Exploring the Protective and Promotive Effects of School Connectedness on the Relation between Psychological Health Risk and Problem Behaviors/Experiences

Abstract

The broad construct of school connectedness has been identified as a developmental protective factor due to its association with lower involvement in a variety of problem behaviors. However, resilience research differentiates between protective (lower frequency of problem behaviors primarily in the presence of high risk) and promotive (lower frequency of problem behaviors primarily in conditions of low risk) developmental influences, and this has been an understudied aspect of school connectedness. This study examined the potential protective and promotive influences of school connectedness in a sample of 3,220 students in Grades 8, 10, and 12 from four California school districts. These youths completed self-reports of their psychological health risk, perceptions of school connectedness, and involvement in problem behaviors/experiences. Taking a person-focused data analysis approach, a series of multinomial logistic regressions found that although school connectedness was protective for involvement in problem behaviors/experiences, more support was found for its promotive influences. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

A healthy start: promoting mental health and well-being in the early primary school years

“…Our efforts to promote well-being and resilience in children need to be directed simultaneously at both risk reduction and the enhancement of protective and promotive factors, eliminating or reducing the risk factors children are exposed to, particularly chronic ones, while providing adequate support to help them develop their strengths and skills (Furlong et al 2011;Kia Keating et al 2011;Renshaw 2014). Moreover, we are more likely to be effective in resilience building if risk factors are countered within the same context, such as neutralizing school bullying by providing supervision and adult and peer support at school, or reducing the impact of marital discord by enhancing the child's relationships at home (Rutter 1999).…”

“…Positing risk and promotive factors as separate constructs on the basis of the literature would have also made it possible to identify protective factors in the face of risk. Distinguishing between protective and promotive factor has clear implications for mental health promotion in school, providing a better understanding of the relationship between universal and targeted interventions, and delineating the level of intervention most likely to be most effective with particular factors (Furlong et al 2011). Secondly, the risk and promotive predictors identified in the analysis were dependent on the list of factors measured in the study.…”

“…These predictors have been called risk and promotive factors (Furlong et al 2011), with risk factors related to SEBD, and factors related to positive behaviour in the face of low risk called promotive factors. To identify the risk and the promotive factors that predict change in SEBD and in prosocial behaviour respectively, two scores were generated for each pupil by subtracting the Year 1 SEBD/ prosocial score from the Year 4 scores for teachers' and parents' evaluations separately.…”

“…Many of these studies however, have been largely focused on adolescents, on such behaviours as substance use and delinquency, and on single rather multiple contexts, while few examined both risk and promotive factors in such contexts, taking into consideration both behaviour problems and prosocial behaviour. Rather than construing mental health as a unidimensional phenomenon, with psychological problems and wellbeing as opposite states on the same dimension, multicomponent models of mental health and well-being suggest that SEBD and well-being are separate, even if related, phenomena, with both having an independent effect on social and academic outcomes (Furlong et al 2011;Renshaw 2014).. Strength-based approaches such as educational resilience, positive youth development, and positive psychology amongst others, underline the need for proactive strategies which strengthen and promote children's healthy development and, thereby, seek to prevent difficulties from developing in the first place, by making use of the children's strengths and assets while providing enabling and protective contexts, such as the home and school systems (e.g. Furlong et al 2011;Guerra and Bradshaw 2008;Masten 2001;Seligman et al 2009;Werner and Smith 1992;Youngblade et al 2007).…”

Beyond PISA: Schools as Contexts for the Promotion of Children’s Mental Health and Well-Being

“…This paper is focused on universal mental health promotion in school, a whole school approach integrating the development of individual social and emotional competencies such as self-awareness and management, healthy relationships, and effective problem solving, with the creation of healthy communities at classroom and whole school levels (CASEL, 2012;Cefai and Cavioni 2014). Within this perspective, the whole school community collaborates to promote the health and well-being of all its members, with culture, policies, practices, curriculum, pedagogy, and relationships contributing to a climate conducive to the development of mental health and well-being (Adelman and Taylor 2009;Bywater and Sharples 2012;Cefai and Cavioni 2014;, Furlong, Sharkey, Quirk, and Dowdy 2011). The following sections present a framework for a comprehensive, whole school and school-based approach to mental health in school, primarily focused on mental health promotion and prevention for all school children, and involving the whole school community in collaboration with the parents, the local community, and external support services (Cefai and Cavioni 2014).…”