Classroom Climate

From an ecological lens, the classroom is understood as a primary micro-context in which

students and the teacher interact and where the quality of interactions between the child and

elements of the child’s proximal environments influence developmental outcomes (Melhuish et

al., 2013). Specifically, the classroom climate refers to the global classroom atmosphere that is

shaped by the interactions that take place in the classroom as a whole, including the teacher’s

behavior, students’ responses to the teacher, the teacher’s response to students, and interactions

among students (Gazelle, 2006). The classroom climate is reported to be a ‘positive climate’

when a sense of connectedness and belongingness, enjoyment and enthusiasm, and respect are

observed among the students and in the teacher-student relationship. Conversely, a ‘negative

climate’ is reported when a sense of frequent disruption, conflict, and disorganization is observed

(Gazelle, 2006; Reyes et al., 2012).

Over the past two decades, classroom climate has emerged as a unifying construct that

exemplifies how the combination and accumulation of diverse learning experiences contributes

to the development of academic, behavioral, and socio-emotional outcomes for children and

adolescents (Hattie, 2009; Pianta and Hamre, 2009; Chapman et al., 2013). A growing number of

countries (such as Canada, China, England, France, Germany, Israel, Singapore, and the and the

United States) have even focused on improving classroom climate and classroom dynamics as a

central goal of educational reform initiatives, demonstrating an international consensus on the

importance of classroom climate in promoting school quality and children’s academic and

psychological wellbeing (Cohen, 2012; Thapa et al., 2013; Wang and Degol, 2016; Wang,

Hofkens, et al., 2020).

(like teaching quality, classroom organization, and teacher-student relationships) has provided a

rich characterization of how classroom climate functions. Classroom climate effects on youth

outcomes may also be attributable to differences in child characteristics, study design, and

measurement characteristics. For example, as children advance into middle childhood and

adolescence, school structures begin to differ substantially from the primary school setting of

early childhood, and the transition to these settings impacts academic and psychological

functioning (Eccles and Roeser, 2011; Vandenbroucke et al., 2018).

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model posits that human development occurs within a set of

interrelated contexts in which proximal processes mediate individuals’ experiences, cognitions,

emotions, and behaviors (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Proximal processes within these

contexts represent the most powerful developmental influences, as they encompass interactions

that the child experiences daily and over an extended period of time (Bronfenbrenner, 1994).

Understanding these proximal processes in the classroom is informative, as the classroom

environment represents a unique developmental context involving instructional, social, and

organizational interactions (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Wang, Hofkens, et al., 2020). It is through

these processes occurring between students and teachers that classroom climate provides the

resources and opportunities for developing children's and youth's academic, socio-emotional, and

behavioral competencies.

More recent conceptualizations of classroom climate have focused on student-teacher

interactions within the classroom and emphasized the multidimensionality of classroom climate

(Hamre et al., 2007; Klieme et al., 2009; Danielson, 2011; Leff et al., 2011). For example, Jones

et al. (2008) proposed that both classroom teaching practices and teacher-student relationships
contribute to the quality of the classroom’s instructional and emotional climates, which in turn

impact children’s outcomes. Instructional support focuses on features of instruction that provide

quality feedback, use techniques to enhance critical thinking, and communicate high academic

expectations for students (Hamre et al., 2007; Danielson, 2011). Instructionally supportive

interactions facilitate cognitive learning and promote higher-level thinking through meaning-

based class discussions, the provision of challenging tasks, the connection of prior and current

knowledge, and constructive feedback that expands learning (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007; Fauth et

al., 2014).

Classroom organization and management denotes the practices teachers use to establish daily

classroom routines, including reinforcing classroom rules consistently, providing positive

behavior supports (Arnold et al., 1998; Klieme et al., 2009), managing disruptive behavior

effectively and fairly (Rimm-Kaufman, Curby, Grimm, Nathanson, & Brock, 2009), and using

preventative strategies to reduce punitive events (Emmer & Stough, 2001). The role of classroom

organization is to create productive and smoothly functioning classrooms that support students’

needs for competence and autonomy so that they can remain engaged in learning (Downer et al.,

2015; Hochweber et al., 2013; Miller & Wang, 2019).

Socioemotional support refers to classroom characteristics that support the emotional wellbeing

of students, including the warmth, safety, connectedness, and quality of interactions with

teachers and peers (Birch and Ladd, 1997; Danielson, 2011). In providing emotional support,

teachers appeal to youth’s need for relatedness through interactions that facilitate the sense of

psychological safety necessary for exploring novel experiences and developing connectedness to
others (Pianta & Hamre, 2009). Teachers can create a positive social classroom climate by being

responsive to and respectful of students’ social and emotional needs, getting to know students’

interests and backgrounds outside of school, and incorporating students’ points of view into

learning (Ryan and Patrick, 2001; Quin, 2017).

An optimal classroom climate requires combinations of effective instruction, positive

interactions, and organized behavior management to ensure fulfillment of children’s

psychological needs (Connell, 1990; Downer, Sabol, & Hamre, 2010). When children’s

psychological needs are fulfilled through daily interaction and socialization in the classroom

setting, they are more likely to be engaged in learning, develop academic and socioemotional

skills, and experience adaptive psychological wellbeing. In fact, self-determination theory posits

that (a) contextual factors are linked to patterns of development through an individual’s

appraisals of how competent, autonomous, and related they feel within a particular context (Deci

& Ryan, 2000), and (b) learning and development are optimized when students perceive that

their learning environment fulfills needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Connell &

Wellborn, 1991). Students’ need for competence is fostered when they feel their classroom

setting is adequately structured and are aware of what they need to do to be successful in that

classroom. Autonomy is promoted when students experience freedom in determining their own

behavior and choices, and the need for relatedness is met when teachers and peers contribute to

an emotionally supportive environment (Skinner, Kindermann, Connell, & Wellborn, 2009).

Accordingly, research has demonstrated that diverse classroom environments are associated with

variations in educational and psychosocial outcomes for youth (Connell, 1990; Hattie, 2009).

Instructional practices, interactions with others, and classroom organization create opportunities
for students to engage in a variety of academic and social activities that help build relationships

with others in the classroom (Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006). Through these classroom

experiences, students co-construct their identities by developing a sense of their competencies

and skills, social standing among teachers and peers, and the ability to self-regulate their own

learning. Thus, the classroom climate may favor or hinder academic performance and social

relationships in the classroom (Howes et al., 2011) since it have the potential to enhance learning

and development.

