Next Article in Journal
Offshore Energy Island for Sustainable Water Desalination—Case Study of KSA
Previous Article in Journal
From Waste to Value: Investigating Mushroom Stems from Pleurotus ostreatus Grown on Mealworm Frass as a Nutritional Source for Aquaculture Feed
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 14
10.3390/su17146497
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

School Climate and Academic Performance: Key Factors for Sustainable Education in High-Efficacy Schools and Low-Efficacy Schools

by
Pablo Delgado-Galindo
1,
Jesús García-Jiménez
1,2,
Juan-Jesús Torres-Gordillo
1,* and
Javier Rodríguez-Santero
1
1
Department of Educational Research Methods and Diagnostics, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Seville, 41013 Seville, Spain
2
Department of Didactics and School Organization II, Faculty of Education, International University of La Rioja, 26006 Logroño, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(14), 6497; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146497
Submission received: 2 June 2025 / Revised: 8 July 2025 / Accepted: 14 July 2025 / Published: 16 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Social Ecology and Sustainability)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

The school climate is defined as the conditions present within a learning environment that influence the development of educational practices in the context of the school. A positive school climate is crucial for improving learning opportunities, students’ academic performance, and the overall quality of daily schoolwork, thereby promoting educational sustainability. The aim of this research was to analyse and compare the relationships among teachers and among students to understand the school climate in high-efficacy schools and low-efficacy schools. A content analysis was conducted on 50 semistructured interviews with members of the leadership teams from both types of schools. The findings showed that in highly effective schools, there are more favourable perceptions of the school climate, better relationships among teachers, and higher expectations for students than in schools with low efficacy. Improving the school climate can optimise educational performance and should be considered a key strategy to improve both the effectiveness of schools and their long-term sustainability.

1. Introduction

Since the early 20th century, the relevance of the school climate (SC) in educational settings has been a subject of study. Perry [1] was one of the first authors to define the SC as the environment or space where all agents involved in the education of students interact.
This area of research remains relevant today. Recent studies define the SC as the general atmosphere and environment of the educational community, including the relationships among students, teachers, administrative staff, and parents, as well as the manner in which the physical environment is managed and maintained [2,3,4]. Therefore, creating a satisfying learning environment requires primary schools to cultivate positive SCs [5]. This is a community phenomenon that extends beyond individual experiences to encompass the collective perceptions and experiences of all stakeholders [6,7]. Creating a positive SC involves the development of a sustainable context where human relationships transcend the social environment to foster a more just, equal, and equitable society that is aligned with sustainable development goals [8].
However, despite the importance of the SC, there is currently no consensus on its exact definition [9]. Different disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, and education, have studied the SC using various methodologies and variables [10,11], which highlights the existence of a wide variety of climate typologies [12]. Anderson [13] noted that each partial approach to defining climate from a specific branch of knowledge contributes a specific truth about its global nature.
Tahpa et al. [14] developed a theory of climate as a multifactorial concept comprising different dimensions that must be studied from various perspectives. These various dimensions allow teaching and learning to occur effectively while recognising the particular needs of each student.

1.1. Affective Dimension

The affective dimension includes three important factors: empathy, authenticity, and respect. Students possess diverse characteristics, and teachers must value each student as an individual with rights and provide dignified and assertive treatment.
Teachers, as key figures in the educational system, play a fundamental role in maintaining and shaping the overall climate in primary schools [15]. When teachers manage the classroom effectively and establish positive relationships with their students, an environment is fostered that encourages participation and engagement in the learning process [16].
Furthermore, teachers’ expectations play a crucial role in shaping the SC in primary schools [15]. The Pygmalion effect, also known as self-fulfilling prophecy, suggests that when teachers have high expectations of their students, the students tend to achieve better academic results [17]. In contrast, low expectations may lead to poor performance and a lack of self-confidence in students.
Moreover, teachers’ expectations influence students’ self-perception and motivation [18]. When teachers believe in their students’ abilities and communicate high expectations, students are likely to develop a positive self-concept and become more motivated and engaged in their learning [19].

1.2. Safety Dimension

A positive SC is characterised by a sense of safety, inclusion, and mutual respect among all the agents involved in the educational community [20,21]. Research has shown that a positive SC is crucial for personal growth and academic performance [22,23,24], particularly in contexts where students typically have low expectations of success and limited value is placed on education [18].
When students feel safe, supported, and engaged in their learning environment, they are more likely to be motivated, participate actively in class, and achieve better academic results [20]. Accordingly, the SC plays a vital role in supporting the implementation of a safe, peaceful, and conducive learning process that facilitates the achievement of educational goals [5,6,23].
Creating a safe and inclusive environment is also crucial for addressing and preventing bullying in primary schools. When students feel safe, supported, and valued, they are less likely to engage in bullying behaviours or become victims of bullying themselves [20,25].

1.3. Interpersonal Relationships Dimension

Optimal interpersonal relationships promote comprehensive development in all areas. It is therefore important for students to have emotional and social well-being to achieve meaningful learning and develop a sense of belonging within the institution and its components, which may minimise school absenteeism [26]. Although the relationships among students, teachers, and the wider community and environment are important, the most significant factor is peer relationships [27].
Good relationships among teachers play a fundamental role in shaping the climate in schools [28]. By fostering a supportive and collaborative environment among teachers, schools can create a positive SC that promotes professional development and a sense of community. It is essential for teachers and school leadership teams to prioritise and invest in the creation and promotion of these relationships to ensure a fulfilling school environment [29].
Teachers’ perceptions of the school, their interactions with students, and their relationships with other teachers contribute to the overall climate [28]. Studies have shown a close relationship between teachers’ positive perceptions of the school and students’ perceptions of the school [10,30,31].

1.4. Knowledge of Rules Dimension

According to Gottfredson et al. [32], who studied how students perceive rules, one component of the knowledge of rules dimension is recognising the importance of establishing rules within schools to minimise inappropriate behaviours and encourage peer relationships. In this context, Boggino [33] discusses the socialising function of schools. This function comprises various elements, including the institution’s laws, educational policies, curriculum, and organisation and the didactic strategies of teachers. When rules are not followed, students and teachers must reflect on and analyse these conflict situations in daily life to establish alternatives that facilitate an appropriate SC both inside and outside the educational context.
Mediation can play a valuable role in this context. Mediation is a voluntary process in which an external, impartial agent helps the parties involved in a conflict reach a mutually satisfactory solution [34]. Mediation contributes significantly to the peaceful resolution of conflicts, strengthens the understanding of rules, improves interpersonal communication, and fosters constructive relationships among peers and between students and teachers [20].

