The Mitigating Effect of Learning Climate On Academic and Behavioral Outcomes for Poor Adolescents

Background and Purpose: Theories of risk and resilience suggest that risk factors increase the likelihood of poor outcomes for adolescents, but protective factors can moderate their adverse effects. According to this framework, academic failure and dropout result from an accumulation of risk factors. A school's learning climate can be conceptualized as a risk or protective factor, as research links safe, caring, responsive, and goal-oriented climates with academic achievement and positive behavior, whereas a negative learning climate could compound existing risk factors (Cohen & Geier, 2010). This study aims to understand how learning climate is related to student behavior and academic performance and interacts with poverty. Focusing on risk factors among poor adolescents, the study tests two hypotheses: 1) More positive perceptions of learning climate are associated with better behavior and grades, and 2) The effect of learning climate is stronger for poor students than their higher income peers. Methods: Students (N=485) from 7th to 10th grades in a school district in upstate New York completed the School Success Profile (SSP) survey, a reliable and valid measure of risk and protective factors, including learning climate, behavior, and grades. The response rate was 77%. Learning climate was a composite scale (1 to 4). Academic outcome was measured by a dichotomous variable indicating whether the student had any D's on the last report card. Problem behavior was measured by a composite scale (1 to 3). Participation in the free and reduced lunch program was used as an indicator for poverty and was included as a moderator. Gender and grade level were included as control variables. Logistic regression analysis examined the association between learning climate and academic performance. Linear regression analyses examined the association between learning climate and behavior. Results: Poor students were 2.9 times more likely to report receiving D's on report cards (CI, 1.9 - 4.3) and were more likely to report problem behavior (.317 p < .01) than other students. Positive perceptions of the school's learning climate were associated with fewer D's (AOR=.42 CI, .28 -.62) and fewer problem behaviors (-.115, p<.001) for all students. A statistically significant interaction was observed between learning climate and poverty for problem behavior (-.074, p <.05) but not for academic outcome. Poor students with negative perceptions of their learning climate were at a higher risk for problem behaviors than their peers, while poor students with positive perceptions were at a lower risk. Implications: The study affirms the importance of a positive learning climate for all students and demonstrates its particularly salient effect for poor students. While poverty is a risk factor for poor academic and behavior outcomes, a positive learning climate may mitigate the risk for these problems among low income students. The disproportionately strong effect of a negative learning climate for poor students warrants efforts from school personnel, administrators, researchers, and policy makers to better understand learning climate and its effects on students.