This review focuses on children from birth up to the end of elementary school (12 years old), without any diagnosed health conditions. There are two main categories of educational establishments associated with this age range: ECEC settings (ages 0–6) and primary schools (ages 6–12).

Our phenomena of interest are educational determinants and child health. Education can be defined either as a context or a process. It is associated with institutions which provide explicit and deliberate learning and activities which are aimed to develop social, physical, emotional or cognitive development. Education is also present in parent-child interactions, but we chose not to include these aspects since this review is part of a broader project which includes a review focusing specifically on parenting determinants. We adopted the definition of health proffered by the World Health Organization (WHO): “a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” [17].

We chose to focus on structural educational determinants, rather than individual and biological determinants. By structural determinant, we mean the various systems that generate health inequities. Structural determinants are defined as “those that generate stratification and social class divisions in the society and that define individual socioeconomic position within hierarchies of power, prestige and access to resources.” [8] They include processes of governance, economic and social policies, cultural context and social structures that affect income, working conditions, housing, and education [18].

We included all articles using a review method. As systematic methods are not used in all academic disciplines, we chose to also include all studies described as reviews by the authors or by the electronic databases.

Our research has been thought in the pragmatic paradigm. This paradigm aims at utilizing the best methods to investigate real‐world problems and to provide an action‐oriented framework for research [19, 20]. This review is the first part of a scientific program which support decision-making by making an analytical approach to public policy on children’s health easier. Thus, our main research question is: what are the determinants providing good health in education facilities and structures?

In primary school, when pupils feel they receive a higher level of support from their teachers, and when pupil-teacher relations are perceived as being strong, there is a notable increase in wellbeing, self-esteem, a sense of effectiveness, general life satisfaction, positive emotions, executive functions and self-regulation in children [37, 38].

The majority of interventions seeking to improve teacher-pupil interactions by means of educational resources, emotional support resources, specific organizational arrangements in the classroom yielded positive, but modest returns [22, 38]. Organizational support appears to be the most promising component [38]. Furthermore, teachers’ emotional skills and their efforts to manage emotions have received little attention [37]. Teachers perform numerous actions which can be regarded as forms of “care,” and spent large amounts of time with pupils outside of activities strictly related to cognitive learning, particularly in pre-school facilities [37]. Teachers’ capacities for their own emotional management have a positive impact on their sense of self-efficacy and their capacity to recognize children’s emotions, which in turn influences the emotional capabilities of the children.

With regard to relationships among peers (pupil-pupil interactions), positive relations in this sphere are a protective factor against internalizing and externalizing problems, self-harm and suicide, and are conducive to positive emotions, improving feelings of happiness, self-efficacy, optimism and wellbeing. As with pupil-teacher relations, interventions intended to strengthen relations among peers are beneficial when they succeed in developing social skills. Compared with working individually, getting children to work in collaboration have a positive impact on certain forms of cognitive development such as visual discrimination, visual perception and problem-solving, although it does not appear to have any impact on other capacities such as spatial awareness or reading [39].

Regarding relationships among family and ECEC settings, participatory techniques, with activities suggested by parents, or even family activities involving parents and children, may further boost the sense of engagement for family. One review also highlights the reciprocal connections between the environment in ECEC settings and the home environment [40]. It has also been noted that differentiation between the play materials at hand in the home and nursery environments was positively correlated with greater autonomy and the capacity to express positive emotions [40]. Moreover, it has been shown that parents and families are of the utmost importance during the transition to primary school [41].

The spatial component of educational structures is sometimes described as a “third educator”. Moving away from its former “passive” definition, it is now considered a complex and dynamic reality.

In ECEC settings, the “homely” atmosphere which prevails in facilities for very young children—including the presence of cozy spaces, outdoor spaces, spaces for family interactions and a general attention to aesthetic details—may help to prevent the development of social and emotional problems in children [40]. In one study cited in the same review [40], three-year-old children declare their preference for “soft” colors and elements in cozy spaces, whereas five-year-old children express a preference for “smooth” spaces with lively colors and harder surfaces. A review has also noted the beneficial effects of reading areas, books and writing materials on voluntary learning through play, and the acquisition of cognitive skills [40].

