4
z
‘ .. . . . . ;'1.-_
E ‘ . .bvauu: .2 ix... :. :9
w . ‘ . ..;..:;..€.E :3 1 .2”... . T
, Z 3.355.?— ._ :37 3.2 ‘1: ‘ . . 3.1
fikafimmfla. a .é. p), , , ‘ , ,3
.9 .z. .
in, A.
.3. .:
r , Lu“.
3. .3313. 3. .44
All \4i.

3, 15:
, 3...: .1 3:. 2!

4521253.: ,

a):

.f. 1.

5.35.1.
.V 112,1)...595‘
.9. .21." 95.3.
. 3:47:

a}.

 

..... 7w..:}

")1 . :73
.11):.{ z

to}
31.5.5...

Mi! .3 . 1 .. «.
32.: 1t , ~ 7... I . f
x 3431137. 1.! y. I»... \ 7.1.: ‘ . r.. «ll... ,
£1.73??? . , 1:1,. 3 :4! .l... . , ..
... . r . «..\:frt.. ..f . l...
.1233 .

 

 

 

 

1:14.17)? 7327...... ‘
till »\ 1.3.1.11;
33.....{r :3; I. .
52.55. .1!‘ ..,
Inter! Lil.

 

9.2.2.11...th
V .+ .v a 4:;

Vi‘.

 

 

 

11:13,“

.15.!..{ x.
. .13;

3}:
11.3 = .

 

 

K . , . , . . 3253. 54%.; . ‘ . V
3%.. :3 WM.

:6

5.41:} xiv

. x. _ . 2.5:: ..:
V . n . l
r. . v.39 . , . o 1.: , ..

. .«ixawzzua , .

 

5,7. «.gfiuflfifiihwmpw
RN

 

 

  
 

  
  

LI BRA R Y
Michigan State

31 University f”

c ~ . \voh‘m,

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
A Systematic Evaluation of Drug Education
Programs from Selected Schools
presented by

Artie Linda Kearney

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Higher Education

 

 

Major professor

Date 8'5'74

0-7639

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

A SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF DRUG EDUCATION
PROGRAMS FROM SELECTED SCHOOLS

BY

Artie Linda Kearney

This study measured the degree of success of drug
education programs from selected schools. The basic objec—
tives of this research were: (1) to set up common criteria
for evaluating the degree of success of drug education
programs; and (2) to find out how closely drug education
programs from selected schools fit into the criteria that
were set up. Fifteen junior and senior high schools were
included in the study. The researcher interviewed the
principal and a teacher who taught drug education from each
school.

The research data was obtained through the use of
questionnaires that was completed through interviews.

Two numerical scores were computed for each school's drug
education program. One score was tabulated from teachers'
perception of the program, while the other score was
principals' perception of the program. A breakdown of the
scores was presented according to the number of criteria
utilized in the program as perceived by teachers and princi—

pals and how the respondents answered each question.

 

A")?
a)
(4%

A one-way analysis of variance was run to determine

Artie Linda Kearney

if there were any significant differences in the number of
criteria utilized in drug education programs from selected
urban, suburban, and rural schools. Two t—tests were run
to determine if there were any significant differences in
the number of criteria utilized in drug education programs
from selected junior and senior high schools; and to see if
there were any significant differences in the number of
criteria utilized in drug education programs from selected
schools, as perceived by teachers and principals. No sig-
nificant differences were found.

In summary, it was concluded that there were no
significant differences in the number of criteria being
utilized in the schools' drug education pr0grams.

The criteria established by the researcher for
evaluating drug education prOgrams were supported by a

study done by the Michigan State Department of Education.

 

A SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF DRUG EDUCATION

PROGRAMS FROM SELECTED SCHOOLS

BY

Artie Linda Kearney

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Higher Education and Administration

1974

To my mother: For her love and
encouragement which made my

entire education possible.

To my father--who would have

been so proud.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Dr. William Sweetland, my major
advisor, for the support he has given throughout my doctoral
program.

I wish to thank Dr. R. C. Trojanowicz, Dr. Max R.
Raines, and Dr. Dale Alam, the other members of my doctoral
committee, for their time and effort on my behalf.

Appreciation is also due Dr. Van Johnson who made
it possible for me to complete my dissertation.

I wish to extend a Special thanks to the teachers
and principals who were kind enough to grant me an inter-
view. Without them, this study would not have been possible.

Finally, I wish to thank Bob, for his continued

support and friendship throughout the year.

iii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O 0 O I O 0

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

THE PROBLEM O O C O O O O O I O O O O
IntrOduc ti on C O O O O O O O O O I 0
Need for Study 0 O O O O O O I O O O
Purposes of the Study . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . .

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY . . . . . . .

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY . . . . . .

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . .

SEVERITY OF THE DRUG PROBLEM . . . . .

Barbiturates . . . . . . . . . . . .
AlCOhOl Abuse 0 O O O C O O O O C C

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS

IN THE SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . .
Drug Abuse Education Act . . . . . .
DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN -.
S.T.R.I.D.E. Program . . . . . . . .
HUMANISTIC APPROACH TO DRUG PREVENTION
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Population . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

Vii

16
16

17

)1

23
25
39
43
44
48
50

50
50

Chapter Page

IV.

Sampling Selection and Size . . . . . . . . 51
The Research Instrument . . . . . . . . . . 51
Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . . . 52
The Interview Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Conducting the Interview . . . . . . . . . . 55
Method of Reporting Data . . . . . . . . . . 56
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

REPORT AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . 58

IntrOduction O O O O O O O O O C O O O C O O 58
Setting up the Criteria for Evaluating
Drug Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . 6O

DIFFERENCES FOUND IN NUMBER OF CRITERIA
UTILIZED IN DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS
ACCORDING TO GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION . . . . . . . 63

DIFFERENCES FOUND IN NUMBER OF CRITERIA
UTILIZED IN DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN
JUNIOR AND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . 65

DIFFERENCES FOUND IN NUMBER OF CRITERIA
UTILIZED IN DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS AS
PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS . . . . . 66

THE DEGREE OF SUCCESS OF DRUG EDUCATION
PROGRAMS AS MEASURED BY THE CRITERIA . . . . . 67

CRITERIA NOT BEING INCORPORATED INTO
DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS o o o o o o o o o I. o 69

COMMONALITIES IN DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS . . . 70

Planning Of Drug Education Programs . . . . 71
Special Training for Teachers . . . . . . . 73
Courses in Which Drug Education Are

Integrated into Curriculum . . . . . . . . 76
Approaches Used in DrUg Education . . . . . 81
Child's First Introduction tO

Drug Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Articulation Of Drug Education Programs

With Other Subjects and Grade Levels . . . 85
Evaluation of Drug Education Program . . . . 89

Chapter

TEACHERSI AND PRINCIPALS'

IN DRUG INFORMATION PROGRAMS AND THE
SUCCESS OF DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS .

DRUG USAGE WITHIN THE SCHOOL . . . .

smary O O O O O O C C

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . .

Introduction . . . . . .
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . .
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . .
IMPLICATION OF THE STUDY .
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE

Summary . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES O O O O O C O O O O 0

APPENDIX A - QUESTIONNAIRE . .
APPENDIX B - COMPUTATIONS . .

APPENDIX C - JUNIOR AND SENIOR
IN INGHAM COUNTY

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . .

vi

RESEARCH

HIGH SCHOOLS

PARTICIPATION

Page

91
92

97

98
98
98
103
106
108
109
110

110
114

116

118

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. One-Way Analysis of Variance . . . . . . . . . 64
2. Two-Sample t-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3. t-Test For Matched Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4A. Degree of Success Of Drug Education
Programs as Measured by the Criteria . . . . 68

4B. Overview of the Degree of Success of
Drug Education Programs From
Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5. Criteria Not Being Incorporated Into
Drug Education Programs From
Selected Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6. Teachers' ReSponses to Question II . . . . . . 72
7. Principals' Responses to Question II . . . . . 72
8A. Teachers' Responses to Question III, 1 . . . . 73
8B. Teachers' Responses to Question III, 2 . . . . 74
9A. Principals' Responses to Question III, 1 . . . 75
9B. Principals' Responses to Question III, 2 . . . 75
10A. Teachers' Responses to Question IV, 1 . . . . 77
10B. Teachers' Responses to Question IV, 2 . . . . 78
11A. Principals' ReSponses to Question IV, 1 . . . 79
11B. Principals' Responses to Question IV, 2 . . . 80

12. Teachers' Responses to Question V . . . . . . 82

13. Principals' Responses to Question V . . . . . 83

vii

Table

14.

15A.
15B.
16A.
16B.
17A.
17B.

18.

19A.

19B.

Page

Teachers' and Principals' Responses
to Question VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Teachers' Responses to Question VII, 1 . . . . 85
Principals' ReSponses to Question VII, 1 . . . 86
Teachers' Responses to Question VII, 2 . . . . 87
Principals' Responses to Question VII, 2 . . . 88
Teachers' Responses to Question VIII . . . . . 89
Principals' Responses to Question VIII . . . . 91
Teachers' and Principals' Participation in

Drug Information Programs and the Success

Of Drug Education Programs . . . . . . . . . 93

Teachers' Responses to Question IX . . . . . 94

Principals' Responses to Question IX . . . . . 96

viii

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

The problem of drug abuse within our society has
reached the prOportions Of a national crisis. NO longer
can the drug problem be relegated to the ghettos, the
inner cities, and the black communities as a problem unique
only to the underprivileged. It has Spread to all segments
of society. Today's drug problem is as much at home in the
mansion as in the tenement; in the suburbs as in the inner
city; in the halls of learning at every level Of our schools,
and in the back alleys. Today, there is no stereotyped
youth who experiments with or abuses drugs for such youths
are represented at every socio-economic level regardless of
geographic location, religious affiliation, and ethnic or
racial origins. However, all youths who eXperiment with or
use drugs share one vital similarity. They all know some-
one who is using drugs or they have easy access to such

substances.1

 

1George S. Larimer, Alvin H. Tucker, and Ellen F.
Brown, "Drugs and Youth," Pennsylvania Health, XXXI, 4
(Winter, 1970), 2.

In July, 1970, the United States Attorney General,
John N. Mitchell, called for new legislation to regulate
drugs and noted, "It's no exaggeration to say that the drug
danger threatens the moral and physical health Of an entire

2 Noting that drug abuse has reached the epi-

generation."
demic stage among young peOple, Attorney General Mitchell
labeled it a "critical national problem that needs all the
attention we can focus on it."3 In any nation, and especially
in a democracy, it is essential to assure the productivity
of its youth in order to guarantee the survival Of a future
society capable of providing for a nation's structural needs.
Concern for a nation's productivity is generated by reports
such as the one issued by the National Commission on Marijuana
and Drug Abuse which states that "26 million Americans have
tried grass and 13 million are regular users."4

Although marijuana has been defended in many circles
as a harmless means of relaxation, lack of knowledge on its
long term effects still make its use questionable.

Dr. William T. Moore and Dr. Harold Kolansky conducted a

study on thirty-eight patients between the ages Of thirteen

 

21bid.

3Ibid.

4"Grass Grows More Acceptabler'
1973, p. 67.

Time, September 10,

and twenty-four who had never used any drugs except mari-
juana. While none of the patients had a history of serious
mental illness, all were adversely affected by smoking mari-
juana. Eight Of the patients became psychotic, thirteen
girls became promiscuous, and eighteen develOped anxiety,
depression, apathy or poor judgment. Critics of the Kolansky-
Moore study point out that many of the thirty-eight patients
had minor problems before they started smoking marijuana.
Others pointed out that the sample was too small to draw any
significant conclusions. Lester Grinspoon, author of the
book Marijuana Reconsidered, had serious doubts about the
doctors' findings. According to Grinspoon, "This is an un-
controlled study. You can't tell which is cause and which
is effect--the drug, the life style, or the psychological
problems."5

In Official testimony before the Senate Internal
Security Subcommittee investigating the "cannabis" epidemic
in the United States, eXperts reported that "there is
evidence supporting the claim that cannabis may cause birth
defects, psychological addiction, and sexual and other

"6

troubles. W. D. M. Paton, Professor of Pharmacology at

 

5"New View on Pot," Time, May 3! 1971, PP- 45'46-

6"The Perils of Pot Start Showing Up," U.S. News_§
World Report, June 17, 1974, p. 58.

Oxford. reported that in studies done in England, some
shrinkage was found in the brains of cannabis users. This
shrinkage was caused by a reduction in cell production.
Paton reported that regular users of cannabis developed a
tolerance to the drug, thus requiring greater levels of
it to get the desired reaction.7 Dr. Gabriel Nahas from
Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons,
reported that cannabis impairs the body's immunity system.
Marijuana smokers had a 40 percent lower production of
white blood cells than nonsmokers.8

Doctors at the Reproduction Biology Research
Foundation in St. Louis reported that testosterone, the male
sex hormone, was found to be at a significantly lower level
of production in marijuana smokers than in nonsmokers. In
pre-adolescent boys, this condition could severely disturb
the normal development to puberty. If a pregnant woman was
carrying a male fetus, this condition might inhibit the
development of the fetus.9 While all of the researchers
emphasized the importance of their findings, they stated

that more work is needed to substantiate their research.

 

71bid.

8Medicine: "Capsules," Time, March 4, 1974, p. 60.

9Medicine: "Pot and Sexuality," Newsweek, April 29,
1974, p. 57.

 

 

In contrast to these findings, the National Com—
mission On Marijuana and Drug Abuse reported to Congress
after one year of study on the marijuana issue, its recom—
mendations that "criminal penalties for possession and for
private use of marijuana should be entirely abolished."lo
This recommendation was based upon the belief of the Com-
mission that partial legalization Of marijuana might take
the user out of the criminal drug using subculture. Other
findings by the Commission were that marijuana was not ad—
dictive and that the belief that pot smoking leads to heroin
use was invalid. They found little or no relationship be-
tween crime and violence and the use of marijuana.11

It appears that there is little agreement as to the
effects that marijuana can have on users. However, there
is one point that both supporters and critics of marijuana
agree on. Under our current laws, it is a felony in most
states to use, sell, or possess marijuana and anyone doing
so is breaking the law.

Drug abuse has been a problem in the United States

for over a century, but it did not become a serious problem

until the mid-sixties when drug experimentation began to

 

10"Pot and Alcohol: Some New Views," Time,
February 28, 1972, p. 51.

llIbid.

 

increase steadily among young people. Past efforts to halt
the drug problem consisted of incarcerating drug addicts in
prisons or state mental hOSpitals or providing treatment
centers where the addict could go for therapy in hopes of
resolving his dependency on drugs.12 There were few programs
in Operation for young people who were not yet committed to
the drug scene.

A new approach for handling the drug problem had to
be acquired. The dangers of drug abuse must be instilled
in our young peOple early in life so they grow up with an
awareness Of its dangers. Education for adults and youth
alike offers the greatest hope in the problem of drug abuse.
Schools were given the reSponsibility of develOping effective
programs to combat the drug problem. Yet, almost five years
have gone by and many schools are still uninformed as to
what they should be doing in drug education programs. As
schools proceed cautiously with drug prevention programs,
the drug problem among young people continues.

In order to find out what schools are doing in drug
education, this researcher surveyed drug education programs
from selected junior and senior public high schools in

Ingham County.

