greg austin wested (gaustin@wested) august 2005 osdfs conference, washington dc

Leaving No Child Behind: The Relationship of Academic Achievement to Health-Risk

Behaviors and Resilience

Greg AustinWestEd ([email protected])

August 2005

OSDFS Conference, Washington DC

How can we improve student test scores and turn around low performing schools?

Download at:www.wested.org/hks

What are the effects of health risks and resilience on annual standardized test scores in California?

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)

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

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

What is the CHKS?

Content

• 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

Modular Secondary Survey

• 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

Survey Requirements (CDE)

Module Administration by District

2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004

Core 289 404 289 558

Resilience 123 218 101 546/269

AOD 79 84 88 126

Tobacco 196 229 163 268

Health/Nutrition 51 75 86 100

Sex/HIV 37 62 44 52

Elementary 144 248 225 421

Number of Students

178,585 275,338 186,188 392,201

• 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)

Why have it?—State Planning

• 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

Why have it?—School Improvement

• 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

School Indicators (Core)

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

Why have it?—Learning Supports

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)

Physical Activity and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

77

81

85

89

93

API Score

Per

cen

t w

ho

en

gag

ed i

n a

ny

ph

ysic

al a

ctiv

ity

1st (Lowest)2nd3rd4th5th (Highest)

API Quintile

Physical Activity and Annual Changes in Test Scores

-0.4

0.10.6

1.21.7

1.0 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.1

0.71.2

1.62.0

2.4

Reading Language Mathematics

Percent who engaged in any physical activity

-10

-5

0

5

10

Cha

nge

in S

AT

-9 (

NP

R)

76 82 88 94 100 76 82 88 94 100 76 82 88 94 100

Source: California Healthy Kids Survey & STAR data files.

Nutritious Intake and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

72

74

76

78

80

API Score

Per

cen

t re

po

rtin

g a

ny

nu

trit

iou

s in

take


API Quintile

Nutritious Intake and Annual Changes in Test Scores

-0.1

0.3 0.61.1 1.4

1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.21.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7


Percent who report any nutritious intake

-10

-5

0

5

10

Cha

nge

in S

AT

-9 (

NP

R)

71 74 76 79 81 71 74 76 79 81 71 74 76 79 81


Breakfast Consumption and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

52

57

62

67

72

API Score

Per

cen

t w

ho

ate

bre

akfa

st


API Quintile

Breakfast and Annual Changes in Test Scores

-1.0-0.2

0.61.4

2.2

0.71.1

1.51.9

2.4

0.51.0

1.52.0

2.5


Percent who ate breakfast

-10

-5

0

5

10

Cha

nge

in S

AT

-9 (

NP

R)

48 55 62 69 76 48 55 62 69 76 48 55 62 69 76


Safety at School and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

73

79

85

91

97

API Score

Per

cen

t re

po

rtin

g f

eelin

g "

safe

" o

r "v

ery

safe

" at

sch

oo

l


API Quintile

Safety at School and Annual Changes in Test Scores

-0.1

0.30.7

1.11.5

0.8 1.21.6 2.0

2.3

0.9 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.3


Percent reporting feeling safe or very safe at school

-10

-5

0

5

10

Cha

nge

in S

AT

-9 (

NP

R)

73 79 85 91 97 73 79 85 91 97 73 79 85 91 97


Lifetime Intoxication and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

3

13

23

33

43

API Score

Per

cen

t ev

er in

toxi

cate

d


API Quintile

Lifetime Intoxication and Annual Changes in Test Scores

2.21.6

0.6

-0.3-1.2

3.02.4

1.60.7

-0.1

2.92.4

1.60.8

0.1


Percent ever intoxicated

-10

-5

0

5

10

Cha

nge

in S

AT

-9 (

NP

R)

0 10 25 40 55 0 10 25 40 55 0 10 25 40 55


0

2

4

6

8

API Score

Per

cen

t re

po

rtin

g a

ny

30-d

ay s

ub

stan

ce u

se o

n s

cho

ol

pro

per

ty


API Quintile

30-day Substance Use at School and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

30-Day Substance Use at School and Annual Changes in Test Scores

1.51.1

0.6 0.3

-0.1

2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2

2.62.1

1.6 1.20.7


Percent in school reporting any 30-day substance use on school property

-10

-5

0

5

10

Ch

an

ge

in S

AT

-9 (

NP

R)

0 3 6 8 11 0 3 6 8 11 0 3 6 8 11

Source: California Healthy Kids Survey

Offered Illegal Drugs at School and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

6

15

24

33

42

API Score

Per

cen

t o

ffer

ed i

lleg

al d

rug

s


API Quintile

Offered Drugs at School and Annual Changes in Test Scores

2.01.4

0.7

-0.0-0.7

2.42.0

1.61.2

0.7

2.92.3

1.61.0

0.3


Percent offered illegal drugs on school property

-10

-5

0

5

10

Cha

nge

in S

AT

-9 (

NP

R)

