1
Q
reasons for dropping out in Am HS
A
- not as many drop outs anymore
2. still bleak in urban districts
2
Q
alienation and dropping out facts
A
- although drop-out rates have improved every 5th freshi doesn’t graduate
- rates of unemployment, reliance on welfare, etc. higher among dropouts than those who complete school/ GED:
a) Lifetime income loss about $630K
b) Unqualified for 90% of jobs
c) Not random who drops
3
Q
Averaged freshman graduation rate for public high school students by race/ethnicity 2014-15
A
1st: asian/ pacific island
2nd: white
3rd: black and american indians
4
Q
environmental/ structural factors for dropping out
A
- poverty
- racism (confounded by SES)
- insufficient access to financial and social capital
5
Q
structural factors in
dropouts…insufficient access to financial and social capital means…
A
1) Af am students’ stats haveta recall: family structure (single mom) means moms are more likely low SES and poor fams tend to live in segregated areas in terms of schools which effects segregated area’s schools are probably worst off
2) Public schools in US get funded by taxes
a) E.g. real estate $
3) Poor school’s teachers are
a) Less qualified
b) Stay less often
c) Huge turn over in teachers/ administrators
6
Q
personal long term drop out predictors
A
- Earlier behavior problems, learning difficulties (possibly due to impulsivity)
a) However, 40% of drop-outs do not show any earlier risk factors
b) Not great at predicting
7
Q
Proximal predictors of dropping out
A
- Triggering events = precipitating factors (same)
- Instability (school transitions, family transitions)
- Extended work hours (US kids)
- Conflicts with teachers; peer rejection and bullying
- Hospitalization and incarceration
8
Q
cumulative adversity model
A
- stress proliferation
- uneven distr of risk factors
- risks accumulate for some group of individuals more than others
9
Q
Dupere et al., 2015
A
- risk/ predisposing factors: self-reg, health probs
- precipitating factors: stressful exp (mobility, bullying)
- contextual factors: community, schools, peers
- protective factors: coping (endog.), caring aduls (exogen), external realities
- the above lead to proximal mediators which leads to dropping out
10
Q
Moffit:
A
life course persistent vs adolescents limited pathways
11
Q
Moffit:
A
life course persistent vs adolescents limited pathways
12
Q
how do structural and pedagogical factors matter
A
- What are the conditions under which motivation and achievement decline and alienation increases?
a) Deficit focused assumptions -> what are the conditions under which motivation and achievement decline and sense of alienation increases?
13
Q
Assumption of tracking kids:
A
teacher must teach to median students
b/c of too much variability in academic performance teachers are overwhelmed
a) Mediation model of sense of alienation
b) Proximal predictors
14
Q
Mediation model of sense of alienation of tracking kids does what??
A
1) Inadequate academic prep
2) Placement on low academic track
3) In some domains tracking helps but not all domains
4) Tracking has to do with USA belief in individualism
15
Q
Proximal predictors of tracking kids
A
1) Segregation
2) Tracking classes/ system
a) b/c accentuates differences
3) Expectations
a) In low:
1. Zero instructional time
2. Time spent disciplining
3. Time spent motivating
16
Q
what changed in students?
A
- Students’ classroom participation and engagement increased
- Views of intelligence differentiated
17
Q
mediation model of classroom engagement
A
- teacher expectations
- lit selection
- instruct methods
- > all mediate between de-tracking and classroom engagement
18
Q
why do we care about the mediation model of classroom engagement?
A
- cause these are the proximal things we can change to get better pos effects in future
- > something that can be changed! - can target special populations (low ses)
- data not political ideology
19
Q
US 4th vs 8th graders’ math performance on TIMSS
A
- over many diff countries
2. something happens in USA b/w 4th and 8th grade that can help account for this switch
20
Q
Reading 2015 PISA (15 yr olds)
A
- US Ranking: 24/72
- Minimum: 347
a) Close to wealthy country average in reading
21
Q
Science 2015 PISA
A
- US Ranking: 25/72
- Minimum: 332
a) Right above wealthy country average
22
Q
Math 2015 PISA (15 yr olds)
A
- US Ranking: 40/72
- Minimum: 328
a) Super below international average of wealthy countries
23
Q
Unrealistically positive views
A
a. Questionable comparison b/w Math Achievement and Perceived academic achievement
b. Asked about their academic competence
c. Kids not performing at level we expect but are overconfident
24
Q
International comparisons of educational disadvantage by 10th grade
A
- UNICEF data assesses ability for every kid in county to achieve proficient performance
- Meaning there’re substantial disparities based on achievement
25
hyps for what accounts for findings on differences in scores b/w America and other countries?