1.5. Academic Commitment

Teachers’ involvement is a crucial component of a positive and enriching SC in schools [15,35]. Teachers’ commitment to and active engagement in the teaching–learning process directly impacts the improvement of the SC, academic success, attention to students’ needs, students’ socioemotional development, and the overall well-being of the educational community [11,30,35]. It is essential for teaching practices to embrace teachers’ responsibility for the holistic development of students’ skills and learning. This approach should not only strengthen individual competencies but also promote students’ academic progress as a key indicator of their educational evolution.
The relationship between the SC and academic progress is closely intertwined and mutually influential. Some authors suggest that improving the SC will lead to an increase in students’ academic performance [12,14,36,37,38]. Other researchers suggest that improving students’ academic performance will lead to improved school cohesion both inside and outside the institution [27,39]. The consensus among all research on SC is that it plays a decisive role in student learning; specifically, students’ communication and interaction at school contribute significantly to their academic performance [40,41].
Ultimately, the SC is the result of an interactive process that is influenced by variables such as the unique characteristics of students and teachers, the academic year, teaching strategies, peer relationships, teachers’ expectations, and teacher–student relationships. This psychosocial process is directly related to academic performance, learning, and student success [7,42].
Since the early 20th century, the SC has been increasingly recognised as an important element within the educational system. Authors such as Perry [1], Freiberg [43], and González-Galán [44] argue that the SC indicates and defines the educational quality of a school and, as such, that it is essential to develop techniques and strategies to ensure that schools maintain a positive climate that supports the effective development of the teaching–learning process.
An effective school is one in which teachers and students coexist in a safe, efficient, positive, and healthy SC. In such a school, everyone works in close collaboration, sharing and striving towards the same academic goals in an environment of trust and mutual dependence [45].
Hence, on the basis of this literature review, the following research questions are proposed:
  • How do school leadership teams perceive the SC in primary schools within the autonomous community of Andalusia (Spain)?
  • Are there differences in the perception of the SC between high-efficacy schools (HESs) and low-efficacy schools (LESs)?
To answer these research questions, the following objectives are established:
  • To deepen the perception of the SC among leadership teams in Andalusian schools.
  • To compare perceptions of the school climate between HESs and LESs.

2. Materials and Methods

The design of this study falls within the qualitative research paradigm, and a descriptive research methodology [46] was employed. With respect to data analysis, thematic content analysis [47,48,49] was conducted to examine perceptions of the school climate (SC) held by the leadership teams of primary schools classified as HESs and LESs and to compare the collected statements of these teams. From these perspectives, we gain insight into the nature of the SC in the studied Andalusian schools, the actions teachers take to improve it, and the challenges they encounter.
The COREQ checklist for qualitative research [50] was followed to ensure research quality.

2.1. Participants

A theoretical sampling approach [51] was used to select the participants. The selected schools had previously participated in diagnostic evaluations conducted by the now obsolete AGAEVE (Andalusian Agency for Educational Evaluation) during the academic years 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15, and 2016–17. These diagnostic evaluations assessed linguistic communication and mathematical reasoning.
The 2011–2017 assessments are still valid despite the time elapsed as they reflect performance patterns and structural gaps that are still in force given that many educational contexts have not changed substantially. The rigorous application of these assessments guarantees reliable and representative data, which are useful as a basis for current decisions. Although time has passed, their relevance is maintained, especially when they are complemented by recent contextual information, which allows for strategic and evidence-based selection.
Using hierarchical multilevel models and criteria for the residual score and growth (or decline), a list of 50 HESs and 50 LESs was created [52,53]. In other words, on the basis of these criteria, the 50 most effective and 50 least effective schools in the Andalusian autonomous community were identified.
For the execution of the study, 50 interviews were proposed. Initially, 74 schools were contacted, 24 of which declined participation. The reason for their refusal was the increased workload placed on schools due to COVID-19. However, 50 schools ultimately agreed to participate, of which 54% were HESs and 46% were identified as LESs. With respect to ownership, the majority of the schools were public (86%). Each school selected a representative from its leadership team (i.e., the headteacher, deputy headteacher, or secretary). Gender parity was achieved with 48% female and 52% male participants. The participants had diverse levels of experience in leadership roles as measured in terms of years spent performing one of the aforementioned functions. Specifically, 46% of the participants had 0 to 4 years of experience, 16% had 5 to 8 years of experience, and 38% had more than 9 years of experience. Members of the management team were selected based on the premise that they would have a comprehensive view of the school while acknowledging their potential bias.

2.2. Instrument and Data Collection Procedure

This study employed a survey methodology, specifically, semistructured interviews. Given the socioeducational nature of the study, this method was appropriate [54]. The interview guide was adapted from a similar project conducted in the Basque Country [55,56,57]. The objective of the interviews was to understand the SC in schools from the perspective of the leadership teams.
The duration of the interviews ranged from 60 to 90 min. Data collection took place from December 2019 to February 2021, spanning a total of 13 months. Interviews were initially conducted in person; however, from March 2020 onwards, interviews were conducted online due to the health measures imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The interviewers were experienced members of the research team, and the data were audio recorded. During the interviews, only the interviewer and the interviewee were present.

2.3. Data Analysis

The initial step in the analysis was the transcription of the audio interviews. Since permission was obtained from the interviewees, it was not necessary to return the transcripts for verification. The unit of analysis was the paragraph as it is difficult to precisely delimit sentences in oral communication [58].
Following the suggestions of Fereday and Muir-Cochrane [47], Hubert [48], and Miles and Huberman [49], thematic analysis was employed to analyse the collected data. A category system was developed, which is a useful framework for organising, structuring, and comparing data that allows researchers to interpret and analyse qualitative results and generate new knowledge through the process of theoretical coding [59,60].
The category system was developed through a combination of deductive and inductive phases. The deductive phase was informed by the literature (phase one), whereas the inductive phase involved the initial examination of the interviews and the addition or modification of the initial content with new information [61,62]. In the final phase, patterns in the teachers’ responses were identified and labelled as categories, and these categories were grouped into the SC dimension. Once the data from the interviews were fully incorporated into the category system (i.e., information saturation was reached), the process was concluded, and the final category system was obtained. The category system addressed the various themes covered in the interviews, specifically, the SC, teachers’ relationships, teachers’ involvement and expectations, students’ effort, and coexistence plans.
The software programme Atlas.Ti 8 was used for the manual coding of the interview transcripts, and SPSS v. 26 was used for data analysis and to calculate Krippendorff’s alpha coefficient, which is a statistical measure that assesses the reliability and degree of agreement between more than two coders in a data analysis. An alpha value of 0.8076 was obtained. According to Krippendorff [63], a value of 0.8 or higher is considered acceptable for research and indicates a satisfactory and admissible level of agreement for drawing reliable conclusions from the evaluated data. Chi-square tests were conducted to examine which of the observed differences were statistically significant based on the type of educational institution according to its performance and the weighted contribution of each category.
In addition to the descriptive analysis, which involved explaining the identified categories and subcategories for the SC dimension, the weight of each category and subcategory was calculated on the basis of the frequency (F) of their occurrence in the interviews.

