Table 1 shows the correlations, mostly of low magnitude, between risk factors, protection factors and school performance and life satisfaction. In general, exposure to violence in the family was negatively associated with school performance (low correlation) and with life satisfaction (very low correlation). Exposure to extra-family violence correlated negatively with performance (low correlation). Burnout Syndrome in teachers (emotional exhaustion and professional achievement) was negatively associated with school performance (very low correlations). With the exception of the social skills assertiveness and affective approach, low correlations were found between all other social skills and perception of social support by peers, family, teachers and community with school performance. Satisfaction with life was positively associated with all social skills (low correlations) and types of social support (moderate correlations).

Table 1

Variables	M(SD)	School performance	Satisfaction with Life
Risk factors
Exposure to Violence
Family	0.46(0.49)	-0.37**	-0.15**
Extra-family	0.40(0.49)	-0.23**	-0.08
Burnout Syndrome
Emotional exhaustion	23.32(8.46)	-0.13**	-0.01
Professional Satisfaction	14.64(3.82)	-0.12**	-0.02
Depersonalization	8.79(4.49)	-0.01	-0.01
Protection factors
Social Abilities
Empathy	26.24(6.30)	0.21**	0.37**
Self-control	15.24(6.14)	0.20**	0.34**
Civility	18.40(4.07)	0.19**	0.35**
Assertiveness	19.82(4.77)	0.08	0.23**
Affective approach	11.33(4.59)	0.08	0.26**
Social resourcefulness	10.84(3.90)	0.13**	0.30**
Perception of Social Support
Peers	34.86(6.35)	0.23**	0.32**
Family	41.55(7.89)	0.34**	0.66**
Teachers	28.13(7.82)	0.28**	0.45**
Community	16.89(5.56)	0.31**	0.47**

Note: N.= 400.

Data from the regression analysis are presented in Table 2. The prediction model for school performance indicates that, in Block 1 (risk factors), exposure to family violence and Burnout Syndrome (emotional exhaustion and poor professional achievement) account for 17% and predicts school performance negatively. The entrance of Block 2 (protection factors) contributes with 12% of the percentage of variation of school performance. The perception of social support from family and community are the only positive predictors of school performance.

Table 2

	School performance		Satisfaction with life
Predictors	B(SE)	β	B(SE)	β
Block 1 - Risk factors
Exposure to Violence
Family	-0.86(0.13)	-0.32**†	-2.80(1.08)	-0.14**
Extra-family	-0.19(0.14)	-0.07	-0.12(1.09)	-0.07
Burnout Syndrome
Emotional Exhaustion	-0.02(0.01)	-0.13*†	-0.01(0.05)	-0.01
Professional Satisfaction	-0.03(0.01)	-0.10*†	-0.01(0.12)	-0.01
Depersonalization	-0.01(0.01)	-0.03	-0.01(0.10)	-0.01
F		16.11**		1.87
R 2		0.15		0.01
∆R 2		0.17		0.02
Block 2 - Protection Factors
Social skills
Empathy	0.01(0.01)	0.09	0.03(0.08)	0.02
Self-control	0.01(0.01)	0.03	0.16(0.06)	0.10*†
Civility	0.01(0.01)	0.02	0.20(0.11)	0.08
Assertiveness	0.01(0.01)	0.02	0.10(0.08)	0.05
Affective approach	0.01(0.01)	0.05	0.10(0.08)	0.05
Social development	0.01(0.01)	0.03	0.03(0.11)	0.01
Perception of Social Support
Friends	0.02(0.01)	0.07	0.05(0.06)	0.03
Family	0.02(0.01)	0.12**†	0.57(0.05)	0.47**†
Teachers	0.01(0.01)	0.08	0.09(0.05)	0.07
Community	0.03(0.01)	0.15**†	0.38(0.06)	0.22**†
F		10.87**		30.68**
R 2		0.27		0.52
∆R 2		0.12		0.52

Note. N = 400. B = non-standard regression coefficient; SE= Standard error of the non-standard regression coefficient; β = standard regression coefficient; R ² = determination coefficient adjusted; ∆R ² = change coefficient of determination with the input of blocks.

The prediction model for life satisfaction indicates that the entry of Block 1 (risk factors) is not a significant model, explaining only 2% of the outcome. With the entry of Block 2 (protective factors), the predictive power increases to 52% of the total variation in life satisfaction. The social skills of self-control and the perception of social support from family and community are positive predictors of satisfaction with life.

Generally, data show that exposure to violence in the family environment is the most valuable predictor of student performance. The perception of social support from the family and the community are the predictors with higher values on life satisfaction.