1. economic disparity within countries
2. mixed findings for smaller class sizes
3. lack of resources and prestige for teachers
26
California Study- smaller class sizes
1. achievement didnt' improve
2. grades dropped
3. b/c quickly hired MORE teachers who WEREN'T qualified
27
OECD study
1. overall per pupil spending
| 2. US is way above OECD average but it doesn't correspond to how well kids do
28
separation of Jr. HS and MS
1. Late 1800s: 8 yrs of primary, 4 yrs of secondary
2. Separation of Jr. High in early 1900s
3. From 7-8 JR high to 6-8 middle schools in late 1980's
a) Large elementary school enrollments pushed 6th grade out of elementary school
b) Scientific evidence revealed earlier onset of puberty -> assumption = students ready for an earlier transition
29
Puberty = a good reason for transition?
1. Multiple simultaneous transitions -> cumulative stress
2. Students making an earlier (e.g. 5th to 6th grade) as opposed to a later, transition show:
a) More problems during the transition year
b) More persistent problems even at 10th grade
1) Not transitory but persistent
30
Achievement Loss grade 5-6
1. Linear MS = 1 elementary, 1 middle and 1 high school
2. Pyramid MS= 2-3 elementary schools feeding all into 1 middle and 1 high school
3. best kind of school: K-8
4. Pyramid worst loss
31
Achievement Loss MS to HS
1. least loss in K-8
| 2. linear and pyramid MS losses persist through HS
32
Odds of Obtaining Mostly As and Bs based on transitions
1. important to do long enough longitudinal studies
2. best results, is no 8th/9th grade transition
3. worst results, is 8th/9th multi-feeder transition
33
conclusions of middle schools and high school changes
1. Family structure: changes are stressful
2. Simultaneous changes super stress
3. Early change even more so
4. Stability seems good for development
34
So, is it just timing of middle school transition as culprit?
1. more than just bad timing
| 2. there are other changes as students transition to MS
35
changes documented as students transition to MS
1) Grades and achievement scores decline
2) Motivation and engagement decrease
3) Discipline problems increase
36
1980s stage-environment mismatch
1. changes work against dev needs
2. timing of the transition coincides with puberty and a number of changes in the school environment
3. mismatch between changes in school and dev needs
37
changes in school 1980s
1. changes in classes/new students
2. don't really know mates/ teachers
3. 7 teachers (typically change)
4. being oldest/top dogs to newbs
5. grading practices change
6. how kids are compared to peers
7. less parental involvement/ focus on your achievements
8. MS 7x larger than elementary schools
9. less free time
10. new peers/ where do you fit in?
11. stricter rules
12. Extracurr. acts
13. beginning of academic tracking
38
developmental changes in 1980s
1. fitting in; more sensitive/ likely to be effected mroe
2. change in sleep habits, hwk load changed and days are longer and start earlier
3. stability
4. need adult support
5. they engage in social comparison already; comparing on a curve is throwing gas on it
6. relationship intimacy
7. switching -> unstable friendship -> lack of academic support
39
MS concept of 1980s
1. i. Trying to make more dev responses meeting the needs of kids
ii. Level of implementation was questionable
40
1980s strategies for MS
1) Advisories: closer contact w/ teachers
a) Supposed to force closer connection b/w 1 teacher and students became wasted time instead
2) Teaming: smaller learning communities
a) Some indication that kids' perception improves and teachers collaborate better
3) Interdisciplinary curriculum and team teaching: integration of subjects but teachers not have time to plan together so didn't happen
4) Flexible block scheduling: longer periods allow new methods, promote deeper comprehension
a) Harder for larger middle school
5) Goal = make middle schools feel like elementary schools?
41
indicators of promise (Juvonen are MS working?)
1. Students performing better than 1970s
a) Before MS creations
2. Gaps between Af Am (after 1970s) and whites and between Latinos and white decreased
3. Percent of students reaching proficient level of achievement (NAEP) increased
a) More kids reaching proficient
42
indicators of failure Juvonen are MS working?)
