Leaving No Child Behind: The Relationship of Academic Achievement to HealthRisk Behaviors and Resili

1
Leaving No Child Behind The Relationship of
Academic Achievement to Health-Risk Behaviors and
Resilience
Greg AustinWestEd (gaustin_at_wested.org) August
2005 OSDFS Conference, Washington DC
2
How can we improve student test scores and turn
around low performing schools?

3
What are the effects of health risks and
resilience on annual standardized test scores in
California?
Download at www.wested.org/hks
4
CDE (via Stuart Foundation) commissioned
examination of two questions

• Are California students in low performing schools
  exposed to more health risks and fewer
  development supports (assets) than students in
  other schools? (Concurrent)
• How are student health risks and resilience
  assets related to the progress of California
  schools in raising test scores?(Longitudinal)

5
Data (1998-2002)

• California Healthy Kids Survey
• Annual CA SAT-9 Scores (1998-2002)
• Annual CA Academic Performance Index (API)
  (1999-2001)
• summary measure based on SAT-9

6
What is the CHKS?

• A comprehensive health risk/resilience survey,
• mandated by state of all school districts
  (biennial),
• to help schools and communities
• Efficiently and cost-effectively collect valid
  and useful local data on student needs.
• Promote understanding, using, and disseminating
  data to improve health, prevention, and youth
  development programs.
• Fulfill NCLB Title IV and its Principles of
  Effectiveness.
• Link health/prevention to school improvement
  efforts

7
Content
Modular Secondary Survey

• Core
• Demographics
• School grades and truancy
• ATOD Use and Violence
• Exercise, Eating, Height/weight, Asthma Risk
• Resilience and Youth Development Module (RYDM)
• Supplementary Modules
• AOD use and Violence (including suicide)
• Tobacco use
• Sexual behavior and HIV risks
• Physical health

Single Elementary covers Core RYDM
8

Survey Requirements (CDE)

• Biennial representative district survey
• Grades 5, 7, 9, 11, and Alternative
• Core module RYDM school/community assets
  (secondary)
• Voluntary, anonymous student participation
• Standardized administration procedures and
  protections (parental consent)
• Provide results for aggregation into single
  database

9
Module Administration by District
10
Why have it?State Planning

• Create a single, flexible data collection system
  that
• meets needs of multiple local state agencies
• reduces survey burden on schools
• Can add questions to collect other data needed
  locally and facilitate program evaluations
• Comparable local data for county/state planning
• Analyze factors related to health and health
  programs across state
• Variations by program funding, geography,
  demographics (underrepresented groups)

11
Why have it?School Improvement

• Assess health factors linked to achievement
• Assess school environment and other factors
• Determine barriers to learning and need for
  learning supports
• Assess school connectedness or bonding

12

School Indicators (Core)

• Grades received
• Classes skipped/cut
• Transience
• Substance use at school related problems with
  school work and behavior
• Violence perpetration weapons possession
• Victimization and harassment
• School environmental assets and connectedness

13
Why have it?Learning Supports

• The nonacademic resources and instructional
  strategies that give students the physical,
  social, emotional, and intellectual support
  needed to learn.
• Learning is impaired when students are
• Tired or restless
• Malnourished or sick
• Stressed or fearful, bullied or abused
• Under the influence of alcohol or drugs

14
CHKS/Test Score Analyses

• CHKS (combined grades)
• Core Module (1,700 schools, 800,000 students)
• Resilience Module (600 schools)
• API concurrent analyses (Year 1)
• SAT-9 longitudinal analyses of NPR by
  curriculum areas (Year 2)
• 35 health variables school level
• Adjusted for racial/ethnic composition, parental
  education, ELL students, free/reduced meals, and
  baseline test scores (when appropriate)