Finally, when the relationship between teachers and families is close and based on trust, a

positive classroom climate is reported. Engaging in close and trust-based relationships entails,

for instance, teachers knowing the names of their students and students’ families or legal

guardians, and establishing a cordial relationship with them during school entry and exit

(McNally and Slutsky, 2018).

Peer Pressure

The adolescent phase is a critical phase, as young teenagers have to face various changes in

terms of physical, emotional, social, and intellectual. What is chosen at this adolescent time will

reflect a teenager's future. Thus, choosing the right direction or pathway will help teenagers

shape their personalities and behaviors (Srinivas & Venkatkrishnan, 2016). At a young age,

teenagers will be looking for a direction to answer all the questions and problems in their lives.

Hence, peers who are almost the same age and always with teenagers are identified as the main

source for their reference most of the time. For teenagers, they will learn a new behavior and try

to adapt to their personalities by emulating their peers. However, peers’s negative influences will

affect the teenager’s well-being, including their academic performances in school (Supovitz et

al., 2009).
Negative influences from peer groups or peer pressure, especially among school students, can

lead them to neglect their studies and face disciplinary problems. The peer’s influence is a

dominant factor in a student’s life until the students consider the school rules inconvenient,

unnecessary to follow, and a trivial matter (Olalekan, 2016). This will cause disciplinary

problems such as skipping school, threatening schoolchildren, making noise, interrupting

lessons, damaging school properties, skipping classes, using abusive language, and so on.

Furthermore, the extreme level of negative influences from peers’s factors is involving teenagers

in the school dropout issue. School dropout is a major concern subject that is much more

exposed to unemployment issues, poverty, and delinquency (Kremer & Levy, 2008). Moreover,

the peer’s pressure factor also effects the teenagers, especially school dropouts, to be involved in

other social delinquency such as robberies, drug abuse, watching porn videos, public fights,

physical assaults, consuming alcohol drinks, illegal racing, gambling, vandalism, stealing,

hanging out, fighting with parents, and so on (Adeola, 2013; Ademorokun, 2013; Black, 2012).

Peers’s influence is identified as a potential determinant of students’s perceptions and choices, as

argued by Card and Giuliano (2013) and Bagwell and Schmidt (2011). Regarding peers’s

influences, it is concerned with the social learning theory introduced by Bandura and Walters

(1977), which explains how an individual experiences learning in a real social environment.

They hypothesized that changes in a person’s behavior in social events, including peer’s factors,

influence perceptions and such individuals’s actions through mutually influential relationships

with the social environment. Changes in a person’s behavior as a result of their social

environment can have effects on the individual's personality and social behavior.

Different social stances are also able to influence an individual’s self-concept. Related to social

learning theoretical justification, for Bandura and Walters (1977), the learning process will
happen through imitation and observation. They stated that in order to learn through observation,

an individual must concentrate, and usually the person being observed is an interesting person,

well-known, competent, or admired. Usually, in this case, it will often be associated with peers

when they share the same age range, background, and interests. Thus, peers are playing a

significant role in shaping one’s personality and ethics. Additionally, peers are the most

dominant factor in shaping young people’s minds, especially among students, through their

strong influence as social agents in their lives to share the same values and behaviors, regardless

of their education level or social class, and to do social activities together (Babawale, 2015;

Coleman, 2014). Indirectly, peers take over a student's parental responsibilities while away from

home. However, for Bankole and Ogunsakin (2015), peer influence in a student’s life can impact

them either positively or negatively in terms of significant changes to their behavior, personality,

physical, emotional, and mental changes, including skills and abilities.

Brown and Larson (2009) expressed that caring peers can be a reference source and support

system for their friends by understanding each other’s strengths and weaknesses, including their

needs and wants. It includes reducing a friend's anxiety and loneliness to enhance their well-

being and quality lifestyle by fostering self-esteem and being supportive partners in overcoming

struggles until they have an opportunity to explore and understand themselves during stressful

times (Bramoulle et al., 2009; Carrell et al., 2013; Bukowski et al., 2018; Filade et al., 2019).

Meanwhile, a well-performing peer’s presence in a student's life can contribute to their boosting

interest and motivation towards the learning process by engaging in co-curricular activities and

self-enhancing activities together for both academic and non-academic achievements (Kilford et

al., 2016). Thus, supportive peer groups can have more positive impacts among adolescents and

create a sense of responsibility towards their academic performance in school (Kudari, 2016).
Therefore, it is very important for students or young teenagers to choose the right peer groups

wisely, as they are reinforcement agents and social models for them in determining their lives’

direction at school levels, as advised by Hallinger and Heck (2011).

However, though peers are important, if not handled rationally during choosing the right peers,

their pressure effects can influence changes or deviant behavior in the way a person reacts or

thinks until they lead them in a negative direction, which can be detrimental (Seel, 2009;

Ogunsola et al., 2014). In this scenario, the peers can take advantage, and their negative

influences have the potential to change other students’s minds and get them involved in

disciplinary problems such as skipping school, aggressive or anti-social behaviors, misconduct,

extortion, fighting, and bullying with peers in the school environment (Issakainen, 2014). The

peer’s negative influences also refer to the student's involvement as young offenders in juvenile

cases such as robbery, snatching, and joining social illegal gangs, which can threaten their

lifestyles and cause teenagers to fall into social traps and question their future as well (La Greca

and Harrison, 2005). Thus, peers’s negative impacts among teenagers can also cause them to

behave contrary to societal norms, which can lead them to engage in social issues or other crimes

where students will experience school dropout issues (Robert et al., 2012).

Additionally, Jeremy and Derek (2008) emphasized the vital role of school management, family,

and community partners in shaping adolescents’s mental and emotional well-being in identifying

good and bad values and as a guideline in choosing their peers. Hence, building healthy

relationships for joint activities with peers is important to prevent dropout behaviors among

students due to peers’s pressures, as demonstrated by Mosha (2017). Various school dropout

factors have been shown in previous research, but this study has therefore tried to fill the gap in

information by establishing the peer’s pressure factor and its effects on students’s dropout
behavior and young offenders, which have not yet been explored in detail in the research

literature.