 

12Virginia Bartlett, "No One Way," WQED Renaissance,
October 1970, p. 26.

 

Need for Study

 

With the passage of the Drug Abuse Education Act
on December 2, 1970, 58 million dollars were appropriated
for drug education. This money was to be Channeled through
the United States Office of Education (USOE) over the next
three years. It was felt that the best way to eliminate
drug abuse was to educate the young and Old alike to the
dangers of improper drug abuse.13 Schools were expected to
take the initiative in developing innovative programs in
drug prevention. It has been three years since the passage
of this act, and for the most part, the programs that have
been implemented in the schools are disappointing.l4 Instead
Of trying to integrate drug education into the curriculum,
schools have set aside a few class hours per term from
physical education or health classes for drug education.

In these few class hours, teachers lecture to young people

on the evils Of drug usage.15

 

13Donald E. Barnes and Louisa Messolonghites (eds),
Preventing Drug Abuse (New York: 'Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, Inc., 1972), p. 99.

14Richard H. DeLone, "The Ups and Downs of Drug-
Abuse Education," Saturday Review of Education, November 11,
1972, p. 27.

15David C. Lewis, "How the Schools Can Prevent
Drug Abuse," NASSP Bulletin, May 1970, p. 45.

 

 

 

A review of the literature clearly shows that drug
education programs in their present form have not been
successful. After a thorough review of drug films by the
National Coordinating Council for Drug Education, the
Council revealed that "about 80 percent of the drug films
being shown to young peOple in drug education classes con-
tained factual errors."16 Similar conclusions were reached
about the quality of pre-packaged drug education curriculums
and other materials. It was felt that poor instruction as
well as misinformation given to young people might actually
contribute to drug use. Several studies on drug education
programs revealed that in programs where scare tactics were
used to make young peOple aware of the dangers involved with

17 If drug education

abusing drugs, drug usage increased.
is not the answer, it is time to move on and find other

solutions to the problem. With one county reporting 523
hearings on drug violations in Juvenile Court last year,

the drug problem is far from being resolved.18

l6DeLone, Op. cit., p. 28.
17Ibid.
18

Ann Butler and Rich Gigler, "High School: A
Pusher's Paradise--Drug Symptoms of Trouble Elsewhere,"
The Pittsburgh Press, June 2, 1974, pp. F-12.

Purposes of the Study

 

No attempt has been made to establish criteria
upon which any systematic evaluation of drug education
programs can be based. The purposes of this study are two—
fold. First, from reviewing the literature and interviewing
recognized experts in the field, the researcher will set up
common criteria for evaluating drug education programs.
Secondly, the researcher will find out how Closely drug
education programs from selected schools fit into the criteria
that have been set up. The research in this study will be

concerned with the following hypotheses:

1. There are no significant differences in
the number of criteria utilized in drug
education programs from selected urban,
suburban, and rural junior and senior high

schools.

2. There are no significant differences in
the number of criteria utilized in drug
education programs from selected junior

and senior high schools.

3. There are no significant differences in
the number of criteria utilized in drug

education programs as perceived by teachers

 

10

and principals from selected junior

and senior high schools.

The research data should provide answers to the

following questions:

1. TO what degree have drug education
programs from selected schools been

successful as measured by the criteria?

2. What criteria are not being incorporated

into the drug education programs?

3. What are the commonalities in the drug

education programs from selected schools?

4. Does the participation by teachers and/or
principals in some type of drug information
program increase the number of criteria
utilized in the schools' drug education

prOgram?

Definition Of Terms

 

In order to assure maximum clarity, the following

terms are defined as used in this study:

Addiction occurs when a person develops a physical

 

dependence on a.drug and he can no longer function normally

without the repeated use of it. If the drug is withdrawn,

11

the person experiences severe physical and psychic dis—

turbances.

Alcohol is the major chemical ingredient in wines,
beers, and distilled beverages. It acts as a depressant

on the central nervous system.

Depressants are sedatives belonging to a large

 

family of drugs manufactured for medical purposes in order
tO relax the central nervous system. The best known Of

these are barbiturates, which are a sedative and a hypnotic,

 

used to sedate or induce sleep by their powerful depressant
or calming action on the central nervous system. Tranquil-
iggrs, also considered a depressant or part of the sedative
group, are designed to counteract anxiety and agitation, to
control psychotic behavior, and to energize seriously de-

pressed persons.

Drugs are any substances which, by their chemical
nature, alter the structure or function of the living

organism.

Drug Abuse is the use of drugs without the advice

 

Of a physician or other health professional, and for reasons

or under conditions which a physician would not approve.

Hallucinogens are a group of drugs capable of pro-

 

voking changes Of sensation, thinking, self-awareness and

12

emotion. Alterations of time and space perception,
illusions, hallucinations and delusions may occur over a
wide range Of intensity depending on the dose, potency,
psychological set, and environment. Included in this group

are lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), dimethyltriptamine,

 

mescaline, psilocybin, and cannabis (all of which are plant

 

 

origin): ditran, sernyl, diethyltriptamine, and "STP" (all

 

Of which are representatives of the synthetic hallucinogens).

Narcotics are a class of drugs which induce sleep

 

or stupor, and relieve pain. This classification includes

Opium and its derivatives such as morphine, heroin, paregoric,

 

and codeine.

 

Stimulants are substances which act on the central
nervous system, elevating mood, preventing fatigue, and
leading to short-term improvement in performance. This
classification includes caffeine, which is the most widely
used and known stimulant, and is found in coffee, tea, cola,

and other beverages; amphetamines, which are synthetic

 

stimulants, and are misused frequently; dextroamphetamine,

 

methamphetamine (commonly called "speed"); and cocaine,

which is a stimulant manufactured from the leaves of the

coco bush.19

 

19The definitions of terms used came from the
following pamphlets: Alcohol--Some Questions and Answers,
published by the United'States Department Of Health,

 

 

 

13

S.T.R.I.D.E. Program is students, teachers,

 

residents, involved in drug education. It consists of a

40 hour workshop for interested students, school adminis—
trators, teachers, and community people (parents, law en—
forcement Officials, social workers, college students,
etc.). The program is divided into four parts: (1) listen-
ing or empathy skills; (2) problem—solving skills; (3) values
clarification; and (4) drug information and crisis training.
It is hoped that at the end of the workshop the participants
will have factual information relating to drugs; will have
developed some listening skills; and will have experienced
self growth and awareness. Any school in the Tri—County
area can participate in the program just by expressing an

interest to do 30.20

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This study sets up common criteria for evaluating

drug education programs. The researcher will examine drug

 

Education, and Welfare, 1971; Deciding About Drugs,
published by Kiwanis International Foundation as part of a
comprehensive and community-wide drug education effort to
alert youth and adults to the dangers of indiscriminate
drug use, copyright date 1969; Drug Facts and Slang Terms,
a publication of American Telephone and Telegraph Medical
Division, 1970.

20Statement by James Forkner, Director of S.T.R.
I.D.E. Program, personal interview, January 30, 1974.

 

 

14

education programs from selected junior and senior high
schools in Ingham County to find out how closely these
programs fit into the criteria that has been set up. The
research technique that will be used is interviewing. Al-
though the researcher originally hoped to observe some drug
education classes in progress, it became evident that this
would be an impossible task since very little class time

is spent on drug education.

In interviewing only the principals and a teacher
whqbteaches drug education from each of the selected schools,
the researcher excluded a very important segment of the
school community, i.e. the students themselves. This ex-
clusion was not deliberate however, but necessary if the
study was to be conducted. Research conducted in schools
previously indicated that schools are reluctant to involve
themselves in research if students' participation is required.

This study is confined to drug education programs
in selected junior and senior high schools Of Ingham County.
NO attempt will be made to examine drug education programs
in the elementary schools.

Although the results of this study may be general-
ized to drug education programs in other schools in Michigan,
the reader is cautioned not to make generalizations about
drug education programs in schools from other states based

on the conclusions from this study.

15

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

This dissertation has five chapters which are
organized according to the following plan:

Chapter I included an introduction to the problem;
the need for the study; purposes of the study; definition
of terms; and limitations Of the study.

Chapter II includes an introduction to the review
Of literature; the severity of the drug problem; the de-
velopment of drug education programs in the schools; drug
education programs in Michigan; and humanistic approach to
drug prevention.

Chapter III includes an introduction to the design
and methodology; the research population; sample selection
and size; the research instrument, data collection pro-
cedures; the interview method, conducting the interview;
and the method Of reporting data.

Chapter IV includes an introduction to the report
and analysis of the data; the criteria for evaluating drug
education programs; and the reporting Of the data.

Chapter V includes the summary, conclusions, impli-

cations, and recommendations.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

Although a survey of the literature pointed out
what had not been successful in drug education programs,
it provided little insight as to what has worked. We know
from the literature that most drug films being shown to
young peOple in drug education classes contain factual
errors; that pre—packaged drug education curriculums and
other materials provide young people with misinformation
about drugs;1 that using scare tactics to make young people
aware of the dangers of drugs actually stimulate drug use
rather than discourage it;2 and that mere presentation of
drug information is not enough to sensitize young people

against using drugs.3

 

1Richard H. DeLone, "The Ups and Downs of Drug-Abuse
Education," Saturday_Review of Education, November 11, 1972,
p. 28.

 

2Helen H. Nowlis, "Student Drug Use," Readings on
Dru Education, ed. Michael V. Reagen (Metuchen, New Jersey:
TKe Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1972), 1-14.

 

3George S. Larimer, Alvin H. Tucker, and Ellen F.
Brown, "Drugs and Youth," Pennsylvania Health, XXXI, 4
(Winter, 1970), 2.

 

16

 

17

One reason why there has been little written about
what has been successful in drug education programs is that
no common criteria has been set up for evaluating drug educa-
tion programs. There has not been any significant research
reported which attempted to establish common criteria upon
which a systematic evaluation of drug education programs
could be based.

The literature which was selected for review in this
chapter provides the reader with some insight as to why drug
education programs have not been successful and presents
expert comment on elements they perceive as essentials in a
successful drug education program. This Chapter is reported

under the following divisions:
A. SEVERITY OF THE DRUG PROBLEM

B. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DRUG EDUCATION
PROGRAMS IN THE SCHOOLS

C. DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN

D. HUMANISTIC APPROACH TO DRUG PREVENTION

SEVERITY OF THE DRUG PROBLEM

It is virtually impossible to determine the exact
number Of drug users among American youth since the only

true figures are compiled through arrest cases, registered

 

18

addicts, and statistics involving youths who seek help in
treatment centers or hospitals. Estimating narcotic sta-
tistics from figures representing those who die from drugs,
are hospitalized, or are arrested has been compared to an
iceberg. We see only the fraction that extends above the
surface while the vast numbers of undetected experimenters
or users remain hidden from View.4

Dr. George S. Larimer, from the Psychology Depart-
ment at the University of Portland, and his associates con-
ducted a study in Pennsylvania during April and May of 1970
to determine the extent of drug use among school students
from seventh through twelfth grade. The sample was Chosen
from schoolsin nine counties located throughout the state.
All socio-eConomic classes were represented in a geographic
selection compriSing Urban, suburban, and rural areas. The
sample included 6,969 students. A summary of their findings
is as follows: as students progressed from the seventh to
twelfth grades, their knowledge about drugs, as well as
their use of drugs increased; the more knowledgeable they
became about drugs, the more Often they used them. This
suggests that knowledge alone is not enough to discourage
young people from abusing drugs. There was a noticeable

decrease in drug use between the eighth and ninth grades.

 

4Larimer, Tucker, and Brown, "Drugs and Youth," p. 3.

 

19

This suggested that if drug education is to have any effect
in creating negative attitudes toward drug use in young
people, it is imperative that_drug education be started be-
fore the eighth grade. Larimer reported only a slight vari-
ation in drug abuse according to one's area Of residence,
but 70 percent of those who did abuse drugs came from the
upper socio-economic classes. This finding indicates that
the drug problem was no longer a problem only for the lower
class. It is very evident in the rich man's home too.5
Larimer concluded from this study that 11 percent
Of the students sampled were high drug users. If we take
his figure of 11 percent along with Pennsylvania's 1970 census
which reported 1,200,000 young people enrolled in junior and
senior high schools, there would be 123,000 young peOple who
have at least sampled drugs. If only 10 percent of this
figure became addicted, there would be 12,300 new addicts

. 6
every Six years.

Barbiturates

Barbiturates, also known as "reds" or "downers" are

described by the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug

 

51bidc' pp. 4-90

6Ibid., p. 10.

 

20
Abuse as "America's hidden drug problem."7 Authorities
estimate that about one million persons in this country
habitually abuse barbiturates. There is no distinction
between socio-economic class or age level for barbiturates
are abused by the poor and rich as well as the young and
Old alike.8 The use of barbiturates among schoolchildren
has grown so rapidly that congressional investigators term
it an "epidemic." In a testimony before a Senate Subcom-
mittee investigating juvenile delinquency, it was disclosed
that in the Spring Of 1972, a junior high school in suburban
Detroit reported six barbiturate overdoses in a single day.9
In a survey Of-6000 junior high SChOOl and high school
pupils in Kansas City, Missouri, 13 percent of them had used
"downers." Only alcohol and marijuana usage was greater.
The House Select Committee on Crime reported that more than
30 percent of the students in one California school had used

barbiturates.lo

 

7"Battle Against Drugs Turns to Barbiturates," U.S.
News & World Repgrt, April 23, 1973, p. 60.

81bid.

91bid.

loIbid.

 

21

Alcohol Abuse

 

Alcohol usage continues tO be a problem among young
people. Many automobile deaths and injuries are caused by
the under twenty—one age group.11 The cost Of alcoholism is
estimated as being as much as $15 billion a year.12 While
there has always been a problem with teenagers drinking
alcohol illegally, the reasons they drink change with the
times. In a public affairs pamphlet on the new young alco-
holics, Jules Saltman identifies teenagers in the past with
"drinking to be smart or to show that they were grown up.
Teenagers today drink to get high."13

According to Steven Brodsky, a senior at Brooklyn's
Franklin Delano Roosevelt High School, "Many teenagers are
discovering that alcohol is just as much fun as grass and a

lot easier to obtain."14

In a recent study of youthful
drinking habits in the upper—middle class suburb of Brookline,
Massachusetts, 36 percent of the eighth grade pupils and 14

percent Of the sixth grade class reported having been drunk

 

ll"Alcoholism: New Victims, New Treatment," Time,
April 22, 1974, p. 75.

lzIbid.

l3Patricia McCormack, "Alcohol Back In Top Spot As
Teens' Favorite Drug," The Pittsburgh Press, January 8,
1974, p. 13. '

14"The Latest Teen Drug: Alcohol," Newsweek,
March 5, 1973, p. 68.

22

on wine or beer. The National Council on Alcoholics
reported that in 1972, the age of the youngest alcoholics
who came to their attention dropped from fourteen to twelve
years Of age.15
Saltman discusses several reasons for the continued
popularity of alcohol among young peOple. First Of all,
drinking is widely accepted and practiced by adults.
Secondly, there is lax enforcement of existing liquor laws
as well as new laws in several states that lowered the
drinking age to eighteen. Another factor that contributes
to the popularity of alcohol in young people is that alcohol
is easier to Obtain and a lot cheaper than other types of
drugs. Consequently, young peOple can get high for less
money and with less risk of getting caught.16 Parents are
Often relieved to know that their children are turning to
alcohol rather than to other kinds of drugs. However, what
they fail to realize is that early drinkers are experimenters
just as early drug users were. Too much alcohol can lead

to alcohol addiction the same way that too much drug usage

can lead to drug addiction.

