Do Refugee Students Feel Well at School? An Analysis of the Influence of Individual, Social, and Structural Factors

Abstract

Well-being at school is central to successful learning and dealing with challenges at school. While previous research mostly explored general student well-being, less attention has been paid to the specific challenges faced by refugee students, who enter the school system as lateral entrants and represent a particularly vulnerable group. Building on an established multilevel theoretical framework, we examine the interplay between individual factors (e.g., academic performance), social factors (e.g., peer relationships), and structural factors (e.g., school type). In addition to general factors, we particularly focus on refugee-specific factors (such as PTSD, asylum procedure uncertainties, and integration policies), which we integrate into the analytical model using the Cultural Stress Theory. Our analyses utilise data from the study ‘ReGES—Refugees in the German Educational System’. The sample comprises 2415 refugee adolescents who arrived in Germany between 2014 and 2018 and attend lower secondary school. Results from our multivariate analyses reveal that refugee-specific factors are significantly related to well-being beyond common predictors. An uncertain residence status, perceived discrimination, and cultural problems are negatively related to well-being at school, while teachers’ support for refugees shows positive associations. These results have important implications for educational policy and practice in supporting refugee student integration.

1. Introduction

Participation in education and educational success in the form of grades or qualifications are central topics of educational research. However, subjective aspects of school integration are becoming increasingly prominent. For example, subjective well-being at school not only provides a cognitive and emotional basis for successful learning and for dealing with school challenges but is gaining recognition as an important aspect of educational participation (e.g., Hascher & Hagenauer, 2011a; Obermeier et al., 2021; OECD, 2017). Therefore, subjective perceptions of students should be given more attention when explaining educational success (e.g., Hascher et al., 2018).

Previous research has mostly explored general student well-being, but less attention has been paid to the specific challenges faced by refugee students who enter the school system as lateral entrants and who represent a particularly vulnerable group. However, focusing on subjective dimensions of educational participation is particularly important for refugee students. In addition to acquiring skills and educational qualifications, attending school helps to structure the everyday life that was often disrupted by the conditions in the country of origin or by the escape (e.g., Matthews, 2008). School attendance also contributes significantly to the emotional stability and social integration of refugee children and adolescents (e.g., McBrien, 2005; Pastoor, 2015). As newcomers to an unfamiliar education system, often with limited knowledge of the language of instruction, possibly with an ongoing asylum procedure, or having experienced traumatic events during their escape, refugee children and adolescents face additional challenges in successfully completing their education. In addition, the way in which newly arrived immigrants are taught often poses a further challenge to successful integration if they are taught separately or with students not of their age. Overall, we know relatively little about the well-being of young refugees in school (for exceptions, see, among others, Pagel & Edele, 2022; Pastoor, 2015; Ziaian et al., 2018).

1.1. Definitions and Concepts of Well-Being at School

The discussion about well-being at school has intensified in recent years, which has also led to a variety of concepts and definitions (see for an overview, e.g., Hascher et al., 2018; Hossain et al., 2023). In this context, the close connection between well-being at school and mental health is discussed alongside concepts of school adjustment and school belonging. In some cases, researchers examine not specifically well-being at school but students’ well-being more generally, with a particular focus on school-related explanatory factors (see, e.g., OECD, 2018). Moreover, even within research focused specifically on well-being at school, the concept is defined in various ways. No single definition has yet emerged as the established standard (see Hascher et al., 2018 for this assessment). Multi-component approaches are increasingly being used to describe well-being at school (e.g., Hascher, 2004; Noble et al., 2008), whereby there is no agreement on the components to be considered as essential for a complete understanding (for an overview, see Hascher et al., 2018). While it is certainly undisputed that several components are necessary for a comprehensive description of well-being at school, a multi-component model is also associated with difficulties in empirically examining aspects that promote or hinder well-being at school. One challenge with these multi-component approaches is that the individual components are often highly correlated with each other, and components such as social problems at school (Hascher, 2004) or positive relationships at school (Noble et al., 2008) are employed in empirical studies to explain other components of well-being, for instance, pleasure in school.

If we embed well-being at school in the larger context of well-being research, domain-specific satisfaction, in this case, school-related satisfaction, is understood as the third important component of general subjective well-being, alongside people’s emotional reactions (pleasant and unpleasant affects) and global judgments of life satisfaction (see Diener et al., 1999). Since it is assumed that certain aspects can have different effects on the various components of well-being, it is recommended that the main components of subjective well-being are analysed separately (Diener et al., 1999). Therefore, the study of well-being at school is not only an important aspect of educational research but also contributes to research on the general well-being of children and adolescents.

1.2. State of Research on Well-Being at School

The different definitions of well-being at school, which translate into different operationalisations, complicate the comparison of empirical findings. Nevertheless, previous research identifies several key elements associated with well-being at school. These can be systematically categorised into individual, social, and structural factors.

1.2.1. Individual Factors

Research on adolescents’ general life satisfaction and domain-specific satisfaction has shown that the correlation between sociodemographic variables and life satisfaction tends to be weak (Proctor et al., 2009). This observation also seems to apply to well-being at school: The findings on the relationship between gender and well-being at school are somewhat inconsistent (Hascher & Hagenauer, 2011b), with girls tending to score slightly higher levels of well-being (see Hascher et al., 2018). In terms of age, well-being at school decreases slightly with age (De Fraine et al., 2005; Hascher & Hagenauer, 2011b; Michel et al., 2012). Regarding social background and parental education, however, positive correlations are found, implying that parents with higher levels of education can provide better support, which might contribute to well-being at school (see Alivernini et al., 2020; Hascher et al., 2018).