Previous research has investigated associations between school characteristics and adolescent

mental health, focusing mainly on school demographic factors, including school size, gender

composition, and economic deprivation (Saab & Klinger, 2010; Vas et al., 2014). However, in

order for research to effectively inform intervention efforts, malleable school-based factors, such

as school climate, must also be identified. School climate refers to the larger environmental

characteristics of a school, including, but not limited to, values and norms, relationships between

teachers and students, and learning and teaching emphasis (Thapa et al., 2013).

At the same time, adolescence marks a developmental period in which peer relationships grow in

salience and become increasingly complex socializing influences (Nelson et al., 2005).

Adolescents move from the dyadic friendships that tend to characterize childhood into larger

social networks, often with a heightened emphasis on social position and popularity (Bowker &

Ramsay, 2016). Understanding the nature and extent to which peer relationships relate to mental

health could offer insight into the design of school-based interventions. To this end, peer

relationship quality is known to be associated with mental health, such that supportive

friendships are related to positive mental health (Roach, 2018), while peer conflict and

victimization by peers are associated with a heightened risk of mental health problems (Patalay

& Fitzsimons, 2016).

School Dropout Intentions

Dropping out of school has been defined as quitting studies prior to graduation without receiving

an upper secondary education certificate (De Witte, Cabus, Thyssen, Groot, & Maassen van den

Brink, 2013). Dropping out of school is considered the final stage of a long-term process (for
review, see Rumberger & Rotermund, 2012), and prior to quitting, students are likely to develop

intentions to drop out (Hardre & Reeve, 2003; Alivernini & Lucidi, 2011; Vasalampi, Kiuru, &

Salmela-Aro, 2018). Previous studies have clearly demonstrated that before making the decision

to terminate their studies, students who eventually dropped out had thought more about quitting

school compared to their peers who remained in school (Vallerand, Fortier & Guay, 1997;

Eicher, Staerklé & Clémence, 2014; Frostad, Pijl & Mjaavatn, 2015). Although school dropout

intentions do not necessarily lead to the actual termination of studies, they constitute a clear sign

of disengagement and an increased risk of dropping out. In the present study, the focus was on

students' school dropout intentions (such as self-reported deliberation of changing or quitting the

current study program) rather than actual dropouts, as the students had just started their upper

secondary education studies. Moreover, focus on the early stage of the path leading to dropping

out is warranted because the identification of dropout risk is critical for developing preventive

actions before students actually decide to drop out.

The intention to drop out of school has strong associations with subsequent actual dropout in

adolescence (Davis, Ajzen, Saunders & Williams, 2002), and, in this regard, it has been the

object of many studies (Eicher, Staerklé & Clémence, 2014; Carsley, Heath, Gomez-Garibello &

Mills, 2017). Conceptual models of dropout have consistently indicated that the combined effects

of individual and contextual factors may lead preadolescents and adolescents to leave school

early (Rumberger & Lim, 2008). At the individual level, gender differences have consistently

emerged in most studies, indicating that boys are more at risk of dropping out of school

(Ripamonti, 2018). Although school dropout increases with age, with a higher prevalence in late

adolescence, it can be considered the outcome of a long process that starts during the earliest

years of school (Ripamonti, 2018). Recent studies have shown that dropout intention is present
and measurable as early as elementary and junior high school (Oh, Jung & Lee, 2018; Lee, Chun,

Kim & Lee, 2020). Low academic achievement is another frequent predictor of school dropout

(Ripamonti, 2018).

Intention to drop out of school was measured by three items retrieved from previous studies

(Hardre & Reeve, 2003; Italian adaptation by Alivernini & Lucidi, 2011): “I sometimes consider

dropping out of school” (item 1); “I intend to drop out of school” (item 2); “I sometimes feel

unsure about continuing my studies year after year” (item 3). Each item was rated on a 5-point

Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). The scale proved to have good reliability,

criterion validity, and consistency across time in previous research (Hardre & Reeve, 2003;

Alivernini & Lucidi, 2011), and it also reached excellent reliability in our sample (Cronbach’s

alpha of 0.92 at T1 and 0.87 at T2), according to benchmarks proposed by Ponterotto and

Ruckdeschel (2007). Similar measures of school dropout intention have been successfully used

in recent studies on minors attending primary, lower, and upper secondary schools (Oh et al.,

2018; Lee et al., 2020), providing evidence about the feasibility of measuring school dropout

intention in all school grades.

Adolescents who leave school prior to completion are likely to display social, academic,

behavioral, and economic vulnerabilities (Janosz, Le Blanc, Boulerice & Tremblay, 2000; De

Witte, Cabus, Thyssen, Groot & Van den Brink, 2013; Doll, Eslami, & Walters, 2013). It is

therefore crucial to identify risk and protective factors for both dropout intentions and actual

dropout to elucidate and prevent school dropout and its long-lasting consequences.

Over the last decades, research has provided accumulating evidence that school dropout must be

considered a long-term process rather than an event, with dropout constituting the endpoint of a
long trajectory of academic disengagement and failure that typically starts in early childhood,

often even before children enter school (Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997; Jimerson,

Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson, 2000; Alexander, Entwisle, & Kabbani, 2001; Christenson &

Thurlow, 2004; Dupéré et al., 2015). This long-term view has significantly advanced our

understanding of the antecedents of dropout and highlighted key implications for early

prevention of school dropout. However, the focus on dropout as the ultimate consequence of a

complex process that unfolds over time may have concealed the role that temporary stressors and

transitory psychological states play in inducing dropout intentions and actual dropout. This is

problematic considering that more than one of three dropouts do not exhibit clear signs of school

failure, disengagement, or serious academic or behavioral problems in the years prior to

dropping out (Janosz et al., 2000; Dupéré et al., 2015). In other words, short periods of increased

stress might trigger dropout intentions and actual dropout, even in the absence of a longer history

of gradual school disengagement, or such periods may exacerbate preexisting risk and eventually

lead to dropout intentions and/or actual dropout.