15
Physical Activity and API Scores (Concurrent
Relationship)
16
Physical Activity and Annual Changes in Test
Scores
10
5
2.4
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.1
0
Change in SAT-9 (NPR)
-0.4
Reading
Language
Mathematics
-5
-10
76
82
88
94
100
76
82
88
94
100
76
82
88
94
100
Percent who engaged in any physical activity
Source California Healthy Kids Survey STAR
data files.
17
Nutritious Intake and API Scores (Concurrent
Relationship)
18
Nutritious Intake and Annual Changes in Test
Scores
10
5
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.3
0
Change in SAT-9 (NPR)
-0.1
Reading
Language
Mathematics
-5
-10
71
74
76
79
81
71
74
76
79
81
71
74
76
79
81
Percent who report any nutritious intake
Source California Healthy Kids Survey STAR
data files.
19
Breakfast Consumption and API Scores (Concurrent
Relationship)
20
Breakfast and Annual Changes in Test Scores
10
5
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
0
Change in SAT-9 (NPR)
-0.2
-1.0
Reading
Language
Mathematics
-5
-10
48
55
62
69
76
48
55
62
69
76
48
55
62
69
76
Percent who ate breakfast
Source California Healthy Kids Survey STAR
data files.
21
Safety at School and API Scores (Concurrent
Relationship)
22
Safety at School and Annual Changes in Test
Scores
10
5
2.3
2.3
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.3
0
Change in SAT-9 (NPR)
-0.1
Reading
Language
Mathematics
-5
-10
73
79
85
91
97
73
79
85
91
97
73
79
85
91
97
Percent reporting feeling safe or very safe at
school
Source California Healthy Kids Survey STAR
data files.
23
Lifetime Intoxication and API Scores (Concurrent
Relationship)
24
Lifetime Intoxication and Annual Changes in Test
Scores
10
5
3.0
2.9
2.4
2.4
2.2
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.1
0
Change in SAT-9 (NPR)
-0.1
-0.3
-1.2
Reading
Language
Mathematics
-5
-10
0
10
25
40
55
0
10
25
40
55
0
10
25
40
55
Percent ever intoxicated
Source California Healthy Kids Survey STAR
data files.
25
30-day Substance Use at School and API Scores
(Concurrent Relationship)
26
30-Day Substance Use at School and Annual
Changes in Test Scores
10
5
2.6
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.3
0
-0.1
Change in SAT-9 (NPR)
Reading
Language
Mathematics
-5
-10
0
3
6
8
11
0
3
6
8
11
0
3
6
8
11
Percent in school reporting any 30-day substance
use on school property
Source California Healthy Kids Survey
27
Offered Illegal Drugs at School and API Scores
(Concurrent Relationship)
28
Offered Drugs at School and Annual Changes in
Test Scores
10
5
2.9
2.4
2.3
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.3
0
Change in SAT-9 (NPR)
-0.0
-0.7
Reading
Language
Mathematics
-5
-10
1
13
26
38
51
1
13
26
38
51
1
13
26
38
51
Percent offered illegal drugs on school property
Source California Healthy Kids Survey STAR
data files.
29
Sadness/Hopelessness and API Scores (Concurrent
Relationship)
30
Sadness/Hopelessness and Annual Changes in Test
Scores
10
5
2.6
2.4
2.1
2.0
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.3
0
Change in SAT-9 (NPR)
-0.2
Reading
Language
Mathematics
-5
-10
20
25
29
34
39
20
25
29
34
39
20
25
29
34
39
Percent reporting sadness/hopelessness (12 month)
Source California Healthy Kids Survey STAR
data files.
31
The RYDM Theoretical Framework
The Youth Development Process Resiliency In
Action
External Assets
Youth Needs

• Caring Relationships
• High Expectations
• Meaningful Participation

• Safety
• Love
• Belonging
• Respect
• Mastery
• Challenge
• Power
• Meaning

Internal Assets

• Cooperation
• Empathy
• Problem-solving
• Self-efficacy
• Self-awareness
• Goals and aspirations

Improved health, social, and academic outcomes
School Home Community Peers
32
Resilience Assets

• Caring Relationships supportive connections
  with others who serve as prosocial models and
  support healthy development.
• High Expectations direct and indirect messages
  that students can and will succeed.
• Opportunities for Meaningful Involvement
  relevant, engaging, and interesting activities.
  including opportunities for responsibility and
  contribution.
• Resilience assets enhance school connectedness.

33
School Asset Scales
34
What Promotes Learning?

• Youth development and successful learning are not
  competing goals but rather complementary and
  synergistic processes.
• Students capacity for learning cannot be
  optimally engaged if their basic developmental
  needs are not being met.

35
School Caring Relationships and API Scores
(Concurrent Relationship)
36
School Caring Relationships and Annual Changes
in Test Scores
10
5
2.7
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.1
0
-0.3
Change in SAT-9 (NPR)
Reading
Language
Mathematics
-5
-10
52
58
64
71
77
52
58
64
71
77
52
58
64
71
77
Percent reporting caring relations with adults at
school
Source California Healthy Kids Survey STAR
data files.
37
School High Expectations and API Scores
(Concurrent Relationship)
38
School High Expectations and Annual Changes in
Test Scores
10
5
2.3
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.4
0
Change in SAT-9 (NPR)
-0.1
-0.5
Reading
Language
Mathematics
-5
-10
58
65
72
80
87
58
65
72
80
87
58
65
72
80
87
Percent reporting high expectations at school
Source California Healthy Kids Survey STAR
data files.
39
Main Findings Cross-sectional

• Are California students in low performing schools
  exposed to more health risks and fewer
  development supports than students in other
  schools?
• Yes low performing schools generally have more
  students exposed to health risk than other
  schools, even after accounting for socioeconomic
  characteristics.
• API scores were related to
• Physical Exercise
• Nutrition
• Substance Use
• Violence and School Safety
• School Developmental Supports
• 75 of health risk/resilience measures examined
  were significantly related to API scores in
  expected ways,

40
Main Findings Longitudinal

• How is student health risk related to the
  progress of California schools in raising test
  scores?
• Test score gains were larger in schools with
  
• high levels of
• physical activity
• healthy eating
• school safety
• caring relationships at school, high expectations
  at school, and participation in meaningful
  activities in the community
• and low levels of
• substance use, particularly substance use at
  school
• drug availability at school
• theft and vandalism, insecurity, and weapon
  possession
• sadness and depression
• 40 of the health risk/resilience outcomes were
  significantly related to test-score improvements
  in expected ways.