Research consistently demonstrates robust correlations between (self-reported) physical and mental health and well-being, both in terms of general subjective well-being (see Diener et al., 1999; Proctor et al., 2009) and in terms of well-being at school (Noble et al., 2008; Pagel & Edele, 2022). Equally consistent is the relationship between academic performance and well-being at school (see Alivernini et al., 2020; Ando et al., 2019; Bücker et al., 2018; Nauck & Genoni, 2019; Saab & Klinger, 2010; Wustmann Seiler et al., 2016). A positive (academic) self-concept is associated with higher well-being at school (e.g., Nauck & Genoni, 2019; Tian et al., 2015), as is self-esteem with general and school-related subjective well-being (e.g., Bayram Özdemir & Stattin, 2014; e.g., Diener et al., 1999; Proctor et al., 2009).

1.2.2. Social Factors

Close and positive contact with peers can be seen as a particularly important aspect of subjective well-being in adolescence (see Hall-Lande et al., 2007). This can also be applied to the situation at school: positive contacts with classmates are positively related to well-being at school (see Arslan, 2018a; Hascher & Hagenauer, 2011a; Suldo et al., 2013; Tian et al., 2015). Negative experiences, such as exclusion and bullying, on the other hand, are associated with lower well-being at school (Ando et al., 2019; Arslan, 2018a, 2018b; Hall-Lande et al., 2007; Hascher & Baillod, 2004). In addition to positive interactions with classmates and friendships with peers at school, the importance of good relationships with teachers and teachers’ support for well-being at school has been demonstrated in many cases (Hascher & Hagenauer, 2011a; Kassis et al., 2021; Suldo et al., 2013; Tian et al., 2015; Vedder et al., 2005; see Aldridge et al., 2016 for an exception). The quality of teaching is also said to have a beneficial effect on well-being at school (Hascher, 2004). Some studies focus on school climate and examine its relationships with life satisfaction, well-being, and related variables (see, for example, Aldridge et al., 2016; Karvonen et al., 2005; Suldo et al., 2013). Regarding the perception of connectedness to the school (see Aldridge et al., 2016; for the protective effect of school connectedness on mental health, see also Hall-Lande et al., 2007) or school belonging (e.g., Arslan, 2018a; Arslan & Duru, 2017; Moffa et al., 2016), a positive correlation with both life satisfaction and student well-being was shown, while perceived affirming diversity in school was negatively related to student well-being (see Aldridge et al., 2016). According to the authors (Aldridge et al., 2016), this could possibly be because mere affirmation of diversity without accompanying support programmes (e.g., for students and teachers) could exacerbate existing discrepancies, especially in schools with a high level of ethnic diversity. Higher student aggression at school was associated with lower levels of well-being at school (see Saab & Klinger, 2010).

1.2.3. Structural Factors

Findings on the correlation between the type of school or school track attended and well-being at school are inconsistent (see Obermeier et al., 2021 for an overview). One possible explanation is that, while there is often greater pressure to perform at more demanding types of school, there is also a more positive attitude towards school, and students generally have a higher academic self-concept (Obermeier et al., 2021). There also appear to be differential effects for students with and without a migration background: While the well-being of native students was reduced by upward-track mobility, it increased among some groups of students with a migration background (Nauck & Genoni, 2019). The high educational aspirations of immigrant students compared to native students (see, e.g., Salikutluk, 2016; Neumeyer et al., 2022) could be a possible cause of these differential effects. Some studies also examine the characteristics of the classes attended by students. In particular, small class size appears to correlate positively with student well-being (see Alivernini et al., 2020; for the correlation between smaller class sizes and positive student behaviour, see also Finn et al., 2003). In contrast, a higher average performance and a higher share of students with a higher socioeconomic background in a class are negatively associated with student well-being (see Alivernini et al., 2020), which is attributed in particular to comparative processes within the class (see also Marsh et al., 2008). In terms of the school composition, positive correlations were reported between a larger proportion of students with a higher social background and well-being at school (see Saab & Klinger, 2010).

1.3. Migration- and Refugee-Specific Factors

The relationships between the individual, social, and structural factors discussed above are usually—unless differences were explicitly pointed out—expected to have equal effects on immigrant students and native students (for an explicit investigation of whether there are differences in the patterns of well-being between immigrant and native students, see Kassis et al., 2021). However, immigrant students often differ in their composition. For example, they are less likely to come from educationally privileged families and are less likely to attend more demanding school types.

Research on the well-being of immigrant students at school compared to native students does not paint a clear picture: immigrant students sometimes show higher and sometimes lower values when assessing their well-being at school (see Obermeier et al., 2021 for an overview). This could also be due to the fact that migration-specific characteristics are not taken into account in many studies. In the following, we will discuss migration- and refugee-specific factors that we expect to have an additional influence on the well-being at school of immigrant or refugee students.

Immigrants and children from families with a migration biography are often exposed to additional stress factors that can be divided into three components according to the Cultural Stress Theory (see Meca & Schwartz, 2024; Salas-Wright & Schwartz, 2019): 1. discrimination based on ethnic origin or status as a foreigner, 2. the perception of not being welcome or even rejected in the country they or their parents migrated to, and 3. the necessity of navigating culturally between the culture of origin and the host culture. These three components of Cultural Stress Theory can also be transferred to school-related factors and linked to well-being at school. Migration-specific challenges should apply equally to the group of refugees. However, there are also aspects that apply exclusively or especially to refugees. We discuss migration-specific and refugee-specific factors together and categorise them at the three levels mentioned above (individual, social, structural).