2.4. Ethical Issues in the Research

The study adhered to the current Organic Law on Data Protection and the Guarantee of Digital Rights [64] and complied with the regulations of the research ethics committee of the University of Seville. Each participant signed an informed consent form that outlined the purposes and procedures of the research, the profiles of the researchers, the dissemination of the results, and the rights of the participants before, during, and after the study. Confidentiality of the shared data was guaranteed, and the participants consented to the audio recording of the interviews. To protect the identity of the participants and the schools they represented, codes were used to identify each school.

3. Results

This section presents the main results that emerged from the teachers’ discourse on the school climate, teacher relationships, and teacher involvement and expectations.
To address the first objective, a table is provided for each category (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). The first column represents the category studied, the second (F) shows the frequency with which teachers referred to it, and the third column specifies the subcategories associated with that category. The fourth, fifth, and sixth columns display the frequency with which teachers referred to the analysed subcategories and distinguishes between total responses, responses from HESs, and responses from LESs, respectively. The leadership teams’ perceptions of the categories are described below the table. In relation to the second objective, Table 4 presents a comparison of the qualitative differences between the perceptions of the leadership teams of HESs and LESs.

3.1. Perception of Overall School Climate

The overall school climate category accounted for 41% of the dimension (see Table 1). To address the first objective, the contributions of the leadership teams are described.
The subcategory good SC was cited most frequently by the leadership teams and was more common in HESs (58.8%) than in LESs (41.2%). Participants from HESs referred to a good climate in terms of the absence of significant conflicts as well as positive relationships among teachers, families, and students. They also highlighted collaboration with families to achieve a positive SC. In contrast, participants from LESs described a good SC as attributable to being a smaller school:
Ours is particularly very good because we have the support of the families, who engage fully in any activity we do… We organise social events, and the families really get involved with us. Families like ours, I doubt there are many like them; I would rate them 10 out of 10.
(School 21, HES)
There was a greater prevalence of conflictive SCs reported by LESs (64%) than HESs (36%). In this case, the sociocultural context in which the school was situated plays a crucial role, and emphasis was placed on conflicts between students and families:
We have a lot of problems with coexistence because of the type of students we are dealing with. We have wide racial diversity, the Roma ethnicity, immigrants… the diversity is very broad, and we face significant coexistence problems.
(School 7, LES)
Finally, with regard to the type and origin of conflicts, the participants referred to the social and cultural characteristics of the schools. The leadership teams mentioned a lack of conflict resolution skills and a lack of social skills (They usually have no tolerance for frustration, have uncontrolled anger, and do not know how to deal with conflicts (School 6, LES)), disputes originating outside the school (Coexistence is complicated. First, because coexistence in the neighbourhood is very, very complicated. We have frequent and intense episodes of violence, with weapons and so on (School 8, LES)) and low regard for education by families (Lack of image of a school as a positive centre for their children but rather that it is basically a nursery where children are left, and what happens there is of no concern to them (School 4, LES)). Chi-square tests revealed no statistically significant differences between the variables.

3.2. Perception of Teacher Relationships

The category of teacher relationships accounted for 22% of the dimension (see Table 2). A statistically significant difference was found between the school type and reported positive relationships (χ2 = 5.2; p = 0.023). Participants from HESs reported more positive relationships than participants from LESs did, with the latter reporting greater difficulties in interpersonal relationships.
The positive relationship subcategory received the most responses (84.6%), with participants from HESs accounting for 60.6% of the responses compared with 39.4% from participants from LESs. Some participants from HESs emphasised personal relationships and organising team-building activities:
Usually at the start of the year we do a cohesion activity, something like Breakout EDU or an escape room, something like that, which I prepare on the first day, and throughout the year, we also do more activities of this type to bond the staff because I consider it very important.
(School 5, HES)
Others highlight academic relationships and engagement with the school:
All the teachers are very involved in the life of the centre, and we are all united. For example, when I didn’t have an administrator here, everyone helped out, putting together a file, signing documents, whatever needed to be done… everyone was very involved.
(School 10, HES)
With respect to the category difficulties in relationships, these difficulties were more prevalent in LESs (75%). Participants from these schools identified a variety of difficulties in teacher relationships. For example, there were power struggles, including educational disagreements between older teachers or those with management positions and other teachers:
The relationships between teachers are diverse and complex. Some teachers have been here a long time; they have their own group… So the interests and views of each one don’t always align.
(School 39, LES)
Furthermore, instability in staffing was mentioned as a challenge in building strong relationships:
An unstable teaching staff makes relationships difficult… it’s true that they tend to repeat courses at the centre, but that’s because if a couple has arguments, imagine what it’s like for us, who are 26 teachers at the centre.
(School 29, LES)

