1. Leaving No Child Behind: The Relationship of Academic Achievement to Health-Risk Behaviors and Resilience Greg Austin WestEd (gaustin@wested.org) August 2005 OSDFS Conference, Washington DC

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

3. Download at: www.wested.org/hks What are the effects of health risks and resilience on annual standardized test scores in California?

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. 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?

7. 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

8. 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)

9. Module Administration by District 2000/20012001/20022002/20032003/2004 Core 289404289558 Resilience 123218101546/269 AOD 798488126 Tobacco 196229163268 Health/Nutrition 517586100 Sex/HIV 37624452 Elementary 144248225421 Number of Students 178,585275,338186,188392,201

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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

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

16. Physical Activity and Annual Changes in Test Scores -0.4 0.1 0.6 1.2 1.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.1 0.7 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 ReadingLanguageMathematics Percent who engaged in any physical activity -10 -5 0 5 10 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) 768288941007682889410076828894100 Source: California Healthy Kids Survey & STAR data files.

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

18. Nutritious Intake and Annual Changes in Test Scores -0.1 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 1.5 1.6 1.7 ReadingLanguageMathematics Percent who report any nutritious intake -10 -5 0 5 10 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) 717476798171747679817174767981 Source: California Healthy Kids Survey & STAR data files.

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

20. Breakfast and Annual Changes in Test Scores -0.2 0.6 1.4 2.2 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.4 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 ReadingLanguageMathematics Percent who ate breakfast -10 -5 0 5 10 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) 485562697648556269764855626976 Source: California Healthy Kids Survey & STAR data files.

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

22. Safety at School and Annual Changes in Test Scores -0.1 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.5 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.3 0.9 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.3 ReadingLanguageMathematics Percent reporting feeling safe or very safe at school -10 -5 0 5 10 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) 737985919773798591977379859197 Source: California Healthy Kids Survey & STAR data files.

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

24. Lifetime Intoxication and Annual Changes in Test Scores 2.2 1.6 0.6 -0.3 -1.2 3.0 2.4 1.6 0.7 -0.1 2.9 2.4 1.6 0.8 0.1 ReadingLanguageMathematics Percent ever intoxicated -10 -5 0 5 10 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) 010254055010254055010254055 Source: California Healthy Kids Survey & STAR data files.

25. 0 2 4 6 8 API Score Percent reporting any 30-day substance use on school property 1st (Lowest) 2nd 3rd 4th 5th (Highest) API Quintile 30-day Substance Use at School and API Scores (Concurrent Relationship)

26. 30-Day Substance Use at School and Annual Changes in Test Scores 1.5 1.1 0.6 0.3 -0.1 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 2.6 2.1 1.6 1.2 0.7 ReadingLanguageMathematics Percent in school reporting any 30-day substance use on school property -10 -5 0 5 10 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) 0368110368 0368 Source: California Healthy Kids Survey

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

28. Offered Drugs at School and Annual Changes in Test Scores 2.0 1.4 0.7 -0.0 -0.7 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.7 2.9 2.3 1.6 1.0 0.3 ReadingLanguageMathematics Percent offered illegal drugs on school property -10 -5 0 5 10 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) 113263851113263851113263851 Source: California Healthy Kids Survey & STAR data files.

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

30. Sadness/Hopelessness and Annual Changes in Test Scores 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.3 -0.2 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.7 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.1 0.6 ReadingLanguageMathematics Percent reporting sadness/hopelessness (12 month) -10 -5 0 5 10 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) 202529343920252934392025293439 Source: California Healthy Kids Survey & STAR data files.

31. 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

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

36. School Caring Relationships and Annual Changes in Test Scores -0.3 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.7 ReadingLanguageMathematics Percent reporting caring relations with adults at school -10 -5 0 5 10 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) 525864717752586471775258647177 Source: California Healthy Kids Survey & STAR data files.

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

38. School High Expectations and Annual Changes in Test Scores -0.5 -0.1 0.4 0.9 1.4 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.3 ReadingLanguageMathematics Percent reporting high expectations at school -10 -5 0 5 10 Change in SAT-9 (NPR) 586572808758657280875865728087 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 sadness and 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. 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 % of Students Skipping School or Cutting Classes

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)

51. “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 Change 1991 Meaningful Participation

52. 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 Hotline 888.841.7536 www.wested.og/chksbbenard@wested.org

53. 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

54. Content l Academic priorities l Learning supports & barriers l Staff-student* & intra-staff relationships l Parent involvement and community collaboration l Prevalence and impact of student risk behaviors* l Student and staff safety* l Equity and ethnic-racial conflict* l School rules/policies (communication & enforcement) l Scope and nature of counseling, prevention, intervention, and health program efforts (Practitioners only) * Provides comparison data to student CHKS

55. Content (cont’d) l Is school an inviting and supportive learning environment with high standards? l Are students well-prepared, able & motivated to learn? l Are students connected to school? l Is school a supportive, respectful place to work? l Do staff feel responsibility for school improvement? l Do staff feel safe?

56. 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.

57. 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