It’s no secret that today’s teenagers are under a lot of stress. More APs, great grades, terrific scores, and more extracurriculars are the drum beat of high school these days. Here are the five things teenagers think grown ups need to consider about education stress on students.
Stress In High School Students: What Teens Want You To Know
1. Everything counts, so do everything “right.”
You need to do everything “right” in order to do anything later in life. Adults often insist that in order to succeed you must make the “right” decisions in high school. You need to have excellent grades and do all the right activities. Only this will lead to admission to the right college and the right career. The atmosphere in school, especially with the countless standardized tests, is: “If you don’t do well on this set of tests you are doomed for the rest of your life”. The constant pressure to never make a mistake is very hard—and very stressful.
2. Also, be “the best.”
All the accomplished siblings, classmates, the notable alumni, it’s a lot to live up to. Colleges and employers state proudly that ‘only the best’ are admitted. This adds a lot of student stress. We are teenagers. We do not have an exact idea what we want to do with our lives, but striving to be the best at everything appears to be the only option.
3. We worry about disappointing you.
We want to be kids that make our parents proud. Being interested in something our parents dislike can result in contemplation about whether pursuing the activity is worth upsetting our parents. The fear of disappointing our parents may not always be obvious but it is present.
4. We need more sleep (seriously).
We often hear at school that in order to get into a good college, and subsequently get a decent job, we have to take challenging classes and get excellent grades. This is a lot of effort and takes a lot of time. In addition, we have to participate in sports, clubs, volunteer, etc. The activities may be enjoyable but, there are only 24 hours in the day. Then there is family and traces of a social life. To attend to all these things, something has to give. This is mostly sleep. We value and enjoy sleep, contrary to numerous films depicting teens sneaking out every night. Not sleeping results in all our other activities demanding even more effort and time. Why are we expected to be so busy? Why does high school stress seem to be the only path to success?
5. We don’t have enough (any) “me” time.
“High school is the best time of your life. You have so much time to explore your interests.” Free time to explore develop and explore interests besides the organized activities is a nice idea. Unfortunately, it is completely unrealistic, as previously stated. Every class and every activity demands 150 percent effort. Everyone wants all of your time and attention despite knowing that we are expected to do so many things in so little time. It would be great to have time to pursue personal interests and actually have a chance to find out what we are passionate about, before taking on college and a career. Why is it is better to box every minute of our lives into a crazy schedule?
The latest
| 1. Academic responsibilities or pressures | 68 percent |
| 2. Finances or debt | 64 percent |
| 3. Anxiety | 61 percent |
| 4. Poor work/school-life balance | 59 percent |
| 5. Family issues | 45 percent |
| 6. Research responsibilities or pressures | 43 percent |
| 7. Burnout or compassion fatigue | 38 percent |
| 8. Professional isolation or lack of social support | 36 percent |
| 9. Depression | 35 percent |
| 10. Physical health issues | 34 percent |
| 11. Marital/relationship problems | 33 percent |
| 12. Other interpersonal issues | 33 percent |
| 13. Death, loss or grief | 28 percent |
| 14. Teaching responsibilities or pressures | 13 percent |
| 15. Discrimination | 13 percent |
The content I just read:
We used SPSS Statistics Data Editor Version 17.0 for the statistical analyses.
The mean T score on the Stress Profile Scale for this sample of students was 43.06 (SD = 9.39), which is within normal limits (T score = 40 to T score = 60). Specifically, 58% percent of the students were within normal limits, 39% reported lower than average stress, and only 3% indicated high stress. Men reported significantly less stress than women (T scores = 41.98 and 44.07, respectively, with the –2.198 Z score on the Mann–Whitney U Test for two independent samples significant at the 0.028 alpha level). We also examined Stress Scale scores by year, and found that second year students (T score = 45.08) had higher stress levels than first (T score = 42.38) and third (T score = 42.29) year students (Kruskal–Wallis Test for K independent samples, c2 = 7.172, p = 0.028).
The students reported that their sources of stress were: 1) exams, 49%; 2) choosing a career, 12.83%; 3) family problems, 9.54%; 4) economic difficulties, 11.86%; 5) problems with boyfriend/girlfriend, 4.93%; 6) having a relative or a friend with an illness, 4.28%; 7) personal health problems, 3.62%; 8) homework, 3.29%; 9) teachers, 2.96%; and 10) other, 1.97 %. There were no great sex differences here, as the first five sources of stress were the same for men and women.
The main responses to stress were: 1) listening to music, 2) talking about the problem with a friend, 3) physical exercise, 4) going out with friends, 5) talking to a relative, 6) sleeping more than usual, 7) watching TV, 8) eating more than usual, 9) smoking, and 10) drinking some alcohol. The first three responses were the same for men and women, listening to music, talking about the problem with a friend, and exercising.
These data indicate that the students in our sample are well protected against stress, because most of them reported normal stress levels, the T score for the Prevention subscale was above 60, and no risk factors were observed. However, there are some significant differences between men and women, as indicated in Table 1.
Table 1. Protective factors against stress: results by sex| SEX | ||||
| Female | Male | |||
| Mean score T | Percentile±Standard Deviation(SD) | Mean score T | Percentile±SD | |
| Health habits | 52.73 | 57±8.95 | 55.52 | 69±10.58 |
| Excercise | 48.54 | 42±10.70 | 53.26 | 61±10.24 |
| Rest/sleep | 47.10 | 38±8.94 | 48.76 | 42±10.63 |
| Eating/nutrition | 49.95 | 49±9.47 | 51.06 | 53±9.24 |
| prevention | 77.94* | 99±5.74 | 76.22* | 99±10.05 |
| Social support network | 61.70* | 86±16.02 | 56.24 | 72±17.28 |
| Cognitive hardiness | 48.29 | 42±9.14 | 48.08 | 42±9.86 |
| Positive appraisal | 54.38 | 65±13.95 | 53.88 | 61±14.40 |
| Problem focus | 46.65 | 36±12.72 | 48.78 | 42±14.14 |
* Indicates stress protection
As we can see, men scored higher than women on the Health Habits Scale (Mann–Whitney U Test for two independent samples, p = 0.006), indicating that the men in our sample reported better health habits than did the women. Specifically, the Health Habits Exercise subscale indicated that men tend to do more physical exercise than women (Mann–Whitney U Test, p < 0.001. Also, the Rest/Sleep subscale suggests that men sleep better than women, but this difference was not significant (p = 0.188), nor was the difference between men and women on the Eating Nutrition subscale (p = 0.286). Both men and women had T scores above 60 on the Prevention subscale, indicating that their health habits provide above average protection against stress-related illnesses. Finally, women were significantly more satisfied than men with their social support networks (Mann–Whitney U Test on the Social Support Scale, p = 0.003).
There are four scores on the Stress Profile that can be interpreted as stress risk factors, the Stress Scale, the ARC Item Cluster, the Type A Personality Behavior Scale, and Negative Appraisal subscale (one of four Coping Style subscales). The T scores for these risk factors were between 40 and 60 (within normal limits), indicating that our sample was not experiencing excessive stress. However, there were significant sex differences on these factors, as shown in Table 2.
| SEX | ||||
| Female | Male | |||
| T-score | Percentile±SD | T-score | Percentile±SD | |
| ARC item cluster | 45.02 | 31±7.89 | 49.01 | 46±10.71 |
| Type A behavior | 40.54 | 17±11.45 | 43.59 | 25±12.83 |
| Negative appraisal | 47.79 | 41±13.92 | 48.30 | 42±12.64 |
| Threat minimization | 54.73 | 67±13.51 | 56.12 | 72±14.07 |
First, on the ARC Item Cluster, even though men (T score = 49.01) and women (T score = 45.02) were within normal limits on these items (alcohol consumption, recreational drug use, smoking cigarettes), men reported engaging in these behaviors significantly more often than women (p = 0.001). Second, on the Type A Personality Behavior Scale, which measures characteristics such as competitiveness, distrust, irritation, hostility, and vulnerability to coronary diseases, men scored significantly higher than women (T scores = 43.59 and 40.54, respectively, p = 0.027).
We also compared students with respect to their year in high school and found that most of their T scores were in the 40 to 60 range (within normal limits), with the exception of the Health Habits Prevention subscale (T score above 60), which is an indicator of protection against stress. These results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Protective factors against stress: Results per semester.| Subscales Nowack stress profile | 2do Semester | 4to Semester | 6to Semester | |||
| t-score | Percentile±SD | t-score | Percentile±SD | t-score | Percentile±SD | |
| Health habits | 54.33 | 65±10.48 | 53.46 | 61±7.77 | 54.26 | 65±10.59 |
| Excercise | 50.76 | 50±10.57 | 48.82 | 42±10.84 | 52.76 | 57±10.66 |
| Rest/sleep | 49.32 | 46±10.36 | 46.47 | 34±9.10 | 46.96 | 34±9.31 |
| Eating/nutrition | 50.92 | 50±9.08 | 50.83 | 50±9.50 | 49.47 | 46±9.70 |
| prevention | 76.30* | 99±9.69 | 78.93* | 99±3.60 | 76.73* | 99±8.27 |
| Social support network | 55.27 | 69±17.71 | 60.22* | 84±15.11 | 64.07* | 91±15.58 |
| Cognitive hardiness | 45.74 | 31±9.20 | 49.86 | 46±8.44 | 50.58 | 50±9.96 |
| Positive appraisal | 51.72 | 53±14.76 | 55.94 | 69±13.49 | 56.34 | 72±13.27 |
| Problem focus | 45.58 | 31±14.41 | 48.43 | 42±12.07 | 50.32 | 50±12.61 |
* Indicates stress protection
We used the Kruskal–Wallis Test for K independent samples to examine between groups differences on the Protection Scales. On the Exercise subscale, the first and third year students reported doing more exercise than the second year students (p = 0.050). Also, for Health Habits Scale, we can say first and third year students are in better health than second year students.
On the Social Support Scale, which measures satisfaction with the size and quality of one’s social support network, we found that scores increased with the students’ year in high school. First and second year students had T scores of 55.27 and 60.22, respectively (within normal limits), but the T score for the third year students was significantly higher (64.07, p < 0.001), indicating that by the time students reach the third year of high school, their support networks lend them additional protection against stress-related illnesses. The results for the Cognitive Strength, Positive Appraisal, and Problem Focus Scales were similar. T scores on these scales with the students’ year in high school. On the Cognitive Strength Scale, the T scores for the first, second, and third year students were 45.74, 49.86, and 50.58, respectively (p < 0.001). Two measures of positive coping style, Positive Appraisal (first year, T = 51.72; second year, T = 55.94; third year, T = 56.34; p = 0.024) and Problem Focus (first year, T = 45.58; second year, T = 48.43; third year, T = 50.32; p = 0.025) followed the same pattern.
The results for two other coping style subscales were consistent with these findings of increasingly better stress management with progress through high school. T scores increased across the three years on the Threat Minimization subscale, which measures the tendency to minimize the negative aspects of problems (p = 0.012), and they decreased on the Negative Appraisal subscale, which measures the tendency to dwell on the negative aspect of problems.
The fact that stress risk factors as measured on all the scales were within normal limits (T scores from 40 to 60) indicates that this sample of students is protected against stress. However, the between group differences we observed indicate that some of them are more vulnerable to stress than others. For instance, students in the second and third years scored significantly higher (p = 0.010) on the Type A Personality Behavior Scale (T scores = 43.52 and 43.86, respectively) than the first year students (T = 39.99).
The final scale we examined was a measure of Psychological Well-being. This scale indicated that the students’ well-being improves with the time (first year, T = 53; second year, T = 55; third year, T = 59; p = 0.005), which is consistent with the increasingly better management of stress noted for the Cognitive Strength, Positive Appraisal, Problem Focus, Threat Minimization, and Negative Appraisal scales. (Table 4)
Table 4. Risk factors to stress: Results per semester.| Subscales Nowack stress profile | 2to Semester | 4to Semester | 6to Semester | |||
| T-score | percentile± SD | T-score | percentile±SD | T-score | percentile±SD | |
| ARC item cluster | 47.16 | 38±10.06 | 45.52± | 31±8.08 | 47.93 | 38±9.91 |
| Type A behavior | 39.99* | 16±12.24 | 43.52± | 24±12.59 | 43.86 | 24±11.45 |
| Negative appraisal | 48.10 | 42±13.01 | 48.28± | 42±14.04 | 47.72 | 38±13.19 |
| Threat minimization | 53.22 | 61±14.02 | 55.99± | 72±12.60 | 58.33 | 78±13.98 |
* Indicates stress protection