 

15Ibid.

16McCormack, loc. cit.

 

 

23

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DRUG EDUCATION

PROGRAMS IN THE SCHOOLS

According to Clifford Denton in his article "Crusade
in the Classroom," "The schools and the teachers are capable
of providing the best Opportunities for instilling perman-
ently an understanding of the dangers of drug abuse in our

young people."17

Education was seen as the only hope for
avoiding the catastrophe of drugs for it is limited to
neither the classroom nor to any one medium or age group.

It is a continuous process limited only by one's willingness
to be educated. However, schools have not been very success-
ful in assuming their reSponsibilities.

In 1970, two large high schools in New York City
requested that the Institute for Educational Development
(IED), acting as educational consultants, locate successful
school and/or community drug education programs that might
be adapted for use in their schools. In an attempt to
identify persons from state agencies who were well informed
about such programs in their states, the IED solicited help
from the United States Office of Education (USOE) and the

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). One official

from each of the thirteen states was named. The IED

l7Clifford Denton, "Crusade in the Classroom,"
Pennsylvania Education, II, 1 (January-February, 1970), 20.

24

contacted each of the Officials and asked him to identify
noteworthy programs in their states. A noteworthy program
was defined as one being:
Outstanding in comparison to other programs,
interesting in the sense of being innovative or
unusual, and productive to the extent that the
program showed promise of good results, even if
the results had not been demonstrated, nor the
program evaluated.18
State Officials from the thirteen states identified
thirty-seven programs as noteworthy. However, a review of
the literature at that time by the IED revealed seventy-
seven outstanding prOgrams in the thirteen states. Only
four of them had been identified as noteworthy programs by
state Officials. This is an indication Of how unfamiliar
even supposedly well-qualified persons were with the locations
Of outstanding drug education programs within their own states.
Of the thirty-seven programs identified as noteworthy
by state Officials, twenty-five reported no evaluation for
their programs because of financial and/or time pressures.
All of the programs surveyed were described by state Officials
as being long-term but none of them had any feasible plans

for measuring how far they had come toward meeting their

Objectives. Although the IED was to survey community and

 

18Donald E. Barnes and Louisa Messolonghites (eds.)
Preventin Drug Abuse (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
WInston, Inc., 1972), 82.

 

25

school drug education programs, most of the programs that
were considered to be noteworthy were the result of
community-wide and district-wide efforts.19
Even though drug abuse among young people had
reached a phenomenal high in the mid-sixties, few schools

had made any real progress in developing new ways to cope

with the drug problem by 1970.

Drug Abuse Education Act

 

On December 3, 1970, Congress passed the Drug
Abuse Education Act. This act called for the channeling of
funds for drug education programs through the United States
Office of Education. This act made available:

Fifty-eight million dollars for a three year
attack on the drug problem by way of the class-
room. Approximately $1.45 million of the funds
was to go directly to the States' Department of
Education to help them in the planning and carrying
out of drug abuse education programs. The Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare was authorized
to make grants and contracts with institutions of
higher education, state and local education agencies,
and other public and private research institutions
to support research, demonstrations, and pilot
projects. This act also called for pre-service
and in-service training programs in drug abuse
education. An additional $29 million was to be
distributed over a three year period for community
and adult education on drug abuse. Provisions
were made for recruiting, training, organizing,
and employing professionals, ex-drug users, and
paraprofessionals to participate in drug education

 

lgIbid., pp. 99-100.

26

programs. Teachers and counselors were to be

trained and courses were to be developed in

drug prevention.20
It was felt that the best way to eliminate drug abuse was
to educate the young and Old alike on the dangers of im—
proper drug use. In 1972, the USOE spent $13 million under
this act.21

It was up to the schools to develOp their own drug
education programs. This act made no provisions for super-
vising the schools' progress. As a result, there has been
little consistency in what is included in drug education
programs.

Helen H. Nowlis, head of the drug—education division
in the USOE, alleges that past drug education programs have
done little to prevent drug abuse. In fact, Nowlis claims
that there is strong evidence indicating that_such programs
may actually stimulate drug use. Nowlis feels that drug
education programs have failed because they preach to young

peOple and try to frighten them with false information.22

ZOIbid., pp. 99-100.

21Richard H. DeLone, "The Ups and Downs of Drug-
Abuse Education," Saturday Review Of Education, September 11,
1972, p. 27.

22Helen H. Nowlis, "Student Drug Use," Readings on
Drug Education, ed. Michael V. Reagen (Metuchen, New Jersey:
The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1972), 1-14.

 

 

27

Sol Gordon, a professor of Family & Child Develop-
ment at Syracuse University, feels that the critical need
in any drug education program is to get young peOple to
listen. Most programs distort facts and employ scare tactics
in their efforts to turn young people off drugs. Distorting
the facts causes young people to question the credibility of
the information while using scare tactics is-more likely to
have an impact on parents. When a child is told that he
will become addicted to heroin after trying it once, he
begins to question the credibility of the information that
he is hearing. In many instances, he has already experi-
mented with heroin once and knows that he did not become
addicted to it. Gordon contends that it is better to tell
him that after using heroin once, he risks infection from
hepatitis.23
Gordon believes that there are two main reasons why
drug abuse programs have been ineffective in the past:
(1) they assume that young people are ignorant about drugs;
and (2) they moralize or tell half truths about drugs.
From Gordon's own Observations of high school programs, he

believes that drug usage in young people actually increase

23Sol Gordon, "Presentation and Implementation of a
Drug Abuse Prevention Program," Readings on Drug Education,
ed. Michael V. Reagen (Metuchen, New Jersey: THe Scarecrow
Press, Inc., 1972), 117-119.

28

from such exposure. He feels that students are alienated
by authority figures such as "narcs" and physicians who

come to talk with them about drugs and drug abuse. Unless
drug abuse programs improve the conditions which encourage
drug usage in young people, the program will have little
impact. Gordon sees the first priority Of drug abuse pro—

grams as being to improve the general climate Of the school

and community.24

Michael V. Reagen, Associate Director of the Urban
Center of the Policy Institute of Syracuse University
Research Corporation finds six flaws in current drug educa-
tion programs. These are:

1. They do not tell it like it is. Too
much stress is placed on the negative aspects
of drug abuse without mentioning the pleasure-
able aspects of it.

2. Do not take into consideration the dif-
ferent VieWpoints that adults and young people
have concerning the drug problem.

3. DO not reach children early enough in
their school years. By the time kids reach high
school, they have already been exposed to the
drug culture.

4. Do not involve young people in the plan-
ning aSpect Of drug prevention programs. This
turns many young people Off to drug Programs.

5. Do not use the appropriate techniques
and strategies to tell young people about drugs.
Schools often deal with the drug issue super-
ficially by handing out pamphlets about drugs
and/or providing an hour's lecture on drug abuse

 

24Ibid., p. 120.

29

in health education classes. Some programs
lump hard and soft drugs together and show
films that Show the evils of drug addiction.
These approaches to drug abuse are doomed to
fail.

6. Do not coordinate the planning and
implementing of drug programs with various
community agencies. Consequently, the goals
of many programs overlap each other. Programs
should positively reinforce one another.2
David C. Lewis, chairman of the Drug Treatment and
Drug Education Committee of the United Community Services
of Metropolitan Boston is shocked at the number of schools
that have added drug education programs to their curricula
without having any idea as to what they hOpe to accomplish
or any feasible means for evaluating the programs. While
admitting that there is no real proof that drug education
programs either increase or decrease drug use, Lewis feels
that any program using sensationalism and misinformation
runs the risk Of increasing drug usage.26
Lewis participated in one high school's drug educa-
tion program where classes were cancelled for an entire

day so students could attend the day-long symposium. A

panel of eXperts talked about drugs and students asked

 

25Michael V. Reagen, "The Drug Challenge," Readings
en DrungducaEion, ed. Michael V. Reagen (Metuchen, New
Jersey: Tie Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1972), 16—24.

26David C. Lewis, "How the Schools Can Prevent
Drug Abuse," NASSP Bulletin, May 1970, pp. 44—45.

 

 

30

questions. Students' reactions to the day-long program
were mixed. Some felt that if drugs were important enough
to cancel classes for, they must be worth trying. Lewis
cautions schools about the sensationalizing effect of
limiting drug education to a one day program, in a large
auditorium setting where discussions are dominated by out—
side experts. Lewis feels that the best approach tO drug
education is to incorporate it into the school‘s'ongoing
classroom program.

Lewis feels that the most important goal that a
drug education program can have is to provide students with
correct information so they can View the social, medical,
and legal implications of drug taking in personal terms.27
They must be made to understand that the ultimate decision
about uSing drugs rests With themselves. Teachers must be
sure that the information they give to young people is
correct, and that where controversy exists over certain
information, both sides are presented.

Lewis lists ten guidelines for building a curricu-
lum for drug education that are relevant to the student's

decision-making process and sensitive to the issue of

credibility. These guidelines are:

 

27Ibid., p. 45.

 

10.

31

Assess the level Of your students' SOphisti—
cation about drugs.

Involve students in planning the program.

Include alcohol and tobacco in your discussion
of drug abuse.

Compare drug use and abuse. There is an im-
portant distinction between the use of a drug
which is prescribed for medical purposes under
the supervision of a physician and the indis-
criminate taking of the same drug.

DO not sensationalize.

Make drug education part of an ongoing class-
room experience.

Include eXperimental data in the drug curriculum.
Students rely on data to assess risks of drug
taking.

Emphasize the motivational factors that affect
a student's decision to use drugs.

Discuss the factors that inhibit the use of
drugs. Discuss why people don't use drugs.

Include the comments Of drug experienced young
peOple in the educational process. Students
will listen and react to what other young people
have to say.2

Lewis recognizes that if drug education programs are going to

be effective in limiting the abuse of drugs among our young

peOple, they must be directed toward student's decision-

making process.

Most schools initiating drug prevention programs

gear their format to dissemination and transmission Of

knowledge. By using people affiliated with drug programs,

such as doctors, pharmacists, mental health specialists,

 

281bid., pp. 45-49.

 

 

32

law enforcement officers, clergy, lawyers, and ex—drug

users, schools present factual knowledge coupled with
emotional experiences as a means Of informing students of

the dangers of drug usage. Jack Sarmanian, in his article
"An Interactional Approach to Preventing Drug Abuse," is
critical of this type Of school drug program as a means of
meeting the existing crisis in drug abuse among young peOple.
He stresses the need to change the existing climate in
schools by gearing the focus toward attitudinal and value
awareness.29 This would ultimately help students make choices
regarding their individual decision Of whether or not to use
drugs.

The development of attitudinal and value awareness
within the schools can occur only in a climate that encourages
interaction among students and teachers. To create such a
climate involves a shift from "teacher—centered approaches
to student-centered approaches; from cognitive levels to
affective levels; and from authoritarian leadership to par-

"30

ticipative leadership. Under such a program, the role

Of teachers would shift from their professional role of

teacher to that Of a human being, while students would

29Jack Sarmanian, "An Interactional Approach to
Preventing Drug Abuse," NASSP Bulletin, April 1973, p. 74.

30

 

Ibid.

33

relinquish their role of a passive audience to that of an
involved participant. Both student and teacher would be-
come a working team prepared to question, explore, discuss,
and make decisions.

In H. Bryce Brooks' article, "Teaching Teachers to
Teach About Drugs," Brooks agrees with Nowlis and Gordon
that past efforts in the area Of drug education have pro-
duced mostly negative results. He attributes this to the
fact that teachers assigned to teach drug education are not
prepared to do so. If schools are to be charged with the
responsibility for drug education, school administrators
must establish criteria for measuring the qualifications of
teachers assigned to teach drug education classes.

Brooks emphasizes the need for radical changes in
the selection and training Of teachers involved in drug
education. Teachers should be chosen to participate in
drug education programs only if they have the ability to
relate to young people and "can operate comfortably and
effectively in a relatively unstructured classroom situ-

31

ation." Since the ability to communicate is the basis

for relationships, Brooks advises teachers to be bilingual;

 

31H. Bryce Brooks, "Teaching Teachers to Teach About
Drugs," NASSP Bulletin, May 1971, pp. 127-128.

 

 

 

 

34

"to speak and understand the language of young people as
well as the Establishment."32 Brooks stresses the need
for teachers to be human relations experts, since the drug
problem is really a people problem.

Brooks feels that if-teachers are to deal effectively
in drug education programs, they must be thoroughly knowledge-
able On the subject of drugs. Teachers must familiarize
themselves with various drug cultures so they can make young
people aware of what they may get into if they choose to get
deeply involved in drugs. Misinformation or lack of infor-
mation destroys teachers' credibility. Teachers must also
be knowledgeable on the legal aspects Of drug involvement,
for young people who experiment with or use drugs must be
aware of how their lives can be affected if these laws are
broken.33

Brooks suggests that drug prOgrams will be more
effective if the drug curriculum is interdisciplinary rather
than part of a science or health class or isolated in a
separate course. He feels that schools should realize that
all phases of learning help to prepare young people to cope

with the problem Of drugs. Brooks believes that a course

such as English helps the student to communicate and express

_.‘

33Ibid., pp. 129-130.

 

 

35

his thoughts and emotions constructively. Science courses
can help the student see the chemical involvement of drugs;
health classes can aid the student.in understanding the
human body and the damage that abusing drugs can do to its
well-being. Even courses involving logic help strengthen
a student's ability to arrive at decisions in areas of drug
involvement.34

In conclusion, Brooks delegates to schools the task
of helping young people find meaningful alternatives to drug
taking. He feels that the schools must be re-examined so
that they become one of the more meaningful components of
society for young people. The place to start to bring about
changes in the schools is in our current institutions which
train our teachers. The teaching profession must be re-
examined so that the educational process for our young peOple
becomes more meaningful to them.

Binkley (1970) conducted a study of 10,536 eighth
and eleventh grade pupils from Nashville schools to determine
if there were any difference in attitudes between users and
non-users Of drugs, with a user being defined as a person who
tried any drug one or more times. Users felt that

the school information program about drugs was

less adequate; overestimated the extent to which
drugs were used by others; felt that drugs were

34Ibid.

 

36

less dangerous than they really were; dif—
fered markedly from their parents in their
feeling about marijuana use; used coffee,
tea, cold drinks, aspirin, alcoholic drinks,
beer, and tobacco more frequently; and were
less happy with their friends, school work,
and family.

Although non—users gave a better evaluation of their
school's information program on drugs than users did, 53 per-
cent Of the users and 28 percent of the non-users rated their
drug education experiences as poor or very poor.36 The
reason given most frequently by users as to why they were
using or had used drugs was that "everyone else is doing it."
Users ranked friend first and parents second as the persons
they would turn to with a drug problem, while non-users Chose
parents first and friend second. It is interesting to note
that very few of the pupils felt that they would turn to
counselors, teachers, or principals for help with drug
problems.

These findings show not only how ineffective the
school's information program on drugs was in changing drug

users' attitude toward drugs, but how out of touch school

personnel were with their students' drug problems.

