Student Health Risk, Resilience, and Academic Performance

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)
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
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
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
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
1.2
1.3
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
Lifetime Intoxication and API Scores
(Concurrent Relationship)
14
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
-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)
16
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
17
Offered Illegal Drugs at School and API Scores
(Concurrent Relationship)
18
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
-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
Sadness/Hopelessness and API Scores (Concurrent
Relationship)
20
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
-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
School Caring Relationships and API Scores
(Concurrent Relationship)
23
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.
24
School High Expectations and API Scores
(Concurrent Relationship)
25
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
-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
• 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
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