1.3.1. Individual Migration- and Refugee-Specific Factors

In terms of Cultural Stress Theory, individual factors particularly concern conflicts and problems arising from differences between the culture of origin and the receiving country. The extent of the cultural distance between the country of origin and the host country can increase the challenges that arise (see Guo et al., 2021; Nauck & Genoni, 2019). The length of stay in the host country is considered relevant in this context: As a rule, psychological adjustment and thus an increase in well-being takes place over time, which is partly due to the decline of cultural stress (see Michel et al., 2012 for an overview). In the few studies on subjective well-being in the broadest sense that take into account the length of stay, either no significant correlations (Pagel & Edele, 2022) or negative correlations were found (Michel et al., 2012). The authors (Michel et al., 2012) argue that in the case of adolescent immigrants, an acculturation-related increase in psychological adjustment over time could be masked by an age-related decline in the same indicators during adolescence. A special challenge for immigrant students is that their first language often is not the instruction language at school. This particularly applies to first-generation immigrants, who only begin to learn the language of the host country after having migrated. Immigrants not only have to reconcile the use of their native language, which is often spoken in the family, with the use of the second language in other contexts, but they also often struggle with a sense of devaluation of their language skills regarding their native language (see Guo et al., 2021). These challenges are further increased when students have to learn a new alphabet and writing direction (see Kaplan et al., 2016). Regarding well-being at school, language skills are relevant in terms of equal participation and school belonging. A good knowledge of the language of the host country is important not only for following lessons and for further education but also for establishing social contacts with fellow students and teachers (e.g., Bešić et al., 2020; Çelik et al., 2025). However, quantitative empirical evidence is so far limited: When other aspects, such as grades, school track, and positive self-concept, were controlled for, no statistically significant correlations were found between language skills and life satisfaction among students with a migration background (see Nauck & Genoni, 2019). Finding their way into the school system of the host country and learning a new language is made more difficult by the fact that some of the first-generation migrants who enter the school system of the host country as lateral entrants did not attend school in their country of origin (see Guo et al., 2021). This applies in particular to refugees from countries with less developed education systems or who were unable to attend school due to conflicts in their home country. Being a member of a different religion than the dominant one in the host country can be another cause of cultural stress, whereby both religious values and religious behaviours can be sources of conflict.

While the positive relationship between (self-assessed) health and subjective well-being at school should apply equally to students with migration or refugee backgrounds, it can be assumed that refugees have higher health risks, especially the risk of suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder is significantly higher among refugees. The increased probability of traumatic experiences is not only related to conflict-ridden situations in the country of origin or the dangers of escape, but possibly also to a precarious life situation or marginalising experiences in the host country (Kelley et al., 2025; Matthews, 2008).

1.3.2. Migration- and Refugee-Specific Social Factors

Different values and behaviours, such as religious practices or cultural habits, can not only be a potential stressor for the student at the individual level, but can also lead to problems and conflicts in social interactions at school. Discrimination is another component of the Cultural Stress Theory that is particularly important at the social level. Young people from families with a migration biography are at an increased risk of experiencing discrimination and exclusion because they are more likely to be perceived as different or foreign because of their ethnic origin or religious affiliation (Bayram Özdemir & Stattin, 2014; Benner et al., 2018; Bešić et al., 2020; Civitillo et al., 2024; Dotterer et al., 2009; Guo et al., 2021; Ziaian et al., 2018). Furthermore, negative effects of perceived discrimination based on their status as a foreigner or refugee were found (Bešić et al., 2020). In this respect, support from teachers is particularly important for immigrant students: Their role is to recognise and address discrimination in the school context (Bešić et al., 2020). Teachers’ support can mitigate the negative effects of discrimination (Bayram Özdemir & Stattin, 2014). In the case of newly arrived immigrants who do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the language of instruction, bilingual teachers can contribute to the well-being of newly arrived students (Bešić et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2021). In addition, there is evidence that teachers’ instructional support (in the sense of support in achieving academic goals) is particularly important for immigrant students, as they do not receive this support from their parents to the same extent as native students (see Vedder et al., 2005).

1.3.3. Migration- and Refugee-Specific Structural Factors

Studies examining the classroom composition regarding immigrant share came to inconclusive results. In particular, the generational status of the immigrant students seems to play a role here: One study found that while the share of students in the second generation of immigrants in a class was not statistically significant in its association with different components of student well-being, there was a negative correlation between the proportion of first-generation immigrant students and student well-being (see Alivernini et al., 2020). These findings are of particular importance when considering that newly immigrated students are educated separately in several countries (see Crul et al., 2017; Guo et al., 2019; Hauber-Özer, 2019; Morrice & Salem, 2023; Simopoulos & Alexandridis, 2019; Tajic & Bunar, 2020; Vogel & Stock, 2017). The advantages and disadvantages of separate schooling in newcomer classes and joint schooling in regular classes are controversially discussed. Proponents of (at least initial) separate schooling emphasize the opportunity for in-depth language support. Teachers might be able to provide better support and encouragement to the students. In addition, separate schooling is seen as a protected space in which young people can slowly adjust to school in the host country and meet young people with similar experiences (e.g., Nilsson & Axelsson, 2013; Schmiedebach & Wegner, 2019). Opponents of separate schooling criticise it as excluding and deficit-oriented (Hilt, 2017; Karakayali et al., 2017). Social contact with native students is significantly impeded, which also limits the opportunity to speak the host country’s language in non-school contexts (e.g., Lang, 2019). In general, the effectiveness of learning the host country’s language in separate classes is being questioned (Höckel & Schilling, 2022; Simopoulos & Alexandridis, 2019). In terms of Cultural Stress Theory, it could be argued that separate schooling may temporarily reduce bicultural stress but, at the same time, might increase the experience of exclusion and feeling unwelcome. So far, there are hardly any quantitative studies of the relationship between the type of schooling and well-being at school: Pagel and Edele (2022), who, in addition to being schooled in a regular class versus being schooled in a newcomer class, also distinguish a mixed schooling model (students receive some lessons in a newcomer class, but they also attend regular classes in less language-based subjects like sports, music, or art), found no statistically significant correlations with adolescents’ general life satisfaction. In terms of school belonging, the mixed schooling model performed better than both other models of schooling. Another study showed that the level of frustration and fear of speaking was higher among students in regular classes than in newcomer classes (see Schmiedebach & Wegner, 2019). Qualitative studies also do not come to consistent conclusions: while it is reported that students often reject special programmes that are not considered to be part of mainstream education, there are also reports of difficulties in following lessons in regular classes (Miller et al., 2005).

