healthy schools leadership program findings and lessons learned
TRANSCRIPT
Healthy Schools Leadership Program
Findings and Lessons Learned
Making it Real: HSLP & Coordinated School Health
NOT adding another program
Requires Systems Change
Schools and their communities become health-promoting
Replication of a National Model
American Cancer Society implemented the first institute with school districts from all 50 states
There are now over 10 planned or implemented replications nationwide
Evaluation efforts at the national level are now focused on an Urban School Health Leadership Institute
Washington State was the First State Level Replication Many Partners
Comprehensive Health Education Foundation WA State Department of Health American Cancer Society OSPI, Vancouver SD
Unique Innovations School Building rather than District Teams rather than administration Local Focus Evaluation was a priority from the beginning
Leadership Program Goal Areas To improve the health and wellness of
students and staff To enhance the school’s capacity to
meet the needs of students and staff To enhance family and community
involvement and support for school health programming
Leadership Program Outcomes Support the Implementation of Coordinated
School Health Programs Effectively Advocate for School Health
Programs Use Assessment and Evaluation Strategies to
Identify Program Status Empower Effective School Health Teams Demonstrate a Coordinated School Health
Program
The Process: Schools applied to the project A staff person was identified as the leader and
main contact for the project Schools attend training two times a year in
teams Teams create an action plan based on a five
year vision of school health The project is evaluated based on the outcomes
and the progress of the teams
The Process… Six teams were selected based on their
applications and site visits Each year teams submitted applications for
up to $2,000. of financial support for their action plans
Travel and staff time for meetings/training were covered by the schools and districts
The Evaluation: Process and Outcome Training and technical assistance
from the project Documentation of efforts
Action plans Printed materials Events
Interviews Self-assessments Site visits
Schools Involved in C.H.E.F. HSLP
Ever-green
(Bethel)
K-6
Kulshan
(B’ham)
6-8
Skyridge
(Camas)
7-8
Eisen-
hower
(Everett)
6-8
Olympic
(Central Kitsap)
10-12
Columbia
(White Salmon)
9-12
No. of Students 626 644 752 804 1,137 429
F/R Lunch 99-00
03-04
51%
62%
24%
30%
18%
23%
20%
31%
10%
15%
26%
36%No. of Classroom Teachers 30 38 58 61 71 23
2001-2004 Index Mariner Matrix
72
75
76
66
69
4330
55
54
54
39
43
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Evergreen
Kulshan MS
Skyridge MS
Eisenhower MS
Columbia HS
Olympic HS
2004 Index 2001 Index
Keys to Success—Staff Wellness Built buy-in, opportunities among all
staff
Incorporated into Staff Meetings
Offered awards and recognition
Facilitated social and emotional support
Staff Wellness Component
0%
49%
66%64%
47%
0%
79%79%75%
80%
60%
44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Evergreen Skyridge Kulshan Eisenhower Columbia Olympic
2001 2004
Impact on Student Academics
Not planned as measure of program success No control group Very small number of schools Very indirect intervention
‘Peek’ at overall WASL—Rates of Improvement Compared to state average gains Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Targets
introduced in 2002 1999-00 vs. 2003-04
Middle School WASL Reading 1999-00 vs. 2003-04 (Source: OSPI)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
1999-00 2003-04
Reading
Skyridge Kulshan Eisenhower State 7th AYP Target
Middle School WASL Math1999-00 vs. 2003-04 (Source: OSPI)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1999-00 2003-04
Math
Skyridge Kulshan Eisenhower State 7th AYP Target
High School WASL Reading 1999-00 vs. 2003-04 (Source: OSPI)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
1999-00 2003-04
Reading
Columbia Olympic State 10th AYP Target
High School WASL Math1999-00 vs. 2003-04 (Source: OSPI)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1999-00 2003-04
Math
Columbia Olympic State 10th AYP Target
What We Learned Rates of improvement higher than state
avg., Gains in spite of increases in free/reduced
lunch rates at all schools Parallel gains across schools Even those schools that started out well
above state average, maintained their progress.
Eisenhower noted as one of most improved MS in state
What are the Possibilities? A proven connection between Health and
Academics in WA How does this impact our current understanding and
work? More Study
Rigorous evaluation Rural, Urban, Suburban Steps to a Healthier US Counties/Communities
Link with current CSHP infrastructure activities CDC Intent Work Plan Goals
Lessons Learned:
1.Offer professional development
2.Measure coordinated school health
3.Focus on Staff Wellness
4. Advocate for policy change
5. Study impact on students’ academic success
Spectacular achievement is always preceded by
spectacular preparation.~R. Schuller
HSLP: Scope and SequenceYear 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 & 5
LeadershipDataAction PlansSchool Health TeamsAdvocacy
LeadershipProgram ImplementationAdvocacySchool Health Teams Active
Leadership Ongoing program implementationAdvocacySchool Health Teams ActiveInfrastructure
LeadershipSustained ProgramsAdvocacyEstablished Health TeamsInfrastructure
Minigrants Minigrants &… Minigrants &… Funded efforts
Training/TAEvaluationSite Visits
Training/TAEvaluationSite Visits
Training/TAEvaluationSite Visits
EvaluationFollow Up TASuccess Stories
Questions and Answers…
Meeting Schedules & Locations Faculty and Facilitators Content Activities Between Meetings Site Visits Leveraging of Funds and Programs Others?
A Final Thought…
“In the larger context, schools are society’s vehicle for providing young people with the tools for successful adulthood. Perhaps no tool is more essential than good health.”
~Council of Chief School Officers