The aim of this study was to investigate the association of risk and protection factors with school performance and life satisfaction of elementary school students. The results of the correlation analyzes showed that students exposed to intra- and extra-family violence and whose teachers presented symptoms of burnout (emotional exhaustion and low professional achievement) had low school performance. These results corroborate with findings from other studies that found that both exposure to violence and teacher burnout syndrome lead to academic difficulties (Coohey et al., 2011; Devries et al., 2014; Diehl & Marin, 2016; Hammig & Jozkowski, 2013; Ho & Cheung, 2010; Pacheco et al., 2014).

In line with other studies (Caemmerer & Keith, 2015; Dias, Oliveira, Moreira, & Rocha, 2015; Fernandes et al., 2018; Marturano & Pizato, 2015), we found that students with more social skills and who perceived more social support from friends, family, teachers and the community showed better results in school performance. In fact, even though school performance is an assessment within the educational context, it is influenced by several relations between students, teachers and people present in other environments, such as family, community and by public policies (Dazzani et al., 2014). Thus, the study results highlight the importance of a dynamic and multifactorial understanding of school performance.

Also in relation to the evaluation in the school context, beyond academic questions, researchers have been interested in investigating other indicators of academic adjustment, such as students’ satisfaction with life (Coimbra & Fontaine, 2015). Understood as the cognitive dimension of well-being, satisfaction with life can evidence the way students face adversities in their daily lives in subjective, interpersonal, and affective terms (Long & Huebner, 2014). In this sense, the results of the present study are in line with other studies that indicated that exposure to family violence negatively influences life satisfaction (Silva & Dell’Aglio, 2016), while social skills and perceptions of social support increase their levels (França-Freitas et al., 2017; Sarriera et al., 2015), suggesting the amortizing and protective effect of the mentioned variables. In addition, according to the literature (Berger et al., 2011; Long & Huebner, 2014), the results showed that students with better school results had higher levels of satisfaction with life.

Regarding the results of the regression analyzes for school performance, exposure to violence in the family was the variable with greater weight in Block 1, indicating that the more experiences of violence in the family, the lower the students’ school performance. These findings are in line with previous studies that have shown that children and adolescents who experience intra-family violence tend to have lower school performance compared to those who have not been mistreated (Coohey et al., 2011; Devries et al., 2014; Hammig & Jozkowski, 2013). The experiences of violence in the family environment interfere in the concentration, motivation and engagement of students in school activities (Pacheco et al., 2014).

Compared with extra-family violence, domestic violence has more devastating effects on the socio-emotional and cognitive development of children and adolescents. The aggressions caused by family members tend to generate more suffering for the victims insofar as the family space is the one in which love, protection and security are sought socially (Mrug, Loosier, & Windle, 2008). In addition, research suggests that adolescents exposed to violence in the family are more vulnerable to violence in other contexts, such as bullying episodes in school and community (Ho & Cheung, 2010). Maltreatment in the family context can also lead to behavioral disorders and/or physical and psychological pathologies with effects in other phases of the life cycle (Hammig & Jozkowski, 2013; Pacheco et al., 2014).

The results indicated that the dimensions emotional exhaustion and poor professional achievement of teachers were negative predictors of students’ academic performance. These results are corroborated by the literature that identified that teachers’ Burnout Syndrome may compromise the way educators perform daily tasks, harming their professional competence, the teaching-learning process (Diehl & Marin, 2016; Koga et al., 2015) and the quality of the teacher-student relationship (Ackar et al., 2016). Thus, there are indications that the Burnout Syndrome can be a risk factor in the school context and that without the incidence of protective factors, it may compromise resilience processes that emerge through the quality of the relationship between teachers and good student performance (Juliano & Yunes, 2014).

The entry of Block 2 (protective factors) contributed to the explanation of school performance. According to other studies, the perception of family social support was positively associated with good school performance (Azmitia et al., 2009; Fernandes et al., 2018; Woolley et al., 2009). The affective bonds established with family members provide feelings of security, are associated with higher levels of well-being and lower rates of behavioral and emotional problems, and can help students cope with demands in the school context. (Azmitia et al., 2009; Fernandes et al., 2018; Woolley et al., 2009). The affective bonds established with family members provide feelings of security, are associated with higher levels of well-being and lower rates of behavioral and emotional problems, and can help students cope with demands in the school context (Alves & Dell´Aglio, 2015; Olsson et al., 2016).