41
Methodological Limitations

• Limited to schools that conducted CHKS
• Especially applies to resilience data
• Non-experimental data
• Other unmeasured factors could account for
  relationship of health indicators to changes in
  test scores
• School-level analysis
• Results need to be confirmed using student-level
  data.

42
How can we improve student test scores and turn
around low performing schools?
Addressing health risks and promoting resilience
should be part of any comprehensive academic
improvement or school reform effort!
Higher test scores and improvements in test
scores are associated with lower risk behavior
and greater wellbeing and resilience
43
Implications School Assessment and
Accountability

• Student surveys such as the CHKS are an important
  tool and resource for guiding and monitoring
  school improvement efforts.

44
Implications Physical Health

• Increase student access to moderate-to-vigorous
  physical activity.
• Improve nutritional content of school food.
• Promote greater awareness among students about
  their physical health and nutrition.

45
Implications Drug Use Violence

• Comprehensive early programs to prevent onset of
  risk behaviors
• Identify (CHKS) and target high-risk youth
• Promote positive youth development
• Targeted intervention programs to address needs
  of students demonstrating problems
• Provide help-oriented Student Assistance with
  referrals to services.

46
Implications Youth Development

• Provide students with supportive, caring
  connections to adults at school who model and
  support healthy development.
• Provide clear and consistent messages that
  students can and will succeed.
• Involve students in meaningful activities.

47
Relationship Between Skipping School, Cutting
Classes External Assets in School
External Assets
of Students Skipping School or Cutting Classes
During the past 12 months about how many times
did you skip school or cut classes?
Aggregated State Data Fall 01 Spring 03,
Total N 241,271
48
School Assets and Grades
Data from 2003 California Student Survey, the
biennial statewide CHKS
49
School
of Students Scoring High In Each External Asset
California RYDM Data 2003/2004, Total N 481,074
50
What Motivates Learning?Caring Relationships

• My guess is that when schools focus on what
  really matters in life, the cognitive ends we now
  pursue so painfully and artificially will be
  achieved somewhat more naturally It is
  obvious that children will work harder and do
  things even odd things like adding fractions
  for people they love and trust.
• Nel Noddings ( Bonnie Benard)

51
Meaningful Participation
Educational change, above all, is a
people-related phenomenon .Unless students
have some meaningful (to them) role in the
enterprise, most educational change, indeed most
education, will fail. What would happen if we
treated the student as someone whose opinion
mattered in the introduction and implementation
of reform in schools?
Michael Fullan, The New Meaning of Educational
Change 1991
52
Now What? Listening to Students
Workshop! Conducting Focus Groups with Students
to Improve Understanding of CHKS Data and How to
Promote Positive Student Behavioral, Health, and
Academic Outcomes
Bonnie Benard Carol Burgoa
www.wested.og/chks
bbenard_at_wested.org
CHKS Hotline [phone]
53
Staff School Climate Survey

• Low-cost, online, easy-to-use, short
• Meet NCLB Title IV Requirement for teacher survey
• Data links health/prevention to school
  improvement
• School reform module under development by WestEd
• A system for collecting other staff data
• Required biennial administration in California,
  for comparison with student CHKS data

54
Content

• Academic priorities
• Learning supports barriers
• Staff-student intra-staff relationships
• Parent involvement and community collaboration
• Prevalence and impact of student risk behaviors
• Student and staff safety
• Equity and ethnic-racial conflict
• School rules/policies (communication
  enforcement)
• Scope and nature of counseling, prevention,
  intervention, and health program efforts
  (Practitioners only)

Provides comparison data to student CHKS
55
Content (contd)

• Is school an inviting and supportive learning
  environment with high standards?
• Are students well-prepared, able motivated to
  learn?
• Are students connected to school?
• Is school a supportive, respectful place to work?
  
• Do staff feel responsibility for school
  improvement?
• Do staff feel safe?

56
Leaders agree

• Childrenwho face violence, hunger, substance
  abuse, unintended pregnancy, and despair cannot
  possibly focus on academic excellence.
• There is no curriculum brilliant enough to
  compensate for a hungry stomach or a distracted
  mind.

• American Cancer Society
• National Action Plan for Comprehensive School
  Health Education, 1992.

57
For more information, see

• Hanson, T.L., Austin, G.A. Lee-Bayha, J.
  (2004). Ensuring that no child is left behind
  How are student health risks resilience related
  to the academic progress of schools. San
  Francisco, CA WestEd.
• Hanson, T. L., Austin, G. A. (2003). Student
  health risks, resilience, and academic
  performance in California Year 2 report,
  longitudinal analyses. Los Alamitos, CA WestEd.
• Hanson, T.L. Austin, G.A. (2003). Are Student
  Health Risks and Low Resilience Assets an
  Impediment to the Academic Progress of Schools?
  (California Healthy Kids Survey Factsheet 3).
  Los Alamitos, CA WestEd.
• Available from the CHKS Website
  www.WestEd.org/hks