Prior research has revealed multiple psychosocial determinants of dropout intentions, including

stress and pessimism (Eicher, Staerklé & Clémence, 2014), poor intrinsic motivation (Otis,

Grouzet & Pelletier, 2005), low levels of perceived academic control (Respondek, Seufert,

Stupnisky & Nett, 2017), poor self-determination (Alivernini & Lucidi, 2011), a lack of sense of

belonging to school (Hausmann, Schofield & Woods, 2007), and a weak integration in social

networks in school (Thomas, 2000).Moreover, there is accumulating evidence of a variety of

factors that increase the risk for actual school dropout, including poor academic self-efficacy

(Caprara et al., 2008), poor cognitive and educational achievement (Alexander et al., 1997;

Balfanz, Herzog & Mac Iver, 2007; Bowers, 2010; Lehr, Sinclair, & Christenson, 2004), low
educational expectations (Driscoll, 1999), disruptiveness in school (Vitaro, Larocque, Janosz &

Tremblay, 2001), weak identification with school (Fall & Roberts, 2012), a lack of school friends

(Ellenbogen & Chamberland, 1997), school disengagement (Henry, Knight & Thornberry, 2012;

Janosz, Archambault, Morizot & Pagani, 2008), and low socioeconomic status (Battin-Pearson et

al., 2000; Chapman, Laird, Ifill & KewalRamani, 2012). For review studies, see, for instance,

Christenson and Thurlow (2004), De Witte et al. (2013), Doll et al. (2013), Rosenthal (1998),

Rumberger (1987), and Rumberger and Lim (2008).

A few existing studies considering links between exposure to temporary stressors and dropout

revealed that various stress factors are more common among students who drop out than among

similar peers who continue school, including health problems (Homlong, Rosvold, & Haavet,

2013), youth arrest (Hirschfield, 2009), and parental imprisonment (Cho, 2011). These studies

indicate that acute stressful events could precipitate school dropout (Dupéré et al., 2015).

However, these studies were limited in that they did not consider long-term risks in conjunction

with acute stressors as the causes of school dropout. This is a key omission considering that

researchers in other fields have long recognized that proximal processes compound long-term

risks and thereby trigger, for instance, the onset of mental health or other problems (Hankin &

Abela, 2005). It is therefore necessary to study school dropout from a vulnerability-stress

perspective by considering how long-held vulnerabilities and exposure to ephemeral proximal

stressors jointly and interactively contribute to dropout intentions and actual dropout.

Significant negative life events can be understood as stressors that entail physiological,

psychological, and/or behavioral responses that can be either adaptive or maladaptive (Lantz,

House, Mero, & Williams, 2005; Luhmann, Hofmann, Eid, & Lucas, 2012). They can be turning
points in developmental trajectories, as they bring about unexpected change and tend to disrupt

normal functioning (Dupéré et al., 2018). Exposure to stressful negative life events is linked with

higher levels of health and psychological problems and may undermine long-term psychosocial

adjustment (Ge, Lorenz, Conger, Elder, & Simons, 1994; Dohrenwend, 2000). Moreover,

research suggests that the number of stressful life events recently experienced predicts school

adjustment. Hence, negative life events might also explain the variance in young people’s

decisions about whether to drop out of school (Dupéré et al., 2018).

Extant studies suggest that perceived social support plays a key role in explaining dropout

intentions (Legault, Green-Demers, & Pelletier, 2006). Moreover, perceived social support

predicts students’ perceptions of control and identification with school, which, in turn, foster

academic commitment and achievement, thereby reducing the likelihood of actually dropping out

(Lagana, 2004; Fall & Roberts, 2012). However, as useful as these prior insights are, they do not

clarify whether dropout intentions and dropout are also sensitive to variations in perceived social

support over time. We expect that a situational decrease in the level of perceived social support

relative to a person-specific (time-averaged) level of perceived support over time may be

associated with an increased likelihood of reporting dropout intentions and actual dropout, and

vice versa.

Self-efficacy beliefs shape individuals’ aspirations, goals, and outcome expectations, as well as

perseverance in the face of adversity and difficulties (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, &

Pastorelli, 2001; Komarraju & Nadler, 2013). Moreover, these beliefs determine how individuals

perceive opportunities and impediments. The stronger their efficacy beliefs, the more ambitious

the goals individuals set for themselves and the firmer their commitment to them (Caprara,
Vecchione, Alessandri, Gerbino, & Barbaranelli, 2011; Burger & Walk, 2016). Consequently,

perceived self-efficacy may be related to dropout intentions and actual dropout. Furthermore,

given that self-efficacy fluctuates within individuals over time (Burger & Samuel, 2017),

situational perceived levels of self-efficacy may also be associated with a change in dropout

intentions and the likelihood of actually dropping out.

Review of Relationships

Classroom Climate & Peer Pressure

Student outcomes and academic success are greatly influenced by the type of school they attend.

School factors include school structure, school composition, and school climate. The school one

attends is the institutional environment that sets the parameters of a student's learning experience.

As schools are faced with more public accountability for student academic performance, school-

level characteristics are being studied to discover methods of improving achievement for all

students. Considerable research has been conducted on teaching skills, climate, socio-economic

conditions, and student achievement (Hoy, Tarter, & Kotthamp, 1991). Depending on the

environment, schools can either open or close the doors that lead to academic performance

(Barry, 2005). Crosnoe et al. (2004) suggest that the school sector (public or private) and class

size are two important structural components of the school. Private schools tend to have both

better funding and smaller sizes than public schools. The additional funding for private schools

leads to better academic performance and more access to resources such as computers, which

have been shown to enhance academic achievement (Eamon, 2005). The skill level of teachers is

another indicator of student academic performance. Students who attend schools with a higher

number of full-credentialed teachers perform better (Bali & Alverez, 2003). The school climate

is closely linked to the interpersonal relations between students and teachers. According to
Crosnoe et al. (2004), school climate is the general atmosphere of a school. Trust between

students and teachers increases if the school encourages teamwork. Research shows that students

who trust their teachers are more motivated and, as a result, perform better in school (Eamon,

2005). School policies and programs often dictate the school climate. To add to that, if a school

is able to accomplish a feeling of safety, students can have success despite their family or

neighborhood backgrounds (Crosnoe et al., 2004).

Peer pressure refers to the influence exerted by a peer group in encouraging a person to change

his or her attitudes and values in order to conform to group norms (Kirk, 2000). While most

educators believe that peer pressure has an influence on children’s academic performance, Kirk

(2000) observes that few studies have been done to prove this belief. Peer groups are an

important socialization agent. According to Castrogiovanni (2002), a peer group is defined as a

small group of similarly aged, fairly close friends sharing the same activities. Adolescents ask

questions relating to social identity theory such as, “Who am I?” and “What do I want out of

life?” Feeling part of a group, be it the stereotypical jocks or punks, allows adolescents to feel

like they are on the way to answering some of these questions. Given that adolescents spend

twice as much time with peers as with parents or other adults, it is important to study the

influence or pressure that peers place on each other.

