PRESENTATION TO STAKEHOLDERS
Jo Kleeb
This presentation provides you with a sample of
analysis outcomes from Year 1 of the Youth
Connectedness Project, related to the areas of:
School
Bullying
Technology
SCHOOL DATA
The survey contained a school section that included 37 individual
questions. The major areas measured were:
» School performance
» Inter-student relationships (including bullying in
school)
» Absences
» School related wellbeing
» Staff-student relationships
All school-related measures were examined for gender, school
decile and school year differences - key findings are reported.
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SCHOOL RELATED MEASURES
School Performance: Females rated satisfaction with class work
performance higher than males.
Inter-student Relationships: Females reported more positive relationships
with classmates and other students in the school and lower rates of being a
bully than males.
School-Related Wellbeing: Females reported higher levels of guidance
support and future orientation than males.
Staff-Student Relationships: Females reported a higher sense of school
community than males.
Conclusion: Males are lagging behind females in a number of key areas.
These findings suggest that initiatives which aim to increase male academic
performance would do well to incorporate the fostering of more positive interstudent and staff-student relationships and active guidance support.
DECILE VARIATIONS IN SCHOOL RELATED MEASURES - 1
Inter-student Relationships: Reported rates of witnessing
bullying and being a bully were higher in low to mid decile
schools compared to high decile schools.
Absences: As school decile increased reported rates of
absence due to helping parents and truancy decreased.
School-Related Wellbeing: As school decile increased so
did reported rates of guidance support. High decile schools
reported lower future orientation than either mid or low decile
schools.
Staff-Student Relationships: As school decile increased
levels of home-school dissonance, having a positive
relationship with teacher(s) and sense of school community
decreased.
DECILE VARIATIONS IN SCHOOL RELATED MEASURES - 2
Conclusion:
For low to mid decile schools, ensuring reliable attendance of
students, adequate provision of guidance, combating bullying
behaviour and not conflicting too strongly with the values of
parents appear to be key challenges.
High-decile school students may, on average, feel less
necessity to work hard for their future and it is also possible
that one or more of the elements typical of high decile
schools are not as conducive to positive connections with
teachers and sense of school community (compared to low
decile schools).
SCHOOL YEAR DIFFERENCES IN SCHOOL
RELATED MEASURES - 1
School Performance: Ratings of satisfaction with performance in
class work, English proficiency and sports decreased with school
year.
Inter-student Relationships: Rates of witnessing bullying and
being a bully increased with school year and ratings of the
effectiveness of anti-bullying programmes decreased with school
year.
Absences: Truancy rates were higher on average in year 10
compared to year 6 and 8.
School-Related Wellbeing: Future orientation decreased with
school year.
Staff-Student Relationships: Ratings of positive relationships with
teachers and sense of school community decreased with school
year (even when school roll size was controlled for).
SCHOOL YEAR DIFFERENCES IN SCHOOL
RELATED MEASURES - 2
Conclusion:
It is clear that it becomes more difficult to retain student
interest in both school and school work as participants get
older.
Once we have longitudinal data, we will be able to identify the
factors that predict (over time): a) students who maintain
negative outcomes, b) students who improve, c) students who
decline, and d) students who maintain positive outcomes.
Yr6
Yr8
Yr10
TURNED ON AND OFF SUBJECTS BY TEACHERS
The graph shows that rates of being turned off a subject were highest in
year 10 (particularly so for medium to high decile schools) and also that
rates increased with school decile for year 8 students.
Rates of being turned onto a subject by a good teacher remained high
across gender, school year and decile.
School Year
Year 6
Year 8
Year 10
Percent turned off subject by teacher
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Low (1-3)
Medium (4-6)
Decile Category
High (7-10)
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR STUDENT DATA
Once we have longitudinal data we look forward
to finding the answers to questions such as:
1. What factors, across the full range of
connectedness domains, determine how
smoothly young people make the transition
from one school to another?
2. What is the most difficult transition that young
people make – from primary to intermediate,
from primary to college or from intermediate to
college, and why?
PRINCIPAL SURVEYS
We sent out short principal surveys to participating schools. By 23rd
February 2007 we had received surveys back from 57 schools,
representing 75% of the participants in the study (N=1639). The types of
schools represented by Principal’s surveys are summarized below.
