1 Student Health Risk, Resilience, and Academic Performance Thomas Hanson, Greg Austin, and June...

1

Student Health Risk, Resilience, and Academic Performance

Thomas Hanson, Greg Austin, and June Lee-Bayha

2

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?

• How are student health risks and resilience assets related to the progress of California schools in raising test scores?

3

Data• California Healthy Kids Survey (800,000

students, grades 7, 9 & 11)– Core Module (1,700 schools)– Resilience Module (600 schools)

• API Research Files (1999-2001)

• STAR Research Files (1998-2002)– Standardized Testing and Reporting school-level

test results.

4

Analyses• School-level analyses (combined grades)

• Adjusted for racial/ethnic composition, parental education, ELL students, free/reduced meals, and baseline test scores (when appropriate)

5

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

6

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.

7

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

8

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


9

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

10

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


11

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

12

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


13

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

14

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


15

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)

16

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

17

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

18

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


19

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

20

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


21

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.

22

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

23

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


24

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

25

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


26

Cross-sectional Analyses: Main Findings

• 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 concurrently related to API scores in expected ways

27

Longitudinal Analyses: Main Findings

• 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

– Results held for 40% of the health risk/resilience outcomes examined.

28

Methodological Limitations• Limited to secondary 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.

29

Implications

Addressing health and developmental needs of youth is a critical component of a comprehensive strategy for improving academic performance and turning around low-performing schools.

30

Program Implications

Physical Activity and Nutrition:

• Increase student access to moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.

• Monitor nutritional content of food offered at school.

• Promote greater awareness among students about their physical health and nutrition.

31


Crime, violence, and substance use.• Comprehensive early programs to prevent onset

of risk behaviors– Identify (CHKS) and target high-risk populations– Promote positive youth development

• Targeted intervention programs to address needs of students already demonstrating problems– Provide help-oriented Student Assistance with

referrals to services.

32


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.

• Ask students what they think! Hold a Listening to Students Workshop.

33

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

1 Student Health Risk, Resilience, and Academic Performance Thomas Hanson, Greg Austin, and June...

Documents

Transcript of 1 Student Health Risk, Resilience, and Academic Performance Thomas Hanson, Greg Austin, and June...