3.3. Perception of Teacher Involvement and Expectations

Finally, the category teacher involvement and expectations accounted for 37% (see Table 3). The subcategories in this category were grouped into three blocks: involvement, sense of belonging, and teacher expectations. The chi-square test results indicated statistically significant differences in some subcategories (χ2 = 12.939; p = 0.044). Specifically, participants from HESs reported higher expectations than participants from LESs did.
High involvement was mentioned more frequently by participants from LESs (72.7%) than HESs (27.3%). This may highlight the value of involvement in LESs, as these schools, owing to their sociocultural situation, require teachers to be more committed:
The staff here is not ordinary; they arrive from specific positions. It’s a unique job application for this school. You present a project and depending on the grade you get and your experience, you join. Only teachers who really want to work here join, which should be the case in the whole region. Only people who want to be in each school should be there, because they are the ones who get more committed to the population and the learning of the students.
(School 15, LES)
Low involvement was also cited more frequently by participants from LESs. However, participants from both types of schools mentioned the temporary nature of teachers’ positions as the cause of low involvement:
It’s not imposed, but because it’s a small school, CPR and the staff is very variable from year to year. We have very few permanent teachers here, so it makes it harder for teachers to engage in the training, and that’s why we constantly look for work or courses to help the teachers who arrive to adapt to our school’s idiosyncrasy.
(School 36, HES).
With respect to the sense of belonging, the percentage was similar for participants from both HESs and LESs. The informants referenced positive operations, shared values, and positive relationships among teachers. They also mentioned a sense of belonging between families and students. However, participants from both HESs and LESs cited temporary teaching staff as the main reason for a lack of belonging:
Yes, of all the teachers, except for the ones I told you about. We are fourteen; twelve of them are permanent staff. The two I mentioned are not. This year I didn’t have much luck. Some years I have been very lucky.
(School 32, HES)
The high expectations subcategory was cited much more frequently by participants from the HESs (74.2%) than by those from LESs (25.8%). There appears to be greater awareness in HESs that having high expectations of students leads to improved educational outcomes.
Very high. We always have to have very high expectations.
(School 20, HES)
Low expectations had similar weights for both HESs and LESs. However, fewer schools presented low expectations, which may be due to recognition of the difficulties involved. Some schools focused on meeting basic hygiene and personal needs before addressing academic goals. Others cited language barriers as students entered the school throughout the academic year, which complicated educational expectations. In summary, although the sociocultural context determined teachers’ expectations, low expectations were externalised only in more extreme cases.
Our expectations are low compared to a normal school. Mainly, our expectations are that the students are attended to in terms of basic needs like food and hygiene. And then, as I mentioned before, we focus on basic learning: knowing how to write properly, knowing how to do basic math, which is essential when they move on to secondary education. If they leave the system, they will have basic tools for autonomy in their lives.
(School 7, LES)
Finally, there was a similar distribution of only average expectations between the HESs and LESs. In this context, the leadership teams reflected on the diversity of expectations the teachers had for their schools and their students. Similar to the case of low expectations, the context in which the schools operated was mentioned as a factor that affected student performance:
The expectations are very variable because we have good groups and others that, for various reasons, are not as good. So it depends a lot on the class. Generally, the expectations are good; we know where we are, and we know we cannot compare ourselves to many other schools, but we always try to improve.
(School 35, LES)
To address the second objective, Table 4 compares HESs and LESs. The aim of this table is to provide an overview of the schools and identify the differences between the HESs and LESs. In particular, the table highlights the greater intensity of conflicts among students in LESs. This finding may lead to the conclusion that despite the strong involvement of teachers, LESs face issues that extend beyond educational boundaries and require holistic interventions. In this context, LESs must address basic hygiene and nutritional needs, issues that divert attention from the curriculum. However, when educational practices are examined, both the HESs and LESs revealed a high level of involvement with students with no significant qualitative differences.
With regard to best practices, high teacher involvement and a sense of belonging in schools are particularly notable and are rooted in shared values and educational projects. In contrast, the instability of teaching staff limits the development of educational projects and a sense of belonging, an issue that should be addressed by educational authorities. Without stable staff, leadership teams find that their ability to develop and implement successful educational projects that engage students and their families is reduced.

4. Discussion

The results of this study achieve the two objectives proposed in this research. The first objective aimed to understand the perceptions of the leadership teams in Andalusian schools with regard to the school climate (SC). The results indicate that the majority of leadership teams perceive a good SC in their schools, including positive relationships among the teaching staff and shared values and expectations of students that lead to the effective functioning of the educational institution. Furthermore, the SC is one of the variables that contributes to improving educational performance and school effectiveness, as noted in previous research [36,37,38,65,66]. Therefore, efforts should be made in all schools to improve the SC, which can support an effective teaching-learning process for students.
With respect to conflicts, the leadership teams highlighted the sociocultural characteristics of the students and a lack of social skills to resolve conflicts on the part of both the students and the families. The social and educational context of the school seems to mediate relationships and the SC, thereby jeopardising the equity of the system [67]. Previous studies have shown that a good relationship between teachers and families is crucial for improving effectiveness and the SC, particularly in disadvantaged contexts. Therefore, one area for improvement in schools is to encourage greater family participation and commitment to education [68,69].
In line with Peniche Cetzal [35], this study revealed that one of the most significant barriers to improving the SC, as identified by the leadership teams, is the provisional nature of teaching positions. The respondents reported lower levels of involvement and a sense of belonging among nonpermanent or temporary teachers. This situation undermines the implementation of both coexistence initiatives and academic projects as teachers struggle to transmit and implement the school’s learning culture [70]. Educational policy should promote, for example, the retention of staff for longer than a year in addition to offering rewards or promotions in exchange for teachers’ longevity [35]. Furthermore, as studies have shown that having the same teacher for consecutive years improves student performance [71], improving staffing stability could improve both the SC and educational performance.
Teachers suggest that a united and committed faculty that is focused on the teaching-learning process leads to a better SC and greater school efficacy, as described in Thapa et al.’s study [14]. When teachers in a school strive to achieve common goals, strategies can be developed that promote and improve the overall effectiveness of the school and foster a positive school climate [35,72,73]. In this context, as Murillo [4] noted, it is crucial that leadership actions focus on pedagogical leadership and a participatory leadership style.
The second proposed objective was also addressed. The aim was to compare perceptions of the school climate between participants from HESs and LESs. The perception of a conflict-based SC and its associated difficulties appear to be related to poverty contexts, where academic activity is relegated to a secondary role after basic nutritional, social, and hygiene needs that are not provided by families. This situation places some schools that are considered LESs at a disadvantage by hindering their ability to function effectively [41,70]. A positive SC is typically found in HESs. An in-depth study of these HESs that focuses on how they build and maintain a positive SC is essential for improving the educational environments of other schools, especially those identified as LESs [42]. In this context, it is worth reflecting on the concept of equity within educational systems [8]. It is common for student populations with similar characteristics to be concentrated within the same school. In the case of the most disadvantaged schools, there is often limited diversity in the sense that the entire student body may be considered to have special educational needs [73]. This situation is part of a broader social mechanism that reproduces inequality and manifests through various criteria used to assess educational quality, such as the school climate, attention to diversity, and academic performance.
Thapa et al. [14] found that high expectations among teachers also seem to be linked to better school efficacy. The perceptions of the leadership teams interviewed in this study support this, as do other studies [15,18]. Leadership teams from HESs exhibit a positive view of education and expect their students to meet learning objectives [41,70], whereas high expectations are mentioned less frequently by members of leadership teams from LESs. However, these schools (LESs) recognise the importance of setting high expectations and encouraging staff to emphasise these expectations within the school. This may be because teachers in low-efficacy schools hold more contextually adjusted expectations, which do not necessarily undermine their level of commitment [41,73]. However, teachers’ expectations are shaped by multiple variables, including stereotypes and contextual factors, making this a complex area in which to intervene [74].
This study identifies the current state of the SC and differences in the way leadership teams in high- and low-efficacy primary schools evaluate their own SC. It is important to acknowledge the effort and commitment of all teachers to education. One of the contributions of this study is that it gives a voice to schools that do exemplary educational work but face the challenge of addressing social injustice within their student body, which they struggle to overcome with the limited resources available [75]. The interviews revealed the tremendous amount of work that is performed in schools. Despite these circumstances, many initiatives are being developed to improve education in general and SC in particular. Notably, the personal commitment made by both teachers and leadership teams extends beyond their educational roles to improve, to the greatest extent possible, the student context and to ensure the best possible SC given their awareness of its significant impact on the teaching–learning process.

