1 / 33

Student Health Risk, Resilience, and Academic Performance

Study on health risks, resilience, and academic progress in California schools using various data sources to identify trends and correlations.

jcarr
Download Presentation

Student Health Risk, Resilience, and Academic Performance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Student Health Risk, Resilience, and Academic Performance Thomas Hanson, Greg Austin, and June Lee-Bayha WestEd

  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. 93 89 API Quintile 1st (Lowest) 2nd 3rd Percent who engaged in any physical activity 85 4th 5th (Highest) 81 77 API Score Physical Activity and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

  6. 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.

  7. 80 78 API Quintile 1st (Lowest) 2nd Percent reporting any nutritious intake 3rd 76 4th 5th (Highest) 74 72 API Score Nutritious Intake and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

  8. 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 -0.1 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) 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.

  9. 72 67 API Quintile 1st (Lowest) 2nd 62 Percent who ate breakfast 3rd 4th 5th (Highest) 57 52 API Score Breakfast Consumption and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

  10. 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 -0.2 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) -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.

  11. 97 91 API Quintile 1st (Lowest) 85 2nd Percent reporting feeling "safe" or "very safe" at school 3rd 4th 5th (Highest) 79 73 API Score Safety at School and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

  12. 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 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.3 0 -0.1 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) 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.

  13. 43 33 API Quintile 1st (Lowest) 2nd 23 3rd Percent ever intoxicated 4th 5th (Highest) 13 3 API Score Lifetime Intoxication and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

  14. Lifetime Intoxication and Annual Changesin 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 -0.1 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) -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.

  15. 30-day Substance Use at School and API Scores(Concurrent Relationship) 8 6 API Quintile 1st (Lowest) 2nd Percent reporting any 30-day substance use 3rd on school property 4 4th 5th (Highest) 2 0 API Score

  16. 30-Day Substance Use at School and Annual Changesin 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

  17. 42 33 API Quintile 1st (Lowest) 2nd Percent offered illegal drugs 3rd 24 4th 5th (Highest) 15 6 API Score Offered Illegal Drugs at School and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

  18. Offered Drugs at School and Annual Changesin 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 -0.0 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) -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.

  19. 35 32 API Quintile 1st (Lowest) 2nd 29 3rd Percent reporting sadness/hopelessness 4th 5th (Highest) 26 23 API Score Sadness/Hopelessness and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

  20. Sadness/Hopelessness and Annual Changesin Test Scores 10 5 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.3 0 -0.2 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) 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.

  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. 77 71 API Quintile 1st (Lowest) 2nd Caring relationships at school 3rd 65 4th 5th (Highest) 59 53 API Score School Caring Relationships and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

  23. School Caring Relationships and Annual Changesin 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.

  24. 88 81 API Quintile 1st (Lowest) 2nd High expectations at school 3rd 74 4th 5th (Highest) 67 60 API Score School High Expectations and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

  25. School High Expectations and Annual Changesin 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 -0.1 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) -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.

  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 • sadnessand 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. Program Implications 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. Program 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. • 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

More Related