In addition to the question of whether to teach students who do not yet speak the language of instruction sufficiently in separate classes, the question also arises as to which grade level the new students should be assigned. Empirical evidence shows that newly arrived refugees were more likely to be assigned to lower grades (Homuth et al., 2020b; Will et al., 2022). It can be assumed that this was partly in response to the interruption of the school biography due to the flight. Being older than classmates can initially be more of an advantage: Studies have shown that being younger than classmates was associated with poorer mental health, with the link seemingly being mediated by various aspects such as poorer performance and a higher risk of being bullied (see Ando et al., 2019). However, these studies usually looked at age differences of a few months rather than differences of 2–3 years. It cannot, therefore, be ruled out that being educated with much younger students is also perceived as isolating and negatively impacts well-being at school.

The residence status granted to immigrants largely determines the rights of an immigrant and their chances of remaining in the host country. According to the Cultural Stress Theory, an uncertain residence status with a possibly short period of validity can indicate a negative reception context. In this context, not only the actual objective legal status but also the subjective feeling of security in being allowed to remain in the host country can play a role (see e.g., Homuth et al., 2020a). The question of residence status affects, in principle, all persons who do not have the host country’s citizenship. However, refugees are the group most often affected by problems of insecure residence status compared to other immigrant groups (e.g., labour migrants). This also applies to the accommodation of refugees. Compared to other immigrants, who usually live in private accommodations, refugees are sometimes housed in collective accommodations. This can place an additional burden on them and reinforce a feeling of not being welcome. While the link between residence status and general well-being of immigrant minors is relatively well established (see Bajo Marcos et al., 2021 for an overview), quantitative analyses on refugees have so far been unable to establish a link between residence status or living in a collective accommodation and school belonging or general life satisfaction among students (see Pagel & Edele, 2022).

In terms of the immediate neighbourhood, the support of official municipal employees or volunteers can also help to find your way in the settlement context. The perceived support can be understood as an indicator of a favourable settlement context, which should positively affect subjective well-being.

2. Materials and Methods

Our analyses are based on data from the first wave of the panel study “ReGES—Refugees in the German Educational System” (doi:10.5157/ReGES:RC2:SUF:3.1.0; Will et al., 2021). We used data from the adolescent cohort (Refugee Cohort 2), which comprises refugee adolescents between 14 and 16 years (at the time of sampling) who attended lower secondary education at the time of the first survey in spring 2018. The adolescents arrived between January 2014 and April 2018. They lived in one of the German federal states of Bavaria, Hamburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony, and Rhineland-Palatinate with at least one parent or legal guardian (for more details on the study design, see Steinhauer et al., 2019; Will et al., 2021). The sample includes N = 2415 adolescents, of which 55% were male and 45% female. Most students were originally from Syria (71%), followed by Iraq (14%), Afghanistan (9%), and other countries (6%). Students were rather evenly distributed over the school types in the highly tracked German educational system. About 20% visited a Hauptschule (lower secondary track), 22% a Realschule (intermediate secondary track), 22% a Gymnasium (academic track), 17% a comprehensive school, and 19% a school with multiple tracks.

Our main variable of interest is based on a survey question in which students were asked whether they felt well at school based on a five-point Likert scale. We combined the answers “mostly true” and “completely true” into one category and answers “not true at all”, “not really true”, and “partially true” into another to derive a binary outcome (0 = feeling not well at school, 1 = feeling well at school).

As explanatory variables at the individual level, we included whether respondents were female and their age at the time of the interview in years. We included an ISCED-based measure on their parents’ highest educational qualification (no/less than primary, primary education, secondary, or postsecondary/tertiary education). Respondents’ self-rated health combined answer categories “very poorly”, “poor”, and “so-so” and answers “good” to “very well” into a binary indicator. Self-assessed school performance was measured using a slider ranging from 1 (lowest performance value) to 100 (highest). For our measure of self-concept at school, students rated whether they evaluate themselves as being a fast learner on a four-point scale ranging from “not true at all” to “completely true”. We grouped the lowest two answers and the two highest answers into a binary indicator.

Regarding social factors, we grouped answers to the question whether they received support from teachers outside of school, with “not true at all” and “not really true” being the first category and “partially true”, “mostly true”, and “completely true” being the second category. Students were asked two separate questions on whether they feared threats and violence at school and on their way to school. We used a dichotomous variable that assigned the higher value when students responded with “partially true”, “mostly true”, or “completely true” to either of these questions. Problems with eating at school could be influenced by migration-related or religious aspects, but the way the question was asked in the questionnaire was not limited to dietary preferences or restrictions based on these aspects, so we included this under general aspects that might influence well-being instead of subsuming it under migration- or refuge-specific factors. Problems with eating at school combined the answer categories “not true at all” and “not really true” as well as the answers “partially true”, “mostly true”, and “completely true” into another binary indicator.

Structural factors included the school type (Hauptschule, Realschule, Gymnasium, comprehensive schools without tracks, or schools with multiple tracks). Additional control variables were included for the German federal states (which can have a major influence on various regulations regarding refugees and the school system) and municipality size.