4.1. Practical Recommendations for Educational Policy and School Leadership

On the basis of the findings obtained in this study and contrasting them with similar research on the school climate and its relationship with achievement, we propose the following recommendations.
1.
Strengthen climate-centred school leadership
Principals should receive continuous training in relational leadership and climate management, following Siegel, Ganimian, and Cappella’s model [74], which shows that effective leadership reduces gaps in math and reading in vulnerable contexts.
Internal evaluation systems that measure the perception of the SC among teachers, students and families should be established to promote a culture of improvement and accountability.
2.
Develop socioemotional education programmes
Experiences such as the KIDE Project in Tolosa [76], which demonstrated improvements in coexistence and performance through the development of socioemotional skills, should be expanded.
Furthermore, emotional intelligence (SEL) should be integrated into the curriculum. Evidence indicates that SEL programmes are associated with performance improvements of up to 11 percentile points.
3.
Build healthy and climate-resilient school spaces
Inspiration can be drawn from projects that incorporate vegetation, shade and fresh materials in playgrounds to improve comfort, well-being and sustainability.
Investments should be made in resilient school infrastructure, such as ventilation, thermal insulation and heat adaptations, to avoid the loss of school days—up to 12 per year, according to UCL studies—and improve school sustainability [77].
4.
Promote the authentic participation of families
Effective family-school dialogue channels should be established, such as regular surveys, meetings, and joint classroom projects. Research shows that strengthened family ties foster an inclusive and supportive climate [26,68,69,74].

4.2. Limitations and Prospects

One of the key limitations of this study was the absence of data triangulation with other key agents (e.g., inspectors, heads of teacher training centres, teachers with long experience in the school). This triangulation would make it possible to verify the information provided by the informants during the interviews [56]. Similarly, this study could have been enriched by conducting focus groups with the teaching staff of each school. Both limitations were impossible to resolve because the data collection period coincided with the context of COVID-19, and schools were unable to participate in these activities because of imposed health measures and the additional workload they faced.
Future research suggestions:
1.
Longitudinal research
Cohorts of students can be followed for 3 to 5 years to analyse how the school climate evolves and its long-term impact on achievement, motivation and school retention.
2.
Triangulated methodologies
Surveys (e.g., perceptions of climate), confidential interviews (e.g., with teachers and families) and direct classroom observations can be implemented. This multisource approach would increase the validity and richness of the data.
3.
Quasiexperimental designs
Schools that implement improvements (e.g., emotional intelligence training or playground adaptation) can be compared with others that do not to measure variables such as academic performance, absenteeism and social well-being.
4.
Diverse and comparative contexts
Case studies can be conducted in rural, urban, and socioeconomically diverse settings. For example, in areas with a low family and school climate, up to 80% low achievement is observed [78].
5.
Impact of school physical climate
Quantitative analyses can be conducted to determine how environmental variables (e.g., temperature, humidity, lighting) affect performance, as demonstrated by research in the U.S. and England [79].

Author Contributions

P.D.-G., J.G.-J., J.-J.T.-G. and J.R.-S. conceived the research idea and designed the research framework. Conceptualisation, P.D.-G., J.G.-J., J.-J.T.-G. and J.R.-S.; methodology, P.D.-G., J.G.-J., J.-J.T.-G. and J.R.-S.; software, P.D.-G., J.G.-J., J.-J.T.-G. and J.R.-S.; validation, J.-J.T.-G. and J.R.-S.; P.D.-G., J.G.-J., J.-J.T.-G. and J.R.-S. analysed the data, wrote the draft and approved the final manuscript; project administration, J.-J.T.-G. and J.R.-S.; funding acquisition, J.-J.T.-G. and J.R.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Grant EDU2017-84649-P funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033. This grant was obtained in a competitive call corresponding to the State Plan of Advancement of Scientific and Technical Research of Excellence, State Subprogram of Generation of Knowledge, of the Secretary of State for Research, Development and Innovation. This work was co-funded by the Ministry of Economy and Knowledge of the Regional Government of Andalusia and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) under grant number US-1263333, entitled “Diagnóstico del rendimiento educativo en educación primaria: un primer paso hacia la eficacia escolar” [Diagnosing educational performance in elementary education: a first step towards school effectiveness]. This grant was obtained in a competitive call of grants for R+D+I projects, corresponding to the General Secretariat for Universities, Research and Technology, of the Andalusia FEDER Operational Programme 2014–2020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The authors conducted the research reported in this article in accordance with the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Seville (Spain). The exact date was 8 January 2019, by Spanish Law 3/2018 on the Protection of Personal Data. Link: https://www.investigacion.us.es/apoyo-al-investigador/comites-de-etica/comite-de-etica-de-investigacion-de-la-universidad-de-sevilla-ceius (accessed on 14 November 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The authors declare that research participants’ informed consent to the publication of findings, including photos, videos and any personal or identifiable information, was secured prior to publication.