Sec 9-15
29.8
School Type
Sec 7-15
3.5
10.5
Intermediate
Composite
5.3
Full Primary
24.6
26.3
Contributing
0
10
20
30
Percentage of Surveys
Selected results from these surveys follow.
40
School Donation 46.9% of Principals said
they received 50% or less of their school
donations.
Information about New Students
Sufficient? 3.6% said no, 30.9% said yes
and 65.5% said it ‘varies’
Top Four Initiatives Provided in Schools
Internet safety, literacy, gifted students, antibullying.
PRINCIPAL SATISFACTION SCALES
Inter-staff support
4.41
Teacher-student relationships
4.32
School-parent relationship
4.25
Student relationships
4.19
Community support
3.57
Help from parents
3.17
Funds school raises
2.57
MoE funding
2.45
1
2
3
4
5
Mean Satisfaction
Summary: Principals tend to report higher satisfaction on those
questions related to internal relationships within the school. While
they are less satisfied with parental or community support they are
least satisfied with external funding.
ISSUES FACING SCHOOLS
Principals were asked to nominate up to three major issues facing their
school. Content analysis identified a number of common themes. To be
concise in this presentation we only present the top three issues.
Theme
Freq*
Specific Issues Identified
Budget/
funding
25
sustaining programmes; building or repairs;
insufficiency of Government funding; lack of
resources for special needs/ESoL students;
expense of ICT; hiring new staff; professional
development costs; cost to parents
Student
22
behaviour
attendance; bullying/anger/violence (including text
and internet); swearing; disrespect for property;
negative school culture; smoking/drugs; poor
social skills; weakened spiritual values; racial
intolerance; disrespecting teachers; negative
impact of weekend activities
Roll
declining; over-crowding; need for enrolment
scheme; transience
15
SCHOOL STRENGTHS
Principals were asked to nominate up to three major strengths for their
school. We present the top three strengths.
Theme
Freq*
Specific Strength Identified
Staffstudent
20
family atmosphere; caring; inclusive; friendly; most
know each other; strong sense of community/
positive culture/school spirit; shared leadership
Teacher
Attributes
18
relationship based teaching; work closely with
students; involvement in extra-curricula activities;
student support; quality teaching of NCEA;
committed; dedicated; well-educated;
expertise/experience; hard working; teacher
designed; distributed leadership
Student
Attributes
15
friendly; high values/morals; delightful;
enthusiastic; student leadership; talented;
motivated to learn; diverse; hardworking;
disciplined; engaged; proud of school; safe – nonviolent
relations
SCHOOL CELL-PHONE POLICIES - 1
The most common policies were prohibition of use during class
time or handed into the school during the school day. Leniency
appeared to increase with school year. Of those who said cellphones were not allowed in class time, 30% specified that
breaking the rules resulted in confiscation.
Not allowed at school
Must hand in during school hours
10
8
6
Allowed to posses but not to use in
school
Allowed in school but not in class
Allowed/no policy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
SCHOOL CELL-PHONE POLICIES - 2
We collapsed policies into two groups: 1/ allowed during the
school day and 2/ not allowed. We then examined mean
differences in student data as a function of group membership.
RESULTS
Lower decile schools were more likely to fall into the ‘not allowed’
category.
Controlling for school year and decile, we also found that the ‘not
allowed’ category (compared to allowed) was associated with higher
levels of text traffic on both school days and weekends and higher
rates of text bullying – both sent and received.
Results were reported to a post-survey focus group of 13 to 16
year olds who indicated that being told they cannot have a cell
phone makes them want to use it more and banning serves to
create ‘hidden’ use (which can’t be monitored).
BULLYING ANALYSIS - 1
We measured rates of
being bullied and
victimized both in and
outside school and via
text messages.
For schools we also
measured rates of
witnessing bullying and
bullying programme
effectiveness.
A selection of outcomes
are presented here.
BULLYING ANALYSIS - 2
 Year 8 (12 to 13 years) appears to be a time when gender and
decile differences in bullying rates temporarily disappear.