In addition to general factors that can influence well-being at school, our dataset contains a variety of migration- or refugee-specific variables that we expected to influence refugees’ well-being. As individual migrant- or refugee-specific factors, we used measures on how long students have been in Germany at the time of the interview (in months) and their self-rated German skills (using a sum score based on their assessment of whether they were able to do up to 14 every day or learning-related tasks in German of varying difficulty, such as asking simple questions, following most TV shows easily, or writing sophisticated texts). Based on a scale measuring risk factors for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), we used a sum score ranging from 0 to 10 depending on how many of the ten risk factors respondents stated. We also included a measure of whether respondents did not attend any school in their country of origin.

Regarding migration- and refugee-specific social factors, we considered the influence of various problems immigrant students could experience: Problems arising from cultural or religious differences, language problems at school (combining “not true at all” or “not really true” vs. “partially true”, “mostly true”, or “completely true” for both variables), perceived individual discrimination (whether they personally felt treated worse at school based on their origin—“no, never” or “seldom” vs. “sometimes”, “often”, or “very often”), and perceived group discrimination against refugees in general (whether refugees can only succeed if they try harder than others—“not true at all” or “not really true” vs. “mostly true” or “completely true”). We also considered several protective and supportive factors at the social level that could have a positive influence on young refugees’ well-being at school: Their assessment of whether teachers took good care of refugees (“not true at all” or “not really true” vs. “mostly true” or “completely true”) and whether they personally received sufficient help at their place of living (“no” or “not really” vs. “yes, mostly” or “yes”).

Furthermore, we examined various migration- and refugee-specific factors at the structural level. This included whether the refugee adolescents attended a newcomer class. Depending on the federal state, these programs have different names, such as Vorbereitungsklassen, Willkommensklassen, or Sprachförderklassen (“preparatory classes”, “language learning classes”, “international support classes”), among others. Reflecting the diversity of the German educational system, they varied not only in name but also in terms of their specific structure, implementation methods, and duration. Although these classes were open to all students with a migration history, they were characterised by a high proportion of refugee students during the observed period. Nevertheless, since both regular classes as well as newcomer classes could vary in their compositions, we added the share of refugees in their current class (on a 7-point scale ranging from “none” to “all”) to our analyses. We included dichotomous measures on whether the refugee adolescents attended a lower grade than their age would normally suggest. Furthermore, we included dichotomous indicators on whether their resident status in Germany was insecure (if their application was not yet submitted, not yet decided or denied), whether they deemed it likely to be allowed to stay in Germany longer-term (combining “quite unlikely” or “very unlikely” vs. “quite likely” or “very likely”), and whether they were living in group accommodation for refugees. We additionally controlled for their country of origin (Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, or another country).

Table 1. Description of variables.

	N	%/M	SD	Min	Max
Dependent variable: Well-being at school	2397	0.73		0 (not true at all—partially true)	1 (mostly true—completely true)
Structural
Federal state	2415
Hamburg		11.64%
North Rhine-Westphalia		57.60%
Rhineland-Palatinate		11.88%
Bavaria		11.43%
Saxony		7.45%
Municipality size	2415
5000–20,000		1.49%
>20,000–50,000		8.45%
>50,000–100,000		17.31%
>100,000–500,000		31.72%
>500,000		41.04%
School type	2411
Hauptschule (lower secondary track)		19.87%
Realschule (intermediate secondary track)		22.07%
Gymnasium (academic track)		21.90%
Comprehensive school		16.80%
School with multiple tracks		19.37%
Individual
Gender: Female	2415	0.45		0 (male)	1 (female)
Age (years)	2415	15.54	0.95	14	17
HISCED	1905
No/less than primary		20.94%
Primary education		11.65%
Secondary I + II		37.22%
Postsecondary/tertiary		30.18%
State of health	2406	0.92		0 (very poorly/poor/so-so)	1 (good/very well)
School performance	2402	68.33	18.56	1 (low)	100 (high)
Self-concept, learning fast	2404	0.86		0 (not true at all—not really true)	1 (mostly true—completely true)
Social
Support from teachers outside school	2388	0.51		0 (not true at all—not really true)	1 (partially true—completely true)
Problems: Violence at school or on way to school	2387	0.11		0 (not true at all—not really true)	1 (partially true—completely true)
Problems: Eating at school	2385	0.14		0 (not true at all—not really true)	1 (partially true—completely true)
Individual migration-/refugee-specific
Duration since arrival in Germany (months)	2413	29.63	8.99	0	53
German proficiency	2390	8.17	3.47	1 (low)	14 (high)
PTSD risk	2154	1.33	1.82	0 (low)	10 (high)
No school attendance in origin country	2336	0.07		0 (no)	1 (yes)
Social migration-/refugee-specific
Problems at school: cultural, religious differences	2390	0.21		0 (not true at all—not really true)	1 (partially true—completely true)
Problems at school: Language	2397	0.36		0 (not true at all—not really true)	1 (partially true—completely true)
Discrimination (indiv.): Treated worse at school	2394	0.21		0 (no, never—seldom)	1 (sometimes—very often)
Discrimination (group): Have to try harder	2327	0.66		0 (not true at all—not really true)	1 (mostly true—completely true)
Teachers take good care of refugees	2378	0.61		0 (not true at all—not really true)	1 (mostly true—completely true)
Personally sufficient help locally	2389	0.79		0 (no—not really)	1 (yes mostly—yes)
Structural migration-/refugee-specific
Share of refugees in class	2394	3.51	1.86	1 (none)	7 (all)
Newcomer class	2410	0.36		0 (no)	1 (yes)
Lower grade for age	2396	0.32		0 (no)	1 (yes)
Insecure resident status	2058	0.30		0 (no)	1 (yes)
Perspective allowed to stay in Germany	2288	0.87		0 (quite/very unlikely)	1 (quite/very likely)
Living in group accommodation	2415	0.15		0 (no)	1 (yes)
Country of origin	2341
Syria		71.00%
Afghanistan		9.31%
Iraq		13.58%
Other		6.11%