The perception of social support from the community was also a positive predictor of school performance. Scientific evidence indicates that the perception of social support of friends by adolescents tends to increase with age (Squassoni & Matsukura, 2014). These data suggest that people present in contexts other than family and school can have a positive effect on students’ school performance. Positive interpersonal relationships established, for example, with community, neighborhood, and nongovernmental organizations may generate protective factors (Sterrett et al., 2011). It should be noted that such relationships may be protective contexts more often when interactions between students and family members and peer group are characterized by lack of affect and permeated by violence and discrimination (Sterrett et al., 2011). However, the perception of social support by the community is still under-explored and its association with school outcomes needs to be further investigated.

A second prediction model was tested for students’ satisfaction with life. The data indicated that the risk factors did not represent a significant group. On the other hand, the protective factors were the ones that explained the higher percentage of the satisfaction variance, and the perception of social support from the family and the community were the variables with greater weight. As mentioned previously, the perception of social support of the family is not only correlated with school success, but also contributes to higher levels of satisfaction with life (Chu et al., 2010; Sarriera et al., 2015).

Studies show higher levels of satisfaction with life in adolescents who live with family members who express affectivity, have good communication, and establish limits in a non-coercive way (Chu et al., 2010). One hypothesis for such associations would be that in such contexts, adolescents feel more comfortable to express themselves and to talk freely about their anguish and doubts. This way, family members can meet the specific needs of children, favoring closeness and feelings of happiness (Olsson et al., 2016).

In the study by Ruiz et al. (2012), the perception of social support from the community led to higher levels of satisfaction with life. This suggests that adolescents who find positive interactions with peers and other adults in the community/neighborhood where they live, feel more supported to face adverse situations (Fariña, Arce, & Novo, 2008) and more satisfied with their lives. In general, the results point to other contexts of socialization that may influence student well-being and should be the focus of preventive and protective interventions.

The social ability of self-control was a positive predictor of life satisfaction among students, which is in line with the literature (Ronen et al., 2016; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Self-control involves recognizing and expressing emotions and feelings, as well as calming down and tolerating frustrations. This social skill can help students cope with the demands and challenges that occur in the final years of elementary school, such as: greater number of disciplines; lower monitoring by teachers; conflicts with peers, pressure on the choice of affective relationships, and continuation of studies. Therefore, it can be assumed that students’ ability to monitor and control their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors when faced with interpersonal and academic demands can contribute to a more satisfactory perception of everyday experiences.

It is important to emphasize that social skills were not predictive of school performance, diverging from other studies (Caemmerer & Keith, 2015; Fernandes et al., 2018; Marturano & Pizato, 2015). One hypothesis is that the relationship between social skills and school performance is mediated by the perception of social support. Some studies have found that the presence of social skills contributes to the ability of adolescents to identify and seek social support (Shin, Choi, Kim, & Kim, 2010), as well as to present better school results (Roorda & Koomen, 2011). In any case, future studies should investigate the indirect influences between social skills and school performance.

In the set of results of the present study it was possible to identify individual (self-control) and contextual protection factors (perception of social support from family and community) that can reduce and/or prevent the effects of risk factors on school performance and life satisfaction of students. The findings also showed the contradictory interfaces of the protective and risk functions of family and school contexts for students’ lives (Juliano & Yunes, 2014). It is a fact that protection environments favor healthy development contexts and enable resilience processes, as they help adolescents to seek relational spaces to cope with difficult situations of intra-family violence.

The results of this study contributed to a better understanding of some elements of resilience and vulnerability processes that act in student’s daily contexts and exert influence on the dynamism of the student’s school, affective and interpersonal aspects. Studies on resilience have emphasized that the identification of risk and protection factors must transcend individual characteristics and invest in understanding the interrelationships between the person and the context to which he or she belongs. However, in general, educational institutions infer that the good overall adjustment of students is based on academic results, mainly through school averages, to the detriment of the evaluation and promotion of socio-emotional competences.

The limitations of the present study are: (1) data were collected from the school context, and it is important to extend the research to other systems, such as family and community; (2) the use of the cross-sectional design does not allow for the identification of changes in students’ behavior during the final years of Elementary School, which would be possible using longitudinal research; (3) the school mean was used as a non-standard measure, which allowed a contextualized evaluation of the educational reality of the selected schools, but limits the comparison with other places.

Taking into account the limitations, future studies could: (1) include information obtained from other sources, such as family members and teachers; (2) to investigate other predictors of school performance and life satisfaction, such as school environment, community involvement, social skills of parents and teachers, and perceptions of school stressors; (3) investigate other dimensions of resilience processes in different risk situations to identify the direct and indirect relationships of risk and protection elements on student adjustment indicators; (4) propose preventive interventions and promote positive development in the school environment with students, their families and teachers.