1 13 26 38 51 1 13 26 38 51 1 13 26 38 51


Sadness/Hopelessness and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

23

26

29

32

35

API Score

Per

cen

t re

po

rtin

g s

adn

ess/

ho

pel

essn

ess


API Quintile

Sadness/Hopelessness and Annual Changes in Test Scores

1.51.0 0.7

0.3

-0.2

2.42.0 1.6

1.20.7

2.62.1

1.71.1

0.6


Percent reporting sadness/hopelessness (12 month)

-10

-5

0

5

10

Cha

nge

in S

AT

-9 (

NP

R)

20 25 29 34 39 20 25 29 34 39 20 25 29 34 39


The Youth Development Process: Resiliency In Action

Internal Assets

External Assets

•Caring Relationships

•High Expectations

•Meaningful Participation

School

Home

Community

Peers

•Cooperation

•Empathy

•Problem-solving

•Self-efficacy

•Self-awareness

•Goals and aspirations

Youth Needs

•Safety

•Love

•Belonging

•Respect

•Mastery

•Challenge

•Power

•Meaning

Improved health, social, and academic outcomes

The RYDM Theoretical Framework

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.

School Asset ScalesCaring Relationship

At myschool….

Care/Interest Attention Listening

there is ateacher orsome otheradult…

Who reallycares aboutme.

Who noticeswhen I’m notthere.

Who listens to me whenI have something to say.

High ExpectationsValidation Personal

BestMessage

Believes in Student

there is ateacher orsome otheradult…

Who tells mewhen I do agood job.

Who alwayswants me domy best.

Who believes that I willbe a success.

Opportunities for meaningful Participation

MakeDecisions

Do Fun orInteresting

Things

Make a Difference/Helping

I help decidethings likeclassactivities orrules.

I dointerestingactivities.

I do things that make adifference.

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.

School Caring Relationships and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

53

59

65

71

77

API Score

Car

ing

rel

atio

nsh

ips

at s

cho

ol


API Quintile

School Caring Relationships and Annual Changes in Test Scores

-0.3

0.1 0.40.8 1.2

0.8 1.1 1.51.9 2.2

0.51.0

1.52.1

2.7


Percent reporting caring relations with adults at school

-10

-5

0

5

10

Cha

nge

in S

AT

-9 (

NP

R)

52 58 64 71 77 52 58 64 71 77 52 58 64 71 77


School High Expectations and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

60

67

74

81

88

API Score

Hig

h e

xpe

cta

tio

ns

at

sch

oo

l


API Quintile

School High Expectations and Annual Changes in Test Scores

-0.5-0.1

0.40.9

1.4 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9

0.8 1.11.5

1.92.3


Percent reporting high expectations at school

-10

-5

0

5

10

Cha

nge

in S

AT

-9 (

NP

R)

58 65 72 80 87 58 65 72 80 87 58 65 72 80 87


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,

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.

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.

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

Implications: School Assessment and Accountability

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

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.

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.

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.

5%

9%

15%

28%

10%

5%

2%

25%

8%

3%1%

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

7th 9th 11th Non Traditional

Low

Moderate

High

Aggregated State Data Fall ’01 – Spring ’03, Total N = 241,271

Relationship Between Skipping School, Cutting Classes & External Assets in School

“During the past 12 months about how many times did you skip school or cut classes?”

External Assets

% o

f S

tude

nts

Ski

ppin

g S

choo

l or

Cut

ting

Cla

sses

School Assets and Grades*

GradeClass Grades UsuallyReceived, Past 12 months

7th

(%)9th

(%)11th

(%)Mostly A/Bs or Higher

High in School Assets 31 32 38Low in School Assets 22.5 17.5 17

Mostly D/Fs or LowerHigh in School Assets 16 10 13Low in School Assets 37 52 46

*Data from 2003 California Student Survey, the biennial statewide CHKS

School% of Students Scoring High In Each External Asset

11%

38%

33%

14%

40%

32%

13%

38%

26%

18%

49%

35%

15%

60%

64%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

MeaningfulParticipation

High Expectations

CaringRelationships

5th

7th

9th

11th

Non Traditional

California RYDM Data 2003/2004, Total N = 481,074

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)

“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 Change1991

Meaningful Participation

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

CHKS Hotline888.841.7536

www.wested.og/chks [email protected]

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

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

Content (cont’d) 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?

Leaders agree…

• “[Children]…who 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.

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

greg austin wested (gaustin@wested) august 2005 osdfs conference, washington dc

Documents

student health risks

health programs

effects of health risks

school work

school related problems

healthrisk behaviors

student test scores

progress of california