Data: doi:10.5157/ReGES:RC2:SUF:3.1.0; adolescent and parent interview, wave 1. Note: Due to rounding, sum of individual values may differ slightly from 100%.

shows the distributions of our variables, including case numbers that provide information on valid cases in the dataset. Missing data are highest for parents’ ISCED (510 cases out of 2415, or 21.12%), students’ residence status (14.78%), and the PTSD-risk score (10.81%), while the remaining variables have shares of missing values between 3.64% and 0%. We employed multiple imputations to address missing data and generated 100 imputed datasets for our main analyses. Each dataset was created by incorporating relevant auxiliary variables. Using Rubin’s rules, our regression models combined the results to produce pooled estimates and standard errors. This approach allowed us to obtain robust statistical estimates while minimising potential biases associated with missing data, thereby enhancing the reliability of our conclusions. All analyses were conducted using Stata 18.

To examine our dichotomous outcome variable “well-being at school”, we estimated linear probability models with robust standard errors after imputation. Our first model included the general individual, social, and structural factors as described above. The second model added migration- or refugee-specific individual, social, and structural variables. We report standardised beta coefficients for an easier interpretation of the estimated values for each variable and adjusted R² values, which compensate for the increasing number of predictors between Models 1 and 2.

3. Results

From the general research on subjective well-being, adults, children, and adolescents across a wide range of countries report relatively high levels of subjective well-being, with a large proportion in the positive range of the scale available for selection (OECD, 2018; Proctor et al., 2009). In general, high values are also given concerning well-being at school (Hascher & Hagenauer, 2011a). This also applies to the young refugees in the ReGES study. About 73% rated the statement that they felt well at school as “mostly true” or “completely true” (see Table 1).

Beyond the sample description already provided above, the age among the students ranged from 14 to 17 years, with 15.54 years on average. A total of 21% of students’ parents had no or less than primary education in their country of origin, 12% had primary education, 37% had some form of secondary and 30% had postsecondary or tertiary education. Nearly 92% of students rated their health as either “good” or “very good”. Only 14% answered that it was “between “partially true” and “completely true” that eating at school was a problem for them. On a scale from 1 to 100, they rated their own school performance with 68 on average, with a standard deviance of almost 19 showing some variance between students. About 86% stated that it was “mostly true” or “completely true” that they saw themselves as fast learners.

Regarding the general social factors, 51% of the respondents stated that it was at least “partially true” that they received support from teachers outside school. Only 11% agreed that it was between “partially true” and “completely true” that they feared threats and violence either on their way to school or at school.

Looking at individual migration- and refugee-specific factors, the duration since arrival in Germany ranged between 0 and 53 months at the time of the interview, with a 30-month average. With an average value of 8.17 (on a scale from 1 to 14) and a standard deviation of 3.47, we observe some variance in students’ answers regarding their German skills. The refugee adolescents stated 1.33 of the 10 PTSD-risk factors on average, but the variance was quite high with a standard deviance of 1.82. Only 7% of the students did not attend any school in their country of origin.

As for the migration- or refugee-specific social factors, 21% stated that it was at least partially true that they felt treated worse at school because of their origin, and 66% agreed that refugees could only succeed if they tried harder than others. On the other side, 61% answered that it was “mostly true” or “completely true” that teachers took good care of refugees, and 79% agreed that they personally received sufficient help locally.

Examining structural migration- or refugee-specific factors, the average value of 3.51 on the question of the share of refugees in class corresponds most closely to the category “about half” in the questionnaire. A total of 36% of the respondents visited a newcomer class, 32% visited a grade lower than their age would have suggested, and 30% had an insecure residence status, whereas 87% evaluated that it was “quite likely” or “very likely” that they were allowed to stay in Germany beyond their current temporary period of residency. About 15% of respondents lived in a group accommodation for refugees at the time of the interview.

3.1. Contribution of General Explanatory Factors to the Well-Being of Refugees at School

In the first model, we only considered general factors known from previous research on well-being at school. Migration- and refugee-specific factors had not yet been taken into account (see Model 1,

Table 2. Well-being at school: Results of linear probability models.

	Model 1		Model 2
Individual
Gender: Female	−0.038		−0.008
Age (years)	−0.057	**	−0.063	**
HISCED (ref. primary education)
No/less than primary	0.29		0.16
Secondary I + II	0.13		0.11
Postsecondary/tertiary	0.16		0.14
State of health	0.103	***	0.62	**
School performance	0.102	***	0.72	***
Self-concept, learning fast	0.80	***	0.50	*
Social
Support from teachers outside school	0.108	***	0.78	***
Problems: Violence at school or on way to school	−0.149	***	−0.084	***
Problems: Eating at school	−0.039		0.18
Structural
School type (ref. Realschule)
Hauptschule (lower secondary track)	−0.015		−0.008
Gymnasium (academic track)	−0.030		−0.025
Comprehensive school	−0.018		0.33
School with multiple tracks	0.48		0.59	*
Federal state (controlled for)	yes		yes
Municipality size (controlled for)	yes		yes
Individual migration-/refugee-specific
Duration since arrival in Germany (months)			−0.054	**
German proficiency			0.80	***
PTSD risk			−0.061	**
No school attendance in origin country			−0.061	**
Social migration-/refuge-specific
Problems at school: Cultural, religious differences			−0.138	***
Problems at school: Language			−0.022
Discrimination (indiv): Treated worse at school			−0.151	***
Discrimination (group): Have to try harder			−0.035
Teachers take good care of refugees			0.107	***
Personally sufficient help locally			0.054	**
Structural migration-/refugee-specific
Share of refugees in class			−0.054	*
Newcomer class			0.002
Lower grade for age			0.022
Insecure resident status			−0.066	**
Perspective allowed to stay in Germany			−0.035
Living in group accommodation			−0.003
Country of origin (ref. Syria)
Afghanistan			0.022
Iraq			0.034
Other			0.004
Adjusted R2	0.096		0.185