1. About 70% of 8th grade students failed to reach proficient levels of achievement
2. Racial/ ethnic differences still persisted within certain SES groups
43
Percentages of Students Scoring at the "maximum proficiency level" with college educated parents
1. shows racial differences
a) structural issues
b) neighborhood segregation
c) whites are highest SES bracket and are over-performing the other groups
d) class and in some SES brackets race both matter
44
Percentages of Students Scoring at the "maximum proficiency level" of parents with no high school diploma
1. lowest level of education (no HS diploma)
| 2. less disparity b/c once you're poor race matters less
45
students' perceptions of MS
1. compared on School climate
a) teacher support
b) peer culture
c) social isolation
2. teacher support: US near ave. among 11 countries
3. social isolation: US at international ave.
4. peer culture: massive nope; kids view environ pretty neg.
46
summary of state of Am MS
1. International rankings on achievement plummet between 4th and 8th grade
2. Substantial demographic disparities remain in achievement
a) Despite small historical changes
3. Middle school students view their learning environments disengaging, unkind, and isolating
47
Challenges facing American middle schools
1. Rationale for separating middle grades?
a) Scientifically unsound: transitions ARE disruptive
2. Educational environments sub-optimal and may compromise student engagement and achievement
a) You will do better if teachers are supportive and you believe peers are kind/caring
3. Not perfect data but all kinds of data to piece together what's up
48
Policy Recommendation
```
#1 improve continuity
#2 focus on lowest performing students
#3 Improve conditions for learning
```
49
Should 6-8 grade middle schools survive
Lesson learned: when middle grades are part of elementary schools, student do better
50
self
1. social construct
2. Self is a reflective appraisal seen based on social feedback that we get
a) Cooley: "looking glass self"= reflected appraisals
b) (Will) James: multiple social selves (as many as there are "audiences")
- >Audiences: authority figures (e.g. adults, peers, neighbors)
51
Scientific Study: Self > than ID
1. Self concept: what am I like
2. Self esteem: how do I feel about myself?
3. Social ID: to which group do I belong?
52
Self concept measures (aka Domains)
1. Academic
2. Physical
3. Social
4. Athletic
53
Self descriptions
1. Change by age
| 2. Start in observing characteristics if you're younger
54
Developmental progression of Evaluations of "what am I like?"
1) Physical attributes -> psychological traits
2) External feedback -> internalized standards
a) Not just about concrete feedback given come to understand popularity and competence
3) Comparisons
a) Neg. perceptions also generalize globally in childhood but not adolescence
b) Compare selves from now to their past (e.g. hey I'm good at this last year I couldn’t do it
1. This changes in middle school: social comparisons begin (comparing self to peers)
2. Little kids look at self globally (I'm good) vs unevenness of profile (maybe I'm good here but not there)
4) Consistent -> conflicting descriptions
a) Can be puzzling and stressful initially
b) Integration of views = maturation
c) Not just generally but in different situations
5) Unable to integrate conflicting attributes and feeling "false" -> integration and feeling non conflictual
a) Can generate stress
b) Am I being true to myself or not?
c) E.g. I'm phony when meeting new ppl but not w/ bestie
55
Harter: dev goal in adols
1. Being able to integrate conflicting views of oneself so you don’t feel false. You can be diff w/ diff ppl
2. To dev a multi-faceted and integrated self…that feels true
3. Should self-concepts stay stable over time?
a. Doesn't seem like it!
56
Changes in perceived academic competence grades 3-11: what do you make of the data?
1. drop in academic performance b/c evals emphasize social comparisons, potential comparison changes from elementary to MS
2. may be moderated by gender in favor of boys
3. possibly big fish between elementary to MS
4. already put into one track and you con't to evaluate self the same
5. in high school making social comp to your track
57
Self esteem
1. Represents domain of competence that you value most
| a) If you value a domain where you rank self low then low self esteem and vice versa
58
Determinants of self esteem
1. Competence X value = esteem (James)
2. Feedback source adult authority (in young kids) -> peer approval (as they age)
3. Types of comparisons (temp vs soc) across the most valued characteristic
4. Considered very important in WEIRD countries
5. Parents believe: "praise -> self esteem"
6. Indiscriminate phase not helpful cause kid can tell it's bull -> Conveys you have really low expectations for child
a) Research shows: social acceptance -> self esteem
59
Self-esteem: the higher the better?
