Introduction

We analyze the subjective assessments of students regarding their feelings and experiences during a pandemic. Researchers now often ignore these topics, focusing on the analysis of objective losses in the quality of learning due to digital inequality, that probably will exacerbate the situation of educational inequality which is already the main focus of researchers and experts around the world (Engzell et al., 2020). At the same time, psycho-emotional problems associated with the closure of schools may become a more important consequence of the pandemic for students (Ghosh et al., 2020).  The assessment of subjective well-being (SWB) has been on the agenda of large-scale international monitoring for some time (OECD, 2017). Maintaining a high level of subjective well-being is 3 of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2020), which becomes especially relevant during the period of global pandemics such as COVID-19.

Well-being is considered from different perspectives depending on the context. We can unequivocally say that this is a complex concept that is not measured by one separate indicator (Borgonovi & Pál, 2016). Well-being research in relation to education systems traditionally consider all participants in the educational process: children (Yu et al., 2018), parents (Buehler, 2006), teachers (Mccallum et al., 2017) or all at once (Casas et al., 2012). In the OECD framework, this concept includes 11 indicators, such as sense of security, social connections, etc (OECD, 2017). In our work we concentrate only on subjective well-being, ignoring other dimensions related to health or anything else. Our work is based on the definition «…various evaluations, positive and negative, that people make of their lives» (Diener, 2006).

There are not many studies of the dynamics of subjective well-being depending on certain factors, especially when it comes to children specifically. We, however, will try to put together a short picture. There is a fairly large body of research that investigates the dynamics of SWB in the process of growing up; they are all generalized by the fact that for most developed countries the SWB dynamics have a U-shape with a minimum at the age of 40-50 years (Steptoe et al., 2015). At the same time, the just published Chinese study shows that the objective and subjective SES of adults is associated with changes in SWB in at least 4 years. (Zhao et al., 2021).

We will try to analyze if there are any contextual factors (school, individual) associated with the different dynamics of SWB among students in Russian schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. Obviously, in the long term, the social policy of the state is important - children are happier if they live in good conditions, safe communities, safe schools, etc. (Bradshaw, 2015). We are more interested in whether any factors could play "here and now", and not in the long run.

The data for analysis were obtained in the framework of a joint study by the Institute of Education of the National Research University Higher School of Economics and The World Education Research Association (WERA). The aim of the study was to identify and compare the level of subjective well-being of Russian schoolchildren before the closure of schools in spring and now – in December. Data collection for the project took place in November-December 2020. Retrospective questions about student well-being were used to assess the situation prior to the first school closures in spring 2020. The final sample of the current study consisted of 20152 students from 8 to 19 years old (grades 4-11) from 6 regions of the Russian Federation: Moscow, Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Tyumen, Tomsk regions and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). The survey among students included questions about the main socio-demographic and economic characteristics (age, gender, parental education, home possessions), subjective well-being before school closures and at the moment (identical set of questions for the period "before" and "after"), as well as ways of interacting with the school during the absence of full-time education. In addition to the results of the student survey, variables at the school level were added to the final database for 7355 students: the share of teachers with the highest qualification category; the number of computers with the Internet per student; the proportion of students in the school whose parents have higher education; type of settlement (city or countryside). To assess the subjective well-being of schoolchildren, the study used a tool developed by WERA (mostly Noam et al., 2012, but there are some new items). According to the theoretical framework of the tool, the subjective well-being of the student consists of several components, among which this work included: orientation to physical activity, optimism, stress level. To compare the level of subjective well-being of the same students in the studied regions before and after school closure, a pairwise comparison of indicators was carried out using a t-test for paired samples. In the next step, individual and school factors related to wellbeing of students before and after school closure, as well as its changes during the period under consideration, were assessed using multilevel regression modeling.

When looking for factors of students’ subjective well-being, it was found that school characteristics do not play a key role. Belonging to a particular school as a whole explains the level of subjective well-being by only 11-12%, both before and after closing. None of the school characteristics (school resources, student population, type of locality) are significant for the subjective well-being of students when individual and regional factors are added to the model. Among the individual characteristics of students, significant factors both before and after school closure were gender and age, parental education, and household items in the family (for example, a car, TV, computer, air conditioner, etc.). Girls demonstrate a lower level of subjective well-being compared to with boys, as well as older students compared to younger ones, which is in line with recent large studies on the subjective well-being of schoolchildren (Lampropoulou, 2018). The belonging of the student to the exact region is also important: in one region, the situation with the well-being of schoolchildren turned out to be more favorable compared to other regions both before the closure of schools and in the winter of 2020. Assessment of changes in student well-being since school closures show that subjective well-being has changed to a lesser extent (in most cases decreased) for students with more resources at home. Interaction with the school in the absence of full-time education also turned out to be important: students who received information from the school by e-mail or through online platforms showed a more stable level of subjective well-being during the period studied. At the same time, the older the schoolchildren, the stronger the changes in the assessments of well-being, for better or worse.

Borgonovi, F., & Pál, J. (2016). A Framework for the Analysis of Student Well-Being in the PISA 2015 Study. 140. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlpszwghvvb-en Bradshaw, J. (2015). Subjective Well-Being and Social Policy: Can Nations Make Their Children Happier? Child Indicators Research, 8(1), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-014-9283-1 Buehler, C. (2006). Parents and Peers in Relation to Early Adolescent Problem Behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1), 109–124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00237.x Casas, F., Coenders, G., González, M., Malo, S., Bertran, I., & Figuer, C. (2012). Testing the relationship between parents’ and their children’s subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(6), 1031–1051. Diener, E. (2006). Guidelines for National Indicators of Subjective Well-Being and Ill-Being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1(2), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-006-9007-x Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2020, October 29). Learning Inequality During the Covid-19 Pandemic. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ve4z7 Ghosh, R., Dubey, M. J., Chatterjee, S., & Dubey, S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on children: Special focus on the psychosocial aspect. In Minerva Pediatrica (Vol. 72, Issue 3, pp. 226–235). Edizioni Minerva Medica. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4946.20.05887-9 Lampropoulou, A. (2018). Personality, school, and family: What is their role in adolescents’ subjective well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 67, 12–21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.05.013 Mccallum, F., Price, D., Graham, A., & Morrison, A. (2017). Teacher Wellbeing: A review of the literature. Noam, G. G., Malti, T., & Guhn, M. (2012). From clinical-developmental theory to assessment: The Holistic Student Assessment tool. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6(2), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.4119/UNIBI/ijcv.276 OECD. (2017). How’s Life? Measuring Well-being. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/how_life-2017-en Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. The Lancet, 385(9968), 640–648. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0 United Nations. (2020). Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/health/ Yu, L., Shek, D. T. L., & Zhu, X. (2018). The Influence of Personal Well-Being on Learning Achievement in University Students Over Time: Mediating or Moderating Effects of Internal and External University Engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2287. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02287 Zhao, S., Du, H., Li, Q., Wu, Q., & Chi, P. (2021). Growth mindset of socioeconomic status boosts subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110301. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110301