Alameda USD Alameda Unified School District Healthy Kids Review.ppt by longze569


									Alameda Unified School
  District Healthy Kids
    Chelsea A. Quann
  California Healthy Kids Survey
 Assessing   health-risk behaviors and
  promoting youth wellness and school
 The CHKS is an integral part of
  efforts to improve student academic
  performance, enhance youth assets,
  and promote positive youth
         Alameda CHKS cont.
 Data collected and compared from
  surveys taken in 2005 and 2007
 Primary level: 5th grade students

 2005: 61% participation (463
  students surveyed)
 2007: 66% participation (500
  students surveyed)
                     What’s Working?
   Table 2. Fifth Grade Results for SDFSCA/TUPE Performance
    Indicators Recommended by CDE, Two-Year Comparison

                                                               Spring 2005   Spring 2007
Protective Factors
The percentage of students that report high levels of caring
   relationships with a teacher or other adult at their school    61%           56%

The percentage of students that report high levels of high
   expectations from a teacher or other adult at their school     57%           59%

The percentage of students that report high levels of school
   connectedness at their school (Total School Assets)            47%            50%
     Wellness Policy
                What is the Wellness policy?
The district’s Wellness Policy was adopted to foster wellness
among students and staff in the Alameda Unified School
District and provide a coordinated school health program.
The Wellness Policy is federally mandated and is comprised
of 9 different elements, Comprehensive Health
Education; Physical Education, Physical Activity and
Athletics; Health Service; Nutrition Services; Mental
Health and Social Services; Healthy School
Environment; Health Promotion for Staff; Family,
School and Community Partnerships; Implementation
and Evaluation (BP 5030). The Wellness Policy was written
and developed by community members, teachers, staff,
parents, and students. The policy was adopted by the Board
of Education in June of 2006 and complies with both federal
and state mandates, including the California Department of
Education Health Framework.
Which Areas Need
SUBSTANCES: Use & Perceptions

Lack of prevention & intervention
       Significant Change

 Comparisondata between 2005 and
 2007 survey years

 Lookingat criteria that had a change
 of 5% or more
Alcohol Use among 5th Graders
           Ever used alcohol?

 2005:   25%

 2007:   32%

     7% INCREASE over 2 years
   Perceived Harm of Alcohol
Belief that alcohol is very bad for one’s

 2005:   73%

 2007:   64%

     9% decrease over two years
    Perceived Harm of Marijuana
    Belief that marijuana is very bad for one’s

   2005: 95%

   2007: 89%

             6% decrease over two years

*Excludes students who answered ―I don’t know what marijuana is.‖
        What are the risks?
 Those who experiment with substances
  (even once) at such a young age are at
  risk for later involvement. Students who
  begin using alcohol/cigarettes/marijuana
  in elementary school are 5x more likely as
  their peers to use in middle school.
  (Wilson et al., 2002)
 Perceptions of high harm/risk associated
  with lower rates of use over time
   Substance use in youth & adolescence associated
    – Declining grades
    – School absenteeism
    – Dropouts
    – Cognitive and behavioral problems experienced by
      youth/adolescents using substances may affect
      academic performance
    – Developmental Problems—use may negatively impact
      formation of a strong self-identity, emotional and
      intellectual growth, establishment of a career, and the
      development of rewarding personal relationships.
        What can we do?
          about the potential risks
 Education
 and harm of alcohol and marijuana

        prevention programs at the
 Primary
 elementary level
        Prevention Programs

Early use of ATOD is associated with
 greatly increased odds of later use,
 which has important implications for
 the timing of drug prevention
 interventions… should commence no
 later than elementary school. (Wilson et
 al., 2002)
    Prevention Programs cont.
In general, programs focusing on only one potential
  influence on adolescent substance use (e.g.,
  media influences, resistance skills) have not
  proven to be effective. Programs using a broader
  life skills training approach have been the most
  successful, such as Project Northland (Perry et
  al., 1993) and Life Skills Training (Botvin, 1986).
  Early intervention and prevention strategies that
  address more general social and behavioral
  problems in addition to alcohol, tobacco, and
  other drug use issues are most appropriate (Hops
  et al., 1999). A more comprehensive approach is
  encouraged for all prevention efforts, whether at
  the individual or community level.
   Prevention Programs cont.
Social skills promote healthy social
 engagement with both peers and
 adults, both of which emerged as
 significant protectors against
 adolescent substance use (Hops et
 al., 1999). Efforts to enhance the
 social skills of youth are likely to be
 an effective avenue of prevention at
 the individual level (Bierman, 1996)
   Principles of Effective Primary
       Prevention Programs

 Comprehensive

 Varied  Teaching Methods
 Sufficient Dosage

 Theory Driven

 Positive Relationships
     Principles of Effective Primary
      Prevention Programs, cont.

 Appropriately  Timed
 Socioculturally Relevant

 Outcome Evaluation

 Well-trained Staff

Nation et al., 2003. What works in prevention: Principles of
  effective prevention programs. American Psychologist,
  58(6/7), 449-456.
Currently in place for tobacco use prevention grades 6-8 and 9-12.

  Consider writing grant proposals to get prevention programs in
place at the elementary level where they may be more effective in
                promoting later success in school.
Commitment to keeping AUSD
 students happy, healthy and
Meschke, L.L. & Patterson, J.M., 2003. Resilience as a theoretical base for
   substance abuse prevention. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 23(4),
Wilson, N., Battistich, V., Syme, S.L., & Boyce, W.T., 2002. Does elementary
   school alcohol, tobacco and marijuana use increase middle school risk?
   Journal of Adolescent Health, 30(6), 442-447.
 Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K.L., Seybolt, D.,
   Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K., 2003. What works in prevention:
   Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist,
   58(6/7), 449-456.
Summary of Findings from the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug
   Abuse. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 99-3328. Rockville, MD: Office of
   Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
   Administration, 1999.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Treatment of Adolescents With
   Substance Abuse Problems. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series,
   No. 32. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 99-3283. Rockville, MD: Substance
   Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1999.
California Healthy Kids Survey, California Department of Education (Safe and
   Healthy Kids Program Office) and WestEd (Health and Human
   Development Department).

To top