Peer pressure is defined as when people your own age encourage or urge you to do something or

to keep from doing something else, no matter if you personally want to do it or not (Ryan, 2000).

The more subtle form of peer pressure is known as peer influence, and it involves changing one’s

behavior to meet the perceived expectations of others (Burns & Darling, 2002). In general, most

teens conform to peer pressure about fairly insignificant things like music, clothing, or hairstyles.

When it comes to more important issues like moral values, parents still remain more influential
than the peer group (Black, 2002). Participating in peer group activities is a primary stage of

development, and adolescents’ identities are often closely associated with those of their peers

(Santor et al., 2000). A number of students see some of their peers as role models.

Peer relationships, particularly peer victimization, are an important dimension of school climate.

The quality of peer relationships helps shape students' experiences of school. Developing

friendships is a developmentally important part of childhood and adolescence. Peer

victimization, including bullying, subverts this basic human need for connection and can

contribute to dropout and related problems. Children who are frequently victimized by their

peers are significantly more likely to suffer from depression and emotional problems, including

suicidal ideation, than those who are not victimized (Forero, McLellan, Rissel, & Bauman, 1999;

Fekkes, Pijpers, Fredriks, Vogels, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2006; Holt et al., 2015). Lack of

social skills and not having good friends are associated with school victimization and lower rates

of school completion (Fox & Boulton, 2006).

Teachers, parents, and peers all provide adolescents with suggestions and feedback about what

they should think and how they should behave in social situations. These models can be a source

of motivation or a lack thereof. Modeling refers to individual changes in cognition, behavior, or

effects that result from the observation of others (Ryan, 2000). Observing others perform a

particular behavior or voice a certain opinion can introduce an individual to new behaviors and

viewpoints that may be different from his or her own. Observation also enlightens an individual

on the consequences of such behavior and opinions. Depending on these consequences, the

observation of a model can strengthen or weaken the likelihood that the observer will engage in

such behavior or adopt such beliefs in the future. The current literature reviewed focuses on both
the positive and negative influences on students’ academic performance. Lockwood and Kunda

(2002) classify role models into two categories: positive role models and negative role models. A

positive role model, they say, refers to individuals who have achieved outstanding success and

are widely expected to inspire others to pursue similar excellence. A negative role model, on the

other hand, refers to individuals who have experienced misfortunes and are widely expected to

motivate people to take the steps necessary to avoid similar unpleasant outcomes. Positive role

models can inspire one by illustrating an ideal, desired self-highlighting possible achievement

that one can strive for and the root for achieving it. A negative role model can inspire one by

illustrating disasters and highlighting mistakes that must be avoided so as to prevent them.

Because peer groups are a key part of the development process, they can have a negative effect

on young people due to peer pressure, which is the pressure from others in certain activities, and

peer conformity, which is the degree to which an individual adopts actions that are sanctioned by

their peer group. Risk-taking behaviors such as substance abuse and sexual activities have been

shown to increase the likelihood of affecting school performance in a negative way (Santor et al.,

2000). Teenagers learn about what is acceptable in their social group by “reading” their friends’

reactions to how they act, what they wear, and what they say. The peer group gives this potent

feedback through their words and actions, which either encourages or discourages certain

behaviors and attitudes. Anxiety can arise when teens try to predict how peers will react, and this

anxiety plays a large role in peer influence. In fact, Burns and Darling (2002) state that self-

conscious worrying about how others will react to future actions is the most common way

adolescents are influenced by their peers. When a teen takes an unpopular stand and goes against

the expectations or norms of the peer group, he or she is at risk of being ridiculed. Ridicule is not
an easy thing to accept at any age, let alone when you are twelve or thirteen years old. This leads

to the topic of peer pressure.

According to Howard (2004), adolescents have always been exposed to peer influence, but the

kinds of peer influence that they encounter have changed tremendously in the past few years.

Peers can influence everything from what an adolescent chooses to wear to whether or not an

adolescent engages in drug-related or other delinquent behavior. This is an important topic

because if society and education-related professionals understand the issues surrounding negative

peer influence, they are more likely to prevent it and be more adequately prepared to help a

teenager facing negative aspects of peer pressure.

According to Lashbrook (2000), adolescents are well aware that they influence each other. Peer

influence can provide many positive elements in an adolescent’s life. It is important, however, to

remember that peer influence can potentially have a deadly impact or other various negative

effects. It is vital for education and other related professionals to understand the complex aspects

of peer influence in order to stop these negative effects before they occur. It is assumed that peer

influence can have both positive and negative effects on an adolescent’s academic performance

and socialization. It is also assumed that peer groups may not allow an adolescent to be

“themselves” in the truest sense of the word. Adolescents sometimes need to put on an act in

order to gain acceptance from the specific group with which they would like to be associated.

Furthermore, it is assumed that peers, as well as parents, siblings, and teachers, all play a large

role in how adolescents' lives function in everyday life.

Ryan (2000) has found that peer groups are influential regarding changes in students’ intrinsic

value for school (that is, liking and enjoying) as well as achievement (that is, report card grades).
The peer group is not, however, influential regarding changes in students’ utility value for school

(that is, importance and usefulness). It was found that associating with friends who have a

positive affect toward school enhanced students’ own satisfaction with school, whereas

associating with friends who have a negative affect toward school decreased it (Ryan, 2000).

Thomas and Landau (2002) state that an adolescent’s expectancy of success is the primary

predictor of academic effort and grades. A sense of belonging and the support of a peer group

were also significantly associated with these outcomes. Peer influence on athletics, dating, and

sexual behavior, as well as alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, have been shown to be important to

friendship choice in adolescence. For some adolescents, other interests may compete with or take

charge over similar academic motivation and engagement as criteria for selecting a peer group.

This could put an adolescent’s motivation and engagement in school in a precarious position

(Ryan, 2000). Through selection, some adolescents may place themselves in peer group

situations that support or foster their achievement-related beliefs and behaviors. Others may

place themselves in contexts that weaken achievement-related beliefs and behaviors.