 Bullying rates jumped the most for males between years 8 & 10.
 Participants were more likely to be victimised in school than
outside school or via text.
 Rates of being bullied outside school showed a pattern of
decrease with advancing school year, which may be tied in part
to post-survey focus group comments that parents hitting
children may stop when children become big enough to ‘hit back’
(circa age 12).
 Males were more likely to receive a mean text message than
females.
 In follow up to post-survey focus group comments to the effect
that ‘teachers need to watch/care in order to make sure bullying
doesn’t happen’ we found outcomes consistent with an
interpretation that teacher engagement plays a key role in
reducing bullying behaviour.
BULLYING GROUPS - 1
We were able to classify students into four ‘bullying groups’:
 Normal (low to no levels of being a bully/victim) – 72% of
sample
 Classic Bully (primarily bullies others) – 12% of sample
 Classic Victim (primarily bullied by others) – 13% of sample
 Bully-Victim (high levels of both bullying and being bullied) –
3% of sample
Note. We also created bully groups based on text bullying and are
comparing with the above for similarities and differences.
BULLYING GROUPS - 2
A sample of findings
• Substance use (particularly cigarettes), truancy and a higher degree
of deviant peer affiliation was more likely in bullies and bully-victims.
•
Susceptibility to negative peer influence: Normal<Victim<Bully<BullyVictim.
•
Bully-victims tended to have poorer social skills and used more
negative coping strategies, with those in the normal group reporting
the highest adjustment in these areas.
•
Self harming actions/thoughts were more likely in bullies, victims and
bully-victims than in the normal group.
•
Family conflict was highest in bully-victims. Bullies and victims also
report higher levels of family conflict than the normal group.
•
Victims and bully-victims were least likely to feel they would have
reliable support when in trouble, while bullies reported less guidance
support than those in the normal group.
•
Bullies and bully-victims reported less secure bonding and
reassurance of worth than those in the normal group.
TECHNOLOGY - PREVALENCE
More females than males used a cell phone and used their cell
phone to text friends. Internet use, having net friends and using
a cell phone increased with age group.
Gender %
Age Group %
Male Fem
10-11 12-13 14-15
Cell phones
Use cell phone
Text friends
70
87
80
92
57
74
80
94
92
97
73
27
72
27
65
16
74
28
80
38
37
38
27
39
48
Internet
Use Internet
Net friends
Within net users
Net friends
TECHNOLOGY – KEY FINDINGS
 Females had higher rates of importance of cell phone for texting
friends, using their cell phone to maintain ties with those not
seen often and text traffic.
 10 to 11 years olds placed the least importance on cell phones
for keeping in touch with friends, were less likely to use their cell
for maintaining contact with those they don’t see often and had
the lowest text traffic during the school week.
 Time spent gaming peaked around 12 to 13 years.
 10 to 11 year olds were more likely to rate net friends as
important and to rate support from net friends more highly, even
though they were least likely to have net friends.
 Using the net to chat showed a robust linear increase with age.
 Among internet users, those with net friends chatted on the net
with people they knew more often than those without net friends,
suggesting some tendency to accrue ‘stranger’ friendships via
social networking with those that you know. Also, those with net
friends spent more time gaming than those without net friends
NET FRIENDS vs. TRADITIONAL FRIENDS
 Young people rated traditional friend’s support higher than
net friend support – the distinction between the two
became greater with age.
 The impact of net friend support on wellbeing lost
significance when its effects were considered in tandem
with traditional friend support.
 Unlike traditional friend support, higher levels of net friend
support were associated with a greater susceptibility to
being influenced by others.
 Those with net friends (compared to those without)
reported significantly lower levels of family monitoring,
sleep sufficiency and body image and higher levels of
loneliness, time spent alone and school absences.
TECHNOLOGY - ANALYSIS POTENTIAL
 To current knowledge, we are the first worldwide
to compare traditional friend support and net
friend support.
 Youth 2007 has used some of our technology
questions in their survey – we look forward to
bringing our two powerful datasets together to
provide high quality insights into the relationship
between youth and modern technology.
 We have expanded the technology area. The
Year 2 survey of YCP has added more questions
on technology usage rates and internet bullying.