Data: doi:10.5157/ReGES:RC2:SUF:3.1.0; adolescent and parent interview, wave 1, multiple imputed data m = 100, N = 2415. Note: * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001; linear probability models, standardized coefficients.

).

Those individual factors also applied to the well-being of refugees at school in most cases: Self-rated health, academic performance, and academic self-concept were positively related to well-being at school, while we found a negative correlation with age. Gender and the parents’ education were not statistically significantly associated with the well-being of refugee students. The fact that parents’ education was not positively related to the well-being of refugee students at school could indicate that parents in refugee families were less able to support their children even if they had a higher level of education themselves. This could be due, for example, to a lack of knowledge of the German school system or to the fact that the parents still had to learn the host country’s language.

Concerning social factors, we found that the perceived support from teachers correlated statistically significantly and positively with well-being at school. Problems at school, on the other hand, were negatively associated with well-being, whereby the correlation was statistically significant only for problems caused by violence. In particular, problems due to fear of violence at school and on the way to school showed very strong correlations compared to the other influencing factors.

At the structural level, refugees in most school types (except for schools with multiple tracks) reported a slightly lower level of well-being than in the Realschule, but these findings were not statistically significant. The model also controlled for the size of the municipality and the federal state where the refugees lived.

Overall, these factors explained about 9.6% of the variance in students’ well-being at school.

3.2. Contribution of Migration- and Refugee-Specific Explanatory Factors to the Well-Being of Refugees at School

In the second model, we supplemented the general explanatory factors with migration- and refugee-specific aspects (see Model 2, Table 2). First, it can be stated that the effects found in Model 1 hardly changed when we additionally controlled for migration- and refugee-specific factors. However, most of the correlations became weaker, both in terms of effect size and statistical significance level. Only the correlation between age and well-being at school was slightly strengthened in terms of effect size by the additional control of the migration- and refugee-specific aspects. Furthermore, after controlling for migration- and refugee-specific factors, we saw that refugee students’ well-being was slightly higher in schools with multiple educational tracks. This relationship is statistically significant and could indicate that it is beneficial for the well-being of lateral entrants to attend a school where several different educational pathways are open to them.

But what explanatory contribution is made by aspects that specifically relate to the situation of immigrants? We saw a statistically significant correlation between the length of stay and well-being at school. However, contrary to our expectations, the duration of stay in Germany was negatively related to well-being at school. This could be because the decline in cultural stress, which we would expect in line with the Cultural Stress Theory, only sets in after a longer period of time, which we cannot yet observe in our sample (for some empirical tendencies in this regard among adult immigrants, see for example Ritsner & Ponizovsky, 1999). Robustness checks using the duration of schooling instead of the length of stay also showed a negative correlation with well-being at school, although this correlation was not statistically significant. As expected, however, we found a positive correlation between German language skills and well-being at school in our data: The better young people assessed their German language skills based on various everyday and school-related tasks, the more comfortable they felt at school. Robustness checks using conventional scales for self-assessment of German skills (e.g., “How well do you understand German?”) showed—as in previous research—no statistically significant correlation with well-being at school. This highlights the need for a more differentiated measurement of German language skills. Furthermore, we found a statistically significant negative correlation with refugee students’ school attendance in their country of origin: Refugees who had not attended school in their country of origin reported a lower level of well-being at school. The negative statistically significant correlation between a higher risk of PTSD and well-being at school was in line with expectations. The positive statistically significant correlation between self-assessed health and well-being remains, albeit with a considerably lower effect size. The model also controlled for refugee students’ country of origin.

Regarding social factors, we found that all perceived problems at school were negatively related to well-being at school. However, only the perception of problems due to cultural and religious differences was statistically significant, while this did not apply to problems due to language. Furthermore, we found a very strong negative correlation between perceived discrimination at school based on refugees’ origin and well-being at school. In terms of effect size, this was the most relevant explanatory factor in our model. By contrast, a more indirect measurement of discrimination, which measures whether refugees are assumed to have to work harder to succeed in society, did not show any statistically significant correlation with well-being at school. In Model 1, perceived support from teachers was statistically significantly and positively related to well-being at school. This applied even more when the question was not about the support of teachers in general but about the specific support of teachers for refugees, as seen in Model 2. If refugees felt supported by their teachers, they also felt more comfortable at school. Of the positive influencing factors, teacher support had by far the greatest impact on the well-being of refugee students in terms of effect size.

Looking at structural factors, we found that also the perceived support at the neighbourhood level was positively related to well-being at school. Our data showed no statistically significant correlations with the strategy of educating refugees: Neither the type of class attended (regular vs. newcomer class) nor the question of whether one attended a class that corresponds to one’s age was related to the well-being of refugees at school. However, there was a statistically significant negative correlation with the proportion of refugees in the class: The more refugee students there were in the class, the less likely refugees felt well at school. While the type of schooling (newcomer class vs. regular class) in our data had no correlation with well-being at school, the proportion of refugees in the class seemed to be related to well-being in all classes, including regular classes. This finding, potentially attributable to the heterogeneous refugee student population and the particular challenges that arise in the classroom as a result, warrants careful interpretation and merits closer attention in future research. In line with the Cultural Stress Theory, we assumed that refugees felt less welcome when they had an uncertain residence status. This was also confirmed by our data. However, only the official residence status showed a statistically significant correlation with well-being at school but not the subjectively perceived probability of remaining. Also, living in shared accommodation was not significantly associated with well-being at school.