School bullying is a widespread phenomenon that can lead to many negative consequences

(Pozzoli & Gini, 2010), such as mental health problems, anxiety, depression, and a high risk of

self-harm and suicide (Klomek et al., 2011; Bannink et al., 2014; Lereya et al., 2015). Many

studies have focused on the factors that contribute to a decrease or increase in adolescents’

bullying perpetration (Konishi et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017c). Adolescents' perceived school

climate and moral disengagement have been identified as two important factors that impact

adolescents’ bullying perpetration (Espelage et al., 2014; Fernández-Antelo and Cuadrado-

Gordillo, 2019), yet little is known about whether moral disengagement can mediate the

relationship between adolescents' perceived school climate and their bullying perpetration.
School climate, as a relatively stable property of the school, refers to the character and quality of

the school culture (Espelage et al., 2014; Li et al., 2016). Recently, educators and scholars have

increasingly recognized the importance of a positive school climate for promoting positive

development, such as prosocial behavior and academic adjustment (Jia et al., 2009; Luengo

Kanacri et al., 2017), and preventing negative development, such as bullying perpetration and

cyber victimization (Holfeld and Leadbeater, 2017; Låftman et al., 2017). However, students can

select and modify their own microcontext. As a result, even in the same school, adolescents may

have different school experiences and different perceptions of the school climate. Thus, the role

of adolescents’ perceived school climate has received large attention among the many factors

influencing their bullying perpetration. Positive outcomes for adolescents are most likely to be

achieved when school environments meet their developmental needs, according to the stage-

environment fit theory (Gutman & Eccles, 2007). However, when adolescents perceive a

negative school climate, they are more likely to bully others (Espelage and Low et al., 2014).

Taken together, peer relationships and school climate serve as two critically important social-

ecological domains of influence on adolescent development. Moreover, peer relationships that

occur in school and school factors beyond demographic school-level characteristics (such as

school climate-related variables) offer potentially modifiable targets for school-based

interventions. As such, the primary aim of the current study was to simultaneously estimate the

associations between both school-based peer relationships and school climate.

Peer Pressure and Dropout Intentions

Adolescence comes from the Latin word ‘adolescere’ that means to grow or to grow to maturity.

Adolescence is a dynamically evolving theoretical construct informed by physiologic,

psychosocial, temporal, and cultural lenses. This critical developmental period is conventionally
understood as the years between the onset of puberty and the establishment of social

independence (Steinberg, 2014). Adolescence is a complex, multi-system transitional process

involving progression from the immaturity and social dependency of childhood into adult life

with the goal and expectation of fulfilled developmental potential, personal agency, and social

accountability (Greenfield, Keller, Fuligni, and Maynard, 2003). An adolescent is a person who

is developing from a child into an adult. Adolescence is between the ages of 13 and 18 (Sally,

2010). During the period of adolescence, teenagers form a personal identity, test, and develop

interpersonal and occupational roles that they will later assume as adults. It is therefore

imperative for parents to treat adolescents with special regard. According to Meakin (2013), a

teenager who thinks poorly of himself, is not confident, hangs around with gangs, lacks positive

values, follows the crowd, is not doing well in studies, loses interest in school, has a small

number of friends, lacks home supervision, or is not close to significant adults like parents is

vulnerable to peer pressure.

At the same time, adolescence marks a developmental period in which peer relationships grow

in salience and become increasingly complex socializing influences (Nelson et al., 2005).

Adolescents move from the dyadic friendships that tend to characterize childhood into larger

social networks, often with a heightened emphasis on social position and popularity (Bowker &

Ramsay, 2016). Understanding the nature and extent to which peer relationships relate to mental

health could offer insight into the design of school-based interventions. To this end, peer

relationship quality is known to be associated with mental health, such that supportive

friendships are related to positive mental health (Roach, 2018), while peer conflict and

victimization by peers are associated with a heightened risk of mental health problems (Patalay

& Fitzsimons, 2016). However, the extent to which an adolescent’s popularity with their peers or
their friendship network size is related to mental health is currently unknown. Given the

changing dynamics of peer relationships during adolescence and the increased importance of

social status during this time (Bowker & Ramsay, 2016), research that includes measures of

popularity and friendship quantity would offer new insight into the social context of adolescent

mental health.

At such a young age, teenagers will be looking for a direction to answer all the questions and

problems in their lives. Hence, peers who are almost the same age and always with teenagers are

identified as the main source for their reference most of the time. For teenagers, they will learn

new behaviors and try to adapt to their personalities by emulating their peers. However, peers’s

negative influences will affect the teenager’s well-being, including their academic performances

in school (Supovitz et al. 2009). Negative influences from peers’ groups or peer pressure,

especially among school students, can lead them to neglect their studies and face disciplinary

problems. The peer’s influence is a dominant factor in a student’s life until the students consider

the school rules inconvenient and unnecessary to follow and a trivial matter (Olalekan 2016).

This will cause disciplinary problems such as skipping school, threatening schoolchildren,

making noise, interrupting lessons, damaging school properties, skipping classes, using abusive

language, and so on. Furthermore, the extreme level of negative influences from peers’s factors

is involving teenagers in the school dropout issue. School dropout is a major concern subject that

is much more exposed to unemployment issues, poverty, and delinquency (Kremer & Levy,

2008). Moreover, the peer’s pressure factor also affects the teenagers, especially school dropouts,

to be involved in other social delinquency such as robberies, drug abuse, watching porn videos,

public fights, physical assaults, consuming alcohol drinks, and illegal racing. racing, gambling,
vandalism, stealing, hanging out, fighting with parents, and so on (Black, 2012; Adeola, 2013;

Ademorokun, 2013).

Peers Peersis influence is identified as a potential determinant of students’s perceptions and

choices, as argued by Card and Giuliano (2013) and Bagwell & Schmidt (2011). Regarding

peers’s influences, it is concerned with the social learning theory introduced by Bandura and

Walters (1977), which explains how an individual experiences learning in a real social

environment. They hypothesized that changes in a person’s behavior in social events, including

peer’s factors, influence perceptions and such individuals’s actions through mutually influential

relationships with the social environment. Changes in a person’s behavior as a result of their

social environment can have effects on the individual's personality and social behavior.

