Greg Austin WestEd (gaustin@wested) August 2005 OSDFS Conference, Washington DC

1. Leaving No Child Behind: The Relationship of Academic Achievement to Health-Risk Behaviors and Resilience Greg AustinWestEd (gaustin@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. 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)

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. 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)

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. 72 67 API Quintile 1st (Lowest) Percent who ate breakfast 2nd 62 3rd 4th 5th (Highest) 57 52 API Score 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. 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)

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 1.3 1.2 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. 43 33 API Quintile 1st (Lowest) 2nd 23 Percent ever intoxicated 3rd 4th 5th (Highest) 13 3 API Score 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) 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

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. 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)

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. 35 32 API Quintile 1st (Lowest) 2nd 29 Percent reporting sadness/hopelessness 3rd 4th 5th (Highest) 26 23 API Score 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 1.7 1.6 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. 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)

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. 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)

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 • sadnessand 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)