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are included in the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the principals of the 50 schools whose participation made this research possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Perry, A.C. The Management of a City School; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1908. [Google Scholar]
  2. Santi, D.E.; Suryanto, S.; Ani Putra, M.G.B. Ethnic Prejudice in Children: The Role of Ethnic Socialization. J. Educ. Health Community Psychol. 2019, 8, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. León-Jiménez, S.; Villarejo-Carballido, B.; López De Aguileta, G.; Puigvert, L. Propelling Children’s Empathy and Friendship. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Murillo Torrecilla, F.J.; Castañeda Bernal, E. Investigación Iberoamericana Sobre Eficacia Escolar, 1st ed.; Serie Educación para la Integración; Convenio Andrés Bello: Bogotá, Colombia, 2007; ISBN 978-958-698-220-7. [Google Scholar]
  5. Lahoz I Ubach, S.; Cordeu Cuccia, C. Sensibilidad Intercultural, Clima Escolar y Contacto Intergrupal En Estudiantes de Educación Primaria y Secundaria de La Región Metropolitana de Santiago de Chile. Rev. Investig. Educ. 2021, 39, 131–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lundberg, E.; Abdelzadeh, A. The Role of School Climate in Explaining Changes in Social Trust Over Time. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 2019, 63, 712–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rohatgi, A.; Scherer, R. Identifying Profiles of Students’ School Climate Perceptions Using PISA 2015 Data. Large-Scale Assess. Educ. 2020, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. United Nations. Work of the Statistical Commission Pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  9. Alonso-Tapia, J.; Quijada, A.; Ruiz, M.; Huertas, J.A.; Ulate, M.A.; Biehl, M.L. A Cross-Cultural Study of the Validity of a Battery of Questionnaires for Assessing School Climate Quality. Psicol. Educ. 2020, 26, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Safaria, T.; Suyono, H. The Role of Parent-Child Relationship, School Climate, Happiness, and Empathy to Predict Cyberbullying Behavior. Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. IJERE 2020, 9, 548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Manzano-Sánchez, D.; Gómez-Mármol, A.; Valero-Valenzuela, A.; Jiménez-Parra, J.F. School Climate and Responsibility as Predictors of Antisocial and Prosocial Behaviors and Violence: A Study towards Self-Determination Theory. Behav. Sci. 2021, 11, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Anderson, C.S. The Search for School Climate: A Review of the Research. Rev. Educ. Res. 1982, 52, 368–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Anderson, C.S. The Investigation of School Climate. In Research on Exemplary Schools; Austin, G.R., Garber, H., Eds.; Academic Press: Orlando, FL, USA, 1985; Chapter 6; pp. 97–126. [Google Scholar]
  14. Thapa, A.; Cohen, J.; Guffey, S.; Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. A Review of School Climate Research. Rev. Educ. Res. 2013, 83, 357–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nakamura-Thomas, H.; Sano, N.; Maciver, D. Determinants of School Attendance in Elementary School Students in Japan: A Structural Equation Model. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry Ment. Health 2021, 15, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wang, S. School Heads’ Transformational Leadership and Students’ Modernity: The Multiple Mediating Effects of School Climates. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2019, 20, 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rosenthal, R.; Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the Classroom; Rinehart & Winston: New York, NY, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ruiz-Alfonso, Z.; León, J.; Santana-Vega, L.; González, C. Teaching Quality: Relationships between Students’ Motivation, Effort Regulation, Future Interest, and Connection Frequency. Psicol. Educ. 2020, 27, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Choi, S.; Lee, S.W. Enhancing Teacher Self-Efficacy in Multicultural Classrooms and School Climate: The Role of Professional Development in Multicultural Education in the United States and South Korea. AERA Open 2020, 6, 233285842097357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Acosta, J.; Chinman, M.; Ebener, P.; Malone, P.S.; Phillips, A.; Wilks, A. Understanding the Relationship between Perceived School Climate and Bullying: A Mediator Analysis. J. Sch. Violence 2019, 18, 200–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Moolman, B.; Essop, R.; Makoae, M.; Swartz, S.; Solomon, J.-P. School Climate, an Enabling Factor in an Effective Peer Education Environment: Lessons from Schools in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Educ. 2020, 40, 1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gómez, R.L.; Suárez, A.M. Do Inquiry-Based Teaching and School Climate Influence Science Achievement and Critical Thinking? Evidence from PISA 2015. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2020, 7, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sanders, S.M.; Durbin, J.M.; Anderson, B.G.; Fogarty, L.M.; Giraldo-Garcia, R.J.; Voight, A. Does a Rising School Climate Lift All Boats? Differential Associations of Perceived Climate and Achievement for Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficiency. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2018, 39, 646–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Konold, T.; Cornell, D.; Jia, Y.; Malone, M. School Climate, Student Engagement, and Academic Achievement: A Latent Variable, Multilevel Multi-Informant Examination. AERA Open 2018, 4, 233285841881566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Martínez-Fernández, M.B.; Díaz-Aguado, M.J.; Chacón, J.C.; Martín-Babarro, J. Student Misbehaviour and School Climate: A Multilevel Study. Psicol. Educ. 2020, 27, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Galvez-Nieto, J.L.; García, J.A.; Vera-Bachmann, D.; Trizano-Hermosilla, I.; Polanco, K. Multilevel Latent Class Cluster Analysis of School Climate: Individual, Family and Community Factors. Rev. Psicodidáct. Engl. Ed. 2020, 25, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cornejo, R.; Redondo, J.M. El Clima Escolar Percibido Por Los Alumnos de Enseñanza Media: Una Investigación En Algunos Liceos de La Región Metropolitana. Ultima Década 2001, 9, 11–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dubbeld, A.; De Hoog, N.; Den Brok, P.; De Laat, M. Teachers’ Multicultural Attitudes and Perceptions of School Policy and School Climate in Relation to Burnout. Intercult. Educ. 2019, 30, 599–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zakariya, Y.F. Effects of School Climate and Teacher Self-Efficacy on Job Satisfaction of Mostly STEM Teachers: A Structural Multigroup Invariance Approach. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2020, 7, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yang, Y.; Qin, L.; Ning, L. School Violence and Teacher Professional Engagement: A Cross-National Study. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 628809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Rodríguez-Mantilla, J.M.; Ruiz-Lázaro, J. El Clima Social En Centros Educativos: Percepción Del Profesorado de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria de La Comunidad de Madrid. Rev. Investig. Educ. 2018, 37, 231–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gottfredson, G.D.; Gottfredson, D.C.; Payne, A.A.; Gottfredson, N.C. School Climate Predictors of School Disorder: Results from a National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 2005, 42, 412–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Boggino, N. Los Valores y las Normas Sociales en la Escuela: Una Propuesta Didáctica Institucional, 2nd ed.; Homo Sapiens: Santa Fé, Argentina, 2004; ISBN 978-950-808-367-8. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ryberg, R.; Her, S.; Temkin, D.; Madill, R.; Kelley, C.; Thompson, J.; Gabriel, A. Measuring School Climate: Validating the Education Department School Climate Survey in a Sample of Urban Middle and High School Students. AERA Open 2020, 6, 233285842094802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Peniche Cetzal, R.; Mac, C.R.; Guzmán Ramírez, C.; Mora Osuna, N. Factores Que Afectan El Desempeño Docente En Centros de Alta y Baja Eficacia En México. REICE Rev. Iberoam. Sobre Calid. Efic. Cambio Educ. 2020, 18, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rudasill, K.M.; Snyder, K.E.; Levinson, H.; Adelson, J.L. Systems View of School Climate: A Theoretical Framework for Research. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2018, 30, 35–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Manna, R.; Calzone, S.; Palumbo, R. Improving Schools’ Setting and Climate: What Role for the National Operative Programme? Some Empirical Insights from a Learning Analytics Perspective. J. E-Learn. Knowl. Soc. 2019, 15, 301–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ramón Mac, C.C.; Peniche Cetzal, R.S.; Mora Osuna, N. El Clima Del Aula Como Factor de Eficacia Escolar Desde El Trabajo Del Profesor de Bachillerato. DOCERE 2019, 40–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Boren, R.; Callahan, C.; Peugh, J. Out with the Old, In with the New: Factor Analyses of a Classroom Environment Measure. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 2011, 29, 214–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Castilla, N.; Llinares, C.; Bravo, J.M.; Blanca, V. Subjective Assessment of University Classroom Environment. Build. Environ. 2017, 122, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. García-Jiménez, J.; Lucas-Oliva, I.; Rodríguez-Santero, J.; Torres-Gordillo, J.-J. Management Discourse Analysis of High- and Low-Efficacy Schools: A Comparative Study of Factors Influencing School Performance. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Delgado-Galindo, P.; Rodríguez-Santero, J.; Torres-Gordillo, J.-J. Mejora de Las Prácticas Orientadoras Desde La Revisión Sistemática de Estudios Sobre Eficacia Escolar. REOP Rev. Esp. Orientac. Psicopedag. 2021, 32, 93–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Freiberg, H.J. School Climate: Measuring, Improving, and Sustaining Healthy Learning Environments; Falmer Press: London, UK; Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1999; ISBN 978-0-7507-0641-4. [Google Scholar]
  44. González Galán, A. Evaluación del Clima Escolar Como Factor de Calidad; La Muralla: Madrid, Spain, 2004; ISBN 978-84-7133-742-9. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ismail, S.N.; Rahman, F.; Yaacob, A. School Climate and Academic Performance. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2020; ISBN 978-0-19-026409-3. [Google Scholar]
  46. Elo, S.; Kyngäs, H. The Qualitative Content Analysis Process. J. Adv. Nurs. 2008, 62, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Fereday, J.; Muir-Cochrane, E. Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2006, 5, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hubert, K. The Future Prospects of Qualitative Research. In A Companion to Qualitative Research; Flick, U., Ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2004; pp. 354–358. [Google Scholar]
  49. Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-0-8039-4653-8. [Google Scholar]
  50. Tong, A.; Sainsbury, P.; Craig, J. Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): A 32-Item Checklist for Interviews and Focus Groups. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 2007, 19, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Speziale, H.S.; Carpenter, D.R. Qualitative Research in Nursing: Advancing the Humanistic Imperative, 5th ed.; Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-0-7817-9600-2. [Google Scholar]
  52. López-González, E.; Navarro-Asencio, E.; García-San Pedro, M.J.; Lizasoain, L.; Tourón, J. Estudio de La Eficacia Escolar En Centros Educativos de Primaria Mediante El Uso de Modelos Jerárquicos Lineales. Bordón Rev. Pedagog. 2021, 73, 59–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. García-Jiménez, J.; Torres-Gordillo, J.-J.; Rodríguez-Santero, J. Factors Associated with School Effectiveness: Detection of High- and Low-Efficiency Schools through Hierarchical Linear Models. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Taylor, S.J.; Bogdan, R. Introducción a los Métodos Cualitativos de Investigación: La Búsqueda de Significados, 1st ed.; Paidós básica; Reimpresión en España; Paidós Ibérica: Barcelona, Spain, 1992; ISBN 978-84-7509-816-6. [Google Scholar]
  55. Intxausti, N.; Joaristi, L.; Lizasoain, L. Educational Leadership as Best Practice in Highly Effective Schools in the Autonomous Region of the Basque County (Spain). Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2016, 44, 397–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Joaristi, L.; Lizasoain, L.; Azpillaga, V. Detection and Characterization of Highly Effective Schools in the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country Using Contextualized Cross-Sectional Attainment Models and Hierarchical Linear Models. Estud. Sobre Educ. 2014, 27, 37–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lizasoain Hernández, L.; Angulo Vargas, A. Buenas Prácticas de Escuelas Eficaces Del País Vasco. Metodología y Primeros Resultados. Particip. Educ. 2014, 3, 17–28. [Google Scholar]
  58. LaDonna, K.A.; Taylor, T.; Lingard, L. Why Open-Ended Survey Questions Are Unlikely to Support Rigorous Qualitative Insights. Acad. Med. 2018, 93, 347–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Flick, U. Introducción a La Investigación Cualitativa; Morata: Madrid, Spain, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  60. Strauss, A.L.; Corbin, J.M. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  61. Corbetta, P.; Fraile Maldonado, C.; Fraile Maldonado, M. Metodología y Técnicas de Investigación Social; Edicion revisada; McGraw Hill: Madrid, Spain, 2010; ISBN 978-84-481-5610-7. [Google Scholar]
  62. MacMillan, J.H. Investigación Educativa: Una Introducción Conceptual, 5th ed.; última reimp; Pearson-Addison Wesley: Madrid, Spain, 2012; ISBN 978-84-205-4163-1. [Google Scholar]
  63. Krippendorff, K. Reliability in Content Analysis: Some Common Misconceptions and Recommendations. Hum. Commun. Res. 2004, 30, 411–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Boletín Oficial del Estado. Ley Orgánica 3/2018, de 5 de Diciembre, de Protección de Datos Personales y Garantía de Los Derechos Digitales; Boletín Oficial del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 2018; pp. 119788–119857. [Google Scholar]