With regard to the outdoor play areas, children of pre-school age are more inclined to engage in functional and dramatic play (more complex forms of play) outdoors than they are indoors [40]. Natural materials and outdoor play areas may boost physical activity and functional, dramatic, independent play, as well as the overall quality of social behaviors. The physical diversity of outdoor facilities helps children to develop motor skills such as balance and coordination. Play areas specifically designed to bring children into contact with the natural environment may encourage independent exploration, autonomous constructive play, dramatic play and scientific experimentation through play, i.e., observing nature [40]. Introducing natural materials to manufactured play areas encourages decision-making, problem-solving, engagement and self-regulation, particularly in open play structures which enable children to test their courage [40]. Mobile physical activity equipment and avoiding overcrowding in play areas allows children to be more physically active [42], to have more complex play interactions and to exhibit less aggressive behavior [40].

In terms of the impact of facility organization, in ECEC settings, striking a balance between the simplicity and complexity of facilities or games may be important when it comes to nurturing interaction and cooperation. For example, a dollhouse can be regarded as a complex toy whereas a push-along toy is simple. Painting walls different colors (complex characteristics) may also encourage cooperation [40]. The balance between opened and closed spaces is also important to modulate interactions and promote engagement with learning activities. While complexity is important to stimulate children, it is also important to clarify the spatial organization of play areas, particularly by creating thematic zones which reinforce the continuity of play for the children, encouraging exploration, interaction and cooperation. Providing healthy food and ready access to water and sanitation facilities in schools can improve the health-related behaviors of children, particularly in terms of reducing the incidence of illness resulting from poor hygiene [42–44].

In conclusion, the co-construction of play areas, where children and teachers collaborate in the design process, has been shown to be essential to better reflect the perceptions and representations of both parties. Indeed, co-construction appear to be a fundamental priority when designing complex systems which define the physical environment of educational facilities [40].

The educational careers of children between the ages of 0 and 12 often involve changing institutions, particularly if the employment circumstances of their parents change [11]. The consequences of social inequalities may be mitigated by the capacity of educational facilities to provide a counterpoint to “chaotic environments” by establishing routines, imposing regular sleep patterns (nap time) and improving self-regulation through activities tailored to children’s needs [11, 45]. The educational facilities and structures can also reinforce social inequalities [9]: gender and ethnic inequalities are specifically addressed in some reviews included in our scoping of the literature. First, we define how institutions influence gender inequalities, and second, we examine how they influence ethnic inequalities.

Gender inequalities have been explicitly reported in three reviews [39, 46, 47]. For example, discussion and cognitive development are greater for boys with low learning ability when they are in a collaborative task with a girl with high learning ability. Whereas for girls with low learning ability, collaborating with a boy with high learning ability shows no additional advantage over independent work, which may be linked to power imbalances in collaboration [39]. On the other hand, socio-emotional learning is found to have a greater beneficial effect on the mental health of girls than boys, and girl pupils are more sensitive to potential conflicts at the start of the year between students and teachers, and revealed more anxiety about these events [47]. They are also more at risk of developing mental health difficulties than boys, such difficulties being strongly linked to the pressure to achieve good grades at school [47]. Parental involvement in children’s school results, and fear for the future based on school results, have a strong negative influence on girls’ mental health [46]. However, there are still questions about the relationship between mental health and the pressure to get good grades, and about the role of other determinants in this relationship [47]. The fact that educational settings can reinforce gender inequalities is raised in a review that mentions that this element is often posited as a hypothesis but not always analyzed in depth [46].

Ethnic inequalities have been reported in one review [48]. In the United States, it has also been observed that African-Americans suffer from the highest rates of educational exclusion and that boys are at the greatest risk of exclusion [48]. The problem is that exclusion makes pupils miss out on teaching time, as well as relationships and interactions within the establishment, leading to disaffection, negative consequences on the school environment and long-term complications for the excluded pupils, compromising their chances of successfully completing their education and multiplying the risk of failure, dropping out, absenteeism, problematic social behaviors and even, in some cases, hastening their entanglement with the juvenile justice system [48].