1. Paradoxical findings
a. Drop-outs do not have lower-self-esteem than non-drop outs
- >1) When controlling for prior achievement, when compared don't differ
- >2) Possibly attributing dropping out to other external factors/ life events
b. Aggressive youth have higher self-esteem than socially adjusted youth
c. Narcissism -> Still global
60
How to maintain high self-esteem in spite of contrary evidence?
Bolster by reassigning what you care about aka SHIFTING VALUES
61
How to maintain high self-esteem in spite of contrary evidence - MECHANISMS:
1. Attribute failure to external factors and blame others
2. Discount value/ importance of domain/ situation
3. DOWNWARD SOCIAL COMPARISONS
62
Salience of social categories across development
1. gender ID: early (& late) childhood (ASCRIBED)
- preschoolers police gender
- gender homophily before puberty
2. sexual ID: early/ middle adols (ASCRIBED)
- salient in puberty
3. ethnic ID: early adols/ earlier for ethnic minority groups (ASCRIBED)
- white kids take forever unless lang./ trads are established/ used often
4. Domain/ Interest Specific IDs (achieved): early adols
- define self by hobbies
63
when (types of situations) are gender and ethnicity most salient?
1. numerical minority status (when part of minority group your diff is most salient to you)
2. when mistreated b/c of grp membership
3. when group is used functionally
64
models of minority (black) ID Dev- capturing experience shape self-views
1. Pre encounter
a. Acceptance of societally "given" membership
2. Encounter
a. Dramatic event that disrupts previous world view (discrimination experience, transition)
3. Immersion
a. Period of exploration of the meaning of one's ethnicity
4. Internalization
a. Acceptance of one's ethnicity
65
different dimensions of ethnic identity
1. ethnic ID measures assess:
a) centrality: how important is ethnicity?
b) private regard: how positive?
c) public regard (sellers): how we think others view our ethnic group
66
Ethnic ID as a buffer (Kiang et al., 2006):
1. Goal of study: to examine the moderating/ buffering/ protecting role of ethnic ID among 2 immigrant groups
2. Protective/ buffering effect remained over and beyond self-esteem
3. Some components can have protect/buffer on distress/stress
4. Only found it moderated for how much you positively value the group not for how central it is to your ID
67
social ID complexity (Brewer & Pierce, 2005)
1. social ID complexity: intersections b/w multiple social grps w/ which one IDs
2. lower complexity: ingroups converge
3. high complexity: ingroups largely differentiated
68
benefits of high complexity
1. learn to be tolerant
| 2. can minimize boundaries differentiating ingroups and outgroups
69
implications of social ID complexity- higher complexity
positive intergroup attitudes, peer acceptance, higher feeling of belonging
70
developmental liabilities in adolescence
1. Unrealistic self-views
2. Need to impress others -> false self behaviors
3. Distortions: "imaginary audience," "personal fable"
4. Feeling conflicted about discrepant aspects of self
71
adolescence = period of/ conclusions
1. Identity "crisis" -> integration of inconsistent self-concepts, multiple social IDs
2. Identity search -> development of a multifaceted self, multiple IDs
3. Self-exploration relies on inc self-understanding (cog & env)
4. Self-esteem is NOT a cause of problem! -> there are multiple ways for youth to protect their self-esteem
72
Health probs in adols least likely to be caused by
1. Auto accidents
2. Sub abuse
3. Sex act
4. Chronic illness
73
Most typical health problems in adols are caused by:
1) Health problems are mainly due to preventable behaviors
| 2) Major shift in determinants of health from childhood
74
Leading causes of mortality (death) in childhood vs adolescence
1. More than 2/3 of unintentional injuries of teens due to car accidents
2. alarming rates of homicide and suicide
3. injury deaths skyrocket by age 15-19
4. now suicide rates are surpassing homicide for 10-19 yr olds
5. internalizing problems: close to 1/3 of HS kids report persistent feels of sad and hopelessness
- > boys less at risk but are more successful in suicide attempts
- > blacks and girls likely risk groups
75
Who is least likely to seek/obtain MH services?