Different social stances are also able to influence an individual’s self-concept. Related to social

learning theoretical justification, for Bandura and Walters (1977), the learning process will

happen through imitation and observation. They stated that in order to learn through observation,

an individual must concentrate, and usually the person being observed is an interesting person,

well-known, competent, or admired. Usually, in this case, it will be associated with peers when

they share the same age range, background, and interests. Thus, peers are playing a significant

role in shaping one’s personality and ethics. Additionally, peers are the most dominant factor in

shaping young people’s minds, especially among students, through their strong influence as

social agents in their lives to share the same values and behaviors, regardless of their education

level or social class, and to do social activities together (Babawale, 2015; Coleman, 2014).

Indirectly, peers take over a student's parental responsibilities while away from home. However,

for Bankole and Ogunsakin (2015), peer influence in a student’s life can impact them either
positively or negatively in terms of significant changes to their behavior, personality, physical,

emotional, and mental changes, including skills and abilities.

However, though peers are important, if not handled rationally during choosing the right peers,

their pressure effects can influence changes or deviant behavior in the way a person reacts or

thinks until they lead them in a negative direction, which can be detrimental (Seel 2009;

Ogunsola et al. 2014). In this scenario, the peers can take advantage, and their negative

influences have the potential to change other students’s minds and get them involved in

disciplinary problems such as skipping school, aggressive or anti-social behaviors, misconduct,

extortion, fighting, and bullying with peers in the school environment (Issakainen 2014). The

peer’s negative influences also refer to the student's involvement as young offenders in juvenile

cases such as robbery, snatching, and joining social illegal gangs, which can threaten their

lifestyles and cause teenagers to fall into social traps and question their future as well (La Greca

& Harrison, 2005). Additionally, not choosing the right peers among students can also cause

them to be left behind in classroom activities and the learning process in school, which has the

potential to lead them towards academic’ failure, as argued by Landau (2012). Thus, peers’s

negative impacts among teenagers can also cause them to behave contrary to societal norms,

which can lead them to engage in social issues or other crimes where students will experience

school dropout issues (Robert et al., 2012).

Although a myriad of factors, such as economic expense and school quality, among others, affect

one's decision to drop out, studies point to the impact of neighborhoods and peers as the leading

influences in the decision to drop out. According to Zimmerman (2003), people have a strong

desire to evaluate their own opinions and values against others' opinions and values. When such

comparisons take place, there is a strong tendency toward uniformity. More specifically, a child's
decision to drop out of school may be influenced by a desire to conform to others in the reference

group due to peer pressure or social norms (Akerlof, 1997; Bernheim, 1994; Akerlof and

Kranton, 2002; Glaeser and Scheinkman, 2003).

Understanding the size and nature of peer effects on dropout rates has significant implications for

economists and policymakers for a variety of reasons. First, it is critical that we better understand

the relative importance of peer effects versus other factors such as teacher quality in order to

design an effective policy to deter dropout. Second, the presence of the peer effect, if established,

implies that a multiplier effect exists, and policies targeting school dropout rates can have a

much greater influence, making human capital investments more efficient. On the other hand, an

exogenous change in socioeconomic conditions that causes dropout may have greater adverse

effects than implied by the direct estimates. The peer effect, if it indeed exists, will open the door

to “social multipliers” that aggravate dropout, and policymakers need to seriously postulate the

virtue of the program. Third, social interactions implied by peer effects may generate important

strategic complementarities in student learning and teachers' effort, which may attract students

(Kremer, Miguel, & Thornton, 2009). Thus, neighborhood-level social interactions could play an

important role in an individual's dropout decision process (Scheinkman, 2003).

Despite what Johnson (2012) stressed, the school and family institutions, together with other

social agents, should take responsibility for organizing self-development programs among

students to enhance their lives and social skills in order to protect themselves from peer

pressures, even from their heretical teachings. Thus, holistic approaches through comprehensive

counseling programs should be conducted among students, which can lead them towards self-

discipline, self-esteem, confidence, progress well in academics, and participation in productive

activities, as urged by Erath et al. (2007). Additionally, Jeremy and Derek (2008) emphasized the
vital role of school management, family, and community partners in shaping adolescents’s

mental and emotional well-being in identifying good and bad values and as a guideline in

choosing their peers. Hence, building healthy relationships for joint activities with peers is

important to prevent dropout behaviors among students due to peers’s pressures, as demonstrated

by Mosha (2017). Various school dropout factors have been shown in previous research, but this

study has therefore tried to fill the gap in information by establishing the peer’s pressure factor

and its effects on students’s dropout behavior and young offenders, which have not yet been

explored in detail in the research literature. Therefore, this study highlighted peers’s significant

role either in the school or residential environment and its negative impacts among students,

which can potentially influence them to leave their studies behind, subsequently leading them to

drop out of the school education system.

Classroom climate and Dropout Intentions

School climate is a multidimensional construct that denotes the character and quality of school

life. Dimensions of school climate include the sense of physical and emotional safety, the quality

of teaching and learning, the quality of relationships in the school, and structural characteristics

of the school (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009). A positive school climate refers to

an environment that nurtures the best qualities of individuals and promotes academic

achievement (Orpinas & Horne, 2006). Scholars have stressed that a positive school environment

equates to planting in rich soil. If one plants a seed in fertile soil, it will germinate; if the same

seed is planted in rocks, it may die (Bosworth, Orpinas, & Hein, 2009; Jones, 2000). A positive

school climate is associated with less bullying and higher commitment to school (Bosworth &

Judkins, 2014; Mehta, Cornell, Fan & Gregory, 2013), reduced extreme and delinquent

behaviors (Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne & Gottfredson, 2005; Patton et al., 2006), better
academic outcomes (Battistich, Schaps, & Wilson, 2004), psychological wellbeing (Shochet,

Dadds, Ham & Montague, 2006), and an overall increase in feeling connected to school

(Townsend & McWhirter, 2005).

Research on the effect of school climate on school dropout rates is limited. A meta-analysis of

165 studies identified one aspect of school climate, classroom or instructional management, as

associated with reduced dropout (Wilson, Gottfredson, & Najaka, 2001). In a retrospective study

of 97 students, those who dropped out of school rated the overall school climate as significantly

worse than students who graduated (Worrell & Hale, 2001). A prospective study of schools in

Virginia, United States of America, linked bullying victimization in ninth grade to later school

dropout (Cornell, Gregory, Huang, & Fan, 2013). A study in Quebec, Canada, showed that

dropout was associated with low or decreased engagement in school (Archambault, Janosz,

Morizot, & Pagani, 2009). Given that school climate is modifiable, improving school climate can

be an important focus to prevent dropout, but more research is needed to understand which

aspects of school climate are linked to academic completion.