 

35Marvin Edward Binkley and Lawrence M. DeRidder,
"Comparing Drug Users With Non-Users," NASSP Bulletin,
April 1973, p. 81.

36Ibid., pp. 81—82.

37

In a study conducted by Purdue University in 1971,
boys and girls in grades ten through twelve were polled
concerning their attitudes toward drugs. Their responses
were compared with a similar sample polled in 1969. While
students seemed to be more aware of drugs in 1971, their
desire to experiment with drugs changed very little over
the years. Support for legalization of marijuana rose from
18 percent in 1969 to 35 percent in 1971. Three-fourths of
the students polled in 1971 said that they had knowledge of
where to get illegal drugs. This was an increase of 37
percent from 1969.37

In 1969, 10 percent of the students reported that
most young people yield to the social pressures to use drugs,
while in the 1971 poll, 26 percent of the students reported
that such pressure would be effective on most teenagers.
Fifteen percent of the students polled in 1969 felt that
half or more of the teenagers in all high schools used mari-
juana or some other drug at least once, while 55 percent
polled in 1971 estimated that usage ran that high. About
90 percent of the students said that they had drug education
in their schools, but it was usually offered as a unit within

a course; such as health or physical education.38

 

37"Adolescent Attitudes Toward Drugs," School &
Society, October 1971, p. 335.

38Ibid., p. 385.

 

38

It appears from this study that drug education did
not significantly Change young peOple's attitudes toward
drugs.

Bob Sternberg, a specialist in Drug Education Programs
at Michigan's Department of Education feels that one reason
why drug education programs have not been successful is the
shortage of teachers qualified to teach drug education. If
one accepts the premise that personal decisions to abuse
drugs are feeling-based decisions, then schools must begin
to recognize feelings as legitimate. Sternberg says that our
college and university training has not prepared individuals
who want to become teachers, with the expertise needed to
deal effectively with drug abuse behavior. Teachers do not
know how to listen to their students or to communicate with
them in any way other than in their traditional role of
teacher to student. He feels that schools have spent a lot
Of time developing curriculum for drug education without
giving much thought to staff development.39 Since most
school districts cannot afford to pay experts to come in
and conduct in-service training for teachers, Sternberg

suggests putting contact people into colleges and universities

 

39Statement by Bob Sternberg, Specialist in Drug
Education Programs, Michigan Department Of Education,
personal interview, January 29, 1974.

 

 

39

so they can train teachers locally as well as individuals
preparing to be teachers.

Wade Granger, who heads the Drug Education Curricu-
lum Committee for the Lansing schools, feels that the lack
of commitment to fight drug abuse by certain segments of
the school community hinders the development of successful
drug education programs. Often times, school administrators
refuse to openly endorse drug programs for fear of alien-

ating themselves from staff and parents.40

DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN

In 1969, Paul S. Sakamoto did a survey of drug educa-
tion programs in public high schools of Michigan with en-
rollments of 2000 or more students. His survey focused on
the types of programs being offered in an attempt to discover
how schools had responded to the drug problem. His findings
revealed that one-third of the schools did not have drug
education as a regular part of the curriculum; that little
attempt was made to coordinate programs to avoid repetition
of community drug programs; that teachers who taught drug

education had little knowledge of the subject and no special

 

40Statement by Wade Granger, Head of Drug Education
Curriculum Committee for Lansing school district, personal
interview, January 30, 1974.

 

40

training in the field; that school administrators were
hesitant to admit that a drug problem existed in their
schools; and that no attempt had been made to evaluate
the effectiveness of drug education programs currently
operating within the schools.41

In an interview with the researcher, Officer Sue K.
Brown from the East Lansing Police Department discussed the
results of a study that she conducted in 1969 on fourteen
through seventeen year olds from the East Lansing schools.
The purpose of the study was to determine their involvement
with the law. Officer Brown found that a large percentage
of young peOple had experimented with drugs-—especially

.. 42
marijuana.

Although drugs were very prevalent in the
East Lansing schools, there was no evidence of any large
scale drug education program being implemented in the
schools.

Officer Roy G. Swerdfeger from the East Lansing

Police Department discussed with the researcher the results

of a survey that he conducted on alcohol education programs

 

41Paul S. Sakamoto, "A Study of Drug Abuse Education
Programs of Selected Public High Schools in Michigan,"
(unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University,
1971).

42Statement by Sue K. Brown, Police Officer in the
East Lansing Police Department, personal interview,
February 21, 1974.

41

during the 1972-1973 school year. All junior and senior
high schools in Ingham, Eaton and Clinton counties were
included in the survey. Principals in Clinton and Eaton
County schools were interviewed and specific teachers in—
volved in teaching alcohol education classes were inter-
viewed in Ingham County. Officer Swerdfeger found that»
alcohol education was not separated from other drug educa-
tion classes. Only Holt Offered a Specific course in sub-
stance abuse. The rest Of the schools set aside a few
hours per term from one of their regular classes for drug
education. How much time was spent on drug education was
left up to individual teachers.43
Officer Swerdfeger's rationale for interviewing
principals was that they would be the most knowledgeable
on the types of programs being offered in their schools.
HoweVer, he found this not to be true. Not only were they
unfamiliar with the content of drug education courses, but
they erroneously thought that the teachers who taught drug
education were qualified to do so. Teachers had indicated
to Officer Swerdfeger that they had no prior training in
drug education. Some teachers had no idea where they could
go to get factual information about drugs. Teachers viewed

drug education as an added burden.

_A_ __

43Statement by Roy G. Swerdfeger, Police Officer in
the East Lansing Police Department, personal interview,
January 23, 1974.

 

 

42

Since the Holt school district had a full scale
program on drug and/or alcohol education, Officer Swerdfeger
questioned why other school districts had not implemented
such a program. Many principals placed the blame on local
school boards who refused to believe that any drug problem
existed in the schools. Parents were also blamed by the
principals for pressures they exerted upon the schools to
keep drug education out of the curriculum. Parents felt
that such programs would make their children curious about
drugs and put wrong ideas into their heads.44

Many of the teachers and principals interviewed
severely criticized the educational system for not develop-
ing appropriate material and courses for drug and alcohol
education. Officer Swerdfeger blamed the system of higher
education for failing to educate the school, as well as the
rest of the community, in the area of drug prevention.

Even though there was a critical drug problem in
many of the schools in the Lansing area, the status of drug
education programs had not changed significantly since

Sakamoto's study, done three years earlier.45

 

44Ibid.

45"School Kids Wise to Drugs?" The State Journal
(East Lansing), February 18, 1973.

 

 

 

 

43

The S.T.R.I.D.E. Program

 

S.T.R.I.D.E. was introduced to the Lansing area
schools in January 1972. It is a community prevention
program financed through Tri-County Mental Health. Any
school in the Tri-County area can participate in it simply
by expressing an interest to do so. The S.T.R.I.D.E. Program
consists Of a forty hour workshop for interested students,
school administrators, teachers, and community peOple. At
the end of the workshop, the program is evaluated by those
who participated in it. All suggestions are read and changes
are implemented into the program, if possible.

Even though the S.T.R.I.D.E. Program is the only
educational prevention drug program in the area, some schools
have refused to participate in it. Parents have put pressure
on school boards and principals not to involve the schools
in S.T.R.I.D.E. They are fearful of any program that does
not explicitly tell young people NOT to use drugs. The
program presents as much factual information about drugs as
possible and lets each person decide for himself whether or
not he wants to abuse drugs.46 Parents, as well as some
teachers, feel threatened by the procedures used in the
program. They have misconceptions about empathy training

46Statement by James Forkner, Director of the
S.T.R.I.D.E. Program, personal interview, January 30, 1974.

 

44

and are uncomfortable with the informality of the program.47
Regardless of the criticisms that the program has received,
it has been highly praised by many segments of the school

community.

HUMANISTIC APPROACH TO DRUG PREVENTION

There are a few drug prevention prOgrams that have
been singled out by authorities as being among the most
successful. One such prOgram was implemented in 1970 in the
public school system of Stamford, Connecticut. Their.
approach to the problem is essentially humanistic. In an
attempt to help the individual gain a better understanding
and appreciation of self, emphasis is placed on the indi-
vidual act; the individual decision.48 The success of the
program depends on the teacher's ability to create an atmos-
phere in the classroom that encourages open discussion and
expression of thought and ideas.

The Stamford curriculum guide states that drug
abuse is an act--a behavior--and it should be fully investi-

gated and understood by the students as such. Drug

47Granger, Op. cit.

48Frank W. Chinnock, "A Sensible New Plan to Fight
Drugs in Our Schools," Ladies' Home Journal, January 1971,
p. 68.

 

45

information is given to the students as early as the fourth
grade. The fourth grade curriculum focuses on how emotions
affect all of our behavior and how others react and relate
to us. The fifth grade curriculum stresses the relationship
between emotions and physical effects. It explains how the
body is affected by emotions and why young people must
explore non—destructive ways to cope with their emotions,
i.e. feelings of worry, jealousy, fear, and rage.49 The
curriculum for sixth graders focuses on the identification
of dangerous drugs and their effects. At the junior high
level, emphasis is on the "individual's personality, his
strengths and weaknesses, his emotional and social develop—

ment, and his vulnerability to drugs."50

Problem-solving
techniques are discussed. At the high school level, drugs
are discussed in great detail, realistically, and rationally.
The extensive information given to the Stamford

students is supplemented by in-service training sessions for
teachers in the program as well as good films and a selected
bibliography on books about drugs. THE DRUG ABUSE EDUCATION
CURRICULUM GUIDE used in the Stamford schools has been re-

quested by most schools in Connecticut as well as schools

in forty-eight other states, the District of Columbia,

 

491bid., p. 70.

50Ibid., p. 72.

 

46

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and thirteen foreign
countries.51 Critics of the program say that one month
taken out of the school year is not enough time to devote
to drug education. They feel that the drug curriculum
should be expanded into an entire semester elective.
Others feel that the teachers assigned to teach drug edu-
cation are not qualified to do so. They feel that a more
extensive teacher-training program is needed.

At the end of the program, teachers, principals,
and students are asked to evaluate it. This helps the
schools identify the strengths and weaknesses in their
particular prOgram and make changes where necessary. Al-
though the Stamford program cannot be regarded as a
“utopian” program, it is certainly not without merit.52

Bob Sternberg, a Specialist in Drug Education
Programs at the state level, supports the humanistic
approach for drug education programs.- Sternberg is critical
Of drug programs that use scare tactics to discourage drug
abuse in young people. He believes that drug programs must

focus on the reasons why young people take drugs rather than

on the drugs that they are taking. Sternberg sees drug

 

SlIbid., p. 69.

52Gini KOpecky, “Follow-up Report on the Stamford
Program," Ladies' Home Journal, January 1971, p. 143.

 

47

abuse as a symptom of a problem. Resolve the problem and
the symptom will go away. He feels that schools must assume
part Of the responsibility for providing alternatives to
drug taking. One such alternative could be to make the
school eXperience a more meaningful one.53
One school in Pennsylvania received recognition by
state Officials because of the innovative programs that
were implemented in an attempt to make the school experience
more meaningful for students. McKeesport Senior High School
has adOpted an "Open" lunch period for all students between
11:15 and 12:25. During this time, students are free to eat
their lunches wherever they want to on the school grounds;
roam the halls; swim; play volleyball, basketball, and other
sports; or go to various rooms to participate in free time
activities. Using teachers as resource people, the school
Offers students an opportunity to acquire knowledge and
skills in a variety of leisure time activities. These ac-
tivities include bridge lessons, chess techniques, knitting,
ceramics, photography,-and painting, to mention just a few.
By providing a setting where students can learn together,
the school makes it possible for students to develop talents

that may unlock for them new avenues Of Creativity,

__~ L..—

53Sternberg, Op. cit.

48

54 Starting in the fall, the school

comradeship, and fun.
is offering aviation classes for interested students.

V. Alton Dohner, in his article "Drugs Are Not The
Problem," supports the humanistic approach for drug educa-
tion programs. Dohner feels that drug education programs
must emphasize the reasons why young people turn to drugs,
rather than the fact that some drugs produce a dependency.
TO emphasize the latter "obscures the fact that dependent

persons use drugs as a People substitute."55

Summary

Chapter II presented the literature relating to
drug education programs. The Stamford program was one Of
the few programs singled out by authorities as being among
the most successful. When one realizes that the Stamford
program and other programs similar to it are exceptions
rather than the rule, the only question that seems appro-
priate to ask ourselves is why? In many schools, drug
education programs are drug education in name only. Many

schools are wary of becoming involved in drug education

 

54Statement by Frances Thompson, Spanish teacher at
McKeesport Senior High School, personal interview, March 21,
1974.

55V. Alton Dohner, "Drugs Are Not The Problem,"
The Educational Digest, November 1970, (Reprint).

 

49

programs because drugs and drug abuse are such sensitive
areas. By becoming involved in such programs, schools
would be admitting that a drug problem existed.

Chapter III contains the design and methodology

of the study.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This chapter will describe the various components
Of the research effort and integrate them with the Objec-
tives of this study. Special attention will be given to
demonstrating the reasoning behind the choices of popula-

tion, sampling selection, and methods Of data analyses.

Research Population

All public junior and senior high schools in Ingham
County are included in this study. The researcher selected
the schools in Ingham County for two reasons. First of all,
the researcher wanted a good cross-section Of school popula-
tions. The school districts that make up Ingham County
represent different geographic areas; urban, suburban, and
rural. Secondly, Ingham County is located in the immediate
area. This was particularly important for the purposes of
this study since the researcher planned to Observe drug

education programs in action, when possible.

50

51

Sampling Selection and Size

The researcher wanted all twenty-nine junior and
senior high schools in Ingham County to be included in
the study. However, some principals did not want to
involve their schools in a study that was concerned with
drug education and a few schools did not have a drug
education program. Twelve schools were excluded from the
sample. The seventeen schools that remained in the sample
represented a good cross-section of schools from urban,
suburban, and rural areas. The researcher will interview
the principal and a teacher who teaches drug education

from each of the schools.

The Research Instrument

 

A questionnaire was designed by the researcher so
information about drug education programs could be Obtained.
The same questionnaire will be given to each person inter-
viewed. The questionnaire contains forced choice questions
and one Open-ended question. The respondent will be in-
structed to answer either YES/NO or choose from a list of
statements that will be read by the researcher, the statement
or statements that-apply to the drug education program in
his or her particular school/class. The addition of "others"

is included to allow the respondent more flexibility in his

52

choices. At the end of the interview, one open-ended
question will be asked.

Prior to collecting the data, the questionnaire
was pretested on two teachers and a principal who were not
part of the research sample. The questionnaire was ad-
ministered by the researcher in separate interviews. Each
question was discussed to assure its clarity. It was
suggested that the researcher broaden the definition of
drug education programs to include not only formal programs
but any class where some time was devoted to drug related

tOpics.

Data Collection Procedures

 

Each principal was contacted by telephone so an
appointment could be made. In most instances, the principal
or his secretary asked the researcher to explain the purpose
of the study before agreeing to meet with her. The first
principal contacted told the researcher that special per-
mission had to be granted from the central office before she
would be allowed to come into any of the schools. When the
researcher contacted the central Office and explained the
nature Of the study and promised that students would not be
interviewed, the central Office approved the study. The

researcher was warned that some principals might still object

53

to the study being done in their schools. If that happened,
the researcher was told to by-pass the school.

Most principals tried to arrange for a teacher to
meet with the researcher after their own interview was com-
pleted. If the teacher was not able to meet with the re-
searcher at that time, an appointment was set up with him or
her at a later date. Two schools had tO be eliminated from
the sample because the researcher was not permitted to talk
directly with a teacher. One principal told the researcher
that he would arrange a time for her to meet with a teacher.
The researcher was to telephone the principal in a few days
to confirm the time. The researcher made numerous attempts
to get in touch with the principal but he was never in his
Office and messages that were left for him were ignored.
After a month had gone by, the researcher stopped calling.

The interviews were conducted between February and
June 1974. Each interview took place at the designated

schools.

 

ThefInterview Method

The research data was Obtained through the use of a
questionnaire which was given by way of a personal interview.
The personal interview was chosen because it gives the re-

searcher an opportunity to discuss face-to-face with each

 

54

participant the purposes of the study. This is eSpecially
important when-the study concerns sensitive issues, as this
study did. Interviewing allows the researcher to Observe
what the respondent is saying as well as how he or she is
saying it. The interview also allows the researcher to
clarify questions that the respondent misinterprets and to
follow-up contradictory statements.l

When using the research method, it is essential for
the researcher to record all responses pertaining to the
research topic. An X was placed beside the response on the
questionnaire that matched the response given by the inter-
viewee. However, there are several disadvantages in record-
ing responses. If the interviewee gives a different reSponse
than is indicated on the questionnaire, it is difficult to
record the data. Another disadvantage in recording responses
is that it distracts from the discussion.2

When using the interview method, bias may interfere
with the interview situation. In this study, that problem
was reduced considerably by standardizing the interview.3

lGilbert Sax, Empirical Foundations Of Educational

Research (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,

Inc., I968), pp. 242-2430
2

 

Ibid., p. 579.

3Ibid., p. 586.

55

The questions asked by way of a personal interview
could have been obtained through a questionnaire mailed to
each reSpondent. By using the interview method, the re—
searcher had an Opportunity to Observe the school situation.
This would not have been possible if the questionnaire was

mailed.

Conducting the Interview

 

 

After an initial introduction, the interview began.
The introduction to the interview included a statement of
the purposes Of the interview and a brief eXplanation about
the types of questions that were going to be asked. The
researcher informed the respondents that for the purposes of
this study, drug education programs included formal programs
as well as any class where some time was devoted to drug
related topics. If the reSpondent had no questions, the
interview began. A copy of the questionnaire that was given
via way of a personal interview appears in Appendix A.

The researcher read each question to the respondent.
For multiple choice answers, the respondent was instructed
to choose from a list of statements given by the researcher,
the ones that applied to the drug education program in his
or her particular school/class. If the respondent appeared

to be having trouble remembering the choices, the researcher

 

56

allowed the respondent to read over the choices himself.
All of the responses were recorded on the questionnaire by
the researcher.

At the end of the interview, an Open-ended question
was asked. The researcher recorded relevant information,
i.e. that which pertains to the research, on the back of

each questionnaire.

Method of Rgporting Data

 

Two numerical scores were computed for each school's
drug education programs. One score was tabulated from
teachers' perception of the program and the other score was
tabulated from principals' perception of the program. A
breakdown of the scores for each school's drug education
program will be recorded according to the number Of criteria
utilized in each program as perceived by teachers and
principals. Also, a breakdown of how the respondents
answered each question on the questionnaire will be recorded.
The scores will be presented in numbers, as well as per-
centages.

A one-way analysis of variance will be used to find
out if there were any differences in the number of criteria
utilized in drug education programs in urban, suburban, and

rural area schools. (Computations appear in Appendix B.)

57

T-tests will be used to find out if there were any sig-
nificant differences in the number of criteria utilized
in drug education programs in junior and senior high
schools and any significant differences in the number Of
criteria utilized in drug education programs as perceived

by teachers and principals.

Summary

Chapter III presented the research design and
methodology used in this study. A description of the various
components of the research effort was included.

Chapter IV contains the report and analysis of the

data.

 

CHAPTER IV

REPORT AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

 

Introduction

This chapter presents and analyzes the research
findings. The data are reported to find out the degree
Of success of drug education programs from selected junior
and senior high schools. Drug education programs from
selected schools were examined to find out how closely they
fit into the criteria that was set up for evaluating such

programs. The following hypotheses were tested:

1. There are no significant differences in
the number of criteria utilized in drug
education programs from selected urban,
suburban, and rural junior and senior high

schools.

2. There are no significant differences in
the number of criteria utilized in drug
education programs from selected junior

and senior high schools.

3. There are no significant differences in

58

 

59

the number of criteria utilized in drug
education programs as perceived by
teachers and principals from selected

junior and senior high schools.

In examining drug education programs from selected

schools, the following questions were asked:

1. To what degree have drug education
programs from selected schools been

successful as measured by the criteria?

2. Which criteria are not being incorporated

into the drug education programs?

3. What are the commonalities in the drug

education programs from selected schools?

4. Does the participation by teachers and/or
principals in some type of drug information
program increase the number of criteria
utilized in the schools' drug education

program?

Two numerical scores were computed for each school's
drug education program. One score was tabulated from
teachers' perception Of the program while the other score

was tabulated from principals' perception Of the program.

60

Each time that the reSponses to question II through VIII
indicated that the school utilized one of the criterion

in its drug education program, the program received one
point. A total score of seven points, with seven being
the highest number Of points possible to Obtain, indicated
that the school's drug education program utilized all of
the criteria that are essential to a successful program.

A zero by a question indicated that the school did not
utilize that specific criterion in its drug education
program. A breakdown of the scores for each school's drug
education program is presented according to the number of
criteria utilized in each program, as perceived by teachers
and principals. Also, a breakdown of how the respondents
answered each question on the questionnaire is presented.
Setting Up The Criteria

For EvaIUating Drug
Education PrOgrams

 

 

 

An ideal model for drug education programs does not
yet exist. Whether or not such a model could ever be de-
signed is questionable since what may be ideal for one
school system might be unworkable in another. After a
careful review of the literature and several interviews
with recognized experts in the field, the researcher was

able to find some agreement as to what elements are essential

 

61

to a successfu1,drug education program. The researcher
used those elements to set up common criteria for develop-
ing and evaluating drug education programs. The following
criteria were set up:
1. According to H. Bryce Brooks,l James Forkner,2

Wade Granger,3 David C. Lewis,4 Michael V. Reagen,5 and
Bob Sternberg:6 (Involvement)

There should be a cooperative effort between

parents, students, teachers, school officials,

law enforcement Officers, and other segments

Of the community in the planning and implement-

ing of a drug education program. Young peOple
MUST be involved in all aspects of the program.

2. According to H. Bryce Brooks, Frank Chinnock,7

 

lH. Bryce Brooks, “Teaching Teachers to Teach About
Drugs," NASSP Bulletin, May 1971, pp. 127-134.

 

2Statement by James Forkner, Director of S.T.R.I.D.E.
personal interview, January 30, 1974.

3Statement by Wade Granger, Head of Drug Education
Curriculum Committee for Lansing school district, personal
interview, January 30, 1974.

4David C. Lewis, "Drug Education," NASSP Bulletip,
December 1969, pp. 87—98. I“

5Michael V. Reagen, "The Drug Culture," Readin s
on Dru Education, ed. Michael V. Reagen (Metuchen, New
Jersey:‘ TEe Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1972), 16-24.

6Statement by Bob Sternberg, Specialist in Drug

Educatioinrograms, Department of Education, personal
interview, January 29, 1974.

7Frank Chinnock, "A Sensible New Plan to Fight
Drugs in our Schools," Ladies' Home Journgl, January 1971,
pp. 67-73.

 

 

62

James~Forkner, Wade Granger, Jack Sarmanian,8 and Bob
Sternberg: (Training)

Teachers wishing to teach drug education
classes must first go through a training
program so that they become knowledgeable
and familiar about drugs and drug abuse
behavior.

3. According to H. Bryce Brooks, Frank Chinnock,
James Forkner, Lois Frears,9 Wade Granger, David C. Lewis,
and Bob Sternberg: (Diffusion)

Drug education should be integrated into all
apprOpriate areas of study and should become
a part Of the school's ongoing curriculum.

4. According to H. Bryce Brooks, Frank Chinnock,

10

V. Alton Dohner, James Forkner, Lois Frears, Wade

Granger, George S. Larimer,ll David C. Lewis, Jack Sarmanian,
and Bob Sternberg: (Humanism)

The humanistic approach should be used in

drug education programs. In this approach,

the emphasis is on WHY people use drugs
rather than on the drugs they are using.

 

8Jack Sarmanian, "An International Approach to Pre-
venting Drug Abuse," NASSP Bulletin, April 1973, pp. 66-76.

 

9Statement by Lois Frears, Chairman of Drug Educa-
tion Committee at Hannah Middle School, personal inter-
view, November 12, 1973.

10V. Alton Dohner, "Drugs Are Not The Problem,"
The Education Digest, November 1970, (Reprint).

11George S. Larimer, Alvin Tucker, and Ellen F.
Brown, "Drugs and Youth," Pennsylvania Health, XXXI, 4

 

 

 

63

5. According to Clifford Denton,12 Wade Granger,
George S. Larimer, and Michael V. Reagen: (Early Introduction)
Drug education should be introduced to the
child as early as kindergarten and continued
through twelfth grade.
6. According to Frank Chinnock, James Forkner, Lois
Frears, Wade Granger, Michael V. Reagen, and Bob Sternberg:
(Articulation)
Drug education programs should be articulated
with programs at other grade levels, as well
as with other subjects to avoid repetition in
learning and to assure that the learning ex-
perience is a progressive and continuous one.
7. According to Frank Chinnock, James Forkner, Lois
Frears, Wade Granger, and Bob Sternberg: (Evaluation)
There must be an ongoing evaluation of the
program to determine its effectiveness.
The best mechanism for evaluating such a
program is feedback from students, teachers,
parents, and community.

The above criteria are basic to any drug education program.

DIFFERENCES FOUND IN NUMBER OF CRITERIA
UTILIZED IN DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS

ACCORDING TO GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

Table 1 indicates that there are no significant

differences at the .05 level in the number of criteria

 

12Clifford Denton, "Crusade in the Classroom,"
Penngylvania Education, II, 1 (January-February 1970),
20-23.

64

utilized in drug education programs from selected urban,
suburban and rural junior and senior high schools. A one-
way analysis of variance was run. Although we fail to re-
ject the null hypothesis at the .05 level of confidence,

it does not necessarily mean that there were no differences
present. There may have been some differences in the number
of criteria utilized in drug education programs according

to geographic location, but the test did not pick them up.

TABLE 1

HO: THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AT THE
.05 LEVEL IN THE NUMBER OF CRITERIA UTILIZED
IN DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS FROM SELECTED
URBAN, SUBURBAN, AND RURAL JUNIOR AND SENIOR
HIGH SCHOOLS.

ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

 

 

 

SOURCE SS DF MS F

 

 

 

 

BETWEEN GROUPS 12 2 6 2.62
WITHIN GROUPS 61.74 27 2.29

TOTAL 73.74 29

F = 2.62

TABLED F = 3.35

 

Since the calculated F is less than the TABLED F, we fail to

reject the H0 at the .05 level Of confidence.

65

DIFFERENCES FOUND IN NUMBER OF CRITERIA
UTILIZED IN DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS

IN JUNIOR AND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

Table 2 indicates that there are no significant
differences at the .05 level in the number of criteria
utilized in drug education programs from selected junior
and senior high schools. A two sample t-test for non-
repeated measures was run. Although we fail to reject
the null hypothesis at the .05 level of confidence, it.
does not necessarily mean that no differences were present.
Because Of the size of the sample, the statistical test did

not have much power.

TABLE 2

HO: THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AT THE
.05 LEVEL IN THE NUMBER OF CRITERIA UTILIZED
IN DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS FROM SELECTED
JUNIOR AND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS.

TWO-SAMPLE t-TEST

 

 

 

 

 

 

= f 1.22
2
S s p (I/n1 + l/n2 975.52 (1/8 + 1/7)
t = -.43

TABLED t = 1.771

 

Since the calculated t is less than the TABLED t, we fail

to reject the HO at the .05 level-of confidence.

DIFFERENCES FOUND IN NUMBER OF CRITERIA
UTILIZED IN DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS

AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS

Table 3 indicates that there are no significant
differences at the .05 level in the number of criteria
utilized in drug education programs as perceived by
teachers and principals. A t-test for matched pairs was
run. Even though the calculated t (1.363) was very close
to the TABLED t (1.753), we could not reject the null

hypothesis since 1.363 is less than 1.753.

TABLE 3

HO: THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AT THE
.05 LEVEL IN THE NUMBER OF CRITERIA UTILIZED
IN DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS AS PERCEIVED BY
TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS.

t-TEST FOR MATCHED PAIRS

 

 

ll

 

 

t = d-ud
————--- = .8-0 = 1.363
sd/Jn 2.27/3.87

t = 1.363

TABLED t = 1.753

 

Since the calculated t is less than the TABLED t, we fail

to reject the Ho at the .05 level of confidence.

67

THE DEGREE OF SUCCESS OF DRUG EDUCATION

PROGRAMS AS MEASURED BY THE CRITERIA

Table 4A indicates that principals perceive the
drug education program as meeting more Of the criteria
than do teachers who teach drug education in the schools.
In school number 15, both the teacher and principal agreed
that the same criteria were utilized in their school's
drug education program. In school number 18, the teacher
did not think that there was any drug education program
in the school. However, the principal felt that the
program utilized six out Of seven criteria. None of the
schools' programs utilized all seven criteria.

Table 4B indicates that principals perceive the
drug education programs as utilizing more criteria than
do teachers. Eighty percent of the teachers and 93.33
percent Of the principals agreed that criterion 3 was
utilized. Teachers and principals agreed that teachers
are not required to have special training before teaching
drug education and that student led discussions (criterion

4) are incorporated into the drug education program.

68

TABLE 4A

DEGREE OF SUCCESS OF DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS
AS MEASURED BY THE CRITERIA

 

 

—;
—___

CRITERIA

TEACHER (T)

FOR SCHOOLS PRINCIPAL (P)

ID NUMBERS

TOTAL

2 3 4 5 6 7

1

 

 

44

XX

XX

XX

15

XX

XX

TP

 

10

 

 

XX

XX

11

12

 

 

41

XX

43

14

 

 

18

 

33

46

13

 

43

XX

XX

XX

 

20

 

02

19

 

03

17

 

 

69

TABLE 4B

OVERVIEW OF THE DEGREE OF SUCCESS OF
DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS FROM
SELECTED SCHOOLS

1)

 

 

 

CRITERIA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
TEACHERS:
TOTAL 0 1 12 9 9 6 1
PERCENTAGE 0% 6.67% 80% 60% 60% 40% 6.67%
PRINCIPALS:
TOTAL 5 1 14 9 12 7 2

PERCENTAGE 33.33% 6.67% 93.33% 60% 80% 46.67% 13.33%

 

CRITERIA NOT BEING INCORPORATED

INTO DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Table 5 indicates that none of the teachers believed
that criterion 1 was utilized in their schools' drug educa-
tion programs. Two-thirds of the principals did not believe
that criterion 1 had been utilized. Fourteen teachers and
principals agreed that their schools' drug education programs
did not utilize criterion 2. Forty percent of the teachers
and principals agreed that criterion 4 had been utilized in
their schools' drug education prOgrams.

It appears from Table 5 that teachers and principals
perceive criteria numbers 1, 2 & 7 as being incorporated

least into their schools' drug education programs.

70

TABLE 5

CRITERIA NOT BEING INCORPORATED INTO
DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS FROM
SELECTED SCHOOLS

 

 

 

CRITERIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
TEACHERS:
TOTAL NUMBER
OF SCHOOLS 15 14 3 6 6 9 14
PERCENTAGE 100% 93.33% 20% 40% 40% 60% 93.33%
PRINCIPALS:
TOTAL NUMBER
OF SCHOOLS 10 14 1 6 3 8 l3
PERCENTAGE 66.67% 93.33% 6.67% 40% 20% 53.33% 86.67%

 

COMMONALITIES IN DRUG EDUCATION

Table 6 indicates

the school, students, and
volved in the planning of

Three out of six teachers

were no drug education programs going on in the school.

PROGRAMS

that none of the teachers said that

community
the school's drug

answering "other"

teacher said that they were waiting to hear

(criterion 1) were in-

education program.
said that there
One

results of a

study conducted by the Steering Committee before they did

anything with drug education.

While admitting that the

school was aware that a drug problem existed, it was felt

71

that the less emphasis placed on drugs, the better off
you were.

One teacher whose guidance class had been highly
praised by the principal because of the two weeks spent
each term on drug education, admitted that neither her
class or any Of the other teachers who taught guidance
classes had done anything on drug education for over two
years. The third teacher said that the S.T.R.I.D.E. program
was the only drug program Operating in the school and it
would probably be discontinued because of lack of funds and
interest. Three out of six teachers answering "other" did.
so because they did not know who planned the drug education
program.

It appears from Table 6 that most teachers felt
that only the school was involved in the planning of the
schools' drug education program.

Planning Of Drug
EducatIOn Programs

 

Table 7 indicates that five principals said that
the school, students, and community (criterion 1) were in-
volved in the planning Of the school's drug education
prOgram. One principal reported no drug education program
in the school. The principal reporting no program in his

or her particular school was not in the same school as the

72

teachers who reported that there were no programs going

on in their schools.

It appears from Table 7 that most principals felt

that only the school was involved in the planning of the

schools' drug education program.

TABLE 6

TEACHERS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION II

(Who was involved in the planning
Of this drug education program?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHO WAS INVOLVED NUMBER OF SCHOOLS
IN THE PLANNING INVOLVED PERCENTAGE
SCHOOL ONLY 6 40%
SCHOOL, STUDENTS, COMMUNITY o o:
SCHOOLS & STUDENTS 3 20%
SCHOOL & COMMUNITY o 0%
OTHERS 6 40%
TABLE 7
PRINCIPALS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION II
WHO WAS INVOLVED NUMBER OF SCHOOLS 24—-
IN THE PLANNING INVOLVED PERCENTAGE
SCHOOL ONLY 7 46.67;
SCHOOL, STUDENTS, COMMUNITY 5 33.3;;
SCHOOL & STUDENTS 1 6.67%
SCHOOL & COMMUNITY 1 6.67%
OTHERS l 6.67;

 

h.
F

73

S ecial Training
for Teachers

Table 8A indicates that one teacher said that
teachers were required to have Special training before they
could teach drug education. The one teacher who said that
some background and knowledge in drugs was required of
teachers who taught drug education had not attended any

workshOps or training programs.

TABLE 8A

TEACHERS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION III, 1

(Are teachers required to gO through a
special workshop or training program
before they teach drug education classes?)

._.__—_

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS PERCENTAGE TYPE OF TRAINING

 

YES 1 6.67% Must have back-
ground & knowledge
in drugs.

 

NO 14 93.33%

 

Table 8B indicates that twelve out Of fifteen teachers
participated in some type Of drug information program. One
of the teachers who participated in S.T.R.I.D.E. also had a
background in nursing. The course mentioned most frequently

was a ten week Red Cross course called "First Aid & Drugs."

74

TABLE 8B

TEACHERS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION III, 2

(Have you participated in the S.T.R.I.D.E.
Program or other workshOps or training
programs? If yes, what kind of program

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

was it?)
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
YES 12 80%
NO 3 20%
YES NUMBER OF TEACHERS .PERCENTAGE TYPE OF TRAINING
6 50% S.T.R.I.D.E.
and/or EMPATHY
TRAINING
1 8.33% EMPATHY & COURSE
0 0% S.T.R.I.D.E. &
WORKSHOP
3 25% WORKSHOP
2 16.67% COURSE

 

Table 9A indicates that one principal said that
teachers were required to gO through S.T.R.I.D.E. before
they could teach drug education. The teacher who.taught
drug education in that school did not know S.T.R.I.D.E. was

required. However, this teacher had gone through S.T.R.I.D.E.

75

TABLE 9A
PRINCIPALS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION III, 1
(Are teachers required to go through a

special workshop or training program
before they teach drug education classes?)

 

 

 

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS PERCENTAGE TYPE OF TRAINING
YES 1 6.67% S.T.R.I.D.E.
NO 14 93.33%

 

Table 9B indicates that twelve out of fifteen
principals participated in some type of drug information
program. One principal said that the reason why he had
not participated in such a program was because of his lack
of knowledge about the subject. It is interesting to note
that both the teacher and principal in two of the schools

did not participate in any type of drug information program.

TABLE 9B
PRINCIPALS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION III, 2

(Have you participated in the S.T.R.I.D.E.
Program or other workshops or training
programs? If yes, what kind Of program
was it?)

- _- _‘_—.._-

 

 

 

TOTAL PERCENTAGE
YES 1 6.67%
NO 14 93.33%

 

76

TABLE 9B Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES NUMBER OF PRINCIPALS PERCENTAGES TYPE OF TRAINING

4 33.33% S.T.R.I.D.E.
and/or EMPATHY
TRAINING

0 0% EMPATHY & COURSE

l 8.33% S.T.R.I.D.E. &
WORKSHOP

5 41.67% WORKSHOP

l 8.33% COURSE

l 8.33% OTHERS

 

Cpurses in Which Dru
Education Are Integgated
into Curriculum

 

Table 10A indicates that one school Offers drug educa-
tion as a separate course. The course is called "Drugs."‘ It
is a nine week science course Offered to eighth or ninth
graders. Seven junior high and seven high schools do not
Offer drug education as a separate course. Three out of the
seven junior high schools do not have any drug education
program. Two teachers reported that they use to do something
on drugs in their guidance classes, but not any longer. In
the third school, the teacher said that the S.T.R.I.D.E.
Program was the only drug program Operating in the school

this year.

77

It appears from Table 10A that most of the teachers

felt that drug education was integrated into the curriculum.

TABLE 10A

TEACHERS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV, 1

(Is drug education offered as a separate
course? If no, which course(s) is it
offered in?)

 

 

 

TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS PERCENTAGE
YES 1 6.67%
NO 14 93.33%

 

TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS NOT
OFFERING DRUG EDUCATION AS

 

A SEPARATE COURSE PERCENTAGE
JUNIOR
HIGH 7 50%
SCHOOLS
SENIOR
HIGH 7 50%
SCHOOLS

 

Table 10B indicates that in one high school, 41 to
60 percent of the health class is spent on drugs. The
course is divided into two parts: first-aid and drugs.
Although the English course does not deal directly with
drugs, the teacher does show relationships by talking about

feelings and problem-solving.

78

TABLE 10B

TEACHERS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV, 2

(Indicate what percent of the course(s)
is Spent on drug education per term.)

 

 

L_‘_’_ ‘—
‘ I

DEPARTMENT PERCENTAGE SPENT TOTAL NUMBER
ON DRUG EDUCATION OF SCHOOLS

 

 

 

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS:

 

 

SOCIAL STUDIES 11% - 20% l
SOCIAL STUDIES 10% or less 1
SCIENCE 10% or less 1
HEALTH _21% - 40% 1
HIGH SCHOOLS:

SCIENCE 10% or less 2
FAMILY LIVING 10% or less 1
PHYSICAL EDUCATION 10% or less 1
HEALTH/PHYSICAL EDUCATION 11% - 20% 1
HEALTH 41% - 60% l
ENGLISH 11% - 20% 1

 

Table 11A indicates that no school offers drug
education as a separate course. Seven junior high schools
and seven high schools integrate drug education into the
curriculum. One junior high school does not have a program.
According to the principal, "A class that spends a little

time on drugs does not constitute a drug education program."

79

TABLE 11A

PRINCIPALS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV, 1

(Is drug education offered as a separate
course? If no, which course(s) is it
Offered in?)

 

 

 

TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS PERCENTAGE
YES 0 0%
NO 15 100%

 

TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS
NOT OFFERING DRUG EDUCATION

 

AS A SEPARATE COURSE PERCENTAGE
JUNIOR
HIGH 8 46.67%
SCHOOLS
SENIOR
HIGH 7 53.33%
SCHOOLS

 

Table 11B indicates that in one high school, 41 to
60 percent Of the health class is Spent on drugs. Both the
teacher and principal agreed on the amount Of time that was
spent on drugs. Principals indicated that drug education was
taught mostly in health and/or physical education classes.

If_we compare Table 10B with 11B, it appears that
principals perceive drug education as being integrated into
more subjects than do teachers. However, that may be a
wrong assumption. When teachers were asked to name the

courses that drug education was taught in, they usually

80

named only their own.course because that was the only one
they felt qualified to talk about. Principals, on the
other hand, were in a better position to know more classes

where drug education was being taught.

TABLE 11B

PRINCIPALS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION IV, 2

(Indicate what percent of the course(s)
is spent on drug education per term.)

 

I __7 —
I r #:fi

DEPARTMENT PERCENTAGE SPENT TOTAL NUMBER
ON DRUG EDUCATION OF SCHOOLS

 

 

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS:

 

 

SOCIAL STUDIES 10% or less 4
SCIENCE 10% or less 3
PHYSICAL EDUCATION 10% or less 2
HEALTH 21% - 40% 1
HEALTH 41% — 60% 1
GUIDANCE 10% or less 1
GUIDANCE 11% - 20% 1
FAMILY LIVING 11% - 20% 1
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS:
SOCIAL STUDIES 10% or less 1
SCIENCE 10% or less 3
HEALTH 10% or less 2
HEALTH 41% - 60% 1
PHYSICAL EDUCATION 10% or less 2
HEALTH/PHYSICAL EDUCATION 10% or less 2
ENGLISH 10% or less 2
SOCIAL SCIENCE 10% or less 1
FAMILY LIVING 10% or less 3
INDEPENDENT STUDY 10% or less 1

 

81

Approaches Used
in Drug E ucation

Table 12 indicates that nine out of fifteen teachers

 

incorporate student led discussions (criterion 4) into the
drug education program. In two schools, teachers felt that
the drug films they showed their students were good films.
One teacher said that although his students did not lead
discussions, they did participate in them. This teacher
questioned whether or not sixth graders could really lead
discussions. Many teachers expressed concern with inviting
ex-addicts to come into their classes to speak. In the
past, some have come in "stoned." One teacher said that
when an ex-addict came into his class "stoned," it worked
out really good because the pupils were turned off by his
behavior. Three teachers did not use any of the approaches
because there were no drug education programs going on in
the school.

Table 13 indicates that nine out of fifteen princi—
pals feel that teachers incorporate student Iuai discussions
into the drug education program. Two principals believed
that both good and bad films were being shown to students.
One principal added counselors helping kids with drug con—
cerns as an additional approach used in the drug education

program.' Thirteen principals believed that teachers used

82

open discussion Lhai by teacher and/or resource person in

the drug education program. One principal was unfamiliar

with the approaches used. One principal said that there

was no drug education program in the school.

TABLE 12

TEACHERS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION V

(Which Of the
program: a.
b.

following are part of your drug education
Formal presentations without discussion.
Presentations by ex-addicts and/or drug
experts.

Drug films which show only-the harmful
effects that drugs produce (including
marijuana).

Open discussion led by teacher and/or
resource person.

Student led discussions (rap sessions).
Others.)

APPROACHES USED IN DRUG EDUCATION TOTAL NUMBER PERCENTAGE

 

OF SCHOOLS
a, b, c, d, & e 3 20%
a, b, d, e, & f (good films) 1 6.67%
b, C, d, & e 3 20%
b, d, & e 2 13.33%
d, & f (student participation in l 6.67%
discuSSIOn & gOOd films)
b & d l 6.67%

83

TABLE 13

PRINCIPALS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION V

(Which of the following are part of your drug education
program: a. Formal presentations without discussion.

b. Presentations by ex-addicts and/or drug
eXperts.

c. Drug films which show only the harmful
effects that drugs produce (including
marijuana).

d. Open discussion led by teacher and/or
resource person.

e. Student led discussions (rap sessions).

f. Others.)

 

- 4““
r “

APPROACHES USED IN DRUG EDUCATION TOTAL NUMBER PERCENTAGE

 

OF SCHOOLS
a, b, c, d, e, & f (good films) 2 13.33%
a, b, c, d, & e 2 13.33%
a, d, & f (counselors helping kids 1 6.67%
With drug concerns)
b, d, & e l 6.67%
b, c, & d l 6.67%
b, d, & f (good films) 1 6.67%
b & d 1 6.67%
d & e 4 26.67%
d & f (sound filmstrips) l 6.67%

 

Child's Firgt Intro-
dUction to Drug Education

Table 14 indicates that nine teachers and twelve
principals said that drug education was offered to students
the first year at the school. In eight of the schools,

teachers and principals agreed on the grade level where drug

84

education was first introduced to the students in their
particular schools. If drug education was Offered to
students their first year at a school, then criterion 5
was being met. Only one teacher and principal knew beyond
their own school where drug education was first introduced

to the child.

TABLE 14

TEACHERS' AND PRINCIPALS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION VI

(At what grade is drug education first introduced
to the child at your school?)

 

 

 

 

GRADE LEVEL WHERE DRUG EDUCATION IS FIRST INTRODUCED TO
CHILD AS SEEN BY TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS

 

TEACHERS PRINCIPALS
No Program 9th
NO Program *7th
No Program *6th
*10th *10th
*6th *6th

*10th Did not know

*10th *10th
*6th *6th
*10th *9th
*9th *9th
11th *10th
*6th *6th

8th NO program
*7th *7th
*9th. *9th

 

* Indicates where drug education is Offered to students
their first year at the school.

 

85

Articulation of Drug Education
Pro rams with Other Subjects
and Grade Levels

 

 

Table 15A indicates that only two teachers said
that the drug education program was coordinated with
programs at other grade levels. One of the teachers who
answered "Yes" said that the junior high school spends
time on facts and figures while they are concerned with
values clarification. It appears from Table 15A that most
teachers did not think that drug education programs were

coordinated with programs at other schools and/or grade

 

 

 

levels.
TABLE 15A
TEACHERS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION VII, 1

(Is the drug education program that is offered

to senior high school students coordinated

with the programs offered to pre-high school

and/or elementary school students?)

TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS PERCENTAGE

YES 2 13.33%
NO 13 86.67%

 

Table 15B indicates that eight principals said that
drug education programs were coordinated with programs at
other grade levels. Two principals said that they were co-

ordinated by health teachers from the elementary, junior,

86

and senior high schools who develOped the program to-
gether. One high school principal said that he discussed
what happens at the junior high school with his faculty.

One principal said that the program was coordinated through
the Steering Committee and another principal said it was
coordinated through the Drug Education Curriculum Committee.

Three principals did not elaborate on their answers.

TABLE 15B

PRINCIPALSI RESPONSES TO QUESTION VII, 1

(Is the drug education program that is Offered
to senior high school students coordinated
with the programs Offered to pre-high school
and/or elementary school students?)

 

 

TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS PERCENTAGE

 

 

 

YES 8 53.33%
NO 5 33.33%
OTHERS 2 13.33%

 

One Of the principals who answered "others" did so
because he did not know-if the program was coordinated with
the programs in other schools. One principal said that the
school did not have a drug education program.

Table 16A indicates that six out of fifteen teachers
develop materials for drug education through the joint
efforts of human resources from other schools and/or through
community resources (criterion 6). Four teachers developed
the materials themselves. Two of the teachers who answered

"others" said that there were no drug education programs in

87

the school. The third teacher said that the S.T.R.I.D.E.
PrOgram was the only drug education program Operating in

the school this year.

TABLE 16A
TEACHERS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION VII, 2

(How were the materials for drug education
develOped in your school:
a. Each teacher develOped her own (independently).
b. Through the efforts of school administrators.
c. Through the joint efforts of human resources
contained within own school (students,
teachers, administrators, others).
d. Through joint efforts of human resources
from other schools (at various grade levels)
and/or community resources.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIALS TOTAL NUMBER PERCENTAGE
FOR DRUG EDUCATION OF SCHOOLS

a, b, c, & d 1 6.67%
a & d 4 26.67%
c 2 13.33%
d l 6.67%
a 4 26.67%
Others 3 20%

 

Table 16B indicates that seven out of fifteen
principals believe that teachers develop materials for drug
education through the joint efforts of human resources from
other schools and/or through community resources (criterion

6). Only one principal said that each teachervdeveloped the

88

materials independently. One of the principals who answered
"others" said that there was no drug education program in
the school. The other principal did not know how the

materials were developed.

TABLE 16B

PRINCIPALSI RESPONSES TO QUESTION VII, 2

(How were the materials for drug education
developed in your school:
a. Each teacher developed her own (independently).
b. Through the efforts of school administrators.
c. Through the joint efforts of human resources
contained within own school (students,
teachers, administrators, others).
d. Through joint efforts of human resources
from other schools (at various grade levels)
and/or community resources.)

 

 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIALS TOTAL NUMBER PERCENTAGE
FOR DRUG EDUCATION OF SCHOOLS

a, b, c & d 3 20%
b, c, & d l 6.67%
a, c, & d 2 13.33%
b & c l 6.67%
a & b 1 6.67%
c'& d 1 6.67%
a & C l 6.67%
d 1 6.67%
c l 6.67%
a l 6.67%
Others 2 13.33%

 

89

Eyaluatioptof Drug
Education Program

 

 

Table 17A indicates that_only four teachers said
that the drug education program had been evaluated. One
out of the four said that the evaluation involved parents,
students, and teachers (criterion 7). Ten out of fifteen
teachers said that the drug education program had not been
evaluated. Two out of the ten teachers said that there
were no drug education programs going on in the school.
Another teacher who reported no evaluation said only the
S.T.R.I.D.E. Program was Operating in the school this year.
The one teacher who was placed in "other" did not know if

the program had been evaluated.

TABLE 17A

TEACHERSI RESPONSES TO QUESTION VIII

(Has the school attempted to evaluate its
drug education program? If yes, who was
involved in the evaluation and how was
it evaluated?)

 

 

TOTAL NUMBER

 

OF SCHOOLS PERCENTAGE
YES 4 26.67%
NO 10 66.66%

OTHERS 1 6.67%

 

90

TABLE 17A Continued

HOW IT WAS EVALUATED TOTAL NUMBER
OF SCHOOLS

 

As part of regular course 2
(students & teachers involved)

A pre and post test was given
to find out what was retained 1
(students & teachers involved)

Verbal feedback from parents,
teachers, and students

 

j,

Table 17B indicates that five principals said that
the drug education program had been evaluated. Only two out
Of the five said that parents, students, and teachers were
involved in the evaluation (criterion 7). The teacher who
reported that parents, students, and teachers were involved
in evaluating the drug education program was not from either
Of the schools where the principals reported the same kind
of evaluation.

Of the nine principals reporting no evaluation, one
said that there was no drug education program in the school.
The principal whose response was placed in "others" said
that the only evaluation he was familiar with was the one
done as part Of the S.T.R.I.D.E. Program. This principal
was not from the same school where a teacher reported that
S.T.R.I.D.E. was the only drug education program going on

in the school.

91

TABLE 17B

PRINCIPALS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION VIII

(Has the school attempted to evaluate its drug
education program? If yes, who was involved in
the evaluation and how was it evaluated?)

 

 

 

 

TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS PERCENTAGE
YES 5 33.33%
NO 9 60%
OTHERS l 6.67%
HOW IT WAS EVALUATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS
As part of regular course 1

(students & teachers involved)

A pre and post test was given
to find out what was retained 1
(students & teachers involved)

Open discussions by students
and teacher

Verbal feedback from parents,
teachers, and students

TEACHERS' AND PRINCIPALS' PARTICIPATION IN
DRUG INFORMATION PROGRAMS AND THE

SUCCESS OF DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Table 18 indicates that there is little difference
in the number of criteria utilized in drug education
programs in schools where teachers and/or principals par-
ticipated in a drug information program. In one school

Where neither the teacher nor principal participated in a

92

drug information program, they both perceived the same
criteria being utilized in the school's drug education
program. One teacher who did participate in a drug in-
formation program said that there was no drug education
program going on in the school. However, the principal,
who had attended the same type Of program as the teacher,
said that the drug education program in the school utilized
six out Of the seven criteria.

It appears that regardless of whether or not
principals and teachers participated in drug information
programs, criterion number 3 was utilized in the schools'

drug education programs.

DRUG USAGE WITHIN THE SCHOOL

Table 19A indicates that nine out of fifteen
teachers said that some attempt has been made in the schools
to find out how widespread drug usage is. Two teachers who
reported "Yes" said that a class put together a survey this
year but the results were not-yet known. Four teachers said
that a survey was done about a year ago by some students and

there was a survey published by The State Journal about a

 

year ago.' One teacher said that two security guards were
placed in the halls to look for students using and selling

drugs.

93

TABLE 18

PARTICIPATION IN

AND PRINCIPALS'
SUCCESS OF DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS

DRUG INFORMATION PROGRAMS AND THE

TEACHERSI

 

 

Edmwomm
ZOHB¢EMOWZH UDMQ
ZH ZOHBdeUHBm<m

HflBOB.

CRITERIA

.1

Amy qamHOszA
ABC mmmoama

qoomum m0
mmmSDZ DH

 

Yes
Yes

No
NO

15

Yes
Yes

TP

8 cos
0886
NY YY
2.5 133

X X
XXXX

XX
XXXX

x
TP TP
0, 11
1 1

Yes
Yes

TP

12

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

XXXX XXX XX

X X

TP TP TP TP TP

14
18
13

Yes
No

94

TABLE 18 Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

th
H<3
m C);
AV H
mg 5a To
mc:
mo .6 21%
2:2 MP4 (3915
DC) mt) 2 H
Z") 2E CRITERIA 5 Egg
.98 5351 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 3553‘.
4 T x x 2 Yes
P 0 Yes
T 0 Yes
19 P x x 2 Yes
T 0 Yes
17 P x x x 3 Yes
TABLE 19A
TEACHERS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION IX
(Has there been any attempt made to discover
how widespread drug usage is in your school?)
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONSES PERCENTAGE
YES 9 60%
NO 6 40%

 

One teacher said that information about students
who use drugs is gotten from interviews with counselors

and students. Another teacher said that information about

95

students who use drugs is gotten through the Drug Educa-
tion Center's (DEC) coping group. Young people from the
middle schools and high schools in the Lansing area with
drug related problems meet for counseling. The peOple
from the DEC help these young people to cope with their
problems.

Several teachers said that the drug problem had
improved over the past few years. They felt that the
problem was only with marijuana now. One junior high
school teacher said that drug usage was not very widespread
at his school. There was just a little experimentation
with soft drugs. One teacher who had said that the
S.T.R.I.D.E. Program was the only drug education program
in the school this year, felt that there was definitely a
drug problem in the school.

Table 19B indicates that nine out of fifteen
principals said that some attempt has been made in the
schools to find out how wideSpread drug usage is. Seven
out of the nine principals said that a survey had been done

by.some reporters from The State Journal and the results

 

were published in the paper about a year ago. Some students
had also done a survey about a year ago as part of a class
project. Two principals said that they kept tabs on students
by information reported to them from administrators and

staff.

96

TABLE 19B

PRINCIPALS' RESPONSES TO QUESTION IX

(Has there been any attempt made to discover
how widespread drug usage is in your school?)

 

 

TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONSES PERCENTAGE
YES 9 60%
NO 6 40%

 

Two principals said that although there had not
been any attempt made to discover how widespread drug usage
was in their schools, they do get some informal input from
students and counselors.

Four principals said that the drug problem had de-
creased. Two felt that students had been saturated with
information about drugs. Most of the principals agreed that
marijuana and alcohol were still a problem but students were
no longer "drOpping" pills. One principal indicated that
drug usage was minor in the school. "Only the poor whites,
the Spanish students, and a few Blacks dropped pills."

This was the same principal who previously told the re-
searcher that there was no drug education program in the
school because drugs were not a problem.

One principal said that marijuana was still a
problem in the school but he did not feel that smoking
marijuana constituted a problem. One principal found it

difficult to define a drug problem since he saw the problem

97

going much deeper than just using drugs. A few principals
indicated "that as long as one student uses drugs, we have
a drug problem.“

In one high school where students are required to
take a health course where 50 percent of the course is
concerned with drugs, the principal questioned whether or
not drug classes did any good. He felt that in a few cases,
they bring drugs to the attention of someone who otherwise

may not be aware of them.

Summary

Chapter IV presented and analyzed the research
findings. Chapter V will summarize the research, present
the conclusions, give the implications of the study, and

make recommendations for future research.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This chapter summarizes the research problem,
presents the conclusions, gives the implications Of the

study, and makes recommendations for future research.

SUMMARY

There have been no prior attempts made to establish
criteria upon which any systematic evaluation of drug educa-
tion programs could be based. The purposes of this study
were twofold. First, from reading the literature and inter-
viewing experts in the field, the researcher was able to set
up common criteria for evaluating drug education programs.
Secondly, the researcher found out how closely drug educa-
tion programs from selected schools fit into the criteria
that were set up. The research in this study tested the

following hypotheses:

98

99

1. There are no significant differences in
the number of criteria utilized in drug
education programs from selected urban,
suburban, and rural junior and senior high

schools.

2. There are no significant differences in
the number of criteria utilized in drug
education programs from selected junior

and senior high schools.

3. There are no significant differences in
the number of criteria utilized in drug
education programs as perceived by teachers
and principals from selected junior and

senior high schools.

The research data provided answers to the following

questions:

1. To what degree have drug education programs
from selected schools been successful as

measured by the criteria?

2. What criteria are not being incorporated

into the drug education programs?

100

3. What are the commonalities in the drug

education programs from selected schools?

4. Does the participation by teachers and/or
principals in some type of drug information
program increase the number of criteria
utilized in the schools' drug education

program?

The sample consisted of eight junior and seven
senior high schools in Ingham County. The principal and
a teacher who taught drug education from each of the
schools were interviewed. The questionnaire was given
via a personal interview. Two numerical scores were com-
puted for each school's drug education program. One score
was tabulated from teachers' perception Of the program
while the other score was tabulated from principals' per-
ception of the program. Each time that the reSponses to
questions II through VIII indicated that the school
utilized one of the criterion in its drug education
program, the program received one point. A total score
Of seven points, with seven being the highest number of
points possible to Obtain, indicated that the school's
drug education program utilized all of the criteria that

were essential to a successful program. A breakdown of

101

the scores for each school's drug education program was
presented according to the number of criteria utilized in
each program as perceived by teachers and principals.
Also, a breakdown of how the respondents answered each
question on the questionnaire was presented. At the end
Of the interview, an Open-ended question was asked
(Question IX) to find out the severity Of the drug problem
in the schools.

The following criteria were set up for measuring

the degree of success of drug education programs:

INVOLVEMENT

 

1. There should be a COOperative effort between
parents, students, teachers, school Officials,
law enforcement officers, and other segments
of the community in the planning and imple-
menting Of a drug education program. Young
peOple MUST be involved in all aspects Of the

program.

TRAINING

 

2. Teachers wishing to teach drug education
Classes must first go through a training
program sO-that they become knowledgeable
and familiar about drugs and drug abuse

behavior.

102

DIFFUSION

 

Drug education should be integrated into all
appropriate areas of study and should become

a part of the school's ongoing curriculum.

HUMANISM

 

The humanistic approach should be used in drug
education programs. In this approach, the
emphasis is on WHY peOple use drugs rather

than on the drugs they are using.

EARLY INTRODUCTION

 

Drug education should be introduced to the
child as early as kindergarten and continued

through the twelfth grade.

ARTICULATION

 

Drug education programs should be articulated
with programs at other grade levels, as well
as with other subjects to avoid repetition in
learning and to assure that the learning ex-

perience is a progressive and continuous one.

EVALUATIQN

 

There must be an ongoing evaluation of the

program to determine its effectiveness. The

103

best mechanism for evaluating such a program
is feedback from students, teachers, parents,

and community.

CONCLUSIONS

The researcher has drawn from this study the

following conclusions about the differences in the number

Of criteria being utilized in drug education prOgrams

from selected schools:

1.

There are no significant differences in
the number Of criteria utilized in drug
education prOgrams from selected urban,
suburban, and rural junior and senior high

schools.

There are no significant differences in
the number of criteria utilized in-drug
education programs from selected junior

and senior high schools.

(There are no significant differences in

the number Of criteria utilized in drug
education programs as perceived by teachers
and principals from selected junior and

senior high schools.

104

We were unable to reject the null hypotheses at the .05

level of confidence. As far as the number of criteria

utilized in drug education programs from selected schools

in Ingham County, there were no significant differences

found.

As a result of the findings of this study, the

researcher found answers to the following questions:

1. TO WHAT DEGREE HAVE DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS
FROM SELECTED SCHOOLS BEEN SUCCESSFUL AS
MEASURED BY THE CRITERIA?

None of the schools' drug education prOgrams

utilized all seven criteria. It appears that

principals perceive drug education programs as

meeting more of the criteria than do teachers.

2. WHAT CRITERIA ARE NOT BEING INCORPORATED
INTO THE DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS?

Teachers and principals agree that criteria
numbers 1, 2, & 7 are incorporated least into

the schools' drug education programs.

3. WHAT ARE THE COMMONALITIES IN THE DRUG
EDUCATION PROGRAMS-FROM SELECTED SCHOOLS?

Drug education programs from selected schools
ianngham County have the following commonalities:
a. Teachers and administrators are the

personnel most involved in the plan-
ning of the program.‘

105

Teachers are not required to have special
training before teaching drug education.

Drug education is Offered as part of the
curriculum. It is usually taught as part
of health and/or physical education classes.
Less than 10 percent of the course is Spent
on drug education per term.

In most schools student lead discussions are
incorporated into the program.

In most schools, drug education is Offered
to students their first year in school.

Drug education programs are not coordinated
with prOgrams at other grade levels or with
other subjects.

Teachers develop own materials for drug
education.

Little attempt is made to evaluate drug
education programs.

DOES THE PARTICIPATION BY TEACHERS AND/OR
PRINCIPALS IN‘ SOME TYPE OF DRUG INFORMATION
PROGRAM INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CRITERIA
UTILIZED IN THE SCHOOLS' DRUG EDUCATION
PROGRAM?

There appears to be little difference in the

number of criteria utilized in drug education

programs in schools where teachers and/or principals

participated in a drug information program. Re-

gardless of whether or not teachers and principals

participated in drug information programs, criterion

number 3 was utilized in the schools' drug educa-

tion programs.'

106

IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

The Criteria develOped by this researcher to
evaluate the success of drug education programs in selected
schools tend to be supported by the data from this study.
Schools where teachers and principals perceive the drug
education prOgram as being successful tend to be schools
which utilized more Of the criteria in their schools' drug
education programs.~

Although there were no significant differences
found in the number of criteria utilized in drug education
programs according to geographic location, type Of school,
and teachers' and principals' perceptions Of the program,
the researcher found that principals perceived drug educa-
tion programs as being more successful than did teachers.

Most teachers were concerned about drug abuse
among young people and were willing to admit that a drug
problem existed in the schools. Principals, on the other
hand, were anxious to make it known that there was no drug
problem in their schools.

The data indicates that criterion 3 (integrated
into all apprOpriate areas) was utilized in most drug
education programs. However, when one considers that only
a little class time had to be devoted to drug related

tOpics in order for drug education programs to utilize

107

criterion 3, it did not take much for schools (lo-20%

of class time) to meet this criterion. Ideally, drug
related topics should be integrated into all appropriate
areas of the curriculum.

In an unreleased publication of a study of drug
abuse prevention education in Michigan schools done by the
Michigan State Department of Education in 1971-1972, it
was found that students and parents were the least involved
in planning and conducting drug education programs.‘ This
supports what was found by this researcher. Teachers and
administrators were the personnel most involved in the
planning of the prOgram. In most instances, the researcher
found that teachers who taught drug education did not know
who planned the drug education program. Another finding
of the study done on Michigan schools in 1971-1972 was
that there was no person to coordinate the schools' drug
education programs. This researcher found that-very few
schools had a Coordinator for Drug Education. In the few
schools that did have a coordinator, he was usually the
teacher who taught drug education in the school. The
position of Coordinator is SO time consuming that it
Should be assigned to someone who can devote full time to

it.

108

Another finding in the 1971-1972 study was that
there was a need for trained teachers in drug education.
Although this researcher found that most teachers had
participated in some type of drug information program,
it did not provide teachers with enough training to make

them knowledgeable about drugs and drug abuse behavior.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

A longitudinal study should be done on students
from selected junior and senior high schools in Ingham
County to find out if drug education programs have any
impact.

A similar study might be done in other counties
to find out if the findings from this study can be general—
ized to schools in other counties.

A study Should be conducted among middle school
and senior high school students to determine their re-
actions tO drug education programs in selected schools.

This same study might be done in other school
districts and at other grade levels to find out the degree
of sficcess of drug education programs as measured by the
Criteria.

A comparative study might be conducted among

teachers with varying backgrounds to see if there is any

109

correlation between type of training and the number of

criteria utilized in drug education programs.

Summary

Chapter V summarized the research problem, pre-
sented the findings, gave the implications of the study,

and reported recommendations for future study.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

 

 

 

110

QUESTIONNAIRE

The following questions were asked during a

personal interview:

I.

II.

III.

Does your school have a drug education (or sub-
stance abuse) program?

1. If

a.
b.
c.
d.

YES NO

NO, why doesn't it?
NO money set aside for such a program.

'There is no drug problem in the school.

No interest in starting a program.
Others

Who was involved in the planning of this drug
education program:

d.

Students
School (teachers, counselors, administrators,

others)
Community (parents, law enforcement officials,
social workers, community agencies, others)

Others

Are teachers required to go through a special work-
shOp or training program before they-teach drug
education classes?

1. If

a.
b.
c.

d.

YES NO
YES, what type of training did they-have?
S.T.R.I.D.E. Program

-State Regional Workshops

Inéservice days where consultants from the
community come in to Speak

Special college or university training
(affectiveness training)

Others

IV.

VI.

111

2. (TO be asked to principals) Have you partici-
pated in the S.T.R.I.D.E. Program or-other-work-
shOps or training programs?

YES NO

2a. If NO, why?
Explain

Is drug education Offered as a separate course?
YES NO

1. If NO, which course(s) is it offered in:

a. Health

b. Physical Education

c. Science

d. Social Studies

e. English

f. Family Living (Home Economics)
g. Independent Study

h. Others

2. For each Of the course(s) checked, indicate
what percent of the course(s) is spent on drug
education per term:

a. 10% or less
b. 11% - 20%

c. 21% - 40%

d. 41% - 60%

e. More than 60%

Which of the following are part of your drug educa-
tion program:

a. Formal presentation without discussion.

b. Presentations by ex-addicts and/or drug experts.

c. Drug films which Show only the harmful effects
that drugs produce(including marijuana).

d. Open discussion led by teacher and/or resource
person.

e. Student led discussion (rap sessions).

At what grade is drug education first introduced
to the child? (In this school)

 

VII.

VIII.

a.
b.
C.‘
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

i.
j.
Is

112

Kindergarten

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

Sixth

Junior High School (includes sixth grade in
some cases)

Senior High School
Uncertain

the drug education program that is Offered to
senior high school students coordinated with the
programs offered to pre-high school and/or elementary
school students?

YES NO

1. How-were the materials for drug education
developed in your school?

a.
b.
C.

d.

Each teacher developed her own.

Through the efforts of school administrators.
Through the joint efforts Of human resources
contained within your school (Students,
teachers, administrators).

Through joint efforts of human resources
from other schools and/or community.

Has the school attempted to evaluate its drug educa-
tion program?

1.

If

a.
b.
c.

d.

YES NO

YES, who was involved in the evaluation?

Students

School (teachers, administrators, counselors)
Community (parents, law enforcement officials,
social workers, community agencies, others).

'Others

How was it evaluated?

a.
b.
c.
d.

Survey (questionnaire)
Interview
Openzdiscussions
Others

IX.

113

Has there been any attempt made to discover how
widespread drug usage is in your school?

YES NO
1. If YES, explain. (how, when, and results)

2. DO you think there is a drug problem in your
school?

APPENDIX B

114

COMPUTATIONS

One-Way_Analysis of Variance

3 Treatments:

Urban
Suburban
Rural

SOURCE SS df MS F

 

Between Group df x MS 3 - l 12 _ MS
7-6 E 6
12 2 MSW 2.29

 

Within Group df x MS 30 - 3 2.29
61.74 27

 

F = MS _
B MSW — 2.620

TABLED F = 3.35

Two-Sample t-Test

 

Junior High SchOOl v. High School

t = X - X — (u - u

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 1
E 2 l 1 I—
S .. + _
p (N1 N2)
_2th - 3021 -052
0 5.52 (1/8 + 1/7) = 05.52 (.125 + .143)
-052

- -.52 t = -.43
{5.52 (.268) 1.22 TABLE T = 1.771

115

teTest for Matched Pairs

 

All Teachers v. All Principals

 

 

 

 

15.82 - 144
15(14)

8-0

.8

2.27 = IEL’Z/l
S 15 3.87

P-T 2622
4-2 (2) 4
4-4 0 o
3—3 0 o
5-2 3 9
3-3 0 o
4-3 1 1
1-4 -3 9
3—4 -1 1
6-0 6 36
3-3 0 o
6-4 2 4
3-4 -1 1
0-2 -2 4
2-0 2 4
3-0 3 9
12 82

a = —3 = .8

15
Sd = I15.82

N(N-l)

Sd = 5.17
Sd = 2.27
t = d - Ud = .

5.9.

S n
t = .8

. §§:
t = 1.363

TABLED t

1.753

APPENDIX C

,..«

 

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

116

JUNIOR AND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

IN INGHAM COUNTY

EAST LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. East Lansing Senior High School
2. John A. Hannah Middle School
3. C. E. MacDonald Middle School

DANSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
1. Dansville Agricultural School
HASLETT SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Haslett High School
2. Haslett Junior High School

HOLT SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Holt Senior High School
2. Holt Junior High School

LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT

Eastern High School

Everett High School

Harry Hill High School

J. W. Sexton High School

Dwight Rich Junior High School
Gardner Junior High School

Harry Pattengill Junior High School
0. W. Otto Junior High School
Walter French Junior High School

meO‘U‘IfiDwNH
0000.000.

LANSING - P.O.
l. Waverly-East Junior High School
LESLIE SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Leslie High School
2. Leslie Junior High School

Suburban
9 - 12
6 - 8

6 - 8
Rural

7 - 12
Rural

9 - 12
6 — 8
Rural

9 - 12
7 - 8
Urban
10 - 12
10 - 12
10 - 12

Suburban
6 - 7
Rural

10 - 12
7 - 9

VIII.

IX.

XI.

XII.

117

MASON SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Mason High School
2. Mason Junior High School

OKEMOS SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Okemos High School
2. Okemos Kinawa Junior High School

STOCKBRIDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Stockbridge High School
2. Stockbridge Junior High School

WEBBERVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT

Rural

10 - 12
7 — 9
Suburban
9 - 12

6 - 8
Rural

9 - 12

7 - 8
Rural

1. Webberville Junior & Senior High School 5 - 12

WILLIAMSTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Williamston High School
2. Williamston Junior High School

Rural
9 - 12
6 - 8

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Periodicals

 

"Adolescent Attitudes Toward Drugs," School & Society.
October 1971, pp. 335 & 385.

 

"Alcoholism: New Victims, New Treatments," Time,
April 22, 1974, pp. 75-81.

:Bartlett, Virginia. "NO One Way," WQED Renaissance, I,
10 (October 1970), 21-26.

 

"Battle Against Drugs Turns to Barbiturates," U.S. News
& World Report, April 23, 1973, p. 60.

 

 

IBinkley, Marvin Edward, and Lawrence M. DeRidder,
"Comparing Drug Users With Non-Users," NASSP
Bulletin, April 1973, pp. 77-84.

 

Brooks, Bryce H. "Teaching Teachers to Teach About Drugs,"
NASSP Bulletin, May 1971, pp. 127-134.

Chinnock, Frank W. "A Sensible New Plan to Fight Drugs
in Our Society," Ladies' Home Journal, January
1971' pp. 68-73.

 

DeLone, Richard H. "The Ups and Downs of Drug Abuse Educa-
tion," Saturdaqueview of Education, September 11,
1972, pp. 27-31.

Denton, Clifford, "Crusade in the Classroom," Penns lvania
Education, II, 1 (January-February, 197U), 20-23.

 

Dohner, Alton V. "Drugs Are Not The Problem," The Educge
tion Digest, November 1970. Reprint.

 

Gordon, Sol. "Presentation and Implementation of a Drug
Abuse Prevention Program," Readings on Drug Educa-
tion, ed. Michael V. Reagen. Metuchen, New Jersey:
TEe Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1972, 117-119.

 

"Grass Grows More Acceptance," Time, September 10, 1973,
pp. 67-70.

118

119

KOPeCkY: Gini. "Follow-up Report on the Stamford Program,"
Ladies' Home Journal, January 1971, pp. 142-143.

 

Larimer, George 5., Alvin Tucker, and Ellen F. Brown.
"Drugs and Youth," Pennsylvania Healph, XXXI, 4

 

Lewis, David C. "Drug Education," NASSP Bulletin,
December 1969, pp. 87-98.

 

Medicine. "Capsules," Time, March 4, 1974, p. 60.

Medicine. "Pot and Sexuality," Newsweek, April 29, 1974,
p. 57.

 

Michigan Education Directory_end Buyer's Guide. Michigan
Education Directory, Lansing, Michigan, 1972-1973.

 

"New View on Pot," Time, May 3, 1971, pp. 45-46.

Nowlis, Helen H. "Student Drug Use," Readings on Drug
Education, ed. Michael V. Reagen. etuChen,
New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1972, 1-4.

"Pot and Alcohol: Some New Views," Time, February 28,
1972, p. 51.

Reagen, Michael V. "The Drug Challenge," Readinge_on
Drug Educatiep, ed. Michael V. Reagen. Metuchen,
New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1972,
16-24.

 

"Rising Toll Of Alcoholism: New Steps to Combat It,"
U.S. News & World Report, October 29, 1973,
pp. 45-48.

 

Sarmanian, Jack. "An International Approach to Preventing
Drug Abuse," NASSP_Bulletin, April 1973, pp. 66-67.

 

"The Latest Teen Drug: Alcohol," Newsweek, March 5, 1973,
p. 68.

"The Perils of Pot Start Showing Up," U.S. News & World_
Report, June 17, 1974, p. 58.

 

 

120

B. Pamphlets

 

Operation Drug Alert. Deciding About Drugs, published by
Kiwanis InternaEIonal In COOperation with the
Kiwanis International Foundation, 1969.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
'AlcohOl--Some Questions and Answege. Public
Health Service Publication, No. 71-9048.
(Washington: Government Printing Office, August
1971).

 

WQED-WQEX Publication. Drug Facts and Slang Terme, 1970.

 

C. Books

 

Barnes, Donald E., and Louisa Messolonghites (eds.)
Preyenting_Drug Abuse. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston, Inc., 1972.

 

 

Sax, Gilbert. Em irical Foundations Of Educational
ResearcH. Englewood CIiffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1968).

 

D. Newspapers

 

Butler, Ann and Rich Gigler. "High School: A Pusher's
Paradise-Drug Symptoms of Trouble Elsewhere,"
The Pittsburgh Press. June 2, 1974, pp. F-l2.

 

McCormack, Patricia. "Alcohol Back In Top Spot As Teens'
Favorite Drug," The Pittsburgh Preeej January 8,
1974, p. 13.

 

"School Kids Wise to Drugs?" The State Journal (East
Lansing), February 18, 1973.

 

E. Other Sources

 

Brown, Sue K. Personal interview, February 21, 1974.
Forkner, James. Personal interview, January 30, 1974.

Frears, Lois. Personal interview, November 12, 1973.

121

Granger, Wade. Personal interview, January 30, 1974.

Sakamoto, Paul S. "A Study of Drug Abuse Education
Programs of Selected Public High Schools in
Michigan." Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation,

Michigan State University, 1971.
Sternberg, Bob. Personal interview, January 29, 1974.
Swerdfeger, Roy G. Personal interview, January 23, 1974.

Thompson, Frances. Personal interview, March 21, 1974.

 

WWITIWINWSIIWIV 11111111111 WWW
31293 030831816