1. Boys less likely than girls
2. Ethnic minority youth less likely than white
3. LGBTQ+ youth less likely straight
4. Youth in foster care and juvenile justice system
5. Youth living in rural communities
6. youth with no insurance
76
poverty and health
1. SES (compounded rates of poverty)
2. multiple risk exposure (poverty: one of most potent social determinants of health)
3. health (those in low SES environ growing up @ more risk for health prob +cumulative adversity)
SES -> multiple risk exposure -> health
77
Unmet MH needs
1. About 40% of the 3.1 million adols who exp depression within the past year received treatment meaning 60% have not
2. Reasons for lack of treatment:
a) Few professionals available (psychiatry most problematic)
78
Obesity
1. newer health prob: #1 assoc w/ low SES is obesity
2. rates now leveling
3. b/w 5th-7th grade obesity is inc in girls
4. 7th gr biggest SES diff is in whites; latinos follow in highest risk
79
Evans & Kutcher: community social capital and obesity and smoking
1. Community social capital = cumulative individual of community cohesion + Social control+ teen relations w/ adults in community
a) Community social capital: what matters in communities
b) Social control: do neighbors watch out for your kids and not just theirs?
c) Cohesion: do you feel you belong to community?
d) Teen relations: do kids have someone they can go to?
2. Focus on rural communities
80
Community social capital as a moderator between poverty and obesity
1. As household income increases, BMI decreases BUT NOT WHEN COMMUNITY SOCIAL CAPITAL IS HIGH
a. No assoc b/w family income level and BMI when moderated by community social capital
b. Income-to-needs ratio at age 9 = index of household wealth in childhood
81
community social capital as moderator between poverty and smoking
1. In community with high level of control and collectiveness then no assoc b/w family income and smoking
a) Implication: communities can compensate for something family can't/ doesn't provide
b) Concretize it: poorest fams are single parent fams (e.g. single mom has to trust that there are ppl in community who share her values and will help keep kid on right path and that kid knows if mom isn't home they can go for help to someone else.)
82
Machell et al., 2015: purpose in life: internal protective factor
1. Purpose in life= future-oriented vision that helps youth prioritize and coordinate goals
a) Daily activities connect with long-term plans
b) Poverty: focus on short-term goals
1) may be b/c of unsuccessful adults struggling with finances and health
2) Easily feel distressed and hopeless
3) Poverty -> hopelessness -> problem behaviors
83
purpose in life moderates the assoc b/w ses and youth anti social behaviors
1. In the low purpose condition kids don't see instrumental value to school work b/c they think it won't effect their future
a) They can't connect what they do daily to their future
b) In the high purpose group there's no assoc b/w family SES and behavior -> going to Juvie -> can't get out
84
Summary of external protective factors 2018 (Dept of health and human services)
1. Supportive relationships
2. Safe places to live
3. Opportunities to engage and learn
4. Access to health care (family coordinated, teen-friendly)
85
Drug use: exp vs regular use and abuse
1. Alcohol use still most prevalent
a. Lifetime: "have you ever used…?" = experimentation
1) Doesn't tell you frequency
b. Past year use
c. Past month use = regular use
d. Heavy/ problem use (e.g. binge drinking): quantity
86
Past Year alcohol use
1. annual survey of 1000 HS Kids
| 2. about 1/2 of HS seniors are drinking
87
Experimentation with MJ
1. varies as fun of variability
| 2. has to do with which state you're in
88
Past Month Use
1. more HS students vape than smoke cigarettes
| 2. Vaping: 2017 vs 2018: 1.3 mil more HS students use ecigs now
89
2017 12th gr prescription drug use
1. 5.5% using adderall (most pop cause it's a stimulant)
2. 4.7% tranqs
3. 4.2% Opioids other than heroine
- > hit hardest from 25-35 yrs
90
use trends over time:
1. cigs: down
2. ecigs: up
3. MJ: depends on cohort effects (state, yr of study, grade lvl)
4. alcohol
5. prescription
91
what might explain ecig trend?
1. 8th graders didn't know ecigs have nicotine and 12th graders do
2. 8th gr thought it was just flavoring
3. not all 12th graders know, just more than when in 8th grade
92
Jessor
1. stepping stone/ gate way accounts: smoking -> drinking -> ultimately-> unprotect sex
2. prob. behav. syndrome, Jessor: diff behavs w/common etiology
3. problem/risk behavs = sympts of one underlying factor: unconventionality (high independence and tolerance for deviance, risk taking; low aspirations and low religiosity)
93
comorbidity
1. why do those things go together?
2. engagement in one type of risky behavior inc the likelihood of engaging in another behav
3. health compromising
4. opportunity limiting
5. 3 & 4 not totally separate
94
health comp behavs
1. risky sex
2 dropping out
3. drug use
4. early and multi partner sex and unprotected sex
95
opportunity limiting
1. def: substantial consequences for future options
2. Delinquency
3. violence
4. school dropout
5. pregnancy
96
experimentation vs serious engagement separate? predictors?
1. experimentation predictors:
a. time limited
b. dev. motives (e.g. explore, need to 'fit in')
c. normative?
2. serious engagement:
a. predicted by earlier probs (emo reg probs, probs focusing in class, received lower grades)
b. high risk, limiting future options/ adaptive fning
c. continuity of probs across dev
97
Longitudinal study of MJ use (Shedler & Block)
1. Goal: to examine the fn of experimentation
2. Based on MJ use at age 18:
a. Frequent users (FU)
b. Experimenters [E]
c. Abstainers (A)
3. classification and adjustment: relation b/w lvl of MJ use and:
a. quality of interpersonal relations
b. ditress
c. ego control (impulsivity)
- > FINDING: exp paired best
98
E/Fu/A study: age 5 risk factors, early risk factors
1. both FU and A had neglectful parent-child interactions, mothers unresponsive and demanding, unpleasant interactions
2. Not driven by parenting but by parents' response to kid
99
E/Fu/A study: age 7, diverging
1) FU: distressed, trouble getting along w/ peers
a) Don't know if victim or bully
2) A: eager to please, obedient & neat
a) The perfect kids that teachers would love
100
E/Fu/A study: Age 11: pre/early adols -> true divergency
1) FU: emotionally liable (instable) and inattentive (emo reg implicated)
2) A: fearful, anxious, inhibited, not curious
a) "over controlled"
101
How to understand the effects of risky behaviors during adolescence
1. Same as w/ effects of puberty
a) Can't make meaning of behavior at one time
Have to place in context of earlier data
Implicates emotional and self reg problems
b) Adolescent behaviors need to be understood in the context of earlier development
c) Problem behaviors of high risk youth = symptoms rather than causes of subsequent
2) Experimentation does not promote adjustment… but need to understand the meaning of drug use
102
Moffit
1. Talks about delinquency (testing boundaries vs looking for peer approval)
2. Pattern: sig inc in deliquent behav starting ~14 yrs to 24 yrs
3. Seems to come outta nowhere for most kids but smaller group of individuals where this behav shows early behav probs
a) LIFE COURSE PERSISTENT ADOLS GROUP
b) Problems contd through lifetime BUT changed how they looked later on
c) Adols limited only one predictor that they could predict this with: knowing a peer who engaged in the same behavior
103
Motivations for engaging in "normative" levels of risky behaviors lightfoot
1) Novelty seeking, excitement
a) Limbic system implicated b/c sensitized to rewards
2) Sign of maturity (e.g. drinking, sex = age-defined)
a) Want to act older
3) Rebellion, defying adult authority
a) Notion of "I'm gonna not obey the rules"
4) Entitlement ot reckless behavior (culture conception)
a) Teens ascribing to notion that they ARE reckless
b) DON'T LET THEM BELIEVE THESE LIES
5) Social bonding with peers
a) Evo psych says this is when you should leave the home so you can have your own family
b) Prof said it's like dumb + dumber for teens with peers
104
Reasoning about risks of drug use
1. = understanding of risks
a) It's a cost benefit analysis (for kids) of incompatible (?) goals (social vs. health)
b) We forget these goals as reasonable adults
105
conclusions about teen engagement in risky behavior
1. passing phase, although concurrent risk of drug use real for all
2. not random who are the ones with mroe serious dev outcomes
106
Primary intervention
to prevent neg behaviors, events and injurty (make it not happen nor cause any probs for kids)
107
Secondary Interventions
to reduce the adverse effects of an emerging neg behav (already some indication of risk involved and we try to stop from escalating)
108
Tertiary interventions
to reduce the neg effects of an existing neg event/ condition (someone has a problem and is trying to deal with it)
109
Universal:
everyone gets the treatment (primary intervention always); doesn't haveta be early on, (e.g. drug edu which is school wide prog)
110
Limitation to universal programs
doesn't take into account diff lvls of risk and therefore may not be enough for those who really need it
111
Targeted
need to be screened/ ID "at risk" youth (2nd and 3rd interventions)
112
Limitation to targeted program
stigmatizing those kids (e.g. speech therapy) b/c labels the kids
113
Columbine (1st shooting):
lots of effort to stop it happening
a) Tried to ID kids who might become school shooters
i) This is very rare an we can't accurately do it b/c can't predict precipitating events
A. Closest is incarceration and prolonged hospitalization
B. FBI found out school shooters are often forced into rejecting situation
1. W/ males usually romantic reject
114
Predicting drop outs from earlier risk status
1. No risk: low, low
2. False positive: high risk in 6th gr, low risk in 10th
a. Big group
3. False Negatives: low risk in 6th grade, high risk in 10th grade
a. Approx 40%
b. Usually small group though
4. High risk group: high, high
5. f. Problematic behavs may be temp (due to exp, peer influence) impossible to predict subsequent protective factors, "turning pts" (e.g. one supportive teacher, friend, peer)
115
What happens if false pos are combined with high risk group for targeted intervention?
Prob inc risk of dropping out b/c labeling them and encouraging bad friends (close proximity) and giving teachers neg biases and self-fulfilling prophecy
116
Deviance training:
1. if you've worked w/kids w/ behav probs when put together they are worse and have fun doing it b/c they each reinforce for the other
a) happens in targeted programs
b) Some evidence w/ it getting worse in support groups also
c) E.g. depressed indivs
117
Myriad of primary prev and secondary progs for adolescents
1. Drug prev (prim/ sec) -> DARE don’t work
2. Sex Ed (prim/ sec)
3. Delinquency prev (sec)
4. Violence prev (prim/sec) e.g. antibullying schoolwide
5. Drop out rpev (sec/ tert)
6. MH prev (dep/anx) (sec/ tert)
118
MORE IS NOT BETTER
1. fragmented services, redundant progs, high cost
| 2. fragmented approaches not addressing the underlying/ core dev antecedents
119
Community Volunteering (service learning) general info
1. Focuses on core dev need rather than risky behave b/c risky behav have common roots
2. Available to all BUT high risk kids encouraged to participate
3. Heterogeneous group of kids
4. fundamentally diff b/c consistent w/ idea that risky behavs reflect unmet needs/symptoms but there's no labeling, stigmatization nor deviance training
120
3 components of volunteer learning prog
1) Voluntary comm service (ave. 46 hr/yr)
2) Weekly class disc
a) 1st type: how's it feel to help the way you do?
i) Draws attention to satisfied needs
b) 2nd: just about fam/relationship issues
i) Gives kids voice
121
Design of volunteer learning prog
1) Students interested in the program randomly assigned to Teen Outreach or a control group under "health curriculum" (control; wait list)
2) Pre & post measures across the experimental and control groups
3) Can't tell if it works or not unless very good design
4) Self-selection of who choose and who doesn't go into it
5) Split to those who go
6) Control for motivation
7) Wait list control
8) Need pre/post measure for best design
122
Results of volunteer learning prog
1) Control group: students suspended and students failing went up, pregs stayed the same
2) In outreach: all three were sig lowered
3) It reduced opportunity limiting behaviors
123
Reasons underlying the success of Voluntary Comm Service
1. Meeting dev sensitive goals
a) Key component: not just doing it but being able to reflect on it *broadly*
b) = dev sensitive goals
Autonomy, sense of connection, purpose
124
Goals met by volunteer learning prog
1) Engaged kids
a. Often disengaged b/c they believe it's irrelevant to their lives (autonomy)
b. Often receive help but never offer
2) Provides kids sense of agency
3) Links discussions at school to outside world more meaningfully than other cases (meaningful learning)
4) Facilitated connection to adult/teacher and peers
psych 133a
flashcards
Decks in class (4)
# Cards