  65. Amsalu, A.; Belay, S. Analyzing the Contribution of School Climate to Academic Achievement Using Structural Equation Modeling. Sage Open 2024, 14, 21582440241227271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Baysu, G.; Agirdag, O.; De Leersnyder, J. The Association Between Perceived Discriminatory Climate in School and Student Performance in Math and Reading: A Cross-National Analysis Using PISA 2018. J. Youth Adolesc. 2023, 52, 619–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Lucas-Oliva, I.; García-Jiménez, J.; Torres-Gordillo, J.-J.; Rodríguez-Santero, J. Equity and Parity in Primary Education: A Study on Performance in Language and Mathematics Using Hierarchical Linear Models. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bueno-Villaverde, Á.; Monge López, C.; Torrego Seijo, J.C. Estado de La Convivencia Escolar En Centros de Prácticas Exitosas En Participación Familiar: Percepciones de Alumnos y Profesores. Bordón Rev. Pedagog. 2023, 75, 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Garreta-Bochaca, J.; Llevot-Calvet, N. Escuela y Familias de Origen Extranjero. Canales y Barreras a La Comunicación En La Educación Primaria. Educación XX1 2022, 25, 315–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bellei, C.; Morawietz, L.; Valenzuela, J.P.; Vanni, X. Effective Schools 10 Years on: Factors and Processes Enabling the Sustainability of School Effectiveness. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 2020, 31, 266–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Albornoz, F.; Contreras, D.; Upward, R. Let’s Stay Together: The Effects of Repeat Student-Teacher Matches on Academic Achievement. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2023, 94, 102375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Martins, E.C.C.; Calderón, A.-I. Avaliação Educacional: Fatores Contextuais de Eficácia Escolar Em Cenários de Alta Vulnerabilidade Social. Rev. Pesqui. Debate Educ. 2020, 10, 1138–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. García-Jiménez, J.; Lucas-Oliva, I.; Rodríguez-Santero, J.; Torres-Gordillo, J.-J. “We Have Little Diversity: If Only We Had a More Diverse Student Population”—Analysing the Discourse of Principals in High- and Low-Efficacy Schools. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2025, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Siegel, J.A.; Ganimian, A.J.; Cappella, E. Can Positive School Climate Ameliorate Racial-Ethnic Disparities in Pre-Kindergarten Quality? Evidence from a Large Urban School District. Early Child. Res. Q. 2023, 64, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Belavi, G.; Murillo, F.J. Democracia y Justicia Social En Las Escuelas: Dimensiones Para Pensar y Mejorar La Práctica Educativa. REICE Rev. Iberoam. Sobre Calid. Efic. Cambio Educ. 2020, 18, 5–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Martínez Álvarez, I.; Sospedra-Baeza, M.J.; Hidalgo, S.; Agirrezabal Oiarbide, P. Hacia Una Escuela Emocionalmente Inteligente: Evaluación del Proyecto de Convivencia KIDE en Herrikide (Tolosa, 2018–2025); Universidad a Distancia de Madrid (UDIMA): Madrid, Spain, 2025; Available online: https://www.udima.es/educacion-socioemocional-mejora-clima-rendimiento-academico-alumnos-primaria (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  77. Department for Education. Summary of Findings in Relation to 3 Climate Risks: Overheating, Flooding and Water Scarcity; [Informe] GOV.UK. In Colaboration with Met Office y University College London (UCL). 2025. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/impact-of-uk-climate-change-risk-on-the-delivery-of-education/summary-of-findings-in-relation-to-3-climate-risks-overheating-flooding-and-water-scarcity (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  78. Berkowitz, R.; Moore, H.; Astor, R.A.; Benbenishty, R. A research synthesis of the associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and academic achievement. Rev. Educ. Res. 2017, 87, 425–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Brink, H.W.; Loomans, M.G.L.C.; Mobach, M.P.; Kort, H.S.M. Classrooms’ indoor environmental conditions affecting the academic achievement of students and teachers in higher education: A systematic literature review. Indoor Air 2021, 31, 405–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Analysis of the weights of the categories of overall school climate.
Table 1. Analysis of the weights of the categories of overall school climate.
CategoryFSubcategoriesTOTALHESLES
Overall school climate148 = 41%(1) Good SC68
(45.9%)		40
(58.8%)		28
(41.2%)
(2) Conflictive SC25
(16.9%)		9
(36%)		16 (64%)
(3) Types and origin of conflicts55
(37.2%)		29 (52.7%)26 (47.3%)
Own elaboration.
Table 2. Analysis of the weight of the category of teacher relationships.
Table 2. Analysis of the weight of the category of teacher relationships.
CategoryFSubcategoriesTOTALHESLES
Teacher relationships78 = 22%(1) Positive relationships66 (84.6%)40 (60.6%)26 (39.4%)
(2) Difficulties in relationships12 (15.4%)3
(25%)		9
(75%)
Own elaboration.
Table 3. Analysis of the weight of the category of teacher involvement and expectations.
Table 3. Analysis of the weight of the category of teacher involvement and expectations.
CategoryFSubcategoriesTOTALHESLES
Teacher
involvement
and
expectations		134 = 37%(1) High involvement11
(8.2%)		3
(27.3%)		8 (72.7%)
(2) Low involvement8
(6%)		2
(25%)		6
(75%)
(3) Sense of belonging50 (37.3%)26
(52%)		24
(48%)
(4) No sense of belonging7
(5.2%)		5
(71.4%)		2 (28.6%)
(5) High expectations31 (23.1%)23 (74.2%)8 (25.8%)
(6) Low expectations8
(6%)		4
(50%)		4
(50%)
(7) Medium expectations19 (14.2%)8
(42.1%)		11 (57.9%)
Own elaboration.
Table 4. Facilitators and limiters in HESs and LESs distributed by categories.
Table 4. Facilitators and limiters in HESs and LESs distributed by categories.
HESLES
EnablersConstraintsEnablersConstraints
Overall School ClimateA positive school climate and constructive relationships with familiesConflicts among
students		Commitment to a positive school climate conditioned by social instability,Conflictive social climate
Teacher RelationshipsSense of belonging;
Engagement in community-building activities		Unstable teaching staffshared values;
common educational project		Unstable teaching staff
Teacher Involvement and ExpectationsHigh teacher involvementExpectations contextualised to the socioeducational level of the schoolConflicts and sociolinguistic limitations;
provision of basic needs
Own elaboration.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Delgado-Galindo, P.; García-Jiménez, J.; Torres-Gordillo, J.-J.; Rodríguez-Santero, J. School Climate and Academic Performance: Key Factors for Sustainable Education in High-Efficacy Schools and Low-Efficacy Schools. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6497. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146497

AMA Style

Delgado-Galindo P, García-Jiménez J, Torres-Gordillo J-J, Rodríguez-Santero J. School Climate and Academic Performance: Key Factors for Sustainable Education in High-Efficacy Schools and Low-Efficacy Schools. Sustainability. 2025; 17(14):6497. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146497

Chicago/Turabian Style

Delgado-Galindo, Pablo, Jesús García-Jiménez, Juan-Jesús Torres-Gordillo, and Javier Rodríguez-Santero. 2025. "School Climate and Academic Performance: Key Factors for Sustainable Education in High-Efficacy Schools and Low-Efficacy Schools" Sustainability 17, no. 14: 6497. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146497

APA Style

Delgado-Galindo, P., García-Jiménez, J., Torres-Gordillo, J.-J., & Rodríguez-Santero, J. (2025). School Climate and Academic Performance: Key Factors for Sustainable Education in High-Efficacy Schools and Low-Efficacy Schools. Sustainability, 17(14), 6497. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17146497

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop