles presented provide the opportunity to understand holistic student experiences. Combining these person-centred findings with findings using a variable-focused approach might further explicate this observed pattern. In fact, Masten ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref91">28</reflink>]) explained that the construct of resilience may be best understood using both person-centred and variable-focused methodologies. Certainly, one avenue for future variable-focused research should examine the relative importance of these school climate constructs to the promotion of resilience.</p> <p>The findings from this study should be understood in the context of its strengths and limitations. This study is unique in that it utilised a large sample of high school students across California and examined their concurrent experiences of school climate and resilience promoting characteristics. Both of these constructs are indeed experienced concurrently, and one contribution of this study is a holistic approach to understanding these complex student experiences. Though person-centred analysis is an asset and a necessity, it also means that we cannot parse out differences in the potency of particular school climate dimensions. This was also an analysis of secondary, cross-sectional data, so no causality can be inferred. Additionally, data for this study are based on student perceptions of climate, though it should be noted that this is a commonly utilised and validated approach for measuring school climate (Grazia & Molinari, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref92">19</reflink>]; Zullig et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref93">46</reflink>]). Finally, future research is needed to examine how ecological factors like parental support or socioeconomic status combine with the school context to influence student resilience; the data for this study did not include these variables.</p> <hd id="AN0171926365-18">Implications</hd> <p>One clear implication is that there is reason to believe that positive school climates should be understood as social ecologies that promote resilience characteristics for youth. School leaders, district leaders, school boards, and superintendents should prioritise the creation of positive school climates in all schools. This requires a commitment to monitoring climate and safety consistently over time (Astor & Benbenishty, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>]) and sharing results with school stakeholders. Additionally, creating positive climate requires understanding how staff understand their own school climate (Capp et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref95">9</reflink>]), as they are charged with creating climates that can promote resilience for students.</p> <hd id="AN0171926365-19">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0171926365-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref16" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2019). Mapping and monitoring bullying and violence: Building a safe school climate. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref41" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Astor, R. A., De Pedro, K. T., Gilreath, T. D., Esqueda, M. C., & Benbenishty, R. (2013). The promotional role of school and community contexts for military students. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16 (3), 233 – 244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-013-0139-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref75" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Austin, G., & Duerr, M., with, Poynor, L., and Truebridge, S. (2011). California School Climate Survey Guidebook, Part 2: Survey Content. WestEd Health and Human Development Program.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref18" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency: What we have learned. WestEd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref52" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Berkowitz, R., Moore, H., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). A research synthesis of the associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87 (2), 425 – 469.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref47" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., & Patton, G. (2007). Social and school connectedness in early secondary school as predictors of late teenage substance use, mental health, and academic outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40 (4), 357 – e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref61" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Boxer, P., & Sloan-Power, E. (2013). Coping with violence: A comprehensive framework and implications for understanding resilience. Trauma, violence & abuse, 14 (3), 209 – 221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013487806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref72" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> California Department of Education. (2019). Fingertip facts on education in California – CalEdFacts. https://<ulink href="http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp">www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref95" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Capp, G. P., Astor, R. A., & Gilreath, T. D. (2018). Advancing a conceptual and empirical model of school climate for school staff in California. Journal of School Violence, 19 (2), 107 – 121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2018.1532298</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Capp, G. P., Berkowitz, R., Sullivan, K., Astor, R. A., De Pedro, K., Gilreath, T. D., Benbenishty, R., & Rice, E. (2016). Adult relationships in multiple contexts and associations with adolescent mental health. Research on Social Work Practice, 26 (6), 622 – 629. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731515624967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Capp, G., Watson, K., Astor, R. A., Kelly, M. S., & Benbenishty, R. (2021). School social worker voice during COVID-19 school disruptions: A national qualitative analysis. Children & Schools, 43 (2), 79 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdab007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111 (1), 180 – 213. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Pedro, K. T., Gilreath, T., & Berkowitz, R. (2016). A latent class analysis of school climate among middle and high school students in California public schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 63, 10 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.01.023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta‐analysis of school‐based universal interventions. Child Development, 82 (1), 405 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eliot, M., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2010). Supportive school climate and student willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of School Psychology, 48 (6), 533 – 553.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Espelage, D. L., & Hong, J. S. (2019). School climate, bullying, and school violence. In M. J. Mayer & S. R. Jimerson (Eds.), School safety and violence prevention: Science, practice, policy (pp. 45 – 69). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000106-003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furrer, C. J., Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2014). The influence of teacher and peer relationships on students' classroom engagement and everyday motivational resilience. National Society for the Study of Education, 113 (1), 101 – 123. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411601319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gendron, B. P., Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2011). An analysis of bullying among students within schools: Estimating the effects of individual normative beliefs, self-esteem, and school climate. Journal of School Violence, 10 (2), 150 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2010.539166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grazia, V., & Molinari, L. (2021). School climate multidimensionality and measurement: A systematic literature review. Research Papers in Education, 36 (5), 561 – 587. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1697735</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanson, T. L., & Kim, J. O. (2007). Measuring resilience and youth development: The psychometric properties of the healthy kids survey. (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 034). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory West. <ulink href="http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs">http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herrenkohl, T. I. (2013). Person-environment interactions and the shaping of resilience. Trauma, violence & abuse, 14 (3), 191 – 194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013491035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hopson, L. M., & Lee, E. (2011). Mitigating the effect of family poverty on academic and behavioral outcomes: The role of school climate in middle and high school. Children and Youth Services Review, 33 (11), 2221 – 2229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.07.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jennings, G. (2003). An exploration of meaningful participation and caring relationships as contexts for school engagement. The California School Psychologist, 8 (1), 43 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340895</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79 (1), 491 – 525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenson, J. M., & Fraser, M. W. (2016). A risk and resilience framework for child, youth, and family policy. In J. M. Jenson & M. W. Fraser (Eds.), Social policy for children and families: a risk and resilience perspective (Third ed.). SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan, H. B. (2013). Reconceptualizing Resilience. In Sam Goldstein & Robert B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 39 – 55). Springer US.