Overall, including migration- and refugee-specific factors considerably increased the explanatory power of our models (R² = 0.096 without migration- and refugee specific factors, R² = 0.185 with migration- and refugee-specific factors).

4. Discussion

This paper sets out to gain a deeper understanding of refugee adolescents’ well-being at school. Building on previous research that examined the well-being of adolescents at school more generally, our study is a scarce example of analyses focusing on the well-being of refugee students. To gain more comprehensive insights into their well-being, we went beyond previous research and extended our model by including factors that might be particularly relevant to this group.

Using the Cultural Stress Theory as an overall framework was useful to model refugee adolescents’ well-being at school. It assumes that immigrant children and children from families with migration biography might be exposed to additional stressors. These could be discrimination due to being perceived as a foreigner, not feeling welcome or feeling rejected in the country they or their family migrated to, and stress due to navigating between different cultural influences. We linked the different types of stressors to factors that might influence well-being at school. These can either have a beneficial or hindering effect on subjective well-being. We distinguished different levels to which stressors can be attributed: individual, social, and structural.

Individual factors include the duration of living in Germany, German language skills, or risk factors for post-traumatic stress disorder. Social factors encompass perceived discrimination or teacher support. At the structural level, the type of schooling (newcomer vs. regular class), age-adequate enrolment, residence status, and type of accommodation might influence subjective well-being at school.

Our results show that a large share of refugee students in our study reported feeling either mostly or completely well at school. This is in line with research on subjective well-being in general and at school in particular (Hascher & Hagenauer, 2011a), even though this has previously not been confirmed for refugee students. Factors that are commonly used to explain well-being at school have also shown to be relevant for refugee students, such as age or self-rated health. Furthermore, while problems at school were negatively linked to well-being at school, we observed positive correlations with greater academic self-concept and better school performance.

Overall, including migration- and refugee-specific factors considerably increased the explanatory power of our models. The adjusted R2-value increased significantly over the previous model with an explained variance of about 18%. Thus, we argue that it is crucial to disentangle factors that aim to capture refugee adolescents’ situation in particular. Both problems due to cultural and religious differences and perceived personal discrimination were significantly and negatively correlated with well-being at school. This can be linked back to the Cultural Stress Theory, which emphasises discrimination and navigating between different cultures as the main drivers of additional stress which impede well-being at school. We further observed that a higher number of risk factors for post-traumatic stress disorder correlates significantly and negatively with well-being at school, emphasizing the importance of additional medical and psychological support for refugee students. An insecure residence status was also negatively linked to well-being at school, which emphasises the importance of fast processes in granting residence statuses.

We expected that support structures on-site might be able to buffer these negative effects, and our results confirmed this. Teachers’ support aimed at refugee students and students’ assessment that they personally received sufficient migrant-specific help locally were positively associated with well-being at school. This emphasises the importance of teachers’ and volunteers’ support to foster refugee students’ subjective well-being at school. Therefore, teachers should be made more aware of the impact they can have on the well-being of their refugee students. They have a dual role: They should directly support refugees in all school-related matters, but they are also important when it comes to recognising and addressing discrimination, and for empowering their students in these situations. This result is also relevant in terms of resource allocation to schools, especially in view of the limited personnel capacities, which often make it more difficult to provide more intensive support to refugee students.

Limitations to our analyses are that we only observed refugee students’ well-being at one point in time. Thus, causal relationships cannot be analysed. Therefore, further research should include longitudinal analyses to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying causes lead to refugees’ well-being at school. While we identified factors that contribute to explaining refugee student’s subjective well-being at school, there is still a lot to unravel for future research. It is possible that our measurements were not sufficiently differentiated, particularly regarding structural factors. Only examining whether new immigrants are being taught in a separate newcomer class or in a regular class does not sufficiently account for the variance of teaching models within these types of classes. In addition to the teaching quality in general (see Hascher, 2004), future research should also consider migration-specific aspects, such as the question of whether the teachers in charge have received training in teaching German as a second language. School-wide measures such as language support initiatives or anti-discrimination programmes could also be linked to the well-being of refugee students. Further research should also investigate targeted differential effects within the group of refugees. For example, it can be assumed that those who never attended school in their country of origin are also a selective group in terms of well-being at school, which needs to be analysed in more detail. This also applies to comparisons to other groups: We could not compare the well-being of refugee students with other immigrant students, students from families with migration biographies, or native students with our data. Therefore, we do not know whether the correlations found would differ between these groups. Earlier studies found slight tendencies that there may be differences between immigrant students and native students in this regard (see Vedder et al., 2005). Moreover, the lack of a comparison group limits the generalisability of our results to other immigrant students. Lastly, well-being at school was measured using only a single indicator. It is entirely conceivable that the correlations found in our analyses between the explanatory variables and different dimensions of well-being (e.g., cognitive or emotional components) vary and taking multiple dimensions into account would allow for a more in-depth examination of this complex topic.

Overall, our study, which is one of the first to explicitly address the well-being of refugees at school, shows that migration- and refugee-specific factors contribute substantially to explaining the well-being of refugees at school. We add to the literature on students’ well-being by explicitly examining these relationships in detail. The results not only provide indications for further quantitative and qualitative research on well-being at school, but the correlations found can also inspire research on the general life satisfaction of young refugees.