The decision to drop out of school is complex. At a macro level, dropping out of school may be

influenced by family poverty and other social inequalities (De Witte, Cabus, Thyssen, Groot &

van den Brink, 2013). Beyond socio-economic status, family conflict and a lack of parental

support for education can also influence a child's decision to abandon school (Blondal &

Adalbjarnardottir, 2009; Lessard et al., 2008). Educators, however, have little control over the

characteristics of the child's neighborhood and family. Conversely, school administrators,

teachers, counselors, and other school professionals can strongly influence the academic and

social environment of the school. Understanding risk and resilience factors at the school level
can help educators develop programs and practices to mitigate school abandonment. Dropping

out of school has consequences that may last a lifetime. Adolescents who do not complete high

school will be more likely to be incarcerated, have difficulty finding steady jobs, use more social

services, and die at a younger age (Freudenberg & Ruglis, 2007; Hummer & Hernandez, 2013;

Rumberger, 2011).

The presence of caring adults was also associated with the perception of school safety (Gregory

et al., 2010) and with an overall better school climate and a stronger sense of belonging

(LaRusso, Romer & Selman, 2008). However, Canadian researchers found no association

between the student-tteacher relationship and school dropout rates (Lessard, Poirier & Fortin,

2010).

As children and adolescents spend a large part of their lives at school, the school environment

can have a strong influence on their behavior. Researchers have concluded that a positive school

climate leads to less student aggression, stronger feelings of psychological wellbeing, and better

academic outcomes (Battistich et al., 2004; Mehta et al., 2013). However, few studies have

examined linkages among multiple dimensions of school climate and high school dropout, which

could be identified as a strong measure of school failure.

Many studies report that schools in urban areas have exceptionally high dropout rates, perhaps

because of higher rates of poverty and other risk factors (Balfanz & Legters, 2004; Swanson,

2009). The causal relations among these factors are complex, but the overall effect is that some

student populations face social and economic disadvantages that make high school completion

more difficult, and consequently, schools with higher proportions of students with these

demographic characteristics have higher dropout rates (Balfanz & Legters, 2004; Rumberger,
2011; Freeman & Simonsen, 2015). Although student demographics are static factors that

schools cannot change, much research has focused on characteristics of the school climate that

might ameliorate demographic risk and increase student motivation and engagement in school

(Legters & Balfanz, 2010; Rumberger, 2011; Freeman & Simonsen, 2015).

Across a number of theories (such as, social learning, social control, general strain, social

disorganization, and life course), schools are avenues for learning, bonding, strain, access to

educational and economic opportunities, and a potential turning point that can influence

adolescents’ risk for adult criminality (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Kozol, 1991). Schools are

primary agents of socialization; after one’s own family, the school is often the first place a child

learns society’s norms, values, and culture and comes to understand his or her roles and

responsibilities in society (Roeser, Eccles & Sameroff, 2000; Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Wang &

Dishion, 2012).

School climate, which can be understood as a sum of the experiences, norms, values,

relationships, practices, and structures of a school, is a manipulatable school-level factor that

shapes school experiences for students and teachers alike (Cohen & Geier, 2010; National

School Climate Council, 2007). Recent research has demonstrated that a positive school climate

helps to address problems of violence, victimization, aggressive behavior, and bullying

(Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne & Gottfredson, 2005; LeBlanc, Swisher, Vitaro & Tremblay,

2008; Lo et al., 2011; Payne, 2008; Payne, Gottfredson, & Gottfredson, 2003; Roques &

Paternoster, 2011; Tillyer, Wilcox, & Gialopsos, 2010; Wang & Dishion, 2012). Relevant to the

issue of school dropout, a positive school climate has also been associated with academic

achievement and increased graduation rates (Devine & Cohen, 2007; Cohen & Geier, 2010).
Few studies, however, have examined multiple domains of school climate in relation to school

dropout. In a study of Canadian high school students, Archambault, Janosz, Morizot, and Pagani

(2009) found that students who reported low engagement in school or decreases in investment in

school over time were significantly at risk of dropping out. Using earlier waves of the National

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data, DeLuca and Rosenbaum (2001) examined the

effects of three specific elements of school climate (that is, peer threats, social isolation, and

teacher disparagement) on dropout. Their findings suggest that students who reported being

derogated by their teachers were likely to drop out of school. It is also clear that misbehavior,

disorder, and violence, including at school, can derail developmental and educational progress

for adolescents (Finkelhor, 2008; Staff & Kreager, 2008; Gottfredson & DiPietro, 2011; Peguero

& Bondy, 2011).

Some research has shown that school context and its perception can influence students’

engagement. Many studies suggest that teachers who support differentiated instruction and who

develop warm relationships with their students or are perceived as being supportive promote

students’ competence, beliefs, and engagement (Archambault et al., 2015; Chouinard, Janosz,

Bouthillier, and Cartier, 2005; Cornell, Shukla, and Konold, 2016; Furrer and Skinner, 2003;

Martin, 2005). Attending a school that favors a sense of belonging by using multiculturally

aware teaching, organizing class outings, or encouraging pupils to work in groups also increases

students’ engagement (Conchas, 2001). By contrast, the feeling of being treated in an unjust

manner appears to be associated with lower levels of engagement (Berti, Molinari, and Speltini,

2010). All these variables fall within the conceptualization of school climate. Thus, school

climate and its different dimensions could influence students and their school trajectories.
It is important to recognize that multiple stakeholders (that is, teachers, school staff, students,

and parents) contribute to the school climate and thus have different perspectives on it. Student

perceptions are increasingly of interest as they may be more directly related to student behavior

and provide a potential target for interventions (Van Horn, 2003; Koth, Bradshaw & Leaf, 2008).

Although most of this research examines correlations and does not provide rigorous evidence of

a causal relationship between climate and other outcomes, the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (2009) and the Institute of Education Sciences (Dynarski et al., 2008) have identified

school climate improvement as an evidence-based strategy that can reduce dropout rates and

promote students’ feelings of connectedness to school (Thapa et al., 2013).