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein, J., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (2012). Relationships between bullying, school climate, and student risk behaviors. School Psychology Quarterly, 27 (3), 154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. The American Psychologist, 56 (3), 227 – 238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). Children's relationship with teachers and bonds with school. An investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood. Journal of School Psychology, 38 (5), 423 – 445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00034-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National School Climate Council. (2007). The School Climate Challenge: Narrowing the gap between school climate research and school climate policy, practice guidelines and teacher education policy. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/advocacy.php">http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/advocacy.php</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nurius, P. S., & Macy, R. J. (2008). Heterogeneity among violence-exposed women applying person-oriented research methods. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23 (3), 389 – 415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507312297</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14 (4), 535 – 569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers' communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102 (1), 35 – 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Romero, L. S., & O'Malley, M. D. (2020). An examination of classes of school climate perceptions among Latinx middle school students. Journal of School Psychology, 82, 70 – 84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosato, N., & Baer, J. C. (2012). Latent class analysis: A method for capturing heterogeneity. Social Work Research, 36 (1), 61 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svs006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rutter, M. (2012). Resilience as a dynamic concept. Development and Psychopathology, 24 (2), 335 – 344. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579412000028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sesma, A., Mannes, M., & Scales, P. C. (2013). Positive adaptation, resilience and the developmental assets framework. In Sam Goldstein & Robert B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 427 – 442). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shukla, K., Konold, T., & Cornell, D. (2016). Profiles of student perceptions of school climate: Relations with risk behaviors and academic outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57 (3–4), 291 – 307.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan, K., Wegmann, K., Patino, R., Hand, B., Mitchell, J., & Moser, K. (2021). Social and emotional learning group work during the COVID-19 pandemic, the reopening, and the mobilization for racial justice. Children & Schools, 43 (2), 118 – 122. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdab002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins D'Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83 (3), 357 – 385. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ungar, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience: Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81 (1), 1 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01067.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ungar, M. (2013). Resilience, trauma, context, and culture. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14 (3), 255 – 266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013487805</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). U.S. and world population clock. U.S. Department of Commerce.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28 (2), 315 – 352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright, M. O. D., Masten, A. S., & Narayan, A. J. (2013). Resilience processes in development: Four waves of research on positive adaptation in the context of adversity. In Sam Goldstein & Robert B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 15 – 37). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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 (2), 139 – 152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282909344205</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Gordon P. Capp; Kathrine S. Sullivan and Yangjin Park</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Gordon Capp , PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Work at California State University, Fullerton. His research focuses on schools as key influences in the social ecology of youth and how to maximise school climate as a protective influence for students, families, and staff members. His work also focuses on how school staff members contribute to and experience school climate.</p> <p>Kathrine Sullivan is an Assistant Professor at the Silver School of Social Work at New York University. She received her PhD from the University of Southern California's Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work. Her work employs quantitative and qualitative methods to explore the impact of trauma and other risk exposures on family process and mental health outcomes, primarily among the families of service members and veterans.</p> <p>Yangjin Park , Ph.D., MSW, is an Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Texas at Arlington. Dr. Park's research interests include violence and trauma, risk and resilience, mental health, and family therapy. His research has benefited from using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. His work aims to reduce violence and trauma among vulnerable populations. Dr. Park earned his Ph.D. in Social Work from New York University, MSW in Social Welfare from Soongsil University, and BS in Business Administration from Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in South Korea.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref93"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1398549
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: School Climate and Resilience Promoting Characteristics: Exploring Latent Patterns of Student Perceptions in California
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Capp%2C+Gordon+P%2E%22">Capp, Gordon P.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4255-957X">0000-0002-4255-957X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sullivan%2C+Kathrine+S%2E%22">Sullivan, Kathrine S.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Park%2C+Yangjin%22">Park, Yangjin</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Oxford+Review+of+Education%22"><i>Oxford Review of Education</i></searchLink>. 2023 49(5):664-680.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+7%22">Grade 7</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+9%22">Grade 9</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+11%22">Grade 11</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Resilience+%28Psychology%29%22">Resilience (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Characteristics%22">Student Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+7%22">Grade 7</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+9%22">Grade 9</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+11%22">Grade 11</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multivariate+Analysis%22">Multivariate Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Development%22">Student Development</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22California%22">California</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03054985.2022.2146079
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0305-4985<br />1465-3915
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Few studies holistically examine how students experience the multiple dimensions of school climate and resilience promoting characteristics, or how these two constructs may be interrelated. This study utilised a sample of 78,550 7th, 9th, and 11th grade students in California. Roughly half of the participants were female (52%), and roughly half (49%) were Latino. Latent Class Analysis was used to identify a 6-profile model for school climate and a 2-profile model for resilience promoting characteristics. Students experiencing overall positive climate, those experiencing supportive adult relationships, and those who engage meaningfully in their work at schools were more likely to report higher resilience promoting characteristics. These findings highlight the importance of fostering positive and protective school climate. In addition, findings support a social-ecological theory of resilience, indicating that schools are contexts that may play an important role in developing resilience promoting characteristics for secondary students.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1398549
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1398549
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03054985.2022.2146079
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 664
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Resilience (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 7
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 9
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 11
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multivariate Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: California
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: School Climate and Resilience Promoting Characteristics: Exploring Latent Patterns of Student Perceptions in California
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Capp, Gordon P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sullivan, Kathrine S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Park, Yangjin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0305-4985
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3915
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 49
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Oxford Review of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1